|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: I'm curious to know why many on Film-Tech seem to be so negative on digital cinema
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 10-05-2008 05:25 PM
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I feel that someone that goes and points the finger at the 2K projection system itself is off his rocker, sure it's not perfect but it's very definately not all that bad either
It's understandable to take that view Mark - no problem. I should have clarified in the above post that I wasn't criticising the technology on its own terms, but rather was framing my observations in comparison to film.
I think the essence of my comments was that my viewings of 2K DCI-compliant material in the field and essentially at random have not measured up to what I see on 35mm.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
nor did you bother to explore why there was annoying grain and where it actually came from. If you happened to see the movie on a super sized screen and are refering to seeing individual pixels then that is different than grain and you need to properly state what it was you saw.
Remember I based my views on what I saw and formed an opinion from seeing the same phenomenon in 3 different cases. How can I make a conclusion from just 3 cases? The point is these were essentially random, in diverse locations, over a period of time and with different material, all shot on 35mm film. All installs being top-of-the-range, expertly installed and DCI-compliant. So I felt it was legit to make the comments I did.
I never said anything about pixels! If I had perceived a pixel structure / "screen door" effect (and I didn't) I certainly would have said so. I also put the term digital "grain" in inverted commas above, deliberately - to signal this was a term I was using in an attempt to describe best what I saw, and that it was not an official term (if there is one please enlighten me!).
As for screen size, I would have said that in two cases the screens were c. 45ft and in the other was c. 60ft. While I accept 60ft is "super-size", 45ft is surely "mid-size"?
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
you'll find that 2K DC doesn't add any noise of it's own to the image unless there is a serious malfunction of some sort.
I know only too well that digital projection systems do not add any noise to the image - but one is comparing the overall digital process to the film process here. Where DIs are poor, they still don't exhibit the "grain" problem I saw, when transfered to film (at least from my most recent experience watching dozens of prints critically).
Again, all this is within the film v. digital context. In a way, it is most unfair to expect designers and manufacturers of high-resolution digital video systems to ever "match" the look of film. This is why I think the whole "let's get rid of 35mm and replace it with video" philosophy is a misguided folly of the highest order.
Film has a role, digital has a role...the two should be seen as complementary media, not competitors. "Horses for courses" as they say.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 10-09-2008 02:30 PM
Mark Gulbrandsen quote:
I feel that someone that goes and points the finger at the 2K projection system itself is off his rocker, sure it's not perfect but it's very definately not all that bad either
Frank Angel quote:
(digital) has the potential to just stagnate at this point, with technology that doesn't go beyond what film can do, but with technology that hovers around the "good enough" mark. No one stands up and cheers for "good enough" except the guys getting rich off the sales.
"good enough," "not that bad," same mindset.
Plus, you can say the same about someone who points the finger at film itself because there are theatre that don't know how to do film right or even because you can find prints that are made which fall short of the highest potential that the technology is capable of. You can say the same about some film presentation -- sure it's not perfect.
Seems you give a lot more leeway to imperfect digtial presentation than you give to imperfect film presentation. When someone points out flaws in a digital presentation, digital advocates are fast to give excuses why this didn't look right or that wasn't as it should be, they don't conclude that the technology is useless and should be thrown out. Well, likewise you can find imperfect film presentation, and there are reasons why that happens as well; the conclusion shouldn't be to throw out film technology either.
[ 10-10-2008, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: Frank Angel ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 10-11-2008 02:11 PM
The motion picture exhibition industry, which I see as an interrelated but distinct industry from the motion picture production industry in the same way as Home Depot is a interrelated but separate industry from the lumber industry. They are symbiotic but don't necessarily have the same objectives. What is good for one is not necessarily good for the other (short theatrical to video windows, for example).
That said, exhibition for the most part has proven time after time that they are not nearly as interested in image quality on the screen as they are in the higher profit centers of their business -- concessions sales. It's all about where the profits are. If they WERE interested in imporved image quality, they would never have cut costs/salaries in the booth to such an extent that there is a glut of ill-trained splice monkies who are gettting paid less than a living wage and who routinely give us foder for the Hey You Suck thread, now topping a whopping 2 parter with hundreds of examples of the result of this trend.
