Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Digital Conversion

This is topic Digital Conversion 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=000956

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 11-18-2011, 10:06 AM:

Our conversion to all Digital starts on Monday November 28th. Well that is when it is scheduled to start! I look forward to this with some excitement, a little apprehension and of course regrets. I am excited to learn something knew and always love being on top of any technology. A little apprehension as because new is not always better, new can be worse but still there aspects of this that I like. Regrets because I love film and the effect on the screen when it is real film to me Digital is just a bit too sharp a focus in some areas it seem to have to great a depth of field. Like the video cameras of the 60’s you could tell when shows were shot on Video tape they were just shaper on focus. You would think that was a good thing but like the background to be a big blurry on some shots.

Well anyway here we go! What do you all of you think about your places going Digital or if they haven't what are our thoughts about when they go Digital?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-18-2011, 12:10 PM:

What kind of system is being installed (Dolby Digital Cinema, AccessIT/Doremi, etc.)? Is it 2K or 4K? Is the sound system being upgraded to 5.1? I may have to check it out when the conversion is finished.

Video has a certain look to it, but I don't agree that it is "sharper" in the sense of showing more detail. Film photography can still beat video in that regard (and absolutely trounce video whenever large format processes are being used). I hope most movies will continue to be shot on film for years to come regardless of how they are projected in movie theaters. Even if I only see a movie on Blu-ray, the movie is going to look better if it was shot on film rather than video.

The Carmike 8 here in Lawton still has operational 35mm projection systems on screens 5 and 7; Christie 2K projectors are positioned along side. Nevertheless, it's been a long time since the theater received a film print.

In terms of image quality, I can't say the switch to digital made any noticeable improvement at the Carmike theater. 35mm projection typically looked very good there. The black levels are superior on film. With digital the image is absolutely rock steady. So many movies have their film scanned and then "color timed" via digital intermediate. Digital projection is giving you a closer reproduction of that finished digital source file. Life in the booth will be easier in some respects (no more prints to build up, tear down, carry, ship, etc.).

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 11-18-2011, 12:59 PM:

Bobby,

We were already DTS 5.1 and we are still 5.1 when the conversion is done. NEC projectors not sure the model numbers yet. We will be LMS for the management system. Real D 3D on two screens.

As to sharpness it isn't the focus I was meaning the depth of field is to great on Video so often more things are in focus than should be. It is harder to throw specific parts out of focus. When I was kid in the 60's you tell the shows that were shot on Video as then almost everything was in focus. I totally agree n shooting on film and if you are going to do 3D at least shoot that way the friggin digital conversion of 2D to 3D suck big time.

Our screens are small and the image will look great on them but so does film.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-18-2011, 01:17 PM:

Depth of field relates to the lens aperture and the focal length of the lens used in original photography. This is indirectly influenced by the amount of available light, the speed of the film being used, the shutter angle of the camera, and the film format.

In general, and all other things being equal, longer lenses have a shallower depth of field than shorter lenses. Smaller lens apertures provide deeper depth of field than larger ones.

If I photograph something with a 35mm still camera using a 35mm lens and then photograph the same thing, using the same film speed and camera settings, with a 4x5 camera using a 135mm lens (which has approximately the same field of view), the picture from the 4x5 camera will have shallower depth of field.

If I scan these pictures and look at them on a computer monitor (or video projector), depth of field is not affected.

I think that the difference that Ron is seeing is that edges of objects look sharper when projected on a DLP system. I agree that this is the case, and it gives the illusion of greater sharpness. This could relate to the way in which the film is scanned (and possibly edge-enhanced). This does not mean that there is more actual detail than there would be with a 35mm print, however. If you want to see the difference in detail of film vs. DLP, look at close-ups of actors' faces. There is far more actual detail in a film print. (Disclaimer: I have not seen 4K DLP.)

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-18-2011, 01:19 PM:

One piece of advice I can give you is to have all your most tech savvy people available for training once the systems are installed, especially if you are getting the LMS right off the bat. There is going to be a lot of new information to learn and the installers are not always the best trainers.

Even if you are fairly good with technology and computers, be prepared for some frustration. The learning curve can initially be quite steep because things are not always intuitive with the way the equipment and software is designed. And there is so much to learn it will take you a few weeks to really start to feel comfortable.

I highly recommend you plan on looking over the shoulder of the installers when they actually start setting up the picture and doing the screen files. You're going to need to understand how it all comes together. And make sure they show you things like how to adjust the focus.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 11-18-2011, 01:45 PM:

Scott beat me to the punch on how to manipulate depth of field. One reason that people who shot video were so excited by the video capabilities of Canon's 5D Mark II was that the larger sensor suddenly made it so much easier to get that artistic, shallow depth of field everyone liked to see. Unfortunately, if you were also lazy about focus (because your previous video camera was more forgiving) you might be in trouble! If you didn't bring a good monitor to your shoot and you tried to rely on your little viewfinder then you might not see your mistakes until you got home. Oops!

But the point is that there are plenty of DPs who know how to get the depth of field they want and the D-cinema cameras available to them today are certainly capable of giving them what they want. I wonder if 3D shooting makes it necessary to decrease depth of field. After all, human eyes don't use depth of field to perceive distance as much as they use convegence so, for a more "realistic" 3D experience, shouldn't the movie be shot with generally deeper focus?

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 11-18-2011, 01:54 PM:

Justin I am somewhat tech savvy and one other person that is pretty good. I will have a few fingers in the booth as we can get buy with. I have a Concession Manager that is eventually going to learn the system. I am appreciating all the advice and taking it to heart.

Justin when I say I'm somewhat tech savvy it might be a bit more than that even. LOL

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 11-18-2011, 03:28 PM:

quote: Ron Funderburg
Our conversion to all Digital starts on Monday November 28th.

Really? The week after Thanksgiving?

Isn't that an awfully busy business week to be essentially rebuilding the booth and dealing with the potential bugs that come with new and unfamiliar equipment?

Posted by Steven J Hart (Member # 2340) on 11-18-2011, 04:30 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The black levels are superior on film.

To me its the opposite. When I play a black clip on my digital projector, the screen is simply black. When I run black leader through my 35MM projector, I can see some light on the screen (compared to the lamp being off).

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-18-2011, 05:02 PM:

quote: Greg Anderson
One reason that people who shot video were so excited by the video capabilities of Canon's 5D Mark II was that the larger sensor suddenly made it so much easier to get that artistic, shallow depth of field everyone liked to see.

Expanding on that farther, one could use any of the lenses in Canon's EF series, or other non-Canon lenses. Video cameras simply don't have that variety of lens choices. If you want an extremely narrow focal plane lenses like the L-series 85mm and 50mm will open up to f/1.2. You can get other effects from macro lenses, tilt-shift lenses, fisheye, super telephoto, etc. Having a "full frame" sensor, the 5D Mark II will show a greater periprheal view from each lens. That's a big advantage in wide angle photography.

The low DOF look is something you really need to use even if you don't want to use it when shooting with the 5D Mark II or other "HDSLR" cameras. Because of the way the camera down samples to 1080p it is prone to showing moiré when shooting video with deep depth of field.

quote:
Unfortunately, if you were also lazy about focus (because your previous video camera was more forgiving) you might be in trouble! If you didn't bring a good monitor to your shoot and you tried to rely on your little viewfinder then you might not see your mistakes until you got home. Oops!

It's pretty crazy how much one has to spend on accessories to make a DSLR camera like the 5D Mark II work reasonably well as a general purpose video camera. Shotgun mic, focus rails, shoulder mounted camera platform, external monitor, etc. All that gear, plus the camera body and the lenses make the system cost considerably more than a dedicated "pro-sumer" level HD video camera.

You don't need all the accessories if you're doing shots of objects, landscapes or anything static. I disable auto-focus for a number of different types of photography. You can focus using the LCD screen and pressing the button that gives a 5X or 10X zoomed in view. I like using live view anyway to see the histogram (this works much better than the light meter in the view finder). The EOS utility can tether the camera to a computer, such as a notebook, and provide a much bigger view of the shot. If you're having to follow-focus moving action then some of those accessories become a necessity.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-18-2011, 05:25 PM:

quote: Sam Graham
Isn't that an awfully busy business week to be essentially rebuilding the booth and dealing with the potential bugs that come with new and unfamiliar equipment?

The week after Thanksgiving actually tends to be relatively quiet. It's probably the one remaining week of 2011 when a digital conversion isn't a horrible idea. It gives a good window of 2 weeks to get installed and work out the kinks before it starts to get really busy with the December movies.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-18-2011, 05:49 PM:

Agreed. We did ours in mid-summer...it was quite the zoo. Early December would have been much quieter!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-18-2011, 06:54 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
We did ours in mid-summer...it was quite the zoo.

Yea, I thought I saw a giraffe stick his head in the booth window... naw... it was the Wolf that ran though the booth... thats what it was.

Ron... I hope you hired a reputable dealer to do your install or that he is at least a qualified Zoo Keeper. There are so many shady ones out there!! (Dealers... not zoo keepers!)

Mark

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 11-18-2011, 08:01 PM:

Mark Strong Technical Services is doing the install Ken Williams will probable the installer that does my theater. I believe we all know him from here!

Bugs we don't need no stinking Bugs I don't got to have no stinking bugs I don't gots to show you no stinking bugs. (miss quote)

Marlon Brando from the new and improved redux Apocalypse Now Redux redone "The Horror, the horror where the hell are you Twinkies"

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 11-18-2011, 09:10 PM:

I knew Ken when he was with NCS. He's a good tech.
My booth was converted last August, and the 35mm equipment was scooted off to the sides - some with the platter decks removed - and are still occupying space in my booth. Is someone taking your equipment out after the install, Ron? If not, your space may be really cramped.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-18-2011, 09:20 PM:

The sharpness comes from the LACK of detail which results from lack of resolution. The pixels of the projector are well defined and are sharp on screen and thus gives the illusion of a sharper/higher detail picture. But if you actually try to see the detail, it isn't there. This is causing the depth of field compression. While DPs may wish to control the foreground/background focus, they don't have the resolution at 2K to do it. The detail just isn't there. I think as things move towards 4K, we will see the depth, detail and varied focus to create foreground/background distinctions again. At 2K, there just isn't the information there to do it.

As for the current crop of DLPs being black...that just means your white level is too low...if you measure 14fL in the center of your screen and then project black, it won't be black on screen. With film, you are more at the mercy of the lab and print generation as to the black levels (or green as some tend to be). However, all things being equal, film will handily beat digital in contrast ratio (white to black ratio). In most typical cinemas, however, the ambient light will negate most contrast ratio claims.

-Steve

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 11-18-2011, 09:27 PM:

Steve,

I agree with you on everything there! I know you lose fine detail in digital 4K should have much more fine detail. But I wont be getting 4K for the size of screens I have here. OH well.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-19-2011, 06:28 AM:

Yeah, this notion that 4K is only for large screens is a bunch of bull too. While it is true you will see the improvement much greater on larger screens...I tend to think of it as you won't see the degradation as much on the larger screens with 4K. In truth, the larger screens really need to go to 8K or so.

-Steve

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 11-19-2011, 08:09 AM:

James I'm taking them out and we are storing them for now. I think what will happen is some will be sold to a salvage yard and the rest who knows. I don't have room in the booth for digital and non to occupy the same area. We are mothballing one projector, sound head, stand, lamp house, & rectifier. I'm not sure why! It will stand in a free area of the booth. I suppose I will consider it a tribute to the good old days.

I look forward to the new area and have a fond nostalgia for what we are leaving behind.

