|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Will the industry ever give up on 24fps?
|
|
|
Ken McFall
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 615
From: Haringey, London.
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-12-2003 04:28 AM
Please don't get me wrong.... I'm not advocating a change as such, if it ain't broke don't fix it. I'm just stating that I've seen and used one alternative and it worked very well.
Stephen's concerns over splicing a whole program together is only partially valid. The nature of trailers is that they are made to promote new films, so they are constantly being printed new! The same applies to adverts, promotion of new products... in both cases they would be printed in the required ratio at the required time.... you don't see many 20 year old adverts running at your local do you? and if you do they will be newly printed!
Yes, there will always be older stock to run but again if it's a re-release then that too can be printed in the required ratio.
I don't know much about the printing process but I would have thought not much would change when printing 3 perf stock. The avaerage 6 part feature, some 12,000' would become 9,000' and be easily sent out as a two part print....
Yes there will always be difficulties with any change, especially if money is involved. But the industry has never been one to force change on it's own so it has to come from outside and today these things are an ever increasing pressure, on every industry.
The people who have the most to lose will be the people who shout the loudest. Dolby will want to retain their crown as the industry standard, and when faced with such a challenge will I'm sure rise to it. DTS seems, on the face of it, to be the easiest solution, especially as you can just slip in a French, German, english or whatever disc to play the print anywhere in the world.
Film stock manufacturers would of course be concerned at the potential reduction in sale's of their stock.
As for the electronic intermittent projectors out there, they would need to be able to switch down easily and yet retain the same effective shutter speed so as not to reduce light by a slower running shutter blade. All of these 'problems' can be overcome. All that's needed is an incentive to do so.
Change is inevitable, after all we don't print old silent film on nitrate stock just because that's how it was originally. Therefore there is no reason to demand that we retain 4 perf for the same reason. Film stock has imporved in leaps and bounds so it's not unreasonable to optically reduce prints to fit and retain their original ration. I recall something similar was done for Snow White so the multiplex's could show it better than they would have otherwise. The archives could of course always keep 4 perf masters.
We happily accept old wax disc's and LP's transfered onto CD etc, the same applies to the Vitaphone sound on disc movies... all transfered onto a modern medium which shows up all of the inadequacies of the original system.
If this type of change ever happens, which I doubt in my time at least, it'll be because the industry has been forced to do so. Whatever happens in the future, there will always be a newer, better, way of doing things just around the corner!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-12-2003 12:42 PM
I spoke in err someplace above -- it was UA Theatres and Todd-AO, not Technicolor that was pushing the Compact Distrbution Print, as John's post pointed out. Apologies to Technicolor....they have enough issues for which to hang their heads in shame.
And I am sure no one misses the irony that the company which was the grandfather of the large format 70mm system was there promoting the reduction of the 35mm release print image area.
And while very few techies are against change per se, change that sacrifices quality is not where most of us want to see the industry go. I think you would see most will be resistive to change that would threaten, even slightly, existing levels of quality in present systems -- just wittness the discussions here about cyan tracks. Conversion to cyan certainly has many advantages relating to issues other than sound quality. But tell engineers that by saving water you loose signal-to-noise, even by a few db, and guys start strapping on warrior armor.
One of the things that I find particularly troublesome about the CDP is the idea that all the work done in negative and release print chemistry to eek out even a few more lines of resolution, getting finer and finer grain structure, should be pissed away just so exhibitors don't have to hire professional, well-trained film technicians in the booth who know how to splice film, or that it saves "wasted" film stock (it's only wasted because some other ill-advised people thought wide and cheap was better than wide at the cost of a 1.5x new anamorphic lens). As stated, you want to save film stock? go to S16mm for a huge number of small screen multiplexes. Also the idea that this CDP reverse technology will produce a steadier picture begs the question. That would mean that 35mm is steadier than 70mm and better still, 16mm is steadier than 35mm. Screen steadiness is a non-issue except if you are using poorly maintained equipment as the benchmark. To use it as a reason to degrade scope presentation and analog sound is nonsense. It is not surprising (and one would hope welcomed) when people in the industry who are concerned about quality and who don't have a vested interest in such proposals would stand up an shout "Hell, No."
Thomas Hauerslev said: Apart from a slight travel ghost, the picture quality was outstanding. The picture steadiness was remarkable due to the slower film speed.
Compaired to what? Show us measurements. Using words like "outstanding" and "remarkable" based on a subjective observation at a demo is not meaningful or about as meaningful as people who saw the TI DLP demo and said it was "better than film." The fact that a picture can be described as "outstanding" while at the same time dismissing travel ghost belies an obvious bias. Notice Mr. Hauerslev made no mention of sound quality.
Not to worry, it would be easier converting to Iscovison (1.5x anamorphic wide screen) than the 2.5 perf system because to convert to Full-frame Anamorphic Wide Screen 185 (or FAWS for those who love abreviations), it would take the purchase of a new 1.5x projection anamorhpic, it would be totally backward compatible and best yet, even unskilled labor could handle it -- what a carrot for the exhibitor! Yet even that small change seems too radical for exhibitors to stomach (what? I've got to BUY a new lens?). So the chances that the already rejected CDP idea will make a comeback seems very unlikely....and we thank the cinema gods for it. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Frank
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Graham Rose
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 187
From: Cambridge, UK
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted 08-12-2003 03:38 PM
Evensong felicitations to all,
In a post Kenneth McFall wrote:
'As for the electronic intermittent projectors out there, they would need to be able to switch down easily and yet retain the same effective shutter speed so as not to reduce light by a slower running shutter blade. All of these 'problems' can be overcome. All that's needed is an incentive to do so.'
Further to my earlier post, I am unsure if Ken has understood fully how the Kinoton 'E' series projectors on which research is currently being performed operates. The shutter, or flicker blade if you will, permanently rotates at 1440rpm, no matter the number of frames per second at which the operator chooses for exhibition of film stock. Top and bottom loop sizes change accordingly such that the frame is pulled down when the shutter is closed. The results obtained from the 'E' series are rather spectacular due to this phenomenon. It is possible to run 5 frames per second (forwards or in reverse) without any appreciable flicker.
As to whether or not it is 'easy' to change from 4 perforation to 3 perforation pulldown, is entirely dependant on the competancy of the operator. I have recently conducted studies, at large cost to the Department, whereby I have utilised undergraduates from the Department of Cinema Management - a notoriously technically feeble minded set - whereby I gave written instruction on how to achieve this conversion, and as many as 82% of those tested were able to convert the apparatus from 4 perf to 3 perf pull down. Since the Undergraduates used were from the Department of Cinema Management, I firmly believe that should a relative inexperienced Technician be faced with this issue, that no problem would occur. The findings of this study will be published in a document entitled 'Laboratory, Studio and Location Practicalities of Environmental Concerns With Regard To Re-application of Analog Soundtracks and Related Environmental Issues of Stock Preservation'. It is hoped that the paper will be in the next edition of Acta Cinematografia, or the Journal of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers. (J. SMPTE).
From Cambridge with a number of befuddled Cinema Management Undergraduates, I bid each and every one of you a fruitful evening.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-12-2003 04:14 PM
David wrote:
quote:
I gave written instruction on how to achieve this conversion, and as many as 82% of those tested were able to convert the apparatus from 4 perf to 3 perf pull down.
David, I think in this paragraph you are still referring, as you were in the previous one, to the electronic projectors; can you confirm that this is the case?
I think There would be a much greater possibility of 3-35 being acceptable if these projectors wre in universal use, but, at the present time, they are very much in the minority; I have never even seen one, though I have heard very good reports of them from those who have.
Gamlingay was on the old Oxford-Cambridge railway, wasn't it, not far from the radio telescope array at Lords Bridge.
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Graham Rose
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 187
From: Cambridge, UK
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted 08-18-2003 01:17 PM
Felicitations to all from Cambridge
Yes indeed I was referring to the electronic series of projection apparatus in my recent post.
Should 3 perforation pulldown become widespread, then this series of projectors will indeed come into their own. Since no physical change of sprocket is required, a programme consisting of 3 and 4 perforation pulldown is possible. Indeed, I believe that one of the main advertising contractors to the UK industry will shortly be experimenting with this form of printed advertisement, and indeed trials are scheduled to take place in the Autumn.
