Digital Tarzan
Vincent Spaid
Read in the business section of the Orlando Sentinal today that
Disney is going to screen Tarzan with digital projection in 3 cities (1
being Orlando - AMC Pleasure Island 24) starting Friday. The paragraph
didn't say much else... Needless to say, I'm curious if anyone has any
real info about this..
Vince
Theo Gluck
Jeff Joseph
With ``Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace'' and ``An Ideal
Husband'' winding down their runs as the only major digitally
projected
pics in theaters, Disney is ready to swing ``Tarzan'' into the mix.
Beginning July 30, pic will screen at three venues -- AMC's
Pleasure
Island multiplex at Walt Disney World in Florida, AMC's Media
Center
North 6 in Burbank and the Edwards Irvine Spectrum complex -- using
Texas Instruments' DLP Cinema projection technology.
dancin_...@my-deja.com
>
> > Hi all..
> >
> > Read in the business section of the
Orlando Sentinal today that
> > Disney is going to screen Tarzan with digital
projection in 3 cities (1
> > being Orlando - AMC Pleasure Island 24)
starting Friday. The paragraph
> > didn't say much else... Needless to say, I'm
curious if anyone has any
> > real info about this..
> >
> > Vince
>
the AMC Burtbank 6 in California as well as in
Orlando round about July 23.I understand there is
a cinema in Orange County (Southern Ca.) That
will be presenting Tarzan in an all digital
format as well.We are using Texas Instruments
(DLP) as our projection source from D5 (High
Definition Video Tape). Gone are the film grain,
projector weave, and color anamolies of photo
chemical/film emulsion processes.This is the the
closest we've come to presenting the true artisic
vision of Tarzan to the public in a pure digital
form. I hope you enjoy it. This is the truest
form of digital output since there are no live
actors or physical locations or sets. Thanks for
reading~Dan
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Scott Marshall
>We are using Texas Instruments
>(DLP) as our projection source from D5 (High
>Definition Video Tape).
How was the movie transferred to D5? Did you use a film element? If so, which
one (original negative? interpositive?) and what type of telecine/scanner
(Phillips Spirit?). Or, was the picture transferred directly from the computer
renderings to D5, the way "A Bug's Life" was output to NTSC?
<< There are still some technical anamolies to overcome(in processing) but the
current results are VERY worthwhile to see. >>
Would you tell us more about the technical anomolies you're seeing?
Scott Marshall
Editor, Wide Gauge Film and Video
http://members.aol.com/widegauge/
Scott Norwood
Scott Marshall <wide...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>How was the movie transferred to D5? Did you use a film element? If so, which
>one (original negative? interpositive?) and what type of telecine/scanner
>(Phillips Spirit?). Or, was the picture transferred directly from the computer
>renderings to D5, the way "A Bug's Life" was output to NTSC?
Excuse my ignorance, but was "Tarzan" animated on computer? I had sort
of assumed from the poster artwork that it was done as cel animation,
perhaps with digital cleanup and maybe digital compositing for certain
scenes (a la "Hercules"), but I haven't seen the film or a trailer for it.
For the DLP screenings, does anybody know if they are using a D-5 tape,
or a hard disk RAID array?
--
Scott Norwood: snor...@nyx.net, snor...@redballoon.net
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?
Bruce Wright
> In
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but was "Tarzan" animated on computer? I had sort
> of assumed from the poster artwork that it was done as cel animation,
> perhaps with digital cleanup and maybe digital compositing for certain
> scenes (a la "Hercules"), but I haven't seen the film or a trailer for it.
>
> For the DLP screenings, does anybody know if they are using a D-5 tape,
> or a hard disk RAID array?
Don't take my e-mail address as implying that this is any official Disney word on
anything, but the pipeline since "The Rescuers Down Under" has been that for the
entire film, the characters are hand-drawn on paper, then scanned into a computer.
Inking, painting, and all the blending with backgrounds and camera moves are done
in a computer, then scanned onto film.
They won a technical Oscar for the process.
Disney: Making all-digital movies since 1990.
-Bruce
--
Bruce Wright
Opinions my own.
Vincent Spaid
> I've seen a quick clip....very impressive
>
> Vincent Spaid wrote:
>
> > Hi all..
> >
> > Read in the business section of the Orlando Sentinal today that
> > Disney is going to screen Tarzan with digital projection in 3 cities (1
> > being Orlando - AMC Pleasure Island 24) starting Friday. The paragraph
> > didn't say much else... Needless to say, I'm curious if anyone has any
> > real info about this..
> >
> > Vince
Thanks all for the info. Since I wasn't able to get to NY or CA for Star
Wars, I'm glad someone thought to bring a digital screening or Orlando for me
to check out. I'll be eagerly awaiting.. Although, for some reason, I can't
get it out of my head that seeing an animated flick in digital (a wonderfully
done one, don't get me wrong...) won't really translate to how live action
looks in digital.
RICHVINCE
>closest we've come to presenting the true artisic
>vision of Tarzan to the public in a pure digital
>form.
Hmmmm...perhaps the day is just around the corner in which theatres will have
to put labels in their ads just like the music industry does on CDs:
This film is A->A, or D->A, or D->D.
Remember the good ol' days when all you had to say was "Presented in glorious
Technicolor"?
Rich
MovieBear1
>Technicolor"?
>
>Rich
Yes I do, and it was!
Theo Gluck
Breathtaking CinemaScope....
and Stereophonic Sound.....
I have a lobby card from RIVER OF NO RETURN (Marilyn Monroe). It was probably
one of the 1st dozen CSope films made. The design includes a nice CS logo and
then the tag line: "In The Wonder of High-Fidelity Directional Stereophonic
Sound"
those WERE the days indeed....
<sigh>
Theo Gluck
Studio City, CA
Martin Hart
says...
> Glorious Technicolor...
> Breathtaking CinemaScope....
> and Stereophonic Sound.....
>
> I have a lobby card from RIVER OF NO RETURN (Marilyn Monroe). It was probably
> one of the 1st dozen CSope films made. The design includes a nice CS logo and
> then the tag line: "In The Wonder of High-Fidelity Directional Stereophonic
> Sound"
>
> those WERE the days indeed....
>
That cool tag line was used in the ads for many early CinemaScope
features until Fox caved in from pressure from cheap theatre owners who
didn't want to install stereo. I have materials from "The Egyptian" and
"Garden of Evil" that also use it. I've seen lobby cards where the
theatre placed tape over it.
