This is topic Digital projection in the cinema in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000540

---

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on March 17, 2007, 04:21 AM:
 
Well I've now been able to make my mind up on the incoming digital projection and the outgoing of 35mm in the cinemas.

Yesterday had a good demonstration on Digital film presentation and it blew my socks off.

It is equal to a very good 35mm print, and might be better. Definitely better than the mass produced 35mm prints used in the multi-plex.

The uncompressed digital sound is better too, I understand a 35mm system often encounters problems with the digital sound track, which is compressed, due to print wear and it defaults to analogue.

Yesterday the screen was standard cinemascope but tomorrow hope to see it on a 70mm/Cinerama deep curved screen.
 

---

Posted by Paul Spinks (Member # 573) on March 17, 2007, 11:42 PM:
 
I think that good old celluloid presentations will be with us for a while yet.
 

---

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on March 18, 2007, 03:19 AM:
 
The problem with 35mm is the poor quaulity of the prints which they mass produce. Hence many like my self have home cinemas and use DVD via a VP and do not visit the multi-plex.
 

---

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 549) on March 18, 2007, 05:06 AM:
 
David, don't belive for a moment that digital presentations don't go off with time. Some early installs have had their optical engines shift alignment and they look a whole lot worse than 35mm ever could. They have also been superseded already by the DCI 2k spec after only a few years in operation.

These digital demos are carefully stage managed beta test units. Remember how impressive 35mm show prints or 70mm road show presentations looked? Have you seen IMAX?

With 35mm projection the resolution technology is in the print and controlled by the studios and in most instances looks very good. With digital the resolution technology is in the optical engine of the projector and its processing ability. Highly skilled techs are required to maintain these units and your average multiplex projectionist is stretched doing a drive-in belt change on a Vic 5, let alone doing a delicate alignment on a Christie Digital.

This high operating cost scenario is scaring the hell out of exhibitors the world over. 35mm will not last forever, but its impending death is greatly exaggerated.

David
 

---

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on March 18, 2007, 05:11 AM:
 
Where is this Cinerama deep curved screen? Bradford per chance?

35mm still exceeds the best standards offered by video projection. 16mm still exceeds the best standards offered by the top home video projectors. Sub £5k cheapies are given a run for their money by the best 8mm prints given sufficient light output. Sub £1k there is still no contest.
 

---

Posted by Barry Johnson (Member # 84) on March 18, 2007, 12:17 PM:
 
Well David,as you do not visit a multiplex you are not best placed to make comments on the state of new prints are you?
Yes,I am a Chief Projectionist with Apollo Cinemas and know what we recieve in the lines of quality prints.Its damn good.
 

---

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on March 18, 2007, 12:48 PM:
 
Yes what I comment on is from the Picturville, Bradford.
This morning I have again seen digital in action, even being projected onto the deep curve Cinerama screen, and what I saw was as good as film if not better. Not a wearline or imperfection in sight, all I spoke to were as equally astonished with quaulity as myself.
This is the current standard 2K system with the Christie digital projector. There is a programme to finance and install 270 in the UK, think it was 270, if not 240.
Picturville was the 51st, and 170 done in the programme.
Engineer visits each one every 6 months to ensure correct performance.
Odeon have had 13 screens installed with digital to trial the system, it was stated if successfull all Odeons would then go digital.
The comparison of same film in digital and 35mm was with a standard print as used in muti-plex's, this had been specified to the distrubuter.
I do at times have to go to a muli-plex but not by choice, my grand children demand I go. It is just like I have to go to Mac Donalds from time to time.
Sorry to those who have not found digital to be as good or better than 35mm but I have seen it now on demonstration and " Oaklahoma" on digital last year and I do not fear this incoming system.
 

---

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on March 18, 2007, 04:50 PM:
 
I agree with David on some of this, our local multiplex often gives very very poor results, poor focus, different area or pic, ie in in middle out at sides, or top/bottom or just out etc and sometimes poor sound.
When its good its great but rarely is and if you go and ask them to put it right they simply don`t.
Not films fault but you get it a lot.
Best Mark.
PS I think between £500 and £1500 in the UK and much less abroad vp can give super 8 and much 16 a run for its money and often, win hands down but thats not what cine is about, etc etc
Aligned with HD DVD or Blue Ray its wel beyond super I believe evn on low cost machines.
 

---

Posted by Joerg Polzfusz (Member # 602) on March 19, 2007, 05:09 AM:
 
If you look up the technical data of 35mm-film, you'll find out that its resultion can be as good as 8k with the current filmstocks. But most of the current digital cinema-projectors can only do 2k (and there are are already Super8-films that are scanned at 2k with no problems!). The next generation of digital cinema-projectors will hpefully be able to do 4k. But the data for the image will still be compressed. And the used compression algorithms are "lossy". Hence I don't see why digital projection should be better than 35mm (unless the film came from a 2k or 4k DI oder video-camera).

IF the digital projection really should be better than 35mm, the industry should at least try to archieve the quality of 70mm-prints IMHO! But the industry doesn't even try to archieve the full quality of a 35mm-print! It's a shame!

Just my two cents,
Jörg
 

---

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on March 19, 2007, 05:10 AM:
 
But then you've probably not got a Super 8 machine equipped with an HTI lamp Mark. Although I have to agree the new 1080 line system does give small format gauges a test. Just often looks a bit too unnatural.

I wonder how many lines the new discs actually provide. Around 800 I would imagine. Current DVD's are around 400. Kodachrome Super 8 is 600 but estimated half as much again due to the random grain. Release prints won't be quite up to this standard but you can probably begin to understand how good they are based on the Kodachrome figures I've been given. 16mm Kodachrome is therefore off the scale as far as video projection in the home is concerned. Any perceived superiority offered by video projection is coming from other methods... edge sharpening and enhancing the image on the place the human eye is likely to be looking etc.. Not something that can be done with film and hence why it probably looks so much more natural.
 

---

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on March 19, 2007, 05:48 AM:
 
Joerg, the standard is 2k for digital.
I'm not allowed to mention on the internet all I saw this weekend, but believe me as a widescreen enthuist I'm completely overjoyed at the digital film projection I've seen this weekend.
Yes if done well a 70mm print is really the best but the industry is just not going to film in 65mm film and issue good 70mm for projection. Sorry those days are gone and we are stuck with 35mm mass produced prints in the muti-plex with many not giving the old fashioned showmanship.
What I saw on a Cinemascope screen from digital was extremely good and the best I've seen for a long time. With a higher powered lamp onto the Cinerama screen it was equally impressive.
There were people from Germany in attendence from a Cinerama theatre in Germany I do hope you can check it out to see if they are doing digital.
It looks as if Digital is coming to the Multi-plex screens and 35mm on the way out. We can only hope that the quaultiy I've wittnessed is maintained.
 

---

Posted by Chris Quinn (Member # 129) on March 19, 2007, 11:20 AM:
 
Personally i don't think the change over to digital from 35mm has anything to do with picture quality, it's all down to costs. 75% of Joe public would not be able to tell the difference between digital and 35mm. If the picture houses see digital as more cost effective they will change. The initial costs of changing is expensive, but after that costs must be cheaper.

I don't want to get into what is the best format, but i will go with 35mm having a more natural look. I hope it is here to stay for sometime yet, but the next 10-15 years may see more houses changing to digital. Maybe we will have to have a 35mm forum added.

Chris.
 

---

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on March 19, 2007, 11:33 AM:
 
Over past 4 days I've seen some films on 70mm, they showed wear lines and marks, colours varried between scences/sections, and the last one was faded to allmost red, and clicks on sound.
I'm afraid this is what will happen to 35mm prints will just not be reissued.
I also saw some reissues of films made in the 1930s/1940s on digital after resoration fantastic they were, I was told money saved on reprinting on 35mm goes to the resoration of these old movies.
I did like many of you have reservations about digital film having like you seen digital TV and listening to digital radio but I'm won over to digital cinema.
You just have to see this for yourselves, then make your mind up
I wonder if there is a web site listing these 170 screens allready equipt?
 

---

Posted by Joerg Polzfusz (Member # 602) on March 19, 2007, 01:10 PM:
 

quote:

---

Joerg, the standard is 2k for digital.

---

That's correct, when you take the current installations as "standard". But the DCI (Digital Cinema Initiative) clearly specifies 2k AND 4k resolutions in their nearly two-year-old "Digital Cinema System Specification V1.0". So if a projector wants to fulfil this "industry standard" by 100%, it has to be able to project 4k-films at 4k-resolution ... but since "digital cinema" is all about saving money, they won't even stick to their own standards.

Jörg
 

---

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on March 19, 2007, 01:39 PM:
 
Information on progress of digital cinema screens

thttp://www.ukdsn.com/DSN/about/?section=Installations

hope you will be able to find near you when showing from digital and make your own minds up.

More on subject

http://www.artsalliancemedia.com/DigitalCinema.html
 

---

Posted by Barry Johnson (Member # 84) on March 19, 2007, 02:18 PM:
 
Digital projection in the trade is not as accepted as you may think purely down to overall cost and ongoing maintenence.
It will still be five years before a mass adoption of this format takes hold.One reason for this is that someone somewhere invents a better quality system.The industry has to standardise to survive.
Whilst they are still fiddling with it,it wont.
In fact,that is one reason I personally will not adopt a domestic vp.
But then I am beyond hope,as I still use top quality Standard 8 gear.Poor old bugger.
 

---

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on March 19, 2007, 03:13 PM:
 
I think a lot will depend on the Odeon, if they decide to go digital on all thier screens then surely this help the film owners who are the ones wishing to change to push other circuits into digital.
I guess Odeon will have a good percentage of the screens in UK. Thus giving the film owners the chance to say no more 35mm prints of new films. Take digital or do without new films.
 

---

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on March 20, 2007, 04:50 AM:
 
David, you seem to be making your argument a bit forcefully here. This is, after all, a film based forum so you will excuse some of us if we prefer the nature of film to a computer. Up until recently my local cinemas were the Odeon and the Empire (yes, Leicester Square). The digital projections there are excellent and after the initial disappointment of an obvious digital image appearing on the screen it soon appears to the eyes as being as good as film. But it's not really. The first run prints these houses used to get were superior to today's prints. The distributors want to kill film so they can make more money it's as simple as that.

About 10 years ago you wouldn't have believed the appaling demonstrations and attempts to supplant film. At least they've improved and are no longer trying to foist VHS quality imagery on us but the principle is the same.

There are no doubt second hand projectors for the smaller cinemas already available which for smaller screens will be adequate, but it will give the poor mug attending dubious picture quality compared to film. Of course, aforementioned mug will be told it's digital and therefore better. And what does digital really mean? Compressed for one thing. But people believe what they're told nowadays. Take global warming as a prime example.
 

---

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 20, 2007, 05:01 AM:
 
Well as far as the video revolution in the cinema industry out here in NZ is concerned it seems to have fizzled out interest is now zero

Graham
 

---

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on March 20, 2007, 05:40 AM:
 
Sorry John if I'm a bit seeming forcefull, but I can only report what I have experienced.
It is no good to me to sit in a multi-plex to watch a 35 mm print with soft focus, varring colour, scratch marks etc., and having to imagine how good it would have been in a proper 2000 seater cinema of yestur year.
I was not told Digital is better I was allowed to make my own judgement.
Yes I have been told digital TV and Radio is better, but for myself I've found it not to be.
Yes this is a cine forum, hence I posted in the General Yak.
 

---

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 549) on March 20, 2007, 06:32 AM:
 
David, trust me, digital projection can look out-of-focus, lack contrast, have varying colour and even stop part way through in a mess of pixels if not constantly maintained.

Digital is NOT a solution for 35mm projection presentation issues, it is a solution to the Hollywood studio print costs. Cinemas derive little if any advantages, but must bare higher running and maintenance costs.

To illuminate an average size 10 meter screen needs a 3-4k xenon with film, a digital projector requires a 7k lamp to light to the same standard. A 7k xenon is almost double the cost and lasts half as long. I have done extensive cost analysis as the former senior technical mamager for the largest cinema chain outside the US.

Digital will continue to roll out, but your local multiplex in 5-10 years time will be beset with the same issues as 35mm presentation has today......and a few more!

David
 

---

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 20, 2007, 06:39 AM:
 
Hi David
Its a pity yourself and others have experienced sub-standard presentations this is not the fault of 35mm film, this stuff has been around a very long time and entertained billions of people thats why its lasted over 100yrs, Its a pity we live far away as I could show you exactly what 35mm is capable of in both picture and sound quality. The cinema where I work we take our projection work seriously and as a result we maintain a very high standard of presentation, and if the feed back I have recieved from our customers over the years is anything to go by its pretty good, many of the films I have screened King Kong, Narnia, The Lord Of The Rings, "all filmed in NZ" of course all look and sound great, I really doubt digital would or could be better.

Graham.
 

---

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on March 20, 2007, 07:37 AM:
 
Graham, Yes I know what 35mm and 70mm are capable of with a well printed film and good presentation which as saved it from damage, I've been going to the cinema for 60 years.
I can only assume you get better quaulity prints in NZ.
I am doubtfull that a print with soft focus and grain can be made to look good.
I saw a 65mm film on 70mm print on Sunday it was straight from the orginal not an intermediate copy for printing and had no wear visible , it was superb. This film as been shown to younger people who have never seen 65/70mm in thier lives and they have been truly amazed. So yes I know good film when I see it.
 

---

Posted by Joerg Polzfusz (Member # 602) on March 20, 2007, 08:09 AM:
 
Hi,

IMHO in 99.99% of all cases the problem with "soft focus" isn't caused by the print itself, but by the projectionist who is in charge for all cinemas at once and is normally also selling sweets and/or tickets at the same time.
Digital projection doesn't solve this as the tests in the USA have shown: Pixels dropped dead in the projectors that are projecting enlarged LCDs/plasma-screens after a year or two, the rotating mirrors (used in some projectors) got stuck after a year, hard-discs/DVDs suddenly had read-errors, the PCs in the projectors crashed, ... .

Anyway: I have to agree that the projected picture of those new Sony-4k-projectors is "good enough" to replace 35mm-film (since most current 35mm films are already reduced to a 4k-resolution by the DI). But those 2k-projectors are all crap IMHO - every 16mm-projector gives a better picture!
The only digital projectors that managed to really impress me by now are those "laser projectors" made by Schneider and/or Zeiss.
 

---

Posted by Chris Quinn (Member # 129) on March 20, 2007, 11:31 AM:
 
This is worth a look...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_5260000/newsid_5261000/5261094.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm

Chris.
 

---

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on March 20, 2007, 01:56 PM:
 
Just spent an interesting afternoon at a Vue Cinema which has one Digital projector installed, and also has several 35mm projs. The projectionist said in the 12 months they had it installed the digital had only been used twice. My friend explained he had 16mm and super 8 as do I, so its interesting that the latest digital was not being used a great deal in this Vue cinema.
 

---

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on March 20, 2007, 03:44 PM:
 
Here in Orlando we like to think of ourselves as on the leading edge of the entertainment industry. Some in fact call Orlando 'Hollywood East'. So it would not be unexpected to find out that digital projection is rapidly taking over 35mm in Orlando. But a scan of todays movie listings in the 'Orlando Sentinel' shows that out of the 3 or 4 hundred screens in the area NOT ONE is currently showing digital projection. This includes a brand new, just opened Muliplex in downtown Orlando. So DP is not even on the map here. Now some theatres here do in fact have digital projectors, which they use for pre-show commercials and some trailers, but the quality is so obviously inferior to 35mm that when 35mm hits the screen the difference is palpable. Last year one cinema here did show King Kong in digital, and it it was pretty awful.
 

---

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on March 20, 2007, 06:05 PM:
 
What we are forgeting here are how films are MADE. prety much most films are mastered at 2K in digital anyway. The digital projection will always be closer than 35 mm. because the digital files are optimised that way. To say that 'Pirates of the caribian' is beter on 35mm than Digital projetion is nonsense. However that is not to say that on 35mm WHEN DONE RIGHT cannot look stonking!
 

---

Posted by Graham Sinden (Member # 431) on March 20, 2007, 06:08 PM:
 
As much as we all like film being on this forum, we all have to admit that sometime in the future all films will be digitally projected in the cinemas. It might take 10, 20 or even 30 years but eventually everything will be digital. Im a film lover myself but even I have realised that film is dying a slow death and will eventually dissapear from the mainstream. Professional digital projectors will get a lot better and cheaper and cinemas will all take them up in the thousands. Movies will be beamed overnight via satelite to cinemas across the world and stored on Hard disks and can be shown the next day. Obviously copy protection needs to be encrypted within the data to stop joe public recieving them but when this is done it will save money distributing films to every cinema. Im afraid the new age of the cinema is just around the corner, just keep a tight hold of that super 8 projector before that dissapears.
 

---

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on March 20, 2007, 06:18 PM:
 
At the end of the day it is all about 'bums on seats' in a darkened room as a communal experience. No different than 'The great train robbery' was 100 years ago. It is all about storytelling folks!
 

---

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on 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.
 

---

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on March 21, 2007, 04:18 AM:
 
Would love to return to the picture palaces of the 50's.
Wow, the New Victoria ( Gaumont) Bradford that was a cinema, and Theatre and Wurlizer organ.
http://www.kingsdr.demon.co.uk/cinemas/newvic.htm#origin
 

---

Posted by Graham Sinden (Member # 431) on March 21, 2007, 08:24 AM:
 
At the end of the day it will all be decided by money. The big studios and the multiplexes will make a decision based purely on economic sense rather than peoples opinions. I would guess that most people (around 90%) care more about the heating and prices rather than the quality of the image on screen. As ive stated before the most important factor is that you enjoy the film and the evening out with a nice drink as well.
 

---

Posted by Lars Pettersson (Member # 762) on 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
 

---

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on March 22, 2007, 09:12 PM:
 
Lars,

Well said.........and welcome to the Forum.

Doug
 

---

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on March 23, 2007, 03:54 AM:
 
The above is very interesting.

The digital proj I viewed in the cinema which had been in place 12 months had only been used for two films in that period.

Don’t think it bodes well for the new medium main stream, but time will tell. The projectionist I spoke to when looking at the machine felt that they may well be out of a job as the projectors may be fed by a phone line and left on all day with programmes timed remotely.

At present the projector I viewed was fed digital video from a conventional hard drive which was part of the projection unit itself. The problem for me personally is that a visit to the cinema will never be the same knowing I am watching electronic pictures and not that organic film look. But I am not the masses, and I doubt if The Vue chain will cater for movie goers who prefer to see film projected.

Through my work I got involved with the Digital Development Agency and I can tell which way all of this is going. Businesses are being targeted to get into the digital revolution and expected to integrate in the digital environment.

It has always been my vue (get it) that in years to come one of the few places you may well be able to see film projected will either be at a special professional screening, or in your own home as cine film enthusiasts. Digital is not good for cine film fans, but it may well do the home projection of cine films a great deal of good as it could spark more interest in cine as one of the few places to see it and get your hands on experience.

Just a thought.
 

---

Posted by Joerg Polzfusz (Member # 602) on March 23, 2007, 04:21 AM:
 

quote:

---

What we are forgeting here are how films are MADE. prety much most films are mastered at 2K in digital anyway.

---

Sorry, but that's not correct: Most films made in the last two or three years are mastered at 4K, only low budget and independent films are still mastered at 2k. Hence a 35mm-projector will have a better picture than a 2k-DP. It'll even have a better picture than a 4k-projector since the DP will use a lossy compression for the video-stream, most older DPs aren't able to provide the intendended colours, ... .
 

---

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on March 24, 2007, 04:07 AM:
 
Er I think you will find it is true and I should know because that is my job!
(Look me up on imdb.)
4k is only started to be recently (Casino Royale was done at 2K) and the digital cinema spec is 2k. 2048x 1080. 4K pipelines involve 4x the data than 2 and is expensive.
Films are still made the old fashioned way at the lab also. Christopher Nolan prefers this still.

Regards,

Stuart Fyvie.
 

---

Posted by Lars Pettersson (Member # 762) on March 24, 2007, 10:39 AM:
 
Hello everyone.

I´m very surprised to read that Casino Royale was mastered at 2K resolution -why? They could certainly afford 4K!
Here in town when someone produces a film shot in 35 mm and prints are struck the old fashioned way from 35 mm masters, and the film requires a digital insert, that insert will be done in 4K. Intercutting original 35mm material and 2K shots doesn´t really help promote digital cinema...

Actually, a friend at the lab told me that "if someone had invented 35mm film today, then everyone would have gone crazy over it -this is fantastic quality, we MUST use THIS!"

Best Wishes
Lars
 

---

Posted by Andrew Wilson (Member # 538) on March 24, 2007, 10:49 AM:
 
SPEILBERG WANTS TO USE FILM FOREVER.HE HAS NO QUALMS ABOUT HIS COMPANY-IE AMBLIN USING DIGTAL,BUT THE MASTER PERFERES FILM;AT ALL TIMES.UNLIKE LUCAS...ANDY.
 

---

Posted by Lars Pettersson (Member # 762) on March 24, 2007, 11:24 AM:
 
Way to go, Steven!

Best Wishes

Lars
 

---

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on March 24, 2007, 12:18 PM:
 
4k film outputs are done but they are uprezzed from 2, 4K are rarely done all the way
because of costs and data issues. Especially with multi fx houses like a Harry Potter. You are dealing with literally Terra flops worth of information.
Aquisition on FILM willl be done for a good while yet as digital cameras can't match the quality. Tim Burton tested for Sweeney Todd but decided to shoot film because it still gave the best result. As for projection, you will find that the average release print
in 35 mm will be lucky to resolve 1K worth of information because of optical losses.....

Stuart.
 

---

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 24, 2007, 02:48 PM:
 
Lars
Welcome to the forum, your comments, "If someone had invented 35mm film today then everyone would have gone crazy over it, this is fantastic quality we MUST use THIS!", Lars I cant think of a better way to put it. . brilliant

Graham.
 

---

Posted by Lars Pettersson (Member # 762) on 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
 

---

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on 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!
 

---

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 24, 2007, 04:00 PM:
 
Paul
There was one film made a few years ago called "The Blair Witch Project" I think it was a student made film, the camera movement was terrible, you could not look at the screen without feeling motion sickness coming on. I remember reading somewhere that when director William Wyler watched Carol Reeds film "The third Man", that he sent the director a "Spirit Level" as a present, not sure if it was well recieved.

Graham.
 

---

Posted by Lars Pettersson (Member # 762) on 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
 

---

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on March 24, 2007, 06:15 PM:
 
I think we are both reading from the same page too!

Cheers,

Stuart
 

---

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on March 25, 2007, 04:51 AM:
 
I don't see a fight here at all. I see a very well mannered and interesting discussion. Well done chaps.
 

---

Posted by Joerg Polzfusz (Member # 602) on March 26, 2007, 06:08 AM:
 
The IMDB already lists 19 films using a 4k DI: Spider Man 2, Ocean's Twelve, Da Vinci Code, ... most of them are from 2006. And I expect to see a large increase this year.
Click onto 4k DI here to see all titles:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/technical
(I can't post a direct link since urls containing brackets aren't allowed here on this board.)

Interview about DIs:
http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/technique/craft/f/finishing/5582.html

"Red one": Videocamera with 4k resolution:
http://red.com/cameras.htm

... of course the industry will tell everyone that 2k is the standard - otherwise they won't get rid of their outdated products now and won't be able to replace all 2k-projectors with 4k-projectors in 5 years ...

Jörg
 

---

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on March 26, 2007, 06:35 AM:
 
You will see from my earlier posts that 2K is the system being installed in UK cinemas.
The cinemas are getting funding for this standard.
 

---

Posted by Joerg Polzfusz (Member # 602) on March 26, 2007, 09:01 AM:
 

quote:

---

You will see from my earlier posts that 2K is the system being installed in UK cinemas.
The cinemas are getting funding for this standard.

---

Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC


UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2