I missed a few pages, but thanks for the ShowScan reference. I was thinking that's what Frank was talking about. I liked the 2D ShowScan a lot, didn't care for the 3D much at all.
For those of you in LA, Christie Digital has a laser DLP projector showing G.I. Joe in high brightness 3D. I think the cinema is in Buena Vista. It's still 24fps, but the brightness makes a big difference to the the 3D effect. I saw samples at the show. It really does change things when the image is at 14 foot-lamberts instead of 3, where most 3D cinemas now are.
For those of you in LA, Christie Digital has a laser DLP projector showing G.I. Joe in high brightness 3D. I think the cinema is in Buena Vista. It's still 24fps, but the brightness makes a big difference to the the 3D effect. I saw samples at the show. It really does change things when the image is at 14 foot-lamberts instead of 3, where most 3D cinemas now are.
Apart from being more feasible then what I had proposed, why do you think this would be desirable?
First of all because this gives you a much larger sweet spot. Second because narrow directivity comes at a price: whatever is radiated from the sides and rear of the enclosure typically has an uggly frequency response, which gets reflected and influences timbre. Third because constant directivity can never be maintained at lower frequencies. You need really large speakers to maintain constant directivity @ 300 Hz, for example. In other words, narrow constant directivity always breaks down somewhere.
I don't want to suggest that the Geddes solution, or Pano's setup are wrong. It can sound very well indeed, but it may require a lot of room treatment to do so.
I don't want to suggest that the Geddes solution, or Pano's setup are wrong. It can sound very well indeed, but it may require a lot of room treatment to do so.
If time-intensity trading is considered, an asymmetrical polar pattern would be required. See papers by Rodenas et al.
Only true if directivity isn't uniform.
We're in an acoustically small room, so there's a point where constant directivity becomes meaningless anyway.
Why wouldn't this also apply to your solution?
This is not a good and better thing at least when it comes to 70mm film and 48fps video. The characteristics of both are so different, the lighting for each is different, and the way you shoot for both is different. There is obviously a long history and developed experience for doing sets and makeup for film. There is not really any for 48fps high resolution video.
Jackson did not use a variable frame rate system, and it was not action scenes that revealed makeup lines and cheap looking sets. It was close ups and normal motion scenes that did.
I think the older movies are much better at this than the newer ones are. Shadow detail was much better in those than in new movies. The lightening guys were much better at keeping things that were not meant to be seen hidden. The use of light was much more artistic, and contributed better to the story telling. If I have any knock against the industry I work in, it is the heavy handed use of everything whether sound or visuals. Everything just beats you on the head, and there is not much subtlety in the mix.
We had this Christie Laser DLP projector on the lot in the Disney Digital theater. Colors were absolutely stunning, but blacks levels were elevated, and I occasionally saw sparkles which is a problem with laser technology.
Yes, I've got a thing about black levels, I'm much happier to have as close to true black where it should be, rather than worrying about having the sun in the image blazing away at me. We have a very ordinary LCD set, but I spent a lot of time playing with the calibration controls to get the colours spot on, to feel as natural as possible. To deal with the black issue, there's a daily ritual of adjusting brightness and contrast, 3 precise settings, to give optimum picture for sunlight, overcast and nighttime ...
Thanks. I misunderstand your use of the term "live action" earlier ...
I agree about the heavy handed approach. With regard to shadows, in indoor sequences where the camera is focused on the speaking character, you often see one perfectly cast, precise shadow of their profile on one wall, and a lower intensity one further along the wall.
I don't care much for movies generally, this genre even less, so have not seen the hobbit (had to endure half an hour of lord of the rings before I walked out on the family haha...the line in the flight of the conchords song about the movie sums it up for me..."oh no, there's a thousand of them and only six of us, we'll never make it...HOORAY, we made it!'
)So anyway, just curious, these criticisms you have been making of the results, are they an observation of your own or is it a more widely held one??
It could be a case of not knowing the different techniques required when shooting in a 'new' format?
It's funny, I 'hate' movies yet for some reason I can happily enjoy a TV show (for example) about movies. In this example, read about them.
Weird stuff.
I agree. I thought I was alone about the shadow detail. It gave a kind of real 3D to the movie. But not in every older movie.
Speaking of which, in regard to normal TV transmission, once you get the colours and light levels correct, the overloaded makeup of the presenters looks ridiculous, the "fakeness" of it screams at you ...HD at 60 FPS? I do it every day. We did have to hire new makeup artists and buy some soft filters.
Edit: Perhaps surprisingly, black on LCD can work: I've dropped the level of the fluorescent significantly, and very precisely aligned the lowest steps of the range to give contrast. Now only under certain lighting conditions does black not look, well, black ... it matches the black surround and black shadows in the viewing room. I've looked at plenty of supposedly superior plasma and don't feel I'm missing anything.
Last edited: