Maxivision 48fps and higher frame rates in future?

[wile_e]

I am newbie to film making, so please bear with me. But one thing has always bothered me about film. Frame rate. Will the film industry EVER support a format in the future, that has higher frame rates than current formats? A lot of films being produced these days, could benefit a lot with a faster frame rate. A lot of films now have faster action scenes, and computer animation, which all is limited to 24fps.

 

It just annoys me when I'm in a theater, watching a film. The camera pans left or right too fast, and I see stuttering. Not realistic at all. Ugly, Ugly stutter and jitter. This is why I seldom go to movies in a theatre. I know I'm not the only one to ever complain about the old 24fps standard. Isn't it time consumers get to see filmmakers works, in true-to-life, shot at faster framerates like the Maxivision 48fps?

 

It's ashame also that HD high definition TV format are not increasing frame rate. Increasing resolution is only one step to improving picture. For fast action scenes, more frames need to be shot! Please someone explain to me, why everyone is so stuck on using 24fps? Why no one takes a stance and support a new faster film rate? I read about Maxivision, and it does use a little more film, but not that much, maybe 1/3 to 1/2 reel more, per movie.

 

I am sure future generations of man, would have liked to see our world, through faster frame rates. Are we stuck with 24fps forever?

[David Mullen ASC]

Film projection will always be 24/25 fps. You have to have a worldwide standard for easy distribution of prints and it's too hard to convert a hundred thousand 35mm projectors worldwide to MaxiVision (as much as they would like that.) Plus you'd have to shoot at 48 fps as well (and lose one stop of light.)

 

IF digital projection ever takes over, THEN you may see multiple frame rates easily supported by playback technology, since a lot of these systems can refresh the image at very high rates. For example, one could shoot and project at 60P.

 

However, one of the reasons for the popularity of 24/25/30 fps for progressive scan digital shooting is that rates as high as 50 or 60 fps start to look more like traditional 50i or 60i video photography, which always DID have smoother motion than 24 fps film. In other words, smoother is not necessarily better IF you are trying to make video look more like traditional film.

 

I'm not saying one frame rate is better than another. Obviously the higher the frame rate, the smoother the motion.

 

There were attempts at different frame rates in the past -- Cinerama was originally 26 fps and Todd-AO 65mm/70mm was 30 fps -- but both were forced to convert eventually to 24 fps because of the need to release the films also in 35mm reduction prints.

 

Another problem with shooting on film at 48 fps is that the 24 fps prints that will still need to be made will look strobey because of the 1/96th of a second shutter speed in the camera, making everything look like 24 fps photography shot with a 90 degree shutter angle. MaxiVision claims that digital software could be used to add more motion blur, but now you're talking about a digital intermediate step, plus I question how normal the motion would look.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Well they did introduce that thing, what?s it called, oh yeh right, interlaced. But seriously I think that 25fps is fine, well sure interlaced gives a 50fps look, but, in my opinion it looks crap.

 

It's one of the differences you see when comparing footage from a feature length film and a little handheld digital video camera.

 

So, I'm not sure if they will higher the frame rate. I think the question is, do we even want to?

[Filip Plesha]

This jerky motion is one of the key things to making a film look.

 

I don't think cinematography has ever been about making a perfect 3d

super-real presentation that makes you feel like you are viewing the objects with your own eyes. People has always enjoyed the "flawed" photo emulsions which distort the image into something more interesting than real life. Same goes for 24fps motion. It gives a different feel, sometimes it works like a drug, and makes you relax and wath the movie more closely (in other words it is hypnotical)

[David Mullen ASC]

Movies have always alternated between trying to create a hyper-real immersive experience (IMAX, Cinerama, Showscan) sometimes with sharper, clearer images and sometimes also with smoother motion -- and creating an UNreal, artistic effect that exploits the 2D nature of the medium. Films are not reality but dreams and sometimes you DON'T want the medium to be too realistic or else you don't really buy what you are seeing.

 

When someone puts on a 35mm anamorphic wide-angle lens and shoots in bright sunlight on fine-grain stock in a flying POV shot, let's say, they are exploiting that immersive Cinerama effect, the "you are there" feeling. Perhaps higher frame rates would help that effect, reinforce it. But in the same movie, you'll have less immersive shots where you just want the audience to concentrate on the faces, or you are trying to create an artistic 2D graphic image, like a telephoto silhouette shot.

 

So there is no right or wrong here, only that one had to recognize that movies are FICTION usually and sometimes they have to stimulate the ability to dream rather the simply represent reality in the most accurate and immersive fashion.

[John Sprung]

There were attempts at different frame rates in the past -- Cinerama was originally 26 fps and Todd-AO 65mm/70mm was 30 fps -- but both were forced to convert eventually to 24 fps because of the need to release the films also in 35mm reduction prints.

 

Another problem with shooting on film at 48 fps is that the 24 fps prints that will still need to be made will look strobey because of the 1/96th of a second shutter speed in the camera, making everything look like 24 fps photography shot with a 90 degree shutter angle. MaxiVision claims that digital software could be used to add more motion blur, but now you're talking about a digital intermediate step, plus I question how normal the motion would look.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I remember about 30 years ago seeing some ShowScan tests at 60 fps. The pluses were much smoother motion and much less grain. But the downside was substantially reduced print life and much more expense for the prints. Wear and tear goes up exponentially with frame rate. The projectors have to be tweaked to perfection like Indy 500 race cars.

 

There was an ASC dinner 2-3 years ago where they had a demo of 48 fps photography printed down to 24. Skipping every other frame was equivalent to a 90 degree shutter, and looked terrible. The other test they tried was superimposing pairs of frames. That was even worse, because you had double images of everything that moved.

 

Gary Demos did some work with 72 fps a few years ago, but never got any results he liked well enough to show. I suggested that he could take groups of three frames, use the middle one as the main image, and add to it some exposure from the others to create blur, perhaps a 10-80-10 or 15-70-15 mix. He didn't think that would work.

 

In any case, I think it's a real good idea to stick with integer multiples, like 48 or 72. Fractions just make the problem a lot more difficult, like 60 fps is 2 1/2 times 24. That's why we have 3-2 pulldown in video.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Sam Javor]

Currently I'd be more worried about consumer HDTV and LCD TV's having up to a 30ms slower pixel response rate from CRT monitors... you think it looks like mud on film... plus even God doesn't know what color temp they run the things at.... Gateway's are factory set to "HIGH"... and will burn-in within 30 seconds.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

IF digital projection ever takes over

 

That?s quite an interesting point actually. I think they are also planning on downloading the movies from a mainstream server, as opposed to playing a huge roll of 35mm film.

 

Can't wait until we actually see some changes happening, at the moment it's all talk and no walk. But then again, you can?t expect every cinema in the world to scrap their projectors and buy these new ones.

 

The projectionists will also lose their jobs, John aren't or weren?t you a projectionist? OHH.. so that?s why your so against digital! Heheh, now it all makes sense...

[John Pytlak RIP]

The projectionists will also lose their jobs, John aren't or weren?t you a projectionist? OHH.. so that?s why your so against digital! Heheh, now it all makes sense...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I worked my way through college as a projectionist at both a drive-in theatre and a "hardtop", in the days of carbon arc and changeovers. :rolleyes:

 

I am definitely not "against" digital imaging. Today, post-production capabilities have been greatly enhanced by "hybrid" film/digital technology. But the aesthetics and the economics both have to be there for digital technology to significantly supplant film. I'm an electronic engineer who had to "learn" film technology, and I think I am well versed in both technologies. B)

 

Kodak presented a business case study at ShoWest a few years ago. Assuming a new release print plays in first-run theatres for about 4 to 6 weeks, it costs about $350 US per week to put a that 35mm print in a theatre. How do you finance a complete digital cinema system (including the high lumen 2Kor 4K projector, networking, large capacity high data rate server, signal source, and data delivery) for under $350 per week? (assuming 5 shows per day, that's only $10 per showing) Right now, the hardware for filling a large screen with "Digital Cinema" quality images is still over $100,000. How will maintenance costs and reliability compare to mechanical film projectors that have a proven track record of robustness, and last for decades? It's been reported that many digital cinema "test sites" have been heavily subsidized, either by the digital cinema vendors, or by government (e.g., Singapore and China).

 

FWIW, last year was a record year for the volume of 35mm print film used worldwide, and this year is on a pace to set a new record.

 

But Kodak is not resting on its laurels. Here is a link to Kodak's Digital Cinema Technology:

 

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

 

And an example of specific Kodak technology being developed for Digital Cinema applications:

 

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jht...pq-locale=en_US

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

How do you finance a complete digital cinema system (including the high lumen 2Kor 4K projector, networking, large capacity high data rate server, signal source, and data delivery) for under $350 per week?

Hmm I see what you mean. But it's a lot more easier, I mean, one click of a button and theres your movie.

 

Perhaps they just won't do it YET, give it a while for digital technology to improve.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Yes it is a lot easier and once we can do 4K projection for a reasonable price the only reason not to do it would be the large installed base of 35mm projectors. But yes, it'll almost certainly happen eventually. Could be a fairly long while, though.

 

Phil

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Yeh

 

They'll also be getting through a few bulbs. And we all know how much them things cost, and how long they last aswell..

 

(Although I managed to get a projector with 1800 hours bulb life left for 50 quid, which can't be bad)

 

Do they even have digital projectors on the market that are capable of projecting a good picture at cinema screen size? The projectors I've seen are suitable for home cinema use but that's topping it.

 

They?ll also have to improve the resolution on the projectors, but, something tells me they've already thought of that. Common sense or something I dunnow..

[Filip Plesha]

For anyone interested in the future if digital cinema, there is a great resource.

The standard is being developed by DCI and they post their drafts whenever there is a change. www.dcimovies.com

 

DCI was formed by most major studios, and I think we can take their standards for real because they are making those standards for themselfs.

Their awarenes i very high , and I think they will not go for any compromises.

I think there will be a bright future for digital cinema, when it comes in the distant or not so distand future.

 

There are lot of security issues still open, but the basic image characteristics have been decided earlier in the process have have remained unchanged.

The image will be distributed in two formats. 4kx2k and 2kx1k and in either 24fps or 48fps (only in 2K) depending on filmmakers choice. The image will be compressed, but the compression should be invisible to anyone viewing the film

in the cinema auditorium. The bit deph will be 12 bit per chanel.

[K Borowski]

The image will be compressed, but the compression should be invisible to anyone viewing the film

in the cinema auditorium.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'll notice.

 

FYI, omnimax already projects at 60 fps. Now that's clarity. Unfortunately, the format hasn't developed to its full potential and is used mostly for documentary purposes. However, in the future, there is the possibility that the format will expand and possibly cater to more dramatic purposes. Also, many ride films (35mm is used quite often for these) are projected at 48 fps, so the standard has materialized where realism is of importance (fooling an audience into believing they are on a roller coaster or some other such thriller).

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

[Filip Plesha]

Tell me, do you notice lossless compression too? The word "anyone" includes

everyone but you then..

 

 

You know, even the simple jpg compression can produce invisible changes

if it is set at high quality. Since it is a not a lossless compression, there are changes in pixels, but you can only detect them if you compare each pixel in the image to the original and to human eyes they mean NOTHING. And I supose the cinema compression is going to be a little more sophisticated than jpg at high qualitty setting.

[Filip Plesha]

I just read the part about compression again...

 

Actually the compression will be motion-JPG2000 format.

And I quote:

 

"The image compression system shall be visually lossless under normal viewing

conditions"

 

allso:

 

"Visually lossless is understood to mean that the reconstructed moving pictures after decompression shall not be distinguishable from its original by a human observer when exposed to typical viewing conditions in a theatre set-up. This applies to different kinds of material, such as live action, animation and computer generated. These conditions include projection on a large screen in a typical theatrical environment, by experienced"

[David Mullen ASC]

IMAX and OMNIMAX are projected at 24 fps, not 60 fps.

[Jason Debus]

MaxiVision has a nice informative .pdf up at their website:

 

http://www.maxivision48.com/maxivisioninfo0605.pdf

 

Also Roger Ebert is plugging it in his latest 'Answer Man':

 

If the movie industry had true visionaries among its most powerful executives, Maxivision 48 would be given a try. It shows movies at 48 frames a second, uses only 50 percent more film than currently, and because of a patented method for moving the film through the gate, eliminates scratching and jiggles; it would cost only $12,000 per screen to install the equipment. The picture is four times as good as current film projection, and that would provide a powerful incentive for people to see movies in theaters. I've heard genuine enthusiasm from people who've seen movies like "Batman Begins" and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" on IMAX screens, and I know that audiences do respond to picture quality. If one industry leader announced a movie in Maxivision, there would be a stampede to the format because digital would be instantly upstaged.

[Dominic Case]

Hmm I see what you mean. But it's a lot more easier, I mean, one click of a button and theres your movie.

 

Isn't this a wonderful concept? It's a real "rolling on the floor laughing" comment, every time someone trots it out. (Which is quite often!).

 

But Daniel, maybe you've missed the irony of your words: Kodak's very very early marketing slogan (about 100 years ago, in their quite successful consumer sector, selling photogaphic cameras and film) was "You push the button, we do the rest."

[Guest Kai.w]

I just read the part about compression again...

 

Actually the compression will be motion-JPG2000 format.

And I quote:

 

"The image compression system shall be visually lossless under normal viewing

conditions"

 

allso:

 

"Visually lossless is understood to mean that the reconstructed moving pictures after decompression shall not be distinguishable from its original by a human observer when exposed to typical viewing conditions in a theatre set-up. This applies to different kinds of material, such as live action, animation and computer generated. These conditions include projection on a large screen in a typical theatrical environment, by experienced"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually I've been a bit worried about that... the spec says maximum bandwith will be 250Mbit/s. At 4k/12Bit that should be a compression ratio of roughly ~ 30:1. Even for jpeg2000 I think that sounds a little high.

 

-k

[Filip Plesha]

By the time digital cinema becomes a standard, current spects will be ridiculous, becuase storage and computer technology will be much more advanced.

[Guest Kai.w]

By the time digital cinema becomes a standard, current spects will be ridiculous, becuase storage and computer technology will be much more advanced.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, 250Mbit/s is already not very much. A single disc would get you this bandwith (maybe not sustained), so I'm just surprised they made this standard today (which is supposed to last a bit) with such a spec.

 

-k

[John Pytlak RIP]

By the time digital cinema becomes a standard, current spects will be ridiculous, becuase storage and computer technology will be much more advanced.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's usually the issue with digital systems, as opposed to film systems where the improvements come with each new can of raw stock. Plus, there will always be a way to play back a "man readable" image, unlike digital, where knowledge of the encoding format is crucial.

 

But you have to start somewhere, and the current DCI specs and work of the SMPTE DC28 Committee are a very good start.

 

Here is the Kodak Digital Cinema website:

 

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

 

There are currently four Kodak Digital Cinema installations in commercial theatres showing feature films using Kodak's 2K system. The one in Rochester NY is at the Cinemark Tinseltown-16 Theatre on their largest screen #9 (25x60 feet).

[Matt Pacini]

These kinds of discussions, with the inevitable predictions of what gonna happen in the future, ignore the overriding reality of technology, including film acqusition, distribution & projection:

Inertia - "the way we're already doing it" almost always outweights "the better process" in what actually happens. A very complex set of chaos theory is at work with these situtaions; it's certainly never a case that the best format OBVIOUSLY wins out, otherwise we'd all be shooting IMAX, or at least 70mm (and Beta would have won the Beta vs VHS war, and we'd be using a 10th generation super Amiga computer instead of MicroSloth based PC's).

 

There are always trade-offs of what format to us, and that determines what's going to become, or remain, the standard, but simly continuing to do what works now is a HUGE factor in this.

The reality is, most people in the world still have to get on a plane if they want to watch a feature film digitally projected.

 

MP