|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-21-2006 01:42 PM
OK, all this is well and good, but you know how you hear that expression, usually leveled at teachers in at universities, that they "live in an ivory tower"? Well, we do something of the sort here. We talk about 70mm quality vs 35mm and 2K vs 4k and in another post, we were just discussing 21 vs 20 vs 19 or even 20 plus 3 frames advance for sound track sync. Then I open up aol (yah, I still use that crap service) and there on the from page is a link to videos from the latest Rolling Stones concert with clips from like 5 or 6 songs. And so, feeling that if these old coots can still hold their own, I at least have a chance, I click on to watch It's Only Rock & Roll. We are we talk about better quality, but the world is will be and evidently is perfectly happy to watch entertainment that is running an image that looks like the worst crap I have ever seen....nickelodian images were clearer and more detailed than this trash. I mean pixilation the size of dominos, total crap....you want to talk about sound sync? It was TOTALLY out of sync, lips NEVER matching the audio, and the piece-o-shit image was MAYBE running 10 fps but worse, not even evenly spaced, it would go fast, then slow, then freeze....it was an abortion. But seems this is perfectly ok for a major internet content supplier to stream this crap as if there is nothing wrong with it. And people seem to accept it as a fact of life. My cynical thinking is, since all these damn comglomerates are all one and same anyway, my suspicion is that they know perfectly well what they are doing....they are PURPOSELY conditioning the public to ACCEPT CRAP. After all, the lower the quality the public is willing to buy, even my small amounts at a time, the cheaper it will cost the suppliers. So as Bobby so aply points out, quote: Bobby Henderson
The main problem is this whole "good enough" attitude.
I think that attitude is purposely being conditioned so 2K will be just fine. Video will be just fine for motion picture exhibition (as long as the exhibitor pays for it) and the studio CEOs' wet-dream will come true -- they don't have to make prints, and if the theatres are run into the ground economically, all they really need is a few theatres in key markets to keep the "movie magic" so they can sell their video crap which is all they want to do in the first place. If they get the all important buzz in the first two weeks, and they can get every news outlet and Inside Hollywood and ET and all the rest of them (which they own -- it's just one huge advertising machine) to pump the top 10 grossing numbers every week, then who cares about quality? And the more they can get the public to accept junk, the quicker it will be that they abandon any technology that costs them a penny more than they can get away with.
So, from that cynical perspective, I ask: will anyone ever be able to convince the bean counters to go back to 70mm? Are we kidding? They want to KILL 35mm!! So what are the chances?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-22-2006 12:05 AM
quote: David Stambaugh
Yet I can't recall all that many Film-Tech people actually seeing it and commenting on it here. Of those few who have, I can't recall anyone saying anything negative about it (via an eyewitness report, not a rehashing of the paper technical specs).
One D-Cinema show with negative eye-witness comments that immediately comes to mind is Dinosaur. I know I made posts about it and saw others write comments like "Digital Video = Suck!"
Of course, 2K DLP is a very healthy step above those 1st generation 1.2K DLP projection systems. But how many 1.2K systems are still in service? I haven't seen any ads differentiate between the older 1.2K and 2K systems, much less indicate the odd-ball instance where 4K might be available. But what good is 4K if few or any productions actually render for it?
Basically it's another "ads that confuse" kind of thing.
quote: David Stambaugh
If we just look at the technical specs of D-Cinema and film, film should lose.
That really depends upon whose specs are being used. The D-Cinema folks have typically compared their systems against film done wrong, not film done right.
My problem is 2K has much more to do with the fact it isn't substantially better than what viewers will be able to have in their homes. With ever-shortening release windows and increasing sophistication in home video playback systems it will be more tempting than ever to just wait and rent the video.
One can bring up the fact HD-DVD and Blu-Ray content will be heavily data compressed. But the D-Cinema shows won't? That was one of the big problems with Dinosaur.
Many of these new D-Cinema systems being installed will get their content via satellite feed. That kind of bandwidth is pretty expensive. I'd like to see what the actual bitrates of programming will be for various satellite-fed systems. I would not be surprised if the bitrates are similar to, or even lower than, HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. I would be surprised if the bitrates are substantially above 30Mb/s.
There may even be fairly unequal levels of compression quality between large market theaters that have portable hard drives delivered versus those that have to record a satellite feed.
quote: David Stambaugh
How did the early film people arrive at 24fps projection? That was the slowest speed they could get away with! It was NOT about getting the best image quality.
And all the video folks are copying it! Look at the 24p video cameras being developed. They've done that to try to make the video look more like film.
The original Todd-AO 70mm format tried to get 30fps established in theaters. Showscan doubled that to 60fps. MaxiVision has tried to get 48fps adopted. But all went nowhere because 24fps was good enough. So it's not as though film technology hasn't tried to improve.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-22-2006 03:53 AM
Well, I know I posted my impressions of the first DLP I saw and I certainly had some major reservations. I saw JURASIC PARK III and I noted all kinds of artifax that were more than just stuff a layman wouldn't notice or care about. There saw blooming in bright scenes on in the white areas of sky, the contrast was all over the place; some scenes it looked good and some it looked like a veil was drapped over the camera lens (the scene in the kid's hidaway was aweful). In one scene where they are all running across the field in a far shot, they texture of the hair on their heads was simply not there....they all looked like they had globs of black putty slopped on their heads. I also said that I saw STAR WARS: REVENGE OF THE SHITS. And I had the luck to see it in a multiplex where it was also playing in 35mm. I saw the DLP and then immediately went in to watch what I could of the 35mm. And I admitted that although I saw some pretty unpleasant things in the DLP presentation, notably a very soft image at times and even a mix of soft and hard in the same shots, with the computer generated stuff looking sharp and the live action looking soft. But this was not much of a test because they both looked equally as bad which I attribute to the film itself.
But David, no one is handwringing over DLP....we are handwringing over that fact that some of us understand it as an economic burdon on exhibtion, and in the long term that HAS to impact distribution as well, but mostly we are handwringing because it represents a slide the industry is taking to lock us into a format that is at best, just OK....not spectacular, and CERTAINLY not a fix for the present industry doledrums. They are asking exhibition to move to this outragiously expensive technology that is NOT going to get more asses out of "home theatres" and back into the cinemas, to wit, the entire discussion here was about 70mm technology because it IS that spectacular format an audience CAN see a marked quality improvement. Whilst video, in the form with which they want to saddle the world, will not ever match, at least not in our life time 70mm presentation.
Back to the evaluations you noted, two things: 1) if memory serves me, most of those comments were made about the Pixar stuff, TOY STORY is one I recall, which is computer generated, and computer generated source played back on a computer & digital construct is not a real measure, unless you only want to show cartoons with those DLP projectors. 2) These are all DLPs practically out of the box. And tweaked. No one has ever described to my satisfaction, how do these nanomirror modules age? They conveniently skip right over that part. Exactly what happens to these DLP modules which being pumped with 7K lamps with no shutters day in and day out? That is alot of light energy, even for the heartiest of man-made materials. But what do these things look like 2, 3, 5 years down the road? Do these nano-mirrors permanently wink out or stay on? Do you get color dots all over the screen of either a steady spec of light "on" or a black dot when they have stopped functioning in the "off" position? And how willing will exhibitors be -- you know, the same ones that won't change the xenon bulbs to 3000 hrs past their useful life because of the cost? Will THESE guys spring for a new nano-mirror module when the first speck of constant "ON" appears on the screen? And when this does happen, not only will this be worse than film because like they are always fond of saying, with video, the last show is the same as the first -- they will be right....the first show WILL be just the same as the last....EQUALLY as marred because those dots will ALWAYS be there thru every show! At least with specks of film dirt, you can clean them off of a 35mm print. Those specks of light and black on a DLP image can't go away except for a very hefty parts and labor fee.
I have NOTHING against new technology if it ADVANCES the artform and all you have to do is read this forum to know that the majority of techies here feel exactly the same. But I WILL wring my hands as you say if a technology is being rammed down our throats that takes us steps BACKWARD instead of forewood. I have said many times before, I don't care if it's a hydrogen plazma fire that lights a modulated lithium substrate of bioprobes if it will give me an image on the screen that is as good or even better than 70mm Todd-AO like I experienced when I was a kid, and that new technology will give me the ability to past that cinematic heritage down to the next generation of audiences. But don't hand me a video display that can't even get me an image as good as the best 35mm and tell me it is good enuf and expect me not to protest.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 02-22-2006 06:15 AM
A first move needs to be done by a company like Kodak. Mr Pytlak could come with loads of ideas here.
1) A company like Kodak should approach film studios with a package deal for 65mm negative for a fixed number of films and a fixed numbers of years. This should certainly be attractive for studios in the sense that they would not need to spend much more money and also interesting for Kodak, they should not lose money either (perhaps not to earn as much). This should also be offered with information of the advantages of 65mm, like for instance, as being future-proof, and excellent as well for future home-cinema systems (as you all know home cinema is a very important business for film producers nowadays). The advantage for Kodak could be that this could help to establish 65mm as the new standard and preserve the use of film negative as a medium for the future (for some years at least!).
2) If an agreement with studios is reached (it should be an important number of films and studios and a minimum of, let’s say, five years or so), then the next step would be to contact exhibitors to promote the use of a premium system. It would be important to establish quality certificate for image and sound.
3) It would be interesting as well to approach DTS and find out about their ideas.
I think that an affordable deal from both the film-stock producers and the studious would be the first important step. If this is reached I doubt very much distributors and exhibitors would miss the opportunity to show a premium product in their main screens.
A lot of marketing is needed. We live in a marketing orientated society. The majority of the times this marketing is used to sell worthless things, in this case the product is sensational and so marketing should not be that difficult.
quote: Frank Angel
No one has ever described to my satisfaction, how do these nanomirror modules age? They conveniently skip right over that part. Exactly what happens to these DLP modules which being pumped with 7K lamps with no shutters day in and day out? That is alot of light energy, even for the heartiest of man-made materials. But what do these things look like 2, 3, 5 years down the road? Do these nano-mirrors permanently wink out or stay on? Do you get color dots all over the screen of either a steady spec of light "on" or a black dot when they have stopped functioning in the "off" position?
This is so true. I thought about it myself, how about the repair and parts replacement cost? How about backup projectors? How many screens have got backup digital projectors? If the mirrors or any other components break, what are they going to show? I think it is easier to diagnose a problem with a film projector than it is with a digital projector. And also, will they care to replace the broken mirrors, or wait until there are enough broken ones to service the machine? And yes, the black spots due to faulty mirrors will be consistently there throughout all the screenings, consistently bad!!! I have read reports of sound being out of synch in some shows showing digital.
In the past, any new technological innovation, like colour, scope, 70mm, stereophonic sound, … were prominently advertised. Digital is not prominently advertised, actually some cinemas show digital without mentioning it. They know there is nothing to boast about it. They know it is not going to bring more people to the cinemas. I think they are going to be happy if people do not notice the loss in quality presentation.
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 02-22-2006 07:07 AM
quote:
A company like Kodak should approach film studios with a package deal for 65mm negative for a fixed number of films and a fixed numbers of years. This should certainly be attractive for studios in the sense that they would not need to spend much more money and also interesting for Kodak, they should not lose money either (perhaps not to earn as much). This should also be offered with information of the advantages of 65mm, like for instance, as being future-proof, and excellent as well for future home-cinema systems (as you all know home cinema is a very important business for film producers nowadays). The advantage for Kodak could be that this could help to establish 65mm as the new standard and preserve the use of film negative as a medium for the future (for some years at least!).
I'm not privy to the details, but as mentioned before, Kodak has offered incentives to encourage 65mm production and 70mm releases.
More importantly, Kodak continues to invest many millions of dollars annually in making further improvements to FILM production. In the last few years, Kodak has introduced SEVEN new VISION2 Color Negative films, that made significant improvements in the sharpness, grain, color, and tone scale of motion picture film production. And additional new motion-picture films are on the way soon:
KODAK VISION2 Color Negative Films
quote:
Here's the spectral sensitivity and technology to widen your palette of expression. KODAK VISION and VISION2 Color Negative Films deliver excellent grain and sharpness and true speed ratios. You'll find flexibility and long latitude so you can work efficiently without losing the detail or richness of color. And you can depend on Kodak to deliver exacting results.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 02-22-2006 09:11 AM
quote: David Stambaugh
Saw it in 2K DLP. Looked very good. You can see my technical comments in the Film Handlers Forum.
This quote was from me. For Completeness, here are my comments from the other thread.
quote:
Today I saw Narnia in 2K DLP (Auditorium 17, AMC Pleasure Island). Screen was roughly 32 feet wide (scope) and I was roughly 30 feet back). Here are my comments and I have a question.
The last thing I saw in DLP was Star Wars: EP II in 1.3K DLP. The improvement in picture quality from 1.3K to 2K was unbelievable. 1.3K DLP looked OK but I could easily see the pixel grid and the image wasn't very sharp (obviously the source had a little to do with this but the trailers were the same at the time). Average 35mm projection was clearly better than 1.3K DLP.
2K DLP looked 100 times better than 1.3K. Most of the time it looked much better than average multiplex 35mm. The contrast and colors looked great. Picture detail was very good (much sharper than 1.3K). There were a few "jaggies" on certain size and font text but it was much less noticeable than it was on 1.3K. The only time I noticed any type of grid effect was either on a bright background made of mostly one color or sometimes when a bright object would move around in a dark scene, I could see a "screen" on the bright object. When I did see a screen effect, it was different than the 1.3K. On 1.3K it looked like a pixel grid. Here it looked more like a piece of very thin scrim in front of the image.
Strangely the biggest "artifact" was due to the curved screen. Since there is no aperture plate to cut, the image did not go all the way to the masking as you got towards the edge of the screen.
quote: Bobby Henderson
One can bring up the fact HD-DVD and Blu-Ray content will be heavily data compressed. But the D-Cinema shows won't?
While there is no guarantee against over compression of D-cinema content, the DCI specifies use of JPEG2000. With JPEG2000 there is no motion based, inter-frame compression. Each frame is compressed as if it was a still. This should at least guarantee that there won't be any motion artifacts. Of course you can still get other types of artifacts if you compress each frame too much.
[ 02-22-2006, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Lyle Romer ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 02-22-2006 11:06 AM
quote: John Pytlak
I'm not privy to the details, but as mentioned before, Kodak has offered incentives to encourage 65mm production and 70mm releases.
Do you know why studios have not accepted those incentives? Could the incentives be improved? And most importantly, how much improvement could 65mm negative compared to 35mm negative bring to filmmaking? Maybe I am asking too much, but this forum is also for action, isn’t it? Also, do you know the opinion directors of photography have on 65mm negative? The bottom line is the money, isn’t there? Is there a huge difference between 35mm and 65mm in economic terms? Would 65mm be cheaper if there was a bigger demand? So many questions… sorry!
quote:
2K DLP looked 100 times better than 1.3K. Most of the time it looked much better than average multiplex 35mm
This seems to imply that 2K DLP does not look better or looks the same as properly projected 35mm. Since you have seen a good example of 2K DLP, how do you think it compares to 5/70mm originated on 65mm please?
Also, every time I go to a home cinema shop/department I notice an important difference in colour and contrast between the different hardware on exhibition. I suppose this is due to the different settings but it could also be due to the different hardware. Is this likely to happen as well with DLP for cinema use? Is there a standard on how to set the projectors as to avoid showing the same film with different colour and/or contrast, do the different brands of hardware offer exactly the same image or there are differences?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-22-2006 11:09 AM
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
It would be interesting as well to approach DTS and find out about their ideas.
DTS has done everything they need to do. And that's been a lot more than Dolby or Sony over the last 15 years.
DTS has timecode readers for 35mm and 70mm film gauges. It's been a long time since I have seen the prices on the readers, but the last time I saw a list the 35mm time code readers cost around $800 and the 70mm versions cost $1300. That's not bad.
The 70mm DTS time code reader can be attached to DTS-6D, DTS-6AD, DTS-6SV and DTS-XD10 players. There are ways to modify an old DTS-6 unit to also accomodate the DTS 70mm time code reader.
Further, with the use of the DTS XD10 the quality of audio channels and number of discrete audio channels can be upped. So far, very few movie productions have taken any advantage of this. It seems that 5.1 is also "good enough."
Those who want surround layouts of 8, 10 or more channels and at higher audio resolutions and less audio compression are having to wait until all this hype over D-Cinema passes. Of course, once most commercial theaters are converted over to video projection there will be little need for any new and improved DTS, Dolby Digital or SDDS processors. You'll just have the 5.1 channel LPCM 20-bit audio track going along with the video stream and that will be all you're going to get.
Perhaps from that standpoint a company like DTS should be doing more to promote quality film presentation. But I have a feeling they're making a lot more money from home theater technology licensing. So in the end there is a possibility they may not care if their theatrical market dries up in the wake of the video conversion in commercial theaters.
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
A lot of marketing is needed. We live in a marketing orientated society. The majority of the times this marketing is used to sell worthless things, in this case the product is sensational and so marketing should not be that difficult.
The public has responded well to previous 70mm marketing efforts. The big 70mm logos for stack ads used in the 1980s were pretty cool.
However, the real problem is the mindset amongst film distributors. They feel the audience is going to show up for the movie regardless of whatever format is used. I'm sure there are some who feel they could get away with showing mere DVD 480p video quality in theaters if that was the only choice given to audiences.
I think the only reason why any studios are agreeing to release IMAX versions of movies is because such theaters typically charge a higher ticket price. So the studios think they're making more money. Unfortunately, that may be the only way how things like 5/70 film prints can make their way back into service -by way of large luxury theaters who charge a higher price for admission.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic