Author
|
Topic: Digital projection in the cinema
|
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Ritchie
Film God
Posts: 4001
From: New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted March 21, 2007 03:53 AM
David I doubt that here in NZ that we get better prints than anywhere else, on average I handle about 70 to 80 features a year and in general the quality is pretty good certainly some prints are better than others, but in saying that I doubt that would put me off going to the cinema, in all the years of not just projecting but going to the movies, not just here in NZ but in the UK, I have never once found the need to complain, from the grubby and I mean grubby, smoke ridden cinema I went to in Glasgow in the 50s, to the multi-plex of today, I still enjoy sitting there with like minded others watching a movie.
Its a pity that for those with vested financial interest in video projection, that the only way ahead for them is to rubbish 35mm, something that has given so much enjoyment to so many, me for example.
Graham.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lars Pettersson
Master Film Handler
Posts: 282
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Registered: Jan 2007
|
posted March 22, 2007 04:24 PM
Hello, my name is Lars Pettersson, I´m a film collector in Sweden and I´ve been enjoying reading this forum for many years but haven´t as yet gotten around to posting myself, but here goes... As I´ve understood, many members of the forum have serious insight into how things work in this industry, I myself have some insight into filmmaking at least in this part of the world. Here in Sweden, since a few months back, all projection of pre-feature commercials in cinemas is now done with VPs. The results are -as an old film buff I´m reluctant to say- quite good. I´d say the difference between the VP-projected commercials and the following 35 mm feature, feels like -not night and day, but rather- the film feels perhaps 30 -40 % percent better (obviously depending on the print, etc). This difference is probably lost on most spectators.
Also, when new features are produced in this country, the trend in latter years has been to do a digital intermediate at 2K -sometimes even slightly less than 2K- resolution and produce prints from that. Most of these films are originally shot on 35mm or super16. One nice thing that has occured lately is that filmmakers have "rediscovered" shooting on 35mm and printing directly off the original material, no digital step inbetween, as this obviously yields far superior resolution, colour depth, etc -and can be about £15 000 cheaper, since there´s no need to go to and from the digital realm . These would of course be films mainly about human beings, not too many CGI effects...
So let´s hope that the change to digital projection at least won´t happen too quickly, as it´s likely that striking 35mm prints may die out very quickly once 90% of all distribution is digital. Current prices for 35mm prints depend very much on the fact that producers order 50 -100 prints for their films (or several thousand for, say, Spiderman II). If they only asked for one -especially in a future where most distribution would be digital- that one print could well cost ten times what they now pay, and therefore they would never order it.
Best Wishes Lars
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lars Pettersson
Master Film Handler
Posts: 282
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Registered: Jan 2007
|
posted March 24, 2007 02:55 PM
Hello again.
Stuart, when you write "the average release print in 35 mm ... resolves 1K worth of information" surely you mean mass-produced prints struck from nth generation masters? Otherwise, why would Spielberg and Burton, among others, want to shoot on 35mm stock if 90% of the quality is lost in the printing process? Where I live, films produced in the traditional way are printed master/dupe from the camera negative, with some prints (for showcase theatres, etc) struck from the camera negative. Loss of quality should be nigh imperceptible. I´m sure resolution can be down to 1K in a 35mm print after dozens of master/dupe-generations, but if the cinema industry won´t offer audiences something they cannot get in their own homes, why should people go to the cinema?
I believe one argument from those who promote digital cinema runs something like "outside of the big cities people don´t know what 35mm can look like, to them 2k VP will be an improvement."
I´m actually a bit optimistic about the future of traditional film. The quality of camera raw stock has improved tremendously over the past twenty years, much because video technologies have improved as well, so film HAD to improve to survive. The people who stand to MAKE a few billion dollars a year by abandoning film are not the same as those who stand to LOSE about the same amount. And as soon as a product is completely digital, piracy becomes a major headache...
Best Wishes
Lars
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Adsett
Film God
Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted March 24, 2007 03:15 PM
When was the last time you heard people coming out of a movie theater complaining about the quality of 35mm film? Never, in my experience. The fact is 35mm delivers everything, and more, that audiences expect in terms of theater picture quality. So from the consumers point of view there is, and never has been, any pressing need to go digital in the cinema. As someone has already pointed out, digital cinema is being persued solely to drive up studio profits, not because it offers anything better than traditional 35mm film, which it clearly does not. I for one am getting very tired of cheaply made digital movies, usually with hand held cameras that never stay still (whatever happened to tripod's?) Thank God it is possible to re-run the films of Hollywood's Golden Age, and appreciate the production values of the great studio's at their zenith.
-------------------- The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection, Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stuart Fyvie
Film Handler
Posts: 90
From: Amersham
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted March 24, 2007 03:53 PM
Lars, it would be ideal if all prints were struck from the camera or DI negative direct, unfortunatly this is not the case when dealing with a blockbuster like Harry potter. You are looking at at least 10,000 35mm prints WORLDWIDE same day release. This involves multiple IN/IP proceses. As well as the anamorphic print generation. (For a comparison test , a digital scope extraction from a super 35mm negative will always yeild better results than a lab process.) This obviously degrades the image. With Digital Intermediate, and what I mean is a digital grade /post process in that you shoot out to as many digital negatives as you can, this by passes a lot of Lab copying and you can get a better result. (Regardless whether it is 35mm or digital projection,) The last Pirates of the caribean was done this way and the 35mm projection looked stunning. I am not having a go at film, for shooting, Film is by far the prefered choice on a quality as well as a practical level. But for distribution Digital projection isn't as clear cut, 35mm projection when done right can look fantastic, but there is so many ways it can go wrong and it is a real skill and craft to be done right. Unfortunatly, a lot of corners are being cut these days in the industry.(check out the film tech forums on this host to see how complicated and difficult it is these days!)
Regards, Stuart.
And I still enjoy my GS 1200!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Lars Pettersson
Master Film Handler
Posts: 282
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Registered: Jan 2007
|
posted March 24, 2007 04:29 PM
Hi Stuart!
"a digital scope extraction from a super 35mm negative will always yeild better results than a lab process"
Ah, yes! But the clever folks over here are "rediscovering" shooting in 4-perf anamorphic Cinemascope AND printing traditionally... Yummy! Scope from super 35 is not a very large negative, should be about ten times larger than a super 8 frame. But you´re absolutely right that if someone requires 10 000 prints digital intermediates will INCREASE the quality of those prints, if anything.
Also, imagine how many people would be fired from the film labs if 35mm projection disappears overnight A sad aspect of digital cinema projection, as Paul Adsett pointed out, is that from the audience´s perspective, no one ever asked for it...
Please let´s not fight, I think we´re both on the same side
Best Wishes Lars
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|