This string has a life of its own! Great dialog here.

Peter & Ken, while you will both get a lot of naysayers, you guys are right on. I think, very early in this string, I mentioned something about the bottom line will be the driver, and digital will be the last one standing. As the technology matures, digital will be lots less expensive to produce.

The typical teenager (or Star Wars groupies like us) won't give a whit about film vs digital. They will stand in long lines, pay their money and cheer. And they'll leave satisfied......

I find it rather curious that the technology du jour is flogged and flailed to the extent that it is. I wasn't old enough to be conscious when motion pictures became "talkies" but the naysayers of the time decried the insult to art. So it is. Nothing ever stays the same, and technology is certainly not an exception. Next years' digital will be better, and in a few years it will rival celluloid. Lucas is either a fool or an extremely brave man...maybe both. But, he's on the cutting edge....not stuck in old ways that are dying. I'm all for art and all for quality.....but, Hillary's point is well made...it's profit and finances that makes "pictures". BUT, there will ALWAYS be a dollar in MY wallet for ART. And, yes thank you very much, I WILL spend it at film festivals....I will NOT spend it on some of the pap that's currently being sold as entertainment, produced by the marketing machine that is Hollywood. There will always be a difference of opinion, and thank God for that. There will always be indies, and thank God for that....and for those who do it for the love of it rather than for the $$$$'s.

<< Bill: "BUT, there will ALWAYS be a dollar in MY wallet for ART. And, yes thank you very much, I WILL spend it at film festivals....I will NOT spend it on some of the pap that's currently being sold as entertainment, produced by the marketing machine that is Hollywood." >>

Boy, I'll second that in a heartbeat! In my book, well-done is well-done, regardless of format, medium or budget.

Bill,

you have a real valid point there.

Hillary,

You wrote:

"If we accept this (sub)standard now, there will not be any business incentive for them to improve the system."

As Bill pointed out sound on film was a real technological step back. The cameras became crude and held secondary to the audio system. In the beginning the cameras had to be hidden in a man sized blimp houses (they had to fit the operator in there) and could not be moved. Before this directors experimented a lot with dollys, cranes and hand held work. All that had to stop. Not much of a chance for visual storytelling that way. Also color introduced these kinds of problems. The three strip process was extremely cumbersome. The same applied to the CinemaScope process (huge lenses/weak light/hard to focus). This did not however prevent the technology to improve. There was potential in sound on film and color films. There is potential in HD.

And if technology was following the "step up" principle all the time we'd all be shooting Showscan or Imax in 16 channel stereo. 60fps 65mm looks much much better than 24fps 35mm so why are we not using it all the time on everything we shoot? Why did we step down to 35mm once we had invented 65mm? I made a 35mm feature for under $300, 000 so I know Hollywood productions could afford 65mm. And why are we stepping down to NLE's? A Steenbeck provides us with a much better feel for the actual film material. AND it's non linear.

In the end it's all a matter of what's most effective to storytelling and saving $$$. George Lucas has some nice points on the process of working in HD. How the material is "now" and there is no need for dailies. What you see is what you get. That's creative control - and what filmmakers are always been striving for. George Méliès would have loved HD. Once in a while I like to step down to his level and watch 9,5 mm circa 18fps films of hand tinted black and white. They are still magic.

Let me re-state that I'm not against new technology. It's just irresponsible for people like George Lucas to mis-represent both old and new technologies to make the horse he bet on appear faster.

Frankly, I'm excited about the POSSIBILITIES that this new technology has to offer. As long as the powers that be see a rea$on to improve the current standard to equal or surpass 35mm, perhaps with some kind of dimensional effect, I'll be there! And some of my favorite films are foreign, and ragged, sometimes crude (technologically and/or artistically), and often unpopular. Kevin Smith's "Clerks" and "Chasing Amy" do not need a large format to be the kind of entertainment it is, but "Lawrence of Arabia" wouldn't be the same movie if done in video. As Marshal Macluhan once wrote, "The medium is the message."

Martin,

Sound on film may have made the industry stumble artistically, but it wasn't really an issue of a backward technological step in the static camera (that was introduced by producers who believed that all audiences wanted was to hear people talk incessantly). It didn't take long for practices such as dubbing and sound effects to become commonplace. The early sound films of Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Shoedsack (sp?) with many moving camera shots, attest to that. Any "step back" technologically with the development of sound was the loss of the silent apeture to the academy apeture as the picture had to give up area on the film to make way for the optical soundtrack. The intital way to compensate was to adopt 65mm as a standard (yes, the wide gauge came twenty years before it's golden age). Unfortunately, the lack of public enthusiasm for these productions combined with prohibitive costs to theater owners already in a depression-era debt paying for the sound equipment put an end to 65mm for the time. Ongoing improvements in filmstock kept 35mm viable.

The switch from nitrate to tri-acetate filmstock around 1950 was a genuine improvement. It probably saved a lot of lives by reducing the fire hazard from nitrate. However, there was a different look to a nitrate film that safety doesn't have. Such nuances I'm willing to do without in favor of safety issues. And of course the possible archival instability of poorly fixed and stored safety film is now a problem, but hey, it saved money to do it that way, so it's okay.

The three-strip Technicolor cameras were more cumbersome than their monochrome counterparts, and the added cost (and discomfort) from the extra lighting necessary for proper exposure wasn't gleefully endured. However, Technicolor ADDED something not available before, full-color to motion pictures. That was not a step backward. Regarding Technicolor, the step backward came when the popularity of the "then new" Eastmancolor print film phased out the old, outdated dye-transfer printing. Films shot with those old cumbersome cameras (which negatives are intact), and those printed in dye-transfer (which have color separations) and the dye-transfer prints themselves, are in a reasonable good archival state. Eastmancolor negatives themselves and subsequent prints are notoriously prone to fading. It's a shame that few current filmmakers avail themselves to Technicolor's revived dye-transfer service. Then again, Technicolor sees the $$$ and is at the forefront of digital as well. There are those who are concerned with the archival stabilitiy and long-term retrieval of digital information, but that's a different Pandora's Box.

The reason that we don't see everything in the showscan format is that since 35mm is the accepted standard, the wide-gauge is reserved for special venues. Obviously, if you can tell your story with 12,000 feet of film, why use 40,000 of film twice as wide? Some viewers have reported that the unusual look of the Showscan format was distracting enough to forget the story (like a really funny commercial can be good without making the viewer remember the product being sold).

CinemaScope (the poor man's Cinerama) did suffer from some theaters trying to do too much from the 35mm frame. Worse yet was widescreen (the poor man's CinemaScope) which reduced picture quality by cropping off the top and bottom of the Academy frame in a pseudo-scope. The increased enlargment from smaller image was even weaker and grainier. Keep in mind that current DLP doesn't quite match this in resolution. I projected with the old Bausch & Lomb Cinemascope lenses, and with proper illumination, the images are stunning. New anamorphics produce even better images. And Cinemascope had 4 magnetic tracks of discreet sound on the film. When presented properly at its best, a good experience, as it uses area of the film unused since the introduction of sound.

As far as regular 65mm/70mm; there are those who appreciate the larger image, but those were originally distributed to take advantage of the six discreet soundtracks contained on magnetic stripes on the film. The introduction of digital sound effectively killed 70mm distribution, as such immersive sound was now available on 35mm. There are exceptions; There were a few 70mm prints struck of TITANIC, and though it was filmed in Super 35, viewers report an increase in picture quality (they said even the CGI looked better!).

As far as editing options, that's all a matter of personal tastes. I don't necessarily like linear video editing (as compared to film on a flatbed) but since I don't have any project requiring film, no need for the Steenbeck. The last 16mm I shot was transferred to video for editing anyway.

Again, I'm not trashing new options, as long as presentation quality doesn't dip below what we're used to. There are those who believe it's been trashed enough as of late.

BTW, George Melies was a genius!

I submit to you, Hillary, that sometimes a step backwards has to be taken in order to step forwards two steps. My opinion is that this is what is happening with digital. There is a possibility, as you said, that technology will get stuck because of economics...and we'll have to suffer the long term reduction in image quality...but, I doubt it. In the end, wherever that happens to be defined, image quality will be better than it has been. It remains, only, for those of us committed to the beauty of celluloid technology to accept that change is inevitable, and better is only a matter of time. Many times, where technological progress is concerned, "better" really means "different". Not better or worse, just different.

>>60fps 65mm looks much much better than 24fps 35mm so why are we not using it all the time on everything we shoot?<<

Because 60fps looks too much like video. Not in resolution, but in framerate and the way things move onscreen. Why they don't shoot more movies in 65mm 24fps is beyond me, but I'm sure it has everything to do with money since everybody is damn cheap.

But the advancement in digital is not all loss. The image quality may perhaps be a small step back (if your taste is in jitter and micro scratches). This is going to change rapidly. The new Feveon CCD provides three times the resolution of todays CCD's. The upsides are enormous. I think the overall quality of the content in Episode II (compared to Episode I) is largly thanks to HD. George Lucas pacing of the story is excellent and I think that is because of the working methods. It will be interresting to see how it will effect James Camerons work. I know digital video really brought the quality out of Lars Von Trier as a director. The "what you see is what you get" approach that HD brings is a real power factor in filmmaking. Filmmakers used to be painters that had to wait twelve hours to see what happened to that stroke they just performed on the canvas. Now there is no more waiting. Your original is right there. So if HD will give us better direction and greater content - is it really a step back?

Of course, you're right, Martin. My reference to "a step back" was only in regards to that esoteric quality of celluloid that seems so difficult for current video to mimic....I think it's mainly a quality of film's latitude, combined with lighting and shutter speed. My only real complaint about current video technology is the "poor" latitude....it's MUCH easier to get hot spots than with film....and the depth of field is significantly more with DV. One has to be more careful how attention is drawn to the key image in a frame, because focus is not such a variable with aperture in DV.

Here's a thought....maybe Lucas did most of his sets digitally so he didn't have to worry about latitude...stage contrast and lighting.

<< Bill: "....and the depth of field is significantly more with DV. One has to be more careful how attention is drawn to the key image in a frame, because focus is not such a variable with aperture in DV." >>

To that end, it was interesting to read Justin Chin's post yesterday about his first mini35 adapter work. Just goes to show that there's no obstacle that persistence...andd a few thousand dollars...can't overcome. ;->

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2106

ROFL....you got a point there!! Back to economics, then....ironic.

I read that George Lucas used the term "jitter" in relation to a film projector gate, as though the gate itself moves. As the gate is stationary, the only aspects that could cause something like that would be either a mis-timed shutter that may cause ghosting as the film is advanced to the next frame, OR inadequate gate pressure OR a worn intermittent mechanism. None of those is a given, and as in the case of "micro-scratches," need not occur with proper care and maintenance. Martin, you should go to a different cinema if that's all your getting.

Granted, it's a great deal easier showing something on my DVD, than on the Simplex. But there's something there with the film that I feel is worth all the effort.

Everyone here seems interested in improving their technique and provide better stories through this new technology. I also have seen threads on several boards regarding attempts to duplicate that elusive "film look." That's what many are striving for, as the video look is best suited for documentaries, as it is often not distancing enough to aid in the willing suspension of disbelief. I just find it interesting that some people are attempting to emulate the look of archaic film while eagerly anticipating its demise.

I've read about the Foveon chip (already installed in some SIGMA digital SLR's). That's pretty exciting, as the company is comparing it with many of the best qualities of film, including better lattitude, and since it doesn't have pixels, a more 'fluid' look to the images. I've been disappointed before, so I'll reserve judgement until I use a camera so-equipped first hand.

I've been experimenting with applying an electronic version of "contrast masking," a faint negative image used when printing slides (also known for their rather narrow lattitude) to control the contrast on the print. This in addition to polarizers and split density filters to control contrast at the camera stage. Gotta work with what you have.

All of those previously mentioned technological improvements involved ONE THING: more for the audience. Sound, color, stereophonic sound, wide curved-screen images. All designed to increase the vividness of the experience. Right now, the only thing that current DLP offers is a cost savings for the studio. In spite of the press releases, the pitfalls of film projection are not universal, but only exist because there are those who do not care for proper presentation. And those kind of people will still be working when the switch is made. Regardless of the boundless promise inherent in such new technology, the utopian ideal will still never be realized.

Bill,

I've not been calling for better than current standards, just equivalent. And it isn't there yet. And as long as the public swallows the current hype, it never will be.

Hillary...

Perhaps the standards aren't there yet because they can't be met technologically yet...but, I don't really know.
On the subject of the general public determining an inferior product, I can't bring myself to believe that that would happen. But, I've been wrong before.

Bill,

Hopefully, the current generation DLP is the first step (which is probably why most theaters are hesitant to invest--obsolescence at the speed of light) in what may someday be spectacular beyond film's capabilities. There's work in projection using lasers, now THAT would be sharp!

I agree with you on the public. VHS beat Beta even though the latter had a sharper picture.

At least it's nice to know that miniDV is so much better than either, and it's being so readily embraced by the public. There may be hope yet :)

Hillary,

"Martin, you should go to a different cinema if that's all your getting."

I can't. We don't have those in Europe. I don't know about the US - I've been to a bunch of theaters in New York and San Francisco/Bay area and didn't find any there either.

As to "film look" for video I think most of the folks doing that seriously (like The Orphanage) is trying to find ways to manipulate colors and lattitude the way you would in a telecine/transfer situation. Without adding grain. Magic Bullet adds no grain and they produce the best results yet. No one shoots 35mm and considers that finished. You color time. "Film look" is color timing video. Then everyone wants progressive so you have to invent different deinterlacing methods to achieve that. If there was true progressive prosumer camcorders everyone would buy it.

Joe,

I think you and I have different levels of tolerance to the problem at hand.
As a consumer I have never in my life watched a film on a big screen that did not have frame jitter or scratches. I go to the movies at least once a month. I have been doing so for 28 out of my 32 years on this planet. Even my local Imax theater have this "problem". This "problem" is often refered to as "organic film" by others.

