Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » Sin City DLP (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Sin City DLP
Stephen LaPadula
Film Handler

Posts: 50
From: New York, Ny
Registered: Mar 2005


 - posted 03-29-2005 09:20 PM      Profile for Stephen LaPadula   Email Stephen LaPadula   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hey, Im new to this site, and I think its great...I've tried to read as many posts in the past few weeks in hopes not to post repeated topics, and have also got some great ideas from everyone.

I'm a manager at The Regal Union Square Stadium 14 in Manhattan. I got to see the tech run down of our digital print of Sin City last night and it looks great. I didn't know much about the movie before hand, so I was kinda caught off guard by the violance, even if cartoonish in nature, it was pretty graphic. The story is awesome and very Tarantino-esque in plot delivery.

But the way this film is presented, between the cartoon, black and white and color sequences, everyone one should see it presented digitally. We are booked with 4 prints, one of them digital, so anyone in the area please come to Union Square to see it and say hi if I'm there.

Anyone else getting a digital print? Do your customers (average movie goers) notice the quality?...I sure could.

 |  IP: Logged

Jacob A. Velleman
Film Handler

Posts: 13
From: Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
Registered: Jul 2004


 - posted 03-29-2005 09:41 PM      Profile for Jacob A. Velleman   Email Jacob A. Velleman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hey. How does the DLP work with the 2wenty? Does it just loop into the movie automatically?

 |  IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002


 - posted 03-29-2005 11:22 PM      Profile for Mark J. Marshall     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm hoping they release this on Kodak 2393 stock. If they do, the colors and contrast should be awesome. DLP can't compare to a good film presentation. DLPs contrast is nowhere near what can be achieved with film. You'll see tons of discussions on that if you do a search, and I'm sure Mr. Pytlak will be along with some stats shortly! [Wink]

But, HEY! Welcome to Film Tech! Stick around for a while! [beer]

 |  IP: Logged

Stephen LaPadula
Film Handler

Posts: 50
From: New York, Ny
Registered: Mar 2005


 - posted 03-30-2005 10:27 AM      Profile for Stephen LaPadula   Email Stephen LaPadula   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The 2wenty and the regular film run off different projectors. The one for he pre show starts automatically, as it is linked to radiant, it knows the showtimes and exactly how far in advance to start the 2wenty presentation (sometimes it can be 20:36, or 22:10 min:sec long). The projector that runs the movie has to be started automatically by a projectionists.

 |  IP: Logged

Jeffry L. Johnson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 809
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Registered: Apr 2000


 - posted 04-01-2005 12:49 PM      Profile for Jeffry L. Johnson   Author's Homepage   Email Jeffry L. Johnson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mark J. Marshall
I'm hoping they release this on Kodak 2393 stock.
The print I inspected yesterday was on Fujicolor stock.

 |  IP: Logged

Dominic Espinosa
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1172
From: Boulder Creek, CA.
Registered: Jan 2004


 - posted 04-01-2005 01:13 PM      Profile for Dominic Espinosa   Email Dominic Espinosa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If your DLP looks better than film I'm wondering what's wrong with your film equipment/handlers.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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


 - posted 04-01-2005 01:41 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Generally movies originated on video (such as Episode II, Sin City and computer animated stuff) look better when presented on DLP. Regular movies shot on film of course look better when presented on film.

 |  IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002


 - posted 04-01-2005 10:57 PM      Profile for Mark J. Marshall     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not sure I totally agree with that. I noticed tons of aliasing artifacts on Episode II's DLP presentation, and the pixels stood out like a sore thumb. The film presentation didn't suffer from either of those problems. The film show had the "low detail in the dark scenes" problem, but so did the DLP show.

quote: Jeffry L. Johnson
The print I inspected yesterday was on Fujicolor stock.
As was mine, and I'm sure everyone else's. The contrast for the B&W was nowhere near what it could have been - but I think that was the fault of the digital camera used to shoot it, not the film used for the print. I forgot this was shot digitally.

 |  IP: Logged

Dominic Espinosa
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1172
From: Boulder Creek, CA.
Registered: Jan 2004


 - posted 04-02-2005 03:41 AM      Profile for Dominic Espinosa   Email Dominic Espinosa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Indded, if the film was originally digital but compressed further for consumption by DLP equipment it should show artifacts more so than the uncompressed film version, right?

quote: Mark J. Marshall
The film show had the "low detail in the dark scenes" problem, but so did the DLP show

Similar issues have been reported with other films.

 |  IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 04-02-2005 05:59 AM      Profile for Stephen Furley   Email Stephen Furley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I didn't see whichever Star Wars film it was which was shot digitally, but I did see the trailer, and thought it looked dredful. I saw 'Russian Ark', and thought it looked much better. Somebody told me that the same camera model, with different recording equipment, was used for both films; is this correct? If so, what did they do to the Star Wars film to make it look so bad? In both cases I saw them on film.

