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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » "Quickermittent" availability (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: "Quickermittent" availability Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 08-01-2003 09:27 PM                  True, but they sure ain't bright. I think you get the jist, bub. >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Edward Jurich Master Film Handler Posts: 305 From: Las Vegas USA Registered: Jul 2003 posted 08-02-2003 04:52 PM                     -------Only "die-hards" claim 70+ year-old film technology is preferable to today's hard-disk readers and video projection. If so, let's go back to vacuum cathode ray tubes while we're at it.------- Funny how the video shot stuff for theater release is processed to look like film. Ever notice that even though Live video on TV looks sharper and more live than film, filmed movies look better on TV. And, take a film and scratch it, now take a DVD and scratch it (or have a hard drive crash) and guess which one won't play anymore. You can't say one system is better than the other, they both have their good and bad points.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 08-02-2003 11:05 PM                        quote: filmed movies look better on TV. What you smokin' boy?  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 08-03-2003 12:29 AM                  Daryl, I think films, especially those of the newer film stocks, look way better on HDTV than orignal HDTV material. And in many cases so does the older films...even on SDTV. >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-03-2003 02:28 PM                     Thats cause there is far greater contrast range on the film than present day live cameras are capable of. Mark  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-03-2003 03:11 PM                     Just out of curiosity...which is the quicker puller downer (or upper)...the Kodak Quickermittent or the Kinoton Electronic intermittent? This isn't a smartass question...I really don't know. The Kinoton electronic intermittent sure is fast though. Steve  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 08-03-2003 06:41 PM                     What does Kinoton claim? According to the Kodak patent, the recommended application of the Quickermittant gets you from the traditional 10.5ms index time to 7.67ms (73% of the original time). But there are complex engineering tradeoffs -- they propose 3 designs that achieve 50%, 40%, and 33.33% of 10.5ms (for 5.25ms, 4.20ms, and 3.50ms respectively), but all of those produce significantly higher forces on the cam and star wheel, so might not be viable. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-03-2003 07:32 PM                     I don't know what they claim, in that regard. Perhaps Larry will pipe in. Their intermittent sprocket on the "E" projectors is as big as the feed sprockets (32-teeth, I would guess...never counted that either) so they will get an increase in linear velocity from the larger radius. Steve  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 08-03-2003 09:36 PM                        The "Quickermittent" was part of the Kodak "Enhanced Theatrical Experience" (ETE) project. The intent was to explore and develop technologies that could significantly improve presentation quality with as little change as possible to existing equipment and procedures. As such, the "Quickermittent" was intended as a RETROFIT to existing projectors. Indeed, the prototypes (starwheels and cams) were installed in EXISTING intermittents. Demos were shown to projector and component manufacturers on the huge screen in the Kodak Building-28 "Theater on the Ridge", and members of the team traveled worldwide to discuss the technology. I can only surmise that the uncertainty of digital cinema and the souring world economy and theatre circuit reorganizations made some companies afraid to invest in licensing and tooling up for a technology that offered something as esoteric as greater efficiency and more light on the screen. Maybe we should have called it a "Digi-mittent"?  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 08-03-2003 09:42 PM                        Close, John. But "Digital Intermittent" would have sold more. When asked what is digital, you can say "The Johnson Rod is now digital" and that'll be good enough for most people.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-03-2003 10:18 PM                     The Kinoton electronic intermittent is retrofittable too...it just comes in its own special "carrying case" Just order a PK-60E, FP-30E or FP-50E and they'll include the "upgraded" intermittent. Steve  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 08-03-2003 10:51 PM                        Yes, the Kinoton E sprocket has 32 teeth. We used it on many projectors with a three-blade shutter. The image is flicker free. The transportation phase is less than 7 ms.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 08-03-2003 10:54 PM                        I asked Larry what the electonic intermittent's dwell time was a few months ago. He said he didn't know how fast the pull down was other than that they configured the shutter to 'wait' longer than it had to, to increase on screen steadiness. quote: Daryl, I think films, especially those of the newer film stocks, look way better on HDTV than orignal HDTV material. And in many cases so does the older films...even on SDTV. Am I confused? Are we saying that movies, that you go see in movie theatres, look better on televisions than when shown from actual film in a theatre? That's the way I interpret "filmed movies look better on tv".  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 08-04-2003 12:35 AM                        Of course that's what is being said, Daryl! Who the hell would want to watch a movie on film in a big theater? I can't think of anybody. Just kidding. What he means is that film looks better on TV than stuff that was shot on video does.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 08-04-2003 08:00 AM                        Phil Hill wrote: quote: I think films, especially those of the newer film stocks, look way better on HDTV than orignal HDTV material. And in many cases so does the older films...even on SDTV. Kodak has recently published several technical papers that objectively evaluate the differences between film and digital origination. Color negative film has advantages that go far beyond simple "pixel count": Comparison of Film and Digital Origination Digital Mastering Using Film Technical papers include: "Assessing the Quality of Motion Picture Systems from Scene to Digital Data", SMPTE Journal, February/March 2002, Volume 111, pages 85-96 "An Introduction to Aliasing and Sharpening in Digital Motion Picture Systems", SMPTE Motion Imaging Journal, May/June 2003, Volume 112, pages 161-171 "Relationships Between Pixel Count, Aliasing, and Limiting Resolution in Digital Motion Picture Systems", SMPTE Motion Imaging Journal, July/August 2003, pages 217-224  |  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.