[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

spin control, multi axis


    I've just now had a chance to catch up on the summer's email(no one 
can say that I'm a slave to my computer), and I have a few general 
comments to throw out there:

        on the issue of SMPTE/EBU phosphors and setups, and dual        
        standard xfers vs making it all from Pal-

        If my aging memory serves me right, the SMPTE rp used to say
        peak white should be "between 30 and 40 fl" and now says 35fl
        specifically, although defacto is still 30 in many places.

        Again, my memory may be playing tricks on me, but most dual     
        standard monitors since there have been dual standard monitors  
        have had the phosphors weighted to EBU anyhow.
        I've been doing dual standard xfers since the first dual        
        standard Ranks were out, and it's ALWAYS been my experience     
        that when you "grade" the NTSC first, the PAL, with slightly
        higher gamma and a better colorspace, always looked like a      
        better version of the same corrections. Every time I had to do  
        the Pal first and then the NTSC, it required a serious trim     
        pass. Just as logically if A then B doesn't yield if B then A,
        first NTSC then Pal doesn't ever seem to be equal to if PAL     
        then NTSC. All this windy stuff to say that I wonder if those   
        that advocate PAL only, in this country especially have any     
        real idea of what the NTSC even looks like. Besides, on CRT
        based scanning systems, the raster sizes are less optimum than  
        their NTSC counterparts. And furthermore, there is no           
        substitute for high resolution scanning, and making both the
        NTSC and the PAL from something better!

        All this worrying about the difference is a good thing for      
        those of us who have to worry about it, but we should always    
        keep in mind the fact that our friends in Japan have flooded    
        the world with millions of monitors that do 50+ fl at 9300k!
        ( time for the EBU to leave 25fl behind, no?)

        On the whole HD/35/16 issue-

        The issue isn't whether HD is better or 35 is better or 16 is   
        even accepteable, it's what are the aesthetic values of the     
        production company, and to what extent are they a slave to      
        economics. HDTV cameras look different than 35 to HD. 16 to HD
        looks different from either of them. Can 16 look good? Under
        optimum conditions, yes.  I will leave it  you to answer for    
        yourselves how many times you've seen "perfect" 16, perfect
        35, or perfect video. Tests seldom model the real world,        
        especially when there are background agenda's running!
        A question to those of you who actually read the CBS/Sony
        report: Am I the only one who thought that resolution           
        measurements near or over 100% depth of modulation a bit
        weird?? I mean, all the test films I've seen are down about
        6db, on the film, at higher resolutions.

        On what's hot and what's not in scanners:

        As of a couple of weeks ago, the CRT scanner at MCA HD was      
        capable of the following performance:

        Resolution:     Flat to 25mhz ( we could set it for 30, but     
        with most of the film we've seen, it wouldn't matter.

        Noise:          about -54db at gamma .4, pre DVNR

        We are running DAV accuglow and most of DAV's colorgrade. 

        I've just completed a comparison of camera neg on our machine,
        and a Spirit, both with and without downstream processing, in   
        HD, and have come to the following conclusions:

        The Rank was slightly sharper.
        The Rank was as quiet, if not a teeny bit quieter.
        The Rank color fidelity was a tiny bit better.
        The DAV highlight compression gave the Rank the ability to hold
        quite a bit more between black and white clip.
        The Spirit has a flatter field of focus, which wasn't evident
        in this test.

        I have to say that I think the Spirit is a very good machine,
        especially if your primary goal is 525/625, but I still think
        CRT scanning has life in HD, especially when new framestores
        and a digital deflection and overscanning system are in the     
        near future.

        As to Sony's system, there was one test done a few months ago
        where the same IP was compared on both machines. I've heard     
        Sony was going around claiming "victory" on this one but I have 
        the following comments: They didn't come close to achieving the 
        same "Look", so its not apples to apples, and how did they      
        manage to get the transfer so much noisier than ours?? I        
        thought CCD's were supposed to be real quiet.


        Well, it's past my bedtime, so I'll yeild the floor now.

        Those who want a serious piece of me can find me at:

                            JoeBeats at ix.netcom.com

        goodnight all

+++thanks to Chris Doros and Alan Davis for support of the TIG in 1997
      TIG subscriber count is 843 on Mon Aug 25 22:44:34 PDT 1997
   archives and much more at http://www.alegria.com/telecinehome.html
     mailinglist digest available.... unsubscribe via a message to
        'telecine-request at alegria.com' with Subject: unsubscribe