[tig] HDnet

tom rovak trovak
Wed Mar 24 22:24:21 GMT 2004


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harding, Rick" <Rick.Harding at am.sony.com>
To: "tom rovak" <trovak at swellinc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 3:06 PM
Subject: RE: Fw: [tig] HDnet


> The world is changing Tom.
>
> Mark is basically saying that subjective opinion need not be qualified.
And
> he's right. Everything we do is ultimately for commercial purpose and from
> Mark's seat, his viewers opinions mean more to him than that of industry
> professionals.
>
> With regard to the merits of HDTV acquisition, common industry assumptions
> are now coming into question. Recently, Sony supported test shoots for two
> major motion picture productions (MPAA studios) using our RGB HDCF950
camera
> and HDCAM SR recorders. This is full bandwidth RGB HD (1.6 Gbps) recorded
at
> 440 Mbps, compressed 4:1. These images were taken back to film and
compared
> with original 35mm shot on 5218 and 5279. In the first test case the RGB
> image were scanned to film, cropped for 2.35, answer printed and compared
to
> a 2.35 answer print from the super 35mm OCN. The images from the RGB
> acquisition were markedly better. The production company is dropping film
> and going with RGB.
>
> The second test involved green screen foregrounds shot in 35mm and RGB as
> well as non green screen shots.  The OCN of the  green screen shots were
> scanned in 2K and composited in an IQ to digital back plates. The RGB
green
> screen shots (same scenes) were also composited in the IQ and both were
> taken back to film in an Arri film scanner in 1.85 aspect ratio. When
> compared, the RGB composite images were significantly better than the
> composited film originated material.  The RGB scenes not composited, also
> looked better than the film originated material. This was true with both
the
> OCN answer prints and the IN answer prints. The production company is
going
> with RGB.
>
> I know its hard to believe, I wouldn't have believed it either, after 25
> years in the film industry, if I hadn't seen it for myself.  These tests
> raise a lot of questions that I'm sure will be answered along the way, but
> bottom line, the proof is in the pudding.  There is still a lot to learn.
>
> Rick Harding
> Sony
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom rovak [mailto:trovak at swellinc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 11:43 AM
> To: tig
> Subject: Fw: Fw: [tig] HDnet
>
>
> thanks to Hans Lehman for supporting the TIG.
> --
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mark cuban" <mark.cuban at dallasmavs.com>
> To: "tom rovak" <trovak at swellinc.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 1:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [tig] HDnet
>
>
> > I have seen what comes out of a telecine. I know that hdcam and d5
> > capture have compression built in
> >
> > The point is that the comparison by viewers is from watching content
> > that has been encoded down to atsc for broadcast , which is what is
> > aired .
> >
> > NO ONE sees uncompressed  content  except in a back office. So trying to
> > use uncompressed anything as a basis for anything where tv viewers are
> > concerned is a fools game.
> >
> > Face the fact that right now 100 pct of hdtv viewers that we have spoken
> > to and polled prefer same content shot in hd over film
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:45am, tom rovak wrote:
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: tom rovak
> > > To: tig at tig.colorist.org
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 9:43 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [tig] HDnet
> > >
> > >
> > > Mark
> > > Maybe you can explain what you ment by "As I said, I know film has
more
> > > resolution, but encoded atsc versions of mpeg2 , ecoded down from
> > > telecine output doesn't get
> > > it done with viewers when compared to comparable content shot in hd"?
> > >
> > > If you are implying that as the film is scanned by the, lets say
> > > Thomson Spirit Datacine, that it is mpeg2 encoded, I believe YOU need
a
> > > bit of technical education before YOU say anything.
> > > From what I hear in your statements, is that you think all material
> > > shot on film goes straight to DVD. This is simply not at all true.
Most
> > > film material gets transfered in either 2k or 4k data and post work is
> > > getting done in 2k (totaly uncompressed), or to an HD tape (either
Sony
> > > HDcam, or Panasonic D5 HD), or Standard Definition Digital Betacam.
The
> > > images coming from the telecine are NOT compressed at all.
> > > I think someone from Thomson, or Cintel would love to educate you on
> > > how a "telecine" works.
> > > By the way if you are objecting to mpeg2 compression, I suggest you
> > > evaluate most of the HD originated material. When you learn what kind
> > > of compression is used to record HD images, you might be a little
> > > shocked.
> > > If you would truly like to see an HD video, compared to 35mm film
> > > comparison, I can arrange it for you.
> > > I have done this comparison for many different people, and
> > > organizations. All the results we got were completely opposite what
you
> > > are saying.
> > > I would like to see the proof of your statements.
> > > I am prepared to prove my point.
> > > Are You?
> > >
> > > Tom Rovak - Sr. Colorist
> > > Swell Pictures, Inc.
> > > 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive
> > > Chicago, Illinois 60611
> > > trovak at swellinc.com
> > > tomrovak at ameritech.net
> > > (312)464-8000 Swell
> > > (312)464-8020 Fax
> > > (815)690-8323 Cell
> > > (815)464-0169 Home/Fax
> > m
> >
>
>
> --
> Help wanted ads are welcome here on the main TIG; blatant advertising
> or marketing is not but can be sent to tig-announce at tig.colorist.org.
> For contributions see http://tig.colorist.org the "make a donation" button
> at the bottom, thank you!.
>






More information about the Tig mailing list