Digital Cinema on 35mm: And you thought Super35 was bad..... (1 Viewer)

[RobertR]

Doesn't it make more sense to increase the resolution of this type of equipment to more closely match film, before switching over wholesale to it?

Of course it does, but Lucas has talked himself into thinking that digital is "good enough" as it is. Pity....

 

[Rain]

I saw the movie twice on film before seeing the DLP. A friend I went with saw it once on film before the DLP.

We both seemed to agree that although the DLP eliminates grain, etc. from the presentation, fine detail is also somewhat diminished. The whole movie in DLP seemed to have a bit of a "soft focus" look.

I'm not a techie by any means, so I'm not sure what the heck the process behind DLP is. For that matter, it could have been a problem specific to the cinema we went to.

Based on what I've seen though, I'll take film over digital any day.

 

[Terrell]

Based on one screening, at this point DLP isn't as great as its cracked up to be by some.

That is completely dependent on how good the equipment where you saw it was, and how good they had it set up. Not all theaters are equal, even in digital.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Some DLP installations may be using a special lens to diffuse the image and reduce visible line structure and screendoor.

I just cannot see why there is a rush to start using a lower resolution format like HD video instead of film.

Some people don't want to talk about it, but expense and convenience is a major factor. Instant dailies, instant availability for editing, lower cost tools (over time). The critical viewer is being sold down the river.
Lucas wants movie theaters to have to spend a shitload of money so that he can save a shitload of money and still like how his output looks. He thinks he can blackmail the entire nation with Episode 3, but I think he is going to fall flat on his face.
Robert Rodriguez is a huge fan of budget filmmaking, which I do agree has its place.
Spielberg says he won't make digital 'film' until he has to. Hopefully he is not alone. Ironically, he is the one who compromised his preferred aspect ratio to make his films more tv-friendly.

 

[Jason Seaver]

I just cannot see why there is a rush to start using a lower resolution format like HD video instead of film.

People are stupid.
Economics, mostly. Long-term, digital is less costly than film - the media itself is expensive, lab costs are expensive, distribution is expensive, storage is expensive, and it degrades, meaning that every decade or two you have to go through the whole cycle all over again.
All of those issues are of lesser concern with digital - HD space is cheap and getting cheaper by the day, there are fewer intermediate steps that require expensive (and time-consuming) lab work, no bulky film cannisters that need to be treated carefully to ship to theaters, and maintaining the library means "regular backups" rather than restoration work.
The downside, of course, is twofold: First, it's a big short-term monetary hit to exhibitors to "upgrade" to DLP systems. In theory, I'd imagine there would be long term savings (fewer moving parts), but the theater industry right now has little reason to invest in equipment that, except for a double-handful of movies per year, sits idle.
Secondly, current-generation DLP looks bad. It's clear and it's sharp, but the resolution on a 40-foot screen is inadequate - jaggies are especially noticeable on text and subtitles, and there's clear pixelation all through the picture. What truly frightens me is that the 35mm prints of a digitally-shot picture like Attack Of The Clones won't look much better, since they were originated on relatively-low resolution 24fps DV (which, while having better-than-DLP resolution, aren't exactly in the 35mm neighborhood). Session 9 looked good, I thought, but Brad Anderson went for a grainy, documentary look. I'm planning on seeing AOTC in 35mm just to have a fair comparison.
What I'm really looking forward to is this fall, when Disney's Treasure Planet will likely get simultaneous DLP, 35mm, and IMAX release. Now, that will be an interesting comparison.

 

[Terrell]

jaggies are especially noticeable on text and subtitles, and there's clear pixelation all through the picture.

Jason, that is quite a statement. I didn't see one instance of that whatsoever. So to say there is clear pixelation throughout the entire film is not correct in my opinion. Can there be pixelation? Sure. But to make the statement that there is clear, which means noticeable, through the entire picture is not correct at all. I know what that pixelation looks like and I didn't see it even in one scene. I saw a bit of grain in one dark scene. That was the only flaw in the entire film.

Now, I agree that digital projection is in it's infancy. It's not a mature technology. But it will get consistently better. Most people that have seen it seem to say that the digital looks better in every area except resolution. It's clearer, sharper, more vibrant, and it doesn't suffer from the dirt, hairs, and dust the way films do. The picture also doesn't get worse over time. But digital can't hold a picture when it's blown up too big, at least not when transferred to film. However, Lucasfilm did tests at ShoWest where they blew the image up quite a bit, and it still maintained it's sharpness and image quality. However, that was on a state of the art digital projection system, not on film.

You right about theaters not having much incentive now. Few films are made this way. Digital will one day surpass film. It's not there yet, at least in terms of black level and resolution. But considering all of the other advantages, when those areas improve, film's days are numbered.

 

[Edwin-S]

Well, I'm going to go and see the film transfer, hopefully tomorrow. Depends on whether I want to see it badly enough to stand in line. I think there is one DLP equipped theatre in Vancouver. I supposed to be down there at the end of May. Maybe I'll be able to see the DLP version while I'm down there. I'm curious about it. I think though that DLP vs film is likely to be similar to looking at an image where you can see the scan lines vs one where you cannot. The illusory increase you get in sharpness ends up offset by an actual loss in detail.

 

[Terrell]

Let me qualify my last post by saying I haven't seen the film in digital. One of my close friends has seen it in digital twice, and he said each time the presentation was flawless. Colors were much more vibrant, saturated, as well as being much sharper and clearer than the film presentation was. My statements applied to how the picture looked on film, and what he saw when he watched a digital showing.

 

[Guy Martin]

So far I've only seen AOTC in digital (and probably will only see it in digital; wasn't a big fan of the film, not planning on seeing it again) at the Loews in Century City, a pretty good theater (I saw an excellent presentation of Spy Game there back in the fall). It's THX-certified and it was a TI projector approved by Technicolor, at least according to the two trailers beforehand advertising that this was a digital presentation.

To my eye there was definitely a video look to the image and an annoying softness. Interestingly, when The Matrix trailer played beforehand (also in DLP) I noticed that there were some jaggies on text, such as when the Matrix code scrolls down and during the title cards. But all text during the film itself, like the opening crawl was quite smooth, in fact too smooth, as if they had been run through a Photoshop blur filter. Overall all of the elements, live action or CGI seemed soft. It made me wonder if ILM actually rendered at a lower resolution than they did for EP1, which was shot on film. If anything the CGI here felt less convincing to my eyes. Black level was definitely a problem, especially obvious during Anakin and Padme's nightime scenes in their love nest at the lake. There certainly was a total lack of grain, but I actually found that a negative. The absence kept reminding me that I wasn't watching film. The bottom line: while better than I expected, its still not ready for prime time.

One final thought did occur to me, though. Perhaps the softness and odd lighting noted here was intentional on the part of DP David Tattersal. Thinking back over his non-Lucas work, specifically The Green Mile , he does sometimes show a fondness for softness.

Has anyone seen Vidocq, the French film that was also shot 24P?

- guy

 

[Terrell]

Is Matrix being shot digitally, or is it on film?

Whatever the case with the presentation in theaters, AOTC should have a stunning DVD transfer. I just hope they don't use EE.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

"I can't see it, so it must not be there."
It is a common pitfall to dismiss what we cannot see or hear. Everybody wants to think they have a critical eye and ear. Not everybody does.
Just because some of us can't see something (like pixelization and other digital artifacts) doesn't mean we should dismiss it. Let us all relax our egos.

 

[Terrell]

"I can't see it, so it must not be there."

Well, I've got a fairly critical eye, and it's not there. So that statement holds true. If I can't see it, it doesn't exist. And considering he said "clearly" My point still stands.

 

[Jim Robbins]

I wish I could see it a large theater but in the local multi-screen I saw it in, it was equal to or better than any print I've seen there lately.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

In theory, I'd imagine there would be long term savings (fewer moving parts), but the theater industry right now has little reason to invest in equipment that, except for a double-handful of movies per year, sits idle.

There is NO advantage to a theater paying for a DLP installation right now. 35mm projectors have a life of 50 or more years (assuming normal use and regular servicing). I'll bet anything that today's DLP projectors are not usable in 5-10 years, unless they are fitted with a (costly) upgrade.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Has anyone seen Vidocq, the French film that was also shot 24P?

I haven't seen that one, but Session 9 and Jason X both used the same technology. Session 9 looked pretty good when I saw it in 35mm, especially considering it has a 2.35:1 aspect ratio and thus must be a blowup (I doubt USA Films gave it a DLP release). However, the director was (I believe) going for a handheld, documentary feel, so a certain amount of graininess fit.

 

[Dan Brecher]

Is Matrix being shot digitally, or is it on film?

Film. Super 35.

Dan

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I've got a fairly critical eye

I rest my case.

 

[Chad Parks]

I was NOT impressed by the digital showing I saw this weekend of AOTC. There was a STARTLING lack of detail in long shots--which was something that I was not prepared for.

Shots that were mediums or close-ups did fare better, and looked quite good.

I really hope that we don't throw away film too early here, as I'm not prepared to go see films with 1/4 of the picture detail as the old format! This would be the final 'nail in the coffin' for theatrical exhibition IMO. I'm sure a higher res digital format would be very nice though...

 

[Terrell]

I rest my case.

Rest away Michael. It didn't exist, so it wasn't there. Neither me or my friend saw any pixelation whatsoever, in either presentation.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Out of curiosity Terrell, what's your background in film/video? I'd feel more secure in your statements if I knew where you were coming from.

For me, I'm totally ready for digital filming. While many of you used to first rate presentations at top theaters are disappointed in digital, I (at the local multiplex) was blown away. Since every print was a second generation print, (Multiple first generation prints printed off the computer.) there was practically no scratches at all. The clarity blew me away. For the average moviegoer, I honestly believe the presentation is better at this point.

I wonder if Indiana Jones 4 will be film or digital? Who will prevail, Spielberg or Lucas?