[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
spin control, multi axis
- To: telecine at alegria.com
- Subject: spin control, multi axis
- From: joebeats at ix.netcom.com (Lou Levinson )
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 00:44:23 -0500 (CDT)
- Old-Return-Path: <joebeats at ix.netcom.com>
- Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 22:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
- Resent-From: telecine at sun.alegria.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"ukVTWC.A.kJB.C1mA0" at sun>
- Resent-Sender: telecine-request at sun.alegria.com
- Resent-To: multiple recipients of <telecine at sun.alegria.com>
I've just now had a chance to catch up on the summer's email(no one
can say that I'm a slave to my computer), and I have a few general
comments to throw out there:
on the issue of SMPTE/EBU phosphors and setups, and dual
standard xfers vs making it all from Pal-
If my aging memory serves me right, the SMPTE rp used to say
peak white should be "between 30 and 40 fl" and now says 35fl
specifically, although defacto is still 30 in many places.
Again, my memory may be playing tricks on me, but most dual
standard monitors since there have been dual standard monitors
have had the phosphors weighted to EBU anyhow.
I've been doing dual standard xfers since the first dual
standard Ranks were out, and it's ALWAYS been my experience
that when you "grade" the NTSC first, the PAL, with slightly
higher gamma and a better colorspace, always looked like a
better version of the same corrections. Every time I had to do
the Pal first and then the NTSC, it required a serious trim
pass. Just as logically if A then B doesn't yield if B then A,
first NTSC then Pal doesn't ever seem to be equal to if PAL
then NTSC. All this windy stuff to say that I wonder if those
that advocate PAL only, in this country especially have any
real idea of what the NTSC even looks like. Besides, on CRT
based scanning systems, the raster sizes are less optimum than
their NTSC counterparts. And furthermore, there is no
substitute for high resolution scanning, and making both the
NTSC and the PAL from something better!
All this worrying about the difference is a good thing for
those of us who have to worry about it, but we should always
keep in mind the fact that our friends in Japan have flooded
the world with millions of monitors that do 50+ fl at 9300k!
( time for the EBU to leave 25fl behind, no?)
On the whole HD/35/16 issue-
The issue isn't whether HD is better or 35 is better or 16 is
even accepteable, it's what are the aesthetic values of the
production company, and to what extent are they a slave to
economics. HDTV cameras look different than 35 to HD. 16 to HD
looks different from either of them. Can 16 look good? Under
optimum conditions, yes. I will leave it you to answer for
yourselves how many times you've seen "perfect" 16, perfect
35, or perfect video. Tests seldom model the real world,
especially when there are background agenda's running!
A question to those of you who actually read the CBS/Sony
report: Am I the only one who thought that resolution
measurements near or over 100% depth of modulation a bit
weird?? I mean, all the test films I've seen are down about
6db, on the film, at higher resolutions.
On what's hot and what's not in scanners:
As of a couple of weeks ago, the CRT scanner at MCA HD was
capable of the following performance:
Resolution: Flat to 25mhz ( we could set it for 30, but
with most of the film we've seen, it wouldn't matter.
Noise: about -54db at gamma .4, pre DVNR
We are running DAV accuglow and most of DAV's colorgrade.
I've just completed a comparison of camera neg on our machine,
and a Spirit, both with and without downstream processing, in
HD, and have come to the following conclusions:
The Rank was slightly sharper.
The Rank was as quiet, if not a teeny bit quieter.
The Rank color fidelity was a tiny bit better.
The DAV highlight compression gave the Rank the ability to hold
quite a bit more between black and white clip.
The Spirit has a flatter field of focus, which wasn't evident
in this test.
I have to say that I think the Spirit is a very good machine,
especially if your primary goal is 525/625, but I still think
CRT scanning has life in HD, especially when new framestores
and a digital deflection and overscanning system are in the
As to Sony's system, there was one test done a few months ago
where the same IP was compared on both machines. I've heard
Sony was going around claiming "victory" on this one but I have
the following comments: They didn't come close to achieving the
same "Look", so its not apples to apples, and how did they
manage to get the transfer so much noisier than ours?? I
thought CCD's were supposed to be real quiet.
Well, it's past my bedtime, so I'll yeild the floor now.
Those who want a serious piece of me can find me at:
JoeBeats at ix.netcom.com
+++thanks to Chris Doros and Alan Davis for support of the TIG in 1997
TIG subscriber count is 843 on Mon Aug 25 22:44:34 PDT 1997
archives and much more at http://www.alegria.com/telecinehome.html
mailinglist digest available.... unsubscribe via a message to
'telecine-request at alegria.com' with Subject: unsubscribe