Red and digital projection

[krd]

I'd like the opinion of people who have actually seen Red footage -- including the Red team.

To date, the distinguishing factor of HD digital vs. film projection appears (at least, to my eyes) to be a certain "flatness" to digitally projected images, even with material originally shot on film (but transferred to HD).

I don't know if the apparent lifelessness and lack of dimensionality of digital projection is something as idiotic as the absence of projector weave, a reflection of HD compression and sampling rates, or if it's more crucially rooted (by comparison) in the photochemical basis of film, from negative to release print.

Specifically, I'm thinking of the translucent, almost holographic quality of which projected film is capable, which I've never seen in 1) a digitally acquired and projected image, 2) a digitally acquired image projected on film (via 35mm transfer), or 3) a film-acquired image digitally projected.

Forgetting for a moment all the uncontrolled variables, to what extent does digitally projected Red footage suggest the depth and translucence associated with projected film -- assuming, of course, you accept my assessment of non-Red digital projection/acquisition, and there's enough Red footage to judge the matter?

This is not an invitation for another film v. digital argument. I know the film era is over, whether Spielberg or the ghost of Stanley Kubrick shoots film or not. I'm just trying to figure out what we'll end up with.

[Graeme Nattress]

If you can define what you see as different in terms we can measure, we can talk about it. Quite frankly, although I enjoy the look of film as an acquisition format, it's the projection and it's problems that turn me off, more than anything else aesthetic about it as a format.

Graeme

[krd]

If you can define what you see as different in terms we can measure, we can talk about it. Quite frankly, although I enjoy the look of film as an acquisition format, it's the projection and it's problems that turn me off, more than anything else aesthetic about it as a format.

Graeme

If there's a quantitative way to describe it, I lack the technical vocabulary. Maybe some DPs will help out here -- either confirming or denying.

As for projection and what's turning you off -- no argument, film is a royal nuisance to cart around and run through a machine at 90 ft./min, but I suspect it's that analog projection process which lends much of the magic, doomed though it is....

[Graeme Nattress]

That magic being out of focus, with wobble and flicker? Film has a certain look, that we can measure in terms of it's gamma, it's highlights, it's grain, it's colour, it's saturation etc. Personally, although it's poetic to describe as "translucent, almost holographic quality of which projected film is capable", I have no idea what it means, as I've only ever seen digital projection as superior in every way to that of film (especially 4k). And indeed, looking at some 4k scans of Sound of Music projected in 4k, and that looked to me stunning, and so much better than any film projection I've ever seen, I'm pretty happy to say I like digital projection better.

Graeme

[krd]

And indeed, looking at some 4k scans of Sound of Music projected in 4k, and that looked to me stunning, and so much better than any film projection I've ever seen, I'm pretty happy to say I like digital projection better.

Graeme

I also saw the Sound of Music footage (thankfully MOS!) in 4K. I guess you could argue it was "stunning", in its clarity. Though, frankly, I was counting blades of grass, rather than actually looking at the image as a piece of sustainable fiction. Since it involved 65mm source footage, maybe the effect wouldn't be so distracting with 35mm origination.

Granted, there may be an element of inane nostalgia, in preferring film to digital, in the same way there are still people who cherish their vinyl records, including the warps, the pops and the clicks.

Anyway, let's see if anyone else chimes in.

[Graeme Nattress]

Well, I'm one of those who still listens to, and enjoys vinyl. For me, the Beatles should be heard on vinyl as that's what they were mastered in mind of. I know people who will only want to watch classic films on projected film for the very same reason. However, that doesn't answer your question, only explains it via nostalgia and mastering intent, not the specific look you see.

Graeme

[krd]

Well, I'm one of those who still listens to, and enjoys vinyl.

Damn! And here I thought I was taking your side. I do find it surprising you would accept the artifacts of analog audio playback, but reject them for film. Anyway, we're already going in circles here.

[Graeme Nattress]

I think stuff that was shot on film designed to be projected on film would maintain it's artistic integrity by being viewed projected on film. However, that's argument from integrity, not from what the image looks like. Same for vinyl.... If it was mastered for it, it plays back best on it to my ears. However, I do have a very, very good record deck that minimises it's issues - just like if you project film in a nice screening room and make sure it's in focus and doesn't wobble too much, but like that's ever going to happen at my local cinema....

[Clayton Harper]

Just go to Cinegear and watch the projection. The footage looks great. If it's not to your taste, sit at home and dream about shooting film while the rest of us use our red cameras.

[Antoine Fabi]

Being sound, or image...

All that counts for me in the end is the beauty of what we see and hear. PERIOD.

We can make film look great or crappy.
We can make digital look great or crappy.

Now, nostalgia is nostalgia...

great...but it is "love of the past".

dictionary definition:

a sentimental longing or wistful affection for the past, typically for a period or place with happy personal associations.

Now lets make good history and associations with our new tools !!!!

Cheers!

Antoine

[krd]

If it's not to your taste, sit at home and dream about shooting film while the rest of us use our red cameras.

I should have known that posting this question would end with this kind of answer. Graeme, if it's in your power, please delete the thread. I'd do it myself, but the first post of a thread apparently can't be deleted.

[Antoine Fabi]

Hi krd,

Why delete this thread ?

It a very good subject! It's interesting discussion.
You'll have all kind of replies...normal.

Antoine

[Clayton Harper]

But seriously, krd, what do you want? Maybe they should stop development and recreate the camera from the ground up to introduce analog artifacts to the image. Oh wait, you can do that in post. Grain, scratches, flicker, alignment. All possible in post. I think a few people here saw Grindhouse....

[Stuart English]

I think some of this can be explained by lack of contrast in the tape format the film was mastered to prior to projection. The most commonly used master has been HDCAM, and that's only 8 bits. Watching the RED footage at NAB on a 4K projector - which itself has a reputation for somewhat milky blacks - you got a quite different sensation than watching film, but it sure as hell was was not a "hd video" look. There was resolution, color, a naturalness to the images, and yes also a lack of weave and grain. There was enough "there" and enough "not there" to lose yourself completely in the storyline.

I'm also really looking forward to seeing RED on a next generation 4K projector.

[GlennChan]

Mmm... I'm personally not a big fan of the milky blacks on the Sony projector. While film isn't perfect there either, film generally has a better contrast ratio. This might account for the 'flat' images you're seeing with Sony 4K projection.

[Nook Kim]

Hi krd,

After reading the latest issue of Videography, I could see your point.
In the article, Format Factor Fundamentals, Mark Schubin suggests an
interesting theory. "Believe it or not, film is probably the only truly
digital medium for capturing moving images..."

Basically, what Mark is saying is that the silver halide salts on the film
emlusion get exposed or not exposed to create a visible image, which
suggests that it's either 0 or 1 process.
This chemical process results in how much grain the picture contains
by the "exposed to not exposed" silver halide salts ratio.

However, in digital imagers, the photosensitive sensors (potosites?)
generates an analog signal from the amount of lights hitting them.
Therefore, there is in-between exposed sensors before it forms a visible
picture, not 0 or 1 digital method. This only gets digitized by the A/D
converter later on.

Now, regarding your topic, krd.

When the film is digitally transferred for digital projection, we can
assume that the picture loses the "either exposed or not exposed" process
of the film emulsion. I don't have enough knowledge of this film to digital
conversion as far as what process the picture goes through. Anyway,
the point is that we are losing the grain effect that has created by the
"0 or 1 digital process" of film.

I know there is not so many perfectly projected viewing environment in the
theaters, but when the picture is projected on a perfectly calibrated
condition, it will contain all the original picture information that a digitally
converted/projected simply can't mimic.

Mark also mentions about how the digital cameras have fixed-pattern on the
picture since all the sensors are aligned in a fixed pattern, whereas the silver
halide salts are ever randomly positioned in the film emulsion.

I'm sure there are a lot of other elements of film emulsion that we are losing
while trasfering "with" the digital imagers. Just like how Graeme likes to listen
to vinyle, one can argue that the digitally projected pictures don't have
the same feeling or elements as if it was projected on film.

To sum up, the picture shot on film and projected on film should have the
best result, followed by digitally shot and projected on film, and digitally shot
and digitally projected. Of course, this is for maintaining the film look.

[Antoine Fabi]

krd,

I think Stuart have a good argument here.
Most of the digital we see is 8 bit. It is not smooth enough to compare with film.

But, back to your initial question...Yes i see a difference between film and digital. You're not alone to see that.
But after seeing the 4K RED footage at NAB, i was convinced that RED WILL change that perception of "dry" looking digital picture. It looked warm and smooth.

....AND...it was one of RED's the first footage.

I am quite certain that with testing, experience, and practice, we will see even more stunning footage from RED.

What i saw at NAB was totally different looking from what i've seen uptil now from digital acquisition. RED's footage looked WAY better, smoother, natural.

Antoine

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

That magic being out of focus, with wobble and flicker? Film has a certain look, that we can measure in terms of it's gamma, it's highlights, it's grain, it's colour, it's saturation etc. Personally, although it's poetic to describe as "translucent, almost holographic quality of which projected film is capable", I have no idea what it means, as I've only ever seen digital projection as superior in every way to that of film (especially 4k). And indeed, looking at some 4k scans of Sound of Music projected in 4k, and that looked to me stunning, and so much better than any film projection I've ever seen, I'm pretty happy to say I like digital projection better.

Graeme

That's because it is in fact superior in every respect. Seeing Revenge of the Sith projected digitally, then seeing it in film was a jarring experience -- one was vibrant, colorful, perfect, like being in the world of the film... that one was the digitally projected version, which was truly beautiful. The other was full of scratches, imperfections, and other nonsense that was no fault of the filmmakers but of the awful projection system called film.

I watched the prequels dozens of times, and one time when I watched The Phantom Menace the print just broke in the middle of it, they said they couldn't fix it in time for the next showing, so they gave us all a refund and called it an afternoon. That happened again with Attack of the Clones but closer to the start, so I hadn't wasted as much time, haha. I really hate film projection with a passion. To be honest I hate everything about film, the acquisition, the projection, it's just all ancient crap that needs to go the way of the typewriter. It belongs in a museum where everyone can reminisce about their childhood memories of how "magical" it all is. I love MOVIES, but the fact that they've had to be shot on film for so long is more of an unfortunate film history fact than anything magical.

[krd]

FWIW, of the HDCAM productions I've seen, from Hollywood (Rodriguez, Mann) to foreign independents and arthouse entries, both in film transfer and HD projection, none offers (to me) the same pleasures as film. It may be a question of an immature technology, or conditioning, or both.

But I'd argue that these digital products are "inferior" to film with respect to characteristics generally associated with "beauty" in Western art (and film!). Black level, shoulder, knee, gamma, etc. all have analogs in classical painting and art photography. And HD digital doesn't, at the present time, satisfy those expectations of beauty, built up over hundreds of years -- in addition to the more intangible qualities I was trying, however inadequately, to describe in the first post, photochemical vs. electronic.

That's why I posed the question: is Red fundamentally different? I don't expect digital to look exactly like film, and we know what can be done in post these days.

However, I'd really like to hear from some DPs -- people who have shot both film and digital, and at least seen Red.

[Antoine Fabi]

krd,

All i can say for sure is that i truly "feel", that with RED, based on what i saw at NAB with a friend of mine (film DOP), we will be able to achieve a kind of "organic" look normally absent from digital.

...exactly like film...dont know, but certainly really beautifull.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

lol, "organic" look, I have no idea what that means. Sounds like someone has smoked too much weed when they go on and on about the "organic beauty of the flickering image, it's so magical... *sigh*" Man pass me some of that, must be nice.

When I see film I see a lack of sharpness and clarity that is unacceptable to my eyes. When I see digitally shot movies that are then digitally projected I see a movie as it should be seen -- perfectly clear, no artifacts, no scratches, no grain.

[Alexander Nikishin]

I know the film era is over, whether Spielberg or the ghost of Stanley Kubrick shoots film or not. I'm just trying to figure out what we'll end up with.

What we'll end up with is a natural progression towards a new medium and way of watching cinema.

Film has had its glory days. I've grown up watching films. All of my favorite movies have been originated on film. But I honestly feel that if a great Director and Cinematographer had the chance to shoot a movie in digital with a great story, we'd instantly have a new classic and digital would gain much more validity as a capture medium.

Currently, I can't think of one movie that has been originated on digital that actually has a great Director/Cinematographer/script behind it. That is sure to change in due time of course.

One thing that I've learned along with many of this and past generations is that technology rules all. Digital cameras have come leaps and bounds in a matter of 25 years whereas film has taken over a hundred to reach its current state. It's inevitable that we will surpass the quality of film if not mimic it perfectly with the use of post techniques and the right camera.

After seeing the RED 4k presentation at NAB, I came away feeling as though I'd just seen the future, no kidding. There was soo much potential there in that short. Some of the shots in Crossing the Line were more beautiful than anything I'd ever seen on film. The landscape shots to be specific were something of absolute beauty that even film couldn't capture as well.

Not to take anything away from Peter Jackson's Directing or Richard's Cinematography, but I know there is much room for improvement in both aspects. The RED camera even in its infant stages has proved to me that both digital and film has its own beauty just as each stock of film does. I've come to see RED originated footage as a truly unique and promising new stock that doesn't currently exist in film and never will.

As far as digital projection goes, check out Pirate's of the Caribbean on a Christie 2k DLP, it's leaps and bounds more beautiful than the film projected version.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Jonathan, your statements are garbage. Just to re-iterate, I'll reply with another one of your posts made on film vs. digital....


Yeah I'm really glad I didn't come along like 30 or 40 years ago, because I'm not sure I really would have gotten into film. I probably would have stuck with what my dad does, real estate, because filmmaking is a big enough challenge without having to deal with shooting a bunch of rolls of film and editing on ancient machines, etc.

Changing a mag only takes a minute, not very time consuming or difficult if you enjoy your job and the film making process....

And as far as editing goes, that's not your job anyway! Let the editor deal with the specifics and tools used to edit, you just worry about the cuts, not the tools used to cut.


I knew years ago when I wanted to get into the film industry that it was my goal never to touch film,

Why? Really, if you haven't ever shot on film then where's the bias toward digital coming from?

I for one LOVE film. You can't argue that film isn't absolutely beautiful when shot right. After all, YOU grew up watching and loving FILMS!

Name some of your favorite movies, or movies that motivated you to attempt a career in the motion picture industry, guess what, they've ALL or at least very many of them have been shot on FILM.

The only real problem with film is its initial cost and post costs.


but I wasn't sure quite how because at that time it seemed more like if you wanted professional quality you either needed a few hundred thousand for the Sony F900 or you needed to shoot on film.

Now RED has changed everything.

The F900 IMHO hardly looks like film, if you want the look of film.....shoot film, if you enjoy the beauty and clarity of 4k RED, then shoot RED, just don't go around making naive comments about tools you've never even used, it makes you sound like a fresh out of college film school noob.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

No, it makes you sound like an old-school film fan, which I am not. Don't use personal comments to defend your point of view -- it has no place here. You love film, good for you, I don't. I think Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith look ten times better than anything shot on film. That's the clarity of image I want, and the RED can do better than that, so I have no use for film.

