This is topic WTH? Quality passable for 4K at 10mbit/s???????? 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=000357

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-23-2009, 05:23 PM:
 
OK, this is one of those potentially paradigm shift news that we need to sit down and wait on it for a while.

The RED company, a bunch of guys known for making the cameras used in films like the recent Knowing, have been working for a while on a couple of cool products.

Well, it seems that today they showed to a bunch of respected industry people a piece of their upcoming "Red-ray" product, which could be thought as a "DVD player" but geared towards 4K "quality" material.

http://www.red.com/nab/redray/

Now, please, bear with me as the extend of these claims and demostration are staggering.

First a bit of background. MB/s, with uppercase "B" means mega bytes per second, while Mb/s, with lowercase "b", means mega bit per second. As we all know, a byte is 8 bits, or 8 times a greater "amount of information".

Digital cinema is distributed as digital files which can not exceed, either for 2K-24fps, 2K-48fps (3D) or 4K the data rate of 250Mbit/s.

As a result, your regular movie displayed in a theater, whether 2K, 3D or 4K will always take a maximun of aprox. 225GB of hard drive space (depending on the duration of the movie, of course). Also, the actual file may be longer if it contains several language tracks or whatever, but the amount of "information" that goes to the projector max'es out at 250Mb/s.

Now, DCinema files are compressed quite INefficiently by using M-JPEG2K compression. What this means, is that you could get THE SAME QUALITY by using more powerful compression algorithms and the size could be reduced to AT LEAST 1/8 of what it is, but the servers would have to be far more powerful (=more expensive).

DCI settled the specs for 12bits JPEG2K because that's the only suitable (i.e. from patents and development point of view, etc) codec that was available at the time in a cheap and convenient way for "regular" (i.e. not too powerful) servers. It was a good choice, but not "the best technologically possible" choice.

So with a "good codec" and plenty of processing power, today, we could fit the same quality as DCinema (again, 2K, 4K or 3D, it all uses the same maximun data rate) or, at least ("easily"), 35Mb/s.

This can easily be checked agains another similar format, blu-ray, which uses roughly the same resolution as 2K (i.e. 1920x1080 24fps), and gives similar results (very good looking images). Blu-ray only has to encode 8 bits instead of 12bits and only 2/3 the "color information".

Well, blu-ray, which (often) uses a pretty good compression codec (i.e. more efficient than DCinema), uses a maximun of around 54Mb/s. This includes multiple sound channels (i.e. compressed 5.1 sound).

So I guess we can all agree that you can get really good, basically 2K quality images (forget sound), at data rates of about 50Mb/s with "good commercial or home technology", like blu-ray or Dcinema players.

Well, here comes the big news.

A respected company prepared "4K" material (not true 4K, but 4K bayer, something close to 3.2K perhaps, but certainly over 2.7K) uncompressed, taking about a data rate of 1.3GB/s (notice the uppercase B and that we are talking giga bytes and not mega bytes per second).

They compressed it with production (adquisition) wavelet-based compression redcode to about 450MBs.

This is basically what would arrive at a post production facility to edit the movie with. We lowered GB to MB, but still, 450MB (uppercase) against the final result seen in cinemas at 250Mb (lowercase, which, again, means 8 times less).

Well, they displayed side-by-side and one-after-the-other the "master" 4K 450MB/s file with the same one but encoded in red-ray, their new product, at 10Mb/s ... that's right, lowercase "b" and "M" ... that is, 10 megabit per second or only about 20% more than regular DVD and just about the same as home DV video data rates.

And guess what?

Industry people couldn't believe their eyes.

They couldn't see significant differences between the master quality 4K projection and the absurdely compressed ones coming from the red-ray disc.

That means that a whole image visually undistinguisable from better than DCinema 4K projection can be seen from a file that's only about 8GB in size for your average movie.

We go from DCinema's 4K JPEG2K 250Mb/s to Red-ray 10Mb/s and the quality (so it's claimed) visually remains not the same, but better.

Now, I *AM* knowledgeable in compression technology, and even was an advisor to Compuserve on the implementation of Jpeg when it was born (I had developed the fastest .GIF decompressor at the time, which was the image format of choice before JPEG was developed). I'm familiar with Shannon theories of information, entropy encoding, DCT and wavelets.

I know that if inter-frame redundancy was used in DCI compression, the same quality level could be achieved with about 30-50Mb/s, down from the current-but-inneficient 250Mb/s, again, even for 4K movies.

But to go all the way down to 10Mb/s would be truly amazing.

So the claim is:

Red-ray can display very good looking 4K-like images at around 10Mb/s and, thus, off a simple and "cheap" DVD mechanism with a whole movie, if it's not too long, fitting in one DVD.

I, for one, remain sceptical, as this would be about at least a 4-fold of what I believe current technology (or even physics itself) would allow for most types of natural-looking but rich detail images, but the claim is that bold and backed up by witnesses and industry people, so we must take it in account for the time being.

If this is "confirmed" etc, it could mean that Cinema servers and blu-rays could become "obsolete" in the sense that a 4K player capable of taking a $1 disc and putting out an image of equivalent (or superior) quality from DCI 4K could be bought for cheap.

Of course, whether hollywood or anybody would support such a format, it's another matter, as it is the price tag that this product may carry which would be different if they target domestic market, where it would be only a hundred $ or two, or professional products, where they could demand up to 5 grand for the machine.

Probably the later, but who knows.

Perhaps I should change the title of this thread to: movie studios start sending their 4K films on a 8GB pendrive instead of on 100GB files on hard drives. Or maybe as an email attachment
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-23-2009, 06:28 PM:
 
Julio,
I think someone needs to figure out exactly "What Is Enough" as far as pixels!! There is no doubt a "Point of no more return". The number of pixels will be what ultimately determines the data rate. Showscan actually did raw research developing their format and they used psychologists and psychoanalysts to determine the required frame rate by analyzing different people that were subjected to different frame rates but all from 70mm film. This greatly aided them in determining at what frame rate the image becamethe most realistic. The ultimate 60fps rate gave what I have to admit was pure amazement! This sort of testing may also be applicable to D-Cinema .

I bet if they used Steve he'd see that things looked much more realistic with just three or four more pixels . If you and I were doing the testing we'd look incredlous at each other then our jaws would just drop to the floor! The janitor would mop up the slobber later that night .

Mark
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-23-2009, 08:43 PM:
 
I agree, Mark.

I have also seen Showscan. There is (at least it was there some 10 years ago) an attraction in Madrid's Parque de Atracciones that used the system. I was not so much impressed, but that's just me.

I.e. seen plenty of large format: 70mm 60fps I didn't find all that realistic looking, probably 'cos the scratches etc on the film. Then again, maybe that's just me being picky.

I also hate when a (giant) hair gets stuck somewhere in the Imax optical path

The obsession with counting pixels doesn't take in account that, under the usual viewing conditions (i.e. a little far away from the "screen"), our visual system does NOT allow for the high level detail to be percieved and, thus, 2K or 4K or Imax, it all looks the EXACT same, as our eyes are the limiting factor.

Of course, those sitting in the first rows or examining the frames under a microscope for pixels, see a different thing, and for them, pixel amount is important.

The space between pixels, fixed-grid moirés and other sampling artifacts etc, may also be an important factor in perceived quality, rather than detail.

As I said before, I feel 2K is fine and actually just about "as good as it gets" for those sitting in the back 2 or 3 rows of an average theater.

But I do believe that 35mm true-film ("3-perf" flat or s35 originated scope), which we are trying to replace, is a bit above (true) 2K in amount of detail conveyed and, thus, since we are trying to replace it or improve upon it, we should go for something better.

BTW: the RED people say the Red-ray player will go for under $1000 and be available by the end of the year.

[ 04-23-2009, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-25-2009, 11:39 AM:
 
I hope it's ok to reply to myself, as this is a "new" piece of information.

http://visualnary.com/tag/red-ray
[link to small article on the red-ray demonstration]

quote:

---

So RED just had their first public showing of their REDRay magic box. Some compression wizzardry made it possible to compress 4k video by the factor of 750 - resulting in 4k footage at a datarate that is half of standard definition miniDV. Basically you get a picture way, way, way better than HD at a fraction of BluRay’s data rate. This might just turn the whole delivery upside down, as it will enable distribution of high quality films via standard broadband. Also, digital cinema will not need proprietary distribution technology, because a feature film will fit on a standard DVD-R.

---

Some "cellphone" video from parts of the Red-party event:

http://es.justin.tv/clip/816cd7fb05b3a74b

I'm sure the reality is not going to live up to the hype, but it also won't be bad.

I can use a format that can offer a good-looking, very high resolution passable for 4K, 10-bits color display format for the price of red-ray player (under $1000) by year's end on $1 DVD-R discs I can burn at home.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-25-2009, 01:33 PM:
 
Compression??? The whole idea and concept behind "RED" is not to compress the outgoing data and leave it as a "RAW" file. Nww thats alot of ton of compression they have going on there and I've really got to wonder how much of the "High Definition" of the original "RED" is left. I don't think any sane DP wold want to watch dailies on that disk player... ever.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-25-2009, 02:01 PM:
 
Well, RAW doesn't automatically equal un-compressed, and, actually, all RED cameras usually shoot to compressed RAW to memory cards or discs (with wavelet-based redcode).

It's just that they compress the RAW, instead of compressing a demosaic'ed and white balanced RGB, i.e.

Trying to work with 4K (or even 2K) uncompressed is not very practical and totally unneccesary. Of course, on certain occasions like resolution tests or special effects work, it may be used.

DP's may or may not (pbbly not ) want to watch the 4K pictures out of a heavily compressed redray, but I can assure you the editors will want to. Desperately.

I'm also sceptical that more than about 2.5K of detail actually survives this process. But I KNOW that, for most images, higher than visually comparable uncompressed-2K level is attainable at those data rates for many types of images and situations.

You have to realize that there is actually very little detail to be seen at normal viewing distances on your normal-sized displays and screens that about 3K won't cover.

As everyone in the industry says: with 4K all you get is a little under 3K of detail and 1K of noise.

Compression is great at figuring out how to throw away the noise and keep the detail. Otherwise, DCinema 4K (or 2K) files wouldn't be the aprox. 100GB they are now.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-25-2009, 02:57 PM:
 
The Truth About 2K, 4K and The Future of Pixels

A pdf version of this page is available here since there are so many pictures in this article necessary to it.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-25-2009, 03:14 PM:
 
Yes, His article just prooves what I said all along and that is there is a point of no return with the number of pixels and basically no need for 4K projection systems except perhaps on super huge screens. The Imax guys prooved that 4K theory and I think many people here will have to re-wire their thinking caps after reading the article.

With 2K projectors I think the annoying thing is the grid(area between the pixels)that causes many to "think" it is actually lower rez. than 4K. Now if one couldn't see that grid... perhaps in a refined future TI version 2 chip...?

Mark
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-25-2009, 03:46 PM:
 
Yeah, that's why we should differenciate here (and I always try to speak of) "true-2K" or "true-4K" and whatever formats call themselves that.

As I've said before, it's very often that a movie originates in say s35 film, is scanned (uncompressed) at 10-bit log 2048x856, to then be compressed with M-JPEG2K-12bits to around 200Mb/s to be shown "anamorphic" on DCI projectors.

Obviously that's not the best a 2K system can work.

But new cameras coming out this year are all well above 4K-bayer (smallest one being 5K-bayer), and up to 28K bayer, with 9K-bayer being nice-and-cheap. A 9K-bayer camera can probably give the detail of a true-4K camera under most conditions, and of a 3K camera under all conditions. Even the RED is receiving an upgrade to 4.5K-bayer.

In another words, true-4K may not be all that common here today, just like not even true-2K is that common, but will be very soon and, regardless, resolutions of over true-2K (but below 4K) are readily obtainable with today's scanners and cameras, so it wouldn't hurt to have projectors of over 2K.

I insist that, if TI had a 4K projector for a reasonable price, everybody in this board will be laughing at the prospect of replacing 35mm with 2K and calling it equal to HD-for-home-use-only.

Now a cheap system reproduction system (redray, $1000, up to 4K-10bits) could start showing up, together with a cheap camera (small Scarlett, 3K-bayer, $3700) which could put a "home" system at a quality level equal or perhaps superior to DCinema 2K in the "house" to shoot your kid's birthday with.

Of course, a 4K home projector or monitor are still expensive (i.e. JVC DLA-SH4K), but this may change soon if a format that can make use of it shows up. At least, it would be interesting hooking it up to something like the philips cinema 21:9 (4000€)

An all DCinema needs to out-do 35mm under normal circunstances, is 3K. 4K is overkill and (true)4K would look like overkill-imax to everyone in the theater except for the first 2 or 3 rows.

To me, it's obvious that Redray will not contain 4K of image detail, but that doesn't mean that the tests they have run aren't true: when people are shown a master level 4K (somewhere between true uncompressed 2.7k and 3.2K) and a redray 4K copy, under normal non-optimal viewing conditions, most can not see significant differences.

If you want the short answer: for me, 35mm can be replaced with a (theoretical) true-3K system just fine. 4K is overkill, but hey, if it's here, then why not?

2K is just a tad short, but ok often times (as a replacement for 35mm film).

What Mark says about the screen-door effect (pixel fill factor) is true. For whatever reason, we see an 35mm image (say slightly underexposed) full of "black random dots everywhere" (film grain) and we think it's fine and "beautiful".

We see one with zero noise where there are fixed-separation "black lines" (screen door), and we find it objectionable (screen perforations making it worse not withstanding).

Why? They can both be considered "noise" at worse, except that one is fixed and the other jumps randomly on the screen.

Well, we are aesthetically drawn to forgive film's noise because we are used to see it (and ignore it) and it has always been there. In 10 years (pretending 2K DLP stays), nobody will "notice" anymore screen doors as we would have learned to take them for granted and ignore them.

We equal pixel-separation with lesser amount of information while we totally obviate that film grain IS noise and not information. We see a noise-free image and think: "something is missing, there must be a lack of detail". We see a grainy (noisy) film image and think: "Oh, look, how beautiful ... there must be tons of detail in all that grain".

But that's not often the case.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-25-2009, 04:16 PM:
 
Oh for crying out loud Mark...his article doesn't PROVE your point about not needing 4K or more at all.

The difference in spacial representation between 2K and 4K is substantial. While the black/white square test does show there is a point where one can not determine fine detail...it does not in any way explain how we process all of the information presented. I know for me...2K has a complete lack of depth to the image. Perhaps, as we increase the resolution, the depth to digital will approach/exceed that of film.

The folks that think there is something intrinsic about 24fps are plain nuts. All it begets is flicker, strobing and other negative artifacts. It may be comfortable since that is all some may know...but it has no benefit.

Doug Trumble did the frame rate experiment for Showscan and 60fps is where they hit diminishing returns...72fps didn't add anything and 48fps was notably worse.

The article talks about 70mm being for the sound...well in the 80s that was its excuse but he never discussed that film shot in 65mm looked notably better than film shot in 35mm...rather hand wavy to me.

Rather than make conclusions based on one non-cinema test...the industry should increase pixel count and frame rate and FIND where the point of diminishing returns really is rather than bullshitting that today's technology is anything more than infintile.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-25-2009, 04:45 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

The article talks about 70mm being for the sound...well in the 80s that was its excuse but he never discussed that film shot in 65mm looked notably better than film shot in 35mm...rather hand wavy to me.

---

It may have been by a little but I believe the better look was more related to not seeing scratches, dust, and picture jiggle (like you get with d-cinema). Don't forget those old negative stocks literally sucked at both resolution and color... as did the release print stock back then. Had the 80's batch of 70mm releases been shot in 65mm with the more modern release stocks then there would have been a clear(literally)benefit but by then 35mm Scope was basically it's equal. And in all fairness those 50's/60's 70mm films then also had a lack of depth compared to what 65/70mm film today is capable of.

Infintile absolutely... I bet that in less than 10 years digital can resolve the same contrast ratio range as todays film can. I also agree with the higher frame rate theory far more than the need for extra pixels and we finally have the opportunity to actally do it at little to no extra cost!!!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-25-2009, 05:54 PM:
 
Just to clarify myself, when I talk about replacing 35mm with a (true) around 3K theoretical system, I'm talking about your average quality, release print for cropped 1.85 film, not a pristine full frame S35 negative, i.e.

Also, if one wanted to properly obtain 3K with a fixed grid system from a random (grain) one like when scanning film, it would have to be scanned at 6K at least. Just don't confuse optimal scanning resolution with "true detail".

If you have true 3K detail and it's not spatially situated 1:1 with your adquisition device (camera or scanner), you can not capture it at 3K and will get plenty of ugly aliasing

Once you get to 4K, you are at about the limit of the eye resolution under most normal viewing conditions in the cinema.

Just like we can think of the eye as being two different visual systems, one for the "day" when there is plenty of light which yields rich colors and another one that becomes more prevalent at low light levels (night vision) and is more "black and white", we can also think of our eyes as having two detail/spatial frequency transfer functions: one for near-field work and one for far-field.

When we sit very close to our computer monitor or we are repairing a machine, we move our eyes pretty close to the subject of interest, cross our eyes slightly so that both eyes converge on the same point, and scrutinize the image for high frequency detail. When we get close to a cinema screen (or sit in the first row) or when we look at a frame of a print close by, we see one thing.

When we sit a few feet far away from our TV or cinema screen or whatever, we enter a different visual realm and we are no longer able to see that detail, and other, more important low-frequency spatial detail becomes our most important visual stimulus.

A dramatic demostration are the pictures I'm placing here below.

Get close to your computer screen, a bit more than normal, say 30cm away (1 foot) away. Look at the pictures closely for as long as you want. The top one is of a "pretty woman". The one underneath if of an "ugly old man". No matter how hard you look at them, that's what they are and what you can see.

Now get up and move away from your computer monitor about 6, 7 or 8 steps (about 4 meters, 13 feet). What you will see is that now the top picture is of an angry man, and the bottom one of a "pretty woman". If you don't see it, take another step back (I hope there is enough room between your monitor and your back wall in your room )

No matter how hard you try to see the other picture, you just don't see it. You can't.

Depending on your monitor size, etc, you may have to go a step or two farther away, etc.

Now slowly walk back towards your monitor while looking at the pictures. At some distance, the faces will start to switch again and the pretty woman becomes an ugly man and vice-versa. Take a step or two closer and scrutinize the images all you want. You can no longer see the other image, and no matter how hard you try, the images are now the complete reverse to what you were seeing before.





It's totally different what you can see very close by "near-field" from "normal cinema viewing distances" far field.

And thanks to this, compression works wonderfully .

But also thanks to this, Imax wastes like 4 times the information stored since nobody can see it (except, perhaps, some people in the front row with 20/20 vision and no glasses or contact lenses) or those examining the frames under a microscope. It's just goes to waste. Imax is overkill.

We shouldn't obsess with pixel count, etc, but concentrate on what we can see normally and what bothers us (screen door, strobe, i.e.) and what doesn't (some film grain).

What doesn't mean that I consider 2K a bit short for a good 35mm replacement and it should be at least 3K True-4K would be a luxury, but why not? We are almost there and the digital revolution has just started. Think 5 years from now when those Christies and Barcos are half paid-off.

Steve, there has been experiments and studies on projected large images resolution and percieved detail, limiting resolution, etc. If you extrapolate the results, I think you can reach the conclusion that (true, well done) 4K is about all the information most people can see in your average theater enviroment except for those sitting in the first couple of rows, who are the only ones who could tell the difference between something like Imax and our theoretical 4K system. If they have perfect eyesight, that is.

[ 04-25-2009, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-25-2009, 09:23 PM:
 
I was at NAB this year and was disappointed that RED didn’t have a booth. So, they held a private unveiling of their new Red Ray technology but they didn’t do anything on the general, showroom floor. I wonder why not.

Meanwhile, I enjoyed NHK’s presentation of 8K projection with 22.2-channel sound. I think they also said it was 60 frames per second (not fields). And, amazingly enough, they’ve already done tests where they’ve actually broadcast this stuff… over the air! I’m a sucker for ultra-sharp pictures with deep focus (rather than grainy pictures with artistic, overly-shallow depth of field). Most of the stuff they showed (including night, exterior stuff) featured deep focus and I loved it! The fun of 8K is that it really seems like you’re looking through a giant window. So it seemed more “realistic” than pretty much every IMAX and/or 3-D presentation I’ve seen. But the sound was overkill.

My new, favorite “buzz-word” is 8K.

I can't imagine anyone shooting a full feature in this format. It's just too much detail. Traditional make-up would be a problem and the audience will be able to see every last flaw in a "beautiful person's" face. But perhaps for documentaries and other, traditional IMAX stuff, this 8K thing gets my vote.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-25-2009, 10:56 PM:
 
Motion graphics and effects compositing software can selectively blur away "crow's feet" around the eyes and other crags on an actor's face. The same tools are often used to cover up things that don't need to be seen in the frame (wires holding kung fu actors in the air, cables, boom mics, etc.).

Principal photography on any movie should be shot with the best levels of quality the budget will allow. If the footage needs to be grunged up with grain, desaturated or shifted to a certain color scheme that can happen in post.

I like deep focus photography, but there's nothing wrong with very shallow DOF photography either when it makes sense for that particular camera shot. Every creative option should be available to the filmmaker.

As to the original topic, the 4K thing at only 10 million bits per second sounds very suspicious. And the arguments about needing only so many pixels is a pretty tired worn out one. It's based on the shaky notion that viewers just need to watch the material from a far distance or on a more modest screen size. The imagery needs to be produced with the most demanding viewing situation in mind.

Take a vehicle wrap graphic for instance. If I use the same "people are only going to view this from far away" ethic the full sized wrap could be composed at a resolution of only 8 to 16 pixels per inch. But then you get to explain the vehicle's owner why the wrap graphic looks like jaggy shit to him when he is grabbing hold of the car door handle. 72ppi at full size is about the lowest resolution I can get away with using. It would be nice to be able to design in lower resolutions. The computer wouldn't have to choke from performance demands and a single vehicle wrap project wouldn't be consuming upwards of 20GB of hard disc space.

The PDF Brad linked seemed like a sales pitch for the Panavision Genesis camera, where it did damage control for recording only a 1080p based image. They knock IMAX cameras with their 4K grid test, but let's see the same test run on the Genesis camera. Better yet, rotate that grid of lines by 15° or 45° and see how quickly that 1080p pixel grid goes gray. It will go gray a LOT earlier than the IMAX camera. Further, the angled lines will get jaggy and then produce nasty moiré problems very early on before the whole grid test goes gray.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-26-2009, 05:35 AM:
 
I agree that, the more resolution you have, the "better".

As long as it's "free".

Since you usually have to pay dearly for it once you past a point, whether in storage space, bandwidth, projection technology or whatever, I think it's better to concentrate on what you can actually see when you are not scrutinizing the image with a magnifier, but under normal viewing conditions for the average person, which in theater enviroment means people sitting down at a fair distance from a not-too-large screen.

Once that part is solved, you can start adding even more detail technology and price permitting for those sitting close by or willing to get up from their seats and walk toward the screen to see the subtleties of Angelina Jolie's eyes capillary vessels.

I never exactly considered Imax as "better" as it was just "more of the same" (i.e. take your average piece of 35mm film and just put 10 pieces together) and the price was desproportionately high (i.e. you could buy 10 projectors and 10 35mm prints and it was cheaper).

For me, "better" is not "bigger and more expensive". Otherwise, just take a piece of medium format film 150mm across, run it at "20 perforations", call it "macro-imax" and it's "better".

It's not "better" than 35mm film ... it is exactly the same as 35mm film except that you used 150mm of film instead of 35 and thus, you can make the projected result proportionately bigger at the same resulting "resolution".

If you use twice the (size of) film and it costs 2.5x more to make (i.e. size of lenses), then it's not "better". If it costs 1.9x to make and has 2x the "quality", then it starts to be better in my book.

It's the same with digital. Do we have a problem with 2K? No problem. We put 16 projectors together in perfect synch (it can be done), shoot in imax and scan at 16K (it can be done).

Done. Digital is now better than 35mm.

But it would be way, way too expensive.

"Better" is when its the same-or-better quality and also about the same or cheaper cost.

Digital is still not "better" than film. But there is little doubt it will get there in no time with cameras and post production coming in fast. What's worse, from my point of view, is the projection part, as it is a bit inferior to film and far more expensive than film projectors.

Now, it compensates by saving the print costs. A 35mm projector is only part of the system, as it needs the film print to run it. Your average theater projector might use up to say $25,000 a year in prints to work, while the digital projector basically takes $50 in "print costs" to run. So over the life of a 35mm projector of 10 years, it pbbly costs say $30,000 down for the projector/platter itself and $250,000 in prints to keep it projecting movies for 10 years (a new one every 2 weeks, at $1000/print). Lamp costs are similar between digital/35mm.

The thing is that theater owners don't see print cost as "their cost" directly, as distributors advance it and cover it up with their percentages spreaded from the pool of all exhibitors.

And I believe it's distributors who should either lower their take for digital or pay for most of it through VPF, as they are the ones saving the money of the prints.

Here is another dramatic example. Get a bit closer to your computer screen than normal, say 1' (30cm) away. In this picture, you can see Albert Einstein from near by. Get up and walk away from your screen about 10 steps (about 5 meters or 16 feet, I hope your room is big enough). Now, who do you see smiling instead? (if it's not working 100% for you, take an additional step or two back). Walk slowly towards the screen and, as you are getting closer, you'll see Einstein again.



There is detail you just can't see unless you are really close to the subject (i.e. just 2-4 feet away), so it doesn't need to be there if it's not going to get used. If it is, well, even better. But if it isn't, it's not all that important as most people won't see it under most conditions if they are not allowed to get that close to the subject/screen.

The eyes are the limiting resolving factor in a lot of imaging applications. Your own eyes can't see details from your monitor starting some 6 feet away (depending on your monitor size and resolution, of course). Imagine in the back row of a theater (although the screen there is much bigger and high-res, etc).

The angular resolving power of the eye is inferior to (true) 4K resolution up to about 2.5 screen heights, which means for just about everybody in your average theater except, perhaps, those in the first couple of rows with good vision and not wearing glassses or contacts.

8K would allow greater angular coverage (i.e. large screen, sitting close to it, sort of like Imax, about 100º instead of the movie theater usual arrangement of screen-to-spectator ratio average coverage of 55º) before the eye resolving power starts to get larger than the available resolution.

Then we'll have to move to 16K and that would be about a little more than the maximun humans can see w/o having to turn our heads constanly to look around parts of a screen that's larger than our entire field of vision (i.e. we'll never need anything above 16K in non-circlerama 360º like situations).

Imax was always "overengineered" but I guess was done that way because 70mm film was the format that was handily available and it had to run it to 15perf to get an acceptable aspect ratio.

Otherwise, the quality perceived at the distances and angle of vision in use would be about the same running 70mm film vertically at 8 perf. Imax just wastes too much "resolution" nobody can possibly see from a distance. Could've been used for frame rate that, at those sizes, is really important.

Imax 24fps sucked in that department (their 48fps never really took off...).

Obviously I'm all in for super hi-vision 8K 60fps too

Which I'm sure will come 25 years from now. Or maybe earlier.

[ 04-26-2009, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-26-2009, 09:18 AM:
 
If the 8K presentation I saw featured shallow-focus, diffused, glamour shots of actresses (like we're used to seeing in entertainment films and TV) then I'm sure I wouldn't have appreciated the extra resolution. So, wisely, they were featuring documentary-style, deep focus, wide shots throughout the presentation and it knocked my socks off.

