att JYOTI THOTTAM et all

And furthermore, I think we can all agree that no matter how much care a select few take in maintaining their prints, it's just not the norm, or anywhere close to it . And producers are right to be concerned with what most of the audience sees.

So Soderbergh is right to desire the theoretical reproducibility of digital projection. And digital projection is a lot closer to perfect reproducibility than film is.

Journalistically, I don't think there's anything wrong with this article. Sure, for us, the idea of film going away in favor of digital is hard, uncomfortable, and unfriendly to contemplate. But it doesn't mean that it isn't going to happen eventually. Of course, when it happens is a big question...

"Hi Jyoti,

As a very serious film buff and extremely picky movie goer when it comes to technical quality of film presentation, I was very disappointed to see such an inaccurate article get published about "the death of film." Equally disappointing is how a very talented director such as Steven Soderbergh espouses very inaccurate claims about how film projection works. If his own private projectionist gets dirt and scratches on a print after only one run, Steven needs to find himself another projectionist.

And I really have to say I laughed out loud when I heard he was "digitally filming" (really just plain videotaping) his next movie using a $4,000 enthusiast "pro-sumer" Canon XL-1s MiniDV format camera. That's not exactly in the same league as a Panavision Panaflex Platinum or Arri 535 film camera.

"Digital Cinema" is a sham. Nothing more. Since so much of the general public behaves like cattle when it comes to all things digital, they automatically eat it up when the marketing folks hit them with the very very wrong notion that digital equals perfect. It does not. "Digital Cinema" is only an effort on the part of Hollywood Studios to cut costs. They figure if they can electronically distribute a film in video form to theaters they won't have to spend millions of dollars on film prints. "Digital Cinema" has absolutely nothing to do about improving film presentation quality.

First let's look at numbers. A Texas Instruments DLP system can only display a maximum of 1280 X 1024 pixels. That's roughly the equivalent of what a 17 inch computer monitor can display. It falls far short of the native 1080 X 1920 pixel resolution of 1080i HDTV. That one tidbit alone makes DLP a marketing Pandora's Box for any commercial movie theater willing to install one of those $200,000 to $300,000 systems. Home theater fans already have the capability to install sound systems superior to any commercial movie theater (if they're willing to spend the money). With the crude, low resolution standards used by these glorified video projection systems, home theater fans can install their own systems that beat digital cinema in both terms of picture and sound.

The image detail native to a 35mm 4-perf film frame is roughly 4,000 X 3,000 pixels. That's well above the capabilities of all digital cinema systems. Projectionists and technicians who care about "film done right" can dependably show films with bright, razor sharp imagery.

Here's another thing to consider. Just like DVD, all "Digital Cinema" video projection shows use a heavy amount of data compression on the video stream. You're not going to see 1280 X 1024 video in uncompressed form. With DLP shows like "The Perfect Storm" and "Dinosaur", I not only saw effects of a pixel grid showing up on screen, but I also saw bad compression errors that most DVD authoring experts would find unacceptable (quantizing errors in dark backgrounds, blotchy problems in red areas, mosquito noise, etc.). Film may get its little spots of dirt and hairs in a badly maintained projector, but please don't consider a lossy compressed DLP video stream as perfect either.

There is a very serious economic issue concerning movie theaters. Do the Hollywood studios really expect the theater chains to pay $200K to $300K per screen for systems that don't even hold up to HDTV standards much less even film? Many circuits are languishing in bankruptcy right now. Even if they did have the cash on hand to "upgrade" to these video systems, how long will each system last? A good film projector can be had for $30,000 and can last for decades. These overpriced DLP projectors may not even last half a decade before the theater has to upgrade to some other system.

To finish, I believe part of the success of movie theaters is giving its customers sound and image quality they cannot have at home. DLP is not the way to deliver that. Film is. Well operated 35mm film projectors do the job nicely. If Hollywood wants to electrify the public with great image quality, why don't they have some of their product shot in 70mm? "Lawrence of Arabia" was made 40 years in 70mm format and looks a damned sight better than most any film released today.

Actual image quality is what counts, buzzwords like "digital" are irrelevant.

Best Regards,

The other thing I've become to hate about digital cinematography, is when the action moves across the screen the figures don't flow, but jerk. I saw Windtalkers last week on a 50 ft screen and this irritation becomes VERY evident, not to mention nauseating.

Just a hair-splitting tech thing, but "Backdraft" was shot in Super35 format and featured a small number of 70mm prints for release (1 70mm print in NYC, 2 or 3 in L.A. and 5 70mm prints in Chicago --I guess Chicago got more since the movie was filmed there).

The 70mm showing I watched in NYC at the Ziegfeld was pretty good. I liked a lot of the fire photography in it. Super35 prints tend to look noticeably better in 70mm than they do in 35mm 'scope. Still, the very best is putting a 65mm originated image onto 70mm.

"I think claims that film is dead [May 6] are rather premature. Digital is inevitable but I would be very disappointed to see the current systems become the defacto standard. My impression on watching a digital presentation is that while at first glance it seems clear and free of dirt and scratches, eventually I found my eyes straining for detail and nuance that simply was not there. This comes as no surprise when you realize that the current system, as installed at a few dozen theatres, actually projects an image with substantially less resolution than ordinary high definition television. And HDTV was designed to be a consumer format!

"For a chip maker like Texas Instruments, the market to equip a few thousand movie screens is small potatoes. They know that the real market, when costs come down, will be high definition home theatre systems. Why then should cinema owners invest heavily in a system that is no better than what people will have in their homes in just a few years? If they want to continue to provide something people cannot get at home the conversion to digital should wait until an 'ultra' definition system, something just for theatres, is available.

"I recently had the privilege of projecting a brand new 70mm film print of 'Patton' (1970) at Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival at the University of Illinois. The image quality was nothing less than stunning. No one who saw that presentation would claim that film is dead just yet. When the digital folks can provide pictures like that I'll be first in line to sign up. Until then, thanks, but no thanks."

 |  IP: Logged

Nice slanted journalism. You seem to be under the impression film has
many problems and digital projection's only fault is the expense, and
this is only a problem because of those cheap-_ss theatre owners. Try
thinking of digital projectors as what they will be, big expensive
computers that hundreds of people will be depending on at each sitting
of a movie. As we all know Computers never crash, are always
serviceable, and a well-informed technician is just a phone call away.
I know this sounds like I'm pitching an outline for a new Disney
fantasy. The documentary version is that many, maybe half of all the
film projection rooms have equipment that is 30 years old or more. Why?
Because the equipment was built to last and to be repaired and rebuilt
on location. Do you know anyone with a computer over even 10 years old?
What's going to happen when someone, or some chain, outfits a 10 plex
with a million dollars worth of equipment and after 5 years that
investment is only worth 5% of the original value? Just try to find a
buyer then, or a bank that will use the equipment as collateral. We've
just invented disposable theatres! After making an investment that has
a preset life, ticket prices will have to soar. When ticket prices rise,
patrons become more selective of what they see, and attend less often.
Your article stated that Hollywood will save $800,000,000.00, this
sounds like a lot of money to most, but to an industry as large as the
American film industry, this is only a few percent. This percentage
could be made without the conversion to digital just by writing better
scripts, with a bonus benefit of making the patrons happier...what a
concept!.
I'll bet in the last year hollywood could have axed 20 movies that were
crap from the beginning and saved as much money. The percentage of good
movies the patrons would have seen would be higher too. A more pleasing
product to the customer...what a concept.
You also mentioned how the quality of digital exceeds film. Instead of
comparing digital to washed out films like "Erin Brockovich", try
comparing to "Backdraft" or "Casino". I could go on listing the problems
that we already know digital projection will present, and will find even
more when it comes to be the standard forced by the corporations. A
standard being sold with the help of misinformed pawns like yourself.

I manage a 20 screen theatre complex that is within the top 10 theatres in the USA for my chain (Loews Cineplex Entertainment). I strongly disagree with your article on Digital Cinema. I have been in this business for about 6 years many of those years has involved running projection equipment. Film is a very high quality medium, presented correctly film can and will look as good on its last run in a discount house as it does it's first run in a premier cinema.

Digital projection has a long way to come. We can show film on 70 foot screens and attain images that are sharp and bright. We pride ourselves on "Film Done Right". I think you should checkout www.Film-Tech.com to see what "reel" people in the industry think. In the fairness of accurate reporting I implore you to explore the otherside of the issue. Maybe a story on "film-tech" and "film done right" would be a good way for your respected publication to stay fair and objective in your reporting.

I feel that through mis-information and innacurate reporting you have done a great dis-service to the hard working men and women of the motion picture industry. I urge you to either print a retraction or to do an article exploring the other side of the issue.

Regardless of what you and the press may think, it is a proven fact that DLP is not near the quality of film yet, and especially film done right. You can stop by my theater anytime and I will show you how UN-degraded my films are with every week's worth of runs that I put on them and just how they are supposed to be handled. Maybe I wouldn't have a problem with that article or your comment IF it were true. Other than that both comments were nothing more than a mildy amusing joke. Furthermore I am not too concerned or uncomfortable about DLP taking over until it reaches or exceeds the level of quality that film is currently capable of today. I am just about fed up with people who say that film quality will only stand up for short runs. Truth is if your prints degrade with runs, you are the problem not the film.

------------------
"And, hey! You be careful out there too, gosh darn ya!"

~Ethan.

It's "jhawk", all lower case, all one word. It is important that you remember this. Image is everything.

I recently read your article on the eventual demise of film based motion picture exibition. I rather strongly believe that a large portion of the information in you article is false.

Many people seem to have the idea that film in itself is very fragile and wears out quite easily. This could not be farther from the truth. The movie straight story comes to mind. This film ran at our theatre for 3 months, and left in equal or better shape than we received it in. With the aid of online film cleaning, films can survive many thousands of passes without suffereing and wear at all.

The second item that rather bothered me was that you blame the machinery for film damage and wear. Generally it is the fault of an innept operator that is the cause of film damage. I have seen machines from 1935 run a current movie without any blemish in image or sound. If the majority of theaters around the world took time and money and invested them in the projection staff, many of the pitfalls of film based projection today would dissapear. If a print is scratched in your theater, you have no one to blame but yourself. That is a fact.

Lastly, a brief opinion on the digital projection issue. the technology is not ready at this point for a completly digital presentation. Period. The current breed of DLP chips do not have enough resolution to fill those very large screens. Untill the resolution and light efficiency of the systems improves, DP will not take hold. The digital image must also be compressed in order to make it small enough to fit on an easily transportable medium. this introduces compression and digital artifacts such as loss of detail and color smudging into the image. Another problem is the sheer number of small single screen theatres all over the countrysides and small towns of this country. Most of these theatres are owned by a family who operate the theatre as a side to their main jobs. There are at least 10 to 15 of these small theatres alone in my state of North Dakota. The cost of digital projection is simply too high for these small gems to upgrade. Many are still running their original setups dating back to the 1950's.

In conclusion, film will be around for quite some time, especially in a money driven industry such as ours. It just isnt cost effective.

Thank you for your time, and best wishes,

Joshua Jones
www.film-tech.com

Maybe several years in the future (or even father than that) video projection may have a native capability to show an image truly as sharp as a 35mm print. If electronics people develop some high speed CCDs and video storage formats that can capture full motion video at 4000 X 3000 pixels or better, then we can talk about replacing 35mm film with that format.

Steve Kraus mentioned a very good point in his letter. The market for DLP chips in commercial movie theaters is extremely limited. So much so that there would be no way at all to amortize out the cost of micromirror development if those chips were sold exclusively to movie theaters. The real market is in computer gear and consumer home theater. That is really where Texas Instruments is counting on making money. "Digital Cinema" is just a way to market it. So, even if a new super-duper resolution video format is developed, you can count that electronic format being sold to people in their homes at a much cheaper price.

"This theatre only uses Ultra High Resolution Motion Picture Film in our presentations. Film is the ONLY format capable of displaying all the visual nuances captured by the film camera.

No lower resolution digital video equipement is ever used."

We'll put it in our attraction reel and also print it out and post it in the lobby. Sure would be nice if a bunch of independent or even some of the chains that haven't yet bought into this folly would commission a nice, slick 1-sheet that proclaims a similar statement with some eye-catching, film oriented appropriate graphics.

I also wish there were an easy way to get the patrons to equate the fact that video projection was/is used in the porno theatres. I haven't figured out a way to say that without it being offensive, but I am working on it.