Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (4498 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [SLE] nVidia driver [going OT some]
- From: "Carlos E. R." <robin.listas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 12:32:27 +0000 (UTC)
- Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611011303270.14864@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Tuesday 2006-10-31 at 17:28 +0100, Matthias Hopf wrote:
> Well, I think I remember that I read that long ago as well, but later on
> I read that the typical shutter discs rotate three times as fast as the
> film moves nowadays. I guess they couldn't make the film transport
> mechanism fast enough back then. Today they are using low air pressure
> devices to suck the individual frames into place... :-P
Low air... whatever? I'm outdated. Sigh.
Yes, the 35 mm machines I handled used a shutter disk or cylinder,
blocking the light source two times per frame. But in order to do that
they have to compensate the dark periods with higher brightness, ie,
stronger light source... The machine I used had an 2 KW arc lamp (around
65 Amps), and that's pretty hot: if the film stops it burns within seconds.
So they invented xenon arc lamps. They are relatively colder, brighter,
and much easier to use (the traditional arc lamp uses carbon composites
electrodes that get burnt and have to be continuously adjusted to
compensate during the session; a faulty machine or human and the
spectators get mad). I suspect that only with xenon lamps can the apparent
fps be increased.
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_arc_lamp>,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_arc_lamp>).
The film movement is a different thing: it moves at 24 fps, not
continuously, but intermittently. That's what limits its speed. It moves a
frame fast, then it is hold in place for the rest of the 1/24 S left,
while it is projected into the screen two or three times.
It is unfortunate that that fps of 24 doesn't match the TV rate of 25 or
30. Computers are different.
And, returning a bit to "topic". I wonder if sometime in the future we
will see digital cinema, kind of super-high-definition-dvd. The definition
in film is tremendous, more so with the 70mm film; coupled with the
brightness and size of the screen is something the digital world can not
reach yet, AFAIK.
> So I guess it's save to assume this improved a bit :)
> 48Hz is barely enough to have a steady image...
The slight headache is part of going to the movies experience :-)
- --
Cheers,
Carlos E. R.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQFFSJPNtTMYHG2NR9URArALAJwONR5qbjMui9zoA5Yk0G8hjP+k9wCeN2sB
A5hZqk886mfrrMvBLC2pJsI=
=Y1UU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Tuesday 2006-10-31 at 17:28 +0100, Matthias Hopf wrote:
> Well, I think I remember that I read that long ago as well, but later on
> I read that the typical shutter discs rotate three times as fast as the
> film moves nowadays. I guess they couldn't make the film transport
> mechanism fast enough back then. Today they are using low air pressure
> devices to suck the individual frames into place... :-P
Low air... whatever? I'm outdated. Sigh.
Yes, the 35 mm machines I handled used a shutter disk or cylinder,
blocking the light source two times per frame. But in order to do that
they have to compensate the dark periods with higher brightness, ie,
stronger light source... The machine I used had an 2 KW arc lamp (around
65 Amps), and that's pretty hot: if the film stops it burns within seconds.
So they invented xenon arc lamps. They are relatively colder, brighter,
and much easier to use (the traditional arc lamp uses carbon composites
electrodes that get burnt and have to be continuously adjusted to
compensate during the session; a faulty machine or human and the
spectators get mad). I suspect that only with xenon lamps can the apparent
fps be increased.
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_arc_lamp>,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_arc_lamp>).
The film movement is a different thing: it moves at 24 fps, not
continuously, but intermittently. That's what limits its speed. It moves a
frame fast, then it is hold in place for the rest of the 1/24 S left,
while it is projected into the screen two or three times.
It is unfortunate that that fps of 24 doesn't match the TV rate of 25 or
30. Computers are different.
And, returning a bit to "topic". I wonder if sometime in the future we
will see digital cinema, kind of super-high-definition-dvd. The definition
in film is tremendous, more so with the 70mm film; coupled with the
brightness and size of the screen is something the digital world can not
reach yet, AFAIK.
> So I guess it's save to assume this improved a bit :)
> 48Hz is barely enough to have a steady image...
The slight headache is part of going to the movies experience :-)
- --
Cheers,
Carlos E. R.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQFFSJPNtTMYHG2NR9URArALAJwONR5qbjMui9zoA5Yk0G8hjP+k9wCeN2sB
A5hZqk886mfrrMvBLC2pJsI=
=Y1UU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| < Previous | Next > |