How will Digital Projection Systems Replace 35mm P

[MovieStuff]

"Whatever" had more to do with your usual bait-and-switch form of discussing things.
Look, this is all well and fine for pretend but the biggest hurdle for making a movie in super 8 and projecting it theatrically is going to be sheer resolution. Period.

16mm blow ups to 35mm don't even cut it anymore; now it must be super 16mm or you get jumbo grain on the jumbo screen. We can speculate all day long about cheaper, more effecient ways to get the tiny super 8 frame up on the big silver screen, but we all deep down know that if the original doesn't look sharp right off of a super 8 projector at that size, then it isn't going to look any better going through a couple of generations, electronic or otherwise, on the way to the same screen.

In the future, Alex, if you're going to avoid answering questions regarding your positions on a subject, please put a disclaimer up front so I won't waste my time formulating a response. I have better things to do than play dodge ball with you.

Roger

[Alex]

I haven't changed the topic.

Both methods, either digital or 35mm are fine.

Grain on Kodachrome 40 is not that apparent when blown up.

Contrast would be more of an issue...but even that can be accounted for...especially if one went through a digital stage.

You are trying to create a dividing line that says if you take Super-8 to digital, it will be projectible, but if you take that digital file back to 35mm, it won't.

That I don't agree with.

If you then were to take the position that Super-8 would also not be projectible on digital, then I would disagree.

Super-8 resolution has to be at least equal to mini-dv, and probably is a good deal better.

So if dv can be edited on something as basic as a Final Cut Pro in NTSC resolution, than output back to 35mm...

..Super-8 film should have similar possibilities with equal to or better results.

-Alex





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

[MovieStuff]

Alex wrote:

"You are trying to create a dividing line that says if you take Super-8 to digital, it will be projectible, but if you take that digital file back to 35mm, it won't."

Nah. Never said any such thing, chief. What I was asking is why you thought S8-to-video-to-35mm was okay but S8-to-digi-projection wasn't. I finally got my answer, sort of, when you wrote:

"Both methods, either digital or 35mm are fine."

Personally, I don't think either one will look worth spit blown up on a theater size screen. But if you were going to do it, I would think the digi-projection would look the best, assuming we're talking about high resolution scans and not a basic Rank type transfer.

Continuing, you wrote:

"Super-8 resolution has to be at least equal to mini-dv, and probably is a good deal better. So if dv can be edited on something as basic as a Final Cut Pro in NTSC resolution, than output back to 35mm.....Super-8 film should have similar possibilities with equal to or better results."

Well, if you think that mini-DV looks good blown up to 35mm on a theatrical size screen, then I guess there's nothing more to discuss.

But wait a minute....

If you feel DV looks good theatrical size and Super 8 is better than DV, then maybe the thing to do is print super 8 to super 8 to make all the color and density corrections and THEN blow it up to 35mm! After all, super 8 is better than video. We all know it. So, if super 8 to video to 35mm is good, then super 8 to super 8 to 35mm should really rock!

Yeah! That's the ticket! That should look terrific!

Roger

[yak]

cheers, i need another beer.
wait a second, a shower'd cool aswell, see you tomorrow!

------------------
'be the one who is it'

[Alex]

DV to "Final Cut Pro" non-linear editing then output to 35mm is being done and it is being hyped.

So I'm not creating this out of thin air.

I've not seen the quality.

I've seen a Super-VHS submaster of a betacam sp edit master feature that was shot on BetaCam SP projected at Panavision's supernice video projection theatre in Woodland Hills, Ca...looked pretty good...and the screen was of a decent size.

Of, course the seats are somewhat back from the screen, but we're not talking back a country mile either.

You know, line doubler's and even line quadruplers do make the projected video picture "look" better.

So I'm very encouraged by what Super-8 could do...the more success video has, the more Super-8 should be able to achieve.

By the way, your comment about Super-8 To Super-8 is shockingly silly.

Too much time spent in a science lab Roger.

This may also explain your confusion about second generation neg looking like first generation Kodachrome.

The initial film image that captures a real life, big as life, the great outdoors canvas, one that is like a gazillion times bigger than the film frame, is what makes kodachrome magically delicious.

So the first generation film capture is the secret sauce.

Doesn't mean going film to film is ever the answer just because it captures real life so well.

Heck at that point, you've reduced the caputuring area to the same size as the film...doesn't even compare with the original, capturing of the great outdoors.


-Alex




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



[This message has been edited by Alex (edited August 21, 2001).]

[MovieStuff]

My comment about super 8 to super 8 was meant to be silly, Alex. It was just to prove that you don't have a clue about generation loss and resolution. If you think that super 8 is better than video, then why use video as an intermediary?

And, by the way, I never said a second generation negative image looked like Kodachrome. Just more "Alex speak". I said that a print pulled from a negative looks like reversal, which is does. Every professional DP and colorist knows this. That's why Kodak makes special interpositive film to combat the contast associated with positive prints. If a print from a negative didn't share the same contrast characteristics as original reversal (known as "projection contrast"), there wouldn't be any need for interpositive stock nor would there be any need for low con print stock for Ranking AB rolls.

In short, a print from a negative has the same projection contrast as reversal. Kodachrome and Ektachrome reversals have different contrasts from each other, but still are each considered "projection contrast". As such, Ranking a projection print from a negative will fill the bill as "reversal" to the eye on television. Tweak the contrast one way and you've got Ektachrome. Tweak it the other way, and you've got Kodachrome. Tweak it another and you've got Fuji. It was done all the time.

How many years have you been doing this, Alex? 20, did you say? Hard to believe.

But on with the topic at hand. You wrote:

"DV to 35mm via Final Cut Pro is being done and it is being hyped. So I'm not creating this out of thin air."

The issue isn't about hype. The issue is about the best image quality one can actually muster from a super 8 frame and whether or not direct digital projection would be better than digital files transferred to a 35mm print. NTSC or even PAL video has nothing to do with this conversation.

Regarding video projection, you wrote:

"I've seen a Super-VHS submaster of a betacam sp edit master feature that was shot on BetaCam SP projected at Panavision's supernice theatre in Woodland Hills Ca...looked pretty good...and the screen was of a decent size."

Interesting testimonial from the same guy that started this topic by writing:

"Sure a bad movie is a bad movie no matter what...but the marketing and installation costs of digital projection will force passing the costs onto the movie-goer via the hyping of the projectors in advertising ad-nauseum. It just seems like one more gimmick to take away from the content of the movie."

I guess I'm confused here, Alex. On the one hand, you seem to feel that direct digital projection should take a back seat to 35mm projection of the same digital files. On the other hand, you use your own experience in viewing standard video projection (of SVHS no less!) as a qualifier for your argument that editing on standard video with Final Cut Pro and trasferring to film is a valid consideration for the super 8 film maker.

Why would standard video projection have the goods over high resolution digital projection of the same material? It would seem that if standard video projection was good enough to convince YOU of the potential for digital conversion of the super 8 image, then high res direct digital viewing of the same super 8 image would please you even more. Your "genie out of the bottle" doomsday scenario aside, what makes you favor one over the other?

Again, it is a proven fact that electronic distribution is cheaper than mechanical reproduction. It seems to me that, in light of your favoritism toward editing super 8 film on video, direct digital transmission and projection of your finished edit would tickle you pink! Think of the money saved on distribution costs and the increase in image quality for the super 8 producer!

I just don't understand how the incorporation of the 35mm element benefits the independent producer here. After all, HE won't be the one deciding whether or not 35mm prints will be made. The distributor makes that decision. So the savings OR the burden isn't something that the film maker has to worry about in a distribution situation. But, if YOU were the one that had to pay the piper, wouldn't you want a better image at a cheaper price? THAT is the issue at hand.

Regarding your viewing at the Panavision theater, I don't think you can use a successful video projection as an argument for the edit-video/print-film technique and then ignore the success of that same video projection when it comes to talking about the future of digital projection.

If standard NTSC projection was good enough to impress you then, I have to believe that you'll be even more impressed with high resolution direct digital projection in the future.

Remember, you observed:

"You know, line doubler's and even line quadruplers do make the projected video picture "look" better."

Make that the very NEAR future.

Roger

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited August 21, 2001).]

[Alex]

I'm still waiting for my video phone.

How long do I wait for my digitally projected Super-8 masterpiece to be aired or broadcast.

And when they throw the switch and tell me it was shown simultaneously in 8 markets across the country.

I'll guess I'll believe them, whether they really did show it, and show it in it's entirety, I'll never really know.

I just think it's harder to fake results when people have to individually thread up the movie pan at different theatres than broadcast at one central location to different servers across the country.

I know, I know, but you won't be able to afford the multiple prints...

To that I say, Bicycle Race!

Heck, many filmmakers make one or two prints of their movie, than tour with the movie, each night in a different city.

If I could digitally transmit my movie from my own transmission device, to whoever was interested...well, maybe.

But letting some big conglomerate do it seems all wrong.

I'd rather get in the 35mm line for the next 10 years, than try and jump in to the fray of digital projection.

Digital projection will be a closed circle whereby the most expensive projects that have already spread the wealth through their production cost will win out 99 times out of a 100.

Besides, Your digital file has to be FLAWLESS...less than a couple of drop-outs in the whole thing, or it's rejected.

This incredibly high standard favors the big boys with mega million dollar projects.

-Alex

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

[MovieStuff]

Previously Alex wrote:

"Besides, Your digital file has to be FLAWLESS...less than a couple of drop-outs in the whole thing, or it's rejected."

Unbelievable. Where DO you come up with this stuff, Alex? You have GOT to be putting us on or you are, without a doubt, the biggest poser I have ever come across.

Even IF what you said was true, how hard would it be to have a back up tape if something happened to the original? Or even several?

Oh! That's right! You can make a back-up copy just like the original because....it's DIGITAL!

What loony tunes. Alex, I'm beginning to think you actually have a sense of humor, which is good. Because you certainly don't know squat about film or video, it would seem.

Roger

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Previously Alex wrote:

"Besides, Your digital file has to be FLAWLESS...less than a couple of drop-outs in the whole thing, or it's rejected."

Unbelievable. Where DO you come up with this stuff, Alex? You have GOT to be putting us on or you are, without a doubt, the biggest poser I have ever come across.

Even IF what you said was true, how hard would it be to have a back up tape if something happened to the original? Or even several?

Oh! That's right! You can make a back-up copy just like the original because....it's DIGITAL!

What loony tunes. Alex, I'm beginning to think you actually have a sense of humor, which is good. Because you certainly don't know squat about film or video, it would seem.

Roger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Roger, I don't believe that your non-ending verbal assaults and character assassination attempts are warranted.

Every film for distribution has an evaluation report....or Quality Control Report that is required to be performed.

EVERY incorrect black level, video drop-out, minimally out of sync sound effect or dialogue track, plus excessive ratio of loud to quiet sounds, camera noise, film imperfections including jitter, scratches, hairs in the gate, color-shifts, microphone in the shot....

....Chroma levels below Zero-IRE, Video IRE above 100, ALL OF IT GETS REPORTED onto a QUALITY CONTROL EVALUATION REPORT.

All imperfections are rated in terms of severity by a 1, 2, or 3.

The 3's HAVE TO BE FIXED, the 2's should be fixed, the 1's are let go.

With the advent of digital, all of the above "imperfections" are pretty much not being tolerated AT ALL!

If you have more than 4 or 5 in total, it looks bad to the distributor.

Even if most of the "defects" are 1's, it still looks bad on the report.

If you want a decent and reputable distributor, they will put your production master through the ringer, especially if it is for broadcast....

As we go digital, the "tolerances" given to productions continues to be "ratcheted" even tighter.

-Alex



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




[This message has been edited by Alex (edited August 21, 2001).]

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
My comment about super 8 to super 8 was meant to be silly, Alex. It was just to prove that you don't have a clue about generation loss and resolution. If you think that super 8 is better than video, then why use video as an intermediary?
Roger

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So Super-8 isn't as good as video? What a bizarre statement to make.

I have a clue about generation loss.

And it's based on editing, not on lab data.

What's so bizarre is I ALREADY EXPLAINED that film acquisition from the great outdoors (or well lit interiors) is the secret sauce.

A super-8 shot original should look equal or better to high-end video, that doesn't mean I want to go 2nd generation in Super-8.

Get a clue already.

-Alex



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


[This message has been edited by Alex (edited August 21, 2001).]