|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Digital Cinema a Step Closer to Reality?
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-09-2001 10:07 PM
The comment that distributors will save $6,000,000 on a 3000-print run is total BS. That assumes either that the prints costs $2k apiece (which, for a standard-length feature film is unlikely if the order is for 3k prints...they would probably cost 1/4 to 1/2 that price) or that TI (or someone) is actually paying the distributors cash to not make film prints. More likely than either of the previous explanations, though, is that someone is just making up random numbers that sound impressive on the assumption that no one will actually try to question them.
As for resolution--my take on the current DLP machine is that it's pretty darn impressive -- for video. Although it's the same resolution as HDTV, it blows away every example of HDTV (all half-dozen of them...) that I've seen. I am totally underwhelmed with HDTV, but I was really impressed with DLP. It looked much more like film than like video. It's still not ready for prime time (no pun intended), it's still not as good as a half-decent 35mm print, and the lossy compression makes me nervous, but the resolution itself is pretty good.
The weird thing about DLP, though, is that they seem to be using some sort of edge enhancement scheme to make it look slightly sharper than it really is. When you first walk into a theatre that's showing a DLP image, it looks amazingly sharp; after watching for a few minutes, though, your eyes start looking for more detail which simply isn't there. I'm not sure if this is a data-compression issue or a resolution issue or what, but it _is_ an issue. I do believe that if you put DLP and 35mm side by side and had people watch it for only a few minutes, they would overwhelmingly prefer DLP; if you made them watch an entire feature in each format, I think that the overwhelming preference would be for 35mm.
Note that I'm not a video guy and I'm not very knowledgeable about electronic imaging in general. I know how to set up an NTSC monitor with color bars and adjust the "convergence" settings on CRT projectors (which, sadly, is more than most "video guys" seem to be able to manage), but that's about the extent of my technical knowledge of television.
|
|
|
|
Aaron Haney
Master Film Handler
Posts: 265
From: Cupertino, CA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 03-10-2001 06:26 AM
A system where only video data that comes directly Technicolor can be shown? Wow, sounds like Technicolor is excited about the possibility of totally monopolizing distribution. Makes me want to smack people like Ben Affleck (who made lofty predictions about how digital would allow "indie" filmmakers to get their work into theaters more easily) upside the head!Actually, 3840 x 2048 sounds quite good. That approaches the "4K" resolution that Kodak and various filmmakers have been asking for. With good color management and little-to-no lossy compression, that could make a decent replacement for 35mm film. The only thing is, Technicolor is talking about putting current DLP systems (at 1280x1024) into theaters on a massive scale (with the first 1000 projectors free, according to the pages in the picture warehouse). If that happens, what are the chances that theaters will get upgraded once the 4K and higher resolution systems hit the market? Can't these companies wait just a little while longer for the technology to mature?! I can go to the store right now and buy and HDTV set with higher resolution. Unfortunately, I have not had the chance to see D-ILA in action yet. (I have seen DLP on multiple occasions, and it isn't too good -- especially not at the resolution they are currently at.) How is the image? Are the boundaries between the pixels very visible, or is it more of a smooth, continuous image? Scott: The DLP website is pretty vauge, but it sounds like they usually scan the film (if that's the source material) at 2K resolution, and then at some stage, scale the image down to 1280x1024. Some of the early demonstrations of "Star Wars" were run from a D5 videotape, which is the standard HDTV resolution of 1920x1080, meaning the electronics in the projector would have to do the scaling. I doubt in those cases that it was doing edge enhancement on-the-fly. On the other hand, when it's being run off a QuVis player, they might prepare the data at 1280x1024 ahead of time, and that would give them the chance to do some edge enhancement. Unfortunately, the DLP website doesn't really say. It's long on hype and FUD, but short on real information.
|
|
Dave Bird
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 777
From: Perth, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 03-10-2001 08:40 AM
1000 screens sounds like a test to me, see if they can actually distribute video on a reasonably wide scale. But if your 20-plex only has ONE of these things, film will be around for a long time. Doesn't appear that the studio or exhibitor benefit. And to save $6mil per movie? Not unless EVERY screen in the world has one of these things, and just think of the loss to the studios if they quit making film. Meanwhile, the distrib scoops your advertising? Forget it, wait until Kodak perfects this thing (they're the only ones who care about quality and not rushing it), and buy your own. As far as special events, the only "non-feature" format
that consistently draws is IMAX, and digital will never top that. The dream of filling seats in the daytime will never come to pass, people work and go to school. No, when it comes, buy your own and be looking for a piece of that $6mil you just saved your distribs.....How dare they even think about obsoleting my 50-year old XL's! 
|
|
|
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-10-2001 11:36 AM
Hello Joe
Lets see how much you really know....about the video show. Here are 5 simple questions that most video buffs would know. No prize for the correct answers just the aura you will generate by getting them correct.1. What famous 10" Black and White CRT was used in all post-WW2 TV sets? 2. Are present day high power transmitters completely solid state all the way up to the final P.A.? 3. What style of projection CRT did the first Advent TV projector use....Direct projection CRT, Schmidt type CRT, or mirror relayed? 4. Who invented the Betamax video format? 5. Present day Digital Television is transmitted on the VHF or UHF band?
Good Luck and may the video gods be with you!
Mark @ GTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-10-2001 03:52 PM
I kind of like the "idea" of concert films, but the implementation is usually quite poor. For example, "Last Waltz" is widely considered to be one of the greatest concert films ever made, and even that can get dull at points--it totally lacks any coverage of the "experience" of attending the show...it's a documentary about the performers, which is fine, but it doesn't cover anywhere near enough of the experience of the fans--e.g. the lines to get into the venue, interviews with concert-goers, etc. I agree that concerts don't "work" on film in the same way that they do live, but I do think that it is possible to produce an interesting concert film, even though it doesn't seem to have been done yet. IMAX is the wrong format for this, though...my idea of a concert film involves lots of handheld 16mm or s16 footage (probably in B&W).
There are lots of good music-oriented films, though, that aren't concert films per se. Check out the recent Phish documentary or Don't Look Back (the Bob Dylan film).
The Nsync IMAX thing sounds like a pretty horrible idea. Actually, I think that the whole concept of Nsync (and other cookie-cutter-type bands) is a bad one, but I digress. Having said that, if I had the chance to see it for free, I might actually go to see it, just to see how horrible it really is (or maybe be pleasantly surprised that it isn't as bad as I had expected).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
and no we didn't play the Sting movie that loud.
Printer-friendly view of this topic