"Knowing"...

[Jeff Coatney]

I just watched this film over the weekend and was wondering if anybody else thought there was a softness to the image. When the previews were showing, everything looked tack sharp and in focus. Previews included Wolverine and Terminator Salvation. However, when the movie started the projectionist had to readjust the projector because it was pointing off screen. When he got it back on screen, the movie started and I really thought EVERYTHING looked a tiny bit soft. The problem is I don't know if

1. It looked soft because the projector was out of focus.
2. It looked soft because some kind of processing was done to the footage.
3. It looked soft because that's just how RED footage looks like on the big screen.

I was talking to my friends about it after the movie, and they felt the image was processed softer to try to make it look like film. I always felt sharper images looked more like film. In any case, did anyone notice a softness in their viewing?

The film print I saw of "Knowing" wasn't soft, but it did have some unsightly chemical staining on one of the reel changes near the third act.

The "softness" characteristic you cite is visible even on film-originated projects, so you should investigate all the variables that could make it possible and not only the three you mention.

I'd guess the errant projectionist may have had something to do with it.

In any case, I doubt the softness has anything to do with the r3d's.

 

[david farland]

Yes I did. When it began the medium to medium long shots looked soft. I was going to speak to the projectionist and tell him the projector was out but realised the close up shots were okay. Some of the medium shots when they needed to follow focus looked a little like the focus puller simply lost it and when it became too bad, they cut. I've also read wavelet compression artifacts can severely soften the image. May of been that.
either way it was that distracting I was about to get up and ask them to focus the projector. I also wished there was more colour saturation or was it lack of latitude within these low light unsaturated shots that bugged me.
There were lots of things I liked about movie, and proud that Red was doing it but seeing these out of focus/low image information (low saturation?) aspects that bugged me. I was thinking this is Red at 8 stops, can wait to see pictures at 10 stops with Epic.

D

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

There were definitely a few times where I noticed softness, like the focus puller was messing with the image.

I think the time that Cage was sitting next to his kids bed, and talking to him the first time I think about Heaven? His face was a bit soft, and then focused more sharply. Looked like the DOF was veeeery shallow in that shot when they did the close-up on his face. (My memory could be off, but that's when I remember seeing it.)

 

[michael zaletel]

Pics of Red Credits at end of Knowing

Pics of Red Credits at end of Knowing

I typically stay to watch the entire film credits (to remind myself how many people are required to make a feature film) and was very proud to see the RED ONE credits at the end instead of the typical Panavision credits.

-michael zaletel
(shooter)

 

[Jannard]

I understand that there were a few scenes where they cropped heavily into the image for something tighter... might explain a soft scene or two. I saw it twice... in a theater from a film print and one digital. The difference was astounding. Overall, resolution and cleanness of image was a showcase for RED. And that was shot Build 15.

Jim

 

[Rick Darge]

I believe it was because of the film print. I saw it on a film print and thought the same thing about the softness. I actually asked the projector to fix the issue but it was as sharp as it could be. Has to be the print. I still haven't seen it digitally

 

[david farland]

I saw it twice... in a theater from a film print and one digital. The difference was astounding.
Jim

Jim,
Are there things we need to look out for (or avoid) when tranferring (or shooting/editing) Red images that will be transferred from digital to film?

D

 

[jnavickas]

Do we know the specs of the file used for digital projection?

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

very proud to see the RED ONE credits at the end instead of the typical Panavision credits.

-michael zaletel
(shooter)

Careful Michael... you just commited a felony.

 

[Bob Torrance]

I saw it twice... in a theater from a film print and one digital. The difference was astounding.

Jim

Jim,

By this do you mean the digital looked better?

I have not seen digital yet. The film print I saw was a little dark (low projector lamp, maybe) and some of the wide shots were a little soft. Especially the classroom in the beginning. Nice image though.

Bob Torrance

 

[Matthew Verkler]

I saw the movie first on film, and then with digital projection, back to back so my perception was still in tune. I felt some of the wider shots on film (esp. daytime) looked a little soft, but wasn't bothered by the closer shots (which is totally predictable, as wide shots really require the most resolution to be pleasing). With digital projection, everything was perfectly sharp, but good sharp, not Sony sharp. Digital projection had slightly different motion characteristics, which makes sense as they display their 24 frames per second in different ways. Neither was better or worse, just a little different.

I also noticed that the previews on the film projection seemed sharper than Knowing, but since the digital projection was great, I don't think that's a Red issue. Also, the wide FX shots (which are largely FX) in Knowing had the same bit of softness on the film projection.

I would suggest that everyone in the Red community see it both ways if possible. I understand that the "DI" was at 2K, and it still looked great. There was no shadow noise to speak of, and that was Build 15, so I can't wait to see a 4K DI Build 16 or later movie. I know what that looks like of course, but I don't have a 40 foot screen (yet!) to really see what it looks like.

Matthew Verkler

 

[Deanan]

The film print has alot less grain than trailers usually in front of Knowing. Grain adds quite a bit to the perception of sharpness however if don't have it to start with then it becomes more of a stylistic choice to add it or not.

 

[Ralph Wong]

I understand that there were a few scenes where they cropped heavily into the image for something tighter... might explain a soft scene or two. I saw it twice... in a theater from a film print and one digital. The difference was astounding. Overall, resolution and cleanness of image was a showcase for RED. And that was shot Build 15.

Jim

I'm guessing you are saying that the digital projection was much better than the film print. Where do you go in Los Angeles county to watch "Knowing" projected digitally, or did you have a private viewing somewhere? I would be very interested to see the difference even if it cost me eleven bucks to watch the same movie again.

 

[Christian Edwards]

Once apon a time,
I tried to watch this movie without any regard to technical merit to give a level playing ground for overall impression... the most strikingly obvious thing to stand out for me was... It's here, it's real & it's happening .Thats right i know what youre thinking ....Im a genius
Now i know this has been brushed apon more than once but how about that Red digital projector from Acquisition to Visualisation.If you can get the images in you can get the images out .
The end

 

[Kenn Michael]

Where is it screening digitally in LA?

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Where is it screening digitally in LA?

anyone?

 

[Daniel Browning]

Where is it screening digitally in LA?

The first rule about digital cinema is: you don't talk about digital cinema.

Seriously, what is the world coming to? We've had world-class 2K digital theaters for six years in our little town of 160,000 people. $7.50/ticket. If you can't find a quality digital cinema in a city with 18 million people, something is wrong.

If you've not already been attending top notch digital projection, let me prepare you by saying that you may not want to go back to regular film projection after this. Film projection has been dead to me since 2003 (IMAX and 70mm excepted) .

I'm not from the area, but Google led me to a nice digital theater very quickly:

The Bridge: Cinema de Lux, 6081 Center Drive

There are more listed on the
Southern California Movie Theaters web site, but you'll have to wade through them if you want to find the ones with quality 2K projection and sound systems.

Good luck.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

There are more listed on the
Southern California Movie Theaters web site, but you'll have to wade through them if you want to find the ones with quality 2K projection and sound systems.

Good luck.

I was hoping someone would point to one of the better ones, that way I could avoid the work and know I was going to the best place I could.

 

[Peter Majtan]

I was hoping someone would point to one of the better ones, that way I could avoid the work and know I was going to the best place I could.

Let me know when You decide to go - I am yet to see it myself...

Peter

 

[Rudi Herbert]

I was hoping someone would point to one of the better ones, that way I could avoid the work and know I was going to the best place I could.

Roberto,

As a proper cinephile and moviemaker, you should have picked a good theater by now and do all your movie watching there. I, for one, no longer watch anything projected on film, since the quality of film projection nowadays is more dismal than ever, with 90% of films exhibiting shudder, dust, scratches, lamps turned low and constant soft focus. I found 2-3 theaters with Barcos and Christies and go there only. Sometimes, you gotta do some of the ground work for yourself, but if you ever move to Miami, Utah or Baja California, I can tell you where to go