--------------------------------------------

Q. Once again you're touting the greatness of Maxivision. I am thoroughly convinced of its greatness, and have been waiting to see it ever since your original coverage. Digital projection seems to have made more headway, though. Can we really expect to see Maxivision any time soon?

Aaron Kucera, Dallas

A. You might be surprised. A bombshell research report just released by Credit Suisse/First Boston supports Maxivision as preferable to digital projection, which is "not ready for prime time." The most unexpected finding of the report is that digital projection would not be cheaper than the current system of distributing prints, but, because of the financing costs, would be more expensive. Other bullet points: Maxivision has dramatically better picture quality; its cost is around $10,000 a booth, as opposed to $100,000 to $150,000 for digital; it is backward compatible and can project all films ever made; and the current Texas Instruments digital standard uses an inferior standard. The report praises the Kodak digital standard as superior, but criticizes Kodak for not supporting Maxivision--which, because it uses film, dovetails with Kodak's dominance of the celluloid market. Since the much-heralded digital rollout of "Star Wars Episode II" was a non-event, it's unlikely that exhibitors are prepared to make an enormous investment in digital projectors. If they want something new, affordable and dramatically better, Maxivision is the obvious choice.

 

December 12, 1999

BY ROGER EBERT MOVIE CRITIC

I have seen the future of the cinema, and it is not digital. No matter what you've read, the movie theater of the future will not use digital video projectors, and it will not beam the signal down from satellites. It will use film, and the film will be right there in the theater with you.
How can this be? How can a technology that is a century old possibly be preferable to new digital gizmos? This is a story of the limitations of video projection, and the hidden resources of light-through-celluloid. Please read carefully. The future of traditional cinema is at stake.

In recent months the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Los Angeles Times have carried breathless reports that Hollywood is on the brink of digital revolution. Even Wired magazine, usually informed on technical matters, printed the howler that digital projection is "far better" than film. George Lucas and Texas Instruments have teamed up to showcase "The Phantom Menace" with digital projection in theaters on both coasts. Disney is now preparing digital theatrical demos; its "Bicentennial Man" will open in digital Friday in a few theaters.

These custom installations, we are told, are the first wave of a technological revolution that will overtake movie theaters. No longer will an underpaid projectionist struggle in the booth with ungainly cans of film. New movies will zip down from space and be projected into the screen with startling clarity. Digital video projection (jargon watch: "dijection") is being embraced by Hollywood, we read, because it will save the studios the cost of manufacturing and shipping prints all over the world.

But how good is digital projection? I saw it demonstrated in May at the Cannes Film Festival, and have read reports of those who've attended the custom "Phantom Menace" installations. A system offered by Hughes is not very persuasive, the witnesses say, but the Texas Instruments system is better; reviews range from "85 percent as good as a real movie" to "about as good." The special effects in "Phantom Menace" looked especially sharp, viewers said, and there's a reason: They were computer-generated in the first place, so they arrived at the screen without stepping down a generation to film. And because the depicted imaginary places, it was impossible to judge them on the basis of how we know the real world looks.

"Dijection" offers a wonderful new prospect, if it's for real. But it's not the only possible future. Far form the boardrooms of Texas Instruments, which has unlimited financial resources and wants to grab the world movie distribution market, there is an alternative film-based projection system that is much cheaper than digital, uses existing technology and (hold onto your hats) is not "about as good" as existing film, but, its inventors claim, 500 percent better. That is not a misprint.

The system is called MaxiVision48. I have seen it demonstrated. It produces a picture so breathtakingly clear it is like 3-D in reverse: like looking through an open window into the real world. Motion is shown without the jumpiness and blurring of existing film projection, details are sharper, and our eyes are bathed in visual persuasion.

The inventor of MaxiVision is a Hollywood film editor named Dean Goodhill (he shared an Oscar nomination for "The Fugitive"). On of his partners is a manufacturer named Ty Safreno, whose company, Trust Automation of San Luis Obispo, California., builds digital robotics systems for tasks that must be vibration free, like the manufacture of Pentium chips.

Without getting into labyrinthine technical explanations, here is how MaxiVision48 works:

It can project film at 48 frames per second, twice the existing 24-fps rate. That provides a picture of startling clarity. At 48 frames, it sues 50 percent more film than at present. But MV48 also has an "economy mode" that offers low-budget filmmakers savings of up to 25 percent on film.
The MV48 projector design can switch on the fly between 24- and 48- fps formats in the same movie, allowing extra clarity for scenes that can use it. And it can handle any existing 35mm film format--unlike digital projection, which would obsolete a century of old prints.
MV48 uses a new system to pull the film past the projector bulb without any jitter or bounce. Goodhill says he can't go into detail while his patent is pending, but explains in general terms that MV48 completely eliminates the jiggle that all current films experience as they dance past the projector bulb. Watching it, I was startled to see how rock solid the picture was, and how that added to the clarity.
The result: "We figure it's 500 percent better than existing film or the Texas Instruments video projection system, take your choice," Goodhill told me.
It is also a lot cheaper, because it retrofits existing projectors, uses the original lamp housings and doesn't involve installing high-tech computer equipment. MaxiVision's business plan calls for leasing the projectors at $280 a month, but if you wanted to buy one, it would cost you about $10,000. estimates for the Texas Instruments digital projector range from $110,000 to $150,000 per screen.
The contrast between the two systems is not limited to costs. here are additional reasons why the death of film has been much exaggerated:
The TI system in the demo theaters bear no relationship to the real world. They're custom installations that do not address the problem of how a real film would get to a real theater. The source of their signal is an array of 20 prerecorded 18-gigabyte hard drives, trucked to each theater. This array costs an additional $75,000, apart from the cost of trucking and installation.
Even so, a movie is so memory-intensive that these arrays must compress the digital signal by a ratio of 4-1. At a recent seminar at the Director's Guild in Los Angeles, digital projection spokesmen said that in the real world, satellite downlinked movies would require 40-1 data compression. This level of compression in movie delivery has never been demonstrated publicly, by TI or anyone else.
The picture on the screen would not be as good as the HDTV television sets now on sale in consumer electronics outlets! TI's MDD chip has specs of 1280 by 1024, while HDTV clocks at 1920 by 1080. for the first time in history, consumers could see a better picture at home than in a movie theater. A higher-quality digital picture at home than in a movie theater. A higher-quality digital picture would involve even more cost, compression and transmission challenges.
One advantage of a film print is that the director and cinematographer can "time" the print to be sure the colors and visual elements are right. In a digital theater, the projectionist would be free to adjust the color, tint and contrast according to his whims. Since many projectionists do no even know how to properly frame a picture or set the correct lamp brightness, this is a frightening prospect.
How much would the digital projection specialist be paid? The technicians operating the TI demo installations are paid more than the mangers of most theaters. Hollywood is happy to save money, but are exhibitors happy to spend it?
What about piracy? movies will be downloaded just once, then stored in each theater. Thieves could try two approaches. They could grab the signal from the satellite and try to break the encryption (as DVD encryption has just been broken). But there is a more obvious security gap: At some point before it reaches the projector, the encrypted signal has to be decoded signal. Result: a perfect digital copy of the new movie. When the new "Star Wars" move opens in 4,000 theaters, how many armed guards will 20th Century Fox have to assign to the projection booths?
Film is harder to pirate than digital video because a physical film print must be stolen and copied. An MV48 print would be even harder to pirate than current films; it would not fit the equipment in any pirate lab. Those fly-by-night operations, which use ancient equipment cannibalized over the decades, would have to find expensive new machines.
All of these are practical questions. They set aside the aesthetic advantage that MaxiVision48 has over digital. Once you've seen the system, you just can't get it out of your mind.
You have to actually go to San Luis Obispo, north of Santa Barbara, to see MaxiVision48 demonstrated. That's where the prototype projector resides, in Ty Safreno's facility. Not may Hollywood studio honchos have made that trek. On the day I visited, I was joined by Todd McCarthy, the chief film critic of Variety, and two leading cinematographers, Allen Daviau ("E.T.," "Bugsy") and Dean Cundey ("Jurassic Park," "Apollo 13").

We saw a scene that had been shot for Goodhill by another cameraman who likes the system, Steven Poster, vice president of the American Society of Cinematographers. Poster deliberately assembled a scene filled with technical pitfalls for traditional film and video systems:

We see actor Peter Billingsley walking toward the camera, wearing a patterned shirt. He is passed by another guy, wearing a T-shirt with something written on it. The camera tilts down as Billingsley picks up a hose to water a lawn. The camera continues to move past a white picket fence. In the background, a truck drives out of a parking lot.

Not great art, but great headaches for cinematographers, who know that picket fences will seem to "flutter" if panned too quickly, that water droplets will blur, and that the sign on the side of a moving truck cannot be read. All true in the old systems. With MV48, we could read the writing on the shirt, see every picket in the fence, see the drops of water as if in real life and read the side of the truck. Case closed.

McCarthy and the cinematographers praised what they saw. I was blown away. I've seen other high-quality film projection systems, such as 70mm, IMAX and Douglas Trumbull's Showscan process. All are very good, but they involve wide film gauges, unwieldy print sizes and special projectors. MV48 uses projectors and prints that look a lot like the current specs, with costs in the same ballpark.

Why, then, do we read so much about digital projection and so little about MaxiVision48? One obvious reason is that Texas Instruments has deep pockets to promote its system, plus the backing of propeller-head George Lucas, who dreams of making movies entirely on computers and essentially wants to show them on theater-sized monitors.

Another reason is that many Hollywood executives are, frankly, not much interested in technical matters. Their attention is occupied by projects, stories, casting, advertising and box office, as it should be. When they hear the magical term "digital" and are told their movies will whiz to theaters via satellite, they assume it's all part of the computer revolution and don't ask more questions.

Hollywood has not spent a dime, for example, to research the intriguing question, do film and digital create different brain states? Some theoreticians believe that film creates reverie, video creates hypnosis; wouldn't it be ironic if digital audiences found they were missing an ineffable part of the moviegoing experience?

Now that a decision is on the horizon, Goodhill's process deserves attention. One of the ironies of MaxiVision48 is that it's so logical and inexpensive--such a brilliant example of lateral thinking--that a couple of guys could build it in a lab in San Luis Obispo. If it were more expensive, it might attract more attention.

The big film companies such as Kodak and Fuji should like the system, since it will help them sell more film. The directors who love celluloid, like Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese, should know about MV48. And there are other applications. Retail outlets use "video walls" to create atmosphere. Rainforest Cafes could put you in the jungle. NikeTown could put you on the court with Michael Jordan. No more million-dollar walls of video screens, but a $10,000 projector and a wall-sized picture.

But the industry has to listen. At the end of its first century, it shouldn't be so cheerful about throwing out everything that "film" means. And it should get over its infatuation with the "digital" buzzword.

When I told Dean Goodhill I was working on this article, he e-mailed me: "I'll make a special offer. We're leasing MV48 for $280 a month, but for $2,800 a month, which is closer to the per-screen cost of the digital system, we'll throw in a little chrome plate that says 'digital' on it."

MaxiVision48 official web page:
MaxiVision48

Basically the only difference is the frame rate, right? How would it be backward compatible? Is there just a switch that you flip to go from 24 to 48 fps?

Why couldn't current pirating labs copy these prints if they're still 35mm?
 

But studios are looking for ways to cut costs, and Im not sure increasing film stock used is a major priority for them.
 

The 1.5x film is because it is a 3-perf format. Basically it is 3-perf with no analog soundtrack to that the image will still be 1.85:1 but bigger in area. So, 1 frame now is 4 perf but 2 frames MV-48 is 6 perfs. The projector automatically senses the MV-48 format and plays that way.

As far as the piracy, I guess it's because they have telecines with 3-2 pulldown. However, if regular 24 fps prints are struck I don't know how this will prevent piracy.

Although Maxivision48 and Superdimension70 are two outstanding formats, I just don't see the industry momentum switching from el cheapo distribution digital to using more film to make a better experience. Especially since for most of the audience you could show NTSC video recorded in SLP mode and they wouldn't care.
 

Also, Ken has some good questions.

Haven't seen anything yet.
 

Josh
 

As far as sound, they want to eliminate the analog track. SR-D and SDDS wouldn't be in the way; I don't remember what they said about DTS...

Am I the only one who thinks it would be weird watching a movie at 48 frames per second?

Good question. And it reminded me of a point Roger Evert made about comparing film to digital (OK, VIDEO) projection (I've decided to start calling it for what it really is). He has said (both on his show and in print) that there have been studies showing that the frame rate of film invokes a more "active" state in the brain for processing information than the faster rate of video, which causes a more passive state. Yet he triumphs maxifilm over standard 24fps projection. I see a double standard here.
 

"Hollywood has not spent a dime, for example, to research the intriguing question, do film and digital create different brain states? Some theoreticians believe that film creates reverie, video creates hypnosis; wouldn't it be ironic if digital audiences found they were missing an ineffable part of the moviegoing experience?"

Paul Thompson already put it to you that you are already seeing each frame projected twice. In some instances, three times, depending on if you have a triple shutter blade installed or just a standard double.

Right now you get 48 images per second projected on screen. It just happens that you are seeing only 24 specific images, each one twice. With maxivision48, you get 48 specific images, and 48 images per second projected on screen.

This is the same number of hits per screen, just twice the image, so better and deeper clarity, and steadier pan shots if the film is shot in 48 instead of 24. No more choppy action scenes. No more blurry pan shots.

Problem is the same with digital, getting theater owners to put down money they do not have into new technology.

Dave
 

This is all essentially moot, however, since Maxivision won't happen. There is a much better chance (though still slim) that 5/70 will make a comeback, if only because there is already an installed base of theatres with the capability and because new technology (e.g. DTS instead of mag) has reduced costs to a more manageable level than in the past.

Also, 70mm blowup prints don't require any change on the production side of things (though they require that more attention be paid to such details as camera lenses and CGI work), whereas changes in such fundamental areas as frame rate would require a new inventory of rental equipment (or, more realistically, modifications to existing equipment).

4/35 is so entrenched at this point, though, that I can't see it being replaced with anything on a wide scale until the replacement (probably digital) provides a significant cost savings to all parties involved, which isn't likely to happen for some time....
 

He said HOLLYWOOD hasn't spent a dime on studies. He didn't say no one else has.
 

I find it interesting that you overlook the primary point of my post here. Ebert does think there is something to it, which makes me wonder why the higher frame rate of Maxivision48 wouldn't invoke a similiar effect? Maybe it would or wouldn't, I don't know. But that question hasn't been brought up.
 

------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.
 

And for the record I KNOW that each frame of film is projected twice and sometimes 3 times. I didn't just get here, guys But that is still completely different than 48 individual images per second. I see a huge difference in 24-fps material on video vs 60 fields per second, even though the TV ALWAYS runs in 60i. 24fps transferred to video still looks better than anything having been originated in 60i. And please don't tell me that "it's all in the lighting".

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

At about the time that Lawrence of Arabia was restored in 1989 both Panavision and Arriflex introduced new 65mm cameras with a host of state-of-the-art and/or convenience features which had already been common on 35mm cameras. It was an open invitation to big-budget producers to revive 65mm (and I thought that they'd take the bait after just having seen Lawrence of Arabia in its full splendor). But it didn't happen because 35mm was just too standardized. Nobody wanted the hassle of 65mm, it seems. This kind of thing will never fly without full support from the likes of Cameron, Spielberg, Zemeckis, Lucas, etc. ...and we already know where Lucas is wanting to go. And Cameron? Does he still want to make movies?

So... what makes Roger Ebert think they'll want to hassle with 48fps, an increased number of camera reloads on the set, an increased number of reels printed for each release print (...the list of real or imagined problems goes on but they'd rather deal with problems they're already familiar with)?
 

For instance, if "Jurassic Park" had flopped DTS would have had a much more difficult time getting theaters equipped after that show's running.

"Star Wars" can pretty much be given credit for ushering in the 70mm "blow up age" where a good number of theaters throughout the late 1970's and 1980's bought 70mm projection gear for the brighter image and mainly for the six-track Dolby mag sound.

There was lots and lots of hype debuting CinemaScope with "The Robe" and "Oklahoma" putting the classic Todd-AO 70mm format on the map.

Now, look at the kind of movies that have been made in 70mm during the last 30 years. To be quite honest most of them are BORING! By 1970, the 70mm format was starting to gain a reputation of only being used on overly long, boring bible-epic type movies. 70mm should have been used on more popular films --like so many of the big widescreen "summer movies" we've been used to seeing since the mid 1970's when "Jaws" started the "summer film blockbuster" trend.

The Panavision Super Panaflex 65mm, the Arri 765 and the Wilcam 65mm system are among the most sophisticated camera systems ever made. They have all the bells and whistles you would find on any standard Panavision 35mm Panaflex camera. There's a myriad of fast lens systems available for these cameras. And Kodak has a lot of fast emulsions availble for the 65mm gauge. The world of 50 speed only film for 70mm has been long dead. "Far and Away" alone proved one could shoot 70mm in indoor low light settings on location. 65mm/70mm does certainly demand more care in designing camera shots, but it is absolutely not an impossible medium to deal with.

All the flexibility given to 70mm production in the late 1980's and early 1990's should have boosted 70mm production in mainstream films. We should have seen big action films use the format. But that didn't happen. 70mm is only going to come back in mainstream commercial films if some Hollywood filmmaker will just have the balls to use the format on a film we actually want to see.
 

In the concluding paragraph, the writer states that the conversion from 35MM film to a digital format is inevitable. As I stated earlier, I disagree, and I think this article supports my theory more than his.

The other point is that I haven't read any (solid) arguments to support the notion that digital cinema is inevitable. On the other hand, there are many reasons as to why it may not take place at all (as I also mentioned ealier).