Film geeks in here will eat up the story of MaxVision48 - it's an equally inexpensive upgrade to existing film capture and projection that results in a much higher picture quality, way higher than even the Red camera.
Check out this infographic on Roger Ebert's blog comparing the different formats:
The full blog post is well worth a read, especially given the story of a single passionate entrepreneur trying to change Hollywood and his story of trying to get Christopher Nolan to champion the format:
That chart is seriously misleading. They wanted to represent the 2x increase in framerate, so they showed that as a 4x increase in resolution, which doesn't make any sense.
And they seem to suggest that RED made the entire chart, which they didn't. RED made the accurate part of the chart, but MaxiVision48 added their own nonsense.
The impression I get about this company is that they tried to sell a product to a bunch of people who didn't want or need it. The reason RED is so successful is that they actually made a camera directors wanted to use. Directors want to be able to do long takes, they want to see instant footage, they want to be able to go directly into the editing room after shooting, and they want a cheap medium. MaxiVision doesn't offer any of those advantages. In fact, if it ends up being harder to process, it's actually worse on all those points.
MaxiVision48 seems a little like BluRay. It's the next generation of a dead technology. Film will always be useful for certain films, but the benefits of digital go way beyond high resolution.
Anyway, interesting story, thanks for the link. Gives me some food for thought about my own business.
What's misleading is that you're only focusing on resolution or framerate, not the point that MV48 upgrades image quality while maintaining both the unique look of film vs digital, but also uses existing film and cameras, unlike digital, IMAX, or 3D.
In what way is it equally inexpensive to shoot twice as much film and use twice as much film to make every print? Digital tech is what's going to make high framerate capture and playback economical.
Notice what's implied in the diagram is that the MV48 format would use existing 35mm film and would modify existing cameras for it.
2) it's way less expensive than 3D, both to shoot and display.
3D is just as much a competitor as the Red camera. It's what the movie studios and theaters have been banking on to compete with the quality of home theater setups, not an increase in 2D image quality. Caring about the unique look of film compared to digital while trying to increase the quality is why directors like Christopher Nolan like the IMAX format, but shooting with 70mm film is not only expensive but unwieldy because the cameras are huge. Sort of like what bulky 3D cameras were like before James Cameron forced the invention of a new one for Avatar.
That Maxivision sample there is for prints, not for capture. If you were to take a look at a super 35 original negative shot at 24 fps, it would look pretty much like the Maxivision print there (no waste, but half as many frames). So it would almost certainly take twice as much film to shoot in Maxivision. Also, a stop more light is not a non-trivial issue. It could mean having to rent 20K HMIs instead of 10K, a bigger generator, etc. Or using a higher ISO film, thus negating the benefits of the format in the first place.
No one shoots with 70 mm film. 65 mm film is the capture size, 70 mm is the print size (added 5 mm for audio tracks).
Fine, I misspoke about the IMAX format and those are all points about #1, but what are you comparing the increase in cost to? Continuing to use the same old equipment as now? Or switching to digital? Because the discussion is about the least expensive way to upgrade image quality, not about whether it's more expensive at all.
And what about the second point about 3D being an expensive sham that movie studios are using to milk more money out of the audience? And this isn't the first time they've tried that - we're going through the same fad that hit in the 60's and it'll die for similar reasons.
Regardless of whether it's Maxvision or RED, an increase in picture quality way beyond 1080p is possible and being held up by bean counters, not the directors. It's not like RED's native high resolution is translating directly to the screen - it's being downgraded for the projectors at movie theaters. I'm getting this from the FAQ page on the RED website. Scroll down to the last one - "So, where can I see 4K?" and you'll see promises of 4k projectors and displays coming soon.
I completely agree with you about 3D. I despise it.
The Maxivision goal was a noble one, but it was just too expensive to work. Increasing the framerate of content playback on digital projectors will be a far less costly initiative than the Maxivision proposal would have been. Unfortunately I'm not sure 48 fps vs. 24 fps has enough "wow" factor to convince the average movie goer to go to the 48 fps screening over a 24 fps screening, but I really hope it will.
I agree that a simple increase in framerate isn't enough of a wow factor. It might be if it's also accompanied by a massive increase in resolution?
Either way, I'm looking forward to any improvement that doesn't involve 3D. Ebert's other guest author the week before the Maxivision one was an anti-3D article by Walter Murch, probably the most famous film editor and sound designer ever:
Check out this infographic on Roger Ebert's blog comparing the different formats:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2011/01/resolution%...
The full blog post is well worth a read, especially given the story of a single passionate entrepreneur trying to change Hollywood and his story of trying to get Christopher Nolan to champion the format:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/more_than_ever_the_f...