Interesting Article about MaxiVision 48

[Michael Millichamp]

Hey guys!

Here is a very interesting article about MaxiVision 48 that mentions RED Cameras quite a bit.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/more_than_ever_the_future_of_f.html

Roger Ebert posts a letter he received from the developer of MV48 and how he's basically been getting shunned by major studio execs and things of that nature.

Wether you agree or disagree on what he is trying to do, I think it's a very interesting article to read.

 

[Elsie N]

Richard Burton was the lead in The Robe? Thought it was Victor Mature, so I guess I learned something.

But anyway, I didn't dig so maybe it was there somewhere, but I could not find HOW MaxiVision worked. Just that it made for a better picture somehow and that they still seem to be pushing film.

I think RED has made their technology redundant, but maybe I would feel different if I understood what is being offered.

 

[Michael Olsen]

I am really confused about this image:

It appears, at least to me, to contain 2 5K frames at drastically different spatial resolutions? The difference being 48fps and 24fps? What?

Are they just saying that the same resolution at a higher framerate appears to have a higher resolution.

 

[Trevor Emmerson]

Interesting article. I read it all and haven't any idea how maxivision works either.

Mind you once the author warmed into a rant about the arrogance of these studio types and the distain they show for viewers and creatives who desire a theatre going experience thats better than what they can get at home i must admit i lost myself in thinking how much i hate 3d and how its stopped my wanting to go to the movies..

Which i think sucks because for years i would go at least once a week, often twice. Since i saw Avatar it feels like every second movie i have seen i've seen 3d. i just can't be bothered with it anymore. Doesn't give me a headache, don't mind the depth perspective thing. i just hate wearing those $1 glasses and everything being so freakin dark all the time. Hate it with a passion. Its turning me away from going to the movies and i used to be a person who consciously tried to buck the tend of dwindling attendance by making a point of paying my $10 and seeing everything that looked even vaguely interesting at the cinema.
Bring on 4k and beyond 2d asap!

 

[Michael Millichamp]

He doesn't explain exactly how it works, but im interested in doing more research about it.

 

[Austin Glass]

What I gathered from the first 10 or 15 paragraphs (before I lost interest) was that MaxiVision uses film without space in-between the frames, causing it to take up less actual footage per 1 second of film.

 

[Keith Putnam]

Yeah, it was unfortunate how little detail the author went into regarding his system, but what I THOUGHT I took away from it is that he wants to project 5K film scans at 48fps.
At the very least, that's what I could infer from the disconnected talk about film as a capture medium, 5K, and 48fps. He does somehow try to contrast his system with "digital projection", though that part seemed nonsensical to me.

A lot of people seem very taken with the idea of higher frame rates for projection, but I personally haven't seen a demo so I don't know what the qualitative advantage really is.

Sure, more frames shown to your eyes in less time would reduce any noticeable flickering of the image, but that problem was essentially solved by bumping the projection framerate up to 24fps from 16 or 18 or whatever it was back in The Day.

If all you're looking for is less motion blur, and I'd argue that the motion blur associated with 24fps capture is a huge part of the aesthetic of film, why not shoot with a 90-degree shutter and make everything all Private Ryan style? For my part if I were to start shooting 48fps for 48fps projection I'd make sure my shutter was at 360-degrees, I guess.

 

[Sam Eilertsen]

If there is a solution to the low temporal resolution of 24fps, it is Magic Motion.

48fps 2D is a non-starter for just about everyone. It's not just studio execs.

 

[David Lagos]

What I gathered from the first 10 or 15 paragraphs (before I lost interest) was that MaxiVision uses film without space in-between the frames, causing it to take up less actual footage per 1 second of film.

That's what I took away from it as well, but that graph really confuses me.

Is it just a physical representation of how much information is captured or what? It cannot be a reference to actual image size as it is clearly labeled that both are at 5K.

Also, in reference to shooting at higher frame rates, maybe this is the same line of thinking James Cameron is considering when he decided to experiment with 3-D at 60 fps. Maybe?

Can't put my head around this....still reeling from Jim's announcement in the wee hours of the morning.

 

[Erik Bien]

A lot of people seem very taken with the idea of higher frame rates for projection, but I personally haven't seen a demo so I don't know what the qualitative advantage really is.

I remember seeing the Showscan demo of a roller-coaster shot and projected at 60 fps many years ago. Despite all the film-like highlights and detail, it pretty much looked like video. I assumed that was why it never caught on.

 

[David Lagos]

Seriously.

Someone take a crack at explaining that graph. I am stumped.

 

[Matthew Blight]

From Wikipedia:

"Maxivision 24 and Maxivision 48 are thirty-five millimetre motion picture film formats, designed by Dean Goodhill in 1999. The system uses normal thirty-five millimetre motion picture film, captivating images on three perforations of film per frame. The format can run either at the standard twenty-four frames per second, or at forty-eight frames per second, which reduces strobing effects and increases apparent resolution when combined with a system for reducing film movement in the gate and eliminating scratching.

Because Maxivision uses only three perforations of film per frame, the twenty-four-frame-per-second format uses 25% less film than standard four-perforation formats, and the forty-eight-frame-per-second format only requires a 50% increase in the amount of film to yield twice the frame rate. The image is exposed into the region ordinarily reserved for the analog optical sound track which is rarely used now. This allows for a wider image on the same size film. This also reduces the need for cropping of the image and makes for a 30% larger total frame area than traditional projection even though less film is used.

The advancements of this system go beyond simply a larger image with less waste, however. The projector head is far more stable than traditional projective systems. It uses a sophisticated grid tracking charge-coupled device to automatically detect and compensate for any changes in the film type and position making projection of even traditional thirty-five millimetre prints sharper, more steady and with less chance of damage to the film.

Roger Ebert praised the system, saying "The picture is four times as good as current film projection". [1]

The format uses a custom-built projector head that can be switched between standard thirty-five millimetre formats and Maxivision. Furthermore, the new projector head is able to change from anamorphic to Maxivision and standard matte prints on the fly. This reduces the chances of operator error and cuts the costs of having to order special trailers for different movie formats."

 

[Kevin Marshall]

Seriously.

Someone take a crack at explaining that graph. I am stumped.

They are factoring in the higher framerate into their "resolution" - i.e. temporal resolution. Rather than simply point out the higher framerate, they chose to add it in graphically. Definitely a bit misleading, but I don't think it's malicious (they do point that EPIC would be a great acquisition tool for their projection).

 

[David Lagos]

They are factoring in the higher framerate into their "resolution" - i.e. temporal resolution. Rather than simply point out the higher framerate, they chose to add it in graphically. Definitely a bit misleading, but I don't think it's malicious (they do point that EPIC would be a great acquisition tool for their projection).

Thanks Kevin.

I had actually guessed that in my other post on this thread, but was just looking for some confirmation.

Great news for those who will stick to film - I suppose. And even better news that the EPIC was mentioned.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Projected imagery will only take us so far. Let's see some innovation at the screen level.

 

[Iannis Holwech]

The Maxivision guys are not the only ones that has dreamt and invented a better film projection system.

Robert C. Weisgerber's SDS-70™ - Super Dimension 70™ is similar and invented about the same time.
Just that he wants to use 70mm, which make more sense. He also produced their own show reel.
The SDS-70™ has been demonstrated several times to industry people and gain quite some press in the last ten years.
Weisberger also invented a digital enhancement system called DMX:

Problem is; When they started this development in the 1990's, they where like 20-30 years too late. Had this been done earlier, they would have been a strong competitor to Imax.
Still, parts of their thinking in terms of enhanced imagery could be used in digital presentation.

 

[Eric Haase]

Footage shot at 48fps and projected at 48fps is disgusting. I hope this is not "the future" and I hope RED has nothing to do with this horrible practice of trying to make cinema look like video. Yeah it's just my opinion and it's totally subjective but I think it looks awful.

 

[Keegan O'Brien]

Maxivision just really doesn't have a market. IMAX dominates (and rightfully so) the mega sized screen cinema market, and everything else is projected on a regular size screen (with some exceptions). Since they're using 35mm the resolution doesn't beat out 15/65 IMAX so they can't (or they shouldn't) project it on a legitimate IMAX screen, and if the do the image still won't compete with it. So what would they do? They can't beat the sound and image of IMAX, so what's their selling point? An intermediate between standard and IMAX? Well we have D-IMAX for that and soon enough they'll be using 4K projectors in those so the resolution won't be that much greater.

And then there's the camera technology he's trying to sell. On a regular sized screen it won't look much better then Anamorphic 35mm, and won't touch 70mm or 15/65mm, so what's the point?

 

[Derek S.]

Projected imagery will only take us so far. Let's see some innovation at the screen level.

Projected image is the only one that gives film like picture. Every tv on the market regardless to technology used makes movies look like crap and soap opera like.

 

[Anthony Survant]

Projected image is the only one that gives film like picture. Every tv on the market regardless to technology used makes movies look like crap and soap opera like.

I respectfully disagree. Perhaps you're just too used to the theater setting and haven't seen a solid home theater setup?

I agree that a giant screen with a film projected on it may be more engrossing than even a 55" TV. And I will agree that the majority of theaters will present a paler and less vibrant image which contributes (I believe) to the "film like picture."