At a demonstration I have seen all four combinations of film and digital origination and presentation. All four looked different, and I don't think I would have too much difficulty telling them apart.

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 04-02-2005 09:45 AM      Profile for Mark Ogden   Email Mark Ogden   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Stephen Furley
Somebody told me that the same camera model, with different recording equipment, was used for both films; is this correct?
Yes, that's exactly right. Both films were shot with the Sony HDWF900 Cine Alta, which nominally records 1920x1080. On Star Wars, however, the camera was masked in such a way so as to extract a roughly 2.35 area from the sensor, which dropped the resolution to only about 800 lines. In addition, the camera output was recorded on tape in the HDCam format, at a compression rate of about 2.7:1.

On Russian Ark, the camera's sensor was unmasked and full resolution, and its full bandwidth 4:2:2 output was fed uncompressed to hard drives, as there was no tape format available that could record a full 90 min. take at that data rate.

Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith was shot on the newer version of this camera, at full 10 bit RGB 4:4:4 output. The new Sony HDCam/SR tape format is now available and accepts that amount of data. I presume, though, that they are still masking the imager somehow, so it will remain to be seen how much better the new camera looks. They went with better glass on this one too, switching to Fuji lenses from Panavision. I shot some footage on this system with these lenses last year in New Mexico (courtesy of Mike Bravin of Band Pro) and they looked incredible.

[ 04-02-2005, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Mark Ogden ]

 |  IP: Logged

Eric Hooper
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 532
From: Fort Worth, TX, USA
Registered: May 2003


 - posted 04-02-2005 10:40 AM      Profile for Eric Hooper   Email Eric Hooper   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Saw this last night at CENTURY 22 -San Jose, CA in their DLP house. This is the first DLP projected movie I have ever seen. I must say, I was quite impressed! I thought it looked very sharp, bright, and very vibrant. Very comperable to watching a DVD, which the general moviegoing public is accustomed to now anyhow. Sound was awesome too! No cue marks, no scratches, no bad splices. I'm all for DLP now. [thumbsup]

 |  IP: Logged

Dominic Espinosa
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1172
From: Boulder Creek, CA.
Registered: Jan 2004


 - posted 04-03-2005 04:27 AM      Profile for Dominic Espinosa   Email Dominic Espinosa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Eric Hooper
Saw this last night at CENTURY 22 -San Jose, CA in their DLP house. This is the first DLP projected movie I have ever seen. I must say, I was quite impressed! I thought it looked very sharp, bright, and very vibrant. Very comperable to watching a DVD, which the general moviegoing public is accustomed to now anyhow. Sound was awesome too! No cue marks, no scratches, no bad splices. I'm all for DLP now.
DVD's are actually quite below good in my taste, now a days.
I actually don't enjoy them too much, especially on a large enough screen that the artifacts start to show up on.
The sound should sound awesome, I don't imagine the format would change too mcuh. Bad splices, scratches, dust, etc. are all issues with damaged equipment and lazy projectionists. Cue marks are hardly noticeable unless you're looking for them, imho.

 |  IP: Logged

Matthew Ballantine-Patton
Film Handler

Posts: 7
From: Denver, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2005


 - posted 04-03-2005 11:14 AM      Profile for Matthew Ballantine-Patton   Email Matthew Ballantine-Patton   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Our Regal theater here opened 3 prints of Sin City, and I figured it was a given that one would be on the DLP. To my dismay, there was none, and I figured there just wasn't a digital version. Now I'm even more disappointed! Digital features like The Incredibles and Robots look amazing on the DLP. I'm dying to see Sin City!

 |  IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002


 - posted 04-03-2005 08:10 PM      Profile for Mark J. Marshall     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Stephen Furley
Somebody told me that the same camera model, with different recording equipment, was used for both films; is this correct?
For Episode II, they used the Sony HDC-F900 HD camera. For Episode III, they used the newer HDC-F950 HD camera.

You can read about the new camera and the process Mark described in his post on the Star Wars website here and here .

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.