Talk:Maxivision

Same format as 35mm 3-perf?

This sounds like the exact same format as 35mm 3-perf (Super 35), but with a different name and british spelling. Should this article exist at all? 75.71.196.204 (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It's 48fps, uses a liquid crystal shutter, has digital air-stabilized registration and the ability to place each frame exactly with little variation, and has several other differences... all present in both capture and projection phases, not to mention the name isn't at all British. Don't know what you mean by that. The projection shutters alone, which are price-competitive with inferior conventional ones, vastly improve conventional 35mm prints. Even Maxivision 24 is superior to Super 35. They both smartly use 3-perf. Its temporal clarity give MV-48 a superior overall image to Imax at a far cheaper capture or projection cost, not to mention portability equal to other 3-perf formats. Unless someone develops a 60fps 8k digital format with better contrasts than 4k motion video cameras are capable of, it's unlikely we'll see anything superior to MV-48 in the foreseeable future. -Benjamin "Reticuli" Goulart 71.65.115.103 (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

On film, it is similar to Super 35 when used at 3-perf, 24 fps, but the standard was intended to include multiple digital sound formats, multiple frame rates, and 3 or 4-perf pull-down. As a general comment on the article, is it worth separating the capabilities of the proof-of-concept prototype and the intent of the final product? Also, I found it interesting that the recent Hobbit movie was shown in some theaters in 48 fps. Personally, I find the fact that 3D has been such a cash cow as vindication for Dean's belief that folks would pay a little more for a premium visual experience and that would lead to significant additional profit for the industry. Lastly, I don't think there's much chance, but it would be cool if there was mention of MV in the "Life Itself" movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.62.58 (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maxivision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810092258/http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/05/thats_not_the_imax_i_grew_up_w.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/05/thats_not_the_imax_i_grew_up_w.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130406042108/http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/more_than_ever_the_future_of_f.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/more_than_ever_the_future_of_f.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)