A Sea Change for the Motion Picture Industry

[Kino]

This makes no sense. For one there hasn't been a 16-bit Window platform since Windows 3.1 and DOS. And how can you have rounding errors going from 16-bit to 64-bit? Maybe you are talking about Little Endian vs Big Indian formats? But that is not exactly a hard problem to solve either.

You're right; I should have said, "You can have cumulative rounding errors in the image if you work with 16 bit images in a 64 bit environment under certain circumstances."

Got a bit lazy.

We DID have a huge problem with Big Endian interpretation of Little Endian TIFF files when trying to use a workstation after conversion from a Cineon 10 bit LOG file.

Seems the programmers who wrote the filter interchanged the standards willy nilly, using old bits of boilerplate and new snippets of code and created a huge mess that is still being sorted out...

Whole point I am trying to make, and a lot of computer types brush off as inconsequential, is that invariably the image is constantly "converted" via LUTS (look up tables) and interpretation programs built into software (some known to the user, some automatic and without recourse) that invariably change the image in subtle and not so subtle ways.

You as an end user might be willing to blow off the gradual erosion of the original image, but it certainly flies in the face of the #1 most-quoted reason digital is supposedly superior, lossless copying.

Sure, you can bit for bit copy a file, but can you utilize it without corrupting the image?

Anyway, my this horse is pulpy...

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

I have a link, I read the paper.

Should have read, I dont have a link, I read the paper.[/QUOTE]

Don't they have a website?

Fine, *I'll* find it. . .

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2008/09/07/20080907biz-digitaltheater0907-ON.html

 

[Kino]

I love these quotes that are sprinkled through out the article:

"Though customers may not immediately detect a difference in picture quality, they are sure to spot more variety in the programs offered."

"Despite high gross figures, theaters don't necessarily reap more revenue from digital ticket sales than they do from traditional movies."

"Calculating the long-term payoff is difficult."

Anyone with any knowledge of the theater business in the 1950's, recognizes the "selling points" of digital screens as practically a carbon copy of those listed for projection TV via satellite.

Many theater operators sunk huge sums in projection TVs, only to take a bath when the huge audiences predicted did not materialize.

Sure, digital projection is a certainty over time, but the "ancillary" profit making ventures they tout are historically a bust...

So, if you are thinking of tooling up your mom and pop cinema with digital projection, and the only thing tilting your decision in that direction is the possibility of these ancillary profits -- I'd urge you to think twice... or thrice...

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

Well, you also have to realize that the opinions in the article don't actually match the facts, due to poor reporting.

It seems clear that they are building *new* theatres with all-digital projectors. The current 35mm equipment is in no danger whatsoever.

And, (if and) when the concept of bringing people in to a theatre to watch HD doesn't materialize because they can watch at home (or just go see the actual concerts for not much more when a particular tour does come to town), and both a lot of these new digital theatres as well as many current theatres close down, as more and more people stop going to the movies altogether, the existing chains are probably going to have to turn to HIGHER quality projection, like IMAX, to cater to big blockbuster-seeking crowds.

The fundamental fallacy of this whole model is that 2K projection is basically the same thing you can see at home on an HDTV, and HDTV doesn't cost $10 a showing. 2K is no improvement over regular 35mm projection anyway. It's only an improvement over abyssmal, scratched up 2K printed 35mm stuff. Those digital projectors will be running just as poorly with a couple of years of abuse by dumb teenaged thugs up in the projection room.

Movies have been doomed since the platter system was invented, IMHO. People expect quality from a $10 product.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Fact check: Film production companies don't "purchase" equipment to produce a film. A production company rents or leases the camera equipment from entities such as Panavision. 35mm Film is in no danger as far as shooting films is concerned.

Theatrical digital projection "is" better than home HDTV, in newest installations.

 

[Ross Chambers]

2K is no improvement over regular 35mm projection anyway. It's only an improvement over abyssmal, scratched up 2K printed 35mm stuff. Those digital projectors will be running just as poorly with a couple of years of abuse by dumb teenaged thugs up in the projection room.

Movies have been doomed since the platter system was invented, IMHO. People expect quality from a $10 product.

The teenagers are sometimes found to be running the candy counter at the same time in some theatres.

BTW making up platter reels by projectionists takes several hours in my experience, makes programming inflexible, makes repertory style cinema programs with changeovers difficult and requires unmaking up at the end of season. I understand (correctly? Not sure) that a change of programme via digital projection is a black box plug and unplug.

I recall travelling to LA with a dupe and guide track for a feature for ADR and well remember the weight of 22 reels of 35mm film. Every release print travelling the circuit is at the least half of this weight for freight costing.

And be aware that quality control for bulk 35mm release prints is not monitored as closely as that for such premier screens as NY and LA. Once the answer print timing is approved only the lab checks bulk release prints -- on very high speed projectors.

Regards - Ross

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

Fact check: Film production companies don't "purchase" equipment to produce a film. A production company rents or leases the camera equipment from entities such as Panavision. 35mm Film is in no danger as far as shooting films is concerned.

Theatrical digital projection "is" better than home HDTV, in newest installations.

Do you know the difference between 1080p and 2K (most common format)? 5-10%. It is better, but in the same way that a split 5x7 negative isn't as sharp as a 4x5 negative, even less so though.

Even if you're talking about the few theatres that are 4K, certainly not all of the new screens built are 4K screens. As far as I know, our new all-digital theatre that just opened is all 2K.

In any case, even with a 4K screen, no current medium (except Vistavision film or maybe the slowest film stock in 35mm anamorphic, just maybe or 70mm) is even worth the bother of projecting in 4K, because most films are degraded to 2K now and most digital films are shot with 2K cameras, or at best 3.2K

And the projectors, you *do* have to buy, and unless the studios can somehow give the theatres a really really lucrative deal to convert, they are going to just have to tough it up and keep shelling out money to make film prints.

 

[Kino]

The quality of release printing, on the whole, declined when the Studios started nation-wide or even World-wide releases on the same day.

While the Michaelson Printers and light valves that operate in the giant release printing machines are a marvel of technology, it can actually change printer lights continuously through a frame without noticeable artifacts, they are flirting with the physical limits of 35mm transport physics and it often shows on screen.

Modern large capacity contact printers run in the region of 3000 feet per minute, while older, single pass contact printers rarely ran over 500 fpm tops.

That slow, orbiting motion you sometimes see in a theater is a combination of "gate float" from the high speed printer and, to a lesser extent, the wear on the movement of the projector.

Used to be, with phased releases, a smaller number of higher quality prints were sent to theaters with professional projectionists who took better care of the prints and used the changeover system.

Even before that, the use of step contact printers gave astoundingly good release prints, but the process was too slow in the sound era for anything other than a very limited release, so it fell out of use.

If you ever get a chance to see an original, step-printed, b&w print projected from the silent era, (it does happen on very rare occasions at major archives) you'll be astounded. It's like seeing 4x5 projected...

 

[PHOTOTONE]

You are right about the decline in print quality due to high-speed contact printing...but the wide-release, or worldwide-release modern standard has certainly helped the film manufacturers, particularly Kodak in the USA.

 

[Kino]

You are right about the decline in print quality due to high-speed contact printing...but the wide-release, or worldwide-release modern standard has certainly helped the film manufacturers, particularly Kodak in the USA.

You bet!

 

[Ross Chambers]

I had the privilege of looking inside the light box of a B&H continuous printer with the light valves at work - sheer magic!

And float (and weave): that I found out about when trying to super electronically generated titles onto telecine transferred film backgrounds. It's interesting that it seems to be not perceptible to a cinema audience, including me, probably due to lack of reference points, apart from the screen borders.

I've only seen "Ratatouille" in digital projection, but image stability appeared no more nor less apparent than film projection in the same cinema.

Regards - Ross

 

[Kino]

I had the privilege of looking inside the light box of a B&H continuous printer with the light valves at work - sheer magic!

And float (and weave): that I found out about when trying to super electronically generated titles onto telecine transferred film backgrounds. It's interesting that it seems to be not perceptible to a cinema audience, including me, probably due to lack of reference points, apart from the screen borders.

I've only seen "Ratatouille" in digital projection, but image stability appeared no more nor less apparent than film projection in the same cinema.

Regards - Ross

Yeah, its a LOT more apparent when you enlarge the aperture to use a sprocket hole as a reference; THEN you really see it. Our Steenbeck and KEM flatbed editors were modified to see the image out to the middle of the perforation on both sides of the image.

If you can talk someone into it, have them pull the projection aperture aspect ration mask in a theater. Depending on the projector, you can usually see at least the inside edge of the perfs on one side. It's an interesting thing to see...

The human eye is amazingly adaptable to subtle motion, but there are limits to how forgiving it can be about motion that should not be there at all.

 

[Matt5791]

Havent really had time to read the whole thread, but all this stuff has been heard before and every time it's been the end of film origination / distribution / etc. Obviously nothing lasts forwever, but I'm sure there is a fitting Oscar Wilde quote for film.

As the late John Pytlak, from Kodak, used to remid people on forums like cinematography.com and filmshooting - When video was first invented in 1957 (or sometime about then) Variety magazine proclaimed "Film is Dead", 50 years ago.

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

That slow, orbiting motion you sometimes see in a theater is a combination of "gate float" from the high speed printer and, to a lesser extent, the wear on the movement of the projector.

Never seen it. I suspect you have to look for it to see it. Hence, I don't want to!

The only thing I see and have fault with in films is I believe due to poor turbulation in the developer. You see pulsing, irregular processing in skies or areas that should be solid color.

Release prints are always going to suck compared to those contact printed one frame at a time rather than with continuous motion, but since most of us have never even seen one of them, what's the point?

I bet Dark Knight was sharper than a 35mm contact print though, wouldn't even be suprised if it was contact printed frame by frame. Do you know how that distribution system works, Frank?

If anything, we should be very positive about the success that this film has had and the promise of future blockbusters being shot completely in IMAX. IMAX is already gearing up for more, as have the studios.

Now here is something that is actually noticeably better than HD, and that has been a big part of what has kept cinemas alive, the larger-than-life aspect of it. People have to get a value for their money, and digital cinema at 2K is practically the same as watching it in HD.

 

[Kino]

Never seen it. I suspect you have to look for it to see it. Hence, I don't want to!

I know; drives my wife crazy when I pull QC during a film screening we go to, but it is a hard habit to break after 20 years...

The only thing I see and have fault with in films is I believe due to poor turbulation in the developer. You see pulsing, irregular processing in skies or areas that should be solid color.

Release prints are always going to suck compared to those contact printed one frame at a time rather than with continuous motion, but since most of us have never even seen one of them, what's the point?

Could be a number of issues or a combination of a number of issues causing the sky problems, but its almost impossible to find the real cause without knowing the machinery at the lab that produced the release print, and even then, its hard.

The point I was making is that the art (and quality) of making release prints has gradually declined over the years; simple enough.

That was an example of why it declined and how release printing, if it were enough of a priority for the Studios and they were structured to make profits in a different way, could return to higher quality releases, but that's not likely.

I bet Dark Knight was sharper than a 35mm contact print though, wouldn't even be suprised if it was contact printed frame by frame. Do you know how that distribution system works, Frank?

It might be sharper, but events are about to render that point moot...

65mm film, a pure film production that is, is most likely still contact printed due to time constraints.

If anything, we should be very positive about the success that this film has had and the promise of future blockbusters being shot completely in IMAX. IMAX is already gearing up for more, as have the studios.

Yeah, well you missed the memo that IMAX is going to digital projection, didn't you?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/technology_news/4253934.html
http://www.topix.com/arts/2008/06/imax-goes-digital
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/031208dnbusimaxti.48bcb134.html

And from what I remember, but what I cannot find a link to, is that these digital projectors won't even be more than 4K, so its a bit promotional game, not an advancement.

I'll wager they take their origination digital very soon too, as it sounds like the bean-counters are running the show now...

Now here is something that is actually noticeably better than HD, and that has been a big part of what has kept cinemas alive, the larger-than-life aspect of it. People have to get a value for their money, and digital cinema at 2K is practically the same as watching it in HD.

See above...

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

It might be sharper, but events are about to render that point moot...

65mm film, a pure film production that is, is most likely still contact printed due to time constraints.



Yeah, well you missed the memo that IMAX is going to digital projection, didn't you?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/technology_news/4253934.html
http://www.topix.com/arts/2008/06/imax-goes-digital
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/031208dnbusimaxti.48bcb134.html

And from what I remember, but what I cannot find a link to, is that these digital projectors won't even be more than 4K, so its a bit promotional game, not an advancement.

I'll wager they take their origination digital very soon too, as it sounds like the bean-counters are running the show now...



See above...

You're making this feel like way to much of a pissing war; let's have a conversation, not an argument instead. We're on the same side here, remember?

That has been widely mispurported. IMAX is "going digital" only to the extent that they are going to be installing additional projectors to save on the $45-65 or so thousand dollar print costs on films that aren't even IMAX quality anyway. This is a good move, as "Star Wars III" is a total waste of film anyway!

This isn't a bad thing, it is a good thing for IMAX theatres as they are going ot become more multimedia. For actual IMAX films though, shot on IMAX, this is great exposure as the theatres are getting more attention.

"The Dark Knight" and the (hopefully large) chain of IMAX-shot films in the same genre to follow will still be distributed on IMAX film. IMAX prints that actually warrant an imaging chain that can display, what in excess of 60MP a frame (4K is 24MP or so?) aren't going *anywhere* anytime soon.

 

[Ross Chambers]

Kino:

<<I know; drives my wife crazy when I pull QC during a film screening we go to, but it is a hard habit to break after 20 years..>>

Well I was used to cast and crew screenings with everyone as usual fretting about their own department's usually imperceptible mistakes until I took someone from the lab (who I was wooing at the time) and she freaked out about applicator spread.

For the uninitiated: an applicator is used to modify the development of the track area after the picture proper has been developed, sometimes the chemicals spill over slightly onto the margin of the picture area.

To get back to the subject not a problem with digital.

Regards - Ross

 

[Kino]

You're making this feel like way to much of a pissing war; let's have a conversation, not an argument instead. We're on the same side here, remember?

Whatever, guy.

I was having a conversation and in my world, that CAN include good and bad points about a medium I work in and with...

Later

 

[MikeJones]

Whatever, guy.

I was having a conversation and in my world, that CAN include good and bad points about a medium I work in and with...

Later

I seem to recall your having been very angry when I advocated a while back that this forum tear down the silly wall and embrace the cold hard fact that certain work needs to be done digitally these days, like press work, and that it was silly stigmatizing scanned film discussinos by placing them in another forum. You got very angry at me then.

Now you are doing the same thing with reference to the film industry, advocating the inevitabilities of digital projection there. How is that any different than my making a post about why discussions of scanned film should be allowed here?

While it's innevitable that both fields will eventually go all digital, why do you have to repeatedly remind me of those very unpleasant (to me) thoughts? If you were talking about the inevitability of RA-4 being replaced by inkjets, and then completely digital displays, your comments wouldn't have even been allowed here.

 

[Kino]

Amazing what people read into your posts...

First of all, I don't recall the posting you refer to, as you only have 2 posting to your name and the other was on medium format cameras; so you either have multiple profiles or are confused.

However, I can bet that I was endorsing the existing APUG policy of separating hybrid posts from pure film posts. I still endorse that...

Because it is economically inevitable (in my opinion) that industry will and IS heading toward a preponderance of digital projection, and I acknowledge that, DOES NOT MEAN I AM CHAMPIONING THIS CHANGE, JUST ACKNOWLEDGING IT.

As I stated to someone else (?) in a private posting, I don't make fan-boy posts; my World ain't on or off or "vote the ticket" regardless.

My statement "I was having a conversation and in my world, that CAN include good and bad points about a medium I work in and with..." MEANS I can embrace a medium AND still acknowledge faults it may have (such as gate orbit and weave).

Get over it folks, I disagree with you. Life goes on.

 

[haris]

I knew things were going downhill when I saw bottled water.

Sad and ultimate true...

 

[Goza]

I read this article http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-09/ff_redcamera, and realized that one of the biggest pieces of the film business that was propping up the film coating businesses of Kodak and Fuji may be finally getting ready to change. Interesting only in that motion picture film is a big part of Kodak and Fuji's film business.

Neal

neal,

I beleive kodak and fuji decided to go digital at least 8 years ago. That's about when Kodak laid off a massive number of people, acquired PhotoNet, and popped a quick $ 900 million into digital research.

I would never read an article from ANY publication, even American Cinematographer, on the "next" digital contraption, without a grain of salt. All those publications are serving companies to promote their newest toy.

There will be many more of these contraptions to come. Stay away from the NAB conventions...they have a high volume of bad information per square inch.

gg

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak acquired Photo Net? WOW. News to me unless the real owner of the company that bought PN is Kodak.

Since nearly 50% of Kodak's income is from analog motion picture, they are content at the present time to hold their lead in the field. They are doing massive research into digital MP, but see it as a long term issue. The Red One uses a Kodak sensor. They have also just invented a new type of sensor.

PE

 

[Goza]

Kodak acquired Photo Net? WOW. News to me unless the real owner of the company that bought PN is Kodak.


PE

P.E.,

no comprende...

are you being facetious?

This happened ten years ago. You are the one person I thought would have all the facts and details on this subject.

gg