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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Digital Comments in MPAA! You Suck (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Digital Comments in MPAA! You Suck Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 09-22-2003 06:21 PM                        quote: But I should demand they use the original CAP I helped Kodak develop for the MPAA twenty years ago. Well, send over the specs.  |  IP: Logged Mattias Ohlson Expert Film Handler Posts: 180 From: Falun, Sweden Registered: Mar 2003 posted 09-23-2003 04:15 AM                     First you must excuse my ignorance. How are movies produced today? If they are produced using film in super35 what happens next? Do they physically edit the film a la cut an paste or do they scan this orignal to do a digital master that is edited. If they then produce film prints from a digital master at a certain resolution is not this resolution a real limitinging factor. If this is done at 2k and the digital projector is 2k the real drawback with digital is that you can not sit to close to the screen. I understand that many of you here are knowledgable professionals. Why is the industry so opposed to change. Would you not love to see Maxivision48 being used. From the whitepaper I have read on Maxivision48 it is not extremely expensive. It could at least be used as a premium format. I also see the potentila to use it for a 48fps source for 4k digital cinema.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 09-23-2003 08:45 AM                        For information on current production methods, check out the Kodak website: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h2/ http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/dealing.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/digital/mastering.shtml Also the Association of Cinema and Video Laboratories (ACVL): http://www.acvl.org/manual.htm And American Society of Cinematographers: http://www.theasc.com/index.html And International Cinematographers Guild: http://www.cameraguild.com/  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 09-23-2003 09:00 AM                    A lot of people fear change not because of what the change is but what the change can potentially do to the future. In the exhibition industry you have had film for over a century. Vast improvements have been made with the film over those years but those changes did not cause any fear because the actual medium did not leave. With digital projection you have a lot of fear. This is because it is changing something that has worked for a century into something that is relativly unknown. Take for instance the equipment. A projector and soundhead can last for many many years just by taking care of them and replacing parts when needed. If the film is threaded carefully and the use of film guard and cleaning habits are maintained the film will stay in prestine condition. With Digital you run into problems with issues that have been discussed numerous times here. They are who's gonna pay for it, what do you do when the thing is obsolete, who is going to maintain the equipment and what do you do when something goes wrong with the chips. Who foots that expensive bill. Another issue and big fear is who looses their jobs when this thing becomes wide spread. No need to thread the machine I guess we don't need you anymore. My feeling has always been that if you are going to put peoples jobs in jeappardy then the system should damn well be better than 70mm film and cost effective. The two things that it is not at this time.  |  IP: Logged Lauren Fisher Film Handler Posts: 12 From: Dallas, TX, USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 09-23-2003 03:06 PM                     Even though it's new technology and the public is all over it (oooh digital) they have no clue as to how the digital movie is projected onto the screen. The public still views a movie as when the projectionist just pushes a button. Many of my friends have been surprised to find that our jobs are so much more complicated than what they have perceived all this time. When the theatres do go to all digital, sometime in the next 50 years or so, there will still be a need for projectionists. Just because the projectors will start at the push of a button, someone will need to be there to start it and to fix it if something happens. Digital isn't flawless and i don't think it ever will be. There will always be analog to compare digital to.  |  IP: Logged William Hooper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1879 From: Mobile, AL USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-24-2003 03:40 AM                        I really don't have a problem with the references of electronic projection being poor, because they are being made in reference to a comparison to film projection. What's driving the installations is not improvement in picture quality; DLP's specs are admittedly inferior. What's driving it is cheapness - for distributors & staffing expense - & "additional revenue" - the 2wenty advertising marathon at Regal theaters before the feature. There's not a doubt in my mind that if they couldn't make the audience *not* aware of such a difference, the quality of electronic projection equipment installed wouldn't even be to the level it is now.  |  IP: Logged Kevin Wale Expert Film Handler Posts: 167 From: Guymon, OK USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 09-24-2003 04:39 AM                     According to Merriam-Webster, video is related strictly to television. How the image is scanned or presented(scan lines or whole image) isn't mentioned at all and is irrelevant by Television's definition(i.e. the method of presenting those electrical signals is not relevant to it being a television). The kicker that brings it all together though is the definition of cinema(short for cinematograph). "Especially the film industry." To add, film's 4th definition is simply "Motion Picture." The definitions we saw of motion picture and movie earlier in the thread show a distinction between them and television. A film presented on a tv is a complete transference of the former media to the tv media and broadcast through those afore mentiond electrical signals. Digital Cinama is NOT video in the sense that it is the "film industry." It IS video in that it is presented through electrical signals rather than direct projection of the moving pictures. I have to conclude that DCinema is a video techology that is just aimed at being presented in the Cinemaplace. WHEW or not ? That is the question. Main Entry: 1vid·eo Main Entry: 1vid·eo Pronunciation: 'vi-dE-"O Function: noun Etymology: Latin vidEre to see + -o (as in audio) Date: 1937 1 : TELEVISION; also : the visual portion of television 2 : VIDEOTAPE: as a : a recording of a motion picture or television program for playing through a television set b : a videotaped performance of a song often featuring an interpretation of the lyrics through visual images Main Entry: 2video Function: adjective Date: 1938 1 : being, relating to, or used in the transmission or reception of the television image <video channel> -- compare AUDIO 2 : being, relating to, or involving images on a television screen or computer display <video terminal> Main Entry: videotape recorder Function: noun Date: 1953 : a device for recording and playing back videotapes -- called also video recorder Main Entry: tele·vi·sion Pronunciation: 'te-l&-"vi-zh&n esp British "te-l&-' Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: French télévision, from télé- tele- + vision vision Date: 1907 1 : an electronic system of transmitting transient images of fixed or moving objects together with sound over a wire or through space by apparatus that converts light and sound into electrical waves and reconverts them into visible light rays and audible sound 2 : a television receiving set 3 a : the television broadcasting industry b : television as a medium of communication Main Entry: cin·e·ma Pronunciation: 'si-n&-m&, British also -"mä Function: noun Etymology: short for cinematograph Date: 1909 1 a : MOTION PICTURE -- usually used attributively b : a motion-picture theater 2 a : MOVIES; especially : the film industry b : the art or technique of making motion pictures Main Entry: cin·e·mat·o·graph Pronunciation: "si-n&-'ma-t&-"graf Function: noun Etymology: French cinématographe, from Greek kinEmat-, kinEma movement (from kinein to move) + French -o- + -graphe -graph -- more at -KINESIS Date: 1896 chiefly British : a motion-picture camera, projector, theater, or show  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-24-2003 03:39 PM                        Of course that entry was written before there were such advancements in video.  |  IP: Logged Evans A Criswell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1579 From: Huntsville, AL, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 09-24-2003 04:07 PM                        The main reason I'd like for people to distinguish between material shot with a traditional video camera (using a scanning mechanism to convert light/color from a continually moving scanning spot into a signal) and material shot with a digital camera that captures a sequence of frames in which an array of sensors, all of which are "exposed" at the same time is that they're mathematically two totally different animals. The second case is mathematically much more like film than the first.' With film, the entire film, for all practical purposes, is "exposed" and then the next frame of film is pulled into place, then exposed, giving a sequence of frames in which every point in a frame is from the same point in time. The same would be true for the second case mentioned above. All sensors are "exposed" at once and the values are used to store an image in some fashion. With traditional video, every since pixel in the image was sampled at a different point in time, and since standard definition NTSC was interlaced, there was the additional complexity of adjacent scan lines being sampled approximately one sixtieth of a second apart from each other. Take a film or digital cinema image: Any pixel in the image (frame, row, col) is at time offset start_time + frame/24 (assuming the first frame is numbered 0 and was taken at time 0 in relation to the start time) The row and column do not enter into the formula. Take progressive video from a video camera using R rows and C columns and F frames per second. Then the time of sampling of pixel (frame, row, col) is start_time + frame/F + row /(F * R) + col / (F * R * C) If making a moving picture of a vertical object, like a utility pole, moving at a high speeed horizontally in relation to the background, traditional video shot with a traditional video camera will show a "slant" to the pole (and possible motion blur), and if the video is interlaced, there will two images of the pole overlaid on each other with a "combing" effect on the edges. With digital cinema or film, the slant will not be present (just maybe motion blur depending on exposure time). If film is scanned to make a traditional video signal, of course, the difference in sample times from one pixel to another can be ignored. Are there good terms to differentiate between "traditional spot-scanning video" and "digital whole frame at a time sampling video"? I can't think of any. A digital cinema system that plays a movie by playing a sequence of static, independent JPEG images is much more like film than video will ever be (which uses MPEG and adds additional compression based on relationships between the images).  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-24-2003 04:23 PM                        evans, have you observed the "slanting pole" and "combing" effects on video? i would think that the presentation of the video, assuming that the scanning beam moves at the same rate as in capture, and is also interlaced, would reverse the effects. where they should be noticeable is when material shot on traditional video is presented on film, or vice versa (although i can't say i've noticed this in a video of a film, but then i don't watch those). the slanting effect is very noticeable in scrolling text on those led displays you might see in store windows. carl  |  IP: Logged Ron Yost Master Film Handler Posts: 344 From: Paso Robles, CA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 09-24-2003 04:45 PM                     Video is still video .. a sequential medium. A 'complete frame' does not exist, frozen, at any point in time to be sent out waiting for the next one .. it's all illusion. Everything is determined by how the rows of CCD's are scanned and how the resulting data is interpreted and converted to digital. Here's a great (though technical) explanation of all of this: (Evans, with his mathematically-inclined mind, will doubtless understand it far better than most of us). Progressive Scan ad nauseum Edit: A 'complete frame' in film terms is different than a video frame. There are complete video frames, but they are 'built up' over time and don't exist all-at-once, as a film frame does. Clear as mud?? Meee tooo. Ron Yost  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-24-2003 05:09 PM                        Video should be seen as any means of electronic capture and/or presentation of the image. Video has gotten much better over the years and will continue to do so until it surpasses the resolution of the greatest eyeball in the world at close range. But in the end it will still be video.  |  IP: Logged Evans A Criswell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1579 From: Huntsville, AL, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 09-24-2003 10:16 PM                        So Joe, does your definition of video include digital still cameras or does your definition only include those used for motion pictures? Does your definition of video include your computer monitor displays when you're running computer programs (regardless of whether they're CRT-based or flat-panel)? What about Toy Story and Toy Story 2 and Finding Nemo and similar movies that are totally created in the electronic domain? Is that video? It's electronically captured and not filmed in any way. I'm not being critical of what you're saying. I'm just seeing how far your video definition goes. By the way, tonight I went to the theatre and saw a video commercial transferred to film. It wasn't only standard definition video -- it was from a composite source! I could see the "dot crawl" artifacts! I'd never noticed that in a theatre before. I believe it was for one of the branches of military services -- I forget which one -- I was so distracted by the composite video artifacts in the image that I totally missed the content.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-25-2003 12:38 AM                        Digital Still cameras - Yes, though that could be argued (see my final paragraph in this post). For the most part those pictures spend their entire life in video, from the camera itself (which usually can output to a TV) to the computer. If it is printed then it is a piece of paper. Obviously the images themselves are bits of digital data, similar to the way video images of, say, a VCR recording at differences in magnetic polarity/etc on a videotape. The actual storage method is different, but the end result is similar. As far as computers go, yes, I consider the image to be video... very much so. As for computer generated movies... tough one. But they fall into your category for video since not all of the pixels in any one frame are created in the same moment in time. Far from it in fact. My definition of video should also include something that can be altered live in realtime. Like a mouse cursor moving across the screen, etc. This would make digital cinema projectors very much video. Same with the cameras they (George Lucas and the like) shoot with as they offer instant real time playback on a monitor as they are recording. Also you don't have to record a scene to see the final product from the camera as you do with film, if ya know what I'm trying to say.  |  IP: Logged Mattias Ohlson Expert Film Handler Posts: 180 From: Falun, Sweden Registered: Mar 2003 posted 09-25-2003 03:42 AM                     Evans I would like to make sure I understand you correctly. You are saying that a traditional video camera generate a continous signal representing different parts of the picture with no "pixels" recorded at the same time. Information in rows are at a time offset and adjacent rows are very much time separated due to the interlaced nature of video. I believe I got this. What is the case with the latest generation of Cinealta cameras? Is it like this? First exposure of the entire ccd array for a short time. Next temporary record in buffer and then transmit the entire frame. Now the camera is ready to start to work on the next frame. Are all pixels created from the ccd array from the same time instant in the same frame? Or is the only difference that Cinealta latest offerings just have less time separation between adjacent rows because recording progressively? I would appreciate further description of the difference between traditional video and the current state of the art digital recording cameras for digital cinema. edit I have now read the progressive link that was unreadable before. That cleared up a few points. My conclusion is that digital cinema with film source is the same as film with regards to temporal integrity of the frame. It is compressed and that could give artifacts but resolution could be maintained more easily, less risk of sloppy projection resolution wise. Sonys 24spf is recorded 1080i48 but displayed electronicaly 1080p24. That should give almost 1080p24 full resolution, full temporal resolution. However the latest 950 camera is that recording true 1080p24? All pixels are not sampled at the same time instant as I understand it but almost. What is the effect of this almost compared with exposure of film? [ 09-25-2003, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: Mattias Ohlson ]  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

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.