|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Super Dimension-70 (70mm process) web site has opened
|
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today
Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99
|
posted 05-11-2001 06:48 PM
I've been to an IMAX 3D presentation in Las Vegas and the 3D was VERY convincing. But I never felt like I was "there". It was interesting, however. With the glasses on, everything looked so small. When I took the glasses off and looked at the screen, it seemed HUGE! I guess the 3D effect destroys the big screen effect, as your brain looks at everything proportional to real life, and it just seemed small.I like 24 frames per second better than 60fps. Why? The mental state that you are in. With 24fps, your brain must interpolate more, which in my opinion makes you more involved in a movie. It also makes it seem more like a fantasy or whatnot. At 60fps, it looks like a TV soap opera. You just sit there and vegitate, just like you do when you watch TV. I don't want to have the same mental state when I watch movies as I do when I watch TV. Yuck. 60fps does not look like a movie.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-11-2001 07:49 PM
I checked out the SuperDimension70 website. Their proposal is interesting, but it is easy to see how the "remember Showscan" comments come up. Also, who came up with that awful logo? It looks kind of silly --not anywhere near as good as some of those 70mm logos used in the newspaper ads back in the 1980's.The 48fps factor would be better than the current 24fps standard, but the movie industry cannot even jump up 30fps at all. That makes me very pessimistic about any movie studio using SDS70 on any major releases. It seems like that format goes beyond the basic 5-perf 65/70 system, and you can't get Hollywood to make any movies in that format either. If there wasn't so much wrongful hype about DLP and that "digital" buzzword, the 70mm format might have more of a chance. But most people don't realize there is good and bad aspects to digital like anything else.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-12-2001 03:31 PM
Yes, Mark, I agree there is a lot of "Bad" with digital. Most people do not realize that. They think, and wrongfully so, that the word digital equals "perfect." There are a lot of areas where analog is better. For instance, a 2-inch tape with audio recorded at 30ips with Dolby SR and timecode will yield better audio quality than any 16-bit recording and would be virtually indistinguishably in quality with any full 20-bit audio recording. A film shot on 70mm like "Lawrence of Arabia" will still look great on future ultra high-def video formats decades from now, whereas George Lucas' digital video of the next two "Star Wars" installments will not look as good, thanks to them being locked down by the limits of their digital source quality. Movies really should only be shot on film, and many of them need to be shot on 65mm/70mm for forward compatibility purposes. Even though computers are in many millions of homes now, most people still have a lot of misgivings on what digital technology does. I deal with a lot of that stuff in my day job. Someone will come into my studio and want a fancy sign with routed aluminum parts, recessed neon and all sorts of other visual trickery. But then they hand me a disc with a tiny GIF bitmap version of their logo and expect me to instantly generate the neon tube patters and G-code files for the CNC router from that crude art. Their eyes glass over when I mention "vector art" or "Postscript", and I wind up just asking them to give me the cleanest sharpest printed version of their logo they can find so I can scan it in and manually vectorize the art myself. It is kind of a pain. I had one fellow complain, "can't you just hit a few keys on the keyboard and make the design just spit out?" I replied, "that only works in the movies."
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-12-2001 05:22 PM
I gotta say, I though Showscan was the best film based presentation I have EVER seen, bar none. As others have said "NEW MAGIC" was very impressive (and they didn't rewind through the machine at that time). It was an intense medium and I recall that part of Trumbel's study showed view fatigue after about 40 minutes. Personally, I think Mike Todd had it right....70mm at 30fps...it is the best bang for the buck out there....once viewed 35mm/24fps looks pretty unimpressive. Steve ------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic