The driver for these efforts is digital technology, which enables a pair of 2-D images to form a single 3-D picture with more precision than previously possible. Digital 3-D has already excited the movie business, which has more than a dozen 3-D releases scheduled for 2009, to be shown in more theaters (in the range of 1,500 in the U.S. and growing). These films might also end up in homes, either via broadcast or disc, though the latter will take a separate though equally arduous path to consumers.
Testing of 3-D broadcasts has already started in theaters, where exhibitors see the potential to offer alternatives to movies. So far, most of the experiments have surrounded the transmission of live 3-D sporting events, via satellite, to a single, closed, 3-D-ready digital-cinema location.
It is widely believed that live 3-D will first come to movie theaters, as it did for Thursday's NFL Net test in theaters in New York, Boston and Los Angeles. But those theaters also displayed the game on TV sets, a demonstration of the end goal for this business.
"Home entertainment is starting to show signs of being involved in live 3-D," said Vince Pace, CEO of 3-D business Pace. "That's a good sign because the industry has had a difficult time demonstrating a revenue stream with closed-viewing events."
Still, to get 3-D to the home means a lot of moving parts that require attention. Global standards-setting body Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers is developing a 3-D mastering standard for combining the two 2-D signals into a 3-D broadcast, whether distributed via broadcast, cable, satellite or the Internet. If SMPTE doesn't move quickly enough, it could find manufacturers such as Real D, Philips and Sensio deploying their own proprietary methods, triggering a format war.
"I think we are going to see format wars next year, " admitted Steve Schklair, CEO of 3Ality Digital Systems. "Ultimately, SMPTE will set a standard and probably those that are deeply embedded in the market will become the standard."
But Sensio executive vp Richard LaBerge begs to differ. "I think the studios will announce their support before a format war begins. I think so because people still have scars from the last one, and going into another war might just kill 3-D."
With the Consumer Electronics Show a month away, the market is getting ready to put its best 3-D foot forward with new consumer technology to support new methods of digital 3-D broadcasting.
"We expect to see a continuation of development of 3-D capable TVs," said David Wertheimer, CEO of the Entertainment Technology Center @ USC, which is building a neutral 3-D TV testing lab.
Rather that asking consumers to chose today's TVs or new 3-D capabilities, the consumer electronics industry is starting to roll out TV sets that support both standard and 3-D viewing. So for those familiar with the "HD ready" slogan for sets that accommodate standard as well as HD imagery, soon "3-D-ready" TV will enter the consumer vocabulary.
These sets are being offered by the likes of Samsung, Mitsubishi, Panasonic and JVC, complete with high-tech eyeglasses that make the classic two-color kind seem primitive by comparison. There are currently 1.9 million 3-D-enabled TVs worldwide according to Insight Media, and that number is expected to reach 40 million by 2011.
Still in development a few years away from consumer availability, are "autostereo" TV sets, which are different from other 3-D ready TV sets in that they would display 3-D without the need for glasses.
Until then, TV networks are content to utilize the classic method of "anaglyph," in which the images are made up of two color layers. In June, Disney Channel showed Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert that way, and an upcoming episode of the NBC series Chuck will do the same.
Still, some do have concerns about reviving the method. Among them: James Cameron. Speaking at the summit this week, the Academy Award-winning director warned attendees not to set the wrong impression about the technology in the minds of consumers. "Every time you do that you stunt the eventual performance of 3-D," he said.
A 3-D breakthrough is largely a chicken-and-egg situation, with set penetration at one end and available content on the other. On the content side, live sports is likely the killer app. Pace and the NBA have already completed several successful tests of live 3-D basketball. He reported that his company has also recently done 3-D tests for the World Wrestling Entertainment and Ultimate Fighting Championship. He added that ESPN has shown interest, with Pace shooting a 3-D college football game last month as an experiment for the broadcaster.
And revealed this week: Fox Sports is planning a 3-D broadcast of college basketball's upcoming championship game to CES and select theaters. Rumors are swirling of interest being shown in giving sports such as soccer, rugby and even Olympic events the 3-D treatment.
Howard Katz, senior vp broadcasting and media operations at NFL, emphasized that this week's game was a test for live broadcasting. But he revealed that one long-term objective is a 3-D doc-style theatrical release about the Super Bowl. He suggested that if 3-D development continues, it might be in the plans for 2010.
Ultimately, the biggest barrier to 3-D going mainstream is the inevitable issue of costs. David Hill, chairman and CEO of Fox Sports Television Group, urged set manufacturers to subsidize equipment purchases, citing how prohibitive just doing HD programming proved to be. Said Hill, "I can't see us making a move to 3-D until a good fairy comes flying into my office with a check.
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:Good
- Music:Pink
The Christie Matrix StIM features Christie ArrayLOC™, an innovative technology that automatically adjusts and balances the brightness, color space and black levels of all the projectors in the display in real-time with no additional latency. The technology creates an exceptionally stable platform that provides the ultimate in scalability, with the LED light source and solid-state technology delivering more than 50,000 hours mean-time-between-failure (MTBF) for years of continuous, virtually maintenance-free operation.
“The Christie Matrix StIM is a true game-changer. It’s a paradigm shift that challenges industry assumptions about simulation and training,” remarks Zoran Veselic, vice president, Visual Environments at Christie. “We’re offering smaller, more reliable projection modules that work as one system and better meet the requirements for eye-limiting resolution, rather than higher resolution single units that have trouble working in arrays. The Christie Matrix StIM is packed with innovations that set new standards of performance for simulation environments of virtually any size and configuration.”
A total, purpose-built solution
The Christie Matrix StIM allows for total simulation integration, with limited impact to existing systems, enabling the widest possible field of view and field of regard. It offers maximum fidelity for mission rehearsal, planning, and training for specific environments. Furthermore, with independent control of both the visible and infrared spectrums, the user can train seamlessly in both environments. It is ideal for mission-critical applications in the military as well as the civil markets, such as first responders.
“The Christie Matrix StIM will enable a level of NVG stimulation and corresponding training fidelity never before possible,” agrees Quaid “Q” Quadri, F-16 subject matter expert, BGI, LLC.
The Christie Matrix StIM is a scalable environment display system based on DLP® technology and InfraRGB™ LED illumination. As a lamp-less system, there are no mounting or orientation restrictions. The LED light source also means very low power consumption that directly translates to lower operating heat, less cooling requirements and savings in electricity for a dramatically reduced sustainment cost.
“The Christie Matrix StIM represents an eloquent, cost-effective simulation solution that launches a new era in night vision training,” declares Veselic.
Part of the Christie TotalVIEW™ solution, the Christie Matrix StIM is the first arrayed simulation system designed and engineered with Christie expertise featuring exceptionally long life, stability, reliability, quality and ease of use.
For more information on the Christie Matrix StIM, log on to www.virtualpressoffice.com/public/kit/Ch
About Christie
Christie Digital Systems USA, Inc. a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ushio, Inc., Japan, (JP:6925), designs, builds and installs customized projection display solutions. Christie delivers turn-key solutions for sophisticated virtual reality, simulation systems and control room environments including high-resolution power walls, multi-sided immersive environments, curved screen displays, domed simulation and multi-projector arrays. Under the Christie TotalVIEW™ banner, it customizes each application to exact requirements and incorporates the latest in DLP® projection technology. Industries and organizations that rely on Christie range from government agencies to oil and gas, aerospace to entertainment, and manufacturing and design to pharmaceuticals. Christie is listed among Military Training Technology magazine’s Top 100 simulation companies. For more information, visit www.christiedigital.com.
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:lol
- Music:Roxette
Cinema One Digital Filmfest is hailed as the prelude to the Cinemalaya featuring up and coming films that will create some noise in various movie award-giving bodies in the coming months. This year, the 7 films represent some of filmdoms freshest, brightest talents in features that capture the flavors and attitudes of modern Philippine life.
The seven movies vying for the P1 million cash prize are:
1. Alon by Ron Bryant
2. Dose by Senedy Que
3. Kolorete by Ruelo Lozendo
4. Imburnal by Sherad Anthony Sanchez
5. Motorcycle by Jon Red
6. UPCAT by Roman Carlo Olivares
7. Yanggaw by Richard Somes
The 7 finalists will be screened on November 18 to 27, 2008 at IndieSine in Robinsons Galleria in Ortigas. The Awards Night will be held on November 28, 2008 at the ABS-CBNs Dolphy Theater.
This years judges are award-winning director Brillante Mendoza (Serbis, Kaleldo, Manoro), award-winning comedienne-actress Eugene Domingo (Pisay, ITALY), film and TV director Jeffrey Jeturian (Bridal Shower, Kubrador), and Manunuri ng Pelikulang Pilipino members Lito Zulueta and Grace Javier Alfonso.
Source: http://www.starmometer.
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:lol
- Music:DJ Smash
Without question. Anything that causes the audience to think that 3D in the 21st Century is the same as what was made in the 1950s is bad. If the audience decides that 3D is just a gimmick or a passing fad or hard to watch or just another effect or just being used to try to compensate for other weaknesses then it changes from a positive to a negative and the wave will die out.
You also have to keep in mind that studios are careful for financial reasons, as well. 3D theatrical releases may do 3x the per screen revenue of the same release in 2D but those numbers do not translate to the home audience yet and that is where the money is made.
What are the main mistakes 3-D content providers should avoid?
I don't want to tell people what they should or shouldn't do. I will tell you some of the mistakes that we have made, however. The number one mistake we have made, and continue to make occasionally, is forgetting that 3D is not 2 times 2D. This applies to almost everything; composition, acquisition, post, distribution, infrastructure, etc. Let me give you an example. Since the market for 3D is smaller than for 2D, most productions start out thinking of a 2D "product" with a 3D add-on. Some take the opposite view and think about making a 3D product that they can pull a 2D version out of. These ways of thinking would be fine if the difference between 2D and 3D was just equipment, but it isn't. There are a lot of creative differences, as well. That isn't to say if you want a 2D version and a 3D version of something that you have to shoot two separate movies but you do need to plan for both, not just assume that one is a subset of the other.
Another somewhat different example would be a live football game. Here is a case where you can pull the 2D from the 3D cameras, but you don't just replace all of the cameras at each position with a 3D camera. The 3D camera angles that you'll want are different from some of the 2D angles and, generally, you don't need as many 3D cameras. Also, the pacing of the 3D show is different so you'll need a separate Director.
There are so many things in 2D that are well understood and seem like they should translate easily to 3D, but they don't. Things that seem, on the surface, to be relatively simple often turn out to be complex.
Regarding 3-D shooting, there are a lot of diverging opinions regarding interaxial distance settings, parallel vs. toe-in, depth of field, etc.? What would be your recommendations for a good 3-D captation?
My opinions on these topics really isn't relevant. I am not a cinematographer. I'm not qualified to shine Peter Anderson's or Steve Schklair's or Max Penner's shoes on this issue. What I can say, from a technical perspective, is that a lot of the diversity of opinions on these topics are based on the legacy technology of the past, not that of the present. For instance, one of the main arguments in favor of parallel shooting is that technique is far less likely to create excessive background parallax. In the days where one had to get out a calculator and a tape measure (or a laser) and setup these shots, that might be a significant factor but the tools of modern 3D production are so much more advanced that this kind of issue shouldn't be a factor at all. Camera controllers can monitor and manage this type of situation to prevent the problems and allow the focus to be on creative choices.
Which features did you need to implement in your camera rigs in order to make them really usable on the field?
What makes our rigs usable in the field is that they are fast and easy to work with. We have automatic alignment of cameras and lenses, automatic matching of zoom and focus, automatic protection against excessive parallax, and automatic correction of color wedges, geometry, keystoning, etc. The entire alignment process takes a few minutes. The 3flex SIP stereoscopic image processor constantly measures dozens of parameters about the rig, as well as synthesizing metrics about the stereoscopic image, and alerts the operator to those about which he or she should be aware. Everything is actively managed by the automated systems. It isn't a situation where you reset everything for every shot; the system is constantly adjusting itself. Over the course of a long shoot, especially an outdoor sporting event, environmental characteristics, such as temperature, will cause massive changes to the cameras. It used to be that someone would have to re-align the cameras in the middle of an event but that isn't necessary anymore. As for the rigs, themselves, ours are carbon fibre to make them very rigid but light weight. They are made to tight manufacturing tolerances. The motors provide high-torque but deliver it smoothly for high positioning accuracy.
Do your rigs need dedicated and trained shooting teams or are they accessible to any 2D operators?
When we shot at the SuperBowl several years ago, all of the 3D cameras that we used were operated by NFL Films cameramen who had never seen the camera systems more than a day before the game. Each of those cameras did need a 3D operator, who did need to be trained in 3D, however. Now, we have the ability to have a single stereographer manage the 3D settings of all of the cameras in a multi-camera shoot. We have some events coming up where we will use as many as 12 cameras but the 3D settings will be handled by one guy and those settings are creative choices that we wouldn't want to automate.
What kind of metadata is produced by your rigs how is it used on live captations and post-production workflows?
There are two categories of metadata for us: the physical metadata from the cameras, the head and the rig, and synthesized metadata that is calculated by the image processor. Physical metadata includes things such as interaxial distance, convergence distance, zoom position, focus position, tilt angle, pan angle, etc. Synthesized metadata includes items like, depth range, average depth, center depth, focus match, zoom match, luma match, chroma angle match, etc. In total, we produce about 100 channels of metadata. All of that metadata is sampled or calculated several times per frame and is timecoded. In post, some qualitative metadata are used for things like dailies. Some positional metadata and depth maps are used for compositing and effects. Other metadata that characterize the shot are used for various compensations at presentation time.
What measurement and monitoring tools are you using to validate your 3-D shots on set?
Depends on the type of show it is and who is looking at it. We usually have a color critical monitor and a couple of 3D monitors, in addition to a variety of standard monitors displaying things such as disparity maps, qualitative analytics, etc. The 3flex SIP image processors have a suite of scopes in them, both the usual color scopes: waveform monitor, vectorscope, etc., except that they are for stereoscopic sources, as well as a variety of 3D geometry scopes. The qualitative metrics of the 3flex SIP tell us whether a 3D shot is valid and watchable on different screen sizes. It is the job of the stereographer to determine whether a shot is creatively valid.
How do you take into account the final screen size?
Typically we dial the ideal screen size into the 3flex SIP so that it will tell us about the shots relative to that screen size. This is one area where some of the metadata from the SIP are used to inform downstream devices how to handle different, generally smaller, screen sizes. Usually, when 3D is displayed on a smaller screen that for which it was intended, there are no issues with watchability. However, reducing screen size also reduces the amount of depth. It also tends to affect things like floating windows, maximum positive and negative parallax, parallax transition rates, etc. We have the ability to take those things into account and adjust them.
How to shoot when the same content is targeted to various screen sizes (theatres, home displays, mobile phones)?
In essence, this is sort of the same question as the previous one. The bottom line is that there isn't one screen size, even for theatrical release. I have to say that, right now, the mobile environment is quite challenging, both because of the small screen size and the relatively low resolution of those screens. 3D perception is dominated by the impact of parallax which is related to absolute distance, not pixel offsets. As you go down in screen size, you have to make more use of other depth cues, such as color, to recover the desired perception of depth.
Why traditional camera manufacturers didn't provide any 3-D equipment so far?
I think that, in terms of cameras, themselves, the market hasn't known quite what it wants yet. I think that the camera manufacturers will get to a point fairly soon where two cameras can be connected to each other and controlled as one camera. However, there are limits to that. You can't, for instance, simply paint two cameras together. The colors need to match, not the color parameters. Lenses, sensor positions, etc. all need to be balanced relative to one another. Could you make a single stereoscopic camera? Sure, there have been a number of them. Would such a camera deliver the range of capabilities that are needed? No one has delivered that yet. Certainly, one could make a camera with more resolution in one axis and move a lot of what is currently in a 3D rig into a lens or a lens adapter but I'm not sure that's really all that different from a camera rig today. You're going to have the same issues with lenses and positioning. You'd get rid of rotation issues but you'd lose significant positional flexibility.
Beyond cameras, this is a lot of new stuff. Frankly, new categories of things generally don't come from large, established companies with entrenched product lines, they come from small companies that are very close to the problem and adapt quickly. It isn't like a lot of the equipment that we use in 2D, beside the cameras, comes from traditional camera manufacturers anyway. From an equipment point of view, this is a very small industry.
What would be your recommendations regarding 3-D post-production issues (re-convergence, floating windows, color grading, etc.)?
I think that you're going back to that place of creative decisions that should be made by someone other than me. My caution in these areas is that there is far more disinformation about how these things should be done than there is correct information. Most of the information is opinion, not fact. We spent an inordinate amount of time on U2 3D "following the rules" of 3D before we realized that most of the rules were obsolete or wrong to begin with. I would also like to caution people that most of the tools out there for doing 3D post are fairly primitive. In the hands of an expert, they can achieve excellent results. For others, it isn't hard to make a single shot to cause so much eyestrain that the viewers won't be able to watch the rest of the movie. It can take only a few seconds of bad 3D before eye fatigue overcomes a viewer's ability to fuse images. It can then take tens of minutes before he or she can overcome that fatigue. Convergence adjustment is more than simply changing the separation between two images. Color provides depth cues in 3D so grading is vastly more complex than simply coloring one eye and then matching the other one two it.
The whole situation of 3D post sort of reminds me of the early days of desktop publishing. When first put together, a Macintosh, a LaserWriter and PageMaker occasionally delivered beautifully typeset pages. Far more often, what we got were high-tech ransom notes. In the case of DP, the new discipline got enough time to develop and mature.
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:cry
- Music:Backstreet Boys
http://www.digitalcinemainfo.com/Governm
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:normal
- Music:Christina Aguilera
This is what is going to be happening with pre-orders and the first shipment of 5D Mark IIs.
Retailers have to prove there has been money exchanged from a customer for a pre-order.
1) Canon must receive a fax from the retailer proving money has been taken for the 5D Mark II. Sales receipts or whatever.
2) Once this has been done by retailers, then Canon will set the allocation as to which stores get what. No proof of preorder. No camera shipment.
3) Canon must receive this information by Friday, November 14, 2008 or no cameras for you.
4) This basically assures no one is getting the $2799 pricing.
UPDATE
Im unsure if this is Canada only, if anyone else from other areas of the planet have any info please let me know.
Canon Canada updates web site
Canon Rumors and its loyal readers can take credit for making Canon Canada admit they have 1Ds Mark IIIs. Its now on the Canon Canada web site.
Were taking credit until Canon says otherwise.
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:hangry
- Music:K-MARO
Without question. Anything that causes the audience to think that 3D in the 21st Century is the same as what was made in the 1950s is bad. If the audience decides that 3D is just a gimmick or a passing fad or hard to watch or just another effect or just being used to try to compensate for other weaknesses then it changes from a positive to a negative and the wave will die out.
You also have to keep in mind that studios are careful for financial reasons, as well. 3D theatrical releases may do 3x the per screen revenue of the same release in 2D but those numbers do not translate to the home audience yet and that is where the money is made.
What are the main mistakes 3-D content providers should avoid?
I don't want to tell people what they should or shouldn't do. I will tell you some of the mistakes that we have made, however. The number one mistake we have made, and continue to make occasionally, is forgetting that 3D is not 2 times 2D. This applies to almost everything; composition, acquisition, post, distribution, infrastructure, etc. Let me give you an example. Since the market for 3D is smaller than for 2D, most productions start out thinking of a 2D "product" with a 3D add-on. Some take the opposite view and think about making a 3D product that they can pull a 2D version out of. These ways of thinking would be fine if the difference between 2D and 3D was just equipment, but it isn't. There are a lot of creative differences, as well. That isn't to say if you want a 2D version and a 3D version of something that you have to shoot two separate movies but you do need to plan for both, not just assume that one is a subset of the other.
Another somewhat different example would be a live football game. Here is a case where you can pull the 2D from the 3D cameras, but you don't just replace all of the cameras at each position with a 3D camera. The 3D camera angles that you'll want are different from some of the 2D angles and, generally, you don't need as many 3D cameras. Also, the pacing of the 3D show is different so you'll need a separate Director.
There are so many things in 2D that are well understood and seem like they should translate easily to 3D, but they don't. Things that seem, on the surface, to be relatively simple often turn out to be complex.
Regarding 3-D shooting, there are a lot of diverging opinions regarding interaxial distance settings, parallel vs. toe-in, depth of field, etc.? What would be your recommendations for a good 3-D captation?
My opinions on these topics really isn't relevant. I am not a cinematographer. I'm not qualified to shine Peter Anderson's or Steve Schklair's or Max Penner's shoes on this issue. What I can say, from a technical perspective, is that a lot of the diversity of opinions on these topics are based on the legacy technology of the past, not that of the present. For instance, one of the main arguments in favor of parallel shooting is that technique is far less likely to create excessive background parallax. In the days where one had to get out a calculator and a tape measure (or a laser) and setup these shots, that might be a significant factor but the tools of modern 3D production are so much more advanced that this kind of issue shouldn't be a factor at all. Camera controllers can monitor and manage this type of situation to prevent the problems and allow the focus to be on creative choices.
Which features did you need to implement in your camera rigs in order to make them really usable on the field?
What makes our rigs usable in the field is that they are fast and easy to work with. We have automatic alignment of cameras and lenses, automatic matching of zoom and focus, automatic protection against excessive parallax, and automatic correction of color wedges, geometry, keystoning, etc. The entire alignment process takes a few minutes. The 3flex SIP stereoscopic image processor constantly measures dozens of parameters about the rig, as well as synthesizing metrics about the stereoscopic image, and alerts the operator to those about which he or she should be aware. Everything is actively managed by the automated systems. It isn't a situation where you reset everything for every shot; the system is constantly adjusting itself. Over the course of a long shoot, especially an outdoor sporting event, environmental characteristics, such as temperature, will cause massive changes to the cameras. It used to be that someone would have to re-align the cameras in the middle of an event but that isn't necessary anymore. As for the rigs, themselves, ours are carbon fibre to make them very rigid but light weight. They are made to tight manufacturing tolerances. The motors provide high-torque but deliver it smoothly for high positioning accuracy.
Do your rigs need dedicated and trained shooting teams or are they accessible to any 2D operators?
When we shot at the SuperBowl several years ago, all of the 3D cameras that we used were operated by NFL Films cameramen who had never seen the camera systems more than a day before the game. Each of those cameras did need a 3D operator, who did need to be trained in 3D, however. Now, we have the ability to have a single stereographer manage the 3D settings of all of the cameras in a multi-camera shoot. We have some events coming up where we will use as many as 12 cameras but the 3D settings will be handled by one guy and those settings are creative choices that we wouldn't want to automate.
What kind of metadata are produced by your rigs how are they used on live captations and post-production workflows?
There are two categories of metadata for us: the physical metadata from the cameras, the head and the rig, and synthesized metadata that is calculated by the image processor. Physical metadata includes things such as interaxial distance, convergence distance, zoom position, focus position, tilt angle, pan angle, etc. Synthesized metadata includes items like, depth range, average depth, center depth, focus match, zoom match, luma match, chroma angle match, etc. In total, we produce about 100 channels of metadata. All of that metadata is sampled or calculated several times per frame and is timecoded. In post, some qualitative metadata are used for things like dailies. Some positional metadata and depth maps are used for compositing and effects. Other metadata that characterize the shot are used for various compensations at presentation time.
What measurement and monitoring tools are you using to validate your 3-D shots on set?
Depends on the type of show it is and who is looking at it. We usually have a color critical monitor and a couple of 3D monitors, in addition to a variety of standard monitors displaying things such as disparity maps, qualitative analytics, etc. The 3flex SIP image processors have a suite of scopes in them, both the usual color scopes: waveform monitor, vectorscope, etc., except that they are for stereoscopic sources, as well as a variety of 3D geometry scopes. The qualitative metrics of the 3flex SIP tell us whether a 3D shot is valid and watchable on different screen sizes. It is the job of the stereographer to determine whether a shot is creatively valid.
How do you take into account the final screen size?
Typically we dial the ideal screen size into the 3flex SIP so that it will tell us about the shots relative to that screen size. This is one area where some of the metadata from the SIP are used to inform downstream devices how to handle different, generally smaller, screen sizes. Usually, when 3D is displayed on a smaller screen that for which it was intended, there are no issues with watchability. However, reducing screen size also reduces the amount of depth. It also tends to affect things like floating windows, maximum positive and negative parallax, parallax transition rates, etc. We have the ability to take those things into account and adjust them.
How to shoot when the same content is targeted to various screen sizes (theatres, home displays, mobile phones)?
In essence, this is sort of the same question as the previous one. The bottom line is that there isn't one screen size, even for theatrical release. I have to say that, right now, the mobile environment is quite challenging, both because of the small screen size and the relatively low resolution of those screens. 3D perception is dominated by the impact of parallax which is related to absolute distance, not pixel offsets. As you go down in screen size, you have to make more use of other depth cues, such as color, to recover the desired perception of depth.
Why traditional camera manufacturers didn't provide any 3-D equipment so far?
I think that, in terms of cameras, themselves, the market hasn't known quite what it wants yet. I think that the camera manufacturers will get to a point fairly soon where two cameras can be connected to each other and controlled as one camera. However, there are limits to that. You can't, for instance, simply paint two cameras together. The colors need to match, not the color parameters. Lenses, sensor positions, etc. all need to be balanced relative to one another. Could you make a single stereoscopic camera? Sure, there have been a number of them. Would such a camera deliver the range of capabilities that are needed? No one has delivered that yet. Certainly, one could make a camera with more resolution in one axis and move a lot of what is currently in a 3D rig into a lens or a lens adapter but I'm not sure that's really all that different from a camera rig today. You're going to have the same issues with lenses and positioning. You'd get rid of rotation issues but you'd lose significant positional flexibility.
Beyond cameras, this is a lot of new stuff. Frankly, new categories of things generally don't come from large, established companies with entrenched product lines, they come from small companies that are very close to the problem and adapt quickly. It isn't like a lot of the equipment that we use in 2D, beside the cameras, comes from traditional camera manufacturers anyway. From an equipment point of view, this is a very small industry.
What would be your recommendations regarding 3-D post-production issues (re-convergence, floating windows, color grading, etc.)?
I think that you're going back to that place of creative decisions that should be made by someone other than me. My caution in these areas is that there is far more disinformation about how these things should be done than there is correct information. Most of the information is opinion, not fact. We spent an inordinate amount of time on U2 3D "following the rules" of 3D before we realized that most of the rules were obsolete or wrong to begin with. I would also like to caution people that most of the tools out there for doing 3D post are fairly primitive. In the hands of an expert, they can achieve excellent results. For others, it isn't hard to make a single shot to cause so much eyestrain that the viewers won't be able to watch the rest of the movie. It can take only a few seconds of bad 3D before eye fatigue overcomes a viewer's ability to fuse images. It can then take tens of minutes before he or she can overcome that fatigue. Convergence adjustment is more than simply changing the separation between two images. Color provides depth cues in 3D so grading is vastly more complex than simply coloring one eye and then matching the other one two it.
The whole situation of 3D post sort of reminds me of the early days of desktop publishing. When first put together, a Macintosh, a LaserWriter and PageMaker occasionally delivered beautifully typeset pages. Far more often, what we got were high-tech ransom notes. In the case of DP, the new discipline got enough time to develop and mature.
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:hangry
- Music:Linkin Park
I am constantly surprised at how many filmmakers fail to have their subjects fill out release forms before filming begins figuring they'll just "get it later." In many cases, the release forms are eventually acquired and the production continues to it's successful end. No harm, no foul. But every once in a while, this seemingly minor element can bring a production to a sudden screaming halt.
Several years ago a fellow filmmaker and good friend, who I'll call "Bob" to protect his identity, began work on a documentary film investigating reported sightings of the legendary "Skunk-ape", a South Florida Everglades version of Big Foot. The central figure in Bob's documentary was a extremely colorful self-proclaimed Skunk-ape expert that dedicated his life to tracking and validating the Skunk Ape's existence. Bob and I call him "Skunk-ape guy."
Bob arranged for Skunk-ape guy to spend a few days with his film crew hunting the Skunk Ape and conducting interviews at his remote cabin in the Everglades. During that time, Bob recorded hours of interviews with the him and alleged eyewitnesses, countless reels of b-roll footage of the everglades, and even filmed a series of "re-enactments" complete with an actor in a Skunk-ape costume.
When the project was nearly complete, Bob was gracious enough to let me sit with him in the editing room to preview a rough cut of the film. My immediate impression was that it was a cross between a Discovery Channel documentary, and something you might see on Comedy Central. It was pure video gold.
When I asked Bob if he had all of his paperwork in order, he replied that he still hadn't gotten around to getting a release form from Skunk-ape guy. According to Bob, he was a rather eccentric man, and the last few times he had tried to call, he had been assaulted with an alternating barrage of excitement about completing the film, and threats of bodily harm.
"Threats?", I asked him not quite following.
"Yea." he said. "He threatened to disembowel me or something like that the last time we spoke. The guys a bit insane."
I reminded Bob that unless Skunk-ape guy signed a release form, his documentary was destined to become a very expensive paperweight.
"Let's give him a call right now," I suggested.
Bob shrugged, pulled out his cell phone and dialed the number.
After a few moments, Skunk-ape guy answered the phone and Bob introduced himself. Almost immediately, the screaming began and a string of obscenities and various death threats emanated from the other end of the line. A moment later the conversation ended as Skunk-ape guy slammed down his receiver.
Now, Bob is the kind of guy that doesn't get intimidated very easily and tends to find humor in situations like these, which in and of itself is a bit disturbing, and he burst out laughing.
"See. I told you!" he howled as tears ran down his face.
"That's messed up" I replied.
Bob regained his composure. "Watch, in about another minute he'll call back like nothing ever happened." Sure enough, before he even finished his sentence, Bob's cell phone rang and he held it up to show me who was calling. "Like clockwork" is all he said.
Bob answered his phone and held it way from his ear so I could hear the conversation better this time. From the other end came the voice of Skunk-ape guy, calm and composed as if nothing had ever happened.
"Hey Bob! It's good to hear from you! Hey man, sorry about that. I'm just a little stressed over here."
I tried to silently coach Bob on how to convince Skunk-ape guy to sign the release forms.
We thought it was going well, when suddenly Skunk-ape guy declared that he had been giving this whole "film thing" a lot of thought and decided he wanted something more out of the deal. He was standing firm and wouldn't sign the forms until his "demands" were met.
