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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Gemini Man - HFR Test (Page 3)

This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  8  9  10

Author Topic: Gemini Man - HFR Test Kirk Futrell Film Handler Posts: 95 From: Nashville, TN / U.S.A. Registered: Nov 2008 posted 03-20-2019 04:39 PM                        Also of important note, while alternative firmware 30.08m fixed our HFR color issue, going from 30.11b to 30.11c on our projector breaks HDMI for us. We cannot get an image over our HDMI input with 30.11c, so we reverted to 30.11b.  |  IP: Logged Stephan Shelley Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 854 From: castro valley, CA, usa Registered: Nov 2014 posted 03-20-2019 05:16 PM                     I have a theatre I take care of with DSS 200 and cat 745 in a NEC 1000 with real d xl system and the 60 fps 3d seems to work. The 120 fps 2D is a no go.  |  IP: Logged Daniel Morez Film Handler Posts: 21 From: Hollywood, CA, USA Registered: Jun 2010 posted 03-21-2019 09:18 PM                     Non exhibition but thread title related question for the Chistie savvy folk. Could a CP2210 with a 3G PIB be capable of Stereo 60fps (120 in total) via unencrypted 3G SDI? My first couple calls to Christie support hasn't yet yielded a definite answer. I am waiting on a follow up call as the question gets escalated internally. It could take a few days so I thought I'de try here. Ive already successfully proven this wild west format out on Barco 2/4K-B and 2K-C units running the Quad 3G, aka "4K", input module.  |  IP: Logged Antti Nayha Master Film Handler Posts: 268 From: Helsinki, Finland Registered: Oct 2008 posted 03-22-2019 04:14 AM                     I was recently teching a documentary film festival with a total of 85 features. We received not one, but two HFR 2D DCP's – one 48 fps and one 50 fps. I'm still not convinced of the benefits of HFR for fictional films, but based on these two, I could easily see this becoming a thing for documentaries. Both were "true" HFR, shot in at least 2K progressive instead of interlaced HD. One of the films (Walden) was an avant-gardish, meditative piece that consisted of an endless slow pan across a forest, showing people chopping wood and going about their daily chores. The 50 fps framerate allowed the audience to see all the detail and action clearly, even though the camera never once stopped panning. The other (Aquarela) had been shot at 96 fps, and according to what I'd read, the director was severely disappointed when Sony refused to distribute it as a 96 fps DCP. I didn't watch the whole film, but at least the drone-shot landscapes had a very nice smooth but high-budget look even in 48 fps. Had I seen the same rather impressive opening shot in a fiction film, I would probably have lost all suspension of disbelief right away… but that doesn't seem to be an issue for documentaries, at least not in the same way. As for the general audience, no one seemed to be distracted by the HFR in any way, unlike the Hobbit 3D HFR screenings. Of course, we screened Aquarela in a venue that could just as easily have run 96 fps. Thank you, Sony quote: Carsten Kurz The tech bulletins issued for Billy Lynns Long Halftime Walk claimed that all HFR DCP versions were done at 250MBit/s only - even those at 120fps. I don't know if the Gemini Man test footage also prototypes the intended datarate. I was also curious about this and checked them: 2D 120 fps test clip: avg 186.95 Mb/s, max 240.34 Mb/s 3D 60 fps test clip: avg 223.88 Mb/s, max 240.00 Mb/s quote: Carsten Kurz Note, choking will not only occur due to high bitrates. Some test releases of DCP-o-matic used an OPENJPEG optimization that changed only 2 'irrelevant' bytes in a J2K frame to zero, and that made CAT 862 and 745 choke... Sorry for the off-topic, but does anybody here have any idea why Cat 862 chokes on some regular 24/25 fps DCP's with bitrates well under 250 Mbps? Most of these problem DCP's exhibit irregular stuttering, as if the film was paused for a fraction of a second every now and then. Others will simply freeze permanently (just like someone clicked the pause button, except that audio may still be playing on) – but I've found out that you can continue playback by manually skipping to eg. one second later, until it happens again after a while. I've tried to pinpoint the problem several times by unwrapping the video MXF's and inspecting the individual j2k files with various tools, but I've always been unable to find anything out of the ordinary. No single-frame bitrate peaks, no suspicious metadata, nothing. Couldn't find anything useful in the Dolby logs either. Many (but not all!) of these DCP's/MXF's were created in DaVinci Resolve. Cat 745 seems to play these just fine, just like all other servers/mediablocks that I've tried. It's just the Cat 862.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 03-22-2019 04:55 AM                     In general, if you selectively add motion blur in post, the soap opera effect will be mostly gone, yet the ultra-smooth panning will remain. Even if you add some motion blur to the panning scenes, the smoothness will remain and the amount of detail that's being perceived will usually still be higher than playing it at 24 or 25 fps. Maybe this is because of how our visual cortex works. If you look at a continuous moving hand without moving your head, for example, you'll see that it's almost impossible to get a sharp picture of it. It very much looks like our brain blurs those pictures together. If I flash like 48 high-intensity stills without motion blur within a second at you of that same moving hand, our visual cortex is missing the blurry effect. I guess that this is introducing the unnatural, somewhat "sped up" look. Now, those 48 fps are still well below the flicker fusion threshold of the average human being about 80 Hz. But what happens when I flash 120 frames per second of that same moving hand without any motion blur at you? The 120 fps should be well above the flicker fusion threshold. So will the brain now "blur" it for us?  |  IP: Logged Antti Nayha Master Film Handler Posts: 268 From: Helsinki, Finland Registered: Oct 2008 posted 03-22-2019 05:09 AM                     I understood that Billy Lynn was shot at 120 fps with a 360° shutter, which amounts to a shutter speed of 1/120 seconds. So there is still some natural motion blur in individual frames, but unlike in traditional 24 fps cinematography, no spatiotemporal information is missing between the frames. I think professional sports photographers use a shutter speed of around 1/1000 fps to get completely rid of motion blur. I agree that low/nonexistent motion blur in 48–60 fps content is what causes the sped-up look, but at least personally, I still get the soap opera feel even with added motion blur. It just doesn't seem to distract me in the context of documentary form, at least when the production values are high enough.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 03-22-2019 05:58 AM                     We have seen many of these complaints about Resolve JPEG2000 in DCPs. Many Resolve users seem to think that Cinema servers can eat any JPEG2000, or, that the only use for the JPEG2000 output option in Resolve is playout on cinema servers. But that is not the case. It's a generic JPEG2000 option that does not follow the Dcinema constraints of OpenJPEG. JPEG2000 has very many different coding options. I guess one would have to be a real JPEG2000 buff to find out the technical reason why these code streams fail. However, they changed that code in Resolve 14, and in 15.x they now support an internal DCP encoder based on Kakadu, that will certainly keep the codestream within DCI/SMPTE constraints. Before, people were actually blaming DCP-o-matic for creating bad DCPs, but for JPEG2000 image series or J2K MXF containers, DCP-o-matic is only passing them through, and the original creator is responsible for codestream compliance. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Antti Nayha Master Film Handler Posts: 268 From: Helsinki, Finland Registered: Oct 2008 posted 03-22-2019 06:13 AM                     Cool, thanks for the Resolve version info! And nice to hear it's been fixed.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-22-2019 12:08 PM                     Stephen, Did you test your DSS200/CAT745 system with the Gemini Man 60fps/3D material. I know it will work with other 60fps/3D but it chokes after 3-4 seconds on Gemini Man test.  |  IP: Logged Stephan Shelley Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 854 From: castro valley, CA, usa Registered: Nov 2014 posted 03-22-2019 07:55 PM                     I believe it was the test material that came on the Wonderpark distribution disk. I was not at the site personally but will be there a couple weeks after Cinemacon. I will double check at that time. They said it ran all the way through.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-23-2019 08:43 AM                     The DSS200/CAT745 can run OTHER 3D/60fps stuff but fails on Gemini Man's test material after about 3-4 seconds.  |  IP: Logged Stephan Shelley Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 854 From: castro valley, CA, usa Registered: Nov 2014 posted 03-23-2019 01:00 PM                     Like I said I will check next month myself but I was on the phone with them when they ran it and they said it finished. It was the Gemini Man test with the squares. Maybe it has to do with the fact the NEC 1000 does not use a TI ICP. I had them check the window on the real d xl unit and it said 120 fps which is correct for 60 fps 3D.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 03-23-2019 02:51 PM                     There is a non-TI ICP in the NC1000, and that is compatible with a CAT745? I thought the NC1000 had a standard series2 card-set like the NC900?! - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Stephan Shelley Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 854 From: castro valley, CA, usa Registered: Nov 2014 posted 03-23-2019 02:59 PM                     The NEC 1000 has the combined ICP/CPU board. They call it a formatter board. Very confusing with the satellite formatters on the light engine. While a bit of a testy relationship it will work. Occasionally get DLP com-e error on bootup but it does work and marriage does work.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-23-2019 04:46 PM                     I wonder how they deal with subtitles. As I understand it, NEC ditched Cinecanvas on their CPU board and rely on the server's ability to put up captions...something the CAT745 does not do.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  8  9  10

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.