Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

latimesblogs.latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 141 posts

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#131

Post by protomyth »

protomyth wrote: post #84

going to 48 would be fine, but I really want digital theaters at minimum of 4K and keeping the brightness on the bulb turned up to where it is supposed to be (not lower to same money)

Apparently we have someone who believes that 2k projectors are good enough or has never experienced cheap theater operators who turn down the brightness on the projector bulbs to make them last longer / save money.

48 fps might be a fine thing, but there are other factors to enjoyment that should be looked at.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#132

Post by encoderer »

georgieporgie wrote: post #130
encoderer wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "straw man" ? I didn't know this was a debate. Besides, I think you missed my point: That it's not just about lighting.

But seanalltogether never said it was just about lighting. He mentioned, "camera lens, filters, and lighting." Your dissection of what is wrong with Samsung's interpolation had nothing whatsoever to do with seanalltogether's comment.

Does Saturday bring out the debaters? What is this? "Sitcoms and soap operas look the way they do because of lighting."

Now come back at me with some word-by-word, point-by-point dissection, but i'm done, this isn't worth it.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#133

Post by superdude »

jrockway wrote: post #43
bartman wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you give some examples?

Visit your favorite torrent site that has Japanese TV shows and search for 60fps. (Sometimes the video is encoded as 30fps and is interlaced, in which case you need to turn on bob deinterlacing to get 60fps. But this seems to be rather rare these days.)

All the Japanese animation that I seen has been animated at a much lower frame rate than American animation.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#134

Post by 9999 »

alabut wrote: post #114
9999 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way is it equally inexpensive to shoot twice as much film and use twice as much film to make every print? Digital tech is what's going to make high framerate capture and playback economical.

Two reasons: 1) according to the Ebert article, it's not twice as much film, it "requires 50% more film and one stop more light (a trivial issue)" http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2011/01/MaxiVision%... Notice what's implied in the diagram is that the MV48 format would use existing 35mm film and would modify existing cameras for it. 2) it's way less expensive than 3D, both to shoot and display. 3D is just as…

That Maxivision sample there is for prints, not for capture. If you were to take a look at a super 35 original negative shot at 24 fps, it would look pretty much like the Maxivision print there (no waste, but half as many frames). So it would almost certainly take twice as much film to shoot in Maxivision. Also, a stop more light is not a non-trivial issue. It could mean having to rent 20K HMIs instead of 10K, a bigger generator, etc. Or using a higher ISO film, thus negating the benefits of the format in the first place.

No one shoots with 70 mm film. 65 mm film is the capture size, 70 mm is the print size (added 5 mm for audio tracks).

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#135

Post by 9999 »

encoderer wrote: post #132
georgieporgie wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But seanalltogether never said it was just about lighting. He mentioned, "camera lens, filters, and lighting." Your dissection of what is wrong with Samsung's interpolation had nothing whatsoever to do with seanalltogether's comment.

Does Saturday bring out the debaters? What is this? "Sitcoms and soap operas look the way they do because of lighting." Now come back at me with some word-by-word, point-by-point dissection, but i'm done, this isn't worth it.

"It messed up the depth of field."

Absolutely preposterous. Depth of field is a function of lens focal length, aperture, and sensor size. There is no way that Samsung's TV could in any way effect the depth of field of the original recording. If it could, then it would be a magical motherfucking TV.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#136

Post by nitrogen »

jeremyswank wrote: post #121
nitrogen wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...interlace vs. progressive... Please, no. Interlacing doesn't have the same nostalgic effect as a 24fps frame rate, and only serves to lower video bandwidth for devices that can't handle a progressive image at the desired frame rate. It's a tradeoff between vertical and temporal resolution that works well for limited technology because it preserves the sharpness of still images. Basically everything except broadcas…

generally speaking, i'm no fan of interlace either, but my argument still stands that it could be used expressively -- in other words, to enhance the experience of the content for appropriate material. as an example, it might be a good choice if you were making a program and you wanted to exploit the impression that the viewer was watching a tv broadcast from a few decades ago.

I definitely agree that no option should be removed from the palette available to artists, just as long as the final delivery medium doesn't require deinterlacing.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#137

Post by georgieporgie »

encoderer wrote: post #132
georgieporgie wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But seanalltogether never said it was just about lighting. He mentioned, "camera lens, filters, and lighting." Your dissection of what is wrong with Samsung's interpolation had nothing whatsoever to do with seanalltogether's comment.

