quote:

---

From my perspective, the only true evaluation of digital cinema would be to project it side-by-side with a pristine 35mm print.

---

Been there, done that!:

http://www.boxoff.com/daily/daily99daily12.html
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 09-19-2003, 03:03 PM:
 
Movies don`t open later in other parts of the world because it takes too long to dub them. In Germany, where unfortunately all movies are released in dubbed versions (except for small "arthouse" or documentary films), it only takes them a couple of days to do it, and very professionally, I have to admit.

The reason for the delay is that the distributors want to see how a movie does in its home market before they offer it elsewhere. If it does really good, that gives them a better basis in the negotiations to ask for more %. If it does badly, it may never be exported, or as part of a package snared with a stronger title.
Because a lot of films are pirated and published on the internet, some big releases are already done simultaneously in several big markets. For instance, the "Lord Of The Rings" and "Harry Potter" movies.

As far as the main content of your post is concerned - I think most of our friends here on this forum have never actually seen a digital cinema presentation. As we found out in our recent discussion about "Once Upon A Time In Mexico", I am the only one who has seen it in digital. As you probably read, I found the image quality very good.
Most people fail to understand that whatever medium you have, it always alters the content. If you watch or listen to recorded sound or images, you always have to accept the fact that you are not experiencing the "original", but a representation which is altered by the medium.
Like the discussion about whether anlog or digital sound is better: simply a nonsensical discussion - to the trained ear neither sounds real under any circumstances. A recording which is mastered to reflect the characteristics of each recording format will always sound good, one which does not make good use of the way the format alters the content will always sound bad.
 

---

Posted by Edward Jurich (Member # 1787) on 09-19-2003, 06:01 PM:
 
If you ran a video version and a live play side by side, which would look better. OK, so people go to live plays because they are live plays. People go to movies because it's a movie. Some of the qualities of a movie include film grain and all that makes up the quality of a filmed movie. A video has qualities of its own. Fine, so have some "Video" presentations and have some "Movie" presentations. Just don't call a video a movie because a movie implies film.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-19-2003, 06:13 PM:
 

quote:

---

Paul Konen wrote:
By others peoples analogy, film is good, digital is bad. It has been equated to video, rust and fecal matter.

---

quote:

---

Just don't call a video a movie because a movie implies film

---

I (sort of) beg to differ...According to Merriam-Webster:

======

Main Entry: mov·ie
Pronunciation: 'mü-vE
Function: noun
Etymology: moving picture
Date: 1912
1 : MOTION PICTURE
2 plural : a showing of a motion picture
3 plural : the motion-picture medium or industry

Main Entry: motion picture
Function: noun
Date: 1896
1 : a series of pictures projected on a screen in rapid succession with objects shown in successive positions slightly changed so as to produce the optical effect of a continuous picture in which the objects move
2 : a representation (as of a story) by means of motion pictures : MOVIE

=====

Even though film was an immature technology when "movie" and "motion picture" were coined, I don't view the words as being locked into a particular technology. OTOH, whenever someone calls a video presentation a "film" or says something was "filmed" when it was actually photographed electronically (eg: taped), then that's when my hairs starts to stand on end...
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 09-19-2003, 06:40 PM:
 
I don't agree with the statement that any form of digital cinema is video. Video started its life long ago as an analog form of transmitting and receiving (and later, storing) moving picture information, but scanning the scene in the form of scan lines and reproducing it with scan lines as well. The "scanning spot" could only be in one place at a time in the scene.

Film is an analog media that stores an entire image at once, and in theatres, entire images are projected at once.

I think of "video" as meaning something that is scanned by a "scanning spot" moving across the scene many times, capturing "scan lines". Digital cinema, as I understand, does not work this way. (Correct me if I'm wrong). Digital still cameras have a CCD array that captures an entire image at once, right? Do digital movie cameras with CCDs capture entire images at once instead of using a scanning mechanism? If so, then digital movie cameras are much more similar to film cameras than video cameras are. In projection, the entire array that is being projected through is updated all at once, right? If so, that is much more like film than video.

If something originated from a video camera using a one-scan-line-at-a-time mechanism for capturing the scene, yes, call it video. Otherwise, if the camera captures entire images at once using an array of sensors, I would only call it video if it were being shown on a device that displays with scan lines using a moving scanning spot.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-19-2003, 07:22 PM:
 
It's video, just a better kind of video.

So you're saying that if I shot something in 24p on a DVX100 camcorder and played it back in 24p on a DLP projector (all of this is completely possible in the confines of someone's home) it's NOT video? Is hooking a computer up to a DLP projector suddenly NOT video? Video does not have to be NTSC, PAL, or SECAM.

I think the thing is that people are equating video with poor quality. Video is getting better and better all the time. HDTV exceeds the current 1k chip used in digital cinema (of course the new 2k chip is much better... just keep going 'till you get to 8k, guys!). Who knows what will come after HDTV. Whatever the case, it'll still probably be video.

My main beef is why settle for less resolution than film, when it can spend a bit more time in R&D to make it BETTER than 35mm or even 70mm in every respect? DLP was rushed. Of course, people are always satisfied with "good enough".
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-19-2003, 08:37 PM:
 
Some theatres could actually benefit from the advent of digital video.

I have a small multiplex in a remote location. They always have to wait a long time to get used prints and, most often, they are in not-so-good condition. No digital sound for them, either.

Ironically, such a small operation could never afford digital at these current prices!
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 09-20-2003, 01:01 AM:
 
I love film just as much as anyone out there, but Digital Cinema is pretty damn amazing. I have only seen it once (Celebration II) and it blew my socks off! Of course, it was just Episode II stuff, so I haven't seen what film originated material looks like in DLP. However, there are several benefits to DLP: no prints, no damage to prints, less complicated, and plays perfect from day 1 to day 45. The problem with lousy projectionists and film done WRONG is even more of an excuse for DLP because all one really has to do is press START, and leave the techie stuff for, well, a tech. Sure, film is not leaving anytime soon but DLP is the future whether you all like it or not. First there was silence, then sound, and eventually color. Now, we are going to have to realize that DLP is just the next evolution. Yeah, it may not be AS good as film done RIGHT but eventually, it will be and I believe it will be and can't wait for it to be because it is just plain simplier. Anything that can improve a presentation is good in my book. And heck, if the popularity of it can get more movies out and more off beat movies out then that is great. We need more than just blockbusters!

AJG
 

---

Posted by Lindsay Morris (Member # 1430) on 09-20-2003, 05:58 AM:
 
Whether we all like it or not DLP is just around the corner but just how far nobody really knows. You could almost liken this era to the time when "talkies", The Jazz Singer, was about to overtake the silent film period.
However the BIG diference between then and now is the huge number of 35mm machines out there whirring away as the economics of changing all those is enormous compared to the sound/silent revolution of 1927.
I have been able to compare first hand the differences in quality between DLP & Film.
The DLP machine was NOT a full blown theatrical unit rather an up market home cinema Sony unit in the top range of what they provide. It is installed in the venue where I do projectionist duties for a Film Society and shares the bio box with a 35mm Ballantyne (1600 watt Xenon) and 16mm Fumeo HL2000 (500 watt Xenon). The pix size is just a bit smaller than the 16mm machine at almost 4m wide and as far as I know the unit uses 3 x 150watt lamps... Metal Halide I believe.
During a test of a range of similar machines recently we had some suppliers come in and demo their units and almost ALL had the DVD of Bugs Life to demo. We also had some program material to demo/try out and it was a video of Mask Of Zorro, the DVD of the same flik and a Scope trailer in 35mm of Zorro.
Bugs Life looked pretty damn good on almost all machines when blown up to that size.
The test was really on Zorro and only 2 of the 8 units on test scrubbed up OK with the big failure point being any backlit scenes as most lost almost ALL detail and was just a big SPLODGE!
2 were passable but the salesmen I believe had deliberately selected Bugs Life for the very bright scenes in almost all that film. After we had weeded out the rubbish we tried a video of the same film and the quality on the screen was only just watchable... any wide shots had absolutely no detail and I would equate that to almost 8mm film resolution where close shots are usually good but any wide shots are struggling with fine detail.
I then rolled the scope trailer while the DLP was on the screen and the 7m scope image almost totally obliterated the DLP image and the same "splodgy" (on the DLP show) backlit scenes in film were crisp and clear.
All that said IF I was an exhibitor with a couple of small venues to equip for screenings AND I could get the necessary DVD's to screen that is the way I would go right now.... Cheaper to equip than using 35mm plant. More convenient and far easier to schedule tight screenings into those venues. No thread up just shove it into the player and away you go! What could be easier???
Down side... No trailers or shorts or ads etc at least not just yet but they will be coming. No trailers is a problem as they are one of the most effective marketing tools an exhibitor has at his disposal and I would be a bit nervous running a cinema without any trailers.
But can never see me doing that as I love film, the sound, the smell and probably the nostalgia as well and with just one screen I do not even have to think about it.... but I bet your socks that others are.
Lindsay
 

---

Posted by Bill Mantz (Member # 754) on 09-20-2003, 07:31 AM:
 
I see almost everyone refure to Digital Cinema as DLP. DLP is a Texas Instruments processing system that drives there DMD chips DLP stands for Digital Light Prossesing with drives there Digital Micromirrior Devise. Since Texas Instruments was first on the seen with digital cinema everyone refers to digital cinema as DLP but there are other systems out there being developed for digital cinema like Kodak/JVC D-ILA digital system. It is like asking for a Kleenex when you mean you want a tissue. I just wanted to point out that digital cinema is not just DLP.
Just adding my .02 on this topic
 

---

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 09-20-2003, 11:10 AM:
 

quote:

---

the only true evaluation of digital cinema would be to project it side-by-side with a pristine 35mm print.

