Why Digital Projection Isn't all that Common

[Andrew Kimery]

Not on the same day, you're not.

Most problems that happen to a film being projected, are splices coming undone, stuff like that. Problems with the print that are fairly quickly fixed.

How many times have you been watching a film, it stopped, and everyone had to go home? 

Never. They always manage to get it back up in a few minutes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've never personally seen a situation where everyone had to go home, but I've seen a situation where most people chose to go home 'cause 20 minutes later the film wasn't fixed yet. I was w/some friends opening night of Star Trek: First Contact and most of theater left. I guess only the hardcore geeks stayed. :D At least I got 2 free movie passes out of it.

 

I've also been in a situation where there was a film break and, for whatever reason, they started the movie at the beginning of the next scene (so we missed like 5 or 8 minutes of the film). Again, opening night of a Star Trek film (Generations), but no one left 'cause 1. it was geeks only and 2. it only took about 5-10 min to "fix" (I say "fix" 'caused we missed part of the show).

 

I'm sure projecting film is more reliable than digital at this point in the game, but film is far from bullet proof.

 

 

Lethal

[Guest Kai.w]

Speaking of it....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4297865.stm

 

 

-k

[Andrew Kimery]

Speaking of it....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4297865.stm

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Blast! I just saw the article and came over here to post it. Too slow though...

 

 

Andrew

[Matt Pacini]

"... I'm sure projecting film is more reliable than digital at this point in the game, but film is far from bullet proof.

Lethal

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well, nothing is "bullet proof" but at least with a film print, you get to actually see the movie you came to see, even if there's a problem.

 

And I keep having to state the real part of the equation that everyone is glossing over with these technical discussions:

The theater owners have ZERO reason to put in digital projectors.

 

They don't have to be cheaper than film projectors for them to consider it, because THEY ALREADY HAVE THE FILM PROJECTORS.

So, economically, the digital projectors have to compete with a $0 price tag.

The theater owners simply are not going to spend extra money for no financial gain whatsoever.

It will never happen unless the studios pay for 100% of the cost, I'm telling you.

 

What they are using now, works well enough for the theater to COMPLETELY FILL UP, so there is NO REASON to "upgrade".

(I put that in quotes, because switching to an inferior product is not really an upgrade).

 

Matt Pacini

[John Sprung]

Movies get stolen today just by taking a camcorder into the theater and shooting off the screen. What I proposed years ago was to try to find some way of displaying the image that would look right to the human eye, but alias severely against the scanning of a camcorder.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> switching to an inferior product is not really an upgrade

 

I think it's dangerous to assume that video projection is an inferior product. It doesn't jump and weave, get scratched, dirty, flicker, have circles and pops every twenty minutes... there's many other things to recommend digital projection.

 

Phil

[Sam Wells]

Sometimes, I don't care about movie theaters: 95% of them rarely show anything I'm interested in.

 

There are exceptions, films I care about in theaters I love etc.

 

But increasingly my experience of film is becoming, paradoxically, digital.

 

So I'm equally interested in digital imaging/viewing improving to the point where viewing it is not a diminished experience. I truly hope this happens, that it opens a range of possibilities between mass audience theatrical filmgoing and home film watching.

 

You might say "well Sam has marginal, non-mainstream tastes" but in fact (even if true) this depends on how you define mainstream anyway. If you look at sheer numbers, games - digital delivery - are outgrossing movies. I could argue that "Sideways" is a small arthouse film - compared to "Grand Theft Auto" !

 

I would argue in fact for the existence of a whole genre of what I'd call novelistic/episodic film - "The Sopranos" "Sex And The City" "100 Center Street" which thrive *without* film projection whatsoever. In fact I would argue this genre merges classical Hollywood narrative/dramatic values with the episodic novelistic structure found in Dickens and others in the 19th Century: two "old" things make something new.

 

35mm projection is (can be) a beautiful thing, but why, in 2005, confine ourselves to the paradigm of 1905 ?

 

-Sam

[Andrew Kimery]

Well, nothing is "bullet proof" but at least with a film print, you get to actually see the movie you came to see, even if there's a problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Saying that projected films NEVER go down in such a way that an audience leaves seems to imply that projected films ARE bullet proof. And, like I said before, I've personally been in a situation where a theater was basically cleared due to proejctor/film issuses. If it had been a Saturday afternoon instead of opening night I think the entire theater would have left.

 

John Sprung,

I can't find the link, but there was an interesting article in Wired talking about organized piracy and how many (most?) pirated movies and albums are an inside job. And the payoff isn't $$$ but "street cred" basically. It was very interesting. If I can find it again I'll post it.

 

 

Andrew

[Ed Nyankori]

This reminds me of watching my first VHS movie on a $950 Hitachi Deck; shortly thereafter I met Jerry of Jerry's Video, the first selfmade millionaire I ever met. He was in buisness with a limited selection and stiff fines for a decade before Blockbuster was within 15miles of our town. Ah the good ole days...

 

Point is the cost of technology tends to decrease as the value of it increases. Technology will provide for the day to day operation of the machines (spare cards,etc). I refuse to believe the average film geek projectionist can't be trained to read a self diagnosis and change a card.

 

As far as the quality I have no idea Ive never seen a digital projection better than s-video.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Sony 4K is available from March 31st (so they say).

HDSDI in SD in ect is standard on most HD projectors over $15k

 

Electronic distribution in African countries is seen as a way to control piracy that occurs when 100s of prints are put on trucks a week before release.

 

Mike Brennan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well that's one out of left field! The interesting thing is that the technology it uses (Silicon Crystal Reflective Display) isn't all that new, but it was put in the "too hard" basket by the likes of Intel and IBM among others years ago. I wonder how many SCRDs thay have to manufacture to get three that work!

 

I certainly look forward to seeing one of those in operation. I've got to point out though, LCD light gates even in domestic "Home Theatre" setups don't have a terribly long lifespan, and tend to start going downhill from day 1.

 

SCRD uses liquid crystal light gates on top of a silicon mirror surface which also contains the LCD drive electronics. With a conventional LCD the light has to pass through the drive electronics which is deposited as thin-film transistors on glass, which makes their light transmission rather poor. With SCRD the light comes in from the top surface of the LCD and bounces off the silicon surface, dramatically improving the efficiency. Up until now, the problem was in getting the silicon surface flat enough, something that has defeated the major semiconductor manufacturers.

 

I don't know, as far as long-term reliability is concerned, my money is still on the DLP light modulator, as they have at least a theoretically unlimited lifespan.

Still, the wheels of progress seem to be creaking forward. Like I said before, I'm not saying it'll never happen, but rather that they still have a long way to go.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Sony 4K is available from March 31st (so they say).

HDSDI in SD in ect is standard on most HD projectors over $15k

 

Electronic distribution in African countries is seen as a way to control piracy that occurs when 100s of prints are put on trucks a week before release.

 

Mike Brennan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well that's one out of left field! The interesting thing is that the technology it uses "SXRD" (Silicon Crystal Reflective Display) isn't all that new, but it was put in the "too hard" basket by the likes of Intel and IBM among others years ago. I wonder how many SXRDs thay have to manufacture to get three that work!

 

I certainly look forward to seeing one of those in operation. I've got to point out though, LCD light gates even in domestic "Home Theatre" setups don't have a terribly long lifespan, and tend to start going downhill from day 1.

 

SXRD uses liquid crystal light gates on top of a silicon mirror surface which also contains the LCD drive electronics. With a conventional LCD the light has to pass through the drive electronics which is deposited as thin-film transistors on glass, which makes their light transmission rather poor. With SXRD the light comes in from the top surface of the LCD and bounces off the silicon surface, dramatically improving the efficiency. Up until now, the problem was in getting the silicon surface flat enough, something that has defeated the major semiconductor manufacturers.

 

I don't know, as far as long-term reliability is concerned, my money is still on the DLP light modulator, as they have at least a theoretically unlimited lifespan.

Still, the wheels of progress seem to be creaking forward. Like I said before, I'm not saying it'll never happen, but rather that they still have a long way to go.

 

I do tend to think that film projectors will probably be replaced sooner than film cameras, and nothing pisses me off more than those sad individuals who keep parrotting the "digital projection needs digital acquistion" mantra! (What they're really chanting is "it needs me" <_<

Edited March 3, 2005 by Jim Murdoch

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

The JVC DLA-HD2K projector, which I've used quite extensively, uses I believe a reflective silicon element. It's good - good enough to grade feature films on - although not powerful enough for anything but a small screening room, intended as it is for domestic use. The really top-notch thing about it is the fill factor - there's practically no black border around each pixel, which reduces their visibility enormously, and it makes the average LCD look pretty feeble.

 

> "digital projection needs digital acquistion"

 

I think that's fairly undeniably true - you can't really believe other than that digital acquisition looks better on digital projection, and film acquisition looks better on film projection. The problems we're seeing at the moment are various people's attempts to cross the technologies over, which makes either of them look bad.

 

To wit, I don't think we actually need to do 4K acquisition-processing-projection, it's just that for film to look any good after digital processing, you have to oversample it hugely or the grain screws you up. Given full, unadulterated 4:4:4 2K acquisition kept that way through post, I think that would probably be fine.

 

Phil

[Sam Wells]

I don't know Phil, one might as well say "video (television) display needs video acquisition" which - to me anyway - is demonstrably untrue.

 

Yes of course we are talking about larger displayed image. But once the film is transferred - properly do I need to add - it's in the digital domain. But I'm not allergic to film grain I guess.

 

Plus I - and I don't think I'm alone - still think film has a few virtues for image capture (I don't need to download Anything to get highlight handling capabilities with a film camer etc).

CVP file editor is built in :)

 

Oversampling ? Why not say sufficient sampling ? - that's a given.

 

-Sam

[Matt Pacini]

As long as the average moviegoer has to get on a plane to get to somewhere that they can see a feature digitally projected, I'm gonna declare that I'm on the winning side of this argument! :P

 

If it were better, it would have taken over already.

It just ain't a better technology, kids.

 

Matt Pacini

[John Pytlak RIP]

With over 35,000 film theatre screens in the USA, and only a hundred or so Digital Cinema theatre installations six years after the George Lucas announcement at ShoWest 1999, the missing piece of the puzzle is not in place yet. Maybe Kodak has it?: ;)

 

http://www.kodak.com/go/dcinema B)

 

BTW - I helped organize and narrated the first public side-by-side demo of film and Digital Cinema at ShoWest in March 1999.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> I don't know Phil, one might as well say "video (television) display needs video

> acquisition" which - to me anyway - is demonstrably untrue.

 

That makes my point exactly - for film to look good on video, you end up shooting incredibly high-res formats so the grain gets averaged out, just like you end up scanning film at 4K to capture most of the information. The very best super-8 probably has similar resolution to SD video, but it doesn't look much good. 2K digital scans probably have similar resolution to a viewed 35mm print, but likewise, it doesn't look good enough. The two technologies do not readily complement one another.

 

Phil

[Sam Wells]

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

In fact speaking of 1999 ish the first demo I saw of 3 chip DLP, I though the 16mm originated material (Spirit > D5HD done at Tape House) looked nearly as good as the 35mm.

 

In truth, the DLP - 35mm comparison, DLP suffered. But I rather suspect that ion the ~ 35' screen, the 16mm would have held up pretty well in comparison to 16mm projection.

 

-Sam

[Rik Andino]

As long as the average moviegoer has to get on a plane to get to somewhere that they can  see a feature digitally projected, I'm gonna declare that I'm on the winning side of this argument!  :P

 

If it were better, it would have taken over already.

It just ain't a better technology, kids.

 

Matt Pacini

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Give it time--change doesn't happen overnight

And even if it ain't as you call it "better technology" it'll still take over...

 

Here's how I picture it:

 

Sony which makes Digital Projectors

Also owns Movie Theaters and own a Movie Studio

Pretty soon they'll upgrade many of their theaters to Digital Projection

They'll start building Their own Digital Multiplexes in your small towns

To compete with those theaters that still have Film Projectors

If they really want to be mean

They could make their movies only available in the Digital Format

Or how about these available in the Digital Format a month before it's on film...

Who loses out now?

Those with the money can control what you see and how you see it...

 

& then pretty soon Sony'll start an army to take over the world :)

 

Be on the lookout for these global corporations to change the way you do things...

Take heed :o

[Guest Kai.w]

If it were better, it would have taken over already.

It just ain't a better technology, kids.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry, but do you still believe in St. Claus....?

 

:D

 

There can be said alot about quality of digital projections but please lets use some real arguments...

I also share the view that film needs to be oversampled (in the end it is oversampling) to look good when digitally projected.

I've seen lots of 2k scans versus HD images and the HD images in many cases looked slightly sharper (if properly shot) although it's not true for what the film negative holds.

 

Plus one of the (some might say few) advantages of digital projection is the lack of grain, scratches, and a stable image. That's something where images with digital origins really shine.

The effect is something you can not achieve with film although this aesthetics might not even be desirable for many projects....

 

 

-k

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

(Sony) Also owns Movie Theaters and own a Movie Studio

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The very fact that Sony owns Columbia, who continue to produce CGI-heavy blockbusters exclusively using film origination tends to defeat your own argument. They're in a position to demand that people use their electronic cameras for their own movies, but it don't happen! Why?

 

They apparently want everybody else to do it, but not them!

[David Mullen ASC]

Because the people running Sony Studios are not the people running Sony's electronic division. And besides, the main goal of the people running the studios is to make movies that make money -- that's what they were hired to do. Sony doesn't give a s--- if those films happened to be made on Sony electronic equipment; that's WAY down their lists of priorities.

[JONATHANEDWARDS]

I think saying digital projection will never happen is kind of like saying were never going to visit Mars, or like the people that sad we will never send a man to the moon.

 

That sad i like the pops and imperfections i see in the theater and will greatly miss them after we finally switch over, not like i have never complained about a beat up print mind you.

 

Some of the films i shot this year are being shown at the NSI film exchange held annually here in Winnipeg, none of them have made a print yet and were being shown in SD digitally projected. :angry: This is a nightmare for me, the mother of one of the film makers came up to me after and asked why this looked so bad compared to her TV set made in the late 80's. :unsure: I know if there was a better projector it would have looked better but this was the unit stupid AVW TelAV provided (national rental company) and HD telecine is still some what unavailable in most post houses in Canada. The ones that do charge a LOT of money for it and independent films won't spend it if there going to make a print anyway witch is usually after they get extra funding and that takes time. Plus what would you show it on, i don't know anyone with a HD TV set yet but am sure that's going to change as i see there on store shelfs at walmart now. Almost everyone at the screening (over 100 people) walked away cursing digital projection, not because the technology is not there but because you never know finishing on SD or HD how its going to be projected. Everyone has seen good and bad digital, one projector looks ok and others look vary bad. This must count for some of the reluctance from both studios and inde film makers trying vary hard to get funding for 35mm prints. I hope once the changeover happens the Kodak system becomes standard to help eliminate this vs installing systems made by many different company's. Kodak held a tradeshow here in Winnipeg this summer and from what was sad about the Kodak digital projection system sounded good but that is was not available for a show and tell as it called in the tradeshow industry and it sounded like it was still in beta testing. i am sure some one else here knows lots about the system and can comment more about it.

 

Things don't change vary fast in the film industry as i still see some vary large 4 to 20 million dollar productions using reel to reel nagras older then me, this seems crazy to me and must be because anything digital has a shelf life as long as my attention span. So WHY is everyone so surprised its not common. This is only going to happen wean some large theater chain sticks its neck out and makes the investment then regrets it because 2 years later a competitor gets a new nicer more bells and whisels model that looks better compared to the out dated model that has not payed its self off yet and the competitor only got it because of the other theater. Only a fool would be the first to go digital and everyones waiting for someone else to be the fool and work the kinks out. :P

 

So the question is whos going to be the fool

 

sorry about the spelling its like 2am

[Michel Hafner]

Hi,

 

The JVC DLA-HD2K projector, which I've used quite extensively, uses I believe a reflective silicon element. It's good - good enough to grade feature films on - although not powerful enough for anything but a small screening room, intended as it is for domestic use. The really top-notch thing about it is the fill factor - there's practically no black border around each pixel, which reduces their visibility enormously, and it makes the average LCD look pretty feeble.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A very nice projector except for the CR which is way too low for dark material. But that's true for all digital projectors (and most 35mm prints/projections as well).

[John Pytlak RIP]

...way too dark for the material.  But that's true for all digital projectors (and most 35mm prints/projections as well).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

35mm projectors have lit huge screens properly for years, and cost much less than a digital cinema projector with equivalent light output. But in today's theatres, lack of maintenance and underspecing the lamp often results in screen luminance that falls short of the 16 footlambert aim specified by standard SMPTE 196M.

 

I've seen "booth ushers" take pride in running xenon lamps well beyond their useful life, and theatres that don't replace lamps until they either don't ignite or explode.

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...ytlak/light.pdf

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...pytlak/dark.pdf

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...k/luminance.pdf

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Without wanting to seem like I'm encouraging poor practice, it's possible to extend the useful (stress useful) life of xenon lamps by rotating them 180 degrees about two-thirds of the way through their advertised lives; they'll often go as long again without beginning to fall off in output.

 

Phil