35mm battle to be HD
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
The difference is that your entire array wouldn't hold the credits of an cinema-destined HD feature. It might be insane not to have a backup -- and it seems that this is an area where digital might be an advantage, but i bet it's not. A theater doesn't have a backup print for every 35mm film they show either. It would probably be cheaper to provide a backup 35mm print than to provide swappable backup of that much data.Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:No, not if you have a disk-array that can rebuild the data from the broken harddrive. It would be insane not to have one, hell I have three myself!Drop a hard drive and its bye bye data time,
You wouldn't get far w/5400 RPM 120 GB EIDE drives from Best Buy. Considering the data volume, and the speed at which the hard drive must run to be at all useful in an application such as this, I wouldn't want to be on the purchasing end of even one drive, let alone a redundant array of them. 8O
Now I'm curious as to how they do it. What is the form factor in which data (digital movies) is delivered to the existing digital cinemas? A large metal shipping box full of carefully packed hot-swappable drives?
-
Uppsala BildTeknik
- Senior member
- Posts: 2261
- Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:20 am
- Location: Sweden, Alunda
- Contact:
Really? Each array consists of five drives, 7200rpm 200GB.The difference is that your entire array wouldn't hold the credits of an cinema-destined HD feature.
I´m just curious, how much data is a "normal" digital cinema HD film?
What format is the files?
Kent Kumpula - Uppsala Bildteknik AB
http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/
http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/english/
http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/
http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/english/
on cue, matt makes me feel silly by delivering the obvious (and correct) answer.mattias wrote:the "films" are delivered on data tape and transferred to hard disk for projection. no shipping of disk arrays or internet delivery involved. this is a problem solved since long.
/matt
so a projectionist now takes on the roll of "tape ape", loading the HDs when the data tapes arrive? it's like working at IBM in the 70s!
have they made it idiot-proof yet?
big
I have no idea about the file/data format, and can only guess at the amount of data required.Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:Really? Each array consists of five drives, 7200rpm 200GB.The difference is that your entire array wouldn't hold the credits of an cinema-destined HD feature.
I´m just curious, how much data is a "normal" digital cinema HD film?
What format is the files?
I'm guessing it's uncompressed (or very close), at over twice the resolution of what I'm used to working with, with tons more color information. Maybe an order of magnitude larger than raw DV capture?
-
Uppsala BildTeknik
- Senior member
- Posts: 2261
- Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:20 am
- Location: Sweden, Alunda
- Contact:
OK, but if you have no idea and you are only guessing, maybe it isn´t such a good idea to make statements about how much space the credits of a cinema-destined HD feature needs. 
Mattias, do you know? Anyone else?
Mattias, do you know? Anyone else?
Kent Kumpula - Uppsala Bildteknik AB
http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/
http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/english/
http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/
http://www.uppsalabildteknik.com/english/
-
supermag400_inventor
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 7:29 am
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Contact:
Hd v.s. film
Did you all know that the film "Collateral" with Tom Cruise, most of the film wasn't shot with film. It was made using HD video. Because it was shot all at night, they decided to use HD to get better images. Then it was mastered onto 35mm film in post production.
Do you agree that that is cheating a bit? You think it's film, when it's not.
However, it did look clean and film like in every respect. But that is because it was mastered in 35 in post production. They can do wonders in the lab.
I thinks this shows that film is going to slowly give way to HD as being the future of Hollywood productions so they can cut costs. I'm all for saving money, but to use HD for film productions is a misnamer.
It's just the wave of the future. I guess if Super 8 is going to survive the flood, it will have to prove itself as a cheeper alternative to the high cost of HD or mini DV.
That's going to take some work!
Dave
Do you agree that that is cheating a bit? You think it's film, when it's not.
However, it did look clean and film like in every respect. But that is because it was mastered in 35 in post production. They can do wonders in the lab.
I thinks this shows that film is going to slowly give way to HD as being the future of Hollywood productions so they can cut costs. I'm all for saving money, but to use HD for film productions is a misnamer.
It's just the wave of the future. I guess if Super 8 is going to survive the flood, it will have to prove itself as a cheeper alternative to the high cost of HD or mini DV.
That's going to take some work!
Dave
That is really mis-representing Collateral and what Mann was doing. His movie does not look like film, and Mann did not want it to look like film. He chose HD for specific reasons, specifically its DOF for the night shots. He compromized with softer images as a result, but this is the look he was going for.
HD is just another emultion for someone to shoot with in the end.
HD is just another emultion for someone to shoot with in the end.
-
synthnut
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 10:04 pm
- Real name: Ben Marshall
- Location: Surrey
- Contact:
Hi again, I'm back to vent my spleen!
OK, you might have noticed, my allegance lies in the film quarter, but I do own some digital devices. It's usually through frustration with these that I get to like the analogue nature of film more and more! There is a lot to be said for keeping things as simple as possible...
In response to earlier, I know that you would't use a single drive for this sort of thing (you would use a raid 5 array or the likes), but still, digital cinema all is very "black box" and as such if it goes tits up, though probably less common than in film systems often really means it!
The data will have be majorly encrypted and contain security "watermarks" etc otherwise it would be just too easy for people to make super quality pirated DVDs. If the distribution is by satelite, then it might be possible for the transmissions to be intercepted by cunning pirateers too???
The image will of course be compressed and then processed etc in order to make it look "nice" again. (There is the nasty MPEG2 plus QPE and JPEG2000,). I have an alergy to most image compression systems unless they are used very "gently" !!! I'm intrigued to know more about the D-Cinema 2K encoding though. In order to fit features onto cheap drives (500Gb) they are obviously going in fairly hard on the compression.
I know that many features have been scanned and have used DI's or been printed via laser or such like, but they are shot and projected from film. Watch a DDD feature and unless you use some "film effect" software, the image could seem so lifeless as to be dull. "Perfection" is intrinsicly boring after a short while. As in sound, movement (no gags about jitter and gate weave please!) and depth make for interest, hence films living quality.
(On a complete aside, I also find it patronising that directors and production houses think that people don't notice the amount of digitally generated scenery in films too. We seem to have some of the worst looking CG around these days.)
The aparent object of digital cinema (asside from being a great cash-cow for many players) is to appear "perfect" but as I mentioned before, I think this is mostly mis-placed. It ends up being plastic, and bland. You can dazzle with colours and light, but the nature of film is still more inherently engaging IMHO.
It would be interesting to have the freedom to play with various combinations of film, digital original, D-Projector and 35mm projector, alternative intermediate processes etc to see the different looks these gave in one cinema.
From what I gather, the few demos that have been done have always been with a bias and not nescesarily used the best methodology to give a truthfull result.
The other issue I have is field servicability and longevity. I challenge anyone to get a screening back up and running if a media server or digital projector develops a fault. Sure it will email its maker and say "I'm sick", if it can still manage to do that of course! Problem is, they are no doubt in a different country and some major part has gone phut say. They can sell you a new part maybe, but its 50,000 dollars (hence you didn't have a box of spare ones!) but it yours has been discontinued now and is a little out dated they tell you. Hey, for just 75,000 dollars more you can have the latest and shiniest model... Sound familiar?
That sound head I hot-fixed ended up in that projector for five more years (after a microscopic gain tweak) and was only repleced when the theatre went laser on it's pick-ups. This sort of thing just isn't possible with the kind of machines for D-Cinema. If a DLP block develops some dead mirrors, then chances are, they won't want to replace it, so there will be dead pixels all over the shop too.
I'm intrigued as to what incentive cinemas have to go digital, after all, most multiplexes seem to only have one or max two projectionists on shift. You would still need someone around to look after the kit, so no saving there. I'm sure the projectors would end up more expensive over time than 35's...? I can't see there being much of a market for the concert and sports stuff in the UK, but maybe I'm mad. Distributors will cease to be real and just be fronts run from a bedroom, so they could save on overheads ;-)
I think another problem I have is the general thought: "how can something old be any good? If its new it must be better! Why, I buy a new digital camera every two years and a new phone every year, so it must be bad to have old equipment surely!" Being a slave to the "Digital Revolution" is great for the manufacturers, as they really want to sell you new kit every few years, and why not of course, that's business!
The bit that bugs me is that a lot of change is done for the wrong reasons. The general public are strung a version of reality that suits the manuacturers in a "matrixesque" sort of way. I'm always being told by the "man on the street" that all films are shot on and shown digital these days and that a DVD is the same quality as the film in a cinema etc etc... Infact many industy people think that film is dead too, but these are often studio based or sports TV folk. When you point out that their favorite series was shot on Super16, they often argue the toss until you show them the Kodak article and point out the telecine colourist on the credits!
This stuff is fed to people my the spin mongers in the press too and by ill-informed so called "experts" in magazines etc. It's now becoming a self-fulfilling scenareo. If people think film is on its way out, then the market starts falling and hey presto, they were right!
Hey ho, I'm just off to the local multiplex to watch a few videos... ;-)
Keep showing the "reel" stuff!
Ben
OK, you might have noticed, my allegance lies in the film quarter, but I do own some digital devices. It's usually through frustration with these that I get to like the analogue nature of film more and more! There is a lot to be said for keeping things as simple as possible...
In response to earlier, I know that you would't use a single drive for this sort of thing (you would use a raid 5 array or the likes), but still, digital cinema all is very "black box" and as such if it goes tits up, though probably less common than in film systems often really means it!
The data will have be majorly encrypted and contain security "watermarks" etc otherwise it would be just too easy for people to make super quality pirated DVDs. If the distribution is by satelite, then it might be possible for the transmissions to be intercepted by cunning pirateers too???
