|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Resolution of scanned prints? > OT: Frame rate discussion
|
Charles Greenlee
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 801
From: Savannah, Ga, U.S.
Registered: Jun 2006
|
posted 12-21-2006 10:36 PM
This touches on my debate of curiousity. DLP or 35mm? I prefer 35mm myself, mainly due to it's self upgradability. Ok, say Christie comes out with a new 8k projector, you just bought your 4k ones, you're screwed. You have to settle for 2nd best, rather than cutting edge. If digital improves, you require new equipment.
On the other hand, Kodak comes out with a new Uber-Chromalustre film, with a higher color saturation, and higher possible resolution. The 35mm theatre has to do what to show a feature that uses the new film? Nothing. The improvment is in the media itself. 35mm hasn't changed too much. The most recent change requireing a hadware upgrade is the dye track.
I'm sure I'll get flash back for this but, just my opinion.
So, how high can current film stocks go? If I print from a 4k source, can the film faithfully reproduce that quality? How about 8k? Higher? At what point would the source quality overwhelm the capability of the film itself? I'm looking at the potential quality of the fil, even if the DI, or other source, is of lower quality. At what quality would film be outclassed?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 12-22-2006 01:53 AM
I must admit that I agree with Joe, Most cinemas are not doing film done right, and it sucks. Accountants make piss poor business decisions. mmmm we can save a few thousand dollars on wages, that cost them millions in return business. Why are the shareholders happy?
quote: Charles Greenlee
If I print from a 4k source, can the film faithfully reproduce that quality?
I would say yes, if you have a rock steady image with an electronic intermittent, great lenses, oh and filmguard. with a print that hasn't been churned through the lab at super high speeds. The biggest loss of resolution is from projector or image shake, that varies between brands and how they are maintained .
If digital, which at the moment also works at 24 frames a second, was to aim for 48 to 60 frames a second, film would be left for dead .
In production, film is still a much better medium to shoot on than the digital cameras out there now.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-22-2006 10:23 AM
quote: Cameron Glendinning
If digital, which at the moment also works at 24 frames a second, was to aim for 48 to 60 frames a second, film would be left for dead.
First, you need a movie actually shot at 48fps or 60fps. Good luck on that happening any time soon. Hollywood couldn't even transition over to 30fps.
Video cameras don't have anywhere near high enough a level of native resolution, much less fast enough image sensors, to do high frame rates like 48fps or 60fps for an entire movie production (especially when stylistic slow motion shots would have to be captured at double or triple those frame rates). So film-based cameras are still going to be necessary for quite some time to come.
quote:
They're just into that grungy, MTV, "now" look!
It's either that or they're riffing off the desaturated newsreel look of Saving Private Ryan.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 12-22-2006 08:02 PM
Joe I'm not talking about fields per second / odd and even lines being refreshed, I'm talking about progressive scan / frames per second.
Yes this idea has facinated me for a very long time and has produced some very interesting conversations over the years. One was with a cinematographer who had shot both a Showscan and an Imax film about Sydney. He much prefered Showscan, its 60 frames a second and absolute lack of motion blur.
quote "In Showscan, when I shot the harbour bridge from the helecopter, you could count every bolt, all six million of them. In Imax it was a case of what bolts?
The other was with an Imax technician who was the project manager of the 3d SR projector. He told me that he had personally been involved in their atempt to do a 48 frame per second \12 ft per second version of Imax. quote "for the 40 seconds that it ran before the film shreaded and distroyed the projector. The Image looked like you were looking though a six story high window, not a cinema screen."
At the moment each frame of film at 24 per second is repeated twice, all I am is curious to to see is what it would look like if it was 48 individual images per sec, film or digital.
quote:
The movie was shot on film except for the news reports which were on video. When it switched to 60 discrete images per second for that news reporter footage it hit me like a ton of bricks in the face. Then it would switch back to the telecined 24fps for everything else and I was like "Ahhhh, that's better!".
That comment reminds me of a monte python sketch, We are surrounded by film! Brittish programs from the 60s to the 80's use to be studio shot on tape, location footage 16mm. so when they went outside it looked noticably different.
In the early 1990's in Australia a Tv show called "Frontline" a spoof current afairs show went for the same effect. This was produced at the same Tv station that I had worked for in there cinecamera section the years before. It was shot in 3ccd hi 8, on air bits went straight, behind the scenes footage was edited and then kinied (tv monitor filmed) on 16 mm reversal stock and then telecined back to tape. This was suprisingly effective for the purpose, That team latter went on to make the feature films " The Castle "(super 16mm) and "The Dish " (35mm).
Now that there are consumer level genuine hd (not crappy HDV) cameras by Panasonic that capture at 60 frames a second (vari cam)and output 24p, I do think its getting possible, I just dont see a desire.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 12-22-2006 08:57 PM
quote: Joe Redifer
Perhaps your cinematographer friend is retarded?
I wish he was my friend, just someone who I ran Imax rushes for, I had seen his showscan film, so I can relate to what he was saying. I personally thought the Imax footage looked like shit compared to the showscan footage, from the same angles ect.
quote: Joe Redifer
What do people have against motion blur, anyway? You see it in real life.
Either you see the detail or you dont, In real life when I look at sydneys harbour bridge from a helecopter I see the bolts, on showscan I see bolts, on Imax and 16mm I don't see bolts. So perhaps if 24 frames per second captured motion blur realisticly, like faster film rates do, I would not have an issue with it.
Perhaps your showscan experience was marred by the simple fact that it wasn't shot by a retarded Australian Cinematographer? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
| 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
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic