Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: I'm curious to know why many on Film-Tech seem to be so negative on digital cinema

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » I'm curious to know why many on Film-Tech seem to be so negative on digital cinema (Page 4)

This topic comprises 18 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 16 17 18

Author

Topic: I'm curious to know why many on Film-Tech seem to be so negative on digital cinema

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 07-27-2008 06:05 PM

quote: David Zylstra
We've been doing digital for over 2 1/2 years, we have not gotten a 35mm backup for over 2 of those years. Most companies using AccessIT have done a direct 35mm to digital swap(depending on the company there may be a few 35mm units kept for each building).

Not sure how other theater chains handle it, but most Carmike first run locations with digital projection on all screens have digital as the only kind of projection available for most of the auditoriums on site.

The Carmike 8 here in Lawton has 8 Christie digital projectors. Two of the 8 auditoriums also have the original 35mm projectors intact. The other 6 have the 35mm units pulled out of service. Even on the booths that have both 35mm and digital there's never any 35mm backup print playing. About the only time our local Carmike 8 gets a 35mm print anymore is when a certain movie has no JPEG2000 version on hard disc. And that's almost never these days.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

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

posted 07-27-2008 07:04 PM

The Regal 15 here (new-build in 2007) has just 1 digital screen (NEC 2K with Real-D). It's a dual setup with 35mm. They do not run 35mm as a backup to digital.

Cinemark 17 also has just 1 digital screen (also Real-D), and I'm pretty sure there's no 35mm at all.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 07-27-2008 07:41 PM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I have yet to see a 4K presentation that I thought looked as good as todays better 2K presentations look. Light levels and color are still not up to par on the Sony 4K projectors that I've seen content projected.

That is an indictment of the 4k projectors that are out there not 4k as a resolution. I guarantee you that if TI put out a 4k version of the same DLP chips, the 4k would look significantly better than the 2k. The problem is that the only 4k out there is crappy LCOS stuff that has brightness, color and other issues. Unfortunately, DLP doesn't seem very scaleable so they can't just make a 2.4 inch or 1.96 inch, 4k DLP chip. If they could, it would look fantastic and be very light efficient since it would have 4x the surface area for reflection.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-28-2008 08:26 AM

Lyle,

What you say is purely assumption just like another member's prediction of TI pulling the plug on DLP all together. He may be interested to know that many at TI laugh at his remarks here on F-T. There is certainly no data to back up your claim nor will TI in the near future be making any 4K dmd's. I will however agree that 4K as an origination format has some merit. Files I've played back that originated in 4K or were scanned at 4K actually look much better projected at 2K then the same file scanned and projected at 2K. Interestingly many large format films have been scanned at 8K! For now the 2K projection format is going to be the defacto standard mainly because it can be economically produced as can 4K sensors for origination equipment... 4K or some other possibly laser based projector will more then likely happen but probably not in any quantity in my lifetime.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-28-2008 08:43 AM

Did anyone else get a good laugh out of the article in the latest issue of Boxoffice magazine that talked about how great 1.3k DLP is and how its use should be allowed under the DCI spec?

Points not yet mentioned in this thread (at last as far as I can see): there is no SMPTE spec for [dlp]

yet and DCI is only an outline. Things may change. Also, when the current generation of DLP projectors and servers becomes obsolete, who will pay for the next generation of equipment? Will that be subsidized, too? Or will exhibitors be responsible for buying expensive equipment every 5-7 years?

Otherwise, I'm 100% with Steve on this issue: I'm not anti-digital because it's digital, but rather I'm anti-digital because it's more expensive than 35mm and because the quality of the current generation of equipment is demonstrably worse than what it is supposed to replace.

And I say this as one who only works in the motion-picture business as a hobby and who probably gets paid more to show HD and SD video (not even JPEG2000) at festivals than to show 35mm.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

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

posted 07-28-2008 08:53 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
The notion that a film print will somehow show more detail, contrast or color depth of a 2K digital source than 2K digital projection could manage doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Are you suggesting that a DLP setup can achieve the blacker-than-black that's possible with Vision Premier film stock? Just because it's a 2K source doesn't mean a 2K digital projection setup is just as capable of reproducing that source as a film projection setup is and at the same quality level.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 07-28-2008 10:43 AM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
What you say is purely assumption just like another member's prediction of TI pulling the plug on DLP all together. He may be interested to know that many at TI laugh at his remarks here on F-T. There is certainly no data to back up your claim nor will TI in the near future be making any 4K dmd's.

It is not an assumption. It is scientific fact. There is a given distance in screen heights where the eye can not longer percieve individual pixels of a given resolution. I don't have the formula in front of me but I think for 2k it is about 3 screen heights. If you double the number of pixels across the screen, you half this distance. i.e. if closer than 3 screen heights the eye can percieve pixels at 2k resolution than at 4k resolution they eye won't percieve pixels until 1.5 screen heights.

That means that if all other factors are the same (as they would be if DLP was simply "scaled up") people sitting between 1.5 and 3 screen heights would see an improved picture.

And this analysis leaves out the fact that 2k must anti-alias things that 4k could display just fine. That holds for people sitting anywhere. No matter how far back you get from an NTSC TV, you can see something wrong when a "checkerboard pattern" suit jacket is aliasing and making all kinds of weird effects.

There are pros and cons of 2k DLP vs. Film. Niether is better than the other for all seats and all cases. But.... 35mm film projection of a movie that was processed optically or with a 4k or better DI, when projected on good, well-maintained equipment with a projectionist "doing film right" will always look better than 2k DLP under the same operational conditions.

Now 2k DLP will probably look better most of the time in a 30 plex with projectors run and maintained by high school kids.

| IP: Logged

Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 07-28-2008 12:00 PM

I think upfront costs, long-term costs for maintenance and/or repair, labor, and maintenance issues (who is doing the maintenance) are all valid concerns, especially for the crowd that frequents Film-Tech. These are real issues that many here deal with on a regular basis.

However, the problem comes in when the fanatical/religious/extreme/emotional comments get made about either film or digital.

To hear some talk of film, it's like an old lover that they couldn't bear to be without, and nothing else will ever compare. To hear some talk of digital, it's like a hot new starlet that can't do anything wrong. The more level-headed can see advantages and disadvantages to both and be able to discuss the issues without letting emotion get in the way. But emotion is what drives every online forum, so it's unavoidable, I guess.

Since I'm not a projectionist nor a theater owner, but rather a publisher of a web site geared primarily to movie-goers, and a movie-goer myself, I take the stance of advocating for the people that walk in the doors of most of the people here. The people that pay for admissions ($13.50 for The Dark Knight in IMAX! [Eek!]

). The people that buy concessions for prices that make gasoline cheap by comparison. The people that, without which, movie theaters would not exist.

I think it's an important perspective to have, and recognizing the difference between the perspective of the movie-going public and the perspective of theater owners, techs, etc. is equally important.

Customers want to be excited about the product they are purchasing, because it helps them to feel that they are getting their money's worth. Movie-goers want an enjoyable experience, and they deserve the best possible presentation.

For those theaters that are delivering that with film, good for you!

The sad fact is that I hear many comments to the contrary, which is held up by my personal experiences as well.

If digital cinema can make it easier for a movie theater to deliver an excellent presentation, then it has to be worthy of consideration. I'm not talking about the difference between contrast ratios or even color space differences. Most theaters have their lights up so high so that people won't take a nose dive in a theater that's too dark, that contrast is a thing of the past -- film or digital. Color space is almost impossible for the untrained eye to spot, much like the difference between the digital sound formats.

The biggest thing that customers are going to notice are flaws. Scratches, dropouts, jump, weave, etc.

I am certain that a well-run movie theater with dedicated staff to make sure that every presentation is spot-on and that all the equipment is adjusted just perfectly on a regular basis. However, I think this is an ideal situation that doesn't match the reality of a majority of movie theaters. So that means that customers of a majority of movie theaters are not getting the presentation they paid for.

I do believe that film has the potential to blow digital out of the water when both are at their best. But in reality, I think that digital is going to provide the majority of movie-goers with a better presentation in a larger number of cases.

Many here tend to care about their jobs and always want to do better and provide the best product possible. But how many theaters are represented by the membership here? Maybe 200 out of thousands?

In some cases, it can be boiled down to something a lot simpler. Fear. Fear about what new technologies and new equipment means. Fear about losing your job. Fear about things costing more money and how that's going to impact business.

Fear is the emotion that drives the many of the comments the original poster is referring to.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-28-2008 12:33 PM

Many of us here put on an above-average presentation and don't want our presentation quality to suffer in the name of "improving average presentation quality." Just because some venues don't know how to run film is not a good reason to say that film is no good and almost-as-good-as-35mm-film 2k DLP should take its place. Not that DLP doesn't have maintenance issues, too.

| IP: Logged

Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Master Film Handler

Posts: 405
From: Canton, MI, USA
Registered: Oct 2007

posted 07-28-2008 12:38 PM

Scott, you are pretty much exactly correct. Each theater needs to look at their presentations, and ask the question: Will digital be an improvement, or will it drag us down? Of course, most theaters who need digital are not going to look at it this way, and most decision makers for larger companies aren't necessarily going to have the expertise to answer that question. Ask me how I know.

But when you do get into digital, you see that the manufacturers, at least the ones I'm dealing with, are proprietary and unhelpful. They came and installed this thing, told us how to press the "Play" button, and left. They haven't been back since, and several calls to their 24 hour support number about an exhaust issue went unanswered. I've had a few other issues too, all of which lead me to conclude that I and my customers are better served by film, but that isn't a decision I get to make.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 07-28-2008 02:24 PM

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Are you suggesting that a DLP setup can achieve the blacker-than-black that's possible with Vision Premier film stock?

No. I'm saying that film stock is only going to do so well on reproducing the overall digital sourced image, an image that's already starting out with some obvious limits.

Any 35mm release print is going at least be a high speed duplication of something printed out of a laser film recorder, which uses a subtractive-based color model in printing BTW. The actual release print may even be a dupe of a dupe. Generational loss is certainly a factor, and when the source image is only 2K, I think that's a bit troubling. A 2K digital projector isn't subject to the same issues of generational loss. Its biggest potential hangup is how well the JPEG2000 files are encoded.

A DLP projector may not be able to achieve the same black levels as a good film-based setup. However, being RGB-based, a digital projector boasts a significantly higher gamma range. It can show more brilliant levels of color. Film-source imagery usually doesn't demand that. But video certainly can, provided any of those "digital filmmakers" out there have the balls to allow the video they shoot to remain looking like video instead of pretentiously trashing it with film imitation filters or crude photo-chemical film printing steps.

| IP: Logged

Andy Frodsham
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 238
From: Stoke on Trent, Staffs, UK
Registered: Nov 2006

posted 07-28-2008 03:00 PM

I'm also worried by the adverse effect that digital intermediate work is having on standard 35mm print quality. I've noticed a definite decline in picture resolution over the last two years!

It's really re-assuring when we get the odd print which has obviously not been digitally 'nobbled'. It makes you realise what 35mm is capable of.

Also, I don't know if I am in the minority, but I am not over impressed with a lot of the so-called restorations coming our way! I thought the 'Wizard of OZ' restoration was awful! The colours may have been re-vitalised but the picture resolution was terrible. The details on anyone or anything in medium to long shot were barely discernable!

I blame a lot of this on the digital processes involved.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

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

posted 07-28-2008 04:27 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm saying that film stock is only going to do so well on reproducing the overall digital sourced image, an image that's already starting out with some obvious limits.

Agreed, but I'm saying the film stock will do a much better job than a DLP projector will.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-28-2008 06:30 PM

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Are you suggesting that a DLP setup can achieve the blacker-than-black that's possible with Vision Premier film stock? Just because it's a 2K source doesn't mean a 2K digital projection setup is just as capable of reproducing that source as a film projection setup is and at the same quality level.

Well in real life the available contrast ratio of most theaters is actually pretty dismal, mainly due to stray light. So yes the apparent visual contrast range of digital vs. film in the average theater will more than likely appear the same and measure much the same.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Agreed, but I'm saying the film stock will do a much better job than a DLP projector will.

Its because the tilt range of the micro mirrors are limited... in other words they can't tilt far enough to completely cut off the light coming in to them. And then there are those many theaters that are over lamped and burn right through the blacks or as most prints these days appear... the blues or greens or reds of a film print that are supposed to be black so you get the same effect as if watching DLP... assumming a given theater can even display that much contrast range.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

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

posted 07-28-2008 08:12 PM

True. And in real life, the stray light coming from the DLP projector itself adds to the problem. And you're right, some theaters are so piss poorly designed and maintained that they have all sorts of ambient light hitting the screen from all over the place which washes out the contrast of any image... But that is hardly an argument for starting with a system that has inherently LESS contrast to begin with. Especially when you know that your theater is going to make the picture worse.

Our theaters, by the way, do have pretty good contrast range. When the film switches from black 2383 leader to black 2393 leader, you'd think the projector just shut off.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 18 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 16 17 18

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.