|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Trumbull's 120FPS-4K project
|
Chad Capeland
Film Handler
Posts: 6
From: Pennsauken NJ USA
Registered: Jun 2014
|
posted 07-04-2014 03:58 PM
I worked with Trumbull on the post-production of UFOTOG, and was one of the projectionists at the Seattle Cinerama premiere. I was also responsible for the media server driving the video and audio. I'll try to explain a bit about the process and how we executed it in Seattle as well as at Trumbull's screening room.
Trumbull's "MAGI" process focuses on getting the most out of current technology, which currently is 4K, 3D, 120/240fps, >14 ft-L, ultra-high bandwidth playback. Audio for UFOTOG was mastered in Atmos. Trumbull's nominal specs for MAGI theatres also includes toroidal screens and steeply raked seating with very wide angle screens. It's not just HFR, which is what everyone fixates on, but a combination of many different aspects of what is possible in cinema today. Personally, I feel like the high brightness and high bandwidth contribute as much to the image quality as the 5x increase in framerate.
Most series two projectors can handle 120Hz playback at 2K, but so far the only 4K system we've seen that can do it is the Christie Mirage. If Sony or Barco or anyone else can do it through alternative content inputs, I'd love to know about it. The new Barco 6P projectors say they can do 4K 3D at 60, but I don't know if that implies 60 per eye or 30. And I don't know if that's through alternative content inputs. DCP is useless in it's current spec, so we bypass it entirely and rely on HDCP and AES-256 encryption in our server media to handle copy protection. Whereas DCP tops out at 500Mb/s, we ran UFOTOG at over 9000Mb/s.
Regarding 120Hz as an ideal framerate, remember that for 3D you end up alternating between the eyes for most theaters because they run single projectors. This is typically done at 144Hz, so you show 24fps content by triple flashing each eye alternating. This is, of course, goofy. And no amount of proclamation about the history of cinema will make me believe that this is normal. It's only in the last 10 years or so that we've had films exhibited at 144Hz. The problem isn't the framerate so much as the alternating eyes with the triple flash that's causing motion artifacts. It's an artifact of digital 3D, so the historical argument doesn't hold water with me. 120Hz is really the MINIMUM needed to run single projector 3D without strobing, but regardless of framerate, by matching the camera acquisition framerate to the projector framerate, you get motion continuity.
The Hobbit was run at 48, but didn't match the camera framerate to the projector frame rate, so it solved nothing of the strobing or continuity issues. If you saw The Hobbit in 48Hz on dual projectors, though, you would have seen less artifacts. Few people did see this though, simply because fewer cinemas run that. Does anyone know the real breakdown on single vs dual HFR 3D cinemas? If Peter Jackson just shot 12 more frames per second, however, anyone who saw it in a more typical single projection cinema would have experienced perfect motion continuity with no duplicated frames. So Trumbull tried to 'solve' what Jackson & Park Road did not by just adding 25% more frames. The results, as seen by lay audiences and many Hollywood insiders, has been spectacular. I wouldn't be surprised if 48Hz fell by the wayside as a failed experiment and was replaced by a cadenced 60Hz format as shown with UFOTOG. The real issue isn't technical, it's really just a matter of getting DCI to approve a new spec that more closely matches the hardware available.
One thing that hasn't been broadly exhibited is HFR 2D. There are advantages for this format, but no one has taken a stab at it outside of Showscan.
Responding to posters in this thread:
@Monte: Can't speak for the Barco line, if you know details about their alternative content inputs I'd love to know about it. The Christie CP projector we had before the Mirage was able to run 4k through the IMB, but only at standard frame rates. The alternative content inputs could run at 120Hz but only at 2K.
@Steve @Sean: We've had meetings and test shoots with a well known Hollywood director who intends to shoot his next picture like what Brainstorm should have been. He'll be running most of the film at 24Hz and switch to 240Hz or 120Hz for key dramatic scenes. Unlike with Showscan, digital acquisition and projection doesn't have the logistical and cost issues associated with film.
@Carsten: The Showscan short Trumbull was referring to was a period piece about Leonardo da Vinci. It suffered the same problem The Hobbit did, the audience has no real-world experience with the visual subject matter. The increased realism didn't help the audience relate because the only visual exposure the audience has had to The Renaissance is through 24FPS film. The Lord of the Rings trilogy probably didn't help Jackson out either. Too much of a style similarity that he couldn't deviate from to better suit the higher framerate.
@Mark: The Alexa makes a better image than the Red under most scenarios, but it doesn't soot 4K. The best image we've seen so far comes from Sony's F65. UFOTOG was shot on C500s, but other alternatives exist including Epics, Flex4Ks, F55s, F65s, and Cions. The Cion is interesting in that it can shoot 4K/120 for less than $9000.
@Brad: UFOTOG, as well as some other projects in development using this format, have visual content that works better at 5x the framerate. Film directors can pan more freely, there's less wagon wheel effects, images are much clearer with the reduced motion blur, etc. One famous Hollywood director commented that the actor in UFOTOG had a much more expressive and empathetic performance because you could see the subtle movements in the eyes and facial muscles that convey unspoken emotions. There will be a change to how films are directed with HFR; you can't just do what Jackson did and change nothing but the framerate. Regarding 120Hz TV's, they don't exist. They just take the 24 or 60 fps input and interpolate in realtime. It's cheesy and it has made the idea of 120Hz filmmaking become associated with that low quality. Real 120Hz films, the few that I've seen, are pretty amazing to behold. The comments from the 7 screenings we did in Seattle bore that out. It was largely a film buff crowd, and there were a large number of cynics that thought they would be seeing something that looked like The Hobbit or television, but what they actually saw felt quite extraordinary. A senior production manager from one of the hottest science-fiction production companies came to the VIP screening and said "I could watch three hours of this s***!"
@Mike: We tried to get pricing on a 7thsense server, but never got one. What would a 20 minute 4K 120Hz server cost? What about 240Hz? We made our own server because we couldn't find one, and we'd like to have options for other filmmakers.
- Chad Capeland
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-11-2014 12:30 PM
Chad, is there any chance of MAGI format screenings taking place in cities like Dallas, Austin, Houston, Denver or Oklahoma City? I'd like to check out UFOTOG. I don't get up to Seattle, but I do visit those other major cities I mentioned from time to time.
From its description, the 120Hz/240Hz 4K 3D process sounds like it would be best suited for motion simulator rides in the short term. Traditional movie theater customers would have to be eased into that kind of thing over a period of years. In the long term I think audiences will have to adjust to different "textures" in a post-film world.
I'm used to traditional movies having the "film look," but the best way to get the film look is by shooting the movie on film. The original source material will have the film look built right into it, and it will be a real film, not a digital movie someone keeps trying to call "film."
For years I've been complaining about people who shoot movies with digital video cameras not thinking outside the box. Not every movie needs the film look.
In some cases applying the film look is pretentious and illogical. Movies like Paranormal Activity or Cloverfield, which use the video camera POV approach ought to have the footage looking like video. The movie is made up of material recovered from the camera. That's only going to look like video. It doesn't matter if the camera was shooting the imagery in 24fps either. It takes more than just a change in frame rate to make video look like film. The film look processing, color grading, etc. all happens in post production outside of the camera. It doesn't happen in the camera. So any "found footage" premise movie having the film look is just utter nonsense.
Plenty of other "you are there" POV experience types of movies or other immediate run and gun style dramas may actually work better dramatically if the video look is maintained.
Then there is the matter that all the film look processing and other color grading tasks can seriously degrade the video imagery. The show ends up looking like you're watching it through an aquarium filled with urine or it has the tonal dynamic range of something run off on newsprint. Technology has become better about this in recent years, but I think some of the improvement has to do with cameras shooting in raw formats and recording in deeper bit depths. In a perfect world people would be shooting 4K RAW material with at least 16-bits per color channel. That would provide a whole lot more lee way in how one could alter the imagery without badly screwing it up. But such a thing requires an insane amount of bandwidth and storage capacity.
At some point this convention of forcing video to look like film is going to fall by the wayside. Fewer people are going to understand the reference of film image texture. Film projectors are rapidly disappearing from theaters. We're now at the point where a lot of professional photographers have never handled film. Video camera and projectors still need to continually improve. Once some of these old conventions are at least bent to some degree, a more extreme format like 120fps 4K will be embraced by traditional movie makers and movie-going audiences.
quote:
As anyone who has ever seen Trumbull's film Brainstorm properly presented on film in 70mm knows, "scope" is the simulation of reality and "flat" is just every day blah.[Razz]
It would seem the industry for the most part has come to realize this since 90% of all movie are scope now.[thumbsup]
As much as the entertainment industry uses the 'scope format, they're pissing all over it at the same time.
On 35mm, 'scope was the biggest, highest resolution format. In d-cinema it is now the smallest, lowest resolution format. Too many newer movie theaters install common width screens, that way 'scope can be letterboxed just like it is on the TV set at home.
I used to like the anamorphic look a lot, but that was when it was used exclusively on feature movies shot on film. These days the anamorphic look is applied to TV commercials and countless numbers of music videos -things not intended for movie screens. In the case of music videos they're all seen in a little YouTube window anymore these days. Much of the material is shot by video cameras, even regular DSLR cameras. I realize all these people are going for a particular look, but the novelty of it is being lost.
| 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
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic