Sorry, but there is no chance of this happening. In addition to the technical issues, their is a political dimension to it. Since 25p works just fine in NTSC using 3:2:2 pulldown, Europe sees 24p as "American arrogance" - making Europe do something difficult rather then the US doing something simple. Algr04:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I don't think that Storaro has a chance here. But it is worth noting that the new digital systems all allow 24p codecs, and the HD TVs are able to handle them properly. As for American arrogance, wouldn't that only make sense if they were pushing a 30p system? Let's face it - all cinema is shot in 24p standards, and it is a major selling point of recent video technology. I don't think it's an American thing - 24p is an NTSC/PAL agnostic frame rate. That mains cycling no longer dictates frame rate due to digital codecs is surely a good thing, right? In any case, as Univision is highly unlikely to become an entrenched format, it seems all a bit beside the point. Girolamo Savonarola05:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of movie theaters, nothing in Europe supports 24p - not even DVD players. Given an American disk, a multi-standard DVD player will speed it up to 25 frames per second so that a PAL set can watch it. The HD codecs are not the problem, it's the CRTs. All their sets, even the HD ones, run at 50 hz. So even if you can broadcast 24 frames per second, displaying it would require inserting an extra video field twice a second, which would cause moving images to stutter. In the US, we get 10-12 extra fields per second, which is too fast to be seen. This is why America could easily adopt 25 hz, while broadcasting 24 in Europe/Asia/Africa/Australia/S.America is next to impossible. (No one wants 30 hz, because cinematographers don't like it - too videoish, even when shot on film.)
"Lack of backup mechanism in place yet to revert from one digital system to another. All digital systems currently in use are designed to revert into the optical analogue soundtrack if they should fail."
The current digital audio heads on movie projectors are designed so that if they can't read the digital signal for more than a few consecutive frames, they will revert to reading the optical analog soundtrack until they can get digital signal back. The danger of relying only on the digital signals is that since they are all close to each other (and also the perfs, which are most likely to sustain wear and tear damage), you could easily run into the problem across several digital systems being read. While analog is not perfect, it is more tolerant of partial data loss than digital signal, which cannot handle it at all. Girolamo Savonarola05:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article read that Univision is a format proposed by Storaro. However, the fact that it has already been used for a number of movies makes it clear that the format is well beyond the "proposed" stage. I changed the article to reflect this. MrTroy11:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect - if you look at the PDF proposal of Storaro's (external links), it is very specifically involved in the projection standards, none of which have come to fruition. So the "Univision" films are actually shot and composed for Univision, but not projected as such. That's why the PDF discusses transitional compromises. Girolamo Savonarola21:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The PDF talks about the actual shooting as well as about the projection. I wouldn't say it contains more information about the projection standards than it does about the shooting standards. Now it's true that the projection part of the standard has never come to fruition, but the shooting standard has. The movies are Univision, they're just not projected as such. But that doesn't mean it's nothing more than a "proposed format". The fact that there are movies that used Univision contradicts that statement. MrTroy06:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The format specifies an aspect ratio that has never been projected, at a frame rate that's never been projected, with a perf movement that's never been used on standard projectors. And it demands Super 35 projection without any analog optical track. Those components are vital in defining a format. The films were shot with the intention of being shown in Univision. The whole point is to standardize on one aspect ratio, one frame speed, and one perf movement. That is why the format was created. That it has so far failed to achieve those goals is notable - it may have been shot with a 2:1 ground glass on 3 perf at 25 fps, but as it has been projected as a 1.85 standard print with an analog optical track at 24 fps with 4-perf movement, the format has not actually been demonstrated.
