|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: WTH? Quality passable for 4K at 10mbit/s????????
|
Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-26-2009 09:18 AM
If the 8K presentation I saw featured shallow-focus, diffused, glamour shots of actresses (like we're used to seeing in entertainment films and TV) then I'm sure I wouldn't have appreciated the extra resolution. So, wisely, they were featuring documentary-style, deep focus, wide shots throughout the presentation and it knocked my socks off.
I've enjoyed the TV show Burn Notice but I was surprised to see some behind-the-scenes footage which clearly showed them using an Arri 16SR3 camera. This is the same model of camera used to shoot Touched by an Angel and Promised Land from 1997 through mid-1999. I concede that film stocks have changed since then but the fact remains that Super 16 was, in the late 1990s, deemed unacceptable as a source for high-definition TV (so Touched by an Angel switched to 35mm in July 1999, after Promised Land was already cancelled). Things like shallow focus were always a little more difficult using Super 16 instead of 35mm.
But Burn Notice looks great! Lots of color, plenty of deep focus and just a little grain (and I've only seen it in a Standard Definition, letterboxed presentation). My point? Maybe I'm just saying you can choose the right format based on the most likely, final presentation. I don't think they need to shoot Burn Notice in 35mm. It would look better but it might not be worth it. (I've seen other threads around here where people naively say that everything should be shot in 65mm but, really, why?)
I wish someone would shoot a feature in "Super Hi-Vision" 8K but I hope the director doesn't watch it all happen from his "video village" chair on a 20-inch monitor. Otherwise we'll get ghastly close-ups throughout (like we do today, when it seems like nobody is composing for a large, movie theatre screen). And, of course, I'd want to see the finished movie in a theatre equipped with true 8K (but I'll watch it on a lower-resolution system just to see if Julio's right about unnecessary pixels).
After the presentation, I couldn't help wondering how Lawrence of Arabia would look if it were transfered to 8K and presented on the same screen.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 04-26-2009 09:31 AM
I have seen NHK 8K's system at Infocomm in Vegas. I'm not all that impressed as I know they are doing what you say (i.e. trying to show off with very deep focus and allowing very close distances to a relatively very small screen). Of course it's going to look better than Imax.
It's hard to get deep focus in Imax due to the focal lenghts needed for "normal" photography with such a large frame size.
But allow a well filmed Imax to project a screen the same size you saw Super Hi-Vision and you'll no longer be all that impressed.
8K will get here some day, I have no doubt. Meanwhile, let's see if the cinema industry can move past 2K so that it can avoid a (small) step back from (average, release print jittery projected 35mm quality) and perhaps move a step forward (with true-4K).
If you scan original Lawerence 65mm with a (theoretical) 16K scanner and do smart downscale to 8K you would see an image that is ... well, equal in quality as a very well made, specialty (i.e. first-run) print made and projected in 70mm.
Obviously you can't get more quality than the original ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
70mm modern stock pbbly has about 6K of true detail burried in there together with the noise (grain). Since you can't effectively take the noise away from the signal w/o letting go some detail in the process and can't avoid nyquist law, you would probably need to scan it at 16K and project it at 8K to maintain most of it w/o too much aliasing.
But, if Lawrence would've originated as a true-6K film (i.e. shot with a theoretical 18K-bayer digital camera), and projected in 6K, then it would've looked just as good and contain the same amount of detail as a well made 70mm print. No need for 8K.
"True" 3K is about a good replacement for release-print projected cropped 35mm for cinema conditions.
"True" 6K (actually, somewhere between 5K and 6K) is about a good replacement for 70mm (65mm) for cinema conditions.
"True" 4K is a good compromise that can totally replace 35mm and offers about the best possible experience for most normal people in most normal theater situations.
8K would allow for far larger angle of views or scren sizes, similar to Imax, while giving top perceived detail to most people not sitting too close to the screen.
16K would cover just about the maximun human field of view and resolution in 180º. No need to ever go above that for any reason except if you are projecting behind your head too in 360º ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Imax has always been overkill and I have no idea how much true detail could actually be in there (theoretically, around 18K).
Of course, none of the mechanical systems live up to their full potential due to "jitter", scratches, dust, generation duplication losses, etc, but let's not be picky. Digital is often not taken to its full potential either (compression, etc).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 04-26-2009 10:30 AM
Definitely. 24fps is way too slow for any realistic movement. Perceived resolution also increases with frame rate and stereo vision (3-D).
I'm rooting for quickly moving to 25fps adquisition and projection. It's close enough to 24fps that older projectors (film projector) can be easily accomodated for. Instead of shooting 24fps and then converting it to 25fps for 3/4 of the world population (and 30fps for the the other 1/4), do it the other way around.
Start with 25fps, and then convert to 24fps if needed. The convertion is quite minor and forgiving and it has been done for years and year (well, basically forever).
1fps may not be much of a difference, but until we are ready to move to (say) 50fps, it's an improvement nonetheless while maintaining compatibility and look. And cost.
Realistic rates of 60fps or more do give a different impression of the image. Some people see the ultra-realistic (clean, digital, grain free) and think "video". They need to see a "slow shutter, jumpy, grainy" 24fps image to think "cinema".
It's like when we watch an old B&W Charles Chaplin movie at (say) 18fps. We are transported to another world of imaginary movies (and motion) and our brains have to work harder to fill-in the blanks in the motion with our imagination. Also, we don't dare to blink, for missing a frame or two may jump so far in time (or motion) that we stare at the screen wide-eyed.
So different frame rates give different sub-conciencious clues as to the "narrative" nature of the image. 18fps=old movie. 24fps=movie. 30 or 60 fps=video.
Until now.
Who knows. One day 60fps, 8K, 3D, ultra-clean no-grain images (full of DCT compression artifacts, lol) could be emotionally linked to cinema as well.
The DCT part was a joke, of course. Wavelets or fractals produce less objetionable quantisizing artifacts instead of blocking and mosquito noise ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif) .
[ 04-26-2009, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 04-26-2009 07:13 PM
quote: John Hawkinson
p.s.: nobody in the US is going to go for 25fps origination.
One can always dream ... If only they realized that's how most people end up watching films in the world and that the cost is minimal, the compatibility good ....
Only problem would be with those still using film projection for the couple of weeks/months a (wide theatrical release) film remains at the theaters. The print-out in film for those theaters would have to be converted to 24fps (slowed down, instead of sped up like it's done today in most of the world after theatrical).
Of course, I'm also hoping for 25fps adquisition once at least 50% of theaters worldwide are digital, which can display 25fps natively no problem.
Until then, I would understand some resistance to change from 24fps. After that, from my point of view, nobody in their right mind should oppose to it, since the only ones with a (small) "problem" with it would be:
a) whatever few remaining theaters display the film on 35mm projectors for a couple of weeks.
b) those that have old analog non-hd equipment in 1/4 of the world (the other 3/4 would be fine even with old equipment). For these people, the film would've been shown in the awful 29.97 pulldown which requires convertion too, so there. Still, the convertion wouldn't be practically any harder than it has always been for them. People in these parts of the world with newer HD equipment wouldn't even have that problem, as they can do 25p natively too.
All I can see are advantages and virtually no draw-backs. A slight improvement in quality for the vast majority of viewers, specially in the future, and hardly any additional cost, while retaining look and backward compatibility.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 04-27-2009 06:10 AM
Well, at least we can all agree that the higher the framerate, the better.
Oh, wait, not really
Converting 25fps to 30 or 60fps is very easy. For ever, to convert from 24fps to 25 or 50, you just sped it up ever so slightly. To convert 25fps (i.e. when you get a movie shot in Europe at 25fps or a TV show from England), you simply slow it down to 24fps. From there, you convert to 30 or 60 for video and TV in the few parts of the world that use it ![[Wink]](wink.gif) as you have always done.
Think about it.
Up until recently, nobody, and I mean nobody, uses 24fps except mechanical movie projectors.
Mechanical movie projectors will, one day, dissapear. Let's pretend in 5 years most theaters are digital (which could do 25fps no problem nativetly).
There may always be a small number of theaters showing film for a long time, so let's maintain compatibility for them. Convert the film print-out to 24fps from 25fps (slow it down before printing). Easy, cheap, no major problems, no great incompatibilities, motion artifacts or anything.
Going to 48fps is, from my point of view and since you guys are so vocal about it, STUPID, as nobody in the world uses it, and convertion to the most used high frame rate systems, 50hz and 60hz, it's as hard as it has always been with 24fps. You speed it up to 25fps, then pulldown 2:2. For america, you pulled it down 3:2 to 59.94
Don't you guys see that, once film projectors are a minority, there is no point on 24fps (or 48fps) and the next logical step is 25fps (or 50fps) because it keeps very good compatibility with everyone, including the few using 24fps and 30/60hz (just slow it down for them to 24fps first, instead of speeding it up for the rest of the world, which are 3/4 of the population)?
Anyway, if you fail to see it, then I guess we are not going to argue for just 1fps and, indeed, we should go to 48fps and continue speeding it up to 50 in Europe (no HD equipment uses 48fps natively, but ALL HD equipment, blu-ray, and TV's in the world, including in the USA, do support 50fps natively).
But since 48fps, according to you, converts easy to 24fps (wait, doesn't 25fps convert easy to 24fps too????), and in that future mechanical projectors are still "in vogue", I guess we should indeed use 48fps ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
So now you get your 48fps "blu-ray" in the USA and ... what speed you play it back at? 60hz pulldown? hmmm
Now we get our 48fps blu-rays in Europe and, what do we do? We speed it up to 50fps (a bit too much?).
Wait, in the USA, blu-ray players and HD tv's also support 50hz! So, again, what was the point of filming 48fps instead of 50fps?
Oh, right. With 48fps convertion to 24fps was easy and good. And who wanted it at 24fps? Movie theaters in this future, you say?
But wait, if we take 50fps, convert it to 25fps, and then slow it down a bit for the few using 24fps instead of taking 48fps, convertinig to 24fps, and speeding up to 25fps for the BILLIONS of people, including most americans with HD, which can support 25/50 ....
Anyway, if you don't see it by now, you'll never will.
But hey, I'll take 48fps if it need to be. But I, for once, would be rooting for going to 25fps first (no significant additional costs or problems, americans' HD and blu-rays support it fine, as do digital projectors in cinemas, can convert to 24fps if needed) and then 50fps, so you guys can watch it in your blu-ray players and HD tv's without having to do funky (and unnecesary) convertions from 48fps.
Fast forward into the future a bit and think about it. Who can't support 25/50 fps natively in the world at that point?
a) A few movie theaters with mechanical 24fps equipment. For them, we just slow down 50/25 to 24fps a bit. No biggie. It's done currently for some Euro/Asian/Australian/Chinese/Hindi films.
b) A few old analog equipment in NTSC countries (a very small minority). For them, we do the same (slow down to 24, convert to 30/60).
That's it. Everybody else, including those in NTSC with newer HD TV's, can support 25/50fps just fine natively. Why bend over backwards for a very small minority, when 48fps is supported by basically nobody and 50fps for just 90% of the world of the future, including 60hz countries?
Remember. With digital TV, all moderm TV's in the world can take over-the-air, DVD or blu-ray signals at 23.976, 25, 29.97, 50, and 59.94 and display them natively. Whether in the USA or elsewhere in the world. Today.
Dcinema projectors and servers also support 24, 25 and anything really up to 50, including 48.
So, again, what frame rates you say guys that should be supported in the future and which ones are just an stupid idea?
To me, it makes sense. Standarize to 25fps. It has similar look and cost to 24fps, it's supported natively by everyone except mechanical film projection (mechanical film cameras do 25fps fine) and old NTSC analog, for which slow-down convertion is cheap and easy and horrible convertion to 29.97/59.94 is needed anyway. And then jump to 50fps, which is supported by everything everywhere, except the same as above.
Film cameras can also shoot at 25fps, of course. It's just mechanical projectors and old analog NTSC equipment that would need 24fps slow-down convertion. And both of those groups of users would quickly dissapear in the future. With all the new digital equipment currently being used, americans can also watch 25fps DVD's and blu-rays, as well as digital TV transmissions at 25p and 50p natively. So why not? Why stick to 24p? Why go through the trouble of 48p and continue making the same mistakes? Why not improve things, even if only 1fps, when it makes so much sense and produces very few troubles? Why make the majority of the world go through the trouble of 25fps speed up when we could just as easily speed down to 24fps for those few that still can't support it in the near future?
What's so good about 24p/48p, except for mechanical projectors, which are bound to dissapear, replaced by 25p/50p capable Dcinema, and analog NTSC equipment, which is bound to dissapear, replaced by digital HD which is capable of 25p/50p everywhere in the world? Not to mention current old analog PAL equipment, used by 3/4 of the world population (also bound to dissapear) could also use 25p/50p ... Why keep supporting a minority of old equipment that is bound to dissapear soon? And remember, convertion 25p->24p is not expensive or dramatic or horrible, so it's not like those users would be left in the cold ...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
[ 04-27-2009, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 04-27-2009 05:15 PM
Oh, yeah, the audio IS a difference.
When the films are converted to 25fps, the audio isn't just sped up. It's pitch adjusted as well.
Same when foreign 25p material is displayed in NTSC countries. It's slowed and pitch corrected (ever so slightly) for 24->29.97 convertion.
If you leave the audio uncorrected, it IS noticiable. Not an awful lot, but enough to bother most people. So it's never done.
Think about all those poor patrons ![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif) in Australia from Beta videotapes on ecinemas if the audio wasn't corrected ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Or the billions of people watching american films in Europe or Russia or China or India or most of south america or africa if the sound wasn't corrected for 25fps.
LOL.
Also, doing something like 24->23 is only 1fps, but quite worse than doing 25->24. It may also be 1fps, but is less %%. You can get the point when I say that lowering from 60->59 is also 1fps but it's very, very small difference.
The image rate, trust me, it's not noticeable. I mean, not really. And regardless, currently, it's either 3/4 of the world "screwed" with 24p->25p convertion or 1/4 of the world from 25p->24p. In the future, very few won't be able to use 25p, even those that now must use 24p (or 30p/60i) currently.
And, objectively, and assuming nobody was screwed in the process, 25p is better than 24p (again, assuming nobody had a problem with either frame rate). Right?
So why not? ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
Seriously, 24fps is really giving some people headaches in the industry
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983865.html?categoryid=2868&cs=1
From James Cameron's mouth:
quote:
For three-fourths of a century of 2-D cinema, we have grown accustomed to the strobing effect produced by the 24-frames-per-second display rate. When we see the same thing in 3-D, it stands out more, not because it is intrinsically worse, but because all other things have gotten better. Suddenly the image looks so real, it's like you're standing there in the room with the characters, but when the camera pans, there is this strange motion artifact. It's like you never saw it before, when in fact it's been hiding in plain sight the whole time. Some people call it judder, others strobing. I call it annoying. It's also easily fixed.
Our current generation of digital projectors can currently run up to 144 frames per second, and they are still being improved. So right now, today, we could be shooting 2-D movies at 48 frames and running them at that speed. This alone would make 2-D movies look astonishingly clear and sharp, at very little extra cost, with equipment that's already installed or being installed. I've run tests on 48 frame per second stereo and it is stunning. The cameras can do it, the projectors can (with a small modification) do it.
Now. The thing about jumping to something like 48fps is that ... well, it doesn't make sense. Shooting film (35mm chemical) at 48fps is expensive. Shooting and projecting digital is OK ... but at homes, blu-ray, HD tv's, digital tv broadcasts, etc support wordlwide flags for frame rates of 23.976, 29.970, 59.94, 25 and 50.
Dcinema can support 24, 25, 48, 50 (and some, 60).
Why the hell choose 48fps? For compatibility with 24? Who is forced to use 24 in a digital world of the future where everybody can support 25? Isn't 50fps a bit better than 48fps? If compatibility is needed with 24 ... why not just slow down from 25 (50/2) to 24 for those few special cases, instead of the other way around?
For me, the choice is clear. 25fps doesn't add significant cost to shooting in 35mm cameras (or Imax) or digital today, while allowing good compatibility with everyone. It's a stupid improvement, I agree, but cinematographers are really starved for frame rate on fast-action movies (Transformers IV? ). Even 1fps is very welcome by directors and cinematographer and already a standard in large parts of the world. Plenty of movies being shot in film or video at 25fps today. It also maintains the "look" of current film instead of jumping into the hyper-realism of "video".
Faster rate would be "better", but right now, jumping to 48 or 50 or 60 is not an option just yet or, at least, quite more expensive.
Then jumping to 50fps whenever the time is right, which also works well for most people at that time in the future when film cameras and mechanical projectors probably won't be into much use, but can still be supported by a slow down from 50/2 25->24.
Cameron is also failing to mention (or see) that DLP projectors today can't effectively do 3-D at 48fps (I mean, at 48fps x 2 = 96fps). It won't be able to even double-flash (96x2 = 192, and the limit is 144). And at single flash 48hz per eye, it's a bit low and more people will complain of flicker and headaches.
Sony's system (or dual projection like Imax) can do 3D at up to 60fps and not only 24fps.
Of course, servers can't really deliver 2K at, say, 48fps-per-eye (96fps) ....
So anyway. Forget for the time being 48 (or 50) fps 3D with current equipment. It's either 48 (or 50 or 25 or anything between 24 and 60) fps 2D or 24fps 3-D.
EDIT: BTW, I'm not propossing moving to 25fps today. Not at all. I'm thinking whenever in the future 51% of movie theaters worldwide convert to digital and can thus do 25p natively and only a minority are forced to stick with 24fps for a while longer.
[ 04-27-2009, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
| 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