Steve how many K does it take to equal 70MM or do they even know? Even 5 perf has to be above 4K.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-19-2011, 11:20 AM:

Horizontally across, I think you need at least 8K to get a reasonable approximation of 70mm, perhaps even considerably higher if one were to use modern camera systems, lenses and film stocks. The 8K treatment would provide similar resolution for film negative area as compared to doing 4K scans on 4/35mm. Plus the scanned image would be 25% taller due to the extra 5th perf of image height. Baraka (filmed in 5/65mm) was treated in this fashion by MPI Home Video.

Perhaps digital projection technology (and other areas of computing technology) will improve to where native 8K can be produced cost effectively and shown in theaters in a practical manner. It's only then that I'll have any interest in things like "IMAX Digital."

The technology front has challenges. But as video cameras improve they're going to run into other challenges from producers and actors. A higher resolution image will require higher quality work in the production design, CGI, effects compositing, etc. Those higher costs will annoy bean counters who insist 2K is good enough. Actors are extremely image conscious, especially with respect to trying to look youthful as long as possible. A video camera and lens system that can shoot native 8K and produce razor sharp results will also have the ability to show every wrinkle, freckle and black-head on an actor's mug. With HDTV levels of resolution the actors may not be so worried (especially with how soupy the footage can look with certain video cameras).

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 11-19-2011, 12:06 PM:

Back when NBC switched "The Tonight Show" over to HD production, I was able to attend a SMPTE Hollywood Section meeting showing off the new facility. At the time, going from 480i to 1080i was causing the lighting director and the makeup artists to revisit how they had done things. Compared to SD, HD at just 1080i was considered quite unforgiving. I imagine the same sort of thing will happen again as D-cinema moves more into 4K and eventually 7K/8K production.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-20-2011, 11:34 AM:

8K is probably the closest approximation of 65/70mm image resolution with a 5/70 format...you'd have to get up to the 12-16K range to approach 15/70. Even CinemaScope 35mm exceeds 4K in resolution.

We are not talking about some pie-in-the-sky resolution here. Where is are should be the "starting point" but it is not good enough nor as good as what we have had.

-Steve

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 11-21-2011, 01:17 PM:

Has anyone seen a 4k DLP presentation on a smaller screen like 30 feet wide? Even if it's 2k scaled to 4k I would think other differences would be obvious.

Color,contrast and maybe a more film done right look instead of the bland 2k brick wall look of 2k.
I am looking at spending the extra cash to go 4k right away which I understand is cheaper than upgrading later.
I agree with Steve that a small screen will benefit greatly with 4k as well!
Just like films have greater punch on smaller screens compared to over sized ones.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 11-21-2011, 05:48 PM:

As a matter of fact, I recently saw a Sony R320 4k on a 5m screen. The problem is, I can't say anything about it because essentially there was nothing to notice. The screen was non-perf, so all I saw was 'image'. No pixels, no jaggies, no screendoor, no nothing. I went close to the screen to a few cm, but the only thing I actually noticed was film-grain on some footage.

They had to defocus the bulb considerably to get the light levels down.

- Carsten

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 11-21-2011, 07:28 PM:

On the Sony 320, I suppose one "could" defocus the lamp, but it's not necessary. The lamp current can be varied from 52% to 100% of the lamp's rating for any of the sizes used. The 320 can use 2K, 3K, and 4.2K lamps. Normally one will size the lamp such that 3D scope is adequately lit, then use reduced lamp current to reach the luminance needed for 2D flat. The lamp settings are saved in the macros for each format during initial installation.

When a lamp is installed, it is focused "numerically" during lamp alignment by peaking the reading of a numeric LCD display on the rear of the projector. Because of the optics (i.e. the integrator rod and light engine) lamps in digital projectors cannot be focused "by eye" the way film lamps can. After that, one displays a white target and shoots the luminance with a color meter, adjusting lamp current to reach the desired luminance number.

I have had techs tell me that they can do lamp alignment by eye even on digital machines, but I have yet to see this for myself. The input aperture to the integrator rod is rather small - improper lamp focus can lead to a damaged integrator rod.

Since 4.2K is the biggest lamp one can put in a Sony, that is going to limit the size of the screen, especially for 3D. One major chain I was doing Sony installs for has since determined that any screen wider than about 38' will need something other than a Sony spec'ed for it.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-22-2011, 05:05 AM:

I have now done 4K on a screen about 20-feet wide (just under, actually)...and yes it does look crisper. However, I'm still waiting to see actual 4K content to really give it a judge...4K test material has notably finer detail as one would expect.

-Steve

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 11-22-2011, 02:33 PM:

Oh that is good to know Steve, I so want two more theaters of a larger size show throw auditoriums wide with big screens. 4K content on 20 footers would be awesome though. Don't know if my owners would ever spring for that if they didn't have to do so.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 12-01-2011, 09:17 AM:

Well we have had three small glitches on the change over but not bad so far we should be done sometime today with everything. Thanks everyone for your input you guys all rule. Even the jerks I don't agree with!

I would make an awesome movie quote here but all I can even think of is from Scarface or Maltese Falcon. HUM think I will pass on this one no wait "I won't play the sap for you." Falcon won out!

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 12-04-2011, 01:55 PM:

Conversion is over and we had a few problems not many. The only real complaint I have is that we have an operating manual for the software package (we don't have our LMS yet) but not one on the operation of the projector itself. We had only a cursory coverage for how to input and show alternate content. I have a soccer league booked to see the highlights of their season in week or so and haven't set up the player yet. I have my notes but a manual would really help.

Posted by Phil Ranucci (Member # 3820) on 12-04-2011, 02:51 PM:

Congratulations on the install. Post the equipment you're using and maybe you can get help/manuals.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 12-04-2011, 02:56 PM:

NEC 2300's not sure if they are ++ or not! Real D 3D but have what I need on it. The user manual for the 2300 seems to be the only thing I need I don't have.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-04-2011, 03:12 PM:

I'm assuming the NEC 2300 is for alternative content and/or advertising. I can understand not wanting to use your DCinema projector for advertising, but you should run all your alternative content through the DCinema projector.

Did you have Dolby CP750 audio processors installed? If you did, running anything from a DVD/Blu-Ray or other devices is relatively easy. Use an HDMI to DVI cable to output the video to the projector and the a TOS link (optical audio) to output to the cinema processor. You may need to adjust the lens & screen files for the DVI input, but they will probably be usable as they are.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 12-04-2011, 03:18 PM:

We are still a DataSat (DTS) X10P and I have that worked out. The preshow are though those projector's provided by the other company but I will provide other content though the Dcinema NEC's. I can work out it but it would be easier with a manual.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 12-05-2011, 02:28 PM:

Sorry I guess I had a transposition one my model number our NEC projectors are NEC 1200C's not the 2100 I had posted. Again sorry for any confusion on that. When numbers and letters turn around on you bad things can happen.

Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 12-25-2011, 07:36 PM:

Lcos (Sony) resolves lower modulation transfer function (MTF) compared to DLP.
2k lcos cannot fully resolve 2k content. 4k Lcos will display more fine detail when fed 2k content then a 2k DLP and more detail during motion however 4k DLP wins. The Sony may still have a slight advantage during motion.
I wish Sony used a different method for 3D. Having to use that lens limits the projector to 2k resolution and keeps you from using their anamorphic option if wanting more light on the screen unless you want to manually change the lens back and forth during different movie formats.

quote: Steve Guttag
I have now done 4K on a screen about 20-feet wide (just under, actually)...and yes it does look crisper. However, I'm still waiting to see actual 4K content to really give it a judge...4K test material has notably finer detail as one would expect.

Steve was that Lcos or DLP.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-25-2011, 08:00 PM:

DLP