Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: True Grit in 4K?

This is topic True Grit in 4K? 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=000697

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-16-2010, 05:37 PM:

So do any of you with a 4K DCinema system have a 4K version of True Grit DCP? I ran a screening of it (film) and it had a snappier than normal look to it and I've run many at this venue. Checking IMDB...it was shot Super-35 but the DI was supposed to be in 4K. Now IMDB is not definitive, for sure...but again, the print I ran had an image that looked much better than other prints off of digital in this screening room. The print was a "Select" print but not an EK (since there was a DI).

Just curious if they were putting the 4K DI (presuming that is what was done) to more use. I'm also curious what those that are running 35mm film prints think of the image quality as compared to other 35mm prints within the same theatre.

-Steve

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 12-16-2010, 06:27 PM:

I guess there are no series2 4k DLP projectors deployed so far?

That means all 4k screenings would still have to be on Sony machines. Unfortunately, in germany most Sony installs are just busy with 3D showings. We recently discussed options to watch real 4k in germany and found no dependable information. Some screens show 2D 4k DCPs occasionally, but
seems that most cinemas do not take the effort to uninstall the 3D lens just to show real 4k. There are some reports of bad 2D screenings (misconvergence) through the 3D lens, even in 2k.

- Carsten

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-16-2010, 06:46 PM:

It would be interesting to see if there are 4K DI's done for the 35mm release and how, if there is any, they compare to the 4K digi.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 12-17-2010, 05:18 PM:

They won't do a special 2k DI for 35mm releases for sure. So movies like Inception and Meet the Morgans, etc. will certainly share a 4k DI for DCI and 35mm.

The question is, will they create a 4k film-out as well? I just heard that Arri is now offering 4k output for Arri-Laser as a standard service.
Seems it is time for a general shift to 4k DI to DCP AND filmrecording.

Will 35mm prints become better because of a 4k film-out? I doubt it. We will probably see some very good prints again, but with the general decline of 35mm, the tendency is certainly not towards improved print quality in general.

- Carsten

Posted by Knut Erik Evensen (Member # 4379) on 12-19-2010, 06:35 AM:

Inception did not use a DI, the 4K DCP was made from a scan of the interpositive. Source: studiodaily.com - Editing Inception for a Photochemical Finish

That is why Inception was screened at CineExpo 2010 in Amsterdam from a 35 mm print and that is why the 35 mm print looks better than then the DCP.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 12-19-2010, 11:45 AM:

As that movie used half a dozend of film and digital aquisition formats and massive CGI and VFX - what was there BEFORE that interpositive?

- Carsten

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 12-19-2010, 04:44 PM:

Carsten, you don't understand what a "digital intermediate" really is, and what the workflow for one entails. The digital acquired and generated material for Inception was scanned out to negative stock and cut into the shot-on-film footage, which was subsequently photochemically timed using traditional optical wedges. So while there was some digitally originated negative, there was NO D.I. process at all.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-19-2010, 05:07 PM:

If 4K is true, I will probably see True Grit in Ultra AVX when it opens.

Posted by John Stewart (Member # 989) on 12-25-2010, 04:44 PM:

Steve,

We had a local preview print of TRUE GRIT but it wasn't a select print. But, I thought it looked snappy as you say.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-25-2010, 05:21 PM:

Hoping someone can chime in here.

Is it better to see True Grit in 4K digital or 35mm?

Posted by Chase Pickett (Member # 5975) on 12-25-2010, 05:51 PM:

I didn't notice how clear the image was on screen. It looked just as grainy as any of our other scope live action 35mm films. I mainly compared it to The Fighter for this topic. Looked very close to me. If I would have gotten a digital copy of True Grit then I could give you a definitive answer.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-29-2010, 05:48 PM:

Just saw True Grit in 2k at the Rave in Montgomery.

Horribly shallow depth of focus, as well as the usual fringing of high contrast images.

I assume Deakins can shoot a sharp movie, so it has to be the digital.

This brings up a probably stupid question: Is it possible to manually fine tune the focus on a digital projector? I'm guessing it shouldn't be necessary since the medium doesn't actually change as it does with film, but what I was looking at looked like a scope lens that needed just a slight twist.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-29-2010, 07:26 PM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
Is it possible to manually fine tune the focus on a digital projector?

The location tech or operator can get into the projector's adjustment program, throw up a test pattern on the screen and check for focus and adjust accordingly if needed .. usually on a routine service basis, prior before showing ...

The focus knob is a thing of the past with digital units ...

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-29-2010, 07:50 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
The focus knob is a thing of the past with digital units ...

I can show you thousands of Christie DCinema projectors that will prove that statement wrong.

However, it is certainly possible to have a DCinema projector be out of focus and furthermore, the lenses are NOT true zoom lenses and will very focus over their focal range. When setting up the lens, the focus should be optimized for each format. It is also possible to have and anamorphic lens for the "scope" picture that allows the projector to scale the image to fill the imager and then use that for a more light efficient image (about 23% more). As such, it is possible for the anamorphic to be out of twist or be out of focus...just like with film. Most theatres are NOT using anamorphics though. Those with side masking probably should use them but most get scared by the price.

-Steve

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-29-2010, 08:24 PM:

Interesting . Dang me for running NEC/Barco/Sony and not Christie units for making such a statement .. my error on that one. ...

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 12-30-2010, 06:42 AM:

quote: Mark Ogden
The digital acquired and generated material for Inception was scanned out to negative stock and cut into the shot-on-film footage, which was subsequently photochemically timed using traditional optical wedges. So while there was some digitally originated negative, there was NO D.I. process at all.

Interesting. While I do know what DI is, I didn't know they were actually doing this elaborate 'statement for film' workflow on Inception. I thought that at some point they would have done at least a complete 2k or 4k film recording.

- Carsten

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-30-2010, 08:37 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
I can show you thousands of Christie DCinema projectors that will prove that statement wrong.

And Christies are what they have. Considering how dim the picture was (compared to my 35mm anyway) I'm guessing they aren't using an anamorphic lens for the extra brightness.

I should have added that ALL of the titles were soft. The elaborate name titles just looked mushy, but the white on black end scroll credits bordered on unreadable.

So much for my annual excursion into the pop world [Wink]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-30-2010, 08:45 AM:

If you saw things out of square, then it still may be possible that an anamorphic was used. However, if the image merely had a lean, then it could be that the projector was merely out of level (or the masking was...I've been seeing that a lot lately).

Christies normally have an exceptionally sharp focus so I suspect that the lens settings have not been optimized.

As for light, I've found Christies to be the most light efficient/watt. It is possible that the lamp was not well aligned, under-speced, run past its useful life, was not refocused to re-optimize the light after some use...etc.

In short, you should not have experienced the lack of quality given the equipment...however there are many factors that may have contributed to your lack-luster presentation.

-Steve

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-30-2010, 09:06 AM:

"Lackluster" is just the word I've been looking for to describe almost every digital presentation I have seen in this town.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-30-2010, 01:20 PM:

What is the result on screen when the integrator rod goes bad?
I know of one bad one but have not seen it.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-30-2010, 02:48 PM:

A "bad" integrator can cause a multitude of issues with the light...it may no longer be even, focused, right color...and the list goes on. The integrating rod is essentially a light pipe so all light must go through it and it must be perfectly focused on the imagers for one to avoid shadows or vignetting. One can greatly affect the light efficiency by precisely setting it.

So a damaged one could negatively affect all of the above.

-Steve