Justin...if you haven't yet, check out the current Cinefex issue with the Lord of the Rings peice...TONS of model/miniatures work in that one...great article...and a good mix of practical and CG visual effects...as opposed to just the shots of the guys at their computers ;)

I have that issue as well, Casey... the LOTR piece is amazing, but the articles detailing The Time Machine and Black Hawk Down are just as fascinating. Can't wait to see the forthcoming Cinefex coverage of Ep2.

SPOILERS!!!

I've always said that no good would come of Jar Jar's continued existence, and look what happened, he single-handedly created the Empire. I bet in Episode three the Emperor makes Jar Jar his bitch.

-Shawn

Redone said:

"I loved the set design too"

What sets? I think 98% of the sets were created in the computer in post.

<<<-- Originally posted by Joe Redifer : Redone said:

&quot;I loved the set design too&quot;

What sets? I think 98% of the sets were created in the computer in post. -->>>

Does the fact that they are build in a virtual environment make it less set design?

The debate on Episode II around the we is highly amusing. These are some of the most common opinions:

The film is to dark - The film is to bright
The design stinks - The design is great
The acting is bad - The acting is great
The FX sucks - The FX is ground breaking
The is no heart and soul in the film - At last Lucas brought some heart and soul back
The music is boring - The music is exciting
...and so on...

The only one that can tell us the quality of Star wars is the person it was made for - a twelve year old boy or girl that visits the Star Wars universe for the first time (or perhaps second). And so far they seem to like it.

I'm happy HD looks great. I love working in digital and Episode II was a major proof for me that HD holds up on the big screen.

My concern when I saw it opening day was that the whole thing seemed too dark and contrasty. Well, I watched the movie for the second time last night, this time at a different theater to eliminate the possibility of a projector shortcoming. I haven't watched it in a theater equipped with digital projection so I can't formulate any observation which includes *that* evidence, but having seen it in two different theaters in 35mm format, I've concluded that the dark quality is intentional. Maybe it's to signify the encroaching shadow of the dark side. But at any rate, I walked away last night relieved since I initially feared that this darkness was a shortcoming of the HD video format and I really want digital to win the game... soon.

That the movie as released in 35mm is darker than the video material available for download from the Star Wars site is evident to anyone comparing the two formats scene-by-scene. If you look at the "Forbidden Love" trailer from the website you'll see what I'm talking about. Notice the scene in which Anakin and Padme pull up in a rickshaw-type transport on Tatooine. In the QuickTime trailer the Tatooine sand is really light sand in color. In the theater the sand is darker, bordering on brown rather than tan. Notice also the field scene in which Anakin and Padme are in front of some Niagra-type falls. In the QuickTime trailer, the field and sky, though probably modified a little to make Naboo surreal, are fairly light. In the theater, this scene seems almost like twilight.

In short though, I'm content that this is not a digital fault. And besides, maybe George Lucas was showing off the low-light capabilities of digital cinema.

well put martin_m....

i agree that the little guys maybe have the best input on this one.. it seems like were giving it to much technicall insight. which
may be too opinionated for a Starwars type of movie. ...

It could may be just as simple as arguing which Jedi is the best.
(like when we were young)

Set design in my opinion, can be great even if sketched onto a
napkin at a resturant...just like a car design would be good, if
even it wasnt made into a real car.

but agree i would have been more impressed if it some of the sets where ACTUALLY built. rather than CGI, but thats technology.

We saw it today with digital projection. My son has now seen both and he thought the both the sound and picture were considerably better today than in the 35mm version. The picture was rock steady throughout.

The only scene where I really wondered if film would have been better was the backlit wedding at the end. It seemed too contrasty with too little definition in the darker areas of the picture.

amazingly enough, I went to my small home town theater and they HAD 2 screens showing Episode 2 in digital projection. How they got the cash to foot the bill for 2 150,000 dollar projectors is a mystery to me, but I was super excited since I was expecting to see it on film. DLP is a new format plain and simple. It looks different than film, but is it worse? I don't believe so. Video has finally become an acceptable source for motion pictures, and the technology will only get better. I can't really say why I am so excited by the technology, but I think it has something to do with the fact that we are on the forefront of some big changes in the medium. I can't wait to see what happens next.

MusarInteractive: " That the movie as released in 35mm is darker than the video material available for download from the Star Wars site is evident to anyone comparing the two formats scene-by-scene."

I think the brightness on your computer monitor is turned up way too high. I too can make the images overly bright, or dim them down to black, if i so desired.

Either that, or the theaters that you were viewing at were using old xenon lamps which weren't meeting the 16f/l standard. This is an issue with DLP as well due to the fact that they use the same light source (Only dlp requies much higher wattages to light a smaller screen).

gvancott: How could the sound be better in the DLP presentation than 35mm? They use the same digital formats.

It's always fun to hear how great people think DLP is and suddenly they wish film was gone. That's natural I suppose, but guess what, there will be bad DLP theaters just like there are bad film theaters once 100% conversion takes place in a long long time from now. Exhibitors will get cheap and cut corners on lighting. Ever see a 4,500 watt xenon try to illuminate an 80 foot screen? I have. You only get around 10 fl's at best, but hey, it saves a few nickels and dimes. And DLP requires a 7,000 watt xenon to achieve the same brightness as a 4,000 xenon for film. That's gonna look horrible until they increase the technology which is done on a daily basis (how can exhibitors keep up?). In case no one noticed, the exhibition industry is rife with bankruptcy. Lucas thinks that there is "some kind of conspiracy" (his own words) in the exhibition industry since they REFUSE to buy DLP en masse. Brilliant Lucas is not. After spending tons of dough on DLP you bet cinemas will cut other corners to make ends meet. Trust me you have not seen the end of bad presentations with the arrival of DLP.

At least I know NEVER to see a movie in Las Vegas. I guess the theaters there suck much ass. That one guy who keeps posting from Vegas says every time he visits a theater the film is scratched and dirty. Is Vegas full of amateurs?

I don't know about you guys living in the US but here in Europe there is an on going debate about D-cinema (DLP) and content. The idea is that D-cinema opens up a whole new type of venue. Most cinemas only show films in the night time. With D-cinema you get your hands on HD content that you can put up for day time viewing. Everything from small independent films (that could never afford prints) to the soccer world series. This means $$$ to the exhibitor if he is smart. So there is not just money spent on DLP technology - you can earn some too. Profits 35mm can NEVER bring you. I think holding back this type of evolution is one of the thing that annoys George Lucas.

Seriously, DLP has all this untaped potential as a medium for delivering all types of entertainment. Think about how cool this could be; local distributors could be showing all sorts of media be it the super bowl, to motion pictures. What I love about the Digital fomat is that You can release on the big screen, cable, DVD as easy as making a choice. Video has truly become a motion picture making format. No question there will be good and bad DV movies, and good and bad exhibitors, but the format is the key. There is no excuse anymore guys! If you want to be making movies you can.

That's the spirit!

The reviews are poor. I'd rather go see Spider Man. Perhaps Enterprize will have a movie out some day (shot mainly with film). I think video's for TV. But who knows..., maybe one day DV will have resolution on par with film.

Has any of the Star Wars films ever gotten good reviews? Don't think so. Does that make them bad? Don't think so. ;-)

I just saw Episode II, in DPL last night (1024-1280 res- texas instruments), and I must admit it looked a lot better than I was expeting and for a prototype system its very impressive.

The picture quality was better than some 35mm films (Harry Potter for example) but I don't think its quite up to the best 35mm can offer yet, compaired to something like the "thin red line" or the "the straight story" - 35mm film can still look significantly better. The DLP blacks were never black, details got lost in dark scenes (When actors wore black you couldn't really see the folds in the robes) and there wasn't as much detail as well shot 35mm. That said the colors were very good and the lack of weave was nice, but I'd be disapointed if the current spec was adopted as the standard, double the resolution and increase the contrast ratio to something approching film and I'm sold.

I think digital has the potential to be better than 35mm film in terms of picture quality but to say its already better is jumping the gun a bit.

That said I'm sure many people wouldn't be able to tell the difference - but then lots of people still watch movies on VHS and are happy with pan and scanned movies.

Interesting item in the Chicago Tribune on this subject, and on Boeing.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chi-0205200012may20.story?coll=chi%2Dbusiness%2Dhed

Phil said what I've been trying to say, only a bit more eloquently. But I don't think that people on this forum are getting the message. The attitude seems to be:

"Digital...yeah!!!!!!! Digital means PERFECT!!!!! I am impressed by NTSC resolution so of course I'm gonna be impressed by 1024 lines of resolution that DLP offers. It's good enough as it stands now, bring it on! Yeah!!!!! Film gets degraded each time it is run, and I also believe everything I read."

I'm not at all certain that folks here believe that "digital" is necessarily better than film. If anything, "Episode II" might just showcase where each has visual strengths and weaknesses. As Roger Ebert recently noted, film looks best with film projection and digital looks best with digital projection.

But within a practical range of tolerance I think we'll gradually discover that audiences really don't care about the subtle little aspects that so deeply disturb videographers, filmmakers and projectionists. That said, it's logical to assume that digital production and delivery will move forward aggressively during the coming years.

I agree with you Joe. I've already heard comments from movie goers that digital is "perfect". I could only chuckle, quietly. The common perception is that because digital does not degrade when copied, all copies are therefore perfect. Quite a leap, for sure.

As for the folks in here, Ken is also right, the differences are recognized. Neither celluloid nor DV is perfect.

Reminds me of an expression I hear frequently...."perfect is close enough". ;-)

Episode II sucks. It's not, as many of us STAR WARS fanatics were hoping for, the 25-years-in-the-making super-prequel that would erase the doubt incited by Episode I, make true believers out of infidels and new converts out of the disinterested. It fails both technically and aesthetically, and these two separate failures are distinct and unlinked.

This is the forum to discuss its technical failures, but I won't be able to write this entire post without venting about the film's absent artistry. First, let me say that until a year ago, I was one of those who believed that the long-prophecied digital revolution would rain upon the cinematic industry decisively and unmercifully in 2002. 24P would be a proven replacement for traditional photochemical acquisition, DLP would render projectors obsolete for exhibition, and satellite broadcasting of high definition digital content would be very near on the horizon as the be-all-end-all of theatrical distribution. I was telling all my peers in the film school at USC this in 1997, back when 24P and DLP were unknown as acronyms. And in the months leading up to Episode II, I've been involved in prep to shoot a film on 24P. But after seeing Episode II (and also a screening of the Roman Coppola film CQ, shot on film and about the love for film), I wouldn't recommend anyone ditch 35 mm stock in favor of 24P. 24P isn't ready for prime time yet.

Episode II has some serious image issues. Compression artifacts, swimming in a manner reminiscent of mosquito noise, become unbearable in shadowy backgrounds. The dearth of dynamic range makes foregrounds appear flattish. And the up-sampled image is soft.

As for the CG and animation, it's ridiculously bad, on par with the work done on the Special Editions and The Phantom Menace. Yoda looked far more real as a puppet. Why is ILM still using a scanline renderer rather than doing things right with a good global illumination renderer and HDRI environmental radiance map lighting? CG work stopped being impressive with this film. No longer are we wowed with all the cool stuff that can be done in movies, because we've seen it all, and it's all overkill. The concept of the "digital backlot" movie doesn't seem thrilling any more, it just seems lazy. And watching characters walk everywhere they go--or just plain stand still--looks absurd on screen. Actors need environments to play with as much as they need other real actors to interact with.

The unfortunately mediocre acting, atrociously bad dialogue, unfunny humor, nonexistant story, and pointless pilfering from The Matrix and Braveheart make this film just another prologue to the original STAR WARS trilogy rather than a cool movie that stands on its own. We should call them preambles rather than prequels.

I'm going to state something that's probably going to p*** a lot of people off:
I'm willing to step down in quality to get a wider variety of films to choose from. That's what digital distribution will provide. Good (not great) image quality and an excellent distribution opportunities.

I'd rather watch everything in HD than only Harry Potter (and a few other blockbusters) in 35mm. There are a lot of great films out there that we never get to see or that never get's produced because of distribution difficulties.

And I think Episode II is a great film (being a Star Wars fanatic).

I liked it to.

And frankly, the cgi in star wars was incredible. A couple of polysylabic words does not change that. Chill out brothers, digital has/will bring good things. When I hear people decry the format because of some image issues, I stop and wonder about all the bad movies that have been released on film. I heard one guy say "I aint paying to see half the resolution" or some other nonsense. Content is the core of a picture, and I believe some of the best new films will come from a Digital format.

Back in 1977, the first STAR WARS movie (I guess now referred to as Episode 4) was not only released in 35mm, but also in 70mm. Projection in 70mm provided a brighter, sharper and more grain-free image than the 35mm scope format (which in itself was very good).

Although the original camera footage was the standard 35mm, the blow-up allowed the advantages of projection with the larger gauge film and provided an extremely immersive quality.

This move to digital represents a giant leap backwards in picture quality from what was available, and I suspect those who are touting the DLP so much here have no such frame of reference to understand what actually has been lost.

For it to truly be considered "progress," there really should be improvement. If we just refer to the STAR WARS series, this new acquisition and projection technology represent a substantial loss of image quality in favor of convenience and expense (Primarily in eliminating scanning camera film for CGI).

Digital projection may allow a greater opportunity of theatrical venues for more indie films, but the marketplace will eventually decide if that is sustainable or such projects are better suited for IFC or the Sundance Channel.

I'm with the others who write that digital projection is ready when it's at least as good as 35mm. They really should be striving to equal 70mm.

"Good enough" just isn't.

<<<-- Digital projection may allow a greater opportunity of theatrical venues for more indie films, but the marketplace will eventually decide if that is sustainable or such projects are better suited for IFC or the Sundance Channel. -->>>

Hillary,

most of the world don't have IFC or the Sundance Channel. I know I don't. Do not forget that the BIG $$$ could never be made without your foreign markets. Perhaps you could even get the opportunity to watch some foreign films that you would never have the opportunity to watch otherwise. Some very great films are made without even a thought of the American "domestic" market today. Digital video breaks down all boundaries in distribution.

atomicworkshop,

I'm with you bro. The asteroid chase scene was absolutely smashing! As was the Jargo Fett/Obi Wan "rain fighting" scene. I wish all films could be like that... Of course a film that has 100% FX shots is going to have some shots that are weak. But who cares about those? :-)

<< Hillary: "For it to truly be considered "progress," there really should be improvement. " >>

How shall we measure "progress"? Is subjective image quality the only measure of progress?

<< Hillary: ""Good enough" just isn't." >>

It's a darn sight better than "not at all", which reflects the distribution opportunities that the majority of independent movie projects face today.

<==As for the CG and animation, it's ridiculously bad==>

jeez, if that is bad CG, i would like to see whats good!

I know when i first saw the image from the DLP in the theaters,
despite the all technicall aspects and the "not good enough for big time"
bandwagon, I thought the image quality was nice...not "the best it will
ever get", but it was really nice! definatly made for a clearer picture.

those of whom think this picture quality was poor, then im missing out on something big that none has told ME about. I know its not up to 35 or 70 mm
standards, yet for what it was it was superb! I wouldnt want to see a 35mm
film projected digital, I would beleive that the format it was shot in should be the format it should be played in. ...fair enough.

Im not a "film tech" nor "picture quality anylist" but i do know as a movie goer
and videographer i think the DLP picture was great.

Theres plenty of films out there shot on digital with a "technically poor" picture, though portrayed a flawless peice of motion picture.
Isnt that what counts???

Guys help me.. where and when should I look for those artifacts?

The only Fx flaws I noticed were the bad compositing of the bomb assassination on Amidalas double in the beginning of the movie and the scene with the pear, where there was virtually no motion tracking. And in a couple of scenes the CG actors moved, well, like CG actors.

The movie looked a bit soft, but overall still better than most 35mm presentations.

As I am no cinematographer like most people aren´t I think most people will see it like I saw it.

IMO this whole quality thing is never going to be a big issue among "normal" people, just like the articles in American Cinematographer it is only a matter for few trained professionals, who might, like a violin player might have a perfect hearing, have a "perfect seeing" that comes from education and the knowledge how these things are done.
The mass audience won´t see these flaws unless you freeze the frame and tell them where to look for the mistakes.

So is digital filmmaking/projection going to come? A matter of artistry, money and time.

Artistry because many FX and image processing are easier accomplished when the source material is digital and 99% of the FX today would not be possible with chemical filmprocessing. How many layers can you do on film-stock?

Money and time because time is money. Not having to wait for the dailies for example saves a lot of time and money. And money makes the world go round. And all the money points have already been mentioned here before.

So I think this (temporarily) step back in resolution is worth the change from a hundred year old technique that has no advantages exept resolution.

my 2 cents.

Oh, yeah... I liked the movie a lot.

Cheers,

Martin,

I'm all for expanding venues for filmmakers, especially independent producers. However, theatrical distribution is a business and if people won't come to see independent projects on a regular basis, then it cannot sustain itself, and screens will be reserved for films with greature production value and mass appeal. Enter your projects in film festivals. If it has commercial appeal, you may just have the next "El Mariachi" and be on your way to a career within the industry (if that's what you want). Regardless of format, if you want anybody to see your project on more than one festival screen, you'll need a distributor. And in reality, the life of most such projects is much longer on video anyway. A favorite director of mine, John Waters (whose films have never been defined as the hallmark of any kind of quality) has great difficulty in getting his films on many screens, especially around here and I live not very far from his hometown. I must resort to seeing his films (produced on 35mm) ultimately on video. Regardless of this new technology, home video will still be the primary venue for independents.

Ken,

I believe the above reply to Martin can partially respond to your last question to me. Don't misread me, I'm not trying to blast the opportunities for indies to get their work seen. I'd like lots of people to see my stuff too. But I've sat through lots of amateurish work that should never see the light of any projector again. Forgive me if I don't feel that just because you shoot in a digital format, and a theatre is equippeed with a digital projector, it will be easier from a distribution standpoint to have your work seen. Technically possible, but your work has to be good enough to convince someone other than an arthouse manager it should be seen by the masses.

My stance is that it's premature for the major Hollywood filmmakers to adopt a format that is not up to par with current motion pictures when they can darn well afford it. George Lucas does not have to work in miniDV (or HD for that matter). If we accept this (sub)standard now, there will not be any business incentive for them to improve the system. And before long, the difference between seeing a movie in a cinema will be barely distinguishable from seeing the same movie in your home theatre (except for the people talking on their cell phones).

And your question regarding subjective image quality being the only measure of progress; Considering that we're discussing the projection of moving images, I'd have to say it's right up there on top. What good is the most advanced 21st century technology if it cannot match the current (regardless if it began in the 19th)? If you're dazzled with the bells and whistles of all things digital, more power to you, but when I go see a movie, I'm looking at the picture on the screen, not the machine in the booth. I've worked on 35mm productions and never got the warm fuzzies from the knowledge that I'm watching "Spider-Man" in the same format.

I just think that the industry standard should be able to project pictures with at least 4k of data per frame (equivalent to 35mm film). CGI is great, although as far as special effects are concerned, we've just replaced one kind of fake with a new kind of fake. But when scanned to film (for as long as that will be), it shouldn't be done at the usual 2k. I have no doubt that digital will become the standard. From many standpoints it makes sense, as long as we don't have to do with less than we've had before.

That's not asking too much, is it?

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.