Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Some thoughts on my first digital screening.

This is topic Some thoughts on my first digital screening. 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=000020

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-04-2007, 03:53 PM:

Well, I survived the experience. I was really nervous about it, probably because if anything had gone wrong it would be highly unlikely that I could put it right; I was literally shaking before the show. The projector functioned perfectly; unfortunately, the projectionist didn't and there was no sound for the first few seconds. I made a really silly mistake. I faded out the non-sync, and selected the 'Digital 1' input on the DMA8 which also switches the CP-65 to format 10, a format which we did not normally use previously as our film sound is analogue only. Forgetting this I then pressed the format 10 button on the CP-65, which flipped the DMA8 back to 'Film' mode, hence no sound. The way the DMA8 has been installed is a bit odd; pressing any of the four digital input buttons selects that input, and switches the CP-65 to format 10, pressing format 10 on the CP-65 selects that format, and switches the DMA8 to 'film', which is totally useless since there's nothing connected to that input. Pressing 'film' on the DMA8 switches the CP-65 to non-sync for some non-obvious reason. I don't know why it was set up that way.

The film, both sepia and colour sections, looked very good, better than other digital restorations that I have seen. The registration was absolutely spot on, I could see no fringing at all in the 15 minutes or so of Technicolor material which I watched in the auditorium before the show, even standing right in front of the screen; I can't say that for any Technicolor dye print that I've seen. I don't know what elements the restoration used. To my eye the colour looked a bit over the top, even for this film. I've seen a few clips of original '30s Technicolor prints, and this didn't look the same, but it was closer than I would have expected.

It looked better than a dirty, scratched film print, I don't think there can be any doubt about that. It also looked far better than material that I saw on the first generation 1.4k digital machines. Did it look better than a good film print? I'm really not sure; it looks different, it's difficult to compare a lithograph with an etching. In our set-up the Academy picture is smaller than the film one, which is a pity; the other ratios are the same size. The picture is very bright, brighter than for film, at less than full output.

They have managed to rig up some extraction, when I get round to processing my film I'll post a picture of how it was attached to the projector. Over Christmas/New Year an extra tapping was taken off the main extract duct, with a length of 8" flexible ducting left hanging down to the floor. When the projector was installed this ducting was just left sitting on top of it, doing nothing. I did notice that the lamphouses on the Kinotons were running somewhat hotter since this was installed; the large duct was obviously reducing the draught through the other machines. When the ducting was shortened and attached to the digital machine there was something of a gap around it, and the Kinotons were running even hotter. There's a damper installed where the flexible ducting from the projector comes off the main rigid one, and closing that just over half way seems to have restored the airflow through the Kinotons, while still giving adequate extraction for the digital machine. The digital projector does put out quite a bit of heat; I wouldn't want to run it all day without any extraction.

Would it have been worth paying the full price for the equipment at the moment, including all of the enabling works that the cinema did have to pay for? No, even if we could afford it, which we couldn't; I've no doubt about that. How much would it be worth paying? I'm not sure, I'd have to think about that one.

Once I'd started the show there really wasn't anything to do until I brought the lights up at the end, which really didn't feel right somehow.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 03-05-2007, 09:45 AM:

Stephen, they did that with one of my installations back in 2000. I added an in-line duct fan attached to the top of both projectors.
Link to Grainger

My other split duct has a guillotine, to cut off the airflow from one device, so the other device is having most of the extraction from the rooftop unit.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-05-2007, 09:57 AM:

So, who paid for the installation and why? When programs are available in both film and digital formats, which one gets booked and why?

Was your screening run off a file server or was it from videotape?

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-05-2007, 11:17 AM:

Scott,

It's part of the UK Film Council/Arts Alliance 'Digital Screen Network' project, for broadening access to 'Specialised film'. You can read about it here . Also, do a search on this site (i.e. Film-Tech, not the DSN site) for 'UK Film Council' and 'Digital'; there are many posts on the subject, mainly by Leo and myself. Look at the thread 'News item: UK pioneers digital film network' in this forum; you yourself contributed to that thread, just over two years ago. Most of the concerns that I have about the project I expressed in that thread; the majority of them are not technical issues.

I strongly support the aims of the project, but I am not yet convinced that this is the best, or the most cost-effective way of achieving them; time will tell.

The show was run from a Doremi digital cinema server, but the installation also includes a Christie interface, for playing video signals, in various analogue and digital formats, through the system for 'alternative content'.

Arts Alliance own, and install the equipment, and there is a requirement to screen a certain amount of non-mainstream content on the system each year. The project was funded mainly by the National Lottery, though each cinema is responsible for funding any enabling works, such as building, HVAC, electrical sound system upgrade works etc. Something over 100 cinemas have been selected to have these systems installed in something over 200 screens. I think the project runs for five years, at the end of which there will be an option for the cinemas to buy the equipment at a much reduced cost, if they wish to do so.

[ 03-05-2007, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Stephen Furley ]

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 03-05-2007, 11:44 AM:

What was the title of the film being projected? Based on your comments, it was originally photographed in Technicolor 3-strip, with non-color sections.

RPM

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-05-2007, 11:56 AM:

'Wizard of Oz'

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 03-05-2007, 12:08 PM:

Wasn't it 'Wizard of Oz'? We've had it on re-release over here, my old workplace was running it on the same projector but they have the QuVis server. I saw it in 35mm, wasn't in Academy though which I thought was a bit poor.

Did you show 35mm ad/trailer reel and then switch to digital?

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-05-2007, 12:23 PM:

Caleb,

The earlier DSN installations used the QuVis server, but they have recently switched to the Doremi one. I think we are towards the end of the installations.

It's very odd that you say it wasn't in Academy; it certainly was when we ran it. Are you sure there wasn't a setting wrong somewhere?

The screening I ran was a Saturday morning children's show; there are no adverts or trailers with these. There will be two 'normal' screenings of it this week on Wednesday and Thursday, which will have adverts and trailers. Yes, these will be run on 35mm at 1.85, and then changeover to the digital at 1.37 for the feature, just as with a feature on film. Normally I would close the curtains between the trailers reel and the feature, but they're broken at the moment, so have to be left open until fixed.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-05-2007, 12:25 PM:

Thanks; I didn't realize that the UK thing was still in process.

Are the booking terms for these shows the same as film? If so, is the only advantage to the exhibitor one of reduced shipping costs?

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 03-05-2007, 12:54 PM:

With the Christie you just choose the aspect ratio on the touch screen. Even then, we had a play around with the test files on the QuVis player, they all ran in the right ratio without intervention by us.

When I saw it, at the Chelsea Cinema, it was in 35mm. I can only presume that they got a copy that had been printed as 1.85, cropping the top and bottom of the image slightly. Guessing that isn't the effect showing an Academy film through a 1.85 lens is. Wasn't too bothered, just thought that they might be a bit more fussy about things like that considering it is a Curzon.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-05-2007, 12:56 PM:

Sorry Caleb, I mis-read your comment re the aspect ratio. How were the 35mm prints done, were they cropped to some widescreen aspect ratio, or 1.37 within 1.85, or what?

quote: Scott Norwood
When programs are available in both film and digital formats, which one gets booked and why?

This is unclear at present. We are showing 'Apocalypto' this week, which is obviously available on digital, but we are running it on film. We are bringing back 'Pan's Labyrinth' at the end of the month, but when I asked about it that will also be on film. I believe that they will eventually run on digital everything that is available in that form. I hope that doesn't mean that if something is only available on film they won't show it.

quote: Scott Norwood
Are the booking terms for these shows the same as film? If so, is the only advantage to the exhibitor one of reduced shipping costs?

I have no idea on this one. One advantage that we will have is that we often run a film for a week, then take it off, then bring it back. Sometimes a film comes back five or six times, with just a week or two off between runs. This tends to happen with any film that has Judi Dench in it, 'Ladies in Lavender', 'Mrs. Henderson Presents' etc., and also with 'The Queen'. With film we have to break down the print and send it back each time, then make up another print, sometimes in worse condition, a week or so later. With digital we have enough disk space to keep such a film loaded on the system, and just obtain a new key for the next run. The key for 'Wizard of Oz' is valid for several months by the way, I can't remember exactly how long.

Edit:

quote: myself
I believe that they will eventually run on digital everything that is available in that form.

Sorry, that was badly worded; I will clarify. I meant that I believe that eventually they will always run in the digital format if the film is available both ways, not that they will show everything that is released in the digital format. At present it looks like only about one film per month will be in digital, but this will clearly increase in time; how quickly this will happen remains to be seen.

I'm hoping to be able to hire the cinema for something myself in a couple of months time, if I can get them to quote me an affordable price. This would be for a digital show, most likely run either from a DVCAM tape, or from a laptop.

[ 03-05-2007, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Stephen Furley ]

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 03-06-2007, 10:26 AM:

I can only guess it was 1.37 within 1.85, with the masking at 1.37 width. Either that or they hadnt set up the academy properly for the screen size.

The Clocktower is probably the kind of cinema the Film Council had in mind for the d-cinema network. Makes your programming more flexible I guess, easier to bring back popular films and you could make money out of conference facilities as well. Would love a digital projector for our university theatre/cinema, we've got two mothballed FP20s and a Favorit 16B, with a spare projector space! Did you get chosen by the Film Council or did you have to apply for one?

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-07-2007, 03:47 AM:

Caleb, why don't you 'unmothball' the FP-20s, and get some film running on them?

I only work at the place as a relief, so I can't tell you a great deal about it. Cinemas which met certain requirements, which were listed on the DSN website, I'm not sure if they are still there, were able to apply to be selected. The main requirements were to be a currently operating full time cinema, or to be under construction and to be operating as such within a certain period, and to show a certain proportion of what the UKFC terms 'Specialist' film. Beyond that requirement the cinema is free to use the equipment for whatever other purpose it wishes; it could show mainstream film, video, Powerpoint presentations etc. The requirement to be a currently operating cinema, or about to become one, is one of my concerns about the project; it offers no help to any community which does not have a cinema, but wishes to open one, or re-open a dormant one.

The project does enable certain cinemas to have digital projection equipment installed which could never have afforded to buy it themselves at current prices, but where does that leave very similar cinemas which were not selected? What happens if distributors of 'specialist' films decide to release only in digital format at some time in the future, due to the greater number of cinemas now able to handle it? I have a number of other concerns about the project, which I wrote about in the of the thread which I mentioned earlier; it is, as yet, too early to tell whether most of those concerns will prove to be justified.

The costs which the cinema has to pay, though far less than the total cost, can still be considerable, as can the practical difficulties of actually fitting the equipment in, as was the case at Croydon. According to the DSN website there's also a monthly charge which has to be paid. While this is quite small, if only a handful of digital screenings are made, e.g. the three this month, the amount per ticket sold for a digital show can be considerable.

Lack of dirt, scratches, fading etc. on old prints, and ease of bringing back a film after a short break are obvious advantages. Video material can be shown with higher quality than can be done with a conventional video projector, and the sound quality can be better than is possible with 35mm Dolby SR tracks, though there is a downside here; we are having problems with the sound on the digital system. On 'Wizard of Oz' it was only a problem in a couple of very brief places, but on certain other material that we have tested the system with there is serious distortion and 'rasping' noises. A full B chain alignment wouldn't hurt, but I think that the greater dynamic range of the digital tracks may well be showing up shortcomings in our existing sound system which weren't heard with conventional analogue tracks. More upgrading may well be necessary. It may not be a bad thing that, after tomorrow, it's over a month until the next scheduled digital screening; it does at least give time to sort out these sort of problems. I'd be interested to know if anywhere else that has had this equipment installed has had similar problems.

When the cinema was opened, twelve years ago it was designed to be suitable for private hire presentations, conference work, etc. in addition to normal cinema screenings. Two FP-30Ds were installed, which are unchanged apart from conversion to red readers about four years ago. Between these is a large port, covered by a wooden flap, hinged at the bottom, fitted with a deck chair type leg, which lets down to form a support for a slide or video projector, or behind which could be stood a Hortson 16mm machine which was stored in the corner of the projection room. This had not been used for several years and was removed at Christmas while the building work was going on, and to get the digital equipment through the door. I think it's still in store downstairs, but I doubt that it will be brought back, so we have lost one facility, albeit one which has not been used recently, but which could possibly have been again in the future. It is possible to control a slide projector from the auditorium, from where there are also audio and video feeds to the projection room, though these are seldom used. There is also a lectern, with suitable facilities, which can be installed in the auditorium when required. The only frequent use for this centre projection position in recent years has been for video, and since that can now be done by the digital projector, shouldn't be necessary in future.

Unfortunately, the space between the two 35mm machines, while somewhat greater than normal, was not wide enough to fit in the digital machine. There was a similar large port and flap to both left and right of the 35mm machines. Because of the rather wide spacing of the 35mm machines these are well off axis, and have never been used for any sort of projection, though the right-hand one was sometimes useful to look through while working at the bench. The only way they were able to install the digital machine was to make a new port, partly overlapping the position of the old right-hand one, and to move the sound rack, making it very difficult to get to the desk, due the the railings around the hole in the floor which houses the fire escape ladder. This position is not ideal, and there is some keystoning of the image, though it's not noticeable most of the time; you only really see it during the credits. It was suggested that one 35mm machine be removed and a tower installed, as has been done at certain other venues, but we often have to run the first half of a film while still making op the second half, often run three of four different films during the day, normally only have one projectionist on duty, and the tower spools are rather too heavy for one person to lift, though I have done it in the past, when I have worked on towers a few times. Also, it makes a much later get out on Thursday night, not to mention that it would be difficult to find space to fit in a tower. Installing a platter would be impossible; the projection room is so shallow from front to back wall, that you just couldn't fit one in. Re-positioning all three projectors, and eliminating the fourth position would require major work. Removing film altogether and going 100% digital overnight might now be possible for an all mainstream cinema, but certainly isn't in our situation. Even the NEC digital equipment which we have is quite large. Short of building a new arts centre there's really no ideal solution. I think my choice would have been to try to get all three machines repositioned.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-07-2007, 04:07 AM:

There was a presentation on a new generation of digital Technicolor restoration technology at AMIA '05, and the demo included bits of The Wizard of Oz. I can't remember the exact details, but if I remember the gist correctly three acetate separation interpositives made in the '50s were scanned individually (the original nitrate negatives for two of the three strips have decomposed in all or most of the footage, and the software can't give as consistent a result when starting with mixed positive and negative sources) at 8k, and then realigned and registered in a computer. The end result was then burnt out to b/w separation negatives for preservation, and downconverted to all the digital formats needed for access (everything from 4k d-cinema to 720i video).

In cases where differential shrinkage isn't an insurmountable problem (and modern optical step printers can now deal with 3-4% without taking a significant vertical stability hit), photochemical restoration of three-strip is still preferred by some archivists, because they believe it gives more accurate impression of the tonal range and density of original prints - getting back to what you said about the image looking almost 'too' clean and bright.

The studios are also using this digital system to work on features that were shot on coupler stocks and then preserved on acetate seps which have now shrunk and deformed (the original camera negs being problematic due to dye fading). We were shown some clips from Chinatown in that presentation - the subtlety in the greens and browns in the orange grove scene was amazing - more detail in the picture than I'd seen in any film print.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 03-07-2007, 06:18 AM:

quote: Stephen Furley
Caleb, why don't you 'unmothball' the FP-20s, and get some film running on them?

Money. We've tidied up the projection booth so that it looks remotely presentable but the quote was ten grand for a full service of both FP20s. Was told that they run but probably wouldn't make it through a show. I've got no idea if the sound system works either. Would possibly have to spend money on a new rewind bench as well as a full cleanup of the booth.

We'll probably try and apply for funding next year to sort things out. Shame because it would be the fourth largest auditorium in the West End (presuming places like the Dominion can't run film anymore) and possibly the largest with a 16mm projector installed, don't think the Empire or Odeon LS/WE have one.

The three digital installs I've seen all needed an extra port cut, one needs a curtain over the port not being used to prevent excess light. The digital we had at work was a pain because it was between the platter and 35mm projector.

I get the impression that the project wasn't planned that well, what with switching server 3/4 through. Also having one projector in a multiplex is pointless. You need one in a medium sized screen and one in the smallest screen to justify 'specialist' content and continue runs from the medium screen.

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 03-07-2007, 10:24 AM:

Leo,
Your information on THE WIZARD OF OZ is not quite correct.
The original 3-strip negatives of the Technicolor portion of the picture survive in good condition. Only reel 1AB (the sepia portion, actually shot on B&W film, no longer exists). Safety finegrain and duplicate negative of this, of course, do.
I'm not sure of the details of the digital scanning, except it was done from separation elements, then re-registered digitally. The results are astoundingly good.

Dick May

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-08-2007, 02:28 AM:

Many thanks Dick. I distinctly remember the speaker explaining that scanning the o-negs was not possible and that they had to work from duplicate seps. If the reason wasn't decomposition I can't remember - I'll dig out my notes when I get a moment.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-08-2007, 03:46 PM:

I went to see the film today, there are several things that I want to say about it, but i'll write again tomorrow; I'm too tired now.

Just a couple of questions, firstly, who did the restoration? There's no credit for it on the film.

Secondly, after the show a little old Yorkshire woman came up and spoke to me in the bar; I've seen her several times in the past, and she has asked technical questions when I've been projecting. She says that she saw the film when it was originally relased, and she thought that she remembered the monochrome scenes being in black and white, not sepia. I don't remember it, I wasn't born for almost another couple of decades, but I thought that the original prints were sepia, and it was for a later re-release that they were done in black and white. There would seem to be several possibilities:

1. I am wrong, and the original prints were not sepia.

2. Her memory is letting her down after so many years.

3. She saw a re-release, not the original one.

4. The original American prints were sepia, but the original British ones were black.

Any thoughts?

Assuming that the original prints were sepia, were they silver prints that were toned, or were they printed that colour by dye transfer?

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 03-10-2007, 04:45 AM:

I remember running The Wizard of Oz during the 1950's revival, the first 20 minute reel prints were in black and white, unlike the 1939 release which were sepiatoned.

The Independent newspaper.

The Wizard of Oz returns - with a yellower brick road

By Geneviève Roberts
Published: 16 December 2006

The tin man wears blue eye shadow, Dorothy's heel-clicking red shoes sparkle with 4,600 sequins and the world's most-viewed brick road has a vibrancy not seen for almost 70 years.

The Wizard of Oz was re-released at cinemas yesterday, restored to the vivid Technicolor glory of the 1939 original. After eight months of restoration work, including 250 hours simply cleaning the dirt from the original negatives, the "magically fervid intensity" of the film - one of Hollywood's most lavish productions - has been restored.

Critics have been convinced that the film warrants watching on the big screen. Time Out described it as "celluloid alchemy of the highest order" and told readers to "see this luminous restoration, and rediscover the power of truly great storytelling to reveal us to ourselves". The Times said it should be seen for its "Hollywood splendour".

Warner Brothers worked on the original negatives of the 98-minute film - which begins in the monochrome of Kansas and bursts into colour when Dorothy's house, uprooted by a tornado, lands in the surreal fairyland of Oz.

Restoring the first 19 minutes of the film, which were shot in black and white, took 91 hours. For the latter part of the film, three coloured strips of film sensitive to red, blue and green light were combined to give unrivalled - and at the time state-of-the-art - colour quality.

A spokesperson for Warner Brothers said: "It's rather like an old painting hanging in a gallery. Everybody loved it, but it was not how it originally looked. This restoration has painstakingly removed all the dirt, dust and scratches so that it's as good as the day it was released."

Margaret Deriaz, head of distribution for the British Film Institute (BFI), hopes that it will be popular this Christmas in cinemas across the country as one of the "greatest fantasy films of all time".

She said: "It is an amazing experience: a film so lavishly and spectacularly mounted really needs to be seen on the big screen. I hope that a new generation will be introduced. The fact that Warner Bros has produced a stunning new digital restoration gives the BFI the opportunity to bring this much-loved classic to the widest possible cinema audience.

The release comes in the same week as the Cowardly Lion's costume was auctioned for £357,000. Judy Garland's gingham dress went for £140,000 last year.

Fans of the original include the film-makers Peter Jackson, George Lucas and John Waters. Salman Rushdie described it as illustrating "how the weakness of grown-ups forces children to take control of their own destinies, and so, ironically, grow up themselves" in his Wizard of Oz handbook.

The movie is firmly planted in the collective consciousness. The film distributor MGM estimates more than a billion people across the world have seen it. A stage version has just opened at the West Yorkshire Playhouse; the musical Wicked is playing in the West End and Irvine Welsh's stage play, Babylon Heights, is inspired by the imaginary stories of the people who played the Munchkins. The tunes have been remixed by 50 Cent and Aerosmith.

And now, with a yellower brick road and brighter rainbow, the original is back.

Behind the scenes

* Judy Garland's contract said her physical appearance could not change so she was given amphetamines to control her weight and barbiturates to sleep. In 1969, she died of a psychiatric drug overdose.

* Victor Fleming is credited as director, but Richard Thorpe, George Cukor and King Vidor also directed scenes.

* Buddy Ebsen was to play Scarecrow but Ray Bolger wanted it so badly he replaced him. Ebsen was then cast as Tin Man but became ill from breathing aluminium dust and Jack Daley replaced him.

* Studio executives initially wanted 'Over the Rainbow' cut out, thinking it unseemly for Garland to be singing in a farmyard.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 03-10-2007, 05:15 PM:

quote: Stephen Furley
The only way they were able to install the digital machine was to make a new port, partly overlapping the position of the old right-hand one, and to move the sound rack, making it very difficult to get to the desk, due the the railings around the hole in the floor which houses the fire escape ladder

I'm sure this was ruled out Stephen, but what about high level between the 35mm machines? I've seen this done at a few Preview Theatres, even with large DLP machines. I'm assuming the ceiling was too low, but I've seen one install where they were able to go partially up into the ceiling void and still get out through the porthole wall, via a new high-level port. Worked very well, and the machine was on-axis horizontally and also well within tolerance on the vertical axis.

Also, I think in an arts venue where there is a high turnover of prints (and not much space), you simply cannot beat a twin-machine changeover stup. Indeed, two machines, (even one 16/35 as well?) with a DLP in the middle at higher level would be nirvana [Cool]

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-10-2007, 06:16 PM:

Brian.

Yes, that was considered, but there wasn't room for it. I was there when the site survey was done, and you name it, we considered it. Hanging it upside down frm the roof, putting it in the storeroom below, and periscope up through the floor, horizontal periscope for the digital, digital in place of No. 2 35mm machine, and then put that on a horizontal periscope, build out into the auditorium, mount two of the projectors on rails so either film or digital could be slid into position behind the port.

If the digital machine had neen smaller we could have put it in the centre, where the old slide/video/16mm position is, but it's too wide to go there; you wouldn't be able to get to No. 1 machine, nor open the back of No. 2, without removing the digital.

With permission from the projectionist I tried putting a couple of clips of Hi-def video through it today. One was a Batman trailer at 720p, and the other was a seies of shots from around the World, at 1080p. I ran them from my laptop, picture via DVI, and sound via a Toslink optical cable. On the laptop's own screen the Batman one autaully looks the better of the two, and I think this was also the case on the cinema screen; I'm doubtful about the elements that some of the 1080p material was sourced from; I'll have to try to find something better. The Batman trailer at 720p actually looked surprisingly good; not as good as proper digital cinema material, but vastly better than standard video.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-15-2007, 10:26 AM:

Well, not only did I get to run the first digital show, but on Saturday I was the one to take the projector past 100 hours, so it's probably time for an update. I think about half of that 100 hours has been public shows, the rest has been installation, testing, training etc.

We have now run three films:

In March 'Wizard of Oz'

In April 'Becoming Jane' and 'Inland Empire'

In May 'Becoming Jane' has returned, and 'Curse of the Golden Flower' opens next week. 'Inland Empire' also returns later in the month.

In June 'This is Englnd' and 'My Best Friend' are listed as being in digital. Surprisingly, 'Meet the Robinsons' isn't.

I've now run five digital shows, three of 'becoming Jane', and one of each 'Wizard of Oz' and 'Inland Empire'

Just received an e-mail, 'The Painted Veil', opening on Friday will also be in digital, so next week only the Saturday morning children's film will be on 35mm.

This week we have, in error, been seent a 35mm print of 'Becoming Jane'. This will probably be the only time we will have a film in both 35mm and digital forms at the same time. I was hoping to be able to run both together between shows on Saturday, to do a direct comparison, but there just wasn't time. Looking at the program booklet, there should be about 15 minutes free tomorrow between one show coming out, and the doors opening for the next; I'm going to 'phone the projectionist in the morning and ask if he'll let me go in and run a few minutes of it during this time.

