|
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Digital: Scope inside Flat?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-13-2010 03:44 AM
The floating screen concept was flawed by its very design. Whereas the whole purpose of masking is, yes, to give a definitive, clean edge to the image, but it also serves to focus the eye on ONLY the image and to obscure the surroundings. It enhances the viewers' focus on the image.
The floating screen does just the opposite - it tries to INCLUDE the environment by letting the surroundings blend into the image. The absurdity of this was demonstrated by the design of either one or both (can't recall) of NYC's once famous "duet" East Side theatres -- the Coronet and Baronet. Whereas if the image were only one size, say scope, the floating screen would create its own hard edge because the perimeter of the image -- the blur edge -- would fall behind the screen on the back wall, much like Drive-In theatre screens. Ah, but what to do about those pesky flat ratios?
For that, evidently the designer simply couldn't live with the idea that the picture in flat would have two ugly blur edges at the left and right sides. His solution was one of the most ingenious I've ever seen and one I have never seen before or since.
There were two fairly inconspicuous rectangle cutouts, about 6in width x 3in depth in the ceiling just above the screen. They were located at the 1.66 and 1.85 positions. Of course this design eschewed the use of masking let alone any screen curtain, so before the film, the front white wall/screen was flooded with moving colored lights. As the lights faded on the scope width screen, to my amazement the first time I saw this, out of the two slots at the top of the screen dropped two lengths of black velour down the sides of the screen to its bottom, effectively forming side masking to hide the image blur edge. So they got the floating screen design but come a flat picture (either 1.85 or 1.66 -- this venue ran lots of foreign and independent films), there was a solution to give it a traditional hard, sharp edge. So you had this scope expanse of screen, a 1.85 or 1.66 image and two black 6 inch strips of masking on either side of the picture. Truly bizarre.
I recall having a strange combination feeling of very distinct dislike for the floating screen design but I admit I was duly impressed with the ingenuity of how to they masked the flat images.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-13-2010 12:20 PM
Elise...you are my subject for this discussion. Fear not, however. This is to be more of a discussion of understanding than preference.
quote: Elise Brandt
I love the digital more because it speaks to me in the way film doesn't. Film is like fire to me, it does what I need it to do when I treat it right, but I am forever nervous with it. With digital, I am mych more comfortable for some reason. I'm of a different generation and I grew up learning computers and whatnot, while the generation of my father (and you, I would dare say) had to learn that from scratch.
I have no problem with the preference for digital...it is all just media to me. However, I do ask that one qualify that they like about something, if possible. Some things are impossible...like one's favorite color. Digital, while getting credit for things it certainly earns...it also seems to get credit for things that is is provably inferior.
I am older than you but have grown up with computers...I've seen them change from either large main-frame things that IBM made and mere curiosities on the consumer front (anyone remember the Altair computers?)...my degree is in electrical engineering with my emphasis on microelectronics and computer architecture (my senior project was a video display board for the PC featuring TI's TMS34020 (VDP). Somewhere, I still have it kicking around. So it is safe to say, I'm comfortable with digital things.
However, I'm puzzled by your comfort comparison of a DCinema system versus a film system. I can understand a "fear" of the film system...a mistake can cause real physical harm, if not to a person but certainly to the media (film) and possibly the equipment too. With digital, mistakes rarely affect subsequent shows/events. I dare say, however, that your understanding of what is going on in the digital domain is FAR less than in the electromechanical world of film.
As an example...same situation:
You have no picture but you do have sound. You can see that the xenon lamp is lit. How well do you really understand both film and digital? With the film system, what is your ability to diagnose what is causing the situation versus the digital counterpart? I dare say, even with your admitted less understanding of the film equipment, you could diagnose and get the show running properly. What would your actions be on digital? You can try and verify that the douser is open...lets say it is but still no picture. Now what? How fast are you onto a phone to ask some magical person "that knows these things?"
By show of hands, how many people here do the Microsoft Repair (aka reboot)? That is something that the later generation folks are indeed accustomed to doing...when things don't work, just reboot. In the electromechanical days, things were just supposed to work. Think about phones, televisions, cars...and yes film projectors. These things were just expected to work and when they broke, they broke in more predictable and easier to diagnose ways. They were also designed to be serviceable. Digital, by and large, is designed to be disposable. A repair is almost always going to be a module change, not a component repair.
quote:
Hmmh, I never heard that. As good as? The way I hear it, it looks Better than film can look, it does. Film looks great, sure, but when you compare it to the digital picture... well, you can't! Film picture might live more, and so be more personal every time, but digital picture is -well- perfect! Sharp, steady image that you can control to a pixel!
Okay...something quantifiable. Digital CAN look better than film, but not in DCinema, as yet. That is, presuming that film is not receiving a digitally degraded source...the dreaded 2K DI. Unfortunately, that is what is happening but that is not a function of film but of a choice to use a poor work flow.
35mm 1.85 has the resolution of roughly 4K digital. 35mm CinemaScope is about 6K...70mm is more than 8K...more or less. Color space and contrast ratio wise, film exceeds digital (regardless of gauge), as a projectable medium.
An odd argument that bring up is that digital is perfect because you can control it to a pixel...well that is precisely why it is imperfect! The world is not a collection of pixels. The fact that pixels interact with the image at all highlights its imperfections (Morie, the nasty breathing credit scroll...etc). With 2K, one gets a hyper compression of the depth of the scene...this will give an aritifical sharp focus because the detail to resolve the spacing between foreground and background is not there. The pixels are indeed sharp so it appears crisp but the detail is actually missing. But hey...there are folks listening to MP3 crap and thinking it is all clean and digital rather than missing the life of the music. As digital resolution increases...and hopefully the editing/intermediate stage also increases, this problem will vanish. One thing I've definitely noted with the 4K demos is this problem greatly diminishing...in fact one could even say there were focus "issues" (part of the problem is a lack of 4K lenses with suitable MTF ratings).
quote: Elise Brandt
Ask about the digital, he just might call me and ask
Okay...so just what do you really know about them? And I mean aside how to start/stop shows and maybe change a lamp. What do you know when something doesn't go right? As you say, anyone can operate properly operating equipment. One thing I've noted is that as things are getting more automated (and monitored), there is even less training at the theatre level to deal with problems.
And when problems develop, depending on the type of failure, a partial re-installation may be required. For instance, I had a projector where the the PCM board went down...projector would no longer boot up...this board holds all of the settings that are specific to this theatre (what each channel/title/macro does, what they call from the TI boards...etc). I did not install this system so I didn't have any "save" file (do you have save files for your various apparatus?)...I had to recreate all of that from scratch...and before the first show (and I was able to do with with nothing more than my laptop...no meters came out and I had it all color calibrated too). Also, the theatre had to go down and wait for the module to arrive since, at this time, very few spares, if any are stored in theatres. I can't remember the last time I had a film theatre go down for 24-hours. Very few things will take a film theatre down like that...blown diode? I and most techs and many theatres keep them. Seized intermittent? Most any reputable service company has either loaner, RX or the parts to get them going...and some theatres keep a spare on site...because even that, the most expensive part, costs less than most ANY part in a Digital system...aside from a fan.
So again, I'm trying to get an understanding of your comfortableness with digital over film...particularly in the business sense. I can dig that working with computers is a common thing and DCinema resemble that model more than film but most of what makes computers work is mysterious to MOST people. Sure there are basic concepts that are understood...but not to the extent that one really understands why it isn't working...it just takes one corrupt thing to bring it down with little to no clue as to what caused its demise. With DCinema...you also have security issues in there to add yet more things to cause it to not work. More often than not, I see people calling "the person(s) that know" to figure out what is going wrong. With film projectors and projection systems...those were often diagnosed in-house or at the service company. I can't remember the last time I called a manufacturer to diagnose a film-equipment problem.
So to sum up...why are your more comfortable with the DCinema equipment over the film equipment? What is your real understanding of the DCinema equipment beyond running the show?
I'm just curious.
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elise Brandt
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 160
From: Kuusankoski, FIN/ Kouvola, Finland
Registered: Dec 2009
|
posted 11-14-2010 07:49 AM
Oh, I am no wiz. And if there were no picture on the screen but just sound, I would definitely (after the obvious culprits had been ruled out) go for the Microsoft cure-it-all ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) of reboot. Simply because it often does solve the problem.
I look at problem-fixing on the run like I look at geography. It's not that you can recite every capital city in the world (although when someone can you envy them a bit) but you know where your maps are. And where my knowledge and experience ends, I do find my phone fast enough. And after that, I come here asking for advice.
A bit of something that might make you understand why the great resolution of film doesn't seem that obvious to me: our screens are, in your scale, very very small. Our biggest auditorium is only 136 seats, the screen maybe 30 feet wide, (scope) so 2K versus 4K would mean nothing. So what we see with film versus digital is hugely in the favour of digital, because of the crispness. The audience (ro me) doesn't see any lack of detail (never even thought there was such a thing!) but simply, the perfectly sharp picture. There is one thing; subtitles. With film, getting both the picture and subtitles equally sharp is damn near impossible. And we have subtitles in the vast majority of movies we show, so it is a big thing. That whole problem goes away with digital. Again, a thing that might not mean much in your end but makes a huge difference with us.
I am obviously clashing with opinions here because there are many industry people for whom the scales go the other way not just for unexplained preference but because film works better in their setting. Sure I can believe that. But don't tell me that film has life and digital is cold and lacks personality machines are machines as I said, and we each respond to them by what we already like, what feels the most natural for us.
There is the issua of "what if a new part is needed?" Well, again, I do have the advantage of a small country, and knowing that spare parts are, if really needed, only a few hours away. And during the time we've been running digital, no such urgent issues have come up. The only cancelled shows were because of human error that could easily have been avoided if there weren't humans working here not due to someone not knowing their job, but just a momentary lapse that happens to everyone at some point.
As to my own knowhow, it's difficult to answer. I can deal with most of anything as long as the hardware is intact. I think that my affection for this technology can be summed up in the thought that were something to go wrong, I can explore. I can't break anything or do irrepairable damage by searching, trying out solutions, pushing a few buttons and tapping the touch-screen. I can build a macro if one is needed, from scratch or with a base to start and tell if there's anything wrong with the existing one. There's the whole web out there to suggest solutions (I found this forum by googling for something or other that I needed to fix, what the heck it was I can't remember), manufacturers' sites, troubleshooting sheets... somehow it seems that running film is an arcane art that you can only learn by doing (no official training here, you literally cannot get training other than get yourself hired in a theater) but when it's digital, there's a whole world of knowledge out there that you can turn to. I love the openness. Obviously there are film experts here but so far it's the only place I have found this, and I haven't been here nearly long enough.
I think you can tell my level of expertise here by knowing that I easily try the reboot, and I ask for advice very readily. I don't believe in cramming the capital cities in my head week after week, but rather getting my phone to update the maps automatically. In my own opinion, I don't know much but I'm still regularly amazed at what I do know.
I am no mechanic, and no engineer and I do have the luxury of calling for one. I love that I know how to fix problems but I do know there is a wealth of problems that I don't know anything about, mainly because I've never had to encounter them.
Hopefully you and everyone who reads of my love affair with the new projectors will know that I am in no way saying this should be the case for everyone. It's a subjective truth that I share born of the everyday work that I do in this theater, what works for us and what works for me. But I do feel a bit of a sting when someone tells me that if I just get a little experience "under my belt" I will change my mind... kinda reminds me of a guy I used to date fifteen years ago that liked different kind of music than I did and told me I'd "grow out of it", meaning growing out of my personal preference. Needless to say, I didn't. Personal preferences do evolve, mine have gone from film to digital for my own reasons in the past two-three years and who knows what they will be in the next 15.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover
Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 11-14-2010 01:47 PM
quote: Elise Brandt
A bit of something that might make you understand why the great resolution of film doesn't seem that obvious to me: our screens are, in your scale, very very small. Our biggest auditorium is only 136 seats, the screen maybe 30 feet wide, (scope) so 2K versus 4K would mean nothing. So what we see with film versus digital is hugely in the favour of digital, because of the crispness. The audience (ro me) doesn't see any lack of detail (never even thought there was such a thing!) but simply, the perfectly sharp picture. There is one thing; subtitles. With film, getting both the picture and subtitles equally sharp is damn near impossible. And we have subtitles in the vast majority of movies we show, so it is a big thing. That whole problem goes away with digital. Again, a thing that might not mean much in your end but makes a huge difference with us.
I am with you on this Elise. From what I have seen, digital does indeed to look sharper, clearer and better IMO. The sharpness and clarity is what impresses me.
Also, I like the fact that whenever I go into a digital movie, the presentation is identical to the first time it was shown.
quote: Elise Brandt
2K versus 4K would mean nothing
I don't think most films are 4K by the time they hit the screen. More like 1.5k from what I have heard.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-14-2010 02:11 PM
quote: Elise Brandt
A bit of something that might make you understand why the great resolution of film doesn't seem that obvious to me: our screens are, in your scale, very very small. Our biggest auditorium is only 136 seats, the screen maybe 30 feet wide, (scope) so 2K versus 4K would mean nothing.
This one is disturbing...in most rooms where the screen is even over 20-feet wide, you will see a notable difference between 2 and 4K in resolution. Your statement of "mean nothing" is a relative thing but clearly not accurate.
quote:
The audience (ro [sic] me) doesn't see any lack of detail (never even thought there was such a thing!) but simply, the perfectly sharp picture
Well no...you won't see what simply isn't there! That is, the 2K grid simply eliminated detail. It shows up as a depth compression though...which tends to make it look sharper...kind of like adding noise to an analog signal to "sharpen" it. It creates well defined edges If you have an HD camera...try videoing some tightly spaced lines...there will come a point where they don't look like lines anymore but they will look like a nice sharp rectangle. The detail of the lines merely vanishes.
quote: Elise Brandt
With film, getting both the picture and subtitles equally sharp is damn near impossible.
Clearly an advantage of digital...particularly with etched subtitles.
quote: Elise Brandt
But don't tell me that film has life and digital is cold and lacks personality
That wasn't me but you will find that those that feel that film is alive refer to the film itself...not the equipment itself. Clearly, digital has as many, if not more, possessed equipment than film!
quote: Elise Brandt
I do have the advantage of a small country, and knowing that spare parts are, if really needed, only a few hours away.
Really? Only a few hours for any part? That is indeed nice and not something I've experience here, yet. If things settle down a bit more (not too likely on cutting edge technology any time soon) then I can see the day when indeed spares are kept somewhat near by. But with short service lives and high costs...it is tough to put thousands of $$$$ on the shelf to wait for the day it is needed.
Watch out for the WEB as a source of information...I've found that about 80% of it is bad "information." I have not found that much information on DCinema on the WEB that is useful though some manufacturers do a better job than others, for sure. Based on your description, you have Barcos (or maybe Barco variant like Kinoton) and they have done a pretty good job at keeping things up to day and providing "Info-Ts" for known problems.
There is plenty of info on the WEB about film equipment too...including this site...there is a whole "manuals" section that continues to grow to aid in your "maps."
quote:
I ask for advice very readily. I don't believe in cramming the capital cities in my head week after wee
That is great if you have someone out there you can always depend on dispensing free advice whenever YOU need it. There are times when you may need to be resourceful on your own. You may not need to "cram" the names of the cities but it is good to have been exposed to them at least a bit so when you need to deal with them, you have a basis to work from. Your model is likely why most computer based companies (including software) have gone to a "pay as you go" system of tech support. If you have to answer questions for EVERYBODY because they don't know their system, it can consume considerable resources.
And I would never try to change your mind about film vs digital...but I would point out to you or others if plain inaccuracies are being spouted as fact. Digital is not the "dark side" so to speak. However it is not, at this time, the great thing that some seem to profess it is. I don't get excited about a technology that offers less quality and costs more doing it. That is what digital currently offers but that is starting to change. We are just seeing the capability for digital to deliver a resolution that is similar to the 35mm pictures we currently have. We don't have digital intermediates coming out in any quantity that are delivering on that promise...kinda like film...the stupid 2K DI is the weak link...as are the sloppy printing methods that artificially degrade the 35mm film experience.
I still service 1.3K "DCinema" projectors...and THEY were touted as being good enough to replace 35mm film and THEY had all of the same arguments that you have presented (They too had uniform focus between subtitles and image)...with them you see an even greater depth compression. The problem being that as the image gets larger, the grid like nature was even more pronounced than the 2K projectors of today. The notion that 4K is only for large screens is one of belief that if you can't resolve the individual pixel from your seat, then the pixel is small enough...when in fact, if your eye (or the camera) can't retain the depth of the image then you still don't have enough resolution.
Saying a 2K digital image is "perfect" is like saying a high-compression MP3 audio track is "perfect" because it doesn't have pops and clicks. It is nonsense...in both situations, you are missing part of the source because that information is merely thrown away.
I do encourage you to keep your mind open and try to see a 4K presentation somewhere when they come out (I mean with 4K source material) or even 70mm...it might open your eyes to what you have been missing and never knew about. It won't make your 2K presentations any worse but it might set your "desirable" bar higher. If you want to see something truly amazing, try to see a ShowScan movie...70mm at 60fps...it is 3D without the glasses. And then ask yourself if the current 2K DCinema equipment can deliver that image...if it can't it isn't "perfect," yet (and neither is ShowScan but it is a LOT closer...even if you saw it on a small 20-foot wide screen).
Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't like what you like. I am a bit surprised at your confidence in others to solve your problems (keep those city names stored)...to me...it is like jumping into the Ocean and not knowing when the next boat is coming by to take me out. The non-shalant ... just reboot it thing does bother me (not from you...but from the generation) because that does not really "fix" what is broken...it ends the symptom of what is broken...the system that required rebooting. When was the last time you had to reboot a phone? Well maybe one of those damn digital cell phones! Or reboot a TV...particularly an analog one? And rebooting takes precious time with no guarantee or even promise that the thing you rebooted will fix the problem! Some of these things take darn near 10-mintues to reboot! That sort of "comfortableness" is what I don't get. I grew up with the thought that the "show must go on." To that end there have always been multiple ways of getting things to work...spares, bypass, AC-Emergency, plug in modules....with DCinema, in its present state...seems to need EVERYTHING working just right...with the exception of the players/servers...they, at least seem to have some back-up in them with the RAID arrays.
-Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover
Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 11-14-2010 05:15 PM
quote: Steve Guttag
Because of her stance that the image (2K) was "perfect" as it is. 70mm, at this point in time, is the closest we have to perfection, of any format, digital or film (for theatrical presentation). When one sets goals, it is best to see what the desirable point is, even if one can't attain it (easily or otherwise). It would end the absurd statement that a 2K digital picture is in any way "perfect." 2K is a very lossy representation of most any live source. 70mm is also lossy but it is far less so. 70mm also removes MOST negative comments about film presentations (image movement and uniform focus). Yes, dirt and abrasions can and do plague 70mm film but they are magnified much less. And it is a simple fact that film CAN be run blemish free for an almost limitless number of runs. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with film.
From what I am reading, she is claiming that digital is the perfect way to go and see a movie right now and I agree with her. No worries of dirt, scratches, focus issues, etc. Also, I have yet to see 35mm be crisp and clear as digital.
Her comments having nothiing to do with 70mm. Her comments are based on 35mm vs 2k/4k
35mm and 2k are comparable are they not? I mean both formats are usually using 2k DI right?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
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
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic