Rave Previews for Professors' Spring Break

Petry System Family Wision USA


[Sesquatercet presents ARCHAEODUS: Jehovah in Eden]

in conjunction with


projects 'lambhorn' and NEMO

presents


Wision--Sesquatercet USA productions

a production web-site for tomorrows' Sci4fi science-hypercubed adventure
3DDV stereo'eyes'ed 3.5-D, HDDV, and HDD-IMAX movie-versions

Mr. Raymond Kenneth Petry, Strategic Director


Notes on high definition digital video

[See also: the mechanics of screenwriting; writing log lines]

The scientific mindset jumps straight to the implementation
of HDDV-camera technology breakthroughs...corroborating and
proliferating rapid lowcost high quality channel throughput

The art of screenwriting, feature movies, cinerama theatric, home theater, television, sitcoms, dramas, movies of the week, blockbusters, superblockbusters, festival shorts, -now new interactive-DVD games, and, computer-based live-action-staged virtual-reality multi-player team-games (cf Holodeck);- its art, technology, science, form, ... rapidly clarifying and developing as faster digital computers and Internet and higher definition cameras and projectors bring collaboration to instantaneously bear on all phases, from public interest to idea to concept to research to treatment to plot to story to script to review to pitch, agents, options, sales, to producer to market analysis to budget to investors to coproduction to storyboard to production line script to schedule to directors, casts, crews, to logistics, locations, settings, sets, properties, to cameras, units, blocking, shooting, to dailies (now "seconds") to editing (and "mixing"), cgi computer-generated imagery, sound, music, rights, synchronization, to mastering to copies to promotions, trailers, to distribution to theaters, syndicates, broadcasters, to previews to first runs to commercial debuts to investor returns, public opinion, world-wide release, director versions, DVD rentals, sales; ... is full cycle and a web-ful of information:

[From my private-published notes of recent years 2001-2012]

Discussion of the new generation all-digital movie technology:

  • HDDV High Definition Digital Video (35mm eqv.)
  • HDTV (digital) High Definition Television (1920×1080px)
  • 3DDV (stereo'eyes'ed) 3-D Digital Video (triple-definition)
  • ultrasharp ultrascreen (3x3 interpolated treble-thread gemming)
  • HDD-IMAX Hi-Def Digital IMAX® (70mm sideload 15 perf. eqv.)
  • CMOS vs. CCD camera; RGBG vs. RGB vs. triple-layered RGB
  • digital compression (SPIHT, Rebased, DCT, on-pixel, motion)

    Production, equipment, cameras, components, technique, technologies. We also discuss the relations of and to enhanced, extended DVD.

    (IMAX® used generically here: full-eye-width 180°x135° large screen format; 16000×12000 = 192Mpx)


    Is HDDV-HDTV 1920×1080 really eqv. 35mm?

    Not quite: Maybe.

    Celluloid film has random grain, better approximating the visual response (finer resolution pixels at slower rates) while HDDV being hardware has fixed pixel-placements, even if the same overall density! The result is, the digital HDDV lacks the inter-pixel estimation needed at the Nyquist frequency: i.e. at max-freq. sine-wave looks like a square wave, but its cosine looks like hogwash (literally gray wash-out: pixel-to-pixel averaged bland gray).

    NB. Interpixel estimation is still 1-pixel wide, but by reducing both sine and cosine to equal-contrast sesquipixels, each half-washed, halves the "wow" blur-oscillation at slow image-motion,-- eliminating "pixel-jerky, microsoft hop, dove-headed moon-walking).

    CAMERA RULE #1. PERPETUAL MOTION:

    Just slightly: It needs 0.5 pixel/frame-shuttered to take-up the inter-pixel estimation, and that's (0.5 pixel/1080 hor.line)*(30/sec) = 1 frame.height/72 sec, virtually unnoticeable -- or (0.5 pixel/1920 vert.line)*(30/sec) = 1 frame.width/128 sec, also virtually imperceptible. And it can always adjust the direction back down;--

    CAMERA RULE #2. ON THE DIAGONAL SLOPE:

    Perpetual motion either HDDV-diagonal slope of ±29.4 ° is about best-strategy for broadening utilizable inter-pixel estimation interleaving over various glide rates ... Better would be 24.3° for square pixels as that allows the horizontal the most speed variability 0.45 to 1.6, while maintaining the inter-pixel distance at least 0.5 of horizontal or vertical,-- but that's fine tuning on a course range, --and as speed increases, pixel fill is less noticed;--.

    CAMERA RULE #3. FIGURE INFINITY [LEFT-SIDEWAYS-8]:

    The overall busy optimal perpetual motion strategy, is the inphase second Lissajous: The image is thus always scanning horizontally or vertically, nearer level,- while filling-in the intersticial pixels continually ... (descending shallow might be preferred, like reading);--

    CAMERA RULE #3.5/#4 ... OR FOLLOW A SUBJECT LINE:

    Off-horizontal, a crossing street, a crossing roof line, a crossing shirt pattern, a gliding bird, ...

    Off-vertical, a tapering column (not by parallax), a leaning ladder, a palm tree ...

    RELATED FUTURE ITEMS:

    The Bayer pattern RGBG pickup gives double resolution for green, -which is also primary luminance,- and gets at the first-order higher resolution, in motion, by the green pixels being small: being interspersed with red and blue pixels.

    Likewise a Bayer pattern RGBG display effects the higher resolution, for motion.

    Technologically, inter-pixel wash-out may be reduceable in white using the 2-D-adjacent colors, for better display resolution.

    "Moonwalking WOW" can be computationally reduced by pre-loading adjacent pixels to about 60% (requiring a 2× higher "nyquist frequency-resolution" camera; See Sesquipixels), but which thereby reduces maximum resolution similarly (where that is requisite). But, Displayed resolution can be re-improved on the receiving end by line-doubling computing inter-line sub-pixels (I've suggested treble-thread gemming) allowing larger screens without jagged stairstepping:--

    Total detail-of-interest resolution is fairly met by 1920×1080, but visual accuity (sharpness) is highly desireable.

    [less resolution at busier color, etc. ... visual bandwidth]


    I can do it in, 3 cameras -- ANGLE, ANGLE, ANGLE:

    When shooting minimal (not small) budget HDDV, --cameras and tape being inexpensive:--

  • It takes 2 cameras to capture the flow uninterrupted of going-to and coming-from actions;
  • It takes 2 cameras to capture the uninterrupted exchange of a (romantic) dialog duet.

    This saves takes, retakes, edits, actor mindchop, Director brainstorms ... (giving it all to the Editor, in a soundproof room).

  • With 3 cameras, It lets you splice CU-going, CU-coming, and a long-shot or high-shot;
  • Or, gives you a dolly alternating with two points-of-no-return, even one passed, one not;
  • Or, two dollies alternating, and a point-of-no-return passed or-not;
  • Or, reduces long walks to subsequences of successive breaks, CU-angles, without a dolly,--

    And by then the distance covered requires a new floor or track set-up anyway....

    As the camera can shoot wide-angle, other cameras must be placed either behind visual blinds, corners, obstructions, or angles greater than about 30 degrees (A 1920×1080 camera takes-in 32° at 1 arcmin. or about half that, 15° at sharpest ocular resolution, front row seating). Be watchful of mirror reflections in windows, eyeglasses, computer screens, dress medals, even shiny white dry-erase boards, wristwatches, ... -more often trouble for the lighting.

    CAMERA RULE #5. ODD NUMBER OF CAMERAS IN A CIRCLE:

    Generally, cameras circling an object can better avoid sighting each other if they sit in odd-sectors (the wide-angle between any two remains constant for the third moving on the circumference), an odd number of cameras; E.g. An isosceles triangular array of cameras might capture a lecturer at a podium head-turning left-and-right, and equally the audience, without wasting actor time and set-up, up to 60° freedom each if equilaterally (about twice the individual HDDV camera view). And in a camera emergency the odd camera is a hot spare, allowing the tightest shooting schedule to continue.

    More specifically a multitude of cameras (and therefor odd numbers are encouraged but no object), each behind a screen such as a dark-transparent facet on a panel or piece of equipment, can capture numerous POV-angles as-if additional imaginary actors up-close (participant voyeurs), or as-if important things also looked-at, or as-if more active head-turning in watching, or even as-if multitudes in audience ... the alter-ego effect, played on the audience (even as viewed by a single audient) all watching the Agonists, together ... and can be alternated freely from the edit console, for a very live feel.


    3DDV now: Why delay the production end?!

    I propose we shoot in binocular HDDV cameras; We can do this much today, and stereo'eyes'ing display technologies will catch up and reformat older movies, meanwhile todays' movies will be forward-compatible 3DDV-future-ready. [See also discussion of double-HDDV resolution]

    Near-future display technologies include:

    1. HDTV-compatible sexichrome, 6-color = 2 eyes × 3-color/eye: It'll mean HDTV's made with either RGBOTM (red, green, blue, orange, turquoise, magenta) or polarised RGBrgb (red, green, blue, 90°-polarized, red, green, blue)... Viewers will wear clear-white safety-goggles, 3-colors filtered-out per eye (* letting the other 3-colors, and natural-blend room-colors, in). In the "off" mode, the 6-colors are more, higher, flat-only resolution, utilizable for line-doubling, etc.

    * ('Safety'--so that viewers don't poke an eye, brushing away 3-D whatevers seeming near them showing too-CU.)

    * (4-color RGBT [red, green, blue, turquoise] or RGBY [red, green, blue, yellow], as on some contemporary higher-resolution cameras, would suffice a small-range 3D because red and blue are lower spatial density, but without CU.)

    2. Flood-focused, utilizing directional pixels, micro-Fresnel-parabolic-flex-mirrors, continuously adjustable, to micro-steer the light. The control signal is fairly mundane, as it is basically a parabolic tilt: a simple voltage ladder supplies each micro-mirror a slightly different tilt coefficient, while bias steers the whole and the end-to-end value is the total depth of focus... the signal source is Raster-Contour-Scan, like TV today but with the depth-of-focus added signal on each object, which the receiver recomputes to check (mask-out) image overlap... Signal-bandwidth is small, giving preference to the nearer image, as edges of the farther image are seen by one-eye first (most adjacently) then by both at some image distance from the nearer: that distance allows for low bandwidth...

    (I scripted all my screenplays for digital 3D large format, since beginning ca 1996.)

    2010Q4 UPDATE:

    The recent advent of the glut of 3D-IMAX-movies (we need more IMAX-theaters), calls up a few more improvements needed:


    HDDV DIGITAL VIDEO CAMERAS: CCD, CMOS: (ca 1996-2006)

    [This is a contemporary-technology article and may be updated-or-outdated]

    CMOS HD camera technology now matches and surpasses CCD with palm-size 2056x1544 30 fps (var.) and small-package 2532x1728 240 fps (max.). Cost-effectiveness opens the door for Independent HDDV feature production: Keep your DVD for shooting locations and auditions, and skip to large theater HD-DVD format now for--

  • Low set-up cost;
  • Low power;
  • One-chip circuitry.
  • Cameras mount inside prop's, looking out;
  • Multiple more simultaneous angles;
  • Fewer second-angle takes: more editing among co-takes;
  • 3-D binocular pairs;

    You'll be putting more of your investment in cgi (computer generated imagery) because you can; and it uses your same superfast PC's.

    CMOS cameras come (variously) with compression software (e.g. SPIHT wavelet future-compatible with higher resolution; truncatable, scalable: up the data rate.)

    Cameras are available B&W or RGBG Bayer-pattern color like contemporary CMOS still-cameras. (RGBG total resolution is half in high-sensitivity green, quarter in red and blue, but 4:3 aspect holds 33% more pixels than 16:9.) Lens is typically c-mount or cs-mount (which can take an adapter for either c-/cs-mount; c- can't do cs-).

    Programmable cameras fit in your hand and look like a lens unit attaching a small black box and a plug,-- programmed by loading cropping parameters into its registers; faster 500-4000 fps at lower resolution. CMOS electronics contains its coordinate circuitry on the same one chip, and runs on one power voltage (5V ±10% 2.5W).

    Cable is CameraLink™ or RS-644 serial or USB 2.0 or IEEE 1394 "Fire Wire". (USB 2.0 can handle HDDV 1920×1080 at 24 fps.)

    Future models, we expect will use: 1) enhanced controllable zoom lenses; anamorphic lenses (to get that 33% T&B cropped into the 16:9 format, from 4:3 camera chips); quickrelease chromatic lens filters from your gadget toolcase; 2) built-in on-chip SPIHT compression to lower your cable data rate.

    CAMERAS FOR CINEMA, CINERAMA, HDD-IMAX, 3DDV, HDDV-HDTV: (1Mpx and up; 1920×1080 ~ 2.1Mpx)

    (NB. nondefinitive sampling-as-found since 1996, cameras, features, formats, models, variants, upgrades; no attempt to compare them; estimated resolution is column-summarized as-for 16:9 aspect, as half-total for RGBG, RGB)

    Sony (typ. 3-CCD; new 3-CMOS)

  • . . . . . . . HDC-300 HD
  • . . . . . . . HDW-700 HDTV
  • . . . . . . . HDW-700A HDTV camcorder ($75K 1999?)
  • . . . . . . . HDW-730 camcorder
  • . . . . . . . HDW 750
  • 2.2Mpx HDW-F900 Cine Alta HD Camcorder (1080p24/25/30/...) (FIT)
  • . . . . . . . HDW-F900R Cine Alta (add: accessory boards: timelapse, image-inv., 3-2-pulldown; HD-SDI-out, 12b-DSP, video cache)
  • . . . . . . . HDC-930 HD camera systems
  • . . . . . . . HDT 950 3-T (also has 24 fps cinema)
  • . . . . . . . HDW F950 SRW1 Cine Alta 4:4:4 HD Cam SR package (upgraded software: timelapse, var. framerate)
  • . . . . . . . HDC F950 Cine Alta
  • 2.2Mpx HDC-1000 multiformat HDCAM 3-CCD 2/3-in. 1080/50i/59.94/60i/23.976p/24/25/30p/60p 1920×1080 14-bit
  • 2.2Mpx HDC-1500 multiformat HDCAM 3-CCD 2/3-in. 1080/50i/59.94/60i/23.976p/24/25/30p/60p 1920×1080 14-bit
  • 2.1Mpx F23 CineAlta 1920x1080 RGB 4:4:4 23.98p/24p/25p/29.97p/50p/i/59.94p/i 1-60p(4:2:2)-crank (2007Q2)
  • 1.2Mpx HDR-FX1 HDV 1080i Handycam® Camcorder (1440×1080) 1/3-in. 1.12Mpx Advanced HAD™ ($3.7K)
  • 3.~Mpx HDR-HC1/HDR-HC1E PAL CMOS HDV 1080i Ultra-compact Handycam® camcorder ($1.5K)
  • 2.~Mpx HDR-HC3 ClearVid™ CMOS HDV 1080i Handycam® Camcorder dual-capture ($1.7K)
  • 1.2Mpx HVR-A1U/-A1E PAL/-A1P HDV Camcorder (CMOS 4:3 1440×810 1080i, dual-capture 3Mpx-still) ($2.5K 2005)
  • . . . . . . . HVR-V1E (Euro) HDV Camcorder 3-CMOS ClearVid™ 4×scan slow-record (2006?)
  • 1.5Mpx HVR-Z1U HDV Camcorder 3-CCD 1/3-in. Super HAD 1080iTM 50/60 PAL/NTSC (2005)
  • 1.5Mpx PDW-F330 XDCAM HD Camcorder 1/2-in. 3-CCD 24 fps ($17K-lens 2005)
  • 1.5Mpx PDW-F330 XDCAM HD format Camcorder (2006)
  • 1.5Mpx PDW-F350 XDCAM HD Camcorder 1/2-in. 3-CCD 4-(1)-60 fps ($26K-lens 2006)
  • . . . . . . . HDC-3300 3×HD-superslowmotion Camera System 1920×1080i180/i150 (3×speed) ($270K 2006)
  • . . . . . . . HDR-UX1 Handycam® camcorder ClearVid™ CMOS 1080i AVCHD™ 8cm-DVD MPEG-4/H.264 Dolby 5.1 ($1.4K 2006Q4)
  • . . . . . . . HDR-SR1 Handycam® camcorder ClearVid™ CMOS 1080i AVCHD™ 30GB-HD MPEG-4/H.264 Dolby 5.1 ($1.5K 2006Q4)
  • 1.0Mpx HVR-V1U HDV Camcorder 24p 920×1080→1440×60i 3-CMOS 1/4-in. ClearVid™ 20×zoom 2-XLR-in ($4.8K 2006Q4)

    Panasonic (typ. 3-CCD)

  • 2.2Mpx AJ-HDC20A HD Camcorder
  • . . . . . . . AJ-HDC27 VariCam™ variable-frame HD
  • 2.2Mpx AK-HC930 HD (FIT) 1080i ($95K 2002)
  • . . . . . . . AG-HVX200 P2 Camcorder
  • . . . . . . . AG-HPX500 P2 HD Camcorder 2/3-in. 1080i/720p-60 32-formats 14-bit DSP 4-ch. audio (2007Q2)
  • . . . . . . . AJ-HPC2000 4:2:2 DVC Pro HD P2 Sports Camcorder 2/3-in. p 5×8GB cardslots ($27K 2007Q1)
  • . . . . . . . AJ-HPX2000 (ibidem; Brazil)
  • 1.0Mpx AJ-HDX900 DVC Pro HD Camcorder for digital cinema multiformat 2/3-in. ($27K 2006)
  • 1.0Mpx AK-HC1500G POV box camera 1080i (3 lbs.) ($20K 2006Q4)
  • . . . . . . . AG-HSC1U 1/4-in. 1440×1080i 16:9-ana. AVCHD™ MPEG-4/H.264 5.1 4GB-SDHC f/1.6-OIS ($2.1K 2007Q1)

    Hitachi (3-CCD)

  • 1.1Mpx SK-900 (IT)
  • 2.2Mpx SK-31B (IT) 1080i 1080/p24-opt. native scan 2/3-in.
  • 2.2Mpx SK-3010P (IT) multiformat HD-SDI handheld 1080i 24p-opt. native scan 2/3-in.
  • 2.2Mpx SK-3100P (IT) 1080i-opt. native scan 2/3-in.
  • 2.2Mpx SK-3300P (FIT) 1080i-opt. native scan 2/3-in.
  • 2.2Mpx SK-3300 (FIT) same, "Full-Body"
  • 2.2Mpx DK-H31 multipurpose HDTV Camera 1080i-opt. 2/3-in. with microlenses; small profile
  • 2.2Mpx DK-H31S HDTV Camera (rugged for air, robotic)

    Thomson/Philips [RCA] Grass Valley (3-CCD FT, some CMOS; multiformat 2/3-in. 16:9/4:3-letterbox 1920×1080×4sub)

  • . . . . . . . LDK 4000 Single-Format
  • 2.1Mpx LDK 6000 mk II Standard (1080i50/59.94) multiformat, multi-standard (3× HD-DPM+™)
  • 2.1Mpx LDK 6000 mk II WorldCam (adds 24 fps/23.98 Hz/2.5×slomo)
  • 2.1Mpx LDK 6000 HD multiformat, multi-standard (3× HD-DPM+™) 1080i
  • . . . . . . . LDK 6200 HD Super SloMo
  • . . . . . . . LDK 7000 HD Viper FilmStream™ (Cinematography CinemaScope 2.37:1, no need for anamorphic lenses; 10-bit) 1080p
  • 2.4Mpx Infinity™ Series HD R/C Camcorder Xensium-CMOS 2/3-in. 1920×1080i50/60 35GB-disk/Flash-RAM ($26K 2007Q2)
  • . . . . . . . LDK 8000 HD camera 1080p50/p60 14-b/24-b dual-link-HD-SDI supernative all formats ($117K 2006Q4)

    Ikegami (var. 3-CCD/2-CCD/3-CMOS)

  • . . . . . . . HDK-75EX 1080i
  • 2.2Mpx HDK-790E/79E (2/3-in. FIT [was IT?] 3-CCD) 1080i 12-bit multi-use
  • 2.2Mpx HDK-79EC (2/3-in. 3-CMOS) 1080i60/1080p24 multiformat 12-bit
  • 2.2Mpx HDK-79EC/HS High Speed
  • 2.2Mpx HDK-79EX (2/3-in. FIT [was IT?] 3-CCD) 1080i
  • 2.2Mpx HDK-790EX/79EX-II (FIT) (2/3-in. FIT 3-CCD) 1080i
  • 2.2Mpx HDK-79NA POV box (2/3-in. FIT/Frr 3-CCD) 1080i
  • 2.2Mpx HDL-20 ultra compact POV (IT 2-CCD) 1080i
  • 2.2Mpx HDL-37 ultra compact POV (2-CCD) 1080i
  • 2.2Mpx HDL-40 POV box 2/3-in. IT [or FIT] 3-CCD 1920×1080 1125i59.94 f1.4
  • 2.2Mpx HDL-40C POV box 2/3-in. 3-CMOS 1920×1080i59.94/1080p23.98 f1.4
  • . . . . . . . HDL-45 POV box 1080i 14-bit servo-filter (2007Q2)
  • . . . . . . . HDL-45P POV box 720p 14-bit servo-filter (2007Q2)
  • . . . . . . . HDL-50 multiformat gyro-aerial 3-CMOS 1080i/720p (2007Q2)
  • 2.1Mpx HDN-X10 EditCam HD Camcorder multiformat CMOS 1080i60/50/24p digital disk (2005)
  • . . . . . . . LK-33 3D-stereo camera (low res; checking for upgrade)

    JVC (typ. 3-CMOS-CCD)

  • 0.9Mpx "1.1Mpx" GY-HD110U ProHD Camcorder 1280×720p30/25/24
  • . . . . . . . GY-HD200U ProHD Camcorder (2005)
  • 0.9Mpx "1.1Mpx" GY-HD250U ProHD Camcorder 1280×720p60/50/30/24 1/3-in. HD-SDI genlock studio ($11K 2006Q4)
  • . . . . . . . GY-HD7000U ProHD Camcorder (2005)
  • 8.3Mpx UDTV™ (color; 3× PVS QuadHDTV™ 30 fps/i 3840×2160) (2002Q2)

    Canon (typ. 3-CCD 1/3-in. native 16x9)

  • 1.2Mpx XL H1 HDV Camcorder 1440×1080i (multi-cam syncable) ($9K? 2005)
  • 1.2Mpx XH A1 HDV Camcorder 1440×1080i60[50]/24/30 opt. stab. 20x zoom ($4K 2006Q4)
  • 1.2Mpx XH G1 HDV Camcorder 1440×1080i60[50]/24/30 opt. stab. 20x zoom HD SDI genlock timecode ($7K 2006Q4)
  • 1.0Mpx HV10 HDV Camcorder CMOS 1920×1440 RGB (3Mpx-5fps); opt. stab. var. 10x zoom autofocus; RC ($1.3K 2006Q3)

    Olympus (4-CCD 2/3-in. RGGB quad-stream HD-SDI or fiber 6G/s)

  • 8.3Mpx SH-880TM/SH-880TR Octavision Digital Cinema Camera System (3840×2160 1600 TV-lines 8:1 m-jpeg 20#) (tech demo)

    ARRIFLEX (film style digital)

  • 2.6Mpx D-20 film style digital camera (single Super35mm CMOS 3018×2200 RGBG 12-bit to-60 fps also HDTV formats)

    Red Digital (Cinema 4K camera, Large-Format)

  • 5.7Mpx RED ONE™ CMOS 4520×2540 RGBG Mysterium™ 4900×2580 2540p60/1080p/i/to-120 S35mm ($18K-lens 2006Q4)

    Kinetta (Digital Cinema)

  • 2.1Mpx Digital Cinema Camera (1920×1080 2/3-in. CMOS 24-60p PL-mount lens; 12-track 24b 96K audio) (2006Q4)

    Dalsa Semiconductor (CCD)

  • 2.1Mpx Pantera SA 2M30 Stop-Action Camera DS-25-02M30 (1920×1080 10-bit 30 fps 80MHz)
  • 1.4Mpx Pantera SA 2M30 Stop-Action Camera DS-22-02M30 (1600×1200 10-bit 34 fps 80MHz)
  • 0.6Mpx -150 fps- 1M150-SA Camera DS-21-001M0150 (1024×1024 160MHz)
  • 2.4Mpx FTF2020M Full Frame CCD 2048×2048 30fps

    SiliconImaging (CMOS 2056×1544 [1560] ~ 4:3; 1/2-in.; programmable framerate coverage)

  • 1.2Mpx SI-1920HD MegaCameraHD™ 1920×1080 RGBG 1080p24/25/30/60 2/3-in. 2200×1125 RGBG 61 fps 12-bit
  • 1.2Mpx SI-1920HDVR 12-72fps [ibid] CineForm RAW format wavelet codec ($20K 2006Q3)
  • 1.2Mpx SI-3170RGB MegaCamera™ 2056×1560 RGBG 1/2-in. 30 fps 12-bit
  • 1.0Mpx SI-3300RGB-H MegaCamera™ 1920×1080 30 fps 2048×1536 10-Bit
  • 3.3Mpx -15 fps- SI-6600-RGB MegaCamera™ (2210×3002 RGBG 10-bit 50MHz: HDDV)

    FastVision (2.3 µsec./row; 100×100 4000 fps; and faster)

  • 1.6Mpx -240 fps- FastCamera40 (CMOS 2352×1728p 10-bit RGBG, RS-644 serial) (2003~)

    Silicon Video (QuadHD 16:9 3840×2160p/i =4×1920×1080 12-bit 30 fps i60; 4× SMPTE 292, XVGA, DVI)

  • 4.1Mpx ISG QuadHDTV™ (CMOS 8.3Mpx RGBG; Photon Vision Systems ACS® 35mm-optics okay) (NEW 2003Q4)

    ICONIX

  • . . . . . . . HD-RH1 HiDef POV 3-CCD Remote Head Camera system ('smallest' 1.32x1.5x1.92-in.) (2006Q4)

    rochester.edu - new technology

  • . . . . . . . ultra low power ultra sensitivity 30 fps

    NHK ()

  • . . . . . . . superhighvision (7680×4320)

    MRTmicro (typ. 2-CCD) [missing contemporary reference]

  • 2.1Mpx cameras built from 2 Kodak KAI-2092 CCDs (1928x1084) with B&W full-res. and Bayer-RGBG half-res.

    ____ (clickable) REFERENCES ____
    www.nordahl.tv HD ENG News, HDV Technology for TV broadcasters
    www.televisionbroadcast.com/? (see also) TMD/archive/
    www.digitalproducer.com
    www.dvformat.com/? (obs.) 2002/04_apr/news
    www.boxxtech.com
    www.hidef.com
    www.abelcine.com
    www.hollywoodindustry.com
    production.digitalmedianet.com
    www.airsealand.com/rentals/underwater/hdtv/
    www.optexint.com/hdtv/hdtv.htm (obs.)
    www.webmovie.com/Cameras/
    broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_cameras_3/
    www.expandore.com/
    www.hdal.com

    www.panasonic.com/PBDS/subcat
    www.hitachidenshi.ca/HitachiPages
    www.hitachi.com
    global.hitachi.com
    www.hitachi.co.jp
    www.sony.co.jp/en/SonyInfo
    www.sonystyle.com/
    www.thomsongrassvalley.com/products_all/list/
    www.thomsongrassvalley.com/products/cameras/ldk6000_worldcam/
    www.panasonic.co.jp/bsd/sales_o/02products/products/ak-hc931930/hc931930_spec.html
    ikegami.com/br/products/hdtv/hdtv_camera_frame1.html
    ikegami.com/new_products.html
    pro.jvc.com/prof

    www.siliconimaging.com/SI%20Main2.html
    www.fast-vision.com/products/camera40.htm
    www.isgchips.com/Templates/t_quadhdtv.htm
    www.arri.com/entry/products.htm
    kinetta.com/
    www.dalsa.com/
    www.red.com/

    www.kodak.com/go/imagers
    www.fillfactory.com/
    www.panavisionsvi.com/index.htm
    www.micron.com/products/imaging/products/

    www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2367


    Script formatting: new techniques: video-in-video, inner-voice

    Especial with the advent of inexpensive HDTV camera, recording, processing, and CGI, we'll be seeing more and better special effects --

    Addressed here are, video-in-video subscene formatting, and the inner-voice feeling:

    1) The staples ("brackets") meld a remote scene: E.g. a video phone where the actors are live through a remote camera into the present camera: Not OS-VO (might call it, VIDOver) their image is angled by that video: The video display e.g. a wrist watch can move -- or e.g. the opening scene where the windows and displays portray a [gaggle of giggling women] chased by the starship though not interactively with the crew but cued by their specific actions, dialog, the crew respond interact -- it's a major nontrivial, inserted background: Technically speaking, that vidlink is itself the nouveau actor on-stage.

    As a mathematician, engineer, technologist, I think of it as a proven, a device, blackbox, a new toy I can now share with my audience, and we can (screen)play together ....

    I worked around to this, then decided to standardize in my works (my article on vidlink technology implicates just about every story, script, screenplay, I've done since 1984, as having interactive remote conferencing of various time-delays, cuing, asymmetries: as part of the testing phase of that concept viability) -- and bracketing seemed the best way to indicate that the actor is already framed, lit. bracketed (similar meaning), contained -- cf the written publication industry where the brackets mean the editor has directly inserted (melded) an additional word or phrase to explain what's going on in the main particle.

    I also restrict the already standard MATTE, to the special case where the subscene is TV or cartoon, because live-video is now inexpensive to insert and interact. Tele-Phane/Vid-Link is a standard near-future prop.

    2) Another invention I've added is the IV: The inner-voice is a particular kind of VO which feels like "I'm thinking" -- not the suggested thoughts of a narrator, nor a radio playing -- the IV relies on contra-phase stereo audio to give the inner nebulous sound of presences not any directional "here". Thinking is not a hollow echo (though I've imagined the joke was that Hollywood thoughts are developed in garbage cans).

    I hope this note clarifies what will be your technical format standard, too.

    PS#1: V-ID -- video-identity, video-in-display -- is cute.
    PS#2: Or VIV -- video-in-video: like PIP picture-in-picture.
    PS#3: Or SOS -- stage-on-stage, screen-on-screen, script-on-script.
    PS#4: Or SIS - ibid (sister, sounds better).


    What's an HDTV screenplay worth?- $100K?

    With the advent of HDDV-HDTV (1920x1080 pixel resolution, nominal eqv. 35mm) cameras costing $75K-$300K and proliferation of TV-cable and SAT-TV channels, the possibilities exist to reduce scriptsales prices: and producing ten times as many.

    What's a good price for a top-quality screenplay, that got rejected because--

  • 1) the contemporary TV-viewer-fraction audience is projected to be smaller
  • 2) the other movies competing for production were 'top'er [i.e. chosen first]
  • 3) the audience potential is smaller, e.g. cerebral sci²-fi that appeals to college kids, (recall, the famous series that almost didn't last a year until a college-intense p-mail campaign brought it back for its 2nd and 3rd years plus 4 followon version series and a dozen feature movies and a theme park...)
  • 4) the story-genre venn diagram looks like sci-fi AND comedy AND music AND romantic AND can't afford to spread the executive promotional percentage that thin ....
  • 5) It's so easy to reshoot, reedit "MIX" movies, that investors may shy from suppler (read, softer) marketing

    $100K?

    I spend 9 months on the average with a good sci³-fi screenplay -- and update it continually for years after: tweaking, adding joke-lines, new science references -- I could live on $100K/year (presuming 3 month vacation) -- and given more frequent sales, might consider this viable.


    But what then happens to Box-Office top-competitions?

    If and when HDDV production scriptsales prices drop to $100K (from $500K) with the glut of good scripts and TV channels, what happens to the Box Office Blockbusters scriptsales?

    We haven't seen this happen yet, because HDTV sets have only appeared on the store shelves (floors) these passed few months: The first were difficult to view at the sides (rear projection systems have narrow angles of best-view), the interlace lines exhibit a vertical transience artifact, and the better flat-wall plasma displays are now entering at $6K-$10K.

    But, the door is within reach: Color TV swept the country in about 2 decades ca 1951-1970. Technology moves faster these days (both selling faster, and, rapidly improving) and electronics prices are still dropping: Equipment production is in-place, and more flexible to reprogram for newer designs -- and those surplus bid-house auctions drive lots of interest.


    (Part Two) What's an HDTV screenplay worth?- $100K?

    Consider the larger picture:

    The movie industry is the original exponential regime: with the producers at the intrinsic instigating infundibulum -- that's where the big money is made (seconded by theatric distributions considered pro cumula).

    The significant competitions, were, other producers, and of course audience choice.

    Now with the increase in competent screenwriters, and the horde of amateurs, and the applications of screenwriter aids on the now-popular PC (and Macs), the effectual sales are going to be greater, but also more distributed .... That doesn't lessen the curricular skills of screenwriters: In fact, I've been suggesting by my own work, the next major advance in selling movies to the audience, is, authenticity -- i.e. real substance.

    Consequently my ARCHAEODUS [First Journey] Adam in Eden, based on newly established Scriptural exegeses followed-up with satellite photography proof, and my Professors' Spring Break (trilogy) unraveling mysteries and theories galore. And my subsequent Comeback Mouse In Uproar Bit expanding on one new science theory at a time (setting this as the most productive and proliferative Hollywood standard) and my all-out comedy The Great Space Race, which at least intends good realistic photography of even the backside of the moon, ... are the first of the new-technology crop.

    If we compare the mechanical cost of making movies, we see this also decreasing -- 35mm eqv. HDDV cameras at $100K instead of ArriCam Studio at $200K (plus lighting assistance the more dynamic CCDs don't need), video tape at 2% the cost of celluloid film, instant proofs (minutes not dailies), re-shooting, multi-angle shooting, re-editing, re-mixing, specialized markets, increased environmental locations, increased cgi replacing everything (even the actors at the high end), shortened production schedules, ... the cost of screenwriting must come down to meet the market demand ... back-to-school comes to Hollywood, with lots and lots of homework: turning-out scripts will approach the pulp-industry (except no longer wood-pulp, but would-pulp) -- be grateful to keep 10% of the old Hollywood income (and cars aren't any cheaper, unless you buy the next generation digitalismo: Revolution isn't half what a car should be, but the market will grow).

    [NB: The rental cost of e-HDDV has been about $1500/day cf film about $800/day -- that should reverse, but it's already in favor of the e-HDDV with its shortened shooting and production schedules]


    ULTRA-HDDV: super-resolution, potentials--

    The HDTV pre-industry, a quarter of a century since the '70-80's early proposals (mostly pre-digital), has focused on high resolution cameras; yet the camera only records what's there: Monitors display it in precise detail, and thus are second-try re-pre-sentations, of what the camera, "saw..."

    While it is common practice to match the camera and the receiver, it is potentially easy (cost and build) and effectual to further resolve the receiver monitor to remove the artifacts introduced by the information processes not specific to the scene detail ... While the camera records all scene objects, and the compression sends the necessary information, the receiver may pixel-interpolate/interpret: At the visual detail density available in HDDV/HDTV we can consider this, the reality-cartoon; and sculpt the display accordingly---keeping the details, but revising the image to clarify only, those details: E.g. a star is, a star ... a line, a line, a grade a grade ... very common among cartoons!

    I long ago proposed threble-thread gemming by which diagonals would be smoothed and sharpened, to reduce stair-step artifacting common on large screens: 3x3 subpixels has the central value retained; and gems the edges and corners.

    SHARPENING:

    Somewhat an AI approach to imaging: Most objects show surface continuity---or at leastwise, digital stair-steps are not approximations to self-similar surfaces! Straight lines (curvilinear) represent more object edges, and less distracting for representation of a detailed source---and should look better: Maybe a bit cartoonish in the minutia, but that's easier to watch.

