1080p films: the future of cinema? (1 Viewer)

[Thik Nongyow]

When I looked for technical information on "Spy Kids 2: Island of Lost Dreams" at the Internet Movie Database, I noticed the cinematographic process is "HDTV (1080p) (24 fps)." Even though "Star Wars Episode II" was the first film that used HDTV, would this be the future of cinema? Another question is what is this new cinematographic process?

 

[Jeff Kleist]

If you mean how the image goes from camera to film, the footage is shot like anything else onto HD videotape, put in the computer, manipulated (effects/editing) and then output like any other film onto 35mm.

It's not going to be the future of cinema until they fix all the bugs that were apparent in Episode 2, video noise, chroma problems in the picnic scene etc etc. Hopefully with the new 10 Megapixel cameras that willbe used for episode 3 some of this will be resolved

Will film ever go away entirely? Not for a long time. For one thing these cameras are too expensive to make disposible onces for explosions and such. We're a solid 50 years away from the end of film at the very least, if it EVER goes away. Why simulate film look when you can have the real thing?

 

[Roland G]

50 years away ???

no way....

It's just sad that we are the once who have to stand through the first few HD Pictures. In the end Digital Filmmaking is going to win, but the start of a digital revolution is always kinda ugly. Digital Photography anyone.....

 

[Terrell]

Why simulate film look when you can have the real thing?

Cheaper, far less man hours and work compared to manipulation film. The high prices for digital cameras and projectors will come down. There's just not enough demand for the price to be any lower. But you are right. Film will be around for a long time. I do expect digital projection to make a major penetration into the market long before 50 years. I'd say in another 10 years, you'll probably have at least 5-10 times as many digital theaters as you do now, maybe more. That's purely a guess. At this point who knows. Digital is getting better very fast. It will depend on how much content will be delivered by filmmakers. If more and more content is delivered, more theaters will get digital. If not, it will be a very slow progress.

 

[Paul Linfesty]

Actually, quite a few films have been shot in HD, including Our Lady of the Assassins, Session 9, Tortilla Soup (I THINK), Lovely and Amazing. Indie films seem to be ahead of the game. Many others have been shot with DV.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

"HDTV (1080p) (24 fps)." Even though "Star Wars Episode II" was the first film that used HDTV, would this be the future of cinema?

A digital projection system is probably inevitable, but I can assure you the one that reaches mainstream exceptance will be much higher resolution that 1080p.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

That's why I said 50 years till the END of film, not till it takes a back seat

 

[Thik Nongyow]

To bring up another question: how many lines of resolution maximum can appear on a digital film until it becomes "life-like"? If 1080p could not reach reality, what can?

Interesting that a gentleman mentioned "indie" films are shot in HD. How can the independent studios afford the expensive HD equipment?

 

[Terrell]

At this point, I don't think there's any need for digital to try and imitate film. Just be digital. Put out the best digital product you can, let the technology mature and get better. Then go from there. I hear of some digital filmmakers trying to introduce grain to mimic film. First of all, I'm not a proponent of grain, even when used for aesthetic purposes. Minority Report drove me crazy with the high amount of grain that Spielberg used to create the look and feel he was going for. That's just me though. Some people like that. But I don't want to see film introducing grain to appear more film-like. I prefer as pristine a picture as you can give me.

 

[Scott H]

Even though "Star Wars Episode II" was the first film that used HDTV

SWE2 was far from the first HD acquired theatrical film. I believe that Prospero's Books was the first US release, eleven years ago.

Nor is the current Panavision 24P HD camera, used for SWE2, their first HD collaboration with Sony.

 

[Jean-Michel]

SWE2 was far from the first HD acquired theatrical film. I believe that Prospero's Books was the first US release, eleven years ago.

Most of Prospero's Books was shot on 35mm then transferred to HD for compositing. Zbigniew Rybczynski's The Orchestra was shot entirely in HD (the same Hi-Vision format used for Prospero's Books, no less) and came out in 1990 -- however it was originally made for TV (although it did play theatrically on the festival circuit). I would not be surprised if there was an earlier, even more obscure film shot in the format.

Personally I think it's misleading to refer to HD 24p as an "HDTV" format since unless I'm mistaken there is no 1080p format for TV viewing.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

1080p/24 better not be the future of "film" as AotC painfully made clear.

Hopefully they can come up with something with MUCH higher resolution and detail with the ability to do more than just 24 fps speeds. 24 fps has limitations in and of itself and should not continue to be the only frame rate available. Todd-AO originally used 65mm running at 30 fps and the picture quality was SO much better, as well as greater color depth, depth of field, focal clarity, and a reduction in motion judder just by increasing the frame rate. Maxivision, an independent companies answer to digital filmmaking, uses 35mm film, but runs at 48 fps and the picture quality is amazing.

Even if they do come up with a digital video camera capable of even 35mm fine-grain resolution, what displays will be able to resolve this amount of detail and will digital projectors be able to reproduce it too?

Dan

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Interesting that a gentleman mentioned "indie" films are shot in HD. How can the independent studios afford the expensive HD equipment?

They rent it. They're not using the expensive cameras that Lucas did, they're using more standard cameras that run in the 10-$15000 range.

 

[Terrell]

Hopefully they can come up with something with MUCH higher resolution and detail with the ability to do more than just 24 fps speeds. 24 fps has limitations in and of itself and should not continue to be the only frame rate available.

They did that to keep the frame rate consistent with film. I guess they could bump it up to 60 fps. As for higher resolution and detail, they've far since surpassed AOTC's digital camera many times over. The new cameras he's supposed to shoot Episode III with have almost 5 times the resolution TPM cameras had.

 

[Thik Nongyow]

Who are "they"?

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Anything shot HD probably does need to be processed to look more like film, and I'll wager that Ep II and Spy Kids 2 were both digitally processed to make it look more like film.
This does not necessarily have to equate to grain, but at least color.
'Odyssey 5' is the first HD-shot TV show that looks more natural instead of garish. Raw HD video up until this point has looked great for documentaries and sports, but film-sourced TV shows have looked much more natural and less harsh. I strongly suspect O5 and theatrical live-action DLP movies have been processed to avoid the problems that HD-shot TV shows like Max Bickford or Diagnosis Murder have (they look like crap). If CSI looked like The Tonight Show, I'd stop watching.
As far as whatever resolution things are getting shot in, the resolution isn't in the theatrical projectors and all this extra resolution isn't going to be used for some time, if ever.
I keep hearing that cameras that shoot 5x to 25x current HD are just around the corner. CCD and DLP chip prices will continue to drop. Optics to resolve a 5x or more resolution at over 1920x1080p at different focal lengths will be really, really expensive on both the camera side and the projector side. Optics prices don't drop that much. I doubt within 10 years we'll see actual production and projection at 5x 1920x1080p...maybe a lot longer than that.
What is driving HD is that it is fast becoming cheaper to shoot than 35mm...not better.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

We're a solid 50 years away from the end of film at the very least, if it EVER goes away. Why simulate film look when you can have the real thing?
I'm having a hard time imagining how film will last another 25 years. Economies of scale work in both directions. HD will get cheaper as more use is made of the technology. As less use is made of film, it will start to cost more in real terms that it does today, increasing the cost disparity.
There may not even be movie theatess in 50 years. Pay per view may kill off the theatess. If viewers still like the experience of viewing a movie with others, then kiosk movie theateres may take over.
If a director wants his HD to look film like he can ask the cameraman to shoot it that way. The look of film is not even natural. HD may take us in another direction in how we accept the way the image looks and is preferred.

 

[Terrell]

If CSI looked like The Tonight Show, I'd stop watching.

I'd think that has as much or more to do with the Tonight Show being shot live, and CSI being taped.

 

[Zach K]

Digital technologies are a useful supplement to film as an extra tool, bu I find it unlikely that they will improve as quickly as some people may believe. The industry has allowed film development to stagnate for decades because of economic reasons, and whatever standard that ends up getting establised will stick, for a long time. Projector technologies will not drastically drop, as we're dealing with economies of scale. They can barely manage to show films at the present level of 24p. Keep in mind, a movie like AOTC took around 2 terrabytes of disk space. This must be highly compressed to even be shown in theaters, an run off of a huge and expensive server. I have no issues with digital projection, as film originated projected images on it would beat the lousy 4th generation prints that the industry will not pay to improve. Also "digital" HD cams, and actually all digital cameras of either the still or video type, still use analog imaging CCD's to capture the picture. 10 MP is approaching the absolute limit of this technology. Make them much smaller and closer together, and you will get large amounts of noise in the signal, and the effective ASA of the camera drops, which means you have to push the limits of the CCD's more. Additionally, the resolving power of lenses is still a limiting factor in 35mm now, and it is even more important in digital cameras with their smaller sensors. Lense technology will not rapidly decrease in price, or improve. Also keep in mind, that if you appreciated the look of movies like SK2 and AOTC, that these films were mostly shot on bluescreens, with very careful lighting to compensate for the cameras lack of brigtness flexibility. The wonderful backgrounds and details are a testament to the skills of the cgi modelling and rendering, not the quality of the cameras. Digital is useful for such artificical constructs, but I do not see it as a replacement for film technologies, which once they are gone, will not be brought back.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Also keep in mind, that if you appreciated the look of movies like SK2 and AOTC, that these films were mostly shot on bluescreens, with very careful lighting to compensate for the cameras lack of brigtness flexibility. The wonderful backgrounds and details are a testament to the skills of the cgi modelling and rendering, not the quality of the cameras. Digital is useful for such artificical constructs, but I do not see it as a replacement for film technologies, which once they are gone, will not be brought back.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico, which was shot almost exclusively on location, will be a good determiner then.