And as Cameron says, it's depressing how they have not embraced simple, easily implimented solutions that would have significantly improve image quality -- like adopting a Film-Guard regime -- or hell, ANY cleaning system. Their actions over the course of decades seem to prove that they don't consider it to be in their economic interests to get clean images on the screen; we could all challenge this position, but in the end, it's what they practice that matters.
The fact that digital solves the dirt problem isn't why they have seemingly embraced it....they weren't concerned about dirt when it was on film prints -- they didn't all of sudden start wringing their hands saying, "if only we had a technology that would eliminate all that dirt and all that jitter;" they are embracing digital because it will allow them to reduce the booth personnel even more, probably not need anyone up there at all in an all-digital operation. It will allow them to automate even more....even more inexpensively, plus saving on print shipping costs.
It's always been about money, it's never been about what the audiences sees. If investing in a technology that lets them cut out a salary or two per theatre happens to give them the ability to crow about having the newest technology, no jitter, the last show is as good as the first, and all the rest of that press release hype, fine, but that's just icing on the cake for them, not the main reason they will go digital. They will bite the bullet on digital installation because they see it as a way to cut costs. NO businessman makes an investment not anticipating that it will somehow improve his profits. Even if it doesn't bring in more asses to seats, it reduces the exhibitor's house nut. No scratched prints....yah, that' nice, but even if digital came with scratches, if it saves money, they would still buy into it. Will it save them money in the long run, that still remains to be seen, but telling an exhibitor that he doen't need to hire anyone to move prints and make up and break down shows evidently makes his eyes glaze over and his mouth drool. Getting the benefits of FilmGuard only makes him yawn.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 10-24-2008 08:56 PM
We only have one customer that does theatrical releases. Luckily for them, they own all the theaters in town, so there are no competitors nearby.
They have recently expressed interest in digital, of course. We analyzed the situation together and concluded that they would inmediately move all 10 screens to digital if:
-Projectors were 4K. Not that 2K is not "good enough", it's only that consumers devices are also 2K (and even better and bigger within the next 5 years) and equipment this expensive is likely to be changed to 4K sooner rather than later anyway (like i.e. Sony)
-Whole cost was under 50K per screen (projector/servers/RAID). You can argue all you want, but it just doesn't pay off for a small operation. Not to mention that domestic equipment of similar quality for a smaller home enviroment (i.e. an almost 2k 65" TV or an almost 2k 2.000 lumen 1080p projector) is under $3000 nowadays, as it would be comparing pears to apples, right?
-There was more competition in the market (better parts supply, choices, etc). Sony entrance was a good start, but not all that brilliant, as their prices and quality are similar (in spite of the 4K over 2K theoretical advantage). With TI stronghold in the DMD market, there is very little difference in pricing etc with all three NEC, Christie, Barco.
Well, there ARE differences, of course, but they go from "not too impressive and expensive", to "even worse and not that cheaper", to "just as bad and more expensive still".
-There was a 3D system that didn't require royalties and which glasses were 35cent give aways. We would probably make a screen or two dual projection as it stands today, unless Dolby got their reusable glasses to under $6 each (too many glasses losses would be expected in our market).
Needless to say none of those goals are even close to current market conditions. As a result, my customers are not changing anytime soon (neither do I recommend they do) and they are only considering at most making a single screen digital 3D as late in the future as possible (thinking Xmas 2009 at the earliest) for the couple of 3D releases that might be of interest or an occasional digital-only release that might affect our market.
Otherwise, they clearly don't forsee switching to digital for another 5 years, at least.
So it's not that they are "resisting" to become digital, it's just that they feel they are being played by the industry with expensive, obsolete, uncompetitive choices that will lead them to great financial loss.
The industry wants a fast digital rollout? Come out with those 4K $30k projectors you are planning for the year 2011 and see how fast we all change.
Alternatively, have the distributors pay a virtual print fee to EVERYONE that they were previously willing to strike a film copy for all the time for the next 5 years no-questions asked, and see how fast we all change.
But paying through the nose so that a couple of manufacturers can make millions and a couple of distributors can save trillions at the theater's expenses, I don't think makes for a good enviroment to promote exhibitor's change to digital.
| 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
![[sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic