quote:

---

Note: I learn that Cameron's next fiction film, his first since "Titanic," will be a feature shot in 3-D. "People are looking for a new way to be stimulated," industry analyst Paul Dergarabedian said in the announcement story.

He is correct about people, but wrong that 3-D is a new way to be stimulated. It is an old way that has never lived up to its promise. If Cameron wants to be a pioneer instead of a retro hobbyist, he should obviously use Maxivision 48, which provides a picture of such startling clarity that it appears to be 3-D in the sense that the screen seems to open a transparent window on reality. "Ghosts of the Abyss" would have been incomparably more powerful in the process.

Maxivision 48 would be cheaper than 3-D, would look dramatically better, would not require those silly glasses, would be backward-compatible for standard theaters, and would allow Cameron to introduce the next step forward in movie projection, rather than returning to the obsolete past. Cameron has the clout and the imagination to make this leap forward, not just for his next film but for an industry that needs something dramatic and new and realizes it isn't going to be digital projection. This is his chance to explore the future of cinema as bravely as he ventured to the ocean floor.

---

quote:

---

I would still rather see James Cameron shoot a film in true 65mm/70mm format. We'll probably see peace across the entire middle-east before that ever happens.

---

Actually, Cameron already has done a project in a 65/70 format -- the Terminator 2 "ride" at the Universal Studios theme park in LA. It was shot in 5 perf 65mm. It's also in 3D, viewed with polarizing glasses. It's very impressive. At one point, two side panels open up to reveal two more screens on either side of the main screen, leaving the audience looking at three side by side 5 perf 70mm images, all showing in 3D. The three screens give the impression that there is a huge room behind the stage, and the screens are just windows looking into it. Characters move back and forth between the screens fairly seamlessly.

The 3D is accomplished in projection using two side by side projectors for each screen. So when the two side screens open up, there are six 5 perf 70mm projectors running in sync at that point.

The T2 "Ultimate Edition" DVD (the one currently available, not the new one which is coming out soon) has a behind the scenes video on the making of this ride. I had always avoided watching this segment until I got a chance to see the ride in person. Then I was very interested in how the show was made. In the video, Cameron and many of his crewmembers praise 70mm for providing such high quality images. They also talk about having to render special effects at very high resolution in order to maintain acceptable image quality in the large format. The camera rigs used on the set were truly massive, yet they were able to construct cranes and dollies that could keep the camera moving quickly in action shots. It's a very impressive production.
 

---

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 04-14-2003, 11:28 PM:
 
I think the linked page is a wonderful example of marketing hyperbole!
This process has 3 features:
1) runs at 48fps.
2) uses 3-perf pulldown with a large aperture (like super-35) and thus no analog sound.
3) Active registration - uses marks printed on the film and some system to do what seems to be automatic framing.

48fps: this does make a difference in image quality. Trumbull used 60fps for Showscan 5/70mm, Imax has 48fps-capable ImaxHD 15/70 projectors available (Gordon runs one at Ontario Place) and a film or two have been shot in ImaxHD. Showscan is dead and ImaxHD found no following, probably on cost/benefit grounds in both cases - the film gets expensive!
This (48fps) is hardly a breakthrough, the extra clarity is noticeable but not quite stunning.
The marketing people at Maxivision missed the whole point though - they say it's because the exposure time is shorter giving sharper images with motion. The fluid motion at 48fps versus 24fps comes from having twice as many images of the moving objects rather than sharper individual images, and modern cinema cameras have adjustable shutters that can give quite short exposure times anyway.

3-perf: This is a great idea for 1.85:1 presentation and if the world would forget about 'scope we would probably be running it now. 3-perf is used a fair bit in production. Several TV shows are shot with 3-perf film, this gives a high quality source for HDTV with little waste in that 16:9 format. It's fairly easy to print to 4-perf for 1.85 cinema releases as well.
The problem for the cinemas is that projectors won't do 3-perf and cinemascope isn't likely to go away soon. Making a projector that can do both 3 and 4 perf is a trick, and probably means an electronic projector like the Kinoton E-drive machines.
Losing the analog track is probably reasonable now, digital sound can stand on its own - but the optical centre shift means making a 3/4 perf machine gets more unlikely. (and the web site doesn't hint that such a machine is possible)

Active Registration: What problem does this solution address?

My completely subjective conclusion:
This is a penny stock play, trying to sucker people into investing in vapourware.
They mention that 24fps is possible. This can only be to allow showing cross-printed "normal" 1.85 films to be shown. I can't see film producers stocking double inventory to make their normal 24fps films showable at 3-perf theatres until there are a LOT of them... and I can't see many systems being installed until all popular films are available in 3-perf... classic deadlock.
I can't imaging theatre owners installing this system for the limited appeal of the improved "look" at 48fps.
I can't see a producer making a big-budget film and releasing it only in Maxivision 48, meaning people will be able to see any major film in normal 1.85 24fps... and the improvement at 48fps just isn't that amazing that they will pay much of a premium for it.
Digital projection is coming and Joe Exhibitor is dreading the cost of converting to it. Why bet the bank on another film format?
The active registration thingy seems to be a way to avoid operator screwups, this type of foolproofness is also a selling point for digital projection. Misframing is a pretty benign form of operator incompetence - damaging the film is far more serious (and is a problem that digital projection can actually avoid). This system still has the same easily damaged film, and presumably will require a human to assemble, handle, and thread the film.
Their only possible product seems to be the projector. The cocepts of 48fps and 3-perf pulldown are far from new. I don't see any chance that many will be sold.

Come on over and kick me if I'm proven wrong
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 04-14-2003, 11:49 PM:
 
Of course, rendering 48fps for postin the computer will cost far more than currently with 24fps, and the cost of prints is one-and-a-half times the cost of standard 35mm prints. (And isnt this the REAL reason studios are exploring the possibility of digital distribution?)

I also wonder if the frame speed will make it too real for dramatically structured films.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-15-2003, 04:54 AM:
 
Dave, are you implying that the world needs to rid itself of the superior "scope/2.39" format in favor of the lesser "flat/1.85" format???
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-15-2003, 09:34 AM:
 
Unfortunately, there is not much interest in improved film formats today.

Recall that I did a presentation "Scope 1.5X -- Squeezing Even Higher Quality from 35mm Prints" at the SMPTE Technical Conference in Los Angeles in November 2000:

Scope 1.5X Presentation (works only for SMPTE members logged on with valid SMPTE ID)

Original Article in Feb 1997 Kodak Film Notes for Reel People

My presentation reviewed the work of Glenn Berggren on "IscoVision" in 1984, that proposed using a 1.5X anamorphic lens with the current "scope" aperture, to give a 1.79:1 aspect ratio image (very close to today's "flat" 1.85:1 aspect ratio). By efficiently using the larger 0.825 x 0.690 inch image area on the print (compared to the current "flat" 0.825 x 0.446 inches), the proposed format would increase available light by a factor of 1.5X. If the film were also shot with a 1.5X anamorphic lens, the larger image area on the negative would also dramatically improve the sharpness and graininess of the image.

Despite the demonstrated advantages and minimal changes required, there has been little interest in adopting this proposed new "Scope 1.5X" format, mostly due to the need to spend a few thousand dollars for the new lens and the need to transition smoothly to a new format.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-15-2003, 12:45 PM:
 
MaxiVision is not gonna happen. Ever. And by that I mean becoming a standard format. 48 frames per second is too fast for a drama. It would work only for a documentary.
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 04-15-2003, 01:22 PM:
 
Bobby Pinkstone and UA did a lot of work with Todd AO on the 3-perf film. They even got Dolby to get the Dolby Digital and Analogue to work at 3-perf speed with is 1/3 slower than 4-perf. But after two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars, they abandon the project. I'm sure that all of the elements are still in place and could be easily resurrected. But it came down to one simple problem, getting 35,000 screens to convert and then convert back if need be. It was never going to happen. And all you had to do was change the intermittent.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-15-2003, 01:28 PM:
 
That United Artists Theatres / Todd-AO project (Bobby Pinkston, Dick Vetter, et al) was the Compact Distribution Print (CDP) project. Used 2-1/2 perf pulldown:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/special/2andahalf-perf.htm

The CDP system was demonstrated in the mid 1990's. Two concerns the industry raised were that the slower film transport speed could affect sound quality, and that the higher quality 4-perf "scope" format could not easily be accomodated.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-15-2003, 04:01 PM:
 
I have some CDP frames lying around somewhere. Every time you make a cut with a splicer, you have to lose TWO frames. Nice concept but it really wasn't worth the hassle. There are a lot of other good ideas out there, but requiring a big hardware change just to run normal movies will never be accepted. People with these concepts need to be realistic and know that if it can't run with just a simple lens change, then it probaby will never happen.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-15-2003, 05:53 PM:
 
Concerning Aaron Haney's post earlier about T2:3D, yes I am aware that this was shot in twin 70mm 3D format. But there is one major problem: it is not a feature film.

Ridefilms and other kinds of special venues have the luxury of making a one-of-a-kind, custom format with staggering levels of image and sound quality. Items like 70mm gauge prints are largely a given in such venues.

For feature films played in normal commercial theaters, I'd like to see something better tailored for that. 65mm/70mm origination does fit into the scheme. Scope reduction prints from a 65mm source can be exceptionally sharp and rich in color. And then the few 70mm installation left can boast a presention whose quality is demonstrably better than anything "digital."

What studio is going to bankroll James Cameron's next feature? Whoever pays for the budget is going to pay a LOT. Wouldn't it make sense to "future proof" that very expensive investment? Video storage/presentation formats are changing and improving on a steady basis. It only stands to reason that within the next 10 to 20 years some home video formats of the future will have better image potential than 4/35 film. A movie shot on 65mm would hold its own against future video presentation formats for quite a bit longer before showing its limitations.

Anyway, I know it is pretty much a hopeless longshot for any feature film to be shot on 65mm anymore. Still, it would be a good investment.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-15-2003, 06:58 PM:
 
Joe wrote:

quote:

---

...if it can't run with just a simple lens change, then it probaby will never happen.

---

Even a simple lens change prevented a superior format like Scope 1.5X (aka IscoVision) from being accepted. 50% more light than "flat" 1.85:1 and better image quality for the cost of a lens sadly didn't fly.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-15-2003, 10:01 PM:
 
As I've said before this would more than likely be strictly a release format given that often filmmakers don't want to use anamorphic lenses even for 2.39 Scope format so it would be a very tough sell "just" for 1.85.

As a release format much of the gains could be achieved be doing a 1.85-within-2.39 format using regular 2X squeeze just like some trailers. I'm surprised no one has done a test release like this. Then no one has to buy anything, at least not for common-height theatres.

--

Dave said something about centerline shift being an issue with some of these proposed formats. I don't see why it would be. You can have a lens shift adjustment in the turret (probably a 3 lens turret) since you'd be using different focal length lenses anyway, so each is preset to what it should be. Lamphouse adjustment is probably not necessary but if it was that can be automated as well.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-16-2003, 12:08 AM:
 
But Steve, then it would REQUIRE side only masking if they did the "Flat within Scope" type deal, just with a different aperture or even just the scope plate. Many theaters believe that side masking is unacceptable and only top masking is good enough. They want flat to be as big as possible.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-16-2003, 12:22 AM:
 
I don't blame the tech people for spec'ing 1.85 screens when that's the best fit for the space. But the architects ought to stop designing auditoria that are not wide enough for a proper Scope screen.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-16-2003, 07:44 AM:
 
The 1.85 within 2.39 idea has merit. It does give a bit more light. One lens for both formats. But the proposed "Scope 1.5X" format gives alot more light. And the 1.85:1 image would need to be optically squeezed.

If used for production, the "anamorphic artifacts" and speed penalty with a 1.5X squeeze would likely be less noticeable than 2X anamorphs. And lots more image area on the negative than 1.85:1 "flat", giving a very significant improvement in sharpness and graininess.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-16-2003, 11:23 AM:
 
As a shooting format it would be cool, and much of the clarity would come through even on conventional flat 1.85 reductions. And you can use the Technirama 1.33X printer anamorphic to convert it to my 1.85-within-2.39 2X Scope format!
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 04-16-2003, 01:40 PM:
 
Steve's right about theaters not accomodating true scope screens. It's very disappointing when after watching flat trailers, the top masking lowers to produce the scope aspect ratio. That is totally counter to the whole idea of scope in the first place. Hmmm. Smaller picture when watching scope... Sounds a little like letterboxing. No wider, just reduced height.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 04-16-2003, 03:20 PM:
 

quote:

---

48 frames per second is too fast for a drama. It would work only for a documentary.

---

quote:

---

That is totally counter to the whole idea of scope in the first place. Hmmm. Smaller picture when watching scope...

---

quote:

---

Now if we just had someone who could write and film a hyper reality movie using this process???????????

---

quote:

---

Dave, are you implying that the world needs to rid itself of the superior "scope/2.39" format in favor of the lesser "flat/1.85" format???

---

quote:

---

So were the video releases of "Oklahoma!" mastered from the 30 fps version? If so, could "Oklahoma!" be said to "move like video"

---

As I recall, there are video transfers of "Oklahoma" made both from the 24fps 35mm version, and the (IMHO) much superior 30fps 65mm version. I recently borrowed the NTSC DVD from a friend, and still framed through some fast moving dance sequences, happy to find no 3:2 pulldown artifacts --- so it likely came from the 30fps version. I was very pleased with the image and sound quality for this production, made almost 50 years ago. The DVD packaging gave no indication which original (24fps/35mm vs. 30fps/65mm) had been used.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-17-2003, 02:37 PM:
 
Did they have two cameras on the shoot? If not, how did they get 24 frames per second out of thirty? I would think that it would look kind of choppy.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-17-2003, 02:47 PM:
 
Both 65mm cameras (30fps) and 35mm cameras (24fps) were used, sometimes shooting a scene simultaneously, other times as different takes. Here's the story:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingto1.htm

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingto5.htm
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-19-2003, 10:05 AM:
 
"Active Registration: What problem does this solution address?"
_________________________________________________________________
Actually this is a neato idea and if its actually registering each frame then itsa great idea.....one could have precise frame registration without having to resort to expensive dye transfer prints. The RCA FR35 A&B projectors had an active registration circuit that looked at two perfs and nulled out the difference between the two using the pull down servo motor to do so just before the frame was projected. Although an early attempt at this it really worked, but only in the verticle sense, not laterally. Having some sort of registration marks printed on the film for a similar circuit to look at would work better. With the RCA system if there was any major perf wear it could actually cause the picture to become more unstable. If it was related to framing, which IMHO would be a waste of effort it might appease the DP's and director as they can be very fussy about prefect framing during projection. I'd sure like to know more about which they are talking about though.....
Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-19-2003, 10:18 AM:
 
Any decent machine in good working order can produce a satisfactorily steady image. Most of the unsteadiness is from printing. So there's little point to investing in technology that's going to steady the image to the Nth degree unless you first do something about the prints.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-19-2003, 10:55 AM:
 
Steve,
You missed my point. The registration thing would in theory take at least a large chunk out of the unsteady prints that are being made today.......in other words let the projector do the job of registering each frame to a refrence mark printed perhaps on the frame line. The only other way to get absolute steadiness in a release print is to make dye transfer prints, or step printed release prints....but the latter is totally unfesable except for just a few prints for important locations.
Mark
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-19-2003, 04:06 PM:
 
Properly contact printing a short pitch original to a long pitch print stock should produce very steady images. Unsteadiness is often the result of using short pitch raw stock on a continuous contact printer -- there will ALWAYS be some slippage in this situation. A much slower pin-registered printer should always be used when printing onto short pitch film.
 

---

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 04-20-2003, 09:06 AM:
 
Mark,

Where was that RCA projector used? Telecine?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-20-2003, 10:55 AM:
 
Chris,
Those were used at two locations in Chicago. The FR35A was at Astro Labs, and the FR35B was at Editel. I ultimately ended up with the FR35B at home when Editel pulled it to replace it with a new Bosch scanner. The FR35B was pretty much the same as the present day Westrex electronic projector. Film was rewound through the gate at high speed!! The circuitry allowed the intermittent servo motor to run its sprocket continously at high speed to do this. RCA also made a screening room version of the 35B that would mount to a standard pedestal, so there may well hvae been a few of them on dubbing stages. All of these machines could run at the special tv pull down rate, or regular 3-1 pull down. Counting the film take up servo system there were 5 servo motors in it. Intermittent, Feed sprocket, Shutter, and upper and lower reels.
Mark
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-20-2003, 01:43 PM:
 
Mark you forgot to mention that those servos sometimes had minds of there own
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-20-2003, 09:57 PM:
 
The FR35A servos were definately doing things on their own terms....but that was all fixed in the FR35B. It was a reliable, rock steady machine. The ONLY problem with the B version was if one of the supply rail fuses in the reel servos ever blew. When that happened both of the reels went to hyperspeed instantly, and depending on if it was the positive or negative rail fuse that blew determined if film shot out all over the room or if the film got shredded to bits. Ay any rate it was possible to ahe about 1K feet of film all over the room in half a millisecond!
Mark
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-20-2003, 10:38 PM:
 
1 millon feet per second... now that's an impressive shuttle speed!
 

---