Michel Hafner
-
Posts
304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Michel Hafner
-
-
Yea David, Dolby Vision has a "lamp off" black. I assume they can adjust the lumens of the laser lamp source based on the image, that's how they generate the blacks.
The black is achieved with dual modulation, 2 mirrors, one after the other. Manipulating lamp output would affect white the same as black and limit dynamic range in the same frame. Not optimal.
-
How do we know that? Have some tests been performed? Do you have a link?
It seems unlikely given the poor state of digital projection right now.
Know what? Regular cinema DLP projection is certainly not indistinguishable from film projection. It's more stable but has poorer black levels for sure than a good print projection. So the quality bottleneck is the digital projector, and then the 2K resolution for 35mm which is not enough, a source issue. Or did you mean how we know there is a digital equivalent that looks the same as the analogue original? Mathematics says so (sampling theorem). What exact parameters are needed is an ongoing discussion, though.
I have seen the latest "Mission Impossible" in Dolby Vision. The quality bottleneck was not the projector but the source! The 2K simply did not cut it on that big screen sitting rather close. 4K was needed. And even more would have been beneficial.
-
Film doesn't have bits at all, nor pixels.
Of course. Nonetheless there is a digital equivalent with a resolution in bits and pixels that can represent analogue film digitally to a degree that is undistinguishable to the human visual system from the film original. Also proper distinction between the digital source and the projection of it is necessary since if an image is lacking in quality the cause can be the source, the projection or both.
-
Where it is true that lower-lumen DLP projectors in dark rooms, have better blacks then high-output theater projectors... it is NOT true that digital projection in the cinema comes even close to that of film... because it doesn't. Before you go on a rant about technical specs of the projectors, let me first start by saying that DCP's have only 12 bits worth of data per frame, where film is 32bit equivalent. Lets say the DLP mirror only moves 20 degree's between full black and full white. The black area itself would constitute around 2 - 5 degree's of movement. There is NO WAY... neh, it's IMPOSSIBLE for DLP technology to have enough detail in that little bit of movement.
What laser projection (Dolby Vision/IMAX) does deliver is noise-free, pitch black. However, the dynamic's necessary to produce all the tones of black from pitch black to lets say Sam Jackson's face, don't exist! What you get instead are STEPS in the blacks. You don't notice this phenomena until you see it back to back with a film print. The 12 bit source material literally doesn't have enough information, so it literally doesn't reproduce the fine details you see on the film print. To the untrained eye, you'd just assume that those black areas look really good. However, you're actually missing a substantial amount of data, not just from the 12 bit source, but also from the lack of the DLP imager being able to reproduce it.
UHD BD is currently only an 8 bit 4:2:0 format, so it will look like utter crap compared to the film print.
It's unfortunate that REAL photochemical film prints have been lost for over a decade. Most film prints from 2000 and on were DI, which means most of them were only made from 2k sources and at 12 bit color space. So comparing a standard film print that you MAY remember from a few years ago, is nearly impossible. Hateful Eight was done photochemically, so it retains all the dynamic range DI prints lack. Interstellar was done photochemically as well, but special effect shots were rendered at 24 bit and 8k, so the scan-back to 70mm prints was the highest quality ever done for a standard theatrical release. Those two films (Hateful Eight and Interstellar) are the only films done this old fashion way recently. So if you really wish to compare film to digital, you'd have to see a 70mm print of BOTH movies and watch it digital as well. I've actually done that with Interstellar and wasn't at all impressed with the 4k presentation. It didn't have NEARLY the dynamic range of the film print. Hey, what can you do with only 12 bits of data!
It's the old adage; just because it's new, doesn't make it better!
1. Dolby Vision projectors are not regular DLPs. They are bright and they have lower blacks than any film print. Film prints have at best an On-Off contrast of in the 10000:1 to 30000:1 range. Dolby Vision has above 100000:1.
2. Film does not have 32 bit resolution at all. Unless you add RGB/CMY together. Then digital projection has 36 bit. Show me the tech reference which shows film has 32 bits. That would be an insane dynamic range well well beyond the best digital audio. Ridiculous claim!
3. So where did you compare the shadow detail of the same film on Dolby Vision DLP and 70mm? Right, you did not. Interstellar was not shown on Dolby Vision.
4. UHD BD is not 8 bit but 10 bit 4:2:0. Utter crap compared to a film print? Maybe in tĥe fantasy land you seem to live in. While a 70mm print from 65mm OCN has the upper hand the difference is not nearly a big as you claim.
-
The 4K Dolby Vision projector has better blacks than any 70mm print. I wonder why "Hateful Eight" is not showing in a Dolby Vision cinema in 4K. The UHD BD will again show better blacks than any 70mm print on a high contrast home cinema projector like the latest generation JVCs.
-
Old Murph on the death bed was very out of focus in the 4K screening I saw.
-
. I would suggest however that you loaded the conversation and set the tone with your first posting.Freya
I was not aware it is offensive to say that some digital camera has more dynamic range than film. I picked that attribute because dynamic range was the most bashed aspects of Red cameras here in the past (that and colour "issues").
-
I notice the O.P. hasn't contributed at all and has no doubt gone back to hiding under his bridge.
Freya
I'm not hiding anywhere. Why should I? I stated it has more dynamic range than film. I find that very exciting from any digital camera. Especially if it's not an exotic lab animal but ready for release, shoots 100 fps and has 4K resolution plus. If you want to contest any of that, go on. It's quite obvious how dismissive some people here are as their default modus operandi when it comes to Red and their cameras.
-
1
-
-
More dynamic range than film...
-
RED Dragon
in Red
Well, now some do. The rest will get serviced from September on.
First tests are appearing.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?103732-DRAGON-ITS-THE-REAL-DEAL-!!!!
-
Dragon has officially now 16.5+ stops. So any clipped highlights are intended or the shooter is incompetent. Alexa will have no advantage with highlights at all with 2-3 stops less of dynamic range.
-
First images are here.
-
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92158-Enter-the-Dragon
Revolutionary combination of latitude, resolution and fps, it seems.
-
I see no nasty video look, just very high resolution grain free digital cinematography.
-
The secret is not to purchase movies as soon as they are released. Give them a few months and the prices will surely drop.
And blu-ray.com has a tracker so you get an e-mail once your target price is reached. :lol:
-
I'm currently watching season 3 on BD. What I don't like about the image shot on film is the digital sharpening they are applying in post. Why do they do that? The halos around high contrast edges look nasty.
-
I really hope the latest Superman looks better than Superman Returns did. I was very disappointed with that.
I watched the Blu-ray a couple of weeks ago and it had more artifacts than the Smithsonian.
No wonder with that poor compression from WB at 15 Mbit/s average VC-1. No decent version available till this day.
They did not even bother to reencode for the new Superman box set. :angry:
-
Would you say it is missing or maybe they no longer had the rights to use it. What ever the reason it's a pity they released it such as it is. They should always try to keep the original mix on classic titles, out of respect for purists.
It's score by Poledouris so it's not a rights issue. It's a 5.1 mixing issue.
-
I hear there is an issue with the audio on the Blu-ray. Can you confirm whether there were any issues whilst you were watching?
The issue can not be heard unless one knows the film well. Some music is missing in the 5.1 mix and the original mono mix is not on the disc.
-
1.78:1 isn't that far from the original (1.85:1) theatrical ratio.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=20146249#post20146249
(original is 1.66:1)
-
One of my favorite works of cinematography is coming out this week on blu-ray!
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews53/excalibur_blu-ray.htm
Nothing else to say, just that I'm excited.
Unfortunately it's not properly framed... :-(
-
I suppose my point is that the Blu-ray should reflect the director's and DP's original intent. If it means grain and scratches so be it. Is that not the prime motivation for buying Blu-ray discs?
Grain, yes, scratches, hardly. Cameron supervised the Aliens transfer. If he deviated from original intent he obviously formulated a new intent. It's his privilege to do so. Of course he can always say it's the original intent he could not implement back then... :-)
-
Both automatic and manual modes on PFClean are better. I like preview of automatic mode.
How is manual mode better? Less need for manual retouching when drawing a window around the "dirt" gives a wrong result?
-
We use HS-ART Diamant Dust Buster and Pixel Farm's PFClean. PFClean is much better, IMO. :)
Can you be more specific? Are you talking about manual mode or automatic mode? What exactly is better?
Hateful Eight Experience
in On Screen / Reviews & Observations
Posted
Standard meaning other DLPs? It can be done with any DLP but for now it's a Dolby/Christie development, very expensive and limited for their own use. Longer term it might trickle down to other brands and even DLPs for home cinema. And it could also be done with non DLP technology (DILA, SXRD). JVC has less need of it since they achieve 40000:1 to over 100000:1 without dual modulation in their DILA 3 chip home cinema models.
The first mirror modulates the amount of light falling on the second mirror on a pixel basis. The second modulates as usual. Multiplicative effect for contrast is the result. Technical details are hard to come by since it's their business secret how to do it exactly.