Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Kodak Digital Cinema System

This is topic Kodak Digital Cinema System 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=000170

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-07-2001, 02:47 PM:

At ShoWest today, Kodak just announced a Kodak Digital Cinema System.

The prototype Kodak Digital Cinema Projector will be supported by a custom operating
system that will be used to manage loading, scheduling, control and playback of
features, trailers and other pre-show content on multiple digital screens. The projector
will incorporate proprietary Kodak color management technology and electronic drivers
designed to ensure artistic integrity.

The company is also developing anti-piracy safeguards that will conform to encryption
standards for digital cinema being developed by the Society of Motion Picture and
Television Engineers (SMPTE).

"We will also incorporate best-in-class technology provided by other companies," said
Glenn Kennel, Digital Cinema Program manager for Kodak's Entertainment Imaging
division. "We are integrating a server and networking hardware from Sun Microsystems,
and our digital projector will be the first to use the new JVC 2048 by 1536 D-ILA
microchips."
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20010307-02.shtml

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-07-2001, 03:01 PM:

Here we go, boys! This just affirms my belief that the technology's only going to get better. It ain't dead, not by a long sight.

4K resolution is eminent, I dare say, and 6K is on the horizon (according to the JVC website a few months ago).

Make yer peace.

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-07-2001, 03:17 PM:

Now the movie industry has a choice: "Film Done Right" AND "Digital Done Right".

Tim is correct: Kodak will continue to improve BOTH.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-07-2001, 04:22 PM:

I just got through doing a room by room comparison of all the EC projectors here on display and set up and operating here at Showest, and the JVC system is hands down the best thing going. The color rendition is nothing short of phenominal. Although the system was set for a bit lower contrast the resultant picture was way, way ahead of the NEC and Christie DLP and I would guess that the technology is quite a bit further along than high resolution DLP is. The JVC also has the highest number of pixels of all the projectors 3804(around there) by 2048 high. They had a number of small imaging panels on display and they are quite neat looking. The inside of the projector is simplicity in itself and this system also did not use an anamorphic lens like the NEC system did next door.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-07-2001, 06:25 PM:

Does it exceed 70mm quality? If it doesn't then what is the point? Is it easy for the projectionist to thread the data stream?

Surely if we are going to advance technology, we might as well take the opportunity to make picture quality BETTER than film, right?

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 03-08-2001, 06:29 AM:

Right on Joe. As far as I'm concerned, 4K is the minimum to replace 35mm, and 8K is the minimum to replace 70mm. (Despite the fact that audiences have been deprived of 70mm for the last few years, that level of quality is still in demand.) If they install anything less than that in theaters, I will stay home. And the video data must be uncompressed, too. I don't buy these people who say lossy compression looks and sounds "just as good" as the original. To an unobservant person, maybe. But to those of us who actually have critical eyes and ears, no way. Oh yeah, and 10-bit logarithmic Cineon format with 4:4:4 color sampling. No HDTV-style 8-bit 4:2:2 stuff. That won't fly.

Of course, there are always people who say "SFX are done at 2K resolution, so that should be enough". That's bull. I can almost always tell whenever 2K resolution movie special effects come up, and they just don't look as good as the rest of the film. The only time I can't tell is when the movie is so poorly photographed on a grainy, underexposed, Stupid-35 format negative, that 2K actually looks okay by comparison. Of course, that kind of "worst-case" scenario argument should not be allowed to decide future movie standards.

Occasionaly I see movies with SFX shots done at 4K resolution, such as the ones Kodak's Cinesite did for Wonder Boys, and in those cases, the digital stuff actually blends in with the film. 2K just doesn't cut it.

John, the press release says that this system will not be available for a year or two. I don't understand why it takes so long, if there is already a working demo. In that amount of time, DLP-based 1280x1024 projectors will be everywhere, then and no one will want these things, because they'll have decided that what they've got is "good enough". Isn't Kodak worried about getting to market quickly? There was yet another news story on Monday about Philip Anshuntz wanting to take Regal all-digital. They are not going to wait!

Tim: Where did you read about D-ILA going to 6K resolution? I didn't see anything JVC's website. If so, they must be talking long-term.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-08-2001, 07:25 AM:

If you want 70mm quality, use 70mm film. Today, NOTHING ELSE can really put such high quality images on a 30x66 foot screen.

IMHO, Digital Cinema is in its infancy, and still evolving. There hasn't been a rush to purchase the existing systems, and the few dozen current installations have been heavily subsidized. In a year or two, the SMPTE standards should be in place, along with the technologies to meet or exceed those standards. It will be a while before Digital Cinema is better than "Film Done Right".

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-08-2001, 11:05 AM:

It's good to see that Kodak is getting into this as well, since they know film better than anyone else and also know that "film done right" can look quite amazing.

With any luck, the competition that seems to be developing here will be good for everyone. The labs and film people at Kodak will have to keep improving the quality of release prints in order to stay a step ahead of the electronic equivalent, and the various digital systems will end up competing with each other for the best picture quality (and, hopefully, not the lowest possible cost at the expense of picture quality).

I'm starting to think that "electronic cinema" may be the best possible thing that could happen to ensure the future of film projection for a while to come.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-08-2001, 12:31 PM:

John P. is absolutely correct. To get 70mm quality use 70mm. My point was that the number of Pixels are rapidly increasing and I also feel that the Sun Microsystems technology has pretty much made DLP obsolete already. The Sun system is completely different, much simpler light path, and man, was the color a knockout!
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-08-2001, 01:43 PM:

Aaron, I read about 6K res. in one of the white papers. Sorry, I don't remember the exact URL, it's been several months ago. It may have even been off the main site.

But I indeed read it. I'll look around.

All this is still in the prototype stage, folks; and from all indications, it's only going to get better. If we simply accept this fact, we'll sleep better at night.

Also, unless I missed the point, 35mm doesn't look like 70, either. (When was the last time anything was even MADE in 70mm?)

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-08-2001, 03:38 PM:

Tim: Recent features that used 65mm camera negative give only a taste of the quality that can be achieved with modern films, cameras and lenses: "Hamlet", "Baraka", "Far and Away", and "Little Buddha".
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/february97/interview.shtml
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0103767
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0116477
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0104231
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0107426

Kodak makes the 65mm and 70mm films. Panavision and Arriflex have the 65mm cameras and lenses. Labs have the printers and processing machines. And theatres have the 70mm projectors. We're ready if you are.
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingto1.htm
http://www.redballoon.net/70mm.html
http://hjem.get2net.dk/in70mm/magazine/magazinemain.htm

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-08-2001, 03:56 PM:

I think some people are perhaps missing my point. Kodak is telling us "If you want 70mm then get a 70mm film". I agree, but that's basically saying "Digital cinema may kind of suck now, but you can always play film. That is our excuse for not making the grade." Basically my point is that technology should ADVANCE. Why introduce a technology that is new, but inferior to what everyone already has yet much more expensive? I feel like knocking on the heads of the people who are behind this stuff, and I expect to hear a hollow sound.

My computer monitor cost $200 and it can almost meet or exceed the resolution of digital cinema thus far. Great. I think digital cinema should stay in development for a while longer until the image quality EXCEEDS what audiences have ever seen with film. On large screens. Why compromise? Can anyone give me a good reason why there should be a compromise? It better make sense! American companies always want to compromise, and even Japanese ones, too. Ah well, I guess it's easier to be "just good enough" then to be "fantastic".

This whole thing reminds me of VCD, or MPEG 1 Video CD's awhile back. They were nowhere near as good as even VHS, but hell, they were digital. They MUST be better! As we all know by now, VCD's suck hairy ass, even when you digitally dupe them from DVD. Oh and look at their market share!

Don't rush technology. Always a bad idea. Then you will be stuck with it and forced to upgrade later. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-08-2001, 04:14 PM:

Joe: I agree we shouldn't "rush" to get inferior technology out the door. Kodak may not be the first, but we intend to be the best.

But just as with 16mm, 35mm and 70mm prints, there is a range of product needs, depending upon the size of the screen. You don't usually show 70mm on a 10-foot screen, but you shouldn't really try to fill a 30x66 foot screen with anything less than 70mm.

Posted by Ted Costas (Member # 473) on 03-09-2001, 06:48 PM:

What a difference two years will make...

I know I'm a trouble maker, but isn't that what we're hear for?

I just find it ironic that the two companies that were "totally against" Digital Cinema only two years ago, are now leading the charge... Kodak and Technicolor. Will there be another 180 in the next two years when Sony's projector hits the market?

Ted Costas
Manager, THX Theatre Alignment Program

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-09-2001, 09:02 PM:

Ted: Don't believe everything you read in the press!

After George Lucas's announcement at ShoWest 1999, not a single Kodak person jumped off the roof of any Las Vegas hotel.

And you and the folks at Lucasfilm and ILM well know that Kodak has been supplying state-of-the-art digital imaging technology and expertise to the movie industry for many years.

The record shows that Kodak was NOT "totally against" Digital Cinema. We have supported objective comparisons of the quality from the start (IMHO, "Film Done Right" is still much better than anything in Digital Cinema's immediate future). We have pointed out the miriad of technical and economic issues that still need to be addressed. We have participated in the work of the SMPTE DC28 study groups. And Kodak digital technology is at the heart of the Philips Spirit DataCine used to transfer many of the films being shown in the prototype digital cinema installations and demonstrations.

This week's announcement at ShoWest is evidence of Kodak's continuing committment to improving theatrical presentation by "raising the bar" on the image quality and reliability that Digital Cinema must provide. Digital Cinema may someday be better than "Film Done Right", and Kodak technology will help it get there.

I suggest you reread what Kodak has been saying, and you will find that it is based on our committment to improving theatrical presentation for BOTH film and digital. Kodak will keep asking hard questions, and is ready and able to provide solutions for the many problems Digital Cinema still faces:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20010307-02.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/news/theFuture.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/notes/june2000/mayson.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/notes/march2000/
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/june99/pytlak.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/june99/shoot.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/march99/future.shtml

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 03-09-2001, 09:20 PM:

Digital Cinema is here now, it is not going to go away. Digital will live along side of 35mm Film and 70mm film venues as well as IMAX and other Mega Systems for the time being. There is no rush to replace any existing format. They have improved dramaticly since the release of " The Phantom Menace" in June of 99'. I ran both the digital TI Projector in one theatre and the JVC Hughes/Qualcomm in another theatre.
With the TI Projector we played on a 50' wide screen in sync with a 35mm print, split down the middle...25' digital on the left and 25' 35mm film on the right. The audience was made up of industry professionals. Other than some color differences on close up scenes when a persons face was directly center, it was difficult to notice which was film and which was digital.

Two weeks into the run we were playing "The Phantom Menace" on two screens one digital and one 35mm. Needless to say, the digital presentation was far superior to film after a two week grind.

A hundred years ago we were still in the Nickelodeon stage of film presentation. In the year 2100 our presentation today will, likely seem as primative to the members of film-tech (digi-tech)as the Nicholodeon does to us.

We are not going away tomorrow or this year or this decade. It will be a good 30 to 40 years before digital becomes all consuming. Digital projection will one day be lit by fiber optics from a external source.

The young exhibitor's and technician's of today will be living and growing in an extreemly exciting time in the entertainment industry. Grow with it but always remember your roots. These are great times also, preserve the past but embrace the future.

Film will never die as long as we remember.

Plus in 2100 Brad Miller VI will be the moderator. Wonder what he will look like?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-09-2001, 09:33 PM:

He won't look like anything because I doubt he'll exist!

I accept that Digial Cinema is here to stay. There really is no avoiding it. But as many know from my rants in other threads I think they should take the oppotunity that they have RIGHT NOW to make it as good as can be, and plan for the future as well. We gotta make sure that as other technology progresses digital cinema can keep up without having to buy all new equipment every 8 years. Instead of just relying on a buzzword ('digital'), why not take this opportunity to truly impress audiences instead of just tricking them into thinking that they are impressed?

If Kodak wants to be the best in Digital Cinema, more power to them. So far as I can tell they are the only company involved that knows anything about movies.

Bob... if you had used FilmGuard on that 35mm print I don't think you would have seen as much of a difference. My bad... FG wasn't available yet. But my point is still there.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-09-2001, 09:51 PM:

Bob: IMHO, 1280x1024 pixels just don't cut it. The pixel structure and "jaggies" are very visible and annoying unless you sit in the back 2/3 of most modern auditoriums. I sat through multiple presentations at both Loews Paramus and Secaucus, and was dissatisfied unless I sat farther from the screen. The presentations I've seen since then haven't gotten any better. Almost everyone on Film-Tech and on the SMPTE DC28 study groups agree many more pixels are needed. A poorly exposed film may sometimes be grainy sitting close to the screen, but random grains are less annoying than a fixed raster of pixels and "jaggies". And even a film with slightly soft focus is preferable to the edge enhancement masquerading as sharpness that I have too often seen in digital displays.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-09-2001, 10:14 PM:

The reason why the digital "print" in Secaucus supposedly looked better after two weeks is probably because (according to the story that I heard) an untrained employee apparently misthreaded the film print and caused a major scratch right down the center. This print was replaced by the time when I saw the DLP show in Secaucus.

It all comes down to common sense here...if you are paying someone $6/hour (just guessing here) to run film, one might expect that it will look inferior to the DLP show that is being run by a group of engineers who were probably getting paid several hundred dollars per hour (and were probably worth every penny). That's not a fair comparison. Let's either compare "film done right" with "DLP done right" or "film under real-world conditions" with "DLP under real-world conditions."

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-10-2001, 04:14 AM:

Well put, Scott. After all you get what you pay for. If that theater had've paid their operator decently (as in to hire a professional), then I'm fairly sure that the print would not have been damaged.

I wonder what the digital cinema tech visit's bills will be like...or will that also be left to the concessionists?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-10-2001, 04:55 AM:

Concessionists? What the hell are you talking about? Oh, I guess you haven't heard. Texas Instruments just introduced a prototype of the Digital Concessionist recently. You know that guy in the popcorn in the UA policy trailer? He's the prototype!

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 03-10-2001, 05:59 AM:

Bob Maar wrote:

quote:
Needless to say, the digital presentation was far superior to film after a two week grind.

"Needless to say"? Depends on how well the film was being handled. And unless the digital presentation's resolution suddenly increased from 1280x1024 to something higher, I'm sure the film image still had more detail, regardless of whether it was partially hidden by dirt and scratches.

I'm really tired of all these "worst-case scenario" arguments (note Bob, I'm not railing against you personally, but against these types of arguments in general). Proponents of digital cinema would have everyone believe that scratches and dirt magically appear on every frame of film ever made, all by themselves. That's just bull. Film only gets screwed up when it's improperly handled. And improper handling is actually rather rare in the real world. I frequently go to movies two and three weeks into the runs, and the prints almost always look brand new. Last summer I went to see "Gladiator" at the Century 25 in Union City a full two months after the movie opened, and the print had not a speck of dirt or a single scratch anywhere in sight! No way I would trade that for a pathetic 1280x1024 lossy-compressed digital video image!

Try this analogy on for size. Recently, various companies have been pushing the concept of "e-books": small, electronic devices that display text on LCD screens, and are meant to be a replacement for printed paper books. Now suppose a salesman from one of these companies came up to you and told you that e-books were superior because the pages of paper books get dirty and torn during normal use. Suppose he tried to claim that "books just get that way", no matter how careful you are with them, and that the only thing you could do was to start using e-books. Would you listen to anything that salesman had to say from then on? Of course not! So why do people listen when digital cinema companies try to claim that "film just gets that way" when it comes to dirt and scratches? With proper handling, film can be run over and over with no degradation at all!

Speaking as someone in the computer industry, I have to say the most important thing to keep in mind here is "beware the hype". Hell, these products are being pushed by companies from the computer and electronics industries -- industries which gave us terms such as "vaporware" and "FUD". Whenever I hear about how film "degrades after each run" or how it unavoidably gets dirty and scratched, alarm bells go off in my head saying, "FUD!"

It's time to stop putting up with the FUD. Every time you see a news article about digital cinema saying how bad film is, send 'em a letter or an e-mail about it. Every time you hear a digital cinema salesman saying how bad film is, stand up and tell 'em they're full of it. FUD should not be tolerated.

Yes, digital cinema will take over eventually, due to matters of cost, convenience, flexibility, and (hopefully), quality. I'm just really concerned when I hear people like Phil Barlow of Disney saying the current state of the art is "good enough", or companies like Technicolor saying they want to install 1000 DLP projectors in theaters at their current level of quality, just because it will allow them to exert a vice-like grip on distribution (not that they actually admit to that last part). It sounds like people are rushing into this, and in the rush, we'll end up getting stuck with mediocre quality. That has me worried.

I've said all this before, though. I guess I need to stop writing these hugely long rants. I just can't help it sometimes. I care too much.
------------------
Aaron Haney
Professional Complainer
Apple Computer, Inc.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-10-2001, 06:40 AM:

Getting off-topic a bit: the whole "electronic book" thing seems to have been totally mis-marketed. No one is going to buy this for pleasure reading. Think about it--why replace something that is relatively inexpensive and convenient with something that is neither? I like physical books, and I really don't see the point of reading a novel off an LCD.

That said, there _are_ some markets where the idea makes sense. For example, my auto mechanic has several shelves full of service manuals that are apparently rather expensive and need to be updated regularly. I'm sure that he would jump at the chance to replace all that with a single hardcover-size "electronic book" that contains all of the same information on a single chip, PCMCIA card, or some other storage format. Similarly, it would be cool to have every manual in the Film-Tech CD easily readable with a handheld device, without having to spend a lot of time and paper to print them all out and then store them.

There are some great applications for this type of technology, but they're generally in the area of specialized reference material and not in the area of general printed matter. Maybe (thinking out loud here) the same applies to electronic cinema. Maybe if some of the smaller theatres that can't "do film right" anyway were to convert to DLP or ILA, the distributors could put more effort into making smaller runs of higher-quality release prints for the larger theatres, and maybe 70mm prints for the largest houses. Perhaps this is wishful thinking, though, given the current state of the exhibition business.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 03-10-2001, 08:58 AM:

70mm is great, but when was the last time you saw a new major release on it. Any new technology only has to be close to as good as the old if it is significantly cheaper. Just look at what we accept in computer printers, most work and produce copy that is just ok not really good, but they are really inexpensive, or maybe cheap is a better description. At some point a decision will be made to go with what is available at that time because further improvements will take too much time and be excessively expensive and that will be it. We'll come to accept what ever limitations there are just like we do with film. In case you haven't noticed, film ain't exactly perfect either.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-10-2001, 11:51 AM:

Well I can unequivocally tell you that both HDTV and E-Cinema look far better when they originate from a film source than they do form a video originated source. The grain in the film seems to ahve a cover up effect of the pixels in E-Cinema unless you get right up to the screen. But with video originated sources the pixels are much more obvious. Video originated sources still have that gloss look to them and lack of contrast range. Perhaps Lucasfilm will develope a grain generator that will superimpose a film grain look over a video originated source. Man, you could even have switch selected grain size depending on what "Film Speed" of look you wanted.
The JVC 3840 by 2048 panels were only prototypes. Since the projector they had running had only about half or slightly less that number and looked as good as it did I can't wait to see the prototype panels in action next year! The thing that impressed me about the JVC was how simple the light path was. Only one 90 degree mirror from lamphouse to panel assemblies. That alone should cut the cost way below and DLP system as they have much more comples light paths.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 03-10-2001, 07:29 PM:

When we we running "The Phantom Menace" I was watching from the projection booth. I was relating comments that were made after the the show, to me and the others who were working in the projection room. I will tell you from personal knowledge that there were no non-union personnel working in the projection booth in Secacus or Paramus during the run of "The Phantom Menace". I was in and out of the projection booth's during the entire run. I, however was not able to walk into the auditorium's while the film was showing. I only am letting you know what I heard from the people who visited the booth after the show and spoke with me in the lobby on the way out.

I do not take anything personally, I want an open forum. I respect everyone's opinion and their right to state it.

Pixel's do not mean anything to me...if..and
I would like to emphise the "if" the public enjoy's the film for what it is. You and I may want them to see, what we see, but, you know, they see what they want to see. AND if they have a good time....that's it.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-10-2001, 11:07 PM:

Actually the most important question is are they allowed to suspend there disbelief to become involved in the film

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-10-2001, 11:17 PM:

"Film Done Wrong" with excess dirt and scratches will "spoil the magic". That doesn't have to happen if you "Do Film Right".

Not having enough pixels in a Digital Cinema system will "spoil the magic" for anyone forced to sit in the front 1/3 of the theatre, with visible pixels and "jaggies". Visible compression artifacts are annoying. I really like to see detail in the projected image, not the "artificial" sharpness of enhanced low spatial frequencies and edge enhancement.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-11-2001, 02:19 PM:

John, I agree. 2K should be the absolute bare minimum. This will be a moot point in the near future anyway.

It's only going to get better, as resolutions increase.

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Posted by Carl King (Member # 398) on 03-11-2001, 10:08 PM:

Digital cinema won't be a commonplace thing until it gets cheap enough for the average exhibitor to afford. If the current headlines are any indication the major exhibitors in the U.S.A. are having some money troubles. They can, it appears, barely keep their heads above water. Not much money around to purchase new technology.

Rest easy film projectionists..our jobs are safe for years to come.

Posted by John Eickhof (Member # 323) on 03-12-2001, 01:56 AM:

Mark, I agree about the D-ILA chip! Did you notice the strange thing in the Sony Demo rrom? They too are licensing the D-ILA from JVC! When was the last time you ever saw Sony license anything from anyone!! Amazing!!! I Visited Edwards Irvine Spectrum theatres today, got a booth tour, (mainly to see the DLP in action)But, to my surprise (But not the projectionist) It was not in use and has been idle about a month as they told me that it is difficult to aquire product to run on it thus it has been used only about 50% of the time!!! Interesting!!!
Also, the Sony Demo was on a 35-38 foot wide screen with a 2KW lamp and integrated unit, it looked preety damn good!

------------------
John Eickhof President, Chief Slave
Northwest Theatre Equipment Co., Inc.
P.O.Box 258
Wendell, ID. 83355-0258
208-536-5489
email: jeickhof@nteequip.com

Posted by Ted Costas (Member # 473) on 03-12-2001, 11:55 AM:

John P.,

I'm pretty sure Bob Mayson was "totally against" Digital Cinema two years ago... at least that's the impression I got every time he opened his mouth. But then again, company stratagies can change, nothing wrong with that. I'm simply pointing out the irony in that the two companies pushing Digital Cinema forward are the same two that were "considering" jumping out their windows every time the word "digital" was mentioned two years prior.

On a side note, John, your presence was missed this year at ShoWest... I could feel the "force" was not as strong this year. I hope your wife is doing better and that the force will be at full strength next year.

Yours,
Ted Costas
Manager, THX Theatre Alignment Program

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-12-2001, 12:36 PM:

Ted: Thanks for the good wishes on Betsy's health. She was glad to have me in Rochester last week, and her ulcer seems to be healing with the Prevacid and modification of her other medications.

As I noted, Kodak (including Bob Mayson) will continue to ask hard questions regarding the technology and economics of Digital Cinema, as should everyone in the movie industry. That's the only way it will ever be better and more cost-effective than "Film Done Right".

Posted by Ted Costas (Member # 473) on 03-13-2001, 12:57 PM:

J.P.,

Please, don't think I'm dissing Kodak... we love you guys. Any chance you guys will be joining the rest of us in supporting the ETC? It's great to have your own research facility, but we got a good thing going at the ETC, and Kodak should be a part of it, don't you think?

Ted

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-13-2001, 02:05 PM:

Ted: As you know, despite being an Electronic Engineer, I'm a "film guy", so you're talking to the wrong person.

The Kodak Imaging Technology Center (ITC) in Hollywood and the labs back here in Rochester are very busy with research and development efforts. As you know, early last year we renovated the 2000 seat Kodak "Theater on the Ridge" with a 25 x 63 foot screen and new projection room for this very purpose, well before the ETC even opened. Unlike the ETC, our large theatre already has 70mm film capability.

Kodak's participation and financial sponsorship of the ETC is a business decision that I am not privy to.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 03-13-2001, 02:19 PM:

John, you mention artificial sharpness created by edge enhancement. I have become very sensitive to such edge enhancement and agree with you. I first became aware of the false high-frequency information in 1997 when I bought a disc with test patterns and instructions for calibrating my TV. Ever since I was able to see what the sharpness control actually does, I've become very sensitive to that type of enhancement, and dislike it, whether it be sharpening of images on WWW sites or the sharpening that takes place when TV commercials are blown up to 35mm film! (Ugh)

The sad thing is if you take the average person who does not understand such things, they will invariably say that a TV with the sharpness control turned up "looks better" or that an edge-enhanced image "looks better". I'm currently taking a digital image processing class and we have been studying image enhancement in both the spatial and frequency domains. A very common approach to edge enhancement for images is to use a convolution mask (various convolution masks can be calculated to approximate any given frequency based filter H(x,y)). The larger the convolution mask h(x,y), the better the approximation, but simple 3x3 or 5x5 masks can often be used to smooth or sharpen effectively. Another edge enhancement technique is to high-pass filter an image and add it back to the original image. Edge enhancement, while sometimes improving images for human perception, actually destroys the integrity of an image. Look at an edge-enhanced image or test pattern on a TV with the sharpness run up and between abrupt transitions of color, such as from gray to black, there will be a brighter gray area between the two solid colors that goes away when the sharpness control is adjusted properly (all the way down on some but not all sets). Be sure to turn off scanning velocity modulation, which produces the same effect!

I fear that digital cinema is going to have problems because edge enhancement is a cheap way to make an image look sharper and crisper to the average viewer, while distorting and corrupting true high-frequency detail in an image. The other problem is aliasing, which I have addressed in a previous thread. The nature of film grain prevents aliasing (except for temporal alaising due to the 24 fps frame rate), but a rigid array of sampling points will create alaising in the image, and if the projection resolution is different than the camera resolution, then additional artifacts will be added due to the resolution conversion.

I'd rather see extra film grain than spatial aliasing! For a demonsration of sampling a signal with a wide range of frequencies, refer to my previous thread "Film vs. Digital (trading noise for aliasing?". Such aliasing happens most frequently when near-vertical or near-horizontal straight objects appear in an image, such as blinds on windows in a background. Fine patterns on clothing or objects (car grilles, air vents, textures, etc) can cause aliasing as well, and can create false patterns in the image.

The way to minimize the impact of these problems with digital sampling using rectangular arrays (or any other regular array) is to use a high enough resolution so that most problems are not visible at even a relatively close viewing distance, and to do smart filtering (ideal filters which cut off everything above a given frequency produce an unpleasant ringing effect (which may be a counter-intuitive notion for many of you)). To prove it to yourself, take an image than has a single white dot an a black background. Let f be the desired cutoff frequency. Let D(x,y) be the distance from a point from the origin. Take the image's Fourier transform, than set every point (x,y) in the Fourier transform to 0 if D(x,y) is greater than f. Now take the inverse Fourier transform. You should have the original image, ideal filtered with cutoff f. You'll see a ringing effect around the original dot if you picked the right value for f. Play with that, varying the value for f.

Bottom line: use a high enough resolution to supply real detail and filter properly to minimize ringing and aliasing! If this is done properly by the digital projection equipment makers AND the digital movie camera makers, then digital cinema might be wonderful. However, I doubt that this will occur any time soon.

Evans A Criswell
http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/

Posted by John T. Mellor (Member # 468) on 03-13-2001, 09:04 PM:

John
Its good to see Kodak is in the Digital Development. Notice I say Development , my concern is the fact that technoligy mves so fast that when you get it its obsolete. Film done right as well as any other medium is ok but the digital to me still has along way to go . John, if you remeber at Showeast I told you that I have a challage for Digital and if the digital people can meet it the picture will look great. The challange is to fill a drive-in screen 52x120ft from 300 ft away with at least 14 ft lamberts , if you can do that just think how an indoor screen will look
I am concerned about the small indoor theatre and the drive-in operators
Any thoughts on that
John

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-13-2001, 09:15 PM:

Most of the demos I have seen have been on screens less than about 45 feet wide, although I guess they have tried to fill larger screens at some sites (e.g., Mexico City, Toronto). Remember for both film and digital projection, it is the AREA of the screen that counts --- double the width is four times the area, and needs four times more light.