my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » MaxiVision 48 (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: MaxiVision 48 Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 08-11-2005 11:19 AM                     Niether format will ever be given a chance because DIGITAL is the best!!!!! Gimme a D.......Gimme an I....... Seriously, it's too bad that the studio execs don't realize that things like this would increase their revenues. First of all, people would want to see movies in a theatre more than at home. Even at an average 50-50 split for the run, the studios get a higher amount per person than on DVD rentals, PPV and most likely even on DVD sales. Second, if the movie was enjoyable and memorable in the theatre, people will be more likely to either rent or buy the DVD when it comes out so the studio can "double dip."  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 08-11-2005 11:45 AM                     With all the talk about Maxivision 48 projection conversions being far cheaper than digital conversion, the fact remains that the main cost studios are worried about is print cost, not projector cost. And Maxivision prints take up more film, not less. Presumably, shipping costs would me more as well. The industry is mostly interested in saving every last buck that they can.  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 08-11-2005 01:44 PM                     True but Maxivision48 is capable of "shift on the fly" frame rates and can run at 24fps. If 24fps were used it would use 3/4 of the film of a Flat release. It can also project 48 fps only in scenes that require it.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 08-11-2005 01:53 PM                     Paul says, "With all the talk about Maxivision 48 projection conversions being far cheaper than digital conversion, the fact remains that the main cost studios are worried about is print cost, not projector cost." Why do you think that, Paul? Do you have it on good authority? I don't think that print cost is a major factor in studio thinking. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 08-11-2005 02:01 PM                     I interviewed some folks re MaxiVision for a magazine article back in 1999. Six years later, the format's still not a reality. While I've not personally seen any MaxiVision footage, everyone I know who has has said the image quality at 48fps is very good. The format does have some drawbacks which have probably contributed to the format not being used... -- as mentioned earlier in discussion, uses more film. At 3-perfs per frame, it actually uses less film on a per frame basis, but at 48fps utilizes more than standard 35mm. (Someone good at math figure it out for us...) Basically, MaxiVision is a 48fps version of 3-perf Super-35. -- format was designed with the 1.78:1/1.85:1 ratios in mind; does not work well for scope. -- since it uses a full aperture image, where would a DTS timecode be printed (or an optical track, for that matter)? [ 08-12-2005, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: Michael Coate ]  |  IP: Logged Tao Yue Expert Film Handler Posts: 209 From: Princeton, NJ Registered: Apr 2001 posted 08-12-2005 08:24 PM                        Well, you don't absolutely have to have SDDS tracks ...  |  IP: Logged Larry Shaw Expert Film Handler Posts: 238 From: Boston, MA, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 10-06-2005 08:19 PM                        I don't believe there's a snowball's chance any of these new formats will go anywhere; its just economic reality. I wish someone would try to just start releasing in 5/70 again. Why? ....... An existing, proven technology. Image that beats the crap out of any D-cin or home theatre setups, especially w/ new film stocks. Print cost now lower due to no need for mag tracks. Theatre costs are lower for the same reason. Even makes scratches and dirt of a given size less noticable. If theares really wanted to fight to keep the audience from migrating to TV/DVD, this could be the way, instead of lowering quality with D-cin. Sort of like the TV scare of the 50's. Larry  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.