Changing mags takes a lot of time, actually, when you have to change for every ten minutes of film footage you shoot and then you have to worry about processing it, which takes at least three days after you shoot it. And it is my concern where and how it is edited. I don't let my films be edited on Avid, even, let alone telecined in, which is stupid beyond belief -- I manage my film from start to finish, there's no lab involved, and no reason to have a lab involved. I want to see my footage at the end of the day on my computer. 'nuff said.

If you love film, that's great, good for you, I can't deny you that. But don't go after me because you are sad about film's imminent demise.

[Antoine Fabi]

lol, "organic" look, I have no idea what that means. Sounds like someone has smoked too much weed when they go on and on about the "organic beauty of the flickering image, it's so magical... *sigh*" Man pass me some of that, must be nice.


A suggestion for you Jonathan,

Please try to understand "why" people say something rather than just laugh at them, much more constructive and instructive.

Again, in the dictionary, organic:

1 of, relating to, or derived from living matter : organic soils. • Chemistry of, relating to, or denoting compounds containing carbon (other than simple binary compounds and salts) and chiefly or ultimately of biological origin. Compare with inorganic . • (of food or farming methods) produced or involving production without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or other artificial agents.

2 Physiology of or relating to a bodily organ or organs. • Medicine (of a disease) affecting the structure of an organ.

3 denoting a relation between elements of something such that they fit together harmoniously as necessary parts of a whole : the organic unity of the integral work of art. • characterized by continuous or natural development : companies expand as much by acquisition as by organic growth.

#3 sounds right when i think of film.
...and i think RED will be able to achieve that "organic" look.

Cheers!

[M Most]

Currently, I can't think of one movie that has been originated on digital that actually has a great Director/Cinematographer/script behind it.

Dean Semler (DP) and Mel Gibson (Director), "Apocalypto." Dean is one of the finer shooters working today. And regardless of what you may think of him personally, Mel is a very, very talented director.

Bryan Singer (Director) and Tom Sigel (DP), "Superman Returns." Not what I would call a great movie, but Bryan is a proven director (if he never did anything other than "The Usual Suspects" I would probably still feel that way), and Tom is an excellent, visually experimental cameraman.

Michael Mann (Director) and Dion Beebe (DP), "Collateral" and "Miami Vice." Michael is, well, Michael. Dion won both the Oscar and the ASC Award for "Memoirs of a Geisha." Pretty prodigious talents here.

I could name some more, but I think you get my point.

As for digital projection, it has nothing whatsoever to do with digital origination. Digital projection is usually done these days from a Digital Cinema Package created directly from files generated during the digital intermediate process. It is very rare - almost impossible - today to find digital projection of a studio released picture using HDCam tape or anything like it. How a picture is shot is a completely separate issue from how it is exhibited. Pictures shot on film are projected digitally every day, and pictures shot on HD cameras are projected on film every day. One doesn't require the other.

[M Most]

I don't let my films be edited on Avid, even, let alone telecined in, which is stupid beyond belief -- I manage my film from start to finish, there's no lab involved, and no reason to have a lab involved. I want to see my footage at the end of the day on my computer. 'nuff said.


So basically, you do it all, and have no need for other professionals at any point along the way. You don't need a cinematographer, a producer, a script supervisor, an assistant director, a writer, a picture editor, a sound editor, a finishing editor, a colorist, a sound mixer, or a distributor. Your statement above explains quite a bit.

[Alexander Nikishin]

I for one am far from an "old school film fan". What I am though, is someone who loves motion pictures and utilizes all the tools available for any given project whether it be orgitinated on film or digital. I am also someone who respects the craft, and a large part of that craft is in the "relics" of film. If you have no respect for the roots of an art, you don't truly love the art.

Over the past 2 years I've shot almost exclusively on digital for budgetary reasons mainly, but also because the job market is sliding over to the digital end due to just that, budgetary reasons.

I can make a pretty picture on both mediums, but that also depends greatly on the camera that is being used. An F900 is nothing though as far as clarity goes when compared to something shot on 35mm with a 4k scan.

When you speak of "clarity" in Attack of the Clones are you refering to the cgi backgrounds? or the edge enhancement? or maybe the flat colors and lack of latitude? Hmm..... By choosing AOTC as your end all be all to film, I can see where your stupidity comes from.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

I don't think ORGANIC applies to film whatsoever, it's about as far from organic as possible -- it is full of nasty, harsh chemicals that would kill anything organic! Organic is fruit, vegetables, maybe something like that, NOT film, which is full of chemicals that isn't even close to organic.

What I want to see, and am perfectly ok with, is arguments centered around actual facts, like resolution, contrast ratio, depth of field, etc. Those are all measurable elements that can be compared from one medium to another. There is no excuse for making arguments that aren't measurable -- there are NO intangibles for film, everything is measurable scientifically. Anyone who says otherwise clearly won't accept any arguments, their mind is just made up already. This is just like the scientific method. If you can't prove a theory wrong, there is no way to prove it wrong, it's not a valid theory. It has to be falsifiable.

I'm sorry but I'm very blunt when it comes to arguments of this kind. I simply won't put up with people arguing based on words that they can't define and that don't have any accepted meaning. Define your terms, then we'll argue. Otherwise, your argument is garbage.

Revenge of the Sith is not only artistically one of the best films over the last ten years, and in my opinion the best, it's also the best looking. It is not WHATSOEVER flat, it's extremely sharp and the colors are brilliant. I'm sorry that you're probably a die-hard prequel hater, too, but that's not really relevant to me.

Great films are shot on digital, and that started with Attack of the Clones by one of the great directors of all time. I don't need to defend that statement, Lucas is and will remain one of history's great directors.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Dean Semler (DP) and Mel Gibson (Director), "Apocalypto." Dean is one of the finer shooters working today. And regardless of what you may think of him personally, Mel is a very, very talented director.

Although I respect Dean's work, he has never been on the bleeding edge of anything in Cinematography. He knows how to shoot, he does it well, but he's never shot a unanimous, "masterpiece" of a movie.

Mel, he's hit and miss for me. I thought Apocalypto was good but it was no Braveheart.


Bryan Singer (Director) and Tom Sigel (DP), "Superman Returns." Not what I would call a great movie, but Bryan is a pr oven director (if he never did anything other than "The Usual Suspects" I would probably still feel that way), and Tom is an excellent, visually experimental cameraman.

Yawn.


Michael Mann (Director) and Dion Beebe (DP), "Collateral" and "Miami Vice." Michael is, well, Michael. Dion won both the Oscar and the ASC Award for "Memoirs of a Geisha." Pretty prodigious talents here.

Both of those films are very experimental and rely heavily on available light. Once again, not the greatest Cinematography examples, I'd rather call them experiments in lighting and new ways of movie making.

[Stuart English]

So to clarify what I was saying.

I suggest that most films that we have seen digitally projected have also been shot on HDCAM or transferred to HDCAM. Then they may or or may not have been played back from HDCAM tape, more likely a cinema server. Some films will have benefitted from a 10 bit DPX style origination or D.I signal path. Then the RED footage was captured with a 12 bit data path.

I suspect that what most people have described as the "flatness" of digital projection is probably because most digital footage has this limited dynamic range and limited color space 8 bit / 3:1:1 YUV format HDCAM footprint superimposed on it. Take that restriction out of the equation and project a 12 bit / 4:4:4 RGB image then you should see something radically different - even with the same projector.

For me that is the magic of RED, enabling super high quality from lens to lens. And at an affordable cost, so many can exploit this new tool.

[dalemccready]

I think thats a bit harsh re Dean Semler. What about "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" and "Nutty Professor 2: The Klumps" ?

;)

...actually he's a solid dp, no disprespect meant to him, but I take your point.

[Alexander Nikishin]

4:4:4 and a large dynamic range, music to my ears!

[Antoine Fabi]

Exactly,

That's what i think Stuart.
The usual "cold" look of digital may very well come from the very limited data.

The RED footage at NAB was the very first digital footage that i really liked.
RED will be a @#@ good tool.
A 12 bit data will smooth the image (color correction etc...) big time.

[Alexander Nikishin]

I think thats a bit harsh re Dean Semler. What about "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" and "Nutty Professor 2: The Klumps" ?

;)

You know what, I take everything I said about Dean Semler's work back......How could I possibly forget about the beauty of The Nutty Professor 2!?! :) hehe

[M Most]

So to clarify what I was saying.

I suggest that most films that we have seen digitally projected have also been shot on HDCAM or transferred to HDCAM. Then they may or or may not have been played back from HDCAM tape, more likely a cinema server. Some films will have benefitted from a 10 bit DPX style origination or D.I signal path. Then the RED footage was captured with a 12 bit data path.


Stuart, unless you're talking exclusively about independent, student, and festival pictures, that's just not the case. Studio pictures that are projected digitally - i.e., almost any major release at a theater that happens to have digital projection - are, for the most part, shot on film, and for the digital projection release, sourced directly from the DI. HDCam is not part of the process at all. The DI's are all done from either 2K or greater film scans, or in some cases (usually not for studio pictures, though) 4:4:4 RGB HD format video, usually recorded on HDCam SR - a very, very different format than HDCam. The digital cinema package is sourced directly from the color corrected 10 bit log files created in the DI.

[Alexander Nikishin]

The RED footage at NAB was the very first digital footage that i really liked.


Same here, it was truly the first digital footage that made me say wow.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Great films are shot on digital, and that started with Attack of the Clones by one of the great directors of all time. I don't need to defend that statement, Lucas is and will remain one of history's great directors.

I just don't see the point of arguing for a movie that is 90% cgi. There is no way to truly judge the quality considering that.

Another example is Sin City, once again, eye candy galore, but it's so heavily cgi'd that you can't really say whether that perceived sharpness and resloution is due to the F900 live action footage or the cgi background in contrast to it.

Using heavily cgi'd movies as an example is pointless. You need movies shot in real world, live action, non cgi situations. And to date, there haven't been any to really break the line as far as quality goes in comparison to film.

Yet, the RED footage was a different story and that's what makes me so excited about it.

[M Most]

Although I respect Dean's work, he has never been on the bleeding edge of anything in Cinematography. ....Yawn.....
Both of those films are very experimental and rely heavily on available light. Once again, not the greatest Cinematography examples, I'd rather call them experiments in lighting and new ways of movie making.

Alexander, I really don't know what you want to hear. The choice of digital origination is not a common one for most pictures because film is, to this point, simply a superior capture medium, as well as a better production tool. You and I seem to agree on this, so given that assumption, there is no real reason for large budget pictures made by top directors and shot by top cameramen to be shot on anything else except as an experiment. The only exception would be for a story that benefits from certain characteristics of digital capture, to be determined by the creative forces behind. it. But based on the names I listed, I don't know what you're looking for. If you want to say that Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Clint Eastwood, Francis Coppola, Terry Malick, and, yes, Peter Jackson and other rather elite names have never done pictures using digital capture, and that Vilmos Zsigmond, Caleb Deschanel, Vittorio Storaro, Allen Daviau, and Robert Richardson have not shot pictures using digital cameras, that's true. But then again, none of them have likely been in situations where it seemed appropriate, given the budgets, subject matter, and production circumstances they have had. Perhaps if they were on a project where that was not the case, they would have used one of the digital alternatives. Daviau, in fact, shot most of the tests on the Genesis for Panavision prior to its release, and has continued to do so - although he has yet to shoot an actual movie on it. And in the scheme of things, I really don't know that it proves anything anyway.

Who exactly would you consider the "elite" names you're looking for?

[Alexander Nikishin]

mmost, I am at a loss of thought in regards to our argument..

What exactly are you attempting to debate as far as what I've stated goes?

You've named many of the elites, and yes, they've yet to shoot digital.

I believe it was Semler and continues to be Semler who first tested the Genesis for Panavision. Daviau was quite confused when it came to shooting on the Genesis as was witnessed at the local 600 Masters Lighting Workshop in which he was one of the stars.

[Aaron Burtle]

Alexander, Zodiac (Directed by David Fincher) is an excellent example of the fidelity which a completely digital work flow can produce. If I had not known it was shot on the viper before I saw it, I would have thought it was shot on film.

If you haven't seen it, I suggest you do.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Great example Aaron, that was actually a great movie! Zodiac takes the cake as far as digital cinema goes to date.

To add, Flyboys is pretty visually impressive, I can't say the same for the acting and story though.

[Stuart English]

Mike, I understand your point but I also stand by what I said. i.e. Most films are projected on film. Most features are shot on film too. But I suspect that the majority of films that members of this board have seen projected digitally would have been shot or played back from HDCAM (or an even lower quality format) That's what I'm refering to -

I agree that 35mm original films scanned to 2K for a D.I look pretty good too. I think the jury is still out on films shot on 2/3" optics in 1080p 4:4:4, but perhaps this is more a lensing and resolution issue rather than dynamic range or color space, which is my belief on the HDCAM based digital films.

Just my opinion.

[M Most]

mmost, I am at a loss of thought in regards to our argument..

What exactly are you attempting to debate as far as what I've stated goes?

We're not having an argument. I'm not attempting to debate anything. I was just wondering why you were dismissing the people and projects I was presenting for examination. You have answered that (sort of).



I believe it was Semler and continues to be Semler who first tested the Genesis for Panavision. Daviau was quite confused when it came to shooting on the Genesis as was witnessed at the local 600 Masters Lighting Workshop in which he was one of the stars.

Daviau shot the original tests, done 3 years ago, and presented at the last Cinegear Expo to be held at Universal. As I recall, they were shots that were done in a side by side configuration with film, and intercut (in a DI) to demonstrate how close the colorimetry and quality could be. Although I was quite skeptical - as was just about everyone else - the early Genesis material actually held up pretty well, and many trained eyes in the audience were continually guessing incorrectly as to which was which.

I haven't been to the last two Lighting Workshops, as I moved to Florida over a year ago (still a 600 member, though).

[M Most]

I think the jury is still out on films shot on 2/3" optics in 1080p 4:4:4, but perhaps this is more a lensing and resolution issue rather than dynamic range or color space, which is my belief on the HDCAM based digital films.


Hmmm...
Zodiac, Miami Vice, Collateral. OK, maybe the last two aren't shining examples, but I wouldn't necessarily say the jury's out. It seems to have found acceptance. However, I would also say that it probably represents, at best, an interim solution until larger chip cameras are less cumbersome and more affordable ;-)

[Alexander Nikishin]

We're not having an argument. I'm not attempting to debate anything. I was just wondering why you were dismissing the people and projects I was presenting for examination. You have answered that (sort of).

I just don't feel as though the movies you presented hold up to the quality of of even present classics such as The Prestige or Pan's Labrynth.

Both of which I find to have excellent Directing/Cinematography. I use the wording, "present classics" because I don't hold either of those films high on the teir of all time greats either.

So that is to say, I've yet to see a digitally shot movie that will be looked upon as an all-time classic, much less a masterpiece.

I will say this though, Sin City is in my mind a classic as is Star Wars Revenge of the Sith, but those movies are so heavily cg'd that they aren't a great example of the overall quality of the digital medium. Zodiac though is an exception IMO, that may well be the first digital classic.


Daviau shot the original tests, done 3 years ago, and presented at the last Cinegear Expo to be held at Universal. As I recall, they were shots that were done in a side by side configuration with film, and intercut (in a DI) to demonstrate how close the colorimetry and quality could be. Although I was quite skeptical - as was just about everyone else - the early Genesis material actually held up pretty well, and many trained eyes in the audience were continually guessing incorrectly as to which was which.

I haven't been to the last two Lighting Workshops, as I moved to Florida over a year ago (still a 600 member, though).

Oh I didn't know that...

That's strange because Daviau seemed absolutely green to the Genesis. I guess he just doesn't follow the tech-side of cinema and prefers to stick to what he knows, lighting.

[Jason Murphy]

Currently, I can't think of one movie that has been originated on digital that actually has a great Director/Cinematographer/script behind it. That is sure to change in due time of course.

Zodiac.

David Fincher is an incredibly talented director, and IMO, this is the first time that he's worked with material that's up to his level of talent. The script is excellent, and Harris Savides' work with the Viper in Filmstream mode is also groundbreaking.

I'd also put in a plug for Michael Haneke's Caché (Hidden). Digitally acquired, and looks really good; the digital is also a very good match for the story.

Alexander Sokurov (of Russian Ark fame) has done some interesting stuff with digital, but nothing yet tops his film work on Mother and Son.

EDIT: Oops, totally missed that others had already chimed in on Zodiac. And I do think it may very well be seen as a classic masterpiece given time. Many classics aren't widely seen as such in their day.

[Michel Hafner]

That magic being out of focus, with wobble and flicker? Film has a certain look, that we can measure in terms of it's gamma, it's highlights, it's grain, it's colour, it's saturation etc. Personally, although it's poetic to describe as "translucent, almost holographic quality of which projected film is capable", I have no idea what it means, as I've only ever seen digital projection as superior in every way to that of film (especially 4k). And indeed, looking at some 4k scans of Sound of Music projected in 4k, and that looked to me stunning, and so much better than any film projection I've ever seen, I'm pretty happy to say I like digital projection better.
Graeme
Digital projection in cinemas is stuck with an On-Off contrast of ~2500:1 max which is not as good as film projection can be (but usually is not either). So naturally it looks flat and veiled as soon as darker material is projected. Watching the same digital source on a high contrast projector (CRT or JVC RS1) removes most or all flatness from the image, whether bright or dark.

[Michel Hafner]

I think some of this can be explained by lack of contrast in the tape format the film was mastered to prior to projection. The most commonly used master has been HDCAM, and that's only 8 bits.
Contrast is not limited by bits. Even a one bit system can have infinite contrast (light bulb on or off). SNR and resolution/steps between the extremes is limited by the number of bits. The lack of contrast (as in flat looking pictures) is due to contrast limitations of the digital cinema projectors.

[Stuart English]

Hmmm...
Zodiac, Miami Vice, Collateral. OK, maybe the last two aren't shining examples, but I wouldn't necessarily say the jury's out. It seems to have found acceptance. However, I would also say that it probably represents, at best, an interim solution until larger chip cameras are less cumbersome and more affordable ;-)

O.K. I'd agree with expressing the thought in these words...

[krd]

The arguments for the technical limitations of both HD acquisition and projection (and which is probably HDCAM in practice, as Stuart English note) are persuasive -- though, to be frank, they're not new. I'm no longer sure why I started the thread, but maybe because none of the current digital delivery systems seems to me to preserve characteristics of film which give it life, difficult as some of those characteristics may be to define, and because digitally-acquired material projected on film leaves something to be desired (however, I didn't see Zodiac). That isn't to say audiences will care, or that those film characteristics are necessarily all virtues. However, there does seem to be agreement here that HD/HDCAM acquisition/projection, and film acquisition/HD projection, provides inferior results. That's progress -- in some places, you can't even get that concession.

And say what you want about wobbly out-of-focus projectors and dull bulbs, this equipment did sell trillions of dollars worth of movie tickets and turn the film medium into a universal obsession. I'd argue that the "organic" quality of film (nonsensical expression or not), including grain, projector weave, generation loss, photochemical randomness, degenerative analog processes, etc. had something to do with that astounding success, but can adduce no evidence. We'll just have look at ticket sales, once the business has all gone digital, and see if people really like the new medium, or come to like it.

The Mark Schubin article an earlier poster here referenced is interesting. Schubin argues that it was production value, as much as the camera itself, that lent the PJ footage its film or film-comparable look. But again, I'm not looking for a fight. The technical arguments made for Red superiority make sense. We'll just have to wait and see what Red footage looks like, without the resources of PJ, and how people respond to it -- either on film transfer, or with digital projection equal to its inherent quality.

[M Most]

So that is to say, I've yet to see a digitally shot movie that will be looked upon as an all-time classic, much less a masterpiece.

I would say that's as much luck of the draw as anything else. In any given year, you're lucky if even one picture is released that lives up to those kind of expectations. And since "high end digital cinematography" has only been around for the last few years, it's even more unlikely that at this point in time there would be any projects that qualify as "classics" AND were shot with such equipment. It's almost like saying the Indy 500 hasn't been won by a hybrid car yet. Or that nobody has yet produced a piece of art created in Painter or Photoshop that rivals the Mona Lisa. Things take time, especially when new technology is involved. Just because you haven't seen digitally acquired pictures that live up to these lofty standards yet doesn't mean you won't.

But it probably won't be this year...

[laguun]

three comments:

first, regarding the quality of digital projection.
from the audiences response both, digital and film, can be "better" in subjective reception and are furthermore depending on the local cinemas implementation.

many viewers clearly express that they are highly impressed of the advantages of digital projection (no issues with image stability, flickerfree etc), other however like grain and flicker.

it is certainly interesting, that most people i have talked to prefer the contrasty 2k/1080p christies look to the 4k sony srx. but this is highly subjective.

furthermore, i have seen -many- examples of -really- bad 35mm projection in cinema -everywhere- on the planet, just recently in berlin the pirates. Screen misaligned, so image out of focus at bottom, in focus at top, the lamp was exhausted and way to dark, whitepoint was off and amber, image stability was really poor and finally ~5% of the image top was projected offscreen. this is the "gold standard" one often gets today.
every cristie 2k would have been highly superior, however, the audience didn´t complain.

second, HDCAM and HDCAM SR aren´t the reason for any reduced contrast.
hdcam 8bit or hdcam sr 10bit are not the limit for the dynamic -range-. they are the limit for the dynamic -resolution-.

You can store 20 stops of range in 8 bit anytime, but you will loose the subtle information in the dynamic range, which limits colorcorrection. 12bit is a blessing, 10bit is good, 8bit requires using the available range and resolution and a streamlined workflow.

To illustrate this: you won´t get a bit more dynamic range when recording from a 750 or 900R via HD-SDI to an uncompressed 10 bit diskrecorder, compared to recording to HDCAM internally. You will, however, get a better dynamic resolution (and less compression and subsampling).

third, and most important: DI & CGI workflow pipelines will often bring severe problems when not planned and managed.
i won´t name the examples, but i know first hand of several very succesful A-budget productions originated on 35mm as well on digital who in the end had only ~6bit of dynamic resolution, due to several colorspace & colormodels conversion as well combinined linear & log-space as well for using different calibrations.

red will be excellent as a starting point due to its high dynamic resolution, but that will not spare anyone the need for exactly planning the way to the master be it recorded to film or projected digitally.

for cinema, my personal preference btw has become digital projection when compared to 35mm, and to be precise the christie/TI solutions seem the one with the most appeal to me. for studio/DI purposes with really low viewing distances to the screen however, i would like 4k.

[M Most]

to be precise the christie/TI solutions seem the one with the most appeal to me.

Christie is not the only manufacturer of DLP Cinema equipment. Similar characteristics are present in DLP Cinema units from other manufacturers as well - NEC immediately comes to mind (the Starus line is quite good), as well as Barco. All manufacture units that use the identical TI chipset, and all achieve DCI compliance.


for studio/DI purposes with really low viewing distances to the screen however, i would like 4k.

Why? That would be a specific circumstance that would actually lessen the significance of 4K projection. The larger the screen, and the further your viewing position from it, the more 4K makes a difference. For a small screening room, such as one used for DI color correction purposes, the differences between 2K and 4K are somewhat insignificant.

[Júlio Taubkin]

It gets somewhat hard to discerne what the initial post was about since we cannot compare digital acquisition to digital projection. Either we shoot stuff on film or not I guess the poster was expressing a very true perception that film projection is quite different than digital projection.

For acquisition, I think Zodiac, for the first time in my life, made it clear that a film could be shot digitally for a 35mm print and be as beutiful as if it was shot on film.

But digital projection is different than film, and it's where we are going. And at least for 4K projection, the word on the street is that 4K acquisition beats film. But, no, it doesn't quite look like film, just like a still picture on a laptop LCD looks different than in photographic paper, or on a slide projection, either we like it or not...

[Jason Murphy]

Of course, the other issue here that has been at least alluded to here by several people is the wide range in quality of film projection, from venues to prints and projectionists.

Now, the projection quality in your average multiplex is pretty pathetic. I think we all can agree with that. But as someone who probably watches just as many, if not more movies at festivals, retrospectives, etc (and I realize that this puts me in a very tiny minority; I've actually been known to drive several hours to catch particular prints of classic films that I want to see, sometimes even when I own them on DVD), I am often at screenings where the projectionist is not a clueless high school student (and in fact is a very good career projectionist), the prints are frequently of much higher quality than your average multiplex print, (sometimes even specifically hand-made under the supervision of the DP or director), and the screening facilities are excellent (with projectors that have amazing registration, bright bulbs, nice screens with good sightlines, etc.).

Now, of course, even in these cases, you still have the issue of losing some detail on the print due to the projector heat causing the frame to slightly warp in the gate, but quite frankly, I haven't seen anything (yet) in the digital realm that can touch really good film projection by an experienced projectionist.

Of course, the state of the local multiplexes certainly makes me more than suspicious that most people have never seen good film projection.

And I'm also willing to bet that most people also haven't seen a good Vision Premiere print, or a Tech IB print. Which is a real shame. The DMax of Premiere is unbelievable. On a good print of this type, when the frame cuts to black, the entire theater is pretty much as dark as if someone shut off all the lights and the projector. The black level is that good; there is no sense of the blacks in dark scenes being milky or simply very dark greys, as one sees in most prints. It's amazing to behold, and can totally change the feel of the movie.

There is nothing I've (yet) seen in digital that can hold blacks quite like this either. I'm looking forward to the day when I do see this, but it's just not there yet on anything I've seen, even a good 2K DLP. The Sony 4K sure as hell doesn't hold blacks well at all, though it doesn't look terrible otherwise.

Still, it seems obvious to me that digital projection will likely improve the picture quality at most multiplexes, or at least (one hopes) remove most of the projection screwups that mar so many screenings. Of course, as with any technology, I'm sure your average multiplex will find more ways to screw things up with a digital projector, but it seems more likely that the quality will improve.

Now, digital projection technology will obviously evolve, and I hope that it evolves past even the most exacting standards for film (maybe even to a point where by all measurable criteria it is better than a 70mm Vision Premiere contact print, if I may dream aloud), rather than the normal "eh, it's good enough for most people" *shrug* response that I so often hear from people.

And even if that happens, I guarantee you, there will still be some people who prefer film. Digital will certainly replace film, just as CDs and MP3s replaced vinyl, but just like vinyl, you'll still have a small community of people who won't let go of film. Because digital isn't film, and film isn't digital. And that's as it should be.

[Michel Hafner]

There is nothing I've (yet) seen in digital that can hold blacks quite like this either. I'm looking forward to the day when I do see this, but it's just not there yet on anything I've seen, even a good 2K DLP. .
Blacks from analogue CRT projectors are deeper than any film. And the digital JVC RS1 has deeper blacks than the best prints too (15000:1 versus 10000:1). Neither can be used for cinema screens though due to lack of lumen. The fun ends at home and ~3-4m wide screens.

[laguun]

Christie is not the only manufacturer of DLP Cinema equipment. Similar characteristics are present in DLP Cinema units from other manufacturers as well - NEC immediately comes to mind (the Starus line is quite good), as well as Barco. All manufacture units that use the identical TI chipset, and all achieve DCI compliance.

that is correct - the CLP-panels are all TI at this moment in time, if i am informed correctly. the barcos are excellent as well, but, simply due to the market share christie has, most of my positive experiences so far were christie. I have seen the NEC 2ks so far, sadly, only at exhibitions and trade shows where a) the ambient light was to high and b) i couldnt check with our testfootage, so i don´t have an decided opinion on then, but they looked good as well.
However, the inexpensive 1080p NECs (as well as the JVCs) are pretty impressive for their price, we are really thinking about buying one or two of them for the budget-sensitive customers as addition to the (imho necessary) class 1 CRTs.




Why? That would be a specific circumstance that would actually lessen the significance of 4K projection. The larger the screen, and the further your viewing position from it, the more 4K makes a difference. For a small screening room, such as one used for DI color correction purposes, the differences between 2K and 4K are somewhat insignificant.
here i have to disagree. basing on my (and the other folks at laguun) experiences with 4k vs 2k it is pretty hard to tell the difference between them on a large screen if you are not sitting within the very first rows of the theater. One good place to experience that first hand is the D-Cinema at IBC by the way, as they offer a large screen and a good selection of different projection systems.

if you, however, are sitting in the typical DI-cinema room directly in front of the screen and everyone is in row1 or 2, the pixel structure of 2k/1080 can become visible, that is why i would like to have 4k in the DI.

However, a warning.
I have had very mixed experiences with seeing our 2k and 1080p stuff in 4k. Just recently, in March, we had a presentation on a 4k which was showing several problems and glitches. We had seen the 35mm recording (looked exactly as we wanted), we had mastered on 2k and 1080p display. I supervised the whole mastering process, so i knew exactly what source footage we were dealing with.

On the 4k SRX projection, we suddenly had noise artefacts and several digital interpolation interferences which were not in the source. It turned out to be a combination of the scaling (only bilinear) and -yikes- a sharpening in the upscaler which artficially added contrast to the before that invisible noise & grain.

[laguun]

Blacks from analogue CRT projectors are deeper than any film. And the digital JVC RS1 has deeper blacks than the best prints too (15000:1 versus 10000:1). Neither can be used for cinema screens though due to lack of lumen. The fun ends at home and ~3-4m wide screens.

true, however you can´t compare apples and oranges, as the (excellent) RS1 doesn´t have nearly enough light output for a cinema.

if you examine contrast at the cinematic projection (>=10 klumen), 35mm is still slightly better than digital, however the subjective perception favors digital, as its non-interrupted lightstream feels as it has more contrast.

[Michel Hafner]

true, however you can´t compare apples and oranges, as the (excellent) RS1 doesn´t have nearly enough light output for a cinema.

As a consumer I can. Go to the cinema or wait for the HD-DVD/BR? In the cinema there needs to be a change of technology to keep up with the home in the contrast department. Some years from now higher contrast will come to cinemas too. Maybe from REDs projector. We need new approaches and new thinking here. :matrix:

[GlennChan]

Digital projection in cinemas is stuck with an On-Off contrast of ~2500:1 max which is not as good as film projection can be (but usually is not either).

And the digital JVC RS1 has deeper blacks than the best prints too (15000:1 versus 10000:1).
Miha, I'd be extremely skeptical about the contrast ratio figures you are posting. You can fudge the measurement method to get whatever numbers you want. For example, a CRT's contrast ratio will vary between ~17,000:1 to 75:1 depending on how you measure!! The (direct-view) CRT is also a little weird in that it has a lot of flaring, and so its contrast ratio depends highly on picture content. IMO, most contrast ratio figures are useless as they don't measure real world performance and/or the method is unspecified.

In practical theatres, effective contrast ratio is about 180:1 or lower; 180:1 is in the best best case scenario (this is the figure I vaguely remember from Poynton).

[jimhhester@msn.com]

I had heard all the hype, and even saw what was on the net, while I liked what I saw, it wasn't till I went to the Seattle seminar for Final Cut Studio 2 where they showcased the "RED" and we got to see it's first film, that I became a believer. I have never in my life seen anything with that kind of resolution. I think that the "RED" will revolutionize the industry not to mention the world!
Jimmy
Oasis Seattle Church Media Team (www.oasisseattlechurch.com/youth)

[Rob Lohman]

Glenn: it's probably the contrast ratio with a dynamic iris (which indeed does increase dynamic range, but also has some problems of its own, of course)

[Jason Murphy]

As a consumer I can. Go to the cinema or wait for the HD-DVD/BR? In the cinema there needs to be a change of technology to keep up with the home in the contrast department. Some years from now higher contrast will come to cinemas too. Maybe from REDs projector. We need new approaches and new thinking here.

Actually, there needs to be no change in cinema technology, Miha. What there needs to be is use of the technology that is already there. Make release prints of movies on Vision Premiere print stock (which is more expensive, especially if you're making 4000 prints), and the black levels on those film print will pretty much beat anything that home projection can do.

Also, quite frankly, contrast isn't the most important factor for projection image quality. Black levels are. High contrast scenes will make blacks look richer, because retinal/brain functions adjust for the bright lights in a scene, and the blacks (or usually very dark greys) look darker by comparison. It's relatively trivial to make a high contrast scene look good. A much better test of projection quality is to take a very dark scene with very little contrast, and see how it plays. If the projector/print can really hold the blacks when your eye is adjusted to the dark, then you're golden. Incidentally, these types of scenes are exactly where the compression on DVDs (and to a somewhat lesser extent BR/HD-DVD) begins to falls apart.

[Michel Hafner]

Miha, I'd be extremely skeptical about the contrast ratio figures you are posting. You can fudge the measurement method to get whatever numbers you want. For example, a CRT's contrast ratio will vary between ~17,000:1 to 75:1 depending on how you measure!! The (direct-view) CRT is also a little weird in that it has a lot of flaring, and so its contrast ratio depends highly on picture content. IMO, most contrast ratio figures are useless as they don't measure real world performance and/or the method is unspecified.
In practical theatres, effective contrast ratio is about 180:1 or lower; 180:1 is in the best best case scenario (this is the figure I vaguely remember from Poynton).
CRT: ANSI contrast ~ <= 130:1 (chess board), On-Off depending on calibration < 10000:1 to > 500000:1 (yes, really!). Actual contrast in image somewhere between the extremes, e.g. >= ANSI (if image is not defined to have less contrast) and < On-Off. Depends indeed on image content. A CRT has always pop unless the picture is graded to be veiled. Even a chess board looks quite good. Anything with On-Off not at least 10000:1 quickly looks veiled with dark material. At 15000:1 there still are problematic shots in average feature films. If you watch a lot of stuff in a totally light controlled room with different projectors you get a good idea what look corresponds to what contrast numbers. The numbers don't lie if properly measured.

[Michel Hafner]

Actually, there needs to be no change in cinema technology, Miha. What there needs to be is use of the technology that is already there. Make release prints of movies on Vision Premiere print stock (which is more expensive, especially if you're making 4000 prints), and the black levels on those film print will pretty much beat anything that home projection can do.

Kodak says the best prints have 10000:1 contrast so that's better than DLP and most LCD but not the latest D-ILA and SXRD (=LCD variant) and certainly not CRT. They go beyond 10000:1.


Also, quite frankly, contrast isn't the most important factor for projection image quality. Black levels are.

The two are mathematically linked via ANSI contrast and On-Off contrast. You can not separate them. If you have an On-Off contrast of 1000:1 your black level will never be better than full white / 1000. Usually worse due to pollution by stray light for which an extreme case is the measured ANSI contrast. If you want blacker blacks you want more ANSI and On-Off contrast. Plain and simple.


High contrast scenes will make blacks look richer, because retinal/brain functions adjust for the bright lights in a scene, and the blacks (or usually very dark greys) look darker by comparison. It's relatively trivial to make a high contrast scene look good.

Correct. For bright and mixed contrasty scenes ANSI contrast dominates the impression.


A much better test of projection quality is to take a very dark scene with very little contrast, and see how it plays.

That's why you also need to measure On-Off contrast because it will tell you reliably what to expect from dark scenes with little contrast. Unless it's very high (30000:1 and more) you will see veiling. And you do see veiling with all technologies except CRTs calibrated for the deepest blacks and gamma compensation to not lose too much shadow detail and the new dual modulation monitors with claimed On-Off contrast of > 100000:1. SED too but it's not for sale for now.


If the projector/print can really hold the blacks when your eye is adjusted to the dark, then you're golden. Incidentally, these types of scenes are exactly where the compression on DVDs (and to a somewhat lesser extent BR/HD-DVD) begins to falls apart.

Indeed. Huge On-Off (100000:1 and decent ANSI (200:1) will make all kinds of material pop that is graded to pop. But no projector except CRT offers this for now. And CRT has issues with other things. That's why we need new thinking and a breakthrough with digital projectors. The JVC RS1 with ANSI ~300:1 and On-Off ~15000:1 is a remarkable step in the right direction.

[Michel Hafner]

Glenn: it's probably the contrast ratio with a dynamic iris (which indeed does increase dynamic range, but also has some problems of its own, of course)
The Sony Pearl and Ruby use dynamic Iris to reach ~15000:1. So it's cheating and causes brightness compression with critical material. The JVC RS1 on the other hand has real 15000:1 without cheating and brightness compression. So most material has beautiful depth on this projector and only quite dark stuff with not enough bright(er) parts shows some veiling.

[istvanttt]

Somebody ever proposed to make a film-out print of "Crossing the Line"? Blacks which would be really blacks? Maybe even for RED it wouuld be easier to show the high quality of the camera without the mess to set up a 4k projector?

[Jason Murphy]

Somebody ever proposed to make a film-out print of "Crossing the Line"? Blacks which would be really blacks? Maybe even for RED it wouuld be easier to show the high quality of the camera without the mess to set up a 4k projector?

It's been done already. People seemed to like it, but Jim Jannard was disappointed at the lack of clarity in the print.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=36557

Regardless, the black levels on current 4K projectors still leave a huge amount to be desired, and it is not a trivial thing to make a digital cinema projector that can adequately fill a 70-foot screen and still hold the black levels. It's not simply a matter of scaling up a JVC-RS1 or whatever the current leading home theatre projector is.

Here's hoping that someone (maybe RED) will be able to pull this off; if so, it would be a huge step towards the widespread adoption of 4K projection, as this seems to be the single biggest complaint from people about the current crop of projectors (cost aside).

[David Mullen ASC]

Right now, it's a conundrum -- show the superior resolution of 4K digital or the better blacks of a good 35mm print on a stock with a high D-Max like Vision Premier. I think more people are impressed by the resolution, clarity, lack of grain, etc. hence why it's probably better to show the RED footage on a 4K projector. Showing a 35mm print of the RED footage would be more interesting if it was in comparison to a 35mm print of 35mm footage.

[Brook Willard]

As a company, it only makes sense for them to show the best that they have to offer in the best format they have to offer. To me, it's always been a given that they'd show fairly linear 4K footage on a digital projector only. Sure they could laser to film... sure they could add grain and an aggressive curve to make it look more like film... but that's not their MO. That stuff's up to everybody else.

[Júlio Taubkin]

Showing a 35mm print of the RED footage would be more interesting if it was in comparison to a 35mm print of 35mm footage.

And because of a recent showing of Zodiac in 35mm print, I am inclined to believe there would be no substantial difference between the two. :whistling:

But it remains to be tested, for sure.

[istvanttt]

As a company, it only makes sense for them to show the best that they have to offer in the best format they have to offer. To me, it's always been a given that they'd show fairly linear 4K footage on a digital projector only. Sure they could laser to film... sure they could add grain and an aggressive curve to make it look more like film... but that's not their MO. That stuff's up to everybody else.

My suggestment had nothing to do with film-grain and all the other discussions between film and digital. I just think that today the digital projections all have problems, and maybe an excellent film-print could show things which a digital projection eliminates from the original captured picture with the RED.

[istvanttt]

It's been done already. People seemed to like it, but Jim Jannard was disappointed at the lack of clarity in the print.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=36557

Regardless, the black levels on current 4K projectors still leave a huge amount to be desired, and it is not a trivial thing to make a digital cinema projector that can adequately fill a 70-foot screen and still hold the black levels. It's not simply a matter of scaling up a JVC-RS1 or whatever the current leading home theatre projector is.

Here's hoping that someone (maybe RED) will be able to pull this off; if so, it would be a huge step towards the widespread adoption of 4K projection, as this seems to be the single biggest complaint from people about the current crop of projectors (cost aside).

Thanks, somehow I missed that discussion. Will go and read it.

[David Mullen ASC]

And because of a recent showing of Zodiac in 35mm print, I am inclined to believe there would be no substantial difference between the two. :whistling:


Sure, or the RED-to-35mm footage may even look "better" than the 35mm material, but some people would find such a comparison informative. One could do such a comparison in 4K though for digital projection -- it may help highlight any subtle differences better, rather than use a 35mm print of both and have to deal with that factor, the "blunting" of information.

I liked the way "Zodiak" looked, by the way, but to me it definitely had a unique look from being shot digitally with a 2/3" CCD camera. It may be the most "film-like" HD-shot feature to date though, along with some of the Genesis movies like "The Lookout" or "Flyboys".

[feb31films]

I watched the prequels dozens of times, and one time when I watched The Phantom Menace the print just broke in the middle of it, they said they couldn't fix it in time for the next showing, so they gave us all a refund and called it an afternoon. That happened again with Attack of the Clones but closer to the start, so I hadn't wasted as much time, haha. I really hate film projection with a passion.

HA HA! I'll do you one better... Watched Opening Midnight showing of Revenge of the Sith and the print broke 55 minutes in to the picture. Theater management said Lucasfilm would "not allow" refunds or passes, so they started the film over for us AFTER it finished in all the other theaters (it was on 6 screens at this multiplex). We left and hit a 24 drive-thru for some grub then returned at 3 AM to watch the movie from the beginning. The sun was up when we finally left the theater. Film is great.... :whistling:

[Jannard]

I'd like the opinion of people who have actually seen Red footage -- including the Red team.



I haven't read this thread completely so I might be restating something already posted... You are asking for opinions? Peter Jackson gave his opinion and it was posted on this board. It covers a lot of ground that you are talking about. BTW, I share his opinion. :-)

Jim

[Mark L. Pederson]

We'll just have to wait and see what Red footage looks like, without the resources of PJ, and how people respond to it -- either on film transfer, or with digital projection equal to its inherent quality.

I'm looking very forward to showing the world what Red footage looks like WITHOUT THE RESOURCES OF PJ.

[Rocco Schult]

lol, "organic" look, I have no idea what that means. Sounds like someone has smoked too much weed...When I see digitally shot movies that are then digitally projected I see a movie as it should be seen -- perfectly clear, no artifacts, no scratches, no grain.

tried 60p ? looks interesting. Like video, but interesting. A look that IMAX sometimes has to when in faster motion and the more existing frames gives it a slicker look than film.


... and then you have to worry about processing it, which takes at least three days after you shoot it.

Where are you, that it takes 3 days ? Theres a word: dailies!


I manage my film from start to finish, there's no lab involved, and no reason to have a lab involved...'nuff said.

Have you been so demanding that you shot video ?


I want to see my footage at the end of the day on my computer.

Theres no problem in your opinion. Its ok as everybodies is and you don't like the film look, like others.
But there are 2 things: You don't seem to argument competently.
And there's a good thing about the small rolls, about changing it etc.:
It makes you think about your picture very carefully. You make every decision thought-out, every picture, every take. At least the people do that have a little experience.
Film, in my eyes, forces a filmmaker to be never nachlässig in creating a picture.
A reason to think about shooting on flash memory from time to time. Not to put yourself unnnecessarily under pressure, but, as its safer too one can take that as opportunity to work with that little space left and think better about what you shoot.


I don't think ORGANIC applies to film whatsoever, it's about as far from organic as possible -- it is full of nasty, harsh chemicals that would kill anything organic! Organic is fruit, vegetables, maybe something like that, NOT film, which is full of chemicals that isn't even close to organic.

Its simple, if you don't uderstand: organic means: LIVING. The information is not still, frozen.
Compare it to a picture in the wild: Imagine you, standing there and watching in one direction eyes open and not moving anything. Would you get the imagination that theres life out there ? Even when theres no wind, no animals etc. ? Just a calm moment over the day ? Yes, surely you would.
Now take that camera, shoot digitally on a tripod on that exact same calm day without animals passing, no wind and no clouds.
It might look boring. Frozen.
Then theres film. And compared, still you would get the feeling theres something out there, living, nature.
Maybe its because the living grain can capture mre information in time as the chemical receptors are never on the same place. And they give the infos back over time.
Whatever it is, thats organic to me.


What I want to see, and am perfectly ok with, is arguments centered around actual facts, like resolution, contrast ratio, depth of field, etc. Those are all measurable elements that can be compared from one medium to another. There is no excuse for making arguments that aren't measurable -- there are NO intangibles for film, everything is measurable scientifically. Anyone who says otherwise clearly won't accept any arguments, their mind is just made up already. This is just like the scientific method. If you can't prove a theory wrong, there is no way to prove it wrong, it's not a valid theory. It has to be falsifiable.

I'm sorry but I'm very blunt when it comes to arguments of this kind. Define your terms, then we'll argue. Otherwise, your argument is garbage.


Yes, you are. And you have a problem in discussing.
People call me analytic from time to time. But what you don't get is that there are things between heaven and earth that can't be described technically, by definitions or specifications. You should learn accepting that.
The organic look of film might be a thing to start. About films emotionally description of "organic" you talk about chemicals, resolution and contrast, other people talk about temperature, its hard- or softness or an emotional appeal.


Revenge of the Sith is not only artistically one of the best films over the last ten years, and in my opinion the best, it's also the best looking. It is not WHATSOEVER flat, it's extremely sharp and the colors are brilliant. I'm sorry that you're probably a die-hard prequel hater, too, but that's not really relevant to me.

Great films are shot on digital, and that started with Attack of the Clones by one of the great directors of all time. I don't need to defend that statement, Lucas is and will remain one of history's great directors.

One of histories best known directors would be better. And these statements are boring. Get over the technique, come to the story and its emotions. Thats what its about.

[Rocco Schult]

I'm looking very forward to showing the world what Red footage looks like WITHOUT THE RESOURCES OF PJ.

good point. Most of us will, or better: will not have those possibliities. Look at what they have done in 2 days. Weeew. Needs a ot of power and it wasn't cheap, thats for sure too.