Nate Downes

27th works for me too.

It was done using the original Spirit, so HD resolution upconverted and output to 2K RGB data just as "O Brother" was. But there was no compression step in recording. But I don't think the original Spirit was full resolution actually for all three color channels.

 

Most of the "compression" artifacts you saw in Spirit-transferred 2K D.I.'s was due to the noise reduction step.

You know David, this made me think a bit. We sit here and look like a bunch of old gearheads arguing weither a fuel injection system is truer than a carbeurator. In short, dull, boring shop talk that, in the end, means nothing. So what if O'Brother was HD, 2k, 4k or chiseled by aliens with big elbows, the movie was downright hilarious.

My wife interjected at this point of my typing:

"It is not about what it looks like, it is about what it makes you feel... I use punctuation when I talk."

And she's right. The nitty specs about how it was done mean little, what you feel about it means everything.

And seeing what I have of The Dark Knight, if Nolan is half as good as he was in Memento and Batman Begins... we will feel something absolutely incredible.

I, for one, am seeing it on IMAX, nothing else will do. 8)

Just got back from seeing Wall-E on the big screen, film print. I was amazed over the visuals, the incredible storytelling, the use of silent-movie techniques to tell a story. I was also amused over the slight Apple insertions throughout, from the iPod, Apple TV, and even Wall-E's boot-up sound right off of my PowerMac at home. It made the whole movie appealing to the whole family.

Throughout I kept telling myself "This looks like anamorphic or cinemascope." Then, as the credits rolled, I turned around and looked up at the projector.... and right into a clear 2:1 cinemascope lens with the logo still across the bottom. I stood for a full two minutes processing that, then turned my wife around and showed her. I got the usual "smile and nod" from her as I usually get when I talk camera.

Some may not classify the DoP on a CGI movie as a cinematographer, but I would never dare to after seeing this. Weither you see through an eyepiece, ground glass, parralex, monitor, or a computer pre-render, the same eye and skill is required. To deny the talent, the eye, is to deny our own skill. What matter is it if we visualize onto a piece of cellulose, a CCD/CMOS, or into a computers memory bank, what matters truely is, what does the audience see?

And here, in Wall-E, they see the beauty and art, and the touching story of a rolling trash compactor.

I was able to see it despite my Mac warning me a codec was missing. Some of the clips were heavily compressed, particularly the B/W footage at the middle. The low light horror footage towards the beginning (at this highly compressed rate) is something you may want to cut out. I would try the H.264 codec, see if that makes it any better.

Working on timing first, while I try and secure higher-quality sources from the directors. I already have a better copy of the B&W footage now, just need to insert it into place now. Still working on getting a better copy of Phobia (the low-light horror) now.

I am surprised tho that nobody's commented on the 1-light transfer footage (the building exploding and the running scene in the woods)

I am actually moving permanently Nate. I'm shooting a feature in NM in September, then relocating to LA. I leave Orlando on the 8th of August, but I'm available anytime before then.

Don't blame you there, looking to moving to the Seattle area myself (easy access to LA without being tied to it).

Well, we must do this before you depart definately. Ok, so, we have to do this on a sunday, but not the 13th, but before august 8th... um... any suggestions?

I think it's a .avi file, which I can't view.

**checks, plays on Windows, Mac, Linux, Solaris, and a 1987 Amiga 2000 w/ 68040 accelerator...**

It's an avi using an mp4 compression codec, so should be pretty general for systems to play. I do have the ability to re-save it as a .mov or h264 as well if you'd rather.

Yes it is Nate , but just guessing wont be on a screen by end of year .

I guess as such, but knowing at least 1 title for a RED camera is 1 more than I had before now, isn't it?

I myself loved the piece, and yes, I do understand German, and know the movie it is from, so I turned the sound off rather than get the juxposition.

Well, to get a more accurate impression, you'd want to see a couple, not just one...

 

I'm guessing the first ones will start showing up in theaters by the end of the year.

Manure is on RED correct?

I like it, Paul! Probably easier to build a digital version, though, because you would not have to move a film stock that huge.

Hardly. It would, infact, be more difficult to build a digital version. Remember, every time your diagonal width doubles, you get 4x the opportunity for critical defects to render the chip worthless. With a chip that size, we'd be looking at wafers per chip, not chips per wafer, and at a cost of several thousand per-wafer (not counting processing the wafer or testing) that is not a concept I want to even contemplate.

but it does remind me of one digital cinema idea I had, of using a reduction element with a focal plane on one side and a smaller sensor on the other. Gives you the larger DoF w/o the need for a larger sensor, making the whole unit cheaper to produce.

I remember the old article on the 12-perf 35mm camera being developed -- one of the biggest design problems was steadiness of the movement. But the main problem was post workflow. And the fact that 12-perf was three-times more expensive to shoot than 4-perf.

 

Fred Waller was at work on a replacement for Cinerama (three 6-perf 35mm frames) when he passed away, with a single movement that was 10 to 12-perf horizontal 35mm... but I believe he was trying to make the gate curved, not flat, to match the curved screen shape. Not sure about the optical issues of exposing onto a curved surface...

