If you haven't already done so, be sure to check out the April issue of P3 Update.

www.p3update.com/april2012

The Hunger Games is making quite a stir at the box office — it’s currently the top-grossing film of the year, taking in over $250 million in just 10 days. The popular film was a winning collaboration for Filmmaker Gary Ross and Cinematographer Tom Stern, ASC, AFC who both decided to shoot this futuristic story on film stock rather than with the many digital cameras now available. The April issue of P3 Update has the inside scoop on the making of The Hunger Games as we talk with Stern about his tricks of the trade and the challenges of lighting and shooting an action-based story on location in North Carolina.
We also focus on future with “From 3D to 5D Production of Live Sports in the U.S.,” which explores how 3D technology is creating better ways to capture live-broadcast footage that can be viewed anywhere. New technology incorporates 2D and 3D rigs so camera operators can still do what they do best — shooting great live-sports action — while productions save valuable space in live-event arenas. And the Cameron/Pace Group’s “Shadow D” rig is reshaping how live 3D content is captured.
P3 sits down with acclaimed Filmmaker Martin Scorsese to get his take on shooting Hugo, his very first 3D film. Scorsese takes us back to the beginning of moviemaking as he recounts the experience. We also go on location to the U.S. Virgin Islands to see the advantages that are available to filmmakers looking to shoot in the Caribbean. Many films have been shot on the lush islands of St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix, and now the advent of DSLR technology has local USVI filmmakers stepping up to create their own content. The U.S. Virgin Islands have a strong infrastructure and support system to tackle any size production, and they welcome the opportunity to help you to tell your story.
Our April issue also included a spotlight on the Midwest Region of the U.S. The states of Illinois, Indiana, Kansas and Missouri all offer professional local talent and other key advantages for visiting productions. And be sure to read this month’s Test Drive on third-party plugins and our Post Q&A with Technicolor Senior Digital Colorist Dave Cole, who discusses color correcting in a digital workflow environment.

I do hope you enjoy our April issue.

By Gordon Meyer
P3GizmoGuy@gmail.com

Last week, the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO) held their annual spring convention, CinemaCon, in Las Vegas. While schedule conflicts prohibited me from being there, I kept up on the show highlights.  CinemaCon (formerly ShoWest) is a star studded celebration of movies scheduled to come out between now and the end of the year.  Exhibitors get to hob nob with stars and studio big wigs, see advance footage of movies months before their releases and, this year, enjoy a celebration of two technologies whose proponents believe will enhance the movie going experience and therefore sell more tickets.

One of those technologies, 3D, is kind of old news.  The master 3D evangelist, James Cameron, made an appearance with fellow director Ang Lee in promoting the virtues of the format. But another format took center stage with very mixed response from exhibitors – the new 48 frame per second (fps) projection speed that Peter Jackson wants exhibitors and studios to adopt.

The idea is that when the frame rate refreshes at double the 24 fps speed that’s been the industry standard since the late 1920s, there’s an enhanced sense of reality with audiences because they are less aware of the subtle, almost subliminal, frame to frame flicker that goes with the slower projection speed.  In many ways, this is a 21^st Century version of the Showscan format developed by Douglas Trumball over 30 years ago, except that Showscan used 70mm film running at 60 fps.  Apparently viewers notice much more detail at the higher frame rate as well.

I would have loved to attend Peter Jackson’s demonstration of the 3D 48 fps experience with his excerpts from the first half of “The Hobbit.”  By all reports, the response from exhibitors was split.  Jackson himself acknowledged that there’s an adjustment period needed for audiences to acclimate themselves to the higher frame rate.  Since New Line only showed 10 minutes from “The Hobbit,” and since those scenes were apparently incomplete in terms of effects and color balancing, it was admittedly not a fair demonstration.

But looking at the mere concept of a higher frame rate raises esthetic questions for me.  My friend Doug is one of millions of people who have a flat screen TV capable of 120 Hz or higher refresh rates.  That translates into quadruple the standard television rate of 30 fps.  Since nobody is broadcasting in these higher frame rates (yet), the additional frames are electronically extrapolated from the video signal.  This actually looks pretty cool when watching things like sporting events at the higher frame rate.  But movies frankly look weird – almost TV-like instead of filmic.  Maybe it’s just because, like virtually the entire populace of the planet, I’m used to and therefore comfortable with, filmed entertainment presented at 24 fps (or 30 fps on a TV screen).

Higher frame rates are poised to become a new tool for filmmakers, just like HD, multichannel sound and 3D.  Filmmakers will need to go through a learning curve as they discover the pros and cons of this enhanced format.  But it’s an interesting thing about having too much detail on the screen.  Ironically, it has the potential to actually feel less believable.  Many years ago, I was involved in a tribute to Albert Whitlock, an Academy Award winning visual effects artist who specialized in matte work, where a background painted on a sheet of glass is combined with live action footage to create the illusion that the camera is actually in a different place.  When Whitlock showed me several of his matte paintings, I noticed that they were actually less detailed and more stylized than I would have thought.  Whitlock explained that, when photographed and projected onto a movie screen, the less detailed, more stylized matte paintings actually read more realistic and believable to audiences than photo-realistic matte paintings.

Recently, I interviewed cinematographer Peter Lyons Collister, ASC for my article on lenses that will appear in the May 2012 issue of P3 Update.  During our conversation he said that because many of the newer digital cameras like the RED Epic have such high resolution imaging sensors, as a DP he’s often asked to use things like diffusion lenses to soften the image because the image is so sharp and detailed that it becomes uncomfortable for audiences.

Of course, to be fair to Jackson and other filmmakers promoting the higher frame rate, to render any kind of judgment until “The Hobbit” comes out is premature.   But it seems to me that this kind of technology is best used selectively, especially during the first decade or so of its existence, so filmmakers can learn how to use it in ways that enhance the audience experience, rather than feed them so much visual information that it becomes a distraction, much like camera work that calls attention to itself.

By Gordon Meyer
P3GizmoGuy@gmail.com

While multi-channel sound has been around in movie theatres since the original 1940 roadshow release of Walt Disney’s “Fantasia,” it was Dolby’s encoding and stereo optical technology introduced in the mid-1970s that made multi-channel sound a practical reality for filmmakers and audiences alike.  The original Dolby Stereo was an analog matrix system that featured Right, Left, Center and monophonic Surround channels.  Engineers have since built on that audio model by adding more channels, initially splitting the surround track into right and left rear channels for 5.1 and the expanded 7.1 which adds right and left side channels, though ironically enough, 7.1 audio is found a lot more in consumer living rooms than cinemas.

But when it comes to creating a truly immersive audio field that accurately reproduces the virtually infinite number of directions that sound can come to the human ear, engineers have long acknowledged that channel-based sound modeling is a compromise.  Dolby’s chief competitor, DTS, addresses the desire for more naturally immersive sound field with their 11.1 channel Neo:X system.  I’ve heard it demonstrated at the Consumer Electronics Show and it’s very impressive.  DTS adds front and side height channels to further envelop listeners. 

DTS faces some important challenges in making their technology a new standard.  First, DTS is no longer in the theatrical sound business.  Their technology is totally focused on the consumer space.  But before consumers can be persuaded to invest in upgrading from 5.1 to 11.1 channel sound systems, they need to experience 11.1 first and their local Best Buy isn’t exactly the best environment to show off high end audio.  The other challenge is one of “chicken and egg,” in that no matter how good a technology like Neo:X is on paper, the reality is that it’s only as good as the content you can get that’s natively mixed for it.  Sure, part of that technology is designed to extrapolate all those extra channels from existing 5.1 or 7.1 data streams, but it’s the audio equivalent of converting 2D imagery to 3D.  You’re simply not going to get the same quality or listener experience as you would with audio natively mixed in 11.1.

Now comes Dolby with the announcement at this week’s CinemaCon convention in Las Vegas (formerly the National Association of Theatre Owners’ ShoWest) of a new technology called Dolby Atmos, which in the simplest of terms adds a series of ceiling-based speakers in the center of the auditorium and creates a scalable master audio track that can handle up to 64 discreet speaker feeds that is fully backwards compatible with simpler sound systems.

According to Dolby’s press release, the new technology “introduces a hybrid approach to mixing and directs sound as dynamic objects that envelop the listener, in combination with channels for playback. Dolby Atmos enables adaptive rendering to ensure that the playback experience is as close as possible to the creator's original vision in any given environment, irrespective of the specific speaker configuration in the playback environment.”  Dolby claims that their Atmos technology essentially enables them to place sound just about anywhere in a three dimensional half sphere sound field, giving filmmakers much more accurate control over that audio dimensionality.

One of the ways that Dolby Atmos achieves its audio immersiveness is that it enables sound to be directed to any specific speaker in the house.  Ironically, this was the very approach that RCA engineers used when creating the Fantasound technology for “Fantasia” in 1940.  Of course, thanks to digital technology, Dolby’s engineers have taken that concept to a whole new level. 

At the end of the day, it’s going to be the filmmakers themselves who make or break Atmos by how effectively it’s used.  Exhibitors will invest in the new equipment either because someone else is paying for it or because the Dolby Atmos audience experience is going to sell more tickets for them.  It’s really that simple.  In 1977, thousands of theatres installed Dolby Stereo equipment so they could play “Star Wars” and reap the box office benefits, even though the technology was introduced two years earlier. 

Another part of Dolby’s challenge is to demonstrate that the difference in audience experience between a film presented in the now standard 5.1 mix and Atmos is as dramatic as the difference between mono and stereo or two channel stereo and 5.1 surround.  For that, Dolby will probably need several “killer app” releases that really show off their technology to audiences and exhibitors alike.  But once they reach critical mass in terms of the number of movies using this technology and the number of screens around the world that have it installed, filmmakers will have yet another powerful storytelling tool to create immersive experiences for audiences.

By Gordon Meyer
P3GizmoGuy@gmail.com

Last night my alma mater, the USC School of Cinematic Arts, hosted an evening with Brett Ratner for current students and alumni.  I first met Brett probably ten years ago at BookExpo America where he was promoting his photography book.  As I recall, Brett had one of those photo booth machines in his home that would take a quartet of pictures of whoever was sitting in the booth and process them while you wait.  The book was a collection of probably over a hundred of the photo strips taken in his home and consisting of a who’s who of Hollywood. 

At the time we met, I was producing and hosting a live talk show at ArcLight Hollywood called “Hollywood’s Master Storytellers” and Brett graciously accepted my invitation to talk about the making of “Rush Hour.”  He regaled our audience with great behind the scenes stories about working with Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker as well as some very inspiring insights about the business.  We both had such a good time that we brought him back a few years later to talk for a DVD launch event promoting “After the Sunset.”

It had been a few years since I last saw Brett, but since I remembered how good he was in front of an audience, I happily sent in my RSVP for the event.  While he and the evening’s host Jeremy Kagan touched on a lot of subjects, the underlying theme always came back to what I call the “Three Ps: Passion, Persistence and Preparation.” 

Brett talked about how, at the age of eight, he not only knew 100% that he was going to go to film school when he graduated high school, he would specifically go to NYU because that’s where Martin Scorsese went.  No other school was an option for him.  Then he told the story of his admissions interview at NYU and how, because his grades were sub-par, the admissions officer refused to look at any of the films he brought to showcase his talent and essentially told him, “No way, Jose.”

But when Brett’s passionate about something, he doesn’t take “No” for an answer.  He immediately made his way to the Dean’s office and insisted on seeing him right away, “as a matter of life or death.” When the Dean agreed to see him, whatever Brett said worked because a few weeks later, he received a letter of acceptance from the NYU Film School.  Persistence and passion paid off.  And it wouldn’t be the first time for Brett as he illustrated with several more anecdotes.

Then there was the issue of Preparation.  As Brett said several times, “Luck is when opportunity meets preparation.”  When he graduated from NYU, although he had the opportunity to start directing features right away, albeit low budget ones, instead he focused on honing his craft as a cinematic storyteller by making music videos, each one telling a story with a beginning, middle and end.  Only when he had enough of those under his belt to feel confident in his filmmaking skills did he tackle features. 

When he took on directing the feature “Family Man, he passionately wanted Nicolas Cage to star.  So he did his homework by first finding out about some of Cage’s passions and making sure they were incorporated into the screenplay and then identifying key scenes in the screenplay and giving Cage a DVD with scenes from movies like “Kramer vs. Kramer” to illustrate the tone he wanted.  Those two tactics are what ultimately sold Cage on making a film that so many industry wags were sure he would pass on.

Yes, these stories and the others Brett told were both informative and inspiring.  But at the end of the evening, what I really came away with was how critical a role that passion plays in our business.  Brett often commented on the number of his NYU classmates who were much more talented than he was.  But he loves what he does so much that when he really wants something, he won’t let someone telling him “no” stand in his way and he does his homework so that when opportunity knocks, he’s ready.

His passion was a very human reminder of why I’m in this business and his stories of persistence and preparation vivid reminders of what it takes to make it.  Thank you Brett.  I hope we’ll work together very soon.

By Gordon Meyer
P3GizmoGuy@gmail.com

A colleague of mine is in San Francisco this weekend for a special feature of the San Francisco Silent Film Festival and I wish I were there with him.  It’s the North American Premiere of French filmmaker Abel Gance’s restored 1927 masterpiece “Napoleon.”  I first learned about “Napoleon” perusing the Cinema articles in my family’s Encyclopedia Britannica way back in the day.  It was lauded as a brilliant film that had been lost over the years, a ghost of cinema past.

But the film wasn’t quite as lost as many had thought.  Since its original 1927 release, the film has been cut and recut several times, with running times ranging from Gance’s “definitive” nine hour, twenty two minute version to MGM’s 1929 American version that ran an hour and fifty one minutes, with an even more truncated version running under an hour that came out for home projection in 1935.  Film historian Kevin Brownlow literally spent decades tracking down prints and missing footage while Gance was still alive and in 1981, with backing from Francis Coppola, presented a four hour version that played at Radio City Music Hall in New York and the Shrine here in Los Angeles accompanied by a live sixty piece orchestra with a score composed and conducted by Carmine Coppola.  This is the version I saw (appropriately enough on Bastille Day) with Coppola himself sitting a few feet in front of me in a balcony aisle.

So why is this 85 year old film so important to contemporary filmmakers?  It’s because, as the recent success of “The Artist” reminded everyone, that silent films are, in many ways, offer a very pure cinematic experience.  They tell their stories almost exclusively through pictures (and a handful of title and dialog cards).

Gance was a pioneer.  He put his cameras on horseback, swung them from balconies and generally moved them in all sorts of innovative ways.  While a lot of contemporary filmmakers use complex camera moves as a form of cinematic pyrotechnics that seems more about calling attention to itself than engaging audiences in the story, to me, Gance’s innovative camera work added a totally appropriate kinetic energy to the film.

But it’s the last 20 minutes of the film where he pulled out all the visual stops.  Suddenly, the curtains part even more as two additional screens are revealed using Gance’s three-screen Polyvision technique to tell the remainder of the story.  Sometimes, Gance used the three screens to show one extremely wide image (roughly a 4:1 aspect ratio), foreshadowing Cinerama by almost 30 years.  And sometimes he presented a trio of complementary images, again foreshadowing the kind of split screen techniques that began to be used in the 1960s.

For the lucky audience members who managed to snag tickets, Abel Gance’s “Napoleon” offers one of the most powerful and moving examples of pure cinema I have ever seen.  Its influence will continue to be felt for generations to come.  Reportedly a digital restoration is in the works.  Although I still have a laserdisc copy of the 1981 restoration, I can’t wait to see this more complete version, whether on a big screen with a live orchestra as I did over 30 years ago, or on a Blu-ray disc at home.  It’s a remarkable film from which contemporary filmmakers can still learn valuable lessons in the art of visual storytelling.

By Gordon Meyer
P3GizmoGuy@gmail.com

Earlier this week, I attended a meeting of the International 3D Society at RealD’s screening room in Beverly Hills to catch a screening of the Sand & Sandal epic “Immortals,” which I had missed during its initial theatrical run. 

Considering who was hosting the event, I erroneously assumed that “Immortals” was shot in native stereoscopic 3D to begin with.  I was wrong.  Although that was the original plan, it seems that the additional logistics involved in shooting 3D native were slowing down production considerably and the film’s director, Tarsem Singh Dandwar, likes to shoot fast.  After a few days of shooting with 3D rigs, the delays led to the decision to abandon the 3D rigs, shoot conventionally and then convert.

While the conversion was farmed out to several companies, the lion’s share was done by Prime Focus World’s facilities in Hollywood and Mumbai.  As an aside, this is the same company that handled the 3D conversion for “Star Wars Episode 1” that Lucasfilm and Fox released theatrically in February. 

The discussion following the screening provided fascinating insights into the art and craft of 3D conversion.  In spite of the fact that many home 3D flat panel displays offer real time 2D to 3D conversion, as do at least three Blu-ray player programs for PCs that I’m aware of, there’s a lot more to doing a successful conversion than simply applying a computer algorithm to automatically simulate a stereoscopic image.

For many, it begins with the decision as to whether to do a “two eye” or “one eye” conversion.  With the latter, the digital technicians treat the existing footage as the left eye image and then extrapolate what would have been captured by the camera representing the right eye.  For “two eye” conversions, the original footage is considered a composite center image (kind of like a ghost center audio channel when listening to two speaker stereo) and the technicians then extrapolate both left and right images from that center image, generally resulting in a more realistic final result.  Whether it’s a single eye or dual eye conversion, background imagery that would otherwise be obscured by objects in the frame needs to be painted in, frame by frame.

One of the things that panelists from Prime Focus spoke of with pride was the way they digitally sculpted objects (especially characters) to give them dimensionality.  I’ve seen a number of 3D conversions that reminded me of the old View Master slides we used to play with as kids.  Sure, there was depth, but it was basically a series of flat images floating in front of each other.  Digital sculpting technologies mean that, when you’re looking at a human face, for example, the stereoscopic image reveals the natural contours of the face. 

Using just these examples, is it any wonder that 3D conversion can cost as $100,000 per minute or even more?  For “Immortals,” making an educated guess using industry standard figures, that conversion added at least $11 million to the cost of making the film.  Mind you, overall, the conversion was very well done, but mightn’t have looked and felt better to audiences had it been shot stereoscopically to begin with?

If you talk to 3D heavyweights like Jim Cameron or Michael Bay, there’s no question.  If you’re going to present a movie in 3D, it’s always better to shoot it that way to begin with.  But then you have filmmakers like Tarsem Singh and Tim Burton who shoot in 2D and then convert because they believe they have more flexibility with 2D cameras than with often cumbersome 3D rigs that have to accommodate two cameras.   

During the post screening milling about in the lobby that so often accompanies these events, I casually polled several of the 3D experts present about Singh’s experience.  They pretty much confirmed what I suspected to begin with. While there are more moving parts involved in 3D production than 2D, with proper preparation and planning, including a 3D savvy camera crew and seasoned stereographer, it’s absolutely possible to do a shoot in 3D almost as quickly as 2D. For some reason, I flashed back to my childhood and my time as a Boy Scout.  Seems their motto is just as valuable now: “Be prepared.”

By Gordon Meyer
P3GizmoGuy@gmail.com

A few months ago, I had a meeting with a colleague where we discussed an upcoming project of his – a high profile music event that would pay tribute to an iconic performer.  The details of this event are irrelevant for purposes of this column.  What is important is that, though my colleague was originally envisioning this event as a broadcast special, I immediately saw something much bigger.

“If it was my show,” I told him, “I’d shoot it in ways to future proof it because you’ve got evergreen content that’s going to be in demand for decades.”  My recommendation was to use 4K 3D rigs to capture this concert and include a theatrical release for one version.

Yep, here’s your friendly neighborhood Gizmo Guy touting the benefits of 3D again, even though stereoscopic features are still more the exception than the norm.

Let’s take a moment to enter our time machine and travel back to the mid-1950s, when color TV was in its pre-infancy.  Everyone knew the technology was being developed and would eventually hit the market, but the FCC had yet to approve a standard.

Meanwhile, off in a mythical realm called Burbank, there was a visionary wizard who had made a career out of identifying exciting new trends and making sure he was ahead of the curve.  If you haven’t guessed already, I’m talking about Walt Disney, who at the time was simultaneously embracing two future trends – television and theme parks.  While most of the industry perceived television as a threat, Walt saw it as a powerful promotional and branding tool and became the first major studio to embrace the new medium.

His “Disneyland” anthology series played to top ratings at two networks for decades, airing a mix of original programming and serialized theatrical features.  Even though there was only black and white broadcasting when the show first went on the air, Walt insisted in filming all his original programming in color to future proof his content.  Smart move, Walt!  When the FCC approved RCA’s technology as the national standard for color television, NBC (then owned by RCA) aggressively pushed to get high profile color shows on the air so there would be content for people to watch in color.  Since Walt had already filmed all the “Disneyland” shows in color, when the time came for him to move to NBC, he was well prepared with a library of proven, popular entertainment already in the new format.

Let’s come back to 2012.  High def has finally become the standard for all broadcast networks and many of the cable networks.  Now, 3D is in that transition stage moving from novelty to norm.  While we’re still very much still in Learning Curve Mode on the creation of quality 3D content (more on that in an upcoming column), my crystal ball indicates that just as color and multichannel sound went from novelties and event releases to standard filmmaking tools, it’s just a matter of time before 3D gets to that point as well.

I reminded my colleague that, if you shoot a 3D event properly, you already have high quality 2D footage that you can use in just about all media.  Further, thanks to constant advancements in technology, it won’t cost that much more to shoot in 3D and edit in 3D as it does in 2D.  He called my bluff on that and challenged me to secure bids for his project.  While I got a broad range of prices from qualified production houses, the ones on my short list gave me pre-negotiation prices that weren’t that much more than the producers were planning to spend to begin with. 

The 3D experts I spoke with told me that, if the show was shot right, adding a stereoscopic component to the post process would probably add less than 20% to the post budget.  Now, for just a modest bump in the below the line budget, we’ll have a show that can go out theatrically in 2D and the more lucrative 3D, on 3D Blu-ray, on one of the dedicated 3D cable networks and much, much more.  Meanwhile, you still have all the distribution options that a 2D shoot would enable.

What do you think Walt would do?

At this year’s Sundance Film Festival, I had an unexpected encounter with the representatives from Timberland, one of my favorite brands. While they had a room filled with their new clothing line, their conversation was all about saving the planet. As soon as I walked through the door, a sales rep asked me to make a pledge about making an environmental impact, while an energized spokesperson proclaimed Timberland as a very socially responsible company with the credo: “Every little bit makes a difference.” I immediately thought "Wow!” and proceeded to do my part. For every pledge Timberline received at Sundance 2012, the company planted a tree — and the world can be a much better place if we all pitch in. 

P3 Update’s recent decision to go completely digital certainly supports this endeavor. In fact, since you’re reading this right now, you’re already aware of the advantages of accessing data on your computer, tablet, iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch, BlackBerry or Android mobile devices. There’s really no need to destroy trees — we no longer need to print over 30,000 copies and mail them all over the world. And I’m sure you’ll agree that not only is digital data easy to read, it’s a new form of business communication and social interaction. For instance, if you like a product or service in this issue and want to learn more about it, just click on it and you’ll go directly to the manufacturer or service company Website where you will find out everything you need to know about their offerings. This protocol is the way of the future and the future is now.

This has been an important transition for P3 Update, and we are thrilled to get this first fully digital issue to our readers — and what an issue it is. In the February 2012 issue, you’ll find stories on 3D production and postproduction, including a look at the Cameron/Pace Group’s latest 3D effort, Director Wim Wenders’ take on his first 3D film Pina, and an understanding of the 3D process by Stereographer and 3D Artist Brian Gardner, an architect behind the art of stereoscopy. Spotlights in this issue include Western Canada and San Diego, Calif. as well as Cinematographer Jerzy Zielinski, ASC who discusses his latest film Private Peaceful. Also, be sure to read up on the filmmakers and service companies that recently ventured to Park City, Utah for the 2012 Sundance and Slamdance film festivals. 

I really hope you enjoy reading this new digital issue of P3 Update. Please email it to your friends or let them know about it through social networks. You can invite them to join the P3 Update community and subscribe to the magazine for free at www.p3update.com.

    Universal Studios Hollywood has become the most exciting tourist attraction in Los Angeles. And there was a big announcement that will bring even more excitement to the landmark studio in the New Year.
    The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, which debuted at the Universal Orlando resort two years ago, is coming to Hollywood. The attraction will be a joint venture of Warner Bros. Entertainment and Universal Parks and Resorts. "The announcement of our partnership with Universal to bring The Wizarding World of Harry Potter to Hollywood and expand what already exists in Orlando is probably the best gift we could give the legions of Harry Potter fans worldwide," said Barry Meyer, chairman and CEO of Warner Bros. "Everyone involved with this projects is committed to continuing the enchantment of J.K. Rowling's masterful books as they were brought to life on screen in our eight films and dedicated to extending the magic of the experience for generations of fans to come."
    The big news was made over a Butterbeer toast in front of the Globe Theatre at Universal. Lots of VIPs and studios executives were on hand to raise their mugs with non-alcoholic Butterbeer to drink in celebration.
   On hand were California Gov. Jerry Brown, and actors James Phelps and Oliver Phelps who played Fred and George Weasley in the Harry Potter film series. Kids dressed as Hogwarts students also cheered.
    Ron Meyer, president and COO of Universal Studios said, "This is an incredible moment for Universal Studios and the millions of guests who visit our theme parks." Joining Meyer at the big announcement were Larry Kurzweil, president Universal Studios Hollywood, and Tom Williams, CEO-chairman of Universal Parks and Resorts.
#

By Gordon Meyer
P3GizmoGuy@gmail.com

Not surprisingly, I spent a lot of time at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show looking at the latest and greatest in flat screen displays.  Last year, we saw prototypes of the first 4K home displays and I gave the opinion that, given the size of most flat screens in the home, not only is a 4K display overkill, I also expressed skepticism that very few people would be able to see any kind of difference, let alone enough of a difference to justify the higher cost of 4K technologies, especially when most digital cinema projectors use 2K technology on screens a hundred times the size of a large home display.

While I’m still skeptical, some of what I saw this year leads me to soften my stand.  First of all, let’s define exactly the difference between 4K, HD and 2K DCP.  For those not familiar with the language, digital image resolution is defined by a grid that’s X number of pixels (i.e. “picture elements”) high by X number of pixels wide.  HD images measure 1920 pixels wide by 1080 pixels high. Using television terms, that translates into 1080 horizontal lines of resolution – six times the 720 x 480 resolution of DVDs.  4K Digital Cinema’s 2160 wide x 3996 high image yields an image with roughly four times the resolution of HD.

In terms of the audience experience, using film terms, VHS is roughly the equivalent of Super 8mm; DVD is comparable to 16mm; Blu-ray akin to 35mm and 4K is like 65/70mm.  The more pixels you have, the more detail becomes visible to the naked eye and the fewer artifacts you’re likely to see. For film, those artifacts take the form of grain.  With digital, it’s being able to see the pixels, something that’s pretty easy to see with consumer digital projectors if you sit close enough to the screen.

At CES this year, JVC Professional Products showed off the GY-HMQ10, a $5,000 palm sized 4K camcorder capable of shooting 3840 x 2180 resolution in 24p, 50p and 60p frame rates (strangely no 30p option).  The camera can store up to 2 hours of footage on a 32GB SDHD card, according to JVC’s posted specs.

On the display side, a number of exhibitors, including Panasonic, Toshiba and Vizio, showed off 4K and the even higher resolution “Ultra HDTV” displays capable of handling resolutions up to 7680 x 4320, even higher than standard 4K Digital Cinema and according to NHK Science and Technology Research, the Japanese R&D think tank that developed UHDTV, this gives the new format roughly 16 times the resolution of standard 1080p HDTV. 

However one clear benefit of these new 4K displays is visible when it comes to 3D using RealD compatible passive displays. As I’ve said before, one of the trade-offs of passive vs. active display technologies is that the passive displays have to essentially cut the horizontal resolution in half so that, instead of the full 1080 line images each eye would see with active shutter systems, with a passive display, each eye only gets 540 lines.  While the further back you sit from the display the less noticeable this drop in resolution becomes, it is a quality compromise. 

Since the new 4K displays start with a much higher resolution to begin with, even passive displays enable viewers to enjoy close to 2,000 lines per eye.  And yes, since there has yet to be any native 4K content available for home viewing, until that happens, these sets have built-in upscaling to simulate 4K resolution.

Now we have a classic “chicken and egg” situation as there has yet to be any native 4K, much less UHDTV content available to run on these higher resolution displays.  One exhibitor had a side by side comparison of their 4K and 1080p displays where there was clearly more detail visible on the former. But until I can see either a side by side comparison using 1080p and 4K commercial Blu-ray discs, I’m still skeptical as to how much of a difference the average Joe will be able to see, even on home displays as large as 80” or more.

Stay tuned!