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

[Everlasting Gobstopper]

I just came back from seeing Ep. 2 at the Zeigfeld in NYC. I was about 4 rows back, and noticed a)a very subtle screen door effect, had to look for it, but it was certainly there b) a lot of softness and what was most troubling c) a sort of "swimmy" character to the picture, very present in highlights, most annoying on indoor shots on Kamino. It sort of looked like grain, but grain that stayed from one frame to the next and sort of swum around on the screen. My friend who is not a trained photographer like I am confirmed it and also found it distracting.

 

[Derek Miner]

Has anyone tried to track picture quality to service hours on the projectors?

I've noticed some people talk about imaging problems that might be due to convergence issues. Many have also mentioned black level problems.

The projectors I saw Episode II on were basically brand-new. They were installed and put into service the week before the movie opened. There was absolutely no issue with black level in the theater I went to, no softness, and no odd effects such as Mark described above.

I've heard talk of the higher level of maintainance needed to keep these projectors running well, and I'm starting to wonder if these artifacts are creeping in fast, even with relatively new projectors that have been in service for less than a year?

 

[Everlasting Gobstopper]

Well, I think the one at Zeigfeld is one of the first ones to have been installed, since it's one of the most upscale theaters in NYC. I could be wrong though.

 

[Scott H]

Related 05/27 LA Times story:
"Are the Days of Film Numbered?"
http://www.latimes.com/technology/l...7245may27.story

 

[Talal]

another reason for the excessive grain was that when lucas was shooting episode II, he had none of the custom lenses that are available today. So, he had to shoot all these wide shots, and then zoom in during post to get the actual composition he wanted.

Now that the lenses are available, we should really see how SpY Kids 2 looks on the big screen. I forgot where I read that Rodriguez had the custom lenses...

 

[Scott H]

another reason for the excessive grain was that when lucas was shooting episode II, he had none of the custom lenses that are available today. So, he had to shoot all these wide shots, and then zoom in during post to get the actual composition he wanted.

That's simply not true. He began principle photography on SWE2 with the Primo Digital 11:1 zoom. He may very well have recomposed shots, but it wasn't because he was limited regarding long lenses, at least compared to the current Primo Digital line. The newer lenses are mostly shorter primes and two smaller zooms that combined cover essentially the same focal length as the 11:1. In any event, when Lucas began shooting, he was using Panavision Primo Digital lenses - no other lenses will mount on the Panavised F900 - but more are now available than he had access to. He was definitely not limited to shorter focal lengths ("wide shots", though that's kind of misleading) at any point.

 

[Michael Reuben]

It sort of looked like grain, but grain that stayed from one frame to the next and sort of swum around on the screen. My friend who is not a trained photographer like I am confirmed it and also found it distracting.

This sounds similar to the flaws I observed in the Ziegfeld's DLP projection when I saw Ice Age there. Because of those problems, I avoided the Ziegfeld for AOTC and went to the digital presentation at the AMC Theaters on 42nd St. It had no such artifacts, and the presentation was outstanding.

M.

 

[Dave H]

I saw it digitally with no problems other than scan lines being projected.

Has anyone noticed the scene with Obi Wan and Anakin in the beginning of the movie (before the centipedes enter Padme's bedroom, I believe) where it is a VERY grainy scene? I've noticed this on both viewings.

 

[Guy Martin]

Dave-

I believe that is one of the shots that Lucas digitally blew-up to create a closeup, but I'm not 100% sure. Maybe Scott H can tell us for certain?

- Guy

 

[Trace Downing]

I haven't seen it on film yet, but I did see it in DLP, and thought that the presentation was generally good for the well lit scenes, but the lower light scenes (as has been mentioned by others) had a real lack of detail, and were distracting. Since I've only seen AOTC once so far, I just thought it was a DP problem. I was sitting off to the side, in the second to last row, so I was too far away to notice any jaggies. But I did notice that the sword fights had this shutter stop light streak that was inconsistent from the other films in the series.
Regarding age. This one (UA Denver Pavillions) was installed for Jurassic Park III, last year. I noticed few, if any projection problems with that presentation.

However I did use vinyl as part of the analogy because, like film, it is an analog format.

Not to pick this apart, because I get the basics of what you're saying, but film is NOT an analog format. Analog formats use radio, or other frequencies on syne waves to capture information. Very atmospheric based. Film captures and reflects light using emulsions found in mines under the earth. very physical/tangibly based.

 

[DaveF]

Of, relating to, or being a device in which data are represented by continuously variable, measurable, physical quantities, such as length, width, voltage, or pressure.

Vinyl records are analog, in that they record sounds in a continuously variable fashion: the grooves are etched by a needle which can move to any position, within its limits, according to the input signal. Compact Discs are digital, in that they record sounds using only discrete values --0 or 1, and nothing in between.
Likewise, Silver-halide film is analog. Digital cameras are digital. (although, given the fundamental film exposure process, there might be an argument for it being digital )
It has nothing to do with chemical composition, what part of the earth it comes from, or such.

 

[Trace Downing]

Not joking, but not explained very well. Thank you.
Now, if you go further down on your link, and see this definition...

(electronics) of a circuit or device having an output that is proportional to the input; "analogue device"; "linear amplifier"

In either event, photography is more complex than that simple explanation. The amount of output is also proportional to the amount of halides in the emultion, not just proportionate to the input. Film also needs no electricity to be exposed, like ferrite crystal tape. Likewise, if you use a spectrum analyzer on a strip of film, you would see nothing, but an analog video/audio playback device would show up waves on the analyzer. Light/colors do have a wave spectrum, but how film captures it's representation of that, is it analog, or something else?
You haven't explained how film is analog as well as you did with videotape. I'm still not convinced it is. Some elaboration would help. I do not believe it's digital. Exposure has numerous possible outcomes, depending on rate of exposure, and quality/age of the emulsion, not a simple on/off action with pretty much predictable results.