Digital
Projection
Published : 25th May 2004
Since everyone seems to be talking about film preservation
vs digital preservation, I was wondering what some say about
digital projection. I’m asking this because of the new
advertisement I saw in the latest issue of American Cinematographer
(October – Kill Bill.)
It’s an advert from Texas Instruments featuring the
director Brian Singer (X-men etc.) He is quoted saying “It’s
to the point in certain theatres where quality is so diminished,
people might as well wait and see these things on video. The
industry’s got to get with it, digitally, and actually
make the movie experience, a movie experience.”
I’ve only been to one digital screening (Spirited Away
– great film), but really can’t rate the experience
since I was at the El Capitan in LA sitting in a seat 179’ from the screen in the nose bleed section.
So what are other peoples takes on digital projection, or
feelings on adverts like this. I’ve read what Roger
Ebert had to say about digital projection (speaking of –
what’s happened to MaxiVision) and I’ve noticed
that not to many theatres seem to be going with digital projection
(where
as three years ago some people made it seem like they would
all be digital
by next Tuesday.)
If seeing a film projected digitally is anything like being
at home
watching a DVD, you can count me out. So what are some other
thoughts out
there?
Have a nice day,
Joe Zovko
AC
LA, CA
Check out the Hollywood Reporter White Paper on Digital Cinema.
Interesting analysis.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/index.jsp
Steven Poster ASC
>While 30P, as a higher sampling
rate, is a more accurate representation >of reality than
24P, it does not necessarily follow that it is more engaging
>to the viewer.
However, I don't think this is an all or nothing phenomenon
-- 30P would have similar effects as 24P, but look smoother.
I don't think there is a dramatic difference on how it affects
the viewer until you start talking about 48P and higher. 24
can't be some magical number that we stumbled upon by accident.
My only objection to 30P is that it does not convert well
to 24 fps for transfer to film, nor to PAL. Since I shoot
features mainly, my work has to be able to be sold internationally
on home video plus be able to be projected theatrically if
necessary. And it's not that 30P can't be converted into 24
or 25 fps -- it's just that it's not a smooth conversion.
By the way, the Region 1 DVD of "Oklahoma!" was
transferred from the 30 fps 65mm master and looks fine, not
"video-ish". Just smoother, no pulldown hiccups
-- almost reminds me of watching a movie on a PAL TV!
Someday it would be interesting to select frame rates for
a movie the way we select film stocks or aspect ratios --
an action film shot at 60P or 72P, maybe a turn-of-the-century
movie shot at 18P, etc. But I do contend that the more hyper-real
the process becomes, the harder it becomes to "fake"
anything.
David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles
David Mullen wrote :
>24 can't be some magical number
that we stumbled upon by accident.
I agree, it's just a point on the scale (which happens to
be used around the world at present). You could also go the
other way and reduce sample rate, and, as you suggested, match
the rate to the content.
Another very important aspect of film (to me) is gate shake.
The motion, which is so clearly evident in most theatres primarily
due to bad projectors, clearly (to me) adds a certain energy
to the material.
My guess is that this reaction to movement is hardwired in
us from long ago looking for food/predators. If it moves,
it could be dangerous/delicious. Certain species rely primarily
on movement for recognition. With digital projectors, we may
have to add some shake to keep the audience awake.
Noel Sterrett
Baytech Cinema
www.baytechcinema.com
David Mullen ACS writes :
>Someday it would be interesting
to select frame rates for a movie the >way we select film
stocks or aspect ratios -- an action film shot at 60P or >72P,
maybe a turn-of-the-century movie shot at 18P, etc.
With digital acquisition~projection there is no reason that
we couldn't do this quite simply.
Brilliant concept.
Scott Billups
>With digital projectors, we
may have to add some shake to keep the >audience awake.
Or they could start writing better scripts...
David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles
>Another very important aspect
of film (to me) is gate shake. The motion, >which is so clearly
evident in most theatres primarily due to bad >projectors,
clearly (to me) adds a certain energy to the material.
Noel baby! Were you at the StEM screenings?
The best that film could be went up against some soon-to-be-last-generation
digital projection. I didn't hear one comment from anyone
with regard to how much they enjoyed the gate weave .... although
I do seem to remember an ardent audiophile mentioning that
he missed the pops and "texture" of vinyl records.
Scott Billups
> 24 can't be some magical number
Actually, 24 frames per second is indeed a magical number.
In film, 24 frames per second corresponds to a flicker rate
of 48 per second. Under typical conditions, the human Critical
Flicker Fusion Frequency - the threshold number of flickers
per second across which an intermittent visual stimulus stimulates
a discrete versus continuous sensation - is around 48 flickers
per second.
This number depends on all kinds of factors, including properties
of the stimulus such as its brightness variation and size,
as well as characteristics of the viewer such as age, iris
color, and state of medication.
Andreas Wittenstein
Founder, BitJazz Inc.
http://www.bitjazz.com/sheervideo/
>With digital projectors, we
may have to add some shake to keep the >audience awake.
Most of the brilliant members of this forum will no doubt
keep the audience awake with thought provoking content instead.
Many thanks for all the vibrant thought and discussions contained
herein.
Jeffery Haas
Freelance Editor/Camera Operator
Dallas, TX
David Mullen, ASC writes :
>By the way, the Region 1 DVD of "Oklahoma!"
was transferred from the >30 fps 65mm master and looks
fine, not "video-ish". Just smoother, no >pulldown
hiccups -- almost reminds me of watching a movie on a
PAL >TV!
David,
Bravo!... ASC works well after your name.
65mm masters are absolutely beautiful, so then why do films
like "Lawrence of Arabia" or "2001: A Space
Odyssey" not get granted this same treatment. I have
seen flawless 70mm prints of both of these and the DVD's they
put out are from grainy 35mm Reduction Interpositives.
Eric Adkins
Director of Photography
Los Angeles
The only shortcoming I notice seems to be a lack of flexibility
until one moves into the upper end models.
Respectfully,
Jeffery Haas
freelance editor, camera operator
Dallas, TX
>I have installed dozens of
other models in environments ranging from >home theatre to
corporate and industrial and I have not seen any >"dumbed
down" user interface.
Jeffery,
Having installed a number of projectors, I'm sure you'll
agree that "magic set-up button" doesn't exist.
The accommodations that I referenced deal more with the
ease of the initial set-up and the ability of the projector
to maintain it's settings longer.
(Begging your indulgence for a topic related flashback)
Back in the early '70's (while still in High-school) I helped
build a production studio with my good friend Chuck Mellone
(now Chief Engineer / National Telecommunications and Information
Administration).
As a hobby, he had rebuilt an old Ediophor Projector that
we used to project the Clay/Foreman "Rumble in the
Jungle" bout off of the ubiquitous upstate New York
cloud cover. Just a bunch of guys, laying around on lawn
chairs, drinking beer, watching a good fight. My recollection
is that it took several weeks to calibrate that beast and
after the bout it didn't work well for almost a year. Ain't
technology grand?
Scott Billups - LA
> You must always consider
bandwidth a commodity.
You're so right.
A friend of mine works for a major Canadian cable network.
They were, as always, looking for ways to cut expenses.
Apparently they could save a couple of hundred thousand
dollars a year by decreasing their satellite bandwidth a
bit. Despite the objections of the technical staff, the
suits decided to go ahead and cut the bandwidth.
Now, it just so happens that in Toronto, where all those
major Canadian cable network suits live, the cable company
gets their signal by fibre-optic link directly from the
master controls of most of the networks...NOT by satellite.
One day, the fibre system is taken down for maintenance,
and the cable company switches over to the satellite feed.
My friend gets a call from his boss - "what's wrong
with our signal?" The suits had been watching their
cable TV in Toronto, patting themselves on the back for
saving some bucks with no noticeable decrease in signal
quality, while not understanding that the REST of the country
was getting a crappy signal.
To their credit, the bandwidth was immediately restored
to the previous level, once they could see in their own
homes what the decreased bandwidth was actually doing to
their picture. But there are a LOT of channels that either
don't care as much about their picture quality, or can't/won't
spend the money required to deliver that quality.
George Hupka
Director/DP
Downstream Pictures
Saskatoon, Canada
Lew signed his post :
Lew Comenetz-HD
Video Enginner & DIT
Hmm just wondering, is an enginner a beginner engineer?
Michael "in a pre nab haze" Bravin
Chief Spelling Officer
Band Pro Film & Digital
www.digiprimes.com
Sponsored by:-