Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: When will we see 4k dlp from TI?

This is topic When will we see 4k dlp from TI? in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=000063

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 10-30-2003, 07:50 AM:

I would first like to state my position in the film or digital debate. My point of view is that movies should be shot on film at 48fps and shown digitally at 4k.

That is why I ask when TI will supply the industry with 4k chips. I understand the reluctance in the industry to replace projected film with something just north of hdtv. 4k would clearly separate the movie experience from hdtv at home considering that the cinemas could use superior sources and a much higher resolution.

Posted by Erick Akers (Member # 875) on 10-30-2003, 08:43 AM:

Let me be the first to break it down for you in one easy five letter word.

Can you say "money"? I knew you could!

Let's just say for arguments sake that DLP had the potential to blow everything out of the water. How do you justify even trying to update a theater to DLP system when most people still have not adopted the HDTV systems in to their own homes yet?

I mean come on, do you truly believe that DLP is the only savior of the Movie Empire? The system is already flawed. Personally I find digital presentations have more distracting artifacts than film.

When the question was posed as to why 70mm became a thing of the past, we were fed this [bs]

about the magnetic audio tracks harming our prescious environment, and that it was also the most expensive part of processing 70mm. Then along came DTS and now we hear that to have DTS on a 70mm print that it must make a second pass through a film printer.

The studios are now only looking for that opening revenue. they don't care about the customer or the theater owner, just the opening gross.

Polyester is so F**king cheap, it's unreal!

Film technology is proven,effective and just as viable now.

Perfect something before trying to cram it down our throats for once.

BTW: Welcome to Film-Tech [Big Grin]

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 10-30-2003, 09:41 AM:

Why shoot film at 48 fps. Where is the savings in that. Might as well shoot as you normaly do and make the prints for film release. If they ever do make a 4k chip it will definetly make the cost of the DLP go up. In the forseable future I do not see DLP as an economical choice for exhibitors. I see it more as a specialty venue type situation not as a replacement for equipment in a multiplex at this time.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 10-30-2003, 09:42 AM:

Erick
What would your response be to this.
Film need to up the temporal resolution , perhaps from 24 to 48 as I suggested above. The market can then choose one of these options.
1 Project film at 24fps 48Hz flicker rate, no investment
2 Project film at 48fps 48Hz flicker rate, some investment
3 Project digitally at 48fps at 2k or 4k, expensive but less expensive as the technology matures

I am sure film is without competetion if you view an expensive copy of the original negative using the most advanced process. However that is not for everyone. I am sure digital projection has some problems, but not serious ones at 4k as the technology matures.

I as a consumer is not so conserverd with savings. But if you shoot 35mm Maxivision48 style your film stock costs increases only by 50 percent. The exhibitor could order a 24fps print or a 48fps copy. You could also get the movie as a 48p 2k-4k digital copy.

I understand that the exhibitor can not take the costs for a transition it must be shared across the industy. I am willing to pay a little more for tickets if I get a better movie experience.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-30-2003, 09:46 AM:

If the exisiting chip technology is not cost effective in any current business model then a more expensive chip even less and the 4K chip I doubt would have many alternate uses to bring any costsavings to manufacturer

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 10-30-2003, 09:46 AM:

the technology must mature to the point where the risk of obsoletion is at it's minamal point and the price must come way down for any exhibitor to even consider a mass deployment of this system into the field.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 10-30-2003, 09:59 AM:

Darryl
I think you point to something very important. The technology must come to a point where you do not risk losing your investment beacuse the technology changes so fast.

I believe that technology point is 4k. TI should be there soon and JVC already is. It would be in the interest of say TI to say that we are not going beyond 4k. TI is trying to say we are not going beyond 2k. The problem is that they are not credible there since consumers will start to demand 2k(hdtv) in their home. Of course the movie going public expects more at their local cinema than what they have at home.

At 2k there is no business model at 4k there can be a business model.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 10-30-2003, 10:10 AM:

But you have to look at my second point. The cost must come way down. Otherwise no one is going to take the hook.

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 10-30-2003, 10:33 AM:

Classic supply/demand problem. Largest demand is at 2k (HDTV) for the consumer, going to 4k just for 110,000 cinema screens world-wide probably doesn't make economic sense. Most of the post production gear doesn't exist for for 4k. And it is not just the cost of the display device, what about the quality of the lenses to have a MTF to resolve all of 4k, what about the interfaces, transmission bandwidth and storage for 4k files. It may be a while.

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 10-30-2003, 10:38 AM:

Problem with digial theater, is that its the technology of the presentation is changing and will continue to change signifigantly. Even if they limited their digital theater chips to 4k, surely the other market sectors would continute to demand higher resolutions. Then you end up with Joe Blow with a higher resolution in his home theater than the local megaplex can offer.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 10-30-2003, 01:00 PM:

If exhibitors believe 4k will stay for a long time they can start to invest. Consumer devices will not go beyond hdtv because of the cost premium to go further. Also the source will limit the quality, hd-dvd standard, hdtv standard and available spectrum for broadcasting.

Exhibitors will have access to superior sources. The pro market can take a higher cost premium than the consumer market. With volume the price will come down to an acceptable level for some exhibitors. There will still be the first second and third alternatives as I exemplified above.

If lenses start to become a resolution problem then I see little arguments against digital projection at 2k only. I still believe digital will have to be 4k.

I know that taxes are not popular, but they could prove to be the only solution. If the industry can not agree how to share costs. I suggest a fixed transition tax is added to each ticket. Each exhibitor gets this refunded if they invest in the new technology. This refund will probably not cover the entire investment so one can choose not to invest, but then you might lose business if other theaters do and if consumers prefer that quality. That quality could be
1 film projected at 48fps
2 digital 2k or 4k projection at 48fps

If people choose to go to watch film projected at 24fps the old way that is fine, the market decides. A change in the industry will probably create new companies and more jobs.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-30-2003, 01:26 PM:

From the consumers point of view I doubt they would be willing to pay a premium for digital projection they wouldn't for 70mm
Also the cost is still way to high and even if there was a large scale conversion it will not represent a bigenough market to gain a cost saving
With the average 35mm setup running around 35,000 compared to the net average of 150,000 for DLP 4 screens could be equipped and earning money for the cost of one DLP screen
Also light level issues still need to be addressed

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-30-2003, 05:39 PM:

First off, I don't agree that customers won't pay a premium for 70mm...they will and have.

As to light levels...With digital projection it seems to get better by the day.

I think the 2K machines will be a turning point for DCinema. It will be good enough for most cinemas. The machines are native 1.85:1 rather than the stupid 5:4 of the existing units...only SXGA data sources want a 5:4 picture! The 2K machines don't use any anamorphic attachment all of the way out to 1.85:1 and use a mild anamorphic 1.26 squeeze for "Scope" films.

I also noticed that the 2K machines just pushed down the price of the 1280x1024 models by 10s of thousands.

Steve

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 10-30-2003, 07:14 PM:

Mattias Ohlson listen to Bevan Wright. He just spent years working for Christie and just might have a handle on where Digital Cinema is right at the moment.

My next question is have you seen a 2K Digital Cinema presentation? I have and it looks damn good. Some aspects are better than film and some are not as good as film. But on average, I would be perfectly happy seeing 2K succede. At the moment my only problem with Digital Cinema is paying for it.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-30-2003, 09:23 PM:

You have to start somewhere, and 2K seems to be settling out as the true starting point. It's taken about four years of limited rollout (1280 x 1024 pixel system) for Digital Cinema to reach just over a hundred North American screens out of about 35,000 film screens. Japan, the UK, Brazil, China, and India have also been active in "testing the waters".

Kodak has been involved from the start (Spirit DataCines that use a Kodak-designed and built scanner are used for transferring most of the films that have been available for digital presentation), and hopes to make it even better:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/digital/system.shtml

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/products/v2/sehlin.shtml

Kodak's expertise is likely to find application in many areas of digital cinema, including such things as optical design, color management, and anti-piracy technologies.

Like others, Kodak sees digital projection gaining a foothold on thousands of screens with pre-show content and special events like concerts, using more modest installations that can be upgraded:

http://www.kodak.com/go/dcinema

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-30-2003, 11:40 PM:

quote:
First off, I don't agree that customers won't pay a premium for 70mm...they will and have.

I drove 200 miles from Lawton to Dallas on a number of occaisions to watch movies in 70mm. "Baraka" and "Vertigo" are a couple examples. I drove the 200 miles to watch a 70mm DTS version of "Titanic" rather than just drive down the street to see a 35mm DTS version.

To address the TI technology, the DLP micromirror device is pretty cool for what it does. However, the technology is also hopelessly limited. The rotating mirrors and other moving parts greatly limit how small DLP chips can be produced. That affects cost, because you're only going to fit so many chips on a wafer of silicon. It affects limits on resolution since the chips can only be so big you can only fit a limited number of mirrors on the thing.

TI's DLP chip has been stuck at the 1024 X 768 and 1280 X 1024 levels for several years now. The 2K chip is finally fixing to be released after a very long wait. How much longer can we expect to wait for TI to develop a DLP chip running at 4K, quadruple the number of pixels of a 2K chip? Other competing technologies are certain to upend the DLP method of digital display.

I strongly expect a lot of foot-dragging in terms of getting things like 4K digital imaging systems up and running. The big thing pulling resolution down to low limits is the consumer electronics angle. Outside of high resolution computer graphics display, there are few applications in home video and computing that require any higher than a 1080 X 1920 pixel display. Many companies may simply stop at that level. TI claims it will limit use of their new 2K chip to commercial theaters, but I don't buy that for a second. There's just too much money to be made in the consumer electronics business and too many competitors out there looking to make that buck if TI doesn't try to capitalize on it.

Another thing that will prevent digital projection getting much higher in rez is self-imposed limits in film production. In spite of much more powerful computing technology and ever increasing storage capability, much of the film production end is still holding to the belief that 2K is good enough. With the studios taking major releases and flooding the market with several thousand prints, drastically shortening the time it takes a film to get to home video release, they feel even less pressure to pursue any standards higher than 2K for any CGI work.

48 frames per second? It will never happen, at least as long as movies are produced on film. We can't even get the industry to endorse 30 frames per second or even more simple things such as shipping films on 6000 foot reels. There are already well established film production and presentation formats, like 70mm, which are vastly superior to 35mm yet are being virtually ignored.

And considering the rapidly advancing pace of computer graphics and home video technologies I find it shocking and short sighted on the part of the film industry to not shoot more movies in 8/35mm and 5/70mm formats. What better way is there to "future proof" your $100 million product than using a highly superior analog format which can gracefully transfer up to any super high rez video process to be developed decades from now? This would be an even grander equivalent to what Warner Bros. Records is doing for DVD-A MLP high rez audio titles, grabbing master analog tapes of classic rock albums that can be more gracefully digitized into 24/96 format than some 16-bit digital master.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 10-31-2003, 04:51 AM:

First what dlp have I seen
I have not seen a unit classified as a digital cinema unit with all the fancy processing it has. However I have seen an 8000 ansi lumen 3-chip dlp at 1280x1024 with a d-cinema source. I am not sure how well setup the system was but it looked very good and very smooth. One thing that they did not use was an anamorphic lens to better utilize the resolution. Considering that this was a unit without anamorphic lens and a non d-cinema unit of a previous generation I am sure that a Barco dp100 produces an execeptional picture.

Concerning bigger film formats is it not the case that with today emulsions you get the same quality with super35 as you did with 5-70 many years ago? To me this suggest that 35mm of today can provide a superb picture quality.

Someone stated earlier in this thread that lenses could start to limit resolution when projecting 4k digitally. If this is true then 70mm presentations should suffer picture quality degradadtions too from imperfections in the lens.

I have heard that moving the production of dmd to a modern process facilty could increase production efficiency. This will in my mind support higher resolution panels. In the not too distant future it will be possible to manufacture a 1280x720 dmd just slightly bigger than half an inch. Do the math for higher resolutions.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-31-2003, 07:16 AM:

Mattias wrote:

quote:
Concerning bigger film formats is it not the case that with today emulsions you get the same quality with super35 as you did with 5-70 many years ago? To me this suggest that 35mm of today can provide a superb picture quality

Yes, film emulsion technology has made significant advances (Kodak T-Grains, VISION2 2-electron release sensitizing, etc.) in the last few decades. Some have used the improved image quality to gain economies and flexibilities of smaller image area formats (Super-16, Super-35 for "Scope"), but others have continued using larger image area formats (65mm/70mm, anamorphic 35mm cinematography) to put all that improved quality on the screen.

Camera and projection lenses have likewise improved dramatically in the last few decades. On the film side, the lenses certainly support more than 2K resolution.

As far as "digital intermediate" and digital effects, as computing power increases, and costs of scanning and recording come down, 4K is already becoming a viable option, as it was used for scanning and recording pictures like "Stuart Little 2":

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/forum/featureFilms/stuartLittleP.shtml

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-31-2003, 07:24 AM:

Anyone...and I mean ANYONE that has told you that Super-35 or Anamorphic 35 of today is anywhere NEAR 70mm production of yesteryear is flat out lying to you.

You can go back 50-years with 70mm and compare the sharpness/grainyness of the pictures and 70mm will always come out on top. It is sharper, steadier and just generally looks right. And I don't care how big the screen is either. I've seen 70mm all of the way down to 10-foot tall screen...it is better than 35mm on the same screen and even the layperson could see the difference.

In my opinion, 35mm has not been sufficient for movie theatres since the Academy aperture was left. 65/70mm production was definately the way to go and should be where exhibition is now if quality is an issue.

The DCinema people (we'll call em Vidiots) compare the latest technology to film's worst commercial format...1.85:1 35mm using a whopping .446" tall aperture...yes less than 1/2" tall. I guess it is about 56% better than the 16mm films of yesteryear's school classrooms but 35% inferior to stuff shot over 50-years ago.

Stop talking out of your rear and go and see a 65/70mm production and then ask yourself if any DLP system you've seen could put out that picture? A semi-recent production with "pretty pictures" is BARAKA. Even walking down to the screen one felt as if they could merely reach out and touch what they were seeing.

65/70mm production IS the current State-of-the-Art in commercial film production and if DCinema is going to set its sights so low then it can't give the quality of theatrical images we had in the 1950s...pretty pathetic for a modern technology.

Steve

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-31-2003, 07:38 AM:

There is no doubt that 65mm origination offers the very highest quality, and the added quality comes through even when shown using a lesser format than 70mm prints. The improved quality even can be seen in video: the highest image quality DVDs are often from those pictures shot on 65mm film. Check out the image quality on DVDs of movies like "Patton", "Lawrence of Arabia", "The Sound of Music", etc., or 65mm 15-perf productions like "Everest".

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 10-31-2003, 11:23 AM:

When talking about 35mm I might have used the wrong name. I meant using as much as possible of a 35mm film. I do not know what that technology implementations is called. I am not so much concerned with what is the best technology.

I have seen Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm with six track sound and it looked great. The best projection that I have ever seen. From a technological point of view I might wish for Showscan at 60fps. That is not realistic. 70mm in my local theater is not realistic. So then you might argue that digital is not realistic either. I would say it is if we look a number of years into the future. What I could hope for as a consumer with a digital scenario is perfect "prints". If the industry goes on like today I will not get better prints. I will get to see copies made from mass duplication negative. Also this copy is likely to have been produced on a cheaper film or with a cheaper method to lower costs.

I am trying to see a scenario that will benefit my movie going experience locally. I think film is the better solution if the industry decided to give most consumers high quality prints and do film at 48fps.

I can buy that film is superior, even projected.
I will not buy that 24fps is superior. With a higher fps you could retain the old look in the less sharpt aspect not taking into account what motion looks like if that is what you want. Creators would also not have to shy away from filming rapidly moving objects.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-31-2003, 06:12 PM:

The original 70mm Todd-AO was designed for 30fps, but only "Oklahoma" and "Around the World in Eighty Days" were released with 30fps 70mm prints. 24fps prevailed because of cost considerations, and compatibility with existing 35mm projectors. 60fps Showscan never caught on as a feature format. Higher framerates are great, but someone has to be willing to pay for them, or sacrifice something else (like image area).

70mm 5-perf was a very "Realistic" and practical format that was available in many hundreds of theatres around the world:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/dec98.shtml

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/march99.shtml

Posted by Dennis M Dow Jr (Member # 1970) on 10-31-2003, 06:45 PM:

IMHO DLP will not save the industry..... sure the technology is a boost but the only thing that will save the industry is if the quality of films is improved..... for every Titanic or LOTR there are 20 or 30 Gigli...
The industry is killing itself and until they realize it all the technology in the world don't mean a thing

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-31-2003, 07:07 PM:

quote:
the only thing that will save the industry is if the quality of films is improved..... for every Titanic or LOTR there are 20 or 30 Gigli...

Very few moviemakers deliberately set out to make a bad film. Some just turn out that way. I don't think the ratio of hits and misses really has changed that much over the years. Enjoy the hits, and hope for a few great masterpieces each year too.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 10-31-2003, 07:58 PM:

quote:
Anyone...and I mean ANYONE that has told you that Super-35 or Anamorphic 35 of today is anywhere NEAR 70mm production of yesteryear is flat out lying to you.

You can go back 50-years with 70mm and compare the sharpness/grainyness of the pictures and 70mm will always come out on top. It is sharper, steadier and just generally looks right.

I totally agree, especially when it comes to Super 35. Every Super 35 film I've seen looks like complete crap, IMHO. The grain is bigger than the eyeballs on closeups! I know that many cinematographers prefer Super 35 to Anamorphic because of lens selection, but I bet they almost never see their films projected in a theater.

On the other hand, when Far and Away was shot (and presented) in 65/70mm, audiences couldn't tell the difference.

Aside from IMAX and special venues, we're never going to see 70mm again. Even in the 70mm revivial of the 70s and 80s, the only reason we saw so many 70mm blowups was to get 6 track mag sound.

And DLP (or another electronic cinema process) is (eventually) going to happen. While I am predisposed to prefer film, I have to admit that the DLP presentations I've seen so far have been amazingly and surprisingly good. On the other hand, I just read something about some film festival where the electronic presentation screwed up constantly.

One aspect rarely mentioned on this Board is that while there is frequent criticism of anything digital, especially in terms of image, the fact is that digital intermediates are being used more and more often as part of the production process. So film is being converted to digital for effects and color timing and then back to 35mm for presentation. I suspect I don't hear any complaints about that (and there shouldn't be because the resulting images are incredibly good) because you're usually not aware when it happens. I saw a demo of this at a SMPTE meeting the other night at Technicolor in New York.

quote:
Very few moviemakers deliberately set out to make a bad film. Some just turn out that way. I don't think the ratio of hits and misses really has changed that much over the years. Enjoy the hits, and hope for a few great masterpieces each year too.

I think that's being excessively kind to the major studios. More than ever before, films are made to cater almost exclusively to 18-35 year old males who have spent their lives playing videogames. In addition, more than ever before, those films are based on television shows or other films in order to establish franchises. The most important aspect of many films is whether or not they can do joint marketing with Burger King. I think in decades past, there was more of an attempt to make films that appealed to different segments of the market. It's not the failures, like Gigli, that bothers me so much -- Gigli was simply this decade's Ishtar. I'm more concerned with the successes, like The Hulk. It decades past, there were many garbage films, but they were usually small films. What shocks me today is when we have a $100 million film and one has to wonder if anyone actually read the script.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-31-2003, 08:16 PM:

Martin Brooks wrote:

quote:
On the other hand, when Far and Away was shot (and presented) in 65/70mm, audiences couldn't tell the difference.

Some scenes did not live up to the potential of the 65mm format (shallow depth of focus was sometimes an issue, especially on dark interiors). But the landrush scenes were full of sharpness and detail best appreciated with a 70mm print on a huge screen. Ron Howard deserves praise for at least trying to revive the format. [thumbsup]

quote:
More than ever before, films are made to cater almost exclusively to 18-35 year old males who have spent their lives playing videogames.

I agree that the studios have sometimes focused on a very narrow demographic. Interesting that the real hits and the great films often have broad appeal, spanning the generation and gender gaps. The cream rises to the top.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-31-2003, 10:13 PM:

I'm curious as to what the facination is with 48fps. Is that number being thrown out simply because it is twice that of current films and one can throw away every other frame?

As I recall, that theory doesn't hold and a 48fps film run at 24fps with every other frame discarded doesn't look right. Others may have the details on this.

30fps is much more viable. Projectors already exist that can handle it...it is a smoother transistion to video after the theatres are done, it offers a substantial improvement to 24fps on flicker and motion artifacts...it only adds 25% to the cost, most projectors can be made to run at 30fps easily and switched between 24/30 without breaking the bank or loosing any backward compatability.

The difference between the visual impact of higher frame rates versus film guage while different leans towards the 70mm side.

The best study done on frame rates is probably Doug Trumbles when developing ShowScan...above 60fps there was virtually no perceived improvement. I think you will find that the improvement was perceived the most as you went from 24 -30fps then the jump to 48 and finally 60fps with 72 or some such speed offering nothing over 60fps.

As to DCinema...it certainly holds promise and I don't think anyone here really thinks that it won't push aside film eventually....just that it isn't there yet. I think, as I said before, that the 2K chip is the turning point on performance...now it is a matter of cost logistics.

As to 70mm making a come back...it could at any time. Has there EVER been a time when a release was made an every available 70mm print wasn't requested? You make it, people will show it, customers will come to see it. The cost of a 70mm screen has never been cheaper. Its biggest problem is that the film makers of today just don't have what the ones of yesteryear had in talent to use something like 65/70mm to make the "visions" come out better...it is like they are afraid of it. It isn't cost...the cost of 65mm in production versus the whole bottom line doesn't even register.

Steve

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-31-2003, 10:17 PM:

quote:
One aspect rarely mentioned on this Board is that while there is frequent criticism of anything digital, especially in terms of image, the fact is that digital intermediates are being used more and more often as part of the production process.

Digital technology, as it pertains to film production and presentation, deserves the criticism it gets. The marketing people always spin digital as "perfect". Someone has to step in and let people know there are many varying degrees of quality with all things digital. Audio and visual data is often highly compressed and degraded in quality. Often the audio is not "CD quality" and the image is not "as good as film." Digital likes to throw numbers out in its marketing. I must insist on throwing the numbers right back at it. DLP might provide a nice looking image. But at 1280 X 1024, it is no better at all in terms of resolution than looking at a compressed JPEG photo on a 17" computer monitor. Film holds a lot more detail than that.

quote:
Some scenes did not live up to the potential of the 65mm format (shallow depth of focus was sometimes an issue, especially on dark interiors). But the landrush scenes were full of sharpness and detail best appreciated with a 70mm print on a huge screen.

I drove 2 hours to Atlanta to see "Far and Away" in 70mm back in 1992. Yes, some of the darker indoor scenes and even some of the cloudy outdoor stuff (like the pistol duel scene) was a bit soft. But there were plenty of other sequences in the show which demonstrated a much sharper image than 35mm 'scope could offer.

There's also the issue of "learning curve" involved with the shoot of "Far and Away." DP Mikael Salomon was using new Kodak films with a wider variety of film speeds along with using a newly designed 65mm Panavision camera. Those differences had to add some issues. And shooting 65mm/70mm is not for the faint of heart. The larger negative does require bigger lenses and a lot more light to get better depth of field levels. I got a chuckle out of a "Tron" documentary where Steve Lisberger talks about the challenges of shooting in 70mm. Regarding the limited depth of field his DP would ask, "do you want front of the actor's eyeball in focus, or the back, or the eyelashes?" Anyway, the 70mm format has its challenges but those challenges are not impossible. With good planning a movie production can use 65mm/70mm to create moving images with better quality than 35mm and way better than videotape.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 10-31-2003, 11:33 PM:

Sometimes, on a movie set, one of the more annoying things you hear is the A.C. shouting, "Camera reload," just when everyone else is primed and ready for the "one more time" take that the director just asked for. Yes, reloading the camera is a "necessary evil" of film production but sometimes it kills the momentum of the cast members and the "one more" take becomes at least two takes. I can't imagine how annoying the camera reloads would be if, at 48fps, they were necessary twice as often!

The old call for a "Sound reload" used to be somewhat often when the mixers were using 1/4-inch tape but, now that most of them are using a digital format, they can go for hours and hours between reloads. (...and the mixer is usually really careful about timing his reloads to be least disruptive to anyone outside of his own department... since so many people are perpetually annoyed by the sound department's needs already.)

And, of course, when you're on a set using digital 24p cameras, the reload intervals are lengthened too. But, in my experience, the decision to use digital 24p cameras is based only on saving a little money. Therefor, you're already in a low-budget situation overall. So, rather than getting a world class Director of Photography, the producers probably hired a D.P. who only ranks as a camera operator on "big movies." And, if the guy is over age 40, he never bothered to learn anything about video in his career. The results? Usually the A.C. is the one who takes the initiative to learn the system while the D.P. just gets frustrated when he hears about anything electronic which he doesn't understand. It can be tense when a proud D.P. is forced to admit he knows less about how to use the camera than his subordinates do!

My prediction: The number of people who'll try shooting film at 48fps for mainstream movies will be small if it's greater than zero. There just won't be enough cinematographers calling for it and, therefor, no producer will ask for it either. Most of today's cinematographers have spent years learning to do what they do with 35mm film at 24fps, and they don't want to learn any new systems if they don't have to. (And they don't want to make a high-profile stumble in front of all their peers like Salomon did on Far and Away.) Still, the number of productions being shot digitally will slowly increase. When the guys who are in college today are old enough to be hired as cinematographers on "big movies" they will embrace digital shooting in droves. Perhaps some of their classmates will be powerful in the manufacturing end at that time and they'll answer the call for superior technology to support the art.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 10-31-2003, 11:59 PM:

What is a DP?? I always hear that during commentaries but they never say what it is.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-01-2003, 02:07 AM:

Chris, the term "DP" would greatly depend on the context of subject matter of the show you are watching.

Naturally, if you are watching a mainstream movie and the commentary says something like, "Adam Greenberg did such a great job with the lighthing on this scene," then the term DP means Director of Photography.

If the commentary says something like, "there was a debate over what kind of lube to use for Briana Banks' DP scene," then the term "DP" means something else entirely.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-01-2003, 03:10 AM:

quote:
digital intermediates are being used more and more often as part of the production process. So film is being converted to digital for effects and color timing and then back to 35mm for presentation. I suspect I don't hear any complaints about that (and there shouldn't be because the resulting images are incredibly good) because you're usually not aware when it happens.

i wouldn't say they're incredibly good. they may look about as good as most of what's seen on screen, and i don't know how much that is due to the ubiquity of digital intermediates or generation loss. but almost always, whenever i'm floored by the crispness and clarity of an image, it's in a film that definitely had no digital work, and is very possibly struck off the negative as it never had a wide mainstream release. recently, for instance, i've seen such films by sarunas bartas (lithuanian) and heddy honigmann (dutch). i'd like to be floored like that more often.

carl

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 11-01-2003, 03:13 AM:

I would like to ask something here. What makes 5-70 look so sharp and superior? With the bigger format the depth of focus is reduced so does that accentuate sharpness compared with 35mm?

Also how much of the sharpness of 70mm can be attributed to the projection of 70mm film. I have been told that 70mm is easier to get a good projected focus with and is more steady in the film projector.

With more efficent use of film like Maxivision48 the increase in film use is 50 percent and not 100 percent.

It might be true that 30fps is a noticable gain but I would rather take 48fps. With 30fps it is alright for US with ntsc and hdtv at 60Hz but in other parts of the world 50Hz is the norm and frame conversions from 30 to 50 would be terrible. The after market is growing every day. It is not uncommon for people to wait for the release on a medium like dvd.

Before digital displays has displaced scanning crt in the home 30 fps will be a problem. With a future non ntsc/pal digital distribution format 30fps will be perfectly acceptable, but today 30 fps would lead to problems in many parts of the world.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-01-2003, 08:23 AM:

What makes 70mm so sharp? More information stored and projected. Furthermore, it is replaced at least 24 times per second with 100% refresh (no static pixels) and no perceivable grid.

The improvement is perceivable with every stage. That is shooting in 65mm will get you the best quality image. However, projecting in 70mm will allow a theatre to display that image (regardless of film source) as faithful as possible.

BTW how do you plan to get 48fps into 50Hz...with 30fps you have something to work with on repeating frames in a regular interval to make the dupe with a 2/3rds ratio. But a 24/25ths ratio...how is that to work or do you just run it off-speed? Lastly we Americans always plan on what works for us! [Wink]

Have you actually looked at 70mm at 30fps? Have you looked at 35mm at 30fps?

Steve

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-01-2003, 09:50 AM:

Just out of curiosity, how many FPS is 15/70?

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-01-2003, 10:30 AM:

15/70 is normally 24 fps although there has been some limited use of faster rates. But the typical IMAX and similar film will be 24.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-01-2003, 11:46 AM:

quote:
I would like to ask something here. What makes 5-70 look so sharp and superior? With the bigger format the depth of focus is reduced so does that accentuate sharpness compared with 35mm?

5/70 has 250% more film negative real estate and thus has lots more particles of film emulsion to resolve detail. A 15/70 IMAX frame is 3 times the size of a standard 5/70 theatrical film frame. It can capture well over 10 times the levels of detail over standard Super35 and Super1.85 35mm photography.

35mm is an okay format to use for motion picture film. But it is blurry and soft compared to the much more razor sharp levels of detail captured by 70mm. I kind of liken the effect to having perfect vision (70mm) versus needed glasses (35mm).

Video projection tries to claim it is sharp, but the level of sharpness is highly deceptive and relative only to its very limited number of pixels. For instance, a puny 14" computer monitor running at 640 X 480 pixels will have a very sharp image. But it doesn't show squat on actual detail.

With true 70mm movies like "Lawrence of Arabia" you could have a camera shot with two people riding camels across a sand dune, yet the image would be sharp enough for you to see the individual grains of sand blowing across the dune. There is no way 35mm can achieve that. And digital video cannot even match the limits of what 4/35 can capture. 70mm is the King of all theatrical production and presentation formats, even if the format is being ignored out of hype over "digital."

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 11-01-2003, 05:48 PM:

What I have partly been trying to get an opinion or fact about is how much resolution there is in
1 35mm today
2 shooting 65mm many years ago, film emulsions not as good then

How much has film emulsion improved over time, not enough to overcome the surface area advantage of 65mm?

If you shoot more fps you will have a shorter time for expusore, must that not give you a sharper picture, perhaps more grain if you need a more sensitve film.

What would be the result of this.
Shoot a conversation scene, one displaying many objects moving fast a car chase and one scene with a panning camera
at
24fps
30fps
48fps
What would be the result?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-01-2003, 06:24 PM:

About 15 years ago, the SMPTE reevaluated 30fps vs. 24fps production. I believe Ed DiGiulio of Cinema Products Corporation (a camera manufacturer) led the committee activities. Several demos were shot and shown, both by projection and on television. 30fps had all of the advantages you would expect, along with the expected 25% increase in film/processing cost. I recall another issue was transferring 30fps to 50 Hz. PAL television, although transfers to NTSC were simplified frame-for-frame, rather than 3:2 pulldown. The work was published in the May 1988 SMPTE Journal.

