Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres (Page 11)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 48 49 50

Author

Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 02-01-2006 12:56 PM

Kodak is already a leader in high resolution image sensors:

Kodak Image Sensors

Kodak 39 Megapixel Sensor

quote:
The KODAK KAF-39000 Image Sensor,
featuring 39 million pixels, and the KODAK KAF-31600 Image Sensor, with 31.6 million pixels,
offer professional camera and camera back manufacturers resolution and image detail that was
once unimaginable for digital cameras, allowing photographers to experience a new level of image
quality for portrait, wedding, landscape, fashion, studio and commercial photography.

Of course, 65mm film is even better. [thumbsup]

| IP: Logged

Floyd Justin Newton
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 559
From: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 02-01-2006 01:21 PM

There you go John.

| IP: Logged

Larry Shaw
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 238
From: Boston, MA, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 02-01-2006 02:39 PM

Louis wrote:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
Digital Cinema is about a transfer of power from theatre owner to distributor.

John wrote:

quote: John Walsh
They want digital projection because they can control the content, and the theaters, much easier.

If theatres don't like this, perhaps they should embrace somthing like Brian (and I) mentioned quickly before DC is widespread.

Larry

| IP: Logged

Max Biela
Film Handler

Posts: 89
From: Dortmund, Germany
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 02-01-2006 03:51 PM

I think its a very good idea to found a group of people involved and interested in the 70mm business like the dye track committee. There are many people across Europe/germany that might be interested in this idea too. I think the quality of presentation is the point - 70mm presentations have to be the same everywhere as John already pointed out. As for 70mm prints being more expensive that 35mm: The tickets for the few digital theaters here in Germany are about 1.50$ more expensive than the 35mm. Why not with 70mm?

For those interested in this idea: Perhaps we a need a new forum for planning things like this?

Max

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 02-01-2006 05:22 PM

Great stuff! Glad to see this has gone down well, Larry and...Larry!

NB - forgive me as I was certainly not objectively saying film was "old", etc. - obviously that is patently untrue.

No it is the perception I'm talking about, certainly it seems to be out there, and the task must be to educate those who think that way!

I also acknowledge you can start getting into the realm of "spin" with name changes. etc., and you could end up confusing people. So...whatever works.

Thanks Bobby for clarifying the necessary steps to do 5-65 to 15-70 printing. I should have said that my logic was based on the idea that you'd have to enlarge the 5-65 frame possibly too much to attain the 15-70 frame dimensions, or there could be unacceptable cropping, hence the thinking that DMR might help. But I get the fact that DMR was developed to do enlargements from 35mm and that is its purpose.

Let's keep the ball rolling!

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-01-2006 08:33 PM

quote: John Pytlak
Kodak is already a leader in high resolution image sensors

Yes, the KAF-39000 imager is a pretty impressive digital imager. However, that 39 megapixel item is meant for use in digital backs for large format still cameras. Some of these digital backs work a bit like putting a flat bed scanner on a view camera.

Digital still image cameras will continue to pack in more pixels since exposure times, lens types and other factors can afford more flexibility. CMOS chips are a workable solution in still cameras (such chips can be made more affordably and pack more pixels into a smaller space). They haven't been proven to be all that great for video recording.

CCDs still rule the video camera world, but there is more in the way of limitations in trying to go well above a 2 million pixel level on video capture. The pixel count is effectively quadrupled when trying to go to a 4K resolution. And that's only going to approximate 4/35 resolution.

I think it will be a very long time before any digital video camera can come near the native resolution of 5/65mm. The "its good enough" attitude will allow a kind of tyranny of 1080HD standards to keep video camera standards from rising above that for quite awhile.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 02-01-2006 08:48 PM

..would it be then if one was going to make, let's say a camera that can come close to the 5/65 resolution, the optics would have to be able to capture tons of information, a light source on the subject/object massively bright, or just somebody invent a new-fangled chip that that could eventually replace the CCD chip to effective capture motion...a concept far away in the future.

But, just curious, why is the CMOS chip not as effective with motion capture as with the CCD chip?

thx-monte

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 02-01-2006 09:08 PM

I attended a meeting at Kodak maybe 12 years ago on Photo CD. Remember that? The main Project Manager told me the highest resolution was set to match a Kodachrome 25 slide. The highest resolution was I think, 30 MB. Let me tell you, Kodachrome 25 has very good resolution at about 100 lines pairs per millmeter.

If that is the case, the 35MB chip is getting really close to 65mm quality. A 35mm slide is really VistaVision quality which is not far of from 70mm.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-01-2006 11:35 PM

Global document size, such as 35MB, means very little. What's the pixel dimensions? Bit-depth per channel (8-bits, 12, 16)?

Again, the KAF-39000 CCD imager is not a video camera chip. It's not even for normal D-SLR digital camera use.

The imaging area on the KAF-39000 chip alone measures 36mm X 48mm, which is pretty huge (and very very expensive) for a silicon chip. It's quite a bit larger than any chip found in any video camera. Still cameras and digital backs using this chip run in the $40,000+ price range. And that's not including the tethered hard drives to store the 78MB RAW image files.

Also, if the KAF-39000 chip is going to be measured against a film format like 65mm, why not keep the comparison appropriate and weigh it against a still image film format? In that arena 4' X 5' and 8' X 10' view camera formats are the best in film-based still photography. That's quite a ways above still camera 35mm.

| IP: Logged

George Roher
Master Film Handler

Posts: 266
From: Washington DC
Registered: Jul 99

posted 02-01-2006 11:57 PM

Add my name to the list of people who think 5/70 is still viable.

5/70 with SR Mag is the best format I've ever seen or heard (I have not seen Cinerama).

When the Uptown had "Lawrence" a couple years back, I was going back and forth between the Uptown and a multiplex with digital cinema on one screen. It was painfully obvious that 5/70 mops the floor with digital and 35. The difference was just ridiculous. And the 18-plex I used to work in proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that digital cinema is far from idiot-proof.

I don't think Hollywood is anymore interested in presentation than the theatre chains are. But if a lot more theatres employed people who aren't mentally retarded and Hollywood was open to giving it a shot, 5/70 would be very profitable.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 02-02-2006 01:59 AM

I noticed one thing on this pict of the "JJ" with the CAT-700 reader and the threading path: Doesn't the CAT-700 have those 35/70mm rollers on the outboard parameter of the case and the last 35/70 roller before film heads on down to the machine.

Isn't is supposed to be that the film path goes around the outside parameter rollers, bypassing the reader's film path completely, and then down to the final roller, instead of going straight through in front of the CCD camera and the impedence drum?

..or does it matter which way as long as no scratching is involved....

I have some CAT-700's with those dual gauge rollers mounted on them as well.

(..interesting to note that the mag reader is a dual 35/70mm reader - just has a different threading pattern for the 35mm mag film.)
thx Monte

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 02-02-2006 03:20 AM

Monte, that is a cat699, not a cat700.

Yes, the cat699 is threaded correctly and as it was intended, but it appears the entry roller in the mag penthouse was skipped over (not exactly smart if the SRD reader isn't precisely aligned). You are also right as long as the film isn't scratching against something most any way of bypassing is fine. I will not get into the emulsion in winding or the fact that the upper loop appears to be large enough to scratch on the 35mm pad roller (if not removed) though. [Razz]

The JJ has two different mag heads in there and two different paths. That is not a 10 track head the 70mm is passing by, but a 6 track head. The 4 track 35mm head is over to the right side.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 02-02-2006 09:02 AM

Again since with film pixel size varies with film speed. It is possible to actually get better detail, or resolution if you will, with an ASA 1 film in a 35mm camera then with an ASA 1000 film in a 8X10 camera. It a mix and match kind of thing. Otherwise, there is no such thing as a mini spy camera.

Detail is measure by the math of these three inputs:

Focal Length
Lens Resolution X Film Resolution/Lens Reso+Film Reso
Distance.

Notice film size is not included.

I mean by detail as in reading the letters a license plate and not how many license plates are in the picture.

Example a picture with 4 license plates does not have twice the detail as a picture of two plates.

-and yes, Kodak has made an ASA 1 film in 35mm from time to time.

You guys will get a rest from me. I will be in Rochester NY (lucky me) for the rest of the week.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 02-02-2006 09:20 AM

quote: Larry Myers
Otherwise there is no such thing as spy cameras.

Detail is measure by:

Focal Length
Lens Resolution X Film Resolution/Lens Reso+Film Reso
Distance

I mean by detail as in reading the letters a license plate and not how many license plates are in the picture.

Example a picture with 4 license plates does not have twice the detail as a picture of two plates.

-and yes, Kodak has made an ASA 1 film in 35mm from time to time.

Judging from your past employment history, I suspect you are well aware of some of the capabilities of Kodak's film and sensors for reading license plates from a great distance. [Wink]

Kodak Aerial Recon Films

quote:
Optimized for Today's Most Demanding Applications
KODAK Aerial Films are formulated to meet specific customer requirements — taking advantage of the unparalled resolution and detail of film, while at the same time enabling customers to keep up with the pace of technology and change. Accordingly, Kodak offers a broad portfolio of aerial imaging films, covering a wide range of applications and uses in and out of the digital workspace.

Kodak Image Sensors Technical Papers

| IP: Logged

George Roher
Master Film Handler

Posts: 266
From: Washington DC
Registered: Jul 99

posted 02-02-2006 01:46 PM

Brad,

I looked at the full uncompressed photo and the entry roller for the Mag penthouse was not skipped over. That's just a crappy photo that has been shrunk and compressed.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 48 49 50

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.