Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | my password | register | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Ebert on the future (?) of digital (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: Ebert on the future (?) of digital
Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12088
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-07-2002 01:59 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I lifted this following very interesting Question and Answer from Roger Ebert's "Movie Answer Man" column. Comments?

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

Q. Once again you're touting the greatness of Maxivision. I am thoroughly convinced of its greatness, and have been waiting to see it ever since your original coverage. Digital projection seems to have made more headway, though. Can we really expect to see Maxivision any time soon?

Aaron Kucera, Dallas

A. You might be surprised. A bombshell research report just released by Credit Suisse/First Boston supports Maxivision as preferable to digital projection, which is "not ready for prime time." The most unexpected finding of the report is that digital projection would not be cheaper than the current system of distributing prints, but, because of the financing costs, would be more expensive. Other bullet points: Maxivision has dramatically better picture quality; its cost is around $10,000 a booth, as opposed to $100,000 to $150,000 for digital; it is backward compatible and can project all films ever made; and the current Texas Instruments digital standard uses an inferior standard. The report praises the Kodak digital standard as superior, but criticizes Kodak for not supporting Maxivision--which, because it uses film, dovetails with Kodak's dominance of the celluloid market. Since the much-heralded digital rollout of "Star Wars Episode II" was a non-event, it's unlikely that exhibitors are prepared to make an enormous investment in digital projectors. If they want something new, affordable and dramatically better, Maxivision is the obvious choice.

 |  IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

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


 - posted 07-07-2002 02:52 PM      Profile for Darryl Spicer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Interesting artical Ebert wrote on the subject 2 1/2 years ago.


December 12, 1999

BY ROGER EBERT MOVIE CRITIC

I have seen the future of the cinema, and it is not digital. No matter what you've read, the movie theater of the future will not use digital video projectors, and it will not beam the signal down from satellites. It will use film, and the film will be right there in the theater with you.
How can this be? How can a technology that is a century old possibly be preferable to new digital gizmos? This is a story of the limitations of video projection, and the hidden resources of light-through-celluloid. Please read carefully. The future of traditional cinema is at stake.

In recent months the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Los Angeles Times have carried breathless reports that Hollywood is on the brink of digital revolution. Even Wired magazine, usually informed on technical matters, printed the howler that digital projection is "far better" than film. George Lucas and Texas Instruments have teamed up to showcase "The Phantom Menace" with digital projection in theaters on both coasts. Disney is now preparing digital theatrical demos; its "Bicentennial Man" will open in digital Friday in a few theaters.

These custom installations, we are told, are the first wave of a technological revolution that will overtake movie theaters. No longer will an underpaid projectionist struggle in the booth with ungainly cans of film. New movies will zip down from space and be projected into the screen with startling clarity. Digital video projection (jargon watch: "dijection") is being embraced by Hollywood, we read, because it will save the studios the cost of manufacturing and shipping prints all over the world.

But how good is digital projection? I saw it demonstrated in May at the Cannes Film Festival, and have read reports of those who've attended the custom "Phantom Menace" installations. A system offered by Hughes is not very persuasive, the witnesses say, but the Texas Instruments system is better; reviews range from "85 percent as good as a real movie" to "about as good." The special effects in "Phantom Menace" looked especially sharp, viewers said, and there's a reason: They were computer-generated in the first place, so they arrived at the screen without stepping down a generation to film. And because the depicted imaginary places, it was impossible to judge them on the basis of how we know the real world looks.

"Dijection" offers a wonderful new prospect, if it's for real. But it's not the only possible future. Far form the boardrooms of Texas Instruments, which has unlimited financial resources and wants to grab the world movie distribution market, there is an alternative film-based projection system that is much cheaper than digital, uses existing technology and (hold onto your hats) is not "about as good" as existing film, but, its inventors claim, 500 percent better. That is not a misprint.

The system is called MaxiVision48. I have seen it demonstrated. It produces a picture so breathtakingly clear it is like 3-D in reverse: like looking through an open window into the real world. Motion is shown without the jumpiness and blurring of existing film projection, details are sharper, and our eyes are bathed in visual persuasion.

The inventor of MaxiVision is a Hollywood film editor named Dean Goodhill (he shared an Oscar nomination for "The Fugitive"). On of his partners is a manufacturer named Ty Safreno, whose company, Trust Automation of San Luis Obispo, California., builds digital robotics systems for tasks that must be vibration free, like the manufacture of Pentium chips.

Without getting into labyrinthine technical explanations, here is how MaxiVision48 works:

It can project film at 48 frames per second, twice the existing 24-fps rate. That provides a picture of startling clarity. At 48 frames, it sues 50 percent more film than at present. But MV48 also has an "economy mode" that offers low-budget filmmakers savings of up to 25 percent on film.
The MV48 projector design can switch on the fly between 24- and 48- fps formats in the same movie, allowing extra clarity for scenes that can use it. And it can handle any existing 35mm film format--unlike digital projection, which would obsolete a century of old prints.
MV48 uses a new system to pull the film past the projector bulb without any jitter or bounce. Goodhill says he can't go into detail while his patent is pending, but explains in general terms that MV48 completely eliminates the jiggle that all current films experience as they dance past the projector bulb. Watching it, I was startled to see how rock solid the picture was, and how that added to the clarity.
The result: "We figure it's 500 percent better than existing film or the Texas Instruments video projection system, take your choice," Goodhill told me.
It is also a lot cheaper, because it retrofits existing projectors, uses the original lamp housings and doesn't involve installing high-tech computer equipment. MaxiVision's business plan calls for leasing the projectors at $280 a month, but if you wanted to buy one, it would cost you about $10,000. estimates for the Texas Instruments digital projector range from $110,000 to $150,000 per screen.
The contrast between the two systems is not limited to costs. here are additional reasons why the death of film has been much exaggerated:
The TI system in the demo theaters bear no relationship to the real world. They're custom installations that do not address the problem of how a real film would get to a real theater. The source of their signal is an array of 20 prerecorded 18-gigabyte hard drives, trucked to each theater. This array costs an additional $75,000, apart from the cost of trucking and installation.
Even so, a movie is so memory-intensive that these arrays must compress the digital signal by a ratio of 4-1. At a recent seminar at the Director's Guild in Los Angeles, digital projection spokesmen said that in the real world, satellite downlinked movies would require 40-1 data compression. This level of compression in movie delivery has never been demonstrated publicly, by TI or anyone else.
The picture on the screen would not be as good as the HDTV television sets now on sale in consumer electronics outlets! TI's MDD chip has specs of 1280 by 1024, while HDTV clocks at 1920 by 1080. for the first time in history, consumers could see a better picture at home than in a movie theater. A higher-quality digital picture at home than in a movie theater. A higher-quality digital picture would involve even more cost, compression and transmission challenges.
One advantage of a film print is that the director and cinematographer can "time" the print to be sure the colors and visual elements are right. In a digital theater, the projectionist would be free to adjust the color, tint and contrast according to his whims. Since many projectionists do no even know how to properly frame a picture or set the correct lamp brightness, this is a frightening prospect.
How much would the digital projection specialist be paid? The technicians operating the TI demo installations are paid more than the mangers of most theaters. Hollywood is happy to save money, but are exhibitors happy to spend it?
What about piracy? movies will be downloaded just once, then stored in each theater. Thieves could try two approaches. They could grab the signal from the satellite and try to break the encryption (as DVD encryption has just been broken). But there is a more obvious security gap: At some point before it reaches the projector, the encrypted signal has to be decoded signal. Result: a perfect digital copy of the new movie. When the new "Star Wars" move opens in 4,000 theaters, how many armed guards will 20th Century Fox have to assign to the projection booths?
Film is harder to pirate than digital video because a physical film print must be stolen and copied. An MV48 print would be even harder to pirate than current films; it would not fit the equipment in any pirate lab. Those fly-by-night operations, which use ancient equipment cannibalized over the decades, would have to find expensive new machines.
All of these are practical questions. They set aside the aesthetic advantage that MaxiVision48 has over digital. Once you've seen the system, you just can't get it out of your mind.
You have to actually go to San Luis Obispo, north of Santa Barbara, to see MaxiVision48 demonstrated. That's where the prototype projector resides, in Ty Safreno's facility. Not may Hollywood studio honchos have made that trek. On the day I visited, I was joined by Todd McCarthy, the chief film critic of Variety, and two leading cinematographers, Allen Daviau ("E.T.," "Bugsy") and Dean Cundey ("Jurassic Park," "Apollo 13").

We saw a scene that had been shot for Goodhill by another cameraman who likes the system, Steven Poster, vice president of the American Society of Cinematographers. Poster deliberately assembled a scene filled with technical pitfalls for traditional film and video systems:

We see actor Peter Billingsley walking toward the camera, wearing a patterned shirt. He is passed by another guy, wearing a T-shirt with something written on it. The camera tilts down as Billingsley picks up a hose to water a lawn. The camera continues to move past a white picket fence. In the background, a truck drives out of a parking lot.

Not great art, but great headaches for cinematographers, who know that picket fences will seem to "flutter" if panned too quickly, that water droplets will blur, and that the sign on the side of a moving truck cannot be read. All true in the old systems. With MV48, we could read the writing on the shirt, see every picket in the fence, see the drops of water as if in real life and read the side of the truck. Case closed.

McCarthy and the cinematographers praised what they saw. I was blown away. I've seen other high-quality film projection systems, such as 70mm, IMAX and Douglas Trumbull's Showscan process. All are very good, but they involve wide film gauges, unwieldy print sizes and special projectors. MV48 uses projectors and prints that look a lot like the current specs, with costs in the same ballpark.

Why, then, do we read so much about digital projection and so little about MaxiVision48? One obvious reason is that Texas Instruments has deep pockets to promote its system, plus the backing of propeller-head George Lucas, who dreams of making movies entirely on computers and essentially wants to show them on theater-sized monitors.

Another reason is that many Hollywood executives are, frankly, not much interested in technical matters. Their attention is occupied by projects, stories, casting, advertising and box office, as it should be. When they hear the magical term "digital" and are told their movies will whiz to theaters via satellite, they assume it's all part of the computer revolution and don't ask more questions.

Hollywood has not spent a dime, for example, to research the intriguing question, do film and digital create different brain states? Some theoreticians believe that film creates reverie, video creates hypnosis; wouldn't it be ironic if digital audiences found they were missing an ineffable part of the moviegoing experience?

Now that a decision is on the horizon, Goodhill's process deserves attention. One of the ironies of MaxiVision48 is that it's so logical and inexpensive--such a brilliant example of lateral thinking--that a couple of guys could build it in a lab in San Luis Obispo. If it were more expensive, it might attract more attention.

The big film companies such as Kodak and Fuji should like the system, since it will help them sell more film. The directors who love celluloid, like Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese, should know about MV48. And there are other applications. Retail outlets use "video walls" to create atmosphere. Rainforest Cafes could put you in the jungle. NikeTown could put you on the court with Michael Jordan. No more million-dollar walls of video screens, but a $10,000 projector and a wall-sized picture.

But the industry has to listen. At the end of its first century, it shouldn't be so cheerful about throwing out everything that "film" means. And it should get over its infatuation with the "digital" buzzword.

When I told Dean Goodhill I was working on this article, he e-mailed me: "I'll make a special offer. We're leasing MV48 for $280 a month, but for $2,800 a month, which is closer to the per-screen cost of the digital system, we'll throw in a little chrome plate that says 'digital' on it."


 |  IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1325
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 07-07-2002 05:34 PM      Profile for Lyle Romer   Email Lyle Romer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
My main issue with the Maxivision48 format is that it is a 1.85:1 format with no anamorphic counterpart. Theoretically you could mask 2.4:1 like super35 but then projecting like that would make the problem of underlit large screens even worse. P

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9389
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-07-2002 06:04 PM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There is nothing to stop a maxivison with a full anamorphic format inherent in the system

 |  IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4006
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002


 - posted 07-07-2002 06:47 PM      Profile for David Stambaugh   Author's Homepage   Email David Stambaugh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
For those who haven't read that Credit Suisse/First Boston report that Ebert refers to, here's a link to it (it's a .pdf file so requires Acrobat Reader).
Credit Suisse report on digital cinema

MaxiVision48 official web page:
MaxiVision48



 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10515
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 07-07-2002 06:54 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
How would MaxiVision even prevent the use of anamorphic 4-perf 35mm photography? The only thing different is the frame rate. Perhaps the cinematographer may have to do a little adjustment to his lighting, choice of lenses and film stock to accomodate the 48fps speed. But there is nothing to physically prevent MaxiVision from showing any normal 4-perf 35mm format from "academy frame", 1.66:1, 1.85:1, Super35 or anamorhpic 35mm widescreen.

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1374
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 07-07-2002 07:45 PM      Profile for Paul Linfesty   Email Paul Linfesty   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There is ONE thing that Ebert didnt mention in answer man column, however, and that is DISTRIBUTOR cost. Prints for Maxivision use one-and-a-half times the amount of film. Multiply that by the number of prints struck and...shipping...and...

 |  IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1325
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 07-07-2002 08:14 PM      Profile for Lyle Romer   Email Lyle Romer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
While there is nothing that technically prevents use of Maxivision48 for 4 perf anamorphic, the whole basis of the system is for *only* 1.5x the film you get a huge increase in quality over the standard flat format. The quality increase coming from increased frame size (to increase resolution and brightness) and rate (to improve motion and if I remember correctly allow the use of more powerful lamps to increase brightness since each frame will now have 1/2 the exposure to the lamp). If you used 4 perf anamorphic, it would be twice the film and the only thing gained is the frame rate.

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9389
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-07-2002 08:31 PM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
At the higher frame rate more light can be thrown at it

 |  IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4006
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002


 - posted 07-07-2002 08:52 PM      Profile for David Stambaugh   Author's Homepage   Email David Stambaugh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ebert's long article implies that a MaxiVision48 projector costs $10K. That's the cost to upgrade an existing projector.


 |  IP: Logged

Ken Lackner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1855
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Sep 2001


 - posted 07-07-2002 10:12 PM      Profile for Ken Lackner   Email Ken Lackner   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Questions, questions, questions. If it's twice the frame rate of current 35mm, and the film is 35mm, how could it only use 1.5x the amount of film? I would think the film would be twice as much. And how are you going to fit a 3 hour film onto a platter?

Basically the only difference is the frame rate, right? How would it be backward compatible? Is there just a switch that you flip to go from 24 to 48 fps?

Why couldn't current pirating labs copy these prints if they're still 35mm?

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1374
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 07-07-2002 10:20 PM      Profile for Paul Linfesty   Email Paul Linfesty   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, David, but Ebert's cost analysis was strictly on the exhibition side. The system DOES add print costs, which negates a BIG reason why studios would be interested in the system. Believe me, i am not knocking the system at all. The company has designed it to easily switch back and forth betwen standard 4 perf 24fps and Maxifilm format. And all the differences as far as illumination and shutter speed in the projector have already been worked out. An anamorphic squeeze would be really easy to do in Maxifilm, with far less squeeze needed.

But studios are looking for ways to cut costs, and Im not sure increasing film stock used is a major priority for them.

 |  IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1325
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 07-07-2002 10:35 PM      Profile for Lyle Romer   Email Lyle Romer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ken,

The 1.5x film is because it is a 3-perf format. Basically it is 3-perf with no analog soundtrack to that the image will still be 1.85:1 but bigger in area. So, 1 frame now is 4 perf but 2 frames MV-48 is 6 perfs. The projector automatically senses the MV-48 format and plays that way.

As far as the piracy, I guess it's because they have telecines with 3-2 pulldown. However, if regular 24 fps prints are struck I don't know how this will prevent piracy.

Although Maxivision48 and Superdimension70 are two outstanding formats, I just don't see the industry momentum switching from el cheapo distribution digital to using more film to make a better experience. Especially since for most of the audience you could show NTSC video recorded in SLP mode and they wouldn't care.

 |  IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

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


 - posted 07-07-2002 11:44 PM      Profile for Darryl Spicer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Someone is going to have to cover the extra cost in this digital transformation. Exhibitors are already tied down by having to take out new loans to pay off existing loans to get a better interest rate. I do not see anyone jumping on the bandwagon of digital until standards are set, quality improved so that no one can see the pixals from any seat in the house and the cost managed. Film will be around for quite some time to come. So why don't they take a new step in improving what we have now. Are the film companies affraid that if they do this, digital will never meet or exceed the quality. Yeah so they spend a little more money on film stock better to spend it there than on films like Freddy Got Fingered. This format would be good on high profile films with lots of action and special effects.


 |  IP: Logged

Ken Lackner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1855
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Sep 2001


 - posted 07-08-2002 12:13 AM      Profile for Ken Lackner   Email Ken Lackner   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I skimmed through the document on MaxiVision's website. A very cool concept. How exactly does the projector know which format is threaded??? And why would you have standard 4-perf and MaxiVision combined on the same show? I assume that MaxiVision's digital soundtracks are compatible with current digital tracks?


 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

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.

© 1999-2018 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.