My feature projected on 4K

J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR · November 16, 2006

There was a screening last night in Dallas of a feature I shot in July. The projector was a 4K Sony SRX-R110. It was at one of the Mark Cuban/Todd Wagoner owned Landmark Theaters.

I went to the venue at 9 am to make sure the projection would be good for the nights show as we had a bad projection at a screening last week. They front ended the unit with a DVD player for our show. I know DVD isn't great to project from but we didn't have the right master tape. So you can imagine the mess I was expecting to see on the screen. An SD/DV feature shot on an XL-2 projected 30 foot wide from a DVD! But when the image came up I thought I was looking at super16 bumped to 35. Holy crap I couldn't believe my eyes!

So I asked the projectionist what the projector was and he was like "Ahh, it's just a Sony..." Turned out to be a $98,000 4K projector. :rolleyes:

The image was absolutely outstanding I could see individual threads in costumes and all the color got to the screen. Can't imagine what this is going to do for quality on low budget HDV shoots when 4K gets out there. I don't want to go back now.

Arni Heimir · November 16, 2006

Congrats Lamar. I would like to hear more about it.

Alessandro Machi · November 16, 2006

It's pretty cool seeing your work projected large.

But aren't there two distinct issues rather than one? One is how good the image looks which you are happy with, and then does it look like a film, or like something different? Not necessarily worse, but different. If you didn't shoot 24P, did the 30 frame video look like a "live" video presentation versus the feel one gets when film is projected?

If you shot 24P, did the motion work for you? Did you walk around the theatre to see if the projected image was consistent in brigh?ness and contrast throughout the venue?

J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR · November 17, 2006

It's pretty cool seeing your work projected large.

But aren't there two distinct issues rather than one? One is how good the image looks which you are happy with, and then does it look like a film, or like something different? Not necessarily worse, but different. If you didn't shoot 24P, did the 30 frame video look like a "live" video presentation versus the feel one gets when film is projected?

If you shot 24P, did the motion work for you? Did you walk around the theatre to see if the projected image was consistent in brigh?ness and contrast throughout the venue?

I shot 24p and it looked fine on the screen. Looked very much like what you would see when watching the material on a monitor. That is, it looked like it was supposed too. I'm not concerned about mimicking the look of film. I just want the small, compressed DV (and now hdv) format to look good in cinemas.

When you project DV very large it usualy looks pixelated, soft and looses a lot of the color. The brightness and contrast were great all around the venue. The only artifact I saw was a couple of motion studders where I know it was the DVD encoding because it is not present on the source material.

But on the issue of looking filmic, I guess it does look more filmic if it can be projected so large without falling apart. My impression is that 4K kicks 2K butt and I never want my digital projects to be projected at less than 4K. But realistically they will be projected sometimes on 2K and more often on something less at festivals and screenings. Of course I would rather watch a film print over 4K any day but that's a seperate issue.

Scott Fritzshall · November 17, 2006

I shot 24p and it looked fine on the screen. Looked very much like what you would see when watching the material on a monitor. That is, it looked like it was supposed too. I'm not concerned about mimicking the look of film. I just want the small, compressed DV (and now hdv) format to look good in cinemas.

When you project DV very large it usualy looks pixelated, soft and looses a lot of the color. The brightness and contrast were great all around the venue. The only artifact I saw was a couple of motion studders where I know it was the DVD encoding because it is not present on the source material.

But on the issue of looking filmic, I guess it does look more filmic if it can be projected so large without falling apart. My impression is that 4K kicks 2K butt and I never want my digital projects to be projected at less than 4K. But realistically they will be projected sometimes on 2K and more often on something less at festivals and screenings. Of course I would rather watch a film print over 4K any day but that's a seperate issue.

I can't imagine that you'd see much of a difference between 2k and 4k projection coming from a miniDV or HDV source, since you're still limited by your originating resolution.

J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR · November 17, 2006

Admitedly I didn't look at 2K/4K side by side but I don't recall seeing DV material projected that clear not even from 2K. Yes there is a limiting factor of the original material which you do see onscreen. But I saw all the material there and only the material, like the projection was transparent if that makes sense.

Phil Rhodes · November 17, 2006

Hi,

This is another vindication of something I've been screaming about for years; video looks like crap projected if you have crap projection, then everyone blames video. Decent projection, decent pictures...

Phil