Jump to content

The HD Revolution?


Guest dpforum1968

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

What Mike said, except:

 

> DPs (with majority of experience in film) should not be expected to pick up a professional digital

> knowledge and street smarts overnight.

 

Why not? Video people are expected to know film before they're let anywhere near a big job, and no such excuses are made for them.

 

Personally I wouldn't expect either group to learn the other's trade overnight, but I would expect film people to step aside when video people's experience becomes more relevant. Sadly this doesn't happen - it seems that film people are simply a better class of person, and all kinds of excuses are made for them. "Hi Def Technician" indeed - next time I miss out on a film job for lack of experience, d'you think production will hire a "Film Technician" to hold my hand? I think not!

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member
Hi,

 

> Sure CCDs are toxic, but I don't have to work in that factory

 

I believe Kodak are the largest industrial polluter in New York state.

 

Phil

 

And the largest single manufacturing site:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/environmen...ml?pq-path=3650

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en.../2003Awards.pdf

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/environment/awards/

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/environment/goals/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Hi,

 

I think a consumable nitrate-based recording medium is probably always going to be a bit of an environmental disaster, no matter how hard you try.

 

Phil

 

Kodak has not made nitrate motion picture film since the early 1950's. :P

 

Kodak offers recycling services for today's films through its subsidiary FPC Film Salvage. Almost all manufacturing chemicals are recycled, including silver, solvents, the billions of perforation "chads", etc. Film laboratories efficiently replenish and reuse their chemistry, and recover almost all the silver in color film.

 

The highest volume film, VISION Color Print Film, is on polyester (ESTAR) base, which has greatly reduced the use of solvents in film manufacturing.

 

http://www.fpchollywood.com/fscsalvage.html

 

Since the 1950?s, the Film Salvage Company (FSC) has provided anti-piracy support to the motion picture film industry through the secured destruction and environmental disposal of used motion picture film.

 

Approximately 20 million pounds of film are destroyed and recycled annually, and in March of 2000, FSC was recognized by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for its recycling program.

 

FSC is a division of FPC, Inc., which happens to be a subsidiary of the Eastman Kodak Motion Picture Group. We are located in Hollywood, California; Mountain City, Tennessee; and Milan, Italy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
One hopeful sign is that a large part of prime time television continues to be shot on film despite predictions to the contrary four years ago

Actually, sitcoms are pretty much all tape now. Fewer and quicker reloads are a real luxury there. Single camera shows seem more likely to flip when the Genesis and D-20 are widely available and the total cost tips towards them.

 

(BTW, for the underwater question, why does it matter about decompression? Can't you just send the camera up on a rope and have the assistant re-load it, or have a second camera loaded and ready to go?)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, sitcoms are pretty much all tape now. 

 

I would revise that to "new sitcoms are pretty much all tape now." There are far fewer sitcoms on the air this season, and of the ones that are, there are still a number of "legacy" shows that remain on film. These include Everybody Loves Raymond, King of Queens, Two and a Half Men, That 70's Show, My Wife and Kids, Will and Grace, and Joey (the only new one). I suppose you could also consider Scrubs a sitcom, even though it is a single camera show shot on 16mm. It is certainly true, however, that there is now little reason to do a sitcom on film, and a number of reasons not to. You mentioned some of them, but another reason that is on occasion just as significant is the shorter turnaround for preshoots that will be played back for the audience. This was, in fact, one of the primary reasons for the first HD video sitcom to move to that medium (the show was "Titus").

 

I agree about products like the Genesis and D20 being potentially significant factors for single camera, and also agree on the need for a financial incentive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

The irony is that a lot of the productions you mention - particularly "King of Queens" - seem to be posted at standard def still, or at least the series that the UK digital channels are showing were. They look rotten! "That 70s Show" is clearly either hi-def or (less likely) retransferred into PAL and looks vastly better.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

The irony is that a lot of the productions you mention - particularly "King of Queens" - seem to be posted at standard def still, or at least the series that the UK digital channels are showing were. They look rotten! "That 70s Show" is clearly either hi-def or (less likely) retransferred into PAL and looks vastly better.

 

All are posted in HD (and air in the US in HD) except "Will and Grace" and, contrary to what you think you're seeing, "That 70's Show." None get separate PAL transfers, because essentially all US shows are posted electronically, with the PAL version derived from the 24p HD master. There are, in fact, very, very few scripted US shows that are still posted in standard def primarily because all US networks (including WB, Fox, and UPN) are feeding HD to their affiliates now and require HD delivery. The only scripted shows I can think of that are standard def right now are Scrubs, Will and Grace, 7th Heaven, and Charmed. Even some shows produced only for cable are done in HD, even though they aren't being broadcast that way. "Monk, " both "Stargate" shows, and "Dead Zone" all come to mind as examples of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

> Just last night I saw an interview show on the set of Everybody Loves Raymond, and it was being shot with a Panavision 35mm camera,

 

It's the last season of Raymond, they decided to stay on film to keep the whole series looking the same. Just like we did last year with Frasier, and Warner's did with Friends. The "pretty much" part means not 100% of sitcoms. The point holds that it really is a watershed season for sitcoms.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All are posted in HD (and air in the US in HD) except "Will and Grace" and, contrary to what you think you're seeing, "That 70's Show." None get separate PAL transfers, because essentially all US shows are posted electronically, with the PAL version derived from the 24p HD master. There are, in fact, very, very few scripted US shows that are still posted in standard def primarily because all US networks (including WB, Fox, and UPN) are feeding HD to their affiliates now and require HD delivery. The only scripted shows I can think of that are standard def right now are Scrubs, Will and Grace, 7th Heaven, and Charmed. Even some shows produced only for cable are done in HD, even though they aren't being broadcast that way. "Monk, " both "Stargate" shows, and "Dead Zone" all come to mind as examples of this.