It's surprisingly easier to design a lens that focuses onto a concave curved surface than a flat or convex. Open up one of the Kodak throw-away cameras for an example. Now, I wouldn't seriously do it (even I'm not that nuts) but the idea is funny to consider. The issue with the lenses is that focusing becomes nearly impossible, as the focal plane is no longer uniform.

Saddest thing is, I know a guy that kept wanting me to design him just such a system. He could not grasp why it was not a practical solution to his needs.

Filmmakers should spend a little more time in the immediate present reality and less time pondering an unknown future.

 

But you guys seem to like wasting your time in pointless film vs. digital debates.

Killing time waiting for more work, for me anyways. FL film productions really slowed down as of late.

I also find a good lively discussion good for the spirit. But it can get out of hand, as this one has almost become, where nobody is actually discussing, and instead making blanket claims and sitting on them. (I include myself within this group)

Are you eye'ing that vistavision cam on ebay there Glen?

Hm. Andrew, when do you get back from the american west then?

Well, Tom, you clearly are based on your posts, and that's the funny thing, as you are the only guy around who does so and doesn't mind it. Nothing wrong with that: I love relics! A dying species. ;)

 

See you in 10, then. Because - again funny - contrary to many people's experience in this industry over the past 3 decades, time hasn't been on your side, and won't be in the future... trust me: been there, done that. B)

 

Best wishes,

 

-Michael

*pst* I noticed how Tom could not comment about how filmstock *gasp* changes it's image quality as they make newer stocks....

You know, this wouldn't be that hard to build either.... 8)

There is a mathematical limit to the optimal resolution at which cinema 35mm film can be scanned. Can we agree on that much?

I'll agree here 100%. I will, however, also note that this limit will change with time, as newer film technologies and scanner technologies are developed. So, rules that apply to EXR with a film scanner from 2003 probably do not work so well with Vision3 and a brand new scanhead.

A lot of digitals resolution can be attributed to computer enhancement, and the same can be said of film done through a DI as well. Grain reduction vs interpolation of pixels, both are done, and both can push the boundaries beyond the original emultion/sensor.

We have, in the end, a wonderful time for cinema, with more choices than ever for the DP. From antique hand-cranked cameras to the RED and beyond, more tool choices means more options means more creativity with todays cinematographer, and I think everyone here can agree, more choice is a good thing.

Anyone who claims S35mm is "8K" is simply on crack and is not to be taken seriously.

Again, an old arguement, just with new numbers.

You decry me spouting rhetoric, yet here you are.

Why do we not agree to disagree and instead focus on the real issue, the right way of lighting a scene with a birthday cake within it?

It's not a period well covered online - early web days and all...

 

btw Pleasantville was 2k, not 4k. Don't know where you are getting that info from...

I wasn't sure if it was 2k or 4k but I did know it was one of the first to use digital scanning for FX shots.

The visual effects in Terminator 2 were done at 4k resolution.

I have not found a reference for this. Earliest reference to a 4k scan I've found was for 1998's Pleasantville, but not dismissing the claim for T2 either.

I may make a stop in Orlando to see family on my way back from a job in the Bahamas. That would be around August 5th, but that date could easily change. If I end up coming into town, would you guys like to get together then? If so, I'll post when I have more solid travel plans. It would be nice to hang with some Orlando guys again and put some faces to names.

I think that could be workable.

I smell a misunderstanding here. There is a postulated loss of 30% modulation on MTF test patterns. This is not the same as a general loss of 30% resolution (any kind of resolution). And it does not mean either that a normal print has 10% resolution left in the cinema. :lol:

The numbers are not mine, They come from scientific studies. A rebuttal where necessary must come from scientific studies as well. I'd like to see some, if they exist.

Current graphs as here (www.digitalpraxis.net/zippdf/di-guide.pdf) show a pretty steep loss from ON to IP and then it tapers off. Hence my question why to scan the IP for an IMAX deliverable.

Visual examples are here: http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/vide...inemas_special/

Quite telling, isn't it, unless you want to argue these examples are not reflecting reality because,,,

A study from 2003 is what you cite as evidence? With how many generations of aquisition and printing technologies between then and now?

One of the fun things about technology, it keeps marching on.

In 2003, you had Vision stock, early 2k scanners, and early render-to-film technologies. Now you have Vision3, 8k scanners and laser printing...

c'mon 1915 version of Golem....

I actually do a lot of refurbishing of my own parts, including remounting from one lens mount to another, and would enjoy the challenge of working with them.

That has not been "shown" or proven in any way. I can do a 5K scan of a Polaroid print. That doesn't mean it's 5K.

It does not mean it is not either.

I have had this arguement before, when people claimed that film could never handle 2k scans, then that 4k would be a waste...

And I will hear it all again when people are debating the validity of 16k scans.

Point taken Nate. BTW, I've always had the upmost repect for anything you post

Thank you. And thanks for that link, finding post houses is difficult at times, and I'll add that to the list for these guys.