Michael Most

Among the 4K releases over the last 2 years have been The DaVinci Code, Angels and Demons, Hancock, Wolverine, and a few others. Sony has already committed to all releases from this point forward going out as 4K DCP's, and has taken over and rebuilt their own DI facility in Culver City to ensure this. Their upcoming release "2012" will go out as a 4K DCP. Warner Bros. was an early champion of 4K DI's and is quickly moving forward in that direction. There have also been restorations that have been exhibited using 4K DCP's, Dr. Strangelove being one of the most prominent. Spider Man 3 was also a 4K DCP, one of the first.

I don't have to guess, you've already made it clear that your mind is already made up. But I would contend that it doesn't matter, because there are so few pictures finished photochemically today that you wouldn't get to see more than one or two in a year. But my guess is that you didn't, so you're guessing based on preconceived prejudices against, of all companies, EFilm. As for how DI's are done, I don't know where you are or who you talk to, but EFilm does essentially all of their work using 4K down to 2K scans and has for at least the last year. I'm not wrong, I'm not guessing, I'm telling you how it is based on my own friendship and conversations with the head of engineering there. You're putting words in my mouth if you're saying "4K DI res'd down to 2K." That's not what I said. I said that the scans are done on a scanner that operates at 4K and scales to 2K for a 2K output. The DI work itself is done at 2K, but the general feeling - borne out by testing - is that this method provides you with a print that is much closer to a full 4K path than a "straight" 2K scan does. I'm sure you don't believe that either, but it really doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. I've seen the tests, and so have a lot of other people. If you're trying to scare me, it's not working. And if you're trying to intimidate me, that's not working either. I've already stated that you're entitled to your opinion. Just don't pass it off as fact.

Almost all high end DI's these days are done either at 4K or at 2K using scans that were done at 4K and scaled down to 2K. Mostly the latter. That is the "normal" operating procedure at the three most dominant DI vendors.

Dear Karl and Terry, While I respect the opinions of all, and certainly support the ability of everyone to post their own opinion, both of you are way over your heads in attempting to discuss these kind of technical issues. I've tried to provide some explanations for the things you've questioned, but a lot of your basic assumptions are so off the mark that it's just not worth trying to answer each one. You guys are certainly entitled to your own opinions on matters of personal preference, but as there are qualified people here to talk about the technical aspects of things, your seriously inaccurate assumptions are just confusing the issues. Terry, the native aspect ratio of Super 16 is 1.66:1, not 1.77:1. If you put a 16x9 image on a S16 frame, you're cropping the top and bottom of the frame. Second, all film has grain, and the grain on S16 stocks is exactly the same as on 35mm stocks. So if you have a smaller image - which you do on 16mm - the grain is proportionally larger - more than 4 times larger, in fact. That's why 16mm is "grainier" than 35mm even though the actual grain is identical. Third, there is no way to do either a lossless optical reduction or enlargement, because even discounting the grain (which can't be discounted, but....) in either case, the image must pass through lenses - which have loss in both light level and resolution - in order to accomplish that. Your assumptions about using such a process are typical of someone who has never actually had to do any of these things, but is using "logic" to assume how they work. Karl, I don't know where you get the notion that compression means losing resolution, or that digital projection uses some magical form of "lossless" compression. And I don't know why you seem to think that properly conducted surveys are meaningless when you don't even know the conditions that were used to conduct the tests. And if you don't think that dirt and scratches are the normal consequence of typical platter based theater projection systems, well, then you must be attending studio screenings as well, because I don't know of any multiplex theaters (the vast bulk of theaters in the US today) that use anything other than platters. I really wonder if either of you have actually gone to properly equipped digital projection venues. All I can tell you is that I, and almost everyone I know - most of whom work in the film industry, many of whom are directors of photography, and all of whom have eyes at least as discriminating as yours - seem to universally prefer digital projection, at least as seen in properly equipped and maintained venues. We just don't see a downside. That doesn't mean we don't also appreciate and value things like 70mm projection when that is possible (we have a few theaters here in L.A. that have special screenings of such pictures on occasion). But that is just not the way things are done anymore, nor is it going to return in any serious capacity. So the choice is between high speed 35mm release prints and digital projection. For most of us, as I said, digital wins out in that scenario by a reasonable margin.

Trade publications, the National Association of Theater Owners, and various industry groups including the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have all conducted and cited surveys that all come to the same conclusion. And, quite frankly, if you claim that you never see dirt, scratches, and flicker in a theater you must either be vision impaired or attending only studio screenings of one-off prints. Obviously you feel that "studio people" - whomever they are - are clearly the very personification of evil in an otherwise perfect film based world. But the fact is that you can't make 9000 prints that are all identical and perfect. This has nothing to do with "studio people," it has to do with limitations and variations in a chemical based, mechanical process. As far as saving money, well, yes, that is what technology allows us to do. If it didn't, your car would cost $800,000. I don't even know how to begin to respond to your statement about resolution, because I'm not sure you understand how any of this works. A piece of film doesn't have a specific resolution, it's made up of millions of random silver halide grains. A film recorder is a digitally fed device that puts an image on those grains, but the resolution of the film recorder and the resulting image on the negative that's created are only loosely related. At that point, the negative is then used to either make prints directly (in the case of very small runs, or in the case of very large studio releases that can afford to manufacture multiple digital negatives) or to make an IP, which is then in turn used to make multiple IN's that are used to make the release prints. So especially in the latter case, there is additional loss in going through 3 more film printing generations that ultimately yields prints of considerably less resolution than a 2K digital projector. And even in the direct printing case, the loss is considerable.

I don't know what alternate universe you might be living in, but in this one, every survey and every study has concluded that given a look at both, theatergoers prefer digital projection to film projection by a very, very wide margin. Reasons often cited are lack of dirt, lack of scratches, lack of weave, less flicker, and the fact that the picture still looks good in its second or third week of release. Not cited (because most theatergoers would not be aware of it) is much greater consistency between theaters due to the lack of chemical variations that are typical of the high speed release printing processes used today. You've now exited the discussion of digital projection and entered the world of origination. Origination has nothing to do with the differences between film and digital presentation. In fact, since virtually all theatrical releases are now finished using digital intermediate methods, the film projection is actually sourced from the same digital files that are used to make the digital cinema release. Great care is taken by digital intermediate facilities to ensure that the look of the digital cinema version and the film version are essentially identical, with the only difference being the method of delivery and projection. If you want to say that film origination often produces a more satisfying image than digital origination, that might be a fair statement. But it has no bearing on any differences between projecting the final result of the digital finishing path digitally or on film.

I don't disagree with that. But I would also say that if a project is very budget driven, and particularly if it has an inexperienced director, the economy of digital is not a "wrong" reason.

I think you've completely missed my point in favor of expressing your own personal POV again. I was trying to make a larger, perhaps more significant point about a polarized society, and the dangers of that when trying to come up with intelligent, meaningful discussion. I was, in essence, trying to point out that there's room, and need, for multiple methods of achieving high quality imagery and both are valid in certain situations. I was also trying to point out that the momentum is clearly on the side of digital methods, and those that want to argue about how photochemical imaging is going to make some massive comeback and ultimately "win" are ignoring the reality of where we are in the technological world and where we're likely going. It wasn't all about you.

You're much too reasonable for this forum. It seems these days like there's only room for two types of posts here: the "film is expensive, stupid, and should have died with the dinosaurs" posts, and the "electronic images have been, are, and always will be crap" posts. There's no in between. There are the film zealots, who (falsely) believe it will never go away and that sooner or later all of the deluded nutcases who have adopted digital cameras will ultimately realize the folly of their ways and go back to photochemical film, and the digital zealots who (just as falsely) believe that the current level of digital capture is perfect, and that anyone who's using film is a luddite who's "afraid" of the future - whatever that means. A sad mirror of our society these days, and another reminder that sensible discourse, reasonable discussion, and intelligent analysis seem to be a thing of the past.

I can think of two. Newhart (the 2nd Bob Newhart show, the one set in a Vermont inn) was shot on video the first season and switched to film thereafter, primarily due to the request of the cast. Jeff Foxworthy's show was on ABC for two seasons and was shot on video, it then switched to NBC and was put on film, primarily because the network had a policy of doing all of their sitcoms on film at the time. The Newhart show's ratings were never affected by the change, and all seasons - the video season included - were included in the syndication package. Foxworthy's show was cancelled by NBC after one season. My further guess is that none of the viewers of either one noticed or cared.

This will be my one and only post to you, because quite frankly, you're just not worth having a conversation with. The colorist in question is Mark Wilkins, who works at Technicolor in Hollywood. We worked together at Encore for over 10 years. He was one of the best commercial colorists in town, and is also one of the best longform colorists as well. He's not after publicity so he doesn't exactly seek out press, but over the years he's colored many hundreds of hours of television (so have I, but you don't seem to care about that either) and probably more than a thousand high end commercials during his time at Encore, Riot, and Technicolor. He is one of the most talented, if not the most talented, colorists I know. For the past 2 seasons he has handled final color on CSI Miami, Ugly Betty, Reaper, and a number of other shows. His tests with the CSI Miami directors of photography and producers convinced them (and himself) that the switch to digital shooting would not materially affect the look he's helped give the show over the last few seasons, and at least as of a conversation we had about a week ago, that's proved to be the case. I don't feel I'm obliged to provide this level of information because I think I already possess enough credibility (look me up in IMDB if you want), but I did as kind of a parting gesture. If you want to waste your time proving how great you are and how useless everyone else is around here, be my guest. As for me, I'm done.

Uhhh .... because as you have often demonstrated, you never let facts get in the way of your need to convince others that you know more than anyone else here? Or that your own experience - whatever that is - is more significant than anyone else's, even if the other person's experience is directly related to the question being asked? Than again, maybe you had already decided that I don't really know anyone connected with that particular show, and that I'm making up the whole "colorist is a friend of mine" thing. In either case, I gave you the benefit of the information I got directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I'm not saying that anyone has to agree with it, I'm just reporting what the guy who's most directly responsible for and familiar with the material thinks. The notion that there's a night and day difference between HD (especially "big chip" cameras) and film origination when both are shot by high end professional cameramen and shown on broadcast television, or that the audience cares, is a misnomer. That IS my opinion, but it's backed up by many others.

I don't have to. He's one of the least egotistical people I know, and also one of the most cynical. He tends to put down every show he works on. If he felt it had lost anything, believe me, he would say so. He's not shy about such things, and he has nothing to prove, especially to me, since we've know each other for almost 20 years. What he said is true, at least as far as he can tell, regardless of your conspiratorial suspicions. If it helps, he also works on "Ugly Betty," which has also switched from film to digital this year (F23, I think, but I could be wrong about that). And on that one he does feel it has taken on a much more "video-like" look as a result of the switch.

No, that's only one method. The principle is separate right and left eye images. The technique is how to present those two separate images and how to direct them to the correct eyes for all viewers. Polarization is one method. Shuttered glasses are another, in which the left and right eyes are effectively blanked by an LCD screen that acts as a shutter that is in sync with the images being projected. Anaglyph is another, and a much more directed and specific version of anaglyph that doesn't interfere with the original color pallette is yet another, which is the Dolby technology. Still another is a lenticular screen, which essentially prevents the right eye from seeing the left eye image and vice versa without any eyewear at all, but requires the viewer to be in a specific position in relation to the screen.

Now THAT's where I have to draw the line. We're talking about CSI: Miami here. "Acting talent" is being way too generous.

If there are any issues - and quite frankly, I think television dramas today, regardless of their origination, look, at least for the most part, terrific - they would be far more related to the limited time available than the methodology or equipment used. A feature DI is usually budgeted for somewhere between 40 and 80 hours of color grading. A one hour television show is usually done in 12 hours or less. That's not a lot of time for serious finessing, but the vast majority of colorists who do network television shows - and it's a very select, rather small group - do an amazing amount of work in the ridiculously short time allotted. Using an HDCam SR path vs. a 2K scan path makes surprisingly little difference, and I speak from experience. Having said that, there are a few shows that are doing a scan approach - Lie to Me and Lost come to mind. They are scanned to log format HD size files on a Spirit 4K scanner (which can run 2K or HD scans in real time) and don't hit videotape anywhere in the process. But having worked with material from at least one of those shows, both from "standard" HD telecine and from scans, I can tell you that the final results were damn near identical. The scan approach really only gives you an advantage when the material is seriously underexposed. It's the colorist, not the equipment.

CSI Miami only started shooting on HD cameras for this coming season. None of those shows have aired yet. Anything you've seen was shot on film, in this case, 35mm, 3 perf.

NFL Films shoots at overcrank speeds, including 120fps, to achieve slow motion. It has nothing to do with a "video look".

As an animator, I wouldn't be thinking about anything that I just posted. I'd be thinking about the storytelling and the animation. You basically need to deliver a left eye image and a right eye image. All of the DCP stuff would likely be done by a facility that does that sort of thing.

Since the two pictures were also shot in different locations by different cinematographers, I think it's a bit presumptuous to attribute the difference solely to a camera. But that aside, I think I did just say that I don't believe there is any current digital camera that can equal 35mm film in terms of pure image quality and latitude. But I also said that it doesn't mean there isn't room for digital cameras on many projects when deemed appropriate.

All digital cinema content is delivered in the form of a Digital Cinema Package, or DCP, that conforms to the spec originated by the DCI and adopted by SMPTE. Stereoscopic content is delivered in a DCP as a 48fps image stream, with the left and right eyes interleaved - in other words, frame 1 is the Left eye, frame 2 is the Right eye, etc, etc. The Real D device is fed the 48 fps stream, separates it out into Left eye and Right eye, and sends it to the projector at 144 fps by "triple flashing" each frame - in other words, the Left eye is displayed, then the Right eye, then the Left again, then the Right again, and finally the Left a third time and the Right a third time. The RealD device in the front of the projector (the Z screen) alternates its polarization so that all of the Left eye images are polarized in one direction, and all of the Right eye images in the other. The glasses have matching polarization so that the Left eye image is only seen by the Left lens, and the Right eye is only seen by the Right lens. The idea of triple flashing is to eliminate fatigue and eye strain that would normally be caused by the left and right eye images not actually appearing at the same time. The refresh rate is high enough that the brain doesn't really notice the sequential nature of the display. As for what kind of media is delivered, DCPs are commonly delivered on either a hard disk that is formatted to the Linux Ext3 format, or by secure satellite delivery. It is always accompanied by an encryption key that is sent separately, often on a USB stick, that allows a specific server to show the program for a specific length of time. Is that enough of an explanation?

Karl, I don't know what your problem is with me or anyone else. You're entitled to your opinions, I and anyone else here are entitled to theirs. It doesn't make me "Fu* %ing nuts" and it doesn't make you right. But I'm going to stay above the fray a bit and offer some reasonable, intelligent answers. I said that I thought in many ways the show "Smallville" looked better on the Genesis than it did on film. I didn't make any generalizations, nor did I make any comments as to the technical or aesthetic capabilities of either medium. I said what I said because in my opinion (and only my opinion), Smallville is a show based essentially on a comic book, and as such, has always been designed with a rather bold color pallette and a lot of detail, particularly in the blacks. The cast is all relatively young (especially since they got rid of the Kent parents), so it is shot very "clean." I felt that when the show switched to the Genesis, these characteristics became even more pronounced, and the overall look became a bit cleaner and sharper, typical of electronic origination. In many cases, I think these things would be a hindrance. In the case of "Smallville," I felt they were appropriate, and helped to achieve what was probably intended all along a bit stronger. Not a night and day difference, but a few changes for those who are paying attention. In a conversation (admittedly second hand), I found out that at least one of the two directors of photography agreed with that assessment. If I've ever been accused of zealotry, it's been on the film side. I've been accused of being a film zealot a few times in Internet forums simply because I've pointed out that to this date, there's no electronic capture device that can equal it - a simple statement of fact. But I'm also open enough as a person and as a relatively experienced "industry insider" to appreciate digital cameras and the enormous progress that's been made with them. I'm open enough to see some of these new cameras as essentially another film stock, another tool with an attendant look and feel, that might be very appropriate for some projects, and less appropriate for others. I'm also intelligent enough to understand the world as it really is instead of wasting time dreaming about the world as I think it should be, and in the real world, economy is an important driver. Put all of this together and, at least to me, what it means is that we live in a world with a lot of choices, both aesthetic and financial, and if anything, we should embrace the diversity and try to take advantage of it. If that makes me a zealot in either direction, I'm not seeing it.

All of last season (2008-2009) was shot on Genesis. I'm not surprised you didn't notice any change, but quite frankly, I though it looked a bit better after they went to the Genesis. And I don't consider myself a zealot in either direction.

I'm sure Leno will do great tonight. What matters is how he's doing a month or two from now. Or even a week or two. "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" tried essentially the same thing, and succeeded big time - for a few months. Then it was over. My preliminary guess is that the Leno experiment could easily suffer the same fate. Not to mention that stripping Leno has absolutely no back side potential, unlike scripted shows. But NBC knows all of this. We're all going to just have to wait to see how it plays out.

CSI Miami is being shot digitally (Genesis, I believe). CSI Las Vegas and possibly NY are both staying on film for the time being. In that case, you should take a look at the features "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story" and "Get Smart," or the television shows "Smallville, " "90210", or "United States of Tara." And if you want an example of what Dean's company is doing, take a look at "Leverage" - shot on Red and, in my opinion, looking awful. I'm not necessarily blaming the camera for that, just as I'm not necessarily claiming that the choice of the Genesis "created" the productions I just mentioned. The fact is that every single one of these devices is capable of producing very nice images when in capable hands. And in reference to another post, the final colorist on CSI Miami is a very good friend of mine. He feels that there's been essentially no significant change in the look of the show this season (on the Genesis) when compared with any previous season (on film). And he's got one of the best pairs of eyes I know.