The Future of Capture and Projection
Posted 12 June 2010 - 05:20 AM
A hybrid between Showscan, Super Dimension 70 and Maxivision48. Either film (3-perf) or digital (2K) projection at 60 frames per second. Here's my logic for it:
- 24 fps doesn't cut it for fast motion. There wouldn't be such an issue with 60fps. With a scene that doesn't require fast motion capture you could switch to 30fps and step print the frame.
- 65mm film at 60fps isn't a producer's dream (281.25ft/min). 3-perf film at 60fps (168.75ft/min) is do-able. Alternatively, 2K @ 60fps needs only 150% more data when compared with 4K @ 24fps, which would need 300% more data than standard 2K capture/projection.
- 48fps isn't compatible in any way with television at 60Hz. Blu-ray can playback 720p and 1080i at 59.94Hz, regardless of region. 60fps can be transferred into an interlace signal easily. There's also PAL60 for DVD.
- Grain would be much less of an issue. At 60fps a viewer's eye can't see film grain unless you're pushing by two stops or are severely underexposed. Ditto for noise in digital capture.
- There are no film or digital presets for 48fps capture. There are dozens of digital cameras, high-end and prosumer, that can capture 60fps at 720p or higher.
- No dorky polarised glasses.
- You can project onto a much larger and brighter screen. Flicker would be something of the past.
As I see it there are only a few pitfalls. One is pretty big:
- For shooting at 60fps one would need an extra stop and a half of light for correct exposure, but that's not outside the realm of possibility.
- Industry acceptance would take time. We're so accustomed with 24fps and its aesthetic. Plus, every producer and distributor is on a 3D binge, charging every ticket for extra cash.
- Another conversion of projectors at a high cost. Away from the DCI specifications.
How does this sound to everyone else? Is it possible? Is it realistic? What can we call it?
As always, thanks to everyone who does read and respond.
Posted 12 June 2010 - 11:24 AM
Chris, you are definitely not the first one to take this issue up. In theory it makes sense, but like anything else, the market just does what the market wants irrespective of theoretical "better" ways of production. So in the end, you can certainly do whatever it is you want to do...so if YOU have a lot of cash and YOU want to shot 120 fps, go for it bro!
Posted 12 June 2010 - 04:59 PM
Posted 12 June 2010 - 05:05 PM
Posted 12 June 2010 - 10:34 PM
Most directors say that 24 fps cannot be changed because it destroys the film look. However 24 fps does not look like movie film but rather more like a super fast slide show. To achieve the real movie look a minimum of 30 frames per second must be projected. Unfortunately most directors refuse to provide content for big screen formats such as Showscan and IMAX. After 4O years only one Hollywood movie was shot using IMAX cameras and zero movies have been shot using the Showscan format. If these big screen formats are not supported consumers will stop going to the movie theatres because they can get better quality if they stay at home.
So, are you saying that feature films you go to see in a theater are being projected at 30 fps? I'm confused as to what you mean by "the real movie look a minimum of 30 frames per second must be projected". If film is shot at 24fps, where is the extra information (six frames) coming from? Thanks in advance!
Edited by David S Carroll, 12 June 2010 - 10:35 PM.
Posted 12 June 2010 - 11:21 PM
Posted 13 June 2010 - 11:38 AM
Posted 13 June 2010 - 11:46 AM
Posted 15 June 2010 - 05:57 PM