Does Saturday bring out the debaters? What is this? "Sitcoms and soap operas look the way they do because of lighting." Now come back at me with some word-by-word, point-by-point dissection, but i'm done, this isn't worth it.

Uh, you started a debate, then got mad at people for responding in like manner. I don't understand. Go back and reread your post, it was both confrontational and of low technical quality.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#138

Post by encoderer »

9999 wrote: post #135
encoderer wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Saturday bring out the debaters? What is this? "Sitcoms and soap operas look the way they do because of lighting." Now come back at me with some word-by-word, point-by-point dissection, but i'm done, this isn't worth it.

"It messed up the depth of field." Absolutely preposterous. Depth of field is a function of lens focal length, aperture, and sensor size. There is no way that Samsung's TV could in any way effect the depth of field of the original recording. If it could, then it would be a magical motherfucking TV.

You ought to watch the TV before wetting the bed over it. Go to a Best Buy and have a look.

Because as much as you clearly know about film tech more than I do, you seem to be lacking a slight amount of common sense: What's happening there is processing of a digital signal. Specifically, the TV is creating frames for you to create the illusion of smoother video. And what this effect does, is it appears to flatten the shot.

What your slashdot-worthy post overlooks is that you're speaking from your limited knowledge of film. However, in this TV, there's a feature that lets you apply this setting to just half the screen, so you can see them both, side by side, and tweak as you wish.

Just like in life, there's no amount of theoretical education than can make-up for actually being there, for actually having hands-on.

So really, save the hyperbole.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#139

Post by alabut »

9999 wrote: post #134
alabut wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two reasons: 1) according to the Ebert article, it's not twice as much film, it "requires 50% more film and one stop more light (a trivial issue)" http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2011/01/MaxiVision%... Notice what's implied in the diagram is that the MV48 format would use existing 35mm film and would modify existing cameras for it. 2) it's way less expensive than 3D, both to shoot and display. 3D is just as…

That Maxivision sample there is for prints, not for capture. If you were to take a look at a super 35 original negative shot at 24 fps, it would look pretty much like the Maxivision print there (no waste, but half as many frames). So it would almost certainly take twice as much film to shoot in Maxivision. Also, a stop more light is not a non-trivial issue. It could mean having to rent 20K HMIs instead of 10K, a bigg…

Fine, I misspoke about the IMAX format and those are all points about #1, but what are you comparing the increase in cost to? Continuing to use the same old equipment as now? Or switching to digital? Because the discussion is about the least expensive way to upgrade image quality, not about whether it's more expensive at all.

And what about the second point about 3D being an expensive sham that movie studios are using to milk more money out of the audience? And this isn't the first time they've tried that - we're going through the same fad that hit in the 60's and it'll die for similar reasons.

Regardless of whether it's Maxvision or RED, an increase in picture quality way beyond 1080p is possible and being held up by bean counters, not the directors. It's not like RED's native high resolution is translating directly to the screen - it's being downgraded for the projectors at movie theaters. I'm getting this from the FAQ page on the RED website. Scroll down to the last one - "So, where can I see 4K?" and you'll see promises of 4k projectors and displays coming soon.

Re: James Cameron champions faster film projection rates (from 24 to 60 fps)

#140

Post by 9999 »

alabut wrote: post #139
9999 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That Maxivision sample there is for prints, not for capture. If you were to take a look at a super 35 original negative shot at 24 fps, it would look pretty much like the Maxivision print there (no waste, but half as many frames). So it would almost certainly take twice as much film to shoot in Maxivision. Also, a stop more light is not a non-trivial issue. It could mean having to rent 20K HMIs instead of 10K, a bigg…

Fine, I misspoke about the IMAX format and those are all points about #1, but what are you comparing the increase in cost to? Continuing to use the same old equipment as now? Or switching to digital? Because the discussion is about the least expensive way to upgrade image quality, not about whether it's more expensive at all. And what about the second point about 3D being an expensive sham that movie studios are usin…

I completely agree with you about 3D. I despise it.

The Maxivision goal was a noble one, but it was just too expensive to work. Increasing the framerate of content playback on digital projectors will be a far less costly initiative than the Maxivision proposal would have been. Unfortunately I'm not sure 48 fps vs. 24 fps has enough "wow" factor to convince the average movie goer to go to the 48 fps screening over a 24 fps screening, but I really hope it will.

Post reply on HN