Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

4K 2:1...

M Most said:
The Dolby monitor offers exactly what you just described.
Click to expand...

The Dolby monitor is interesting, but it costs >$50k which is way beyond most budgets. Plus the panel is 1080p and thus doesn't offer pixel-perfect monitoring of neither 1.85:1 nor 2.39:1.

M Most said:
I think that statement is a considerable exaggeration. It's not particularly difficult to set up a proper digital cinema viewing environment, and it most definitely does not take 15 people and a lab crew. It just takes a bit of understanding and some rather simple tools. And LUTs are not necessary for digital cinema monitoring if the viewing environment is set up properly. They might be necessary to produce other deliverables, but not the digital cinema version.
Click to expand...

That's my point – and I think it makes more sense for a lot of projects to build the post-production workflow around the digital cinema deliverable rather than the 35mm print. But there is still a cost issue with precise monitoring (albeit not so much as for 35mm emulation), and most video monitor manufacturers currently seem somewhat uninterested.
 
Last edited:
Marc Wielage said:
the American Society of Cinematographers was livid because nobody had bothered to talk to them about 1.77 being used for HD. Their point was that 1.85 was at least a "legitimate" theatrical aspect ratio that was widely used, but Sony's response was that 1.77 made "more mathematical sense in terms of bandwidth."
Click to expand...

What a surprise, Sony undermines or otherwise messes up a standard. They have a long history of doing exactly that, with everything from digital-audio signal levels to Firewire and now by shoehorning a Thunderbolt connector into a USB port instead of the proper DisplayPort (and branding it with the long-abandoned "Light Peak" moniker, despite it not having the optical component that inspired the name in the first place).
 
These ultrawide TVs have been sold in Europe for over a year, with very little sucess.

http://gizmodo.com/5132065/philips-...nema-lcd-moves-the-letterbox-bars-to-the-side for example.

The TV or computer monitor is a multi purpose device and the average user will only use a relativly small amount of time watching movies on it.

By all means finish in 2:1, but talk of a 2:1 display seems naive (unless you solely want to sell to film buffs and editors).... It is already agonising watching 4:3 content on a 16:9 screen... it will be even more agonising watching 99% of broadcast tv with vertical black bars.
 
Palmer Woodrow said:
What a surprise, Sony undermines or otherwise messes up a standard. They have a long history of doing exactly that, with everything from digital-audio signal levels to Firewire and now by shoehorning a Thunderbolt connector into a USB port instead of the proper DisplayPort (and branding it with the long-abandoned "Light Peak" moniker, despite it not having the optical component that inspired the name in the first place).
Click to expand...

http://thisismynext.com/2011/07/07/sony-light-peak-apple-thunderbolt-intel/

Actually, the Sony implementation is optical and more closely mirrors Intel's original USB connector with combined electrical and optical signaling design for Light Peak.
 
Leo Valen said:
The Dolby monitor is interesting, but it costs >$50k ...
Click to expand...

Not the last time I checked. But your mileage may vary..


That's my point – and I think it makes more sense for a lot of projects to build the post-production workflow around the digital cinema deliverable rather than the 35mm print. But there is still a cost issue with precise monitoring (albeit not so much as for 35mm emulation), and most video monitor manufacturers currently seem somewhat uninterested.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the primary target part, which is why I set up 2 different facilities that way and encouraged that change at a third. However, I wouldn't blame manufacturers for being "uninterested" in a market that logically and practically should be using projection for monitoring in the first place. Anything else is a simulation, not something you should be doing for, as you call it, "precise" monitoring for digital cinema.
 
DailyTech revives a long running rumor that Apple may be getting into the TV set business. (via 9to5mac) These rumors have been running for years with previous claims even specifying that Apple would release 42" and 50" Plasmas displays for sale in Apple Stores. Both Apple's Steve Jobs and Tim Cook have dismissed the possibility of an Apple TV set before. In 2010, Cook responded to questions about the Apple TV set top box at a Goldman Sachs Conference:
Q: Where do you see things going with the Apple TV?
A: It's still a hobby, but our gut tells us there's something there. The go-to-market model is difficult, and we have no interest in being in the TV market. But we have continued to invest in the Apple TV and will keep doing so.
According to DailyTech, a "former Apple executive" has revealed that the company has entered into a partnership with an unnamed consumer electronics manufacturer to build Apple-branded television sets that will come with Apple TV and iTunes functionalities built directly into the television set.
According to source Apple plans to "blow Netflix and all those other guys away" by bundling Apple TV + iTunes inside physical television sets. According to the source Apple is teaming up with a major supplier (our guess would be Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEO:005930)), to provide the physical televisions, which will be rebranded as Apple television sets.
While the televisions would be manufactured by the partner company, they would be branded and marketed as Apple products. Apple is understood to be shooting for a fall release, although the debut may slip into early next year.

Apple's own Apple TV set top box has seen limited success since its launch with Apple describing the entire business as a "hobby". Selling an all-in-one solution could address one of the hurdles that Steve Jobs discussed when talking about Google's entry into the same market:
"Subsidized set-top boxes have squashed innovation because no one wants to pay for separate boxes...ask TiVo, Roku, us, Google in a few months. The set-top box needs to be torn up and redesigned to get people things they way they want them.
DailyTech hasn't been a recent source of Apple-related rumors, so it's hard to gauge their accuracy on the topic.

Trying, to predict Apples next move often proves an exercise in futility, but if anyone were in a position to redifine an existing technology standard, it would be Apple.

Ive been luking for years but I figured I would chime in.
 
Jim Retar said:
These ultrawide TVs have been sold in Europe for over a year, with very little sucess.

http://gizmodo.com/5132065/philips-...nema-lcd-moves-the-letterbox-bars-to-the-side for example.

The TV or computer monitor is a multi purpose device and the average user will only use a relativly small amount of time watching movies on it.

By all means finish in 2:1, but talk of a 2:1 display seems naive (unless you solely want to sell to film buffs and editors).... It is already agonising watching 4:3 content on a 16:9 screen... it will be even more agonising watching 99% of broadcast tv with vertical black bars.
Click to expand...

Phillips initially developed the 21:9 as a digital signage format for menu boards. Been around for several years now in the commercial markets.
 
Jannard said:
The 1st question I always ask is "who made these rules anyway?" (like who decided that 1080P was a film replacement?)
Click to expand...
I don't think anybody ever said that 1080p was a perfect replacement for film. But George Lucas did specifically ask Sony to make the F900 prototype he used in the late 1990s capable of shooting at 24fps. It was more about the frame rate than it was about the line standard. There were countless SMPTE meetings, NHK white papers, and studies throughout the 1990s on HiVision that debated this back and forth. I seem to recall DP David Tattersall talking about Sony trying to convince him how much better 30fps was than 24fps, noting the strobing and other issues of the normal film frame rate. Luckily, Lucas and his DP won that argument.

IMHO... 2:1 is the best looking all around aspect ratio... and is a great place to start no matter what aspect ratio you want to end up at, especially if you take 4:3 out of the mix.
Click to expand...
I think if you did a survey of 50 top DPs, you'd get 50 different answers to the "best all around" aspect ratio. Creative people think differently, and they tend to rebel if you lock them into any standard. I think the only reason 1.85 and 2.40 caught on is that they became traditional in theaters. Any aspect ratio will work, but I'm not sure 2.00 would make a comedy any funnier, or make an action picture any more dramatic. It's just one of many choices the DP gets to make. I don't think the aspect ratio makes it good; I honestly think the DP makes it good.

I always say: the great thing about shooting on a medium optimized for about 16x9 (like Super 35mm or most CMOS pickups) is that you can mask it to any release format you want. I have yet to work on a recent picture where we haven't done lots and lots of repositions in post. If you shoot in 2.00 and project in 2.00, you've got no way to fix or optimize headroom problems -- very much like shooting full-ap 2.40 anamorphic. It's great as long as you never, ever have a framing problem and are 100% confident in your abilities.
 
Jannard said:
Seems to me the stills standard is 3:2 and the motion standard should be 2:1. While there are lots of exceptions (and should be)... this is my gut instinct having shot (and watched) for 38 years.

BTW... I acknowledge that there will never be just one standard... nor should there be. 2:1 puts you in the best position to handle many options for motion.

Jim
Click to expand...


makes a lot of sense!
Will it be the standard for Scarlet as well?
 
M Most said:
Leo Valen said:
The Dolby monitor is interesting, but it costs >$50k ...
Click to expand...
Not the last time I checked. But your mileage may vary..




I agree with you on the primary target part, which is why I set up 2 different facilities that way and encouraged that change at a third. However, I wouldn't blame manufacturers for being "uninterested" in a market that logically and practically should be using projection for monitoring in the first place. Anything else is a simulation, not something you should be doing for, as you call it, "precise" monitoring for digital cinema when you're in that price range.
Click to expand...

Those monitors simulating D-Cinema need to be a lot more affordable in order to gain popularity among facilities that are not highly specialized towards digital cinema. The HP DreamColor is a probably a step in the right direction, but doesn't quite suffice and I'd like to see a higher-end model with professional video interfaces and even wider gamut as well as a full 2K pixel array. The current (2009) model seems to be falling between chairs and is too expensive for the regular user and lacks too many features to be viable for professional video use. You are of course right that projection is the only choice for precise d-cinema monitoring, and rather than spending $50k on the Dolby monitor it might make more sense to set up a DCI compliant monitoring environment when you're in that price range.
 
Last edited:
Jannard said:
The 1st question I always ask is "who made these rules anyway?" (like who decided that 1080P was a film replacement?)

Jim
Click to expand...

1080p?!
Like, when was the last time you saw a movie released in 16 x 9 format?
Just about all of them are letterboxed to 2.35:1, so we’re really talking about 1920 x 800!
Who decided that? George Lucas I think.

Funny, I distinctly remember saying what a crackpot notion that was, nearly 15 years ago, just before a change of ownership made a certain company’s laughing stock into company policy, and the continuing employment of myself and quite a few others somewhat against company policy. But let’s not be bitter.
(Why be bitter, when you can be mean, sarcastic, vindictive and keep saying “I told you so!”)

But don’t mess with Hollywood; you know it’ll end in tears.

Just now I discovered that Green Lantern, a DC comics character that until fairly recently was essentially impractical to bring to the big screen, was shot with the 7-year-old Panavision Genesis! If they really HAD to shoot in 1920 x 800, you’d think they would have used something a bit more up to date, such as the F35, which, while it may not have the same resolution as RED cameras, it still produces damn fine images.
You’d think WB would have learned something after the hash they made of Superman Returns but there you go.
I think what they’re really waiting for is the Alexa 4K, but only so they can annoy you….
 
Keith Walters said:
1080p?!
Just now I discovered that Green Lantern, a DC comics character that until fairly recently was essentially impractical to bring to the big screen, was shot with the 7-year-old Panavision Genesis! If they really HAD to shoot in 1920 x 800, you’d think they would have used something a bit more up to date, such as the F35, which, while it may not have the same resolution as RED cameras, it still produces damn fine images.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. Green Lantern was shot on film. The 3D release was done via conversion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top