DVD kills 35mm?

[teadub]

It's hard to tell if you already know this, but Festen was shot on crappy little Sony domestic DV cameras. It may seem obvious to some - I rather liked the look of it, for being so blatantly, unashamedly video. For me the film is superb, and I find it refreshing that somebody made a dramatically superb film on DV, the appearance of which become insignificant because it is a piece of drama first and foremost. I only stick with film because I'm a snob and I want to seperate myself from the video hordes.
Lucas

Sorry I guess I didn't explain myself. I brought up "festen" because it was shot on a 1 chip DV cam. That why I was saying that watching it on DVD should be a pretty accurate representation. Because the resolution for DVD and the DV codec are the same (720 x 576 for PAL). And I put plus or minus the video noise (probably adjusted on post) and the grain (added during the blow up to 35mm)

I just wanted to have an example of a film that was resurected from the grave, because the old copies were totally unwatchable (moteray pop). And a film whose resolution it the same as DVD (festen). And Illustrate how a film thought lost looks really good with a new release, while one shot on DV is "what you see ... what you get". And both presentations where on DVD to make it a balanced playing field.

I guess my point is hard to extract from the prose :?:

[Alex]

Film Prints aren't anywhere near the quality they could be. The Old School of thought is that you must run as many prints as quickly as possible and as cheaply as possible.

If the rate of copying film prints were slowed down so that each frame is exposed for a longer period of time, the film print might look better than it does.

I don't know enough about the process to know how this could be achieved, but I think it's something that could be done. But back to DVD's, they can mirror the look of film because they are copied from a film original.

[Mikael]

maybe I'll be able to pick up an Arri 535A for a couple grand on eBay to shoot film with...

Nice! I´d like a 435 Advanced. Or Highspeed.

[Lucas Lightfeat]

But if the theatre chains decide to go to all digital systems, that's really bad for Kodak, they make a helluva lot of cash from release prints.

--Garrett

I thought it was Technicolour who made the majority of release prints these days. Kodak are mostly a camera stock provider, I thought. Technicolour are also very into the digital revolution - perhaps even at the very heart of the move towards video projection.

Lucas

[ericMartinJarvies]

my experience with 'digital' projection systems, regardless of the 'digital' storage format is this:

i have a 12,000 lum projector. it accepts componant in, s-video in, and regular video in. i have a dish on my roof that points to another roof 6 miles away. that roof has a big dish that subscribes to various tv and internet feeds. in turn, i subscribe to a portion of those services thereof. in such, my television and internet all come through the same dish ... similar to directv, or sky, or dish networks, but this one is more like a wireless router/bridge that gets its signal from what is called an earth station.

as such, the box/router/whatever its called has optical(audio) out, componant out, s-video out, and ethernet(data, internet) out from the router box that is connected to the dish on my house. i have the all of these(except the ethernet connection)hooked into my AV receiver. from there, i take the optical and componant signals out to the dvd/hdd recorder. from that device i take the the componant out to my 12,000 ansi lum projector. from the AV receiver i send componant to my hdtv. so i have the option to watch on a television, or on a projector. when i watch regular tv, i use the tv. when i rent dvd's, i watch them using the projector. now then, there are some signals i receive through the satellite service that are obviously more detailed/clear/clean/crisp then others. but only some programs, and only some channels, and only some of the time. these shows, i am able to view them in excellent picture quality with the project set at 5 meters screen width. if it is normal programming, 5 meters looks good, but not crisp. dvd is about the same as the regular progamming at 5 meters width. if i take the projector down to 2 meters width, my dvd's look the same as those special programs at 5 meters width. i still have not figured it all out yet, but both my TV and projector automattically know when a higher res programm is being displayed, and it therefore displays it. so what gives? are these higher res programs sending more data at one time? or is the data they are sending better quality, same sized data as all the other programs?

i have recorded all three onto the panasonic hard drive at high resolution. if i record a dvd to hdd, it looks the exact same as the dvd. if i record a regular tv program to hdd, it looks the same, or a little worse/pixally. if i record one of those high res programs, it looks better. so if the recorder is recording the same way for all three signals, then it would indicate the same signal can carry better or worse quality / resolution images/programs. correct? i have s-video out and into my mac, and when those high-res shows are playing, the mac does not recognize the differance(well, i sued to have the mac, just traded it for a 7008p , and the picture quality is the same. so that means that the hdd recorder, and the hdtv, and the hdtv 12,000 ansi lum projector have some special hardware that recognizes better quality programs/pictures. correct? when a particular program is in higher rs, a pop-up screen with tell me something like 480i, or 576i, or 1080/60i(or 24i, cant remember). now although i do not have the room, it is claimed this projector can project 36'. so considering the 5 meters/15-2 feet image quality is excelent with the abov mentioned special programs, i would think it would also look good at the 36' they claim in the owners manual. how big is a movie theatre projector?

anyways, what i am trying to explain is, i dont think the theatres will be using dvd's to show the movies, i think they will be using what is called hd. i think the special programs i see sometimes on my tele is called sd. but i am not certain. but now that i think about it, it is starting to make sense to me ... the new cameras like the panasonic and jvc have dv, sd and hd recording capabilities. however, i do not know if you can record usingthe hd setting, and then copy it onto your computer via the firewire port as is done with the dv setting. but no matter, all three are recording to the same media/tape. so that means that conceivably a dvd could 'store' hd data, it would then be a question of having a reader that could play back that stored data ... cause thats all a dvd is, a storage device. so if a movie that is dv quality fits onto a dvd storage device/disk, then what about that same movie that is sd or hd quality.

i am running into these issues as i write this. i am trying to figure out what video camera to get, so that when i make my dvd, am able to use the minimal type of equipment, for the maximum possible resolution that is possible for the typical dvd consumer deck, hence what is typical for the average dvd authoring codec/compression algo/image-picture quality. the folks at pro8mm.com are having to do something for me that they have not down to date. my film that has been telecined to digibeta, serve me no purpose unless i have a digibeta deck. and because i do not even have a DV recorder/deck, i cant have them send me a dv tape. and if they send me a DVD disc with my footage, i have no way of getting that footage off of the dvd and onto my computer for making some mpeg or mov's to post to this site to show the differances in the film stocks i used with all the various lens/lighting/fps/asa/etc tests i conducted. i thought i could use my panasonic dvd/hdd deck to output viw firewire to my sony laptop, which has firewire. but that deck does not have firewire out, only componant and s-video, and my laptop does not have those inputs. so i had asked if pro8mm, during their transfer process, and 'before' their dvd authoring process, take the digitzed film files, and save them onto cd rom for me. but neither i, nor they, know if this will work. will it work? in other words, does when one takes a digibeta tape and using an sdi cable to capture onto a nle computer, what file format is that footage saved as? is it mpeg? mov? what? whatever file format it is, it can be saved onto any type of storage media, including cd rom ... correct? i am not saying i am going to play it on the cd rom, i am simply going to copy it from the cd rom onto my computer, and then open it up using my video editing software. but i am out of my league here ... i do not know what is possible. i will not have my new mac for another 3 weeks, so in the meantime, i wanted to take those 20 rolls of film and make mpeg movies that i can transfer into the ftp directory of this site, so others can see the differances in the various film tests. if anyone can offer me a interim solution, i would really apreciate it!! think of it as a benefit to the members, as 'every' film stock was used in these tests under almost 'ever'y lighting condition using a wide array of lenses with every f-stop/iris setitng and every on-camera asa setting and at all fps settings and a good deal of combonations thereof.

so this was a rambling message with both info and questions ... sorry i mixed it all up, but thats just how it came out.

eric.

so if this is the case, then i would assume the theatre in question

[Alex]

Simple Answer, you're ahead of your time. What you want to do requires files so large your computer can't hold all the data.

The process you should consider following is you "offline" your Digibeta by making a mini-dv copy that has the EXACT SAME TIME-CODE as the Digibeta. Edit your project via the mini-dv clone, then take the EDL of your finished edited project and actually edit on-line from your Digi-beta in an actual Digi Beta Suite.

It will be real expensive, but because you have an EDL it should go quite rapidly. Final Cut Pro-4 is promising HD editing capability. FCP-4 is alleged to be coming out in mid June 2003.

[ericMartinJarvies]

ok, this is the deal ... all those rolls of film are nothing but calculated test shots with slate and all the applicable settings/numbers. it is on digibeta, which i will use later on when i have my new computer system, which is the new dual g4 1.4ghz, 4gb ram, raid array, etc. with a sdi capture card (blackmagic decklink) and twin 23's. i found a JVC GR-HD1 HD Camcorder that is claimed to be true hd, be it only 750/30p, but hd none the less. it also has sd and dv recoridng settings. i am still trying to figure out if this camera will work with the sdi cable on the capture card. however, 'until' i get this new system, which will have fcp4.0 btw, i want to take the film test and make online movies, be they mpeg or mov's, so that people can see them online .. these do not need to be broadcast quality, and are NOT for my dvd project. these are for folks here on this site, or anyone online that needs to see the differances in all the film stocks using hundreds of differant lighting/lenses/camera settings. be it this stuff was shot on various 4008's, but it will give people an idea of what s8 is capable of. to date, i ahve not been able to find this type of comparative footage online ... and let me tell you, if i was able to, i could have saved a shit ton of money deciding the best stock to use for my specifc project, as well as any given type of lens for framing such shots/scenes/movies. so i am anxious to share this footage with everyone, as it is 'great' stuff for those learning, or those who have not used a specific film stock or lens type of extreme setting or etc. and so on.

so all i need is an interim solution, so the next few weeks are not wasted. and even then, when i get that new system, i will be spendign more time figuring out how it works, so i will not have the time to makes these online movies. any suggestions?

[pheboglobi]

I thought it was Technicolour who made the majority of release prints these days. Kodak are mostly a camera stock provider, I thought. Technicolour are also very into the digital revolution - perhaps even at the very heart of the move towards video projection.

Kodak manufacturers print stock and sells them to labs, who print and develop them. Technicolor does all sorts of things, but one of them is lab services, and they are the #1 lab in the world in terms of the amount of release prints they process. I don't know whose brand of release prints they use or that they even use one brand, but I would assume that they would use a lot of kodak's print stocks. (but that could be wrong)

I think they may manufacture their own brand of release prints, they've done that sort of thing in the past. I remember hearing something about them doing a new dye transfer process for release prints, which is interesting considering that is what kodachrome is. I figure that would have to be a new print stock, but I don't know for sure, maybe kodak makes it.

It's not surprising that they are into digital projection too. They do all sorts of video and DVD duplication services. Both of those probably have something to do with the fact that Technicolor is owned by Thomson, which owns a whole lot of electronics oriented companies (i.e. RCA, Grass Valley, etc.)

For example, while Kodak may sell 60 hours of footage for camera original for a summer blockbuster, which then gets edited down to 2 hours, on opening weekend for that blockbuster it would open to about 1300 theatres, conservatively speaking, here in the US. That's 2600 hours of footage right there, and if the blockbuster lasts for two/three weeks in the theatres, they'll need to replace them because that's how long they generally last from regular usage in the projectors. Even with just opening weekend, 2600 vs. 60, you can see the difference and the kind of stakes that Kodak has in 35mm projection.


--garrett

[Alex]

This isn't just about film projection and film prints.

If release prints are eliminated and everything is digitally beamed to a theatre, the little guy may lose, even though the marketing hype is that the little guy will win.

[Alex]

EMJ, if quality is not an issue, then make a dub from Digital BetaCam to mini-dv or DV-CAM, with matching time-code, and use that for your tests. I seem to recall you saying that you don't have firewire capability on one of your systems, but the bottom line is firewire is the low-budget digital standard.

You might want to restate your exact goals again.

[roxics]

Tonight I saw The Matrix (the first one) in the theater with a bunch of my buddies. We all paid $8.50 a ticket which was expensive as it is for a film we all already own on DVD and have owned for years. But we went for the communal aspect of it. Just to be in the same room with a whole bunch of other people who loved the movie.

Technically the film showing was horrible. The print was dirty, scratchy, out of sync during the beginning with the sound flipping back and forth from the side speakers to the fronts. Forunately the sound fixed itself but the picture was not frammed right and the entire length of the film the movie was 20% off screen on both sides an d the top.

I was upset so I went and talked to the people in charge. They said they can't fix it because they would need to shut the movie down for 20 minutes to fix it. They said it wouldn't be worth it.

Granted this is an old print and the theater is run by chimps; but still. This wouldn't happen with digital projection. Honestly I can't wait for the day when most theaters will be digital projection. Sure 35mm may be great if the print is masterfully crafted and shown in the most pristine theater; but how often does that really happen?

When I saw Star Wars Episode 2 in digital last year I was pleased. Bright, sharp, stunning and with no errors at all. Persoanlly I really don't care if it's on celluloid or digital. So long as it doesn't mess up during the showing it's all good. From what I've seen of digital projection it will be a good replacement. I like celluloid but the worst part of a movie is when you're reminded you're watching it on celluloid because of an error. If that snaps you out of the story for even the slightest second then give me digital.

[wahiba]

It's a communal thing, not a personal thing,


I agree, but as someone has mentioned, the quality of the cinemas can vary. But not everyone is lucky enough to have old fleapit type cinemas as ones locals, actually everything including the lenses is clean these days or a National Photographic, Cinema and TV Museum less than an hour away on the train which shows everything including genuine three screen cinerama and Imax.

[MovieStuff]

Granted this is an old print and the theater is run by chimps

LOL! That's a funny thing.

Hey, I'm in Houston and we've got several theaters just like that as well! I wonder if it's a chain.

"Chimp-O-Rama" or "Chimp-A-Vision" or maybe the really bad places are "Chimp-O-Scope". Oh, wait, how about "Chimp-AO". And let's not forget about "TechnoChimp35".

Anyway, I know what you mean. About a year after the nice large screen theaters came out with the cushy chairs and the stadium seating, a group of us were getting together for dinner and a movie when scheduling conflicts dictated that we go, instead, to one of the "shoebox" theaters (Chimplex?) with the old style tiny screen and stiff, crowded seats. BIG mistake. It was awful. The floor was sticky, the seats unbearable, the place stunk, the picture was dim and the sound was dreadful. They ended up tearing the place down months later. I guess the chimps that inhabited the place scattered into the wild and will eventually show up at some other theater.

I don't know if digital will solve all these problems or not. Any device will have maintenance issues and computers have not been known to be more trouble free than projectors. Short of having a "Tech-Chimp" on premises, I'm not sure that dependability will be assured in any situation but I am interested in seeing where this whole digital projection thing goes. I think we'll end up seeing all kinds of new programming at the local cinema that would otherwise never been seen by a large group due to the cost of distribution. Could be interesting.

Roger

[Lucas Lightfeat]

Hey guys - lay off the Independant Cinemas will ya?

They're usually the only place to see great old foreign films etc. - unusual stuff. Those multiplexes may have nice big screens etc., but they are part of the "mall" culture I despise. They're expensive, also run by chimps, tacky and most importantly, they're often owned by or controlled by the major Hollywood Studios. Now that sucks, and explains why most of the time they have 5 screens and only one film you'd ever want to see. The only thing I can see that's better about those big ugly boxes is that they've got newer projectors. A properly run independant cinema, such as the Duke of Yorks in Brighton (one of the oldest in the world) is the very best kind of cinema, in my opinion. Paris and London (particularly Paris) have shedloads of good indies.

Lucas

[David M. Leugers]

I guess I must live in some kind of theatre heaven. Honestly, I have not so much as seen a scratch or dirty print in years. The theatres I go to show films that are always properly framed and in focus and have the best sound imaginable. It is all in the projection obviously. High school kids hired to run a theatre just will not do. The art of projection is a serious business and should be left to professionals.

I have viewed several digitally projected films and though I was surprised by the image quality, it pales compared to a good 35mm print. The biggest hurdle for me, is that I find watching a digital projection causes eye strain much like watching a 3D movie. I don't know why, but I can not ignore it and it is not pleasant. Also to me it looks like watching a giant TV playing a DVD. The fabulous multiplex nearby that was showcasing digital projection (even the ticket sellers were trained to tell each patron about the wonders of the new digital projection) ended up shutting down their two digital screens and went back to film. The movie "The Sign" (I think that was the title with Mel Gibson) was shown on two screens, one of them digital. Both shows started within 5 minutes of each other. When the older lady gave me tickets to the digital screening, I asked for the film showing. She tried to convince me to see the digital but ended up having to admit the film showing was sold out. My wife and I saw the digital print with only a few others in the seats. Personally, I wanted my money back.

The best of film is seldom seen I think and may contribute to its demise. Kodak has had a program to improve projection through training and certification and I think it has helped at least where I'm at. A good print especially a Technicolor dye-transfer print is a beauty to behold. I saw "Pearl Harbor" with a Technicolor print and it was just incredible on the screen. The only drawback to me was that the digital effects tended to stand out like a sore thumb intercut with real film images.

Lurking in the shadows is the spectre of some forward-thinking director (Steven Spielburg?) who could make his next sweeping drama filmed entirely on 65mm motion picture film with a release on 70mm dolby prints. No digital projection could come close to the image that would produce. The cost of the motion picture stock is only a small drop in the bucket of the entire picture costs. Who gives a shit if shooting digital makes it easier for some schmuck to make a movie and get it shown? I only care about the experience I am paying for. When theatres are all digital, I will have no need to go anymore. I can get the same experience at home.

I read where 35mm projector manufacturers are coming out with new models after a few years where they stopped development fearing the worst as the digital projection craze started. Kodak and Fuji keep coming out with new and better film materials. The bar keeps getting raised for digital projection...

David M. Leugers