The image will of course be compressed and then processed etc in order to make it look "nice" again. (There is the nasty MPEG2 plus QPE and JPEG2000,). I have an alergy to most image compression systems unless they are used very "gently" !!! I'm intrigued to know more about the D-Cinema 2K encoding though. In order to fit features onto cheap drives (500Gb) they are obviously going in fairly hard on the compression.
I know that many features have been scanned and have used DI's or been printed via laser or such like, but they are shot and projected from film. Watch a DDD feature and unless you use some "film effect" software, the image could seem so lifeless as to be dull. "Perfection" is intrinsicly boring after a short while. As in sound, movement (no gags about jitter and gate weave please!) and depth make for interest, hence films living quality.
(On a complete aside, I also find it patronising that directors and production houses think that people don't notice the amount of digitally generated scenery in films too. We seem to have some of the worst looking CG around these days.)
The aparent object of digital cinema (asside from being a great cash-cow for many players) is to appear "perfect" but as I mentioned before, I think this is mostly mis-placed. It ends up being plastic, and bland. You can dazzle with colours and light, but the nature of film is still more inherently engaging IMHO.
It would be interesting to have the freedom to play with various combinations of film, digital original, D-Projector and 35mm projector, alternative intermediate processes etc to see the different looks these gave in one cinema.
From what I gather, the few demos that have been done have always been with a bias and not nescesarily used the best methodology to give a truthfull result.
The other issue I have is field servicability and longevity. I challenge anyone to get a screening back up and running if a media server or digital projector develops a fault. Sure it will email its maker and say "I'm sick", if it can still manage to do that of course! Problem is, they are no doubt in a different country and some major part has gone phut say. They can sell you a new part maybe, but its 50,000 dollars (hence you didn't have a box of spare ones!) but it yours has been discontinued now and is a little out dated they tell you. Hey, for just 75,000 dollars more you can have the latest and shiniest model... Sound familiar?
That sound head I hot-fixed ended up in that projector for five more years (after a microscopic gain tweak) and was only repleced when the theatre went laser on it's pick-ups. This sort of thing just isn't possible with the kind of machines for D-Cinema. If a DLP block develops some dead mirrors, then chances are, they won't want to replace it, so there will be dead pixels all over the shop too.
I'm intrigued as to what incentive cinemas have to go digital, after all, most multiplexes seem to only have one or max two projectionists on shift. You would still need someone around to look after the kit, so no saving there. I'm sure the projectors would end up more expensive over time than 35's...? I can't see there being much of a market for the concert and sports stuff in the UK, but maybe I'm mad. Distributors will cease to be real and just be fronts run from a bedroom, so they could save on overheads ;-)
I think another problem I have is the general thought: "how can something old be any good? If its new it must be better! Why, I buy a new digital camera every two years and a new phone every year, so it must be bad to have old equipment surely!" Being a slave to the "Digital Revolution" is great for the manufacturers, as they really want to sell you new kit every few years, and why not of course, that's business!
The bit that bugs me is that a lot of change is done for the wrong reasons. The general public are strung a version of reality that suits the manuacturers in a "matrixesque" sort of way. I'm always being told by the "man on the street" that all films are shot on and shown digital these days and that a DVD is the same quality as the film in a cinema etc etc... Infact many industy people think that film is dead too, but these are often studio based or sports TV folk. When you point out that their favorite series was shot on Super16, they often argue the toss until you show them the Kodak article and point out the telecine colourist on the credits!
This stuff is fed to people my the spin mongers in the press too and by ill-informed so called "experts" in magazines etc. It's now becoming a self-fulfilling scenareo. If people think film is on its way out, then the market starts falling and hey presto, they were right!
Hey ho, I'm just off to the local multiplex to watch a few videos... ;-)
Keep showing the "reel" stuff!
Ben
-
mattias
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
- Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
if you can read swedish you may want to pay a visit to filmteknik's web site. they have quite some info on the process.
http://www.filmteknik.se/
/matt
http://www.filmteknik.se/
/matt
-
mattias
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
- Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
yes, but at least in europe it seems like a standard based on tape delivery has formed. but as you say it's quite possible to use any method you want that works since it's all digital.synthnut wrote:There are a number of options including fibre, portable hard-disk, satelite, cable and DVD roms etc.
/matt
-
supermag400_inventor
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 7:29 am
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
- Contact:
HD
This is a bit off the super 8 subject, but have any of you seen reports about the DALSA HD camera in development? This camera looks impressive.
This thing is said to produce 35 mm quality images in HD. They say it will replace the 35 mm motion picture camera as the main camera in Hollywood productions. However, only a prototype has been built and it's still in testing phase. At least that is what I read somewhere.
Dave
This thing is said to produce 35 mm quality images in HD. They say it will replace the 35 mm motion picture camera as the main camera in Hollywood productions. However, only a prototype has been built and it's still in testing phase. At least that is what I read somewhere.
Dave