3 ms·

In what way is it equally inexpensive to shoot twice as much film and use twice as much film to make every print? Digital tech is what's going to make high fra

by 9999 16y ago

In what way is it equally inexpensive to shoot twice as much film and use twice as much film to make every print? Digital tech is what's going to make high framerate capture and playback economical.

alabut 16y ago
Two reasons: 1) according to the Ebert article, it's not twice as much film, it "requires 50% more film and one stop more light (a trivial issue)" http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2011/01/MaxiVision%20film%20format-30911.html http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2011/01/MaxiVision%... Notice what's implied in the diagram is that the MV48 format would use existing 35mm film and would modify existing cameras for it. 2) it's way less expensive than 3D, both to shoot and display. 3D is just as much a competitor as the Red camera. It's what the movie studios and theaters have been banking on to compete with the quality of home theater setups, not an increase in 2D image quality. Caring about the unique look of film compared to digital while trying to increase the quality is why directors like Christopher Nolan like the IMAX format, but shooting with 70mm film is not only expensive but unwieldy because the cameras are huge. Sort of like what bulky 3D cameras were like before James Cameron forced the invention of a new one for Avatar.
- 9999 16y ago
  That Maxivision sample there is for prints, not for capture. If you were to take a look at a super 35 original negative shot at 24 fps, it would look pretty much like the Maxivision print there (no waste, but half as many frames). So it would almost certainly take twice as much film to shoot in Maxivision. Also, a stop more light is not a non-trivial issue. It could mean having to rent 20K HMIs instead of 10K, a bigger generator, etc. Or using a higher ISO film, thus negating the benefits of the format in the first place. No one shoots with 70 mm film. 65 mm film is the capture size, 70 mm is the print size (added 5 mm for audio tracks).
  - alabut 16y ago
    Fine, I misspoke about the IMAX format and those are all points about #1, but what are you comparing the increase in cost to? Continuing to use the same old equipment as now? Or switching to digital? Because the discussion is about the least expensive way to upgrade image quality, not about whether it's more expensive at all. And what about the second point about 3D being an expensive sham that movie studios are using to milk more money out of the audience? And this isn't the first time they've tried that - we're going through the same fad that hit in the 60's and it'll die for similar reasons. Regardless of whether it's Maxvision or RED, an increase in picture quality way beyond 1080p is possible and being held up by bean counters, not the directors. It's not like RED's native high resolution is translating directly to the screen - it's being downgraded for the projectors at movie theaters. I'm getting this from the FAQ page on the RED website. Scroll down to the last one - "So, where can I see 4K?" and you'll see promises of 4k projectors and displays coming soon.
    - 9999 16y ago
      I completely agree with you about 3D. I despise it. The Maxivision goal was a noble one, but it was just too expensive to work. Increasing the framerate of content playback on digital projectors will be a far less costly initiative than the Maxivision proposal would have been. Unfortunately I'm not sure 48 fps vs. 24 fps has enough "wow" factor to convince the average movie goer to go to the 48 fps screening over a 24 fps screening, but I really hope it will.
      - alabut 16y ago
        I agree that a simple increase in framerate isn't enough of a wow factor. It might be if it's also accompanied by a massive increase in resolution? Either way, I'm looking forward to any improvement that doesn't involve 3D. Ebert's other guest author the week before the Maxivision one was an anti-3D article by Walter Murch, probably the most famous film editor and sound designer ever: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

by 9999 16y ago

In what way is it equally inexpensive to shoot twice as much film and use twice as much film to make every print? Digital tech is what's going to make high framerate capture and playback economical.

alabut 16y ago

Two reasons: 1) according to the Ebert article, it's not twice as much film, it "requires 50% more film and one stop more light (a trivial issue)" http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2011/01/MaxiVision%20film%20format-30911.html http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2011/01/MaxiVision%... Notice what's implied in the diagram is that the MV48 format would use existing 35mm film and would modify existing cameras for it. 2) it's way less expensive than 3D, both to shoot and display. 3D is just as much a competitor as the Red camera. It's what the movie studios and theaters have been banking on to compete with the quality of home theater setups, not an increase in 2D image quality. Caring about the unique look of film compared to digital while trying to increase the quality is why directors like Christopher Nolan like the IMAX format, but shooting with 70mm film is not only expensive but unwieldy because the cameras are huge. Sort of like what bulky 3D cameras were like before James Cameron forced the invention of a new one for Avatar.

9999 16y ago
That Maxivision sample there is for prints, not for capture. If you were to take a look at a super 35 original negative shot at 24 fps, it would look pretty much like the Maxivision print there (no waste, but half as many frames). So it would almost certainly take twice as much film to shoot in Maxivision. Also, a stop more light is not a non-trivial issue. It could mean having to rent 20K HMIs instead of 10K, a bigger generator, etc. Or using a higher ISO film, thus negating the benefits of the format in the first place. No one shoots with 70 mm film. 65 mm film is the capture size, 70 mm is the print size (added 5 mm for audio tracks).
- alabut 16y ago
  Fine, I misspoke about the IMAX format and those are all points about #1, but what are you comparing the increase in cost to? Continuing to use the same old equipment as now? Or switching to digital? Because the discussion is about the least expensive way to upgrade image quality, not about whether it's more expensive at all. And what about the second point about 3D being an expensive sham that movie studios are using to milk more money out of the audience? And this isn't the first time they've tried that - we're going through the same fad that hit in the 60's and it'll die for similar reasons. Regardless of whether it's Maxvision or RED, an increase in picture quality way beyond 1080p is possible and being held up by bean counters, not the directors. It's not like RED's native high resolution is translating directly to the screen - it's being downgraded for the projectors at movie theaters. I'm getting this from the FAQ page on the RED website. Scroll down to the last one - "So, where can I see 4K?" and you'll see promises of 4k projectors and displays coming soon.
  - 9999 16y ago
    I completely agree with you about 3D. I despise it. The Maxivision goal was a noble one, but it was just too expensive to work. Increasing the framerate of content playback on digital projectors will be a far less costly initiative than the Maxivision proposal would have been. Unfortunately I'm not sure 48 fps vs. 24 fps has enough "wow" factor to convince the average movie goer to go to the 48 fps screening over a 24 fps screening, but I really hope it will.
    - alabut 16y ago
      I agree that a simple increase in framerate isn't enough of a wow factor. It might be if it's also accompanied by a massive increase in resolution? Either way, I'm looking forward to any improvement that doesn't involve 3D. Ebert's other guest author the week before the Maxivision one was an anti-3D article by Walter Murch, probably the most famous film editor and sound designer ever: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html