As far as comparing formats, Rob Hummel coordinated a comprehensive set of demos comparing origination and presentation formats, which was presented and evaluated by hundreds of SMPTE members. Guess what the conclusions were? Bigger image formats had better image quality. [Smile]

Yes, film emulsion technology and lens technology has made tremendous strides in the last few decades. You can use those improvements to save money by using smaller or more convenient formats. Or you can improve the image quality on the screen. Both have been done, and will continue to be done.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 11-03-2003, 12:09 AM:

quote:
Another thing that will prevent digital projection getting much higher in rez is self-imposed limits in film production. In spite of much more powerful computing technology and ever increasing storage capability, much of the film production end is still holding to the belief that 2K is good enough.

I've spent a week looking at a lot of shorts with & without digital intermediates, repeatedly, on 35mm 40' wide.

The digital intermediate artifacts are annoying & distracting; they're symptoms of the director using it as a "tool" for anything he wants not caring about its other effects. You want sharp, extraordinarily saturated or desaturated, or goofy computer screen saver effects? They are yours with a digital intermediate. What you get is sharp & unnaturally flat, saturated with less information & flat, & goofy computer screen saver images. Also, you may pay extra for title rollups that slowly jitter upwards for 20 feet.

It must all look very cool on a video monitor or 10' wide screen. They'll be considered a syndrome of stupid movie looks of the era & be considered grossly antique soon, like the annoying flashed look of so much embarassing 70's stuff.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-03-2003, 12:33 AM:

Please keep in mind that I am not an expert on these subjects like some of the other guys on here but this is my opinion:

Mattias, it doesn't seem that you fully understand the state that the movie industry is in right now. With the studios all bent out of shape over piracy and the rediculous measure that they are taking, check out this thread to see, Mpaa You suck

The last thing some big studio exec wants to do is spend more money to shoot a movie at 30 or 48fps regardless of how much better a presentation it would be. Plus, I hate to think what it would be like for everyone to change there equipment setup to be able to run films at that speed.

On top of that, some studios are already limiting the budgets even on big blockbusters because of the poor box office sales recently, which they say is piracy but I think it's just because the movies sucked. [Smile]

Long story short, the top concern of everyone calling the shots is not presentation quality, it's money.

Again, these are just my opinions.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 11-03-2003, 02:57 AM:

So if studios is concerned with money and the owners of theaters would like to offer the best PQ where does that leave us? This industry is strange, the actors get whatever they want. If they put 100 million dollars aside for one person for the Matrix movies this year something is skewed.

This might be controversial, but are there too many movie theaters? Perhaps going to see a movie needs to be given premium status. Increased price per ticket and increased PQ. All involved with projecting film here is dedicated so you might see incrased business in such a scenario. You would get less competition from exhibitors competing on price. How would this scenario come about. The studios will earn alot in the future from dvd and hd-dvd releases. To complement this they could create a certification to allow theaters to show their movies. This certification would imposes stringent quality control.
The certification should not cost too much. Only the studios can say we only want our products to look the best they can. They could still make the same money considering the increased importance of aftermarket sales. One big problem seems to be that the studios are too strong compared to the theater owners who make sure studios make their money.

Less theaters means lower distributino costs. Higher ticket price together with new deals could give theater owners a better profit margin. Perhaps such a scenario could give 5-70 at 30fps a chance. The movie industry is competing with video games and they get more impressive every day.

4k digital will come from TI if JVC/Kodak were to show a 4k digital cinema projector and that is not totally unlikely.

[ 11-03-2003, 06:01 AM: Message edited by: Mattias Ohlson ]

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 11-03-2003, 09:58 AM:

ok, 48 frames per second is out of the question for film use. That is double the size of a 2 hour movie and I am not carting that thing around from house to house.

secondly, 4k chips are just not economically practical. Would take a very high amount of storage capacity and bandwith to move that much information with higher risk of errors in what ever system you use for sending the information. Just to expensive.

As far as ther being to many theaters. Yes there very well could be in certain markets. There very well might not be enough in other markets.

What one individual is getting 100 million dollars on the matrix movies. I dought it is a straight pay. Probably a percentage off what the movie makes.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 11-03-2003, 10:42 AM:

Raise ticket prices? I hope not. It would strike a deadly blow against an industry which is already in trouble. It would drive patrons away from theatres and straight towards the competition... meaning cheaper and, arguably, more convenience video rentals. As ticket prices go up, patrons will be even more convinced that the DVD format offers "good enough" quality. Plus, it's becoming less and less of a challenge to wait for something to become available on DVD. (Remember when it would take more than a year for something to become available on a home video format? It wasn't so long ago.)

Consider that the entire budget of the movie Top Gun was under $40 million. These days you couldn't ask Tom Cruise to get a hair cut for less than $25 million. Today's higher ticket prices which have led to lower attendance should indicate how much the average patron appreciates being asked to pay for these salary changes in the production side of the industry.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-03-2003, 10:52 AM:

I 100% agree. If ticket prices went up people would most likely just watch everything on DVD. Plus if there were fewer theaters the average joe is not going to drive all the way to see a movie.

It's not like an amusement park where you can charge $30-$100 a day. You can't do all the stuff at disney world at home, you can watch movies at home though. For that idea to work you would have to limit movies to one media, or two if it was on DLP. Otherwise everyone would say "I'll just get the DVD"

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 11-03-2003, 11:13 AM:

I am trying to get a grip on how this business work. The answer is mostly it can not work in any other way than what it does today. I think it is the case already today that people only go to the theater for very special movies, all the other movies many wait for the dvd release. The quality you can get at home is better every day. Most people can afford the sound part of ht but not the video side. People will come to expect more of both sound and vision in the future. Even though the movie experience at a theater can be vastly superior it is not always the case.

Do you want any changes? If so what changes?
Would you want 5-70 at 30fps if there was a business model to support it?

I understand it has not been possible before possibly beacuse the pressure to change was not big enough.

Do any studios or theater owners see investment and change as a way to improve business compared no change a cost savings.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 11-03-2003, 01:22 PM:

DP=Director of Photography

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 11-03-2003, 02:16 PM:

The movie industry is being dragged into the same realities that we have seen in the computer industry for years.

Technology changes rapidly and investments made today are eclipsed by investments made tomorrow. The replacement of film and its manual processes is much like the replacement of paper in the office and its manual processes.

Digital Cinema, IMO, will bring many, many improvements to the whole process flow. Are there high initial costs? Will the equipment purchased today be made seemingly obsolete a year from now? Yes, just like there are high costs to purchasing the bleeding edge computer equipment.

I would be very surprised if the new 2k units and the original 1k units can't play the same files, so the 1k units will not be going on the garbage heap any time soon. They'll be passed down to other screens in the same location, other locations in the same chain, or sold as used equipment.

My d-cinema experience is limited to 1k DLP systems, and in my experience, those presentations matched or exceeded the picture quality of 35mm presentations in local theaters. I would imagine that 2k systems would fare even better.

That's really what the industry should be concerned about, and what the bar should be for theaters considering moving to d-cinema. We can sit here and talk about the virtues of all the existing film formats, but the reality is that these formats have been around for years and have been passed over or ignored.

(I happen to agree that 70mm should be very common. Far and Away was incredible and made a big impression on me, and 70mm presentations at classic theaters of Ben-Hur, etc. are also very good, considering the age of the prints and the setups of the theaters. But no major films have been shot in 70mm in how long?)

Initial capital investment aside, d-cinema should provide plenty of improvements to the costs and effort involved in the process flow of creating and presenting movies.

Case in point:

Once Upon a Time in Mexico
Budget: $29M
U.S. Gross: $55.8M
Producer/director/screenwriter/DP/editor: Robert Rodriguez

Robert Rodriguez is making art his own way, largely because digital cinema technology allows him to. Film isn't the art, neither is any other canvas available to the artists.

Likewise, the art of the presentation shouldn't be tied solely to the canvas. If we get too hung up on that, we're not paying attention to the other areas of the movie-going experience.

I say don't wait for some unseen and undeveloped technology to be developed and sold at some hoped-for price. Find out about this technology now, and see if it makes sense for your theaters. See if you can bring in a demo unit or visit a theater that has an installation and talk to the staff and the patrons about their experiences.

The wonderful thing about the continuous march of the technology industry is that everything is getting better and cheaper. Just like with computer equipment, how long are theaters going to stand on the sidelines, waiting to jump in and reap the benefits available?

There is money to be saved in waiting for the performance to go up and the prices to come down. But there are also opportunities lost by waiting.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-03-2003, 02:19 PM:

There certainly are business models being explored to make experiencing feature films in a theatre on a huge screen even more special. Large formats (70mm prints) are usually part of the picture, but not higher frame rates.

http://www.vasc.org/images/IMAX/DMR.pdf

http://www.in70mm.com/lists/various/imax_dmr.htm

http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/feature/20021011/

http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/casestudies/imax.pdf

http://www.boxoff.com/shows/showest/2003/imax.html

http://www.bigscreenmovies.com/ImaxMatters/LansingAnnounce.htm

http://www.in70mm.com/newsletter/2001/66/lfca/lfca_debate.htm

http://www.bigmoviezone.com/articles/?uniq=84

And 65mm origination is alive and well in the large format industry [Cool]

Unfortunately, not yet for feature-length films. But Disney's "Young Black Stallion" comes close. [Smile]

:

http://www.bigmoviezone.com/filmsearch/movies/coming_soon.html?uniq=307

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 11-03-2003, 04:46 PM:

Yes, the 1K / 2K chip will play the same data feed.

Paul

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-03-2003, 09:27 PM:

The actual resolution required to present an acceptable image depends on the viewing distance relative to image size. In other words, you need the same high resolution viewing a 10 x 24 foot image from 20 feet, as you do for a 30 x 72 foot image from 60 feet. Of course, the larger image requires a projector with 9 times the light output, all else being equal. A lower resolution projector is workable only if you view the image from a greater distance relative to image size. So if you want to provide a large-appearing image, you can't scrimp on the number of pixels.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 11-04-2003, 12:48 AM:

Thanks for the links Mr Pytlak
I know that the manufacturers of d-cinema projectors state what kind of light output they are capable of on a certain size screen. They give this measurement in ftL. However can someone comment on the light output in ANSI lumen of the light system in various 35mm projectors? I would like to get a feeling for how much light they generate compared to each other.

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 11-04-2003, 07:50 AM:

The new 2k DLP systems are nearly twice as efficient as the previous generation 1.3k systems. This is due to the 12 degree mirrors, improved optics, larger apertures, and shorter arc lamps. 18-22k lumens are very much possible now.

Modern, well maintained film systems are typically in the 3-4.5 lumens per watt efficiency range with 'standard' arc Xenon lamps. [Efficiency decreases with increasing lamp arc gap size.] A 6kW film system tops out at about 18k lumens, limited by critical film temperatures.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 11-04-2003, 08:30 AM:

The Barco DP100 2K resolution Digital projector with a 7kw bulb outputs 18000 Lumens.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-04-2003, 09:21 AM:

Yes, shorter arc gaps (smaller plasma) help improve collection efficiency. What is the experience with shorter gap lamps as compared to "standard arc" lamps with regards to electrode life and lamp focus stability? What are the specs (gap, rated life) for the 7K lamp used in the Barco DP100? Are there multiple vendors? Can it be used in film lamphouses?

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 11-04-2003, 09:39 AM:

The bulb is a short gap arc and the positive end of the bulb has no metal fitting since it is supported by the negative power + heat sink fitting. There will be two vendors for the bulb.
The basic stock bulb is a XBO 6KW/HP OFR bulb with a 500 hour warantee.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-04-2003, 09:43 AM:

Thanks. [Smile]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-04-2003, 01:54 PM:

quote:
I am trying to get a grip on how this business work. The answer is mostly it can not work in any other way than what it does today.

Lethargy is unfortunate factor in the exhibition business. Even the smallest improvements (such as 6000' reels) are often met with industry wide resistance.

I would like to see 48fps in movies, but that would only be confined to special venue systems. The thing that kills it for regular movie theaters is booth space. Some booths have a comfortable amount of space while others are downright cramped. A 2 hour movie at 48fps may not fit on a normal platter. Most theaters will not go to the expense of replacing standard platter systems with much larger units. And a lot of booths simply do not have the space to manage it. Even in this regard a more modest improvement like 30fps would be tough to sell when you have movies like "Return of the King" eclipsing 3.5 hours.

65mm/70mm is something that is easily justifiable and there is a definite business model for it. It is all over this factor:

quote:
The movie industry is being dragged into the same realities that we have seen in the computer industry for years.

