Why Digital Projection Isn't all that Common

[Tenolian Bell]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're right.

 

I read a story where Sony electronics and Sony music were at odds. Sony electronics wanted to produce a device like to compete with the iPod, but Sony music would not allow them to play MP3 files because of the potential for the consumer to play stolen music from Sony music. Sony electronics had to develop a player that could only play a proprietary format licensed only by Sony music. The consumer showed how much they appreciated this by not buying the player.

[John Pytlak RIP]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That can work to a point. But eventually, lamp output falls as the quartz envelope blackens, and the arc becomes more unstable (flickers more). Lamps run well beyond their warranty hours are also much more likely to explode as the quartz gets more brittle and the seals weaken with age.

[Tenolian Bell]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yeah I'd have to say I don't totally agree with that Phil.

 

What ever 35mm needs to be sampled as is its correct sampling rate, its only over sampling in comparison to something that requires s a lesser sampling rate.

 

Your argument that 35mm and digital projection don't complement each other is predicated on keeping everything at 2K, when 35mm would look better at 4K.

 

2K scanning is not good enough for 35mm it needs a higher sampling rate, and looks much better from a 4K film out, this recipe is what is needed for good digital projection from a 35mm negative.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh I understand that well enough. I was simply pointing out that Sony seem to be having trouble convincing even other divisions of their own company of the alleged value of using so-called "Digital Cinematography"; what hope do they have of convincing anybody else?

 

"And besides, the main goal of the people running the studios is to make movies that make money... Sony doesn't give a s--- if those films happened to be made on Sony electronic equipment"

 

You won't see that anywhere in their advertising, I'm sure :P

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

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.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And there's no reason the think the situation would be any different with a digital projector!

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Your argument that 35mm and digital projection don't complement each other is

> predicated on keeping everything at 2K...

 

No, that's not what I'm trying to say at all. It's a pretty theoretical concern, but the point is this: if you want to shoot and project digitally, then it'll look pretty good at 2K. If you want to shoot film and project digitally or shoot digitally and project film - in other words, if you're crossing formats somewhere - you end up doing it all at much higher resolution, largely because of the random positioning of film grain and the need to capture it all. Shoot film and project film, and it becomes much less of a problem. Equally if you want grainless results on SD video, you can shoot video, or you can shoot massively higher-resolution 35mm film - but you more or less have to do that; 16mm is visibly grainy in SD, assuming no smeary DNR.

 

The point is that in either case you're spending time and money producing masters of massively higher quality than the output format will resolve. We're bending over backwards here - particularly with 4K DI - to pursue a match that wasn't exactly made in heaven to begin with. It's vastly easier to shoot whatever format you're projecting and keep it within that domain.

 

Phil

[Tenolian Bell]

Hmm I'll have to see HD origination projected at 2K, I've never seen that, only at 1K.

 

I've shot thousands of feet of 16mm transfered to Digibeta with no inherent grain penalty.

 

We're bending over backwards here - particularly with 4K DI - to pursue a match that wasn't exactly made in heaven to begin with. It's vastly easier to shoot whatever format you're projecting and keep it within that domain.

 

With that logic we could argue that trying to develop electronic cinematography at all isn't a natural match. Why bother when we have a system that works fine 90% of the time.

 

The road to the DI will be well worth once we come to the end of our trip.

Edited March 6, 2005 by tenobell

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> With that logic we could argue that trying to develop electronic

> cinematography at all isn't a natural match

 

It isn't; that's the point. I'm not saying don't do it, just understand that you end up working harder than traditionally necessary.

 

Frankly if Mr. Mullen can make Northfork look like that without DI, I question the neccesity for it.

 

Phil

[Matt Pacini]

Saying digital projection is superior because there isn't film grain, is grand silliness.

Trading grain for matchbook sized pixels, is not an improvement.

 

I'm not saying digital projection is NEVER going to take over, but some of you guys are saying it DEFINITELY is going to, but the evidence is not on your side:

Almost every movie being shown in every theater in the world, is being projected on a 35mm film print.

In spite of the fact that DP is being so hyped, it still just isn't happening on anything but a teeny, tiny novelty scale, and you guys are simply turning a blind eye to the real, logical reasons for that:

 

Even if it were unquestionably better, there's no reason for the theaters to spend a dime on it.

 

They simply won't do it, unless a majority of the worlds audiences stop going to the movies because they don't like seeing 35mm projections, and even you die-hard digital projection enthusiasts can't really believe that's gonna happen, right?

 

Matt Pacini

[Sam Wells]

In spite of the fact that DP is being so hyped, it still just isn't happening on anything but a teeny, tiny novelty scale, and you guys are simply turning a blind eye to the real, logical reasons for that:

Matt Pacini

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Digital is happening on a huge scale. Not in movie theaters yet, but everywhere else.

 

The whole world that used to be 16mm is now digital, with a teeny few still doimg it. From 2 local "film" festivals to the public library downtown to outdoor screenings to the University nearby, to an arthouse cinema close to here which sold it's beautiful Kinoton 16mm projector :angry: because there wasn't room in the booth for it and two DLP's...

 

I'm not applauding this, I'm acknowledging it. *Outside the multiplex* digital is the ascending format, don't sue ME, OK ? Indeed, cinema history is increasingly being viewed "digitally" even if that means DVD at home, or DVD-HD or Blu-ray.

 

If we DON"T argue for the best standards, formats, in that context, quality will suffer. But digital isn't going away.

 

-Sam

[Ram Ganesh]

China to overtake US in number of digital cinema theatres

 

China would soon overtake United States in the number of digital theatres going by the fast-paced growth in the industry. There are 200 digital cinemas in the world. Out of this, China has 57, ranking the second in the world following the United States, deputy general manager of China Digital Film Company, Jiang Defu said.

 

and guess who is next in line ?

 

INDIA!

 

E-cinema will soon reach 150 cinema theatres in India.

 

Real-Image Technologies is in the process of helping 50 theatres across south indian state of Tamil Nadu to go digital by April 14, 2005. This is expected to further go up to 100 by the end of June this year.

 

It has become an instant hit, given the vast geographical spread. Film distribution via satellite has cut costs and reduced the lag between a movie's release and screening in theatres, especially in smaller towns, and ushered in a technological revolution.

 

"Devdas (2002)" was the first Hindi movie on which a pilot e-cinema run was conducted in Uttar Pradesh. On April 18 last year, "The Hero(2003)" became the first movie to be also distributed in digital format. Some of the recent flicks distributed digitally include Shah Rukh Khan-starrer "Kal Ho Na Ho(2003)" and Saif Ali Khan-Rani Mukherjee-starrer "Hum Tum (2004)".

 

http://www.real-image.com/digital/diginews/120401.asp

 

Qube Server

With Qube Cinema, these cinemas can download from the central server, the content that is suitable to them based on their requirements. The cinemas can also choose to play movies in any available language along with sub-titles in the language of their choice.

http://www.real-image.com/digital/diginews/020503.asp

[Rob Belics]

So there up to 1% of the worldwide theatre market now?

[John Pytlak RIP]

Take those "Digital Cinema" installation figures for India with a grain of salt. :rolleyes: Many fall far short of the technical requirements being developed by the SMPTE DC28 Digital Cinema Committee.

[Ram Ganesh]

So there up to 1% of the worldwide theatre market now?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I guess it for the local consumption than hollywood flix. The Indian film industry is largest in the world in terms of number of movies produced. India produces 800-900 movies every year in 5-6 languages...

 

good to see worldwide adaptation of digital cinema... rather than just US. So a digital film which has to be printed to film for overseas distrubution (Singapore, HK, India wherever) kinda defeats the cause.

[Elhanan Matos]

India produces 800-900 movies every year in 5-6 languages...

 

I think thats about how many movies "Vivid" makes in a week. ;)

[Sam Wells]

China to overtake US in number of digital cinema theatres

 

E-cinema will soon reach 150 cinema theatres in India.

(2004)".

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm curious - out of how many cinema screens total is that, if you know ?

 

p.s. I don't want to kill 35mm projection, hell I don't even want to see 16mm projection dissapear.

 

I support the goals of the DCI, etc.

 

-Sam

[Matt Wells]

I know it sounds like a cliche - but I take great pleasure in seeing the very distinctive look of film projection - it has a sense of occasion about it.

 

However this of course must be distinguished from a beat up print / flickering lamp or other practice issues.

 

The imperfection is what distinguishes cinema.

 

Matt

 

PS if anyone lives in or around Birmingham UK - avoid the new AMC cinema at 5 ways - unless you enjoy beat up prints, flikering lamps and out of focus presentation etc etc.

[Matt Pacini]

Personally, I am of the opinion that even a beat up, scratched print looks better than a digitally projected movie.

 

I can't see how going to the theater is going to be appealing to most people, if it's basically going to be similar to watching a DVD at home, but with sticky feet and noisy people around you.

The fact a 35mm print LOOKS TOTALLY DIFFERENT than anything you get to see, anywhere else, is a big appeal of the theater experience.

 

Well, that and the fact that it STILL looks far superior to anything else...

 

Matt Pacini

[Ram Ganesh]

I'm curious  - out of how many cinema screens total is that, if you know ?

 

-Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Got these figures from the State gov websites:

 

Tamil Nadu State has 1412 permanent theaters

Neighbouring state of Andra has 2,763 (2000 data)

[John Pytlak RIP]

Personally, I am of the opinion that even a beat up, scratched print looks better than a digitally projected movie.

 

I can't see how going to the theater is going to be appealing to most people, if it's basically going to be similar to watching a DVD at home, but with sticky feet and noisy people around you.

The fact a 35mm print LOOKS TOTALLY DIFFERENT than anything you get to see, anywhere else, is a big appeal of the theater experience.

 

Well, that and the fact that it STILL looks far superior to anything else...

Matt Pacini

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Most of the over 2500 professional projectionists at the http://www.film-tech.com Film Handlers Forum would agree with you. :) Their motto has become "Film Done Right". B)

[Guest Kai.w]

Personally, I am of the opinion that even a beat up, scratched print looks better than a digitally projected movie.

 

I can't see how going to the theater is going to be appealing to most people, if it's basically going to be similar to watching a DVD at home, but with sticky feet and noisy people around you.

The fact a 35mm print LOOKS TOTALLY DIFFERENT than anything you get to see, anywhere else, is a big appeal of the theater experience.

 

Well, that and the fact that it STILL looks far superior to anything else...

 

Matt Pacini

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Personally, I am of the opinion that this is nonsense. I've seen digital projections at 1 1/2k which looked better than what you usually get to see in ordinary theaters as a filmprint, most of the average joes I talked to felt the same, or did not notice a difference.

 

Plus your arguments lead nowhere... so we should just keep it different for what sake?

The only fact that appeals as a theater experience is the audience having as social experience to see/hear/feel something as a group, plus the quality (and size) of the projection. If you can get the same quality at home (which is actually impossible considering most living rooms dimensions) than there is only the social aspect.

Nobody gives a %x#§ about the medium something is shown from as long as it looks good.

I mean there are alot of arguments against digital projections for the moment, and there are other ones (fewer though) that make it appealing. I'd rather say lets refer to these arguments and not just fall back to the use of capital letters as to transport the truth.

 

-k

[Rik Andino]

The fact a 35mm print LOOKS TOTALLY DIFFERENT than anything you get to see, anywhere else, is a big appeal of the theater experience.

 

Matt Pacini

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So your logic states:

The format something is screen is more important than the movie one goes sees

And you believe most people will wait a year to see the DVD

Because it's not being projected on film.

 

You should spend sometimes with the average moviegoer

And you'd be amazed to see the reason why THEY go to see movies

 

You'll be surprise to find that

It's just mostly us film professional who give a flying f**k

About the format something is projected.

 

You'll rarely hear a conversation like:

"I saw the latest Deniro film but it sucked cause it was digitally projected..."

At the local water cooler or the supermarket or whereever

 

The movies are the main attraction people go to the theater

It is the content not how they're exhibited

 

Would you go see a collection of great art at the musuem

And complained the paintings sucked

Cause they were done cardboard instead of canvas?

[John Pytlak RIP]

I've seen digital projections at 1 1/2k which looked better than what you usually get to see in ordinary theaters as a filmprint, most of the average joes I talked to felt the same, or did not notice a difference.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've seen quite a few Digital Cinema presentations, both with 1280x1024 and the newer 2K DLP-Cinema projectors. As I tend to sit at about 2 image heights from the screen, the 1280x1024 presentations always fell short of my expectations, and the very visible pixel structure and aliasing screamed "video". The 2K units are much better, but IMHO, still fall short of "Film Done Right", especially with regards to tone scale and black level. I'm also sensitive to quantizing errors (contouring) in scenes that should have uniform (not stepped) gradations of density or color.

 

The other issue is one of maintenance. The demonstrations at ShoWest, ShowEast, and the ETC Digital Cinema lab have always looked better than the Digital Cinema presentations I've watched at "real" theatres. I've actually paid to see a digital cinema presentation of "Ice Age" where they had to shut down the digital projector and go to the back-up film print. I later found out the "Miranda Box problem" took almost a week to fix. I've seen some pretty dodgy transfers that exceeded the capabilities of the system, that just didn't look good in the extremes of highlight or shadows.

 

Digital Cinema is coming. Kodak is an innovative player with lots of Kodak image science technology to offer. But is Digital Cinema really "ready for prime-time"? And when will exhibitors and distributors agree on a workable business case and equitable way of sharing the cost and control?

 

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

[Sam Wells]

Would you go see a collection of great art at the musuem

And complained the paintings sucked

Cause they were done cardboard instead of canvas?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well Rik if I went to a museum to see great art done in oils and they showed photocopies I *would* complain.

 

No matter what genre of film, aren't we supposed to be a step ahead of average Joe and Joann

(whatever that means, I encounter plenty of people who can discern image quality even if they don't know 1K from 2K).

 

Again, what preserves artistic intention. (If "artistic" makes me an elitist, I plead guilty)

Who are the better custodians of moving image quality than those who make the images ?

 

That said, digital projection is NOT a baby I want to throw out with the bathwater.

 

Make it really work.

 

-Sam

[John Sprung]

India produces 800-900 movies every year in 5-6 languages...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's TV like in India? Could it be that the audience there goes to the movies instead of watching TV? How do movie ticket prices compare with TV set prices?

 

 

 

-- J.S.