Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What process does a movie go through?

This is topic What process does a movie go through? 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=005142

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 06-19-2007, 12:09 AM:

There are several paths from image capture to release printor file.

We know that 35mm film is substantially superior to 2k digital but it has been pointed out that if the neg is scanned in 2k the 2k file is probably better than a 35mm release print.

Full frame anamorphic, whether it be film all the way or 4k scan, will usually be better with Film Done Right projection.

It is easier to show a movie with a digital projector but, if it is a film-to-film or 4k scan, we should opt for a print.

Our dvd covers give us the info, can we get the goods on theatrical features?

It would be great to see this detail on the Feature Info & Trailer Attachments.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-19-2007, 12:13 AM:

You can look at the Internet Movie Database and check the technical specs for any movie. It will show what the capture format was, if it had a digital intermediate (2k or 4k) and what formats it was released in.

For instance, you can look up "Evan Almighty" and find that it was shot in Super 35 with Panavision Cameras and Lenses, that it surprisingly has a 4K Digital Intermediate and is release in 35mm anamorphic.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 06-19-2007, 02:06 AM:

Thanks Lyle,
Checked it out. Contrary to several threads and salesmen, a sufficient number of movies (internationally) are being made with the good stuff that they are worth showing with care via film projection.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 06-19-2007, 02:48 AM:

the problem is, even if it doesn't say a di was used, you can't assume one wasn't. there isn't much rhyme or reason to which tech specs get listed for a given film, and of course they're sometimes wrong.

i would also love a reliable source for this imformation.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-19-2007, 07:41 AM:

quote: Ron Curran
We know that 35mm film is substantially superior to 2k digital but it has been pointed out that if the neg is scanned in 2k the 2k file is probably better than a 35mm release print.

I don't believe that statement to be 100% true... I've also seen many 35mm releases that didn't go theough a digital intermediate that looked pretty bad too. Too many film generations away from the camera neg. and poor lab work also result in worse than normal film quality... or "Film Done Wrong".

I think in the future you be finding more and more of the scans done and staying at 4K cause of the Sony's that will wander into booths in a short while.

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-19-2007, 11:41 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I don't believe that statement to be 100% true...

Why wouldn't it be 100% true?

When a movie is processed through a 2K digital intermediate, the finished product is indeed only as good as that 2K digital file.

The image resolution, level of contrast and color depth is all limited to that digital format. Outputting to film won't create any more image detail or color depth that doesn't already exist in that 2K file.

There's even a good chance you may even see some generational loss when the data is laser recorded onto 35mm film and mass produced via high speed printing.

The only way to make a 2K-based movie any better is to go back to the original camera negatives and scan them in a higher resolution like 4K. All the visual effects work has to be rendered in 4K and composed with the 4K live action elements. When all of that is done the 4K digital intermediate can be produced. It's either do that, or go "old school" and do everything in the analog realm (and do it well).

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 06-19-2007, 08:33 PM:

To an extent, Mark and Bobby are both right.

Perhaps the confusion arises from the dominance of Hollywood. Cinemas like ours screen a mix of features from U.S. (not all from majors), Europe, Asia and Australasia. While some of these originate on an electronic format, several are analog all the way.

Yes Mark, I have seen some pea soup features that were totally analog and some taped features that sparkle. Amongst the best images are analog anamorphic 35. It isn’t till we receive the media that we know.

IMDB is almost there but it would be nice to be sure before we refuse an early date via hard drive to finally receive a print that looks crap and has no digital sound any more.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-19-2007, 10:05 PM:

Well, I like anamorphic... er scope format much better generally speaking. It is also capable of presenting a better image generally speaking but... there are still theaters out here running with B&L, Sikkor, and old 1950's anamorphics that should be thrown in the dumpster... I have two sites actually running with Panavision anamorphs still! Actually the Panavisions fare better for sharpness but eat tons of light. So not in all cases will a scope film look better than Digital Cinema. Its obvious that Bobby has still to see Digital in a number of different scenerios.

One thing for sure about D-Cinema... it'll take care of and confine the cheapskate theater owners once and for all! They'll either have to be D.C. Compliant and buy those $2100.00 lamps or close down their buisness [thumbsup]

. And that I feel is a very good thing.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-20-2007, 06:39 AM:

quote:
One thing for sure about D-Cinema... it'll take care of and confine the cheapskate theater owners once and for all!

Bzzzzt wrong. I have already seen a cheapskate owner that is running a CP2000 have a lamp fall below SMPTE standards (light output) after the lamp's rated life but rather than installing a new lamp...instead lowered the current on the existing lamp that was darkening to prolong its life yet longer...with an estimated light output of less than 6fL (all outdoor scenes have a feel of "overcast").

Any thought that DCinema will enforce a quality standard is pure hogwash. Furthermore...as it becomes the norm...you will see low-cost alternative projectors like LCDs being offered that have the required link-decription and will be able to process the 2K-4K signal as per standard...however, it is unlikely that they will hold their color or light levels as well as the higher priced DLP type technologies.

I maintain...I've seen current 2K technology in many sites and film...film seems to resolve it all...2K DLP does not...in fact, the film shows up the crappy 2K DI in many cases. I do agree that by in large, exhibition will be improved with some sort of digital projection since most film presentations I've seen are notably compromised (damaged film, poor equipment or just slip-shod presentation).

It is interesting that HBO ran the Star Wars series in HD Memorial week. I wached them in HD and it is amazing the detail that came out once Episode IV hit versus Episode III (the best of digital origination for its day). Seeing them back to back really made the difference all that more dramatic. What is even more pathetic was seeing Episode 1....it was clearly a film-print re-telecined...dirt and movement and all! Talk about a soft mess. The Star Wars EP1-III will be a tribute to how far digital had to go for their entire existance now...too much of them are bottlenecked by limited technology of their day. If George had shot them on 65mm....he could have redigitized them as technology improves to constantly improve them for video releases. It was very poor forthought.

Posted by Steven J Hart (Member # 2340) on 06-20-2007, 07:20 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
One thing for sure about D-Cinema... it'll take care of and confine the cheapskate theater owners once and for all! They'll either have to be D.C. Compliant and buy those $2100.00 lamps or close down their buisness . And that I feel is a very good thing.

I don't run my low-grossing small town theater like a cheapskate, however forced conversion to DC will very likely close us down. I guess its a

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
very good thing.

to close down the rest of the historic single screen theaters still in business in small town America.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-20-2007, 07:39 AM:

It would also close down most, I would guess at least 80% if the small independant cinemas in Britain, not forgetting all of the multi-purpose venus which run film occasionally, many of them in locations which couldn't support a full-time cinema; I'm sure just about all of those would go.

That's one of the problems I have with the Arts Alliance Digital Screen Network scheme; it seems unreasonable to supply shiny new digital projectors to over 200 screens in over 100 cinemas, while not supplying them to others who applied to join the scheme. Runing a small scale trial scheme could probably be justified, as could providing the equipment to anybody who wanted it, but the scheme as it exists at present does seem rather unfair.

The answer which is usually given seems to be to lease the equipment, but it is more expensive than film equipment, and is expectd to have a shorter life; there are printy og fifty year old film projectors still running. For the leasing company to recover their costs, and make a profit, over the life of the equipment, the leasing costs are going to have to be high.

If I was building a cinema today the situation still remains that I would not install digital, though if I was desinging a cinema today I would make provision for the the installation of a digital projector at some time in the future.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-20-2007, 08:28 AM:

I agree Steve there will be those that do with the lamps what they want but they will also eventually pay the price like they have by pushing them around here. When his 2100.00 lamp pops and he has to buy a $4000.00 plus reflector he won't be pushing his lamps very much any longer and by then the folks ne normally sees will be down the street watching brighter images somewhere else. Places like that sometimes disentegrate on their own unless they are the only game in town. If you think about it though thats about all they can really get away with. I suppose they can ignore other maintainance but film people already do that in abundance. With D-Cinema the old lenses will be gone as will the Super Platters, and the theaters running old type A or clone type noise reduction. They will at last have decent sound and sharp pictures some for the first time ever. The 16 year olds that don't know head from tail and scratch prints before they're shown the first time will no longer be able to scratch em.

Realistically there will not be any LCD projetors running D-Cinema in theaters in the very near future and if they do go that route down the rad a ways by then LCD's may very well be far ahead of DLP technology. I can guarantee you there is tons more research going on with LCD techniology than in DLP and at a very steady and fast rate. Some high end LCD projectors look very good today but still unacceptable for D.C., but they're getting close. I can certainly see the ability not far into the future to manufacture 4K lcd panels as well. The dispute here is not the resolution or comparison of D-Cinema as it is today to film capabilities as they are now and never has been... you know and I know film right now is more capable but neither Tom down the street from you nor Harry down the street from me really give a crap about what format they're seeing. But they do notice the absence of scratches and dust immediately when they go see a film in DLP. We also foget the fast pace of technology as regards to electronics which has always been at a snails pace in film. Then there is the 4K realm and as soon as the 2K manufacturers start loosing sales they too will have to build 4K projectors.

Out of the theaters I service there are but a handful that truely care... even if half of them cared thats still an unacceptable number. Like Louius mentioned in the other thread most owners would rather by new cars every year than upgrade their lively hood. Sad indeed! So yes, in this sort of situation digital will take care of alot of long extant problems.

Will the small theater owner be able to afford it? Certainly! Any financially minded theater owner will be able to deal with the costs through smart banking, write offs, other financial options, or through leasing. I personally see leasing as the very best option for the owner that does not want to sign on with the likes of the Christies for the rediclous long term. Leasing affords payment options galore so you can afford it and it doesn't stick you with a pile of old gear at the end of the lease. Interest rates are also quite reasonable. And down the road there will be other options for buisnesses to purchase leased or older gear as equipment is pulled out just like leased cars when they go back to the dealer. Like film, Radio, television, and the Compact Disk D-Cinema will evolve, improve and eventually win out. But there are always going to be those that just can't see or accept that becauase they see what they have better today is not as good as the other... what they fail to see is that tommrrow it will be better than what they have today. In the end when they are 60 plus years old and climbing the booth stairs with a small perhaps 1 pound package of disks or a by then some sort of solid state memory device with the new release print on it they will think back and remember how archaic carrying those heavy film boxes up the same stairs was and how rediclous and time consumming putting films together was. By then D-Cinema will have way surpassed film in all aspects.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-20-2007, 10:38 AM:

Mark, I was agreeing with you (for the most part) until the afford it part...I don't think ANYONE can afford it, big or small. It is finanical stupidity and it is never ending finanical stupidity. Film based projection equipment is far cheaper/year to run...period...there may come a day when that changes and it is getting closer by the month but it aint here yet.

BTW...I do know of an LCD based DCinema projector that should hit the streets this year! So the "low-end" market is indeed coming.

LCD definately continues to look better and better...it will always have a issues with color fade due to its technology as well as the screen-door effect again due to how the light goes through the panel versus reflects off the panel. However, they are getting much better at hiding the screen door.

Steve

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 06-20-2007, 11:07 AM:

What mark still doesn't seem to grasp is that any way you do it, whether with a lease or some fanciful financing, one still has to come up with nearly a hundred thousand bucks...and in reality the distributors, studios would love to be rid of the independents anyway and this may be their means of doing it.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-20-2007, 01:26 PM:

The only way the movie distributors can get digital projection systems into a lot of smaller theater chains and independent locations is by getting them involved in agreements similar to those the big theater chains are getting.

In short, the studios have to band together and pay out of their pockets for this hardware -not the movie theaters. The theaters have such narrow profit margins there's just no way very many of them at all will ever afford to buy that equipment outright. The studios are getting ALL of the cost savings and business advantages of this technology. Not the theaters. So it's only fair for the studios to pay for the gear. Theaters can pay for "virtual print fees" and service contracts, so long as the cost of those two things isn't a business killer either.

quote: Steve Guttag
LCD definately continues to look better and better...it will always have a issues with color fade due to its technology as well as the screen-door effect again due to how the light goes through the panel versus reflects off the panel. However, they are getting much better at hiding the screen door.

Running the HDTV displays at higher native resolutions, like true 1920 X 1080 does a lot to fight the screen door effect and other jaggy looking problems. The ones running at lower resolutions like 720p definitely do look coarse.

As far as LCD or LCOS D-cinema projectors go, I'm sure there will be more challengers to DLP, even at the high end. I don't expect to see any true 4K DLP chips from Texas Instruments any time within the next several years at the earliest (or ever). Hardware companies who want to do things on the cheap, giving theaters what they feel is "good enough" in quality will do so at their peril. I think the quality differences will be pretty obvious.

On the subject of D-cinema "cleaning up" the theater industry, I don't think it will be that simple. For one, it's not doing a great deal to improve the audio end of things. Sure, a new 24-bit 48kHz 5.1 LPCM audio track is getting delivered. But often it's being played through whatever 5.1 audio system the theater already had and how ever it was adjusted.

Even on the actual movie production end of things the quality level is trying very hard to back-slide further into muddy mediocrity. A growing number of major releases are being shot on video rather than film and have the final result suffer for it.

Lots of independent productions are shot on mere NTSC DV video, not even high def -and then the people who shot the work gush about "digital" and what a revolutionary tool they found. Here's an observation about that revolutionary tool: the results look like shit.

The typical analog film printing step on the video material adds nothing either, it just worsens the video quality further. It's like someone taking a JPEG photo from a digital camera, printing it out on paper and then scanning it in a flatbed scanner back into the computer and expecting to get some improved level of quality. I would have more respect for those people if they left the video signal looking like video.

And that raises another controversial matter. Video content that is allowed to remain looking like video will really look like video when shown on any D-cinema projector. It will have that "live TV" look to it. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing from the standpoint of trying to preserve HD video quality. But it will throw some customers for a loop. If they thought D-cinema looked kind of like watching TV before, true unaltered video content will get the TV feeling all the way there.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-20-2007, 02:48 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
I don't think ANYONE can afford it

Steve,

I'm thinking in terms of if today you had to convert that its better than shutting your buisness down... and lets face it, with this gear projector, optical, and lamp technology is being driven to improve so it can become more affordable and even more reliable but the latter would be hard to improve upon except from a software viewpoint. D-Cinema gear is already ultra reliable.

Everyone here is assuming the worst and that they're going to have to buy this stuff tommrrow at 120K for a system and yes... if you want a good system right now thats what you're going to be paying... but that won't be true in a few years as technology in D.C. advances. You may even see the server completely disappear as it is now and the decrypter/decoder end of the server be put into the projector. That makes the servers very simple, much smaller and very affordable. I think the first improvements you will see is in the lamp end of things. These companys know that no one can go on buying $2100.00 lamps that only last 750 to 1200 hours if you push em. They either have to last longer or cost less. Many projectors now afford the opportunity to use standard cinema type lamps if your system can perform properly with them, you can then enjoy very long lamp life. Christie has already come out with their second(perhaps third) generation projector... smaller DLP chips, the same resolutuon and higher optical efficiency, simplified chassis and 20K lower price tag. Overall I don't think you'll see it take that long for things to become more realistic price wise. HEck a full blown very well built THX system is going to set you back about 70 to a hundred grand! None of you are cheapskates ... right!

And who knows that LCD D-Cinema Projector, Panasonic I believe may look really good on a 20 foot screen. As for LCD's and color fading it depends on what type of optical block is being used.... Typically 3 LCD imagers with Color Dicro filters in front of them or in each one's optical path... There's no more to fade with this sort of LCD optical block than there is with DLP. Both are similar in how they create the 3 colors.

Too many of you are basing D-Cinema on what it costs today... well none of you are buying it today... it will be the day after tommrrow at least. But you should not ignore it, you all need to plan for it or someday or eventually find other employment if you don't.

Mark

Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 06-20-2007, 03:20 PM:

Most multiplexes in the UK still run 35mm prints for the majority of their showings. Even though the technology exists, they already have a well-implemented film showing system and the costs of converting to digital would be prohibitive. Think of how much it costs to install a digital projector and playback system in a single-screen cinema. Now multiply that value by the number of screens you've got to upgrade... it could easily go into the millions!

The Vue Leeds Light I go to has one screen (fairly small auditorium) that has a digital projector in addition to a 35mm film projector. The digital projector is used almost exclusively for subtitled movies - such as foreign language films and when they do special screenings for the hard of hearing. All the rest of the screens have film projectors only.

Another important question is, if you do decide to upgrade to digital, do you keep the original film projection equipment? Or do you sell it for money to help with the digital conversion?

Digital intermediates are good to test out films; then ask the audience for reviews. It's far easier to add and delete scenes from a digital recording than it is to splice film and strike a new print - not to mention what to do with all the 'waste' film!

Also, when films do go through a digital intermediate stage, how are they transferred back to film? Do they have a device to expose the digital recording onto every single print that's sent out to cinemas? Or do they just expose the digital onto one negative, and duplicate that the old-fashioned way to make prints?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-20-2007, 07:04 PM:

quote: Thomas Pitt
Or do they just expose the digital onto one negative, and duplicate that the old-fashioned way to make prints?

Exactly! They use a special digital film recorder to do the job. You can ask John P. how it works. Lasers I think.

Mark

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-20-2007, 11:35 PM:

Yes, laser recorders are the most popular "high end" way of putting digital images onto film, usually making a master positive or duplicate negatives. Kodak was a pioneer in developing the technology with its CINEON LIGHTNING laser recorder, first used in the early 1990's (e.g., the "Snow White" digital restoration). Today, the Arrilaser is widely used.

Posted by Joel N. Weber II (Member # 3530) on 06-22-2007, 08:53 PM:

quote: Thomas Pitt
Another important question is, if you do decide to upgrade to digital, do you keep the original film projection equipment? Or do you sell it for money to help with the digital conversion?

If lots of theaters are converting to digital, there's going to be lots of film equipment potentially on the market, and there probably aren't going to be many buyers if most people building new theaters are installing digital. I doubt many multiplexes converting to digital are going to get much money for their projector heads. It's a lot like how if you want a new computer, selling your three year old computer isn't going to help all that much with getting money to help pay for the new computer.

Newer film sound processors and digital sound decoders and lenses might be useful to single screen venues looking to upgrade, but in a few years, there may end up being a lot more sellers than buyers.

And a venue looking for cheap used equipment is unlikely to get cheap speakers/amps from theaters converting to digital, which may somewhat limit the benefit of getting some of that sound equipment, although a theater that already has a speaker system that can handle digital film sound might benefit from being able to cheaply switch to a different digital format.

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 06-22-2007, 09:24 PM:

Looks like the dawn of a golden era for people looking for cheap 35 equipment. Sounds like the chains will be practically giving it away. eBay is going to have to add a new category.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-22-2007, 11:25 PM:

I don't know. From what I've heard regarding chains such as Carmike they're keeping the 35mm film projection equipment and a lot of DTS and Dolby SR•D processors in mothballs right up there in the booths.

It would seem that companies like Carmike would want to sell a bunch of that equipment. But I think the reality is there just isn't very many potential buyers of that used equipment.

There is a lot fewer 2nd run/bargain theaters than 1st run/full price locations. And the first run circuits that have a decent number of stereo or mono audio screens probably don't want to spend the extra money it takes to put in the amps and speakers required to do DTS or Dolby Digital anyway. The slum companies are merely trying to get by doing as little as humanly possible. From their mindset things like quality 35mm projection and 5.1 audio are unnecessary.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 06-23-2007, 01:27 AM:

quote: Damien Taylor
Looks like the dawn of a golden era for people looking for cheap 35 equipment.

Well if you want a 35mm machine, I've never seen them cheaper than whats avalible second hand today, $500 seems the going rate for a kalee here in australia, except on ebay, starting bid $38,000 anyone?. With the cinema building boom coming to a close, there is no great demand for second hand gear.

Of course if your willing to wait, Im sure you will find one for free eventually, unfortunatly by that time it might actually be hard to find any film to put through it!