Digital storage/presentation formats rapidly change. Very often analog source material is the only thing that can gracefully adapt to a more sophisticated digital presentation system. That's simply why 65mm/70mm would work far better as a preferred originating format for shooting big budget films.

A movie that was shot on video is hopelessly locked in its electronically created level of resolution. The last time I checked, "Epidose II" was not available on D-VHS unlike a lot of other Fox films (the studio is even releasing new D-VHS versions of "Speed," "True Lies" and "Moulin Rouge" with DD and DTS at their highest available bitrates). "Episode II" might not even hold up to D-VHS specs much less stand up to some kind of D-Cinema format to be created a few years from now. But 70mm can do it. It has the natural analog resolution to stand up to any 4K system, or even 8K and 16K.

There still is a pretty good amount of 70mm infrastructure left in existence. Strong Int'l still makes some Century projector models that play both 35mm and 70mm film. You can fit 70mm capability within the confines of most booths. One also doesn't necessarily have to go to the trouble of doing an IMAX DMR process (as used on "Apollo 13" and "Matrix Reloaded"). A normal 5/70 blowup would have sufficed for that. Most IMAX theaters are not set up to run 5/70 however. But a 35/70 projector running a 5/70 print would be a far better alternative than doing the current and stupid practice of showing 4/35 movie prints on IMAX screens.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-04-2003, 03:35 PM:

And as mentioned earlier, Kodak still makes lots of 65mm and 70mm motion-picture film, and there are multiple (but not alot of) labs that can process and print it worldwide.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 11-04-2003, 04:55 PM:

I believe IMAX screens and other very large screens are too big. It would be better to let whatever resolution work on smaller screen. A similar viewing angle can be maintained with a smaller screen. Not really counting IMAX, too involving?

I agree that it makes sense to have an analog original for storage and as a starting point. What this will be in the future it is difficult to say. What do you think. 4-35 , 8-35 , 65mm or other?

If the negative resolution of a full 4-35 is just south of 5k. If you scan this at 6k you get all the detail. Then work through and display 4k digital will not that be a very good picture quality.

Compare this to 65mm with a capacity south of 10k? This negative might be limited be the lens in aquisition, then you lose some in two copy stages and then some more again when projected. Perhaps this is not much better than the scenario above unless something very special happans in the aquisition with 65mm.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-04-2003, 07:21 PM:

quote:
I believe IMAX screens and other very large screens are too big. It would be better to let whatever resolution work on smaller screen.

IMAX screens need to be BIG. An IMAX projected image is designed to fill nearly all a viewer's field of vision. This is especially true of any IMAX dome theater. You don't see the borders of the screen. That's the idea. And filmmakers must know this when framing shots (allowing for all the extra head room). They have to limit hard cut edits and other rapid fire techniques as well since audiences could become totally disoriented.

Theatrical movies are not designed with giant format theaters in mind. You see the borders of the frame/screen in a traditional theatrical release. The projected image is not designed to fill your periphreal vision. The composition, editorial pace and sound design of a traditional film can run into problems when shown in a giant format theater. Still, most IMAX theaters are trying to show traditional Hollywood fare on the giant screens, often in dimly projected 35mm format.

Traditional widescreen 70mm movies need to be shown in theaters designed more for that format. The large palaces of the past did a good job for that. 5/70 would play great in a lot of large stadium seated theaters equipped only for 35mm right now. For a new theater, I would prefer a stadium seated slope more relaxed and not as steep as many current designs. I think this would solve some sound related issues that affect most stadium seated theaters. Naturally, a good 5/70 screen would need to be big, but not quite as big as an IMAX screen.

With the right planning up front, I believe it is very possible to shoot a mainstream Hollywood movie in 15/70 IMAX format and extract a 5/70 image from the original for traditional 5/70 and 4/35 release prints. Since composition for IMAX has to be more loose with lots of headroom it could be relatively simple to frame both for IMAX and protect a 2.39:1 or even a taller 1.85:1 image in the frame for normal 35mm prints. The only technical issue to be addressed in this is the optical extraction step. The biggest issue is just getting filmmakers and producers to talk, plan and make it happen.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-04-2003, 08:13 PM:

Imax is based on the principal of filling the periphery of the human vision
Mattias I think you had better rethink a lot of you concepts as many are very far out of the relm of real world
Audiences have proven with there ticket spending they want larger screens. But theatres are a business and as of yet no financially viable economic model has been produced that will cover the costs of re-equipping the worlds cinema base

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 11-05-2003, 03:14 AM:

With regard to what I said about IMAX that comment was for showing traditional movies on IMAX screens. With special productions IMAX is the way to go.

I understand that some of my concepts are unrealistic. However I am fishing for what you might see as being somewhat realistic. The only thing that is for sure in life is change. Things will change. The only question is how?

I thank all the participants in this thread. I have learned alot. That is why I started the thread.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-06-2003, 12:07 AM:

Another question out of curiousity:

What all would one have to do to make a projector run at 48 fps?

I'm sure it isn't as simple as just installing a faster motor, or maybe it is.

Would the shutter or sprockets need to be modified?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-06-2003, 06:07 AM:

Most conventional projectors have no problem if you increase the drive speed to run at 30fps. But 48 fps puts significant additional forces on mechanical components (e.g., intermittent), such that you would want to design the mechanism to be robust at the higher speeds. I recall that the original machines used for 60fps Showscan were specially modified Century JJ. MaxiVision also proposes new projectors specifically designed to run at 48fps.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-06-2003, 05:03 PM:

Plus, you have to remember with 48fps a film's footage length would be effectively doubled requiring a totally different platter setup. Many booths do not have the space available to accomodate a much larger diameter platter.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-06-2003, 05:37 PM:

Not an issue Bobby if the platter isn't big enough then run it on reels with changeovers over to you steve [Big Grin]

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-06-2003, 07:28 PM:

I recall that the original machines used for 60fps Showscan were specially modified Century JJ.

True but they only ran at a shaft speed equivalent of 30 fps. Double-sized constant speed sprockets moved twice the film footage. The intermittent sprocket was the normal 20 tooth for 5 perf frame advance but a special two pin cam caused this to happen during each shuttering, twice as often as normal. The larger feed and holdback sprocket would mean increased torque load on the shafts and drive but the intermittent would be under the same stress as normal 30 fps operation and with two pins doing the job the cam wear ought to be about the same but the star wheel and the sprocket itself would be wearing out twice as fast at least in theory.