Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: MaxiVision 48

This is topic MaxiVision 48 in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000473

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 12-13-1999, 11:05 AM:

Can a prominent film critic have a pivotal role in the future of cinema? Could this be the answer?

Read this article and see for yourself:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/maxi12.html

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 12-13-1999, 12:18 PM:

It would be nice if well-respected, powerful filmmakers came to the rescue, but I doubt they will. Ten years ago, both Panavision and Arriflex introduced state-of-the-art 65mm cameras with all the bells and whistles necessary to re-launch the format. Unfortunately, they weren't able to coax the Steven Spielbergs and James Camerons of the world to shoot with 65mm. Instead, we got FAR AND AWAY and HAMLET and some dabbling with 65mm in lesser-known projects.

As much as Steven Spielberg has endorsed the continued use of film instead of digital, I seriously doubt he or any other high-profile filmmaker will choose to shoot with the MaxiVision 48 format. These are business people, after all. Either some accountant will talk them into going digital OR they'll stick to the status quo (35mm at 24 fps) for the forseeable future. Either way, can you imagine Steven Spielberg shooting in a format (MaxiVision 48, for example) which would limit the number of theatres able to show his film... therefor affecting his bottom line? (This is, after all, the man who shot his "Montana" scene from JURASSIC PARK in the California desert simply so that he could save about $300,000. He must have known that the film would make enough money to offset a mere $300,000 for a location which, he admits, would have made the film better!)

While reading the article, I was already wondering if someone had devised a plan for making 24fps prints of films which were originated on MaxiVision 48.

And, while Roger Ebert's article sings the praises of film and MaxiVision 48, I felt the sting of his insult to incompetent projectionists. It's not that I consider myself incompetent (I DO know how to frame the picture... duh!), but I do consider that if ANYTHING goes wrong during a screening, the average customer will remember that for months, even years, and have that overriding suspicion that the guy in the booth doesn't know what he's doing (whether or not it was the projectionist's fault, and whether or not hundreds of flawless screenings happened at that theatre). Roger Ebert's dig at projectionists will not help our P.R. nor will it help to promote the notion that films and their projectionists should stay in the booths at our local megaplexes.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-13-1999, 03:22 PM:

AFAIK, one of the reasons that MaxiVision chose 48 frames per second is that they can "skip-frame" print to easily convert to 24 fps for general release. There's no easy way to convert 30 fps or 60 fps to 24 fps without risking motion artifacts. (Recall that the 30 fps 65/70mm Todd-AO productions of "Oklahoma!" and "Around the World in 80 Days" were also shot at 24 fps on 35mm film for "regular" 35mm theatres. Later 65/70mm productions reverted to 24 fps).

------------------
John Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 12-13-1999, 04:19 PM:

I'm forced to conclude that because it will be so simple to convert a MaxiVision 48 film to 24fps, many MaxiVision 48 films will be converted in this manner (assuming that many MaxiVision 48 films will be made in the first place).

So we'll end up with this technology being used at only a few theatres in the largest cities and the vast majority of theatres showing MaxiVision 48 films "the old fashioned way." Within no time, the studios and distributors will lose enthusiasm for the format (assuming they will ever have it to begin with) and, well... as long as they can gross hundreds of millions of dollars with good, old fashioned 24fps 35mm, why bother upgrading the technology? Why bother spending the money to use twice as much film per print? This same mentality has killed 70mm, hasn't it?

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 12-13-1999, 08:34 PM:

It's a valid question...why not just keep at it with 35MM/24fps? It would cost nothing because the infrastructure is already there. I think the question here is: if you're going to go digital, why not go MaxiVision48 instead since it's:

a) MUCH cheaper
b) MUCH better image quality
c) unlike DLP, there is a SYSTEMIC infrastucture and distribution model.

Despite everyone bracing themselves against the onslaught of digital, I don't believe that it's the inevitable, foregone conclusion that everyone seems to feel that it is, just because there are a few prototype sites. There is still no infrastructure and hence no customers.

Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 12-14-1999, 12:36 AM:

It's nice that someone who can reach a lot of people is sending out the message that film is good. And I didn't really see anything wrong with Roger's negative comments about today's projectionists. He's absolutely right. Many projectionists don't know what they are doing, he didn't say all. It would have been nice if he had explained that the theatre owners' refusal to pay people who stay in the booth, and lack of interest in what they're putting on screen is the cause of this. But since Roger openly called Mr. Lucas a "propeller head", I'm willing to forgive the article's flaws.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 12-14-1999, 02:04 AM:

Okay, here's a logical question: What's preventing conventional projectors from being run at higher frame rates? Wear and tear would be increased, I'd imagine, but what-- would they explode?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-14-1999, 07:49 AM:

Increasing the speed from 24fps to 30fps would be fairly straight forward (variable speed motor or gear/belt ratio change), and most current projectors would function reliably at a slightly higher frame rate. At Kodak we have several Century projectors equipped with variable speed motors that allow running up to 36fps. The projectors run well at 36fps, but the added noise and vibration are enough to make me believe that that is about the limit before the projectors wear prematurely.

AFAIK, some of the early 60fps ShowScan projectors were specially modified 35/70mm Century JJ projectors, so it's certainly possible to "beef up" a conventional Geneva intermittent projector to run at much higher speeds. Another option that allows very high speed is to use a servo or stepper motor pulldown, such as in the Arriflex Loc-Pro, Pioneer, Cinema Products, Christie Epic, or MaxiVision projectors.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-14-1999, 09:49 AM:

Even the venerable Super Simplex will run at 48FPS
The major item is mainly a change of lubricant to provide the necassay higherspeed friction reduction
We used to ad STP to XL's that we ran at 48 fps and they stood up

Posted by Trevor Bailey (Member # 75) on 12-17-1999, 03:59 PM:

I have always been a fan of "bigger, faster, better", so I would very much like to see some of these innovations reach the light of day. But I think we all know there is only one issue holding all of these great possibilities back: money.

When a company builds a "stadium mega-plex" that has digital sound in only two auditoriums...how will they ever try something as fanciful as a new projection technology? They say "the market in this area does not require more digital sound". Hmmm... then that leads us to the market... the customers.

The bottom line is the only thing that will lead to change at the theaters.

I challenge all of the talented and intelligent people in this industry we love:

Find a way to make the customers speak with their wallets: "We want better quality in your presentation!"

That is the only way to make real changes.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 02-24-2002, 01:35 PM:

Just bumping this to the top.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-24-2002, 01:45 PM:

Gord said
"Even the venerable Super Simplex will run at 48FPS
The major item is mainly a change of lubricant to provide the necassay higherspeed friction reduction
We used to ad STP to XL's that we ran at 48 fps and they stood up"

Hey Gord,
All you needed was the good ole LaVezzi synthetic stuff....your favorite!
Mark @ New GTS

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 08-10-2005, 09:12 PM:

It has been 1263 days since the last post.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-10-2005, 09:12 PM:

Here's more Roger Ebert about Maxivision 48, from his latest Movie Answer Man column (8/7/05).

If the movie industry had true visionaries among its most powerful executives, Maxivision 48 would be given a try. It shows movies at 48 frames a second, uses only 50 percent more film than currently, and because of a patented method for moving the film through the gate, eliminates scratching and jiggles; it would cost only $12,000 per screen to install the equipment. The picture is four times as good as current film projection, and that would provide a powerful incentive for people to see movies in theaters. I've heard genuine enthusiasm from people who've seen movies like "Batman Begins" and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" on IMAX screens, and I know that audiences do respond to picture quality. If one industry leader announced a movie in Maxivision, there would be a stampede to the format because digital would be instantly upstaged.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 08-11-2005, 10:41 AM:

Why not SDS-70tm?
5/70@48fps and 96Hz flicker rate and bright

http://www.superdimension70.com/articles/wide-screen-article.asp

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-11-2005, 11:19 AM:

Niether format will ever be given a chance because DIGITAL is the best!!!!!

Gimme a D.......Gimme an I.......

Seriously, it's too bad that the studio execs don't realize that things like this would increase their revenues. First of all, people would want to see movies in a theatre more than at home. Even at an average 50-50 split for the run, the studios get a higher amount per person than on DVD rentals, PPV and most likely even on DVD sales. Second, if the movie was enjoyable and memorable in the theatre, people will be more likely to either rent or buy the DVD when it comes out so the studio can "double dip."

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 08-11-2005, 11:45 AM:

With all the talk about Maxivision 48 projection conversions being far cheaper than digital conversion, the fact remains that the main cost studios are worried about is print cost, not projector cost. And Maxivision prints take up more film, not less. Presumably, shipping costs would me more as well. The industry is mostly interested in saving every last buck that they can.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-11-2005, 01:44 PM:

True but Maxivision48 is capable of "shift on the fly" frame rates and can run at 24fps. If 24fps were used it would use 3/4 of the film of a Flat release. It can also project 48 fps only in scenes that require it.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-11-2005, 01:53 PM:

Paul says, "With all the talk about Maxivision 48 projection conversions being far cheaper than digital conversion, the fact remains that the main cost studios are worried about is print cost, not projector cost."

Why do you think that, Paul? Do you have it on good authority?

I don't think that print cost is a major factor in studio thinking.

--jhawk

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-11-2005, 02:01 PM:

I interviewed some folks re MaxiVision for a magazine article back in 1999. Six years later, the format's still not a reality.

While I've not personally seen any MaxiVision footage, everyone I know who has has said the image quality at 48fps is very good.

The format does have some drawbacks which have probably contributed to the format not being used...

-- as mentioned earlier in discussion, uses more film. At 3-perfs per frame, it actually uses less film on a per frame basis, but at 48fps utilizes more than standard 35mm. (Someone good at math figure it out for us...) Basically, MaxiVision is a 48fps version of 3-perf Super-35.

-- format was designed with the 1.78:1/1.85:1 ratios in mind; does not work well for scope.

-- since it uses a full aperture image, where would a DTS timecode be printed (or an optical track, for that matter)?

[ 08-12-2005, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: Michael Coate ]

Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 08-12-2005, 08:24 PM:

Well, you don't absolutely have to have SDDS tracks ...

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 10-06-2005, 08:19 PM:

I don't believe there's a snowball's chance any of these new formats will go anywhere; its just economic reality.

I wish someone would try to just start releasing in 5/70 again. Why? .......
An existing, proven technology.
Image that beats the crap out of any D-cin or home theatre setups, especially w/ new film stocks.
Print cost now lower due to no need for mag tracks.
Theatre costs are lower for the same reason.
Even makes scratches and dirt of a given size less noticable.

If theares really wanted to fight to keep the audience from migrating to TV/DVD, this could be the way, instead of lowering quality with D-cin. Sort of like the TV scare of the 50's.

Larry