Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: EP II ... How's your print look?

This is topic EP II ... How's your print look? in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003441

Posted by Matt Close (Member # 996) on 05-15-2002, 09:21 AM:

I'm just running my midnight premiere of EPII right now .... soft, aint it? .... But my reason for posting is 'white specks'.. ?? The print is brand new, but I am seeing erratic white specks popping up all over the place for what looks to be perhaps just a single frame.... ??? Any ideas?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-15-2002, 09:44 AM:

"White specks" are usually shadow images of dirt buildup on the printing negative. A dirt particle on the negative or raw stock blocks the light in the printer, resulting in a clear shadow of the particle in the processed print. Most printers have on-line film cleaners to remove the loose dirt, but labs occasionally need to "pull" the negative for solvent cleaning on massive print runs.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Matt Close (Member # 996) on 05-15-2002, 10:04 AM:

I guess they pick up all that dirt on the first pass eh? ... Or so I read in Time.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-15-2002, 11:00 AM:

Some duplicate negatives are used to make well over a thousand prints. Years ago, the maximum number of prints per negative was typically in the hundreds, and the dirt level was higher. Improved film stocks, on-line cleaning, and new printer technology have allowed significant improvements in quality and productivity:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/5242.shtml

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-15-2002, 12:16 PM:

But aren't all the SW prints supposed to be original-negative prints? (i.e. the digital files were output to several negatives, which were then used for printing, rather than outputting to a single negative and making several intermediate elements from that) Or is that rumor untrue?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-15-2002, 12:24 PM:

If a laser recorder was used, they would have used the slower (finer grain) intermediate film used for duplicate negatives. Current laser recorders are fairly slow, so most "digital intermediates" are recorded to make one master positive, from which multiple duplicate negatives are made by conventional contact printing. Ted Costas indicated that in this case, they chose to record directly as a duplicate negative, so they had to repeat the slow recording process for each duplicate negative required for the multiple print labs worldwide.

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 05-15-2002, 12:27 PM:

My print had the same white specks. There was about a five second period during the scene where Obi Wan was shackled-n-floating (forget the reel number) that was extremely bad. Looked almost like a blizzard had come in.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-15-2002, 12:33 PM:

Adam Wilbert said: "There was about a five second period during the scene where Obi Wan was shackled-n-floating (forget the reel number) that was extremely bad. Looked almost like a blizzard had come in."

Any chance it was near a "lab splice"? The extra handling of the raw stock ends near a splice can sometimes pick up some dirt particles.

Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 05-15-2002, 02:02 PM:

Matt,
I could not make up any of our prints because, erm well, my Nephew was riding his skateboard the other
day, so I grab it and said 'Watch This', well say no more... I have a stuffed left hip, left knee & sprained right hand.

We got the prints at 4pm for the midnight screening, normally that would not faze me, I knew the 'Daddy Longlegs' prints would arrive late, but I was doing a bio/mgr shift on a Wednesday, when every supplier you can think of rings up or drops
in wanting how many Ice cream tubs / Chips / Candy C-packs / coke BIBs we need. (Even secuitity showed up to change the combo's on the safes. Im amazed the damned auditors didn't turn up - that would complete it!)
Anyway...
At the same time I'm trying to manage the place, run the films, change the trailers, change the ads, send people on their their breaks and taking over for them, conferming programming (read: Fixing programming), and trying to makeup Starwars when they finally arrived, with a stuffed up right hand. We'll there was no way I could wind them onto 6000 ft spools (came tail out, which I LIKE) so I could not play each spool straight to plate so I got a Candy Bar girl come in and wind the rewinder. She was puffed after two reels, and got that normal look from floor staff that says 'you guys are nuts, no wonder I dont want to be a projectionist' So I finished getting reels 1-2-3 of one print ready and gave up.

So started on easier thing on the hand like doing the the ads and trailers until my trainee to arrived.
WASNT HE PISSED that he had to make up of all things STARWARS prints for the big Midnight opening.

So I go home to watch SURVIVER (after helping until 9pm) then show up at Midnight to see how Starwars goes.
All went fine. I was looking for mistakes in the makeup of the prints.
(HEY this funny he (my trainee) was running between platters to see when a join a join was coming up, and start sweating that it might sound track reversed - reel reversed - out of frame) I'm glad he got it all right.

This is COOL. The air-con went off because the damned shopping center turned it off at 12.30am.
It started getting very hot in packed cinema's I so went up to the plant room with the firealarm over-ride key, but it had no effect, so I opened the control panel, and set all the switches that were set at AUTO to MANUAL and the air came back on!!
Heh Heh. Hope they dont read this!
Anyway thats my little story.

However, back to you MATT noticed like you the white specks throughtout all the prints, some sections where very bad others where fine. I kind of forgot about it when there was actually some action, so I'll have too look again.
(the prints were new - clearly)
I was looking for 'filmed on digital' sucks, but could not find any (Though I had a FEW beers before I got there)
The only thing I could pick on was CGI but we know, we can pick on CGI in any movie.

By the way, I ended up seeing most of the movie, and I think it was quite good (Beside the lame attempts at jokes)
you can see links to the to Starwars 'NEW HOPE'
So I really look forward to the next one.

Bill. (Whew - I'll shut up now)

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 05-15-2002, 02:10 PM:

My print looked good, or at least to me. I did notice the erractic brown spots in a few places, but they weren't that distracting. I did, however, notice that nearly ALL the facial scenes looked a little soft. It seems that the imagery looked a little 'fuzzy' throughout the print, except for, of course, the light saber sceens and the clone scenes. I did like the fact that the clones wind up being the Imperial Stormtroopers... I think thats the right term for 'em...
Much better than the first, in my opinion, but the Titanicesque love story could have been left out...

------------------
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese!

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 05-15-2002, 02:37 PM:

My print just arrived - 3 hours before start - and not one word on box, cans or discs about es/ex, and i have about 15 minutes from "Gosford Park" ends to make my testrun before those Clones are taking over. -Not much.
Can anyone confirm the 6.1. track being there ?
The white specs are of acuse made by Mr Lucas in person to demonstrate how much better it would have been in digital.

Today, biggest danish newspaper brings an interview with Mr L, who tells the audiences "Your cinema is not good enough for Star Wars", ending up with a journalist tour on the ranch and a DLP screening so bright, so sharp, so whauw, the journalist claims. -Why doesn't the man distribute by internet to peoples computers - Thats where his custumers are anyway...

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 05-15-2002, 03:39 PM:

Per said: The white specs are of acuse made by Mr Lucas in person to demonstrate how much better it would have been in digital.

I thought that exact same thing when I saw how much of the backgrounds and sets at the cloning factory were bright blinding white. I can imagine how quickly and obvious scratches and dirt would show on that at most theaters.

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 05-15-2002, 03:43 PM:

John, the white specks were nowhere near a lab splice. There was one, a few reels earlier, but it was extremely clean and not discolored at all.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-15-2002, 04:51 PM:

If there are any blinding white scenes (near clear) then that is the perfect opporunity to show off how clean film can be!

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 05-15-2002, 05:41 PM:

Joe, I agree. But I think, to some degree, Lucas might be helping his argument along a bit with the projectionistless-multi-plexes. At least starwars came on (at least in my case) brand-new-looking reels and a clean box. Though there were no paper film straps surrounding the reels. Hmm... can you imagine:

Lucas: Look at how bad film looks compared to digital
Shipping Depot lackey: Hurry up, George says to add more dirt to the shipping cans.

-Adam

Posted by Joseph Pandolfi (Member # 223) on 05-15-2002, 06:41 PM:

Besides the four lab slices I surgically removed. I did noticed some erratic brown spots on reel 6 when I screened it last night. And what is that one frame I see at every head or tail that looks like a ID slate or something that you see on a miscued video tape before the countdown?

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 05-15-2002, 06:53 PM:

Joseph, The Brown spots sound like CAP code. Search for a thread called "What are these spots?" for some pictures to compare your spots to as well as an explanation of what they are.

As far as the "ID slate" you are referring to... Are they color bars? I am guessing it is that or something similar to compare the color on the print to the color from the originating video

Posted by David Whitbeck (Member # 894) on 05-15-2002, 07:16 PM:

Yeah, I noticed those white spots too, quite bothersom. The picture was fairly grainy too. I must say that film is king.

Posted by Bill Carter (Member # 156) on 05-15-2002, 08:10 PM:

I've got the same white dust specs in mine. On my print, the problem is the worst throughout most all of R1. It's also there in reels 2,3 & 5. I realize that dust problems can happen in the lab occasionally, but I'm really disappointed to hear that so may prints seem to be affected.

As for apparent sharpness, at least the occasional subtitle was there to confirm that I really was in focus.

Posted by Matt Close (Member # 996) on 05-15-2002, 10:33 PM:

Well ... our discs arrived this morning ... onya film distributors!

As for the specks .... I've noticed it mostly in reel 1 ..... for a while they all looked suspiciously horizontal ... almost generated ... you don't think he ..... just to promote ..... nah.... surely he wouldn't!

Also, I guess if you just sit as a patron and immerse yourself in the sub-culture that is 'Star Wars' ... then it looks ok.... HOWEVER, as a projectionist, who else kept checking their focus again .. and again .. and again? The total lack of sufficient resolution for large screen projection is most apparent in the faces, wouldn't you agree? And could that 'fake' CGI world look great if it were rendered at a little higher res? .... Probably not! Call me old fashioned, but give me models and film any day..... For older SW fans, it just doesn't look or feel the same now, does it?

*rant over*

Posted by Carl King (Member # 398) on 05-15-2002, 10:37 PM:

Just left my booth. Relief guy is running the midnight
screening of STAR SNORES so I'll check with him tomorrow
to see if there are any white specks on our prints.

I've never understood what the STAR WARS fuss is all about.
Not my cup of tea at all but as they say 'differant strokes for differant folks." For those of you who are fans I say..."enjoy".

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-15-2002, 11:40 PM:

If the print I just saw is any indication on the state of the SW EP:2 prints (film) then they are very sorry lot indeed! Soft focus doesn't really do it justice...even the damn titles were soft....racked focus...looked with a screen-scope...see the grains but still soft image.

But wait, theres more...who QCed the digital tracks? If you are running DTS, you will probably be ok but for the sound on film guys watch out. SDDS faired a bit better than Dolby with only one noticable dropout in R-7. The Dolby Digital printing was just plain horrible! The film is printed with the azimuth off to between -3 and -4. The focus on the Dolby digital track is also rather low (in the 50s and 60s best focus). To add insult to injury, the trailers played wonderfully with "1s". The reader was checked against reference (measured) test film to verify it was in proper calibration (and the trailers running fine also proved the reader is working well).

