Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Film-Tech Digital?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Film-Tech Digital? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Film-Tech Digital?

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 08-05-2002 07:30 AM

1) My eyes see things analog. Therefore, I wish to see films they way they are supposed to be seen, analog.

2) There is no such thing as digital projection. There is digital media storage, there is digital transmission (moving the information from the storage device to the projector), but in order to get something visable on the screen, it eventually needs to be converted to analog.

3) When digital audio came out in the early 1980's, it offered superior storage capabilities than the analog devices it replaced, so that when it was finally converted to analog for your speakers, it sounded better. Digital video does not offer this advantage, being still inferior to it's analog predecessor.

4) Does Film-Tech Digital mean that we now have to refer to film grain as film pixals?

/Mitchell

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 08-05-2002 07:38 AM

It's not true that there is no such thing as digital projection. A DLP projector is flashing individual pixels on and off varying amounts of time in accordance with the need to effect gray scale values. A pixel is either on or off with no inherent in-between levels. In fact, the way it works is to load the micromirror array with the Least Significant Bits (and all the mirrors flip on or off as needed), hold it for a tiny interval, then load the array with the 2nd Least Significant Bits, hold it for twice the tiny interval, then the 3rd LSB and hold it for 4X the tiny interval etc. Or they can start with the Most Significant Bit and cut the intervals in half each time. The sum of all intervals = 1/24 sec. And all of this times 3 for RGB.

The discrete values involved do indeed meet the definition of "digital."

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 08-05-2002 09:07 AM

Yes Steve, you are indeed correct. My point was not that there are no digital projectors, but there is no digital projection. What I was trying to say is that the information has to be coverted to analog (which is what the DLP array is doing) for us to view it. We see the resultant analog light output passed though the DLP array. Converting to analog at the last step before the lens is definately the best place to do it, but IMO, at present time not better than keeping the whole process analog (film projection).

Technically, all television is "digital", in that a CRT phosphor is either on (energized) or off (dark). The fact that the source for a conventional TV is not binary, or the fact that a CRT phosphor turns off at a hard preset number of milliseconds from the time it is entergized, does not alter the fact that the set has to "digitize" (in a primitive way) the signal so that the scanning beam knows which pixals to energize. We see the resultant analog light output from the phosphors.

/Mitchell

| IP: Logged

John Anastasio
Master Film Handler

Posts: 325
From: Trenton, NJ, USA
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 08-05-2002 09:26 AM

Mitchell, your idea that the phosphor on a CRT is either "on" or "off" with no values in between is erroneous. The brightness of the phosphor at any given moment is determined by the power of the electron beam. That beam current represents an analog value that is determined by the video waveform, which can be anywhere from 0 to 1.5v. (actually, -40 to +100 IRE, with 0 IRE units seen as black on the screen) Only at zero volts does the current to the face of the tube reach its maximum value and drive the phosphor to its brightest level. At any other level, the brightness will be less. Of course, the beam consists of individual electrons, but I don't think we need to push the argument down to the level of quantum physics to make the point.

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 08-05-2002 09:34 AM

I have to disagree partly to this. When analog recordings were transfered to digital they cut out the information that supposedly the human ear couldn't hear to allow more information to fit on the disks. In some cases they over did this causing loss of audible bass and highs. Thus if a rcord was well maintained it could sound better than the digital media.

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 08-05-2002 09:48 AM

Mitchell, DLP projection is still digital as there is no conversion to analog--what is coming out of the lens is still discrete pixels being flashed on and off at discrete intervals---that is digital. It's not like there is some sort of "optical capacitor" that smooths the flashes into gray scale values. Your eye does that.

Conventional television on the other hand IS analog. The only division is into scan lines and these vary in brightness and color continuously on along their length. Even the screen which seems to be broken into dots is this way only because the color phosphors must be kept separate. B&W television or color done with three projection CRT's doesn't have this. It's true that virtually all signals nowadays are digitized at some point or other (including within some tv's) but the system itself analog.

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 08-05-2002 10:28 AM

I stand corrected. Thanks everyone for furthering my understanding of how the technology works.

/Mitchell

| IP: Logged

John Moriarty
Film Handler

Posts: 50
From: Cambridge, UK
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 08-05-2002 12:33 PM

Given that in conventional (film) projection, the moving image is created by "discrete [frames] being flashed on and off at dicrete intervals" could it be siad to be digital. Or does the fact that each of frames is individually analogue make the system a hybrid of anologue and digital.

John

| IP: Logged

Bernie Anderson Jr
Master Film Handler

Posts: 435
From: Woodbridge, New Jersey
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 08-05-2002 04:59 PM

You people all fell on your head with this digital crap! What was it that brought us to work in this field? For me the whole magic of the movies starts with the FILM Projector. There is no Magic in digital. It's boreing and sterile like everything else that has the digital stamp on it. You all gotta agree that there is something about film running through the projector to achieve a moving picture that still amazes me everytime I see and work with Film. With Digital, it's not a moving picture, it's moving pixels. Where's the fun in that. This concept of new is better is pure crap. You tell me, would you prefer a battery operated car to a mint 57 chevy Bel-aire? I wouldn't. And I have this feeling that Brad changed the header of this forum to Digital (becuase it's better) is his own little joke to get people in a uproar. I can go on and on about the problems with Digital, but I will reserve that for another time when film once again, (the scapegoat for what's wrong with our industry) needs to be defended. In a nut shell what's wrong with this industry is that the magic of movies is gone and has been replace with the importance of how much can we charge at the concession stand.

| IP: Logged

Ken Lackner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1907
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Sep 2001

posted 08-06-2002 06:58 PM

A-friggen-men to Bernie!!!

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 08-06-2002 07:22 PM

Darryl said: "When analog recordings were transfered to digital they cut out the information that supposedly the human ear couldn't hear to allow more information to fit on the disks. In some cases they over did this causing loss of audible bass and highs. Thus if a rcord was well maintained it could sound better than the digital media."

You got that right. Sony's initial ads for CD technology promised "Perfect Sound Forever". What a laugh! I bought the very first Sony CD player released in the US: Model CDP-101 I think. It sounded like crap. CD players and recordings have improved dramatically over the years, but analog can still beat CD. Don't even get me started on the quality of MP3 or MiniDisc sound.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 08-06-2002 07:25 PM

"Perfect sound forever"

Some of my original cds that I purchased in the mid 80's have already deteriorated to the point they have trouble playing too.

See how wonderful everything digital is?

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 08-06-2002 09:18 PM

Early laserdiscs (video) suffered from a high rate of "laser rot" problems. I think the explanation was poor lamination of the disc's layers of materials would allow oxygen in and cause corrosion of the inner metallic layer. CDs that are poorly manufactured can be vulnerable to the same problem. When I bought that Sony CD player mentioned above, I had my choice of 1 of 2 CD titles available at the time: Bruce Springsteen's "Born To Run", and some other one I don't remember. I chose Springsteen. It still plays OK but the "sound" has always been kind of harsh and metallic.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 08-06-2002 10:31 PM

I have DVDs that have rotted. I have to go buy a new copy of "American Beauty" because my copy has this weird milky fluid-like stuff spread around the edges of the disc where it seems the glue holding the two data layers together has lost its bond. My copy of "Three Kings" strangely will no longer play in my DVD player into the third act regardless of there being no visible blemishes, dirt or scratches on the disc. It won't even load in my DVD-ROM drive; my computer totally locks up with it.

Dolby SR mag has more dynamic range and headroom capability than any 16-bit digital audio format, and can fool listeners thinking it is 20/48 or 24/48. Maybe that is one reason why so many DVD-A recordings are coming from 20+ year old analog tape masters.

Digital may be digital, but the bits still have to be recorded to some kind of medium that is just as prone (if not much more so) to problems as any analog sound tape or film print.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 08-07-2002 02:18 AM

quote:
Don't even get me started on the quality of MP3 or MiniDisc sound

You definitely have a point with MP3, especially those at 128kbps. But to me MiniDisc sounds DAMN good... virtually indistinguishable from the CD. I have a very hard time hearing compression artifacts on MD. Maybe I have magical MD hardware. However it's still only 16-bit 44.1khz. I wish one of the high resolution audio formats would take off for the mass market, which will NEVER happen as long as they keep charging super high prices for the hardware and for the software.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.