The really funny thing about the "Glorious Technicolor"... "Breathtaking
CinemaScope"... "and Stereophonic Sound:...
is that it comes from MGM's "Silk Stockings" shot with Panavision lenses,
in Metrocolor, and Perspecta Sound. Nobody clued Cole Porter in.
Marty
--
Relive the panoramic past:
Visit The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.simplecom.net/widefilm/
Joe Zollner
: In article <3795DA3F...@earthlink.net>, theo...@earthlink.net
: > Glorious Technicolor...
: > Breathtaking CinemaScope....
: > and Stereophonic Sound.....
: That cool tag line was used in the ads for many early CinemaScope
: features until Fox caved in from pressure from cheap theatre owners who
: didn't want to install stereo. I have materials from "The Egyptian" and
: "Garden of Evil" that also use it. I've seen lobby cards where the
: theatre placed tape over it.
In other words (to quote Dolby): "Verify Theatre Format."
Joe Zollner
jo...@execpc.com
--
Scott Norwood
Theo Gluck <theogluck*@*earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Glorious Technicolor...
>Breathtaking CinemaScope....
>and Stereophonic Sound.....
All that sure sounds a lot better than the word "DIGITAL!!!!" on current
posters and advertisements...
Jeremy Bond Shepherd
(RICHVINCE) wrote:
>
> Remember the good ol' days when all you had to say was "Presented in
glorious Technicolor"?
>
- Jeremy
Scott Marshall
>I can't
>get it out of my head that seeing an animated flick in digital (a wonderfully
>done one, don't get me wrong...) won't really translate to how live action
>looks in digital.
Perhaps they will tack on some live action trailers to the Tarzan show in
Orlando. In Secaucus, the DLP projection of live action trailers looked
wonderful -- even better than Phantom Menace.
Theo Gluck
> Perhaps they will tack on some live action trailers to the Tarzan show in
> Orlando. In Secaucus, the DLP projection of live action trailers looked
> wonderful -- even better than Phantom Menace.
...same thing in Burbank. The LAKE PLACID trailer was amazing. TPM was certainly
not.
Scott Marshall
(Scott Marshall) writes:
>was the picture transferred directly from the computer
>renderings to D5, the way "A Bug's Life" was output to NTSC?
According to the Texas Instruments DLP web site, "'Tarzan' became the first
animated movie to be presented in an all-digital fashion directly from the
digital computer files without going through a film to digital transfer."
(From http://www.ti.com/dlp/resources/spotlight/ )
Tarzan DLP Venues:
AMC Pleasure Island 24
1500 Buena Vista Drive
Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830
(407) 298-4488
AMC Media Center 6
770 North 1st Street
Burbank, CA
(818) 953-9800
Edwards Irvine Spectrum
65 Fortune Drive
Burbank, CA 92718
(949) 450-4900
Scott Marshall
`Tarzan' Leaps Into Digital Format
Associated Press Online - July 23, 1999 09:04
By DAVID GERMAIN
(snip)
<< Disney conducted a demonstration Thursday showing scenes from "Tarzan" in
film and digital formats side-by-side. The most noticeable difference was
richer color in the digital version, though in some scenes the digital colors
were so heavy they made the images harder to see. >>
That reminds me of the early Technicolor era, when Selznick and company
believed that fully saturated colors might be harmful to the eyes after a four
hour movie (GWTW).
I think once we're used to it, we'll want to stay with it. DLP looks fantastic
even for photo-chemical photography (the trailer I saw for "Anna and the King"
looked awesome in DLP).
Here's an eyewitness account I received today from a Wide Gauge reader who saw
Tarzan in DLP in Florida: "It was so crystal clear and bright and every color
so vibrant....I was simply stunned by it's beauty & clarity."
Inge Strand
Scott Marshall wrote:
I saw DLP demonstration at Cinema-Expo in Amsterdam, it looked like a big
DVD screen, the resolution was to low compared to 35mm same for Contrast and
Colors. E-Cinema is not about higher Quality, if they can make the public to
believe its better, sorry for them... DLP has a resolution of 1260x1024 everyone
knows
it's to low compared to a good 35mm print.
I'm just waiting for a Big movie in Imax....
-Inge
Scott Marshall
>E-Cinema is not about higher Quality, if they can make the public to
>believe its better, sorry for them... DLP has a resolution of 1260x1024
>everyone
>knows
>it's to low compared to a good 35mm print.
DLP's 1280x1024 resolution is marginal, yes, but in virtually all other
respects it is superior to 35mm film, both in my opinion and of many others.
After seeing Phantom Menace in digital, I would never choose to see 35mm over
DLP if the choice was offered.
<< I'm just waiting for a Big movie in Imax.... >>
If Texas Instruments were to some day build an Imax-size (1.91x2.74 inches) DLP
chip the format could benefit greatly.
Scott Norwood
Scott Marshall <wide...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <37CC1F78...@c2i.net>, Inge Strand <ist...@c2i.net> writes:
>
>>E-Cinema is not about higher Quality, if they can make the public to
>>believe its better, sorry for them... DLP has a resolution of 1260x1024
>>everyone
>>knows
>>it's to low compared to a good 35mm print.
>
>DLP's 1280x1024 resolution is marginal, yes, but in virtually all other
>respects it is superior to 35mm film, both in my opinion and of many others.
>After seeing Phantom Menace in digital, I would never choose to see 35mm over
>DLP if the choice was offered.
I agree that DLP as it exists now (movie scanned from 35mm IP and stored
with minimal compression on RAID array) looks pretty good, but I think
that it's too early to say unequivocally that it is preferable to 35mm.
Yes, I liked what I saw in Secaucus, but I would still take an EK 35mm
print or IB Tech 35mm print over DLP any day, all other things being equal
(adequate lamphouses, quality optics, etc.). Standard high-speed Eastman
release prints versus DLP would be a tougher choice, but I think that I'd
still prefer 35mm in mint condition. That said, the DLP presentation
blows away the typical (scratched, splicy, not-bright-enough) 35mm
presentation in a standard gigaplex movie theatre where the majority of
the general public sees films. This is sad.
In the above statement, I'm talking only about picture quality; hopefully,
the sound-sync issues which were evident in the Secaucus presentation
will be worked out. The sound quality was fine, but I was very distracted
by the many scenes which were out of sync by a frame or two.
Don't misunderstand: DLP was great, and it far surpassed my expectations;
I wanted to hate it as much as anybody, yet I left the theatre looking
forward to cinema's electronic future. I just don't want to see the
industry lock itself into a 1260x1024 standard before the technology
has matured to the point where it really is clearly superior to all 35mm
release prints.
><< I'm just waiting for a Big movie in Imax.... >>
>
>If Texas Instruments were to some day build an Imax-size (1.91x2.74 inches) DLP
>chip the format could benefit greatly.
That would be a cool idea, but the chip is only part of the package.
You'd need film scanners which were capable of capturing the full
resolution of the 15/70 format, and some sort of mondo RAID array or
optical disk system with an extrememly high retrieval and transfer rate
in order to store the uncompressed images. IMHO, using data compression
with an Imax-size DLP chip would be counterproductive at best. This is
not to mention the brightness issue: IMAX uses a 15kw xenon bulb, and a
DLP system would require even greater brightness, causing heat problems
and requiring the manufacture of a new type of bulb.
Scott Dorsey
Scott Marshall <wide...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <37CC1F78...@c2i.net>, Inge Strand <ist...@c2i.net> writes:
>
>>E-Cinema is not about higher Quality, if they can make the public to
>>believe its better, sorry for them... DLP has a resolution of 1260x1024
>>everyone
>>knows
>>it's to low compared to a good 35mm print.
>
>DLP's 1280x1024 resolution is marginal, yes, but in virtually all other
>respects it is superior to 35mm film, both in my opinion and of many others.
>After seeing Phantom Menace in digital, I would never choose to see 35mm over
>DLP if the choice was offered.
In all other respects? What about grey scale?
After seeing Phantom Menace in digital, I decided never to watch another
Lucas film again. Both the digital AND film versions looked terrible.
I can't make any judgement as to the quality of E-cinema at all using
Phantom Menace as my baseline so I am witholding judgement for now.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Inge Strand
>
> DLP's 1280x1024 resolution is marginal, yes, but in virtually all other
> respects it is superior to 35mm film, both in my opinion and of many others.
> After seeing Phantom Menace in digital, I would never choose to see 35mm over
> DLP if the choice was offered.
The 35mm prints of Ep1 is not a good of example of what film is capable of, it't
not sharp and look to computerized,
compare it to a good 35mm print, like "the thin red line" and you will see how good
film is.
What is superior with DLP compared to 35mm film?
35mm film has better contrast, sharper and better color repoduction than DLP.
At Cinema-Expo the Kodak guy told me they had a test film they wanted transferred
to E-cinema so we could deside
what looked best, but the E-cinema firms denied it!
>
>
> << I'm just waiting for a Big movie in Imax.... >>
>
> If Texas Instruments were to some day build an Imax-size (1.91x2.74 inches) DLP
> chip the format could benefit greatly.
yeah sure....
-Inge
Inge Strand
>
> After seeing Phantom Menace in digital, I decided never to watch another
> Lucas film again. Both the digital AND film versions looked terrible.
> I can't make any judgement as to the quality of E-cinema at all using
> Phantom Menace as my baseline so I am witholding judgement for now.
>
Agree the EP1 prints has to be some of the lowest quality prints i ever seen,
people really thinks Lucas is a perfectionist, its just a big lie.
I don't know way he hate film, he states it every interview i read the last year.
If he really is a perfectionist he had to realease his film in 70mm.
Ep1 is filmed mostlty in Vistavision and should be sharp, but the digitzing made
it looked poor, they had to transfer it back on 2k resolution which don't compares
to film resolution.
-Inge
Scott Marshall
Dorsey) writes:
>After seeing Phantom Menace in digital, I decided never to watch another
>Lucas film again. Both the digital AND film versions looked terrible.
The DLP Phantom Menace image looked better than the 35mm Phantom Menace prints.
The attached trailers at the DLP screening, particulary of Anna and the King,
looked even better than Phantom Menace and showed what DLP could really do.
Phantom Menace was transferred from an interpositive, and DLP faithfully
reproduced all the defects in that film's look. Indeed, it is unfortunate that
DLP had its big public premier with such a lousy looking movie.
>In all other respects? What about grey scale?
I honestly had no problem with the look of the grayscale at the PM screenings
in Secaucus, New Jersey.
I'll make a rough checklist of film vs DLP, using the trailers attached to
Phantom Menace as the primary visual reference, plus other factors which are
either obvious or widely published. I'll also give you the benefit of the doubt
regarding grayscale:
Areas where film is superior:
Grayscale
Resolution
Areas where DLP is currently superior:
Weave
Jitter
Film dust, dirt, fingerprints and popcorn oil ;-)
Gate dust
Scratches
Changeover cues (gone)
Flicker
Color saturation
Brightness
Judder (caused by two-blade projector shutters)
Fading
Missing frames due to repairs
Lab splices
Reel splices (on platters) or imperfect changeovers
Focus flutter
Film buckle
Print life
Consistency from theater to theater and print to print
Sound problems (and fallback to analog) due to print damage
Grain in intermediate production elements (interpositives, internegatives)
Grain from prints
Printer slip
Damage from interlock multiple-room screenings of the same print
Variations in framing
Time between screenings (no rethreading or rewinding is necessary)
Did I miss anything?
There are risks. Kodak may continue to improve print stock. Technicolor may
again prevail as the supplier of the finest color prints. Digital cinema may
resort to excessive image compression to save satellite $$. No one can predict
how these issues will pan out. We'll just have to wait and see.
Martin Hart
wide...@aol.com says...
Here's an item on the "plus" side you gave for electronic cinema that I
wouldn't bet the farm on.
> Consistency from theater to theater and print to print
I suspect after the wide scale adaptation of e-cinema that inconsistency
in presentation would be the rule more than the exception. As these
things age they change characteristics. They aren't going to be manned
by engineers who tweak the system every day and maybe between shows.
When multiple suppliers, I.e. some cheapos, get into the act then
inconsistency will definitely be more common. That's just a fact. And
it doesn't mean that any of the showings have to be particularly bad, but
they won't be identical.
Scott Marshall
m.b.har...@worldnet.att.net (Martin Hart) writes:
>> Consistency from theater to theater and print to print
>
>I suspect after the wide scale adaptation of e-cinema that inconsistency
>in presentation would be the rule more than the exception. As these
>things age they change characteristics.
I believe DLP has the potential to be much more consistent from show to show
and theater to theater than film. Aside from the microscopic mirrors, which are
binary and only move ON or OFF and therefore don't change characteristics
unless they break completely (life expectancy is 25 years), they have no moving
parts (ok, cooling fans). Every time a film projector runs, it has to be
threaded and focused manually (important consistency issue). The DLP projectors
do not have anywhere near the aging characteristics of CTR devices, and I think
peole are confusing DLP with age-sensitive CRT-based devices like Hughes/JVC.
I'm only talking about DLP.
What really makes their potential for consistency greater than films is their
ability to be set up by experts and locked down so they never have to be
handled by minimum wage staff.
<< When multiple suppliers, I.e. some cheapos, get into the act then
inconsistency will definitely be more common. That's just a fact. >>
I'm only discussing the DLP projectors like the one I've studied, not
hypothetical cheapos that, for all we know, may include store-bought NTSC
projection sets. Of course this may happen (it happened with film) but it's not
relevant to the potential of DLP machines.
In one model of distrubution (CineComm), the satellite data is encrypted such
that unauthorized theaters with cheapos could, in theory, be prevented from
using the signal. I believe quality control measures like this are a part of
LucasFilm's plans.
We could hypothesize a poorly set up, badly maintained DLP machine in an
overheated booth with popcorn grease on the lens and smokey glass on the port
running a poorly made overcompressed transfer. The we could compare that to a
pair of DP 70s run by Steve Krause showing hand-picked still-wet EK prints,
and, by golly, we'd conclude that film IS better than e-cinema. But that ain't
a level playing field, and on a level playing field, DLP kicks the tar out of
film...IMO.
But DLP doesn't have the nostalgia advantage. Sad.
:-)
John P. Pytlak
>
>
> The 35mm prints of Ep1 is not a good of example of what film is capable of, it't
> not sharp and look to computerized,
> compare it to a good 35mm print, like "the thin red line" and you will see how good
> film is.
>
> What is superior with DLP compared to 35mm film?
> 35mm film has better contrast, sharper and better color repoduction than DLP.
>
> At Cinema-Expo the Kodak guy told me they had a test film they wanted transferred
> to E-cinema so we could deside
> what looked best, but the E-cinema firms denied it!
> >
John Pytlak wrote:
Inge, you are correct that the electronic cinema vendors backed-out of
their commitment to show a comparison of a film print and their
projectors at Cine-Expo in Amsterdam.
At the request of the Sunshine Group (organizers of Cine-Expo), Kodak
produced a new four minute 35mm film demonstration, that contained
a variety of scenes and more "action" than the series of simple "still
life" scenes that were used in the EC demo at ShoWest. Timed IP's of the
demo (printed by CFI lab) were provided to Clyde McKinney of the
Sunshine Group in late May, and Kodak even offered a D5 HD transfer made
on a Philips Spirit Datacine at Cinesite in Hollywood. Much to the
consternation of Cine-Expo's organizers, the three electronic cinema
vendors on the program refused to show a side-by-side comparison of a
film print and their EC projectors, backing out at the last minute. Bob
Mayson of Kodak presented the film print by itself, to the applause of
the audience.
Scott Marshall
writes:
>electronic cinema vendors backed-out of
>their commitment to show a comparison of a film print and their
>projectors at Cine-Expo in Amsterdam.
Perhaps now that they've run DLP and Hughes/JVC shows commercially they feel
that the shootouts are irrelevant.
<< At the request of the Sunshine Group (organizers of Cine-Expo), Kodak
produced a new four minute 35mm film demonstration, that contained
a variety of scenes and more "action" than the series of simple "still
life" scenes that were used in the EC demo at ShoWest. >>
I observed that DLP showed action better than film since it didn't break up the
motion into judder with a two-blade shutter.
BTW: There were numerous cries of "foul" about the ShoWest demo, partly because
the EC projectors were run without port glass. I'd like to point out that EC
projectors, since they're silent, may not need port glass, so this can be
included in the very long list of e-cinema's advangages. One example: At the
"Hamlet" 70mm screening in New York at The Paris, I tested the last row of the
balcony, and the Century JJ was so loud even through the port glass that I
couldn't concentrate on the movie.
gordon mcleod
high speed fans
John P. Pytlak
>
> In article <37A5B3...@kodak.com>, "John P. Pytlak" <jppy...@kodak.com>
> writes:
>
> >electronic cinema vendors backed-out of
> >their commitment to show a comparison of a film print and their
> >projectors at Cine-Expo in Amsterdam.
>
> Perhaps now that they've run DLP and Hughes/JVC shows commercially they feel
> that the shootouts are irrelevant.
>
John Pytlak replied:
They had made a commitment to Cine-Expo, and backed out only a few weeks
before the show, after the "shoot-out" had been advertised, and after a
lot of time and effort had gone into producing the demo film. Many still
feel these comparisons are relevant, and continually needed as EC
systems move from fine-tuned prototypes with minimally-compressed data
to the real world of data compression artifacts and cost-cutting theatre
operations.
Fortunately, the SMPTE will probably use the demo as part of their
"standardized demo" for evaluating transfer, compression and
presentation artifacts in digital recording, transmission and display.
>
Bruce Wright
> Areas where DLP is currently superior:
>
>
> Consistency from theater to theater and print to print
>
> Did I miss anything?
>
Color consistency from reel to reel. This is a more jarring problem for me than
from theater to theater.
-Bruce
--
Bruce Wright
John Huikku
It was incredible, I never want to see an animated feature on film again.
The lack of grain, the color saturation, no flicker, it was amazing.
Finally we get to see what the animators see when they are actually making the movie.
thats all,
jOhn
spamn...@voicenet.com
>
>The 35mm prints of Ep1 is not a good of example of what film is capable of, it't
>not sharp and look to computerized,
>compare it to a good 35mm print, like "the thin red line" and you will see how good
>film is.
The Thin Red Line would be a good test. Also, "Besieged" -
the print I saw was stunning.
-Sam
Jeffry L. Johnson
spamn...@voicenet.com wrote:
> The Thin Red Line would be a good test. Also, "Besieged" -
> the print I saw was stunning.
Speaking of _Besieged_, has anyone had success playing it in Dolby Digital?
I've had two prints which keep faulting, e.g. 4,5,F,4,5,F,4.... The
digital masking to recover from the faults really "slurs" the sound,
especially the piano notes. Even the trailers for _Besieged_ have this
problem. I have no problems with other trailers or features.
--
Jeffry L. Johnson <j...@apk.net> <ac...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu>
Projectionist, Landmark Centrum Theatre, Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Projectionist, Great Lakes Science Center OMNIMAX Theater
IATSE Local 160 Officer, Examining Board
isoma
>The Ecinema projectors are far from silent as the xenon systems used all have
>high speed fans
will be more research into quieter lights - metal halide, for example, or
water-cooled lamps. Or maybe just totally sealed ducting.
Of course, if there is no port glass, a nice film of grease and dust will
end up on the lens, which might not be so useful.
--
mailto:is...@altavista.net - +44441089921 - Tim Bannister
http://www.jellybaby.net/~isoma/ - Spam? What spam? (pats procmail)
Joe Zollner
: BTW: There were numerous cries of "foul" about the ShoWest demo, partly because
: the EC projectors were run without port glass. I'd like to point out that EC
: projectors, since they're silent, may not need port glass, so this can be
: included in the very long list of e-cinema's advangages. One example: At the
: "Hamlet" 70mm screening in New York at The Paris, I tested the last row of the
: balcony, and the Century JJ was so loud even through the port glass that I
: couldn't concentrate on the movie.
Hmmm, that's interesting. According to my 1993 National Electrical Code
Handbook (Article 540--Motion Picture Projectors):
"All projection ports, spotlight ports, viewing ports, and similar
openings shall be provided with glass or other approved material so as to
completely close the opening."
However, this only applies to "professional projectors", which are defined
as follows:
"The professional projector is a type using 35-or 70-millimeter film that
has a minimum width of 1 3/8 inches (35 mm) and has on each edge 5.4
perforations per inch, or a type using carbon arc, xenon, or other light
source equipment that develops hazardous gases, dust, or radiation."
Joe Zollner
jo...@execpc.com
--
Steve Kraus
> Speaking of _Besieged_, has anyone had success playing it in Dolby Digital?
> I've had two prints which keep faulting, e.g. 4,5,F,4,5,F,4.... The
> digital masking to recover from the faults really "slurs" the sound,
> especially the piano notes. Even the trailers for _Besieged_ have this
> problem. I have no problems with other trailers or features.
No problem that I recall with that film but I recently
had a print of "The Muse" which was dropping out with
both of the reels that ran on the second machine (reel
by reel operation) and interestingly the analog volume
was way down. Looking at the print I came to the
conclusion that it was improperly printed or processed
as the track seemed a bit less contrasty. Apparently
since no two machines are ever precisely identical one
did a better job at handling it and stayed in digital
while the other was doing the rapid flashing between
a fair number and F. The fact that it was so low on
analog (I normally play 7.0 and had to go up to 8.5 for
the two reels that played analog) was the clue.
Inge Strand
> But did anyone see Tarzan? No one is talking about Tarzan.
> It was incredible, I never want to see an animated feature on film again.
You should see some old Disney on Technicolor, and compare it to DLP then you will
see what film can do for the colors. Even my S8 projector and some old disney films on
a Silver-screen looks amazing compared to any form of Digital media.
Or take a look at "Fantasia". on any film format.
> The lack of grain, the color saturation, no flicker, it was amazing.
Bye, bye Grain, welcome pixels! I think the grains are more and smaller on the new Vision
stock
than 1280x1024 pixels on a DLP if you at least double the pixel resolution you can
compare it to a good
35mm print. I easily spot the pixels on DLP projection.
When it comes to flicker it is not a problem with a 3 bladed shutter on the projector
>
> Finally we get to see what the animators see when they are actually making the movie.
>
Don't they also make the movie on film and then convert it into the computer or are the
doing everything
digital?
-Inge
Scott Marshall
>Don't they also make the movie on film and then convert it into the computer
>or are the
>doing everything
>digital?
They're doing everything digital.
Bill Heiden
> In article <37D18DA5...@c2i.net>, Inge Strand <ist...@c2i.net> writes:
>> Don't they also make the movie on film and then convert it into the
>> computer or are the doing everything digital?
> They're doing everything digital.
If they are anything like us (which they are), then not everything is
entirely digital. The character animation is still drawn on paper
and then scanned, and some backgrounds are also traditionally painted
and scanned. While this might be splitting hairs, I would consider
it to be *totally digital*, when paper products are eliminated from
the equation. :-)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Heiden
bi...@anim.dreamworks.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Marshall
<bi...@anim.dreamworks.com> writes:
>If they [Disney animators] are anything like us [Dreamworks animators?] (which
they are), then not everything is entirely digital.
The context of the question was whether or not Tarzan, the final product, was a
"film" that had to go through a telecine step to be used for digital
projection. The answer is no, Tarzan is not a "film" and therefore underwent no
photochemical stages on its way to the DLP screen. That the source of some
images may have been pencil, pen, paint, or ink was beside the point. The use
of 35mm film was never an essential step in the production of the picture.
Feature animation properties from Disney, Dreamworks, and Pixar are no longer
movie films. They are digital files. Film is only one way to exhibit them.
John Huikku
>
> > Finally we get to see what the animators see when they are actually making the movie.
> >
>
> Don't they also make the movie on film and then convert it into the computer or are the
> doing everything
> digital?
>
> -Inge
There is no film involved, hand drawn animation is scanned and then everything is inked and painted on the computer.
Bruce Wright
If they are anything like us (which they are), then not everything is
> entirely digital. The character animation is still drawn on paper
> and then scanned, and some backgrounds are also traditionally painted
> and scanned. While this might be splitting hairs, I would consider
> it to be *totally digital*, when paper products are eliminated from
> the equation. :-)
>
But the animator's brain is analog, so there will never be any all-digital
anything ever! Woohoo!
Is a digital recording of an acoustic guitar not all-digital because it's not a
synthesized guitar sound?
That scanner is like a digital camera. If it were a live-action movie shot with a
digital camera would you say that it wasn't a completely digital movie because the
actors aren't digital? Let's just say Tarzan was all digital from the camera on.
How'bout we call it the first film-less digital movie?
-Bruce
--
Bruce Wright
Bill Heiden
> Is a digital recording of an acoustic guitar not all-digital because
> it's not a synthesized guitar sound?
Thanks for the apple/orange comparision.
> That scanner is like a digital camera. If it were a live-action movie
> shot with a digital camera would you say that it wasn't a completely
> digital movie because the actors aren't digital? Let's just say
> Tarzan was all digital from the camera on.
I'm splitting hairs, but it's not all digital. Once animators are
able to draw directly into a work station, elminating the scanning
process, then it's *all* digital.
> How'bout we call it the first film-less digital movie?
Okay. But, what did they use to show dailies? What were final
approvals based on? Betcha, film was in there somewhere. :-)
Bill Heiden
> Feature animation properties from Disney, Dreamworks, and Pixar are no
> longer movie films. They are digital files. Film is only one way to
> exhibit them.
They're films. Film is still the major way to distribute our
product. Decisions are based on how it will look on film, not
how it will look projected digitally; big difference.
Bill Heiden
> Inge Strand wrote:
> > Don't they also make the movie on film and then convert it into the
> > computer or are the doing everything digital?
> There is no film involved, hand drawn animation is scanned and then
> everything is inked and painted on the computer.
What were final approvals based on? How it would look projected
digitally, or how it would look on film? Were there no film
dailies?
Scott Marshall
<bi...@anim.dreamworks.com> writes:
>What were final approvals based on? How it would look projected
>digitally, or how it would look on film? Were there no film
>dailies?
The answers to your apparently rhetorical questions are probably: film, film,
film.
Of course these pictures were primarily targeted during production for
theatrical exhibition via 35mm film, so of course that's the format in which
final approval was given, but when video and digital projection masters are
derived not from the film but from the computer files, then we really shouldn't
be considering them to be films anymore. It's time for a paradigm shift (a new
conceptual model).
So what do you call the video releases of A Bug's Life (made directly from the
computer without film)? Was it the same movie or a different movie than what
was seen at the theaters? Both the pan/scan and the LBX? What were final
approvals based on for the video releases?
Ditto for digital Tarzan. Was it the same movie or a different movie than what
was seen in 35mm? What were the final approvals based on for the DLP
screenings?
My point is that Tarzan "the motion picture" and A Bug's Life "the motion
picture" exist in original form as computer files. Film and electronic
projection are two ways to exhibit the movie. Sure final approvals are based on
how the picture will be exhibited, but the ACTUAL MOVIE is a digital data file
that can be exhibited as film, video, or DLP. If Dreamworks doesn't see it that
way, they're behind the times.
We are in a transitionary period, and we'll soon have to see these productions
as what they really are. They are no longer films. They are "digitals."
BTW: Phantom Menace doesn't qualify, since the digital masters were made from
film (a telecine job) the old fashioned way.
Alen Koebel
> BTW: Phantom Menace doesn't qualify, since the digital masters were made from
> film (a telecine job) the old fashioned way.
Ironically, from what I've read, the "dailies" for Phantom
Menace were viewed electronically using high definition
widescreen monitors and (I gather) DLP projectors. Every
filmed scene was digitized and almost every frame was
"touched" by digital processing - most scenes not being
complete until processed.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alen Koebel Projection Systems Engineering Electrohome Ltd
mmo...@my-deja.com
jppy...@kodak.com wrote:
> Inge Strand wrote:
> >
> >
> > The 35mm prints of Ep1 is not a good of
example of what film is capable of, it't
> > not sharp and look to computerized,
> > compare it to a good 35mm print, like "the
thin red line" and you will see how good
> > film is.
> >
film?
> > 35mm film has better contrast, sharper and
better color repoduction than DLP.
> >
> > At Cinema-Expo the Kodak guy told me they had
a test film they wanted transferred
> > to E-cinema so we could deside
> > what looked best, but the E-cinema firms
denied it!
> > >
> > -Inge
>
> John Pytlak wrote:
>
cinema vendors backed-out of
> their commitment to show a comparison of a film
print and their
> projectors at Cine-Expo in Amsterdam.
>
(organizers of Cine-Expo), Kodak
> produced a new four minute 35mm film
demonstration, that contained
> a variety of scenes and more "action" than the
series of simple "still
> life" scenes that were used in the EC demo at
> demo (printed by CFI lab) were provided to
Clyde McKinney of the
> Sunshine Group in late May, and Kodak even
offered a D5 HD transfer made
> on a Philips Spirit Datacine at Cinesite in
Hollywood. Much to the
> consternation of Cine-Expo's organizers, the
three electronic cinema
> vendors on the program refused to show a side-
by-side comparison of a
> film print and their EC projectors, backing out
at the last minute. Bob
> Mayson of Kodak presented the film print by
itself, to the applause of
> the audience.
>
As a manufacturer of DLP projectors, Electrohome
Ltd., and as a speaker at Cine Expo on the
virtues of electronic cinema, I would like to
clarify the scenario. There was not a side by
side demonstration, but there was a demonstration
on the same screen with film and two other DLP
manufacturers. All three DLP companies had hoped
to show the latest generation SXGA DLP
projectors, but the latest chips were not into
production in time. What the audience did see
were two XGA DLP machines that do not display the
characteristics required for a comparison with
film. Electrohome chose not to display its
existing DLP projector because it does not have
the characteristics to compare with film. The
DLP Cinema prototype projectors, being shown by
Texas Instruments, were busy in the United States
at the electronic showing of Episode One. Due to
that conflict, they could not be at Cine Expo.
The DLP Cinema prototypes exhibit superior
contrast, color and quality when compared to the
existing commercial DLP projectors. DLP Cinema
performed beautifully at ShowWest when they were
compared with film. This is a new, emerging
technology that is getting better all the time.
There will be more comparisons in the future. I
too applauded the quality of film Mr. Mayson
showed. How about a comparison of film and its
electronic counterpart after that same piece of
film has gone through the gate dozens of times.
This is what happens in the real world. The
average movie attendee, unless he or she is there
on opening night, does not see the quality of
film that Kodak has displayed in these
comparisons.
Michael Mooney
Director, Captivating Markets
michael...@electrohome.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Inge Strand
> showed. How about a comparison of film and its
> electronic counterpart after that same piece of
> film has gone through the gate dozens of times.
> This is what happens in the real world. The
> average movie attendee, unless he or she is there
> on opening night, does not see the quality of
> film that Kodak has displayed in these
> comparisons.
I Don't know what kind of movie theatre you visit, but dust and dirt
don't need to be a problem!
I ran "101 Dalamatians" for 6 months, 3 screenings a day without any
signs of dirt or scratches.
A lazy projectionist could easily destroy a 35mm print in one week, but
if you have a good projector like Kinoton or dp-70 and a experienced
projectionist and keeping the film away from the floor in a clean room.
You will never experinece this problem. I agree with you that it is a
problem on a lot of cinemas but remember the prints are new and most
films doesn't run a very long time, its really up to the projectionist..
I also wonder about the contrast range on Dlp 1:1000 or something, what
is it compared to film?
Do you really think Dlp looks better than the best 35mm prints in every
term?
-Inge
Bill Heiden
> Bill Heiden <bi...@anim.dreamworks.com> writes:
>>What were final approvals based on? How it would look projected
>>digitally, or how it would look on film? Were there no film
>>dailies?
> The answers to your apparently rhetorical questions are probably:
> film, film, film.
> Of course these pictures were primarily targeted during production for
> theatrical exhibition via 35mm film, so of course that's the format in
> which final approval was given, but when video and digital projection
> masters are derived not from the film but from the computer files,
> then we really shouldn't be considering them to be films anymore. It's
> time for a paradigm shift (a new conceptual model).
First off, why does every one who uses "paradigm shift", feel
obligated to explain what it means after using it? We know
already.
Let me explain why we are making films and not digital files.
Our work is based on what the final product will look like
projected via film, not digitally. If it does not look good
on film, it gets worked on until it does; at least most of the
time. This means that we are rendering at film-resolution and all
the artistic and engineering decisions we make are for film. We
just happen to store the information to create a film cel on
disk drives; until we are ready to shoot this information out to our
film recorder. And as a bonus, from working at this higher
resolution we can easily convert these files to lower resolutions.
But our work flow is designed for film, and if that allows us
to easily pump out a DLP version, then we got an extra bonus for
our toil.
> So what do you call the video releases of A Bug's Life (made directly
> from the computer without film)? Was it the same movie or a different
> movie than what was seen at the theaters? Both the pan/scan and the
> LBX? What were final approvals based on for the video releases?
I call them video film dupes. The final approvals for the video
release obviously were done on a video monitor, but their source was
from a file containing the information to reproduce a film cel. Are
you getting this yet?
> Ditto for digital Tarzan. Was it the same movie or a different movie
> than what was seen in 35mm? What were the final approvals based on
> for the DLP screenings?
Probably from a conversion of the information needed to generate
the "film".
> My point is that Tarzan "the motion picture" and A Bug's Life "the
> motion picture" exist in original form as computer files. Film and
> electronic projection are two ways to exhibit the movie. Sure final a
> approvals are based on how the picture will be exhibited, but the
> ACTUAL MOVIE is a digital data file that can be exhibited as film,
> video, or DLP.
Whatever. For all practical purposes, the only way to exhibit
movies is via film. There are only a handful of theaters that are
using digital projectors. Not even one percent of the people who
go to Tarzan will see it digitally. This will undoubtly change, but
at the current moment it's about film. You don't think we would
welcome a total digital WYSIWYG world. But until that transformation
happens and film is not the primary method of exhibition, we are
making films.
> If Dreamworks doesn't see it that way, they're behind
> the times.
Well, drop your resume by at SIGGRAPH, we definately need more
visionaries like you.
> We are in a transitionary period, and we'll soon have to see these
> productions as what they really are. They are no longer films. They
> are "digitals."
They're "movies".
Scott Marshall
>A lazy projectionist could easily destroy a 35mm print in one week
The projectionists who are likely to destroy a print in a week are minimum wage
teens who have to service a dozen or more projectors at one time all by
themselves. They're not lazy, but paid as if they were.
Perhaps you've identified the real problem. Film exhibition is labor intensive.
Digital projection promises not to be.
<< I also wonder about the contrast range on Dlp 1:1000 or something, what
is it compared to film? >>
The contrast range I saw in Secaucus looked great. Perhaps you haven't seen the
most current technology.
<< Do you really think Dlp looks better than the best 35mm prints in every
term? >>
By my count, out of 30 parameters affecting presentation quality, film wins 2
and DLP wins 28 (see original Digital Tarzan thread for details). But "the best
35mm prints" is not the real world. An important release gets a handful of
handmade EK prints (if any) that MAY look better than DLP if they're handled
with enormous care. The rest of the circa 4000 cinemas often get grainy crap.
The promise is that DLP can raise the average quality (assuming they don't
screw up like they did with film).
Will the purveyers of e-cinema screw up? We just have to wait and see and pray
that they don't.
...or perhaps you're praying that they will.
Inge Strand
> teens who have to service a dozen or more projectors at one time all by
> themselves. They're not lazy, but paid as if they were.
>
I now a lot of lazy projectionists, who doens't care of anything.
It's no problem having 5 screens at a time if you have all projectors in the same
room and program the
shows so the projectionist has at least 10 minutes for every threading.
>
> << Do you really think Dlp looks better than the best 35mm prints in every
> term? >>
>
> By my count, out of 30 parameters affecting presentation quality, film wins 2
> and DLP wins 28 (see original Digital Tarzan thread for details). But "the best
> 35mm prints" is not the real world. An important release gets a handful of
> handmade EK prints (if any) that MAY look better than DLP if they're handled
> with enormous care. The rest of the circa 4000 cinemas often get grainy crap.
> The promise is that DLP can raise the average quality (assuming they don't
> screw up like they did with film).
A Lot of Digital equipment screw up, i now of a few Dolby cp-500 who just stops
working in a middle of
the show, you had to turn em off and on, it was some bug in the program i heard.
Some lasers i ordered for
the optical sound head, stopped working after 6 hours bacause of a chip fault..
The quality of prints is very different some are good especially cs prints wich are
shot in Panavision super35.
I saw Deep Blue Sea a few days ago, it was perfect, many 1:1,85 prints looks bad,
especially the Digital films
like Sw and Tarzan is horrible they cannot match the quality of Analog.
On Deep Blue sea if you watch carefully you can see the resolution and grain grows
when it's some digital scenes,
watch carefully the beginning of the movie when they are on a helicopter and see
the station in the sea, the images
are very sharp but it's quite easy to spot the digitizing. Same for Man with the
Iron mask when the two twins meets
in the end of the movie. Digita just hasn't the contrast range of analog film!
-Inge
Inge Strand
Bill Heiden wrote: Let me explain why we are making films and not digital
files.
> Our work is based on what the final product will look like
> projected via film, not digitally. If it does not look good
> on film, it gets worked on until it does; at least most of the
> time. This means that we are rendering at film-resolution and all
> the artistic and engineering decisions we make are for film. We
I'm really curious, what is film-resolution?
-Inge
Scott Norwood
Scott Marshall <wide...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>But "the best
>35mm prints" is not the real world. An important release gets a handful of
>handmade EK prints (if any) that MAY look better than DLP if they're handled
>with enormous care. The rest of the circa 4000 cinemas often get grainy crap.
>The promise is that DLP can raise the average quality (assuming they don't
>screw up like they did with film).
I have a couple of 35mm scope IB Technicolor prints here from the
1960s that blow away the best EK prints of today in terms of sharpness,
grain, and color quality. Even the sound quality is better, although it
is mono. These prints were standard issue for many wide releases until
the early 1970s, and look FAR better than the current generation of the
DLP prototype systems. I see no reason why it is unreasonable to expect
that 35mm film can be made to look as good as or better than it did in
wide releases of films made thirty years ago. It is certainly possible,
although I have my doubts that very many people in the industry really
care enough to actually do something in this regard.
>Will the purveyers of e-cinema screw up? We just have to wait and see and pray
>that they don't.
>
>...or perhaps you're praying that they will.
I hope that they don't. Digital cinema _will_ happen, but whether it is
one year or fifty years into the future is anyone's guess. I'd rather
wait a few more years and see it done right than get locked into an
inferior standard (a la NTSC television) that is developed early on and
considered to be "good enough" for the masses.
--
Scott Norwood: snor...@nyx.net, snor...@redballoon.net
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?
Sam 846
intensive. Digital projection promises not to be.>>
Film is only as labor intensive as the theatres choose to make it.
Sam
JohnW248
snor...@redballoon.net (Scott Norwood) writes:
> I'd rather
>wait a few more years and see it done right than get locked into an
>inferior standard (a la NTSC television) that is developed early on and
>considered to be "good enough" for the masses.
Actually EC (like NTSC Color) will come into the market when it's economically
feasible. BTW it took over 40 years before sets could decode the full NTSC
Color signal and would look even better today if set makers didn't spend so
much time making the sets look brighter instead of better. If you've ever seen
NTSC Color on a PVM1911 you know how good it can look. (never thought I'd be
defending our current broadcast standard)
John
JohnW248
snor...@redballoon.net (Scott Norwood) writes:
>I have a couple of 35mm scope IB Technicolor prints here from the
>1960s that blow away the best EK prints of today in terms of sharpness,
>grain, and color quality. Even the sound quality is better, although it
>is mono.
This has more to do with Technicolor being "closer" to the camera negative than
the current release printing confirguration. Technicolor always fought a battle
with sharpness and registration (as I was told by Henry Imus (retired) of the
research department). The sound was a properly processed and printed silver
track which was mixed to the old Academy Curve standards by guys on non
automated, non flying fader mixing desks. These guys mixed with "their ears"
and a small number of men are actually responsible for the "sound" of all the
Hollywood pictures of this era. That's all gone now with "botique" studios on
every corner of Hollywood and the San Fernado Valley.
John
Bruce Wright
My point is that Tarzan "the motion picture" and A Bug's Life "the motion
> picture" exist in original form as computer files. Film and electronic
> projection are two ways to exhibit the movie. Sure final approvals are based on
> how the picture will be exhibited, but the ACTUAL MOVIE is a digital data file
> that can be exhibited as film, video, or DLP. If Dreamworks doesn't see it that
> way, they're behind the times.
Without speaking specifically about any projects or films, from a technical standpoint digital projection would be a better way to exhibit digital originated images because they exist in a linear colorspace from inception.
Transferring from a linear colorspace to film might introduce artifacts to the color of a digital image.
-Bruce
--
Bruce Wright
birdie
Film.
I don't care how it was created.
The colour in I.B Tech in comparison, side by side, with vision, is
noticable - and not just in the saturation - contrast - density - et
al....but the amount of shading and highlights that come out.
I'm just waiting for the EPA to start getting up the digital nose, as
I'm sure everyone will be reading about threats of massive fines unless
they learn how to deal with the high amount of toxic waste digital
computing creates.................
Film is the green consumers choice of product.
Quality all around, including for the environment is far higher with
film.
Digital has a long long long way to go in many ways....
EPA will get after them.....
They just hit Toyota with the threat of 2 billion in fines if they
didn't recall and fix something or another.....
With Bill Gates, et al, guess the fines will have to be 30 billion or
more imposed to cause anyone to blink.
With digital stocks dropping, maybe they should hit them now.
What I want to know is when they are going to get rid of camera lenses.
I mean really, they go out of focus, require too much light, lose field
of depth, and so on..... ;-)
Birdie
SprocketOil
>
..How about a comparison of film and its
> electronic counterpart after that same piece of
> film has gone through the gate dozens of times.
> This is what happens in the real world. The
> average movie attendee, unless he or she is there
> on opening night, does not see the quality of
> film that Kodak has displayed in these
> comparisons.
>
> Michael Mooney
> Director, Captivating Markets
> michael...@electrohome.com
>
>
>
Lets talk real world with DLP. What happens when the theatre doesnt
replace the lamp in the recommended time. What happens when the chip has
10 months of 6K xenon lamp heat on it. What happens when the digital media
begins to wear?
DLP looks great. However, no one has really addressed the real world of
DLP wear out of the same corner of their mouth that film wear is
mentioned.
--
***********************************************************************
NOTICE TO BULK EMAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47,
Chapter 5, Subchapter II, 227, any and all nonsolicited
commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a
download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US.
E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it
is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By
Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by law.
*************************************************************************
.
Jeff Kreines
inches) DLP
chip the format could benefit greatly.<<
Talk about a data storage nightmare! Of course, someday it will be
easy... Moore's law and all.