Re: What's wrong with this article?

I attended a SMPTE conference (in LA.)many years ago when DuArt did a
demonstration showing how the image quality degrades as it goes
through various printing stages.

There are many factors at work there...not just the lab's quality (And
that is a factor) but also what stock they use as well as their
equipment...it isn't like the quality hit can be assigned to a single
number.

Not too long ago I did a screening for Paramount and got an "EK" print
(which normally means it is off of camera original). During the run-
through I noted that it had EK earmarks...hand scribed cues, rock
steady....sharp....etc. However, it was also lacking that punch that
an EK normally has...the colors, the detail (not the same as
sharpness), the black levels...you name it...it was all a little off.

I called Paramount to relay my findings...only to find that it was an
"orginal off of digital." So, in effect, I was seeing a 2K print and
it sucked. To add insult to injury...the film was shot anamorphic.
So instead of MORE resolution...I got LESS.

A lot of people (including studio types) mistake sharpness for
detail. A digital image will appear sharp because the pixels are
indeed sharply focused. However...compared to a film print...they
often lack detail (the stuff between the pixels) and the net result is
a digital image has a hyper-flat appearence to it.

Regarding 4K...I think we will see the studios migrating to that for
intermediates and continue to migrate higher as technology allows and
as one has the ability to distinquish the difference. 35mm 1.85 has
about the resolution of 4K video though that may be a bit
conservative, it is the comparison most often thrown about. Film
still reigns better in color space as well as contrast ratio. 35mm
film shot scope with anamorphic lenses have yet more resolution though
they may suffer from astigmatism issues (that may either add or
detract from the desired image). Naturally, 65/70mm films are
substantially better than that.

TI is not necessarily ready to come out with a 4K DLP for cinema. The
DLP is a losing division for TI...It will be a miricle if it is still
around in 2-years. Check the news (places like the NY Times)...TI's
DLP sales declined over 20% last year and are expected to drop over
40% this year...that is not a strong set of numbers to be banking on
for technology for the VERY MINISULE industry that is the movie
business. Think about it...if every cinema in the US were to switch
to DLP tomorrow (including the ones that already have)...TI would sell
a whopping 111,000 for the year...about 10% of what TI needs to sell
to justify the division. So how about next year? Through new
builds...maybe 3000 units, if optimistic. Not TI or any other
semiconductor manufacturer can handle numbers so small. The cinema
industry, in its entirety, amounts to the number of units a
semiconductor manufacturer samples out in the hopes of selling REAL
numbers.

Even if you include the rest of the world (and you would have
to)...the cinema industry could not, in and of itself, justify the
production of DLP chips, let alone R&D for dramatic improvements.

The Cinema industry can be icing on the cake for other, more prolific
industries (like consumer) but there must be the cake before there is
icing. The cinema industry can also be a marketing tool to sell to
consumers...but if the consumers are not buying the technology...what
does TI need with the promotional platform that is Cinema?

SG

On Jun 28, 3:38 am, Airbus <3...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Your argument is well prepared and makes sense, however the SMPTE and BKSTS
studies are also well documented, and cannot be dismissed as "patently
ridiculous".  Perhaps the best lesson we can learn form these studies is that
numerical values for resolution are only part of the story, and cannot be
substituted for overall qualitative measure.

As for the last phrase "Unless TI comes up with a 4K DLP . . .)  that should
read "until" . . . It is clear the digital revolution (underway) is being
amortized on 2K, and when  the numbers are right, TI will open the padlock on
that box with the "4K" stenciled on it and away we go with a new equipment
program (and away goes the SONY 4K program, to its deserved oblivion. . .)

In article <Xns9ACA61A235F8DscreenSPAMBLOCKfi...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
scr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...





I find that patently ridiculous.  Yes, there is a big drop through each
generation but you're starting with tons of resolution on a 35mm negative.

The present situation with 2K DI has really taken a toll on final film
resolution.  The old way, with a film finish, resolution is lost with each
generation but there is so much to start with that release prints can (on a
well shot movie with quality post production) still look superb.

Now you go through DI and there is a huge drop in rez right there.  The 2K
D Cinema gets that 2K data and that's what ends up on the screen:  2K.  
Yes, the digital projector still lacks in black and color space and there
may be some compression issues but more or less they get 2K on the screen.

Meanwhile the 2K DI gets recorded out to film which is then subject to the
same chain that works well when you start with tons of resolution of the
camera negative but when you start with only 2K you end up with prints that
very likely will look inferior (at least for resolution) to the 2K digital
projection in the hall next door.

I'm hopeful that the switch to 4K DI will improve the look of film prints
and help rebalance the situation.  That coupled with less costly output so
that they can go straight to printing negatives could possibly result in
the film theatre having the superior image, especially given a general lack
of embrace of 4K digital projection (translation:  Unless TI comes up with
4K DLP it's probably not happening).

Then again, do we really need DI?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: There is no market for real cameras anymore.
    ... There isn't a digital camera out there that has the resolution of a 100 speed slide film. ... Why would I want to take landscape photos with digital that have *much* less detail than film? ... Even with film, a larger format will make that easier, by providing less enlargement needed to get there. ... If you looked at colour quality, rather than resolution, then I would agree that film can still be slightly an advantage in some situations. ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: NSFW chortle
    ... 'cos getting better quality for ohlvat the ... shoulders with *the public* just to see a film, ... but this "cinema" idea sounds great. ...
    (uk.rec.sheds)
  • Re: Digital Photos
    ... There is nothing that will beat that for quality, ... It depends whether you are after speed or resolution and seeing as you ... are talking about resolution try beating Kodak Technical Pan B&W film. ... the application to which the photograph is to be put. ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.apps)
  • Re: Why no high def network coverage of shuttle launch?
    ... The film in a camera cannot make the image the ... Further, even high quality ... >>>trying to say that a film camera can record at resolution no better than ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: Whats the point of Freeview?
    ... All TV viewers see what comes out of a TV studio via the ... Bits are what make up the picture and the quality of that depends on the ... of the big cinema screens can only be matched by the death of Concord, ... entire generations who've never seen film as it was meant to be seen. ...
    (uk.tech.digital-tv)