|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: MaxiVision 48
|
|
|
Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-13-1999 12:18 PM
It would be nice if well-respected, powerful filmmakers came to the rescue, but I doubt they will. Ten years ago, both Panavision and Arriflex introduced state-of-the-art 65mm cameras with all the bells and whistles necessary to re-launch the format. Unfortunately, they weren't able to coax the Steven Spielbergs and James Camerons of the world to shoot with 65mm. Instead, we got FAR AND AWAY and HAMLET and some dabbling with 65mm in lesser-known projects.As much as Steven Spielberg has endorsed the continued use of film instead of digital, I seriously doubt he or any other high-profile filmmaker will choose to shoot with the MaxiVision 48 format. These are business people, after all. Either some accountant will talk them into going digital OR they'll stick to the status quo (35mm at 24 fps) for the forseeable future. Either way, can you imagine Steven Spielberg shooting in a format (MaxiVision 48, for example) which would limit the number of theatres able to show his film... therefor affecting his bottom line? (This is, after all, the man who shot his "Montana" scene from JURASSIC PARK in the California desert simply so that he could save about $300,000. He must have known that the film would make enough money to offset a mere $300,000 for a location which, he admits, would have made the film better!) While reading the article, I was already wondering if someone had devised a plan for making 24fps prints of films which were originated on MaxiVision 48. And, while Roger Ebert's article sings the praises of film and MaxiVision 48, I felt the sting of his insult to incompetent projectionists. It's not that I consider myself incompetent (I DO know how to frame the picture... duh!), but I do consider that if ANYTHING goes wrong during a screening, the average customer will remember that for months, even years, and have that overriding suspicion that the guy in the booth doesn't know what he's doing (whether or not it was the projectionist's fault, and whether or not hundreds of flawless screenings happened at that theatre). Roger Ebert's dig at projectionists will not help our P.R. nor will it help to promote the notion that films and their projectionists should stay in the booths at our local megaplexes.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 12-14-1999 07:49 AM
Increasing the speed from 24fps to 30fps would be fairly straight forward (variable speed motor or gear/belt ratio change), and most current projectors would function reliably at a slightly higher frame rate. At Kodak we have several Century projectors equipped with variable speed motors that allow running up to 36fps. The projectors run well at 36fps, but the added noise and vibration are enough to make me believe that that is about the limit before the projectors wear prematurely.AFAIK, some of the early 60fps ShowScan projectors were specially modified 35/70mm Century JJ projectors, so it's certainly possible to "beef up" a conventional Geneva intermittent projector to run at much higher speeds. Another option that allows very high speed is to use a servo or stepper motor pulldown, such as in the Arriflex Loc-Pro, Pioneer, Cinema Products, Christie Epic, or MaxiVision projectors. ------------------
John Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Trevor Bailey
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 113
From: Woonsocket, RI
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-17-1999 03:59 PM
I have always been a fan of "bigger, faster, better", so I would very much like to see some of these innovations reach the light of day. But I think we all know there is only one issue holding all of these great possibilities back: money.When a company builds a "stadium mega-plex" that has digital sound in only two auditoriums...how will they ever try something as fanciful as a new projection technology? They say "the market in this area does not require more digital sound". Hmmm... then that leads us to the market... the customers. The bottom line is the only thing that will lead to change at the theaters. I challenge all of the talented and intelligent people in this industry we love: Find a way to make the customers speak with their wallets: "We want better quality in your presentation!" That is the only way to make real changes.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-10-2005 09:12 PM
Here's more Roger Ebert about Maxivision 48, from his latest Movie Answer Man column (8/7/05).
If the movie industry had true visionaries among its most powerful executives, Maxivision 48 would be given a try. It shows movies at 48 frames a second, uses only 50 percent more film than currently, and because of a patented method for moving the film through the gate, eliminates scratching and jiggles; it would cost only $12,000 per screen to install the equipment. The picture is four times as good as current film projection, and that would provide a powerful incentive for people to see movies in theaters. I've heard genuine enthusiasm from people who've seen movies like "Batman Begins" and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" on IMAX screens, and I know that audiences do respond to picture quality. If one industry leader announced a movie in Maxivision, there would be a stampede to the format because digital would be instantly upstaged.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic