Nate Downes Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Nate,I'mnot knocking your love of old cameras. I bought an old Kodak folder on eBay, with a flashgun, flashbulbs and a $15 roll of 616 film, to use once, and I don't think it was a bad deal, but if you're getting a camera serviced that is never going to be able to actually shoot film, then that is a waste. No, Imax shoots 65mm neg stock, just like the rest of large format movie fiml users. THe Russians used to use 70mm negatives, but the SovColor went the way of the Soviet Union back in '91. Their negatives were attrocious too, and slow. Your best bet would be if you could find someone to move each set of sprocket rollers in 2.5mm. Regards, ~KB Did I mention my wifes step-dad is a metals worker....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Did I mention my wifes step-dad is a metals worker....? No, I thought you were paying money for this. As long as it is free or for-cost, then go for it! Ruari, I am so envious. How the hell did you snag a preview pass! Do tell! I'm going to have to drive probably at least 90 miles to see it in IMax opening night, but so be it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruairi Robinson Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 No, I thought you were paying money for this. As long as it is free or for-cost, then go for it! Ruari, I am so envious. How the hell did you snag a preview pass! Do tell! I'm going to have to drive probably at least 90 miles to see it in IMax opening night, but so be it! Directing a movie for Warner Bros has the very occasional side benefit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Directing a movie for Warner Bros has the very occasional side benefit... Oh, do you get free passes to a lot of their releases? I thought you got into a screening through the normal route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruairi Robinson Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Oh, do you get free passes to a lot of their releases? I thought you got into a screening through the normal route. Well, one, so far... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Hafner Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Are you writing a term paper? You don't need to cite sources here. . . Does it bother you to see some sources? That a contact print looses 30% is horsesh it. Not even an optical print looses that much. I know because I've done tests with optical prints. The formula is a starting point. Often it's off 10-15% from what happens in the real world. As much as you hate sources, would you happen to have one to support your claim and prove ARRI wrong? After all the results are coming from measuring the prints, not just applying some hypothetical formula. Now, even if it were 30-15=15. Do you really think this is not visible on IMAX? Keep in mind that about 40% of what you see on a negative is irrelevant information because it's too dark too light to be transferred to a high-contrast print stock. So talk all you want about modulation, what I care about is detail in highlights and shadows, not image information burried out of range of the print stock that was never meant to be seen anyway. Sounds to me like you are mixing up spatial resolution/modulation and shading detail/dynamic range. I was talking about the former, not the latter. Would you rather see low-con prints at the theatre? I guarantee you they'll have more of the resolution of the negative. They'll also look BAD, really bad. Why should I have to chose? Wrong assumption, Howabout prints in still photography, are they no good because they can only get, at best, 60% of the dynamic range of a transparency, and therefore, have, by your definition, 40% less information than transparency material? :rolleyes: You are very good at moving the topic elsewhere when you hit a dead end. We were talking about spatial resolution, not how many shades of gray or color you get between black and white, and how much darker black is than white. Of course the latter is affected by the former as well. No modulation = no shades, no contrast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 No, I thought you were paying money for this. As long as it is free or for-cost, then go for it! Ruari, I am so envious. How the hell did you snag a preview pass! Do tell! I'm going to have to drive probably at least 90 miles to see it in IMax opening night, but so be it! And here I am with not 1, not 2, but 5 IMAX theatres within reach... I figure one must have it on opening night... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Does it bother you to see some sources? As much as you hate sources, would you happen to have one to support your claim and prove ARRI wrong? After all the results are coming from measuring the prints, not just applying some hypothetical formula. Now, even if it were 30-15=15. Do you really think this is not visible on IMAX? Sounds to me like you are mixing up spatial resolution/modulation and shading detail/dynamic range. I was talking about the former, not the latter. Why should I have to chose? Wrong assumption, You are very good at moving the topic elsewhere when you hit a dead end. We were talking about spatial resolution, not how many shades of gray or color you get between black and white, and how much darker black is than white. Of course the latter is affected by the former as well. No modulation = no shades, no contrast. I know still photographers, printing press plate-makers, and cinematographers who have all said "That's bullsh it", two of them as an exact quote when I asked them about the same equation you keep citing as proof that film projection should be outlawed. I had an opportunity to ask a plate maker this question just yesterday, as press men actually do measure the resolution moreso than any other visual field, and he said that if they lost 30% of their resolution between lasering onto film and contact printing onto the plate the results "would look like sh it". So it isn't just me who gets angry when you throw those figures about, people who actually make these things every day for a living get angry when you use a formula as an absolute truth. Remember than all physics equations are writen by people, and you are using a very old formula. I have actually never seen a model formula for contact printing, only lens-to-lens photographic reproduction. I think you're using the wrong formula, and not scientific data on the subject. Every person I questioned on the matter said that the resolution loss formula is just that, a formula, and that resolution isn't lost evenly across the dynamic range of the film, it is lost in extreme highlights and shadows, which a minimal loss in the area of the dynamic range given proper exposure when copied onto intermediate, positive, or print stock. Michel, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am not going to argue science anymore with you on a cinematography site. I AM however, going to look through my copy of Mees and James and post the correct formulae for contact printing resolution loss. You have to keep in mind that films have gotten so much better since the '50s that even the resolution loss in the formula is probably going to be a lot less than what actual modern-day Vision print stock or the intermediate stocks lose during copying. I'm not going to cite scientific articles because I couldn't care less about the theoretical contexts involved. I care about how it looks to the human eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 No, Imax shoots 65mm neg stock, just like the rest of large format movie fiml users. THe Russians used to use 70mm negatives, but the SovColor went the way of the Soviet Union back in '91. Their negatives were attrocious too, and slow. Your best bet would be if you could find someone to move each set of sprocket rollers in 2.5mm. The Russian 70mm was identical to 70mm western prints, thus 65mm perfs. So those cameras are relatively simple to change to 65mm. & some of the hand held models have been converted: http://stereokino.ru/camen3.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Hafner Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 It looks amazing too. Digital has a long way to go. It's funny how muddy and blurred the parts shot anamorphic 35mm look compared to the imax stuff. Don't you mean 35mm has a long way to go till it has, cough, cough, IMAX or only 8K resolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Hafner Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I know still photographers, printing press plate-makers, and cinematographers who have all said "That's bullsh it", two of them as an exact quote when I asked them about the same equation you keep citing as proof that film projection should be outlawed. I had an opportunity to ask a plate maker this question just yesterday, as press men actually do measure the resolution moreso than any other visual field, and he said that if they lost 30% of their resolution between lasering onto film and contact printing onto the plate the results "would look like sh it". I smell a misunderstanding here. There is a postulated loss of 30% modulation on MTF test patterns. This is not the same as a general loss of 30% resolution (any kind of resolution). And it does not mean either that a normal print has 10% resolution left in the cinema. :lol: The numbers are not mine, They come from scientific studies. A rebuttal where necessary must come from scientific studies as well. I'd like to see some, if they exist. Current graphs as here (www.digitalpraxis.net/zippdf/di-guide.pdf) show a pretty steep loss from ON to IP and then it tapers off. Hence my question why to scan the IP for an IMAX deliverable. Visual examples are here: http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/vide...inemas_special/ Quite telling, isn't it, unless you want to argue these examples are not reflecting reality because,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I smell a misunderstanding here. There is a postulated loss of 30% modulation on MTF test patterns. This is not the same as a general loss of 30% resolution (any kind of resolution). And it does not mean either that a normal print has 10% resolution left in the cinema. :lol: The numbers are not mine, They come from scientific studies. A rebuttal where necessary must come from scientific studies as well. I'd like to see some, if they exist. Current graphs as here (www.digitalpraxis.net/zippdf/di-guide.pdf) show a pretty steep loss from ON to IP and then it tapers off. Hence my question why to scan the IP for an IMAX deliverable. Visual examples are here: http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/vide...inemas_special/ Quite telling, isn't it, unless you want to argue these examples are not reflecting reality because,,, A study from 2003 is what you cite as evidence? With how many generations of aquisition and printing technologies between then and now? One of the fun things about technology, it keeps marching on. In 2003, you had Vision stock, early 2k scanners, and early render-to-film technologies. Now you have Vision3, 8k scanners and laser printing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruairi Robinson Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 A study from 2003 is what you cite as evidence? With how many generations of aquisition and printing technologies between then and now? One of the fun things about technology, it keeps marching on. In 2003, you had Vision stock, early 2k scanners, and early render-to-film technologies. Now you have Vision3, 8k scanners and laser printing... The visual effects in Terminator 2 were done at 4k resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 The visual effects in Terminator 2 were done at 4k resolution. I have not found a reference for this. Earliest reference to a 4k scan I've found was for 1998's Pleasantville, but not dismissing the claim for T2 either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruairi Robinson Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I have not found a reference for this. Earliest reference to a 4k scan I've found was for 1998's Pleasantville, but not dismissing the claim for T2 either. It's not a period well covered online - early web days and all... btw Pleasantville was 2k, not 4k. Don't know where you are getting that info from... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Anyone who claims S35mm is "8K" is simply on crack and is not to be taken seriously. Professional 35mm still photographers with access to the very latest scanning technology don't even claim "8K" and they are shooting under absolutely ideal conditions on a much larger negative than cinema 35mm. It just makes absolutely no sense at all to claim that cinema 35mm can match the scanning resolution of professional 35mm STILL photography (it is a mathematical impossibility), let alone exceed it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg lamshöft Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 (edited) From my experience in still photography you see a noticeable difference between 4000ppi, 6300ppi and maybe even 8000ppi (these are common resolutions with Imacon-scanners, 1000ppi are ~1k because 35mm-pictures are nearly one inch wide). 4k are definitely not enough to capture the full information of modern film stocks! Of course you cannot compare the generated file-size 1:1 with file sizes of digital cameras but you need to scan at very high resolutions to avoid "grain alaising" and capture the "structure" of film (grain...). Just take a look on the ARRI 4k+-Article mentioned a few times, you can download uncrompressed examples from their ftp-servers: http://www.arri.de/infodown/cam/broch/2008...%20Brochure.pdf On site 17 you can find fig. 20 showing a 35mm-negative scanned with 2k and 4k (downsampled from 3/6k Arriscan?) and a 10k-scan (drum scanner?). Fig. 22 on site 18 shows the loss of quality caused by the optical process. I don't know if these tests are 100% correct but from my perspective they look pretty reliable! Edited July 3, 2008 by georg lamshöft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 It's not a period well covered online - early web days and all... btw Pleasantville was 2k, not 4k. Don't know where you are getting that info from... I wasn't sure if it was 2k or 4k but I did know it was one of the first to use digital scanning for FX shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Anyone who claims S35mm is "8K" is simply on crack and is not to be taken seriously. Again, an old arguement, just with new numbers. You decry me spouting rhetoric, yet here you are. Why do we not agree to disagree and instead focus on the real issue, the right way of lighting a scene with a birthday cake within it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Nate, just because people have been wrong before does not mean they can never be right. There is a mathematical limit to the optimal resolution at which cinema 35mm film can be scanned. Can we agree on that much? Scanning at 6K in order to get an optimal 4K downsample does not make the film "6K"... it makes it 4K. Just like a RED ONE is actually 3.2K (or whatever the number is) not 4K. It uses 4096 pixels, but the actual resolution is only 3.2K (or less) because of the Bayer pattern. People have here been calling "BS" on the outlandish claims of digital guys for years. Now the tables have turned and the films guys are starting to wildly overstate the resolution of film. Film has a lot going for it; there is no need to "pad" film's credentials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 There is a mathematical limit to the optimal resolution at which cinema 35mm film can be scanned. Can we agree on that much? I'll agree here 100%. I will, however, also note that this limit will change with time, as newer film technologies and scanner technologies are developed. So, rules that apply to EXR with a film scanner from 2003 probably do not work so well with Vision3 and a brand new scanhead. A lot of digitals resolution can be attributed to computer enhancement, and the same can be said of film done through a DI as well. Grain reduction vs interpolation of pixels, both are done, and both can push the boundaries beyond the original emultion/sensor. We have, in the end, a wonderful time for cinema, with more choices than ever for the DP. From antique hand-cranked cameras to the RED and beyond, more tool choices means more options means more creativity with todays cinematographer, and I think everyone here can agree, more choice is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruairi Robinson Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I wasn't sure if it was 2k or 4k but I did know it was one of the first to use digital scanning for FX shots. it was among the first THOUSAND hehe. Iit was the first film to have the majority of the shots go through a DI back in 1998 - Oh Brother Where Art Thou was the first to have it done to the whole thing... but vfx shots were being scanned and recorded to film for YEARS before that... The Cineon 2k/4k scanner was released in 1993...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael Lehnert Posted July 3, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted July 3, 2008 Anyone who claims S35mm is "8K" is simply on crack and is not to be taken seriously. Georg Lamshöft, good points but I recommend not to try to hard to get them across because others have tried before... it's a sure slippery slope into mouthful statements that made another thread here so scientific and popular (which was a great achievement for this forum :mellow: )... Well, Tom, I must have had loads of crack recently, probably got it from those "film guys" at ArriMedia or Todd-AO... or it must have been something in the air in their screening rooms that made me see stuff only "weird-eyed" animals should see... :) BTW, it is you who argues so passionately for drug consumption being the fuel to greater results in this thread here. Maybe you should take some of your medicine to see the "8K difference" ;) . If not, then we'll meet here in 2010 again for humble pie on the "K barrier" being broken for mainstream understanding B) :) . Cheers, -Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Georg Lamshöft, good points but I recommend not to try to hard to get them across because others have tried before... it's a sure slippery slope into mouthful statements that made another thread here so scientific and popular (which was a great achievement for this forum :mellow: )... Well, Tom, I must have had loads of crack recently, probably got it from those "film guys" at ArriMedia or Todd-AO... or it must have been something in the air in their screening rooms that made me see stuff only "weird-eyed" animals should see... :) BTW, it is you who argues so passionately for drug consumption being the fuel to greater results in this thread here. Maybe you should take some of your medicine to see the "8K difference" ;) . If not, then we'll meet here in 2010 again for humble pie on the "K barrier" being broken for mainstream understanding B) :) . Cheers, -Michael I have to LOL at how you always try to throw in a personal jab (implying that I promote drugs or casting me as a misogynist) here and there instead of sticking to the argument about cameras and imaging. :) I don't really mind it... I just find it amusing. Yeah, we can come back in 2010. Let's see how many "Ks" your Kodak 35mm stock has gained vs my how many my digital sensor has gained by 2010. ;) Time is on my side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael Lehnert Posted July 4, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted July 4, 2008 I have to LOL at how you always try to throw in a personal jab (implying that I promote drugs or casting me as a misogynist) here and there instead of sticking to the argument about cameras and imaging. :) I don't really mind it... I just find it amusing. Yeah, we can come back in 2010. Let's see how many "Ks" your Kodak 35mm stock has gained vs my how many my digital sensor has gained by 2010. ;) Time is on my side. Well, Tom, you clearly are based on your posts, and that's the funny thing, as you are the only guy around who does so and doesn't mind it. Nothing wrong with that: I love relics! A dying species. ;) See you in 10, then. Because - again funny - contrary to many people's experience in this industry over the past 3 decades, time hasn't been on your side, and won't be in the future... trust me: been there, done that. B) Best wishes, -Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now