    SMOOTHING:

    Just a comment (first/here). The common indexed-color image yields a mottled appearance at low color gamma resolution, but shouldn't (for aesthetics): When a pixel-to-pixel color step is one quantum on the gamma, it should be presumed a crossover or threshold or dither value, and averaged over several pixels in all directions ... any real pointillation should likewise be signalled by multi-quanta leaps from the local trend (polynomial fit), and so rendered sharply!

    IMPLEMENTATION OF SMOOTHING

    An effectual use of the Gaussian Normal Distribution (cf Binomial Distribution) is for overlap of adjacent pixels: Adjacent pixels rapidly approximate a linear intensity as they near-merge---something like 1.4% flutter at 2 sigma (1.414 sigma on a square grid is 2 sigma diagonal). I once noticed an HP color monitor with pixels apparently elliptical (2-D Gaussian Normal Distribution), and the diagonals exhibited almost no digital stair-stepping ... especially consistent smoothness along curving/curling edges.

    [But note theoretically the Gaussian Normal is not the perfect solution]

    SHARPENING TECHNIQUES

    One of the techniques for improving detail is the fairly recent (2000) implementation of Bayer-pattern doubling the resolution at green, over red and blue---lines done in RGBG offset interleaved (RGRG…/GBGB…/RGRG…/GBGB…/...) thus doubling the green content resolution (that itself contains most of the brightness and detailing), which makes a better match to ocular expectancy over the prior standard RGB. This is currently available in CCD and CMOS photo-imaging sensors, and such cameras built on those, less generally in displays, which have used color-stripe or-triad since the '50's.

    In simplest theory, green should be quadripled resolution (1 bit/dimension) over red, and red quadripled over blue, but there is no practical pixel configuration maintaining locally uniform density of the major primary green---unless red and blue were fitted-in as corner-pixels in the camera; however digital technology does not lend to squeeze-fitting---the next-best fit having many-color pixels, averaging in favor of the green-middle spectrum.

    Displays can also take advantage of the 3x-4x density of color pixels: Whitish and pastel color edges can be nudged one color pixel at a time (needing color-balance behind) for triple the whitish-detail density ... but colored edges have less to gain: At best, colors may "white-refract" on edges: As specific color pixels are fewer, a passing edge can illumine the off-colors, balance behind producing white (less distracting than letting colors twist) and favoring the proper color: The result is less saturated, pastel.

    [Color-stripe restricts to horizontal (or vertical, not both) with less overall improvement]

    Interestingly in this aspect, a colored star will be most realistical, as stars do appear as white points (at the center-point of the eye) with color around. A star moving across a display can be given a white center within a wash ring of its proper color ... as regularity and smoothness in motion of a background star is more important to its perception than either its precise color or its smallness, this may be an important factor in display technologies ...

    [An unrelated but similar improvement technology is pixel-on-pixel color-layer stacking]

    * [Yes, it rhymed with "triple-threat jamming"---(a veritable pun on my former digital electronics employment expertise)]


    PERFECTING THE MATCH

    Photons (light) are better quantified and qualified as random not linear nor interleaved---

    The ideal match, digitally predictable, is bit-reverse and bit-interleave the x-y indices-display-coordinates (Bit-reversal maps 0001, 0010, 0011, 0100 to 1000, 0100, 1100, 0010; bit-interleaving maps spatial [001 001], [001 010] to linear 000011, 000110) ... getting both spatial dimensions transmitted in that combined linear uniform random-like process.

    The result "something like television" (a 1960's sci-fi quip) is not only effectually best-possible random (better than natural random because it never lapses random: never shows adjacent pixels, which natural random does, called, 1/f noise), it shows infinite resolution: as the indices count higher, the bit-reversal definition refines ... ad infinitem.

    Imagine watching an image that continually sharpens while you watch, never blurs out at some fixed resolution, though it is as simply digital as the current technology, and though it's not going to happen perfectly, because even natural random photons aren't that sharp in the first place, it'll surely be better than HDTV, no edge-artifacts, no motion artifacts....

    The disadvantages are, 1. the scan sweep rate is 500× faster (to get from 0000 to 1000 new instead of to 0001 old), and random-like requiring accurate random access instead of simpler sequential access, 2. image self-correlation coefficients compression is not available--though Chaos Theory suggests there may be some self-similar compressibility.


    Enjoy your foray into the world of online screenplay production: The world-wide-web is watching; the Internet is moving toward super-net bandwidth capacity to move movies; and the browsers are developing mega-media.

    [See also: the mechanics of screenwriting; writing a log line]


    Principal Screenwriter: Raymond Kenneth Petry
    Strategic Director: Mr. Raymond Kenneth Petry, Director, Sesquatercet
    Registrar: Wision--Sesquatercet USA (division of Lanthus Corporation USA)
    Registered Owner: Lanthus Surrogate Executive Accessions Management

    The theory of measurement propounded in this work is not to be cited (as) considering contraband or corpses; Nor are the intellectual appurtenances hereïn to be used for or in the commission of crimes against persons, peoples, properties, or powers (States).
    COPYRIGHT: BASIC LIBRARY RULES: NONTRANSFERABLE: READ QUIETLY © 2001-2007,2010-2012 Mr. Raymond Kenneth Petry

    project Sesquatercet