> 25th May 2004Since 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.)
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
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.
Director of Photography
The only shortcoming I notice seems to be a lack of flexibility until one moves into the upper end models.
freelance editor, camera operator
>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.
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.
Lew signed his post :
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
Copyright © CML. All rights reserved.