I know absolutely nothing about the subject, but when someone of a certain age says that some new technology is never going to matter, they're usually wrong.
Ebert's an interesting guy, who scripted for Russ Meyer, and went on to arguably raise the level of popular discourse as a TV film critic, but I wouldn't take his guarantee to the bank. I suppose time frame (and who's going to make the money) are the only real questions. I've got to believe that digital quality will ultimately match and/or reproduce film, but how fast it gets mainstreamed is another question. Seen any good HDTV lately?
Is film better? Probably. Does what we think (or Ebert thinks) matter? Not at all. The film industry will implement the technology that makes the most money for the least outlay, and the knuckleheads will either pay $9.50 for it or they won't. If it makes money, that will be the new standard. If it turns out to cause headaches or seizures, or if "underground film screenings" become the rage, then it may not become the new standard. This is one area where I think critics like Ebert and Godfrey Cheshire will have absolutely no influence, however valid their complaints. Ebert has tried to make a distinction between the sense of "reverie" one has with film and the reverie-free experience of digital video, but ultimately that's a matter of aesthetic sensitivity beyond the range of ordinary commerce. In popular culture, commerce rules.
I thought casuing seizures was good for business. Isn't that the Pokemon lesson? ;-)
Otherwise I agree with you. Money rules.
I agree. Quality will not drive the industry, profit margins will. I personally doubt that we will see the resolution of video match that of film any time soon. The Current standard for sound film in the US is 24 frames per second. This means that 24 individual frames are exposed by the camera per second. The projectors project the film at 24 frames per second in order to have the motion of the subject (lets say a person running across the street) play back in "real time" If the projector were to play the film back at 12 frames per second the runner would appear to be running in slow motion. If played back at 50 frames per second the runner would appear to be running in fast motion. Thus the film must be shot and projected at the same frame rate. In the old days of silent film the standard was 16 frames per second. When these films are played on a projector running at 24 frames per second they appear to be moving in fast motion. When sound film technology was finally utalized the technicians decided to run at 24 frames per second.
The slower the frame rate (fewer frames shot per second) the jerkier the motion and the more motion blur occuring on each frame. The faster the frame rate the more fluid the motion and the less motion blur per frame. 24 frames per second is a happy compromise. The motion blur is not too bad and, since only 24 frames of film are shot for one second of screen time it is realitively cheap (ha).
If one were to run the camera at say, 50 frames per second and project it at 50 frames per second it would use up twice as much film and cost twice as much money to record that same one second of action. But the quality of the image would be twice (or is it 4 times) as sharp. Photosonics makes a camera which shoots 2500 frames per second. We've all seen the results, those sparkeling cans of soda tumbling through a splash of water. Milk and cereal flying and splashing into a bowl of milk, each globule of milk quivering, each flake of cereal on it's own acrobatic path through space. This type of footage is shot at 900 to 2500 frames per second and projected (actually transferred to video) at the 24 frames per second standard rate.
If one were to shoot at 2500 frames per second and project at 2500 frames per second the motion would be "real time" but the quality of he image would be incredibly sharp, virtually no motion bluring would occur on any frame. If one were to examine a single frame of our person running across the street (shot at 24 frames per second) the hands and legs would be blurry enough to be almost indecipherable. But when 24 different frames flicker by in one second the human brain sees the succession as being sharp.
Clearly, 48 frames per second would produce images sharper than any we have seen in movies. But the projectors would all have to be replaced, (I think a used 35mm arc lamp projector is upwards of 40 grand, imagine the cost of a new 48 fps monster!) the projection booth's soundproofing would have to be redone, (these projectors would be loud!) the movie sets would require 2 times more light, (the faster the exposure the more light required) requiring bigger lights, more people to operate them, more trucks to move them.... Electricians are getting somewhere around $400 for ten hours on a feature film these days. Double time after 12 hours I believe..... I'm barely scratching the surface here
The cost just isn't worth it. In the late 70's there were two video formats the consumer had to choose from, Beta was clearly the better format in terms of image and sound quality, but VHS was just slightly cheaper and so that is what the consumer went for. (Sony really blew that one but that's another subject) Beta was phased out by the mid 1980's.
I am afraid that Roger Ebert may be wrong on this, I wish he wasn't, It would be beautiful, but I just don't see how it could work financially. Teamsters deliver the film prints to the theaters fer crissakes, anyone know what a teamster gets these days? The new digital projectors may cost $150,000 each but I suspect that is a drop in the bucket compared with the increased production costs of each feature film should they use the faster frame rate technology. I think the industry will save millions anually if they are doing a satalite feed to digital projectors in the multiplexes.
It is true that digital video is making strides in the resolution department, but so is film. I have forgotton what the DPI is on a frame of 35mm film but I believe it is hundereds of times that of digital video. Film stocks continue to improve at an astounding rate. I see no end to the improvements which could be made in the advancement of film technology. Take a look at what Kodak has to offer, stuff which only 5-10 years ago was unimaginable. I personally believe that if film were as cheap as digital video then it would always stay ahead in terms of sharpness color reproduction/saturation and ASA speeds. But because it is expensive, cumbersome, hard on the invironment etc. I'm betting it's on the way out. But it is not happening quickley. Virtually every television commercial (with the exception of those advertizing the Psychic network and their ilk) Every sitcom and most every feature film (including independant and foreign) is still shot on film.
Back in the '80s, Douglas Trumbull (Silent Running, Brainstorm)was promoting a many-more-frames-per-second technology--like the one you're describing--called Showscan. My brother saw a demonstration in a Chucky Cheese/pizza theatre type place and said it was amazing. (Brainstorm, with its pre-digital vision of virtual reality, was also a teaser for the process.) Trumbull honestly felt that high-speed film was the future of the industry. I'm not sure exactly when he gave up trying to promote it.
Yeah, I have heard of such high speed projectors being demonstrated. Would love to see one.
Just because a technology is 100 years old (still pretty damn new really) doesn't make it out dated.
Potter's wheels, shoe laces.
Guess I should have read the Ebert article first. only 10,000 to retrofit the existing projectors with the 48fps "upgrade"
I still can't imagine it going the way Ebert describes....er, actually I can and wish it would be so, I just aint holding my breath.
|
Ebert's an interesting guy, who scripted for Russ Meyer, and went on to arguably raise the level of popular discourse as a TV film critic, but I wouldn't take his guarantee to the bank. I suppose time frame (and who's going to make the money) are the only real questions. I've got to believe that digital quality will ultimately match and/or reproduce film, but how fast it gets mainstreamed is another question. Seen any good HDTV lately?
- alex 3-12-2001 5:34 pm
Is film better? Probably. Does what we think (or Ebert thinks) matter? Not at all. The film industry will implement the technology that makes the most money for the least outlay, and the knuckleheads will either pay $9.50 for it or they won't. If it makes money, that will be the new standard. If it turns out to cause headaches or seizures, or if "underground film screenings" become the rage, then it may not become the new standard. This is one area where I think critics like Ebert and Godfrey Cheshire will have absolutely no influence, however valid their complaints. Ebert has tried to make a distinction between the sense of "reverie" one has with film and the reverie-free experience of digital video, but ultimately that's a matter of aesthetic sensitivity beyond the range of ordinary commerce. In popular culture, commerce rules.
- Tom Moody 3-12-2001 9:04 pm [add a comment]
I thought casuing seizures was good for business. Isn't that the Pokemon lesson? ;-)
Otherwise I agree with you. Money rules.
- jim 3-12-2001 9:15 pm [add a comment]
I agree. Quality will not drive the industry, profit margins will. I personally doubt that we will see the resolution of video match that of film any time soon. The Current standard for sound film in the US is 24 frames per second. This means that 24 individual frames are exposed by the camera per second. The projectors project the film at 24 frames per second in order to have the motion of the subject (lets say a person running across the street) play back in "real time" If the projector were to play the film back at 12 frames per second the runner would appear to be running in slow motion. If played back at 50 frames per second the runner would appear to be running in fast motion. Thus the film must be shot and projected at the same frame rate. In the old days of silent film the standard was 16 frames per second. When these films are played on a projector running at 24 frames per second they appear to be moving in fast motion. When sound film technology was finally utalized the technicians decided to run at 24 frames per second.
The slower the frame rate (fewer frames shot per second) the jerkier the motion and the more motion blur occuring on each frame. The faster the frame rate the more fluid the motion and the less motion blur per frame. 24 frames per second is a happy compromise. The motion blur is not too bad and, since only 24 frames of film are shot for one second of screen time it is realitively cheap (ha).
If one were to run the camera at say, 50 frames per second and project it at 50 frames per second it would use up twice as much film and cost twice as much money to record that same one second of action. But the quality of the image would be twice (or is it 4 times) as sharp. Photosonics makes a camera which shoots 2500 frames per second. We've all seen the results, those sparkeling cans of soda tumbling through a splash of water. Milk and cereal flying and splashing into a bowl of milk, each globule of milk quivering, each flake of cereal on it's own acrobatic path through space. This type of footage is shot at 900 to 2500 frames per second and projected (actually transferred to video) at the 24 frames per second standard rate.
If one were to shoot at 2500 frames per second and project at 2500 frames per second the motion would be "real time" but the quality of he image would be incredibly sharp, virtually no motion bluring would occur on any frame. If one were to examine a single frame of our person running across the street (shot at 24 frames per second) the hands and legs would be blurry enough to be almost indecipherable. But when 24 different frames flicker by in one second the human brain sees the succession as being sharp.
Clearly, 48 frames per second would produce images sharper than any we have seen in movies. But the projectors would all have to be replaced, (I think a used 35mm arc lamp projector is upwards of 40 grand, imagine the cost of a new 48 fps monster!) the projection booth's soundproofing would have to be redone, (these projectors would be loud!) the movie sets would require 2 times more light, (the faster the exposure the more light required) requiring bigger lights, more people to operate them, more trucks to move them.... Electricians are getting somewhere around $400 for ten hours on a feature film these days. Double time after 12 hours I believe..... I'm barely scratching the surface here
The cost just isn't worth it. In the late 70's there were two video formats the consumer had to choose from, Beta was clearly the better format in terms of image and sound quality, but VHS was just slightly cheaper and so that is what the consumer went for. (Sony really blew that one but that's another subject) Beta was phased out by the mid 1980's.
I am afraid that Roger Ebert may be wrong on this, I wish he wasn't, It would be beautiful, but I just don't see how it could work financially. Teamsters deliver the film prints to the theaters fer crissakes, anyone know what a teamster gets these days? The new digital projectors may cost $150,000 each but I suspect that is a drop in the bucket compared with the increased production costs of each feature film should they use the faster frame rate technology. I think the industry will save millions anually if they are doing a satalite feed to digital projectors in the multiplexes.
It is true that digital video is making strides in the resolution department, but so is film. I have forgotton what the DPI is on a frame of 35mm film but I believe it is hundereds of times that of digital video. Film stocks continue to improve at an astounding rate. I see no end to the improvements which could be made in the advancement of film technology. Take a look at what Kodak has to offer, stuff which only 5-10 years ago was unimaginable. I personally believe that if film were as cheap as digital video then it would always stay ahead in terms of sharpness color reproduction/saturation and ASA speeds. But because it is expensive, cumbersome, hard on the invironment etc. I'm betting it's on the way out. But it is not happening quickley. Virtually every television commercial (with the exception of those advertizing the Psychic network and their ilk) Every sitcom and most every feature film (including independant and foreign) is still shot on film.
- steve 3-13-2001 1:10 am [add a comment]
Back in the '80s, Douglas Trumbull (Silent Running, Brainstorm)was promoting a many-more-frames-per-second technology--like the one you're describing--called Showscan. My brother saw a demonstration in a Chucky Cheese/pizza theatre type place and said it was amazing. (Brainstorm, with its pre-digital vision of virtual reality, was also a teaser for the process.) Trumbull honestly felt that high-speed film was the future of the industry. I'm not sure exactly when he gave up trying to promote it.
- Tom Moody 3-13-2001 1:34 am [add a comment]
Yeah, I have heard of such high speed projectors being demonstrated. Would love to see one.
Just because a technology is 100 years old (still pretty damn new really) doesn't make it out dated.
Potter's wheels, shoe laces.
- anonymous (guest) 3-13-2001 1:55 am [add a comment] [edit]
Guess I should have read the Ebert article first. only 10,000 to retrofit the existing projectors with the 48fps "upgrade"
I still can't imagine it going the way Ebert describes....er, actually I can and wish it would be so, I just aint holding my breath.
- anonymous (guest) 3-13-2001 1:49 am [add a comment] [edit]
Yeah, me too--actually I did read that article months ago, but I forgot he mentioned Showscan as a not-quite-as-good alternative. I love his description of Lucas as a "propellerhead."
- Tom Moody 3-13-2001 2:00 am [add a comment]