This is topic Blu-Ray vs DCI in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=000019
Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 04-14-2007, 08:49 AM:
Now that there is a supply of Blu-Ray (and HD-DVD) discs available, has anyone done a comparison of DCI-compliant print and high-definition disc. Resolution should be comparable. But what about colour palette and compression artifacts?
I've compared film to Blu-Ray on a full-HD projector and the comparison is good (but colours are not as "deep").
Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 04-14-2007, 09:24 AM:
I attended a meeting about the implementation of Digital Cinema. They showed a screening of the Fantastic Four. There was some notable lack of detail and some strange colours. After a while they said it was a Blu-Ray screening. We agreed that this format is usable for some special purpose presentations like showing classics. The distributors agreed it is a possibility for some situations.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-14-2007, 10:33 AM:
And how did they get around the HDCP? DCinema projectors are DCI compliant, not HDCP (which sucks).
Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 04-14-2007, 12:43 PM:
HDCP has been nothing but a nightmare for both manufacture and end user. Nothing hand shakes properly between any two components. The confused consumer ends up the beta tester. Who ever came up with this one should be forced to live the rest of his life in a home with all appliance and media interfaced with his HDMI. Id give him a month before he has a nervous breakdown.
Posted by Fabrice Dubourg (Member # 1635) on 04-14-2007, 12:53 PM:
is HD format dci compliant ?
Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 04-14-2007, 01:22 PM:
According to this: Video
The new Christie projector will be HDCP compliant.
Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 04-14-2007, 03:59 PM:
seems dumb to ask why they didn't just use an encrypted form of dual link DVI ( which supports monitors right now with resolution > 2k x 1k )
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-14-2007, 06:20 PM:
quote: Peter Castle
Resolution should be comparable. But what about colour palette and compression artifacts?
Differences in resolution between 1080p video on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray and the 2K imagery in DCI digital cinema are slight. For a long time I have thought this will be a big potential marketing problem for commercial movie theaters as either of those disc-based HD formats gain more popularity.
Bit rate is quite a bit different. The best disc-based movies run at maximum bit rates of around 30 million bits per second. A JPEG2000 server can play 2K movies at rates up to 250 million bits per second.
I've seen some Blu-Ray movies played on HDTV monitors with native 1920 X 1080 resolution and they usually look pretty impressive -and a lot better than standard 480p DVD. Still, I think 2K digital cinema in a commercial movie theater looks better. But the quality differences are fairly subtle.
Perhaps on more challenging material, like footage with lots of motion and lots of image details, then the heavier compression in HD-DVD and Blu-Ray footage may reveal more flaws.
DCI digital cinema is supposed to have a minimal amount of "tiles" that are encoded into the video stream -like only 2 or 3 tiles at most. When you watch certain video footage with high levels of compression you'll see that it is divided up into a lot more tiles. That leads to visible blocking artifacts along with other issues in compression.
Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 04-15-2007, 02:57 PM:
I've read some interesting information at Film-Tech.nl, a Dutch website that's just running for a couple of weeks now ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
They used a Leeza Scaler that accepts all kind of input. Because of time constraints for preparing the demo it was connected through 720P component. You would get better results ofcourse by using the HDMI connection (1080P).
Posted by Bastiaan Fleerkate (Member # 3826) on 04-15-2007, 04:59 PM:
quote: Patrick de Groot
I've read some interesting information at Film-Tech.nl, a Dutch website that's just running for a couple of weeks now
They used a Leeza Scaler that accepts all kind of input. Because of time constraints for preparing the demo it was connected through 720P component. You would get better results ofcourse by using the HDMI connection (1080P).
The presentation of the Quicktime trailers at 720p were with digital dust particles (artifacts), stereo sound, and pixilation was everywhere. The highest Quicktime files you can get are 720p and not 1080p. That's why you can't show quicktime trailers on a big screen.
Most projector manufacturers have made boxes which you can attach to the projector and make it do everything, VGA, S-Video to HDMI, DVI, whatever... This is how you can connect the video. Connecting the sound sources is a second...
Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 04-16-2007, 02:22 AM:
I totally agree that the quicktime videos were clearly of too low quality.
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 04-16-2007, 01:54 PM:
quote: Patrick de Groot
There was some notable lack of detail and some strange colours. After a while they said it was a Blu-Ray screening. We agreed that this format is usable for some special purpose presentations like showing classics.
you're kidding, right?
Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 04-16-2007, 02:04 PM:
No, I'm not kidding. When you want to show some rare classic or you want to show a 80's movie and all you can get are some beaten-up prints you're better of with showing HDTV.
Posted by Bastiaan Fleerkate (Member # 3826) on 04-16-2007, 06:48 PM:
I agree with Patrick... Blu-Ray is ok to show. It's better than a beaten up print. They said that the HD-DVD picture quality wasn't good enough, so they showed Blu-ray instead...
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-16-2007, 07:29 PM:
quote: Bastiaan Fleerkate
The highest Quicktime files you can get are 720p and not 1080p.
That's not true. Most of the HD trailers at Apple's Quicktime trailer park have real 1080p versions. I've even grabbed frames out of those 1920 pixel wide trailers and found they have a lot more image detail in them than the 720p versions.
Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 04-17-2007, 10:32 AM:
The bad quality of the "quicktime" movie probably had something to do with recoding for the KISS streamer.
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 04-17-2007, 01:39 PM:
quote: Patrick de Groot
No, I'm not kidding. When you want to show some rare classic or you want to show a 80's movie and all you can get are some beaten-up prints you're better of with showing HDTV.
what a ridiculous statement! a beaten-up print isn't great, but if i come to see a film i expect to see a film. if we're talking about "classics" or 80's movies then we're (mostly) talking about works that were shot, completed, and presented on film. showing a video instead is just disingenuous, a violation of the work's aesthetics. i hope if you do that you at least advertise it as such so people know they may as well stay home and watch it on tv.
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 04-17-2007, 02:10 PM:
What if no screenable print exists, or is available. If the choice is between seeing it on video, or not seeing it at all, which would you rather do? I would say screen it on video, at least those who want to see it can. I agree that it should be clearly advertised as a video screening to those that do not wish to see it this way can avoid it.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 04-18-2007, 12:56 AM:
quote: Fabrice Dubourg
is HD format dci compliant ?
most current HD formats would not be DCI compliant, a few reasons come to mind - 1080p resolution is 1080X1920 where DCI spells out a "container" size of 1080X2048 or 2160X4096, DCI spells out the JPEG2000 file format for the image - most HD is MPEG, frame rate in DCI is 24 or 48 only - HD is usally 30, 50 or 60 (BluRay and HD-DVD support 24p) . . . . then there's the whole colorspace difference . . . .
An HD product could easily be put into a DCP - the process would basically convert the colorspace, frame rate and file format to conform to DCI.
Everything today is more "DCI pursuant" than "DCI compliant" since not all the digital cinema standards have been finalized and published yet.
I've actually seen a screening played back on HDCAM SR plugged directly into the HD-SDI on a Christie - the picture quality was extremely close to a 2K release print (very few people would be able to tell the difference).
As a comparison the master image files for digital cinema are 2TB+, a DCP sent to theatres is about 200GB+ and BluRay/HD-DVDs files are only about 20GB - that's a heck of a lot of compression.
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 04-18-2007, 03:38 AM:
quote: Patrick de Groot
No, I'm not kidding. When you want to show some rare classic or you want to show a 80's movie and all you can get are some beaten-up prints you're better of with showing HDTV.
I'm totally with you there! Over the last 20 years I have personally run far too many crap prints. Those that think film should be run for film sake might try to remember that filmmakers did not choose to make pink prints in the 70's. Did not choose to put great big repeditive green marks throughout the print ect. unless they are Tarenteno.
To me HD remasted disks of 35mm source are an reel option for quality public presentation of film classics, unless the studios decide to remaster all there 35mm catalogue on 35mm for an non existant reportory film market in cinemas, there is very little choice. Perhaps a new generation will get to see the classics again, where they work best, in a big screen cinema enviroment with an audience? Not home alone!
quote: Bobby Henderson
Differences in resolution between 1080p video on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray and the 2K imagery in DCI digital cinema are slight. For a long time I have thought this will be a big potential marketing problem for commercial movie theaters as either of those disc-based HD formats gain more popularity.
Great point!
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 04-18-2007, 04:07 AM:
quote: Cameron Glendinning
unless the studios decide to remaster all there 35mm catalogue on 35mm for an non existant reportory film market in cinemas
The market is far from non-existant; I have seen some very good audiences, even full houses in several-hundred seat auditoria, for such films.
Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 04-18-2007, 05:48 AM:
To make the quote from Bobby complete
quote: Bobby Henderson
Bit rate is quite a bit different. The best disc-based movies run at maximum bit rates of around 30 million bits per second. A JPEG2000 server can play 2K movies at rates up to 250 million bits per second.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-18-2007, 07:49 AM:
How does Blu-Ray compare with HDCAM? I assume that HDCAM is far superior (less compression, better color space), but has anyone actually run both side by side?
I suspect that film will be with us for many, many years for repertory screenings. Unless it has come down significantly in recent years, the cost of making a DCI master is something like $150k. It would be much cheaper for distributors to make a couple of new prints every few years than DCI masters for all but the most popular titles. Add to that the fact that DCI doesn't support slow frame rates (for silents). Also consider that repertory houses aren't exactly rolling in cash right now and probably aren't going to spring for a soon-to-be-obsolete $100k ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif)
projector.
Many repertory titles aren't even available on standard-def DVD. It will be years (decades?) before they are available on Blu-Ray and/or DCI masters.
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 04-18-2007, 01:29 PM:
if there's a blue-ray of a movie then there's a print, or at least elements from which one could be struck. we should demand that this happen rather than show "whatever". the repertory market isn't what it once was, that's for sure. but why contribute to its downfall by legitimizing the showing of video versions?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-18-2007, 01:53 PM:
On the surface it would seem as old "catalog" titles get drafted to HD-disc formats that would make it easier to do DCI D-Cinema screenings as well. However, not all HD video transfers are created the same.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-22-2007, 05:00 PM:
quote: Stephen Furley
What if no screenable print exists, or is available.
Simple; then you just bite the bullet and not show it. There are very few situations where a rep house MUST run a given title. You adjust your programming according to print availability. quote: Stephen Furley
If the choice is between seeing it on video, or not seeing it at all, which would you rather do? I would say screen it on video, at least those who want to see it can.
That's like saying, if a museum can't get their hands on a particular Monet painting, then it would be better to display a lithograph copy than nothing at all....sometimes nothing at all is better and more aesthetically correct.
Many times when we are confronted with this same dilemma, we choose not to run the print rather than present a demonstrably inferior video copy.
And the fact that there are people who want to see this title and that there is a video copy of it available, then they can see it at home on a display that is suitable to the video source, not on a big theatre screen which is not. Rep houses do themselves no favor by making no distinction between video and film.
Just because there is a way to blow up a low rez video to a big screen doesn't mean that does justice to the film or the filmmaker or the audience for that matter. And point of fact, art houses typically don't have those $120.000 projectors that would show a consumer DVD at the highest available resolution it is capable of supplying. They are more likely to be using one of those consumer vidprojector toys....which makes that analogy of the Monet painting a lot less a like a lithograph copy and more like a xerox copy. ![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 04-22-2007, 07:14 PM:
I think it depends upon the circumstances. Suppose you were running a season of films by a certain director, and there was something in an early work that had been very influential on what came later. You couldn't really tell the story without screening that work. Maybe the best that is available is a composite video transfer made in the '70s; maybe the negative has since been lost or destroyed, and no prints are known to exist. Under those sort of circumstances, screening the best that is available may be better than not screening it at all.
What about material that never existed in a form intended for theatrical exhibition, screenings of work by film/media students shot on 16mm or video, for example.
Several years ago 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' was screened at the NFT, with a couple of the original cast present. Just previous to this a new DVD release had been made, which included various 'extras', including a short 'Lego' animated re-enactment of one sequence from the film. The makers of this were in the audience. This animation had been seen on the Internet, and widely acclaimed; screening it as part of the event at the NFT was highly appropriate, but it had been made on DV, and only released as the Internet download, and on the DVD; it simply didn't exist on film, or any broadcast video format. It wasn't ideal, but in my view showing the DVD version at the NFT was the right thing to do.
I don't recommend showing video, or 16mm film, on very large screens, but on smaller ones they can look quite reasonable; I've seen a lot of video material at the NFT in the past. No, it's not as good as 35mm, and 35mm isn't as good as 70mm, and 70mm isn't as good as real life, but I'm glad to have seen many things in this way that I otherwise couldn't have seen.
I ran a few clips from various DVDs at the Clocktower during a gap between films yesterday to see how they looked, mainly to try out the new component feed from the DVD player, but I also tried one black and white recording, because I wanted to see how black and white looked on the digital equipment, and I don't have any black and white digital cinema material available. That film was the special edition release of 'The Great Dictator', which is probably the best looking, on an ordinary television' black and white disc that I've got and it really did look surprisingly good on the (small) cinema screen. No, it wasn't as good as a good 35mm print, but if one wasn't available, I think it could be an alternative. I'd always advertise a video screening as such. There's a good 'making of' documentary on the second disc; if it were easier to get rights to show this sort of thing in public then showing this, on video, at a cinema, before a screening of the film itself, on 35mm, would seem quite appropriate.
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 04-22-2007, 08:10 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Differences in resolution between 1080p video on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray and the 2K imagery in DCI digital cinema are slight. For a long time I have thought this will be a big potential marketing problem for commercial movie theaters as either of those disc-based HD formats gain more popularity
What if it's not just a marketing problem? Could DVD formats close to 2K resolution (albeit not close in colour gamut, etc.) actually be used to subvert the relationship between the exhibitor and distributor? I know a couple of cases where already in the last few years standard DVDs of rep titles - purchased in shops - have been screened in lieu of prints to avoid paying the hire costs of the latter. Whether the distributors in question knew about this I don't know.
Can the distributors control the screening of Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs? What if the day-and-date or almost day-and-date film / DVD release pattern ever comes about? What's to stop someone just buying the DVD and screening that? Or other abuses for that matter? To solve this, would you be forced to "unlock" the content with a key as per D-Cinema?
quote: Stephen Furley
This animation had been seen on the Internet, and widely acclaimed; screening it as part of the event at the NFT was highly appropriate, but it had been made on DV, and only released as the Internet download, and on the DVD; it simply didn't exist on film, or any broadcast video format. It wasn't ideal, but in my view showing the DVD version at the NFT was the right thing to do.
I think Frank was talking about something different, i.e. using video to substitute for a print. Obviously if the material was shot on video then it should be shown on video.
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-22-2007, 08:30 PM:
So, Frank, what do you do when you find out 6 hours before showtime that the only print you have is crap? It would be nice to program films with perfect knowledge of print condition, but that seems very difficult to achieve.
Have you never substitued a DVD for a 35mm print?
We did recently when only 2 out of 3 cans showed up ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Made the decision easier, though.
As for HDCP, well, I expect that the ways around it will only increase.
--jhawk
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 04-23-2007, 01:57 PM:
quote: Carl Martin
what a ridiculous statement! a beaten-up print isn't great, but if i come to see a film i expect to see a film. if we're talking about "classics" or 80's movies then we're (mostly) talking about works that were shot, completed, and presented on film. showing a video instead is just disingenuous, a violation of the work's aesthetics.
I disagree with this statement, and I think that it forgets the end result that I would think all of us here aspire to, which is to entertain the audience with the highest quality presentation possible.
In my humble opinion, tying oneself to a particular format (in this case, film) is a constraint which can make one lose sight of that end result. If one format delivers a better end result than another format, who cares what that format is?
Film is a copy of a negative. HD video (whether DCI, Blu-ray, or HD DVD) is a copy of the negative (if the originating format was film, of course). In many cases, the film we get in a theater is going to be a multi-generational copy. This isn't an original Monet oil-on-canvas vs. lithograph we're talking about here, it's a lithograph vs. giclee print. Both copies of the original.
If the available film is damaged with scratches and/or discoloration, but you have a pristine copy on HD video, you're going to show the film or nothing at all? I don't agree with that position at all.
quote: Carl Martin
i hope if you do that you at least advertise it as such so people know they may as well stay home and watch it on tv.
That's basically saying that a movie theater has nothing to offer its customers except for exclusive access to the content. There is no value to the "group experience" or the ambience and presentation that the theater or, in the case of a film festival, event can add to that content?
This heads into the same territory as my feelings about theaters that are afraid of day-and-date releases, but I won't derail this thread in that direction.
The viewing audience deserves the best possible quality that a theater can deliver. Who cares if that's from film, digital cinema, Blu-ray/HD DVD, or VHS?
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-23-2007, 04:53 PM:
I agree with those that say to run the best available to some extent...if the best available is of the grade of VHS...it is better to NOT run it since that level of quality is unsuitable for public exhibition. Even DVDs are marginal.
However, the public should be informed if what they are going to pay to see is not film when in a theatre that typically shows film.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-23-2007, 09:17 PM:
quote: Brian Guckian
Could DVD formats close to 2K resolution (albeit not close in colour gamut, etc.) actually be used to subvert the relationship between the exhibitor and distributor? I know a couple of cases where already in the last few years standard DVDs of rep titles - purchased in shops - have been screened in lieu of prints to avoid paying the hire costs of the latter.
I don't know how the laws work in Ireland regarding movies produced there. However, as far as theaters in the United States are concerned, it would be a very illegal thing for any movie theater to just take a DVD from a retail store and show that, especially if they want to charge any admission fees to view it. Commercial movie theaters must book the movie through the distributor to be able to show it legally.
quote: Brian Guckian
Can the distributors control the screening of Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs?
Yes. It's their copyrighted material. Any theater operator showing movies off Blu-Ray or HD-DVD without having specific permission to do so from the distributors may be looking at a felony conviction for his little enterprise. If I was running a movie theater I absolutely would not attempt such a stunt.
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 04-24-2007, 08:34 AM:
quote: Scott Jentsch
I think that it forgets the end result that I would think all of us here aspire to, which is to entertain the audience with the highest quality presentation possible.
In my humble opinion, tying oneself to a particular format (in this case, film) is a constraint which can make one lose sight of that end result. If one format delivers a better end result than another format, who cares what that format is?
i don't think "the" end result of film is entertainment. ideally there's an artistic engagement, often with entertainment as a by-product. the medium is hardly irrelevant artistically, and it's not as simple as one being better than another (though i do think film is better). film and video each have their own aesthetic characteristics, no matter how much people want to lump them together these days.
quote: Scott Jentsch
Film is a copy of a negative. HD video (whether DCI, Blu-ray, or HD DVD) is a copy of the negative (if the originating format was film, of course). In many cases, the film we get in a theater is going to be a multi-generational copy. This isn't an original Monet oil-on-canvas vs. lithograph we're talking about here, it's a lithograph vs. giclee print. Both copies of the original.
ok, you made me look up "giclee". yes, either way it's a copy. but in one case it's a copy that respects the nature of the work and in the other it isn't.
quote: Scott Jentsch
If the available film is damaged with scratches and/or discoloration, but you have a pristine copy on HD video, you're going to show the film or nothing at all? I don't agree with that position at all.
scratches are unfortunate (though aesthetically interesting in their own right) but they are localized. digitization of a film is a perversion of its entirety.
quote:
quote: Carl Martin i hope if you do that you at least advertise it as such so people know they may as well stay home and watch it on tv.
That's basically saying that a movie theater has nothing to offer its customers except for exclusive access to the content. There is no value to the "group experience" or the ambience and presentation that the theater or, in the case of a film festival, event can add to that content?
personally, i don't care about the group experience or "events", though i'm not going to say that those who do are flat out wrong. different strokes and all that. but i think it's important for the general public to be aware of what they're being shown too so they can develop their film-eye as well.
quote: Scott Jentsch
The viewing audience deserves the best possible quality that a theater can deliver. Who cares if that's from film, digital cinema, Blu-ray/HD DVD, or VHS?
i do, for one.
Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 04-24-2007, 01:57 PM:
The most directors (btw I don't count George L as a director nowadays!) obvious don't have problems with digital otherwise they would certainly fight it through the media...
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 04-24-2007, 04:58 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Commercial movie theaters must book the movie through the distributor to be able to show it legally
Just to reply to those points you made Bobby, for sure the whole thing would be criminal. I have to be careful in saying that though I know rep DVDs have been purchased and screened in lieu of their 35mm print counterparts, I don't know whether or not it was done with the approval of the Distributor(s) involved. I would certainly hope so.
But this is the slippery slope of being able to screen domestic formats in the theatre environment with quality approaching cinema formats. As soon as it becomes possible, then people may attempt to do it, either with or without permission.
However perhaps D-Cinema projection equipment can be configured to reject consumer high-definition DVDs, to stop these potential abuses occurring. Presumably such material could be flagged, and the Distributor could then provide their own "legit" high-definition DVDs.
Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 04-25-2007, 03:13 PM:
[QUOTE Frank Angel ]And the fact that there are people who want to see this title and that there is a video copy of it available, then they can see it at home on a display that is suitable to the video source, not on a big theatre screen which is not. Rep houses do themselves no favor by making no distinction between video and film. [/QUOTE]
I agree. Once I went to see a double bill of Henri-Georges Clouzot including Diabolique and Le Corbeau, brilliant double bill but Le Corbeau was in something called high-definition Beta. They ruined my experience and it took my ages to convince the cinema manager that what they showed was not film, and that was at the Curzon Soho in Central London. Black and White in video, dreadful.
quote: Carl Martin
what a ridiculous statement! a beaten-up print isn't great, but if i come to see a film i expect to see a film. if we're talking about "classics" or 80's movies then we're (mostly) talking about works that were shot, completed, and presented on film. showing a video instead is just disingenuous, a violation of the work's aesthetics. i hope if you do that you at least advertise it as such so people know they may as well stay home and watch it on tv.
I agree completely. To preserve a work of art means to present it as close as possible as when it was created. In that sense films that never entered the digital domain should not enter it now. Both the negative and the positive in a film are important and should be preserved. It is sickening to see the BFI presenting films in digital when there are good 35mm prints available, such ignorance is what is leading me to save to buy one of those DLP projector for my home enjoyment. To see an old film in digital on the big screen is one of the most awful experiences I have had, it is cold, lifeless, it is a hybrid, good for home enjoyment but not for the magic of the cinemas. The NFT even showed South Pacific in digital when there is a brand new 70mm print, true the digital file has extra footage but nothing will get closer to a Todd-AO film than a new 70mm print. With those ignorants ruling the game, I stay at home. They even said that with the new digital file of Wizard of Oz you could see things no one had seen before. What's the point, I do not want to see more things, I want to see a 30s Technicolor film, not a monster created in a computer that belongs nowhere. And to digitalise Black Narcisus should be punished with inprisonment.
quote: Carl Martin
i don't think "the" end result of film is entertainment. ideally there's an artistic engagement, often with entertainment as a by-product. the medium is hardly irrelevant artistically, and it's not as simple as one being better than another (though i do think film is better). film and video each have their own aesthetic characteristics, no matter how much people want to lump them together these days.
Absolutely, I am fed up with people telling me that I should not notice any difference, when I do and that digital is better. They are different. And let's not forget, reality is analog, not digital, there is no sound or image digital per se (if I am not mistaken) everything has to go back to analog for us to enjoy. The converters from digital to analog with images, so far, do not satisfy me. I prefer a good print, unless we talk about computer generated films, then we might as well stay in the digital domain as much as possible.
quote:
quote: Scott Jentsch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The viewing audience deserves the best possible quality that a theater can deliver. Who cares if that's from film, digital cinema, Blu-ray/HD DVD, or VHS?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i do, for one.
Me to, a million times! I even care if it is a nitrate print, they are dangerous for projectionist but gorgeous, I care if it is a dye transfer print and of course, a proper 65/70 print. There are textures I will never get at home, they are beautiful, unique. Unfortunately, I do not think we are that many who really look for film. Many people do not care and this is why they stay at home and more they will stay unless there is a real revolution that again puts cinema in both its language and presentation miles away from anything related to TV. A retired cinema manager told me very wisely not long ago that a revolution in cinemas to suceed has to be as big as Cinerama was to those audiences used to black and white TV.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-25-2007, 11:35 PM:
quote: Patrick de Groot
The most directors (btw I don't count George L as a director nowadays!) obvious don't have problems with digital otherwise they would certainly fight it through the media...
Not always the case. For decades network broadcasts of blockbuster scope pictures were televised in pan/scan versions, not letterboxed. Where were the directors then? I heard not a peep from any of them, and that abortion of a process was sooo gawd-awful that looking at it for just five minutes would make my nuts crawl back into my kindeys. P&S is a total, complete and utter ruination of film to the tenth power, compaired to what any DVD presentation would ever be. So don't count on big name directors to put up any fight for aesthetics when big chunks of money are waving in their faces. That whole thing about colorization was a joke. P&S was going on for years before anyone noticed color fade.
I mean, everyone including the filmmakers know the current "film done wrong" state of the exhibition industry today. So were are the directors demanding something be done about it? And why aren't they saying "No...the answer to bad film handling by ape-like creatures with colven hooves and webbed fingers (especially the webbed fingers) isn't to abandon film and go to an inferior presentation medium; the answer is to cure the known problems with the current medium. And the irony is, we all know what the problems with film presentation are -- HELLO....it's that damn gorilla in the room, NOT THE FILM.
Directors need to get the distributors of their films to be rotwiller agressive and proactive about print handling at the local level. Rather than throwing up their hands and saying that there is nothing that can be done about the physical abuse of prints, so we might as well just go with crappy 2K video -- a demonstrably worse presentation medium than film. Instead they just need to say, a print comes back looking like dog-poo, exhib pays.
As said here before, if the distribs wrote contracts that demanded a projectionist be IN THE BOOTH AT ALL TIMES when their print is running and that ANY damage will be billed back to the exhibitor (and commit to ENFORCING it), it would make quality print handling an economic imperative for the exhibitor, on equal par with such things as rotating his stale Bon-bons. Money talks; make hiring qualified, professional projectionists cheaper than the alternative.
The problem would be fixed much faster than waiting for exhibitors to buy into an inferior video technology that will then burden everyone for eons, cause you KNOW that no matter what improvements might be made in the future in this video technology, the Regals and the rest of them who have plunked down $120,000 per screen are not about to chuck those projectors out the window to buy into yet another "roll-out" of the 4K or 8K upgrades. And THAT is not a rosy picture for future movie-goers.
quote: John Hawkinson
So, Frank, what do you do when you find out 6 hours before showtime that the only print you have is crap? It would be nice to program films with perfect knowledge of print condition, but that seems very difficult to achieve.
I don't disgree; and every year it gets worse because the art house/retrospective market doesn't interest the studios -- not enough money in it. No doubt it puts the second run venue between a rock and a hard place. To tell you the truth, I don't know what the answer is, other than impress upon the film-makers (as opposed to the print distributors) to demand a certain number of "archive" prints be stored after the initial run. After all, there is no reason 2995 prints of a 3000 print run have to be band-sawed two months after the break.
We have had situations where we are doing a retrospective of a director or an actor's work and when I can't get a decent print -- or none at all -- I make no bones about telling the filmmaker that his/her distributor doesn't have a single runable print of his title. They are often very surprised and then embarrassed and then angry -- this is their creation; they assume the distributor loves it as much as they do. They usually take that anger back with them. Perhaps they will make some noise about it.
quote: John Hawkinson
Have you never substitued a DVD for a 35mm print?
We did recently when only 2 out of 3 cans showed up Made the decision easier, though.
Funny thing is, that's exactly what happened just last week to us and with a full house -- and I won't lie -- if we had a DVD copy (the film was FIRE), I admit it, I we would have told the audience the situation and let them decide if they wanted to see the DVD with the proviso that when we get the FULL print, they would be invited to see it on film. We didn't have a DVD, but I am sure most would have stayed.
Awhile back we got a print of EUROPA EUROPA, only to find there were no subtitles. We asked if they wanted us to show it anyway -- about 3/4 the house sat through it.
That said, I stick to my point that it is indeed a slippery slop; you need to be sure that you understand that no matter how pragmatic, substituting video should be vigorously avoided whenever you can.
Also, if a DVD saves your butt once, the REAL problem may not be you, but oh, that Programing Director guy's ears are going to perk up and before you know it, you'll have to continually explaining to him why you insist on making his job more difficult than it has to be. Why you want him to battle for hours on the phone to get a good print when all he has to do is make one call to clear the rights to play a DVD. And let's not forget the Accounting guy -- he's also going to come at you with guns blazing demanding to know why you want to incurr an additional $80 shipping each way for a print when you can have a DVD shipped for $4.80 Priority Mail? You will be very, very unpopular.
Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 04-26-2007, 01:21 AM:
quote: Frank Angel
Not always the case. For decades network broadcasts of blockbuster scope pictures were televised in pan/scan versions, not letterboxed. Where were the directors then? I heard not a peep from any of them, and that abortion of a process was sooo gawd-awful that looking at it for just five minutes would make my nuts crawl back into my kindeys. P&S is a total, complete and utter ruination of film to the tenth power, compaired to what any DVD presentation would ever be. So don't count on big name directors to put up any fight for aesthetics when big chunks of money are waving in their faces. That whole thing about colorization was a joke. P&S was going on for years before anyone noticed color fade.
I wanted to say the same but I thought my post was already quite long Woody Allen and Scorsese are two of the few who opposed the dreadful pan and scan but many said nothing.
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 04-26-2007, 01:32 AM:
Well Carl and Ramon, Although I do tend to agree with you and understand your passion, I am realistic enough to say that the numbers who really care about 35mm would number closer in the late hundreds to early thousands, compared to the millions who go to the cinema regularly. They want a story, an experience, some escape. These people largely do not know that 35mm films exists. Its all part of the illusion of cinema. The shared experience. If I only had a dollar for each time I've been asked what videos are we running.
The film I run today, have mostly been originated on 35mm, had their post production done inside a computer in a digital form and then is outputed or arrilasered to 35mm.
Kenneth Branagh was the last to shoot a 70mm film, It has been 10 years since that film was released in Australia. His latest film was shot on 35mm, (fuji) . His director of photography has told me that if they had had more time to test digital cameras in pre production, they would in hindsight have shot it that way.
Filmmakers are embrasing Digital.
I suspect that if a classic was remasted digitally today from the original neg, the D Cinema version could possibly be of better quality than the original era prints when new.
I personally would love to see the return of 70mm, I would even be happy with 35mm sped up to 60 frames per second. I agree that the cinema experience should be vastly superior than whats avaliable at home. 2k and Blue Ray are similar in quality in a laymans perspective.
In London I am not surprised that there is still a healthy rep market. When I briefly worked at the NFT in 94, I was shocked at how consistantly high the quality of the prints we ran were! (I also remember running nitrate there as well!)
I would suspect that Berkley also has good prints avaliable.
Unfortunatly Australias archieves are simply not even in the ball park. The amount of poorly duped 16mm prints that I have run to paying patrons!!! I believe that Australia only has one or two full time rep cinemas left!! The Market is now catered for by a group of outdoor summer venues where over 2 000 people will gather to see a classic under the stars.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-26-2007, 08:51 AM:
quote: Cameron Glendinning
I suspect that if a classic was remasted digitally today from the original neg, the D Cinema version could possibly be of better quality than the original era prints when new.
That depends heavily on the format and quality of the original negatives balanced against the quality of the digital dub.
2K really isn't good enough to consider a "master" when it comes to treating 4-perf 35mm films, especially any that have good cinematography quality. 4K comes much closer to doing that job properly. But we see just how extremely few films are being scanned to disc at that level.
Obviously, VistaVision and 65mm elements need something more along the lines of 6K and 8K scans to do the original elements any justice.
As for the people embracing "digital" when it comes to actually shooting the movie, such people are going to shoot themselves in the foot in the long term. Just like people are starting to abandon 480i/480p content in favor of HDTV in the home, those HDTV formats themselves will seem very low tech in coming decades. That translates to a very bad long term outlook for a lot of Hollywood studio product which is bottlenecked at near HDTV quality levels.
The analog elements of film-based movies have a much greater level of grace in being able to adapt to new video storage formats. Any digital video recorded feature merely has its detail mapped to a starkly determined number of pixels. Low res digital material just does not blow up to higher res standards well at all. It just ends up looking like blurry crap.
Anyone making movies who chooses video over film for their project is either doing so out of concerns on budget or using the process out of convenience. It sure is not at all about obtaining higher image quality. The move to save time or money creates a step down in image quality and greatly reduces the finished project's long term viability on video storage formats, broadcasts and revival releases.
Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 04-26-2007, 12:33 PM:
quote: Cameron Glendinning
Well Carl and Ramon, Although I do tend to agree with you and understand your passion, I am realistic enough to say that the numbers who really care about 35mm would number closer in the late hundreds to early thousands, compared to the millions who go to the cinema regularly. They want a story, an experience, some escape. These people largely do not know that 35mm films exists. Its all part of the illusion of cinema. The shared experience. If I only had a dollar for each time I've been asked what videos are we running.
I agree with you. Nevertheless, and talking about films produced before the digital era I wish they could be seen as close as possible to its original format and in that sense digital screening is too far -IMHO- to that, it lacks the feel and the warmth of film. I really find it cold. Honestly, I would feel robbed if a cinema asked me to pay to see a DVD on their screen, I would not go.
As you all know, cinema exhibitors lost a lot of money in the early 50s when people preferred their "home cinema" system and so they had to create something different (widescreen and stereoscopic revolutions). Now the scenario is even worse, sound at home can be terrific and you are in the centre of all speakers and with blue ray and a good projector I dare to say that I may have quite a cinematic experience, in any case better than any of the awful multiplexes I have next to my home. To make matters worse, there is the increased belief amongst many people that you do not have to pay any more for films (ilegal downloading from the Internet). Maybe it is time to go to a very wide aspect ratio that looks like rubish on any flat screen or create a digital cinerama with three projectors.
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 04-26-2007, 09:01 PM:
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
create a digital cinerama with three projectors
I have to admit that that would at least be a step in the right direction ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Ramon I remember reopening your local cinema in 93-94, The Bellavue. The Indian owner had formerly run a drive in another country and wanted a big screen. He had a pretty over the top 60 ft deep curved screen installed in screen 1, not bad considering the stage was just over 30 ft wide. Screen 2 and 3 were pretty bad though, I wonder whats changed over the years?
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Honestly, I would feel robbed if a cinema asked me to pay to see a DVD on their screen, I would not go.
I agree that DVD is not an option unless the content is very rare, I too would feel robbed. I personally feel that Blueray/ HD could only be an option for screening classic's in cinemas for the short term, until it finds itself in the majority of peoples homes.
Here in Australia, where repetory cinema has pretty much moved away from hard top cinemas, It would be interesting to see how the public would react to this technology, to some degree it could be a fresh start and a bit of a novelty seeing an old movie inside a cinema.
I also feel that the lack of imagination of the newer cinema complex needs a mention, its fast food aproach, first release movies only, cookie cutter auditoriums . Compare that to the impressive buildings built in the original cinema boom in the early 20th century and the sense of experience that they created. I find that some of the latest complexes have improved a great deal in this aspect but perhaps a little too late ?
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-26-2007, 10:25 PM:
Didn't somewhere in the threads conclude that roughly about 50 -55ft should be the limit for a good, bright 35mm blowup? Past that, go to 70mm? Or is 55ft too conservative? I just spoke with someone who is looking to put in a 75ft width screen. Too big, no?
Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 04-26-2007, 11:55 PM:
Having started this topic with a question regarding DCI vs Blu-Ray, the various discussions have raised many interesting issues. Here in Australia, there seems to be very little interest in DCI-level digital, apart from about 10 Real-D installations that survive on pure 3D product.
However, there is a fairly active circuit of e-cinema quality screenings of art-house and foreign language material - an area where digital always seemed to have a future - that part of the cinema industry starved of 35mm prints. Many independent cinemas in Australia now screen some product from smaller independent distributors via e-cinema servers and non-DCI video projectors, mostly of no better quality than 1280 x 720 - a resolution at which most of the digital product is available at the moment. I hope that this resolution reaches that of HD (1920 x 1080) in the near future, perhaps via Blu-Ray or HD-DVD.
So why should we even consider showing such 'video' product in a cinema? Because the number of 35mm copies available across Australia (and let's include New Zealand here) is very small. Some films may only exist in film form via about 5 prints. So, if we wish to screen these movies within weeks of their release we have to consider alternatives to film.
As to whether audiences will baulk at watching 'video' quality: if the alternative is not seeing it in a cinema at all, then the answer is no. While my preference will be film, a good quality digital print can provide a similar level of audience enjoyment.
I have always considered that the picture on the screen is only part of the cinema-going experience. I find that I prefer to watch a digital presentation in an audience of 400 who cheer the sound format tags, and applaud at the end of a good show, than sit on my own (or at least feel like I am) in a multiplex theatre watching a 35 mm print of some remake or sequel or ...
It's the quality of the movie that determines most of the enjoyment.
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 04-27-2007, 12:38 AM:
quote: Frank Angel
Didn't somewhere in the threads conclude that roughly about 50 -55ft should be the limit for a good, bright 35mm blowup? Past that, go to 70mm? Or is 55ft too conservative? I just spoke with someone who is looking to put in a 75ft width screen. Too big, no?
To be perfectly honest, I think its more to do with auditorium size. I recently went to a Drive In (first time in a decade), The 100ft wide image looked superb from about 100 ft back, second row of cars. My guess is that if your auditorium is long enough, and you don't put any seats for the first 60ft it would be awesome! I worked at a cinema recently that had a 55' screen with no seats for the first 40 ft, it was very good. The auditorium was big enough for 900 seats on 2 levels, but only had 450 seats installed, The front rows of the stalls had 100 reclining arm chairs and a premium price that was always busy.
Essentially in my opinion 35mm does not have an ability to be viewed close on a monster screen like Imax or Cinerama. But can work very well with big screens in large auditoriums designed around its limitations.
Ps the screen in the outdoor cinema that I posted above is from a swiss company called cinerent. I think its over 60ft wide and 1.85 ratio. (The largest screen I have used from them is 75' wide 1.85.) It actually lies flat until showtime when it takes 3 minutes to raise to a musical fanfair. It provides a quality picture for all its 2,000 seats, plus full multiformat digital sound. I have some digi beta footage that I shot of it raising, I will post it some day when I figure out how.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-27-2007, 09:14 AM:
Auditorium size won't make up for a projector that can't properly illuminate a giant sized screen.
A 35mm projector can throw only so much light onto a screen. I don't know about drive-in theaters of today, but many in the past were booked with different types of prints from what an indoor theater would show. Those special drive-in prints were often made a lot brighter than normal to compensate for the fact 35mm projection on a huge screen is very dim.
5-perf 70mm works better than 4-perf 35mm on large screens simply for the fact its full frame aperture plate is 250% larger than that of 4/35. 70mm will get a lot more light onto the screen. That makes is possible to use giant sized screens and still have an image that achieves the proper levels of brightness. If the material on the 70mm print was shot in 65mm the print will have a much greater degree of image sharpness and richer color than 35mm.
Some digital projectors have lamp house designs that achieve good brightness levels on giant screens. But the limits of 2K image resolution becomes a serious problem when scaled up to giant sizes.
Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 04-27-2007, 05:35 PM:
quote: Cameron Glendinning
Ramon I remember reopening your local cinema in 93-94, The Bellavue. The Indian owner had formerly run a drive in another country and wanted a big screen. He had a pretty over the top 60 ft deep curved screen installed in screen 1, not bad considering the stage was just over 30 ft wide. Screen 2 and 3 were pretty bad though, I wonder whats changed over the years?
Well, what has changed is that it is a block of flats nowadays
I came to London 8 years ago and never went there, my wife did and she remembers the big screen. There are no cinemas in Edgware anymore, nor in Hendon or Colindale.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 04-27-2007, 11:11 PM:
quote: Cameron Glendinning
I suspect that if a classic was remasted digitally today from the original neg, the D Cinema version could possibly be of better quality than the original era prints when new.
This point was brought up at the Digital Cinema Summit in Las Vegas at NAB - the statement was that when archived classic films were scanned and a digital print was created the resulting product was superior to the original prints created - the explanation was that when the original prints were created from the negatives the technology didn't exist to get the 3 dye layers to converge properly and detail was lost . . . . obviously if the archived negatives were used to create 35mm prints today we could see the same increase in detail. This also shows how great 35mm is an that films from 50 years ago can have as much detail recorded as films from this past year.
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 04-28-2007, 03:22 AM:
quote: David Zylstra
This point was brought up at the Digital Cinema Summit in Las Vegas at NAB - the statement was that when archived classic films were scanned and a digital print was created the resulting product was superior to the original prints created - the explanation was that when the original prints were created from the negatives the technology didn't exist to get the 3 dye layers to converge properly and detail was lost . . . . obviously if the archived negatives were used to create 35mm prints today we could see the same increase in detail. This also shows how great 35mm is an that films from 50 years ago can have as much detail recorded as films from this past year.
From the 'the technology didn't exist to get the 3 dye layers to converge properly' comment I assume we're talking about 3-strip, with IB printing. My experience is somewhat limited, I've seen an original nitrate trailer for 'Becky Sharpe' projected, and even though it would have been made when both the negatives and the matricies were new, the registration wasn't that good. I've also seen demonstration reels projected from both Chineese IB prints, and the ones made by Technicolor a rew years ago. Of all of these, the recent print, I can't remember the title, was by far the best in this respect, but the digital transfer of 'Wizard of Oz' seemed to be perfect, I could see no colour fringing at all, enen standing right in front of the, admittedly small, screen; the Academy picture is probably about three metres wide. In this respect I have no doubt that the digital 'print' was better than the original prints of 'Oz' would have been, though I do have other issues with the digital version. It looked closer to a film print than many other digital tranfers I have seen, but it still looked different to my eye. While accuracy of registration of images is something that can be measured the 'quality' of an image is subjective; if somebody prefers the 'look' of one type of image to that of another then you really can't argue with that.
Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 04-28-2007, 03:35 AM:
quote: Stephen Furley
It looked closer to a film print than many other digital tranfers I have seen, but it still looked different to my eye. While accuracy of registration of images is something that can be measured the 'quality' of an image is subjective; if somebody prefers the 'look' of one type of image to that of another then you really can't argue with that.
This is me, I prefer the film look and I am sad that with the excuse of digital the production of new 35mm prints of old films will disappear.
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 04-28-2007, 03:54 AM:
I don't think it will stop, at least not in the foreseeable future, but they will certainly get more expensive. If they were only let out to people who would look after them properly then existing black and white prints, on proper black and white stock, and colour prints on recent stocks, would be good for many decades to come. I've seen 1930s black and white prints that still look like new.
What about films created digitally, at present we're talking mainly about animation, is there a case to be made for saying that they should only be projected digitally?
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 04-28-2007, 06:23 PM:
quote: Stephen Furley
If they were only let out to people who would look after them properly then existing black and white prints, on proper black and white stock, and colour prints on recent stocks, would be good for many decades to come.
The good news here is that there is in fact some work being done on this very issue at present. Essentially it's to do with formally approving venues to handle archive / repertory / specialised prints. I hope to have more information in due course.
Regarding screening digitally-produced material only using digital projection, personally I like the slightly softer quality of high-resolution digital images transferred to film. Pixar-produced animations come to mind, as does the likes of Shrek.
Having said that, I saw a recent demo of footage from Star Wars Episode II projected via a Christie CP2000 onto the giant Cinemarama screen at Bradford UK and the results were very good (despite the source material being shot at less than 2K resolution - perhaps it was scaled up and had some processing done on it).
quote: Frank Angel
Didn't somewhere in the threads conclude that roughly about 50 -55ft should be the limit for a good, bright 35mm blowup? Past that, go to 70mm? Or is 55ft too conservative? I just spoke with someone who is looking to put in a 75ft width screen. Too big, no?
My understanding is that 60ft is regarded as the limit for 35mm projection in terms of visible jump / weave, flicker, grain magnification, illumination uniformity and heat stress on the film. But after 50ft one is starting to push it, hence the recommendation to look at 70mm beyond this. 75ft would appear be too big normally for 35mm, but machines with electronic intermittents and properly-specified lamphouses, together with appropriate cooling and high-definition lenses might help significantly in mitigating the effects of over-magnifying the (relatively) small 35mm frame.
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-28-2007, 06:54 PM:
GD! Wrong thread! Sorry!
Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 03-16-2008, 06:12 PM:
Hi gentlemen
I have a question. Does Digital Cinema use lossless JPEG200 or Lossy JPEG2000? I checked DCI standards, seems that there is a maximum bit rate for video but someone told me that D-Cinema uses only lossless JPEG2000.
Thanks
Marco
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 03-17-2008, 09:55 AM:
According to the DCI spec, the compression is supposed to be "Visually Lossless" defined as being indestinguishable from the source material UNDER TYPICAL THEATRICAL VIEWING CONDITIONS.
So it is not lossless JPEG2000 in that the resultant image is not identical to the source frame. But it is supposed to look the same as the source frame to the viewer. Of course, they don't really define typical theatrical viewing conditions.
Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 03-17-2008, 06:06 PM:
Thanks Lyle.
Yes, I read that section.
So compression is used, but to have no visual consequences to the image quality?
Ciao
MG
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 03-17-2008, 06:32 PM:
I don't think anyone answered the question about HDCAM SR bit rate, so I will. HDCAM SR runs at 450 Mb/s, which uses very little compression from the 1.5 Gb/s native HD data rate. There is a double speed option for HDCAM SR decks that will let them run at 900 Mb/s, or record TWO HD sources at 450 Mb/s each. This can be used to record BOTH cameras of a 3-D rig onto one tape.
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 03-18-2008, 06:12 AM:
This discussion reminds me of a question I've been pondering for a little while: if a 1080p image looks so great on our 60ft screen, doesn't that make a 1080p image on a home TV serious overkill? In which case, why are we bothering with HDTV?
I have a 720p DLP projector at home throwing about an 8ft image and a well-authored DVD looks fabulous on it. It's hard to imagine that a 1080p image, while being technically superior, could be a huge improvement in practical movie-watching terms. Hence, I'm in no hurry to upgrade (plus I own about 700 DVDs. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 03-18-2008, 08:42 AM:
The reason that HDTV is not overkill for smaller TVs and can still look good on a 60 ft screen is because the resolution that your eyes can percieve is based on your RELATIVE DISTANCE (nomally expressed as a multiple of screen height) from the screen NOT the size of the screen.
If a screen is 10 ft tall and you sit 20 feet back from it, the image will look the same (as far as percieved resolution) as a 2 foot tall screen viewed from 4 feet back. 2 screen heights is 2 screen heights no matter what the height is.
It doesn't matter that on a 60 ft screen the pixels are physically around 3/8" as long as you are sitting far enough back your eyes can't resolve down to 3/8".
There is a formula to figure out how close you have to be in order to resolve the pixels. From memory, the distance for 1080p is about 3x screen height. So for a "big screen" TV that might translate to 9 feet or so back but in a movie theater it could be 90 feet.
The push for 4k resolution is for the benefit of the people sitting closer than 3 screen heights.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-18-2008, 10:38 AM:
quote: Lyle Romer
So it is not lossless JPEG2000 in that the resultant image is not identical to the source frame. But it is supposed to look the same as the source frame to the viewer. Of course, they don't really define typical theatrical viewing conditions.
JPEG 2000 can be used in a data lossless manner, but it is run at lossy levels in 2K D-cinema files. Most lossless compression systems do hardly any better than 2:1 for storing complex image data. You would need something on the order of a 750Mb/s data stream to store a 1080p source video in a lossless manner.
There are significant differences between JPEG 2000 in D-cinema and the MPEG-4/AVC and Microsoft VC-1 formats used on Blu-ray Disc movies. In a certain respect, the video stream in a d-cinema file really isn't video. It's many thousands of discrete still images stored in a video-like container. JPEG 2000 is really a discrete still image format and a significant improvement over the previous JPEG standard. 2K D-cinema compression levels are usually relatively mild, usually between 12:1 and 6:1, which also results in really huge file sizes.
The 1080p video streams on Blu-ray use variable levels of compression ranging from as low as 38:1 (for a 40Mb/s maximum video stream) to rates over 100:1. Low bit rate HD movie trailers in Quicktime and Windows Media formats often go over the 200:1 level on compression. Inter-frame compression is common with consumer video formats. It's not allowed in D-cinema.
quote: Stu Jamieson
This discussion reminds me of a question I've been pondering for a little while: if a 1080p image looks so great on our 60ft screen, doesn't that make a 1080p image on a home TV serious overkill?
I have a new 52" HDTV with native 1080p resolution. My viewing distance from the TV is about 7' (a little over 2 meters). At that distance it's pretty easy to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p material. It's also easy to see limitations in the material, such as artifacts from severe levels of compression.
Posted by Kevin Baglow (Member # 721) on 03-18-2008, 04:05 PM:
I have sold out of cinemas four years ago and been travelling the world since and enjoying what is offered around the world.
It's the same with any product, a mediocre one won't succeed. The only way to succeed to to go one better than any one has gone before. Trying to cut costs by reducing quality will only lead to failure. The best product will perform best! Film has a lot more potential than what it's often being used for. Cinemas will succeed if they make the best of film.
A top restaurant wouldn't sell frozen food would it? Neither would a top cinema show a digital film.
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 03-18-2008, 05:16 PM:
^ I'll take our digital cinema any day of the week thanks. Maybe it comes down to the equipment we use for each process but our digital projection is sharper, brighter, has more vibrant colours and (best of all) displays absolutely none of the wear and tear that inevitably becomes associated with a 35mm print. I can't vouch for old movies though.
In the end I guess it's like the valve amp vs. transistor amp debate. (I prefer transistor.)
quote: Lyle Romer
The reason that HDTV is not overkill for smaller TVs and can still look good on a 60 ft screen is because the resolution that your eyes can percieve is based on your RELATIVE DISTANCE (nomally expressed as a multiple of screen height) from the screen NOT the size of the screen.
Of course, I should have realised that.
I guess I'm also a little bit in denial. I happy with my current home theatre setup so I haven't specifically sought out HD for fear that it will win me over; and to be won over means more $$$. Ignorance is bliss! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 03-21-2008, 03:47 PM:
You know the fear that some exhibitors might try to bypass the distributor by using the HiDeff option is just a bit hallow. Some exhibitors don't report true figures to the film companies already. Some don't deposit all the moneys to the bank and pay all the sales taxes and income taxes due on that money. Some are just not honest if you are honest you do the right thing.
Honesty is not determined by how hard it is to get by a rule, a law or a moral; honesty is determined by who you are. Either you are honest or you aren't or you are somewhere in the middle. I rather suspect if you are somewhere in the middle you just are not honest.
Well that was the way I was raised and maybe I'm not rich but I have no trouble sleeping, I can look myself in the mirror and only be shocked by how old I am not what I did to someone else.
There will always be those that adjust the facts, justify the action or go around the rule. I don't worry about them I just worry about what I do.
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 03-21-2008, 05:59 PM:
quote: Ron Funderburg
You know the fear that some exhibitors might try to bypass the distributor by using the HiDeff option is just a bit hallow.
Haha, you mean "hollow", right?
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-21-2008, 08:23 PM:
Ron,
It is illogical to say that someone is wrong for fearing avoiding paying because other people already try to avoid paying.
That's like saying that you shouldn't have a lock on your door because some people will break into your house anyway or that you shouldn't have a firewall because some people already are breaking through those.
You're correct that some people are dishonest, but that shouldn't dissuade someone else from not wanting this dishonest behavior to become even easier.
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 03-21-2008, 10:20 PM:
We live in a time where the movies are available to the general public on the Internet for free and in the black market in every major city before they are on a movie screen. Piracy is happening in the studio far more than anywhere else the studio needs to figure how to control it on their end before they worry about our end.
Honest people don't skirt the rules because others do that is a justification. Of course the film companies will worry about the possibility of someone stealing product or not paying a fair share but you can't lock every possible way of putting things on the screen to avoid the possibility of one person or another doing something wrong. The blu-ray option for putting out slide to the screen or alternate product could be used to great advantage.
Yes it should be hollow sorry.
About 10 percent of people cause about 90 percent of all the problems in life.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2