Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted March 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 15, 2005 I actually was not trying t start a "Film v. Digital" debate, but more or less trying to get people opinion on James Cameron saying that HD has passed 65mm film. Although it appear it is turning into a Film v. HD debate. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If saying HD has "passed" 65mm film isn't worth debating, what is? Trust your own eyes! Go see a new 5-perf 70mm print of "Hello Dolly" or "Patton" or "The Sound of Music" on a large screen in a well-run theatre. Sit close, maybe about 2 times the image height from the screen. Then go see something shot with an HD camera and blown up to 15-perf 70mm (e.g., "Star Wars Episode II" or "Aliens of the Deep") and let us know which has more true sharpness, despite the use of older Kodak stocks dating back to the 1960's. Then imagine what 65mm VISION2 stocks have to offer. Or go see a 70mm print of "Return of the Jedi" (if all the prints haven't been deliberately destroyed), and compare it to "Attack of the Clones" to see if HD really even holds a candle to the sharpness of a 35mm negative shot over 20 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted March 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 15, 2005 How do you make all that info fit into a recording device that docks onto your camera? If there are any engineers listening in, I'd love to hear some theories. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Take it from an electronic engineer: Use FILM. ;) B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Elhanan Matos Posted March 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 15, 2005 I've seen HD blown up to 70mm and it held up pretty damn well. I was at the screening for the 3D superbowl trailer for NFL Films last year done by Cobalt Entertainment, and I expected it to look horrible. That was the first time I have ever seen HD Filmed out, I expected to see blurry pixels all over the huge IMAX screen, I was wrong, it looked amazing. Of course I don't expect anyone to believe me without seeing it for themselves. The most amazing thing was the shots they were able to get. I would love to see someone stick a 3D 70mm camera on a steadicam and run down a football field during the super bowl... Actually I would love to see the steadicam operator who would even dare fly a 3D 70mm Film camera on their rig. ;) B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted March 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 15, 2005 George Lucas and James Cameron will be talking about 3D systems at the ShoWest theatre owners convention this Thursday. In some ways, 3D can be more forgiving of sub-optimal image quality since each eye is presented with a different image. I was there six years ago (I narrated the first public side-by-side demo of film and digital projection) when George Lucas predicted total conversion to digital cinema by now. :rolleyes: http://www.boxoffice.com/daily/daily99daily12.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 It is interesting that you mention NFL films. They still shoot on 16mm negative, so their stuff should look very good in a blowup. ~Karl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted March 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 15, 2005 It is interesting that you mention NFL films. They still shoot on 16mm negative, so their stuff should look very good in a blowup. ~Karl <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Elhanan is talking about another production, not done by NFL films. A demo was shown at the HPA technology retreat last year by Cobalt CEO Steve Schklair . As I noted, 3D is usually more forgiving of image quality, since each eye gets a separate image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 People predict a lot of things... I've even heard some people say that playstation 3 could be used as a multimedia source in digital cinema :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Elhanan Matos Posted March 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 15, 2005 As I noted, 3D is usually more forgiving of image quality, since each eye gets a separate image. I don't really understand how that works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted March 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 15, 2005 I don't really understand how that works. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> When the brain is presented with separate images from each eye, and one is sub-optimal, the brain perceives the better of the two images. An example would be that many people are prescribed contact lenses where one lens is optimized for far distance, and the other for closer distance, and many people have no problem integrating the two images, reducing the need for bifocals or reading glasses. When I watch a 3D IMAX movie, I'm much less aware of minor dirt or scratches on the prints, since the defect is on only one eye's image. I venture to say that one of the two images could be defocused by quite a bit before the audience would be aware that one image is unsharp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Hoppe Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 I think most professionals and those who make those critical visual decisions (i.e. executives and like producers) are lost when it comes to 1080p, HD and beyond the HD video tent. I have recently changed careers from a 15-year professional veteran producer/cameraman to a sales and marketing guy for a start-up who has some really cool HD video routing and cabling solutions. My learning curve has been very steep. (The engineers slap me around pretty badly.) Despite this, I must say that there are very strong indications that 1080p 60Hz is as close to most film as you can get. There is more to come, as we get closer to the promises of new technology changes. Also remember, the blueray technologies are going to drive 720p out of the market as it will be obvious to the naked eye when presented on a 1080p screen or set. Those folks holding 720p broadcast cameras are going to be in for a shock and loss. Quite simply, remember when you bought that Cannon L1 Hi8 thinking you were going to change the world and was forsed to sell it on the cheap just a year and a half later. By the way, I sold my DVCPro 50 Pack because I realized that the technology had just passed me by again. I've back gone to shooting super 16mm as the only acceptable format that won't break the bank. I will shoot with Sony 900 for interiors only. Yeah, you can shoot 35mm with less grain to be pristine imagining but how many productions can afford all that. That?s my POV and I've been wrong before. But not this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 People predict a lot of things... I've even heard some people say that playstation 3 could be used as a multimedia source in digital cinema :lol: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What ar/will be the playstation 3 specifications? Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim Murdoch Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Children! Children! Here's a news flash for ya: 1920 x 1080 pixel cameras can only record 960 x 540 line images, due to the need for optical low-pass filtering to prevent aliasing artifacts. There is no (0) known way of overcoming this limitation. Film is not subject to this limitation because of the randomized nature of the silver halide particles in the emulsion. If you think 960 x 540 looks as good as 65mm film, my only comment is that this simply bears out the warnings they used to give young men about indulging in certain solitary nocturnal vices:D The "velvety-smooth freedom from grain" so beloved of HD enthusiasts is simply the result of the video processing electronics "noise coring" the high frequency information that produces the fine detail in the image. Oh yes, it certainly takes out the video noise, but unfortunately it takes a lot of the low-level fine detail with it! That's why HD-derived images often have that cartoon-like appearance. You could compare this to using paint stripper on a piece of antique furniture vs attacking it with a belt sander <_< This is one of the dumbest threads I've seen on this forum and I've seen some beauties! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 8, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted July 8, 2005 This is one of the dumbest threads I've seen on this forum and I've seen some beauties! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is there some reason why you constantly like to show up here and berate all of us? No other forum will have you as a member? Don't be surprised if the next time you come on here to insult us will be your last -- at least under that name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Most Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Here's a news flash for ya: 1920 x 1080 pixel cameras can only record 960 x 540 line images, due to the need for optical low-pass filtering to prevent aliasing artifacts. There is no (0) known way of overcoming this limitation. Here's a news flash for YOU: There are a number of cameras, such as the Viper, that don't use 1920x1080 pixel chips. They use higher density chips and interpolate them down to minimize or eliminate the problem that you claim there's no way of overcoming. Jim, I'm still waiting for you to say just one positive thing here, something that adds to the discussion in terms of knowledge, insight, or advice. Personally, until you get over your general anger and your personal vendettas, I'm just going to ignore all your posts and probably suggest that others do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted July 11, 2005 Author Share Posted July 11, 2005 (edited) < Agree's with David and Mike about Jim.... but he is right on this: "That's why HD-derived images often have that cartoon-like appearance." I did notice the HD 2d parts in Shark boy and lava girl looked lanimated, with soft tones, and an almost "Cartoonish" feel.... Still, It didnt look that much different from any other 35mm films I'v seen.... but were i live, we dont have the huge screens like you guys in LA and NY.... One scene in it that real struck me was in the kids bedroom, it looked just like a scene in the Polar Express, which as most know was animated.... I dont think this is so bad though, as for some movies, you may want to "animated" look, like for fantasy films, ect.. From the Previews, The Chronicals of Narnia looked like it was shot on HD, until I seen the behind the scenes thing on apple trailers... Edited July 11, 2005 by Landon D. Parks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Hayes Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Shooting 35 mm is sort of like riding a horse. You feed it every once and it just keeps going. Rain, Snow, Salt, and sleet. Working with HD is like being a doctor in intensive care. The patient seems to be doing ok but you have to constantly keep checking the vital signs, constantly adjust the medication, and still every once and a while the patient flat lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillian Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Landon D. Parks wrote: ?I don?t think this is so bad though, as for some movies, you may want to "animated" look, like for fantasy films, ect.. From the Previews, The Chronicles of Narnia looked like it was shot on HD, until I seen the behind the scenes thing on apple trailers...? That?s what I thought when I saw it as well, is ?Lion? shot in HD? I want to learn a lot more about HD, any good books you guys can recommend? All my friends work in 16mm or 35mm? Gilly 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