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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ardeshir Mehta" <ardeshir@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 6:30 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT - "Motion picture film has not 
gotten that much better but HDTV has"


> Further to this, Richard,
>
>>> I think the main problem with current release is the 
>>> sheer numbers of
>>> prints that are usually made, on the order of 2000 for 
>>> many movies.
>>>
>>> Certainly improved projection mechanisms would be very 
>>> helpful but
>>> they won't make any difference if the print itself is 
>>> bad.
>>
>> Very true. But what Ebert and others have said about the 
>> great
>> improvement of Maxivision 48 over standard 35mm 
>> projection leads me to
>> think that this really IS a great improvement. It also 
>> stands to
>> reason, doesn't it, if each successive frame is projected 
>> at a
>> precisely registered spot on the screen.
>>
>> That said, however, I have to confess I have never 
>> personally seen
>> Maxivision 48 in action. Have you? Has anyone? I'd really 
>> like to
>> know. Even better, to sample it.
>
> ... I would urge you to read the .pdf file downloadable 
> from
> <http://www.maxivision48.com/maxivisioninfo1002.pdf>. It 
> seems to be
> quite convincing, at least as far as I am concerned.
>
>
> Ardeshir 
> <http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/AllMyFiles.html>
>
   Thanks for the reference, I now understand what these 
folks are up to. This, in the particular combination shown 
in the PDF is probably new but the individual ideas are not. 
Three perforation and even two perf frames have been 
proposed in the past for cheap wide screen effects such as 
Technirama. For the most part they looked awful. Extending 
the frame to the full size of the original silent frame, 
i.e., across the full width beteween the perforations is the 
basis of Cinemascope. Cimemascope uses essentially a full 
frame picture with anamorphic optics so that the aspect 
ratio of the iamge in the theater is not fixed by the aspect 
ratio on the film. Cinemascope also uses smaller, or rather 
narrower, perforations to make room for the four magnetic 
sound tracks. Other proposals have been made at varous times 
for wider film than 35mm to accomodate a full frame picture 
and the sound track. As I mentioned in my orinal post the 
Tri-Ergon patents proposed using about 45mm film with the 
sound track on an additional width of film outside the 
normal 35mm perforations.
   All of these systems ran at 24 fps, the international 
standard for sound movies. It should be noted that the 
flicker of a 24 fps picture would be excessive so all 
theather projectors have two blade shutters to produce a 
flicker rate of 48 fps. However, increasing the frame rate 
makes a large difference in the rendition of motion. Even 30 
fps has a significant and quite noticable improvement in 
motion rendition over 24 fps. Some systems have proposed 
even higher speeds, for instance, Douglas Trumbull's Show 
Scan system which runs at 60 fps. Show Scan uses large film 
(65mm I think) in a format similar to Imax, however Imax 
runs at 24 fps.
   My own feeling is that a version of Cinemascope with an 
aspect ratio of about 1.66:1, running at 30 fps and with 
digital disc sound would become a popular standard if ever 
introduced. Of course, it could be set up for 1.85:1 which 
is the current standard Cinemascope format. I just don't 
much like panoramic formats for general theatrical use.
  Photogaphy could be done with normal 35mm cameras and 
processing and printing is compatible with standard 
equipment. Projection would be compatible with any 
Cinemascope projector with the addition of a 30 fps motor. 
As in 35/70mm machines two speed motors would make 
projection of 24 fps material possible.
   The film area of a Cinemascope frame is substantially 
greater than that of a three-perforation frame. Remember 
than neither is cropped for the usual optical sound track.
   In fact, what I am proposing is not much different from 
current practice other than the increased frame rate and, 
perhaps, the choice of a more sensible aspect ratio.
   Leon Shamroy, who was Fox's top DP, and the DP on the 
_Robe_ the very first Cinemascope picture (aspect ratio 
2.65:1) said of the process,"Its great, IF you are 
photgraphing snakes."
   The aspect ratio was later reduced to 2.35:1 and for 
Cinemascope pictures with standard optical tracks 1.85:1

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Other related posts: