This is topic Digital SIGNS in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=001093
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 08-01-2002, 01:22 AM:
I noticed that SIGNS is being released digitally. I have a few questions about this. First, does anyone know whether or not Shyamalan approves of this, or does he prefer film? Secondly, has a live-action film ever been released digitally with a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, or is this the first? Thirdly, what happens when SPY KIDS 2, which was shot digitally, is released later this week? Is Rodriguez just shit out of luck, or is there some sort of wierd deal going on since they're both Disney movies? And finally, does a digitally-projected 1.85 image have greater resolution than a 2.39 image, or vice versa, or are they both the same? Thanks.
Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 08-01-2002, 02:19 AM:
The answer to your second question (other live action 1.85 movies shown digitally), is no, "Signs" is not the first. "102 Dalmations" was shown in DLP, and it was a live action 1.85:1 film.The answer your last question is: the resolution of DLP-based projectors is the same for both aspect ratios (at least for all the DLP machines that have been released so far). The native resolution of the projector is 1280x1024, with square pixels, so the native aspect ratio is 1.25:1. That means there is a 1.5X anamorphic lens used to achieve the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, and a 1.9X anamorphic lens to achieve the 2.39:1 aspect ratio. For the latter, the pixels are stretched out pretty wide, which exaggerates the gap between them. I find the effect to be a bit like looking through vertical blinds.
I didn't know "Spy Kids 2" was shot digitally -- thanks for mentioning that. According to IMDb, it was shot with HD 24p (and not the horrible miniDV format).
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 08-01-2002, 03:13 AM:
"For the latter, the pixels are stretched out pretty wide, which exaggerates the gap between them. I find the effect to be a bit like looking through vertical blinds."So that's what that is. That always bothered me, and I couldn't figure out what it was. Thanks for the info.
Also, FYI, Rodriguez' next movie, DESPERADO 2: ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO was also shot digitally.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-01-2002, 03:46 AM:
Is anyone else feeling the need to puke the next time the "D" word is used? Come on people. Let's refer to it like what it is: "shot on video" or "videotaped" or "video projection". We have to endure enough of the "D" word as it is in regards to sound systems, platters and everything else in this world as it is.(I actually thought this thread was going to be about those red led marquee signs.)
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 08-01-2002, 05:32 AM:
It's true that Once Upon A Time In Mexico was shot digitally, it is not necessarily Desperado 2, but actually, El Mariachi 3.El Mariachi was a fantastic film, shot on 16mm, which by the way has much better charactarsitics than 24p HD video. First, the resolution is better, the color depth, the contrast, and yes its cheaper than shooting with video, and the resultant costs in coversion to film.
If its costs for them, then just shoot 16mm, Kodak has a very impressive line of film for that medium.
Dave
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-01-2002, 08:25 AM:
I would be afraid to use the current crop of DLPs on SIGNS...this film is DARK...and I mean REALLY DARK. DLPs have a hard time with dark...seem to loose detail and increase grain. Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 08-01-2002, 10:12 AM:
Dave,
It's true that ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO is the third in the series, and that calling it DESPERADO 2 is dumb as all hell, but unfortunately, that is the official title.Also, the reason for shooting the film digitally was not cost. It's because Rodriguez is absolutely in love with the 24P camera. He actually bought one for himself, and he's said that he'll never shoot another movie on film again.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-01-2002, 05:11 PM:
quote:
I would be afraid to use the current crop of DLPs on SIGNS...this film is DARK...and I mean REALLY DARK. DLPs have a hard time with dark...seem to loose detail and increase grain.
Good! Then it will look like crap and maybe the digital train will lose a bit of steam...
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-01-2002, 05:42 PM:
Yes, DLP (or rather the video compression engine used) does not do well with dark live-action photography. Does anyone remember how bad the DLP shows of "The Perfect Storm" looked?I agree with Brad's point of view regarding the "D" thing, and have been referring to those shows as to what they really are: video. A feature shot with HD cameras is videotaped, not filmed. It is really a sticking point with me on terminology. One might be able to still use the term "movie" for features like "Full Frontal" but that show is definitely not a "film".
I remember when I was in the TV broadcast business and people would use the word "film" loosely when what I had on my shoulder was a Sony BetacamSP field videotape camera. A lot of times I would pop off the correction, "it is tape and not film" but try not to do it in a derogatory toned manner.
Of course, the term "video" has a negative connotation in terms of sophistication. The term video camera can be just as easily applied to a home consumer camcorder as a high end professional unit. But both are essentially that, just like a little home Super8 camera and Panavision Platinum model are both film cameras. The use of the term "digital cinema" and "digital projection" are just marketing dodges to keep people from drawing the conclusion they are only watching a larger, more expensive TV set.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-02-2002, 06:33 AM:
When I helped with an DLP installation for EP:2 this summer, they had a Sony DFP-3000 processor. I renamed the button on the 3000 from "Aux 2" to "TV"....It got a laugh...then they had me change it to "DCinema"Steve
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 08-02-2002, 07:48 AM:
DLP locations for Signs in the NYC metro are the Edgewater Multiplex, UA Farmingdale and Loews Jersey Gardens (none in NYC proper).Mike S: Spy Kids 2 is being released through Dimension, the B-movie imprint of Miramax.
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 08-02-2002, 09:47 AM:
" Spy Kids 2 is being released through Dimension, the B-movie imprint of Miramax."Yeah, but if you go high enough, doesn't all of the money end up in the same place, or are Miramax and the other Disney companies separated from each other, like Warner Bros. and New Line?
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-03-2002, 11:07 PM:
quote:
has a live-action film ever been released digitally with a 1.85:1 aspect ratio
In addition to the previously mentioned 102 DALMATIANS and SIGNS, I'm aware of the following:
BICENTENNIAL MAN
BOUNCE
CATS & DOGS
JURASSIC PARK III
MISS CONGENIALITY
PAY IT FORWARD
SCOOBY-DOO
SPY KIDS
VERTICAL LIMIT
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 08-03-2002, 11:57 PM:
Wow! That's a lot of movies. I was thinking there were only 2 or 3. Thanks Michael.
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-04-2002, 12:14 AM:
You're welcome.The Digital Cinema list is even larger than some might expect when you factor in the live-action scope titles.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-04-2002, 09:21 AM:
Steve dlp has problem with dark scenes becasue DLP stands for DIM LIFELESS PIXELS
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 08-04-2002, 12:58 PM:
Add to the flat list An Ideal Husband (1999), that actually debuted the same weekend that STAR WARS EP I debuted. Of course, it wasn't in DLP, but used the JVC-Hughes system that half the digital theatres showing STAR WARS I used.
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 08-07-2002, 01:00 PM:
"What happens when SPY KIDS 2, which was shot digitally, is released later this week?"The AMC Empire in NYC opens Spy Kids 2 today in DLP.
Paul L: An Ideal Husband opened in the US on 6/18/1999 -- 30 days after Star Wars Episode 1.
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 08-07-2002, 01:26 PM:
I should have clarified that AN IDEAL HUSBAND in digital projection debuted the same day as the DIGITAL release of STAR WARS: THE PHANTOM MENACE. (We were talking digital releases here).
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-15-2002, 01:20 PM:
quote:
has a live-action film ever been released digitally with a 1.85:1 aspect ratio
THE ADVENTURES OF PLUTO NASH can be added to the list.