Re:LCDs work fine, with some small issues...
on
LCD Round-up
·
· Score: 1
Hmm. I have a pair of NEC 1530V monitors connected to a 1.2Ghz PIII with GeForce4 MX440 video card. Playing RTCW I get around 80-90 FPS on interior scenes and maybe 40 on exterior.
Your video card may be generating the frames that fast, but the LCD sure isn't displaying them that fast. Like he said, even a brand-new, top of the line LCD simply doesn't have the response time to actually show a distinct image that fast.
I would think a cinema manager would be nuts to shell out a couple of hundred thousand for a DLP setup then add anything that would make the image quality worse.
That sentence is true even for just the first half. No theater chain is EVER going to pay for digital cinema themselves. It is up to the studios and distributors (who stand to benefit financially from it). All the installations that are out there so far are "freebies" given away by companies trying to jump-start the market.
Oh, I know that. I don't mean to imply that high speed film is grain free. But it's better than nothing, and it's better than it used to be (and is getting better all the time). Just look at the latest Kodak MAX 800 consumer film you can find in grocery stores. Very fine grain, much better than a typical 800 ASA negative from just a few years ago. And most consumer-level digital cameras don't even have an 800 ASA option yet, and if they did, it would look terribly noisy, much worse than any grain from high speed film.
Your comment about CCD noise alludes to one thing in particular that bothers me about digital cameras -- the poor low-light capabilities most of them suffer from. The sensors are typically 50 or 100 ASA native, with modes to "push" them as high as 400 ASA (even 800 in some cases), but the images start to get extremely noisy at those higher speeds. On the other hand, I can load Fuji 1600 ASA film into a 35mm camera and take picutres in practically any conditions with no flash, and the pictures usually come out great, with surprisingly little grain for such a fast film.
Speed is another problem. The article mentions more than 30 MB for a RAW file on the Canon camera, yet it uses ordinary CompactFlash for storage. I shudder to think how long it takes for those files to be written out to the card.
Even with a 3 megapixel camera, I frequently have to wait for the CF card to finish storing the data before I can take another picture. Yes, many cameras have a "burst" mode, with lots of internal RAM to hold the images so that they can be written out to the card later, but even then, there is a limit to how much that write-behind caching can do for you. At some point, the RAM fills up, and you have to wait for the flash card to catch up. With a good 35mm SLR autowinder, you can snap several pictures per second until you run out of film, with no waiting.
Just about every OS X app still limits you to Mac's 31. GRRR. Is this just a limit for "carbonized" apps?
It's got nothing to do with a limitation on Carbon, it's just those straggling developers who have not updated to the latest file dialog APIs. Newer NavServices dialogs give full 255 char Unicode-aware filenames. It's just a matter of getting developers to use them (they've been around since 10.0, you'd think they would get on the ball at some point).
The submitter of the article says "being a geek" he figured there just had to be a non-mechanical solution. Thing is, his definition of "geek" isn't exactly all that worldly. Truly talented engineering types are also mechanically inclined.
Mechanically inclined.
When was the last time you even heard that phrase? We live in a physical world. A mechanical device is a perfectly acceptable solution to a problem. Not everything needs to be done with software. Just look at the guy's level of disappointment. "But there has to be a way to do this with electronics! Electronics are always better than mechanics, aren't they? It's impossible for mechanics to do something electronics cannot, ins't it? Hello?"
And Cliff's additional writeup is no help either. The reason the video in the example he found can only played back at 103fps is fully explained in the link he provides (and apparently didn't bother to read). Also, the 12,000fps film camera that got everyone talking in the first place not the first of its kind. High-speed film cameras have been around for decades. The real kicker is Cliff's silly statement at the end, which makes it sound as though an electronic high-speed camera would be the first high-speed camera ever. He says, "What visual mischief could you aspiring photographers get into with such a camera?" Gee, I dunno Cliff, how about the exact same things people have been doing with high speed film cameras for the past 50 years, eh?
Sheesh. The world goes beyond the bits in a CPU. Turn off the computer and take a look around at the tangible, physical world.
The long-time standard Apple font, Apple Garamond (which is really just Adobe Garamond Light squeezed to 80% of its normal width) seems to be getting phased out, too.
Just look at the text used in all the eMac marketing materials. Instead of being in the usual Apple Garamond, it is in a font that resembles Adobe Myriad. That's quite a departure from the classic look Apple has always used.
Many movies are filmed in formats that have no extra information outside the widescreen image area. Those movies would either have to be cropped or letterboxed to be shown in IMAX.
Here is what I had to say when this subject came up on Metafilter:
IMAX is the wrong aspect ratio for most movies.
The proportions are almost like TV (about 1.4:1), whereas most movies made in the last 50 years are much wider than that (some are more than twice as wide). Nearly all movies seen in theatres in the last 20-30 years are one of two aspect ratios -- 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. Fitting those wider frames into an IMAX frame presents exactly the same problem that showing them on TV does. You have to fit a rectangle into a square, rougly speaking. That means either letterbox or pan-and-scan.
However, Apollo 13 will probably transfer to IMAX fairly well, because it was shot in Super 35, which even though it usually is used to produce a 2.35:1 widescreen image, actually has a negative area that is much more squarish (again, about 1.4:1). So I would imagine that the IMAX transfer will make use of that extra image area. For more info on Super-35 see here, about 3/4ths the way down the page.
Still, many of the movies people mentioned in this article were shot in widescreen processes other than Super-35, and would have to either be severely cropped, or letterboxed within the IMAX frame, in order to be shown from IMAX projectors.
The right thing to do would be to bring back 5-perforation 70mm, which has a nice wide aspect ratio of 2.20:1. During the years from about 1976-1996, most major studio releases had at least some 5-perf 70mm prints struck. Chances are, if you went to the movies in a major US city during that time, you saw a number of films in 70mm six-track, perhaps without even knowing it. (The process was killed off by digital sound in the mid-to-late 1990s.) Everyone saying "I want to see Star Wars!" should realize that it has already been released in 70mm -- back in 1977.
Of course, 5-perf 70mm existed long before the years I just listed, but it was mainly used for films that were actually shot in 65mm. The time period I'm referring to is merely when 35mm->70mm optical blow-ups were popular. This new IMAX process sounds like a bit of a throwback to those days, but at the expense of correct aspect ratios. And the blow-up is now done digitally rather than optically.
Not only is IMAX the wrong aspect ratio for a lot of movies, it's also incompatible standard feature films in many other ways. 35mm feature films these days are shot with lots of tight close-ups and quick cuts, and if you look at the IMAX Filmmaker's Manual, they very clearly suggest that you not do things like that, because they are very jarring on the IMAX screen!
Due to the above problems, I think people are likely to be disappointed with this in the long run. IMAX is probably pushing this idea because they are hoping this will boost their stock price.
Tron was originally released in 70mm six-track (mag stripe analog). There were some 35mm prints made too, but it was always intended for 70mm, and was shown that way in many cities in its original release. The sound track on these new prints was probably not remixed, just transferred to digital. It was already "multi-channel".
Maxivision48 projection still does not address the issues of outright physical wear on film (scratches, film breakage, etc.).
Maxivision does not need to solve those problems, as they have already been solved.
Properly handled film does not get scratched. No part of the projector ever touches the emulsion area. Running "wet-gate" (yes, there are some theatres which do that) prevents dirt buildup. The only time dirt and scratches are a problem is when someone does something wrong in the projection booth.
Breaks are a thing of the past thanks to modern polyester film stocks, which are literally strong enough to tow a car. No projector motor ever made has enough power to snap a polyester print. Well-made projectors (such as a Kinoton) will shut off in the event of a jam.
Done right, the same film can be run hundreds or even thousands of times with no discernable wear. Mind you, this is not some theoretical bit of fancy, it's been proven many times in practice. The only thing it requires is modern equipment and a booth operator who cares about what they are doing.
It's unfortunate that 5-perf 70mm died off in the early-to-mid 1990s, but if it were to come back today, it would be much cheaper than before, thanks to 70mm DTS. Studios would no longer have to pay for the expensive magnetic striping process to add the 6-channel analog soundtrack. Unfortunately, even without the cost of magnetic striping, it's still too expensive for the studios to even consider paying for it. A return of large scale 5/70 distribution will not happen.
Besides, there is a little-known process called Super Dimension 70 that combines 70mm and the 48fps frame rate, which I think would be better than either Maxivision or plain 24fps 5/70. Too bad it will never happen. Studios and distributors are already so hooked on the idea of digital being cheaper that they won't even consider a new system based on film, no matter how good it is.
If only SDS-70 and Maxivision had come along sooner...
Actually, resolution is the problem. TI (the company that makes DLP) is aware of that, and tries their best to hide it. Go looking around on dlp.com and see if you can find any information about the number of pixels in a DLP-based projector. After much digging, you'll find it buried on one of the pages -- 1280x1024.
Yes, that's right. 1280x1024. On a movie-sized screen. That's why it looks bad.
Would people be so hip on digital cinema if they knew it had less resolution than an average conference room LCD projector? If they knew they could go to an electronics store and buy an HDTV monitor for a couple of thousand dollars that has more resolution (1920x1080) than the much-hyped digital cinema?
TI did their first theatrical demos of DLP more than five years ago. It was 1280x1024 then, and it's 1280x1024 now. They've had half a decade -- a lifetime in the electronics business -- to increase the resolution, and they have not done it. Will they ever? Who knows?
Further more, who cares? There are two competing technologies that are up and coming and will soon overtake it.
The first is D-ILA from JVC, a reflective technology that has better coverage and more contrast (and no moving parts, unlike DLP). Kodak is using D-ILA in their attempt to build a digital projection system. It's already up to 2K resolution and should hit 4K by the end of this year. Secondly, there is laser projection, which is difficult to find details about online, but promises to also deliver far better resolution than DLP.
So I'd say that resolution most certainly is a problem, and one that hopefully will be solved before too long, thanks to some good old fashioned competition. Take that, TI!
Unfortunately, the article does not tell the whole story. Goodhill's system also includes a more precise pulldown and a larger frame area. The latter improvement is especially important, as it actually does increase resolution and light output significantly.
His system also makes more efficient use of the film area. Normal 35mm is 4 perforations per frame, but Maxivision is only 3 perforations per frame. So it only requires 50% more footage, even though the frame rate is doubled.
Yes, IE will analyze any file that doesn't match its reported MIME type, and try to figure out what kind of file it really is. Turns out, that is actually kind of handy sometimes.
For instance, a popular trick many people use to get free image hosting from Geocities (which doesn't allow external image linking) is to rename their jpegs or gifs or whatever to end in ".txt" instead of the correct extension. Then they just link to the file normally using img tags. Many browsers sent to that file will display a "broken image" icon, but IE will be smart and auto-detect that the file is in fact an image, and display it correctly.
To call it "retarded" is misleading. IE is actually doing more work than other browsers. It may not lead to safe or correct behavior in all cases, but it does allow for some neat tricks.
The individual chips are monochrome obviously, so there have to be three of them to produce color images (one each for RGB). However, the individual color components are aimed so that they end up "stacked", i.e. displayed directly on top of each other. There is no chance for sub-pixel display. Barco is being disingenuous by emphasizing the presence of three DLP chips. The final resolution is still only 1280x1024, which is downright pathetic. You can already go to Fry's and buy an HDTV monitor for your home that is higher resolution than that. Do studios and distributors really think theatrical exhibition will survive if home video resolution is allowed to surpass it?
Actually, Ep. II was done at HDTV resolution (1920x1080), but DLP is only 1280x1024. So DLP won't show all the pixels that were there on the original video data. The film prints, on the other hand, will show all the pixels, since as you pointed out, film has much higher resolution than any currently avaiable digital format, and the laser recoders used to transfer digital video to film can easily hand resolutions much greater than that of Ep. II. So if you want to see every last bit of image detail in this movie, film is the best bet, not DLP.
Funny how all the press coverage and hype about digial cinema always leaves out these facts.
Yes, when I first heard about DVD, I assumed it would be done this way. The video data would be stored in an arbitrary aspect ratio, and instructions on where to zoom in and pan (with separate instructions for both 4x3 and 16x9 sets) could be encoded on the disc for viewers who chose pan and scan vs. widescreen. It just made so much sense I couldn't imagine it not being done this way, but in fact, it wasn't.
Of course, there is that crummy 16:9-within-a-4:3-frame-with-pan-and-scan-instruct ions mode in the current standard (which never gets used on any shipping discs), but that's not nearly as useful as an arbitrary-within-arbitrary mode would have been.
However, as another poster pointed out, a lot of movies are shot in Super-35, and since the 4x3 version of a Super-35 film is usually a totally different composition from the 2.35:1 vesion, those films would require a separate copy of the video for the 4x3 version anyway. So it wouldn't have helped for those cases.
By the way, you're probably one of only a handful people on Slashdot who is aware of 5-perf 70mm 6-track. I was just a kid when Tron was release, and it was actually the first time I became aware of 70mm. In later years, I would refuse to go see big summer movies unless I could find a place that was showing them in 70mm. Fortunately, that was very common where I lived in those days, and I believe I was often able to go for months if not a whole year at a time without ever seeing a movie in 35mm.
Boy do I miss those days. I recently saw the 70mm re-release of "2001", and it was the first 5-perf 70mm print I'd seen in years. The way things are going, I may never get to see another one...:-(
The pixels are square within the projector, but are non-square by the time they hit the screen. There is an anamorphic lens on the front of the projector which optically stretches the image to the correct proportions.
Current DLP projectors have a set of 1280x1024 chips in them, which have a native aspect ratio of 1.25:1. The projector also comes with two anamorphic lenses, a 1.5X lens to stretch the image out for 1.85:1 movies, and a 1.9X lens to stretch the image out for 2.39:1 movies. The lenses must be changed whenever the theatre is getting ready to show a feature in a different aspect ratio than the previous one.
Slashdot Mirror
Your video card may be generating the frames that fast, but the LCD sure isn't displaying them that fast. Like he said, even a brand-new, top of the line LCD simply doesn't have the response time to actually show a distinct image that fast.
That sentence is true even for just the first half. No theater chain is EVER going to pay for digital cinema themselves. It is up to the studios and distributors (who stand to benefit financially from it). All the installations that are out there so far are "freebies" given away by companies trying to jump-start the market.
Oh, I know that. I don't mean to imply that high speed film is grain free. But it's better than nothing, and it's better than it used to be (and is getting better all the time). Just look at the latest Kodak MAX 800 consumer film you can find in grocery stores. Very fine grain, much better than a typical 800 ASA negative from just a few years ago. And most consumer-level digital cameras don't even have an 800 ASA option yet, and if they did, it would look terribly noisy, much worse than any grain from high speed film.
Your comment about CCD noise alludes to one thing in particular that bothers me about digital cameras -- the poor low-light capabilities most of them suffer from. The sensors are typically 50 or 100 ASA native, with modes to "push" them as high as 400 ASA (even 800 in some cases), but the images start to get extremely noisy at those higher speeds. On the other hand, I can load Fuji 1600 ASA film into a 35mm camera and take picutres in practically any conditions with no flash, and the pictures usually come out great, with surprisingly little grain for such a fast film.
Even with a 3 megapixel camera, I frequently have to wait for the CF card to finish storing the data before I can take another picture. Yes, many cameras have a "burst" mode, with lots of internal RAM to hold the images so that they can be written out to the card later, but even then, there is a limit to how much that write-behind caching can do for you. At some point, the RAM fills up, and you have to wait for the flash card to catch up. With a good 35mm SLR autowinder, you can snap several pictures per second until you run out of film, with no waiting.
It's got nothing to do with a limitation on Carbon, it's just those straggling developers who have not updated to the latest file dialog APIs. Newer NavServices dialogs give full 255 char Unicode-aware filenames. It's just a matter of getting developers to use them (they've been around since 10.0, you'd think they would get on the ball at some point).
Finder won't show .hidden files. THIS is UNIX?
Try this:
Then logout/log back in.Mechanically inclined.
When was the last time you even heard that phrase? We live in a physical world. A mechanical device is a perfectly acceptable solution to a problem. Not everything needs to be done with software. Just look at the guy's level of disappointment. "But there has to be a way to do this with electronics! Electronics are always better than mechanics, aren't they? It's impossible for mechanics to do something electronics cannot, ins't it? Hello?"
And Cliff's additional writeup is no help either. The reason the video in the example he found can only played back at 103fps is fully explained in the link he provides (and apparently didn't bother to read). Also, the 12,000fps film camera that got everyone talking in the first place not the first of its kind. High-speed film cameras have been around for decades. The real kicker is Cliff's silly statement at the end, which makes it sound as though an electronic high-speed camera would be the first high-speed camera ever. He says, "What visual mischief could you aspiring photographers get into with such a camera?" Gee, I dunno Cliff, how about the exact same things people have been doing with high speed film cameras for the past 50 years, eh?
Sheesh. The world goes beyond the bits in a CPU. Turn off the computer and take a look around at the tangible, physical world.
Just look at the text used in all the eMac marketing materials. Instead of being in the usual Apple Garamond, it is in a font that resembles Adobe Myriad. That's quite a departure from the classic look Apple has always used.
Many movies are filmed in formats that have no extra information outside the widescreen image area. Those movies would either have to be cropped or letterboxed to be shown in IMAX.
IMAX is the wrong aspect ratio for most movies.
The proportions are almost like TV (about 1.4:1), whereas most movies made in the last 50 years are much wider than that (some are more than twice as wide). Nearly all movies seen in theatres in the last 20-30 years are one of two aspect ratios -- 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. Fitting those wider frames into an IMAX frame presents exactly the same problem that showing them on TV does. You have to fit a rectangle into a square, rougly speaking. That means either letterbox or pan-and-scan.
However, Apollo 13 will probably transfer to IMAX fairly well, because it was shot in Super 35, which even though it usually is used to produce a 2.35:1 widescreen image, actually has a negative area that is much more squarish (again, about 1.4:1). So I would imagine that the IMAX transfer will make use of that extra image area. For more info on Super-35 see here, about 3/4ths the way down the page.
Still, many of the movies people mentioned in this article were shot in widescreen processes other than Super-35, and would have to either be severely cropped, or letterboxed within the IMAX frame, in order to be shown from IMAX projectors.
The right thing to do would be to bring back 5-perforation 70mm, which has a nice wide aspect ratio of 2.20:1. During the years from about 1976-1996, most major studio releases had at least some 5-perf 70mm prints struck. Chances are, if you went to the movies in a major US city during that time, you saw a number of films in 70mm six-track, perhaps without even knowing it. (The process was killed off by digital sound in the mid-to-late 1990s.) Everyone saying "I want to see Star Wars!" should realize that it has already been released in 70mm -- back in 1977.
Of course, 5-perf 70mm existed long before the years I just listed, but it was mainly used for films that were actually shot in 65mm. The time period I'm referring to is merely when 35mm->70mm optical blow-ups were popular. This new IMAX process sounds like a bit of a throwback to those days, but at the expense of correct aspect ratios. And the blow-up is now done digitally rather than optically.
Not only is IMAX the wrong aspect ratio for a lot of movies, it's also incompatible standard feature films in many other ways. 35mm feature films these days are shot with lots of tight close-ups and quick cuts, and if you look at the IMAX Filmmaker's Manual, they very clearly suggest that you not do things like that, because they are very jarring on the IMAX screen!
Due to the above problems, I think people are likely to be disappointed with this in the long run. IMAX is probably pushing this idea because they are hoping this will boost their stock price.
Tron was originally released in 70mm six-track (mag stripe analog). There were some 35mm prints made too, but it was always intended for 70mm, and was shown that way in many cities in its original release. The sound track on these new prints was probably not remixed, just transferred to digital. It was already "multi-channel".
Maxivision does not need to solve those problems, as they have already been solved.
Properly handled film does not get scratched. No part of the projector ever touches the emulsion area. Running "wet-gate" (yes, there are some theatres which do that) prevents dirt buildup. The only time dirt and scratches are a problem is when someone does something wrong in the projection booth.
Breaks are a thing of the past thanks to modern polyester film stocks, which are literally strong enough to tow a car. No projector motor ever made has enough power to snap a polyester print. Well-made projectors (such as a Kinoton) will shut off in the event of a jam.
Done right, the same film can be run hundreds or even thousands of times with no discernable wear. Mind you, this is not some theoretical bit of fancy, it's been proven many times in practice. The only thing it requires is modern equipment and a booth operator who cares about what they are doing.
Besides, there is a little-known process called Super Dimension 70 that combines 70mm and the 48fps frame rate, which I think would be better than either Maxivision or plain 24fps 5/70. Too bad it will never happen. Studios and distributors are already so hooked on the idea of digital being cheaper that they won't even consider a new system based on film, no matter how good it is.
If only SDS-70 and Maxivision had come along sooner...
Yes, that's right. 1280x1024. On a movie-sized screen. That's why it looks bad.
Would people be so hip on digital cinema if they knew it had less resolution than an average conference room LCD projector? If they knew they could go to an electronics store and buy an HDTV monitor for a couple of thousand dollars that has more resolution (1920x1080) than the much-hyped digital cinema?
TI did their first theatrical demos of DLP more than five years ago. It was 1280x1024 then, and it's 1280x1024 now. They've had half a decade -- a lifetime in the electronics business -- to increase the resolution, and they have not done it. Will they ever? Who knows?
Further more, who cares? There are two competing technologies that are up and coming and will soon overtake it.
The first is D-ILA from JVC, a reflective technology that has better coverage and more contrast (and no moving parts, unlike DLP). Kodak is using D-ILA in their attempt to build a digital projection system. It's already up to 2K resolution and should hit 4K by the end of this year. Secondly, there is laser projection, which is difficult to find details about online, but promises to also deliver far better resolution than DLP.
So I'd say that resolution most certainly is a problem, and one that hopefully will be solved before too long, thanks to some good old fashioned competition. Take that, TI!
His system also makes more efficient use of the film area. Normal 35mm is 4 perforations per frame, but Maxivision is only 3 perforations per frame. So it only requires 50% more footage, even though the frame rate is doubled.
For instance, a popular trick many people use to get free image hosting from Geocities (which doesn't allow external image linking) is to rename their jpegs or gifs or whatever to end in ".txt" instead of the correct extension. Then they just link to the file normally using img tags. Many browsers sent to that file will display a "broken image" icon, but IE will be smart and auto-detect that the file is in fact an image, and display it correctly.
To call it "retarded" is misleading. IE is actually doing more work than other browsers. It may not lead to safe or correct behavior in all cases, but it does allow for some neat tricks.
You don't have to check every story that's sent -- just the ones that you decide to actually post. That only amounts to a handful of stories per day.
The individual chips are monochrome obviously, so there have to be three of them to produce color images (one each for RGB). However, the individual color components are aimed so that they end up "stacked", i.e. displayed directly on top of each other. There is no chance for sub-pixel display. Barco is being disingenuous by emphasizing the presence of three DLP chips. The final resolution is still only 1280x1024, which is downright pathetic. You can already go to Fry's and buy an HDTV monitor for your home that is higher resolution than that. Do studios and distributors really think theatrical exhibition will survive if home video resolution is allowed to surpass it?
By the way, here is a reference from TI's official website stating that the resolution is 1280x1024.
No they aren't. They're 1280x1024, and have been ever since they started doing demos 5 years ago.
Funny how all the press coverage and hype about digial cinema always leaves out these facts.
Of course, there is that crummy 16:9-within-a-4:3-frame-with-pan-and-scan-instruct ions mode in the current standard (which never gets used on any shipping discs), but that's not nearly as useful as an arbitrary-within-arbitrary mode would have been.
However, as another poster pointed out, a lot of movies are shot in Super-35, and since the 4x3 version of a Super-35 film is usually a totally different composition from the 2.35:1 vesion, those films would require a separate copy of the video for the 4x3 version anyway. So it wouldn't have helped for those cases.
Since this movie was shot in Super-35, the 4x3 version won't really be pan-and-scanned in the way that you're thinking.
By the way, you're probably one of only a handful people on Slashdot who is aware of 5-perf 70mm 6-track. I was just a kid when Tron was release, and it was actually the first time I became aware of 70mm. In later years, I would refuse to go see big summer movies unless I could find a place that was showing them in 70mm. Fortunately, that was very common where I lived in those days, and I believe I was often able to go for months if not a whole year at a time without ever seeing a movie in 35mm.
Boy do I miss those days. I recently saw the 70mm re-release of "2001", and it was the first 5-perf 70mm print I'd seen in years. The way things are going, I may never get to see another one... :-(
Current DLP projectors have a set of 1280x1024 chips in them, which have a native aspect ratio of 1.25:1. The projector also comes with two anamorphic lenses, a 1.5X lens to stretch the image out for 1.85:1 movies, and a 1.9X lens to stretch the image out for 2.39:1 movies. The lenses must be changed whenever the theatre is getting ready to show a feature in a different aspect ratio than the previous one.