I've enjoyed the TV show Burn Notice but I was surprised to see some behind-the-scenes footage which clearly showed them using an Arri 16SR3 camera. This is the same model of camera used to shoot Touched by an Angel and Promised Land from 1997 through mid-1999. I concede that film stocks have changed since then but the fact remains that Super 16 was, in the late 1990s, deemed unacceptable as a source for high-definition TV (so Touched by an Angel switched to 35mm in July 1999, after Promised Land was already cancelled). Things like shallow focus were always a little more difficult using Super 16 instead of 35mm.

But Burn Notice looks great! Lots of color, plenty of deep focus and just a little grain (and I've only seen it in a Standard Definition, letterboxed presentation). My point? Maybe I'm just saying you can choose the right format based on the most likely, final presentation. I don't think they need to shoot Burn Notice in 35mm. It would look better but it might not be worth it. (I've seen other threads around here where people naively say that everything should be shot in 65mm but, really, why?)

I wish someone would shoot a feature in "Super Hi-Vision" 8K but I hope the director doesn't watch it all happen from his "video village" chair on a 20-inch monitor. Otherwise we'll get ghastly close-ups throughout (like we do today, when it seems like nobody is composing for a large, movie theatre screen). And, of course, I'd want to see the finished movie in a theatre equipped with true 8K (but I'll watch it on a lower-resolution system just to see if Julio's right about unnecessary pixels).

After the presentation, I couldn't help wondering how Lawrence of Arabia would look if it were transfered to 8K and presented on the same screen.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-26-2009, 09:31 AM:
 
I have seen NHK 8K's system at Infocomm in Vegas. I'm not all that impressed as I know they are doing what you say (i.e. trying to show off with very deep focus and allowing very close distances to a relatively very small screen). Of course it's going to look better than Imax.

It's hard to get deep focus in Imax due to the focal lenghts needed for "normal" photography with such a large frame size.

But allow a well filmed Imax to project a screen the same size you saw Super Hi-Vision and you'll no longer be all that impressed.

8K will get here some day, I have no doubt. Meanwhile, let's see if the cinema industry can move past 2K so that it can avoid a (small) step back from (average, release print jittery projected 35mm quality) and perhaps move a step forward (with true-4K).

If you scan original Lawerence 65mm with a (theoretical) 16K scanner and do smart downscale to 8K you would see an image that is ... well, equal in quality as a very well made, specialty (i.e. first-run) print made and projected in 70mm.

Obviously you can't get more quality than the original

70mm modern stock pbbly has about 6K of true detail burried in there together with the noise (grain). Since you can't effectively take the noise away from the signal w/o letting go some detail in the process and can't avoid nyquist law, you would probably need to scan it at 16K and project it at 8K to maintain most of it w/o too much aliasing.

But, if Lawrence would've originated as a true-6K film (i.e. shot with a theoretical 18K-bayer digital camera), and projected in 6K, then it would've looked just as good and contain the same amount of detail as a well made 70mm print. No need for 8K.

"True" 3K is about a good replacement for release-print projected cropped 35mm for cinema conditions.

"True" 6K (actually, somewhere between 5K and 6K) is about a good replacement for 70mm (65mm) for cinema conditions.

"True" 4K is a good compromise that can totally replace 35mm and offers about the best possible experience for most normal people in most normal theater situations.

8K would allow for far larger angle of views or scren sizes, similar to Imax, while giving top perceived detail to most people not sitting too close to the screen.

16K would cover just about the maximun human field of view and resolution in 180º. No need to ever go above that for any reason except if you are projecting behind your head too in 360º

Imax has always been overkill and I have no idea how much true detail could actually be in there (theoretically, around 18K).

Of course, none of the mechanical systems live up to their full potential due to "jitter", scratches, dust, generation duplication losses, etc, but let's not be picky. Digital is often not taken to its full potential either (compression, etc).
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-26-2009, 10:17 AM:
 
I suppose that if the goal is to make it look "real" (and I'm not sure that's the goal anyway) I found that this presentation seemed more "real" than the hightened reality I usually see in IMAX or other special-venue presentations. Thus, my socks were knocked off. Was it the 60-frame effect? Was it simply because it was so much easier to watch than NHK's 3-D lunar probe footage I have seen a few minutes earlier? I can't tell, but I'm guessing the frame rate made a huge difference.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-26-2009, 10:30 AM:
 
Definitely. 24fps is way too slow for any realistic movement. Perceived resolution also increases with frame rate and stereo vision (3-D).

I'm rooting for quickly moving to 25fps adquisition and projection. It's close enough to 24fps that older projectors (film projector) can be easily accomodated for. Instead of shooting 24fps and then converting it to 25fps for 3/4 of the world population (and 30fps for the the other 1/4), do it the other way around.

Start with 25fps, and then convert to 24fps if needed. The convertion is quite minor and forgiving and it has been done for years and year (well, basically forever).

1fps may not be much of a difference, but until we are ready to move to (say) 50fps, it's an improvement nonetheless while maintaining compatibility and look. And cost.

Realistic rates of 60fps or more do give a different impression of the image. Some people see the ultra-realistic (clean, digital, grain free) and think "video". They need to see a "slow shutter, jumpy, grainy" 24fps image to think "cinema".

It's like when we watch an old B&W Charles Chaplin movie at (say) 18fps. We are transported to another world of imaginary movies (and motion) and our brains have to work harder to fill-in the blanks in the motion with our imagination. Also, we don't dare to blink, for missing a frame or two may jump so far in time (or motion) that we stare at the screen wide-eyed.

So different frame rates give different sub-conciencious clues as to the "narrative" nature of the image. 18fps=old movie. 24fps=movie. 30 or 60 fps=video.

Until now.

Who knows. One day 60fps, 8K, 3D, ultra-clean no-grain images (full of DCT compression artifacts, lol) could be emotionally linked to cinema as well.

The DCT part was a joke, of course. Wavelets or fractals produce less objetionable quantisizing artifacts instead of blocking and mosquito noise .

[ 04-26-2009, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-26-2009, 06:59 PM:
 
Black bars! Don't forget the black bars! If it doesn't have black bars, it's not Real Cinema!

--jhawk

p.s.: nobody in the US is going to go for 25fps origination.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-26-2009, 07:13 PM:
 

quote: John Hawkinson

---

p.s.: nobody in the US is going to go for 25fps origination.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

The Truth About 2K, 4K and The Future of Pixels

---

Here's a summary of all that: Film sucks because it is overkill and 2K video is more than good enough.

F that!
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-26-2009, 11:58 PM:
 
I'm not so sure that 65mm would have helped movies like Pink Panther 2 or Tyler Perry's Medea Goes to Jail or something that actually made a ton of money, Paul Blart: Mall Cop. Not to mention the fact that there aren't a lot of working cinematographers who've mastered the actual craft of using 65mm well. But maybe that's another discussion. It doesn't really matter because, like it or not, it's never going to happen. Meanwhile, 8K just might make it. Or it might get derailed by the drive towards headache-inducing 3D. (I wonder if 3D could have helped Paul Blart: Mall Cop.)
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-27-2009, 12:13 AM:
 
Thinking 24FPS vs 25FPS would make any noticeable difference is silly. Go up to 30FPS and you will see a bit of an improvement in motion, but I think Steve is right about 48FPS being a good target number to shoot for. I've ran 60FPS Showscan and it definitely looked TOO smooth.

Also remember 78RPM records actually had two speeds...the US ran at just over 78RPM due to the 60Hz power and the rest of the world ran at just slightly under 78RPM due to 50Hz power. So long as there are power differences in the world, this sort of thing will continue to happen.

I'll bet Joe would solve the problem by having the rest of the world convert to 60Hz power. In fact, the rest of the world should learn English too and get rid of all these other annoying languages. Right Joe? That's damn good thinkin'!
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-27-2009, 01:24 AM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

I'll bet Joe would solve the problem by having the rest of the world convert to 60Hz power. In fact, the rest of the world should learn English too and get rid of all these other annoying languages. Right Joe?

---

Yes, we've been over this before: If English weren't the best language ever, I wouldn't waste my time speaking it or even learning it to begin with. 60Hz is mentioned in the Bible.

I have seen 60fps Showscan and I was not impressed. It felt more like a high resolution newscast and/or camcorder footage than anything else. However I could still clearly see the shutter flicker/strobing on bright parts, I specifically remember that.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-27-2009, 06:10 AM:
 
Well, at least we can all agree that the higher the framerate, the better.

Oh, wait, not really

Converting 25fps to 30 or 60fps is very easy. For ever, to convert from 24fps to 25 or 50, you just sped it up ever so slightly. To convert 25fps (i.e. when you get a movie shot in Europe at 25fps or a TV show from England), you simply slow it down to 24fps. From there, you convert to 30 or 60 for video and TV in the few parts of the world that use it as you have always done.

Think about it.

Up until recently, nobody, and I mean nobody, uses 24fps except mechanical movie projectors.

Mechanical movie projectors will, one day, dissapear. Let's pretend in 5 years most theaters are digital (which could do 25fps no problem nativetly).

There may always be a small number of theaters showing film for a long time, so let's maintain compatibility for them. Convert the film print-out to 24fps from 25fps (slow it down before printing). Easy, cheap, no major problems, no great incompatibilities, motion artifacts or anything.

Going to 48fps is, from my point of view and since you guys are so vocal about it, STUPID, as nobody in the world uses it, and convertion to the most used high frame rate systems, 50hz and 60hz, it's as hard as it has always been with 24fps. You speed it up to 25fps, then pulldown 2:2. For america, you pulled it down 3:2 to 59.94

Don't you guys see that, once film projectors are a minority, there is no point on 24fps (or 48fps) and the next logical step is 25fps (or 50fps) because it keeps very good compatibility with everyone, including the few using 24fps and 30/60hz (just slow it down for them to 24fps first, instead of speeding it up for the rest of the world, which are 3/4 of the population)?

Anyway, if you fail to see it, then I guess we are not going to argue for just 1fps and, indeed, we should go to 48fps and continue speeding it up to 50 in Europe (no HD equipment uses 48fps natively, but ALL HD equipment, blu-ray, and TV's in the world, including in the USA, do support 50fps natively).

But since 48fps, according to you, converts easy to 24fps (wait, doesn't 25fps convert easy to 24fps too????), and in that future mechanical projectors are still "in vogue", I guess we should indeed use 48fps

So now you get your 48fps "blu-ray" in the USA and ... what speed you play it back at? 60hz pulldown? hmmm

Now we get our 48fps blu-rays in Europe and, what do we do? We speed it up to 50fps (a bit too much?).

Wait, in the USA, blu-ray players and HD tv's also support 50hz! So, again, what was the point of filming 48fps instead of 50fps?

Oh, right. With 48fps convertion to 24fps was easy and good. And who wanted it at 24fps? Movie theaters in this future, you say?

But wait, if we take 50fps, convert it to 25fps, and then slow it down a bit for the few using 24fps instead of taking 48fps, convertinig to 24fps, and speeding up to 25fps for the BILLIONS of people, including most americans with HD, which can support 25/50 ....

Anyway, if you don't see it by now, you'll never will.

But hey, I'll take 48fps if it need to be. But I, for once, would be rooting for going to 25fps first (no significant additional costs or problems, americans' HD and blu-rays support it fine, as do digital projectors in cinemas, can convert to 24fps if needed) and then 50fps, so you guys can watch it in your blu-ray players and HD tv's without having to do funky (and unnecesary) convertions from 48fps.

Fast forward into the future a bit and think about it. Who can't support 25/50 fps natively in the world at that point?

a) A few movie theaters with mechanical 24fps equipment. For them, we just slow down 50/25 to 24fps a bit. No biggie. It's done currently for some Euro/Asian/Australian/Chinese/Hindi films.

b) A few old analog equipment in NTSC countries (a very small minority). For them, we do the same (slow down to 24, convert to 30/60).

That's it. Everybody else, including those in NTSC with newer HD TV's, can support 25/50fps just fine natively. Why bend over backwards for a very small minority, when 48fps is supported by basically nobody and 50fps for just 90% of the world of the future, including 60hz countries?

Remember. With digital TV, all moderm TV's in the world can take over-the-air, DVD or blu-ray signals at 23.976, 25, 29.97, 50, and 59.94 and display them natively. Whether in the USA or elsewhere in the world. Today.

Dcinema projectors and servers also support 24, 25 and anything really up to 50, including 48.

So, again, what frame rates you say guys that should be supported in the future and which ones are just an stupid idea?

To me, it makes sense. Standarize to 25fps. It has similar look and cost to 24fps, it's supported natively by everyone except mechanical film projection (mechanical film cameras do 25fps fine) and old NTSC analog, for which slow-down convertion is cheap and easy and horrible convertion to 29.97/59.94 is needed anyway. And then jump to 50fps, which is supported by everything everywhere, except the same as above.

Film cameras can also shoot at 25fps, of course. It's just mechanical projectors and old analog NTSC equipment that would need 24fps slow-down convertion. And both of those groups of users would quickly dissapear in the future. With all the new digital equipment currently being used, americans can also watch 25fps DVD's and blu-rays, as well as digital TV transmissions at 25p and 50p natively. So why not? Why stick to 24p? Why go through the trouble of 48p and continue making the same mistakes? Why not improve things, even if only 1fps, when it makes so much sense and produces very few troubles? Why make the majority of the world go through the trouble of 25fps speed up when we could just as easily speed down to 24fps for those few that still can't support it in the near future?

What's so good about 24p/48p, except for mechanical projectors, which are bound to dissapear, replaced by 25p/50p capable Dcinema, and analog NTSC equipment, which is bound to dissapear, replaced by digital HD which is capable of 25p/50p everywhere in the world? Not to mention current old analog PAL equipment, used by 3/4 of the world population (also bound to dissapear) could also use 25p/50p ... Why keep supporting a minority of old equipment that is bound to dissapear soon? And remember, convertion 25p->24p is not expensive or dramatic or horrible, so it's not like those users would be left in the cold ...



