Digital Cinema: The Future of Filmmaking?
Princeton ACM
ITVA/MCA/MOVING IMAGE PROFESSIONALS of Central Jersey
and
ACM/IEEE COMPUTER SOCIETY of Princeton
-present-
DIGITAL CINEMA: THE FUTURE OF FILMMAKING?
AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER magazine is one of the oldest and most respected
movie industry technical periodicals in the world. The August 2000 issue
devoted their Film Forum page (134) to the question, "When Will Film Be
Dead?" The
facing page (135) is entitled "ASC Statement on Digital Cinema". Is the
industry that was founded on the chemistry of emulsions, now embracing
digital technology, which stems from television and the physics of exciting
electrons? How is this relationship affecting the present and what might
it mean in the future for all moving image professionals?
On September 21st a powerful panel, including editors and contributors for
some of the world's leading media technology trade publictions, will
convene at the Sarnoff Research Center in Princeton, NJ, to discuss the
revolution of DIGITAL
CINEMA.
Featuring:
Scott Marshall, Digital Cinema engineer and writer
Brian McKernan, Editorial Director, Videography Magazine
Ken McGorry, Editorial Director and Associate Publisher,
Post Magazine
Peter H. Putman, Sr. Contributor, Video Systems Magazine;
Contributor, Millimeter Magazine
EXCLUSIVE CLIPS FROM RECENT DIGITAL WORKS WILL BE SCREENED !
THIS EVENT IS FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC!
STUDENTS ARE WELCOME! THERE IS NO ADMISSION CHARGE!
REFRESHMENTS ARE SERVED!
Date: 6:30 PM, Thurs Sept 21, 2000
Location: Sarnoff Corp. Auditorium, Princeton, NJ,
Routes 1 and 571 (Washington Road)
DIRECTIONS@:
http://www.sarnoff.com/career_move/directions/index.html
reference the maps and directions @
http://www.acm.org/chapters/princetonacm/
Sarnoff Corp.
Routes 1 and 571, at the Penns Neck circle / Washington Road
From Route 1, take Route 571 towards Heightstown, one block
Turn left at Sarnoff sign
Sarnoff building is straight ahead two blocks
At building, turn left to Auditorium, right for additional parking
MEETING SPONSOR: UNITED MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT
Brian McKernan
Editor, Videography magazine
Editorial Director, Miller Freeman PSN Video Division
Phone: (212) 378-0414; Fax: (212) 378-2160
mcke...@psn.com
Moving Image Professionals (MIP)/Princeton Chapter of ITVA/
Media Communications Association (MCA)
http://www.movingimage.org/
http://www.media-communications.org
Information: Vince Wright, 609-518-7646, wrigh...@macconnect.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
DIGITAL CINEMA PANELISTS:
Art & Technology-
SCOTT MARSHALL is a Digital Cinema Engineer, writer, speaker, historian,
filmmaker, and presently creator of a multimedia project for Nickelodeon.
He worked on Sarnoff's Digital Cinema project and was publisher and editor
of WIDE GAUGE FILM AND VIDEO magazine. Scott is presently a Contributing
Editor for WIDESCREEN REVIEW magazine and has published articles on movie
technology for Widescreen Review, Modern Maturity, the book "Film
Presentation in the 21st Century" and Audience Magazine. He was Guest
Speaker for the Princeton ACM in spring 2000 for his presentation entitled
"Digital Hollywood." Scott is also a researcher, location scout, and
historian for the upcoming documentary "The Cinerama Adventure." He was on
the Advisory Committee for Cal State's 1997 Widescreen Film Festival.
Scott's primary interest is in the interplay between the art and the
technology in motion pictures and how the features and limitations of
various advances in film and video technologies affect the storyteller's
art.
Digital Production-
BRIAN McKERNAN is the Editorial Director of the Video Division at United
Entertainment Media, which includes VIDEOGRAPHY, TELEVISION BROADCAST, and
GOVERNMENT VIDEO magazines and their websites. He is also the U.S.
Editorial Director of TELEVISION BROADCAST/EUROPE and the U.S. Executive
Editor of CONTENT CREATION EUROPE. McKernan is currently launching a new
magazine, DIGITAL CINEMA, which will debut in October.
Prior to joining VIDEOGRAPHY McKernan served as Television Editor at BROADCAST
MANAGEMENT/ENGINEERING and Assistant Editor at OMNI magazine. A former
broadcaster, McKernan has contributed to the books "The Age of Videography:
Twenty Years That Changed the Way We See Ourselves," "The Guide to
Digital Television," "HDTV: The Policies, Politics, and Economics of
Tomorrow's Television," and "Producer to Producer: Insider Tips for Success
in Media."
Digital Post-
KEN McGORRY, Editorial Director of POST magazine will discuss approaches to
digital editing and the digital edit suite. Ken McGorry has been covering
the digital revolution for POST Magazine since 1988 and was made Editor in
1989. Ken is now Editorial Director/Associate Publisher of POST, which was
acquired by Advanstar Communications in 1998. Today you can also see POST,
and Ken, on their new Website, www.postmagazine.com, which now streams
video coverage of the post
world.
Digital Projection-
PETER H. PUTMAN, Sr. Contributing Editor for VIDEO SYSTEMS magazine and
Contributing Editor for MILLIMETER magazine, will talk about digital
projection and distribution. Peter has authored technical articles and
columns since 1980 for publications that include Video Systems, Sound &
Video Contractor, Millimeter, and Electronic House magazines on topics such
as large-screen projection and interfacing technology, electronic cinema,
HDTV, DVD, and screening/presentation room automation and design. He also
contributes reviews and features to Etown.com, the premier consumer
electronics website.
Pete is well known for his exclusive annual in-depth review of the
Projection Shoot-Out® at INFOCOMM; a project that requires over 5 hours of
viewing time during the three-day trade show and the subsequent grading of
over 100 display devices in nine different performance categories.
He also performs numerous hands-on reviews of projectors, monitors, scan
converters, line multipliers and video scalars at his studio in Doylestown,
Pennsylvania. These reviews appear on his web site
(http://www.projectorexpert.com) as well as in magazines. Peter also
conducts beta tests of new projectors and displays.
He is a member of the International Communications Industries Association
(ICIA), The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE),
Society for Information Displays (SID) and holds certifications from the
ICIA (Certified
Technology Specialist) and the Imaging Science Foundation (ISF).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Moving Image Professionals (MIP)/Princeton Chapter of ITVA/
Media Communications Association (MCA)
http://www.movingimage.org/
http://www.media-communications.org
Information: Vince Wright, 609-518-7646, wrigh...@macconnect.com
P-ACM
laxa...@my-deja.com
I think you should change the topic heading to say this:
Digital VIDEO Cinema: The Future of VIDEOmaking
In article <20000906105533...@ng-ct1.aol.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gordon McLeod
The theatre industry has met public demands of gigantic screens that
are under-illuminated and underpixelled by 35mm film while 70mm is
ignored and the ASC is promoteing digital
In the last 5 years we havent sold a screen under 58' wide
yet the best DLP can produce is 40-44"
The public has clearly spoken they want a BIG picture so why doesn't
ASC do there members credit and advocate a return to larger format
(5perf 65mm neg/70mm print) to meet the public demand rather than
waffling on a technodominated maddnes of teh "D" word
Digital cinema in the financial state of the industry would be suicide
to say the least.
Second I would really like to know how Scott Marshall can be classed
as a Engineer. I don't think he has every installed a theatre or the
technology of one but been a writer on the subject
SMPTE has several working groups on the issues as does several
European bodies.
If the ASC was smart they would walk into the local multiplex and look
at how their work is being presented and then ask themselves how
will "e" cinema help them. It wont
The lowest common denominator of quality will become the norm, that
has regretablly been the norm.
Current DLP projectors don't equal most laptops for resolution, let
alone the quality of 35mm nor 70mm
The last line of my presentation a few years ago at Showeast was
"Theatre have the advantage of 70mm as it is the highest definition
theatre around"
On 06 Sep 2000 14:55:33 GMT, prince...@aol.com (Princeton ACM)
wrote:
Martin Hart
gmc...@idirect.com says...
> This is starting to piss me off
> The theatre industry has met public demands of gigantic screens that
> are under-illuminated and underpixelled by 35mm film while 70mm is
> ignored and the ASC is promoteing digital
Take it easy Gord, any implication that the ASC is in any way promoting
digital is, to say the least, a gross exaggeration. The ASC recognizes
some potential that digital offers in CGI and post production, but that's
about as far as it goes at present. They don't have their head in the
sand and realize that things are changing, but FILM is a long way from
dead in their estimation and there is a 16 page "article" promoting film
in the September, 2000 issue of "American Cinematographer".
Following the "article", Kodak has an ad stating that "A single frame of
film contains over 12 million pixels of information and the full range of
human emotion." I don't know how the number was arrived at but supposing
it is factual, it still doesn't explain what a pixel is. For instance,
when working in digital graphics on my PC I am working with 24 bit or 30
bit color. That's either 24 or 30 bits per pixel, so right there we see
that a pixel is an indefinite value. To be able to adequately capture
the full tonal range of film the bit depth has to exceed 36 bits per
pixel. How much it has to exceed that value I don't know. Film
technology isn't standing still any more than digital technology.
Furthermore, if someone had the balls to use a 65mm camera then the
number of indefinite pixels would exceed 30 million. That's a lot of
data and we're likely never to see such a display on a theatre screen.
Frankly, I think Kodak is being a bit laid back in this matter. I hate
to believe that the few people that frequent this newsgroup are more
passionate about what film has to offer than the folks in Rochester.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.simplecom.net/widefilm/
Greg Faris
Several times, over the years, I have had the immense pleasure of bringing a
70mm film system to a demonstration "shoot-out", and blasted completely out of
the water some whiz-kid with his state of the art video projection system,
high def, digital, light valve, crt or whatever. Not to sound like a nostalgic
old bugger - the whiz kids were often many years my senior - they simply
hadn't fully realized the intrinsic power if film as a presentation medium,
and they haplessly lined themselves up with an unbeatable adversary. Like a
race between a man and a horse - the horse, usually content to just trot
along, has only the slightest effort to make while the man, even a champion in
his class, is already at his maximum of exertion. Like the man, left so far
behind you can't even see him any more, I frequently told my "competitors"
they needn't turn their machines off for the comparison - when the 70mm
picture hit the screen it was as if the video competitor hadn't even shown up!
When you add to the above the economic equation, always largely in favor of
the film system, the deal was signed and sealed every time. But today, if I'm
to be honest, the race is much much tighter. Not that the digital systems
being touted today are of a nature to give much pause (or much satisfaction)
to those used to implementing film systems, but the economic equation is on
the verge of turning around, and with it all the nasties we never liked to
dwell upon - cost of film prints, their fragility, nuisances of dirt and
scratches, size and weight considerations for both equipment and film prints,
even environmental considerations in film print manufacture - begin to stand
out as strong arguments against the medium. Today, about the only argument I
can muster to convince a specialty venue, with a 50-foot screen, not to buy a
digital projection system, is to tell them they will feel betrayed when they
see even better digital systems for much less two years hence - a perfidious
and convoluted argument, to say the least. Image quality - even to those who
make an effort to be sensitive to it - is a hard argument to push, compared
with the cost of film prints, specialized personnel just to handle them, and
all lost in a second's lapse of attention. Film systems require either a
full-time projectionist, to re-thread the film every show, or an automated
system (loop cabinets, automatic rewind projectors) all of which have at least
some reliability problems, and can destroy thousands of dollars worth of film
in only seconds.
Again, I am not nostalgic about it, but I think the race is all but lost, and
this time for good, for film systems. Over the years, I have always managed to
present film as a "high-tech" medium, at once the most traditional and the
most modern of presentation formats. Combined with digital sound, newer large
formats, high frame rates, better light, optical and screen systems, film has
maintained a comfortable lead over every pretender, and has thus renewed its
modernity. This is lost today. We can still tout it as the best - but it's not
looking very modern all of a sudden.
Hence, every year will see a greater industry shift toward digital
presentation technologies, and with it the attendant rarification (read,
increased cost and decreased quality) of film technology. This will not happen
in a day, nor will it happen without a few defiant and well deserved reprieves
from the "old champion", but it will inexorably occur. Soon, theatre chains
and venues who must rely on film and projectionists will be unable to compete
with automated digital systems. Far from being able to play the quality card,
they will be subject to increased derision for their scratches, dust specks
and missing frames, defects we used to pass over in deference to the intrinsic
quality of the medium.
For those, like myself, already drawing, specifying and implementing an
increasing number of digital systems, we may still take satisfaction in doing
a specialized job and obtaining a quality result, however indulgence will
permit us a touch of nostalgia in recognizing we are not likely, in the
future, to see again an image worth getting excited about.
G Faris
In article <6apdrs430lnteiht9...@4ax.com>, gmc...@idirect.com
says...
>
>This is starting to piss me off
>The theatre industry has met public demands of gigantic screens that
>are under-illuminated and underpixelled by 35mm film while 70mm is
>ignored and the ASC is promoting digital . . .
Scott Dorsey
Gordon McLeod <gmc...@idirect.com> wrote:
>This is starting to piss me off
>The theatre industry has met public demands of gigantic screens that
>are under-illuminated and underpixelled by 35mm film while 70mm is
>ignored and the ASC is promoteing digital
>In the last 5 years we havent sold a screen under 58' wide
>yet the best DLP can produce is 40-44"
>The public has clearly spoken they want a BIG picture so why doesn't
>ASC do there members credit and advocate a return to larger format
>(5perf 65mm neg/70mm print) to meet the public demand rather than
>waffling on a technodominated maddnes of teh "D" word
Because people don't WANT a better picture, they want a bigger picture.
People are willing to put up with the most godawful image quality in
theatres and not notice any difference. The "D" word is a very powerful
marketing tool, and it will bring people into theatres. Better image
quality and better sound quality doesn't seem to bring people into
theatres.
>If the ASC was smart they would walk into the local multiplex and look
>at how their work is being presented and then ask themselves how
>will "e" cinema help them. It wont
>The lowest common denominator of quality will become the norm, that
>has regretablly been the norm.
Yes, but that's been the case for years.
>Current DLP projectors don't equal most laptops for resolution, let
>alone the quality of 35mm nor 70mm
>The last line of my presentation a few years ago at Showeast was
>"Theatre have the advantage of 70mm as it is the highest definition
>theatre around"
Sure, but how do you convince people that image quality is important?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
RICHVINCE
>
>this time for good, for film systems.
I don't think I can agree, even though I suspect a certain number of executives
would say the same thing. I look at this very differently:
If you study the history of film, since the very beginning the audience has
responded to the bigger, better, more compelling experience. Silent films gave
way to sound; black and white gave way to color, and so on. Even on the
filmmaking end, the films at are best remembered and still viewed today are the
ones that offered a bold new experience: Gone With the Wind, Sound of Music,
Lawrence of Arabia, Space Odyssey, Star Wars, and on and on.There is no doubt
in my mind that these films and others like them will still be watched long
after I'm gone. Bear in mind that everything I have mentioned told a story,
but they always found bold new exciting ways to do it. This is called
showmanship.
But many people in the film business see it as a story telling medium only. If
the story is good, people will come and that is all that one needs to do. To
some degree this is true; certainly a good story is crucial. But these people
would have us believe that story-telling is all the public wants.
In the book industry this concept makes a lot of sense. Paperback books sell a
lot more copies than hardbacks. Why? Because they are cheaper and easier to
handle. The primary reason why anyone buys a book is to read a story, so why
make a book any more elaborate than necessary?
Using that logic, then digital makes a lot of sense. Why spend any more money
than necessary? So what if the image isn't as good as 35mm. In fact, using
that logic, the goal should be to find ways to make digital cheaper by reducing
the number of pixels. After all, the story still gets told.
But is that what the public wants? I think not.
Why was Titanic such a huge success? Was it the best story ever told? No.
Would Titanic done as much business had Cameron made it on a budget of $20
million, using almost no special effects. Highly unlikely. So I think that
people who pursue this logic (and that includes most of the execs in this
industry) are foolish.
Look at the success of IMAX. Those films generally don't even tell a story.
If one believes that story-telling is all that matters, how do they explain why
people flock to what are frequently weak documentaries?
It's important to remember that 70mm is a tool, just like any special effect
technique. The purpose of the tool is to create a more compelling experience.
And it still works better than any other tool, including digital, to accomplish
that end.
It is not 70mm that has failed. It is the vision of the execs in this
industry. And perhaps that is why this industry is in so much financial
trouble.
Rich
Greg Faris
>I think that you're giving up on film way too soon. The fact is that film as
>a distribution format "just works."
rich...@aol.com says...
>If you study the history of film, since the very beginning the audience has
>responded to the bigger, better, more compelling experience.
I don't agree. I believe it's obvious that digital presentation will take
over, and it will do so with increasing momentum as soon as the economic
conjecture improves a bit. There's nothing apocalyptic about this - it is a
perfectly reasonable evolution, and there is every possible good reason for it
to happen. Most moviegoers will consider, probably rightly, that it represents
an improvement in quality, compared with what they were receiving previously.
Only those of us who have had the good fortune to work with very high
performance film systems, or those who, through historic interest have made it
their business to experience such systems will regret something lost, just as
we already regret the loss of 65mm origination.
On the origination side (as this is where this thread started) Panavision
already announced two years ago that they would not be doing any future R / D
on film cameras. There may be much speculation about which end - origination
or distribution - will go "full digital" first, but there is little doubt that
both are going there, and rather quickly now. This is probably a good thing -
if it helps to keep the industry and the experience alive, through
modernization. Some jobs will be lost - others created, and many more will
simply see some changes in the way they work.
Now, if you want to get into some uneasy predictions, try to imagine some of
the further-reaching implications of these technological developments. One of
the most obvious will be that there is little reason remaining to have a
geographically centralized industry - in Hollywood, or even in the US. The
credit roll of a new feature could contain 100 names from as many cities -
people who have never met face to face. Further on down the road, we may be
able to dispense with unreliable elements such as actors. Laura Croft is
credited with being the first inexistant movie star (though, aside two very
prominent features, I fail to see what she does that Mickey Mouse didn't do
fifty years earlier) but she could just as well be rendered with all the
photographic realism of Patrick Swayze, without the disadvantages of getting
old, getting drunk or getting in expensive airplane crashes.
And if any of you feel that now is the time to be conservative, and to
prudently doubt the vast changes this revolution will have on our industry,
you have only to look at some of the industries who have undergone this
revolution ahead of us - the graphic arts and music production industries
come to mind. I know many first rate audio engineers who are all but out of
work, their level of experience having been pushed out of market. These
professionals, for the most part, would never have guessed that the industry
would reach such a stage of chaos that a teenager could take a John Coltrane
LP, record snippets off it and send them into his computer, where he mixes
them with sounds selected by the machine and sell the result as musical
creation, while an engineer who actually recorded John Coltrane for the last
ten years of his life cannot get a job.
G Faris
forev...@my-deja.com
the time we now do yaking about various film ratios.....*LOL*
Somewhat more seriously, the quality of presentation in many venues,
especially plexes, is often pretty bad and anything that would help with
this would be welcome, though I have never seen a digital presentation
and would have to be convinced it would be as good as a well presented
film on big screen with good sound.
Sound Pro
against it at present. Take for instance the CCD chips used in all modern
video cameras (for television, digital film, or whathaveyou) which suffer
from a lot of artefacts that film cameras do not - like blooming whites,
unnatural reds, etc etc and nobody has been able to adequately fix this
problem (yet). And yet most of us have only seen d-cinema demonstrations
using material which at some stage between shooting and projection has
existed on film and has been converted to (or back to) digital, which is
really no form of test at all.
Whilst I agree that good quality 70mm film is a sight to behold, I have now
seen a couple of demos of material that was shot on high quality digital
cameras, stored on a hi-res digital medium and projected on a high end DLP
system and quite frankly on each occasion I began to feel decidedly
uncomfortable about the future. Not because of any perceived loss of
quality compared with film, but the level of realism (or the promise thereof
given the inevitable elimination of the shortcomings of the digital camera)
that is beginning to emerge with a fully digital process is rather
frightening.
When you take away the inherent grain of film, which has always acted as a
type of "realism shield" for the audience, and you are suddenly faced with a
image that looks as real (and almost three dimensional) as if you are
looking out a huge open window, the potential for really getting into
people's heads with fully digital films is down right scary.
I believe it is this more than any other factor that will ensure enormous
success for fully digital cinema, the experience of really believing (even
just for the moment) you are looking at something that is actually happening
right before your eyes will be so compelling and addictive that audiences
will not be able to stay away.
Digital signals of any kind can never equal the infinite resolution and
dynamics of the real analogue world, but given a digital system with a
resolution approaching that of 70mm film, when you take away the noise or
"grain" inherent in all analogue signal processes along with all the other
little distractions like scratches and dirt particles that we largely
ignore, but which constantly remind our subconscious that the image is not
real, then you are left with a medium that has the potential to fool human
minds into thinking that they are actually witnessing or are a part of a
real event - that the image really is "real".
Imagine a "film" like Alien or Jurassic Park where your mind is starting to
tell you that you're sitting there looking out of a big open window at real,
nasty flesh eating creatures - that there is nothing between you and them to
protect you. The couple of fully digital demos that I have seen gave me the
distinct feeling that this is very possible and maybe not that far away.
The Sound Pro
Scott Marshall
>I would really like to know how Scott Marshall can be classed
>as a Engineer. I don't think he has every installed a theatre or the
>technology of one but been a writer on the subject
I've been a writer for 4 years and an Electrical Engineer and Software Engineer
for 16 years.
Scott Marshall
Lincoln Spector
has
> responded to the bigger, better, more compelling experience.
size, and with it the quality of the image, has steadily decreased. When
sound came in, the frame shrank to accommodate the soundtrack. When
widescreen came in, the most common method to achieve it was (and is) to use
less of the frame and project it over a larger area. The second most common
method, scope, increased the frame size slightly, but spread it over a much
larger screen. (With the exception of VistaVision, big negative formats were
only for a few special, big-budget movies. And VistaVision was dead 6 years
after it was introduced, and the others didn't last long, either.)
Finally, in the last 10 years or so, there's been the move from scope to
Super35--the image shrinking further.
--
Lincoln Spector
Computer Journalist, Columnist, Humorist, and Public Speaker
lin...@dnai.com
www.dnai.com/~lincoln
Scott Norwood
Sound Pro <soun...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>Cost issues aside, digital cinema has an awful lot of other factors working
>against it at present. Take for instance the CCD chips used in all modern
>video cameras (for television, digital film, or whathaveyou) which suffer
>from a lot of artefacts that film cameras do not - like blooming whites,
>unnatural reds, etc etc and nobody has been able to adequately fix this
>problem (yet). And yet most of us have only seen d-cinema demonstrations
>using material which at some stage between shooting and projection has
>existed on film and has been converted to (or back to) digital, which is
>really no form of test at all.
Not necessarily true. Mr. Lucas notwithstanding, I don't believe that
anyone is seriously suggesting non-film-based origination formats for
conventional feature film production at this time. Thus, the majority
of the material to be screened in conventional motion-picture theatres
will likely have originated on film, at least for the forseeable future.
The archival and format issues alone are enough to give serious pause to
the idea of electronic origination. Not to mention image quality (which
remains a major issue, even though it is easier to solve than the other
two).
>When you take away the inherent grain of film, which has always acted as a
>type of "realism shield" for the audience, and you are suddenly faced with a
>image that looks as real (and almost three dimensional) as if you are
>looking out a huge open window, the potential for really getting into
>people's heads with fully digital films is down right scary.
Have you seen one of the 30fps Todd-AO films projected in 70mm? The
effect is very similar to what you describe. I haven't seen Showscan
(70m, 60fps), but I am told that the "realism"/3D effect is even more
prominent with that system. 3-strip Cinerama, too, offered an exceptional
level of realism when compared with conventional 35mm motion pictures.
--
Scott Norwood: snor...@nyx.net, snor...@redballoon.net
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?
Scott Norwood
Lincoln Spector <lin...@dnai.com> wrote:
>
>Finally, in the last 10 years or so, there's been the move from scope to
>Super35--the image shrinking further.
But this ignores the fact that film stocks--including camera, intermediate,
and print stocks--continue to improve, with the notable exception of B&W
stocks. Unfortunately, this fact is often negated by overuse of high-speed
stocks.
John P. Pytlak
>
> > If you study the history of film, since the very beginning the audience
> has
> > responded to the bigger, better, more compelling experience.
> But if you study film history, you also realize that the standard frame
> size, and with it the quality of the image, has steadily decreased. When
> sound came in, the frame shrank to accommodate the soundtrack. When
> widescreen came in, the most common method to achieve it was (and is) to use
> less of the frame and project it over a larger area. The second most common
> method, scope, increased the frame size slightly, but spread it over a much
> larger screen. (With the exception of VistaVision, big negative formats were
> only for a few special, big-budget movies. And VistaVision was dead 6 years
> after it was introduced, and the others didn't last long, either.)
>
> Finally, in the last 10 years or so, there's been the move from scope to
> Super35--the image shrinking further.
John Pytlak replied:
Thankfully, the ever improving quality of film, camera and lens
technology has more than compensated for the smaller image areas
dictated by convenience and economics. Thirty years ago, no one would
even seriously think of using 16mm negative for a film that might end up
in feature release. The production advantages of Super-35 are enabled
by the quality of today's camera negative and intermediate films, and
the improved technology used in modern camera and printer lenses. The
beauty of film is that 35 mm film images shot today, or photographed 70
years ago, can both be shown on big screens, or distributed using the
latest in HD digital technology.
"Size DOES Matter", but film is very scalable. Super-16 can look really
good, but larger formats that have been around for decades can look
GREAT!
CPJ2000
John's reply says it all.
Mind you, it *also* leaves one wondering what a movie shot on 65mm and released in
70 using the best recent cameras a film stocks might look like.
CPJ2000
forev...@my-deja.com
Lincoln Spector
> the idea of electronic origination. Not to mention image quality (which
> remains a major issue, even though it is easier to solve than the other
> two).
archival issues than they do about image quality.
Lincoln
Lincoln Spector
intermediate,
> and print stocks--continue to improve, with the notable exception of B&W
> stocks. Unfortunately, this fact is often negated by overuse of
high-speed
> stocks.
The overuse of high-speed stock supports my argument. Filmmakers, when
offered a choice between new stocks with a better image or new stocks with a
faster speed, all too often pick the faster speed.
Lincoln
Scott Moore
as compared to 70mm large theatre formats. Most films get watched
in the ever more popular cineplex on a relatively small screen. It is
these cheap theatres that DLPS are ready to replace.
We make some of the equipment to enable Titan. I was stunned and
amazed that the resolution of these first offerings was so low
(1280x1024). I have a projector at home that gives more resolution
than that. Apparently the reason for this is that DLP is the only
technology that can light up a screen that size, and DLPs aren't
very far along technologically.
People are still going to go to 70mm rollouts. Multiplexes, with their
multiple projector costs, are going to get converted to digital at some
point. But I am personally not going to watch a 1280x1024 image
on a 70mm theatre screen, and we are probally not going to go
get ju-ju bees thrown at us in the multiplex now that we have
a projector.
My 2 cents.
forev...@my-deja.com wrote:
--
Scott A. Moore is sam...@cisco.com
Technicians and inventions will continually create new devices and
theories...which invites us to constantly wait for a better system to
arrive." James Carnes, President of the prestigious Sarnoff Research
Center in Pinceton, New Jersey, preaches that "there is a time in any
development when you simply must 'shoot' the engineers."
Scott Moore
of the film, no ?
Lincoln Spector wrote:
--
Scott Norwood
Scott Moore <sam...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>I think that is a good point. The folks here are talking about DLPs
>as compared to 70mm large theatre formats. Most films get watched
>in the ever more popular cineplex on a relatively small screen. It is
>these cheap theatres that DLPS are ready to replace.
OK, but how are the cheap theatres going to afford DLP? These are usually
the types of places that are still using equipment from the 1950s and
where it takes a month to convince management to order splicing tape.
If this sort of place isn't going to spend $30 on a package of splicing
tape, then how are they going to justify $100-400k (depending on your
source) for a nice shiny new DLP machine? Note, too, that a DLP projector
isn't exactly a drop-in replacement for 35mm equipment--most installations
will need more powerful light sources and better lamp ventilation, although
existing automation systems can probably be used.
No wonder the exhibition industry is going down the tubes with this
whole "pay more money for a product that isn't as good as the cheaper
alternative" philosophy.
>People are still going to go to 70mm rollouts. Multiplexes, with their
>multiple projector costs, are going to get converted to digital at some
>point. But I am personally not going to watch a 1280x1024 image
>on a 70mm theatre screen, and we are probally not going to go
>get ju-ju bees thrown at us in the multiplex now that we have
>a projector.
The DLP theatre projector produces a very good image considering the
limitations of the 1280x1024 resolution. It looks way better than
anything that I can display on my computer monitor. Unfortunately,
it still looks substantially worse than 35mm film prints. I would
prefer DLP to a beat-up 16mm or 35mm print, of course, but shouldn't
the industry set its standards higher than this?
Bob Morris
>Gordon McLeod said:
>>I would really like to know how Scott Marshall can be classed
>>as a Engineer. I don't think he has every installed a theatre or the
>>technology of one but been a writer on the subject
Gord, shame. The above has nothing to be with being an engineer.
In Ontario, there is an Engineer's Act. To legally call yourself an engineer
you have to register with the provincial assoc. Normally, you get an
engineering degree, get some experience, write some exams, and then
you can call yourself an engineer. And pay dues.
Try putting "engineer" on your calling card in Ontario without being
a P.Eng. and you can find yourself being fined or jailed: especially
if you attempt to do things that require an engineer's stamp of approval.
Most states I suspect are similar.
On the other hand, the professional engineers of Ontario
are making asses of themselves by trying to prevent software
engineers from calling themselves software engineers if they've
got a computer science degree and thus normally could not get registered
as a P.Eng.
I've been a P.Eng., for 30 years and have very little respect
for the way the organization conducts themselves.
Nonetheless, the law is on their side.
Try passing yourself off as an MD just because you have performed a few
physicals :-) and you will also be in trouble
Being retired, I continue to pay dues just to qualify for their very low
life insurance rates.
Bob Morris, P.Eng.
Scott Moore
> In article <39B936E0...@cisco.com>,
> Scott Moore <sam...@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> >I think that is a good point. The folks here are talking about DLPs
> >as compared to 70mm large theatre formats. Most films get watched
> >in the ever more popular cineplex on a relatively small screen. It is
> >these cheap theatres that DLPS are ready to replace.
>
> OK, but how are the cheap theatres going to afford DLP? These are usually
> the types of places that are still using equipment from the 1950s and
> where it takes a month to convince management to order splicing tape.
> If this sort of place isn't going to spend $30 on a package of splicing
> tape, then how are they going to justify $100-400k (depending on your
> source) for a nice shiny new DLP machine? Note, too, that a DLP projector
> isn't exactly a drop-in replacement for 35mm equipment--most installations
> will need more powerful light sources and better lamp ventilation, although
> existing automation systems can probably be used.
In our area, the famous or imfamous if you prefer "silicon valley"
(aka San Jose), the lease rates are running about $2/square foot/month.
For my friends restrant, that is $4000. A plex takes up a lot of space,
probally about that per theatre plus the lobby. Therefore, here, at least,
I don't think $16,000 or more just for the property lease is overestimating
(per month), or starting costs of $200,000 per year. Now that is lowball,
and with other expenses I would guess that $400,000 - $500,000 is not
uncommon. Since I am bogged down in figures anyways, assuming about
50 people per theatre, 3 prime showings a day (more on weekends), times
those same 4 theatres gets gross income of $1,752,000 per year
at $8 a ticket. The economics outside overpriced land are certainly
different, but the lower possible number of viewers (theatres are
packed here) is probally offset by the lower land costs.
Now anybody remaining in business is a cheap bastard by definition,
so no, no one is just going to go digital for the hell of it. But
take all the loading of film work and other maintenence away from
a 4 - 8 unit plex and you might certainly be eliminating someones
job at $30,000 per year (I assume the projection industry has
automated sufficiently to allow 1 projectionist to service multiple
theatres).
So I think the money and motivation is there. Some of the folks here
seem to be in the theatre business, so you can correct my figures here.
Scott Dorsey
>Try putting "engineer" on your calling card in Ontario without being
>a P.Eng. and you can find yourself being fined or jailed: especially
>if you attempt to do things that require an engineer's stamp of approval.
By the same token, there are plenty of folks who are genuine PEs who have
made statements completely outside their area of expertise. God knows that
I have made enough over the years.
--scott
(PE)
Daniel P. B. Smith
rich...@aol.com (RICHVINCE) wrote:
[Lots of good stuff snipped]
> If you study the history of film, since the very beginning the audience
> has
> responded to the bigger, better, more compelling experience. Silent
> films gave
> way to sound; black and white gave way to color, and so on. Even on the
> filmmaking end, the films at are best remembered and still viewed today
> are the
> ones that offered a bold new experience: Gone With the Wind, Sound of
> Music,
> Lawrence of Arabia, Space Odyssey, Star Wars, and on and on.
> Why was Titanic such a huge success? Was it the best story ever told?
> No.
> Would Titanic done as much business had Cameron made it on a budget of
> $20
> million, using almost no special effects. Highly unlikely.
> It is not 70mm that has failed. It is the vision of the execs in this
> industry. And perhaps that is why this industry is in so much financial
> trouble.
Amen, brother. But I would add that it is not just the "execs." It
seems to me that a lot of oh-so-serious film critics, academics, etc.
undervalue the "experience" aspects.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith
Current email address: dpbs...@bellatlantic.net
"Lifetime forwarding" address: dpbs...@alum.mit.edu
Visit alt.books.jack-london!
RICHVINCE
>over, and it will do so with increasing momentum as soon as the economic
>conjecture improves a bit. There's nothing apocalyptic about this - it is a
>perfectly reasonable evolution, and there is every possible good reason for
>it
>to happen.
Please don't miss my point. In the largest sense, I think whether 70mm dies
and is forgotten or whether digital takes over or not is totally irrelevant.
A very profound comment I heard at the LFCA conference last spring was: "It's
ok to love the experience, but don't ever fall in love with the technology." I
think that is the point. The purpose of any format, whether its 35mm, 70mm
Vistavision, IMAX, or digital is to create the experience. Its value lies in
its ability to do this better than any other format.
If digital can do it better, then hooray for digital. If not, and I have yet
to hear anyone say that digital is even close to 70mm, then someone's got their
priorities really screwed up.
I don't the public cares a whit about digital any more than 35mm or any other
format. They want a stunning show, which current trends show, include being on
a big screen. Everything else is secondary.
Rich
Morgan Montague
"RICHVINCE" <rich...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000909045413...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
I think it's too late for me... I have fallen hopeless in love with the
TECHNOLOGY! 70mm! Cinerama! Dye Transfer! For moi: the MEDIUM was the
message.
Morgan (alone in his bunker writing his manifesto)
Gordon A.McLeod
Sound Pro
> anyone is seriously suggesting non-film-based origination formats for
> conventional feature film production at this time. Thus, the majority
> of the material to be screened in conventional motion-picture theatres
> will likely have originated on film, at least for the forseeable future.
>
> The archival and format issues alone are enough to give serious pause to
> the idea of electronic origination. Not to mention image quality (which
> remains a major issue, even though it is easier to solve than the other
> two).
>
Once the remaining technical deficiencies of digital cameras are overcome,
why would anyone want to continue to use film in the production stage?
Unless of course, as has been happening for many years in the television
industry, the director wants the grainly look of film rather than the
starker realism of video. But then with DSP filters these days you could
easily make a HD video picture look like film anyway. So why go to all of
the expense of shooting and/or editing on film when it can all be done
electronically for fraction of the cost and with the attendant benefits of
greater real time flexibility. Look, I'm not promoting this technology, but
you have to face the reality of the situation that digital will very quickly
take over, exactly as Greg Faris suggests. It is inevitable.
> Have you seen one of the 30fps Todd-AO films projected in 70mm? The
> effect is very similar to what you describe. I haven't seen Showscan
> (70m, 60fps), but I am told that the "realism"/3D effect is even more
> prominent with that system. 3-strip Cinerama, too, offered an exceptional
> level of realism when compared with conventional 35mm motion pictures.
>
Whilst I have seen a reasonable amount of 70mm, I must admit that I have not
seen 30fps 70mm, at least not knowingly, and I am sure it is magnificent,
particulary camera pans, which suffer that horrid jerkiness at 24fps. But
how many mainstream movies have been shot, edited and screened in this
format? What I am saying is that probably 99.9% of the movie audiences of
the world only get to see 35mm and usually worn, scratched or dirty 35mm at
that. Film rarely gets screened in it's state of maximum potential.
Whereas digital will (eventually) almost certainly be able to give
(something approaching) 30fps 70mm realism in every theater. It will be
this level of realism that will capture the imagination of audiences and
ensure it's overwhelming success.
It is silly to even contemplate the return of 70mm in this age of "money
rules everything", art being no exception.
The Sound Pro
David Mullen
>why would anyone want to continue to use film in the production stage?
>Unless of course, as has been happening for many years in the television
>industry, the director wants the grainly look of film rather than the
>starker realism of video. But then with DSP filters these days you could
>easily make a HD video picture look like film anyway. So why go to all of
>the expense of shooting and/or editing on film when it can all be done
>electronically for fraction of the cost and with the attendant benefits of
>greater real time flexibility. Look, I'm not promoting this technology,
but
>you have to face the reality of the situation that digital will very
quickly
>take over, exactly as Greg Faris suggests. It is inevitable.
Speaking as someone who just shot a feature on the new 24P Sony HDW-F900,
the camera that Lucas is using, let me add my two cents.
First of all, realism is a highly subjective term -- one could easily feel
that the video image was the one lacking in realism, not the film one. When
I was lighting my Hi-Def feature, I found that one had to be very careful
not to overlight the image because then it veered quickly into a soap opera
look. Video had a tendency to bring out the "fakeness" of the sets,
lighting, make-up, and costume -- the video image feels more immediate and
unprocessed, but that doesn't necessarily create "starker realism".
Sometimes the opposite -- it easily brings out the artificiality of it all
by being TOO immediate. Sometimes one has to rely on film's transformative
effect on color, light & shadow to create mood.
As for "DSP filters" making Hi-Def look like film, the 24P image is already
sort of film-like if you turn off the edge enhancement / detail levels --
but the camera's response to light is NOT like film's and filters don't
change that. The camera had a greater ability to see into dark areas, but
did not handle bright areas as well as film, tending to clip easily when a
lamp or window was too bright. I had to dim practicals WAY down and ND gel
most of the windows.
The ONLY time-saving aspect of the whole Hi-Def production was the lack of
film processing & telecine transfer to tape. Shooting & editing take the
same time depending on what you want to do, since everyone edits
electronically anyway. So on the set, I wasn't saving any time, and even if
the editor got the first day's footage a day earlier, after that, there was
no additional time savings - he was just one day ahead.
As for saving money, it depends. The camera costs a lot more to rent than a
35mm camera, but a $70 HDCAM cassette holds the equivalent of 5,000' of 35mm
film, so the savings in not developing and telecine transferring are huge.
But the costs of scanning it back to 35mm film are also huge. In the end,
we will probably break even -- all the savings from shooting in Hi-Def are
eaten up by the costs of scanning out to 35mm. BUT if we had any special
effects shots, THEN the savings would increase because we wouldn't have the
costs of scanning our film into a digital image.
But having seen my tests and others, including Panavision's, transferred to
35mm and projected, I can tell you the main reason everyone isn't switching
to Hi-Def: it doesn't look as good as 35mm. It lacks the resolution
ultimately; everything is slightly soft looking in the projected image. And
the response to light is still a little limiting due to its problems with
bright areas (shadow detail is great.) And HDCAM does use a 7:1 compression
scheme, which will probably frustrate some post efx people.
So the real problem right now is that it isn't really any easier to shoot or
edit than 35mm, and it doesn't look quite as good. It's not much cheaper
until the amount of digital efx work increases. So for an efx-heavy movie,
it does make more financial sense, but for a more typical non-efx feature
shoot, the problem is that there's nothing really "broke" with 35mm, so the
incentive to get rid of it is low, especially as long as 35mm prints are
used in the theaters.
Two things can change this equation: either the widespread implementation of
digital projection, thus removing the onus of scanning video to 35mm...
... and the creation of a much higher-rez digital movie camera. If someone
would develop a digital camera that could record a 4K resolution image at
variable progressive-scan frame rates (let's say, from 4 to 60 fps) using a
1" CCD target area (so that 35mm lenses can be used easily and the
depth-of-field would match 35mm) -- and managed to do all of this with a
minimum of data compression, THEN there would be a serious rival to 35mm
film. But I'm guessing that such a camera is at least six years down the
road, if not a decade. Sony has to make back its R&D costs on the 24P
HDW-F900 first.
Although I've heard that Philips has something in the works that is pretty
impressive.
I think that we're going to see a certain small percentage of theatrical
production going to 24P HDCAM, plus a wider use for select shots in
features, like for greenscreen material or anything that will be heavily
composited anyway. Where I see a bigger chunk of 35mm production switching
to digital is in TV, where it DOES make more sense as long as the visual
look isn't too radically changed. Since TV shows don't have to make film
prints, they can save HUGE amounts of money by eliminating 35mm neg &
telecine and instead, shooting on 24P Hi-Def. It all depends on if the TV
DP's can continue the film look that audience's have gotten used to for
dramatic TV work. Already "Earth: Final Conflict" has switched to 24P HDCAM
without much of a change in the look of the photography (since it was kind
of high-tech and video-ish already even though shot in 35mm.)
As for comparing digital projection to mediocre 35mm projection with focus
problems & scratched prints, that's not really fair. For one thing, I
generally see pretty good projection & prints, so I don't want a lowering in
quality by a switch to digital just because it's still an improvement over
some bad movie theaters in the hinterlands. And who's to say that after a
widespread implementation of digital projection that it won't develop it's
OWN set of problems in the bad theaters due to being run by popcorn sellers?
Instead of scratches, we get to see drop-out problems... So we trade one
set of problems for a whole new set.
For digital projection to succeed, IT MUST STOP COMPARING ITSELF TO THE
"AVERAGE" MEDIOCRE 35MM PRESENTATION. It has to compete with the best of
35mm projection for it to be a worthy successor. Otherwise we'd be
implementing a technology not because it was high-quality, but because it's
"good enough" or "not so bad"... That's not good enough. We can't take a
small step backwards in quality and call it progress. Then we'd be guilty
of promoting something who's only virture is that it is "newer" and not
better.
The same goes for digital origination; why replace 35mm film for something
that looks "almost" as good? Let's hold out for the digital camera that is
"just as good" if not better before we get serious about obsoleting 35mm
film.
David Mullen
Daniel P. B. Smith
"Sound Pro" <soun...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> But then with DSP filters these days you could
> easily make a HD video picture look like film anyway.
Sorry, but that kind of remark just sets me off...
For better or for worse, media do have characteristics.
Anyway, maybe nobody cares, but you canNOT recreate the characteristics
of an old medium by simply adding its faults or deficiencies to the new
one.
I am constantly seeing commercials in which they believe they have made
video look like film by making it black-and-white and adding scratches.
It doesn't look like film. It looks like black-and-white video with
fake scratches. And of course it looks nothing at all like
black-and-white film projected on a screen.
At one time my father owned a working cylinder phonograph and I was
fascinated by the fact that it had sound characteristics that simply
were not duplicated by high-fidelity recordings of cylinder phonographs.
It was particularly noticeable in things like plucked strings (e.g.
banjos). There was a certain intensity, together with a sort of
sensation of the banjo playing inside your head. I'm not saying this
was good, I'm saying it did NOT come through in a re-reproduction on
modern equipment. I'd hazard a guess that it had something to do with
the particular three-dimensional way sound is propagated from a horn
when listening from a few feet away... maybe something about the dynamic
range (accompanied by attendant distortion, of course) of hill-and-dale
recording.
davidj...@my-deja.com
"David Mullen" <dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Speaking as someone who just shot a feature on the new 24P Sony HDW-
F900,
> the camera that Lucas is using, let me add my two cents.
>
> First of all, realism is a highly subjective term -- one could easily
feel
> that the video image was the one lacking in realism, not the film
one. When
> I was lighting my Hi-Def feature, I found that one had to be very
careful
> not to overlight the image because then it veered quickly into a soap
opera
> look. Video had a tendency to bring out the "fakeness" of the sets,
> lighting, make-up, and costume -- the video image feels more
immediate and
> unprocessed, but that doesn't necessarily create "starker realism".
> Sometimes the opposite -- it easily brings out the artificiality of
it all
> by being TOO immediate.
>
> change that.
Certain filters can minimize electronic photography's edge, but they
don't change the basic difference between a photo chemical medium and
an electronic one. Video's greatest advances have been in dynamic
range, but that range always seems to be several steps behind film's.
>
> The ONLY time-saving aspect of the whole Hi-Def production was the
lack of
> film processing & telecine transfer to tape. Shooting & editing take
the
> same time depending on what you want to do, since everyone edits
> electronically anyway.
A TV colleague of mine still shoots freelance film and still prefers
conventional film editing, despite the fact that most of his TV editing
is done on an Avid Media Composer. He loves to handle "the stuff with
the holes in it."
>
David Joachim>
Walter Mann
> Speaking as someone who just shot a feature on the new 24P Sony HDW-F900,
> the camera that Lucas is using, let me add my two cents.
[snipped exceptionally interesting two cents-worth ]
> So the real problem right now is that it isn't really any easier to shoot
or
> edit than 35mm, and it doesn't look quite as good.
But the question you didn't answer -- if there were no benefits, why did you
shoot it in video in the first place?
--
Walter Mann
David Mullen
you
>shoot it in video in the first place?
I didn't say there weren't ANY benefits, only that it doesn't quite look as
good as 35mm.
This was a very small film with a tiny crew; by shooting 24P HD instead of
35mm, I could eliminate having a film loader, my camera package was slightly
more portable, the camera is roughly 500 ASA at 0 db and can be boosted to
1000 ASA without too much noise -- while 35mm film stocks are capable of
shooting under the same low-light levels, I had the advantage of not
carrying multiple stocks in inventory for different shooting conditions,
plus at 50 minutes per tape, you reload much less often, which is a slight
time-savings, especially when you don't have a full camera crew.
The project was slated to be shot in video -- the subject matter seemed
suited to it -- and we researched various video formats.
The problems we ran into was that we wanted to avoid NTSC because PAL is
better suited for transfer to 24 fps 35mm, yet PAL equipment in Los Angeles
is either rare or expensive to rent. A Digital Betacam PAL camera rents for
the same price in L.A. as a 60i HDTV camera! The other problem we ran into
was aspect ratio (we needed widescreen) -- the low-end PAL Mini-DV/DVCAM's
don't have true 16:9 CCD's (and I didn't want to mess with anamorphic
attachments), the medium-end 16:9 PAL DVCAM's like the Sony DSR-500 WS are
hard to find (only two for rent in L.A. from two different owner /
operators), and like I said, the Digital Betacam PAL's rent for something
like $1200/day in L.A., for which you can get a 60i Hi-Def camera. So
low-end PAL was hard to find, and high-end PAL was over-priced.
The trouble with shooting 60i Hi-Def is getting it transferred to 35mm.
It's a waste of time to go somewhere that can't use the extra resolution of
HDTV. So we looked into Sony Hi-Def Center (which uses an EBR to output
Hi-Def to 35mm b&w separations) and other places that used laser recorders,
like E-FILM. The prices are astronomical, but we got a good enough deal
with E-FILM to make it seem possible.
It's all a big, tangled mess. You see, you have to work BACKWARDS from
whose doing your transfer to 35mm using what technology to figure out how to
shoot the film. If we shot in PAL, then the problem is that the best place
to go (if not using a laser recorder) would be Swiss Effects in Zurich,
Switzerland, which uses a computer CRT to film PAL images off of. You would
get even better quality by using a laser recorder, but when you start
talking about spending over $60,000 for a transfer to 35mm (I think Swiss
Effects was closer to $30,000), then you might as well shoot in a high-end
video format because it's going to cost you the same as a low-end one to
transfer to 35mm.
If we shot in NTSC, there's a lot of places to go, like Digital Image (4MC),
who has similar prices to Swiss Effects. But they use an EBR to scan out
NTSC to 16mm b&w separations, then blow that up to 35mm, which seems awkward
to me.
Anyway, I had to look into dozens of ways to shoot this project in video
(the only given) and dozens of ways to output it to 35mm. The digital
betacam PAL camera solution was just too expensive to rent. I found two
Sony DSR-500 WS PAL's to rent in the city from different owners, but they
were hard to book. I found that VER in Burbank had four Sony PD-150 PAL
DVCAM's for rent, which was our low-end option, ala "Chuck & Buck" (which
used the VX-1000 PAL). But then I came back to the 16:9 problem ("Chuck &
Buck" solved it by framing 4:3 for cropping to 1.85). And then we went to
see "Chuck & Buck" in the theaters, and the picture quality was low enough
to convince everyone to work harder to find the money to shoot on something
better than Mini-DV/DVCAM.
I also looked into the new Panasonic PD-900WS DVC-Pro50, which shoots 480
lines but at 60 fps progressive scan. The quality of the images was pretty
high (almost Hi-Def level) and the rental was reasonable, but the 60P format
is really best served by being bumped up to 60i HDTV at the end of post --
which threw us back to getting it scanned either by Sony Hi-Def Center or
E-FILM, or some other place with a laser recorder. And again, by spending a
little more money, we could rent a 60i HDTV camera, which seemed preferable
to dealing with an even more rare format like 480 line 60P. But suddenly,
through some connections, the possibility came up to use the new 24P HDTV
camera for not much more than the 60i HDTV camera.
So anyway, a project that might have shot PAL Mini-DV and transferred at
Swiss Effects ended up shooting on 24P HDTV and transferring at E-FILM.
That took up a lot more of the budget, but the director / producer felt it
was worth it.
As for why at that point, we didn't just turn it into a 35mm project, it
just seemed like a chance to experiment with a new technology on a subject
matter that was OK to be shot on video. And like I said, the small crew
size was slightly better suited to shooting with an ENG-style camcorder than
a 35mm package.
Another last-minute advantage was when I told the director that the 24P
camera had aspect ratio markings for 2.35 : 1. He & I had always wanted to
shoot a 2.35 film, so we had E-FILM show us some 24P footage both output
16:9 for flat 1.85 projection, and cropped to 2.35 for anamorphic
projection. Even though framing for 2.35 meant some loss of pixel
information, the end results between the 1.85 version and the 2.35 version
seemed identical in quality. So suddenly a few days before production, we
were shooting a 'scope movie.
The point of my original post was to counteract some of the unrealistic hype
that has surrounded the 24P Hi-Def camera. It really makes more sense for
TV production, which doesn't have to scan back to 35mm. For 35mm theatrical
productions, it is problematic in some areas, just as expensive as 35mm (due
to the scanning back to film), and looks close to 35mm in quality, but
slightly softer -- with certain other video-ish attributes to how it handles
contrast in lighting. But it is certainly close enough to fool a lot of
people. I think it's an interesting technology, but there are some serious
issues to be worked out. There WERE some benefits, but also some problems,
so it sort of equalled out. And honestly, I have shot even smaller
productions in the past in 35mm (I shot a $90,000 feature in 35mm once) so
it's possible to have pulled this one off in 35mm even with the tiny crew.
David Mullen
Lincoln Spector
> amazed that the resolution of these first offerings was so low
> (1280x1024). I have a projector at home that gives more resolution
> than that. Apparently the reason for this is that DLP is the only
> technology that can light up a screen that size, and DLPs aren't
> very far along technologically.
EVENTUALLY digital. I'm worried about it going digital too soon. Wait a few
years, let the resolution improve, and then go digital.
Lincoln
Scott Dorsey
Who cares about resolution? I can live with the smeary image... my issue
is with the grey scale.
--scott
Scott Moore
from digital cameras, to modems, etc, etc. When they sell the first
versions, you hear the salesmen swear up and down that they
conducted studies, and consumers don't know/want the difference
between that low resolution camera and better, or don't really need
that speed, etc., etc.
When, inevitably, the customer wants more, the rush is off to get
to better resolution/speed, etc.
The problem is, the same guys who sold the first junk are cleaning up
by selling a succession of incremental improvements.
Lincoln Spector wrote:
--
Peter
>>
It seems like every technology goes rushing off to production like this, from
digital cameras, to modems, etc, etc. When they sell the first versions, you
hear the salesmen swear up and down that they conducted studies, and consumers
don't know/want the difference between that low resolution camera and better,
>>
Don't forget that Micro$haft doesn't "get it right" until version 3.0 of
anything.
Digital cinema will likely follow the same paradiagm.
Panavision is on version 2.0 now, I guess, if one takes that aborted effort of
theirs of a decade ago as version 1.0.
The "benchmark" should be whether all-digital cinema can deliver as good an
image as Todd-AO (70mm, 30 fps or 24 fps, take your pick) could.
John P. Pytlak
>
> It seems like every technology goes rushing off to production like this,
> from digital cameras, to modems, etc, etc. When they sell the first
> versions, you hear the salesmen swear up and down that they
> conducted studies, and consumers don't know/want the difference
> between that low resolution camera and better, or don't really need
> that speed, etc., etc.
>
> When, inevitably, the customer wants more, the rush is off to get
> to better resolution/speed, etc.
>
> The problem is, the same guys who sold the first junk are cleaning up
> by selling a succession of incremental improvements.
>
> Scott A. Moore is sam...@cisco.com
>
> Technicians and inventions will continually create new devices and
> theories...which invites us to constantly wait for a better system to
> arrive." James Carnes, President of the prestigious Sarnoff Research
> Center in Pinceton, New Jersey, preaches that "there is a time in any
> development when you simply must 'shoot' the engineers."
John Pytlak replied:
Well said, from someone who is a "Digital" guy, and hopes to ship
packets of bits through the ethernet.
I have a "love/hate" relationship with digital technology. As an
electronic engineer, I marvel at the tremendous progress digital and
electronic technology have made over the thirty-year span of my career
at Kodak (including numerous Kodak products), and appreciate the
benefits and savings they provide. But I hate it when my computer
crashes, or when I have to buy a new one every few years to have the
capability of running the latest software, or "the server is down", or
when I'm expected to throw a VCR or monitor in the trash rather than
have it fixed.
Over on the Film-Tech forum ( http://www.film-tech.com ), there's a
recent thread regarding the electronic control electronics in some film
projection equipment that has replaced simple devices like
microswitches, noting that sometimes "simpler is better". Often, being
able to buy a spare part at the local Grangers or Radio Shack is
preferable to stocking spare circuit boards for everything, or trying to
figure out a fatal software glitch.
Scott Moore
I spend a lot of time reading the history of electrics, electronics, and lately,
mechanics.
The "boom" in digital that is going on in electronics has parallels in electrics
(as in "electric power generation, including first appliances") and mechanics,
right down to stock market speculation and big company trust building.
What I discover is that people get locked into whatever paradyme exists
in their day. During the rise and fall of the mechanical era, the answer to
everything was mechanical. Calculations could and should be carried out
by ever more complex watchlike mechanisims.
During the rise and fall of the electric era, the "device" was preemimenent,
and analog computers were the way to go.
Analog electronics, film or other devices are what happens if you are willing
to dump you information into the same vat as the physical effects that allowed
it to be carried in the first place. If you say you like tube electronics, you are
saying that you like to hear random electrical noise generated by emitter
heating. If you prefer film, you like grain and chemistry quirks.
These effects never existed in reality before the devices, electronics and film,
that created them. I certainly agree that some of them are fun now. The
hand cranked films are products of that day, and even now that we can
remove such effects by computer, it is not nessarily so that it is a good
idea. Thats the way they looked, thats the way people of that era saw
them.
But to insist that such effects are the natural state of things is strange to
me. These were quirks of their day. In 100 years, no one is going to remember,
or care, what a film scratch was, or why a bunch of hot electrons bouncing
off a plate was considered "warm" sound.
~grateful2u wrote:
> Amen to all that has been said.
>
> America stands for Progress. But, until very recent times, what comes now has
> been better than what came before. I truly believe the Digital Realm will
> result in the abandonment of our whole society, in favor of crass imitation and
> gross cheapness.
>
> There is no 'warmth' to anything represented digitally. There's no 'craft'.
> There's no 'Art'.
>
> It's largely un-necessary complication in order to save and make money.
>
> Digitizing anything completely removes the Humanity .. the Soul .. the Life.
>
> "There's no science like sprocket science". (C) 2000, Ron Yost. :)
>
> Ron
Greg Faris
In article <39BD7247...@cisco.com>, sam...@cisco.com says...
>Analog electronics, film or other devices are what happens if you are
willing
>to dump you information into the same vat as the physical effects that
allowed
>it to be carried in the first place. If you say you like tube electronics,
you are
>saying that you like to hear random electrical noise generated by emitter
>heating. If you prefer film, you like grain and chemistry quirks.
>
>Analog electronics, film or other devices are what happens if you are
willing
>to dump you information into the same vat as the physical effects that
allowed
>it to be carried in the first place. If you say you like tube electronics,
you are
>saying that you like to hear random electrical noise generated by emitter
>heating. If you prefer film, you like grain and chemistry quirks.
Nice post, but the preceding statement is at best a very "trusting" view of
what technological improvements
have to offer, and at worst represents a misunderstanding of the strengths
and weaknesses of analog techniques (emitter, incidentally, is one pole of a
transistor, and is not related to vacuum tubes). In analog technique,
linearity is the key to successful reproduction. In audio circuits, since
Black's introduction of negative feedback, electron tube technology is
satisfactorily linear - inherently more so than the semiconductors that
have supplanted it - giving at least a plausible argument to those who
champion this technology (without directly supporting or contesting this
view).
The argument for film is more complex, as image acquisition and reproduction
is discontinuous in time, and therefore has already at least one foot in the
digital door. The human perception key that allows this to work has not been
clearly elucidated, despite the assertions of so many writers on the subject
of image retention, etc. Nevertheless, the photographic imaging portion is
still an example of analog technique taken to a rather high level of
perfection.
The desire to supplant all of the above through numeric sampling and
representation is a very bold foray, and perhaps a sublime illustration of
hubris - we should be modest enough to admit that it should not reach a
high level of perfection in its very earliest stages of development.
The presumption (please correct me if I err in reading) that this technology
would be inherently more faithful, by virtue of its being devoid of some
known shortcomings of previous analog techniques, is simply fallacious.
G Faris
Scott Moore
> what technological improvements
> have to offer, and at worst represents a misunderstanding of the strengths
> and weaknesses of analog techniques (emitter, incidentally, is one pole of a
> transistor, and is not related to vacuum tubes). In analog technique,
The cathode was often referred to as the emitter, as in "emits electrons".
I choose, quite deliberately, to use the original terminology of the day.
I acknoledge that that term was reused for bipolar transistors.
>
> linearity is the key to successful reproduction. In audio circuits, since
> Black's introduction of negative feedback, electron tube technology is
> satisfactorily linear - inherently more so than the semiconductors that
> have supplanted it - giving at least a plausible argument to those who
> champion this technology (without directly supporting or contesting this
> view).
I respectfully disagree. Vacuum tubes were allways limited at the high
end frequencies. This gave them a heavy bass emphasis. That just happens
to be what people like to do to their response anyways.
Noise and distortion have never been completely conquered until the digial
era. Analog recording systems were allways rated in noise and various
distortions added by the equipment. Now with CDs and other digital
media, these products are essentially zero.
The entire purpose of Dolby processing was to compensate for the total
inability to reduce noise to an inperceptable level. Hence, a system to
mask instead of eliminate it.
>
> The presumption (please correct me if I err in reading) that this technology
> would be inherently more faithful, by virtue of its being devoid of some
> known shortcomings of previous analog techniques, is simply fallacious.
>
> G Faris
Digital is not the ultimately clean version of analog. Instead, it removes
the information from its carrier permanently. That is why digital in general
is free from generation losses, because it represents the underlying information
using a system completely independent from its method of transport.
From there we could argue. But the path leads to sampling theory and
mathematics. I allways stop at mathematics. Mathemeticians have an
annoying tendancy to be right, and I never play cards with them.
Yes, I believe that digital is fundamentally different from technologies past.
It is a way of dealing with information as itself, instead of what media
it happens to be on. We aren't going from mechanical to analog to digital.
We are going into the end game, information for informations sake.
Scott Norwood
Greg Faris <fa...@worldnet.net> wrote:
>
>I agree wholeheartedly with Gordon, but I am more pessimistic.
[big snip]
Apparently so.
I think that you're giving up on film way too soon. The fact is that film as
a distribution format "just works." The infrastructure to deliver film prints
to theatres and show them to audiences has existed for many years and,
for the most part, has functioned reasonably well. By contrast, no one has
yet implemented anything resembling a practical, long-term system for the
distribution of electronic copies of "films" to theatres. Costs aside,
there are many issues of formats, encryption, and delivery method that
have not yet begun to be addressed by exhibitors.
The cost issue is a big deal here, too. The exhibition industry is not in
good financial health (to put it mildly...). It cannot seem to find success
even when using (relatively) cheap film equipment. How can theatres possibly
think of replacing their already-paid-for film projectors (with their
expected lifespans of 20-30 years) with untested equipment that is many times
more expensive and will likely be obsolete in only a few years?
I do believe that there will come a time when alternative technologies can
produce a better-quality image than the best 35mm film prints at a lower
cost than 35mm. When this happens, I will be totally in favor of the use
of this equipment, as long as the reliability issues can be worked out.
However, that time is not here yet, and the last thing that this industry
needs right now is to spend a tremendous amount of money to "downgrade"
presentation quality.
I have seen several DLP presentations and have operated the current-
generation DLP projector. It's nice, but is still "not there yet" in
comparison with typical 35mm film prints (to say nothing of EK or dye-
transfer prints).
Peter
>>
... In audio circuits, since Black's introduction of negative feedback,
electron tube technology is satisfactorily linear ...
>>
Black's work was primarily concentrated on the general case of feedback, but
also focused on the specific case of poor bandwidth of the transformers then in
use, not necessarily of the vacuum tubes.
Incredible that Black's work was so "revolutionary" that the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office held up issuance of the patent so long (decades) that the
patent didn't run out until the mid 1950s, although his work was completed in
the 1920s.
Greg Faris
>I respectfully disagree. Vacuum tubes were always limited at the high
>end frequencies. This gave them a heavy bass emphasis. That just happens
>to be what people like to do to their response anyway.
This is at best a simplification. Vacuum tubes do not exhibit significant
high frequency attenuation, at least not with respect to the audio
bandwidth. Many tubes used in instrumentation operate in the high MHz,
even GHz range, while simple audio triodes and pentodes reproduce easily
to 40 or 50 KHz. It is very true that some output transformers could not
match this performance - however the best ones did, lending a high end
system of 1955 a significantly broader bandwidth than any digital system
today.
I do agree with you though, that the majority of home systems of the time
did not reproduce flat to 20KHz, or even close - however I believe it's a
simplification to attribute the "warm" sound of vacuum tube systems to any
shortcoming in frequency response or distortion. These may indeed be
factors, but the sound, often described as "agreeable", "natural" "warm"
or even "musical" may be equally attributable to some of the tube's
intrinsic qualities, including it's inherent linearity, once corrected
through a small dose of feedback.
Purely aesthetic choices also come into play - designers have always had
some control over damping factor, and the choices made here, in relation
to preferred loudspeaker design, may be related to the type of music being
reproduced, and the sound that the listeners felt was "natural". This is
anything but objective and measurable. I, for one, can walk through a
stereo shop today, from low end to high end, and it is extremely rare for
me to hear anything I would describe as even vaguely "natural".
>Noise and distortion have never been completely conquered until the
digital
>era. Analog recording systems were always rated in noise and various
>distortions added by the equipment. Now with CDs and other digital
>media, these products are essentially zero.
Agreed - and we should not underestimate this significant progress.
>The entire purpose of Dolby processing was to compensate for the total
>inability to reduce noise to an imperceptible level. Hence, a system to
>mask instead of eliminate it.
Disagree - Dolby processing, at the outset, was designed to optimize SNR
of a particular medium - analog magnetic tape, which has a relatively high
noise floor. By compressing the signal components to where they could be
placed well above this noise floor, it was possible to re-expand them on
reproduction, with the effect of pushing the noise floor way down. Thus
the noise was not "masked" but genuinely reduced, and very significantly.
>Digital is not the ultimately clean version of analog. Instead, it
removes
>the information from its carrier permanently. That is why digital in
general
>is free from generation losses, because it represents the underlying
information
>using a system completely independent from its method of transport.
Even this is not completely true. All digital modulation must be encoded
in a manner appropriate to the carrier, and this formatting has its own
characteristics. To wit : EFM modulation for CD's.
I appreciate these posts - however I think there is a danger to state, as
I have all too often heard it , that what we have today is the embodiment
of perfection, and from there we may mimic the qualities of any method or
system we choose, simply by introducing the appropriate imperfections.
This is disrespectful to those engineers, from Wente and Thuras, on
through Olsen, Williamson and Marantz who produced more than honorable
results, which in certain respects surpass what is peddled as perfection
today.
"Perfection" is the obvious and ubiquitous marketing keyword for digital
systems. Have you ever noticed though that each system, sold as "perfect"
at its introduction manages to show its defects as soon as the
manufacturer has something new to sell? The first 3324 DASH machines were
sold as the very embodiment of perfection - useless even to consider the
possibility of improvement, as one cannot improve on perfection. Today
they are referred to as "those old machines with the hissy converters",
and we freely recognize that any good ½" analog machine is far superior.
One would have been the object of much ridicule to have said so at the
time, though.
G Faris
Scott Dorsey
>
>I respectfully disagree. Vacuum tubes were allways limited at the high
>end frequencies. This gave them a heavy bass emphasis. That just happens
>to be what people like to do to their response anyways.
No. This is false. The only real problem with tubes from a performance
perspective was that they are inherently high-Z devices and therefore need
transformers to deal with low-Z sources and transducers. Good transformers
with good high end response are expensive.
My 1961 vintage Harman Kardon Citation II amp has +/- 1 dB flat response from
2 Hz to 40 KHz when measured at low levels, and even at maximum output level
it continues out to 22 KHz. This does not sound like "heavy bass emphasis"
to me.
I suggest actually listening to some good tube gear.
>Noise and distortion have never been completely conquered until the digial
>era. Analog recording systems were allways rated in noise and various
>distortions added by the equipment. Now with CDs and other digital
>media, these products are essentially zero.
This is also false. I suggest doing a straightwire test on a typical
digital recording system... the input does not sound like the output,
and therefore the distortion products are nonzero. The digital systems
are getting to be pretty good, and they beat out a lot of analogue systems,
but you're exaggerating more than you can possibly imagine.
>The entire purpose of Dolby processing was to compensate for the total
>inability to reduce noise to an inperceptable level. Hence, a system to
>mask instead of eliminate it.
Dolby noise reduction is a tool for reducing the noise floor of a system.
What does that have to do with anything? There are plenty of analogue
recording systems that aren't noisy and don't require Dolby NR. There
are plenty that are. Dolby NR was basically a success for economic
reasons, because it made it cheaper to get a good noise floor (at some
expensive of linearity).
I suggest you actually listen to this stuff and stop getting hung up
on sloppy generalizations about different technologies.
David Richards
Peter <peter...@aol.com> wrote:
>The "benchmark" should be whether all-digital cinema can deliver as good an
>image as Todd-AO (70mm, 30 fps or 24 fps, take your pick) could.
Why would you use as your benchmark 45 year-old technology, rather than
state of the art film today? Maybe the 45 year-old technology was better,
but what difference does it make if no one is using it now. Should my
benchmark for CD player performance be to compare it to 17th century
musicians playing live in a king's court, or should it be to a vinyl record,
which is the contemporary thing it competed with at the time of introduction?
Dave
Scott Dorsey
David Richards <dave...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <20000911152832...@ng-ff1.aol.com>,
>Peter <peter...@aol.com> wrote:
>>image as Todd-AO (70mm, 30 fps or 24 fps, take your pick) could.
>
>state of the art film today? Maybe the 45 year-old technology was better,
>but what difference does it make if no one is using it now. Should my
>benchmark for CD player performance be to compare it to 17th century
>musicians playing live in a king's court, or should it be to a vinyl record,
>which is the contemporary thing it competed with at the time of introduction?
Why, of course your benchmark for CD player peformance should be to
compare it to musicians playing live in a king's court.
Your benchmark for image quality should _always_ be the highest possible
standard available.
John P. Pytlak
>
> In article <20000911152832...@ng-ff1.aol.com>,
> Peter <peter...@aol.com> wrote:
> >image as Todd-AO (70mm, 30 fps or 24 fps, take your pick) could.
>
> state of the art film today? Maybe the 45 year-old technology was better,
> but what difference does it make if no one is using it now. Should my
> benchmark for CD player performance be to compare it to 17th century
> musicians playing live in a king's court, or should it be to a vinyl record,
> which is the contemporary thing it competed with at the time of introduction?
>
John Pytlak replied:
Sadly, this "45 year old film technology" (i.e., 70 mm) is not being
used much today. Even though over a thousand screens are already
equipped to use it, and using modern film stocks and lenses would make
it even better than it was at its best, cost-cutting keeps superior film
quality off the large screens that need it most.
Sadly, the same cost cutting may also keep Digital Cinema from reaching
it's full potential. IMHO, Digital Cinema projection systems costing
hundreds of thousands of dollars are unlikely to be replaced just for
incremental improvements, effectively "locking in" today's level of
quality for years to come in many theatres. When theatres still use
antiquated lenses and projectors that are years older than the
inexperienced young "booth usher" running 20 screens, project through
ports made of hazy window glass, and expect xenon lamps to last 5000+
hours, we shouldn't be too surprised when many theatres have poor
quality digital projection in the future.
Set your standards high!!! It's the best you can hope to get, because
you will almost always get less.
John P. Pytlak
(snip)
>
Should my
> benchmark for CD player performance be to compare it to 17th century
> musicians playing live in a king's court, or should it be to a vinyl record,
> which is the contemporary thing it competed with at the time of introduction?
>
> Dave
John Pytlak replied:
Many would say a live performance should ALWAYS be the benchmark for
sound. And many still argue that existing analog sound systems were
capable of doing a better job of matching a live performance than a CD.
Likewise, many on this newsgroup prefer the sound from analog magnetic
tracks to that of the current digital sound systems.
I love the convenience and quality of my CD player and DVD. But I don't
consider them benchmarks.
David Richards
John P. Pytlak <john....@kodak.com> wrote:
>David Richards wrote:
>(snip)
> Should my
>> benchmark for CD player performance be to compare it to 17th century
>> musicians playing live in a king's court, or should it be to a vinyl record,
>> which is the contemporary thing it competed with at the time of introduction?
>
>Many would say a live performance should ALWAYS be the benchmark for
>sound. And many still argue that existing analog sound systems were
>capable of doing a better job of matching a live performance than a CD.
>Likewise, many on this newsgroup prefer the sound from analog magnetic
>tracks to that of the current digital sound systems.
Then our benchmark for any imaging system should be to compare it to
reality, a test which any film-based system would fail miserably. Do
you agree with that?
Dave
David Richards
>> >image as Todd-AO (70mm, 30 fps or 24 fps, take your pick) could.
>>
>> state of the art film today? Maybe the 45 year-old technology was better,
>> but what difference does it make if no one is using it now.
>
>Sadly, this "45 year old film technology" (i.e., 70 mm) is not being
>used much today. Even though over a thousand screens are already
>equipped to use it, and using modern film stocks and lenses would make
>it even better than it was at its best, cost-cutting keeps superior film
>quality off the large screens that need it most.
That's exactly the point. We HAVE a superior system available, that isn't
being used except in special venue situations. That's how the industry
has shaken out -- you want a typical narrative film entertainment, you pay
your ~$4 per hour and go see a 35mm movie. You want the high end experience,
you pay your $8 per hour and go see an Imax movie.
The digital projectors will offer the same experiences -- you'll have your
basic level which competes with 35mm film and costs $x, and your higher
level, which competes with large format film and costs $xx. (Imax is an
investor in DLP after all.) I see no big paradigm shift here. Just like
always, quality will be directly related to cost. Anyone who wants to pay
more can get a better picture. Since they don't do it for standard Hollywood
content now, what's the magic change that's going to take place that's going
to make it happen in the future?
This is not about film vs, digital, it's about people's concept of what
movies are, from studio executives at the top, down to the man on the street
at the bottom. That ain't changing anytime soon.
HOWEVER: let's address this idea some have expressed, that the goal for
digital should be on a par with 70mm. Here's the problem with that statement:
Which 70mm experience, the one delivered in 1955, or the one that's
*capable* of being delivered today, even though it never has been? because
there's about an order of magnitude difference in quality between the two,
due to the improvements in film stocks. Everyone thinks 70mm in the 50s was
so beautiful. It was, but only compared to the relatively poor standard set
by 35mm of the time. I happen to think that 35mm 'Scope today, handled
properly, is probably on a par with the level of 70mm exhibition 40 years ago.
So what's our quality yardstick? You gotta stick a flag in the sand
somewhere. Trying to measure up to a standard that's never been delivered is
a lofty goal, but not a practical one.
Dave
Joe Zollner
: Then our benchmark for any imaging system should be to compare it to
: reality, a test which any film-based system would fail miserably. Do
: you agree with that?
I will agree with your statement, Dave. However, rather than saying that
a film-based system fails *miserably* in recreating reality, I would say
that it fails *much less miserably* than any other system which has
existed since the beginning of time. Electronic-based systems will
eventually surpass film-based systems in this regard, but they will still
be quite a ways from recreating reality.
Remember that the whole concept of "high fidelity" is "faithfulness to the
original". This applies to sound as well as image.
But today we often have a problem finding the original to compare the
recorded sound or image to. For example, take the movie "Jurassic Park".
Do the dinosaurs look and sound realistic to you? Your answer shouldn't
be a "yes" or "no"--it should be "I don't know because I haven't seen or
heard real dinosaurs."
Joe Zollner
jo...@execpc.com
--
RICHVINCE
film stock).
Makes me ache to see what 70mm would look like done with current film stocks!
Rich
John P. Pytlak
>
> Then our benchmark for any imaging system should be to compare it to
> reality, a test which any film-based system would fail miserably. Do
> you agree with that?
>
John Pytlak replied:
IMHO, some existing film systems come pretty close to "reality": IMAX
"Solido" 3D or even regular IMAX 3D, and original 60 fps ShowScan. But
it's easier to evaluate audio against a benchmark of "reality" than it
is to measure the much more complex visual experience. For audio, many
audiophiles just close their eyes when doing critical listening tests,
evaluating how close the sound is to a "concert hall" experience.
Scott Dorsey
>John P. Pytlak <john....@kodak.com> wrote:
>>David Richards wrote:
>> Should my
>>> benchmark for CD player performance be to compare it to 17th century
>>> musicians playing live in a king's court, or should it be to a vinyl record,
>>> which is the contemporary thing it competed with at the time of introduction?
>>
>>John Pytlak replied:
>>Many would say a live performance should ALWAYS be the benchmark for
>>sound. And many still argue that existing analog sound systems were
>>capable of doing a better job of matching a live performance than a CD.
>>Likewise, many on this newsgroup prefer the sound from analog magnetic
>>tracks to that of the current digital sound systems.
>
>reality, a test which any film-based system would fail miserably. Do
>you agree with that?
I agree with that!
35mm film is pretty crappy, and it doesn't have anywhere near enough
resolution, anywhere near a deep enough grey scale with the kind of tonal
subtlety seen in the real world.
And because film is so inadequate, I am very wary of replacing it with
any systems that are worse. We need something better so badly that taking
a step backwards terrifies me.
John P. Pytlak
>
(snip)
>
> 35mm film is pretty crappy, and it doesn't have anywhere near enough
> resolution, anywhere near a deep enough grey scale with the kind of tonal
> subtlety seen in the real world.
>
> And because film is so inadequate, I am very wary of replacing it with
> any systems that are worse. We need something better so badly that taking
> a step backwards terrifies me.
> --scott
I've seen some pretty spectacular 35 mm images in the last few years, so
I wouldn't blame the film. Two that immediately come to mind are "The
Thin Red Line" and "American Beauty". The release prints I saw in
Rochester-area theatres were certainly stunning, and NOT "pretty
crappy". "The Thin Red Line" was impressively sharp on a 40-foot
screen, with a very rich tone scale and color reproduction. Sure, I
would have loved to have seen a 70 mm print, but even the 35 mm release
print was impressive.
Just a gut feeling, but I suggest taking a screen luminance meter to the
theatre screens you frequent to make some measurements. The symptoms
you describe often go hand-in-hand with sub-standard screen luminance:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/spring98/pointers.shtml
Shutterghost
sound or picture is an art form in itself. Nothing recorded will ever be a
live performance. And recordings in themselves are no different than Mona
Lisa's or a childs scribbling. They are a reflection of the engineer or
recordist who made them. Maybe engineers have strived for 'realism' in
recording sound or picture, but the creative step of making the recording
removes them from the live performance both audibly or visually. Most media
recordings are impressionistic, modern and/or obtuse anyway.
"John P. Pytlak" <john....@kodak.com> wrote in message
news:39BFD244...@kodak.com...
> John Pytlak replied:
>
> Many would say a live performance should ALWAYS be the benchmark for
> sound. And many still argue that existing analog sound systems were
> capable of doing a better job of matching a live performance than a CD.
> Likewise, many on this newsgroup prefer the sound from analog magnetic
> tracks to that of the current digital sound systems.
>
Shutterghost
Reality is boring. Just watch reality shows on TV. Motion picture film is
but a canvas and a pallette for an artist to create an art piece, or a
historian to record event, a director to tell a story, or Robert Harris to
tell us what Lawrence of Arabia looked like decades ago.
35mm film has an astounding color palette to achieve these goals and others.
It is the link for the human's ability to transform two dimensional images
into recall of three dimensional perceptual understanding. It has more
resolution than the human eye can see, and has portrayed colors in movies
that some have never seen in real life.
"John P. Pytlak" <john....@kodak.com> wrote in message
news:39C13008...@kodak.com...
Richard L. LENOIR
wrote:
>due to the improvements in film stocks. Everyone thinks 70mm in the 50s was
>so beautiful. It was, but only compared to the relatively poor standard set
>by 35mm of the time. I happen to think that 35mm 'Scope today, handled
>properly, is probably on a par with the level of 70mm exhibition 40 years ago.
Yes..... if what you compare is projected on a 40 feet wide screen.
Absolutely NOT if the movie is projected on a 80 feet wide screen.
I did some A/B test using the last film available on 70/35. It was
TITANIC. I projected the movie in the larger theatre of the Plex
(screen size is 92 feet). 35mm print was on projector 1 and 70mm
print on
projector 2. Both machine are Kinoton. No sound. Both projectors
were running simultaneously and light was switched from P1 to P2, then
P2 to P1, etc....
The difference in image quality is beyond description. Even with the
70mm print being a blow-up from a S-35 origin. I'd like to do the
same test with a print of Hamlet.
John P. Pytlak
John Pytlak wrote:
I totally agree with Mr. Lenoir! The advantages of a 70 mm print on a
large screen are numerous, even when the camera original was 35 mm. I
saw "Titanic" in 70 mm DTS at two different theatres (Chinese in
Hollywood, Northpark in Dallas), and the presentation in both cases was
flawless and stunning! Gordon McLeod tells of playing a 70 mm DTS print
of "Titanic" on the huge IMAX screen at Ontario Place in Toronto to
sell-out audiences most of the summer AFTER it had played out in most 35
mm theatres. Audiences do appreciate and seek out "The Spender of 70
mm" presentations.
A 35 mm print can look very good on screens up to about 25 x 60 feet.
Beyond that, the physics of forcing thousands of watts of radiant energy
through a postage stamp size 35 mm frame begin to take their toll. By
"spreading out" the energy over a much larger frame size and using a
longer focal length lens for projection, 70 mm prints really "shine" on
very large screens.
I saw a stunning presentation of a 35 mm scope release print of "The
Thin Red Line" in Rochester on a 40-foot wide screen. With care, I'm
sure the same print would look very good on a 60-foot screen. But
theatres with 70-foot and 80-foot wide "monster" screens absolutely NEED
a 70 mm print to achieve good presentation quality.
Scott Norwood
John P. Pytlak <john....@kodak.com> wrote:
>
>A 35 mm print can look very good on screens up to about 25 x 60 feet.
>Beyond that, the physics of forcing thousands of watts of radiant energy
>through a postage stamp size 35 mm frame begin to take their toll.
Just out of curiousity, what is the practical limit to the screen size
for 16mm release prints (while meeting SMPTE requirements, of course)?
John P. Pytlak
>
> In article <39C23C54...@kodak.com>,
> John P. Pytlak <john....@kodak.com> wrote:
> >
> >A 35 mm print can look very good on screens up to about 25 x 60 feet.
> >Beyond that, the physics of forcing thousands of watts of radiant energy
> >through a postage stamp size 35 mm frame begin to take their toll.
>
> Just out of curiousity, what is the practical limit to the screen size
> for 16mm release prints (while meeting SMPTE requirements, of course)?
>
> --
> Scott Norwood: snor...@nyx.net, snor...@redballoon.net
John Pytlak replied:
I don't recall much practical data or research on the subject. The
efficiencies of focusing a lamphouse onto the much smaller 16 mm frame
are probably less than 35 mm. But as a "first cut", I think you could
base it on the difference in image area of the print:
For 35 mm scope, 0.825 inches x 0.690 inches = 0.570 square inches
For 16 mm, 0.380 inches x 0.286 inches = 0.109 square inches
So the 35 mm frame is 0.570 / 0.109 = 5.2 times larger than 16 mm
Handled with care, I said a 35 mm scope print could be produce a good
image on a screen of 25 x 60 feet, or 1500 square feet.
1500 / 5.2 = 288 square feet is the calculated maximum screen area for
the smaller 16 mm print image.
A 15 x 20 screen is 300 square feet, which seems like a reasonable
maximum for 16 mm prints, based on my experience. Any bigger will
probably be too dim, or risk damaging the print. The main issue is
getting enough radiant energy through the 16 mm projector aperture,
without causing heat damage to the print.
Of course much depends upon the lamphouse/heat filter efficiency and
alignment, lens f/number, port glass transmission, screen gain, etc.
Black-and-white (i.e., silver image) prints will be much more sensitive
to heat since they absorb much more infrared (IR) energy than color
prints. If you "go the max" on power, be sure to run a loop of similar
film (with pictures or high density in the image) about a hundred times
to be sure your big lamp isn't burning or damaging the print.
Obviously, many 16 mm and Super-16 productions have found their way onto
much larger theatre screens, via 35 mm "blow ups", with very acceptable
image quality. This is a tribute to the excellent sharpness and fine
grain of modern camera negative films. The issue with large screens is
more one of the physics of projection, rather than the image quality of
the film, which can support pretty big images.
Peter
>>
Just out of curiousity, what is the practical limit to the screen size for 16mm
release prints (while meeting SMPTE requirements, of course)?
>>
Every print size has its (practical) limits as to ...
1) illumination,
2) focus flutter,
3) weave, and
4) resolution
In every respect, a given print size is superior to a smaller size.
Regarding "Todd-AO, 30 fps or 24 fps, your choice", naturally I would expect
that Todd would not be limited to 5247 whereas 35mm could use today's superior
T-grain stocks.
Under this hypothesis, Todd would likely blow-away any digital technology ...
until the NCC-1701 was launched, that is.
Scott Dorsey
>
>35mm film has an astounding color palette to achieve these goals and others.
>It is the link for the human's ability to transform two dimensional images
>into recall of three dimensional perceptual understanding. It has more
>resolution than the human eye can see, and has portrayed colors in movies
>that some have never seen in real life.
But I want more! I want a larger palette, and I want more control! I want
to have the old Agfa look, and the Technicolor look, but also to have
different looks that have deep and intense blacks and bright but finely
graduated highlights. I want more than 35mm will give me by a long shot.
This being the case, why should I settle for a digital system which can't
give me half of what 35mm will right now?
John P. Pytlak
>
> Shutterghost <shuttergh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >35mm film has an astounding color palette to achieve these goals and others.
> >It is the link for the human's ability to transform two dimensional images
> >into recall of three dimensional perceptual understanding. It has more
> >resolution than the human eye can see, and has portrayed colors in movies
> >that some have never seen in real life.
>
> to have the old Agfa look, and the Technicolor look, but also to have
> different looks that have deep and intense blacks and bright but finely
> graduated highlights. I want more than 35mm will give me by a long shot.
>
> This being the case, why should I settle for a digital system which can't
> give me half of what 35mm will right now?
> --scott
John Pytlak replied:
Your wishes will be granted! Keep an eye on Kodak:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/news/futureOfFilm.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/newsletters/notes/march2000/digital.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/newsletters/notes/june2000/mayson.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/news/labPost.shtml
David Mullen
>Your wishes will be granted! Keep an eye on Kodak:
John, I heard that Kodak will be introducing a new print stock with the
color / contrast qualities of the old 5386, since some have found the
snappier Vision print stock problematic for certain applications - when will
that be coming out?
David Mullen
John P. Pytlak
John Pytlak replied:
I will give you the "stock" answer (pun intended): Kodak listens to its
customers and responds to their needs.
Scott Dorsey
David Mullen <dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>John Pytlak replied:
>>Your wishes will be granted! Keep an eye on Kodak:
>
>John, I heard that Kodak will be introducing a new print stock with the
>color / contrast qualities of the old 5386, since some have found the
>snappier Vision print stock problematic for certain applications - when will
>that be coming out?
>
And will it be available on acetate base too?
RICHVINCE
>TITANIC. I projected the movie in the larger theatre of the Plex
>(screen size is 92 feet). 35mm print was on projector 1 and 70mm print on
>The difference in image quality is beyond description. Even with the
>70mm print being a blow-up from a S-35 origin. I'd like to do the
>same test with a print of Hamlet.
How fascinating, Richard. Could you describe for us in detail the differences
you observed?
Rich
Richard L. LENOIR
I am very sorry but I cannnot. That is because my primary language
is french. I live in Belgium, Europe. I learned english in school and,
mainly, during my various and many trips to the US and to the UK.
So I have a good practice of the english sopken language but it is
"every day practical" language. I do not posess all the refinements
about english language concerning taste, colors, sounds to express
properly the differences I observed and those I felt. By the way, I
also apologize for my written mistakes.
RICHVINCE
>is french.
Wow. I'm impressed. You do better with English than a lot of English speaking
people I know. You have nothing to apologize for.
Rich
Martin Hart
rich...@aol.com says...
I agree with Rich. I've always felt that we Yanks should learn other
languages with the proficiency that others learn English. No apologies
needed, Richard.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com
davidj...@my-deja.com
Martin Hart <m.b....@BLOCKER.att.net> wrote:
> In article <20000917141356...@ng-bd1.aol.com>,
> rich...@aol.com says...
> > > I am very sorry but I cannnot. That is >because my primary
language
> > >is french.
> >
> > people I know. You have nothing to apologize for.
> >
> > Rich
>
> I agree with Rich. I've always felt that we Yanks should learn other
> languages with the proficiency that others learn English. No
apologies
> needed, Richard.
>
> Marty
> --
A German exchange journalist with whom I worked amazed mw with her
language skills. She had to take a month-long refresher course in
English before coming to America to work. She insisted many of her
friends were at least marginally proficient in English (as well as
other languages). She even wrote a letter to the editor of our local
paper that displayed a far better grasp of grammar and syntax than most
of the natives. As a friend once told me: someone who speaks three
languages is tri-lingual, someone who speaks two languages is bi-
lingual, someone who speaks only one language is American.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John P. Pytlak
>
>
> And will it (print film) be available on acetate base too?
> --scott
>
John Pytlak replied:
No. AFAIK, color print films from the major film manufacturers are
available on polyester base only.
Martin Hart
says...
> As a friend once told me: someone who speaks three
> languages is tri-lingual, someone who speaks two languages is bi-
> lingual, someone who speaks only one language is American.
> >
Not entirely true. Others that appear to speak only one language are the
Brits, French Canadians, and half the immigrants in California, Arizona,
New Mexico, and Texas.
I am always amazed at the command of the English language displayed by
residents of non-English speaking countries when posting in this
newsgroup. They are near perfect, something most of us can't claim, and a
few, such as Thomas Hauerslev and Jan-Eric Nystrom and others are so good
that I can't even recall a misspelled word in over five years of email
exchanges. It sure keeps me on my toes.
davidj...@my-deja.com
> In article <8q506q$5vi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, davidj...@my-deja.com
> says...
> > As a friend once told me: someone who speaks three
> > languages is tri-lingual, someone who speaks two languages is bi-
> > lingual, someone who speaks only one language is American.
> > >
>
> Not entirely true. Others that appear to speak only one language are
the
> Brits, French Canadians, and half the immigrants in California,
Arizona,
> New Mexico, and Texas.
>
As a Louisiana resident, I have to add to that list many Cajuns in
some of the state's remotest bayous. There are some hybrid
Tunica/Biloxi indians who speak their dialect and Cajun French, but no
English.
> I am always amazed at the command of the English language displayed
by
> residents of non-English speaking countries when posting in this
> newsgroup. They are near perfect, something most of us can't claim,
and a
> few, such as Thomas Hauerslev and Jan-Eric Nystrom and others are so
good
> that I can't even recall a misspelled word in over five years of
email
> exchanges. It sure keeps me on my toes.
>
When I met Thomas in Dayton I didn't realize he was Danish, his
English was so good. His 70mm NEWSLETTER is more professionally proofed
than many American publications.
>
Davod (er David) Joachim
Steve Kraus
> Using "Titanic" as
> an example makes my point for me. Take that 70mm blow-up of Titanic and
> compare it to a 1955 70mm print of Oklahoma for example. I'd bet you'd
> find very similar grain structure.
Um...no. Well, ok it was the 1983 70mm print of "Oklahoma!"
that I ran recently but then grain structure is primarily a
function of negative. I agree with you in general that film
has made tremendous strides and the very best full frame 35mm
anamorphic-orginated images might begin to *approach* mid-fifties
65mm images but to suggest that the tiny Super 35 frame could
equal a frame 5 or 6 times larger is, I think, ridiculous.
Film resolution hasn't improved THAT much!
David Richards
Richard L. LENOIR <*remove*len...@ibm.net> wrote:
>On 13 Sep 2000 23:37:11 GMT, dave...@netcom.com (David Richards)
>wrote:
>>properly, is probably on a par with the level of 70mm exhibition 40 years ago.
>
> Yes..... if what you compare is projected on a 40 feet wide screen.
>Absolutely NOT if the movie is projected on a 80 feet wide screen.
>
>TITANIC. I projected the movie in the larger theatre of the Plex
>(screen size is 92 feet). 35mm print was on projector 1 and 70mm
>print on
OK, that's great. I love 70mm too, but look at what I said. I said the
quality available with good 35mm photography and printing today is probably
very close to what was available with 70mm in the 1950s. Using "Titanic" as
an example makes my point for me. Take that 70mm blow-up of Titanic and
compare it to a 1955 70mm print of Oklahoma for example. I'd bet you'd
find very similar grain structure. Obviously this is not apples to apples,
and it's not meant to be. The comment was meant to illustrate how far film
has come. If you thought 70mm in the 50s and 60s was really great, you'd be
blown away by it now. Very few people have actually had the opportunity to
see examples of a modern 65/70mm system. I think one of the reasons no one
is willing to do it is because the 35mm is so good, and the venues are few
and far between that would allow the audience to really enjoy the difference.
I don't think you can see the difference in your average multiplex. You need
a big picture palace, and how many of those are there now? You saw a big
difference on a 92-foot screen. Great. How many 92-foot screens are there?
Dave
Martin Hart
says...
> As a Louisiana resident, I have to add to that list many Cajuns in
> some of the state's remotest bayous. There are some hybrid
> Tunica/Biloxi indians who speak their dialect and Cajun French, but no
> English.
Hell, I can't understand them when they're trying to speak English. A
Parisian wouldn't understand their Cajun French either. It's a different
world when you pass yourself down by dem bayous.
> When I met Thomas in Dayton I didn't realize he was Danish, his
> English was so good. His 70mm NEWSLETTER is more professionally proofed
> than many American publications.
Kinda shameful, isn't it? My last wife, having taken two years of high
school Spanish, thought that speaking English very slow and loud was
enough to get by in Mexico. Of course she was a bit of an idiot, but
sharp enough to clean me out.
JM
<dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Speaking as someone who just shot a feature on the new 24P Sony HDW-F900,
>the camera that Lucas is using, let me add my two cents.
Speaking as someone who's very interested in the 24P Sony HDW-F900, I
thank you for discussing it here. If you don't mind, I have a couple
of questions.
>As for "DSP filters" making Hi-Def look like film, the 24P image is already
>sort of film-like if you turn off the edge enhancement / detail levels --
How film-like is it before the transfer to 35mm?
>The ONLY time-saving aspect of the whole Hi-Def production was the lack of
>film processing & telecine transfer to tape. Shooting & editing take the
>same time depending on what you want to do
I've read that Bernard Rose shot his "ivansxtc" with the Sony HDCAM
700A using available light (including night scenes) which
significantly shortened the shoot. Was that not an option for your
shoot, and/or do you think it's a good option for any shoot using the
F900? (Rose's site describing his shoot is called filmisdead.com, so
you know where he weighs in on this thread.)
TIAs.
Giovanni Abrate
I did not know that my ex-wife had a twin sister!
What a coincidence. Give my regards to the usherettes!
Giovanni
"Martin Hart" <m.b....@BLOCKER.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.14309c359...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> In article <8q65ts$kr0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, davidj...@my-deja.com
David Mullen
Well, are you comparing 24P HDTV downconverted to NTSC to 35mm neg
transferred to NTSC video? Or comparing both transferred to 60i HDTV? In
those cases, in split-screen tests that I have seen, the 24P HDTV (with the
edge enhancement turned off) image is very similar to 35mm transferred to
video in terms of motion rendition, resolution, and shadow detail. 35mm
negative still handles bright areas of the frame better.
>I've read that Bernard Rose shot his "ivansxtc" with the Sony HDCAM
>700A using available light (including night scenes) which
>significantly shortened the shoot. Was that not an option for your
>shoot, and/or do you think it's a good option for any shoot using the
>F900?
The HDTV camera at 0 db is roughly the same "speed" as a 500 ASA film stock
like 5279 (Vision 500T).
And while you can push the HDTV signal to +6 db (1000 ASA) without too much
noise, you can use 800 ASA film stock and you can push-develop the 500 or
800 ASA stocks to higher ratings. ("Eyes Wide Shut" was shot on stock rated
at 1600 ASA.) So there is no reason that you can't shoot in 35mm under a
similar "no additional lighting" rule. The HDTV camera does have more
sensitivity in the darkest areas of the frame, so it might be a little more
useful in night exterior scenes than 35mm film, but overall, the ability to
light a scene or not is the same for both formats -- it's more of an
artistic decision. You can save the same amount of time by shooting on fast
35mm stocks and not lighting your scenes either -- and they can potentially
look just as bad...
I don't buy this notion that for some reason you "don't have to light video"
but you DO have to light for film -- both formats can be shot with lighting
or without it, depending on how important good lighting is to you, and how
much you want to avoid noise (video) or grain (film.) Like I said, at some
point in EXTREME low-light conditions, you will probably get a more usable
image in HDTV by pushing the signal (like to +12 db) than by push-developing
film stock -- but the final quality of the image will be quite poor and
extremely noisy. But if I were doing a documentary of people living on the
streets at night, or in subway tunnels, I'd probably go for the HDTV camera.
But for general filmmaking, you can consider HDTV and 35mm to be similar in
their needs for lighting.
The low-end latitude of HDTV might mean that you find yourself using less
FILL light in some shots compared to 35mm neg destined to be printed from
(not neg to tape), but the poor high-end sensitivity of HDTV might mean that
you will have to occasionally use MORE lighting to balance with a bright
background better (or else have to darken the background.) On my 24P HDTV
shoot, I spent more time knocking hot areas down, using ND gel on windows &
neon signs, dimming practical lamps down, etc.
This brings up another point -- 35mm negative has excellent latitude and
records a much broader range of exposure information than HDTV. However,
the gamma of 35mm print stock means that some of that information is lost in
order to get better blacks & contrast in the projected image. When
transferring HDTV to 35mm using a laser recorder, the information on the
tape isn't lost because it can be placed in a way onto a 35mm negative that
it shows up in the 35mm print. However, if you shot on 35mm negative and
digitally scanned it, you can also get a similar look with more shadow
detail in an output back to film -- so some of the look of HDTV to 35mm is
more due to the digital scanning process rather than the HDTV origination.
And the truth is that most video-to-film transfers are a little too flat &
dull, meaning that they probably SHOULD be throwing away some shadow detail
in order to get deeper blacks in the print.
But if you are talking about work destined for TV presentation, using a 35mm
negative in a telecine would probably give you access to a similar amount of
low-end shadow detail information as an HDTV originated image, but a lot
more high-end overexposed detail would be available for use than HDTV.
As for "IVANSXTSE", I haven't seen it, but someone who has mentioned to me
that some of photography is pretty bad at some spots due to the lack of
proper lighting. Which is fine if the director wanted a semi-documentary
roughness -- but he could have also gotten that by shooting in 35mm.
His production probably WAS a little smaller & faster by not using 35mm,
since an HDTV camera is lighter, the package is smaller, and you don't need
a camera loader or have to reload every 10 minutes or less, making you a
little more mobile and faster. But lighting-wise, he could have shot in
35mm just as quickly more or less, depending on whether he had to deal with
shadow detail problems or overexposure detail problems.
David Mullen
davidj...@my-deja.com
"David Mullen" <dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:detail would be
available for use than HDTV.
>
> As for "IVANSXTSE", I haven't seen it, but someone who has mentioned
to me
> that some of photography is pretty bad at some spots due to the lack
of
> proper lighting. Which is fine if the director wanted a semi-
documentary
> roughness -- but he could have also gotten that by shooting in 35mm.
>
> His production probably WAS a little smaller & faster by not using
35mm,
> since an HDTV camera is lighter, the package is smaller, and you
don't need
> a camera loader or have to reload every 10 minutes or less, making
you a
> little more mobile and faster.
It's not fair to judge a film by seeing it presented in streaming
video, but the clips from the website look pretty dismal compared to
average film clips on the internet. The VIDEOGRAPHY article om IVANSXTC
indicates that the film was shot on the fly, with the director
operating the camera, supported by a minimal crew. As I've said before,
this sort of maverick, "I'm gonna change the world of filmmaking
overnight" sort of chest beating resurfaces during technological
upheavals. The mavericks always manage to find an advocate willing to
promote them in the form of an overly elegiac article printed in an
accommodating publication. Late in his career, cinematographer Lee
Garmes inexplicably embraced 70s era video technology. And, as
filmmaker Rose has done recently, also delivered a premature obituary
for film.
David Joachim
David Mullen
>Garmes inexplicably embraced 70s era video technology.
You can see that article by Garmes in the October 1972 issue of "American
Cinematographer"...
David Mullen
RICHVINCE
>used much today. Even though over a thousand screens are already
>equipped to use it, and using modern film stocks and lenses would make
>it even better than it was at its best, cost-cutting keeps superior film
>quality off the large screens that need it most.
I agree wholeheartedly. And this is the saddest part many of the discussions
in this NG regarding 70mm, digital cinema, etc.
>Sadly, the same cost cutting may also keep Digital Cinema from reaching
>it's full potential. IMHO, Digital Cinema projection systems costing
>hundreds of thousands of dollars are unlikely to be replaced just for
>incremental improvements, effectively "locking in" today's level of
>quality for years to come in many theatres...
To me the real irony of this is IMAX is an enormously expensive system, yet
it's quality has proven to be a big draw. Yet many execs both for the studios
and the theatre chains still have difficulty understanding why 70mm could be
worthwhile.
Rich
JM
Was your shoot able to get discounts or 2-3 day weeks for the F900, or
is the camera too much in demand right now?
davidj...@my-deja.com
him to speak at a film seminar in Memphis. I was astonished they had
picked him (and correctly assumed they hadn't read the article). His
anecdotes about working with Selznick and shooting part of GONE WITH
THE WIND were interesting, but when he told the audience of filmmakers
and TV photogs to "throw away your film cameras," the audience turned
against him. He was dismissed as a silly old man who was no longer
getting sufficient blood flow to the brain. He was dead within a year,
but his controversial talk lived on with seminar organizers for years.
Jerome O'Donohoe
> The ONLY time-saving aspect of the whole Hi-Def production was the lack of
> film processing & telecine transfer to tape. Shooting & editing take the
> same time depending on what you want to do, since everyone edits
> electronically anyway. So on the set, I wasn't saving any time, and even if
> the editor got the first day's footage a day earlier, after that, there was
> no additional time savings - he was just one day ahead.
And you had full colour, on-set playback of what you'd just
shot...re-shoots for duff film/mistakes in the lab no longer need to
happen...
> As for saving money, it depends. The camera costs a lot more to rent than a
> 35mm camera, but a $70 HDCAM cassette holds the equivalent of 5,000' of 35mm
> film, so the savings in not developing and telecine transferring are huge.
> But the costs of scanning it back to 35mm film are also huge.
Surely this only happens a couple of times as the project is completed?
It can't compare to 3 or 4 months of dailies transfer, cost-wise. And,
the stock is really cheap.
I saw the HDW900 this week for the first time, was quite freaked out by
the e-to-e picture on the widescreen HD monitor from the camera -
freakishly sharp. It was twice the daily rental price of a regular
DVW700 DigiBeta PAL camcorder - UKP 650. I can't believe that the
savings in telecine/sound sync, on-set playback and cheap stock won't
mean that some producers will try to use this technology as soon as
possible, and they'll scan out to 35mm just once, at the end...
--
Jerome O'Donohoe, Dubbing Mixer, Soho.
David Mullen
>shot...re-shoots for duff film/mistakes in the lab no longer need to
>happen...
It's a rare problem, losing footage to the lab or whatnot. And video can
develop dropout problems, the tape can get damaged, etc... Put it this way,
I've shot seventeen features and only about two or three went over-schedule
by ONE DAY due to such problems. When I've shot seventeen features in HDTV
and not have lost a single day due to the camera, THEN I'll say that it was
a major time-saver in comparison... It's too early to say that shooting in
digital will be more error-free. Like I said before, the time-savings on
set by shooting in HDTV instead of 35mm are minimal.
As for on-set playback, I generally avoid it as it is a time-waster. When
you have three or four weeks to make a feature, the last thing you want to
do is to spend on-set time after takes WATCHING the takes over again. And I
also didn't like to playback my HDCAM masters on set anyway, for fear of
creating more opportunities for drop-out problems.
>> As for saving money, it depends. The camera costs a lot more to rent
than a
>> 35mm camera, but a $70 HDCAM cassette holds the equivalent of 5,000' of
35mm
>> film, so the savings in not developing and telecine transferring are
huge.
>> But the costs of scanning it back to 35mm film are also huge.
>
>Surely this only happens a couple of times as the project is completed?
>It can't compare to 3 or 4 months of dailies transfer, cost-wise. And,
>the stock is really cheap.
The cost of scanning a HDTV feature out to 35mm is around $80,000, which is
more than the costs of 35mm stock & developing & telecine transfer on the
features that I shoot. Yes, if a feature went for a long time and shot a
half-million feet of film, for example, then you would be spending more than
$80,000 and HDTV would become cheaper in comparison.
>I saw the HDW900 this week for the first time, was quite freaked out by
>the e-to-e picture on the widescreen HD monitor from the camera -
>freakishly sharp.
Sure it's sharp -- it's a 1920 x 1080 CCD image seen on, what, a 36"
monitor? The problem is that it has to look sharp projected onto a 40'
screen to compete with 35mm for theatrical production. Since the resolution
of the 24P HDTV image is just under 2K, it's close to 35mm but not quite, so
it has an inherent softness to the final projected image after being
transferred to 35mm.
>I can't believe that the savings in telecine/sound sync, on-set playback
and cheap stock won't
>mean that some producers will try to use this technology as soon as
>possible, and they'll scan out to 35mm just once, at the end...
Like I said, the numbers right now do not add up to 24P HDTV being cheaper
than 35mm unless it is for video presentation only. Only in bigger-budgeted
films (who can afford 35mm film anyway) with a higher shooting ratio does
the costs of scanning the final video master to film become cheaper than the
costs of shooting in 35mm to begin with. Also, you save money if you have a
lot of digital effects in the film, since you are not spending money on
scanning 35mm negative into a digital image, just on scanning it back out to
film.
TV producers are the ones that will see real savings by switching to 24P
HDTV.
The other fear among some low-budget producers is the acceptance world-wide
of an HDTV feature in all markets -- German TV, for example, is very picky &
conservative about everything it buys for broadcast; most producers choose
35mm for those markets because it's a safer bet; they don't want to be a
pioneer in trying to sell movies shot on non-standard formats.
David Mullen
Mark Andrew Job
Hi Rich:
Rich, there is yet another difficulty not considered so far which
lies in the production end of shooting in 70 MM. I own my very own Super
Panavision Studio Camera. S.C. # 104 and I cannot get the 65 mm film processed
anywhere in my Country of Canada ! It is Ironic since Imax is a Canadian Invention
and employs 65 mm film yet there are no Canadian labs who will dare handle 70 mm
film
services ! I find this is really driving the nails into the 70 mm coffin quicker
than anything else. I can't really justify flying down to Hollywood, USA just to
go to CFI Film Labs to process a roll or two of film to see a test. The whole 65
mm / 70 mm world wide lab situation is rather sickening.
My new single lens Cinerama system is switching over to 35 mm 8
perf Vista Vision because it is close to but not quite as good as the 5 perf 65 mm
negative area and I can get 35 mm film processed in just about every Canadian city
and locally where I live. I can also scrounge short ends from many film maker
buddies of mine locally too. For me 70 mm is the way to go but what good is it if
you have to fly away to foreign countries just to process film ?
For this reason alone, I have decided to sell my camera. I am
asking 50,000.00 $ US or best offer for my complete Super Panavision Package which
contains several large international shipping cases full of really big camera
sections and 1000 foot 65 mm magazines, lenses and motors. Or I would be
interested in trading it for a complete 35 mm Vista Vision shooting package.
thanks,
Mark Andrew Job
Mat Overton
> than 35mm unless it is for video presentation only. Only in
bigger-budgeted
> films (who can afford 35mm film anyway) with a higher shooting ratio does
> the costs of scanning the final video master to film become cheaper than
the
> costs of shooting in 35mm to begin with. Also, you save money if you have
a
> lot of digital effects in the film, since you are not spending money on
> scanning 35mm negative into a digital image, just on scanning it back out
to
> film.
>
> TV producers are the ones that will see real savings by switching to 24P
> HDTV.
How is widescreen being done? Is it animorphically squeezed like is done for
Digital TV? If so the CinemaScope is going to look dreadfull, as it will
have more of a squeeze than W/S. The only way C/S looked as good quality
wise to W/S was due to the fact that W/S picters are cropped from an academy
original.
Robert A. Harris
<mark...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>Hi Rich:
> Rich, there is yet another difficulty not considered so far which
>lies in the production end of shooting in 70 MM. I own my very own Super
>Panavision Studio Camera. S.C. # 104 and I cannot get the 65 mm film processed
>anywhere in my Country of Canada ! It is Ironic since Imax is a Canadian Invention
>and employs 65 mm film yet there are no Canadian labs who will dare handle 70 mm
>film
>services ! I find this is really driving the nails into the 70 mm coffin quicker
>than anything else. I can't really justify flying down to Hollywood, USA just to
>go to CFI Film Labs to process a roll or two of film to see a test. The whole 65
>mm / 70 mm world wide lab situation is rather sickening.
> My new single lens Cinerama system is switching over to 35 mm 8
>perf Vista Vision because it is close to but not quite as good as the 5 perf 65 mm
>negative area and I can get 35 mm film processed in just about every Canadian city
>and locally where I live. I can also scrounge short ends from many film maker
>buddies of mine locally too. For me 70 mm is the way to go but what good is it if
>you have to fly away to foreign countries just to process film ?
>
>
>Mark Andrew Job
>
>
>
Mark,
Although we time all of our large format work in LA, we've had no
problem shipping film NY/LA/NY.
I've never yet been placed in a situation where I've had to hand
deliver footage for processing. I wouldn't give up 65 origination
over shipping.
RAH
David Mullen
for
>Digital TV? If so the CinemaScope is going to look dreadfull, as it will
>have more of a squeeze than W/S. The only way C/S looked as good quality
>wise to W/S was due to the fact that W/S picters are cropped from an
academy
>original.
The CCD in the HDW-F900 is 1920 x 1080, which is 16:9 (1.78 : 1) -- no
anamorphic process is necessary to capture this widescreen ratio. If shown
on a 4:3 TV set, it will LOOK squeezed unless you have a device to unsqueeze
& letterbox it. There is no anamorphic process involved in transferring the
16:9 image to 35mm for 1.85 projection (however, the DLP system does use
anamorphic lenses even for 1.85 projection.)
To achieve 2.39 : 1, currently the method is to crop the CCD image to 1920 x
800 and output it to 35mm with a 2X squeeze (sort of like when converting
spherical Super-35 to anamorphic.) Even though this should lead to a loss
of resolution compared to using the full 16:9 area, I've seen some tests of
the same 24P footage scanned out for spherical 1.85 projection and cropped &
squeezed for 2.39 anamorphic projection and it's very hard to see ANY
difference, other than the difference between a spherical projector lens
versus an anamorphic one. I think this is because most places that convert
the 24P HDTV image to 2K use some algorithms to enhance missing pixel
information to smooth out the image and reduce aliasing.
Anyway, the final 2.39 : 1 anamorphic projected image made from a 24P HDTV
source will not look as sharp as one from a movie shot in 35mm anamorphic to
begin with (sorry, George Lucas...). However, at least you won't have the
graininess of a Super-35-to-anamorphic optical blow-up. The 24P-to-35mm
image is softer but not grainier.
David Mullen
CPJ2000
> Hi Rich:
> Rich, there is yet another difficulty not considered so far which
> lies in the production end of shooting in 70 MM. I own my very own Super
> Panavision Studio Camera. S.C. # 104 and I cannot get the 65 mm film processed
> anywhere in my Country of Canada ! It is Ironic since Imax is a Canadian Invention
> and employs 65 mm film yet there are no Canadian labs who will dare handle 70 mm
> film
> services ! I find this is really driving the nails into the 70 mm coffin quicker
> than anything else. I can't really justify flying down to Hollywood, USA just to
> go to CFI Film Labs to process a roll or two of film to see a test. The whole 65
> mm / 70 mm world wide lab situation is rather sickening.
> My new single lens Cinerama system is switching over to 35 mm 8
> perf Vista Vision because it is close to but not quite as good as the 5 perf 65 mm
> negative area and I can get 35 mm film processed in just about every Canadian city
> and locally where I live. I can also scrounge short ends from many film maker
> buddies of mine locally too. For me 70 mm is the way to go but what good is it if
> you have to fly away to foreign countries just to process film ?
> For this reason alone, I have decided to sell my camera. I am
> asking 50,000.00 $ US or best offer for my complete Super Panavision Package which
> contains several large international shipping cases full of really big camera
> sections and 1000 foot 65 mm magazines, lenses and motors. Or I would be
> interested in trading it for a complete 35 mm Vista Vision shooting package.
IINM, there never were labs in Canada equipped to process or print 70mm. During the
1960s height of the 70mm roadshow era, all 70mm prints were imported to Canada from
the US -- which made costs for a 70mm release even more horrific for distributors and
exhibitors than in the US, since each print was subject to import duty at the time.
In those days Canada usually got only three 70mm prints, one each for Toronto,
Montreal and Vancouver; when the film closed in these cities, prints then went to
smaller Canadian venues equipped for 70mm. Sometimes additional 35mm prints with
four-track magnetic sound were released in Canada if powers-that-were wanted maximum
early promotion. "Hello, Dolly!"'s original release in Ottawa (the old Nelson
Theatre) was 35mm -- an excellent print, but a tad soft looking compared with the 70mm
print I caught a few years later in Toronto during a summer doldrums repeat showing.
Even US facilities for 70mm have tended to be limited.
May I ask what prompted you to purchase your Super Panavision gear?
It's always been my understanding that film cameras and related equipment were rented
for most movies and not actually owned by producers, cinematographers or others (at
least not after the old big-studio 'system' withered away during the 1950s).
CPJ2000
Gordon A.McLeod
of the same title for a major release.
In Toronto the negative processing company called The Lab was
interested in setting up for 65mm neg processing but IMAX stated they
would rather have it done at CFI
If there was enough intrest they would probably do it
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 03:48:59 GMT, CPJ2000 <charle...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
Mark Andrew Job
> On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 20:29:17 GMT, Mark Andrew Job
> <mark...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >Hi Rich:
> > Rich, there is yet another difficulty not considered so far which
> >lies in the production end of shooting in 70 MM. I own my very own Super
> >Panavision Studio Camera. S.C. # 104 and I cannot get the 65 mm film processed
> >anywhere in my Country of Canada ! It is Ironic since Imax is a Canadian Invention
> >and employs 65 mm film yet there are no Canadian labs who will dare handle 70 mm
> >film
> >services ! I find this is really driving the nails into the 70 mm coffin quicker
> >than anything else. I can't really justify flying down to Hollywood, USA just to
> >go to CFI Film Labs to process a roll or two of film to see a test. The whole 65
> >mm / 70 mm world wide lab situation is rather sickening.
> > My new single lens Cinerama system is switching over to 35 mm 8
> >perf Vista Vision because it is close to but not quite as good as the 5 perf 65 mm
> >negative area and I can get 35 mm film processed in just about every Canadian city
> >and locally where I live. I can also scrounge short ends from many film maker
> >buddies of mine locally too. For me 70 mm is the way to go but what good is it if
> >you have to fly away to foreign countries just to process film ?
> >
> >thanks,
> >
> >Mark Andrew Job
> >
> >
> >
> Mark,
>
> Although we time all of our large format work in LA, we've had no
> problem shipping film NY/LA/NY.
>
> I've never yet been placed in a situation where I've had to hand
> deliver footage for processing. I wouldn't give up 65 origination
> over shipping.
>
> RAH
Hi Mr. Harris:
It is good to communicate with you once again. I have a
high degree of respect for your work. BTW, your restoration work on Vertigo is a master
piece. You do very fine work. I would give up 65 mm shooting over shipping because it
is rather ridiculous to not be able to take one's film over to the local lab for
dailies while one is shooting a picture and must see day to day feedback.
In Canada our dollars are very pretty to look at but
aren't worth anything. When one must exchange Canuk bucks for US ones in LA at 1.50 $
Canadian for 1.00 $ US, plus shipping, flying down there to time, master sound track,
producers locally don't like the added expense. It could become justifiable if the
producers are willing to put in the extra money.
However, when I get the question, "Why can't we just go
to the labs locally to get daily processing instead of sending the film away to another
country and waiting and dealing with US/Canadian currency exchange rates?" I can't
really answer that one can I ?
Producers don't care about film resolution or large
screens. Producers want to know if they can spend as little as possible to get the film
made and then sold into the maximum possible markets and theaters. When you say 70 mm
they think "Special Venue" smaller niche markets and conclude it is just not worth it
to them. Well it is worth it to me but I don't have the cash and can't finance my work
any further at this point so I can't really call the shots in respect to lab services.
If I could convince a local lab to handle 65 mm, then
this would be something, but so far both Astral Tech Communications and SONOLAB in
Montreal have stubbornly refused to have anything to do with 65 mm. They say it is not
profitable. This to me is ironic since there are many film makers in Montreal alone who
shoot Imax and would certainly want to take advantage of local lab services is they
were available. Heck, there are Imax guys across Canada that would use the service if
they could get it.
I was thinking about one possible approach which might
work, but I have been so busy I have not had the time to pursue it. What about starting
a petition amongst all of the film makers in Canada and even among some in the New York
area and New England areas of the United States who originate in 65 mm ?
Perhaps this would soften up the two local labs resistance to offering 65 mm
services ? SONOLAB even has the old master Debrie 65/70 mm optical printer that came
out of MGM in LA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They bought the Debrie 65 mm Optical Printer and Bell
& Howell contact printers from the National Film Board of Canada who purchased it from
MGM studios when they were gutted in the early 70's.
Mr. Harris, if I started such a petition stating that
film makers want 65 mm lab services across Canada and the Northern Unites States would
you sign it ?
Kindest Regards,
Mark Andrew Job
Mark Andrew Job
HI CPJ2000:
Yes, you are quite correct about equipment usually being rented
only. I have been developing my very own new single lens Cinerama system I call ICT 70 mm
for the last 5 years and it called for image acquisition on 5 perf 65 mm original
negative. The wider film frame spec gives much higher image quality and it is easier to
obtain higher quality projection on much greater screen sizes with much less image
magnification required to do so with 70 mm than with 35 mm. The problem was that 5 perf 65
mm cameras are a none standard camera rental item in most camera equipment rental
facilities around the world so I decided it made more sense to search the world for an old
used one then to rent one from Panavision in LA at a hefty price per day. Since I am doing
R & D work on developing my new wide screen system and need the camera for such extended
periods of time it made better sense to buy one. I lucked out in getting a Super
Panavision Studio rack over beast by knowing a man named Martin Hill who has important
contacts with Panavision in LA. Hill was able to do a one time purchase deal with
Panavision and hauled off two 18 wheeler loads of original historic Panavision equipment.
I was able to purchase my camera from Mr. Hill and it took me four years to buy it. I'm
broke now. :-(
I would definitely like to recoup my losses. Want to buy a camera
Thanks,
Mark Andrew Job
David Mullen
going to handle the lack of quiet VistaVision cameras for sync-sound
shooting?
Does anyone besides me wish that Panavision and Arricam would make some
quiet VistaVision cameras?
David Mullen