<Five hours later>

I went to see 'Becoming Jane' this evening; the first 'normal' film that I've seen the whole of from the auditorium. I don't think that it looked either vastly better, or vastly worse, than 35mm, as some people have said.

I'm too tired to write more at the moment, but I'll edit this post tomorrow to add my thoughts.

Ok, here are my thoughts, having seen a complete 'normal' film from the auditorium. I was sitting in row D, which is roughly one screen width from the screen; I haven't actually measured it.

Lets start with the easy bit; the sound was better than an SR track on film. We still have some issues with our sound system, and are having to run with the level of the sub reduced at the moment, I still heard distortion on a couple of loud transients during the film, but that's our fault, and should be resolved soon.

The digital has a sharper look than film; noticable on graphics like the certificate and the credits. I would say that the resolution was adequate, but no more; I didn't find the resolution of the previous generation (1.3k?) projectors to be even adequate. Even if we are only projecting at 2k at present, I really do feel that we should be doing digital intermediate work at a higher resolution. I haven't seen 4k projected yet, but I have seen film projected via a 4k D.I., and it does look better.

There's no dirt or scratching on the reel ends, obviously, which there is at least some evedence of on most of the films that we show.

The blacks are better than on previous projectors, but if you open the douser and project black onto the scren you can still see that it isn't really black. Most of the time you don't really notice it, due to the contrast with the highlights of the scene, but on some dark scenes it does show up. There seemed to be less shadow detail held on the digital than I saw on the trailer for the film, which I saw on 35mm. I'm still hoping to be able to get access to the cinema for a few minutes this afternoon to do a direct comparison while we still have the, unused, film print in the box.

While sharply defined objects looked good, objects not in sharp focus, and things which were just 'fuzzy' in nature sometimes looked a bit odd. I noticed this several times on skin tones of faces; a bit like over-sharpened video, but not quite the same.

Overall I think I still prefer the look of the film version.

The digital does improve the working environment in the projection room; it doesn't get as hot; almost all of the heat comes out of the vent at the back, and is removed by the extraction system; the casing of the projector remains quite cool. In contrast, quite a lot of heat is radiated from the film lamphouses, and is therefore not removed by the extraction system. There's also a smaller amount of heat produced by the rectifiers, which is also not extracted. The much reduced noise level in the projection room is welcome; you can clearly hear the dialogue on the track, which is difficult with film, unless you turn the monitor level up to the point where M+E are too loud, and it's much easier to use the telephone and/or radio.

[ 05-16-2007, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: Stephen Furley ]

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 05-15-2007, 04:57 PM:

It would be neat to see here in the states.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 05-16-2007, 12:16 AM:

We went to see the 'Pirates 3' screening today. It was held at the Seattle AMC "Pacific Place" theatre, screen 9... about 400+ seats. Don't know the screen size exactly, but it was probably on the order of 40-50 feet or so. I have no opinion about AMC, the company, the employer, or their presentation standards. We just went there to see the screening.

This was the first time in years, that I've seen an indoor presentation that was so near perfection (I don't live anywhere near Texas... sorry, Brad).

The picture was bright, and the lamp was evenly adjusted across the entire screen. Sound levels were very comfortable, and I could detect no imbalance between the speakers. Equalization was also good... no perceptible peaks anywhere. The picture was rock-solid, and the focus was about as good as I've seen in a long time. I wondered if they'd recently bought lenses. Funny... these are acolades that lately have been reserved for non-film presentations.

My attitudes about digital aside... if the digital folk are looking for film-done-wrong examples to make them look good, this isn't the place for them. I doubt they'd make much of an improvement.

If anyone here works at that theatre, they're doing a helluva good job.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-16-2007, 06:12 PM:

The AMC's out here that I service also do an excellent job. They seem to provide more comprehensive booth training than do other cinema companies. For instance if they scratch a print or just a reel it is to be replaced within 24 hours... no ifs ands or butts. The booths are also spotless. It was funny when they took over this area of Cineplex's how fast many of the Cineplex employees fled. They knew they were going to have to actually work!

Mark

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-16-2007, 10:21 PM:

quote:
They knew they were going to have to actually work!

(maybe Carmike should take lessons from AMC then, or just let AMC take over their operations...)