Since the change from 3 to 4 perf pulldown is enabled via a dip switch selector, then the system can be interfaced easily and readily with exisiting theatre automation systems. Careful positioning of the automation cue is necessary to avoid the programme becoming out of rack when this change is effected.
In reply to Stephen's query, yes indeed Gamlingay is indeed on the former Oxford-Cambridge railway. A very good friend of mine now occupies the former station house at Gamlingay station.
Stations were constructed at Gamlingay, 1 mile from the town, (after objections from the Old North Road's turnpike trustees), Old North Road (on the turnpike) and Lords Bridge ( a stop for Lord Oxford, who was lord of the local manor). To the east of Sandy, stations were built at Blunham and Willington, on the way to Bedford.
The railway itself was operated by the London and North Western Railway, who from 1862 ran 5 trains per day each way, between Bedford and Cambridge, and one on Sundays. In 1938, there was an experimental service using the then "new" diesel-electric multiple units between Oxford and Cambridge. The war intervened, and the experiment discontinued.
By 1967, the line was operating diesel hauled trains. The railway survived the "Beeching axe" after the evaluation of Britain's railways in 1961 led to wholesale closure of many rural routes, as the good Dr Beeching (the report's author), recognised the potential growth of an East -West route to the ports of Felixstowe and Harwich. Alas British Railways thought differently, and the line was closed on 31st December 1967.
There we have it. Apologies for straying 'off topic'.
Goodnight from Cambridge
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 08-20-2003 10:15 PM
David, I'd agree with Frank and Stephen on 3-perf in that it essentially perpetuates all the evils of 1.85. It'd be great if we could all have Kinotons though!
John, at the risk of going off-topic, and having looked back on ISCOVISION posts in the archives, is there merit in looking at a "Varomorph"-style dual-position (1.5X / 2X) anamorphic as part of the system?
Most multiplexes seem to have twin-lens turrets; having a spherical and "Varomorph" lens would cover all eventualities. Further, the lens change would happen as normal, with the anamorph set to the appropriate "unsqueeze" position by the Projectionist in advance, and as noted before one aperture sufficing for both.
As the ISCOVISION ratio is only 1:1.79 you'd need another masking stop - do most theatres have spare stops? - plus some kind of mod to the automation cues so the masking goes to the right position.
I daresay such an anamorphic lens would also be more expensive, and could there be light loss issues that would cancel out the benefits?
However if these problems could be overcome, you could have regular 1.5X anamorphics for those who can accommodate them, plus the resurrected "Varomorphs" for the rest, thus making implementation in the booth easier.
Apologies if this is already covered in your presentation, as I wasn't able to view it (PC gremlins).
Best
Brian
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-21-2003 06:28 AM
Yes, unless ISCO or Schneider could develop a variable anamorphic that isn't a light hog, i.e., one that would have all the advantages of cylindrical anamorphics yet none of the disadvantages of the old prismatics, the anamorphic 185 would require a second anamophic and backup lens. Could there be a A new low light loss variable anamorphot would be quite an engineering feat, but not beyond the realm of possibilities. In the meantime, the exhibitor would be out the cost of a new lens set....set him back maybe a bit more than a grand. Even my nonprofit art house, which is always holding on the by its economic bootstraps, could save our pennies and afford that. It's a real shame this one simple conversion -- it's really just a single purchase rather than a conversion -- was not implemented by the industry.
But this gives us something to ponder....these same exhibitors who won't spend $1000 or so bucks for a new lens that would give them a brighter and crisper 1.85 wide screen image, are being courted by manufactures and distribution who expect them to spend $170,000 for a video projector that will give them NOTHING better in the way of image (many say worse) -- a system that is NOT backward compatible and whose annual maintenance, repair and operating costs could be so off-the-wall compared to a 35mm system that those post-purchase costs are rarely discussed by Deeee-Cinema proselytizers. Shall we make bet on how many exhibitors will sign up for THAT "improvement.?"
Frank
| 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
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Use the current scope image area (0.690 x 0.825 inches) with a 1.5X squeeze. For the cost of a projection lens, you get 1.5 times more light and the advantages of larger image area on the print. Much better image quality than the "wasteful" 1.85:1 "flat" image area (0.446 x 0.825 inches). NO other modifications are needed in the theatre (same sound systems, same projector pulldown, same film transport speed, same amount of film used). ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic