|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Screen: Common Height or Common Width?
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-04-2015 09:49 PM
Anamorphic photography seems to be hitting another fad-like peak level in popularity, just for the visual style of it. Anamorphic lenses create their own unique, football-shaped bokeh. Depth of field effects are more extreme and the visual perspective is often one of a more compressed, telephoto look (which is often more flattering in terms of portrait, close-up photography).
There is a bunch of content being shot with anamoprhic lenses that may never be shown in a commercial movie theater. Hundreds of music videos have been shot with anamorphic lenses. I've seen a lot of TV commercials lately that were shot with anamorphic lenses. The ABC-TV series American Crime was shot largely with anamorphic lenses, but broadcast in 1.77:1 ratio. The same goes for the upcoming 2nd season of True Detective.
At least with movie productions there is still an opportunity to do 'scope some legitimate justice rather than aping out a parody of it, HDTV style.
quote: Buck Wilson
What would need to happen to make that change? Or does it even matter with laser coming into the picture?
As Marcel said, laser doesn't buy any resolution. Pixels are pixels regardless if they're being projected via Xenon or Laser or back-lit at home with LCD, LED, OLED, etc.
Perhaps the biggest change for 'scope done right has to happen on the movie production and post-production side of things. Going from 2K 'scope done wrong (2048 X 858) to 2K 'scope done right (2560 X 1080 with 1.25x squeeze to 2048) is going to cost significantly more money in terms of render times, bandwidth requirements, storage needs, etc.
Plenty of professional level d-cinema cameras can already cover the 2560 X 1080 area. The popular Arri Alexa has a native 2880 X 1620 area (in ARRIRAW 16:9). The Red Epic Dragon can cover 2K 'scope done right and 4K 'scope done right areas with room to spare (it's a 6K camera). The new Arri Alexi65 would show off more of its full potential in 4K 'scope done right. Still, since there is no native 6K d-cinema projection (yet), only a 70mm print could show off the full resolution of the Alexa65.
There are still a number of camera systems and/or modes being used that knock the original camera image down to mere 1920 X 1080 resolution. The Alexa down-rezzes to that when shooting in ProRes. And then if the image gets cropped down to 'scope from that it makes the 2048 X 858 setting a slight "blow up" from an even lower resolution image. That crap might be fine for a TV-only show, but it needs to stop when it comes to movie productions meant for theatrical release.
The exhibition side of things might not be as difficult to fix as we might think.
Remember how DVD players used to work for old 4:3 ratio TV sets? The players would do some internal scaling to make anamorphic enhanced DVDs look correct on those 4:3 TV sets. The only downside was pretty huge, black bars for 'scope movies. But we were already kind of used to that with Laserdiscs.
The same thing could be probably be done with most projector and server systems in use now. If all DCI Series 1 and 2 projectors can anamorphically scale images in one direction it should be possible to update them where one selects what screen type and lens system they're using and the server and projector will automatically make the adjustments, just like an old DVD player outputting to either a 16:9 TV set or a 4:3 TV set.
This system would allow theater operators who choose to invest in anamorphic projection lenses and common height screens to get the most benefit out of them. Cinemas with common width screens and/or spherical lens setups would still get to show the image same as usual. The server and projector would just scale the image down to correct proportions before it hit the screen. Nevertheless, the anamorphic screens would be showing a much brighter, better looking image. I would even go so far as to say the pricey investment in that anamorphic lens might yield an even better return on investment than junking the whole system for an even costlier investment in laser but with 'scope still done wrong.
IIRC, IMAX' new 4K laser projection system will use an anamorphic lens to vertically stretch the 1.9:1 ratio image closer to 1.43:1. That should work at making people feel like they're back in the late 1990s watching a heavily letter-boxed 'scope movie on an old TV set, but with it being a really huge, old TV set.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Another thing with this digital version of 'scope done right, it might reduce moiré patterns that can occur when a sharply focused pixel grid is projected onto the perforation pattern of the screen. The anamorphic lens would stretch the pixel grid out of its native proportions and likely cut down on moiré. That in turn might allow the image to be more sharply focused and get an even better improvement in image resolution.
quote: Daniel Schulz
This came up when I was visiting NAB and chatting with a representative from ARRI about the new Alexa 65. ARRI was very proud of the fact that it was compatible with a whole range of legacy anamorphic lenses, and in discussing with their rep it became clear that he had no idea movies were no longer projected anamorphically in cinemas! And this coming from a guy whose job it is to sell directors and DPs on the merits of the camera system - probably half the pitch is about how you can use anamorphic lenses to capture true widescreen.
Just a nit to pick, but I think the standard Arri Alexa is the model compatible with anamorphic lenses isn't it? The 6K imager in the Arri Alexa65 has a 2.20:1 aspect ratio (and is the same physical size as a 5/65mm film frame), making the use of anamorphic lenses unnecessary for 'scope -unless you're going to shoot a digital version of Ultra Panavision.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-05-2015 09:58 PM
quote: Gary Lightfoot
My experience with film in cineplexes is that it's not as good as digital - I beleve most 35mm film ends up in post as a 2k DI and then after bulk release prints and a few runs trough the projector, the quality isn't that good from what I've seen. 2K Digital doesn't have most of those problems so stays looking much the same.
We're not really talking about film projection versus video projection. We're talking about common height screens versus common width. Film can come into the discussion when it comes to how 'scope was treated in a far better way on film than it has been in digital.
The super-widescreen 'scope format has traditionally been the bigger, more panoramic, more epic format for movies. On 35mm film 'scope was the brightest, highest resolution format since it used the entire 4-perf 35mm frame. The 1.85:1 and 1.66:1 ratios merely cropped into the frame.
In digital cinema 'scope is treated just like it is on ordinary TV screens at home: letter-boxed. It's the smallest, lowest resolution format. One can make a good argument that 'scope is a cheaper format to handle in post production than any flat format since there are fewer pixels to render. Maybe that's a big reason why there are so many fake 'scope movies made these days.
With regard to film print quality, during the past decade quality standards slipped a lot as labs shut down and the best film handling people moved on to other things. Movie productions switched over to digital intermediate processes in post production over the past 10-15 years. Digital intermediates, especially those rendered in 2K, have posed a serious image resolution bottleneck compared to an analog-only film-in and film-out work flow.
Once a movie has been post produced in digital intermediate form there really is not much need to see the movie output on a 35mm film print. There might some unique exceptions, but generally unless the movie is shot on film and post produced on film the film print itself is a waste of time.
quote: Gary Lightfoot
I thinkJohn Schuermann of Prismsonic/Folded Space is doing something along those lines already with the Folded Space idea (for BD at the moment, not sure about DCI), but although he says many in the industry are aware and not particularly happy about how multiplexes etc are doing things, they don't seem to have much power to actually change anything.
Multiplex theaters are goofing up d-cinema presentation quality based largely on how the technology was designed: like a HDTV screen in public. There is no wonder why so many multiplex theater screens are common width and letter-boxing 'scope movies just like a TV set at home. The 'scope format is getting goofed up from the start, sometimes right in the camera but always through a low quality bottleneck in post production.
Concepts like Folded Space or my suggestion of 'scope done right in d-cinema aren't going to go anywhere without movie studios admitting the current setup for 'scope just stinks.
One interesting thing is that some of the ground work has already been made to support 2560 X 1080 HD and 5120 X 2160 UHD resolutions. The latest HDMI spec supports both 21:9 modes.
quote: Gary Lightfoot
And if it's true that even movies that are filmed anamophically are rendered back to 2046 x 848 then other than scaling the imager and using an A lens, wer'e back to relying on the multiplexes to do it right again, which judging by the current state of affairs appears to be unlikely since they're mostly 16:9 to start with anyway.
There is already many opportunities to make mistakes in digital cinema. It's hardly plug and play. My proposal for 'scope to be treated as a full imager frame with 1.25x anamorphic format would be fairly easy. It would be no more complicated than changing the TV output setting of a DVD player, a one time change.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 13 pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13
|
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
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic