Red and digital projection

[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]

Digital Projection v's Capture

Digital Projection v's Capture

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]

Jury's out?

Jury's out?

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: