Surprise at movie theater

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
I just went to a movie here in Rochester and got a big surprise.

The lights dimmed, the theater went quiet, and the screen flashed the new Kodak Logo! Surprise!

Then, in a manner similar to showing the Dolby Sound Logo, there was a fanfare and a big banner - "Brought to you using Kodak Digital Imaging" or some such.

I still don't know if I was watching a digital movie or a film movie. I saw "Narnia". This was my first view of anything like that.

The quality, whatever it was, was surprisingly good. If it was digital, it was far better than I expected.

I'm still thinking this one through. I forgot to look back up at the booth at the end, as they threw in an extra scene after the credits finished. If you see the movie, wait for this 'stinger' at the end. It's worth it.

Comments?

PE
 

jd callow

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
8,466
Location
Milan
Format
Multi Format
Years ago they would scan film stock insert the CGI and out put a master on a Cine Solitaire 16 with a huge 70mm Marron Carrol camera. The out put was very good then and that was 10 years ago.

I have no idea how they do it now -- I'm sure others would.
 

srs5694

Member
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
2,718
Location
Woonsocket,
Format
35mm
The last I heard much about this (around the time of Star Wars Episode 2), movie theaters were beginning to install digital playback systems. George Lucas was (and I'm guessing still is) pushing hard for this, but the "upgrades" weren't going as smoothly as Lucas would have liked, so only a few theaters in the US used the digital projection systems; most showed Star Wars 2 on traditional film, which was created from the digital master tapes. (Star Wars Episodes 2 and 3 were "filmed" digitally.)

At that time, most movies still used traditional film on the soundstage, and I believe that's still true. Some movies, such as the Star Wars films, can benefit from a 100% digital workflow because they rely so heavily on digital effects -- by eliminating the analog stage they simplify things greatly. This isn't true of most movies, though, which use few digital effects. I haven't seen it, but I'd expect the Narnia film to be effects-heavy, so it's conceivable that they had a 100% digital production. Of course, it'd be transferred to film for playback in most theaters, but you might have been in one of the digitally-equipped theaters.

As I said, though, I haven't looked into this recently, so I don't know how far digital has progressed in terms of movie market penetration.
 
OP
OP

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
There seems to be no indication in our theater guide that this is digital or film. The production was heavily SFX and they were superb. In fact, I would say that some of them were better than those in Star Wars III.

PE
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,293
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Photo Engineer said:
I still don't know if I was watching a digital movie or a film movie. I saw "Narnia". This was my first view of anything like that.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of the "extras" in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" are CGI animated, and there were IIRC four different animation firms involved in putting together the battle scenes (BTW, I haven't seen the movie yet, and never read the books, so anyone who spoils it for me will suffer my undying curse!). From the "making of" items I've seen (on SciFi Channel, for instance) it appears they shot the original action on film, digitized, did all the animation and SFX work, and then output back to film for distribution prints. What you saw was projected from film, AFAIK.

However, I read today that there's recently been an agreement among a few major players on a digital projection standard (several years after Lucas showed "The Phantom Menace" in digital form on a number of screens, at which time it reportedly took 13 hours to transfer the data over a secure Internet link -- things are faster now), which will allow digital distribution of movies without requiring film prints at all (and which ought to finish killing the small town cinema, if it does kill film). Some producers/directors, like George Lucas, haven't learned their lesson (George is on record as being appalled at the condition of the original negatives of "A New Hope", then just 20 years old, when he went back to remaster the enhanced version prior to release of "Phantom Menace"); expect many of the motion pictures "shot on digital" in the next ten years to be lost (i.e. master copies corrupted or accidentally erased, no distribution copies remaining due to expirations and similar security measures) in the next twenty to thirty years.
 

battra92

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2005
Messages
217
Format
Medium Format

If I remember correctly, there was quite a bit of opposition inside of Hollywood towards changing over. I guess it's the idea that if it ain't broke, why fix it. Plus I'm sure a digital outfit would mean someone out there will figure a way to pirate it much easier than filming it with a hidden camcorder.
 

