8mm Forum: Digital Movie Theatres.

This is topic Digital Movie Theatres. 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=004904

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on July 08, 2018, 05:08 AM:

I have been going to see quite a lot of movies lately that are presented in the Digital Format.

From what my son and i and others are perceiving the Digital movie image is looking more dare we say "filmic " .

I wonder what the reason for that is ? [Smile]

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on July 08, 2018, 09:51 AM:

Is it, perhaps, that you are getting more used to digital films and their projection?

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on July 08, 2018, 10:04 AM:

It's all a matter of the software they are using: they can make it look any way they want as long as they don't run into the hardware's limits.

This is why early on it was kind of shortsighted to criticize the way digital cinema looked. Yes, it did look pretty bad, but like a lot of these new technologies what you see today will go obsolete pretty quickly and what comes next will be much better.

I bet the early days of film were much the same.

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on July 08, 2018, 03:44 PM:

On the 35mm forum Matt Palmer who posted "I made a movie!: CALIBRE" said this after someone asked if he shot 35mm:

"Thanks for the new reviews!

For budget reasons, we shot on the Alexa. Then in the grade we added a heavy 16mm organic grain - a reel of 16mm is shot against a grey background, then the grey is taken away, leaving only a layer of actual film grain which can then be placed over the images - this process works very well and it's pretty damn difficult (if a film's been shot with decent lenses and graded well) to tell the difference between film and digital in the final movie. So when seen in theatres the movie looks very grainy and nicely filmic.

BUT, this grain had to be dialed down quite a bit for the online version (it would have failed quality control tests), so the grain is a lot less noticeable online, but still has a subtle effect I think (it makes the images feel heavier and dirtier).

If I get to make another movie and have a higher budget then I'd shoot on film for sure. That said, I'd probably still add the grain, which is kind of the equivalent of printing to film after you've shot on it."

First time I had heard them do this sort of thing using actual grain from film but it would seem they would continually be using the same grain over and over.

Posted by Nantawat Kittiwarakul (Member # 6050) on July 10, 2018, 02:34 AM:

Ironically,what I remembered from REAL FILM projections are...
- the picture unsteadiness (always,even at a tiny bit of it)
- dust,dirt here&there
- and the picture ALWAYS flicker,48 Hz flashing rate seems too low to be unnoticeable for me.
And while digital projection have NONE of those "characteristics" (kindest word I can think of for now).

So is digital projection really that evil? Maybe yes for some,but definitely not for me. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on July 10, 2018, 03:51 PM:

The main trouble with 35mm was projectors that had shutters too narrow (or badly aligned) so that on credits you could see that the frame had not completely come to a rest before one part of it, usually the bottom, was blurred. This was only visible then due to the high contrast of white titles on black.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on July 10, 2018, 04:03 PM:

Another factor is that the current generation of projectors is far and away much more accurate in reproducing a digital image. The color gamut available with laser projection (either RGB $$$$$$ type or even laser-phosphor versions), plus vastly improved brightness, are finally helping me miss film less.

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on July 11, 2018, 06:37 AM:

Thanks for all your input on this topic folks.

Nantawat ... You are correct there on your points regarding film and in fact you have pointed out what i dislike about film and its weakness in general .

Bill ... Those have been my very thoughts regarding the improved digital images on screen. I have noticed that the colour has indeed changed and looks more like film without any "added grain".

Brian ... I have always disliked that " film ghosting " on out of alignment shutters on all gauges of film projectors.

I have always thought it to be an utter disgrace that such a state of affairs was allowed to occur on pro 35mm film projectors in cinemas.

Steve and Larry you mention some interesting points there guys.

[Smile]

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on July 11, 2018, 09:47 AM:

I always thought that most, if not all, 35mm projectors had a knob for shutter travel ghost adjustment. Such adjustment would as simple as using the racking knob.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 11, 2018, 10:57 AM:

If I was them, I'd use 35MM grain instead of 16MM.

I have this program "Serif" (a british software for video editing) and one of the effects is "old Film" and you can either "dial up" or down the amount of grain and it can, at times make some footage actually look better, I must confess.

Posted by Oliver F. R. Feld (Member # 1911) on July 11, 2018, 02:45 PM:

I remember my STAR WARS and THE BLACK HOLE experience at the Royal Palast in Berlin in the 80s.
At this time it had the biggest screen in Europe.
Both were 70mm features and I can’t remember any unsteadiness.
It was breathtaking.
And I miss this special movies feeling today.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on July 17, 2018, 03:26 PM:

i never noticed unsteadiness in the cinema, Where did you blokes to go watch films? Flea pits with old wrecks for projectors [Big Grin]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on July 17, 2018, 04:44 PM:

Cant say I have ever noticed all those faults either [Roll Eyes]

I usually go to a cinema to watch a film, not to say well its ghosting and there is a slight up and down movement on the intermittent, I am sure I saw a splice go through, oh! and there was a base scratch on the far right, Oh! and the sound was to quiet or loud, oh! and the film was boring and so on

Tom they must go to some run down dumps [Big Grin]

Posted by Nantawat Kittiwarakul (Member # 6050) on July 17, 2018, 09:54 PM:

Thrust me,I had seen all kinds of HELL in film projection in my (undeveloped) country. All varies from very perfect presentation in first-run movie palace,to open-air shows in rural area where all prints are scratched to death running through worn-out projector causing the picture to dance around the screen like crazy. [Roll Eyes]

The point is,digital projection would,at least make the presentation somewhat more consistent in terms of quality. It MIGHT NOT supersede the best film projection,but it DEFINITELY will,by far, leave the worst film projection in the dust.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on July 17, 2018, 10:21 PM:

Well my old "92" year old projector still looks pretty good to me. [Smile]

https://vimeo.com/226388386

Modern 35mm film projectors like the Kinoton were excellent machines, very quiet running, held a rock steady image and would have lasted many many years had film continued. I am glad I had the chance to watch such 35mm prints as "Doctor Zhivago" when we ran the stuff. Although its all history now, it was good while it lasted and in particular taking a bit of video history of our projection room before it closed.

https://vimeo.com/242964641

I don't go to the cinema much these days as the product does not really interest me, plus the digital projection although being very good I tend to stay home and watch it. Going to the cinema these days has sadly lost its appeal.

Posted by Dave Groves (Member # 4685) on July 18, 2018, 07:08 AM:

We're running a 1937 Simplex projector in our White Bus cinema and the picture is superb. Rock steady and bright since its long ago conversion from carbon arc. I often read of replies in the forums pointing to scratched, unsteady cinema presentations, often in the U.S.A. I've been to a lot of cinemas in the U.K. and can't recall anything of the sort, apart from a one night showing of Alien from the worst print in existence.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on July 18, 2018, 08:33 AM:

Much as I love film, my most frequent complaint when watching 35mm projection in London was the frequency with which I was seeing less than perfect focussing, with (e.g.) only one side of the screen looking sharp.

A lot of good points here but one factor that hopefully makes the picture look more 'filmic', on some occasions, is the ongoing rise in the number of features being shot on film. The difference can of sometimes be subtle and won't be consciously perceived by most of the audience, but it was highly-visible when I watched the Italian film A CIAMBRA at a cinema last night. This was shot on Super 16mm and the image was superb - the format clearly offers a great option for directors who welcome a conspicuous 'fine grain' look.

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on July 18, 2018, 05:29 PM:

Well blow me down with a feather and blast my buttons if there really is such a thing as a ROCK STEADY film image. [Wink]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on July 18, 2018, 09:16 PM:

Well I guess David you haven't watched my first video "yet" [Wink]

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on July 19, 2018, 02:51 AM:

Graham i have watched your excellent video i can detect some image movement.

There is no such beastie as a "rock steady" image when it comes to film projection on any gauge.

There is always some very slight movement due to the mechanical nature of film projection no matter how good and pristine the projector may be.

Even though the best of machines are finely tuned to the "thresholds of unsteadiness" the mechanical imperfections still exist.

The threshold of unsteadiness below which it is not detected depends on the optical limitations of the human eye.

In all my years as a cinema projectionist i have never seen a rock steady image on the screen.

I have worked in my time with 35mm Super Simplex, Westars, Strong Century , Kinotons , Cinemaccanica V 7 and V 8 and of course that Rolls Royce of machines the Philips DP 70/35mm Todd-ao.

Never on any of them have i seen a "rock steady" image , as on very close inspection, right up to the screen, when viewed right up to the edge of the image to the black screen masking i used a white ruler to help detect any movement.

I have done this with both 35mm and 70mm and i have always found the slightest evidence of image movement. Its in the very nature of the beast.

[Smile]

[ July 22, 2018, 02:37 AM: Message edited by: David Hardy ]

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on July 19, 2018, 02:52 AM:

I think you have to ask where the unsteadiness could come from. In a feature film there are many causes. The camera, effects works, printing, film stock perforation and finally the projector. Any one can introduce this. Unless there is a registration pin in the equipment there will be minor variation of the position of the film. This showed up when in an episode of Dr who they tried keying in a video effect over 16mm location work, unfortunately it made the rock steady video look as if it was wobbling.

Also your distance from the screen affects this. If you are very distant it looks steady, if you are very near you wouldn't be able to see a steady reference point to you brain would compensate - in between you might notice more.

Complex, isn't it?

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on July 19, 2018, 02:57 AM:

Brian you are spot on there my friend. [Wink]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on July 20, 2018, 04:09 AM:

David

That movement you saw in the video, is me accidentally bumping the video camera [Wink]

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on July 20, 2018, 04:53 AM:

Graham it may be the case that at one point you bumped the video camera but that does not change the fact that there is always some amount of small movement visible on all films. I can see it on the Tom and Jerry one.
[Smile]

Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on July 20, 2018, 05:33 AM:

Unless you bolt your head into a medical restraining cage and have your eyes permanently opened and again fixated to allow for no movement at all how on earth does such a small amount of (vertical) unsteadiness or (horizontal) side to side weave spoil a real film presentation?

Fade / poor focus / excessive wear - I can't put up with those, but the slightest movement being picked on here from a mechanical projection process is not a problem for me.

We are talking about moving images (real film and digital) watched by less than optically perfect human beings not analytical robots - surely the most important factor is enjoying the movie and being entertained by it?

Kevin

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on July 20, 2018, 07:34 AM:

Kevin i agree that it is all about the enjoyment of the movie that is of prime importance after all. I am not stating that such tiny movements spoil ones viewing pleasure.

However all i was pointing out is that "I" have yet to see a film that is " rock steady " when projected via 70mm / 35 mm etc.

I suppose i have had the luxury ( or cursed ) of having worked as a cinema projectionist for decades and had the time to conduct such viewing perceptions at distance X to see such image movements at such close up distances in a cinema.

I never needed to bolt my head or have my eyes permanently opened
by such nasty restraining devices in order to see that.

I laughed when i read this as it put me in mind of a scene from A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.

[Wink]

Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on July 20, 2018, 08:23 AM:

Very much a case of A Clockwork Orange was in my mind too David!

Even though you could still see some movement from even the best mechanical projection, when viewed from the majority audience perspective I'm sure most would not worry about it as long as the film was a good one and kept their attention.

I had similar experiences when setting up colour copiers and printing equipment, taking ages to get things right yet all calibrated way beyond the visual expectations of 99% of users.

Kevin.

Posted by Nantawat Kittiwarakul (Member # 6050) on July 20, 2018, 09:39 PM:

Oh please,enough talking about image (un)steadiness.
My Shakeameccanica...I mean Cinemeccanica V8 sure didn't get its nickname by accident. [Big Grin]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on July 20, 2018, 10:16 PM:

Don't worry Nantawat we are only expressing our humble views [Wink]

Any chance of posting some photos of your projector? [Cool]

Posted by Nantawat Kittiwarakul (Member # 6050) on July 22, 2018, 09:06 PM:

Of course. [Wink]

Bought dirt cheap a few years ago for my semi-hobby work (transferring some rare 35mm prints for my fellow collectors). Presumed to be decommissioned from some cinemas when they went digital,and about to head to dumpster if I didn't buy it. [Eek!]

Probably NOT in the best in shape Vic8,but this is as far as I can get for now.

I had come to the conclusion that it's the worn out intermittent sprocket,film gate,and even the film gate's design itself that cause the unsteadiness. If everything is in perfect shape it would be just acceptable,otherwise it is then...as its nickname. [Embarrassed]

PS please pretend you didn't see the mess in the background. [Big Grin]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on July 23, 2018, 01:51 AM:

Hi Nantawat...thanks for posting the photos, its always interesting to see what others get up to.

Just a thought, is to remove the Intermittent sprocket screw and carefully pull out the Intermittent sprocket itself, then turn it around and re-fit it, so what was once facing the outside, is now on the inside. Providing the previous owner has not already done that in the past, this will mean that the sprocket teeth will be pulling down the film where they are not worn.

Its simple enough to do, and it might just steady up the image a lot more [Smile]

Posted by Nantawat Kittiwarakul (Member # 6050) on July 23, 2018, 10:10 PM:

EXACTLY what I'm considering!

Better yet,I should stock some more NOS int.sprocket for years to come. Only if I can find some... [Roll Eyes]

(Tried Ebay before - got one used,and no response at all from another seller,duh.)

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on July 25, 2018, 06:03 PM:

Here is another example of a "Rock Steady Image" this time on Super 8 and in Scope, The only flicker here is due to lack of sync between the video camera and the projector shutter. Apart from that it looks great [Cool]

https://vimeo.com/195227404

[Smile]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on August 01, 2018, 04:07 AM:

Well Nantawat have you fixed that intermittent yet? [Smile]

Regarding the critics of film projection out there, perhaps they should watch this on Digital [Big Grin]

https://youtu.be/4u5x5oaMkDQ

Posted by Nantawat Kittiwarakul (Member # 6050) on August 01, 2018, 08:09 PM:

Not quite,but I though I had tamed her down to some "acceptable" level. [Wink]

The intermittent itself seems fine - purrs like a cat! But the int. sprocket itself&the gate seems not. Will do my best to tweak them out as much as possible. I might have some transfer sample on my YouTube channel. Will post the link if I find it. [Big Grin]

Posted by Nantawat Kittiwarakul (Member # 6050) on August 03, 2018, 10:02 AM:

And now,for the sake of completeness...

First sample,scanned from "Scope" trailer. Seems steady enough.
https://youtu.be/p5BPps6jH_c

Another sample from "Flat" trailer,not quite steady. [Roll Eyes]

https://youtu.be/lJh0mmmJZlI

I later found that it might depends on each film stock/condition,too. Some would dance like crazy while others are quite stable. That really depends. [Wink]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on August 03, 2018, 04:11 PM:

Looks good [Cool]

Did you turn the intermittent sprocket around?

Posted by Nantawat Kittiwarakul (Member # 6050) on August 03, 2018, 08:24 PM:

Tried that,it quiets up noticeably. She really PURRS now,sweet! If this is the "closed" head type it would be impossible to tell whether she's running or not unless you're standing right next to it. [Big Grin]

But to my surprise - the picture (un)steadiness seems to be more or less the same. [Confused]

Under a magnifying glass the "used " teeth side looks to be only slightly worn off,just barely noticeable. And the wear pattern seems very uniform in every teeth,indicating normal wear from use.

So I started to suspect that my Vic8 would be,by her nature,picky about the film condition she's running. Therefore there would be nothing much else I can do,just learn to live with that. [Roll Eyes]

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2