 

Hi Mike,

what is the favoured form to PAL frame rate conversion from 23.98p HD?

 

Adding a frame or speeding up 4% or interpolating a frame or....?

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
what is the favoured form to PAL frame rate conversion from 23.98p HD?

 

Adding a frame or speeding up 4% or interpolating a frame or....?

4% speedup. Foreign markets are accustomed to getting a couple minutes more commercial time per hour than we have here.

 

I tried the add a frame idea once, it looked horrible. There was a very obvious and annoying motion stutter every second. So far, I haven't heard of any system that can actually do motion interpolation adequately.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Edited by John Sprung
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4% speedup.  Foreign markets are accustomed to getting a couple minutes more commercial time per hour than we have here. 

 

I tried the add a frame idea once, it looked horrible.  There was a very obvious and annoying motion stutter every second.  So far, I haven't heard of any system that can actually do motion interpolation adequately.

-- J.S.

 

Yes I thought speed up was most common, but I read recently that someone was adding a frame, but hadn't noticed it in any US programmes.

 

Interesting that musicals can get away with a speed up for a PAL TV release.

Although shooting 25p and slowing down is very common for low budget movies shot on HD audio post houses cring at the suggestion of doing slow down and pitch correction if there is significant amount of music in a movie.

 

So it begs the question, why don't we notice a 4% speed up on (PAL) TV when a 4% slow down (25p to 24fps) for cinema is deemed unacceptable.

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
... I read recently that someone was adding a frame, but hadn't noticed it ...

So it begs the question, why don't we notice a 4% speed up on (PAL) TV when a 4% slow down (25p to 24fps) for cinema is deemed unacceptable.

I hope nobody's really step printing to add one frame per second. It's impossible not to notice the motion going bunp ... bump ... bump ... once a second. I find that I sit there tapping my foot to the beat of the motion artifact -- really annoying.

 

Speed change and pitch shift acceptability is a matter of taste and individual opinion. Pitch corrections aren't all equally good Dolby has a new pitch shift product that's supposed to be much better than pevious processes.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

> when a 4% slow down (25p to 24fps) for cinema is deemed unacceptable.

 

It isn't! Loads of independent movies in the UK shoot and post 25fps for simplicity.

 

Phil

 

Phil,

I was reffering to musicals. As I said audio guys cringe at the thought of 25 to 24 speed change when it comes to music.

Most things I shoot are at 25p and no one notices the 24p slow down, however not having seen or heard a musical shot at 25 and screened at 24 (far as I can recall) I'll take the advice of the audio guys who have to work in close proximity to musicians.

Anyone think of a movie with significant music shot at 25p?

 

Is it just that the audio pros wanting to keep the pitch correct or is there something about the sound characteristics of a cinema that make off speed sound more noticable than watching a movie on pal TV that is speeded up?

 

Or are we more sensative to music that is played slowly than music that is speeded up?

 

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

4% is a lot where sound pitch is concerned - download some free audio software such as Goldwave and find out what it sounds like. The Kenny Loggins track "Danger Zone" which opened Top Gun is notorious for sounding very squeaky in PAL transfers.

 

Certainly pitch shift if possible, although it's not the end of the world - it does stop British actors from sounding like, well, English charicatures in The Simpsons, eh what?

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

The irony is that a lot of the productions you mention - particularly "King of Queens" - seem to be posted at standard def still, or at least the series that the UK digital channels are showing were. They look rotten! "That 70s Show" is clearly either hi-def or (less likely) retransferred into PAL and looks vastly better.

 

Phil

 

Yeah, but they can also be played in theatres since they're shot on 35mm, and they have the ability to be upgraded to whatever new standards emerge in the coming years.

 

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

> Yeah, but they can also be played in theatres since they're shot on 35mm

 

Cite one example of a 35mm-shot sitcom being neg cut and projected.

 

> and they have the ability to be upgraded to whatever new standards emerge in

> the coming years.

 

Actually they don't. 4K digital capture is frankly better than 35; far lower noise and of comparable or higher resolution. Even if we were looking at this the other way around, you'd be screaming that 35mm makes 2K look bad - which it does - and contending that 35mm improve until the grain became invisible in 2K. The argument that 35mm is retransferable to "whatever" new standards emerge does not hold water. It won't take much more than 2K before people start to realise how objectionable the grain really is.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

One, you're assuming that grain is always objectionable and that the goal has to be grainless images. And two, if most people accept the grain of 35mm photography on a 50' theater screen, they are probably going to accept it on a home viewing system no matter how elaborate it is. So even if we ever get beyond HD for home video, which I doubt, 35mm origination will still be good enough for that.