You are right, of course. You obviously know what you're talking about and I have no intent of pretending I know more about the subject (which I don't). However, what would you propose (no pun intended) for the article then? I still think proposed is a wrong word, because that word implies that Storaro only suggested the idea for this format, while in reality there are already films shot with his technique. MrTroy09:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of unprojectable formats around, Super 16, for example has no soundtrack at all, so editing it in HDTV is part of the format. Vistavision is similar. A projection mode did once exist, but was abandoned, while the shooting format remained popular. Algr06:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Super 16 was never intended for projection, nor was VistaVision (although, yes, they did experiment with it). Both of those systems were intended to use more of the negative for capture, so that the standard projection prints would have higher quality. Univisium is specifically designed for camera and projection - as has been stated directly in the Storaro proposal. If it weren't about projection, it wouldn't have "temporary projection workarounds" as a predominant section of the presentation. Girolamo Savonarola14:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that a format is still a format even if it isn't used for projection. (DV is another example.) So I support "format created".Algr15:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't completely agree, as there are many formats which only are different in the projection method, not in the origination - Academy ratio vs. 1.85 matted is only a matter of the lens and aperture plate used on the projector (and of course the intended framing), but is not substantively different in the origination method. Perhaps, however, we can compromise and call it a "non-standard format", as clearly it hasn't caught on nearly enough for anyone to regard it as a standard. Girolamo Savonarola15:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Sub-format of 35mm"? Non-standard sounds a bit punitive. 1.85 matted does require a change in the camera, as you need the viewfinder to show where the frame is cut off. It is a format in that it requires people shooting and projecting to agree where the picture is. Algr16:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, my point was that different formats oftentimes differ in projection, not origination. The cameras for 1.37 and 1.85 are identical - the groundglass doesn't affect the actual image captured. It's ultimately the projection standards that define the difference. In any case, it's not a standard format - theaters don't use it, nor do any cinematographers outside of Storaro. I don't think it's a controversial assertion, do you? Girolamo Savonarola16:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why include 'non-standard' anyway? It sounds really deprecating, like it's too bad to be a standard or something. MrTroy22:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that projection defines what is a standard. Quad and VHS are totally different, but they are both projected by the same TV. Super 16 isn't 35 just because it is projected that way. How many times would a Univisium film have to be projected for it to be a standard? Would the same number of theaters as VistaVision be enough? (According to the article, it WAS intended for projection.) Algr07:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your example doesn't fit because we're not talking about video, we're talking about film formats. Dimension 150 is very similar to 70 mm, except for how they are projected, to name only one. In any case, it is not a standard in either capture or projection; this isn't really a matter for debate - only two labs are set up for Univisium, and absolutely NO theaters are. At the moment there are a small handful of standard formats in use - matted 1.85 and anamorphic 2.39, with some fringe current use of matted 1.66 and Academy. Even some of those aren't really easily projectable anymore in most theaters. "Standard" is what the entire pipeline from production to projection is set up for; there have been different formats included and excluded over time. At the moment, only 1.85 and 2.39 are hard standards in projection. If you want, however, I'm happy to call in a bunch of guys from cinematography.com and film-tech.com forums to see what they think. Once again, I repeat - if the format were not intended to specify projection parameters, the proposal by Storaro would not have mentioned them. If you can't address this point, I don't see how we can continue the discussion. Girolamo Savonarola16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not very nice, we are just talking about linguistics. "Standard" has different meanings depending on if you describe a subject as "is standard"or"a standard". If someone describes a clearly defied formula of how something is supposed to work, and encourages others to do things the same way, that is "a standard", even if it fails to become popular. 70 mm became "a standard" as soon as everyone agreed on how it worked, before any films were actually shot. Something "is standard" if it has widespread enough use that people can safely assume that it always is available. 8 track tapes are "a standard" and were once "the standard" for prerecorded music in cars. Film does not redefine the word "standard" in any way. Something is "non-standard" if it is created in a way that no one ever expects to repeat, or isn't described well. An amusement park display were the projector spins around and follows a roller coster as it moves would be "non standard". Algr21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to totally agree with Girolamo here. Vittorio's proposal is neither "standard" nor "a standard." He has never, to my knowledge (and we spoke about his system on the set of Picking Up the Pieces), shot a film that conformed to all his proposed aspects of Univision (Univisium). There is not one other cinematographer, to my knowledge, who has adopted or utilized this system, with the exception of Vittorio. In addition, Vittorio's concept is not that Univisium become an alternative choice but THE standard around the globe for theatrical AND video. It is non-standard, by every definition. I wholly support the words "proposed" and "non-standard format" in the article. Jay Holben, former cinematographer / Technical Editor, American Cinematographer MagazineLACameraman05:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not going to engage in semantics? Too bad, because you started it by including the word "non-standard" in the article.
A format can be said to be non-standard if the specs differ from movie to movie. In this case 'standard' would mean a fixed combination of aperture, film size, and framerate. The fact that every movie shot with Univisium uses the same aperture, film size, and framerate makes it a standard. It would be non-standard if Univisium movie A used 23fps and Univisium movie B used 25fps. MrTroy06:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with finding a source for "Standard" is that most people would consider this probably too basic to mention. I doubt that you could find a source directly stating that Univisium was capable of color, or that Storaro is a human. You are putting a weird spin on the word "standard" and making us live up to it. The irony here is that I don't even particularly like Univisium. 25 FPS and 3 perf are good ideas, but masking the film to 2:1 aspect ratio seems wasteful to me. (What if you are shooting for HD broadcast such as Dune? Do you mask in both directions?) And why introduce yet another new aspect ratio? Algr07:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alg - to clairify - Vittorio introduced the 2:1 aspect ratio as a mathematical compromise between 1.78:1 and 2.2:1 (70mm). He proposes it as a universal format in which all films are to be shot - tv and theatrical alike. He is attempting to create a universal format for video and TV; to make one aspect ratio to tell the stories in and have no compromise to the image, no matter how it is displayed. For reference on this, see his exact quotes in "Inventive New Options for Film" Holben, Jay and Bankston, Douglas American Cinematographer Magazine February 2000 Vol 81 no 2 105-107. LACameraman05:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL... Exactly. But I appreciate where his heart is. We (as cinematographers) were all bewildered with the advent of 16:9 (1.78:1). His proposal, to a considerable degree, was a response to that. LACameraman06:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-standard is inappropriately pejorative, and implies defects. Smpte does not have universal authority over what is a standard. Algr20:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has it been pejorative? All it means is that it's not a typical practice. Source it as a standard. Rare is wholly inappropriate - a format has no value in this sense. Rarely used, perhaps, but for example would you call 70 mm a rare format? I am changing this back tomorrow, unless you can source something that connotes it is a standard. This is not about positive or negative judgments of the format viability - the fact is that almost no one shoots it and no one projects it. Girolamo Savonarola20:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to say "non-standard" then you are the one who has to come up with a reference justifying it. The opening paragraph does a fine job of describing the situation without adding this value judgment. You are also wrong on "rare", people don't automatically assume it means "valuable". Yes, I would call 70 mm a rare format. Here are my references:
I agree with Algr. You are the one who wants to change the article to read 'non-standard', so you are the one who has to come up with references. Not us. MrTroy21:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One cannot prove a negative, but I will provide two relevant sources - the American Cinematographer Manual (8th and 9th editions) has absolutely no mention of the format at all, including separate chapters on Cinematographic Systems, Comparisions of Formats, and Anamorphic Cinematography, as well as extensive appendices, references, and charts. Furthermore, there is a FAQ on film-tech.com (run by prominent projectionists) of exceptionally high quality which specifically states that 1.85 and 2.39 as the standard 35 mm projection ratios. I am also happy to provide a great number of other well-regarded cinematography books which do not even discuss Univisium/Univision, should you require it. Girolamo Savonarola22:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what does that prove? I'm sure that I could find lots of publications that fail to mention Super 8 or IMAX. Wikipedia can't be the only source calling something "non-standard". That is original research, and POV. Algr04:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it was you, MrTroy, who originally wanted to change the wording (see above). Why is there a resistance to the wording of "non-standard"? It doesn't mean "sub-standard", which I agree would be deprecating. Do you believe that there is a difference between a standard and a format, and if so, how would you define it? I can't really address your concerns since you clearly don't agree on what standard means. Girolamo Savonarola22:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MrTroy, the dictionaries, and I all agree on what 'Standard' means. It doesn't mean "popular" nor "used for projection". Girolamo, you are just using the word wrong.Algr04:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of have to agree with Girolamo here - if I take a print of a Univisium film, in the univisium projection format to a random Cinema, thread it in the projector - what will happen ? The answer is that I'll get a rolling picture on the screen with about 20% of one side missing thanks to the aperture plate in the projector. If someone asks me why that's happening - I'd turn to them and say - "it's because it's not in the standard format". Standard has manying meanings - one is standardized - i.e. within a set of parameters defined somewhere. Another means generally accepted - i.e. "the camera has all the standard features". Univisium is standardized, but it isn't a format that's supported by standard in projectors and cameras. How about changing the starting sentences as follows:
Univisium (formerly called Univision) is a film format for 35 mm motion pictures created by cinematographer Vittorio Storaro. The format is not widely supported by projection or camera equipment, and to date has only been used by Vittorio Storaro.
Wow. As this argument seems to continue well past where I voiced my original opinion above (my fault for not reading the full page), I will reiterate here. I wholly support the verbiage "proposed" AND "non-standard format" with regard to Univisium/Univision. Although I support what Megapixie has proposed above, I believe it is a watered-down version of reality. I have no question that Vittorio would whole-heartedly agree that his Univisium Format is non-standard AND not "A standard". I appreciate the passionate debate over the verbiage. To clarify Megapixie's statement above, Univisium is Latin for "Unity of Images" it is Vittorio's name for the format, but it was "Americanized" to Univision. I know of no validity in the notation in the article "The format was originally proposed under the name Univision, but Storaro retitled it Univisium shortly thereafter in order to prevent confusion with the TV station called Univision." In fact, to my knowledge, it is the exact opposite, Vittorio's proposal, which I read in the summer of 1999, was for Univisium. That same proposal now in 2006, from Vittorio, is for Univision. LACameraman06:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it is now looks fine to me, except: Univision isn't limited to 35mm. There is also a 70mm Univision format (see PDF file). Girolamo: I believe that it was you, MrTroy, who originally wanted to change the wording (see above). True. But it wasn't me who came up with the term 'non-standard'. Nor was it me who, despite different opinions on the Talk page, pushed his opinion by changing the article. However, with the exception of the 35mm error, I think the article is OK now. MrTroy09:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The debate above has cause me to take a solid look at this article. As all of the parties involved in the creation of this article are still active (and present in the debate), and out of respect to the fellow Wiki editors - I am outlining plans to renovate the article before making major changes ("being bold" as Wiki likes to promote).
