|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Will 4K be the next 70mm?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 03-20-2011 01:21 PM
From the dcinematoday article:
quote:
The split-screen demonstration was revealing, accentuating the anomalies of film-based projection such as noticeable vibration and dirt, effectively lowering the perceived resolution of the image, while the digital version featured excellent color depth, a cleaner picture, and greater image stability.
These negative characteristics of almost all film presentations that I see in theaters are what make "film as projected" not as good as "digital as projected." Those film presentations are all 35mm, as I haven't seen a 70mm presentation in so many years, I don't even remember when or what it was anymore.
When you're used to a rock-solid image coming from a digital projector, jump and weave really ruin a film presentation.
I found it interesting that not only was the 4K digital presentation better because of the lack of "vibration" and dirt, they also gave it high marks for color depth. I would think that would be one place where 70mm should smoke digital cinema, if anywhere.
I would have been very concerned about throwing an 80 foot wide image with a digital projector, based on what people have said on this site, but that doesn't seem to have been a problem. If I did my math right, throwing 33,000 lumens at a 3459 sq. ft (80 * 43.24 ft) screen with a gain of 1.0 would result in 29.97 foot lamberts, which I would think would be quite enough to illuminate the screen satisfactorily.
Here's the link for the projector they used:
http://www.barco.com/en/digitalcinema/product/2310/specs
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeffry L. Johnson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 809
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 03-21-2011 02:16 PM
Howard Hall: Galveston Digital Symposium
quote:
New Technology Report from DCS Advisory Board Member, Howard Hall:
Galveston Digital Symposium
The following observations on 2K, 4K, and 3D Large Screen Digital
Projection are a DCS member content contribution from Howard Hall, the
noted Underwater Filmmaker/Cinematographer/Photographer and Author
after attending last month?s Galveston Digital Symposium:
On January 24 I joined 127 other Giant Screen professionals at the
Moody Gardens Theater to see the debut of the Barco 4K 3D projector
system and to view a split screen 4K projection versus IMAX 70mm
projection comparison. The Moody Gardens giant screen is 72 feet by 53
feet.
During the two-day event we saw only digital projections (aside from
the 4K versus 70mm ?shootout?). Most of the films were projected in 2K
on the Barco 4K capable projectors. The 2K projections were shown via
both single and two projector systems demonstrating a variety of
glasses including Dolby, active, circular polarized, and linear
polarized glasses.
I learned little from the 2K projections other than the differences in
glasses technologies. I was very surprised at how effective the Dolby
notched filter anaglyph glasses were. These totally occluded the
opposite eye allowing no ghosting. This combined with the ability to
work with any screen surface made this a compelling choice. Glasses
cost about $10. The available Dolby glasses are too small for giant
screen viewing however. I am sure there is some color shift present
when using the Dolby system, but if so I didn?t notice it.
The linear polarized glasses produced the most ghosting which was made
more significant when tilting one?s head to the side. Circular
polarized glasses were better. Both had more ghosting than Dolby. The
active shutter glasses may have produced the best image, but were
darker than the others. Active glasses have other well-known
maintenance disadvantages when used in commercial venues. Both Dolby
and circular polarized systems can be used on single projector system
via a spinning filter wheel. They can be used on duel projector
systems via discrete filters.
The 2K projections produced a significantly degraded giant screen
experience. Although there was no direct comparison with 70mm, the
difference was obvious and visceral.
The 4K projections were another story. We saw a RED Cinema demo reel
that was stunning. My impression was that it looked as sharp as any
70mm projection. The image ?seemed? to fill the giant screen and had
excellent contrast, resolution, and saturation. It wasn?t until the
lights came back up that I noticed that the top of the screen had not
been used.
The ?shootout? between 70mm and 4K was most interesting. We saw two
clips projected via split screen then we saw the clips projected
alternately. The first 70mm clip from ?Pulse? was printed in the
traditional way via negative, interpositive, and duplicate negative.
The second 70mm clip (from Wild Ocean) was made in the more modern way
via 11K scan from negative, then a 4K down-conversion, then film-out
to 70mm. The digital projections were made via 11K scan and then 4K
down-conversion. The 4K file of Wild Ocean was the file used for the
film-out.
Just comparing the two 70mm clips was enlightening. The ?Pulse? clip
was significantly better than the film-out version of Wild Ocean.
Scanning and film-out of Wild Ocean had been necessary because so many
different formats in addition to 70mm were used in original image
capture (we saw only 70mm original capture examples). Andrew Orin from
FotoKem who made the film prints, estimated that even the ?Pulse? clip
had degraded to between 5.5 and 6K via the printing process (assuming
original camera negative is about 11K).
In my opinion the split screen comparison showed that 4K projection is
equal to or better than 70mm projection in all respects save one. The
digital images appeared as sharp or sharper, they appeared to have
more contrast in addition to equal or better resolution, and the color
saturation and fidelity was equal or better. These differences were
minor and debatable when the two ?Pulse? clips were compared. The
differences were dramatic when Wild Ocean was up.
The only remaining advantage to the 70mm projection was that the 4K
projection was 16x9 and did not fill the vertical axis of the screen.
That the bottom of the 4K screen image was missing was of no
consequence to me since audience heads occlude the 70mm image at the
bottom and to me this may be viewed as a distraction. The top of the
screen is another story however. Some of the experiential effect is
lost with the 4K projection though I confess I did not miss it much.
This was the only disadvantage to 4K digital capture and projection
that I could see and was but one point when scored against the myriad
disadvantages, both financial and logistical, of shooting and
projection in 70mm.
When the audience was asked which image they liked best, the
overwhelming response was that they preferred the digital projection.
As an IMAX 70mm veteran, I found that quite astounding.
I recognize that the 16x9 aspect ratio will be much more problematic
for giant screen dome theaters. Also Moody Gardens has a modestly
sized IMAX screen. Digital light levels may be problematic on the very
largest IMAX giant screens some of which are up to 100 feet wide.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 03-21-2011 07:49 PM
The reason for the 4K source for the film-out version of Wild Ocean is in Howard Hall's report:
quote:
Just comparing the two 70mm clips was enlightening. The "Pulse" clip was significantly better than the film-out version of Wild Ocean. Scanning and film-out of Wild Ocean had been necessary because so many different formats in addition to 70mm were used in original image capture (we saw only 70mm original capture examples). Andrew Orin from FotoKem who made the film prints, estimated that even the "Pulse" clip had degraded to between 5.5 and 6K via the printing process (assuming original camera negative is about 11K).
He does mention that Pulse looked better than Wild Ocean, but it would have been nice if they had just used the 70mm negative as the source for the 70mm film presentation of Wild Ocean.
If one dismisses the observations of the 4K film of Wild Ocean vs. the 4K digital presentation of Wild Ocean, and just focuses on the Pulse clips instead, one could infer from the comments made in the press release and from Howard Hall's report that the 4K presentation of Pulse was still equal to, or better than, the 70mm film presentation of Pulse.
Would that be accurate, or is that a stretch?
I know that in our minds, we can't imagine how this could be true. It's not supposed to work that way. However, maybe this is the start of the empirical evidence that 70mm film isn't all that it's cracked up to be in the face of the newer technology.
We know that there is a difference between the ideal maximum performance of film and the practical real-world performance of film after being printed and projected, so maybe technology has finally caught up to the Grand Dame of theatrical exhibition?
Either that, or people haven't seen enough 70mm to make an accurate comparison between two samples that are very very good, but still somewhat different from each other?
I would think that Howard Hall, being a Cinematographer on a considerable number of IMAX documentaries, would be able to assess what he saw with the sharp eye of experience in the field. Therefore, I am inclined to give his report quite a bit of credence.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-21-2011 07:53 PM
I agree with what you guys are saying about fair comparisons and all.
While the point of these comparisons might very well be to make digital look better than film by any means necessary it is, in a way, a very fair comparison because any "real" film we get nowadays will be off a DI and not a direct (i.e. film-based) descendant of the OCN. So it's arguable that they are, in a very practical sense, comparing apples to apples.
The only way the public will see a true film to digital comparison (OCN versus DI versus DCP) will be if a disinterested party -- or a "film interested" party makes it happen.
But to make it all truly fair and square, I'd like to see the test include real-world presentations of the samples, presented at real theatres and operated by one of their projectionists.
I believe -- based on my observations -- that when digital is installed in a movie theatre, the presentation value goes up. The amount of improvement depends mostly on how good the film presentations were to begin with. A careful film projectionist is likely to put on an even better digital show. I know this is true in my case because, finally, I'm not at the mercy of the quality of my particular print -- especially where a repertory title is concerned.
A mediocre film projectionist, or a cinema with poorly maintained film equipment will be helped even more by digital because the difference in technology removes many of the opportunities for error.
_____________________
BTW -- Upon re-reading this thread, I found this amusing:
10/15/2010:
quote: Tom Petrov
IMHO, 70mm was a gigantic FAIL.
<top of page 4 in this thread>
Especially in light of this thread:
2001: A Space Odyssey (Presented in 70MM)
12/21/2010
quote:
Just what I thought, the screen size is not the difference
I remember an projectionist friend of my saying "70mm has less to do with the screen size, and more to do with what is inside the frame", that was 14 years ago.
and then:
quote:
The only thing I was not happy with on the evening is that there was no buzz or marketing of the evening. Nowhere on the building, marquee, ticket counter did it say 70mm. Even on my ticket it did not say "presented in 70mm"
...and, of course...
70MM ad thread
I feel like an eight year old again -- believing in trolls!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 16 pages: 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
|
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
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
They could have scanned real Todd-AO like CLEOPATRA, THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY or BARAKA (all available in new prints) or some Technirama 8-perf negative stuff. And I don't see why 70mm projection should be unsteady and dirty, unless someone chooses to present it that way. Even 50 year old Todd-AO or Technirama-70 films like THE GOLDEN HEAD or SCENT OF MYSTERY look better than todays's digital projection and many IMAX films.
Printer-friendly view of this topic