[rollei_list] Re: OT - "Motion picture film has not gotten that much better but HDTV has"

On Friday, January 28, 2005, at 11:32  PM, Richard Knoppow wrote:

> Motion picture film has not gotten that much better but HDTV has.

Actually, Richard, the problem in mainstream movies today - I'm not 
talking about IMAX, mind you, which is many times superior - is not the 
film but the projector. The ancient technology used for 35 mm film 
projection causes a lot of visible jitter of the image on-screen. 
Besides it wastes film area. Standard projectors simply run the film 
through sprockets to move it thought the projector's gate. The problem 
with this is the fact that the sprockets and the 4 sprocket holes can 
only fit together so tightly without breaking the film. The loose fit 
allows the film to jitter up/down and side to side while in the 
projector's gate (the place where light is passes though it to project 
the image). This jittering is slight enough that people may not 
consciously notice it, but the mind can perceive this, and it only 
helps to convince the viewer subconsciously that the image is not real.

To overcome this, a system called "Maxivision 48" has been developed. 
On each frame the inventors of Maxivision 48 have put a series of 
microscopic points that a sensor in their projectors can read. This 
sensor sends the date to a computer that controls their patented 
digital moving projector gate. By moving the gate in accordance with 
the reference points recaptures the camera's pin-registration and 
projects a rock-steady image (as steady as at an IMAX theater). The 
people at MaxiVision claim that their image stabilization system works 
so well that it (along with their contact printing technology for 
copying the film) gives MaxiVision24 an image quality that is 250% 
better than current projectors. Maxivision 48 also uses faster frame 
rate - 48 frames per second in fast action scenes, reverting to 24 
frames per second in slow love scenes, all automatically and 
transparently changed by computer when the projection is carried out - 
and utilises wasted space on the film to cover a larger area for each 
image.

Roger Ebert says Maxivision 48 is really something. See his words at 
the Maxivision web site, at <http://www.maxivision48.com/ebert.html> 
and the pdf file dowloadable at 
<http://www.maxivision48.com/maxivisioninfo1002.pdf>. There's also 
<http://www.uhfmag.com/Issue59/Video59.html> and 
<http://www.theoccasional.com/The_Arts/A-Murdock/a-murdock.html>, among 
other web pages. I have not seen it, but I think it would blow away 
HDTV.

Of course another promising film technology is converting film which 
was originally shot on 35 mm to IMAX format. The extra detail is put in 
via a computer program, and thus is not "real", but it is all the same 
quite convincing detail. (In any case, nowadays with CGI used in so 
many movies, including the very best ones, one really doesn't know 
which part of which shot is "real" and which one isn't, does one?) I 
saw *The Matrix Reloaded* in both 35 mm and IMAX, and was blown away by 
how much superior the IMAX version was. I could not only see each hair 
on the actors' eyebrows and eyelashes in some shots, but could even 
tell which hair was thicker and which, thinner! It was a fantabulous 
experience, worth taking the day off to drive all the way from Ottawa 
to Montreal and back - an almost two-hour trip each way - to see.

Cheers.

Other related posts: