Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Anyone here care to explain what the topic of this post is?

Apparently some new technology is involved here.  Does anyone here know what that technology is, the basics of how it works, and what it is supposed to do?  

Does this have anything to do with "Avatar" and 3-D?  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Fri Apr 23rd, 2010 at 12:57:05 PM EST
Hmm. ;)

I found it quite clear, and I'm not a professional.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Apr 23rd, 2010 at 01:05:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is all new information for me, and I'm supposed to have one eye on this.

In a nutshell, the diary series and comments seek to explain the technology, financing and social changes that a switch to digital cinemas will bring. In the US, movies form an 80 billion dollar industry.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Apr 23rd, 2010 at 01:15:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hi Gaianne,

Based on your questions, I'm going to try to fill in enough missing details that will make the part I wrote logical. Pardon me if I get too simple. And feel free to check whatever I say in and encyclopedia and the internet since I only play an expert in the movies, and also, for purposes of this comment tonight I am pulling most of this from my head.

Imagine a rainbow or the light that comes out of a prism. What we think of as the white light of the sun gets split into several discreet, or separate colors.

Next time you are outside on a sunny day, notice the different shades of blue in the sky as you view it closer or further from the sun. Then later in the day before sunset, notice the colors of the blue as it ranges from deep to light blue and starts to turn orange and then several other shades of red.

There have been a lot of studies that deal with color, and how the human visual system deals with it. There is an international center for all things color and light headquartered in Austria which deals with 'Illumination' named the CIE. They did basic work early last century that tried to answer several questions, and one of the answers were some basics on what an average group of people see. The also helped settle on the best working theory for how the eye (in general) and humans (in particular) see (in general) and see color (in particular.)

And what they came up with is called the tri-stimulas system since the primary idea is that there are nerve endings that act as receptors in the eye, some of which primarily deal with green light, some with red and some with blue. These color receptors are called the cones, while the receptors that deal with levels of brightness are called the rods.

Now, for the first of our amazing set of numbers, there are as many as 125 million receptors in the eye, of which only 6 or 7 million deal with color. When only one type of these receptors gets triggered, it will send a signal to the brain and the brain will designate the appropriate color. If two or more of these receptors are triggered, then the brain will do the work of combining them much the same way that a painter mixes water colors. (We'll pretend it is that simple.)

OK; so how do you create a representation of all that color and detail on the TV or movie screen?

Let's start with film. We think of it as one piece of plastic, but in reality it is several layers that each have a different dye of different sensitivity on it. Each dye reacts in a different and predictable manner when exposed to light through the camera lens. In the lab, each layer goes through a different chemical process to 'develop' a representation of what it captured when exposed by the camera system. There are a lot of steps in between, but eventually the film is exposed to light again, this time pushing light in the opposite manner, through the film and then through the lens. That light gets colored by the film and shows up on the screen.

One of the qualities of film is that the chemical and gel nature makes the range of colors in the image appear to be seamless. And not just 'appears' with the definition of "gives the impression of". In fact, there is a great deal of resolution in modern film.

Then TV came along. We see a smooth piece of glass, but if we could touch the other side we would feel a dust that reacts to a strong beam of electricity. If we look real close we will see that there are actually different color dots, again green, red, and blue. Engineers figured out how to control that electric beam with magnets, and could trigger the different dots of color to make them light up separately or together to combine into a range of colors, and eventually combine those colors into pictures.

That was great, except people wanted better and technology evolved to give them that. Instead of lighting up magic dust with a strong beam of electricity, a couple methods were discovered that allowed small colored capsules of gas to be lit up and even small pieces of colored plastic to light up. These segments and pieces were able to be packed tightly against each other so that they could make the pictures. Instead of only hundreds of lines being lit up by the electron gun in the old TV set, now over a thousand lines can be lit up, at higher speeds, using a lot less electricity.

Then a couple engineers figured out make and control a very tiny mirror to reflect light, then quickly move to not reflect light. That mirror is less than 25% of the size of a typical human hair. (I'll look up to see how that measures against the international standard measurement of football fields.)

Hundreds of these mirrors can be placed next to each other on a chip less than 2 centimeters square. Each mirror is able to precisely move on or off at a rate of 72 times a second, which is 3 times the speed that a motion picture film is exposed to light for a picture.

This chip is called a DLP, a Digital Light Projector, because a computer can tell each mirror when to turn one and off, so that when a strong light is reflected on an individual or set of mirrors, it will create part of a picture. If you put a computer in charge of 3 chips, one for green, one for red and one for blue, the reflected light can be focused through a lens and a very detailed picture will appear on the screen. There is a different but similar technology that Sony has refined for their professional cinema technology which uses crystals that change their state (status).

Now for the 2nd in our amazing set of numbers. There are 1,080 rows made up of 2,048 individual mirrors each for over 2 million 2 hundred thousand mirrors per chip. If you were to multiply that times 3 chips worth of mirrors, you get the same "about 6 or 7 million" mirrors as there are cones in each eye.

And secondly, without going into details (to keep this simple), we keep getting closer to being able to duplicate the range and intensity of colors that you see in the sky. This is one of the artists goals, in the same way as the engineers want to make a lighter, flatter, environmentally better television and movie playing system.

I hope that now you have a feeling for the basic technology. It is not just being pushed onto people because it is the newest thing. The TV and movie businesses are going digital for a lot of good reasons. To begin with, it wasn't really possible to advance quality of the older technology without increasing the cost by a lot...and even then it would be incredibly cumbersome and remain an environmental nightmare. And finally, there are advantages of flexibility that the new technology could do that the old couldn't...or couldn't at a reasonable price or at the quality of the new.

The technology of presenting a 3D image is one of those flexibility points. 3D was certainly one of the thrills of Avatar. The director worked for a decade learning how to handle the artistic and the technical sides of the art. He developed with closely aligned partners many different pieces of equipment and manners of using existing equipment to do things that haven't been done before. And finally he spent hours on details that other budgets and people would only spend minutes. In the end James Cameron developed a technique and technology set that won't be seen as normal for a long time from now...and an outstanding movie.  

Could Avatar have been made on film? Well, almost no major motion picrture has been made exclusively on film for a long time. They all use a technique named CGI (for the character generated imagery), which covers a grand set of techniques. But if you tried to generate the characters in Avatar exclusively on a computer with CGI, they never would have come out as detailed and inspiring as they did. Likewise, if he tried to create the characters with masks and other techniques with live action, you wouldn't get the texture and feeling that the actors gave to their parts.

Could Avatar have been displayed with film, in 2D. Yes, it could have and it was.

I'll go into 3D in more detail in the next segment of the series. But I'll touch on it here.

To begin, 3D is a misnomer. True 3 dimension presumes the ability to walk around a subject and see a full surrond view, like the hologram of Princess Leah. In real life a person who is partly hidden in one view, will be even more hidden or perhaps exposed from another view. On the screen of today's 3D movie, when a character appears to  b partly hidden by a wall as seen by a person on the left side of the theater, they will also appear the same amount of hidden by someone on the right side of the theater.

In fact, what we see with out eyes and what we see in the new theaters is correctly termed "stereoscopic". We are taught some of this in school, how to make two lines join somewhere out in space (parallax) and draw all the boxes on those lines to make them appear to recede in the distance...even though they are on one piece of paper. There are several more clues in addition to parallax that we use to discern whether something is closer or farther, and whether something is just a drawing on a sheet of paper or a full rounded person or sharp-edged box...even in a 2D picture.

And we have been doing this for years. We know that Bogie and Bergman are in front of the plane in the distance...our eyes/brain/mind makes up a story for us, 3 dimensions and probably more, even though it is a black and white set of pictures shown at 24 frames per second on a flat screen.

In the modern incarnation called 3D, the light coming from the lens is modified by some filters, then it is re-modified by some glasses that we have to wear to get the synchronization right. It could be done with film, but it was harder to manage, and didn't have the flexibility that the new digital technology brings.

I won't go further in this comment since there is more detail in the next chapter, which I will post tomorrow or Sunday. Thanks for letting me know that I presumed knowledge not in evidence. If I do it again, stop me and give me clues on what I left out.

And now, as it is midnight, I think I will send this with only a cursory read through...forgive the typos and tell me if something isn't clear. As Pascal kind of said, forgive the length, I didn't have time to make it shorter.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Fri Apr 23rd, 2010 at 06:27:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Excellent. This is up there with the best.

Digital Cinema for Dummies.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Apr 23rd, 2010 at 07:01:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Colour is weird. One of my favourite illusions:

The 'yellow' and 'brown' center tiles are the same colour.

There's also Adelson's checker illusion:

A & B are the same colour.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Apr 23rd, 2010 at 07:35:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks Chris. I have seen variations on the top one, but not that exact one before.

The proof for the lower one, Adelson's checker illusion, is at this site: Checkershadow Illusion

Here is a number of illusions called: Lightness Demonstrations.

For a site of color-centric illusions: Illusion and color perception-Akiyoshi Kitaoka

This stuff is so fun, that I could spend a morning on it.

Motion, Form, and Mid-Level Vision: A Tutorial

There is also the illusion of using space when one presumes a flat object:
First
Second

If you see a proof of your top submission, please pass it on.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 04:35:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The proof for the lower one, Adelson's checker illusion, is at this site: Checkershadow Illusion

For some reason or other, I don't get the "proof". It convinces me that either the original image or the proof is an optical illusion, but I can't decide which. Using an image editor and moving a small piece from one square of the image to the other is what worked for me.

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Sun Apr 25th, 2010 at 09:24:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks Chris. Being a Dummy myself gives me a unique qualification for being able to present the data that has clawed its way into my mind.

Erratum: I need to correct one thing in the comment (not the article itself.) As I noted in its intro, it was extemporaneous and not fact checked.

There is an assertion that I made which I can't back up. It concerns the statement:
"... while the receptors that deal with levels of brightness are called the rods."

I don't think that this is entirely true or best describes the function of the rods if it is true. It implies that the cones are not able to capture brightness detail without the rods, which I don't think is correct.

On the other hand, the rods are more sensitive to light and dark, whereas the cones do not function well as darkness increases until the point that they don't function at all. Further, the rods don't get triggered by red light at all, which will give the sunset phenomena of a red rose going dark while the green leaves around it glow more green shades.

Quickly searching through some source material doesn't provide the exact right answer to better describe the function of the rods. My new plan is to refine this long comment above into a "Part 0" of the series. When I get that detail correct for that section, I'll make it known.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 03:57:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wikipedia: Photoreceptor cells

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 04:11:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
clarification: The accepted definition of CGI is Computer Generated Imagery.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 04:08:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... heard any variants, but I am confident the "C" in CGI as I have heard it before has been Computer rather than Character.

Indeed, as CGI is used in both live action and anime, its often used to provide non-character imagery ... the spaceship in Farcscape, where the characters are actors, actors with make-up, actors with appliances, or muppets:

... or the submarine in Blue Submarine no. 6, where the characters are conventionally drawn anime:


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 02:43:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
CGI is distinct from blue/green screen, lith mattes, glass plates and other film process photography done in camera or lab. Glass plates are an example of the former and were used to add crowds to the stadium in 'Ben Hur', or distant houses in 'Gone With the wind'.

A large glass late is held in front of the camera, with the edges outside the camera frame. The added spectators (Ben Hur) are painted on the glass leaving a shape of clear glass through which the actual scene is visible. The master of this difficult work was Albert Whitlock"

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 04:07:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Neither of those above are film process.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 04:28:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 04:42:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... Farscape's spaceship or Blue Submarine No. 6 from Blue Submarine No. 6? Or both?

I know for sure that Blue Submarine No. 6 was CGI - it was one of the earlier anime's to make heavy use of CGI, so I do not know how the CGI and the hand drawn material were merged. Nowadays most hand drawn anime is  drawn on computer, so CGI and 2D drawing are composed digitally.

I can't find the information on the Farscape spaceship Moya again, so I may have gotten it and the new Battlestar Galactica confused.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 06:35:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Er - I think you may be passing each other by.

As I read it, Sven meant that glass plates etc were film processes.

Although technically I think they're called opticals. Some are in camera, while others are literal optical effects created by doing strange things with celluloid strips, light sources, notors, mirrors and handpainted film frames. (E.g. the stargate sequence in 2001, which was partly a motor-driven effect.)

You can - of course - park a painted plate in front of a digital camera as easily as in front of a film camera. I'm fairly sure people still do this, although perhaps not as much as they used to.

The SF namechecks were both CGI (so far as I know.)

To confuse things further, CGI usually means - in practice - seamless photorealistic simulation.

Animations, especially when they're non-narrative eye-candy, seem to be called motion graphics - although this depends on the industry, to an extent.

In ads, if it moves it often seems to be called motion graphics. In movies, it's called CGI. In music promos it can be either.

There used to be a difference in styling between Hollywood/ILM CGI and the cheaper and more stylised effects you'd see in ads, but that gap has narrowed over the last decade.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 07:18:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... I was referring to the two examples I gave of CGI being used to provide non-character imagery when character imagery was provided by other means (video tape for Farscape, drawn anime for Blue Submarine No. 6), addressing whether the "C" in CGI is "Character" or "Computer".

On "motion graphics", I read what it says in the Wikipedia machine, and the best combination of clarity and persuasiveness is: "Since there is no universally accepted definition of motion graphics,"

In anime, "CGI" is used to indicate whether the original source material was drawn or modeled and rendered, with the latter referred to as CGI. In a video production like Farscape or Battlestar Galactica, it seems to refer to the stuff that is generated on the computer rather than shot with the video camera.

But as near as I can tell, it doesn't have to be motion graphics to be CGI - a green screened or computer composited still background can also be CGI.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 07:34:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's CGI if there's a computer making imagery that wasn't captured in-camera.

I think motion graphics started out from the graphic design side - i.e. titles and abstract elements - but converged with CGI as abstract elements became more closely integrated with live footage.

CGI can be as much about painting things out as painting them in. There was a (dire) film a few years ago called Twenty Eight Days later - post-plague apocalypse, etc, etc. In one of the scenes there are talking head shots inside a taxi driving along a motorway.

Obviously the director couldn't close the motorway, so CGI was used to remove the other cars that were in the raw footage.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 08:05:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... its an ongoing point in reviews of anime that incorporate CGI how seamlessly the CGI and drawn anime fit together (though I don't always catch the problem - I recently read Scrapped Princess being held up as an example of horrible composition of CGI into an anime, and I quite enjoyed it).

I've never seen a concern with which cels of the drawn anime were drawn by hand on the computer and which were drawn by hand the old fashioned way ... that is, whether the pen strokes on an electronic tablet were used to drive a drawing program or whether a cel was drawn in ink and then scanned into the computer. And the majority of frames will be drawn on the computer in any event - even if the key animator is drawing in ink with the cel being scanned in, the inbetweeners will be drawing on the computer.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 10:20:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Almost all animation today, whether cell on film or computer generated, is the result of a art/craft process that first establishes the look of characters and backgrounds in drawings, mood boards, and storyboards that are increasingly detailed. Main characters are often built in clay or other material. There may be hundreds of iterations of these before the characters, the worlds they inhabit and the story are 'fixed'.

The same processes are often used in live action movies. Many directors create complete hand-drawn storyboards showing every scene in the movie, including dialogue, before shooting. With a big enough budget, such as the Indiana Jones movies, the drawings are translated to fake life-size objects (e.g. fantasy planes) and remodelled locations.

The reason for these elaborate and expensive 'hand-made' processes in pre-production, is because (just look at the movie credits) so many people all have to be on the same page - including the producers. These processes also inform the final production budget.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Apr 25th, 2010 at 03:19:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was referring to anime where the individual frames are drawn. One I am following from the current "Spring" anime season is House of Five Leaves

Nowadays the hand drawn key animations are drawn on a computer artist's pad rather than drawn on cel and scanned into the computer, and in either event the inbetweeners do the inbetween work on the computer. But of course since the computer is being used as a drawing tool recording the animator's pen strokes rather than to generate the imagery, that is not called "CGI".


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Apr 25th, 2010 at 12:58:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are right. I was referring to my 'above' ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Apr 25th, 2010 at 03:21:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... it was obvious that I had been too telegraphic when I wrote the comment ... knowing what I was trying to say once again being an impediment to reading what I had actually written.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Apr 25th, 2010 at 01:00:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry, you are correct; In my haste the mental roll-o-dex gave me the abbreviation from another era--CG was character generation, the placing of letters and numbers on the screen.  

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Sun Apr 25th, 2010 at 06:37:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The tiny-switchable-mirror technology was new to me.  

I gather the idea is to put the switchable mirrors in the theater itself and dispense with the film and the film projector?  

Provided the screen can maintain the polarity of the light projected onto it, I can see how you could use switchable mirrors to create stereoscopy.  Does the screen do that?  Do you know how the screen does that?  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 09:52:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... there's just no film inside it. That's where the mirrors are, inside the projector.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Apr 25th, 2010 at 01:01:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And according to Wikipedia, the stereoscopy is either by having the light polarized by an LCD filter that can switch polarity faster than the frame rate, so that the left and right frames are displayed in alternation, or by displaying the left and right images display at the same time (stacked on top of each other) and having special lenses that split out and polarize the two images in parallel.

The alternation approach works in part because the digital projectors can display at very high frame rates, so that "half the frames for each eye" can still be at a frame rate faster than conventional film.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Apr 25th, 2010 at 01:09:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The topic is showing movies in cinemas from video generated from a computer file instead of by passing light through film. That's what "Digital Cinema" means.

Knowing that will probably bring a lot more of the diary into focus.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 02:28:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's still light projected on a screen, but bounced off mirrors instead of shone through plastic layers.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 02:31:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't understand how that corrects what I wrote. I was not trying to describe the technique, I was trying to fill in the "what is the topic" part that has to be inferred from scattered details you provided ... because you took for granted that everyone knows the basic meaning of the phrase "Digital Cinema".

Indeed, I had no idea how its done ... but then as an economist, there are many details on how its done that I wouldn't need to know. The prior question is what is being done.

Whether the technique involves light projected on the screen through something or bounced off mirrors or whatever .... the main material difference from the status quo ante thing is that instead of physically passing the image through the projector, the image is generated inside the projector based on the contents of a computer file. There are enough details to work that out from the diary, but if someone is disoriented as to what the topic is, they could easily not see the implications of those details or even not get that far.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 03:10:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps it wasn't a correction, but an expansion - looking at it from a slightly different viewpoint. A computer file can have, theoretically, unlimited resolution, but the mirror technology is a significant limitation on that resolution.

Resolution has an impact on audience perception. Hence the move to 70mm film, and its use in high resolution Imax projection systems. The first 70mm films were shot as early as 1894, but not popularized until a process called Todd-AO from 1955.

The lower resolution of Digital Cinema projection is balanced by other advantages that siegestate is describing.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 04:23:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Digital cinema is 2K - 2048 horizontally.

Digital source files from the camera and/or the animators can be either 2K or 4K, or occasionally HDTV 1K-ish and let's-hope-no-one-notices.

2K has the same optical resolution as 35mm, more or less.

I don't know what the resolution of Imax is.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 07:27:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Wikipedia machine says that 35mm Academy format and Imax 70mm compares like this:

... and while searching for that, I saw somewhere online that IMAX Digital is 4K.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 07:39:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And it's perhaps worth mentioning that 4K is a vast amount of data - it's about 2.5TB for a 90 minute movie.

Uncompressed, the data rate is nearly 500MB/s.

2K is more manageable. You can do 2K editing on a fast home PC now.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Apr 24th, 2010 at 08:11:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
File resolution and projection resolution are not the same.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Apr 25th, 2010 at 03:22:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series