[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
...Broadcast in HDTV...News you would rather not hear.
- To: telecine at alegria.com
- Subject: ...Broadcast in HDTV...News you would rather not hear.
- From: "Mike (the Brit) Orton" <orton at 525studios.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:41:51 -0700
- Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:47:16 -0500
- Resent-From: telecine at alegria.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"11pIx.A.yRC.edT83" at sun>
- Resent-Sender: telecine-request at alegria.com
- Resent-To: multiple recipients of <telecine at alegria.com>
>"The King of Queens" shoots Friday night on 35mm three perf film with four
>cameras. The film is mastered in Complete Post's TC-2 on the Philip's
This brings up an interesting point about a film format which most of
us prefer to forget about: 3-perf. The reasons for this preference
revolve primarily about two issues. On an URSA type machine, three
perf often meant a near single-line scan on a very expensive tube.
Who among us likes to have that situation for very long?
The second issue is that 3-perf is not supported per se by either
DaVinci or TLC (and I would guess Pogle), and involves some degree of
complexity with an Evertz (or Aaton, presumably) keykode system,
getting into repeating 3-foot sequences of 21, 21 and 22 frames. Yuk!
The Metaspeed bolt-on for the URSA improved things to a great degree
by synthesizing the biphase pulses from a standard 4-perf gate used
in 3-perf, to avoid having to purchase another expensive gate just
for this format. It also fools the color correction and editing
computers into at least being able to correct and edit, albeit with
incorrect calculations about frames & feet.
The new generation of machines, Spirit and C-Reality, are of course
designed for 3-perf from the ground-up, so I dont really expect any
expensive consumable problems running 3-perf on these machines.
Therefore, most of the objection about doing 3-perf just went away.
Consider this: our industry is moving inexorably towards a 1.77:1
(16x9) transmitted image. I've seen postings from Mike Most, among
others, who quite rightly point out that out of a 4:3 image on film,
for many jobs, only the 1.77:1 framing is used. This is the "common
sides" approach, losing the top and bottom of the frame. As Mike and
others also point out, the 4:3 extraction is a part of that 16x9
image, so what is the point of shooting the 4:3 to start with?
Result: a 3-perf image is close to 16x9, so why not shoot on that
format, and avoid wasting film. This is not going to be pleasant for
many of the TIGrs to hear, but expect 3-perf useage to increase with
increasing HDTV applications.
What this means is that DaVinci and others are going to have to get
their stuff together to support 3-perf operation properly, and we as
telecine people are going to have to get to grips with the
complexities of 3-perf keykode. Perhaps its time for Kodak to
re-evaluate where the Kode is put on the film?
I invite informed discussion about this topic on the TIG, and I think
we as an industry need to come up with creative solutions, which
would be acceptable to our manufacturer people, who seem to be
somewhat overwhelmed by the HD situation already, (just got a DaVinci
2K over the weekend, so know all about this!).
My 5 cents' worth would be to put keykode every 12 frames, as being
the lowest common multiple, perhaps on the other side of the film?
OK go ahead, shoot me down.
Best to all as usual
Thanks to VAS Group for support in 1999
No advertising/marketing allowed on the main TIG. Contact rob at alegria.com
anonymous messaging now at http://www.alegria.com/HyperNews/get/ubique.html
1054 subscribers in 41 countries on Tue Sep 28 16:47:11 CDT 1999
subscribe/unsubscribe with that Subject: to telecine-request at alegria.com
complete information on the TIG website http://www.alegria.com/tig3/