[rollei_list] Re: OT - "Motion picture film has not gotten that much better but HDTV has"
- From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:04:13 -0500
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:
