Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Image quality at a Cinema & home

This is topic Image quality at a Cinema & home 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=002365

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-12-2015, 06:03 PM:

I recently saw ALOHA at the Regal Pearl Highland Theatres near where I live and I could not get over how dreadful the picture quality was. It looked like I was watching the movie projected from a VHS video tape. I just rented a Blu Ray disc from Netflix and with the movie was a trailer for ALOHA. The picture quality of the movie trailer looked gorgeous on my 46 inch Samsung HDTV and no way looked as bad as it did in a theatre. When I first saw movies projected in digital, the quality was fantastic and looked like I was watching film. I have seen a few other films in a theatre since I saw ALOHA and none of the movies displayed the picture I get at home. Even 3D movies on my set at home look better than at the theatre. How is this So?

I have been watching a lot of old classic movies on Criterion Blu Ray discs and the picture quality was so beautiful it felt like I was watching a brand new film print instead of video.

If image quality suck as bad as they now do in theatre, perhaps it Would be better to wait and either rent or buy movies I want to see and view them at home on my fantastic HTTV

-Claude

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 07-12-2015, 08:18 PM:

I'm curious as to what specifically was wrong with the image?

Harold

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-12-2015, 08:49 PM:

I can chime in on this topic.

Out of focus or even just plain BLURRY images are common at many d-cinema equipped theaters. It's one of my biggest complaints about movie-going in the DIGITAL age.

There's two problems involved. 1.: the limited pixel count of the images being projected. 2.: the quality of optics in the digital projectors.

In the case of premium big screen concepts like IMAX digital, they actually do things to deliberately de-focus the image to hide what would otherwise be a very obvious pixel grid blown up on a bigger than usual screen.

A 2 million pixel image looks pretty damned sharp and detailed on a modest sized HDTV screen in a living room. The same resolution image can look like all hell blown up on a far bigger screen in a commercial movie theater.

The typical flat panel HDTV screen in the home has no issues with projection (such as lens quality, alignment, etc.). The TV set has a fixed size and fixed pixel grid. There are no variables to change and the image being played maps out to the monitor 1:1. In the end the viewer will swear he is seeing a sharper, more detailed image on his home HDTV set than he is at the theater. And in many cases the viewer would be right.

D-cinema projection systems are more sophisticated than the typical home Blu-ray player and HDTV set. The DCP files they play have deeper color depth and not quite as much lossy data compression. But for all those technological advantages the home HD image, played from a good quality source like Blu-ray, can trump the image quality you'll see at a lot of movie theaters.

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 07-12-2015, 09:43 PM:

Thanks! So it is not misadjustment, but, instead, just the best quality you can get is not good enough?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-12-2015, 10:31 PM:

The image and sound quality in the movie theater needs to blow away the quality delivered by home theater. That's not really happening right now. Instead newer commercial theaters seem to be imitating the look of a great big TV screen, complete with letter-boxed fake 'scope for so many movies.

The "Super 2K" and "Super 4K" concepts I've been talking about lately would dramatically improve image quality. The entire imaging chip would be used rather than a letter-boxed portion of it. It would use a bigger portion of the projector lens, lessening the issue of diffraction and yielding a sharper image for both 2K and 4K. This stuff can be done with existing d-cinema projectors. The improvement just involves equipping the projector with an anamorphic lens. The much tougher issue is getting Hollywood studios to render 2.5K and 5K digital intermediates rather than the 2K and 4K versions they're doing now. That would cost a good bit more money. Sadly, with so many bean counters hell bent on making a movie release as short term a thing as possible there is little hope for Hollywood to adopt anything like this.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 07-13-2015, 12:54 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Out of focus or even just plain BLURRY images are common at many d-cinema equipped theaters. It's one of my biggest complaints about movie-going in the DIGITAL age.

Bobby- I think I can add another possible cause for soft images in addition to the
two you mention. I know of several theaters whose equipment has never been
focused since it was installed several years ago. I was actually even told by one
theater owner: "It's digital- - we don't have to focus".

The lens focus servo systems on the digital projectors are pretty good, but, lets
face it, the DO drift a bit over a period of time. In my experience, BARCO's seem
to hold their focus settings well, but NEC's need a bit more attention.

Since most theaters are totally automated these days, and at many venues
the only time the staff actually goes into an auditorium is to clean up between
shows, the focus can often drift quite a bit before an employee notices it.

(And most theater employess these days don't know a pixel from a pickle, and
the only screen they ever pay any attention to is the one on their I-phone. )

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-13-2015, 01:45 AM:

I like to check (with a chart) and refocus the scope and flat lens preset files on the three NECs I look after every 2-3 weeks.

One of the positive things about digital projectors is that I can do this with a wifi laptop standing only 2-3 feet from the screen, and run the focus back and forth until the I can see that the border of the individual pixels is as sharp as it's going to get, and then save the setting. I generally do this every 2-3 weeks and/or immediately before a high profile show (sometimes in the presence of a customer or programming partner, so that they have seen with their own eyes that the focus is as good as it's going to get, and that any perceived softness is in their DCP), and it usually has slipped a little. With all the heat cycling a 6kW bulb causes, that's not really surprising.

With the film projectors and an RP-40, the accuracy is limited to the performance of my eyesight from 92 feet away (though we do have a pair of binoculars in the booth as well).

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 07-13-2015, 03:28 AM:

Uhm, I agree to a degree! [Smile]

Projection issues have been there for ever. Don't tell me that the average 35mm projection was issues-free.

That being said a properly aligned and spec'd system will look and sound much better than the average TV. I agree that it does not 'blow away' the home-cinema quality though. (Proper) Sound does, picture doesn't.

TV are usually much brighter than a cinema screen. If you calibrate your TV and bring it down to REC 709 standards, it will look 'duller' and much worse than a D-Cinema show. First thing I do on any TV I come across is to set to OFF any digital gimmick it features. It's only gimmicks which just damage the signal, no actual benefits.

On top of that you have to add badly installed systems where lamps are not aligned, colours are not shot, brightness is not maintained and the list goes on and on.

Then add to the list that most of the latest installations are S2K chips, where contrast ratio is even worse, a white-ish auditorium and here you go.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 07-13-2015, 12:16 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
In the case of premium big screen concepts like IMAX digital, they actually do things to deliberately de-focus the image to hide what would otherwise be a very obvious pixel grid blown up on a bigger than usual screen.

Bobby, where did you get that information from? I service and have patronized theaters with IMAX and other PLF auditoriums and have never heard of this happening or experienced it.

quote: Jim Cassedy
The lens focus servo systems on the digital projectors are pretty good, but, lets
face it, the DO drift a bit over a period of time.

quote: Marco Giustini
On top of that you have to add badly installed systems where lamps are not aligned, colours are not shot, brightness is not maintained and the list goes on and on.

These are more likely explanations. And if it's a 3D-equipped auditorium, it's entirely possible the 3D mechanism was left in place for a 2D presentation, which will have a detrimental affect on image quality.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-13-2015, 01:43 PM:

quote: Ken Lackner
Bobby, where did you get that information from? I service and have patronized theaters with IMAX and other PLF auditoriums and have never heard of this happening or experienced it.

In IMAX digital installations the 2D shows use the 2nd projector to literally diffuse and hide the pixel grid, provided the projectors are even dialed into focus as sharp as possible in the first place (many are not).

For many other theaters, be they fake large format or not, if the projector's optics and alignment is even good enough to reveal the pixel grid on screen it gets dialed slightly out of focus anyway to hide that pixel grid so the image doesn't look electronic. The problem is worse in theaters with 2K projectors and really big screens. Fundamentally it's a dots per inch or pixels per inch thing.

And then there is the issue of the perf patterns on the screen. The perf patterns didn't matter at all with film. With digital it does matter. The pixel grid can clash with that perf pattern and create moire. So then there's another reason to consider dialing the image a little out of focus.

Overall, I have yet to see a d-cinema movie where the projected image was tack sharp. I sure have never seen it with an IMAX show. While some other people here in Lawton are excited about the new theater having an IMAX screen, I am not. I'd only be looking forward to it if it had the new dual 4K laser-based system. Fat chance on that happening. It's more likely that theater will get a used 2K system while some other location gets upgraded to "IMAX with Laser."

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 07-13-2015, 03:42 PM:

quote:
nd if it's a 3D-equipped auditorium, it's entirely possible the 3D mechanism was left in place for a 2D presentation, which will have a detrimental affect on image quality.

Oh yes I forgot that... [Smile]

IMAX: Last Digital show I saw in a proper IMAX... I could clearly see the pixels, I didn't want to believe that that was the show I had paid for. I believe that was pre-4K conversion but the 18 pounds I gave them for that awful show were for real.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-13-2015, 05:51 PM:

Gee, I did not know the thread I started would become so technical. Because I am not a projectionist, everything you are all saying is "Greek" to me. All I said was how I had noticed the inferiority of theatrical picture quality has become compared to the picture quality from my wonderful HDTV at home with 2D and 3D.

Is there a possibility when cinema digital projectors gets used more and in service for many years the picture quality deminishes over time? There was a time when I thought digital projection was almost as good as film when I first saw my first movie using the system but I do not feel that way now. If what I now feel is true, it was very tragic when the motion picture industry abandoned film for crappy digital ptojection.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-13-2015, 06:51 PM:

Claude - hopefully without sounding too Greek, there are lots of things that could contribute to the picture not being so good -- such as:

- Port glass being super dirty, thus reducing brightness and focus
- The lens being dirty - same results
- The bulb being operated at WAY too low a brightness and/or beyond its lifetime to "save money"
- The lens focus having drifted and not corrected
- Crappy (cheap) xenon bulbs being used
- Screen being dirty

Some of these all by themselves wouldn't result in a really objectionable image, but all of them put together sure could. None of them are the fault of the digital projection process though.

Here, I think the digital picture looks just as good as on Day 1, so I think there could be a maintenance problem at your local cinema. A lot of people thought that with digital there would be no more maintenance, which is of course not true.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-13-2015, 07:04 PM:

quote: Calude S. Ayakawa
Gee, I did not know the thread I started would become so technical.

Well, this forum is basically a bunch of movie technicians, so the discussion turning technical is somewhat of an occupational hazard around here!

What we're doing is discussing precisely what you asked us to: the reasons why theatrical digital projection can sometimes look and/or sound subjectively "worse" then the same movie played on consumer media and equipment in the home. The bottom line is that there are a large number of variables and factors in play, and that one or a combination of them could be behind the disappointing show you experienced.

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
Is there a possibility when cinema digital projectors gets used more and in service for many years the picture quality deminishes over time?

The intensity and quality of the light from a digital projector's xenon bulb drops off significantly over the course of its life, and it will also start to develop a flicker towards the end. In our largest theater, for example, we use 6kW bulbs. They are warrantied to 800 hours. For the first 300-350 they are very bright and steady. From 300-600ish, their light output diminishes. From around 600 they can start to develop a flicker. To maintain the best possible light, we would need to replace them after 300, but given that they cost over $1k each, we can't afford to do that (we usually do after 500-600).

If you time your visit for when we've just put a new bulb in, the picture will be super bright. But if you come to see a movie the night before we retire it, the picture will still be OK, not as good. There are, however, theaters out there that for whatever reason will run their bulbs past the "still OK" phase of their lives.

You may have had the bad luck to see a show lit by a totally worn-out projector bulb. If the image was dim and/or flickery, that's very likely. The projector may just have been underlit: the more powerful the bulb, the greater the cost per hour of illumination time, and so some theaters do underlight their screens. So the bulb may have been OK in terms of the hours it's done, but just not have been a big enough one to light the screen properly in the first place.

I don't know if the performance of the lenses diminishes over time (e.g. if coatings are degraded by prolonged heat exposure). Reflectors can become heat damaged. I can't think of any other reasons why a typical d-cinema projector shouldn't be delivering the same resolution and color depth from the same DCP after many years in service.

You may have seen a poorly mastered DCP (like the one of 2001 that we've been complaining about on F-T pretty much since it came out), with a low bitrate. Or, as Bobby suggests, it might have been that the operators at that theater believed that focus on a digital projector is just a case of "set and forget", and therefore it drifted over time.

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
If what I now feel is true, it was very tragic when the motion picture industry abandoned film for crappy digital ptojection.

I'm sure you've seen some scratched up film prints played on poorly operated and maintained equipment in your time, right? Both systems are complex technologies, that are designed to need ongoing maintenance and upkeep investment to continue opearating at peak performance. If you care about image and sound quality, then as a customer, your best bet is to find the theaters that care about that, too. Admittedly that could be a challenge in a relatively isolated community such as Hawaii, but if there is enough demand, someone will come along to supply it.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-13-2015, 07:51 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
The intensity and quality of the light from a digital projector's xenon bulb drops off significantly over the course of its life, and it will also start to develop a flicker towards the end. In our largest theater, for example, we use 6kW bulbs. They are warrantied to 800 hours. For the first 300-350 they are very bright and steady. From 300-600ish, their light output diminishes. From around 600 they can start to develop a flicker.

What type bulbs do you use? We use Ushio bulbs here that are warranted for 1000 hours, and one thing that I've noticed, the picture on those bulbs seems to still look just fine at the 1000-hour mark. Minimal to no fade, no flicker at all.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-13-2015, 08:05 PM:

Christie DXL-60SN.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-13-2015, 08:59 PM:

quote: Marco Giustini
IMAX: Last Digital show I saw in a proper IMAX... I could clearly see the pixels, I didn't want to believe that that was the show I had paid for. I believe that was pre-4K conversion but the 18 pounds I gave them for that awful show were for real.

Out of the hundreds upon hundreds of IMAX-branded digital theaters running, currently only 4 of them offer the 4K laser-based projection system. All of the rest are 2K only, roughly HDTV resolution blasted up on a great big, floor to ceiling screen.

quote: Leo Enticknap
You may have seen a poorly mastered DCP (like the one of 2001 that we've been complaining about on F-T pretty much since it came out), with a low bitrate. Or, as Bobby suggests, it might have been that the operators at that theater believed that focus on a digital projector is just a case of "set and forget", and therefore it drifted over time.

The set and forget issue may be a source for the problem, but I still feel some theater operators don't want that pixel grid visible at all and will deliberately dial the image slightly out of focus to hide it. They probably think that makes it look more like film that way.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-14-2015, 06:04 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
We use Ushio bulbs here that are warranted for 1000 hours

You must be using the DXL-40SN2 in an NC2000C. One of the problems with NEC is that they have rather poor light efficiency. If with that lamp, the NC2000C's claim of 15,000 lumens is sort of wishful thinking. The other two DLP companies would be running 3KW lamps (DXL-30BAF/L, DXL-30BA/L, CDXL-30, CDXL-30SP) and getting upwards of 1900 hours on the lamp, spending less per lamp and using less electricity doing it. A problem with the NEC is the color it starts with, if one does proper color correction, they tend to be more severe, which results in less light available.

Now can you run your lamp past 1000 hours? Sure can and I know people that run 2 to 3 times that amount! And yes, Ushio's DXL line of lamps have a slow decay. The "L" line of lamps (or Christie's "SP" versions) are even slower decay. Naturally, running past warranty is a game of odds and potential money savings versus damage if the lamp explodes. How many lamp lives would you need to save to make up for replacing the reflector, cold mirror and UV blocker? Note, it is likely that the cold mirror will survive and that the UV blocker will sustain the entire hit. If you can save more than 4 lamp lives before the hit, you come out ahead...providing you keep the reflector and such on site to replace or also factor in the lost shows while you await the replacements. Also, can you replace the reflectors and align everything yourself or do you need a tech to come in for that? It is all a game of odds.

Note, a lot of people with NECs use conventional "cinema" lamps in the misguided belief that they are inherently cheaper (NEC supplies the adapter to use "HS" lamps with the projector). Cinema lamps decay MUCH MUCH faster than their digital counterparts and and they don't start out with as much light either. Their arc gaps are typically significantly wider.

In Leo's case, the DXL-60SN/L should be available now. Unless you are running hard (near the top of its range), it should hold its light output pretty well. But again, with an NEC, you get such poor light per watt. The DXL-60SN/L has a wishful thinking lumen rating of 26,000. The other two DLP companies would actually get over 30,000 lumens for that wattage.

Note, lumen output from all of the projectors are approximate. They all presume the most efficient lens in the most efficient zoom position (typically zoomed to maximum). The most efficient lens is typically one of the ones in the middle of the potential range. So as you tend towards the very short or very long, your actual lumen output is going to go down. If you are using that 1.2-1.8 or 2.4-3.9 throw ratio lens, your light on any given lamp is going to be worse than the person using the 1.4-2.05 or 2.5-3.2 lenses.

And even if someone started out with the proper light on the lamp change, it may decay and cease to be good. I recommend refocusing the lamp within the first month of a lamp change and every month thereafter. You'd be amazed how much more light you can get if you allow for normal "burn-back" and re focus the lamp. The lower you run the lamp the slower it is going to decay. Once you start running towards the upper end of the lamps range, decay will increase exponentially.

Getting the right lamp size is key. You want a lamp that is essentially running at the top of its range and hitting its light levels at the point where it should be changed due to age.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-14-2015, 10:24 AM:

Yes, we are running pretty much at the top of a 6K bulb's range. I can't remember the exact figure, but I think it's 160 amps for the full 6K. After putting a new bulb in and adjusting the reflector for the brightest screen, I need to set it to 145-150 with the beam iris in to get 14ft-L on peak white. By 300 hours-ish, that needs to go up to the full 160. By 400-500, the iris needs to come out or we're not going to get 14ft-l anymore. For the last couple of hundred hours of the bulb's life, we're probably slipping below the 14 a little (even without the iris) and would need to replace that bulb a bit earlier than I'd ordinarily like if we get a studio premiere or other screening where everything has to be up to spec.

Because it's a constant struggle to maintain proper screen brightness in that house (thanks to the combination of a 92-foot throw to a screen that it 54 feet across in scope, and an NEC projector), I've wondered about using 7K bulbs. We do have one at our other theater that we put in purely for 3-D presentations and swap out again immediately the 3-D show is done (we use a 3K bulb there for normal shows). But the cost differential between a 6K and a 7K is huge: the 7K bulbs are only warrantied to 300 hours and they cost a lot more to start with.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-14-2015, 10:31 AM:

Any reason you can't loose the Iris for the entire life? The NEC normally loses enough light just going through it. And if it is scope that is your issue. THE answer is the Anamorphic lens. It is a 23% light booster for scope.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-14-2015, 10:44 AM:

We have masking on all four sides, so there isn't a lot of difference between the scope and 1.85 image size. 1.85 is probably around 42-44 feet across.

One of my co-workers believes that the iris delivers a very significant increase in contrast ratio, in particular making blacks look richer and giving DCPs that derive from film originals a more "filmy" look to them. I don't know if there's a placebo effect going on in my case (in other words, if I'd been shown the same clip with the iris in and then with it out without ever having been told about it, that I'd feel the same way), but I do agree with him. Contrast is not an NEC strong point either, and with the iris, I do think the picture has a little more punch. However, we're so stretched for light in that screen that we can only really use the iris for the first half of each bulb's service life.

I would guess that the iris costs around 2ft-l, which is what the bulb loses over the first 400-500 hours of its life, running near the upper limit of its designed range.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-14-2015, 11:11 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
Because it's a constant struggle to maintain proper screen brightness in that house (thanks to the combination of a 92-foot throw to a screen that it 54 feet across in scope, and an NEC projector), I've wondered about using 7K bulbs.

quote: Steve Guttag
Any reason you can't loose the Iris for the entire life? The NEC normally loses enough light just going through it. And if it is scope that is your issue. THE answer is the Anamorphic lens. It is a 23% light booster for scope.

Anamorphic would definitely yield a brighter and more uniform looking image, just using what is being supplied on current 2K DCPs now.

Going the "Super 2K" approach, if the DCP had a 2560 X 1080 master image squeezed in post production to 2048 X 1080 for anamorphic 1.25x projection that would end up delivering a much better looking image on screen than the lower resolution 2048 X 858 standard of what is being passed off as ‘scope now. I know I wouldn’t be complaining as much about soft, fuzzy looking imagery on big screens.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 07-14-2015, 11:29 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
For many other theaters, be they fake large format or not, if the projector's optics and alignment is even good enough to reveal the pixel grid on screen it gets dialed slightly out of focus anyway to hide that pixel grid so the image doesn't look electronic.

quote: Bobby Henderson
The set and forget issue may be a source for the problem, but I still feel some theater operators don't want that pixel grid visible at all and will deliberately dial the image slightly out of focus to hide it. They probably think that makes it look more like film that way.

It sounds like you are describing a poor decision made by one (or perhaps a very small group of) installer. It certainly is not recommended practice or standard procedure. Do you have firsthand knowledge of this happening? I have never heard of it happening, been trained to do it, or have done it myself.

quote: Bobby Henderson
And then there is the issue of the perf patterns on the screen. The perf patterns didn't matter at all with film. With digital it does matter. The pixel grid can clash with that perf pattern and create moire. So then there's another reason to consider dialing the image a little out of focus.

I'll grant you that intentionally soft focusing the image would be a way to reduce or eliminate Moiré pattern. Perhaps the lesser of two evils, I believe the better solution is to adjust the zoom. You'd be making the image a little larger and therefore cropping more but losing the Moiré pattern. It's a trade-off.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-15-2015, 06:32 PM:

I ran "Aloha" here at my location and noticed the poor quality..and to chime in with "JP:World", it was just as bad.

I do have to say that it all goes back to the labwork and how it was all put together.

For, some 2K prints can look awesome, like "Mad Max: Fury Road" - I thought I was running a 4K print since I was shooting it through a 4K projector. Yet, the content was only 2K and the image looked danged sharp on our 65 ft screen.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-15-2015, 07:13 PM:

quote: Ken Lackner
It sounds like you are describing a poor decision made by one (or perhaps a very small group of) installer. It certainly is not recommended practice or standard procedure. Do you have firsthand knowledge of this happening?

I haven't been in the booth to see the manager/projectionist deliberately dial the projector out of focus. However, it seems like every theater I visit, including any IMAX-branded digital houses, the projected image just is not sharp. It all looks out of focus. End titles are especially bad; just a big scrolling list of blur.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-16-2015, 01:10 AM:

I've never seen nor heard of it being proper or desired to make the image out of focus. I've, on rare occasion, zoomed the lens slightly to break up a moire pattern.

Seeing a soft image can be from the lens drifting from its set position. Different projectors have better/worse time hitting their mark but they ALL drift over time and the more you move the lens (e.g. if you always zoom to flat for preshows even on scope movies) you are more likely to accelerate the eventual drift.

As others have noted...if there is a 3D apparatus being used (Real D XL/XL-S) then you are never going to have perfect alignment across the image in 2D and even in 3D for the signal machine "XL". It is a game of making it look as uniform as possible. The more offset the projector is in any direction and if the screen is curved, you ARE going to have double images as you move away from the center.

As for credit scrolls...no DCinema can't do them and it is worse on 2K movies. They do look like a sloppy burry mess. There is just not enough resolution and the gridded nature of the image just interacts to look nasty. You can have a perfectly focused image but when a credit scroll starts... [puke]

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-16-2015, 11:33 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
perfectly focused image but when a credit scroll starts

never a prob on 35mm ... [Big Grin]