Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Ebert on the future (?) of digital

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Ebert on the future (?) of digital (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Ebert on the future (?) of digital

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 07-08-2002 12:15 AM

Am I the only one who thinks it would be weird watching a movie at 48 frames per second? It wouldn't feel like I was watching a movie at all. It'd feel more like I was watching a really really clean video. There is an aesthetic quality about 24 frames per second that we are all used to. I don't care what anyone says, but watching a movie at 48 frames per second would just feel more like Showscan and have that same cheap look I fear.

Also, Ken has some good questions.

| IP: Logged

David Favel
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 764
From: Ashburton, New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 07-08-2002 12:52 AM

In Australia Kodak gave a presentation on the pro's & con's of digital cinema.
They stated that with advances they were making their 35mm stock would soon look like 70mm

Haven't seen anything yet.

| IP: Logged

Paul G. Thompson
The Weenie Man

Posts: 4718
From: Mount Vernon WA USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 07-08-2002 01:27 AM

Well, Joe, you are half way there. Each frame is projected twice.

| IP: Logged

Josh Jones
Redhat

Posts: 1207
From: Plano, TX
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 07-08-2002 02:17 AM

If they go for only one digital soundtrack, DTS would be the logical choice. Just like 70mm, stick a HUGE track along the edge of the film, and it SHOULDNT drop out(but it will). this makes the most sense because Dolby Digital is dependant on an analog backup track, which is elliminated. maybe they will stick one analog track on each sideband to get stereo

Josh

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 07-08-2002 10:25 AM

The projector uses some kind of new gate technology. Each frame on the film includes some kind of registration points, and the gate adjusts itself to line up with the registration marks, perfectly centering every frame, thus no jitter or weave. They also claim that image unsteadiness caused by sloppy high-speed printing will no longer be an issue. The writeup says the projector can switch between 24fps and 48fps on-the-fly.

As far as sound, they want to eliminate the analog track. SR-D and SDDS wouldn't be in the way; I don't remember what they said about DTS...

| IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-08-2002 12:46 PM

Joe Redifer wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks it would be weird watching a movie at 48 frames per second?

Good question. And it reminded me of a point Roger Evert made about comparing film to digital (OK, VIDEO) projection (I've decided to start calling it for what it really is). He has said (both on his show and in print) that there have been studies showing that the frame rate of film invokes a more "active" state in the brain for processing information than the faster rate of video, which causes a more passive state. Yet he triumphs maxifilm over standard 24fps projection. I see a double standard here.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 07-08-2002 02:58 PM

Paul, I think what Ebert actually said is there have not been any studies like that:

"Hollywood has not spent a dime, for example, to research the intriguing question, do film and digital create different brain states? Some theoreticians believe that film creates reverie, video creates hypnosis; wouldn't it be ironic if digital audiences found they were missing an ineffable part of the moviegoing experience?"

| IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 07-08-2002 04:19 PM

Try not to think of it as 48 frames per second.

Paul Thompson already put it to you that you are already seeing each frame projected twice. In some instances, three times, depending on if you have a triple shutter blade installed or just a standard double.

Right now you get 48 images per second projected on screen. It just happens that you are seeing only 24 specific images, each one twice. With maxivision48, you get 48 specific images, and 48 images per second projected on screen.

This is the same number of hits per screen, just twice the image, so better and deeper clarity, and steadier pan shots if the film is shot in 48 instead of 24. No more choppy action scenes. No more blurry pan shots.

Problem is the same with digital, getting theater owners to put down money they do not have into new technology.

Dave

| IP: Logged

Arthur Allen
Film Handler

Posts: 99
From: Renton, WA, USA
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 07-08-2002 04:26 PM

I think the difference in brain states has to do with the way CRTs scan the image, while film more rapidly "pops" a frame on screen. Of course, the shutter blades wipe the image on and off, but this must be enough faster than CRT video to change brain states. I have never been able to track down the research to find out for sure though. Besides, DLP may present the image differently than CRT video, and who knows if they've done a new study with DLP.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-08-2002 04:26 PM

Higher frame rates can make a huge difference (for the better, IMHO) in perception. You don't need 48fps; even 30fps Todd-AO looks so much smoother and velvet-like than 24fps film. It has the added advantage of not having added motion artifacts on video transfers.

This is all essentially moot, however, since Maxivision won't happen. There is a much better chance (though still slim) that 5/70 will make a comeback, if only because there is already an installed base of theatres with the capability and because new technology (e.g. DTS instead of mag) has reduced costs to a more manageable level than in the past.

Also, 70mm blowup prints don't require any change on the production side of things (though they require that more attention be paid to such details as camera lenses and CGI work), whereas changes in such fundamental areas as frame rate would require a new inventory of rental equipment (or, more realistically, modifications to existing equipment).

4/35 is so entrenched at this point, though, that I can't see it being replaced with anything on a wide scale until the replacement (probably digital) provides a significant cost savings to all parties involved, which isn't likely to happen for some time....

| IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-08-2002 04:29 PM

David

He said HOLLYWOOD hasn't spent a dime on studies. He didn't say no one else has.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 07-08-2002 04:46 PM

Paul, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but are you saying you believe someone has conducted such a study? Who? "Hollywood" can be broadly interpreted to include anyone and everyone involved in film production & exhibition. If the results of such a study were unfavorable to DLP, it would be more ammunition for exhibitors to resist going digital. Of course, if DLP boosters did conduct such a study, and the results were unfavorable to DLP, they would just suppress the information, kind of like tobacco companies do with their research on cigarettes.

. On the other hand, if the results of the study were favorable to DLP, wouldn't Lucas and the other DLP boosters be waving that study in our faces? I highly doubt such a study has been conducted. Ebert would make reference to it if it existed.

| IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-08-2002 05:09 PM

Ebert went into more detail of this on his TV show (no, I DONT have a transcript) where he mentioned the frame rate (24fps)as possibly forcing the brain to work in a different way to piece together the images than a much higher refresh rate of video (based on theories that you quoted above.

I find it interesting that you overlook the primary point of my post here. Ebert does think there is something to it, which makes me wonder why the higher frame rate of Maxivision48 wouldn't invoke a similiar effect? Maybe it would or wouldn't, I don't know. But that question hasn't been brought up.

| IP: Logged

Paul Cassidy
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 549
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 07-08-2002 05:16 PM

What I want to know , are we finally going to see the wagon wheels going the correct rotation and not backwards ?

------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 07-08-2002 06:36 PM

I agree that such a study should be conducted before digital cinema is widely adopted. Heck yes. Right now, Ebert just has a theory about this frame rate issue, maybe a good one, but as of now it seems that nobody has really studied the issue scientifically. Or if they have, the results are being suppressed because they're unfavorable to digital (I'm not usually into conspiracy theories though). But I bet no such study has been done.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

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.