From: Chris Clarke (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Dec 06 2010 - 09:07:14 PST
ProRes from a Mac Mini via DVI into a HD projector?
The DCI from Super 16mm option is interesting. And a good idea if your
making work for theaters. But its not as open to artists as consumer
formats. Plus 2k projectors aren't portable or within the budget of
galleries. If you could get some LINUX geeks to come up with an open source
digital cinema server solution, plus something like
CineAsset<http://www.doremicinema.com/cineasset.html>for encoding to
to DCI HD (rather than 2k) this could work with a 1080p
projector.
Chris
On 6 December 2010 05:36, <email suppressed> wrote:
> Send FrameWorks mailing list submissions to
> email suppressed
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> email suppressed
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> email suppressed
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of FrameWorks digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An Offer To
> Address It (Flick Harrison)
> 2. Re: The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An Offer To
> Address It (Brook Hinton)
> 3. film to digi exhibition - its already happening (graeme hogg)
> 4. Re: The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An Offer To
> Address It (Aaron F. Ross)
> 5. Re: The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An Offer To
> Address It (Aaron F. Ross)
> 6. Re: The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An Offer To
> Address It (David Tetzlaff)
> 7. Re: The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An Offer To
> Address It (Brook Hinton)
> 8. Re: The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An Offer To
> Address It (Brook Hinton)
> 9. Re: The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An Offer To
> Address It (Brook Hinton)
> 10. Re: The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An Offer To
> Address It (Flick Harrison)
> 11. DSLR telecine on a JK printer (John Woods)
> 12. Re: The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An Offer To
> Address It (David Tetzlaff)
> 13. Re: The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An Offer To
> Address It (David Tetzlaff)
> 14. Re: DSLR telecine on a JK printer (jeanne LIOTTA)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Flick Harrison <email suppressed>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
> Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 11:57:39 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An
> Offer To Address It
> After I've read this, you, sir, have my undivided attention.
>
> On 2010-12-05, at 09:16 , David Tetzlaff wrote:
>
> For example, anyone with access to Final Cut Studio and a standard DVD
> burner can create an HD optical disc holding up to 30 minutes of material,
> and an exhibitor can acquire the gear necessary to play that disc for $75 or
> less, and the system is absolutely rock solid with beautiful image
> quality... if you do it right. But you have to know how.
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> *--*
> ** WHERE'S MY ARTICLE, WORLD?*
> http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrison
>
> ** FLICK's WEBSITE & BLOG: *http://www.flickharrison.com
>
> [image: Zero for Conduct - Flick's News]<http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/ZeroForConduct/%7E6/1>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Brook Hinton <email suppressed>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
> Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:30:31 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An
> Offer To Address It
> David - that does indeed work, assuming a dead-compatible player. Before
> folks get too over the moon though, it's NOT blu-ray quality, though it is a
> BD spec. I can't remember the bandwidth limitation, but I think
> significantly below the max for Blu-Ray (though still way beyond, say,
> AppleTV and many time over any current streaming spec.). Think about the
> motion and shadow artifacting that you see on commercial Blu-Rays (it's far
> better than DVDs, yes, but still a problem with challenging material) - it's
> visibly worse with the HD-on-DVDR workflow. Though still better than the
> equivalents on an SD DVD.
>
> I'll end my anti-round-disc diatribe with this and then fall silent: in
> multi-maker exhibition situations i've found DVDs (and by extension Blu-Ray)
> incredibly awkward on a physical level (cueing, loading, unloading, etc.) as
> well as the previously stated objections. And my experience does not bear
> out the claim of reliability for a well-authored DVD even on the best media
> (though it's just as often the players or drives that prove wonky). Now a
> single authored disc for a whole show, with a backup (ideally player AND
> disc) - that's another matter and certainly viable when timing and
> circumstances permit.
>
> Brook
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Flick Harrison <email suppressed>wrote:
>
>> After I've read this, you, sir, have my undivided attention.
>>
>> On 2010-12-05, at 09:16 , David Tetzlaff wrote:
>>
>> For example, anyone with access to Final Cut Studio and a standard DVD
>> burner can create an HD optical disc holding up to 30 minutes of material,
>> and an exhibitor can acquire the gear necessary to play that disc for $75 or
>> less, and the system is absolutely rock solid with beautiful image
>> quality... if you do it right. But you have to know how.
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> *--*
>> ** WHERE'S MY ARTICLE, WORLD?*
>> http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrison
>>
>> ** FLICK's WEBSITE & BLOG: *http://www.flickharrison.com
>>
>> [image: Zero for Conduct - Flick's News]<http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/ZeroForConduct/%7E6/1>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> email suppressed
>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ____________________________
> Brook Hinton
> Moving Image and Sound Maker
> www.brookhinton.com
>
> Associate Professor / Assistant Chair
> Film Program at CCA
> California College of the Arts
> www.cca.edu/film
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: graeme hogg <email suppressed>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
> Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 21:16:03 +0000 (GMT)
> Subject: [Frameworks] film to digi exhibition - its already happening
>
> HD is obsolete. Long live 16mm.
>
> Give that (super) 16mm has a digital equivalence of 2058 x 1237 (2.5
> million pixles) and 16mm is very widespread in the artistic community
> why dont people aim higher than domestic formats like blu ray, etc, ie
> 2k Digi Cinema packages. They cost a 10th of the price of 35mm theatrical
> prints and if there was enough demand from wider sectors other than Cinemas
> (all currently in the very grave process of converting to 2k and 4k
> projection) ie arts centres, museums, galleries, etc then the price might
> come down for the machines (currently around 60k).
>
> Also the industrial standards of 35mm prints (and 16mm to be fair) will
> translate well into DCPs because these systems are defined/standardised by
> the industry however much independent artists wish to be in terms of
> content.
>
> No HD projector I have ever seen, single or 3chip can match the punch
> and speed of a good 16mm projector. I do however think that 2k cinema
> machines finally do this format digital justice.
>
> People keep going on about the small difference in resolution, but its
> about 'way' more than the amount of pixels.
>
> If the purpose is to make films availble to be seen in a way totally in
> keeping with an artists vision, I consider a new era to be potentially upon
> us where Cinema meets cinema, Film meets film and the Personal meets the
> Collective.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Aaron F. Ross" <email suppressed>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
> Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 14:20:06 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An
> Offer To Address It
> David Tetzlaff <email suppressed> wrote:
>
> For example, anyone with access to Final Cut Studio and a standard DVD
>> burner can create an HD optical disc holding up to 30 minutes of material,
>> and an exhibitor can acquire the gear necessary to play that disc for $75 or
>> less, and the system is absolutely rock solid with beautiful image
>> quality... if you do it right. But you have to know how.
>>
>
> Boom. Nail hit right on the head. It's an education problem. And I've seen
> this many times over the years. Some people don't like change.
>
>
> Flick Harrison <email suppressed> wrote:
>
> After I've read this, you, sir, have my undivided attention.
>>
>
>
> If I may interject, this is the way to go. 1080p Blu-ray file structure
> burned to cheapo DVD+R media. It's brilliant for short films. And longer
> discs are just as easy, you know. Blu-ray burners are cheap now, and the
> media are not really that expensive anymore.
>
> As for the "files are the future" argument, consider this. Yes, optical
> media may have compatibility issues, but the same can be said for any
> digital format. Just because you've saved out an H.264 movie in an MP4
> container does not mean that your work is going to look the same when it's
> exhibited. Software has quirks, end of story. I can't tell you how exhausted
> I am over the perennial Quicktime for Windows bug that results in screwed up
> contrast due to a super insanely obscure setting nested four dialogs deep in
> the interface.
>
> I'll be much more confident about using multimedia files once Hollywood has
> a standard for that.
>
> Aaron
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Aaron F. Ross
> Digital Arts Guild
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Aaron F. Ross" <email suppressed>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
> Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 15:09:46 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An
> Offer To Address It
> Brook Hinton <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>> David - that does indeed work, assuming a dead-compatible player. Before
>> folks get too over the moon though, it's NOT blu-ray quality, though it is a
>> BD spec. I can't remember the bandwidth limitation, but I think
>> significantly below the max for Blu-Ray
>>
>
> I looked this up, and the nominal AVCHD-on-DVD bandwidth limit is 18
> megabits/sec. The bandwidth limit for the AVCHD format proper is 24
> megabits/sec. I've had success burning a 24mb/s file onto DVD media, and it
> played fine on my Blu-ray player, but of course your mileage may vary.
>
> Anyway, either 18mb/s or 24mb/s should be enough for most 1080p footage.
> It's true that commercial Blu-ray discs can be authored at up to 72 mb/s,
> but most of the ones I've seen average about 24 mb/s. Experimental work with
> a lot of motion/detail may need a higher bitrate than 18 or 24, so if that's
> the case, just encode at a higher rate and burn onto Blu-ray media.
>
> In any event, encoding issues still exist in the multimedia file domain. If
> you want your work to look good, you still have to know about this stuff and
> encode your work appropriately.
>
>
> I'll end my anti-round-disc diatribe with this and then fall silent: in
>> multi-maker exhibition situations i've found DVDs (and by extension Blu-Ray)
>> incredibly awkward on a physical level (cueing, loading, unloading, etc.)
>>
>
> Well, that does mean the projectionist needs to do changeovers like in the
> old days... look at it as job security for projectionists. :) And of course
> you need a switcher or two projectors as well, so it does get expensive for
> DIY operations. But established institutions can certainly afford it.
>
> I'm just really down on the whole "dump the files in a playlist and let it
> roll" method of exhibition. My main objection is that, even today, computers
> don't have much elegance in the way they handle a discrepancy between source
> frame rate and display scan rate. In other words, if the media is encoded at
> 23.976 fps, and the desktop is displaying frames at 60 Hz, you're likely to
> see horrible horizontal tearing in the middle of the frame, or blurry frame
> blending. Pick your poison. With dedicated hardware such as a Blu-ray
> player, this is not an issue.
>
> Aaron
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Aaron F. Ross
> Digital Arts Guild
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Tetzlaff <email suppressed>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
> Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 18:18:43 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An
> Offer To Address It
> I'm not talking about Blu-Ray.
>
> > David - that does indeed work, assuming a dead-compatible player. Before
> folks get too over the moon though, it's NOT blu-ray quality, though it is a
> BD spec. I can't remember the bandwidth limitation, but I think
> significantly below the max for Blu-Ray (though still way beyond, say,
> AppleTV and many time over any current streaming spec.). Think about the
> motion and shadow artifacting that you see on commercial Blu-Rays (it's far
> better than DVDs, yes, but still a problem with challenging material) - it's
> visibly worse with the HD-on-DVDR workflow. Though still better than the
> equivalents on an SD DVD.
>
> I have no idea what you mean by "NOT blu-ray quality, though it is a BD
> spec." There is no fixed 'Blu-Ray quality'. Blu-Ray discs can be authored
> with different resolutions (e.g. 720P or 1080P), different bit-rates, even
> different codecs (MPEG-2). Within any specific set of these parameters,
> different technologies used to achieve them will yield different results.
> 'Bandwidth' (by which I assume you mean bit-rate) is only indicative of
> quality if all other things are constant, which they aren't, and besides,
> there's a point of diminishing returns and the maximum rates are defined to
> provide cushion for the future and so are impractically high. E.g. if you
> set your DVD to encode at the maximum bit-rate available within the DVD
> spec, it will almost certainly skip in any common player. If you check the
> presets in Compressor or iDVD or any other software package that generally
> produces acceptable results, you'll see they're quite conservative.
>
> If you put a limited amount of HD on a DVD-5, and it looks noticeably worse
> than a commercial Blu-Ray, that is due either to the fact that the
> commercial disk started with a better quality source, or you made the DVD-5
> the wrong way. For example, you can create a Blu-Ray on DVD-5 disc from
> pretty much any HD Quicktime file in Toast, but it is likely to have lots of
> artifacts. This is a product of the method Toast employs, not the limits of
> the Blu-Ray format, or the max data rates of recordable DVD5s.
>
> Now, a thorough understanding of all this tech stuff is going to be beyond
> many makers, programmers, etc. But the process CAN be simplified if someone
> figures out practical methods that work, tests them out, and turns them into
> "do exactly this" prescriptions in common language.
>
> ----
>
> > I'll end my anti-round-disc diatribe with this and then fall silent: in
> multi-maker exhibition situations i've found DVDs (and by extension Blu-Ray)
> incredibly awkward on a physical level (cueing, loading, unloading, etc.) as
> well as the previously stated objections.
>
> I agree that optical discs are physically awkward when several are involved
> in a single program. But then so is 16mm film. The point is that a)
> exhibitors ought to offer makers several options, b) optical discs ought to
> be one of these because they're relatively cheap to make and easy to mail c)
> if something better than SD-DVD is available in that media (and it is) it
> ought to be employed. And just because something gets sent to you on an
> optical disc doesn't mean you have to play it back from that piece of
> physical media.
>
> The kind of comprehensive solution I would propose would include the
> HD-on-DVD5 thing, but that would only be one part of it.
>
> > And my experience does not bear out the claim of reliability for a
> well-authored DVD even on the best media (though it's just as often the
> players or drives that prove wonky).
>
> Uh, I said it makes no sense to trash DVD sui generis for problems created
> by bad encoding, bad media, bad burning and bad players. If you are going to
> screen 16mm prints, you need to know whether your projector is working
> properly or not. If you are going to screen DVD+/-R discs, you need to know
> if your player can handle properly prepared discs. But, again, here is
> something people don't know. If they have some device that plays commercial
> DVDs, they figure they should be able to pop any old disc they get sent in
> there and have it play. It doesn't work that way.
>
> In acknowledging that HD video can be written to standard DVD blanks, you
> added the caveat, "assuming a dead-compatible player". Well, why would any
> screening venue have anything BUT a "dead-compatible player"? Because they
> don't know the difference. Because no one has ever told them exactly what
> they need. Because they've never asked. (Or maybe they asked someone who
> didn't really know...)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Brook Hinton <email suppressed>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
> Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 15:20:50 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An
> Offer To Address It
>
>
> Sent from a phone pardon the tiepoes.
>
> On Dec 5, 2010, at 3:09 PM, "Aaron F. Ross" <email suppressed>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm just really down on the whole "dump the files in a playlist and
> > let it roll" method of exhibition. My main objection is that, even
> > today, computers don't have much elegance in the way they handle a
> > discrepancy between source frame rate and display scan rate. In other
> > words, if the media is encoded at 23.976 fps, and the desktop is
> > displaying frames at 60 Hz, you're likely to see horrible horizontal
> > tearing in the middle of the frame, or blurry frame blending. Pick
> > your poison. With dedicated hardware such as a Blu-ray player, this
> > is not an issue.
> >
> > Aaron
> > -------------------------------------------
> >
> > Aaron F. Ross
> > Digital Arts Guild
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > FrameWorks mailing list
> > email suppressed
> > http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Brook Hinton <email suppressed>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
> Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 15:24:41 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An
> Offer To Address It
> Sorry for that last mispost.
>
> True about the tearing though I've seen this from DVD and Blu ray as well
> on less than optimal projectors.
>
> And I think we have a disconnect here - I'm thinking about venues for
> experimental work that these days have trouble affording anything - so DIY
> low budget scenarios are the realm addressing.
>
> .
>
> On Dec 5, 2010, at 3:09 PM, "Aaron F. Ross" <email suppressed>
> wrote:
>
> > Brook Hinton <email suppressed> wrote:
> >> David - that does indeed work, assuming a dead-compatible player.
> >> Before folks get too over the moon though, it's NOT blu-ray quality,
> >> though it is a BD spec. I can't remember the bandwidth limitation,
> >> but I think significantly below the max for Blu-Ray
> >
> > I looked this up, and the nominal AVCHD-on-DVD bandwidth limit is 18
> > megabits/sec. The bandwidth limit for the AVCHD format proper is 24
> > megabits/sec. I've had success burning a 24mb/s file onto DVD media,
> > and it played fine on my Blu-ray player, but of course your mileage may
> vary.
> >
> > Anyway, either 18mb/s or 24mb/s should be enough for most 1080p
> > footage. It's true that commercial Blu-ray discs can be authored at
> > up to 72 mb/s, but most of the ones I've seen average about 24 mb/s.
> > Experimental work with a lot of motion/detail may need a higher
> > bitrate than 18 or 24, so if that's the case, just encode at a higher
> > rate and burn onto Blu-ray media.
> >
> > In any event, encoding issues still exist in the multimedia file
> > domain. If you want your work to look good, you still have to know
> > about this stuff and encode your work appropriately.
> >
> >
> >> I'll end my anti-round-disc diatribe with this and then fall silent:
> >> in multi-maker exhibition situations i've found DVDs (and by
> >> extension Blu-Ray) incredibly awkward on a physical level (cueing,
> >> loading, unloading, etc.)
> >
> > Well, that does mean the projectionist needs to do changeovers like
> > in the old days... look at it as job security for projectionists.
> > :) And of course you need a switcher or two projectors as well, so
> > it does get expensive for DIY operations. But established
> > institutions can certainly afford it.
> >
> > I'm just really down on the whole "dump the files in a playlist and
> > let it roll" method of exhibition. My main objection is that, even
> > today, computers don't have much elegance in the way they handle a
> > discrepancy between source frame rate and display scan rate. In other
> > words, if the media is encoded at 23.976 fps, and the desktop is
> > displaying frames at 60 Hz, you're likely to see horrible horizontal
> > tearing in the middle of the frame, or blurry frame blending. Pick
> > your poison. With dedicated hardware such as a Blu-ray player, this
> > is not an issue.
> >
> > Aaron
> > -------------------------------------------
> >
> > Aaron F. Ross
> > Digital Arts Guild
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > FrameWorks mailing list
> > email suppressed
> > http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Brook Hinton <email suppressed>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
> Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:13:02 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An
> Offer To Address It
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 3:18 PM, David Tetzlaff <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>> I'm not talking about Blu-Ray.
>>
>>
>> I have no idea what you mean by "NOT blu-ray quality, though it is a BD
>> spec." There is no fixed 'Blu-Ray quality'. Blu-Ray discs can be authored
>> with different resolutions (e.g. 720P or 1080P), different bit-rates, even
>> different codecs (MPEG-2). Within any specific set of these parameters,
>> different technologies used to achieve them will yield different results.
>> 'Bandwidth' (by which I assume you mean bit-rate) is only indicative of
>> quality if all other things are constant, which they aren't, and besides,
>> there's a point of diminishing returns and the maximum rates are defined to
>> provide cushion for the future and so are impractically high. E.g. if you
>> set your DVD to encode at the maximum bit-rate available within the DVD
>> spec, it will almost certainly skip in any common player. If you check the
>> presets in Compressor or iDVD or any other software package that generally
>> produces acceptable results, you'll see they're quite conservative.
>>
>
> David you are preaching to the choir here, and in a condescending tone to
> boot. OF COURSE all other things aren't equal. I work with this stuff on a
> daily basis and until recently it was how I paid the rent. Anyway,
> everything you say in that paragraph is true except that in my experience
> reliable playback across devices of HD on a DVD-R means using a bitrate well
> below the 18mb/s Aaron helpfully looked up as the supposed max for this
> workflow. On 1080p material with significant motion and detail it's not
> great, but again, the artifacting isn't as bad as it is on SD DVDs.
>
> Actually the Compressor DVD presets aren't quite conservative enough in my
> book, but they're close. Nothing - even increased quality - is worth the
> risk of the comically common "gallery freeze'" or skpping you see on those
> 8mb/s dvd loops in the cubes.
>
>
>> If you put a limited amount of HD on a DVD-5, and it looks noticeably
>> worse than a commercial Blu-Ray, that is due either to the fact that the
>> commercial disk started with a better quality source, or you made the DVD-5
>> the wrong way. For example, you can create a Blu-Ray on DVD-5 disc from
>> pretty much any HD Quicktime file in Toast, but it is likely to have lots of
>> artifacts. This is a product of the method Toast employs, not the limits of
>> the Blu-Ray format, or the max data rates of recordable DVD5s.
>>
>
> It is also a function of the encoder you use, the encoding method, the care
> taken with prepping the source, in some cases the reduced bitrate mentioned
> above, and a host of other factors, but that's the same for any of these
> formats.
>
>>
>> Uh, I said it makes no sense to trash DVD sui generis for problems created
>> by bad encoding, bad media, bad burning and bad players. If you are going to
>> screen 16mm prints, you need to know whether your projector is working
>> properly or not. If you are going to screen DVD+/-R discs, you need to know
>> if your player can handle properly prepared discs. But, again, here is
>> something people don't know. If they have some device that plays commercial
>> DVDs, they figure they should be able to pop any old disc they get sent in
>> there and have it play. It doesn't work that way.
>>
>
> People will always do this with that type of media. I believe it is wishful
> thinking to hope such habits will dissipate with education.
> Also the ratio of good to bad 16mm projectors is significantly higher than
> the ratio of good to bad disposable plastic dvd and blu ray players. That's
> not counting professional equipment though, which is out of range for many
> of the folks we're talking about.
> 16mm can also often be serviced in-house in many cases.
>
>
>> In acknowledging that HD video can be written to standard DVD blanks, you
>> added the caveat, "assuming a dead-compatible player". Well, why would any
>> screening venue have anything BUT a "dead-compatible player"?
>
>
> Because it happens. Because people don't think things through. Because they
> got a player from ebay that worked with two discs and then realized the
> night of the program that three pieces would not play on it, and money and
> time were so tight they couldn't do anything about. Because few venues that
> show experimental work can afford professional decks. Because many are
> begging and borrowing whatever they can to get the show running.
>
> All that said, I applaud your efforts to do something about this, and I do
> think you are on the right track.
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> email suppressed
>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ____________________________
> Brook Hinton
> Moving Image and Sound Maker
> www.brookhinton.com
>
> Associate Professor / Assistant Chair
> Film Program at CCA
> California College of the Arts
> www.cca.edu/film
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Flick Harrison <email suppressed>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
> Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:19:14 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An
> Offer To Address It
> Yes, but, what's the $75 player that's 100% compatible? I'm buying two if
> you tell me what it is.
>
> And can you pause / continue at will during a live show, preferably with
> auto pauses built-in like DVD, without osd, freeze-frame artifacts, or
> stuttering?
>
> -Flick
> *--*
> ** WHERE'S MY ARTICLE, WORLD?*
> http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrison
>
> ** FLICK's WEBSITE & BLOG: *http://www.flickharrison.com
>
> [image: Zero for Conduct - Flick's News]<http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/ZeroForConduct/%7E6/1>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: John Woods <email suppressed>
> To: email suppressed
> Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 17:04:51 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: [Frameworks] DSLR telecine on a JK printer
> Anyone doing film transfers on a JK optical printer with a DSLR?
> Particularly of
> S8 or 16mm colour negative? Seems like the most tedious way to
>
> transfer film but the potential quality it presents intrigues me. Thx.
>
> John Woods
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Tetzlaff <email suppressed>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 00:18:10 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An
> Offer To Address It
> On Dec 5, 2010, at 7:13 PM, Brook Hinton wrote:
>
> > in my experience reliable playback across devices of HD on a DVD-R means
> using a bitrate well below the 18mb/s Aaron helpfully looked up as the
> supposed max for this workflow. On 1080p material with significant motion
> and detail it's not great, but again, the artifacting isn't as bad as it is
> on SD DVDs.
>
> There are very few video projectors that will do 1080P. The majority of the
> 'installed base' max out at 1080i/720P. The projection imager type is more
> important than resolution - that is a 720P 3-chip DLP is superior to a 1080P
> 1-chip DLP. In addition, the difference in perceptual quality between SD and
> 720P is quite noticeable, while bumping up to 1080P is less so. Thus, 720P
> is a better choice for projection in most cases. For a given data rate 720P
> requires less compression and thus can yield fewer artifacts. I have
> projected 720P in a commercial theater for a special presentation, using the
> "preshow" digital projector. It looked as good as that projector is capable
> of looking, which is good enough. There were no glitches, and no-one in the
> SRO audience had any comments about the technology. All comments related to
> the film itself, which is what we all want.
>
> > Also the ratio of good to bad 16mm projectors is significantly higher
> than the ratio of good to bad disposable plastic dvd and blu ray players.
> That's not counting professional equipment though, which is out of range for
> many of the folks we're talking about.
> > 16mm can also often be serviced in-house in many cases.
>
> If it is indeed the case that the liklihood of encountering good 16mm
> projection is higher, that is because the pool is smaller. Few are willing
> to take up 16mm unless they have the knowledge and resources. If you have
> any sort of in-house service for 16mm available, we're talking about a whole
> different ballgame. Put that same expertise, and whatever it costs in money
> or in-kind into digital, and the results will be at least comparable.
>
> >> In acknowledging that HD video can be written to standard DVD blanks,
> you added the caveat, "assuming a dead-compatible player". Well, why would
> any screening venue have anything BUT a "dead-compatible player"?
> >>
> > Because it happens. Because people don't think things through. Because
> they got a player from ebay that worked with two discs and then realized the
> night of the program that three pieces would not play on it, and money and
> time were so tight they couldn't do anything
>
> Well, HD isn't going away. Exhibitors are going to have to learn to think
> things through, plan ahead. Again, if you're holding a 16mm film festival,
> and you just haul some Eikis out of storage, thread up the prints, throw the
> knobs into forward and cross your fingers that everything is working, you
> shouldn't be screening prints. People don't do that (often) though, because
> they know better.
>
> > Because few venues that show experimental work can afford professional
> decks. Because many are begging and borrowing whatever they can to get the
> show running.
>
> Professional decks are not required, or even desired. For example,
> recordable DVD playback is often far more reliable on cheaper off-brand
> players than on name brands. Such players aren't necessarily built to last,
> but they're cheap enough (e.g. $40 at Wal-Mart) to be essentially
> disposable.
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Tetzlaff <email suppressed>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 00:32:12 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] The Digital Video Exhibition Problem: And An
> Offer To Address It
> On Dec 5, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Aaron F. Ross wrote:
>
> > I'm just really down on the whole "dump the files in a playlist and
> > let it roll" method of exhibition. My main objection is that, even
> > today, computers don't have much elegance in the way they handle a
> > discrepancy between source frame rate and display scan rate. In other
> > words, if the media is encoded at 23.976 fps, and the desktop is
> > displaying frames at 60 Hz, you're likely to see horrible horizontal
> > tearing in the middle of the frame, or blurry frame blending.
>
> Modern computers can indeed do better than this if they are set up
> properly. It's just not easy. The hardware isn't that expensive, either.
> Making the right choices in hardware, software, settings etc. is the hard
> part. But, eventually, the potential flexibility of computers will allow
> playlists made up of different kinds of source files to let 'em roll more or
> less seamlessly and in proper quality. We're not there yet. Thus, as I've
> said, at this point, no exhibition venue should be relying on a single
> format.
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: jeanne LIOTTA <email suppressed>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
> Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 22:36:41 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] DSLR telecine on a JK printer
> they are doing that at my school. But you have to watch out--perhpasreplace
> the camera fairly regularly since they werent really made for that kind of
> frame-clicking volume. Its tedious, just like any optical printing, no? but
> with a controller interface you trust maybe you can just go out for coffee
> or take a nap.
> another one of the million workflows....
>
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:04 PM, John Woods <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>> Anyone doing film transfers on a JK optical printer with a DSLR?
>> Particularly of
>> S8 or 16mm colour negative? Seems like the most tedious way to
>>
>> transfer film but the potential quality it presents intrigues me. Thx.
>>
>> John Woods
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> email suppressed
>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>
>
>
> --
> www.jeanneliotta.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks