S8 to 35mm

[MovieStuff]

Previously, Alex declared:

"If you go to the third post in this topic thread...I specifically said PAL! PAL, PAL, PAL... If you edit in a computer with the idea of making a print, Of course you can edit in PAL...you transfer to PAL, edit non-linear, and then output to 35mm. A very logical choice for the Super-8mm filmmaker...as long as you can digitize at a high enough digital resolution."

But you CAN'T digitize at a high enough resolution, Alex. So it's not a logical choice for a Super 8 film maker at all! Plus, what you're talking about is very expensive. So it's not a logical choice for a Super 8 film maker at all! Plus, you can't edit PAL on an NTSC system in a country that uses 60 cycles for all display. So it's not a logical choice for a Super 8 film maker at all!

Despite all this nonsense, you then wrote:

"I didn't interject PAL at a later date to "change" the discussion...."

Totally obtuse. I never said you did, Alex. You changed the context of the conversation from "what is economically and technically feasible" for super 8 film makers to "technilogical daydreaming" that had no bases in fact or practicallity. You can PAL, PAL, PAL all day long, but it doesn't address any of the financial and technilogical barriers that I brought up other than frame rate. Big deal. The fact that big boys transfer to D1 or D2 or D what ever isn't relevant to what the average independent Super 8 film make has access to.

Sorry, but your claim that it is "a logical choice for a Super 8 film maker" is simply sophistic rubbish and another example of more "Alex speak" where you feel is more important to APPEAR technically literate than it is to actually BE techically literate.

Hit the books, dude. Start with applied economics and maybe check out a few titles that deal with resolution and dynamic compression. Then, perhaps, you'll realize how silly your predictions are.

Roger

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
Boy, I think it's dangerous to jump in between a fight between Alex & Roger, but I'm going to insert my 2 cents worth, & see if they'll attack me for a change!

Fact is, that when you transfer your Super 8 footage to video, you are losing resolution and TONS of color information, and I don't care if it's digital, it's still 720x486, which is quite a bit lower resolution than even S8, and the color capability of video is way below ANY film format.

So you have lost lots of quality as soon as you introduce VIDEO into the equation.
I've been working on an idea with Roger (I hope to God it works!) for digitizing S8 film using one of his excellent Workprinters, using a high quality, high resolution Digital Still Camera instead of video. WHY?
Because it's higher res, and because IT'S NOT A VIDEO SIGNAL! Video sucks, especially NTSC, because of its limited contrast ratio... it simply cannot reproduce the amount of color info that film can, period. So just because it's digital, means nothing.


Matt Pacini


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree with what you are saying....

However Every major motion picture made today has elements that were in fact made in a computer environment then outputted back to film.

That is my point, whatever the motion picture industry is using to achieve this, if we incorporate it for Super-8, we gain.

That format probably might be D-1...which is still cost prohibitive.

Creating Digital Stills that are true digital may in fact be the non D-1 way to do things in a digital environment.

It's just that your idea means you have to edit the film first...and expose it to dust and dirt and scratches.

Because if you painstakingly transfer frame by frame, you certainly only want to transfer what you will use...yet how can you know that unitl you edit the film.

I'd rather be able to just transfer all or most of the Super-8 footage and manipulate it on a a high-resolution editing platform, then output the finished, digitally edited Super-8 film, back onto a 35mm negative.


-Alex



------------------

[Alex]

Roger, once you have a budget for transferring via rank cintel...

Going even higher rez won't cost 5 times as much.

So it IS feasible.

I'm more concerned with seeing what Non Linear Edit format can handle a high enough quality transfer so one can edit.

-Alex

------------------

[MovieStuff]

More "Alex-speak":

"Roger, once you have a budget for transferring via rank cintel... Going even higher rez won't cost 5 times as much. So it IS feasible."

This remind me of the old Steve Martin joke. It goes like this:

"I can teach you how to be a millionaire and NOT pay any taxes. First, get a million dollars. Now, the next thing you do is..."

A show of hands, please. How many on this forum have the money to Rank their footage on a regular basis? After all, this is supposed to be a very logical altenative for the average super 8 film maker!

Beyond that, some specifics, please Alex. Give us the name of one place that can Rank super 8 footage at a "higher resolution" and please tell us what the cost of that transfer is compared to a normal Rank transfer. By the way: What resolution?

This should be interesting.

Roger

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited August 19, 2001).]

[Matt Pacini]

First of all, Alex, you're hallucinating.
You need to do a little homework.
All the high end computer work being done on big budget features, is from film digitized, one frame at a time, at 2K to 4K horizontal resolution as Cineon files, at an average cost of about $3.00 per frame.
It is NOT telecine'd, to PAL or otherwise, for high end work, because NO video format is high resolution enough, but more importanly, you lose far too much color information once you go to video.
You telecine ONLY if you're output medium is for TV. (and obviously, for offline edits).
These high resolution files, are NOT video!!! Just because something ends up in the computer, does not make it a video format, just like a Tiff formatted file is not video.
The system Roger and I are brainstorming, is to enable me to exactly that: digitize Super 8 footage, one frame at a time, in a high-res format, which will enable me to either down-res it and export as any video format I wish, for TV & video, or to send out to a film recorder, to 35mm neg. (If someone loves my film enough to throw some cash at me, which is unlikely, but I want the quality in case that happens, and besides, the hardware will cost less than a telecine session).
I think he's onto something, and this setup just may work, so if I were you, I wouldn't piss Roger off too much, because you guys may be reduced to begging on your knees for forgiveness, to get one of these systems!
We all have our opinions about things, and I'm about to disgree with Roger below on one of them, but he really does know his shit, so show some respect.
I think he's a good guy, and like I've said before, he's doing some cutting edge stuff as far as hardware R&D goes, so don't get on his shit-list. It may end up hampering your own projects later on in a big way....

O.K. Roger, here goes!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MovieStuff:

"But, because the theater owners have equipment bought and paid for many times over, they are now in control because they can stand their ground and tell the distributors,"Hey, you want to save money on distribution? Fine, but you'll have to pay for the change over."

(Matt responds):
If the theater owners have so much control, then why can't they NOW refuse the advance payments, etc., that you incorrectly think will change with digital projection.

Yes Roger, the theater owners are NOW in control, (to some extent) because they own the projection equipment.
They will NOT be in control when the distributors own the equipment. And if they theater owners have so much control, why do they still have to pay up front? Because the distributors have the product, and that equation will not change.

(Roger):
"Basically, it's "payback time". $100,000 per screen is peanuts compared to making a run of 35mm release prints for just ONE feature film of only mediocre or unknown return expectancy.

(Matt responds):
This is irrelevant, because the distributors and the theater owners are two separate entities. The theater owners are not paying for zillions of release prints, so they don't care if it's cheaper. That's not their problem, any more than the cost of popcorn is the distributors problem.
They are paying for a movie to show, and they are not paying for the physical print, they are paying for the rights to show the artwork, just like when you buy a book, you're paying $15.00 even though the physical cost of the paper is a buck or something.

(Roger):
"The theater industry KNOWS that it will cost the distributors less money to outfit the theaters with digital projection equipment than it will to continue releasing on prints; something that has NO equity at all."

(Matt responds):
It doesn't matter what the theater owners know, because first of all, the distributors and studios have NOT said they're going to give the theaters FREE digital projection systems.
The theater owners are saying they're not going to buy them, but so far, I haven't heard anyone say that they're giving them away! I suspect this will be a huge battle to come, and the "35mm prints cost so much to make" argument will be replaced with "we've just spend years and years, and $1.4 billion on R&D to design all this digital projection equipment".
And the second reason is, that if they do give them the projection equipment, then they will REALLY have the theater owners by the balls, because they can threaten the owners with pulling out the projectors, or simply halting transmissions of movies if the theaters don't pay whatever the asking price is, or do whatever the distributors tell them to do.
I don't see how you think the theater owners will have any more control. They will have less, and there's no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that just because a product is cheaper to produce, it's automatically going to be cheaper. Did you know that the Music CD costs a fraction of what it costs to make a cassette tape?
Yet because CD's were successfully hyped as a superior product (which they are) they cost much, much more to the consumer than Cassettes (or LP's) which were more expensive to make, and the prices have not come down at all since, regardless of the cost to produce the product.
I see a direct parallel here.
In fact, if digital projection happens, I suspect it will happen like this:

--- We will see multiplexes opening one screen that is digital, hyping the living shit out of it, as something superior in every way, and then charging an extra $3.00 a ticket to see it.
That of course, will jack up the price of all movie tickets, etc. ----


(Roger said):
So it's a win-win situation for the theater chains. It costs them virtually nothing for the conversions and then they have the ability to use their theaters for "pay per view" type live concert events, box matches, anything that can be transmitted live via satellite.

(Matt responds):
And I Love Lucy reruns, Three's Company, etc.
I don't think that most people are going to pay $8.50, and drive to a theater, pay $10+ plus for popcorn & snacks, for what they can already see on network or cable TV. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I certainly wouldn't make this part of my business plan, without really test marketing it first. I can't see it happening widespread, just like the theaters thinking that they were going to make a killing renting out their theaters for seminars, etc. hasn't happened.

(Roger said):
"This doesn't mean that theaters won't have to honor contracts for a given run of a movie and they will probably still have to pay for rights up front for some releases."

(Matt responds):
Exactly, so we're right back where we started, with the exception of the distributor now owns the projection equipment, and can force the theaters to show certain movies, at whatever price the dist. asks, and force the theaters to upgrade to the newest system every 3 years, etc. ...
I have no idea why a theater would ever be willing to do this, when the amount of money they make is not going to increase one bit. I suspect they are just playing it safe, by going along with the idea, at least in public, because they don't want to be seen as old and unhip, just in case it really happens, which so far, it hasn't!

(Roger said):
"Therefore, it makes no sense what so ever to pretend or assume that the industry is moving TOWARD the idea of shooting on super 8 and releasing on 35mm when people shooting on 35mm are moving AWAY from printing and releasing on 35mm. "

(Matt responds):
I both agree and disagree. I agree, that if digital projection becomes a reality, things would be better for S8. It would be fantastic, in fact, the same way distributing on the Internet has "lowered the bar" for what format is good enough. (Forget the fact that you can't make money on those Internet distribution websites, but that's another argument!).

However, the statement "people shooting on 35mm are moving AWAY from printing and releasing on 35mm. "
is mostly a reality that only exists in magazine articles. It's a vapor-reality.

Try to see a movie projected digitally today.
O.K., this week.
O.K. this month!
You would have to spend hours on the phone or computer to find one, and probably even have to get a plane ticket to find a theater that is projecting a digital film of any kind, let alone a first run, current studio release.

THAT is the reality!

The "perceived" reality, which is based only on what we keep reading, (the hype) is that digital projection is replacing film projection, but if that were true, how come I can't find a theater that projects digitally?
And I live in California! Imagine if I lived somewhere like Texas for the love of God!!!!

(Roger):
"Prints will still be around for a while, to be sure. But, in the end, according to theater trade mags, all theaters are expected to go digital for both distribution and projection at some point in the near future. This is not speculation on my part. This is a fact."


(Matt responds):
If it ain't happening yet, it ain't fact.

It's speculation on EVERYONE'S part, IF digital projection is going to happen, because nobody has a time machine, and it's certainly speculation as to WHEN it's going to happen.

Again, I refer to my experience in 1986, of hearing how fantastic HDTV was, the technology is here, and it's so much better, so everyone is going to have HDTV sets in five years.
Well, guess what? Even though HDTV is much better, the consumer was happy with their regular old TV's, and even to this day, 15 years later, almost everyone is NOT willing to pay the high price, even for what is undeniably a superior product like HDTV.
(I'm not even mentioning the format wars in HDTV, which ALSO exist in digital projection. This is a HUGE stumbling block to any technology becoming universal, or even widely used(remember VHS-vs-Beta... Beta was better, but VHS won out!)).

Digital projection is NOT a superior product to film prints, and I think the public, once they see it, are going to be underwhelmed.

I'll tell you what my projection is: (Excuse the pun):
--- They will test it out in a few theaters, hype it to death, and the public will go see what all the fuss is about, and then NOT be very impressed, and go back to seeing film prints projected.
Everyone will have spent so much money on the digital projection equipment that they won't simply trash the stuff, they will have one or two theaters per multiplex with digital projectors, and the rest film.
Just like THX is now. In fact, THX is a pretty good parallel in my opinion. Is every theater THX? NO.
Has it replaced all other audio formats? NO!
Is it better? YES!
Does the public really think it's so much better, that it makes them reject the other formats? NO!

And all this argument over film-vs-digital, when FILM is the superior product, and all these other technologies I've mentioned, that have not become universal are unquestionably superior.

The FACT, is what is happening NOW, and that is that when you go to the movies, you see a film print projected.

Matt Pacini



------------------

[MovieStuff]

Wow!

Caught your breath yet?

First off, thanks for the vote of confidence. However, I certainly don't want anyone that disagrees with me to be afraid of pissing me off! I don't think I'm that important to the equation.

Second off, I respect your opinions about the future of theater projection. However, all I was doing was paraphrasing the interview with the head of the theater owner's association. Therefore, while you may disagree with me, I don't think you can second guess them. It is apparent that the theater owners ARE behind the digital conversion all the way.

But there is something here that I think you misunderstand. First off, I'm not talking about digital projection like you've seen from video projectors and the such. Lucas had the last Star Wars movie projected digitally in a test theater and the entire audience, to a person, said it looked sharper and clearer than any 35mm projection they'd ever seen. The new system uses an active-reflective matrix technology made by Texas Instruments. I have not personally seen the results on a theater screen; I am only offering how the test audiences reacted and how the theater owners have reacted.

So disagreeing with me is moot. The system has already been R&D'd and is used in a scaled down form in home theater systems that have been on the market for years. Basically, it's a done deal, research wise. The best thing about it is that, as the technology gets better, they don't have to replace the entire system. They only have to update the matrix, which is about the size of a cigar box. Peanuts.

Second, it is against Federal law for the distributors to own the theaters or the equipment. You're too young to remember this, but there was once a time when studios like Paramount and Columbia and RKO used to own the theaters that showed their own movies. The Feds stepped in said, "No more" because it caused independent theater owners to suffer against the monopoly of the larger studios. Therefore, your fear of the studios having the theater owners by the balls is simply a non issue. And, more to the point, the distributors WILL be "giving away" these projection systems to theater chains for doodly squat and the theater owners will gladly accept them for simple reasons beneficial to both parties: The distributors save distribution costs and the theaters can show things other than movies. Again, this is not my speculation. This is the word of the theater industry spokeman.

Your analogy about THX sound is intriguing but leaves out the economic factor. Using THX didn't save anyone money and only created another expense for the theater owners. Also, the HD television analogy doesn't really apply here since there aren't any antiquated broadcast standards that have to be accomodated, which was the REAL stumbling block behind the slow implementation of HD television.

Third, it doesn't matter what YOU think of theaters wanting to project live events. What matters is that the theater industry likes the idea and they will, in fact, do it. This means that they won't have to project anyone's movie if they don't want to. Again, this has nothing to do with what you or I think or want. It has to do with the theater industry wanting different ways of making money with the same piece of real estate.

So why didn't the theaters "take power" before if they owned their own equipment? Because they basically owned a gun but no ammo and had to be nice to the only ammo dealer in town. But, soon, they will own a gun that can take ANY kind of ammo, from any place in the world. Such competition will bring the price of all ammo down.

Roger


[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited August 19, 2001).]

[Rigo]

I don?t want to pretend that I?m the moderator of this forum, but I would kick some asses off. Not good for people that want to learn and share experiences.

S8 to 35 was the topic. Why putting garbage on it? Please, don?t get any other topic for this kind of debate. I?ll say it again, please

------------------

[MovieStuff]

Hi, Rigo!

"Learning" and "sharing experiences" quite often are a mutually exclusive thing unless someone comes in and clarifies issues with factual information. So here is the state of the art about super 8 to 35mm.

A) You shoot your film.

B) You send it to Interformat and they blow it up to 35mm.

The end.

Nothing will be cheaper or look better at this stage of the game. The idea that introducing video into the equation will make it cheaper and look better is nonsense.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff/html

[Rigo]

Chapeau, Mr. Evans.

------------------

[MovieStuff]

Ummmm.... You're welcome? My on-line translator doesn't know what "Chapeau" means. Hope it's not bad!

Mr. Evans.