UD vs. 70 mm vs. IMAX

[Guest Ultra Definition]

I may be off, please correct me if I'm wrong. The following is based on what I remember.

 

Facts:

 

- 35 mm projection yeelds only about 1000 lines horizontal resolution, 1,500 is generally considered as max.

- 1080p has lower resolution than film but because of lack of grain, if well made, it looks sharper. I think that Rodriguez' work pretty much demonstrated that.

- Good digital projectors are 2k x 1k, basically the same as the 1080p acquisition format. So CineAlta SR would more or less match quality of this projector.

- digital intermediate... max scanner resolution is 4k x 2k, 10 bit, which yeelds the same lattitude as film.

- digitally archived films, at max. 4k x 2k resolution are compressed up to 50x without evident quality degradation.

- IMAX frame width is nearly 50% larger than 70 mm and nearly 3x larger than 35 mm. The frame is less of a rectangle so vertical resolution, during projection, is higher than horizontal. Horizontal resolution is less than 50% higher than 70 mm. IMAX film runs at 24 fps; IMAX-HD runs at 48 fps.

- Ultra Definition (UD) system (camera, recording, projection) is 8k x 4k uncompressed. It yeelds 4,000 lines vertical resolution; horizontal resolution is naturally higher; lattitude is the same as film. There is no grain. The CCD's have similar size as 70 mm film. UD runs at 60 fps (60p).

 

 

Conclusion:

 

Ultra Definition is not here yet. It will probably take several years before it arrives as an acquisition format. It will probably take more additional years before it makes significant inroad to become distribution and presentation format.

 

When it arrives as an acquisition format, it will have the same lattitude as film, the sensor will no longer have problems with handling higlights, DOF, if same size sensors are used as on the NHK prototype, will be similar to 70 mm film.

 

The projected movie will have higher horizontal resolution, sharpness, color qualities, and less motion artifacts than 35 mm, 70 mm, IMAX, or IMAX-HD.

 

Comparison to IMAX HD is a little unfair. It is not used for standard presentation, so the IMAX experience will probably be always better. (Resolution and sharpness are not everything.)

 

What this means is that in a few years we will have a digital format that has all the qualities of the largest film format, and some.

 

While lightly compressed HD will be slowly but persistently replacing celluloid production, UD will make celluloid absolete.

 

The good point? It will be easier to work with than with film. Lighting will be the same, or similar, motion artifacts will be pretty much gone. Light sensitivity will be excellent. It will be more forgiving to DP's mistakes, which will be easier correctable in post.

 

If someone would like ta add, by then nostalgic, film look to it, like grain or 24 fps motion artifacts, it will be so easy -- just by pushing a few buttons during postproduction.

 

While film postproduction has pretty much moved into the digital domain, UD will make the whole celluloid domain absolete.

 

One may ask, what about slow motion? I think that slow motion too will be acquired digitally. The camera yeelds this amazing 8k resolution, uncompressed, at 60p. If we compress it 50x, we'll have space for 50x more footage. 50x compression yeelds very good image quality, except it will be harder to work with as the lattitude will not be as high as on uncompressed image. With improved sensor technology, the sensors should have no problem with this speed, so up to 50x slow motion may, in my opinion, be possible. Sure, there may be a shot that may require a bigger lattitude, and a film camera would be more usable. But by that time we may have to do with what we'll have; 10 or 15 years from now manufacturing of film for acquisition may be a thing of the past .

 

How do we get prepared for this future? I'd say no preparation for different type of photography is needed as today's problems with digital will be a thing of the past. Although lighting will be the same as for film, the production techniques will change. So as soon as Sony comes up with a decent CineAlta SR camcorder, or if another company comes out with another good quality camera, we should all try to embrace this new technology, not on all productions, but when we have a chance, to learn new production style.

 

Film will be with us for years. Still one day it will be gone forever. We will all miss it at first. Soon we will embrace new technologies that will allow faster, better, more productive work. You light it and you'll se on the monitor right at that time what needs to be fixed. A young DP that did not light a scene right? No big deal. It will be fixed in post.

[Filip Plesha]

What kind of a post is this anyway?

Its not a question,it's not an invitation for a discussion,or anything

that we have on these forums.

Is your only goal to inform us about your view of the future?

 

I think you made a mistake in your "speech",

first you said that film projection has about 1000 vertical lines,

and then you mentioned that 1080P has lower resolution than film.

This is inconsistent.

 

And besides,you can't not take this print resolution as film resolution.

It is a byproduct of film copying. And this is improoving by time.

 

When you mention film grain,you are forgetting that there are a lot of

directors and cinematographers that prefer a little bit of grain

over clean digital images.

Allso film grain is always more natural to look at if you happen to sit too

close than looking at pixels.

 

Allso,24 fps speed has a positive effect on the audience,it works almost

hypnotically,and people associate 24fps motion with fantasy whereas

they associate smooth video motion with television programs,video footage,news etc.

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Windman, don't bother with this guy. He is paid by his corporate masters to infiltrate these websites and attempt to subtley manipulate our ideas and to keep their products name in circulation.

 

The problem is he sucks at it. He just drops the whole list of positives for their products and negative for our beloved film product which we all seem to make horrible mistakes at shooting that are very hard to fix in post. He's too lazy to spend the time at making repeated posts and engage us in seemingly innocent conversation and smoothly dropping the information like any good paid aggitator would.

 

We could probably get this guy fired if we told Sony that we were able to spot him so easily. I reccomend that Sony hire ex-CIA operatives in the future for this kind of mission instead of some teenager from Europe looking to make an easy buck.

 

This proves that the corporations are the real evil in society that is spying on you. The Government really doesn't give a poop what you do as long as you pay taxes. A corporation wants to know exactly what you are up too so they can be there to sell you something.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

I have no problem telling who I am, but the system does not require it, or does it? I can't recall. I just put in Ultra Definition. My name is Joe Tallen. I am currently in Europe, right now in the Czech Republic, on a preproduction stage of an independent film project. It's a second project I'm involved with in this part of the world. Great beer, best looking girls, real pleasant too, super rates for film craftsmen, excellent worksmanship and artistry.

 

I had to buy Eurotell phone for about $150. It's real nice and compact, Siemens brand, probably made by Fujitsu. A lot of Siemens Fujitsu computers here. My Eurotell wireless Internet works here everywhere. It costs something like $30/mo for unlimited Internet access and includes free minutes, like 1 or 2 hours a month, extra minutes are like 25 cents. T-Mobile works here and is less expensive. So if you come down here and have T-Mobile, bring it with you. Internet speed is a little slower than AOL dial up in the US.

 

The only name from the ones David Millen mentioned that I used was xXx, on a site that does not require to register real name. I included this info in my previous post: "I've done directing, producing, writing, photography, and sound on both independent film and video productions. I must admit that I hate video and I see HD as something that will hopefully very soon replace video and and will move us fast close to film quality in digital production."

 

As to why I don't ask questions? Are forums just to ask questions? How about discussing an interesting subject. How about not all clinging to the good ol' film and instead try to look into the future to see what may be coming.

 

HD will replace SD, and will seriously bite into the film domain. UD will replace film. It's just a matter of when, no matter how everyone loves film grain and 24 fps motion artifacts. Why did they try 30 fps in the past and abandoned it, mainly for economic reasons associtaed with that format; why is IMAX-HD 48 fps? Because it would be too expensive to make it 60 fps. Personally i would like it to be 100 fps. But on some projects 24 fps may look better. So what if it looks too much like 60i video? Maybe this is one thing that video is more advanced than film; it gives you the choice.

 

Sony Blu-Ray, DVHS, HDV, and HDTV are all MPEG2 at bit rate around 20 Mbps. Of course it is too low. Of course we see compression artifacts. But it still looks graet compared to SD. Compared to film? No comparison! We all know that. But these new coming up low cost HD formats will allow small to medium size theater screen projection, almost as big as Varicam does, only they the new formats will be of lower quality. But they will work for low end independent filmmakers. With all the new and coming up digital projection screens in major US and world's markets, the low end filmmaker will even be able to shoot and project straigt in 25p. No optical prints will have to be made, not until the film proves to be commercial success. This is what is great about low cost HD. It is not meant to replace film; it is to allow the student filmmaker to shoot something that he'll be able to show an a significantly larger larger screen than he could with current prosumer camera. So HD is good. And UD is good because it will improve quality and throughput on large productions.

 

Am I promoting Sony's products? Do I work for Sony or any other electronics manufacturer, pushing their products? Definitely not! Do I work in marketing or sales? No. I hate those guys! Let someone else do that kind of work.

 

Why am I posting this knowing that it is a contraversial subject?

1. I have the time right now.

2. I always look into the future.

3. There is too much manufacturer's hype everywhere and I'm trying to see through it.

 

Correct me, if I'm wrong. I love discussion. But why these attacks?

 

It's almost time to go to sleep here.

 

Have a great day where you are.

[David Mullen ASC]

IMAX is 15-perf 70mm compared to traditional 5-perf 65mm / 70mm. So that's not 50% bigger is it? An IMAX frame is equal to three frames of standard 70mm.

 

Sure, an 8K x 4K digital camera would make a good transfer to IMAX for projection. So would an 8K x 4K scan of a 35mm frame though, especially if it were shot on a fine-grained film stock. But I would be willing to concede that a 32MP digital movie camera would have more resolution than a 35mm frame, although there can be mitigating factors.

 

The issue of whether it would have the latitude and color range of color negative is unrelated to this though. You're just assuming that those problems will be solved without any real evidence of that. They may or may not be solved. It partially depends on how much they have to compress this 32MP image to record and work with it. It may not be 8K x 4K for all three colors either. The current Super-HD cameras like the Dalsa or the Olympus only have full resolution for the green channel -- red and blue get half the resolution (basically they left red and blue at full HD resolution and doubled the resolution of green.)

 

Anyway, I'd be happy just to see a practical 4K x 2K system working for now.

 

You tend to throw the word latitude and resolution around indiscriminately. Why would a 4K scan of a 35mm frame match the "latitude" of film? It would match the resolution of film -- the latitude is already there in the original. It would probably be preserved even in a lower rez scan.

 

I'm not sure why it matters that in several years we may have a practical camera system that exceeds the resolution of 35mm. We already have them - they are called 65mm cameras. Higher quality is attainable today; we don't have to wait several years. The only real issue is affordability throughout the chain of production to exhibition -- i.e. we all know better digital technology is coming to challenge 35mm but will it be cheaper and more efficient? Even it merely achieves parity, that's an accomplishment but it doesn't necessarily make a case against shooting in 35mm.

[Filip Plesha]

The saddest thing in all this is that all this equipment

is being designed and advertized by people that

never worked with film in their lives.

 

Roughly speaking it's like this:

 

Filmmakers were shooting with film for decades and

one day electrionics and video manufacturers saw

baggs of money if they could poke their equipment into

the film industry,and suddenly every less-professional magazine

started talking about the "death of 35mm" film as soon as

F900 came out.

 

And everyone that is promoting HD is trying to convince other people

what they are supose to like. And they are talking about the

digital future almost like HD is something comming on its own.

Its like the end of days in the bible:

the day is comming,save yourselves,destroy all your film gear for it is

a seed of evil...

 

It should have been the other way around.

Cinematographers are supose to be the ones that change the standards,

they should ask for new better equipment,and not be pressured.

 

I find it very arogant when George Lucas has a personal plan

to convert all cinema to digital and force people to shoot on HD.

Why does he care what other people do?

If he wants perfect qualitty in cinemas,then he should make good prints

of his films,i think he has enough money to even laser-print projection prints

of 4K digital files if he wants to.

[Max Jacoby]

Ultra Definition, first you title your post:

 

'UD vs. 70 mm vs. IMAX, UD is better than 70 mm'

 

Then you write:

 

'Ultra Definition is not here yet.'

 

Please do explain how UD can be better than 70mm if it doesn't even exist yet. You are comparing apples to oranges, i.e. present to future here. Now what's the point of that?

 

Max

[Filip Plesha]

I totally agree.

 

Imagine how good will 70mm be in like 10 years,by the time

so called ultra definition will be used by someone.

 

Imagine what will a 65mm frame of negative look

like with new stocks like the new vision2 100 speed film

that is comming out in a few days. And imagine how will it

look like in 10 years with even better emulsions.

 

70mm qualitty is not a constant,it is changing with new intermediates stocks

print stocks and camera films.

 

today you can say that you need 8K resolution to reach 70mm qualitty.

But that is changing. And allso with finer grain films,it is not enough even today.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

One day you will wake up and read the news that Kodak will no longer make the stock for a project you want to shoot. So you decide to use Fuji, only to hear the news that Fuji's quitting too. Then some guy will buy all the available stock and will freeze in an old abandoned coal mine in Alaska.

 

The guys that listen to vinyl and listen to tube amplifiers will continue to use the Alaska amaterial. The pictures will be better and more artistic. And then an Eskimo co-op will buy the Kodak technology and will continue in producing the fine stock for the true artists. But the artists will still have one problem. No producer will want to listen that their pictures are better and more artistic. Because it all boils down to money and while in a personal life one can afford the luxury to listen to vinyl with a tube amp, in the world that has to survive in making profit, the vinyl died a decade ago.

 

When CD's came out some guy at UCLA had people hold up weights. When he played vinyl, the weights stayed in place. When he played CD's, the weights dropped. Unless you use the SACD's, digital music is bad for you. By the way, when they played Satisfaction by The Stones, the weights dropped even when the recording was on vinyl. So Satisfaction is bad for you too.

 

Of course film is better, but one day you'll wake up and it'll be all digital world out there.

 

Is 70 mm coming back? Will features be made in 70 mm again? Unfortunately not. A lot of people hated the CD sound. I still do. But the vinyl is gone and SACD is even better. One day celluloid will be gone and UD will be even better. SACD does not cause you to lose muscle strength. Will UD make the art of making movies worse than celluloid. No. The difference between celluloid and UD will be too subtle. There are a lot more importandt factors that affect the art of pictures. Start with a screenplay. If UD will not be as good as the best film stock, do you think the bean counters will care?

[Mitch Gross]

One day I'll wake up and see Kodak use it's cutting-edge research to release two new film stocks in every modern shooting format, including 65mm. Oh wait--that was yesterday. Tomorrow is looking pretty bright as well.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

One day I'll wake up and see Fuji use it's cutting-edge research to release two new digital still camera in every modern shooting format (CCD size), including 60mm. Oh wait--that was yesterday. Tomorrow is looking pretty bright green as well.

 

Next day I'll wake up and see Kodak use it's cutting-edge research to release two new digital still camera in every modern shooting format (CCD size), including 35mm. Oh wait--that was yesterday. Day after tomorrow is looking pretty bright yellow as well.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I don't think it pays to discuss things this way.

 

Every professional image maker is going to be interested in what happens in the near future to film and digital.

 

I can tell you one thing for sure, the death of film has been greatly exaggerated for the past 30 years if not more. Ever since video evolved above the two inch quad, people have been awaiting the day when it will take over film. I've read articles written back in the 70's and 80's, and one such article said "Don't put your 16mm camera on the shelf yet, chances are you'll still be using it ten years later". Not just ten but twenty years later, and even more as it still seems (would help to add that widening the gate would be necessary).

 

Naturally there are areas where tape replaced film, i.e. network news, docs, industrials, and home movies - and I think that is a great benefit. What news shooter wants to worry about exposure on reversal film, then rush off their footage to the lab and wait at least an hour and a half before it can be broadcasted? The practicality of the medium is what is more important than aesthetics in these cases.

 

But when it comes to film's primary application, it is still strongly in place. I feel (on intuition, without any real numbers to back me up) that as many people who were shooting 16mm/S16 for low budget films before digital video are still doing that - it's just that other people who would have never made a movie at all are now grabbing digital cameras and making features.

 

As to who is going to ultimately "win", or what is going to outdate what, it's fairly obvious to me that digital has the greatest potential advantage in the end. It's just that the development of the technology still isn't there yet. We still need much, much more time for it to become not only "good enough", but practical enough for narrative cinema. It's getting closer every day, but it's not close enough for a real revolution.

 

I keep guessing how much more time film will be predominant in the MP business. I said 10 years four years ago. I am still looking at the state of things now and that figure doesn't seem to shrink in my head. Kodak is raising the bar all the time (and I'm increasingly feeling bad for not having the best lenses to take advantage of their stocks), and digital has to not only match yesterday's stocks but play catchup with the latest and greatest.

 

Just six-seven years ago 5298 was the king of high speed stocks. Then came along Vision 500 when I was leaving film school. We were all stunned when it came out how low the grain was in contrast to the '98. Now as I started shooting on '79, 5218 came along, and it's even finer grained with more neutral color repro. The underexposure latitude (with the '79 - I have yet to see the '18 under and printed up) is improving all the time. Meanwhile, the ASA is getting higher while the grain is lower. If you want to compare, just shoot some of Kodak's Ektachrome 400 T/D which is based on a 70's emulsion design, and compare it to '79 or '18. It's really impressive how progress goes by, and it goes by as fast as the engineers in Sony and other places get their gear together.

 

What concerns the practical end of things: I can buy a Russian made Konvas that shoots images with greater resolution and dynamic range than a $100,000 HDTV camera - for a mere two thousand bucks. A camera like that is more reliable and much less fragile than its HDTV counterpart. I can own the gear. If there's a nice location or an actor happens to be in town that I want to do something with, I can be working within a few hours. If I need to do a pickup after a film's wrapped I need not call the rental house, and worry about late fees if I'm stuck in the tunnel returning it.

 

So, I see myself working with film for a very long time - as long as I can get short ends and lab for a rate comparable to what I'm paying now. There would either have to be a serious jump in film/lab cost or a very positive change in price:quality ratio for me to switch to a digital format (as well as a significant price reduction for laser output to film - if we're to talk theatrical considerations).

 

The best attitude I can take is keep alert and "let's see the proof". Let the innovators do the thinking, that's what they're being paid for, and that's what they spent years and years studying and working hard for. When film is dead I'm sure I'll be amidst those to know, as will you.

 

- G.

[Brad Grimmett]

One day I'll wake up and see Fuji use it's cutting-edge research to release two new digital still camera in every modern shooting format (CCD size), including 60mm. Oh wait--that was yesterday. Tomorrow is looking pretty bright green as well.

 

Next day I'll wake up and see Kodak use it's cutting-edge research to release two new digital still camera in every modern shooting format (CCD size), including 35mm. Oh wait--that was yesterday. Day after tomorrow is looking pretty bright yellow as well.

OK, fine. You're brilliant and right, and everyone else is an idiot and wrong. We get it. Now will you please shut up about it?

[Guest Ultra Definition]

I agree George, and I mean it.