|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Will the industry ever give up on 24fps?
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-10-2003 06:29 AM
Ken wrote:
quote:
The equipment was a vic 5 and the conversion itself was quite simple and took about an hour. In real world use I'm sure it could be reduced to 20 or so min. The Vic 5 was especially easy to convert, Kinoton mechs would be more involved as all of the spockets have to be changed, 16 tooth to 12, 32 tooth to 24, this giving the required 25% less pull down. In all other respects film handling was the same.
and:
quote:
It's only draw back is that it would be an all or nothing system as the practicalities of changing format during a show just wasn't there.
I think that this would be enough to kill the idea. How would you manage the changeover? You couldn't have all theatres convert on the same day, that would bring us back to the dual inventory problem again. Then, after the conversion, a theatre wouldn't be able to run any four perf, would new three perf prints be made of all the old films?
I suspect, but I don't know for sure; someone here will, that the 'E' series Kinotons could be made to do it at the flick of a switch, there are certainly models that can switch between 5 and 8 perf this way, but such machines are very much in the minority, at least in conventional cinemas.
You might also have the neg splice problem, unless you cut everything in 'A' and 'B' rolls, or used a digital intermediate.
How much difference was there subjectivly in the analogue sound? Was it really noticeable? It would also require major changes to the Dolby Digital format, to cope with 72 blocks per second, rather than 96. I agree that DTS shouldn't have a problem.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-11-2003 01:29 AM
Let it be noted that the demo was only of 1.85:1, not scope. Why, because the really negative impact of the 3perf Compact Distribution print happens when trying to get scope out of this 25% reduction in film geography. Unless the industry simply wants to do away with the scope width altogether, which would make the look of the cinema screen no different than what can be had in home theatre video -- a prospect that should scare the begeebees out of exhibitors -- this 3 perf system basically stinks for scope.
When the system tries to tackle scope, it faces restraints of the laws of physics that are not easily overcome. Designing a system based on the hopes that at some vague time in the future, film stocks will improve enough to compensate for the loss incurred by the system that's being designed is something they would get an F in System Design 101.
Secondly, the very important light gain advantage that scope needs to compensate for the obvious fact that the same amount of available light is spread over twice the screen square footage, will be gone -- no nice big 4 perf height opened to the arc circle. There will not be any aperture enlargement when going to scope. With the 3 perf system the same amount of light that is available for 1.85 will be available for scope, yet stretched over a wider area. This could be compensated for by increasing lamp size and tweaking the optical system and it might work on a smallish size screen, or perhaps the designers can hope that some vague time in the future, lamp technology will improve by 25%. And to make things worse, after the decades of the horrid little shoebox multiplexes that multiplied like rabbits, we finally have come around and understand the marketing advantage and crowd-pleasing necessity for BIG cinema screens. Size does count. The idea of moving toward substantially increasing screen size while at the same time decreasing image geography (and hence actual resolution) is an untenable combination.
You want to save all the things this very questionable 3 perf, Compact Distribution print idea is supposed to save, i.e., film stock, shipping costs, easy print makeup, etc.? Simply convert every shoebox cinema that has a screen size of 25 ft or smaller to Super 16mm with DTS tracks. Do this all over the country -- talk about saving film stock!
You say spherical wide screen 1.85 on a 4 perf pulldown is a waste of light and film stock? Right you are; just use "soft squeeze" anamorphosis to get your 1.85 using the full frame height -- no film waste, no light waste and you'll be adding all that extra film geography to carry more image information. If you want to go to bigger screens, this is an elegant solution to a fairly straightforward problem and it is a win-win -- you gain the extra light without needing to increase energy consumption and you gain extra clarity on the 1.85 format. And no one can gripe about film stock being wasted. The 3perf idea is just BAD out of the starting gate. It takes the original BAD idea (cropping to get wider pictures) and compounds it, then writes it in stone.
But of course the reason why these better solutions (rather than the CP prints) haven't been put into place, as always, begins and ends with money. As Steve says, how to you convert? One day every theatre in the country (let alone the foreign market) magically has the conversion kits ready to go? Look at the difficulty in converting to cyan. And the conversion that never happened: EP reels. 3 perf pulldown (a Technicolor/UA Theatres idea, by the way) idea: DOA.
Frank
PS -- Dolby claims it would take them at least two years to redesign 1) the digital soundtrack, 2) the software and 3) the hardware to compensate for the drop in speed, and even then, there would be the question if it would require only an upgrade in the existing theatre equipment or the need for completely new hardware. SDDS didn't had no comment. DTS will do it theoretically, providing the disks actually get to the theatres.
As for using only DTS code without an analog track, well, not to cast aspersions on the good people at DTS, but without the disks (or disks with playback problems) this would be a major disaster. Unless something major happens with digital recording to make it so reliable as to never need an analog backup track, well, even discussing playing a print without an analog track is like walking a tightrope over the Grand Canyon with a 100mph wind blowing. Expecting to find DTS disks with every print....knock it up to 150mph. Oh, sorry, digital without an analog track....been there; done that -- right John P.? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-11-2003 05:32 PM
Carl asked:
quote:
has anyone ever looked into putting a digital sound system between the frames of a (4-perf) 1:1.85 film? you could fit a lot of data there. then producers would have a choice of big picture (scope) or big sound (flat + super-boombastic frameline digital sound).
I went to a demo of Dolby Digital at the time of its introduction here in the UK, and the representaives from Dolby stated that this option had been suggested, but was not considered viable, due to the space not being available on 'scope prints.
I have to agree with some of what both Ken and Frank have said in this thread. The idea of creating various widescreen ratios by masking down the frame height, thereby using an ever smaller frame to fill an ever larger screen is a bad one, but, if we are going to use a 16x22 ish mm frame, then 4-35 is a pretty daft way of doing it.
If we are going to accept that frame size, then 3-35 has a lot going for it: reduced stock, chemical and water consumption, reduced print weight, reduced storage space, reduced splices or changeovers, given the reduced thickness of polyester stock compared to triacetate as well, I think you could just about double the running time of film which would fit on a given size reel. 1.5 ratio anamorphic lenses for 'scope ratio films would probably be simpler and cheaper to make than 2:1 ones, if the production volumes were equal, but almost no cinemas have these today (there are a few Kalee Varamorph style lenses still around) so they would have to buy new. An electronic projector, or a mechanical intermittent designed to do so, could probably pull down three perfs faster than four, so the shutter blades could be reduced in angle, thereby getting more light on the screen. Of course, his would not apply with just a simple change of sprocket, and you would need to change the shutter when changing back to 4-perf.
On the other hand, 3-35 has some serious problems. While we may be able to get away with the reduced analogue sound quality, and DTS shouldn't have problems, Dolby Digital, as it now exists simply will not work. Dolby could, if they so wished, design a 3-perf version, using greater compression, smaller pixels, the space between the other row of perfs (which I believe they already own in their patents), or some combination of these, but it will be a different format, needing a different reader and/or processor and/or software. I'm not sure what the implications for SDDS would be.
The vast majority of cinema projector projectors are normal, mechanical models. Some of these may be easier to convert than others, but they wil all require a change of parts. It is simply ot going t be possible to do a sudden 'big bang' changeover on one day, and in any case 4 perf will still be required for running old and 'special' prints, though rare today, Academy ratio films are still made, as are blow-ups from 1.33 16mm, transfers from 4:3 video, etc. How would you cope with 4-perf adverts, then a 3-perf trailer, then a 4-perf trailer, then a three-perf feature? Clearly, swapping parts between each is just not practical. If all theatres today were running electronic projectors, you *may* be able to splice them together, and have an automation system change format when required, but the vast majority of projectors are not of this type.
Over the years there have been many proposed alternatives to 4-35 as an exhibition format: 2-perf, 2.5 perf, 3-perf, 70mm 4-perf, 65mm 5-perf, 70mm 5-perf, 55.625mm 6-perf, 8-perf horizontal, 10 perf horizontal, 16mm, Pathe Rural 17.5mm to name but a few. all have either totally failed, or been used only to a very limited extent, ay least as far as mormal cinemas are concerned.
Whether you like or hate the idea, I just don't think it's going to happen. 35mm 4-perf is just so well established, that it's almost impossible for an alternative to displace it. Getting all theatres to install red-light readers is proving to be difficult, introducing 3-perf would be much more difficult.
Ken, if you had been around 100 years ago, and had argued at that time for a 1.85 ratio 3-perf format, you might have got it adopted, but today, whatever its merits, I just don't think it stands a chance of being adopted as a 'normal' release format.
Making a reel of 3-perf print, converting a projector, or two, and giving a successful demonstration, and I see no reason why this should work well, is one thing; persuading an entire industry, worldwide, to convert is quite another.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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