[ 04-27-2009, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-27-2009, 08:28 AM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

Also remember 78RPM records actually had two speeds...the US ran at just over 78RPM due to the 60Hz power and the rest of the world ran at just slightly under 78RPM due to 50Hz power. So long as there are power differences in the world, this sort of thing will continue to happen.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

A few movie theaters with mechanical 24fps equipment. For them, we just slow down 50/25 to 24fps a bit. No biggie. It's done currently for some Euro/Asian/Australian/Chinese/Hindi films.

---

Yeah, but that's because we don't really care about those films!

Seriously, 1FPS is a HUGE HUGE difference in audio. There are people out there who would say "no that's bullshit", but trust me it is a major difference. If need be I'll run something through the projector at 24FPS and then slow it down to 23FPS so everyone can see what I am talking about. It is passable with dialogue, but add some music and

quote:

---

Ha? Ya got to be kiddin! Mine runs by winding it up and there's even a little picture of a dog on the label!

---

Actually no Mark, I'm not kidding, but I must say your 78 record player sounds like a piece of junk! You should hook up a 3 phase motor and power inverter to that thing. Geeez.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-27-2009, 05:15 PM:
 
Oh, yeah, the audio IS a difference.

When the films are converted to 25fps, the audio isn't just sped up. It's pitch adjusted as well.

Same when foreign 25p material is displayed in NTSC countries. It's slowed and pitch corrected (ever so slightly) for 24->29.97 convertion.

If you leave the audio uncorrected, it IS noticiable. Not an awful lot, but enough to bother most people. So it's never done.

Think about all those poor patrons in Australia from Beta videotapes on ecinemas if the audio wasn't corrected Or the billions of people watching american films in Europe or Russia or China or India or most of south america or africa if the sound wasn't corrected for 25fps.

LOL.

Also, doing something like 24->23 is only 1fps, but quite worse than doing 25->24. It may also be 1fps, but is less %%. You can get the point when I say that lowering from 60->59 is also 1fps but it's very, very small difference.

The image rate, trust me, it's not noticeable. I mean, not really. And regardless, currently, it's either 3/4 of the world "screwed" with 24p->25p convertion or 1/4 of the world from 25p->24p. In the future, very few won't be able to use 25p, even those that now must use 24p (or 30p/60i) currently.

And, objectively, and assuming nobody was screwed in the process, 25p is better than 24p (again, assuming nobody had a problem with either frame rate). Right?

So why not?

Seriously, 24fps is really giving some people headaches in the industry

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983865.html?categoryid=2868&cs=1

From James Cameron's mouth:

quote:

---

For three-fourths of a century of 2-D cinema, we have grown accustomed to the strobing effect produced by the 24-frames-per-second display rate. When we see the same thing in 3-D, it stands out more, not because it is intrinsically worse, but because all other things have gotten better. Suddenly the image looks so real, it's like you're standing there in the room with the characters, but when the camera pans, there is this strange motion artifact. It's like you never saw it before, when in fact it's been hiding in plain sight the whole time. Some people call it judder, others strobing. I call it annoying. It's also easily fixed.

Our current generation of digital projectors can currently run up to 144 frames per second, and they are still being improved. So right now, today, we could be shooting 2-D movies at 48 frames and running them at that speed. This alone would make 2-D movies look astonishingly clear and sharp, at very little extra cost, with equipment that's already installed or being installed. I've run tests on 48 frame per second stereo and it is stunning. The cameras can do it, the projectors can (with a small modification) do it.

---

Now. The thing about jumping to something like 48fps is that ... well, it doesn't make sense. Shooting film (35mm chemical) at 48fps is expensive. Shooting and projecting digital is OK ... but at homes, blu-ray, HD tv's, digital tv broadcasts, etc support wordlwide flags for frame rates of 23.976, 29.970, 59.94, 25 and 50.

Dcinema can support 24, 25, 48, 50 (and some, 60).

Why the hell choose 48fps? For compatibility with 24? Who is forced to use 24 in a digital world of the future where everybody can support 25? Isn't 50fps a bit better than 48fps? If compatibility is needed with 24 ... why not just slow down from 25 (50/2) to 24 for those few special cases, instead of the other way around?

For me, the choice is clear. 25fps doesn't add significant cost to shooting in 35mm cameras (or Imax) or digital today, while allowing good compatibility with everyone. It's a stupid improvement, I agree, but cinematographers are really starved for frame rate on fast-action movies (Transformers IV? ). Even 1fps is very welcome by directors and cinematographer and already a standard in large parts of the world. Plenty of movies being shot in film or video at 25fps today. It also maintains the "look" of current film instead of jumping into the hyper-realism of "video".

Faster rate would be "better", but right now, jumping to 48 or 50 or 60 is not an option just yet or, at least, quite more expensive.

Then jumping to 50fps whenever the time is right, which also works well for most people at that time in the future when film cameras and mechanical projectors probably won't be into much use, but can still be supported by a slow down from 50/2 25->24.

Cameron is also failing to mention (or see) that DLP projectors today can't effectively do 3-D at 48fps (I mean, at 48fps x 2 = 96fps). It won't be able to even double-flash (96x2 = 192, and the limit is 144). And at single flash 48hz per eye, it's a bit low and more people will complain of flicker and headaches.

Sony's system (or dual projection like Imax) can do 3D at up to 60fps and not only 24fps.

Of course, servers can't really deliver 2K at, say, 48fps-per-eye (96fps) ....

So anyway. Forget for the time being 48 (or 50) fps 3D with current equipment. It's either 48 (or 50 or 25 or anything between 24 and 60) fps 2D or 24fps 3-D.

EDIT: BTW, I'm not propossing moving to 25fps today. Not at all. I'm thinking whenever in the future 51% of movie theaters worldwide convert to digital and can thus do 25p natively and only a minority are forced to stick with 24fps for a while longer.

[ 04-27-2009, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-28-2009, 08:26 AM:
 

quote:

---

Actually no Mark, I'm not kidding, but I must say your 78 record player sounds like a piece of junk!

---

Hardly... but it is older than all of us in this thread put together!! Geez, You should see the Edison Cylinder Player sitting here....
 

---

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 04-29-2009, 08:13 AM:
 
60 fps is the only real solution going forward. All the other frame rates can be derived from that if required. And we are talking about acquisition for post and mastering. From master you derive all the distributables.

Also, the current DCI kit can do 60fps with software upgrades. No new hardware. And if we are talking about making DCI kit do better quality the patrons will see. This is one that takes little effort on the millions of dollars already out in the field (Projectors you already installed).

Now, this MAY look like video to some, but that's because video looks cleaner and smoother (Interlace) then 24fps film.
Ie, it looks more realistic.
The development of multi channel sound etc was all about being more realistic. I find it strange how may comment on this as a negative for image quality. I am sure your general movie goer would see it as better. That's what you need to offer them. Your personal opinion, is.. your personal opinion (Of some one who has a romantic love of film).

James
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-29-2009, 09:40 AM:
 
I have no problems with 60fps either, but don't feel it's the "very best choice". Probably 50fps would be.

1) 60fps is supported worlwide for new equipment. So that's good for the future.

2) But for old analog equipment support, only in 1/4 or the world (NTSC-land), while 50fps in 3/4 (PAL/SECAM-land).

3) 60fps doesn't convert (really) well to 24fps in any way. It needs un-even pulldowns. 50fps converts decently, as it converts to 25fps and from there you can slow it down and keep 1:1 frames.

4) 60fps is a bit high (i.e. expensive) for basically all mechanical equipment (50fps as well, but a bit less, closer to 48fps). Even shooting digital, 60fps demands storage space, bandwidth, compression power, etc that is a bit high. 50fps is a bit more forgiving.

5) DLP projectors have some trouble with 60hz too. They max out at 144hz refresh. Wouldn't accomodate 60hz 3D but at 1 flash (60x3=180hz ... way too high for 144). If they could be slightly improved to max out at 150hz instead of 144hz (probably doable), then it would allow 50x3=150hz. That way, they could at least do 25fps 3D. Right now, it's 24x2x3=144. Close to 25x2x3=150. For 60hz it would be 30x2x3=180 ... too high, I don't think DLP can ever do that w/o contrast reduction.

So, anyway. I'm all for 60fps as it is can be supported in newer HD TV's and blu-rays worldwide and has some support for some old TV equipment in the USA and Japan. But for broad old equipment compatibility, as well as 24p support, and new HD equipment worldwide, I think 50fps fits better and it's closer to the cost of 48fps while slightly improving upon it.

But whatever. The future will tell. It's too early to even argue about it

I don't think I've read half-serious studies on psychological impact of low frame rates (i.e. 24hz) on people's taste for images, but I believe it's a matter of having grown accostumed to it.

We see grain in a picture and we tend to ignore it while at the same time recognizing it as a photograph. We see a non-grain digital output from a printer and we think: "this is not a photograph". Until recently.

With movies, we see one at 24fps/180º shutter motion and think: "This is a movie like in the theaters". We see one at 60hz interlaced and think: "This is one of those cheap video made-for-TV movies".

Why? Because for 50 years that's what we have been "told".

Now things are changing. "Video" is "film" and "film" is "video" (i.e. digital intermediates, film print-outs, digital cameras, 16mm 25p TV, DCI 2K DLP, etc). As I've said before, exagerating a bit, soon your kid's birthday party is gonna be shot at 4K with better equipment than Lucas had to shoot the second Star Wars trilogy.

Cinematographers insist on keeping the old cinema look because "it works and people like it". Except for Transformers, 24p was way too little for that, you couldn't see squat...

But they are starting to find it too limiting. They can't do fast pans or fast motion, much less in 3D.

One day, they'll make the jump to a significant improvement, which at least some of us hope it will be either 50 or 60 fps and not 48fps... Then audiences will need to learn that good "theater movies" can also come in video looks.

That'll be the day some on this board hope they'll die (just kidding)
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-11-2009, 09:10 AM:
 
I couldn't decide which thread to put this in but this one seemed pretty appropriate. Yesterday my wife and I watched Star Trek played of a Christie CP-2000ZX projector. The auditorium has a silver screen and it is normally used for 3D but since my wife and I don't tend to see the types of movies that have been in 3D this is the first time since the system was installed that we watched anything in that auditorium. This was also the first time that I have seen a D-Cinema presentation with JPEG-2000 compression.

We sat about 2 screen heights back and the picture looked great. It looked noticeably better than any film print I've seen other than IMAX. I am talking about standard release prints shown in average to above average multiplexes. It does have a little different "sharper" look than film but it is visually pleasing.

Here is the ringing endorsement. My wife who doesn't ever notice anything in a presentation (there could literally be a scratch running the entire move and as long as it wasn't in the middle part of the screen she'll say "what scratch") commented completly unprompted after the movie about the picture. She said "I don't know if you did something to the projector in there but the picture looked really good". This tells me that to 90% of the population a 2K DLP D-Cinema presentation will be a noticeable improvement.

Sure if you could do 4K with the same brightness, contrast and color reproduction it would be a bit better depending on where you sit but I can say that 2K seems "good enough" to improve the presentation in almost all auditoriums (unless it's a location that gets EK Showprints and has the absolute top of the line 35mm projectors). I thought the contrast in the dark scenes looked the exact same as it does on 35mm. No muddy gray darkness like some early digital cinema stuff I had watched years ago.

The rock steadiness and even brightness gives the picture an IMAX-like look. True 15/70 IMAX has more "punch" to the image because of the increased level of detail but the pefectly solid image really makes a difference in percieved resolution and sharpness.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-11-2009, 11:23 AM:
 
I agree with your conclusions.

For most people, 2K DCI is perceived as similar or even an improvement over your average 35mm flat (cropped) projection.

After a certain distance, they both look very similar. And undoubtely, digital is scratch free and rock solid instead of potentially weavy. It's a decent replacement for 35mm under many situations. For those in the back couple of rows in your average theater, it's totally indistinguishable resolution-wise.

Those comparing the level of resolution theoretically obtainable with a 35mm negative to the 2K pixel matrix, are really comparing apples to oranges for your regular scenario.

If it weren't because the relatively low pixel fill ratios that show a screen door effect, most wouldn't think the resolution difference is that great. In practical terms, once film has gone through 4 generations during the duplication process and goes through a mechanical projection gate.

My thought on the matter: A theoretical 3K system would be a good replacement for 35mm flat movies. 2K is a bit short. 4K would actually be an improvement in practical terms.

The main problem with 2K is not that it's "bad" in any way (other than the screen door on many of today's projectors and a tad low resolution), it's just that it's too darned close to what people have in their houses, but blown up to 40 times the size. While home technology continues to improve with i.e. the 1.3a HDMI standard allowing for the transport of 10bits color information at up to 2560×1600 resolution at up to 75fps and "domestic" video cameras starting to surpass HD resolutions, the only thing holding back home systems from matching or surpassing 2K is that the blu-ray standard is fixed at a little lower than it could be.

But how long until blu-ray 2.0?

SMPTE already issued their report on 3D for the home and they are going to set a standard to allow up to 60 frames/s per eye (that's right, up to 120fps) of full HD (1920x1080). Broadcaster's are already looking into this.

Whatever replaces blu-ray in the future hopefully won't make the same mistake to settle for a low common denominator standard w/o room to grow and develop a system with backwards compatiblity but forward thinking to allow for improvement on those purchasing newer equipment while allowing those with older one to watch a reduced-quality version tailored to their capacity.

Anyway, 2K is a bit too little a bit too late for "top, professional" level (and prices). Theatres are expected to use it for the next 15 years, while most haven't even purchased it yet. The fear it will happen as with the now obsolete 1.3K projectors is very real.

Unfortunately, no DLP 4K solution anywhere in sight and pbbly not ever. Other capable technology at least a couple of years away. Sony being the only alternative at price levels and reliability that may not be the best.

So 2K or 35mm. Your choice. I'm sure 90% of the audience can't tell them apart or care enough to really prefer one over the other. Hell, you could be projecting them a blu-ray disc on a 1-DLP HD projector and they would still not care or actually even prefer it ...
 

---