 

As for theatrical presentation, if we ever have an acceptable and affordable 4K camera system, then I think whether one chooses 4K digital or 35mm might come down to an artistic choice as to whether grain is desirable. For example, I can't imagine "Saving Private Ryan" being shot with a 4K digital camera and being remotely as evocative as looks today. Some period movies might suffer from an overly clean look (of course, you'll probably say that they can just add the grain in post if they want, which they might have to should film disappear...) My point is that grain is not always unwanted, and grain comes in all sorts of levels. 50 ASA color negative has grain, just not as much as 500 ASA stock.

 

It's like IMAX or 5-perf 65mm -- looks great, I wish I could shoot features in it, etc., but I can't imagine all movies looking that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Yes, I'm making all those assumptions to illustrate the point that 35mm isn't some unassailable paragon of virtue. The visibility of grain in 2K images astounds me. This is supposed to be the gold standard!

 

Phil

 

 

 

No, no the gold standard is SD/HD which will continue to add more junk to the junk pile while professing to have surpassed the quality of "film". Like the engineer I work with said to me today, "I've been waiting since the the early 1980s demos for HD (anolog then digital) to be 'just around the corner' and now I can finally see the corner."

 

So, 1895 to 19?? for the 35mm standard.

 

Then, 1895 to 1923 to develop a 16mm standard (which could have come earlier if Kodak had not waited around for market signs to point in the right direction, read: Pathe to close in on their market).

 

I guess 1956 to 1986 was the video ramp up period to HD (a Sony product), and then, some day (I'm told) a standard platform will evolve. With video it has always been thought that it will "get better". 75+ formats later and its still "getting better".

 

How can it get any better then creating more landfill? How many TVs will people own and discard in their lifetimes? Doesn't make things too good for your kids now does it?

 

 

Alain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest dpforum1968

Good grief it's the thread that will not die! I started a monster :-)

 

I'm back from my shoot by the way and I'm sure you all missed me. My shoot was so so, oh well they can't all be winners.

 

In answer to this question from JS:

 

"BTW, for the underwater question, why does it matter about decompression? Can't you just send the camera up on a rope and have the assistant re-load it, or have a second camera loaded and ready to go?"

 

This would be really impractical in reality. The top side boat would have to position right over the camerman/diver below and that would be tough on the ocean with currents etc. The diver could swim with a rope attached to the boat but there is a tangle risk with this. Plus while the cameras are being exchanged the diver is burning valuable air. The biggest load of 35mm I've seen in an underwater 35mm camera system is 400ft, that's not long as we all know. Of course many features have shot extensive scenes underwater on 35mm so it can be done. I'm sure for these situations multiple cameras where used. The guy who designed the housing for my video camera would like to build one for my 35mm system, but, it would be a huge housing to hold the batteries as well. I would however LOVE to shoot my underwater Caribbean reef footage on 35mm to HD, that would be nice.

 

In other news I would like to raise another point to this thread, the need for consumers to have HD TVs in order to fully enjoy HD. I still maintain that a viewer needs an HD TV to get the full benefits of HD, otherwise what's the point of HD?

 

I know there are lots of HD sets being sold, but sales of SD sets are also still going strong. Walk into Circuit City in the USA, look at the SD TVs still being sold. I have yet to see Walmart sell an HD set in their electronics dept. Maybe they are some place, any one seen this?

 

Now of course I'm not talking about you film nuts and buying an HD TV, I'm sure you all own three. David Mullen is so wealthy he has a 15 foot HD TV in his bedroom that slides down from the ceiling. I'm talking about Johny Lunchbox and Joe Consumer, of ALL the people I know one person has an HD TV. All the other regular Joes I know have no interest in buying an HD TV any time soon. Yes I know prices keep falling on HD but how long will it take for 50% of US households to have HD TVs??????

 

Imagine the cost to every hotel in America to toss out all those SD TVs in all those rooms, and replace them with HD sets! The Hiltons and Marriotts will be having fits when they see the bills.

 

Imagine the tens of millions of movies on DVD and VHS that are designed for SD TVs. Yes I know people can watch them on their HD TVs, BUT, again they are not getting the HD benefits watching an SD DVD on a HD TV.

 

Imagine the landfill mess if HD TV does some how go really big, really fast, where will people put tens of millions of SD TVs?

 

Imagine the cost to every newsroom in America to chuck all their DV and Beta SP cameras for HD cameras, and then replace every SD TV in the station with HD TV. Yes the large market stations won't care about the cost, but the small market stations will be crushed by the cost and slow to change.

 

I dunno maybe HD will become the standard in every home in America, but personally I see that day as being a long long way off.

 

DC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I have yet to see Walmart sell an HD set in their electronics dept.  Maybe they are some place, any one seen this?

 

Walmart just started selling HDTV's a few months ago in a few stores. I'm sure they'll have them everywhere eventually as long as they are selling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...