Pirates of the Caribbean 4

[John Elkowitz]

I was disappointed with live-action 3D in the past, but did the IMAX 3D for the first time yesterday and there is a big difference, at least on this day at this theater, with what appeared to be better glasses as well.

[Eric Lange]

Seems to me the closest comparison with what video refers to is it's cousin, audio. Quite simply it's the nature of (re)prducing sounds we hear. Video is producing images we see. typically (bot not strictly) it's used on conjunction with electronic methods of perfomaing such.



Of course I understand the desire for RED to distance themselves from the term "video" as it's been used in a derogatory sense.... and that's cool... just as Ferarri likely doesn't care to be lumped in with Kia. I just don't think anybody should take exception with that and try and "force" Red to not try and specify more accurately what they feel are differentiating qualities of their system, simply because it happens to fall in to the catagory of "electronic acquistion devices for producing video images".

-sc

Steven I think you make some nicely balanced points;

BTW I’m really Ok with intertwined parallel tracks in a discussion or thread.

I have to admit I would be inclined to make the case from the other end, i.e.from the designer, inventor/technologists point of view. If I was JJ then I would be somewhat put out by calling the REDONE systems a “video” camera, and it’s not to do with precious connotations as to what a video camera may or may not be. From a design perspective, Jannard set out to solve a particular set of problems that had not been adequately solved before. Basically how do you create a practical digital imager that has a sufficiently high resolution (to rival that of film or beyond), have a sufficient dynamic range and frame rate without deleterious compression artifacts and is able to support a work flow that can make it eminently useful for cinematic production/post. For this goal or objective to be achieved specific problems had to be solved that had not been adequately solved before, using substantially novel or new combinations of techniques and processes. Basically most other digital/video based systems had not solved or addressed head on the real technical issues at hand. The basic range of techniques developed have opened up a new horizon of possibilities; this was why (I believe) Jim had originally announced (a whole flotilla of other higher resolution devices) for still and dynamic capture. To my knowledge no one else has really done that.

To put it another way, if you removed all of the novel and useful and technical elements that RED has brought to bear, what would POTC4 look like? …more like video (right?)

I think the title or description of digital cinema camera is well deserved rather than video camera on steroids, which its not, as a video camera on stereoids does not solve the key problems.

Cheers,

Eric

[Eric Lange]

In regards to the previous discussion about the varying projection-quality issues people have had when seeing POTC4, here's a newspaper article that might explain some things - http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-2...siness-screens

To sum it up, someone looked into it and found it's common practice in a lot of cinema's for the 3D lens to remain on the projector when a 2D version of the movie is being shown.

I'd like to say more about what I think of the projection practices being described in the article, but they literally leave me speechless, so I'll just leave it at that.

Wow, that’s really mind blowing.

I’m “only” 41, but it makes me want to stand on a soap box, waving a stick in the air shouting “This is what’s wrong with the world today!”.

The idea that a system would have to be designed to be SO absolutely idiot proof so that a projectionist does not leave the Z-screen in front of the projection lens is really frightening….

Ta.

Eric

[Deanan]

In regards to the previous discussion about the varying projection-quality issues people have had when seeing POTC4, here's a newspaper article that might explain some things - http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-2...siness-screens

To sum it up, someone looked into it and found it's common practice in a lot of cinema's for the 3D lens to remain on the projector when a 2D version of the movie is being shown.

I'd like to say more about what I think of the projection practices being described in the article, but they literally leave me speechless, so I'll just leave it at that.

They do this at the Arclight in the dome. It also means there is alot of flare across the screen everytime there's a bright spot in the image.
Love the arclight but not the dome.

[Ian Vertovec]

Wow, that’s really mind blowing.

I’m “only” 41, but it makes me want to stand on a soap box, waving a stick in the air shouting “This is what’s wrong with the world today!”.

The idea that a system would have to be designed to be SO absolutely idiot proof so that a projectionist does not leave the Z-screen in front of the projection lens is really frightening….

Ta.

Eric

Strange that they make no mention of showing 2D movies on a REAL D Silver Screeen. This happens all the time as well.
Even more frightening is that this is not just due to negligence on behalf of the projectionist, but also by design of the display system.

What is a small theater owner supposed to do when he installs a silver screen in one of his few theaters? Only project 3D in that room forever? Install an expensive roll up?

Quality suffers.

[M Most]

What is a small theater owner supposed to do when he installs a silver screen in one of his few theaters? Only project 3D in that room forever? Install an expensive roll up?

A small theater owner should probably think about going with Dolby instead of RealD if the room is going to accommodate both 2D and 3D, thus eliminating the issue.

[Paul Sage]

the most cost effective option that I have seen is the Xpand setup.

[AnthonyFlores]

Like everyone said - really amazing article and HUGE problem with the amount of 3D in theaters now. I hope there is a collective movement to get it fixed. Really sucks to slave away to make the best possible image - only to have it killed because the lens on the projector wasn't changed in such an obviously needed manner.

[Julian Gerretsen]

On a completely different note, what a delightful (but exceptionally brief) cameo from Dame Judi Dench.

[Steven Caesare]

Steven I think you make some nicely balanced points;

BTW I’m really Ok with intertwined parallel tracks in a discussion or thread.

I have to admit I would be inclined to make the case from the other end, i.e.from the designer, inventor/technologists point of view. If I was JJ then I would be somewhat put out by calling the REDONE systems a “video” camera, and it’s not to do with precious connotations as to what a video camera may or may not be. From a design perspective, Jannard set out to solve a particular set of problems that had not been adequately solved before. Basically how do you create a practical digital imager that has a sufficiently high resolution (to rival that of film or beyond), have a sufficient dynamic range and frame rate without deleterious compression artifacts and is able to support a work flow that can make it eminently useful for cinematic production/post. For this goal or objective to be achieved specific problems had to be solved that had not been adequately solved before, using substantially novel or new combinations of techniques and processes. Basically most other digital/video based systems had not solved or addressed head on the real technical issues at hand. The basic range of techniques developed have opened up a new horizon of possibilities; this was why (I believe) Jim had originally announced (a whole flotilla of other higher resolution devices) for still and dynamic capture. To my knowledge no one else has really done that.

To put it another way, if you removed all of the novel and useful and technical elements that RED has brought to bear, what would POTC4 look like? …more like video (right?)

I think the title or description of digital cinema camera is well deserved rather than video camera on steroids, which its not, as a video camera on stereoids does not solve the key problems.

Cheers,

Eric

I largely agree. I think that the problem with attempting to lump everything in to one catagory is that, while technically accurate, it is so broad as to not be useful in many cases. Or it carries with it assumptions that may not be valid (i.e. many people assume a particular gamma/colorspace for "video"... when in reality it's a specific subset such as rec.709).

So, new terms are invented all the time...often by the folks who want to accurately represent how their object is unique. Thus we have "Digital Audio Workstations" as a subset of audio recorders. We have "SUV's" as a subset of automobiles. And we have "Digitial Cinema Cameras" as a subset of video acquistion devices.

I don't know who coined the term "DAW", but I suspect it was a manufacturer who wanted to differentiate it from other recording solutions, which is fine. It tends to be much more useful for me in understanding the general family of devices being spoken of, along with their specific attributes (uncompressed high sample-rate, high dynamic range digital audio) so I use it.

I think it's useful for Red to have pioneered a new term "Digital Cinema", along with pioneering new technologies that define it: image capture with high dynamic range, high resolution, compressed RAW file format.

So my point is: Adopting new specific terms is good. And while we should also be careful not to make assumptions about other more broad terms (i.e. video)... recognize that others may, and attempt to be less ambiguous whenever we can in order to improve the intent.

-sc