Eric Jones

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
124
Location
Los Angeles
Format
Multi Format
Hi PE,

What you saw was in fact Digital Projection. The part that Kodak plays in all of this is they currently only make a product called the CineServer. It's a pretty standard computer box with a High Definition (1920x1080) Serial Digital output that feeds the Barco 2K DLP Projector. The DLP (Digital Light Processing) part is made by Texas Instruments, Barco couples that with a Xenon Light Source and Schneider makes the projection lenses. Basically the movie arrives on DVD's compressed in the MPEG2 format. Loaded on the CineServer and you hit play, that's basically it. There has not been wide adoption of Digital Projection mainly due to economics. The major film studios did not want to pay for it, even though they would benefit the most, and all the near bankrupt movie chains certainly did not want to pay for it. Another problem to wide acceptance was competing digital formats. But last year there was finally agreement between all the studios on a common format that can accommodate up to 4K resolution and the studios are already moving to cover the costs of adoption. The plus side to digital projection from a Cameraman's viewpoint is that every presentation is pristine, no scratches, dirt, etc. Also no variables in density or color shifts which you get from high speed release print printing. Got to love it when a scene turns magenta for 10 seconds. The downside is color management issues and maintenance. Most cinemas barely maintain their 35mm projectors, never mind actually change the bulb when they should. So that's where things are going on the projection side. Funny thing though, all major films are still currently backed up on B&W film using RGB separations. Also for what it's worth, Narnia was shot on Kodak 35mm film stocks, scanned and color graded digitally (most films do this now). This "Digital Intermediate" is used to produce Original Negatives on a film recorder (No more dupes) and also the grade is used for versioning for digital cinema, HDTV, DVD, etc. Hope some of this sheds some light on what's going on in that world.
 

battra92

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2005
Messages
217
Format
Medium Format
Eric Jones said:
The downside is color management issues and maintenance. Most cinemas barely maintain their 35mm projectors, never mind actually change the bulb when they should.
Click to expand...

True. I wonder how cinema-goers will react the first time their movie freezes and needs to be rebooted.

It seems with each new advancement the same problems will just take on a different form.
 
OP
OP

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
With more snooping around, I find that what I might have been looking at is a new generation of Kodak equipment being test run here in Rochester, with EK tech support backing it up (so to speak - no computer pun intended). In any event, Eric's comments are well to the point. The entire feature was surprisingly uniform - pristine I guess is the word. Of course, coming from a film original would only help this, not hurt.

It certainly impressed me more than the SWII and SWIII films for overall image quality. I saw several didital artifacts in the SW films, but none in Narnia that I could detect.

PE
 

Andy K

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
9,420
Location
Sunny Southe
Format
Multi Format
It's bad enough when I'm watching TV and the picture 'pixellates' and freezes. I'll be damned if I'll go to a cinema to see the same.
 

firecracker

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
1,950
Location
Japan
Format
35mm

So, HDTV technology is very much taking over the cinema venues? Is it what digital cinema distribution is all about today?
 

Eric Jones

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
124
Location
Los Angeles
Format
Multi Format
firecracker said:
So, HDTV technology is very much taking over the cinema venues? Is it what digital cinema distribution is all about today?
Click to expand...

That is the state of things today. Systems use either HD-SDI connectors or DVI connectors for true 2K data. And yes the current system uses MPEG 2 compression but at a higher bit rate. MPEG 2 is currently used in DVD's and Standard Definition and High Definition television broadcasts.

Luckily, what the studios have finally agreed upon blows the current system out of the water. Fortunately the 2K Digital Projectors currently out there will not be obsolete. Just the playback servers, lol. The new spec is scaleable. You can either have 2k (2048x1080) or 4k (4096x2160) frame. The color bit depth is 12-bits / channel for a total of 36-bits. It can carry 16 channels of audio. And finally the compression is moving over to JPEG 2000. Each image frame is compressed on it's own. No more MPEG 2 motion artifacts that you may be use to seeing on your digital cable system or funky fade to blacks on your DVD's. After seeing a 4k demo of the system, I'm quite happy with the quality. It holds up no problem on an 80' screen. So, that's the way things are moving and hopefully they will install cell phone jammers with the new systems, lol.
 

firecracker

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
1,950
Location
Japan
Format
35mm

I see. Thanks for the info.

But don't you sometimes think the HD image quality is too crispy, too sharp, and perhap too perfect in a way? Does the 4k system still give you any good "film" experience? Or it's onto something else...
 
OP
OP

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
IMHO, having seen all digital, digital > film > digital and film > digital. Oh, I give up on all of these, but basically the best I seem to have seen.... is... Just a guess mind you is this....

A film original turned into a digital master shown using the most modern EK (or other digital) system.

The worst was digital > film > projected. (Think SWI, II and III).

PE
 

Eric Jones

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
124
Location
Los Angeles
Format
Multi Format
Firecracker:

If the project originated on film you still retain the beautiful film look. You're just sampling the negative like you do when you scan your own neg and dare I say "photoshop" it. Even though I have shot and/or tested every conceivable video and film format, my favorite and I suspect it will always be this way, is good old standard 35mm film for aesthetics and ease of use. But yeah, watch a channel like INHD or HDNET, where most programming originated on HD and things are way to crisp and sharp.

PE:

In regard to SW II and III, I completely agree, they both looked awful. SWI originated on film and was graded digitally, and even that looked awful, lol. I have yet to see a "digital" originated movie that looks nice, IMHO, of course.
 

egdinger

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
108
Format
Multi Format
The only movie that was digital that I rember liking the look of sin city. The smooth grainlessness just felt (to me) like it went with the comic book theme. Then there was corpse bride, but this was shot on digital still cameras, so it's not quite the same.
 

Earl Dunbar

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
558
Location
Rochester, N
Format
Multi Format
PE: Which theatre? I haven't seen this yet, so when I do I'd like to see this version.

Earl
 
OP
OP

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Earl Dunbar said:
PE: Which theatre? I haven't seen this yet, so when I do I'd like to see this version.

Earl
Click to expand...

Earl, it was Tinseltown in Henrietta.

I almost went to Greece Ridge and if I had, I would not have seen the logo and etc..... They have installed something new at Greece Ridge which shows cable TV before the movie starts. Like controller roulette changing between cable channel previews, but Tinseltown had something else running AFAIK.

PE
 

gbroadbridge

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
508
Location
Sydney, Australia
Format
Multi Format
I'm surprised that you're surprised PE

Digital theater is just a souped up version of HDTV with higher resolution and different encoding.

HDTV typically uses long GOP sequences encoded with MPEG2.
Theater at the moment is using JPEG2000 (no GOP with every frame an I frame) but with temporal compression.

Graham
 
OP
OP

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
I was surprised to see it with no prior notice in the paper or at the theater. I was also surprised at the quality given my experience with digital and the rather poor quality of the SW movies. I was surprised to see that it ran without crashing (LoL) and without hanging up in mid movie.

Not too long ago, I saw a film which hung in the gate and the frame burned up before the operator could shut it down. We missed a whole scene near the end of the movie after the operator fixed it. I guess I expected something worse from digital.

I'm still not exactly happy with digital, but my thoughts and experiences are reaffirmed. Digital is best when starting with a film original and that is made into a good scan and then viewed via some sort of good print. Now I can add that it is good viewed with a good digital projection system. (provisional judgment)

All digital seems to be the worst of all possible worlds.

So, film retains a place. God is in his heaven and all is right with the world.

PE
 

Earl Dunbar

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
558
Location
Rochester, N
Format
Multi Format
OK, Tinseltown, I'll check it out. Tinseltown is in Gates, but I know what you mean.

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…