Digital Projection - YUK!!!

[nzben]

The other day, for the first time I walked out of a cinema showing a film I actually wanted to see. It was also the first time I had been to a film screened in a "digital" cinema.

I hope that the problem was with the cinema I went to, and this is not what is in store for the movie going experience. I was really aware I was seeing a video projection within a few seconds of the picture starting (I didn't know that it was a digital screening beforehand). It was especially distracting on the subtitles, but also made film shot on 35mm look like it was on digibeta.

Apparently the projector was HD (2K). The resolution was fine, its just looked like nasty video, very domestic. The projector was a panasonic PTD550E, installed by ATLAB. Here is the link that shows the specs:

http://www.rialto.co.nz/vistait/vill...s&CinemaID=R08

It's a nice bit of propaganda about how bad 35mm projection is.

In comparison, I recently saw a film that was shot on sony 900, printed out to 35mm and projected on one of NZ'z biggest screens. I went specifically to see how it handled a big screen viewing. I was suprised how good it was. Although it looked like it had been shot on video, it had no obvious artifacting, pixelation, etc.

I also recently saw a screening of a dark (artistically) film that was shown on the biggest screen in the southern hemishpere, where the projector had the bulbs dimmed quite a bit, it looked fine - certainly better than the digital screening.

I really hope that digital projection is not this bad. And the ticket price was the same. I wouldn't bother in the future. If anyone is going to a screening of a film at the "Rialto" in Auckland, check if you are seeing a digital projection. If so, don't go!!! I can't believe a semi "arthouse" chain is doing this!! Very disapointing.

[David Mullen ASC]

Perhaps that projector and digital master was not DCI compliant.

I had the opposite reaction recently -- saw "National Treasure 2" and part of "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story" (the second movie was shot on the Panavision Genesis so I snuck in to see ten minutes), both projected in 2K at the Cinema Delux in Culver City / Howard Hughes Parkway area.

I first saw "Walk Hard" and since I came in the middle, I didn't know that it wasn't a film print. I recalled how the last Genesis movie looked that I saw, "Superbad", which was a bit soft and muddy. So I was amazed at how clean and sharp "Walk Hard" was -- rich colors, clean, and even with some lens diffusion, sharp enough at times to see the make-up powder on the faces (i.e. really sharp -- and this is HD origination). Then I realized that this was being digitally projected (telltale clue is that there was never a speck of dust to go by...) Essentially a 2K presentation of an HD movie is like seeing the original recordings, there's no degrading steps.

So then I went to see "National Treasure 2", which I knew was shot in Super-35, so I was a bit worried about how a typical release print made from a dupe was going to look in comparison to what I just saw. But to my surprise, this screening, in a different room, was also in 2K digital projection, and it looked fantastic too.

To me, the 2K presentations look like first generation 35mm answer prints using Vision Premier, rich colors, clean, steady, etc. And there is a lack of digital artifacts compared to the 1.2K DLP systems of a few years ago.

But what you are describing sounds more like a typical HD video projector, maybe even using a tape source like HDCAM.

[Wes Printz]

Ben,
I hope you complained to the manager and asked for a refund on the spot. According to a blurb in this Rialto document, they are serious about quality:

http://www.rialto.co.nz/vistait/vill...es/ECinema.pdf

"We take issues of quality very seriously and act immediatly when we become aware of problems impacting sound or image qaulity, no matter whether the movie is supplied for eCinema or film."

"We pride ouselves on providing the best movie experience in new Zealand and eCinema is part of this."

Obviously, you did not have a pleasant experience. With the price of screenings down here, one would desire value for their money.

[M Most]

Apparently the projector was HD (2K). The resolution was fine, its just looked like nasty video, very domestic. The projector was a panasonic PTD550E, installed by ATLAB. Here is the link that shows the specs:

http://www.rialto.co.nz/vistait/vill...s&CinemaID=R08

The page you mention clearly calls this "E Cinema," not "Digital Cinema," and compares it to DVD's, not to film. E Cinema projectors are typically HD, not 2K (and, BTW, HD and 2K are absolutely not the same thing, especially in digital projection terms). They are usually equivalent to a high end home theater projector - some actually ARE sold as home theater projectors - and are often single chip HD projectors (sometimes 3 chip, but always limited to HD video formats). In the Pacific Rim - particularly in India - they are being used in multiplex theaters, where the quality is considered "good enough" considering the very affordable price. They are usually sourced from HD video, regardless of how that is supplied. A digital cinema projector, however, is a very different beast, both in terms of its capabilities and its price. They are almost always 3 chip (2048x1080 DLP Cinema chips, made specifically for this purpose), with a much brighter lamp output, and sourced from a digital cinema package being played on a digital cinema server. In the US, E Cinema projectors are typically used only for "pre show" material - usually the "behind the scenes" and commercial adverts that are shown prior to the actual feature presentation - in rooms that have film projection for the trailers and feature. Even the trailers are not usually projected on these, and certainly the features aren't.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Rialtos digital cinema looks bad because their screening DVDs in their theaters. It's shocking but it's actually true apparently this issue was raised on the headstrong forums.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Apparently the projector was HD (2K). The resolution was fine, its just looked like nasty video, very domestic. The projector was a panasonic PTD550E, installed by ATLAB. Here is the link that shows the specs:

http://www.rialto.co.nz/vistait/vill...s&CinemaID=R08

They shouldn't even be using that projector! The Panasonic PT-D55x[x][n] series projectors all have 3500 to 5000 lumens, XGA resolution (not even HD, they're 1024x768) and are targeted at corporate venue presentations, trade show floors, etc. They're bigger and brighter than many home theatre projectors (and more expensive), but IMO not as good as most of the newer HD resolution DLP offerings. I would be offended if I paid money to see something projected on the PT-D550E (Euro model, 1st-gen D55xx unit).

[Alexis Hanawalt]

I nearly walked out of Last Samurai at the Fox in Westwood because I could see individual pixels on the screen. That was 2K. On the other hand, I saw Santa Sangre projected off a normal DVD via a 4K projector at the Nuart and it looked like film. I think there's lots of analog/digital growing pains to be faced for at least a few more years.

[David Mullen ASC]

"The Last Samurai" was released in 2003 so that would have been the older 1.2K DLP projectors, and wouldn't have used modern DCI specs. Even by 2005, many of the theaters showing digital releases were still using these early projectors. It wasn't until 2006 that you started seeing the newer 2K DLP projectors being installed.

[dino g]

there is a huge difference as has been said in the projectors that are made for home cinema and or large venue rental versus the cinema projectors. specifically, dlp originally licensed the cinema chips to only 3 oem manufacturers; BARCO, Christies and DPI. panasonic and others were not willing to pay the millions required to be "cinema projectors". the 1.2 cinema projectors that started to ship in oct of 2001 were quite good compared to what was in the marketplace at the time, but quickly became "old" within 18-24 months. many "DC" movie theatres are not in fact DCI compliant. therefore suffer from a host of deficiencies; lumens, bulb age, playback device type - codec used, chip set, screen type, throw distance incompatibility, screen size relative to room size, sound capability due to processor functionality, on and on and on.

there is a very specific science to what is acceptable and what is approved, and it is relative to the audiences awareness to quality. perhaps you are the only "golden eye" to ever watch a movie at that particular theatre and thus the only person to complain, in los angeles, it is hard to get away with anything but the best and still get business.

having said all that, the 1.2 projectors, projecting SD dvd's look very nice at week 3 versus film at week three, so as the run length increases the quality level versus film changes. on the other hand, bulb life in the digital projectors is very short, and many theatres try and extend the life by keeping bulbs at economy and not high brightness and then also do not change out their bulbs until the last minute, which is usually several hundred hours past the bulbs peak performance.

[nzben]

For the record, yes I did complain and got a transfer to another film I wanted to see in a different theater.

Sounds like it is a case of a cinema chain putting semi domestic gear in and charging as if it was pro....

I did ask if they had had many complaints and was told "suprisingly few people actually notice a difference". This is probably the sad truth, although I'm sure there must be a sub-conscious effect. In this case the theater was packed.

It's unfortunate that the attitude of the theater owners are "if it brings in money it's good enough". I don't accept their blurb that it helps bring in films that would otherwise not be shown. They have been operating for years without the aid of digi -projection - it probably just makes it easier for them, at the expence of the publics' movie going experience. In this case the film has a fairly widespread release, and is showing on 35mm projection in other theaters.