Digital hopes hit reality wall for Ep II (1 Viewer)

[John A. Gordon]

Why haven't theaters put in Digital projection in mass? You can narrow that down to two main issues: cost and lack of standards. You can equip one cinema auditorium for about $20,000 or less for film projection: projector, consoles, etc. To do the same with digital projection you are looking at about $150,000 to $200,000 per auditorium: digital format, servers, etc. Times those by the 16 to 25 screens in a megaplex, you do the math, which format would you choose if you had a extremely tight budget--especially if your profit is only 10% of ticket sales!
A good projectionist can load a brand new print onto a platter (which is the most common in megaplexes) in 30 minutes or less. And if the theater has two projectors for changeovers, then we are talking only minutes to thread up a real—but of course good projectionist will check the real first. For digital projection, whether a download or coming from the 10 or so discs, it can take up to 10 hours or more to load onto the server.
What about standards? Some will have to be set. Luckily there are organizations working on this (such as SMPTE). And what of DLP? Who said DLP is going to be the playback format. What about ILA? I've seen both DLP and ILA and for digital, they look good. Do they beat film today? No. For those who do go to the movies and have seen the trailers for Episode II, if you really look at the trailer you can tell it was shot via digital, not film. So what does this mean? Who knows? Its just something some people have noticed.
Who says digital is going to be absolutely clean? First you have define what clean is, or at least how clean, clean is going to be. Prints are clean. Digital is clean. Is playback clean? It can be. And any theater can have clean prints after months of playing them. It all comes down to the theater work ethics. And whether film or digital, you can still have many of the same problems theaters have now. Take screen brightness for example. Many theaters fall way short of the 16 footlamberts standard. Who says they are going to keep up with the standard for digital projection? For those who are not aware, many of the digital projection systems in the field now use the same light source as for film projection.
When it comes to the home, if you want to be picky, you can say there are no absolutely “clean” DVDs. You can always fine something that is not perfect with them. Rather than being real picky, it would be better to at least strive for perfection and release the best possible finished print, DVD, digital, etc. that can be made. Just because an image looks soft does not mean it’s incorrect. What if that is what the filmmakers wanted? As long as it reaches the intended look, so be it.
For those of you who do not like your local theater because of "dirty prints," do you ever complain to management or theater chain corporate offices? Or do you just walk out and complain quietly? If theaters do not receive complaints, nothing is going to happen. And yes, some theaters will take complaints and not do anything about it. If that is the case, you have the choice of not going to that theater again. If there is a problem, say something then. One thing to remember, whether it be film or digital projection, neither is guaranteed to have a perfect (there’s that word again) presentation all the time. Problems can occur and will pop up from time to time. These are after all mechanical and electronic mediums we are dealing with. It’s how quickly the theater responds to problems. Same thing at home, things can happen.
One thing I like to recommend to people is to enjoy the movie, enjoy the music, enjoy the video and try not to get to caught up in the technology of equipment. When comes to movies, and video, you are there to watch the movie, not the equipment. The equipment is there to provide a way of playback. Enjoy it.
With that in mind, did you see the trashy looking……

 

[Scott H]

Funny how most of the theaters that have DLP are AMC theaters; I've heard they're the absolute WORST as far as film is concerned- people tell me the name stands for All Movies Compromised!

Wow, most people I know believe that AMC is is the highest quality of the major chains. And I agree with them.

 

[Sean Oneil]

Tell me about it. AotC was shot at 1440x800, which is pathetic. Many years from now on future displays it will look very sad compared to both good film-shot movies and higher-resolution digital-shot movies that will become the norm.

I have been saying this ever since it was first announced that Episode 2 was going to be shot all digital, but seemed to catch a lot of flak from people about my opinion. Now that people are seeing the results on the big screen, maybe they will understand what I have been talking about. Sometimes it's hard to get people to listen when you have filmmakers like Lucas and Cameron extolling the virtues of digital moviemaking -but I still maintain that the technology is just not there yet.

Lucas has jumped the gun by using HD-Video cameras to shoot Episode 2. Shooting in HD video should not be done until the HD cameras can absolutely capture and record images with every bit as much resolution and detail as top of the line film equipment can. Digital cinema is going to happen, and it will be better than film -eventually... but that time has just not arrived yet. They need to wait for the technology to advance further before shooting anymore pictures in HD video.

Let's hope that Lucas opts not to shoot episode 3 in HD.

 

[Terrell]

That's funny. The few Regal Theaters I've been in far surpass the AMC Theaters I've been in.

 

[Scott H]

have been saying this ever since it was first announced that Episode 2 was going to be shot all digital...

Regarding SWE2, Lucas did use the best video cameras and lenses available anywhere, the Panavision 24p HD cameras and the few Primo Digital lenses that were available at that time. But besides being limited to the 1920x1080 aperture, he did not even utilize all of it. He composed to extract 2.40:1 from within the 1.78:1 aperture. So he in effect discarded many lines of video resolution to achieve his intended AR. There are no anamorphic lenses for this camera system so he shot spherical on 16:9.

But to state a position, wonderful cinematography and storytelling can be achieved via either film or video. Either method may be the right one for a given project. I have seen HD acquisition from the Panavision 24p HD cameras transfered to both 35mm and 70mm, projected. It can look wonderful. Just as film can look like crap.

My concern with DLP, in regards to this, is that I would certainly shoot HD (and DV) differently knowing that it's going to film, compared to a video presentation. I would guess that in an instance like this the cinematographer will manipulate the DLP versions in post. In effect, there will be two different versions. Why would the conematographer manipulate the DLP version? Because the transfer to film will effect the image, and he will have shot with that in mind. Among other things it will retain the latitude of the video image yet soften it with grain. So he may have refrained from using certain filtration in production, but regret that with DLP.

 

[Chris]

Wow, most people I know believe that AMC is is the highest quality of the major chains. And I agree with them.

Concur. Here in the KC metro, there really isn't another theater that compares to the AMC 30 in Olathe; very well upkept, very nice screens, normally cleaned well; good options; DLP screens and all stadium.
It varies a lot on where you go. AMC is headquartered out of KC, and they've often said this one is their "baby" and it is the only theater in town I will go to to see first run films first weekend if I "must go"

 

[Terrell]

I guess it depends on where you are and who runs it, but the AMC here is nasty and absolutely terrible. The new Regal here, which is where I go, is incredible.

 

[RobertR]

The new Regal here, which is where I go, is incredible

And incredibly bad at keeping film clean, apparently

 

[Terrell]

Well, I've never seen 100% clean film, and I seriously doubt anyone here has either. Certainly not anywhere near as clean as digital.

 

[RobertR]

And I never see "obscene" levels of dirt and dust, which you see half the time.

 

[Terrell]

I've seen it in a couple of theaters. Not the Regal Theater I go to. But I've yet to see a completely clean, 100% pristine film. There's always a little spot here or a small dust hair here rolling across the screen. There's really no way around it. Sooner or later, you're gonna get some dust or dirt on a print, regardless if sent to you clean. Film is like a magnet to dust and dirt.

But most of the time, it's good enough where it's not distracting.

 

[RobertR]

Gee, it was "obscene" before. Now it's not even distracting most of the time.

 

[Scott H]

I've found that bad projection/poor prints are directly relative to the price I pay for admission. I am very fortunate in that I see most films gratis, and projection is usually okay. However, if I pay for a film there will be issues. And the more expensive the admission, the worse the problems.

Most films that I see at major chains are pretty damn clean. I can't say the same for the booth glass that they project through though. It often looks like crap. I tend to have worse experiences at art house theaters.

Of course theaters are only as good as the people running them. I have been to some Mann's theaters that were amongst the worst experiences I've had, and some that were amongst the best. Of the theater chains that I have been to the most, AMC has proven to be consistently above average.

 

[Terrell]

Quite funny. Where did you hear me say it was always obscene? I said I've been to a lot of movies, about half the time it was obscene. That was before I started going to the new Regal 18. I used to go to a local theater, not part of a chain.

Honestly, have you ever scene a 100% clean film with not even 1 speck of hair on it? Didn't think so. I don't need you to reply because I already know your answer.:p)

 

[Damin J Toell]

Where did you hear me say it was always obscene?

where you see him say you said "always"?

anyhow, half of the the time obscene but most of the time not distracting seems like odd mathematics to me.

DJ

 

[Sean Oneil]

We have several AMC theater mega-plexes here in the San Diego area, and they are all amongst the best. I have been to better theaters, but AMC tends to be superior to most of the competing mega-plexes IMHO.

 

[Brian W. Ralston]

Perhaps Lucasfilm should charge a significant less amount of $$$ to carry Episode II digitally and charge more to carry the traditional film stock. This might be enough of an incentive for theaters on the edge of converting or not to just do it now. By being charged less, they will take home more $$$ in the end which would help pay for the conversion. And its not like it would really diminish Lucasfilm's profit that much anyway, there are probably only a handfull of theaters who would be ready to make the conversion now anyway.

 

[RobertR]

And its not like it would really diminish Lucasfilm's profit that much anyway

If it diminishes Lucas' profit at ALL, the chances that he would do such a thing are zero.

 

[StevenA]

Scott H, your summary of many of the differences between film and digital image capture is excellent, and you made many of the points I wanted to make, but couldn't because I didn't have the technical knowledge to expain it convincingly.

 

[John A. Gordon]

I'll ask again. When you go to the movies or watch your DVDs, are you there to enjoy the movie/story or are you there to purposely look for dirt, defects etc., or rather just look at the technology?

I saw Amelie last night at my local theater and the print was pretty damn good. Matter of fact, can't say I noticed any dirt. How long has this movie been playing now? Two months? More? btw, I recommend this movie, it was very funny.

Film can get dirt on it, sure. So can you TV screen--when was the last time you cleaned your screen? But just like at TV screen, film can also be cleaned. There are several products on the market that offer cleaning of film prints. And it is done at the projector. So, with proper film handling, a print can essentially be brand new for every showing.

JohnG