My notes / proposed revisions, in no particular order:
References listed are NOT references, but merely footnotes. Real references need to be cited. Immediately American Cinematographer articles on as many of the films that utilized some form of Univisium that were covered. Likewise for International Cinematographer magazine. AC story on Univisum. I would imagine Vittorio discusses the format proposal in his books, although I have not read them. If they are available through ASC's circulation dept, I will investigate that (the ASC library is currently in storage as the clubhouse is under construction).
As stated above - to my understanding the format was called Univisium first, then re-named to Univision. I can find no refrence anywhere that Vittorio first called it Univision and then changed to the Latin to avoid confusion.
The intro paragraph needs a total re-write to introduce the concept of Vittorio's proposal; that it is indeed a proposal and that he, thus far, has been the only one to use elements of this proposal on films he has photographed.
A section needs to be made to list the specific technical details of the proposal.
If the article is to state that Vittorio has "convinced" rental houses, and labs, to carry Univisium equipment / support Univisium post - those rental houses need be specifically listed, in addition to labs.
The points in the second paragraph of the intro are important and need be addressed, but the presentation (grammar and basic flow) needs to be cleaned up. Generally, the article needs editorial cleanup.
The Pro and Con sections are inapproporiate, in my opinion, on Wikipedia. The benefits of the system can be listed out, as they are in the proposal, as presented by Storaro. I'm not sure how to incorporate the "cons" without resorting to opinion. Criticsms that point to deficiency with the Univisium proposal and HDTV are moot - as the proposal is for the complete renovation of HDTV to the standards defined in the proposal. A note that this, especially in light of the adoption of the 1.78:1 standard in the last six years, is unlikely to be implemented might be in order - yet it still is an opinion. Suggestions?
Technical errors need to be cleaned up:
"It uses a 3 perforation format similar to Super 35 mm film" needs to be corrected. 3 perf is 3 perf, Super 35 is Super 35, they are independent variables and not related. They CAN be used together, but Super 35 does not need to be shot in 3 perf.
Univisium's 2.0:1 aspect ratio is a mathematical compromise between 65mm 2.2:1 and HDTV 1.78:1 - NOT 2.39:1 and 1.78:1 (as stated in the article). It's stated very clearly in final paragraph on the third page of Vittorio's proposal.
"A number of other lighting situations can also cause problems at 24 hz due to 50 hz line current." makes no sense. Is this intended to read 24 fps at 50 Hz (abbreviation for Hertz also needs to be capitalized).
A current note in the article reads "A full-width, full-height film frame at 3-perf is exactly at the widescreen video aspect ratio of 1.78 (16:9). Univisium then needs to crop this frame vertically to achieve 2:1, and then crop it again horizontally for use in HDTV programming such as Storaro's DUNE." This is not necessarily true. It is ignoring Vittorio's proposal which states a frame size for Univisium is 24mm x 12mm (.945" x .472"), which is a perfect 2.0:1. Vittorio's system is not standard 3-perf (Panavision 3 perf = .980" x .546" or 24.89mm x 13.87mm). Saying this is a "crop" is inaccurate. It is an aperture size difference, not a crop.
Not necessarily true, but it IS what happened with Dune. They could have had 24mm x 13.5mm, of film area, and instead they used 21.3 x 12mm. (my calculation) All so they could have a 2:1 version that it is unlikely that anyone will ever see. Check out what happened to Babylon 5 when they tried to have a widescreen version for showing later - it all became a mess. Algr19:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Algr, that's incorrect. Dune was shot Univisium 2.0:1 (12mm x 24mm) [1] If it aired 1.78:1 (16:9), that was a crop from the original composition.
That is what I said. It was cropped from 24mm to 21.3mm. Whether or not that part of the film was exposed or masked is irrelevant, the audience didn't see it, and a smaller visible negative would have meant more film grain.Algr00:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Algr - but you're misintrepreting. The film was shot and COMPOSED at 2:1. I do not personally know how it was broadcast. IF it was broadcast 16:9 (Imdb says so, if you trust that[2]), that was a crop. I would imagine the DVD would be 2:1, but I'm not sure of that either. It was Storaro's intention (and, by inference the intention of John Harrison, the director) in the photography of the movie for it to be seen 2:1. If it was shown in any other form - it was a compromise to the artistic vision and a great example of why Storaro as proposed the system to begin with. The negative was NOT exposed at 21.3mm x 12mm (admittedly your calculation, not based on any data) - it was exposed (and artistically COMPOSED) at 24mm x 12mm[3]. If you happened to see any presentation at any other ratio than 2:1 it was a compromise. To clarify, however, the statement I have called into question says that "Univisium needs to crop this frame vertically to achieve 2:1" - that is incorrect. The aperture size in the camera is set at .945" x .472" - there is no crop for 2:1. This is not a mask in the camera or a mask in the projection, it is not eliminating some of the photographed picture to make the ratio (a crop) it is the actual aperture size. LACameraman02:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is a mask different from an aperture size? It seems to me to have no difference, since either way, you waste film area between frames. Also, wouldn't an aperture without a mask create a round frame? Algr06:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Algr - to avoid taking up space in the actual discussion on changes to the Univisium article, I have answered your question on your talk page under "Camera aperture vs. crop/mask". LACameraman22:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted, in my opinion, for each of the films photographed by Storaro in the list how they differ from the proposed format.
I've been evaluating Univisium's shooting format and projection format separately, since one is in use, and the other isn't. If Vittorio considers 2:1 to be the heart of Univisium, then I could start shooting it right now by masking my video camera. But I rather doubt that that is his intent. Algr19:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that's a fair point to be made in the story - the shooting format is, for the most part, being utilized by one guy. The projection side of the proposal has not ever happened, and most likely will never happen. In all fairness to Vittorio, his projection proposal is mainly considered for digital projection, but his Univisium standard will probably never come to fruition as 25fps, to my knowledge, is not addressed at all in the DCI. The aspect ratio is the "heart" of the proposal. His MAIN motivation is to unify composition. Saving film is a by-product. If you wanted to start masking your video to 2:1 and shooting 25fps (you might already), then you're more than welcome to start saying you're shooting in Univisium. Vittorio would probably be pleased. The fact that he wishes it to be a universal standard for theatrical and television is not up for debate. "Storaro...offers..."I think that anyone who cares about the word 'composition' can no longer stand the fact that we have two entirely different compositions: one for television and one for theatrical images..." ... By unifying composition into one common aspect ratio, Storaro aserts that all of the confusion and compromise can be eliminated." [4]. "Images [in Univisium] are composed in a 2:1 aspect ratio, which he proposes as a universal standard for TV and cinema screens." [5] In addition, if you actually read Vittorio's proposal - it is clear that he is discussing a universal standard - including the physical production of TVs. There is an entire section of his proposal that points out how OTHER films that were historically shot in OTHER aspect ratios will play on a Univisium 2:1 screen. LACameraman20:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While most or all of that is probably true, stating it directly risks editorializing. It is better if you can quote people saying those things. Algr07:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I'm confused by your statement here. Is this referring to just the paragraph above talking about the belief that Univisium will probably never happen? That won't be included in the article; it is my opinion (based on a great deal of other support). If you're referring to the notion that only Vittorio is using the system, that is correct. No other cinematographer has utilized the Univisium format. It is also correct that DCI lists no provisions for Storaro's proposal - as the DCI standards have become the defacto standards by which digital projection manufacturers are creating their products, the notion that it is unlikely that Vittorio's system will come to fruition is not a far leap to infer - although I would not state it directly, even with a quote, as it is opinion (predicting the future), not fact. If you're referring to the rest of the proposed changes, 99% of that has citeable references. LACameraman07:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've started the major revsion of this article. With limited time today, I have not addressed the 65 mm aspect of this proposal, but will do in the next 24 hours.
I rewrote nearly all of the original article as it was simplier for me to do. I did this intending no offense to the original authors, merely as a method of greatly simplifying my editorial work. Revisions and edits are - of course - welcome (it is the nature of Wikipedia, afterall), as well as reversion of some deleted text as long as they it is accurate, citable and helps to improve this article. LACameraman23:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this edit, is the information relevant to this article? Unless we have a source specifically saying that the aspect ratio of House of Cards was influenced by the Univisium standard, then it shouldn't be listed here, right? (Also, IMDb should not be considered a RS for technical specs. If the information is kept in the article, there are better sources available. [2]) Mathew5000 (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
