Red and digital projection

[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]

Red Fan

Red Fan

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

 

[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]

Revenge on film

Revenge on 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.

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.