It would be one thing if just one reel had a problem but nope they all did. I'd recommend DTS for this film if you have it.

Steve

PS: I did notice the "EX" effects in this one more than in EP:1
PPS: SDDS is only in 5.1

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Jacob Huber (Member # 1138) on 05-16-2002, 01:25 AM:

I too noticed that this film had soft focus, but didn't notice any white specks, save the dirt we have (our theatre doesn't have filmguard, and sadly won't get it). I also noticed that the EX sounded like there were no surrounds save back except in a few scenes. Maybe our system is set up wrong. I did notice really shoddy CGI in this film. Especcially in one of the first scenes where Palpatine is talking to Anakin about 'becoming the most powerful of all Jedi'. The entry way to the room just looked like a painting. The extension of the Yellow Brick Rd. at the beginning of Dororthy's trip in Wizard of Oz looked better. The CGI also doesn't have the same feel to it. The originals had a great feel because it 'felt' a bit dirty. The new ones are way too clean.

Posted by Manuel Francisco Valencia (Member # 710) on 05-16-2002, 04:22 AM:

I have seen this movie three times now and I have noticed a whole lot. All of the prints we have are grainy as hell. I noticed it most when Anakin is talking to Padme during the fireplace seen. As I was looking at the back of Hayden's head it seemed as though the grain took on a blue tint. I did see the CAP code marks as well as the white specs. The lab splices were shit. Good thing that the crowd didn't really notice.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-16-2002, 07:24 AM:

Joe Beres said: "Joseph, The Brown spots sound like CAP code. Search for a thread called "What are these spots?" for some pictures to compare your spots to as well as an explanation of what they are."

I agree that the reports of "brown spots" are probably seeing the "new" supplemental antipiracy code. I easily found them in "Spiderman". The original Kodak-developed CAP Code is much less visible.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-16-2002, 07:34 AM:

Joe Redifer said: "If there are any blinding white scenes (near clear) then that is the perfect opporunity to show off how clean film can be!"

Right on! "Film Done Right"!

Today, there is just no good excuse for prints getting dirty or scratched. The abrasion-resistant conductive anti-static coating on KODAK VISION Color Print Film greatly reduces the static charge that attracts and holds dirt to the film. Excellent film cleaning technology is affordable and readily available, and should be used to keep prints clean during each showing. And now some good words from Brad and others about FilmGuard...

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-16-2002, 08:14 AM:

Good words? Simple. Even with the crappiest non-Kodak film, using FilmGuard will STILL eliminate all static from the print and keep it in like new condition for months.

Anyway getting to my reply, the 4 prints I looked at tonight were a mixed batch. I have one reel 2 that has those godawful oversized CAP code marks like John Hawkinson posted pictures of about a month ago. This simply MUST be replaced!

My prints from Deluxe Toronto generally looked better than the one from Deluxe Hollywood (no big surprise), but there was a noticeable amount of negative dirt and some very odd things here and there. One reel had knicks in it every few feet. This may have been at each turn of the reel, but as Fox only delivered my 4 prints just under four hours before showtime, I didn't have much time for inspection. Another reel had bizarre clear spots, there's the big screwup with the CAP code on another and I know I am forgetting some of the other problems, but it's late and I'm tired. Overally, generally sloppy lab work with this one. Sure every print may have been a "show print", but what I saw made me say "big deal".

Also, as Steve pointed out the SDDS track is indeed quite sloppy and there were tons of dropouts in it. (I have no idea how the SRD tracks are.) DTS played without a glitch.

Regarding the image quality, the only stuff that looked really good to me were the darker scenes with light sabers flailing around. Otherwise it just looked like very good video. I think the biggest complaint was the lack of contrast in the image. Outdoor scenes "burned" clear white and the very dark scenes looked like a cheap consumer video camera with "gain" turned on (lots of grain, lots of random color in that grain). The movie is soft, soft, soft focus. I spent a good 20 minutes tweeking that focus to make sure it was absolutely as sharp as it could be, but the resolution just isn't there. Sorry George, but shooting in digital is just not ready quite yet. Of course that's only my opinion. To be fair, I did not receive one single complaint about the focus.

Sound...Gary Rydstrom is once again my hero for sound mixing. This film sounded FANTASTIC! This by far beats out any other Star Wars mix and my only complaint with it was some of the dialogue did not sound natural (not Gary's fault) and sometimes one person's dialogue in a 2 person conversation sounded a bit too loud (Gary's fault). Overall this is damn, damn good sound mixing! A hearty "job VERY well done" goes out to Gary and everyone associated with that sound mix.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-16-2002, 09:45 AM:

My biggest complaint with the sound mixing would be lack of directional dialogue. There are several scenes with many characters where the speaking character may be quite some distance from the center speaker and it caused what appeared to be a lip-sync problem but upon closer inspection was just due to the distance from the center speaker. Other than that, yes I would say it was a fine mix with good use of the surrounds and subwoofers (good, not "over use").

Come on Gary, it's time for directional dialogue to come back.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-16-2002, 11:00 AM:

Hey, Brad, are your oversize CAP marks on a Deluxe Toronto print?

(I'd be curious if anyone has seen these on a non-Toronto print).

--jhawk

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-16-2002, 11:11 AM:

quote:
Come on Gary, it's time for directional dialogue to come back.

Lack of directional dialogue was the second thing I noticed. (The first was the edge jaggies on high-contrast edges.)

Are we now so concerned about those damned hard-of-hearing devices that we're not allowed to use the sound system the way it was designed to be used?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-16-2002, 11:31 AM:

Most hearing-impaired devices that I know of take their sound from the optical track. Am I incorrect?

Posted by Ted Costas (Member # 473) on 05-16-2002, 01:28 PM:

Negative dirt. That's what the white specs are. TAP reviewed a good sampling of the prints, and believe it or not, we actually had the lab clean the negs several times whenever we saw a dirt build-up. We limited the wide-spread damage, but as you can see, we did not prevent it completely.

No, George cares about every presentation, film or D-Cinema, or he wouldn't have hired TAP to do all we were doing for the past 6 weeks... Alignmnets, Evaluations, Phone THX, Lab QA all over the world. Really, he cares, and wants the best for the audience. He feels that D-Cinema is the best way to see the film. That is how he feels. Maybe that is because of some of the complaints raised here. But nevertheless, he wants the best for every single audience member at every single presentation of his film (yes, I said film), and absolutely no defects were intentional, by Lucasfilm Ltd, or by the labs manufacturing the prints.

I hope the force is with every print out there!

Yours, Ted

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-16-2002, 02:27 PM:

Steve Guttag said, "Come on Gary, it's time for directional dialogue to come back."

Gary Rydstrom DID use directional dialogue in TOY STORY II and MONSTERS, INC. I have heard that this causes problems with the dubbing process for foreign releases.

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 05-16-2002, 03:21 PM:

Hi;

Talked with some friends over in SE Asia. The digital presentation there was great, the film was a little less than that. However, "soft focus" was the only comment they had on film, the quality of the prints there were otherwise fine. I think the reason for that is they strike their own release prints in Thailand at a very good lab -- this was by Kantana, I believe. The Interneg would have to come from the States. No negative dirt or other deficiencies. I don't yet know how many prints were done for that market, but nowhere near the number required by the US theatres.

The prints there were also in the theatres 3-4 days ago. I compare that to several posts here where prints arrived hours before their first presentations. Sounds like delays in the process made the whole thing more hurried than it should have been. The the exchange for speed and late delivery is quality, right from the labs.

Be interesting to know how many film prints there are in the US and the time frame in which they were made and shipped to theatres... Seems like the digital material has been in place for several days, hasn't it?

Pat

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-16-2002, 03:30 PM:

All of the HOH systems that I have used have involved sending the Center channel output to the transmitter. Some processors have an HOH output on the terminal strip and some techs just jump directly off the strip along with the amp feed.

Regarding directional dialogue:

I only care about what the film sounds like in my theater and could care less if a certain process causes the studio to spend more time or money to show the film in another market.

It doesn't make any sense to be looking at one place and experience the ventriloquist act of the sound coming from somewhere else in the room, particularly if another character is directly in front of the center speaker.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-16-2002, 04:28 PM:

I saw Ep2 at Regal Cinema World 8 in Eugene this morning. Played in SDDS. Assuming the ceiling tiles are 2' x 4', the scope screen width is only about 30 feet. Technical observations follow.

The ads, PSA, trailers, and the feature were all clean, nary a black speck in sight. Ep2 did have some white specks here and there but nothing drastically bad. I saw no CAP codes or lab splices. Image quality was OUTSTANDING, sharp as I've ever seen it at this theater. Bright and steady as well, and centered in the masking. Reel change splices were very clean, wouldn't have noticed them at all if not for cue marks.

I went in prepared to find lots of digital artifacts and other "defects". I'm happy to say that, for the most part, the movie looked great to me. The CGI work is BY FAR the best ever done as far as I'm concerned. There were only 1 or 2 times when it kind of fell apart, but overall it was a large cut above the norm in today's movies.

The live-action stuff, especially closeups of faces, was a little soft, no question about it. But had I not known this was basically shot in HDTV, I wouldn't have noticed. In fact that part looked better than I was expecting. The lower the lighting, the more video-like it looks though, but even at its worst, I thought the live-action images looked mostly at least good, and sometimes very good.

So basically, I thought the movie looked fantastically good, and anything non-filmlike about it seemed to be in line with how it was intended to look. I noticed no video-related defects calling attention to themselves.

Not that this proves anything, but I sneakily shot a photo of the screen image just for the heck of it, to see how it would turn out:

The sound was in SDDS, and except for a stretch of dropouts near the end of reel 1, it was FABULOUS. I can't say enough good things for the film's mix, and this theater's ability to reproduce it in something approaching its full glory. Give Gary Rydstrom, Ben Burtt, and the sound crew the Oscar now because no other film this year is likely to come close to this. Sub and surround action was brilliantly used and not over-used.

The SDDS sound did repeatedly drop out for the last few minutes of reel 1. Several people went out to complain to theater staff. After that though, it was fine for the rest of the show. After the movie, I spoke to the manager and he said they are probably going to switch it from SDDS to DTS.

I must see this in DLP now...

As for the question, "Is this a good movie?" I'll answer that in the reviews section.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-16-2002, 08:04 PM:

The two prints of "Black Eyes" (hehe) playing at the Carmike 8 are a bit different from each other. The print playing in Screen 4-THX looks a bit sharper than the one playing in #5 (THX, but not certified as such).

Color quality was good and even looking, although some parts of the film got pretty grainy. Early on, I noticed some digital mosquito noise artifacing in the backgrounds when Padme, Anakin and Obi Wan first meet in the film. Subtle details like stands of hair were noticeably lost in many scenes. This image quality just is not nearly as sharp as imagery originated on film. I also noticed a lot of the heavy CGI scenes actually looked sharper than the live-action-only stuff. Usually the reverse is the case.

There was a particular technical gaffe on the digital image during a cliched scene where Obi Wan meets this big octopus looking dude in a 50's style diner. The two are seated in this booth talking across the table at each other. During a single shot on Obi Wan, the video image scrambled for just an instant on an area of Obi Wan's face, making it look kind of like one of his eyes and part of his face was floating off somewhere else. Really wierd.

I was not all that impressed with the DTS mix on this film. There was some decent surround activity and all, but there were times where the mix just seemed kind of front heavy. It even made me look up through the port glass to see if the DTS green light indicator was on. Anyway, I've heard better audio mixes than this one. I'm sure that different audio masters will be used when this video is ported over to DVD.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-16-2002, 08:13 PM:

Bobby said: "I also noticed a lot of the heavy CGI scenes actually looked sharper than the live-action-only stuff."

I forgot to mention that. Yep, some of the CGI stuff seemed WAY sharper than the live-action.

Posted by Jacob Huber (Member # 1138) on 05-16-2002, 08:59 PM:

I watched one of our other prints and noticed the white specks a lot more, but not as bad as I thought they would be. I also noticed the little knicks in the film on both of the prints I've seen. I didn't notice the lag in the diner scene, but did notice that the Prime Minister of Camino's mouth drifted a sec when he first started talking to Obi Wan. BTW, Camino is probably the best place to show off one's film-handling skills. This entire place is pretty much clear film.

Posted by Matt Close (Member # 996) on 05-16-2002, 09:25 PM:

I 'watched' the film as a patron last night , and oh is Brad ever right! I felt like I was watching a video! GRAINY!! , especially large areas of darker colour. I watched in dispair as that grain swirled about

And not only that, but any any dialogue shot (thus drawing attention to their face) of a character that wasn't a close-up ... well, 'soft' doesn't really it justice. Are these problems (especially the grain) 'film' problems? ... or is it the 'digital filming' .. oh, I'm sorry, 'videoing'?

Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 05-17-2002, 01:28 AM:

Another artifact noticed on a film print: at one point for about half a second, there was a horizontal line crawling up the screen. Exactly the same effect as a short section of damage on a VHS tape. Disappeared on a cut to another scene.

Video dropout? Can't think of anything in the printing process that could cause this. Due to the half second length, I found this more annoying than a lab splice (only 1 frame) or even the negative dust.

If everyone on Film-Tech looks out for artifacts, there'll probably be too many to count ...

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-17-2002, 03:15 AM:

John Hawkinson,

Yes my oversized CAP code marks were from a Deluxe Toronto print.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 05-17-2002, 03:31 AM:

I watched the 10.00am (second public screening) show yeaterday at Screen 1 Warner Village in Leeds.

the white specking was immediately apparent from the outset, most of the marks looking like small hairs rather than dust.

The focus was iffy but I think that this was largely down to the cinema set up rather than the print as there was a left to right difference even during ads and trailers.

The splices were lousy. Nice and jumpy with black marks across the screen. At one reel change just before the arena scene there was a nice black vertical scratch for a couple of seconds about third way across from left side of screen.

Oh and to top it all the feature presentation tag between ads and AOTC was out of rack ! Film done right, I don't think so.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 05-17-2002, 04:54 AM:

We have two prints; I'll be watching one right through tonight so I will comment on it when I return.

Of course, both are being FilmGuarded. FilmGuard should be mandatory in all theatres. But then again, so should properly trained projectionists who care and know what they're doing.

From the few parts that I saw yesterday, I feel that contrast, sharpness and colour saturation are lacking, and the picture overall lacks 'bite'. It seems pale.

Both our prints have negative dirt in exactly the same places, indicating that the same printing negative had been used. It will be interesting to see how frequent it is tonight.

CAP codes are definitely present in both prints - the blue kind. I think they are mainly in reel 3. They were also noticed by our floor manager who wasn't aware of the capcode system. The fact that they were noticed at all is a no-no. They aren't subtle.

CGI elements look excellent, whereas studio/live action plates look like...video. The fact that film wasn't used is screamingly obvious to me, and I would have picked it even if I didn't know it was video beforehand. It's higher-end video to be sure; very different to say, 'The Anniversary Party'. It is, however, unmistakably video complete with all its visual trappings.

Furthermore, it is more obvious in this production than most where the seams are with respect to studio plates and composited background action plates. Usually, it is fairly hard to tell where the blend is, but here it is almost cardboard cutout in nature, especially in scenes where the characters are riding in a vehicle with a visible background. It should not be this obvious that they are in a studio.

I don't really know if video cameras can ever achieve the look and feel of film, but I can't see how they could. One is electronic, and the other is photochemical, and these processes both have different properties with no way (that I can think of) of making one resemble the other. I feel that resolution may become comparable at one point, but the look will always be different. Even though popular TV shows such as 'The X-Files', 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' and 'Angel' are destined for the small screen, there is a reason why film is chosen for these projects. It's not just about resolution. (Not that anyone here doesn't know that already!).

Is anyone playing their SWII print through a CP-650? We found a nice surprise yesterday - the display on it read, 'Auto Surround EX', with the format 10 selector lit up. This is our first print encoded for auto-EX decoding. We like this! Keep doing it.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-17-2002, 12:23 PM:

Couple thoughts.

I'm not a digital artist and I'm not tuned in to spotting digital artifacts. I didn't see anything that screamed "Digital Artifact!!" If I didn't see that stuff, I can't imagine that 99% of the viewers would see it either.

Maybe my impression of the sharp "look" is better than some others are reporting due to the relatively small size of the screen I saw it on: only 30 feet wide if the ceiling tiles are 2' x 4'. I'm guessing most of you are seeing it on larger screens. I need to pace off one of those tiles to confirm their size. If I see this at Cinemark, I expect it to look a lot softer due to their larger screens (40+ feet) and because their image quality is a notch below the Regal I saw it on.

The image was extremely bright. I have no way of knowing whether it's 16fl (or more or less) but it seemed brighter than usual, and I didn't notice anything like unsaturated colors or poor contrast. It really jumped off the screen. All those white-background scenes were impressive-looking (and clean). Maybe they installed a new xenon for the movie?

I will say though that sometimes the fleshtones in the actors' faces didn't look quite right. Whether that's a printing issue or related to the video source, I don't know. Faces are probably the dead giveaway to the video source.

When I said "live action looked a little soft", what I meant to say is "live action lacked the finest detail". Especially faces. The focus was extremely sharp overall, and uniform across the whole screen.

I agree that sometimes that blend of live-action (soft) and CGI backgrounds (sharp) seemed out of balance. Maybe the CGI stuff turned out so good that they couldn't bring themselves to soften it to exactly match the live action. Anyway I think the CGI in this movie is by far the best I've ever seen in any movie, by a wide margin. If they made a decision not to dumb it down, it was the right decision.

I missed a few minutes of the beginning of reel 2 when I was reporting the sound problem, so maybe that's where the CAP code was. For the time I was in my seat though, I saw no flaws like splices or dots, just the occasional random white speck.

I went in wanting to not like the look of the movie, but based on the 1st viewing I'm impressed.

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 05-17-2002, 04:34 PM:

Well my few words on the print quality are, not bad at all for a video to film transfer, but you can tell the live action is shot on video as its as grainy as hell in the dark scene's and lacking in detail even in the outdoor scenes.
Some of the computer graphics look real false, and some shots look like a real bad rear projection has been used and the actors stuck on top of the background.
If shot on film i belive it would of looked that much sharper. Sometimes it feels like your showing a cartoon, why not shoot real models , 2001 looked damn fine even 70mm couldnt show up any glue holding them together!
Im showing it on a 10.5 m wide screen any bigger and it will look real grainy I reckon.
Darren

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-17-2002, 05:42 PM:

I am a computer graphic artist and am used to spotting various errors in data compressed computer images. So I suppose that might give me an edge on spotting such things. The floating eyeball on Obi Wan as a pretty obvious glitch though.

I think the CGI stuff would have been much more seamless against the live action video plates had both been shot/rendered at the same resolution. Basically the thing making the live action plates appear being cut out of cardboard is a difference in depth of field between CGI plate and live action plate. That's essentially what makes the image look fake. Identical resolutions would have solved much of that. Most computer graphics animation work is rendered in the same RGB color model that video uses. Because of that the color was pretty consistent. Focus/depth of field, however, was not.

All of the 24p post processing where various amounts of dither, blur and grain were added to hide the pixels also added to the overhead for video compression. That's why I was able to see "mosquito noise" blocking in some backgrounds. Some borders, such as the hair on a person's head was pretty fuzzy instead of defined --even when the person was standing on a set and not in front a blue screen.

If video cameras are going to be used more often on movie production, the resolution specs have to be improved. 1440 X 800 certainly is not good enough. Even the 2160 X 1440 captured by my Kodak DC4800 still camera isn't good enough (not to mention the CCD is waaaay too slow). We need better-than-HD quality video cameras with native resolutions in the 3640 X 2048 area. I believe home video formats and monitor displays will eventually outpace HD quality standards. So something like 3640 X 2048 (a 16:9 ratio) should be a goal. Such a standard would be better than the 2K format used for most CGI renderings and nearly as good as a 4K rendering. Electronics companies are working like crazy to come up with smaller, faster and more higher res CCDs. There's already a number of CCDs being made with higher res than 3640 X 2048, but they are too slow to capture full motion video (much less video at high rates of speed --this is one area where film has a BIG advantage).

CGI still has a ways to go on perfecting character movement, posture and overall support of weight. Lots of 3D models are simply skinned over a few spheres and simple muscle/skeletal sets to simulate a lot of different effects. Basically the process is not detailed or focused enough. Some of Yoda's facial expressions and movements appeared a bit on the "sloshy" side. I'm not poo-pooing the work; what you see in this movie is at the limits of current CGI capability. But it still didn't look real. Frank Oz may have been relieved not to be cramped under a set with his hand up a puppet, but I do have to say Yoda in "The Empire Strikes Back" looked more real than the newer CGI Yoda. I wish a mix between models and CGI had been done on this film. That's part of what made "Jurassic Park" work so well.

Posted by David Baum (Member # 568) on 05-17-2002, 08:07 PM:

I wonder how AOTC would have looked had it been shot in Panavision 70mm.... but there, integration of actors with CGI background could have been an issue maybe... don't know...

i saw it today on a 3DLP ( older generation, nothing like Nec or Panasonic latest "true black" super high contrast ratio of 1000:1+ unfortunately ). many scenes lacked serious background details, sometimes it was terribly fuzzy. blacks were poor (cantina scene for instance ). too big a screen too, 18meters +/- . very bright however.

it will most probably look much better on dvd with high end home cinema systems

I miss a good fresh Panavision 2.39:1 print , shot In Panavision that is

once those super high res cameras AND super high res 3DLPs "dark chip" equipped will be used, with enhancing contrast ratio - microperforated screens (!), then we'll be in a much higher quality world...

Posted by David Baum (Member # 568) on 05-17-2002, 08:14 PM:

Steve: lack of dialogue directionality: so true ! noticed that too.

maybe they will correct it for the dvd ?

poor contrast, burned white, poor blacks were reocurring problems indeed. it felt like video on many occasions.

As Lucas was proclaiming THE PHANTOM MENACE dvd will be a new reference ( failed miserably: tons of EE, grain, lowered sound mix ), AOTC shot in digital is still way below what can be done with the best Panavision cameras and argentic projectors. With a state of the art newest 3DLPs on a 20-25feet screen, at the 1920x1080 resolution, ok! The still way too low resolution of the digital Sony cam hampers to have for instance huge background details with that scence of enormous depth and great "lifelike" contrast ratio.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 05-17-2002, 08:58 PM:

David, the movie may have been made at 1920x1080, but it seems that even the latest DLP machines are still only 1280x1024. Look at the thread titled "another DLP installation" in this same forum. Ken Lackner reported that his brand-spankin' new DLP machine was 1280x1024.

Also bear in mind that while the CGI effects are at "real" 2K resolution, the HDCAM footage is sampled horizontally at 1440 luminace and 480 chroma, which is why people are reporting that purely CG shots look sharper than ones containing live action.

Posted by David Baum (Member # 568) on 05-18-2002, 03:15 AM:

Aaron

I know that, I put my earlier comments in the film reviews section.

it was said JVC would release a 4000x2500 (or something in this range ) resolution panels for its ILA/DILA projectors this year. maybe still a prototype but it's coming. fill factor is above micro mirrors, up to 93% or so (85-90% with DLP).

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-18-2002, 06:29 AM:

Here is Kodak's view on resolution requirements for Digital Cinema:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/digital/kennelP.shtml#p

_____________________________________________________________________

QUESTION: There has been a lot of discussion about what resolution is 'good enough' for theatrical digital projection. Do you have a standard for that?

KENNEL: We believe you need to project at least 2K resolution to create natural looking images that don't block up or have jagged edges. With film, you begin with a negative that can capture at least 4K resolution. This resolution is reduced somewhat by the analog film duplication and projection process. However, there are other crucial factors including retaining the contrast, color gamut, and tonality captured on the original negative. It is important to retain subtle details. Maybe it's a slight blush in someone's cheek when another character enters a scene that gives the audience a powerful visual clue that is a key story point. From our perspective, that's one of the big limitations imposed by the new generation of HD cameras. Resolution is about 1.5K and the dynamic range falls far short of film. We are determined to preserve those cinematic qualities of film with both film and digital projection.

QUESTION: How does the prototype Kodak Digital Cinema projector compare to other projectors that we have seen demonstrated?

KENNEL: We are capable of putting more pixels (resolution) on the screen, if that's what you are asking. The current digital cinema benchmark is the DLP chips that are 1280 by 1024 pixels. That's about 1.2 million pixels. The next generation JVC (2K) D-ILA chips we are using in our prototype projector have an on-screen resolution of 2048 by 1536, which is about three million pixels. When you combine that advantage in resolution with our color management technology, you begin to get a more cinematic look.

--- Glenn Kennel, Kodak Digital Cinema Program Manager

____________________________________________________________________

Posted by David Baum (Member # 568) on 05-18-2002, 08:22 AM:

hi John

very interesting info!! seems Kodak is not willing to get bypassed by TI and they are right to do so. till now, JVC's proprietary technology indeed surpass TI. no wonder JVC is going to the high end home theater niche market with the D-THEATER digital tapes either.

regards
David

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-18-2002, 08:26 AM:

I know I won't be satisfied with DCinema projection until it can realistically stand toe-to-toe with 70mm (origination and projection). There is something seriously wrong with people being satisfied with quality that is less than what we could achieve neary 50 years ago.

I've said it many times before so I will say it yet again...I don't think the 35mm quality is good enough and it should not be a benchmark, 70mm should be...that looks good on all but the largest of screens.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-18-2002, 08:49 AM:

Steve Guttag said:

"I don't think the 35mm quality is good enough and it should not be a benchmark, 70mm should be...that looks good on all but the largest of screens."

Digital Cinema is an evolving technology. 2K resolution is not an endpoint, but a starting point. I agree that the BEST today is 65mm origination and 70mm prints, but almost everyone shows 35mm prints. Matching 35mm is the starting point, and you have to start somewhere.

Posted by David Baum (Member # 568) on 05-18-2002, 08:59 AM:

Steve

hi. agree with you. super 35 does not look good compare to 70mm (or even Panavision shot 35mm movie). grainier, less depth, noisier.
it fits better tvs later (yuck !):

Super35 has become a very popular format for creating 2.39:1 "scope" prints for theatres. Super35 movies can usually be translated into a television version with less image loss than anamorphic scope movies. Other than this advantage, Super35 is not really "super" at all.

The "Super35" technique is simply the use of the silent aperture for filming while recording the sound external to the film. The soundtrack area is used for image, which increases the resolution available to that available back in silent film days.

Super35 is a combination of the flat and anamorphic formats. Super35 movies are shot flat using the silent aperture, with an aspect ratio of 1.33:1. Theatrical prints are made by extracting a 2.39:1 slice of the image and printing it "scope" style for theatrical release (requiring the 2:1 unsqueeze during projection). Although the entire image area is used on the theatrical prints, nearly half of the image area of the source is wasted, which often results in theatrical prints that have a much grainier look than movies shot in true anamorphic.
DAVID PLEASE EDIT THESE LINKS PER THE FAQ, MODERATOR

two of the best presentations I saw over the last 12months was PEARL HARBOR (PANAVISION 35mm, one copy in 70mm) and CAPTAIN CORELLI'S MANDOLIN (PANAVISION 35mm). superb !

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 05-19-2002, 03:00 AM:

The print of AOTC I saw in Fortuna this week (Deluxe Hollywood lab) looked FAR better than the one I saw at the exhibitor's screening. This time the colors appeared to be spot-on. But the grain on the dark scenes was STILL THERE, and annoyingly so. I didn't see any CAP code, and absolutely NO white specks.

From what I could tell, there is little to no EX-channel information in the surround track... Lots of LS and RS but I just couldn't hear any EX...

-Aaron

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-19-2002, 12:53 PM:

I think we are all in agreement that 5-perf 65mm/70mm is the real reference standard for making and showing movies. Nothing looks better --and certainly not anything "digital" at this point.

The emphasis has to get back onto giving theater customers the best possible presentation instead of just pulling some wool over their eyes using the "digital" buzzword.

I'm hopeful video camera and projection systems can hit much higher resolutions than the current 1280 X 1024 standards or ones that simply mimic the HDTV 1080i/1080p standard. However, the electronics companies have to have a bigger market than just commercial theaters to justify developing the CCDs and display chips that can address those resolutions. Commercial theaters alone are not enough to justify the cost of R&D on new chip sets.

The digital still camera craze, along with the need of making more and more digital cameras perform both still and motion functions might drive CCD development well past the 10 megapixel level. As chip fab processes make those chips smaller and faster, the theoretical sharpness of video camera imagery will get much better. But someone has to develop video carrying formats to hold all that res. Tape driven formats are pretty well fixed on the pixel layouts they commonly hold. Computers and formats like QuickTime right now seem to offer the only flexibility on resolution and image aspect ratio.

Digital projector imagers will be locked into what is available for flat panel TV screens and computer projection systems. This is why Texas Instruments DLP chip is still at a very puny 1280 X 1024 spec. The micromirror chip process is very expensive and they cannot seem to get chips with more appropriate resolutions made. While flat screen TVs are locked into native resolutions of only 1280 X 1024 (or even less) they are a horrible waste of money. But that's where things are stuck for now.

The only hope for digital projection (and home theater flat TVs) to improve their resolutions specs is from computer industry demands. That market could drive development of better display chips for flat panel screens and digital projectors. Apple just released a new flat screen monitor that displays 1920 X 1200 pixels. Graphic artists, gamers, photographers, architects and engineers all have a demand for lots of screen real estate and higher resolution. I won't touch a computer monitor that displays any less than 1600 X 1200. Any lower res is just plain counter-productive. Needless to say, I don't have a flat screen because of this. When flat panels can outdo the capability of a good 21 inch CRT, then maybe I'll switch.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-19-2002, 03:27 PM:

I didn't run this until last night, but our prints (both with numbers in the 180s) didn't have the negative-dust problems that have been observed by others here. We're playing one in DTS (which is fine) and the other is in an SRD house (error count is in the 1-4 range for all reels with a cat 699; no dropouts at all) and is occasionally being interlocked in an SDDS house (which didn't drop out when I was listening to it, but that doesn't mean it was perfect). Overall the lab work seemed decent. We have not had any static problems with either print. I won't comment on the quality of the original photography or the CGI work here, since that is a separate issue from lab work.

Posted by Darren Crimmins (Member # 1116) on 05-19-2002, 06:09 PM:

We got our 4 prints midday on Wednesday and did not get time to screen our 2 midnight shows. That turned out to really suck! I had a projectionist in each of the midnight screenings, while 2 others screened privately the other two. Murphys law will say that the private screenings will be fine and the public shows will have problems. Apparently this law applies to me. I did not have any of the negative dirt on any of my prints, but plenty of sound problems. Our Dolby EX house failed for the first whole minute of the beginning, making the intro extremely quiet (because our techs like to keep the analog very soft) drawing boos from the sold out crowd.
The other midnight show in SDDS had the whole first reel in analog, drawing the same crowd reaction. Because of those and other sound problems, I ended up having to order 4 reels for the two prints. People might say that we are having equipment problems, but other prints we run in those theaters are fine.
Another interesting thing to throw in is that as of 5-19, only one of the reels has come in, and all that it did was replace our SRD dropouts with the negative dirt everyone is talking about. Its hard enough having to build up prints at the last second, but then to have to worry about so many lab problems. All that does is to make the theater (or the projectionists) look bad.