---

But for once let's level the playing field and not deliberately compromise the 35mm side (yes this has happened on several occasions)

Better yet, let's side-by-side compare DLP to a 70mm print from a 65mm negative! Even 'digitally-sourced' (then scanned directly to 65mm) material would blow away the DLP!

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 09-20-2003, 12:47 PM:
 
Lets be truley honest here and I think I have mentioned it before in other threads. If you put a D-Cinema system in a theater and did not advertise the fact that you used it would people actually notice or care that the picture is any better. Some people think that we use video tape for the movie anyway. You here that when you give them a booth tour. Right now this type of projection is just plain too expensive to care about. I am not saying that it is not a good thing for the future in respect to the industry it is just not economicaly tolerable for an exhibition industry that trying to avoid loosing it's shirt again. A lot of the current DLP installs are prototypes or installs that were done essentially for testing. The system is just too computer based. Look at the time period that computers have existed and count how may times they have become obsolete over that time period. Same will happen for DLP and other D-cinema technology. Pretty soon you just can't upgrade any more and you have to buy a new system. Film just keeps rolling on.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 09-20-2003, 12:58 PM:
 
The owner of my building just spent $90k-bucks to replace the 6 HVAC units on my roof.

It wasn't lost on me that I couldn't even get, let alone install a single for what it cost to totally replace the environmental systems here.
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 09-20-2003, 04:40 PM:
 

quote:

---

Better yet, let's side-by-side compare DLP to a 70mm print from a 65mm negative! Even 'digitally-sourced' (then scanned directly to 65mm) material would blow away the DLP!

---

IMO, that's irrelevant. The point isn't to compare DLP with what is theoretically possible with film. It's to compare it with how film is used in the market today. Know anyone besides IMAX who is going to shoot a commercial film on 65mm? Those days are long gone. Ron Howard tried it on "Far and Away" and there was a great big collective yawn.

Another issue is that TI, for example, makes both single chip and 3-chip DLP projectors. We shouldn't confuse the single chip projectors, which are made primarily for home theater and corporate use with the devices made for theaters. I have a feeling that if digital cinema becomes the norm, a lot of theaters are going to try to get away with projectors that aren't much better than what they're using for digital ad presentations.

I agree with those who think we should wait for better technology and 8K chips. But nonetheless, don't blow off digital projection, because from what I've seen so far, it already looks impressively good and I was very predisposed to hate it. I see motion artifacts on DVDs that drive me nuts and when I walk into a high-end home theater store, I see images that I can't stand on $30,000 monitors. I'm using a 20 year old Sony TV which I think provides a better picture.

One aspect of digital cinema that you would think would be at least as good as film is the sound. Yet every time I've been in a situation where I was able to compare digital on one screen with 35mm on another, the 35mm presentation had better sound. I don't understand why this would be the case, especially if they were using DTS on both, although I suspect I was hearing Dolby Digital on both.

And although prices come down far slower on professional equipment than on consumer equipment, you know prices are going to come down. Having said that, studios and distributors are going to have to recognize that if digital cinema is going to happen, they're going to have to share the cost with the theaters or otherwise make the economics for theaters better.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-20-2003, 05:32 PM:
 
Ahhh! Not another full blown digital cinema argument! But I have to chime in when someone likens d-cinema to the level of change that came with "The Jazz Singer". Bad comparison. In the booth, the change is even greater than adding sound back in the old days. But to the audience the change is minimal, nothing like adding an entire dimension called sound.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-20-2003, 08:43 PM:
 
First off Paul subtitleing need not take any time nor multi languages
THe DTS CS system allows for subtitleing and I have installed parreleld DTS units for multi languge through the hearing impaired.
In side by side comparisons Digital cinema has always had poorer contrast and depth of colour than original fim based media
On that point the math alone does it
Also the basis of the technology requires far greater lamp size for a given size image than 35mm does
As for it is coming it wil only happen if John Q public will pay for it over other entertainment
In almost every venue that has done it the "alternate content" that every one hypes has died after the novelty value has worn off
Until the quality equals that of 35mm (preferred 70mm) and the economics favour indi-theatres (to that same quality standard)to afford it is un viable medium
 

---

Posted by Lindsay Morris (Member # 1430) on 09-20-2003, 10:52 PM:
 
Joe,
I think you mis-read my post regards comparing the impact the talkies had on the industry to what the impact will be with Digital projection overtaking conventional film. The impact will be huge....enormous and a very costly exercise to change each and every 35mm film projector worldwide to a Digital machine in whatever shape or form finally wins out... DLP or whatever else turns up along the way. There is going to be a long period of parallel operation as Digital makes its inroads into the current film projection system.
The point I was making is that there are machines out there now and not too expensive at that...like AUD$26,000 that can do a very credible image for small auditoriums and with the sound that also comes on the DVD what could be simpler to a small operator???.
I know of many small 60-70 seat screens in Australia that could easily use this medium IF the DVD's were available at normal cinema release time/s. But they are not unless the Distributors decide to change things from the way they are now in OZ.
It would not matter if the Digital projector had to be thrown out after a couple of years as at $26,000 (Aust)it may well be almost written off as far as business costs goes. Plus if you had got the bums on seats with that screen it may well be a very good idea to upgrade to a bigger and better model particularly IF the customers liked what they saw.
A 5m screen width with almost "over the counter" availability for equipment to do that size makes for a very attractive proposition for small venues. It opens up the capability of being able to screen a lot of old stuff which in many cases does not have a projection print available but is available on DVD once the "rights" issues are sorted out of course. A couple of film festivals in OZ used digital projection just recently and many who saw those images DID NOT SEEM TO NOTICE that it was any different to film! As far as I know nobody complained about being given a Digital image to watch rather than a film. Maybe they were all just "philistines" anyway and really could not care less.
The group who I work for are actively looking at sourcing much of their future material on DVD so I can see a big reduction in my time over the next few seasons having to make up old and weary prints that would have been better off junked
It is coming and like a cancer it will grow and spread but at what rate??
Lindsay
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-20-2003, 11:24 PM:
 
I don't think small auditoriums should use anything less than a 3K chip.
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 09-21-2003, 12:48 AM:
 

quote:

---

So you're saying that if I shot something in 24p on a DVX100 camcorder and played it back in 24p on a DLP projector (all of this is completely possible in the confines of someone's home) it's NOT video?

---

Assuming a DVX100 camcorder grabs frames all at once like a digital still camera does, and doesn't use a scanning spot, then yup, that's what I'm saying. It's digital cinema, but I wouldn't call that video. Now if you shot it with a high-definition TV camera which uses the same technology as older standard-definition TV camera (using a scanning spot that's only at one place spatially at any point in time), just at a higher resolution (such as 1080i), I'd say that it originated on video, regardless of what you played it on or converted it to.

Here's my simpler distinction between the two: Take two adjacent scan lines from a field (or frame, if progressive). Are they from the same time? If yes, then I wouldn't call it video. If no (the data for the two scan lines were sampled at two different points in time due to the scanning pattern used), then I call it video.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 09-21-2003, 01:34 AM:
 
I was not very impressed by DLP projection of a movie that was shown at Sho-West. The movie was a good movie, but it just didn't look right.

Beside that, those guys at ShoWest should get their sound systems equalized. That movie was hard to listen to....It sounded like it may have been EQ'd, but not fine tuned to take the edges off the high end.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-21-2003, 02:52 AM:
 
Joe Redifer wrote:

quote:

---

I don't think small auditoriums should use anything less than a 3K chip.

---

quote:

---

Those days are long gone. Ron Howard tried it on "Far and Away" and there was a great big collective yawn.

---

That was the problem: 'Far And Away' was a huge pile of ! And Branaugh's 'Hamlet' was another example of the wrong way to push 65mm origination. What needs to be done is for someone to have the cojones to shoot a film in 65mm that isnt some artsy-fartsy 4-hour Shakesperean snoozefest... (Perhaps one of the next 'Harry Potter' or 'superhero franchise du jour' films for example). With DTS, the cost and environmental issues of the mag striping are nonexistent, Picture quality, especially with the new stocks from Kodak, would be incredible.

Just my .02

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 09-21-2003, 03:37 AM:
 
John, gotta love that orange circle. It should be on ALL movies from now on. Oh wait...now it is starting to look familiar.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-21-2003, 08:13 PM:
 
I just recently got to see a DLP projector (Barco DP-50 running 6KW) changed over to a 70mm print of Baraka. There wasn't really a comparison...65mm/70mm is still the only way to fly for true High-Def. You can walk right down to the screen on a 65/70mm production and practically feel you can reach through the screen.

With the DLP running at 1280x1024...the magician's tricks become apparent as you get close to the screen but it sure looks damn impressive a screen height or two away. This fall we will see the 1920 x 1080 DLPs come around. Please note, the current machines are only 1.25:1 machines and need anamorphics to get out to our 1.85 and 2.39:1 ratios. The new machines will only need anamorphic lenses for 2.39:1 ratio...just like film. The resolution is going appear to go up about 2X even though the actual resolution upgrade is less than that. If you do a resolution comparision with and without the anamorphic lens it is quite notable. With the anamorphic lens you pick up some chromatic abberations too.

With 24P...My personal observations is that a 24P HD image looks inferior to the likes of a HDCAM image.

Another thing to note with video...the starting resolution and the display devices are often not a 1:1 mapping. That is, on the projector imager, it isn't pixel for pixel...there is interpolation that will fuzz up the image. If you want to see this affect...take your basic XGA resolution video projector you can pick up economically now (and probably have or will get to replace slides) and plug your laptop into it set to XGA resolution (1024 x 768). Note that for each pixel of your laptop there is a pixel on the projected image...it looks like a nice big version of your laptop's screen. Now...adjust the "digital keystone" on your projector...just one increment will do...then check your display...from the booth it looks okay...down at the screen...it looks like a gauzz filter just got put in as the pixels get morphed between two display pixels.

The bottom line is that video is an emerging technology that is not ready for prime time yet... but the potential advantages over film for display are numerous and out weigh any real-world film advantages. That is the typical mass-duped release print is mostly garbage as compared to the EK version of the print. If there was any care about the final image quality in Hollywood...65/70mm should be the norm...it is really that good.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-22-2003, 09:34 AM:
 
Here we are getting all bent out of shape about pixels, resolution and all of that. But don't you guys get it? This switch isn't about image quality; it's about saving money. The folks in Hollywood are trying to eliminate printing and shipping expenses -- I'm convinced that's ALL that this is about.

Personally, I think revisiting 70mm would be fabulous but it's a step in the wrong direction as far as the studios are concerned -- twice the weight on each print! And, from the theatre operator's perspective: who's going to pay for THAT upgrade? It's kind-of the same problem with switching to video -- we've already got these 35mm projectors here. I realize that some theatres are already equipped to handle 70mm but, let's face it, most are not.

The switch to video is inevitable. I'm not agreeing that it's better, mind you. I'm saying that the switch is inevitable because that's what the studios want. The technology will continue to evolve, issues of title availability will get resolved and, eventually, a "must-see, digital-only" release will come along and then the floodgates will open.

As for the high cost of conversion, I think the studios should take on part of that responsibility. After all, it's going to save them money in the long-run. They could easily increase the house nut and/or rework the split ratios for houses that convert. If they REALLY want to force the issue, they could make that a "limited-time-only" offer.

Now, let me ask you this: How much sooner would the industry have embraced a switch to digital if the studios paid for (and retained ownership of) the playback equipment? I'm thinking we'd have well over 1,000 houses from as early as "Episode I."

My hunch is that the argument over image quality is merely a stalling tactic. I'm not saying that it's not a real concern, just that I find it hard to believe that the entire exhibition industry is as concerned about film quality as we are. I'm trying to be real here -- look around at how many cinemas are showing trashy prints through an underlit lamphouse and crappy lenses? How many are still running analog sound through a system that hasn't had so much as a level-set since its installation?

My point is that even in its current manifestations, digital projection would actually mark an improvement in many situations.

35mm could stay around for "premiere engagements" in the same way that 70mm got used in the 80's. But would theatres agree to pay extra for a 35mm print? Would they agree to pay shipping costs on that print?

Ultimately, this is going to come down to economics. The studios want to save on printing and shipping; the theatres don't want to pay for new machines. The way I see it, quality doesn't even enter into the debate. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be one of the major concerns...just that in all probability, it isn't.

For my own part, I just hope they're difficult and fussy to install. I also hope that they break down a lot. Otherwise, I'm out of a job.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-22-2003, 12:04 PM:
 
Aaron Garman wrote:

quote:

---

John, gotta love that orange circle. It should be on ALL movies from now on. Oh wait...now it is starting to look familiar.

---

Nice to know they can track pirated copies of my Film-Tech photo. But I should demand they use the original CAP I helped Kodak develop for the MPAA twenty years ago.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-22-2003, 06:21 PM:
 

quote:

---

But I should demand they use the original CAP I helped Kodak develop for the MPAA twenty years ago.

---

Well, send over the specs.
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 09-23-2003, 04:15 AM:
 
First you must excuse my ignorance. How are movies produced today? If they are produced using film in super35 what happens next? Do they physically edit the film a la cut an paste or do they scan this orignal to do a digital master that is edited. If they then produce film prints from a digital master at a certain resolution is not this resolution a real limitinging factor. If this is done at 2k and the digital projector is 2k the real drawback with digital is that you can not sit to close to the screen.

I understand that many of you here are knowledgable professionals. Why is the industry so opposed to change. Would you not love to see Maxivision48 being used. From the whitepaper I have read on Maxivision48 it is not extremely expensive. It could at least be used as a premium format. I also see the potentila to use it for a 48fps source for 4k digital cinema.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-23-2003, 08:45 AM:
 
For information on current production methods, check out the Kodak website:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h2/

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/dealing.shtml

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/digital/mastering.shtml

Also the Association of Cinema and Video Laboratories (ACVL):

http://www.acvl.org/manual.htm

And American Society of Cinematographers:

http://www.theasc.com/index.html

And International Cinematographers Guild:

http://www.cameraguild.com/
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 09-23-2003, 09:00 AM:
 
A lot of people fear change not because of what the change is but what the change can potentially do to the future. In the exhibition industry you have had film for over a century. Vast improvements have been made with the film over those years but those changes did not cause any fear because the actual medium did not leave. With digital projection you have a lot of fear. This is because it is changing something that has worked for a century into something that is relativly unknown.

Take for instance the equipment. A projector and soundhead can last for many many years just by taking care of them and replacing parts when needed. If the film is threaded carefully and the use of film guard and cleaning habits are maintained the film will stay in prestine condition.

With Digital you run into problems with issues that have been discussed numerous times here. They are who's gonna pay for it, what do you do when the thing is obsolete, who is going to maintain the equipment and what do you do when something goes wrong with the chips. Who foots that expensive bill.

Another issue and big fear is who looses their jobs when this thing becomes wide spread. No need to thread the machine I guess we don't need you anymore.

My feeling has always been that if you are going to put peoples jobs in jeappardy then the system should damn well be better than 70mm film and cost effective. The two things that it is not at this time.
 

---

Posted by Lauren Fisher (Member # 1905) on 09-23-2003, 03:06 PM:
 
Even though it's new technology and the public is all over it (oooh digital) they have no clue as to how the digital movie is projected onto the screen. The public still views a movie as when the projectionist just pushes a button. Many of my friends have been surprised to find that our jobs are so much more complicated than what they have perceived all this time.
When the theatres do go to all digital, sometime in the next 50 years or so, there will still be a need for projectionists. Just because the projectors will start at the push of a button, someone will need to be there to start it and to fix it if something happens. Digital isn't flawless and i don't think it ever will be. There will always be analog to compare digital to.
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 09-24-2003, 03:40 AM:
 
I really don't have a problem with the references of electronic projection being poor, because they are being made in reference to a comparison to film projection.

What's driving the installations is not improvement in picture quality; DLP's specs are admittedly inferior. What's driving it is cheapness - for distributors & staffing expense - & "additional revenue" - the 2wenty advertising marathon at Regal theaters before the feature.

There's not a doubt in my mind that if they couldn't make the audience *not* aware of such a difference, the quality of electronic projection equipment installed wouldn't even be to the level it is now.
 

---

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 09-24-2003, 04:39 AM:
 
According to Merriam-Webster, video is related strictly to television.

How the image is scanned or presented(scan lines or whole image) isn't mentioned at all and is irrelevant by Television's definition(i.e. the method of presenting those electrical signals is not relevant to it being a television).

The kicker that brings it all together though is the definition of cinema(short for cinematograph). "Especially the film industry." To add, film's 4th definition is simply "Motion Picture."

The definitions we saw of motion picture and movie earlier in the thread show a distinction between them and television. A film presented on a tv is a complete transference of the former media to the tv media and broadcast through those afore mentiond electrical signals.

Digital Cinama is NOT video in the sense that it is the "film industry." It IS video in that it is presented through electrical signals rather than direct projection of the moving pictures.

I have to conclude that DCinema is a video techology that is just aimed at being presented in the Cinemaplace. WHEW

or not ? That is the question.

Main Entry: 1vid·eo
Main Entry: 1vid·eo
Pronunciation: 'vi-dE-"O
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin vidEre to see + -o (as in audio)
Date: 1937
1 : TELEVISION; also : the visual portion of television
2 : VIDEOTAPE: as a : a recording of a motion picture or television program for playing through a television set b : a videotaped performance of a song often featuring an interpretation of the lyrics through visual images

Main Entry: 2video
Function: adjective
Date: 1938
1 : being, relating to, or used in the transmission or reception of the television image <video channel> -- compare AUDIO
2 : being, relating to, or involving images on a television screen or computer display <video terminal>

Main Entry: videotape recorder
Function: noun
Date: 1953
: a device for recording and playing back videotapes -- called also video recorder

Main Entry: tele·vi·sion
Pronunciation: 'te-l&-"vi-zh&n esp British "te-l&-'
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French télévision, from télé- tele- + vision vision
Date: 1907
1 : an electronic system of transmitting transient images of fixed or moving objects together with sound over a wire or through space by apparatus that converts light and sound into electrical waves and reconverts them into visible light rays and audible sound
2 : a television receiving set
3 a : the television broadcasting industry b : television as a medium of communication

Main Entry: cin·e·ma
Pronunciation: 'si-n&-m&, British also -"mä
Function: noun
Etymology: short for cinematograph
Date: 1909
1 a : MOTION PICTURE -- usually used attributively b : a motion-picture theater
2 a : MOVIES; especially : the film industry b : the art or technique of making motion pictures

Main Entry: cin·e·mat·o·graph
Pronunciation: "si-n&-'ma-t&-"graf
Function: noun
Etymology: French cinématographe, from Greek kinEmat-, kinEma movement (from kinein to move) + French -o- + -graphe -graph -- more at -KINESIS
Date: 1896
chiefly British : a motion-picture camera, projector, theater, or show
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-24-2003, 03:39 PM:
 
Of course that entry was written before there were such advancements in video.
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 09-24-2003, 04:07 PM:
 
The main reason I'd like for people to distinguish between material shot with a traditional video camera (using a scanning mechanism to convert light/color from a continually moving scanning spot into a signal) and material shot with a digital camera that captures a sequence of frames in which an array of sensors, all of which are "exposed" at the same time is that they're mathematically two totally different animals. The second case is mathematically much more like film than the first.'

With film, the entire film, for all practical purposes, is "exposed" and then the next frame of film is pulled into place, then exposed, giving a sequence of frames in which every point in a frame is from the same point in time. The same would be true for the second case mentioned above. All sensors are "exposed" at once and the values are used to store an image in some fashion. With traditional video, every since pixel in the image was sampled at a different point in time, and since standard definition NTSC was interlaced, there was the additional complexity of adjacent scan lines being sampled approximately one sixtieth of a second apart from each other.

Take a film or digital cinema image: Any pixel in the image (frame, row, col) is at time offset

start_time + frame/24 (assuming the first frame is numbered 0 and was taken at time 0 in relation to the start time) The row and column do not enter into the formula.

Take progressive video from a video camera using R rows and C columns and F frames per second. Then the time of sampling of pixel (frame, row, col) is

start_time + frame/F + row /(F * R) + col / (F * R * C)

If making a moving picture of a vertical object, like a utility pole, moving at a high speeed horizontally in relation to the background, traditional video shot with a traditional video camera will show a "slant" to the pole (and possible motion blur), and if the video is interlaced, there will two images of the pole overlaid on each other with a "combing" effect on the edges. With digital cinema or film, the slant will not be present (just maybe motion blur depending on exposure time).

If film is scanned to make a traditional video signal, of course, the difference in sample times from one pixel to another can be ignored.

Are there good terms to differentiate between "traditional spot-scanning video" and "digital whole frame at a time sampling video"? I can't think of any. A digital cinema system that plays a movie by playing a sequence of static, independent JPEG images is much more like film than video will ever be (which uses MPEG and adds additional compression based on relationships between the images).
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 09-24-2003, 04:23 PM:
 
evans,

have you observed the "slanting pole" and "combing" effects on video? i would think that the presentation of the video, assuming that the scanning beam moves at the same rate as in capture, and is also interlaced, would reverse the effects. where they should be noticeable is when material shot on traditional video is presented on film, or vice versa (although i can't say i've noticed this in a video of a film, but then i don't watch those). the slanting effect is very noticeable in scrolling text on those led displays you might see in store windows.

carl
 

---

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 09-24-2003, 04:45 PM:
 
Video is still video .. a sequential medium. A 'complete frame' does not exist, frozen, at any point in time to be sent out waiting for the next one .. it's all illusion. Everything is determined by how the rows of CCD's are scanned and how the resulting data is interpreted and converted to digital.

Here's a great (though technical) explanation of all of this: (Evans, with his mathematically-inclined mind, will doubtless understand it far better than most of us).

Progressive Scan ad nauseum

Edit: A 'complete frame' in film terms is different than a video frame. There are complete video frames, but they are 'built up' over time and don't exist all-at-once, as a film frame does. Clear as mud?? Meee tooo.

Ron Yost
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-24-2003, 05:09 PM:
 
Video should be seen as any means of electronic capture and/or presentation of the image. Video has gotten much better over the years and will continue to do so until it surpasses the resolution of the greatest eyeball in the world at close range.

But in the end it will still be video.
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 09-24-2003, 10:16 PM:
 
So Joe, does your definition of video include digital still cameras or does your definition only include those used for motion pictures?

Does your definition of video include your computer monitor displays when you're running computer programs (regardless of whether they're CRT-based or flat-panel)?

What about Toy Story and Toy Story 2 and Finding Nemo and similar movies that are totally created in the electronic domain? Is that video? It's electronically captured and not filmed in any way.

I'm not being critical of what you're saying. I'm just seeing how far your video definition goes.

By the way, tonight I went to the theatre and saw a video commercial transferred to film. It wasn't only standard definition video -- it was from a composite source! I could see the "dot crawl" artifacts! I'd never noticed that in a theatre before. I believe it was for one of the branches of military services -- I forget which one -- I was so distracted by the composite video artifacts in the image that I totally missed the content.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-25-2003, 12:38 AM:
 
Digital Still cameras - Yes, though that could be argued (see my final paragraph in this post). For the most part those pictures spend their entire life in video, from the camera itself (which usually can output to a TV) to the computer. If it is printed then it is a piece of paper. Obviously the images themselves are bits of digital data, similar to the way video images of, say, a VCR recording at differences in magnetic polarity/etc on a videotape. The actual storage method is different, but the end result is similar.

As far as computers go, yes, I consider the image to be video... very much so.

As for computer generated movies... tough one. But they fall into your category for video since not all of the pixels in any one frame are created in the same moment in time. Far from it in fact.

My definition of video should also include something that can be altered live in realtime. Like a mouse cursor moving across the screen, etc. This would make digital cinema projectors very much video. Same with the cameras they (George Lucas and the like) shoot with as they offer instant real time playback on a monitor as they are recording. Also you don't have to record a scene to see the final product from the camera as you do with film, if ya know what I'm trying to say.
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 09-25-2003, 03:42 AM:
 
Evans
I would like to make sure I understand you correctly.
You are saying that a traditional video camera generate a continous signal representing different parts of the picture with no "pixels" recorded at the same time. Information in rows are at a time offset and adjacent rows are very much time separated due to the interlaced nature of video. I believe I got this.
What is the case with the latest generation of Cinealta cameras? Is it like this? First exposure of the entire ccd array for a short time. Next temporary record in buffer and then transmit the entire frame. Now the camera is ready to start to work on the next frame. Are all pixels created from the ccd array from the same time instant in the same frame?
Or is the only difference that Cinealta latest offerings just have less time separation between adjacent rows because recording progressively?

I would appreciate further description of the difference between traditional video and the current state of the art digital recording cameras for digital cinema.

edit
I have now read the progressive link that was unreadable before. That cleared up a few points. My conclusion is that digital cinema with film source is the same as film with regards to temporal integrity of the frame. It is compressed and that could give artifacts but resolution could be maintained more easily, less risk of sloppy projection resolution wise.

Sonys 24spf is recorded 1080i48 but displayed electronicaly 1080p24. That should give almost 1080p24 full resolution, full temporal resolution. However the latest 950 camera is that recording true 1080p24? All pixels are not sampled at the same time instant as I understand it but almost. What is the effect of this almost compared with exposure of film?

[ 09-25-2003, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: Mattias Ohlson ]
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 09-25-2003, 04:33 PM:
 
Traditional video is just a 1D continuous analog signal with vertical and horizontal sync pulses put in at the right times. As a result, you get an odd animal -- a virtual 2D signal that is discrete in one direction and continuous in the other. Digital systems are discrete in both directions.

Traditional video was originally captured by a pickup tube. The scanning spot used determined the maximum resolution that could be captured. If you take the function for the scene being captured and convolve it with the aperture, you get the signal captued (which will also have some noise added to it).

Displaying traditional video was just the opposite -- taking this 1D signal and using an electron beam to light phosphor on a CRT.

Things are much more complicated now because you have

1. The sensor or device used for physically capturing the scene

2. Optional electronic processing on the input signal (or data)

3. Transmission or storage of the signal captured

4. Receiving or decoding of the signal being played

5. Optional electronic processing of the signal being played

6. Physical display of the signal being played.

Any of these can be analog or digital, and can be at different resolutions, use totally different types of technology, etc. Some of the steps above can involve their own hidden layer of digital processing and manipulation.

You can have a movie shot on film, scanned digitally and converted using the 2:3 technique to 480i, recorded in analog form onto analog videotape in 480i and distributed to a TV station. At the TV station, they may play the analog videotape, run the analog signal through a system that digitizes the analog signal and upscales it digitally to 720p for broadcast. The broadcast signal is analog. A person may receive this 720p broadcast on their HDTV which does not display 720p natively and converts it to 1080i using a digital process, then displays this 1080i signal on the CRTs.

This particular scenario may not be likely, but it illustrates the point that it's gone from film to digital to analog, back to digital, then broadcast in analog, received in analog, conveted to digital in the consumer's set, resampled and finally back to analog again to drive the CRTs in the consumer's RPTV.

It was a movie shot on film, but it's video after the first scanning step. Just imagine something shot in HDTV (say 1080i) and converted to film and back to video again in the middle somewhere.

As for modern digital movie cameras, I'd like to know more about how the CCd array is scanned or read -- if all sensors on the CCD react and are exposed at the same time and "hold their values" until read, or if their values change and are scanned by the processor in them, giving them the characteristic of progressive analog video?
 

---

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 09-25-2003, 06:26 PM:
 
No, a digital still camera is not video because the defintion of video is dependant on motion picture.

How the image is captured has nothing to do with whether or not it is video. It is how it is displayed. The key to the definition of video is "electronic signals through a wire."

The entry being written before such advancements is irrelevant. It's the method of presentation that makes it video. Digital is therefore digital video rather than analog video.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-25-2003, 10:49 PM:
 
Excellent point.
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 09-25-2003, 11:54 PM:
 
Don't a number of digital still cameras have a jack marked "video out" with an S-VHS connector? Where are they getting hold of that? For example, the Kodak EasyShare CX4300.

Another Fine Kodak Product
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-26-2003, 12:02 AM:
 
They probably buy the jacks in bulk from somebody like Mouser.
 

---