Bracing himself for the worst, Bob gathered his courage and asked what Skunk-ape guy's demands were. After a brief pause, Bob put his hand over the phone and mouthed the words "This guy is absolutely insane."
Rather than reiterating Skunk-ape guy's words in graphic detail, let's just say that a single man in his mid 40's who spends his life skulking around the Everglades in search of a fictitious man-ape doesn't have much time to build relationships with members of the opposite sex. Enough said.
Very calmly, Bob attempted to explain to Skunk-ape guy that he was a filmmaker and not the owner of an escort service, but it was falling on deaf ears. Eventually he gave up and ended the call. Bob put his phone away, looked up at me and just shrugged. To this day, he still hasn't completed his documentary or collected a release from Skunk-ape guy.
Now obviously the Skunk Ape story, as it's come to be known, is not your typical scenario. But the point of the story is still valid: If Bob had collected a release form before filming while Skunk-ape guy was excitement about the project, he would have been able to finish his documentary, release it, and possibly even win a few awards to boot. Instead, it just sits on a shelf and serves as a reminder of what can happen if you don't have all your paperwork in order before you start filming.
The moral of the story: Get ALL your paperwork in order BEFORE you start filming.
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:lol
- Music:Tokio Hotel
As any producer knows, there is no standard meaning of high definition. Broadcasters, including the BBC, Sky, Discovery and National Geographic, issue different specifications depending on what formats they use as broadcast quality HD. There's also the debate about whether what broadcasters transmit as HD is actually the best quality HD available.
The debate centres on the broadcast of interlaced, or progressively scanned images and it has been raging in engineering circles for nearly a decade. Until recently, it's been an academic issue because the technology to facilitate the highest form of progressive images didn't exist. That debate is now reopening with discussions among broadcasters, playout facilities and post-producers about whether the benefits of full HD outweigh the cost and complication of an upgrade.
Basically, what is currently broadcast as HD in Europe is a compromise between resolution and frame rate, which was decided on six years ago when investment decisions were needed to kick-start the roll-out of HD channels.
According to William Cooper, chief executive of broadcast consultant Informitv: "The use of interlaced scanning formats in high definition is a hangover from analogue television which has no proper place in the digital world. Now that we have HD, there is a quest to improve quality further, with even higher resolutions and faster frame rates. Unfortunately, we may have to live with interlaced video for some time."
Similar arguments are heard from playout provider Red Bee Media. "In many ways interlacing is unsuitable for the digital era," says Dr Sue Farrell, head of architecture. "Broadcasters have traditionally been tied to specific standards for resolution and frame rate. These remained the same in the analogue world for decades. In the digital era we can be much more flexible."
This is definitely a technical topic that requires reference to some complex terminology. BBC HD and Sky HD, for example, broadcast at 1080i/25 where 1080 refers to the number of lines per frame, the 'i' stands for interlaced and 25 is the number of frames per second (Hertz), or the rate at which the picture is refreshed.
Gold standard
An alternative standard for both broadcasters is 720p/50, where 720 refers to the number of lines per frame, the "p" stands for progressively scanned and 50 is the number of frames per second, which has fewer lines (analogue TV has 625 lines) and in theory a reduced picture quality. In practice, progressively scanned 720-line images provide a more stable picture than interlaced ones, and subjectively picture quality is at least as good as 1080i. The gold standard for HD is a combination of the two - 1080p/50, that is 1080 lines, progressively scanned at 50 frames a second.
"The arguments to move to 1080p are clear," says Andy King, head of technology, BBC Resources. "The main problem with interlaced pictures is that they are very, very difficult to compress, whereas compression technologies [such as MPEG4] have now advanced so much that progressive images are far easier to compress. In a multichannel world where bandwidth is at a premium, this allows you to get more for your money."
King also says there's no doubt progressively scanned images deliver better picture quality. "What's more, that picture quality is best viewed on flat panel displays, which is what most people will view content on at home."
Flat-screen displays have high refresh rates of up to 100Hz, which allows the viewer to see more detail. Interlaced pictures tend to smear on flat screens.
Optical formats such as Blu-Ray DVD, on which premium content such as movies and console games are distributed, support progressive imaging. Another plus is that 1080p/50 is an attractive production format as it can be used to derive the lesser-quality HD version 1080i/25 and 720p/50 while maintaining a master version in the highest quality format. As broadcasters compete to offer the most channels in high definition, offering 1080p is the next step.
However, notes Cooper, the broadcast industry is now "lagging behind" the capabilities of consumer displays. "There's still limited production equipment to deliver full progressively scanned HD," he says.
The European Broadcasting Union has pushed for 1080p/50 as a universal broadcast standard, despite being forced to recommend 1080i or 720p as the most cost and bandwidth-efficient option to get HD services up and running. The problem is the 1080p format uses higher frame rates with twice as many lines per frame, thereby doubling the amount of data. Overcoming this technologically has only recently become possible, and a full 1080p/50 acquisition and production chain won't exist for several years.
Richard Mills, chief engineer of facility On Sight, explains: "1080p/50 requires a whole new range of studio equipment including cameras, vision mixers, storage, edit and contribution links, since it doubles the current data rate from 1.485Gb/s to 3Gb/s."
A new 3Gb/s standard for routing 1080p video from the camera head into outside broadcast trucks and around broadcast facilities was ratified by standards body the Society for Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) earlier this year. Manufacturers responded by rushing to issue 3Gb/s kit upgrades.
Cabling networks
"The 3Gb/s standard is all about increasing the capacity of the 'glue' or cabling infrastructure," explains Mills. "It is possible to pass high-bandwidth video around now, but you would need dual-link (double) coax cables everywhere and double the routing matrixes. This is expensive and can cause problems with synchronising the video transported over both cables. 3Gbit/s solves that by enabling the transport of 1080p/50 over a single cable."
Sony and Thomson Grass Valley are able to produce a full 1080p/50 signal using dual link technology. Sony recently became the first manufacturer to release a 3Gb/s upgrade to one of its main HD cameras, the HDC1500.
Outfitting facilities with fibre-optic cabling is another expensive option, says Simon Gauntlett, technology director at the Digital TV Group. "Alternatively the signal can be compressed using technologies like [the BBC devised] Dirac codec, which enables the throughput of 1080p over existing 270 Mbps SD infrastructure."
According to Steve Nunney who runs test and measurement equipment vendor Hamlet, 3Gb/s comes at a price. "When budgets are under pressure, broadcasters and facilities will have to decide when 1080p/50 will be a real requirement."
King says a migration path to 1080p/50 "is at the forefront of our thinking" at BBC Resources, but he is concerned.
"When broadcasters or facilities shop for new technology, they look to depreciate the cost over a certain time. When buying SD kit we budgeted for a seven-year period to recoup investment. The life cycle of our current HD kit has been shortened because something new is always coming in."
Nunney stresses that the 3Gb/s data rate demanded by 1080p/50 means everything is running at the limits of what is physically possible. "That will create real challenges for systems engineers," he says. "Even cabling will need to be carefully selected and installed - the sort of neatly curved and clipped rack wiring that has been regarded as good practice in the past simply will not work at 3Gb/s data rates."
Nonetheless, it seems inevitable that production will move to progressive scanning as equipment becomes more widely available.
"This will protect investment in programming for future use," says Cooper. "Anyone investing in new facilities should be thinking in terms of progressive formats and higher frame rates."
Currently there is no market for 1080p/50, but broadcasters and facilities are having to make an economic decision now on the commercial advantage a better quality HD transmission may give them in future.
BSkyB has taken the opportunity to outfit its new studio and playout complex at Osterley, "targeting 1080p/50 as the production format" says Troy Smith, technology platforms director. The facility is designed for Sky's sport and entertainment programming and will come on stream mid-2011. Sony will design the installation, but won't specify kit until 2010 in the meantime saying 1080p/50 is "aspirational".
Thomson Grass Valley also sees "definite interest" in 1080p. "The main question is at what cost and what time-frame broadcasters will migrate," says Marcel Koutstaal, product management director. "The demand will be driven by consumers and their desire for a better quality picture and from that broadcasters will derive a business model."
Sport focus
As with the first generation of HD, the driver for 1080p/50 is content that will deliver a noticeable improvement to consumers' viewing experience - sport being the obvious genre. Fortunately, the progressive format and higher frame rate is optimal for reproducing fast action and especially slow-motion detail in sports.
"Like everything else, it will be the money-spinning genres that drive this particular technical innovation," says Nunney. "Progressive pictures are ideal for sport and sport is the biggest driver of audience subscriptions, so that's where we will see the first big impact."
Like most of the UK's OB firms, Arqiva Outside Broadcasts takes its investment cues from Sky Sports. According to Arqiva OB managing director Mick Bass: "The internal routers and matrixes of our latest HD trucks are fully capable of handling the 1080p/50 format. We're just waiting for 3G-capable cameras and vision mixers to complete the circuit."
Programming is initially likely to be limited to movies, which are produced in a progressive frame format, typically at 24 frames per second. The film industry has adopted 1080p/24 as a mastering format. This "filmic look" is also popular for HD drama productions, many of which are already shot 1080p at 24 or 25fps (albeit transmitted interlaced) while sequences in natural history programmes routinely use frame rates of 50, 60 or higher to capture high detail and super slow motion.
Satellite broadcasters in the US are already looking at 1080p broadcasts with the Dish Network claiming to be the first to offer programming in the format. Of course, 1080p/50 is unlikely to be the last word in high definition as anyone who saw the demonstration of Super HiVision (SHV) at IBC will testify. SHV has a minimum of 16 times the resolution of 1080p.
"It may be some time before we see that in the home, but in the meantime we may see 2,000 line formats," says Red Bee's Dr Farrell. "The BBC has also questioned whether current frame rates are adequate, showing the benefits of 100 frames per second or even higher."
There was a belief that once migration to HD was complete, from 2010 onwards, changes to the basic infrastructure would be largely cost-neutral.
"Not any more," says Andy King. "HD will never be cost-neutral. There will always be new technologies emerging."
Interlaced vs Progressive
Interlaced scanning effectively splits the transmitted picture in half, transmitting the odd lines, then all the even lines, interlacing them together in the TV set. Progressive scanning transmits all the lines at the same time. In the progressive format, the complete image updates every 1/50th of a second and in the interlaced format, only half of the image updates every 1/50th of a second - this effectively throws away half of the picture's resolution.
"1080P 50 is the best of both worlds," declares the DTG's Simon Gauntlett. "It offers the superior motion of progressive scanning combined with the superior static resolution of 1080 interlaced.
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:cry
- Music:Linkin Park
Organized by Professor Dr. Peter Gendolla and Dr. Jörgen Schäfer
http://www.litnet.uni-siegen.de/
Using electronic and networked media has resulted in such serious changes in the relationship between ?author?, ?work,? and ?reader? that it seems necessary to make revisions in the traditional models analyzing literary communication. The Siegen conference on The Aesthetics of Net Literature: Writing, Reading and Playing in Programmable Media (Nov 25-27, 2004) had already made clear that this triad has to be extended into the technical aspects of media: Literary processes emerge from techno-social networks, i.e. they materialize in the interplay between human and electronic ?actants.? If in the past discussions centered mostly on those projects that were perceived by looking at the computer screen or that were controlled via keyboard and mouse, now man-machine interactions are organized by considerably more complex interfaces. The specific attention of this follow-up conference therefore will be focusing on the aesthetic processes of AI-controlled environments that occur in the physical realm between the interfaces of technical sensors or effectors and the human body. Electronic media take ?body language? to a new level as well since more and more the whole body is involved in the media activity. Increasingly complex sensors (integrated into vehicles, clothes and environments) ?realize??hear, see, feel, in other words: measure?the movements of the body, its mimics and gestures. This ?multimodal? body itself then also exchanges information with the ?products? of this kind of technology. Such medial couplings and framings enable the co-operation of non-symbolic activities, symbolic language activities and algorithmic processes of computer systems. If it is true that semantics is always the result of intermedial transcriptions between media then this development affects all human behavior concerning linguistic signs and therefore also the aesthetic processes of perception and self-perception. In this context the contributions to this conference will refer to literary communication and strategies thereby interrogating how literary structures, interfaces and genres change regarding:
Locative Narratives, i.e. environmental, neighborhood and city projects with GPS-based media following literary patterns (e.g. travel- and adventure-narratives or detective stories like J.-P. Balpe?s Fictions d S. Schemat?s Augmented Reality Fictions; Inter Urban by 34 North 118 West or S. Berkenheger/G. Müller?s Worldwatchers).
Immersive Environments (Cave or interactive camera-projection systems) in which reception does not only take place through the eyes alone but rather in which the whole body is ?reading? and thereby recomposing already saved meanings or those that still have to be constructed (e.g. N. Wardrip-Fruin?s Screen; J. Cayley?s Lens; C. Utterback?s Text Rain or D.Small/T. White?s Stream of Consciousness).
Stagings of inner realms and environments in which real characters (from simple users to trained actors) and artificial ones (from avatars, software agents etc. to complex AI-programs) following quite classical dramatic patterns of activity are involved in dialogues (e.g. M. Mateas/A. Stern et.al.: AR Façade).
Regarding the aesthetics of net literature therefore the question has to be asked whether we can continue talking of a specific migration of traditional literary forms into computer-based and networked media. Can we continue analyzing such examples as ?literature?? In what way can the semantics of literary terminology, concepts and systems be retained or does it have to be revised? Can we still correlate the examples mentioned above with the three traditional genres?
Apart from this the performative projects mentioned above intensify the already difficult problem of the documentation/archiving of as well as the access to processes of electronic literature. Lastly, the conference also will address the problem of archiving and editing the rather transitory electronic literature, thereby attempting to advance the co-operation of current and planned databases, archives and editions.
The organizers Peter Gendolla and Jörgen Schäfer invite you to attend the following panels:
- Performance and the Emergence of Meaning
- Literature between Virtual, Physical, and Symbolic Space
- Beyond Genre: Transformations of Narrative, Poetic, and Dramatic
Structures
- Preservation, Archiving and Editing
Distinguished scholars will present views, theories, and thoughts.
For more information please visit the conference website: http://www.litnet.uni-siegen.
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:lol
- Music:Pink
The Seminar That Started It All….
NAVIGATING THE FILM FESTIVAL WORLD
BY POPULAR DEMAND!
NAVIGATING THE FILM FESTIVAL WORLD
Our most popular seminar returns to Hollywood!
For most emerging filmmakers, the goal of launching a film on the film festival circuit begins with one singular dream: SUNDANCE! But what lies beyond Sundance for you and your film? In this informative seminar, presented just in time for the 2009 “festival season”, film festival programmer/film consultant Thomas Ethan Harris (former Director Of Programming Los Angeles Film Festival and Palm Springs International Short Film Festival) offers filmmakers practical skills to navigating the world of film festivals to maximum effect.
WHERE: The American Cinematheque’s Egyptian Theatre, Lloyd Rigler Theatre
6712 Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90028
PARKING: The Egyptian Theatre validates ONLY for Hollywood and Highland, $2 for 4 hours (each additional 20 minutes is $1). There is free street parking after 6pm on side streets. LA Film School lot, 6363 Sunset Boulevard (enter on EAST side of Ivar, NORTH of Sunset), $5. LA Film School lot closes at 1am.
SEMINAR TICKET INFORMATION:
$12 Cinematheque Members, $15 Students/Seniors, $20 General.
Order tickets Online at www.fandango.com or buy them in person at Aero or Egyptian Box Offices.
The Aero Box Office is open 1 1/2 hours before the first program of the day or evening.
CINEMATHEQUE MEMBERS may purchase advance Aero Theatre tickets by phone: 323.634.4878
The Egyptian Box Office is open 1 1/2 hours before the first program of the day or evening. CINEMATHEQUE MEMBERS may purchase advance Egyptian Theatre tickets by phone: 323.692.
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:hangry
- Music:Christina Aguilera
So $250 will get you a system that enables a total audio recording of your waking life. What you do with your autobiographical data is another thing entirely.
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:bad
- Music:Moby
So $250 will get you a system that enables a total audio recording of your waking life. What you do with your autobiographical data is another thing entirely.
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:smile
- Music:Enrique Iglesias
There are many reasons for conversion but the main one is the cost savings of not having to make and ship millions of feet of film. I read the studios may save up to $1 Billion a year, that seems a bit much but it will be significant.
The basic issue has been the fact that the studios would be the ones to save most of the money but the cinemas didn't want to pay for the cost of the equipment which won't really make a difference most of the time. 99% of the time the audience wouldn't know whether it's watching film or digital. Converting a theatre can cost upwards of $100,000, more if 3D is involved.
They have finally agreed on what is called a Virtual Print Fee which is so obvious it should have been agreed upon earlier. Basically each time a digital print is used the studio will pay the theatre the amount it saved by not having to make a film print. Once the equipment is paid for the payments stop. Makes a lot of sense to me.
One issue that's been looming over this whole debate is what to do about smaller chains and independent theatres. The situation could be especially difficult with second run theatres that use the 'leftover' prints from the first run theatres. The studios won't want to pay us a VPF since they didn't save any money by not making a print.
I'm sure something will be worked out. For example I went to see a movie at the Hyland tonight and all the trailers were for movies from a smaller company called Mongrel Media. Mongrel tends to specialize in smaller Art type releases that rarely play in the big multiplexes. They mostly play in places like the Hyland and Western Film.
To me it would be in Mongrel's and other smaller distribs interests to work out some sort of VPF with the theatres that plays their films. Otherwise most of those theatres will close because they can't afford to convert to digital without help.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:hangry
- Music:Enrique Iglesias
http://www.digitalcinemainfo.com/qubecin
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:cry
- Music:Pink
3D is the primary factor driving digital conversions. Of the 50 digital systems, all but a few of the original 1.3K installations have been upgraded to 3D. The addition of 3D makes it easier for exhibitors to justify the cost, as they see immediate results at the box office. Latin American exhibitors typically increase the ticket prices by 10 to 20% over the standard, with the houses frequently selling out and the 3D titles running significantly longer than non-3D titles. For instance, its not uncommon for a popular 3D title, such as Disneys Meet the Robinsons, to be on screens for a good five months in markets like São Paulo, Brazil.
In some cases, the cost of the entire digital conversion, including projectors, servers and 3D, can be recouped within a relatively short six to nine-month period. As an added bonus, some exhibitors have partnered with local third-party companies who sponsor the 3D systems in exchange for advertising and other promotional considerations.
While the conversion of a few select theatres to 3D can be justified, the conversion of the rest of Latin Americas approximately 9,000 screens from 35mm to base-level 2D digital is a far more difficult proposition. Digital titles dubbed or subtitled into the local language are still in short supply, and the audience sees little increased value with 2D digital over 35mm presentations. So far, there has been little to no support from the major U.S. film distributors in providing incentives for 35mm-to-digital upgrades.
Contributing to the past years growth in digital systems is the general decline of the U.S. dollar relative to Latin American currencies. In the past five years, the dollar has dropped to approximately 50% from its previous value relative to the Brazilian real, and that has helped U.S.-based companies such as Christie, Dolby and Real D establish stronger footholds in the South American market. High import restrictions, taxes and duties are still a major obstacle when building or upgrading a theatre. In some markets, the combined fees can add up to 100% to the cost of equipment, making digital upgrades prohibitively expensive. Most U.S.-based equipment manufacturers have found solutions by working with local system integrators who know the market and regulations, and frequently can ease the difficulties in getting equipment into the area. Christie Digital Systems, of Cypress, CA, has the leading position in digital projector sales. Craig Sholder, Christies VP of entertainment solutions, comments, For years, Christie has worked diligently in Latin America establishing a trusted sales and support network for our 35mm projectors. Our success with digital is a natural follow-on to our tradition of supporting the local exhibitors.
U.S.-based Cinemark International currently operates 1,030 screens in Latin America, with 11 converted over to digital 3D, using primarily Christie projectors, Doremi servers and Real D 3D equipment. To date, Cinemark has strategically placed five systems in Brazil, two in Mexico City, and one system in each of Chile, Argentina, Peru and Colombia. Valmir Fernandes, president of Cinemark International, says, s hard to say how far and fast we will go, but likely will have 20 or 30 digital 3D screens installed by the end of 2009. We are getting third-party sponsorships for new 3D systems. 3D has been very good for films for kids and teens, but we are looking at the broader digital rollout and not only at 3D. Cinemark is working side by side with other exhibitors in the area to find the best solutions for the region.
Cine Hoyts currently has 160 screens in Latin America, with 87 in Argentina, 50 in Chile, 15 in Brazil and eight in Uruguay. So far, only twoone in Santiago, Chile, and another in Buenos Aires, Argentinaare equipped for digital 3D. Cine Hoyts expects to add up to six more digital screens by mid-2009, all 3D-enabled. Heriberto Brown, Cine Hoyts general manager, notes, We have received a lot of pressure to start deploying digital screens but are receiving little from distributors in the way of a VPF or similar incentive schemes to help us go faster. Some important titles are not distributed in South America because of the additional cost to either subtitle or dub a copy. In addition, we need more marketing support from the distributors to increase the knowledge of digital in theatres.
Mexico is unique from the other Latin American countries in that it is driven much more by U.S. issues and trends. Cinepolis, the worlds fifth-largest cinema circuit with theatres in Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, El Salvador and Colombia, and with over 91 million admissions in 2007, has made an exclusive partnership with Real D for 3D systems.
Real Ds announced rollout of 500 3D screens has begun with six new screens installed for the release of Journey to the Center of the Earth, with installations planned to continue through 2010. "Cinepolis confirms its commitment to innovation and client service by placing its confidence in 3D technology. As a company that has always been at the forefront in market innovation and new products and services, Cinepolis is proud to join forces with Real D. We believe this cutting-edge technology represents the future of the exhibition business, and with this deal Cinepolis moves ahead in the very competitive Latin American market," said Miguel Mier, chief operating officer of Cinepolis.
XpanD, also a provider of 3D technology, has made advancements in Latin America with installations in Mexico, several being planned with Box Cinemas in Brazil, as well as announcing a deal with Rain Networks, Brazils largest e-cinema provider. Working with Rain, XpanD is expected to deploy 100 sites in Latin America in the next two quarters and is excited about further opportunities in the Latin American market.
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:hangry
- Music:K-MARO
SD says the industry is in a downward spiral of economic slowdown, advertising recession, deflated prices and audience fragmentation. Three of the big markets are suffering the most, says the study.
In the UK despite outperforming a sluggish advertising market in the first six months of the year, ITV's full year guidance points to a 3% drop in ad revenues. The once untouchable French broadcaster TF1 has taken a double whammy of a 3.6% drop in revenues and a loss of its audience, in particular during the crucial prime-time slot. As a result the company is forecasting a 3% drop on full year revenues. Leading Spanish broadcasters Telecinco and Antena3, having enjoyed many years of strong growth, have been brought down to earth by a deep advertising recession, the rapid rise of new competitors and concerns over the imminent introduction of more stringent advertising regulations.
Two markets have bucked the trend so far: Germany and Italy, the report continues. The German ad market has remained flat and RTL Group has claimed a record share of the advertising pie, in no small part as a result of the new sales model launched by competitor ProSiebenSat.1 which was subsequently rejected by the market. In Italy, Mediaset has outperformed a flat TV advertising market increasing ad revenues by 2.2 per cent year-on-year.In recent years ITV has been in a of declining audience share and revenues but in 2007 the company appeared to have its turned fortunes around by halting the drop in both audience and ad revenues. However the credit crunch, with its challenging economic conditions, has meant that just as ITV managed to get out of this tunnel it has fallen into another one this time not of its own making. ITV is already experiencing a major advertising downturn this quarter and has said that revenue may shrink by 20% in September.
SD says that this month the full effects of the recession are expected to start to impact ad revenues, with financial and telecoms clients cutting budgets first. Retailers are still investing their budgets in TV advertising, but as the recession on the high street looks set to deepen, this strategy is likely to be short-lived.
"It may seem paradoxical that as TV audiences are still growing, TV advertising revenues are falling. The reason is that the demand for TV advertising is flat and so broadcasters have been forced to drop their prices. It is cheaper to advertise now on TV than at any point in the past 20 years. The fact that commercial TV viewing has been growing this year to reach all-time highs adds to the pains of the British broadcasters. In a period of low demand, over-supply of audience simply fuels the downward price spiral," says Screen Digest.
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:bad
- Music:DJ Smash
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:Very good
- Music:Robbie Williams
The transformation to digital projection in theaters has been discussed for a decade. Digital projection would cut millions of dollars in annual costs for the studios by eliminating the need for film prints. It would give theater owners more flexibility to move films on and off the screens they operate. Digital projectors are also crucial to the rollout of equipment needed for 3-D movies, which Hollywood is increasingly planning to produce.
But progress toward achieving it has been slow amid bickering over how to pay for it. To overcome the problem, three major theater chains -- Regal Entertainment Group, Cinemark Holdings Inc. and AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. -- formed a consortium called Digital Cinema Implementation Partners. The group is arranging a $1 billion financing package that it will begin to tap once a critical mass of four major studios has agreed to participate and help shoulder the financial burdens.
Until recently, just two studios -- News Corp.'s Twentieth Century Fox and Viacom Inc.'s Paramount Pictures -- had agreed to participate. Now, General Electric Co.'s Universal is set to throw its support behind the consortium as soon as this week, people close to the situation say. And Disney has separately made its own deal to support the consortium.
Two other studios, Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros. and Sony Corp.'s Sony Pictures, say they are also interested in participating, but aren't ready to immediately sign on.
Currently, just 5,000 of the 40,000 or so screens in the U.S. and Canada sport digital gear in the projection booth. Some 1,200 screens support 3-D.
Under the DCIP plan, the three big chains will be able to outfit several thousand of their combined 15,000 screens next year with the technology, with a goal of converting almost all in three to four years. The financing package, totaling $1 billion, will be led by J.P. Morgan Chase Co., and paid for over eight to 10 years.
The studios will pay their share by contributing the money they would have spent on movie prints -- about $800 to $1,000 per film -- in the form of a so-called virtual print fee. The participating studios are promising to provide a digital print of their movies for each screen that converts to digital. The studios' total annual contribution would vary depending on how many movies each company releases per year.
The Hollywood studios' payoff is later; once the equipment is rolled out and their financing obligations are done, digital distribution of movies will cost just pennies per digital "print."
The equipment itself costs around $70,000 per screen, with the three big chains likely getting a discount for volume. Financing and maintenance will add to the final price tag per screen. The theaters are also paying a small portion of the cost, in addition to what the studios will pay.
While the long-term cost savings have been an incentive to participate, the move toward digital cinema has finally picked up steam recently, thanks to interest in a new generation of high-tech 3-D movies that has been billed by some as a key to keeping the theatrical film business healthy. With movie attendance declining in many recent years, studios and exhibitors alike have been concerned that theaters have to give consumers something extra that they can't get from their glitzy big-screen TVs and DVD players.
Several movies, such as Journey to the Center of the Earth, have taken in considerably more revenue on 3-D than expected, getting both studios and theater owners more interested in converting screens to digital, the first step in most 3-D set-ups. One of 3-D's biggest advocates has been DreamWorks Animation SKG, which has said that all of its movies will be released in the format beginning with Monsters vs. Aliens, opening next March.
"Alternative content, and 3-D in particular, have definitely ignited the momentum," says Julian Levin, executive vice president for digital exhibition at Fox, which is releasing director James Cameron's next movie, Avatar, in 3-D next year. "Those weren't thought of as the driving factors early on, but they became extremely significant."
By approving long-term agreements, the studios lock in a price per film that will likely be higher for distributors that don't commit to continuing financing. The studios that aren't yet participating, like Sony and Warner, are in talks with DCIP.
"We're working on trying to make a deal that is economically responsible for our company, whether it happens next week or whether it happens next month," says Dan Fellman, president of distribution at Warner Bros. At Sony, "digital is very important and critical to our strategy," says Scott Sherr, senior vice president of digital cinema operations. "We're moving carefully and thoughtfully and deliberately."
A separate arm of Sony, Sony Electronics, is deploying advanced high-resolution digital projectors known as 4K, meaning they have more than 4000 pixels per horizontal line. Most digital projectors on the market are 2K, meaning they have more than 2000 pixels per horizontal line.
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:More emotions
- Music:Enrique Iglesias
The Need for BrightClip
With the transition of film and television to file-based, data-centric operations, there exists the need for smooth, reliable, and predictable recording and playback of media files in many formats and resolutions. Standard, off-the-shelf IT technologies do nothing to prevent randomization of file content over time and can cause performance to drop by as much as 95% from the underlying disk system. This can mean a disk system capable of delivering 3,000 MB/s may drop to 150 MB/s or less. Essentially, when file content is randomized, every component in the system, from the RAID controller, to the requesting software application, must wait for the physical disk to reach the exact location of each content section.
The BrightClip Solution
BrightClip is the world's first recording technology designed to prevent entropic randomizing, thereby achieving the industry's need for predictable and reliable recording and playback. As media is accessed between the different postproduction processes, BrightClip employs advanced, sophisticated technology to ensure optimal physical placement on disk. Rooted in video disk recording technology, BrightClip was designed specifically for digital postproduction and DI workflows where multiple processes are the norm enabling superior performance and reliability, better use of resources, and faster, predictable project turnaround times.
BrightClip supports out of sequence frame writing, making it a must-have for render farm and other data-intensive creative applications. In a render farm scenario, frames trickle into a BrightClip generic area out of sequence as each render node completes them. BrightClip's 'watch' function (BCW) sees the frames appear and relocates them to BrightClip's reserved area. Frames are ready for import or playback as soon as they are rendered, and because they are re-sequenced by BrightClip, no optimizing is needed.
BrightClip supports simultaneous recording of the same or mixed formats. All file formats are supported natively which means there is no need for transcoding. Frames sizes can be fixed or variable.
BrightClip can be set up for use with applications either direct through API, or indirect through an administrative interface. With the API, an application developer has full access to all recording functionality within their application. Alternatively, if an application is not BrightClip-enabled, an administrator can set up or script tasks to create a BrightClip. BrightClip files appear as normal alongside regular project and other files, making their use entirely transparent.
Similar posts: digital cinema
- Mood:smile
- Music:Christina Aguilera
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
burnederotic- burnederotic
Syndicate
