AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › D-cinema Equipment and Theaters › Will Sony increase their cr performance?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Will Sony increase their cr performance?

post #1 of 71
9/26/09 at 2:52am
Thread Starter 
Hello
I know the Sony projectors have good points and bad points. If we leave that behind in this discussion and debates if Sony can tweak the cr performance.

Over the years Sony has slowly improved sxrd performance. The first introduced 4k panel was speced at 4000:1.
Now with pressure coming from JVC Sony has what it seems taken quite big steps with their latest home cinema units. The vpl-vw85 is expected to have between 20k-30k:1 at the projector level depending on the setup.

I know the home units are low in brightness but I am asking what a high brightness around the corner 4k sxrd projector could do with improved panel technology.

Uniformity is often brought up and that is why I can not understand why Sony is not already using a cooler light source. With less heat too dissipate off the panel uniformly I expect uniformity is easier to achieve.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 71
9/26/09 at 10:31am
Mattias

It is not that they cannot deliver contrast beyond 2k DCI spec keeps everything in check through out the video A chain which is mixed for 2k contrast and we will not see any advancement until the entire industry makes the leap at once.

With the digital transition still in its infancy and with most theaters leaving
lights on during a screening the need for higher contrast may not be of importance.

If they did offer level 2 in contrast ( assuming you had the projector and updated equipment ) and all content were delivered with the appropriate gamma theaters left behind through yet another transition would be at a disadvantage. Theater owners want to see some sort of security in their digital investment.

The studios have prioritized 3d and 4k ahead of contrast as the next marketing gimmick to get you out of the house and into the theater.

What is sad, I doubt if they doubled their performance and gave us 4 or 5k native if any theater goers would notice the difference.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 71
10/5/09 at 7:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

Mattias

It is not that they cannot deliver contrast beyond 2k DCI spec keeps everything in check through out the video A chain which is mixed for 2k contrast and we will not see any advancement until the entire industry makes the leap at once.

With the digital transition still in its infancy and with most theaters leaving
lights on during a screening the need for higher contrast may not be of importance.

If they did offer level 2 in contrast ( assuming you had the projector and updated equipment ) and all content were delivered with the appropriate gamma theaters left behind through yet another transition would be at a disadvantage. Theater owners want to see some sort of security in their digital investment.

The studios have prioritized 3d and 4k ahead of contrast as the next marketing gimmick to get you out of the house and into the theater.

What is sad, I doubt if they doubled their performance and gave us 4 or 5k native if any theater goers would notice the difference.

Alan, so you're saying we're maxed out at black level for the foreseeable future?

You don't think the people sitting at closer than 1.5sw will notice the res increase?

I look forward to 4K, but not 3D. Do you think they're pushing 3D because it's more cost effective than to pump money into R&D for black level, color and other image enhancements?
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 71
10/5/09 at 8:40pm
Bill

3-D is a gimmick to get people into the cinema. Its a money maker. Most movie goers will not notice an increase in black level especially when the cinemas ambient lighting would kill any visible increase anyway.
All of us here await further increase in contrast and true black for our home cinema projection systems but our rooms if light controlled can take advantage of the increase.
Yes we all welcome 4k DLP. It will be interesting to see how well the scaling engines take 2k to 4k. While D cinema will have 4k DLP well before home cinema I think its a safe bet we will see consumer 4k projectors well before we get 4k content.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 71
10/6/09 at 4:19pm
Alan,

Interesting to read, thanks. Pretty much what I figured.

What do you think we may see in terms of image improvement besides 4K?

And will the new 4K projectors at the cinemas just scale it or will they actually use 4K source material?
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 71
10/6/09 at 8:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by biliam1982 View Post

Alan,

Interesting to read, thanks. Pretty much what I figured.

What do you think we may see in terms of image improvement besides 4K?

And will the new 4K projectors at the cinemas just scale it or will they actually use 4K source material?


Sony Pictures and Sony Electronics Team to Deliver Angels & Demons in 4K Resolution

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/PR.aspx?newsID=1446
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 71
10/7/09 at 12:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Sony Pictures and Sony Electronics Team to Deliver Angels & Demons in 4K Resolution

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/PR.aspx?newsID=1446

Lee, thanks for the link.

I was looking at the list of theaters that had 4K installed and a couple of things came to mind.

1. I wonder how often that list is updated.

2. I was surprised to see that AMC didn't have that many compared to Regal. Espically surprised to see some of AMC's flagship theaters like AMC Aventura missing from the list. I thought they made this big deal w/ Sony. What gives?
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 71
10/7/09 at 8:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by biliam1982 View Post

...2. I was surprised to see that AMC didn't have that many compared to Regal. Espically surprised to see some of AMC's flagship theaters like AMC Aventura missing from the list. I thought they made this big deal w/ Sony. What gives?

AMC, Regal and Cinemark haven't yet gotten the money from Wall Street. And once they do, it will still take a while to do the installations.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 71
10/7/09 at 9:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by biliam1982 View Post

Lee, thanks for the link.

I was looking at the list of theaters that had 4K installed and a couple of things came to mind.

1. I wonder how often that list is updated.

2. I was surprised to see that AMC didn't have that many compared to Regal. Espically surprised to see some of AMC's flagship theaters like AMC Aventura missing from the list. I thought they made this big deal w/ Sony. What gives?

AMC Entertainment to Convert Entire Circuit to Digital Cinema Projection with Sony 4K Systems

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/pr.aspx?newsID=1389

Regal Entertainment Group to Install Sony 4K Digital Cinema Projection Systems Across Entire Circuit

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/pr.aspx?newsID=1443

Sony Announces New Exhibitor Agreements as Conversion to 4K Digital Cinema Technology Continues

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/pr.aspx?newsID=1411
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 71
10/7/09 at 9:55am
Lee, thanks again for the links.

I don't see any discussion about upgrading the screens. Somebody mentioned before that they did a study for 4K on an AT screen and the audience couldn't tell the difference. But when it was projected onto a non-AT screen they could.

Has anyone seen these 4K Sony's on an AT screen and can comment on this?
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 71
10/7/09 at 10:22am
Thread Starter 
I doubt that all cinemas are the same with regard to ambient light. If they are careful can they not avoid lowering the off screen contrast by directing any ambient light away from the screen.
1 exit signs away from the screen
2 carefully handling stair lighting

I was just hoping if sxrd is about to improve in native contrast that some of that gain would show up in D-cinema units.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 71
10/7/09 at 10:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by biliam1982 View Post

Alan,

Interesting to read, thanks. Pretty much what I figured.

What do you think we may see in terms of image improvement besides 4K?

And will the new 4K projectors at the cinemas just scale it or will they actually use 4K source material?

4k projectors will scale as 4k will be very rare for a while.
This is the chicken before the egg scenario.
Id take 4k content on 2k and consumer projectors in trade for 4k projectors arriving first.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 71
10/7/09 at 11:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by biliam1982 View Post

I look forward to 4K, but not 3D. Do you think they're pushing 3D because it's more cost effective than to pump money into R&D for black level, color and other image enhancements?

I'm a high resolution fan myself.
I don't understand however, why you're looking froward more to 4k than 3d in theaters. and i think the reason is not R&D, it's the fact that 3d is far more noticeable than any color or contrast improvement they can come up with.

3d brings a very nice depth (from flat to 3d...) improvement at basically any res. (though it does benefit a lot from higher resolution, since you end up staring at very specific parts of the screen in 3d sometimes.)
4k resolution, sure it'd be nice... but i don't see how you'd detect a very noticeable jump in resolution in traditional Hollywood movies.
for resolution to matter, movies would need much "further" shots, a lot less camera panning and just overall wider shots... (and the audience sitting a lot closer than they do.)
4k res when the camera is zooming in all the time kind of defeats the purpose, other than say, less noticeable pixel structure.
IMAX doesn't look amazing with traditional movies, and the biggest reason in my opinion, is that most movies are shot in a way that they don't really take advantage of high resolution.
For something like 4k-8k resolution it'd be cool to just get rid of the traditional flat screen altogether, and just use a dome-like screen instead, that covers your whole field of view. This would be awesome for games from day 1, but for movies not so much so, since they'd need to be shot in ultra-wide angles. (something like fisheye)

So, to be honest, i think 4k is much more of a gimmick than 3d is, and having experienced proper 3d in both gaming and cinemas now, i can't wait for the content to become available. (not that i would mind 4k in a dome screen AND S3D to go along with it... holodeck anyone?)
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 71
10/7/09 at 12:29pm
Digital Cinema's Special K

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/ma...nemas_special/
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 71
10/7/09 at 12:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Digital Cinema's Special K

Thanks for that link.
Wow the I/P scan really takes a hit.

As I mentioned above 4k source on a 2k projector throws more detail then
2k content mapped 1:1 on a 2k projector and will show more detail then 2k scaled to 4k.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 71
10/7/09 at 1:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

Thanks for that link.
Wow the I/P scan really takes a hit.

As I mentioned above 4k source on a 2k projector throws more detail then
2k content mapped 1:1 on a 2k projector and will show more detail then 2k scaled to 4k.

Again from Matt Cowan - goes into more depth on MTF:

http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Tech...Resolution.pdf
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 71
10/7/09 at 3:44pm
So I was thinking . . .

When you read both of those Matt Cowan links that show the MTF differences between the camera negative and the interpositive - well, they use the IP to do the scan from.

So if the IP is less than 4K (which Cowan maintains it is) - then are you really going to see "4K native resolution?" Or will you see less resolution that has been scanned at 4K? Which appears to be the case.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 71
10/7/09 at 5:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohlson View Post

I doubt that all cinemas are the same with regard to ambient light. If they are careful can they not avoid lowering the off screen contrast by directing any ambient light away from the screen.
1 exit signs away from the screen
2 carefully handling stair lighting

I was just hoping if sxrd is about to improve in native contrast that some of that gain would show up in D-cinema units.

Most newer cinemas in my area seem to have attempted to work on this area w/ black ceiling tiles and such. But even the best still have exit signs near the screen and it can be seen on a dark scene. The floor lighting and ambient lighting isn't directed away from the screen. I haven't been able to figure it out yet, but on some bright images I can see a line sparkling on the screen which I think is the speakers reflecting through. I have observed this on multiple movies.

The IMAX however, is the only one I've been in where I can't find anything wrong with the setup. Aside from the front rows being waaaaaaaaay to close to the screen (.25-.75 sw's) and if you sit too close to the back you can hear the projector during silent parts. But those arn't affecting the actual video presentation.

None of the theaters in my area are THX ceritifed, so it makes me wonder if they have rules governing thing like that.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 71
10/7/09 at 5:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamus View Post

I'm a high resolution fan myself.
I don't understand however, why you're looking froward more to 4k than 3d in theaters. and i think the reason is not R&D, it's the fact that 3d is far more noticeable than any color or contrast improvement they can come up with.

3d brings a very nice depth (from flat to 3d...) improvement at basically any res. (though it does benefit a lot from higher resolution, since you end up staring at very specific parts of the screen in 3d sometimes.)
4k resolution, sure it'd be nice... but i don't see how you'd detect a very noticeable jump in resolution in traditional Hollywood movies.
for resolution to matter, movies would need much "further" shots, a lot less camera panning and just overall wider shots... (and the audience sitting a lot closer than they do.)
4k res when the camera is zooming in all the time kind of defeats the purpose, other than say, less noticeable pixel structure.
IMAX doesn't look amazing with traditional movies, and the biggest reason in my opinion, is that most movies are shot in a way that they don't really take advantage of high resolution.
For something like 4k-8k resolution it'd be cool to just get rid of the traditional flat screen altogether, and just use a dome-like screen instead, that covers your whole field of view. This would be awesome for games from day 1, but for movies not so much so, since they'd need to be shot in ultra-wide angles. (something like fisheye)

So, to be honest, i think 4k is much more of a gimmick than 3d is, and having experienced proper 3d in both gaming and cinemas now, i can't wait for the content to become available. (not that i would mind 4k in a dome screen AND S3D to go along with it... holodeck anyone?)

I think I'll just have to respectufully disagree w/ you on this.

The only 3D I've seen done right (or I should say I liked the presentation) was Coraline. You have to be in the "sweet spot" to benefit fully. If you're on the side or in the back of the theater you won't get as good of 3D effects as those sitting in the middle. So depth is relative to where you're sitting.

How many IMAX movies have you been to lately? TDK and Transformers 2 were awesome. Those are just a few. Also, which version of IMAX have you been to? Film or digital?

Many people including myself like sitting closer to the screen. During a full theater, sometimes you're forced to sit closer if it's filled up already.

I also don't like having to wear 3D glasses. And they darken the image. Not all projectors are bright enough and it messes up the contrats ratio.

When they bring 3D w/ out glasses we'll see.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 71
10/7/09 at 9:26pm
Biliam,
I agree as I am not a big fan of the current 3D. The Panny demo did show the potential. I think Kamus was partially going with the fact that the general public will see a bigger difference with 3D than 4k or at least a perceived difference.

I am not sure if you were saying Aventura Fl is a flagship theater. If so, then someone will have to tell me how it is different from any other AMC.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 71
10/8/09 at 2:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Digital Cinema's Special K

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/ma...nemas_special/

Quote:


Originally Posted by Alan Gouger
Thanks for that link.
Wow the I/P scan really takes a hit.

As I mentioned above 4k source on a 2k projector throws more detail then
2k content mapped 1:1 on a 2k projector and will show more detail then 2k scaled to 4k.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Again from Matt Cowan - goes into more depth on MTF:

http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Tech...Resolution.pdf

Maybe one should check the outdated publishing date of these articles before further discussions. Certainly there has been large improvements both in the quality of film scanners, post workflow, digital projectors etc. since 2002&2003 when these articles where written.

For scanners; just compare the development in CMOS sensors for DSRL both in pixelamount and quality since 2003. A filmscanner is basically a "DSRL camera" in another "package". If scanners with RAW output is not in use yet in Hollywood then something is seriously wrong. Not to mention the wast improvement in post process of RAW output where 4K workflow both from 4+ K scans an 4K cameras are no problem.

Just an post production example;
Today you can buy a PCI expansion card for your PC that is able to playback unedited 4K RAW files in 4K with predefined grading/color directly to a 4K monitor/projector in realtime. So technology moves fast forward towards a 4K capture/post/display as basic standard.


In addition comes the first generation RAW 4K digital cinema cameras, and the second generation digital cinema cameras will be released in the coming months with up to 6K & 9K(24 and 64 megapixel) sensors.

If downsamples from these cameras to clean 4K (8 to 10 megapixel) projection doesn't make easy visible quality improvement over 2K material and 2K projection, then I will be very surprised.

2K has just been a "stopgap solution" to give the digital technology some time to mature.

Put it in context; If you where in the marked for a digital stills camera and someone tried to sell you a 2 megapixel camera, would you buy it or would you laugh at him?
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 71
10/8/09 at 2:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericglo View Post

Biliam,
I agree as I am not a big fan of the current 3D. The Panny demo did show the potential. I think Kamus was partially going with the fact that the general public will see a bigger difference with 3D than 4k or at least a perceived difference.

I am not sure if you were saying Aventura Fl is a flagship theater. If so, then someone will have to tell me how it is different from any other AMC.

I think the general public can be dooped into seeing just about anything when they are uneducated on the subject. But I can see his point.

If the film industry wants to sell 4K, they'll have to do some heavy marketing and publicity. Not sure how they'll sell that. I remember the Blu-Ray adds touting 6x the res of SD. But that was a significant jump and perceivable. But just 4x by comparisson isn't that much especially when you consider it may not get noticed much like Kamus said because people sit to far back. Also it might require upgraded infrastructure and new screens to take advantage of it. And if it's just the res increase and no other changes to the presentation like increased contrast ratio or higher color bit depth, it will definitely make it harder to sell not to mention damn near impossible if they charge a premium. Then they'll be competing w/ IMAX.

Yes I was talking about AMC Aventura 24 in Aventura, FL being a flagship theater. A couple of reasons is location, ticket sales, number of theaters and the addition of an IMAX. Prime real estate being located in one of the premier malls in America and high income per capita in the surrounding area make it posed for lots of trafffic and business. Not too many theaters have 24 screens even in a metropolis like South Florida. I count 2 others and 3 if you include the 23 screen cinema at Sawgrass Mills. The newely installed IMAX (though it was renovated off an older theater and converted) also adds to it's prestige. I don't know if they have an official title of flagship theater but I'm sure this would qualify it.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 71
10/8/09 at 5:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Maybe one should check the outdated publishing date of these articles before further discussions. Certainly there has been large improvements both in the quality of film scanners, post workflow, digital projectors etc. since 2002&2003 when these articles where written.

For scanners; just compare the development in CMOS sensors for DSRL both in pixelamount and quality since 2003. A filmscanner is basically a "DSRL camera" in another "package". If scanners with RAW output is not in use yet in Hollywood then something is seriously wrong. Not to mention the wast improvement in post process of RAW output where 4K workflow both from 4+ K scans an 4K cameras are no problem.

Just an post production example;
Today you can buy a PCI expansion card for your PC that is able to playback unedited 4K RAW files in 4K with predefined grading/color directly to a 4K monitor/projector in realtime. So technology moves fast forward towards a 4K capture/post/display as basic standard.


In addition comes the first generation RAW 4K digital cinema cameras, and the second generation digital cinema cameras will be released in the coming months with up to 6K & 9K(24 and 64 megapixel) sensors.

If downsamples from these cameras to clean 4K (8 to 10 megapixel) projection doesn't make easy visible quality improvement over 2K material and 2K projection, then I will be very surprised.

2K has just been a "stopgap solution" to give the digital technology some time to mature.

Put it in context; If you where in the marked for a digital stills camera and someone tried to sell you a 2 megapixel camera, would you buy it or would you laugh at him?

But one thing that we are discussing, that doesn't change, is the resolution fall off from the camera negative to the interpositive

And we know that the lions share of movies are shot using 35mm film.

So no matter how good a film scanner is - you are working with less than 4K resolution when you are scanning the IP.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 71
10/8/09 at 5:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by biliam1982 View Post

I think the general public can be dooped into seeing just about anything when they are uneducated on the subject. But I can see his point.

If the film industry wants to sell 4K, they'll have to do some heavy marketing and publicity. Not sure how they'll sell that. I remember the Blu-Ray adds touting 6x the res of SD. But that was a significant jump and perceivable. But just 4x by comparisson isn't that much especially when you consider it may not get noticed much like Kamus said because people sit to far back. Also it might require upgraded infrastructure and new screens to take advantage of it. And if it's just the res increase and no other changes to the presentation like increased contrast ratio or higher color bit depth, it will definitely make it harder to sell not to mention damn near impossible if they charge a premium. Then they'll be competing w/ IMAX.

Yes I was talking about AMC Aventura 24 in Aventura, FL being a flagship theater. A couple of reasons is location, ticket sales, number of theaters and the addition of an IMAX. Prime real estate being located in one of the premier malls in America and high income per capita in the surrounding area make it posed for lots of trafffic and business. Not too many theaters have 24 screens even in a metropolis like South Florida. I count 2 others and 3 if you include the 23 screen cinema at Sawgrass Mills. The newely installed IMAX (though it was renovated off an older theater and converted) also adds to it's prestige. I don't know if they have an official title of flagship theater but I'm sure this would qualify it.

Does BD really have 6X the resolution of DVD? Or does it simply have 6X the number of pixels?

To measure resolution they use a chart like this:



DVD is supposed to have approx 450 lines of resolution ( NTSC had 330 and LD had 400)

According to Panasonics website - here are two of thier HDTV's and what Panasonic rates the resolution as moving images (#1 is their top of the line while #2 is a step down)

Moving Picture Resolution 1080 lines

http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-e...702#tabsection


Moving Picture Resolution 900 lines or more

http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-e...702#tabsection

So we see that the difference between BD and DVD as far as resolution is only about 2X to 2.4X and not the 6X that has been touted.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 71
10/8/09 at 5:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

To measure resolution they use a chart like this:


Yours unfortunately was the first post I opened this morning. Starting my day with a picture of Gary Merson is leaving my stomach unsettled. Thanks a lot.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 71
10/8/09 at 7:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

But one thing that we are discussing, that doesn't change, is the resolution fall off from the camera negative to the interpositive

And we know that the lions share of movies are shot using 35mm film.

This will change by and by when the new digital cinema cameras are put to use.

Quote:


So no matter how good a film scanner is - you are working with less than 4K resolution when you are scanning the IP.


Almost all 35mm shot movies are edited/graded/colorcorrected digitally (and printed back on 35mm (on 2K printers mostly) for film release) and to be able to do that you have to scan the camera negative prior to editing in 2K, 4K or higher, and edit in 4K for a 4K digital finish.

If anybody then still rescan IP for digital release, then I would be surprised.

Sony has supposedly recently put out a memo that "all" Sony Pictures productions shall have a 4K finish.

More than a lot has changed since 2003.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 71
10/8/09 at 7:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

So we see that the difference between BD and DVD as far as resolution is only about 2X to 2.4X and not the 6X that has been touted.

The difference depends on whether you count pixels in the horizontal dimension, in the vertical dimension, as an average, as the sum of both dimensions, or as the product of both dimensions.

horizontal: 1920 / 720 = 2.67
vertical: 1080 / 480 = 2.25
average: (0.5 * 1920 / 720) + (0.5 * 1080 / 480) = 2.46
sum: (1920 + 1080) / (720 + 480) = 2.5
product: (1920 * 1080) / (720 * 480) = 6.00
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 71
10/8/09 at 7:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

This will change by and by when the new digital cinema cameras are put to use.

But that change has been very slow. AFAIK, each year, less than 10% of movies made use digital cameras for principal cinematography.

Quote:


Almost all 35mm shot movies are edited/graded/colorcorrected digitally (and printed back on 35mm (on 2K printers mostly) for film release) and to be able to do that you have to scan the camera negative prior to editing in 2K, 4K or higher, and edit in 4K for a 4K digital finish.

If anybody then still rescan IP for digital release, then I would be surprised.

Sony has supposedly recently put out a memo that "all" Sony Pictures productions shall have a 4K finish.

More than a lot has changed since 2003.

Do you know for a fact that the camera negative is always used for scanning purposes?
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 71
10/8/09 at 9:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

But that change has been very slow. AFAIK, each year, less than 10% of movies made use digital cameras for principal cinematography.

That's true, and even less if we only count the 4K cameras, which are not "real" 4K yet.
RED will roll out 3K, 5K, 6K, 9K and possibly a 28K cameras from maybe later this year. But it will take some time before we see released movies with this as a movie production take up two years or more from "green light" to cinema release.

Quote:



Do you know for a fact that the camera negative is always used for scanning purposes?

Not for a fact as I don't work in the movie business, but how else would you do it?
When a movie is finished shot and you have mass of material of maybe 10 takes on every scene. If you should make a positive copy of all that before scanning it would be rather expensive.
But I guess some does it the traditional way and do positives for dailies and then scan the scenes they want to keep from those positives.
But as more and more dailies are shown digital (saves a lot of money) the smartest way for highest quality and reduce the wear of the negative is to scan the camera negatives and then archive them.
That would also be the necessary way of obtaining that best quality for a 4K finish.

After digital editing/projection became a possibility the post workflow seems to be as many as there are post workflow teams, so what people do or not do is impossible to say.

When I follow post workflow discussions on forums, what I see is that some "digital workflow standard and guidelines" are needed for post production teams to get the best quality out of their material.

But maybe someone that work in movie business will chime in?
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 71
10/8/09 at 10:59am
If the film goes through a DI all the camera neg necessary is scanned. All the deliverables are then derived from here. There is no need to scan an IP for any of them (or even a filmed out neg for that matter).

That doesn't necessarily mean it never happens but there is no real reason to do so.

Scanning the neg is also fairly nominal for older films for rerelease or video mastering (its little different than doing a DI).
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: D-cinema Equipment and Theaters

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › D-cinema Equipment and Theaters › Will Sony increase their cr performance?