Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Rick McCallum, Star Wars producer on the expected film presentation of Episode III

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Rick McCallum, Star Wars producer on the expected film presentation of Episode III (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Rick McCallum, Star Wars producer on the expected film presentation of Episode III

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 12-14-2004 10:42 AM

quote: Brian Guckian
The film v. digital mentality has been unhelpful and seems to have caused more aggravation than anything else.

Kodak provides state-of-the-art products and services for BOTH film and digital productions:

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/products/v2/sehlin.shtml

quote:
A Glimpse Of The Future Of Film In A Hybrid World
With the introduction of the next generation of Kodak motion picture film technology, it seems an appropriate time to ask Richard C. Sehlin, director of the Systems Development, about the long-term future. Sehlin discussed the convergence of film and digital technologies and the role that he expects Kodak to play in the future of the motion imaging industry. Following are excerpts of that conversation:

What does the future hold for film, digital and hybrid technology?
How involved is Kodak in developing digital imaging technologies?
Does Kodak perceive digital cinema as a threat?
Can you foresee a time when Kodak will abandon film in favor of digital image capture?

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

quote:
"We are committed to doing our part to help ensure that the digital projection technology of the future matches or exceeds the best possible image quality that exhibitors can present with 35 mm equipment," says Kodak Entertainment Imaging Division President Eric Rodli. "We believe that will ultimately require higher resolution digital projectors with a capacity for faithfully reproducing the full dynamic range of nuances in colors and contrast that today's films are capable of recording."

The Kodak CineServer unveiled at the conference is designed to enable exhibitors to decrypt, decompress and send content to up to 2K resolution projectors. Rodli says that Kodak is committed to a 4K system and will provide leadership as digital projection technology continues to evolve. He also stresses that film quality sets a moving target.

"We have made a quantum leap forward in emulsion technology with the new generation of KODAK VISION2 films," Rodli says. "When you couple that ongoing progress with gains being made in digital intermediate technology, the possibilities for creating more nuanced and visually compelling motion pictures are unlimited."

| IP: Logged

Edward Jurich
Master Film Handler

Posts: 305
From: Las Vegas USA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 12-14-2004 11:34 AM

quote: Brad Miller
Other than scratching, Lucasfilm is speaking of dirt on the film as deterioration.

I've wondered how bad (dirty) a booth has to be for dirt to collect on film. The film surface is not exposed on the platter, only while actual projection is taking place. I've run films for weeks without any noticeable dirt (or scratch) pickup and that's with minimal cleaning.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 12-14-2004 12:40 PM

quote: Edward Jurich
I've run films for weeks without any noticeable dirt (or scratch) pickup and that's with minimal cleaning.

Electrostatic attraction of dirt was one of the primary reasons prints used to pick up dirt. Much less of a problem since Kodak introduced Kodak VISION Color Print Film in 1998, which has a transparent conductive backing layer to control static buildup. Also helps reduce annoying shocks when rewinding film, and greatly reduces "static cling" on platters.

| IP: Logged

Steve Scott
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1300
From: Minneapolis, MN
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 12-14-2004 02:14 PM

I've been having the same debate with another guy who works in my booth. He is damn committed to the fact that a print needs to be covered when it's not running, otherwise it'll get dusty and look bad. He sticks to this point despite the fact that he's seen me slick the prints with FG EVERY WEEK!

Some people in this industry find a special spot to stay in and criticize everone who won't do as much/as little work as they mandate is necessary. Some people really care about the art invovlved in the process. And some people just work it like its a job, and don't care if/why what they do is wrong. I'm stuck in the misfortune of having to work with and manage the ideals all three types. [Frown]

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 12-14-2004 03:19 PM

quote: John Pytlak
Also helps reduce annoying shocks when rewinding film,

THANK YOU!!! [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-15-2004 01:52 AM

The cool thing about Lucas making the "film looks crummy" statements is that they can't lose! When the movie comes out & it looks crummy because of low-res acquisition or intermediates, they can say, "See, what did we tell you."

Chatter about it only serves to keep the hype going for Lucas, as all they have to do is keep saying "No, digital is better than film, I'm George Lucas" for every response.

If you're serious about examining the acquisition, storage, & projection issues related to the Star Wars movies, the best way to do it is just put together a study. That's simple - you just put up a web page, break it into 3 parts (1 concerning each movie).

For each movie:
State the title, date of production, & date of release
Research & post the specs of the acquisition, intermediate, & storage used
Research & post the locations of theatres which ran it with digital projection
Research & post the specs of those projectors.

It would be interesting, & everybody would probably like to see that lined up to look at. Otherwise, talk is just more gas moving through the catalytic converter.

Geocities is great for one-offs like this; Michael Coate's pages are good examples of how to approach survey-type reports.

If you use "Star Wars" graphics on a site which goes against the Lucas line, be prepared for threats & intimidation, so stick with examples that stay within "fair use" exemption.

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 12-15-2004 07:11 AM

That's a really great idea William, and it would get to the truth of the matter.

(BTW is it not reasonable to expect Lucasfilm to defend their copyright vis-a-vis images and graphics? [Confused]

).

Going back to the website article, it is curious that Lucasfilm are taking this new line in thinking, since only 2 years ago they were highlighting how the trailers for Episode II would be of much higher quality than usual, due to the elimination of one of the intermediate printing steps using digital technology.

Here was just one example of how digital techniques can improve film presentation, and of how the two media can work together.

Also from Mr. Pytlak's post above, it's really great to see companies like Kodak taking such an enlightened approach and not "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" so to speak.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 12-15-2004 09:44 AM

I don't know how you EVER are going to get to the level of blackness you can with Vision Premier film stock using the current type of digital design. Something will almost have to block the light from coming out of the projector to achieve that I think.

For those of you that don't know what I'm talking about, that run snipes and/or spliced on trailers in front of your prints, have you ever noticed a splice from regular Vision or Fuji stock to Vision Premier stock? Try watching the first splice that attaches the end of the trailer pack to the head of the feature on The Incredibles or Alexander. Watch how the last trailer before the splice fades to black, and then the feature after the splice goes to "blacker than black". If you didn't know better, you'd think the projector just shut off.

I don't know how digital projection is ever going to approach that "blacker than black."

[ 12-15-2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Mark J. Marshall ]

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 12-15-2004 10:18 AM

quote: Mark J. Marshall
I don't know how you EVER are going to get to the level of blackness you can with Vision Premier film stock using the current type of digital design. Something will almost have to block the light from coming out of the projector to achieve that I think....

I don't know how digital projection is ever going to approach that "blacker than black."

Here are the characteristic (sensitometric) curves for Kodak VISION and VISION Premier Color Print Films:

http://www.kodak.com/global/images/en/motion/products/lab/2393Char.gif

http://www.kodak.com/global/images/en/motion/products/lab/f002_1254ac.gif

For 2393, the maximum density of greater than 5.0 means that it is possible to make a print with a black area that lets only 1/100000 of the projector's light through the film! (i.e., The film print can have a contrast ratio of over 100,000:1 between the lightest and darkest area.) [thumbsup]

Even 2383 has a maximum density greater than 4.0, meaning that the blackest black will let only 1/10000 of the projector's light through the film. [Cool]

digital imaging device can even come close! [Razz]

| IP: Logged

Mattias Ohlson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 180
From: Falun, Sweden
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 12-15-2004 12:01 PM

Mr Pytlak
I am not impressed by the blackness of black at my local cinema. Why am I not getting treated to Vision Premiere every time I visit the movies? Also how much of that capacity is used in real practice taking into considerations other things in how the print looks, 4 orders and 10000:1 with the premiere stuff?

Everybody
Actuallly there is a laser projector that is capable of 100000:1. You could also use a 4 panel approach to get 100000:1+ if you want to but that is probably not practical.
What is likely is that you control the light hitting the microdisplay or exiting the lens in real time or both. With this in practise dlp should deliver a dynamic range of 10000:1+.
At that level and even before that safety regulations have probably killed the possible black level anyway.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 12-15-2004 12:19 PM

Thanks, John. That's interesting. Do you know of a similar chart for dye transfer? One of the blackest blacks I ever saw I think was on an IB print of Snoopy Come Home. Lucy's hair, Snoopy's nose, etc., just looked like there was a hole in the screen.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 12-15-2004 01:14 PM

The blackest black I ever saw (or at least, that I noticed) was in "Minority Report". At the splice point for the end of the theater policy and the start of the feature, the screen went BLACK. I honestly thought the film had shut down or something. Never seen a screen that dark before while a film was actually running.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 12-15-2004 01:23 PM

Minority Report Technical Specs

quote:
35 mm (anamorphic) (Kodak Vision Premier 2393)

Told ya.

| IP: Logged

Mattias Ohlson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 180
From: Falun, Sweden
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 12-15-2004 05:01 PM

Does this mean that all prints for all theaters went out with Vision premier 2393? Is there a way for bad equipment or a bad projectionist to screw up that black level potential?

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 12-15-2004 05:15 PM

Light spill onto the screen has that effect.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.