As a DP I've shot hundreds of jobs on film. I've shot 16mm, S-16mm, 35mm and 35mm "scope". I always work in the best labs/telecine/transfer suites and go to Digibeta and D1. Some of the things I've done through traditional labwork and negative cutting for final work on 35mm prints. I have never in my life shot more than a few feet of film that did not have any microscratches clearly visible in the telecine suite. I have never ever shot a foot of film that did not have any jitter whatsoever. This is not due to my poor "education" - it's the fact of film. Some like the look. I shoot 35mm only because of the lattitude. Everything else connected to it is in the way of my filmmaking. Too many steps in the process is depending on "the human factor" - at my expence. The ultimate destruction is often in the theater (when Kodak, my assistants, the lab guys or some one else did not f*** up). HD minimizes "the human factor" incidents. A security guy opened up a can of exposed film once at an airport. If only it would have been a HD tape...

By the way - how come the first question I always get in every 35mm transfer suite all over the world is -"Do you want noise reduction?" I bet if they had some technology to reduce microscratches they would offer me that too...

35mm? - Don't believe the hype :-)

Joe,

Thanks for the clarification. I certainly wouldn't want to give 'credit' to the wrong person for that lucid statement.

Martin,

I'm sorry you have such bad luck with film presentations. While I've seen some bad film shows, I've not had to problems you encountered.

A few years back, I rigged up my tripod to hold a video camera along with my Bolex. I wanted the video in case something happened to the film, as I couldn't repeat this event. The video looks good--I filtered it to minimize contrast and have played around with color on it, but when I got the film back, transferred to video, the picture quality (that esoteric look) was so much richer and just visually so much more appealing. The effort and expense in this case were justified. BTW, I also made a one-light work print of the film, and when projected, still looks excellent. You are aware of the difference, and it takes more than manipulating the color on video to make video look anything like film.

I just can't afford to shoot film everytime for these projects. I'll make do with DV, working with subject matter more appropriate to the format, and try to make the best of it, but I'm not fooling myself. Guess I'll have to get Rick McCallum to hype my next video.

Hillary,

I wrote this before: In Scandinavia we do subtitling on films. These are produced by burning the titles onto the actual prints using laser. When projected in the theaters the subtitles are steady (well; almost) but the actual visuals - the film itself - have great frame jitter. This means that no projection in the world can produce a steady image on screen (unless they invent some form of digital motion tracking device that can work in real time). The jitter is produced in the lab with the prints.

A lot of people connect this jitter (the eye constantly moving up and down about an inch on a big screen) to the look of film. They praise it as "film having more soul" or "being more organic". I'm really surprised none of you guys have ever experienced this.

Since jitter is more common in prints than in the actual originals I tend to think that DLP projection will make movies shot on film look better. That way you can stabilize the image in post, paint out scratches and do over all degraining. Most major 35mm films are transfered from 35mm to 2k uncompressed and out to film again anyway. There is no need to step out to film again in my opinion.

In a hundred years some people are going to complain about some new technology not looking as good as digital. Not having the richness and emotional content that pure video stock has. I agree with Bill here; video is just different.

I think it's safe to say that in some significant ways, film is more *delicate* than video, especially in terms of physical handling.

Please folks, let's leave accusations like "ignorant and uneducated" out of this discussion. Obviously there are different sides to the arguments here but for the most part this has all been very civil. Let's keep it that way, and show some mutual respect for each other. This is an amazing thread, and I wouldn't want to see it terminated due to hurt feelings or bad manners. You guys are doing an excellent job here for the most part; let's keep it that way, please.

And by the way, as far as the Ep2 story is concerned, remember Lucas patterned this whole thing off those old Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers serials, they were a little light in the plot and heavy in the capes and tights; personally I didn't expect much more from the whole SW saga.

Martin,

I've seen some examples of those laser-subtitles. They do look sharp, and it is some indication of the weaving of the image. Granted, modern high-speed prints can be VERY unsteady. I wasn't aware that's what you meant by jitter. I've heard others call that particular tendency "float" I have also seen collectors' prints (mainly black & white and IB Technicolor) which have a rock-steady image. Of course, those were printed when labs had an adequate amount of time to print them properly, regardless of the process. Today, deadlines are so hurried that these high-speed prints are the norm. And that is not the BEST film has to offer. A steady picture is preferred, and if the photochemical labs are unable to provide prints with a more stable image, then a digital projection would have an edge in that aspect.

Whether it is cultural or physiological, the percieved difference between film and video is significant. Some projects lend themselves better to one format than another. Fantasy and science fiction, for example, seem to require a 'distancing' that film provides. But documentaries and personal stories can work very well shot on video. No better, no worse, just different. I just hope those visionaries who would make unique and fantastic films with great production values continue to use the best tools for their needs, and not necessarily the most expedient.

Martin_M, my presentations have NO scratches. None. Zero. Am I doing something wrong? According to your "logic" every film everywhere should have at least some visable scratches, no exceptions. Well since mine don't and countless other theaters do not have these scratches then that kind of puts your theory out to pasture since you say it is the nature of film to have these scratches. Jitter is caused by high speed printing. If your camera negative has jitter and scratches then you are using poor equipment in the first place. There have been many films projected on DLP that were shot on film that look completely steady. They do not use motion-correction during the transfer. Also, do you think that they motion-correct every single movie when it gets transferred to home video? That would be time consuming and tough to do, as all film cannot bob and weave in the exact same pattern each time.

Just a thought to the "whatyouseeiswhatyouget" philosophy... George Lucas and Jim Cameron, will never see what they get, because all they get is an actor in front a bluescreen talking into infinitiy. :-))

Cheers,

i saw a film the other day entirely in 35mm.

after seeing how poor the films condidtion was in...and after hearing from
all the former or present film projectionist on this thread..i was dissapointed
in the physicall downfall of the film itself. ...Never would of known before hand that film exist beyond these conditions..hehe............just some thoughts

There have been constant slams against FILM, primarily because it's 'old' and not digital video. Among those; blanket statements about his own profession of projectionist (if I'm omitting anything from your title, Joe, I'm sorry). And the majority of those statements (regarding film projection) seem to me as uninformed. For someone currently projecting, this is a direct insult, and if the insults are based on nothing but press releases and personal bias, and not on first-hand experience, then it could be accurately and dispassionately described as "ignorant," and "uneducated," both terms defining a lack of knowledge of the subject at hand. Having an opinion does not automatically make one an expert.

I haven't projected professionally for nearly twenty years (GAWD! CAN IT BE THAT LONG?!?!?), so the comments don't affect me personally, but today's PROFESSIONAL projectionists have a right to be sore. They have made good points of which I was not aware.

Those here defending the proper projection of film are trying to put things in perspective and point out the inaccuracies of the wild statements made by those promoting DLP. Some of those anti-film posts appear to be purposely inflammatory, regardless of the language used.

Thanks for your comments Hillary,

Actually as a former projectionist myself, I'm on Joe's side and I too understand his frustration. Frankly I think it's eventually inevitable that digital projection will take over, but I firmly believe that we're much, much farther away from having that happen than most people "on the other side" would like to believe. Thousands of US theaters switching to digital by the time Lucas releases Episode 3? Not bloody likely, unless his movie is delayed at least a decade or more. It's not a function of the availability or even quality of the technology, it's a function of business and real-world economics.

Regardless of how inflammatory or baiting someone's comments may seem, my issue here is that we are first and foremost a polite, tolerant, civil and forgiving bunch. I'm most grateful for the massive amount of experience and insight that Joe and Martin and everybody else brings to the table; all I'm asking is that we treat each other with the utmost respect and good nature regardless of any fundamental differences or disagreements.

Thanks,

This has to be the longest thread ever on the site. Whew! I think that darn near everyone put their 2-cents into this. Even a few new folks joined into this party.

I do not feel as impassioned about this particular subject, and kindred topics, as many others so clearly do. Whether we're watching film or digital projections sourced on tape or film, shot with ccd's, Foveons or shutters is, to me, of secondary importance. I just want to see more original, imaginative, mature stories told visually.

Nevertheless, this thread has been educational to me. Thanks for such a good debate. It's part of what makes this such an enriching place.

These long threads DO take all kinds of turns, don't they? Seems to have polarized people into two distinct camps regarding the continued viability of film. My only interest is that this move to a primarily digital presentation system is done so with eyes open.

This debate reminds me of the destruction of the original Penn Station in NYC(!) In the interest of progress, it was decided that the station be demolished (I can't offhand remember what stands in it's place). Architects and preservationists tried everything they could to save the historic and ornate building, but without success. As the demolition went on, they discovered that under years of grime, expensive materials such as pink marble were used, and this was actually a beautiful building, and would have been worth saving. But by then it was too late. So much of the building had been destroyed that it was impossible to go back and restore. New York is now much more concerned with saving its architectural history, having learned this lesson.

It just seems premature to bury film. Digital is new and promises much, but does not yet offer all.

Mostly content to lurk, and glean info from those more involved with DV, this thread finally moved me to contribute. Understanding ALL available technologies allow filmmakers to be aware of what tools are available to them as artists. My contention is that the best tool for the job isn't always the latest and flashiest one.

Photography did not replace the art of painting. And when color film became available, it didn't stop people from shooting in black & white. There has to be a reason for continuing these seemingly quaint and archaic mediums. Some have mentioned 'art,' which is something that feeds the soul, technology notwithstanding. If the discussion is ultimately about art, then the apparent glee in wanting to deny some artists their favored canvas just seems unnecessarily myopic.

Let's not forsake understanding how we got here before moving on, and make sure we don't lose anything along the way.

Phew! First of all; if I have written anything (in the heat of argument) that was stepping on someones toes, I apologize. I hope we can respect each others opinions.

Hillary,

if high speed printing is the most common way to produce prints for theatrical projection shouldn't there be a sign on the door saying "High Speed Prints Shown Here" so I can stay out and save my money? I know; it would probably result in ten screen in the entire universe showing regular prints (and Hollywood will go bancrupt in an instant).

Joe,

I have no complaint against (most) cameras. Only prints. Jitter/weave is a minimal problem when transfering original negative. Very few transfer machines can transfer the negative once gone through negative cutting. Otherwise this would be the ideal way of doing it. Without a doubt I believe you are doing the most out of film projection technology. However; I think that technology is weak because it is too easy to ruin a projection. I'm all for 4k and 8k. Until we have those DLP's I'd like to watch 2k (and it's only a matter of taste). Hope I get to catch one of your screenings some day. Hope you don't project any high speed prints (?). :-)

All Star Wars prints are made in the US. Don't know which lab. I don't go to movies only in Sweden. I go to movies all over the world. It's nice to hear that film can never get scratched and never get dirty. So let's assume the world is full of idiots. Why not invent a FOOLproof system? Why rely on the fact that film looks great handled by ten people in this universe. Those ten guys wont have time to show all the people of in five continents a great projection. Come on; if you can't subtitle movies without scratching why bother with film at all? If Hollywood is going to recoup they will have to subtitle. There is something like 5% or less of the worlds population speaking English. The technology is very, very fragile...

Peter Koller,

Lucas was not watching blue spaces. He was using the Quake engine (yes the game) to produce virtual sets for live keying on the footage. Brilliant concept. I recommend the Special Edition version of A.I. It demonstrates a really advanced 3D tracking system for producing a completely digital set of Rouge City. All in real time.

Hillary (again),

I'm not saying that ALL film projection looks bad. I think 99% of all projection do. As I see it Joe makes a living out of trying to bring that figure down to maybe 98%. And thats good. With DLP we can perhaps bring the human failure rate down to 50%.

The Future of Film Media as Art
 

This reply is primarily in response to Hillary's recent post and relates to the art aspect of film media in the future.

Though film cannot yet be buried, I think it has suffered a mortal wound and its days are numbered. In considering a variety of art forms that have survived the progress of technology, those which have remained with us do so without the need for technology to appreciate them. Let me explain. Painting has survived the advent of photography. True. But a painting does not require the use of technology to be enjoyed. It stands on its own. Think about any archaic medium that still exists as an art form and it survives becaue it can be appreciated without the intervention of technology. Once technology becomes a necessary intermediary, an art form's survivability becomes unlikely. Consider the Edison phonograph. We are still making recordings but I don't know of anyone who is still recording on cylinders, not even as an art form. In order to appreciate such a medium, people would need a record player that plays cylinders. The same is true with film. In order to preserve film as an art medium, people will have to continue using film projectors and, in the future, fewer and fewer manufacturers are going to continue making replacements for "old analog" projectors. More likely, classic film material will be transferred to newer media, in which case the art being preserved is the story and production value, but not the medium itself. I think film is on its way out entirely, even as an art form.

George Lucas evidently believes this is so and has chosen to lead rather than follow.

My concluding thought is that our technology-dependent art will enjoy a greater future if we focus on content rather than medium.

Musar,

I agree that film as a medium's days are numbered, I've never debated that fact. My stance all along has been that as it IS replaced, the audience shouldn't be shortchanged compared to what has been offered in the past.

As the amount of film production and lab work decreases, the medium will probably price itself out of existence. Since THIS art form is predicated on a return of the initial investment, I feel certain about that fate.

When photography became more commonplace, it displaced many portrait painters whose specialty was miniatures. There were fears that landscape painters, etc., would be out of work. As photography presented a more faithful rendition of reality (even color photographs were made in the 1850's by Rev. Levi Hill, and color photographic materials were available for general use from the Lumieres beginning in 1905), painting became more abstract, and provided options unavailable by photography at the time.

Your analogy using the Edison cylinders is missing one vital point: as recording technology improved (acoustic to electronic, optical to magnetic) the listener gained more presence, dynamic range and volume. The pro-film people are just pointing out that right now, the DLP technology has SHORTCHANGED the audience a picture as sharp as the format it is poised to replace. We're just calling for a realistic evaluation and push for the bar to be raised higher on digital projection so we're not losing, as the VistaVision logo said, "Motion Picture High Fidelity."

BTW, on rare occasion, I listen to Edison cylinders on my older sister's phonograph. While I enjoy my CD's more, I marvel at the ability that we can still play back and hear that sound from a century ago. Conversely, have you ever tried to play any video back from the Quasar "Time Machine" from a quarter of a century ago?

I am also concerned about the long-term archival nature of eletronic media, as has been intimated above. I recall reading in an issue of American Cinematographer that recording engineers using DAT have encountered difficulty retrieving the data after a period of time. As a standard practice, analog backups are being made of the original DAT tracks. Don't you agree that we should be cautious before putting all of our eggs into the digital basket?

And regarding "old analog" projectors, while we have spare parts for our Simplex E-7 projectors, the vast majority (if not all) of parts could be fabricated by machine shops. I even read that someone once replaced the fiber gear by carving a replacement out of wood! Meanwhile, my first-generation laserdisc player sits in the basement, totally unrepairable, because parts are unavailable. No matter, I jsut bought a new one.

When Eastmancolor came into fashion in the 1950's, MGM decided to transfer their original Technicolor 3-strip negatives to the NEW kodak neg, because they could save $$$ in storage costs. The old negs were junked, and before long, they realized how unstable the Eastman negs really were. History is rife with people being perceived the the marvels of new technology, and results from such over-enthusiasm have ranged from mild to tragic (can anyone say, "Titanic?").

I really don't care how the art is presented in the future. I just want to caution that when we burn the bridges behind us, there's nothing we need on the other side of the river anymore.

digital Darth
 

Just saw Episode II digitally projected, and I don't think it looked at good as film. This was the first time I've seen digital projection on a big screen. The close ups of people looked great, but in the wide shot scenes, I could see the jagged artifacts on the highlighted areas, and the pixel texture.

I DID like the fact that there wasn't any film "jitter". It gave it a very "solid" feel.

I guess it's something we'll get used to. If the movie industry had originally been invented in the digital format, and were just now being shot on film, people would be complaining about the grain and the jitter.

My solution to subtitling madness:

Get a DTS Subtitling Machine! This projects subtitles directly against the actual projected movie, and syncs up with the DTS timecode that is already there. It's perfect because you don't have to permanently destroy prints by burning subtitles in and you can also use a print from anywhere else in the world, just as long as it has DTS timecode.

-----------------------------------------------------

This post may have been edited by Chris Hurd without my knowledge.

I just heard an interview with George Lucas where he said, "...after a few weeks film gets scratchy and dirty."

Joe:
I'm sorry Joe, but even the "big guys" don't have much respect for your work. Love your web site BTW. Now I have dreams of being a projectionist...

In General:
I've rarely been bothered with film projection. I love technology but I think some people get caught up in it and lose sight of the art behind ANY type of filmmaking.

I especially find it amusing when directors go back and try and make their films BETTER (after their films are huge successes). I didn't need to see the inside of the mothership in Close Encounters, especially at the cost of some great scenes of Roy Neary throwing things through his window. Greedo fires first? I haven't even bothered to go see ET (digitally taking out the guns in the agents hands?).

The most interesting projection experience I had was when watching, "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" where the projectionist had not adjusted something properly (forgive me I have no idea what it was) and you could see the extra spaces above the actors. Boom mics would dip down in frame every once in a while, and go between John Candy and Steve Martin. It made for an interesting viewing.

Like I was saying before, EP2 seemed to lake the beauty that shooting in the "real world" gives you. It's so full of digital effects that it didn't look well shot to me. Lighting was flat and unexciting.

I would much rather see Jean-Pierre Jeunet direct a film with HD than George. But thanks for pushing the technology George.

Interesting Review:
In Harry's review of EP2 he talks about digital filmmaking with Robert Rodriguez.

http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=12260

Good stuff. A assumed that the pixilated scenes I saw (and mentioned above) might have been a product of scaling. George is prone to taking an actor's head from one take and putting it on the body of another take.

"George is prone to taking an actor's head from one take and putting it on the body of another take."

I like that approach. It's like "Film Editing Mark 2". Sergei Eisenstein would have gone crazy about the possibilities of that.

I think the CG and lighting of Episode II has nothing to do with HD. HD does not have to look like that. It's Lucas taste up on that screen. Before we know it we will have something more along the lines of Blade Runner done in HD. Check out George Michaels "Freeek" video. I think the CG looked fantastic in that one.

Martin:
Agreed, George showed that he cared very little for any artistic lighting in EP2. I realize it has very little to do with HD.

Another funny thing. On NPR a news piece they talked about EP2 and how with digital filmmaking the cameras are lighter and smaller, allowing for more versatility in shooting, smaller crew and faster set ups. I guess they didn't see any pictures of the HD cam that was used in EP2. It's just as large if not larger than most 35mm cams. As well they didn't mention the 10'x10' "video village" that was tethered to the cameras.

I think they confused the making of "Personal Velocity" with EP2. Again this is a product of the previously mentioned under-educated press over PR'd press.

I'm not knocking HD and I'm certainly not a ludite. I've bought and used almost every major miniDV camera out there. I am finally happy (incredibly happy) with my set up now, but of course that's using 35mm lenses attached to a pricey adapter on a mid level camera. The gear that attaches to my XL1 is 5 times the cost of the camera itself.

Okay, I'm probably going way off topic...

Martin, NO, not all Star Wars prints are being made in the US. I have personally handled prints from the US as well as Canada. I have spoken to Australian projectionists who verified their prints were struck at Atlab and the report I got from Lucasfilm was that many negatives were struck and set out around the world because they ordered some insane amount like 115,000 copies! There is no way one US lab could have cranked all of those out in the week's time they were alotted.

"It's nice to hear that film can never get scratched and never get dirty." No Martin, I never said film can not get scratched and dirty, I said film ran by real professionals does not get that way. This is you turning words around on people again and is NOT appreciated. And yes there are a LOT more than ten people in the universe who can handle film properly.

Regarding more of Martin's comments, once the subtitling is completed if the first projectionist is doing his job, he will have properly cleaned that print and from that point on the subtitling will not be an issue. However, most of the time that is not the case outside of the US. This is not because of a lack of caring, but because of the expense of exporting products from the US, where the best film cleaning solutions are manufactured, is very high and not everyone can afford it.

Remember Martin, no one here is saying that DLP should not become the norm and reference standard for theaters. We are saying that it is not ready yet, as in now, as in today. It needs to be higher resolution before the switch is made, and I believe you will find this to be the case in the end.

Justin Chin, that Lucas comment is more of his bs he is pushing to make his leadership with DLP appear to be stronger. "...after a few weeks film gets scratchy and dirty." That is a blanket statement that film HAS TO get that way. No it does not. If he had not shot his latest space epic on video and didn't have a LOT of money invested into DLP, he would not be saying that. Last year I sent his projectionist at the "Stag Theater" on the Lucasfilm Skywalker Ranch an online cleaning machine, some cleaning pads and cleaning solution as a demo and he took his print of Episode I that had been ran under Lucas care exactly 80 times and ran it through my demo items. The report was that the digital sound error rate dropped 2 full points after only one pass. After passing it through the cleaning system a couple of times, the report was that the picture on screen "sparkled" and "looked just like new again"...FACT!

why does DLP have to be a higher resultion. (note: it should get better in the future as the technology progresses) but why does it have to be a bigger res just to be ready for a theatrical turnover? I though it "looked" great. weither or not its "not up
to films par" I think its looked cleaner than film "IMO".

dont have any technologicall facts to add...just an inquiry..

It's not just resolution, but contrast as well. DLP just does not look as good as film projected properly yet. Episode II was shot on video and video always looks better projected on a video projector than on a film projector. The reverse is also true (and remember that 99.9999999999999999% of all movies are shot on film). Perhaps you haven't noticed that almost all of the DLP programming has been computer generated animated movies. There is a reason for that! Yes it does look incredibly good for what it is, but you must understand that with the costs associated with switching to DLP from film, if we switch now we will be stuck with this standard for a VERY LONG TIME! DLP units can not simply be "upgraded" as technology progresses. It's been several years and STILL the theatrical industry has not yet switched to "red readers" to be able to play cyan dye tracks properly yet. This is a $600 expense for the theaters. Do you think they are going to go out and blow $150,000? Do you think they will spend that kind of money for LOWER quality? Hell no. Sorry, but working in the industry I know how things work.

Once DLP reaches the full contrast range and resolution of 70mm film, I will completely abandon film full force and go 100% DLP (or whatever the format will be called). You can count on that. Until that point, DLP is in my opinion just not good enough yet.

I made it a point to see Episode 2 in a new digital theater in New York. The movie looked good. BUT... it did not look any better than the last STAR TREK movie. I was not impressed. I thought I would be in awe. NOT!

I think the move to digital is more for what the filmmaker could accomplish via effects rather than to impress the audience with better sound and image quality.

Plus... the movie sucked.

I asked my wife what she thought about the look of Ep2 when we saw it. She said it looked great. I told her it was shot on video and she said "Really, I never would have known." She pretty much sums up the point of 95% of movie goers wouldn't know the difference, or even give a rats, between DLP, Film or any other medium. They are just there to be enterained.

I did notice some compression artifacts and a bit of movement in some of the darker backgrounds but it was still pretty good.

I finally got around to seeing the movie last week digitally projected (probably wouldn't have bothered if not for technical curiousity, which is a sad fact considering how much my teenage years from '77 to '83 revolved around that world!).

I was sitting fairly close to the screen but not radically so, still I found the clearly visible aliasing and pixels to be distracting. I think this would have been the case even if I had been watching a film-originated feature. And I wasn't thrilled with the compression artifacts etc. that others have pointed out.

Pretty much underwhelmed by the current state of the technology. I think by the time the next (and final, thankfully) installment appears, we will be substantially further along from a technical standpoint. Especially in the acquisition end.