Jump to content

Kodak Announces Revolutionary 3D Digital Movie Projection Tech


Tim Tyler

Recommended Posts

No offense, Terry, but that is a total non-sequitur.

 

A *35*mm is not portable, let alone a 70mm (not to mention a severe shortage of platters large enough to play a feature-length movie in 70). With the exception of a few IMAX screens in commercial theatres, and IMAX/OMNIMAX installations, the only other 70mm projectors running are in changeover mode. ...

 

70mm died over a decade ago, and you can't bring it back Terry. ...

In any case, that is not Kodak's job to buy them. You have to commit to putting one in somewhere, which no theatre wants to do. Invent an economical, portable, lightweight 70mm machine, that can be installed by someone working for minimum wage in 20 minutes, and then come back and talk about it.

 

Your suggestions are just off the wall, though for Kodak bailing out theatres.

Hi Karl,

I was talking about the fantastic Kinoton Projectors which come in 16mm, 35mm & 70mm. The Link is below for you to see their size. They of course are fantastic German engineering which is completely dependable. I wasn't talking about old huge Projectors from 30 years ago.

 

Now regarding Kodak, what is smarter? The millions of dollars they spent on developing this Laser Digital Projector which will only serve to drastically undermine the sales of their Film, or investing in modern 70mm Film Projectors which will actually increase their Film sales? The answer seems obvious to me. Kodak is the primary beneficiary of 70mm -- not the Theaters. As you will see on the Kinoton Webpage, the reports of the death of 70mm, 35mm and 16mm Projectors are GREATLY EXAGGERATED! My new idea for synchronizing the Projector to a Computer for Digital Sound only breathes more life into Film Projectors. :D

 

http://www.kinoton.de/de/produkte-loesungen/filmtechnik/16-35-und-70-mm-projektoren.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

I can't read German, but these all look to be rather bulky (are they shown without a lamphouse?) reel-to-reel changeover projectors. And it looks like they're integrated so you can't run them with a platter.

 

So you'd need to install TWO of them, plus potentially two lamphouses, and have a projectionist watching this one movie only while it is running.

 

 

And 70mm has had digital sound since about the same time that they started experimenting with it in 35mm. The IMAX theatres can run all sorts of digital formats, sometimes they come on CDs, 35mm optical stock, or on DVDs. I think they have one of the digital soundtrack formats supported on 70mm too, maybe Dolby Digital.

 

This stuff is almost twenty years old now, so there is nothing new or groundbreaking to be done here. You need to educate yourself on the industry before you try to "reinvent the wheel." It seems like a lot of your solutions have already been implemented, that you just don't know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

And 70mm has had digital sound since about the same time that they started experimenting with it in 35mm. ...

 

This stuff is almost twenty years old now, so there is nothing new or groundbreaking to be done here. You need to educate yourself on the industry before you try to "reinvent the wheel." It seems like a lot of your solutions have already been implemented, that you just don't know it.

I'm fully aware of the optical Digital Sound Tracks on the Film. However, here's a problem pointed out by Keith Walters last year.

 

<QUOTE>"And as for "modern optical digital soundtrack" you're lucky to get two weeks' screening out of one of those, at which point most projectionists switch back to the analog track.

... However in most multiplexes, chances are you will be listening to the plain ol' analog optical Dolby SR system from '78 or so. Sorry to rain on your parade. "<END>

 

I believe that a lack of reliable Digital Sound is a major impetus to Theatres switching to Digital Projectors. So, it is imperative that 70mm Projectors work with Computer-based 8-Track Digital Sound. This is not presently the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a big sound guy. I would probably have trouble telling the difference, and you would too. . .

 

What about DTS? As long as the DVDs are in the can with the film, they will play just fine. . .

 

And projectionists don't switch back and forth. The analog track is the default backup track.

 

 

The major impetus to switch to digital is to save money. I'm sure the sound quality is probably the least of their concerns, it's getting good enough image quality on the screen (which they have done; 2K projection is better than any print save for maybe a scope movie that isn't from S35).

 

 

Unless you are a projectionist, industry representative, engineer, or booth technician, you don't have a full knowledge of what is going on; you aren't there. What is said on this site is often a lot of fluff. You need to have some firsthand knowledge and a position with the clout to be heard to do anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There certainly is a notable difference between 6- or 8-Track Digital Sound and 2-Track Analogue Sound. The DTS is only on the Regular 35mm Frame, and not Super 35mm nor 70mm. It must be a super duper pain in the ass for the Studios to have to produce that DTS Time Code, and being rid of it is another reason for them to go to Digital Projection. My new idea -- which only requires two contact switches and a stereo phono jack -- doesn't require anything on the Film except a small notch cut on the first Frame of each Reel. Everything else would be done in the Computer software. It's so simple it could be added to existing Super8 Projectors! While I'm not a Theatre projectionist, I certainly would qualify as an inventor / engineer. I'm going to propose my idea to Kinoton. They can add the feature to their Projectors, and provide an upgrade kit for their existing sold Projectors. It would be up to the Theatres and Studios to arrange the Computer sound system.

 

...I'm sure the sound quality is probably the least of their concerns, it's getting good enough image quality on the screen (which they have done; 2K projection is better than any print save for maybe a scope movie that isn't from S35).

I want to make sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that you consider 2K Digital Projection to be better than 35mm? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, 2K projection has better resolution than 35mm prints.

 

 

"Inception" is the only film I know of from the entire year of 2010 that wasn't from a 2K DI.

 

So you have a third generation duplicate of a 2K film-out as opposed to a straight 2K resolution in a digital projector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

What about DTS? As long as the DVDs are in the can with the film, they will play just fine. . .

DTS is an 80s technology based on CD-ROMS (not DVDs) and 386PC motherboards. Most movies need at least two and usually three CDs, so you need a player with 3 CD-ROM drives. It really needs to be completely updated to use DVDs or Flash memory, but I can't see that happening at this stage, when we're fast approaching the point where a whole 2K movie file could be put on a single flash drive!

 

Many release release prints have a DTS control track put on simply because it's easy to do; this doesn't necessarily mean the CD-ROMS are available. DTS is more popular in third world countries where literacy is low (meaning subtitles are not an option) and the same prints will be seen in several countries with entirely different languages and cultural sensitivities. Otherwise it's pretty much dead in the water.

 

And projectionists don't switch back and forth. The analog track is the default backup track.

Which it drops back to more and more frequently as the print ages. When you listen continuously to one track or the other, it's really hard to tell the difference in most cinemas. However you can hear a difference in the surround separation when it is switched between analog and digital, and this is very distracting if the projector keeps flicking between the two every time there is a digital dropout. It's generally considered less annoying to just use the analog track all the time then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DTS tracks are so simple that they don't fail after two weeks unless someone has a piece of steel wool in the projector.

 

 

That is a problem with Dolby Digital and, to a lesser extent, SDDS.

 

When a track wears out, then you turn the digital sound off completely and just use analog. In any case, to say that digital sound is the downfall of 35mm projection is ridiculous.

 

 

The downfall of 35mm projection is having fu**tards running it that are getting paid less than what they'd make flipping burgers, that don't know what the fu&* they're doing.

 

It's amazing how long a 35mm print will hold up when it isn't misthreaded every single show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

DTS tracks are so simple that they don't fail after two weeks unless someone has a piece of steel wool in the projector.

 

Absolutely right; it's a great system except hardly anybody uses DTS in the developed world. Most of the CD-ROMs produced are of pretty ordinary Low-Fi 2-channel stereo intended to solve local language and dialect issues, not deliver stunning 9-channel surround. Besides, all cinemas have to provide SDDS and Dolby Digital capability anyway because DTS discs simply aren't available for a lot of releases.

 

Like I said, if somebody wanted to re-boot the DTS system to use more modern technologies like Flash, it would have enormous advantages for distributors. You could even have multi-language Hi-Fi surround all on the same memory card, rather like a DVD release.

 

But I just don't see that happening at this late stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely right; it's a great system except hardly anybody uses DTS in the developed world. Most of the CD-ROMs produced are of pretty ordinary Low-Fi 2-channel stereo intended to solve local language and dialect issues, not deliver stunning 9-channel surround. Besides, all cinemas have to provide SDDS and Dolby Digital capability anyway because DTS discs simply aren't available for a lot of releases.

 

DTS is commonly, perhaps most favorably, used in this country, which I would say is highly developed. I know of one theatre that uses it for closed captioning, but most theatres have a mix of digital sound formats, probably picked up hodge-podge or whatever was cheapest.

 

Some theatres have it in every auditorium, mostly so they can put "(Digital!)" in the movie listings in the paper next to every title. Any new 35mm installs are probably not even bothering. I don't know if any major chain is even bothering to put film projection in at this point though.

 

 

I had no idea that DTS was only two channel. Since most movies are recorded mono, and mixed afterwards, artificially, or using software to simulate real surround sound and stereo sound, I don't think the number of channels (as long as there are at least two) matters in the least to the customer.

 

There are a few audiophiles out there, sure, but I'd say 90% of the seats in a theatre are outside of the audio sweet spot where a viewer could even take advantage of the mix.

 

 

I would say that, in terms of digital sound, Dolby is probably the worst. It has to have the highest compression, as it uses such a small area. SDDS is probably the best, as it is double-redundant. I know it is no longer supported by Sony, so it is dead. DTS, I would say is probably in the middle in quality, but it is the most reliable (as long as your remember to send the disks along with the movie. I would assume it is somewhere in between Sony and Dolby.

 

Stereo HR soundtracks, I wouldn't be surprised if they could be better than Dolby, of course exposing them properly matters. Digital is supposedly immune to these things, but you already mentioned physical damage, and I've heard of plenty of instances where the Dolby Digital is printed "into" the sprocket holes.

 

I've also seen some edge-fogged film that would probably interfere with SDDS and Dolby. Sometimes it even makes it into the analog track area, never could really "hear" it.

 

 

I guess in that regard, DTS is the most reliable form, even above analog.

 

 

 

I don't see how any of this matters at this point. All the area on a 35mm print has been used up. Digital sound certainly isn't the Achilles Heel of 35mm projection. And I seem to recall Blurays having better sound, in some cases, than either 35mm or 2K digital projection. I think it has since been corrected in 2K and maybe 35mm.

 

But it's clear the industry doesn't seem to care much about offering the latest and greatest sound quality either. I mean, we arguably have the lowest acceptable sound quality going back to before the time of 78 RPM records, with MP3s being embraced by so many. It's easier to get away with marginal sound quality now than at any time in the past sixty years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I had no idea that DTS was only two channel.

The original DTS format has 5.1 channels, similar to DVDs, but I meant the ones commonly used in Third World countries.

My point is, in those places DTS's popularity has nothing whatever to do with quality, it's simply a cheap and convenient way of producing minority interest sound tracks, since they can be burned on an ordinary PC.

From what I've heard, the indifferent sound quality is the least of their worries; the diabolical performances of the people doing the voices is a bigger issue. In a lot of places, there is only one male and one female actor to do all the voices!

I remember seeing such a setup on a TV documentary, where they were dubbing American sitcoms in Burma if I remember correctly. Basically, they get a stereo soundtrack sans dialogue, a script, two microphones and a glass of water :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

grouch: Nice zombie movie you videoed there, kid.

kid: I had a lot of hot chicks in it.

grouch they look great.

kid: did you say you were shooting something with film? I didn't think anybody used that anymore.

grouch: oh no. You can't use film. it's too expensive. You should stick to video.

kid: Yeah, hi-def is great.

grouch: sure is. it's really....clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2K is an awfully low resolution for making 35mm Prints. It's too bad they don't care enough about quality to use 4K.

A 2K Print only amounts to 2.9 MegaPixels for the whole 35mm Frame. It's as if the Studios are deliberately spewing out crap! The Hollywood Studios are damnable and detestable scumbags who have no respect for their customers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 2K Print only amounts to 2.9 MegaPixels for the whole 35mm Frame. It's as if the Studios are deliberately spewing out crap! The Hollywood Studios are damnable and detestable scumbags who have no respect for their customers!

 

Until people (on here, you didn't do the research yourself) pointed out to you that movies were distributed as 4th generation copies of 2K files, you swore that they were from 4K files.

 

In the case of S35, the quality has improved because of the DI.

 

 

So why weren't you complaining that movies were soft before? Is soft film, or shi**y duping OK for you, but 2K DIs aren't?

 

 

There's nothing wrong with just saying "I like the look of film. It looks better with digital," but a lot of your arguments fall apart under scrutiny. Comparatively, things weren't much better with a lot of 35mm contact printing.

 

The shifts in color and density with 35 are sometimes truly attrocious. It looks like they accept every print in some cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The shifts in color and density with 35 are sometimes truly attrocious. It looks like they accept every print in some cases.

 

What goes wrong with 35 prints is that they start out as matched sets of 5 or 6 double (2000 ft.) reels, but as reels get damaged, the exchanges swap in "good" reels from other prints. Things drift during big release print orders of thousands of prints.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until people (on here, you didn't do the research yourself) pointed out to you that movies were distributed as 4th generation copies of 2K files, you swore that they were from 4K files. ...

Well, firstly, I never "swore" to anything. I simply would assume that Studios have enough commitment to quality that a DI is a 4K print. My foolish naivety! This simply proves that the Studios are scumballs. Now, fourth generation would refer to Optical printing since, I'm again assuming, that a DI is produced from scanning the original Camera Negative, and the final print would therefore be third generation.

 

I think I may have overestimated the Resolution of 2K. If 2K applies to the 24mm width between the sprocket holes, in this case the resolution of R35mm is an anemic 2.4 MegaPixels. It's no wonder why modern 35mm is considered so inadequate.

 

In the case of S35, the quality has improved because of the DI.

Are you talking about converting S35 to anamorphic R35? Yes it is definitely easier to do this digitally.

 

So why weren't you complaining that movies were soft before? Is soft film, or shi**y duping OK for you, but 2K DIs aren't?

Fully four years ago I proposed to Kinoton and Cinemeccanica a simple new design for a dual R35 / S35mm Projector which would end the need to convert S35 to R35. I also proposed my original idea for synchronizing Digital Sound to a Computer. Several months ago I mentioned on another Thread that I have an idea for an improved Contact Printer which I will propose in due course. I would never suggest there isn't need for improvement in the film process. I propose the contrary.

 

There's nothing wrong with just saying "I like the look of film. It looks better with digital," but a lot of your arguments fall apart under scrutiny. Comparatively, things weren't much better with a lot of 35mm contact printing.

The shifts in color and density with 35 are sometimes truly attrocious. It looks like they accept every print in some cases.

The Studios are not even using the highest quality setting on the Continuous Contact Printer. The CCP has different quality settings, but the filmmaker makes the choice of setting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I wish Kodak would focus some of thier arsonal of digital imaging technology on producing a personal film scanner that handles 8mm & 16mm film for the DIY base and archive community. Their reasoning for not doing so is in support of telecine businesses, but at this stage of the game they need to support their own products with their own technology. Studios and their high hourly rates are evaporating in the age of high tech DIY software.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish Kodak would focus some of thier arsonal of digital imaging technology on producing a personal film scanner that handles 8mm & 16mm film for the DIY base and archive community. Their reasoning for not doing so is in support of telecine businesses, but at this stage of the game they need to support their own products with their own technology. Studios and their high hourly rates are evaporating in the age of high tech DIY software.

Kodak got out of the film scanner business in 2005. At that time they were only making professional high-end scanners for still photography professional laboratories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The GREAT SATAN to Film users

 

If anyone needed more proof that Kodak Chairman Antonio Perez and the Board of Directors are the Great Satan :ph34r: to Film users, this Perez interview with the Rochester Business Journal (linked below) is the definitive proof. Below are the best quotes. I expect in the next few years that the rights and formulas to Kodak's Films will be sold to Fujifilm and the two Ilfords. Harman Ilford will likely buy the Black & White Films and Photographic Papers. The future for Film users is with Fuji and the two Ilfords, and everyone should get accustomed to that new reality. It's time for cinematographers to patronize Fujifilm more -- note that they have "film" in their name.

 

http://www.rbj.net/article.asp?aID=184609

 

----------------- Rochester Business Journal Quotes -----------------

On his goals for Kodak: “The company was a very successful company for 100 years that then forgot to look for another path and stayed too long in the old path. … (We’re) trying to recover from it and it’s going to take a while. You can’t create a $10 billion company in revenue with digital products in short period of time. And we are ambitious and we want to create a larger company than we used to have before and as successful a company as we had before. We could have settled for less. I wouldn’t have taken the job, but I have complete faith this is going to be the best turnaround in the industry that I’ve ever heard of and so does my team and the board.”

 

On the transition from film to digital: “We were late; I think it’s fair to say we were late. Some would say we were 20 years late. … Film obviously was not lasting as long as the company thought it was going to last. In fact, it was disappearing very rapidly. Maybe even faster than any other technology than we know that has disappeared. So that made the task of creating a new company slightly more difficult.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...