CompuServe Messages

We just finished some shots for a major motion picture using 3DS. We rendered at 972×486. We got away with that because it was supposed to be "virtual reality" and so in fact they wanted to introduce "glitches" so that people would not be confused with "reality". Even at that low res it took a p90 with 192 megs of ram aprox between 20 to 30 min/frame. Considering that the more modest sequences had 700 frames, well, you do the math… I would say that film res is about as subjective as "definition". It has to do with comparisons more than absolutes. In other words, to the viewer a scene shot in 16mm or 35mm will look the same if it is lit properly taking into account contrast ratios and the such. I know I am not referring to a scientifically measured "granularity" but rather to a real world subjective appreciation. I think that the fact that we did this job for the big screen at a more competitive price with equivalent results as if we had use Silicon Graphics-Alias-Wavefront technology shows that PC's are in the border of becoming a familiar tool for the film industry. The crucial step on this process I think is the digital-analog transfer where pixel interpolation and other techniques effectibly double the "resolution" (read -appearance) of the image. ———————- Now for the very low budget homemade pixel-interpolation here goes a tip. Place a filter such as ROSCOE 3040 (powder frost) or LEE 253 (Hampshire frost) against your screen (I assume you have at least a 17 or 21 inch monitor!) and shoot the image frame by frame with a 16mm camera. The filters will diffuse the pixels (interpolation!) just enough so that they will not be visible while at the same time lowering the contrast of the image. The result is very acceptable and it does not have that horrible "video to film transfer look. For correct exposure of a video monitor image check an American Cinematographer manual and use a spot meter to establish your contrast zones. Thanks Alan for your thorough technical responses. Arturo