This clipping is from today's paper... the person being interviewed is Rick McCallum, the producer...

>>Apart from the inherent fascination of seeing what Lucas's imagination can conjure up, there will be many watching to see the success of the decision to shoot with high-definition digital cameras instead of the traditional 35mm film.

"We're kind of at an evolutionary step right now in the whole digital world of making films. The thing that's interesting for us is how do we acquire images digitally, because most of our film is digital. For us it's a very important thing because we may have 2,200 to 2,300 shots in the film and they're all digital in one way or another."

McCallum says digital technology makes it an exciting time to be making movies. "Especially if you're young, especially if you're just starting out. You don't have to be a member of the club any more. You can have the total freedom to make your own movie as long as you have a story that's good enough to tell."

The film-makers hope to release Episode II in a number of cinemas with digital projection, presumably delivering it by satellite or disc rather than in the traditional can of film. "The more [digital cinemas] the better. That has to do solely with the audience. Nothing's more painful than spending millions and millions of dollars and a year of your life trying to create a print that is the most perfect print both visually and sound-wise and then have it go to some theatre where it's running practically in the dark and three speakers are out."<<

I'm not exactly sure how Digital Projection will have any effect on getting speakers to all work 100% of the time, but I would say if he thinks three are out with normal projection, then you could easily triple that number with digital 'cos there won't be a projectionist around to give a stuff about minor things like that...but hey, at least they'll be rid of having to fork out that extra wage every week.

For the full interview and story, go to http://www.smh.com.au/news/0005/13/review/review5.html

I love how it's going to be delivered by satellite only two years from now, but never let the truth get in the way of a good story, eh?

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage".
Indiana Jones.

3 blown speakers and low brightness? I bet that when (and if) digital is around for awhile, we will see plenty of unserviced and maintained digital systems. A cheap theater owner is still cheap. The customer will still be the loser.

Long live 35!
 

Looks to me like too many people already have the "total freedom" to make their own movies with stories that are NOT good enough to tell.

Digital projection does not solve problems. It just creates new ones no matter how good it may eventually get. If upper management is not willing to provide high quality presentations, it makes no difference what medium is used.

Assuming equally good technologies (which at the moment is not a valid assumption), it is NOT the technology, it is the people that run it that makes the difference.

Whether is 70mm, 35mm, or digital cinema, if you are not willing to maintain your facilities in the very best condtition, you will suffer the same problems that so many theatres suffer now.

------------------
Oscar Neundorfer
Chief Engineer
SMART Devices, Inc.

oscar@smartdev.com
 

I really liked Lucas when he started THX. It was the first time the "studios" took an interest in the theaters since the breakup in the 1950's.

And it's fine if he wants to try out digital; anyone would have to admit that it's a cool thing. But don't rape the theaters, then bad mouth them.

Here's some Latin for you, George: "penis maximus."
 

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

The newspaper reported: >>You can have the total freedom to make your own movie as long as you have a story that's good enough to tell."<<

This means everything.

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

"And it's fine if he wants to try out digital; anyone would have to admit that it's a cool thing. But don't rape the theaters, then bad mouth them.

Here's some Latin for you, George: "penis maximus."

-----

what's so funny about that? i have a fwiend in Wome named Penis Maximius!

jasoN

------------------
"That's what life is - a series of down endings. All Jedi had was a bunch of muppets." -Dante Hicks
 

Did you all notice how Episode One was never really sharp and you were always thinking you could do better? It was because almost every scene in the film had a digital effect. Whenever an effect such as this is added - pulled off film, digitally enhanced etc and put back ontp film - resolution is lost.

If you shoot Kodak EXR 50 D in scope with Panavision and see a master print - not a 3rd generation release print, the resolution (sharpness) of the image is unbelievable. How can we get this quality on film all the time? Large format?
 

My point? It looks great. Even the matte work lived up to the 70mm challenge (I don't know if they were digital mattes or "traditional." I just assume they had to be mattes because there's no way these guys built real, Mayan-style pyramids in Hawaii just for this movie.) I wish George Lucas could take a ski trip to Salt Lake City and drop in to see that movie for 70 minutes. While it doesn't look as good as Lawrence of Arabia it far exceeds anything I've seen which originated on 35mm... and I can only imagine how it compares to Digital. My faith in film has been re-affirmed (and that's not even the kind of faith this film was trying to influence!). But doesn't it just kill you that the best looking 65mm film was made in 1962? We haven't been able to top that in nearly 40 years! Pathetic!

I imagine those digital cameras they're using for "Episode Two" are a lot more fragile than good, old, proven film cameras. And I don't imagine they'll be risking any underwater shots with their precious, digital cameras. My point? There's some kind of film camera rig available to handle any filming situation you can imagine. I don't know about digital. Is that the reason he'll be doing some 35mm work?

But, David... it's not fair to talk about master prints since nobody gets to see them at the local cinema. It's been said that the computers used to manipulate film images can spit that footage back onto film with no loss of quality. If that's true, then imagine a movie which shot on film and then edited entirely on computers (whether or not there's any CGI work). You could have the equivalent of a first-generation negative which is completely edited and make all your release prints from there. And you could make as many "original negatives" as you want. That would be a worthy use of this digital technology, I would think.
 

------------------
The man with the magic hands

Page 28 of the September 1999 issue of "American Cinematographer" specifically identifies the nightime scenes of Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) discussing the power of the Force with young Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd) as being shot with the prototype 24fps 1920 X 1080 Sony HD Video camera. (This was the scene where the blood sample is being taken from Anakin the prior to the Podrace).

The article notes "The revised concept is to photograph the next Star Wars installment spherically in a 1.78:1 (16:9) aspect ratio while composing for 2.35:1, and then digitally resample the image, cropping enough vertical information to achieve a 2.35:1 ratio with a final resolution of 1920 X 800".

For comparison, most experts agree that a 35mm anamorphic negative frame (0.825 X 0.690 inch image area) has a resolution of at least 4096 X 3426, and much greater dynamic range and "bit depth".

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
 

No one's going to take a filmmaker that shoots his first project in video seriously. But if there's a way to make a first time project look as close to professional as film and is as cheap as shooting in video, I don't see that being anything to look down on. A majority of an amateur independent's project cost is going to be the film stock. Now when you talk about bigger projects that necessitate a crew, a cast with names, and major lighting and location rentals, it's no longer an independent project and you're better off using film instead of digital anyway.

But that's a lot to ask of a first time director with little experience. At least one of my friends is making a film with the Canon DV camcorder, and he went to film school at UNT in Denton, Texas. And I'm sure he'd much rather shoot his film on film, but he doesn't have the budget for it. It's filmmakers like him that I'm saying this digital technology would be good for. For major studio projects, it's a dumb idea. And as for my friend's cast and crew, all his crew and actors are volunteering for exposure and experience while he just wants at least one feature length project in his portfolio. I didn't read his script or have anything to do with the project because I've moved to Colorado, but I've seen his student projects, and he's very good at directing action shorts. Nice clean edits, very good tempo. I'd really like to see him make it.

If he can get his feature to look good enough to get him a contract with a major studio, then it's worth shooting in digital. But, as a said before, the convenience of shooting in digital video may open the flood gates to a variety of filmmaker wannabes putting out a variety of crap. As for the Darwinian theory of good filmmakers surviving the rigors of filming, don't count on it. Take a good look at most of the independent crap OR some of the major studio releases that come out. Better yet, the filmmakers (you know, the ones that went to the $35,000 a year schools like UCLA and NYU?) that made those Coke commerial snipes. For filmmakers like that, it's not what they know so much as who they know.
------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Most people blame release print unsteadiness and sharpness loss on high speed release printing. It seems to make sense that printing at over 1000 feet per minute is somehow inherently worse quality than 180 feet per minute. I disagree.

An excellent presentation by Irwin Young of DuArt Labs at the SMPTE Technical Conference a few years ago blames most of the unsteadiness and sharpness loss in release prints on not using a step printer for the critical Master Positive to Duplicate Negative printing step.

When using a continuous contact printer, the processed original and the raw stock are wrapped around a 64-tooth (12-inch circumference) printing sprocket. Ideally, the "pitch" (distance between each perforation) of the original film should be 0.3 percent shorter than that of the raw stock, to avoid "slippage" of the films as they go around the sprocket. If this relationship is not maintained, unsteadiness and sharpness loss can occur. In making a direct print, a "short pitch" BH-1866 negative is printed to a "long pitch" KS-1870 print stock, so printer slippage is negligible.

When going through a release printing system, the short pitch negative can be continuous contact printed to a long pitch master positive. But that long pitch master positive should be STEP-PRINTED onto a short-pitch duplicate negative, using full-fitting registration pins. Then the short pitch duplicate negative can be release printed onto long pitch print film using a continuous contact printer.

Unfortunately, today's most common practice prints the short pitch camera negative to a short pitch master positive to a short pitch duplicate negative and finally to a long pitch release print, all using continuous contact printers. Those steps of printing short-pitch to short-pitch on a continuous contact printer are where the unsteadiness and sharpness loss can creep in.

An excellent discussion of this is in book "Motion Picture Film Processing" by Dominic Case (Focal Press Media Manuals, TR88.2.C37, ISBN 0-240-51243-X), in the section on "Continuous-contact Printers" (page 100-101).

Unfortunately, time and cost constraints often prevent labs from using a pin-registered step printer to maintain the proper film-pitch relationship. But even assuming a mediocre 50 line pairs per millimeter system resolution, a release print still would have an equivalent 2096 X 1752 resolution for the anamorphic format. Look at a release print of "The Thin Red Line" and you'll see excellent sharpness.

As I noted, the dynamic range and "bit depth" of film is also significantly better than existing digital cameras. Look at that "metachlorian blood sampling" scene in TPM again, and you'll see what I mean.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
 

That scene shot with the digital Sony camera in Episode I was plainly lacking in resolution from the rest of the movie. Now don't misinterpret that as my claiming I thought the prints looked good, because they did not. That is the one film that really stands out in my mind as poor quality...and with the power and cash of Lucas behind it, it should NOT have been like that.

It will be interesting to see how many exhibitors bite to the ludicrous demands for Episode 2.
 

I'm just curious why Mr Lucas is so keen on digital. It can't be the cost, he could afford to shoot on imax. Its seems he's trying be inovative just for the sake of it. In the interviews he gave when episode 1 came out, he seemed more interested in the number of cgi shots than the charaters, actors, plot etc.
 

Really, how many EXHIBITORS made some money from episode 1? With its unrealistic stipulations of having to keep it on the largest screen, higher rentals for longer periods etc...Most cinemas here didn't even make it to the minimum number of weeks and were not required to 'cos it was as dead as dead after week three, much less week nine or ten!

You'd think he would have shot himself in the foot with that balls-up, but lets face facts... It (supposedly) is Star Wars and the hype machine will gear up all over again. If you don't take it, then it'll be a case of..."Well, then I'm afraid you can't have "X","Y" or "Z" either."

They'll all have short memories.

I just hope Julia Roberts is making another romantic comedy so they can bring it out in week two of episode 2 just like they did with Notting Hill against episode 1 and make a killing. I'd be booking that one now.

As Joe Pesci said... "They fuck you at the drive though"

I think there's something in that for all of us.

Plus, I don't want to "make it" in Hollywood by knowing someone. I'm sure if I really shmoozed at enough festivals, I could someday be able to land in the director's chair for some movie like "Kazaam!", but I'd rather make a GREAT film/video, even if only my friends end up seeing it.

------------------
Scott A. Magie

scoooot@hotmail.com
"Anybody wanna peanut?"
 

"Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn.
I didn't see SW1 and won't see SW2 although I am a SciFi fan. I'm getting really tired of computer effects. They're so ....computery. Give me stop motion and strings on the giant spider, anytime. It gives my voluntary suspension of disbelief, a chance to exercise. Filmakers in general need to figure out that special effects of any kind are only an aid to telling the story, not the story itself. Kinda reminds me of the James Bond movies and their advance into gimmicks, impossible physics, and absurdity."

-----

i hear and agree with what you're saying. i love seeking out bad movies with cheesy special effects (probably the reason i so eagerly became a MSTie). But, it's Star Wars, man! give in and watch it! don't make me use the jedi mind trick on you..

jasoN

------------------
"That's what life is - a series of down endings. All Jedi had was a bunch of muppets." -Dante Hicks
 

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
 

I am directing a low budget independant film that goes into production in late july. We thought long and hard about it and finally came to the conclusion to use digital rather than film for capture. heres why:

1. We will use the Canon DMXL-1. It captures images at 625 full frame horizontal fields, 25 times a second. After line doubling and lazer film recording, the resolution will be greater than that of 16mm film.

2. The camera will record in 16.9 format, and we will have an anamorphic attachment to force a full 2.4 to 1 ratio, full widescreen without any cropping, keeping the full resolution.

3. Instant editing. We can edit on location, that moment. Try that with film.

4. Our shooting ratio will be 100:1. Sorry but I just cannot afford that in film.

5. Its true that we will spend roughly $500,000.00 in film recording cost with the transfer we want, HOWEVER, you still cannot get the shooting ratio like 100:1 on film for that kind of money, not even in 8mm.

6. With our monitor, we will be able to see what it looks like before and during the shoot, not one single thought will enter our minds if it looks right once we get the dailys back.

7. True it shoots 25 full frames instead of 24, but we will slow it down to 24 frames and it will not ever be noticable. As for sound, that is taken care of in re-recording anyway, so that isnt even a problem. The sound will be normal.

8. AND DAMN I LOVE THIS CAMERA!!!

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"
 

Why would an independent looking to save money want to transfer an interpositive to a digital format? Having an interpositive means you shot your feature on film. Seems to me, to take advantage of the cost effectiveness of shooting in digital would be to shoot the project in the digital format first, then transfer the image onto film to make a release print on 35mm. If you film in 16mm, aren't you going to have to make that transfer to 35mm anyway?

Also, I believe there are PC editing programs out there that cost a lot less than $100k. Granted, they aren't cheap, but I know a few people who have them, and they're not making a lot. I think all in all, when you factor in a Canon DMXL, which seems to be the camcorder of choice, and the hardware and software for a home editing facility, the entire package will run you about $10,000. The same cost as a 16mm Arriflex, Bolex, or CP-16 (I've actually shot with one of those before. Very nice camera. It's so quiet, you don't need to invest in a blimp. But what can you expect from the news camera of choice in the '60's?) And I don't think that includes the cost of editing equipment unless you're talking about the conventional editing style rewind bench with a viewfinder /soundhead monitor and a synchronizer which can be a headache 'cause then you have to spend more money conforming a print. You're better off with an Avid, and I know those wouldn't be included in the $10,000 camera/editing price quote.

Also, I hear there's a digital camcorder that's supposed to be available this coming fall that shoots 24fps. This just tells me that the industry's move for an option to shoot on video is inevitable now. It's probably never going to be as good as film, and I love the medium, but I have to admit that film is pretty bias to the economically challenged.
------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Sure that wasn't a typo? 10:1 I could easily understand. What are you shooting that would require such a high ratio?
 

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

And oh yeah, one more thing... if an independent filmmaker decides to shoot something besides film, I think a good cinematographer will use that to his/her advantage. Sometimes a medium's weakness can provide an opportunity for something much more visually interesting. Just ask Oliver Stone; he loves to mix his mediums for effect. Sometimes it works and sometimes... well, we all saw Any Given Sunday.
Story, story, story. Then choose a medium and use it's strengths and weaknesses to tell it. I don't care if something's shot on PixelVision or drawn frame-by-frame with an Etch-A-Sketch... just tell me a story! Entertain me!
Amen.

------------------
Scott A. Magie

scoooot@hotmail.com
"Anybody wanna peanut?"
 

PPO: "Pytlak's Personal Opinion"
 

------------------
Better Projection Pays!
 

True line doubling only smooths it out, not actually increases resolution. We have a process that will eliminate this problem. It is a series of specially designed filters that will bring the frames into near film resolution. IF IT WORKS, great, if it doesnt, at least we tried. Besides its still cheaper.

It will have a resolution 10 times greater than that of BLair Witch. Blair witch used a HI-8 camera, with only 320 lines of resolution and only one ccd. The Canon DMXL-1 has 625 lines of resolution with 3 ccd's, each with its own color, and uses pixel shifting, moving each of the colored pixels away from each other, increasing color balance and resolution. The pixels are also much larger and they overlap, giving an image that is rather impressive. The sony dv cameras have smaller pixels, no shift, and cannot do full frame captures.

As for if the 100:1 was a typo, actually someone else hit it on the nose, it was more of making a point. I will be able to afford it, if it were necessary, and I am a perfectionist. If it isnt right we shoot again and again and again. With film I could only afford a 10:1 ratio, and I am just not comfortable with that. I will not be working with experienced actors, so I will be spending A LOT of time teaching them as we go. This will require much greater ratios. You see, these people are good, and I will make them look great, and they work for food.

Food is good.

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"
 

I couldn't agree more! Considering this movie will make (about) $800 million worldwide, why isn't it being shot on film? Cost? Bull#*&)!

These guys are PROFESSIONALS. They should be leaving the digital shooting to those on REAL budget constraints instead of pumping out sub standard quality to the masses and passing it off as 'breakthrough technology'.

Honestly George, get your hand off it. When is enough millions enough? He was once one fine director... now he's nothing but a show pony.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage".
Indiana Jones.
 

------------------
Scott A. Magie

scoooot@hotmail.com
"Anybody wanna peanut?"
 

------------------
Scott A. Magie

scoooot@hotmail.com
"Anybody wanna peanut?"
 

What the hell was I talking about? Oh yeah, acting. Acting sucks. I just finished an acting class where we finished off with an actual performance of improv comedy games in front of an actual living breathing audience. And for the first time I knew what it was to be an actor. NOW I KNOW, what these people have to deal with. It will be a great help in my efforts to help these young actors in my film. AND NOW I KNOW why I am NOT an actor. I REALLY REALLY SUCK AT IT!!!

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"