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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Some thoughts on my first digital screening. (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Some thoughts on my first digital screening. Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 03-04-2007 03:53 PM                     Well, I survived the experience. I was really nervous about it, probably because if anything had gone wrong it would be highly unlikely that I could put it right; I was literally shaking before the show. The projector functioned perfectly; unfortunately, the projectionist didn't and there was no sound for the first few seconds. I made a really silly mistake. I faded out the non-sync, and selected the 'Digital 1' input on the DMA8 which also switches the CP-65 to format 10, a format which we did not normally use previously as our film sound is analogue only. Forgetting this I then pressed the format 10 button on the CP-65, which flipped the DMA8 back to 'Film' mode, hence no sound. The way the DMA8 has been installed is a bit odd; pressing any of the four digital input buttons selects that input, and switches the CP-65 to format 10, pressing format 10 on the CP-65 selects that format, and switches the DMA8 to 'film', which is totally useless since there's nothing connected to that input. Pressing 'film' on the DMA8 switches the CP-65 to non-sync for some non-obvious reason. I don't know why it was set up that way. The film, both sepia and colour sections, looked very good, better than other digital restorations that I have seen. The registration was absolutely spot on, I could see no fringing at all in the 15 minutes or so of Technicolor material which I watched in the auditorium before the show, even standing right in front of the screen; I can't say that for any Technicolor dye print that I've seen. I don't know what elements the restoration used. To my eye the colour looked a bit over the top, even for this film. I've seen a few clips of original '30s Technicolor prints, and this didn't look the same, but it was closer than I would have expected. It looked better than a dirty, scratched film print, I don't think there can be any doubt about that. It also looked far better than material that I saw on the first generation 1.4k digital machines. Did it look better than a good film print? I'm really not sure; it looks different, it's difficult to compare a lithograph with an etching. In our set-up the Academy picture is smaller than the film one, which is a pity; the other ratios are the same size. The picture is very bright, brighter than for film, at less than full output. They have managed to rig up some extraction, when I get round to processing my film I'll post a picture of how it was attached to the projector. Over Christmas/New Year an extra tapping was taken off the main extract duct, with a length of 8" flexible ducting left hanging down to the floor. When the projector was installed this ducting was just left sitting on top of it, doing nothing. I did notice that the lamphouses on the Kinotons were running somewhat hotter since this was installed; the large duct was obviously reducing the draught through the other machines. When the ducting was shortened and attached to the digital machine there was something of a gap around it, and the Kinotons were running even hotter. There's a damper installed where the flexible ducting from the projector comes off the main rigid one, and closing that just over half way seems to have restored the airflow through the Kinotons, while still giving adequate extraction for the digital machine. The digital projector does put out quite a bit of heat; I wouldn't want to run it all day without any extraction. Would it have been worth paying the full price for the equipment at the moment, including all of the enabling works that the cinema did have to pay for? No, even if we could afford it, which we couldn't; I've no doubt about that. How much would it be worth paying? I'm not sure, I'd have to think about that one. Once I'd started the show there really wasn't anything to do until I brought the lights up at the end, which really didn't feel right somehow.  |  IP: Logged Paul Konen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 981 From: Frisco, TX. (North of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-05-2007 09:45 AM                     Stephen, they did that with one of my installations back in 2000. I added an in-line duct fan attached to the top of both projectors. Link to Grainger My other split duct has a guillotine, to cut off the airflow from one device, so the other device is having most of the extraction from the rooftop unit.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-05-2007 09:57 AM                        So, who paid for the installation and why? When programs are available in both film and digital formats, which one gets booked and why? Was your screening run off a file server or was it from videotape?  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 03-05-2007 11:17 AM                     Scott, It's part of the UK Film Council/Arts Alliance 'Digital Screen Network' project, for broadening access to 'Specialised film'. You can read about it here . Also, do a search on this site (i.e. Film-Tech, not the DSN site) for 'UK Film Council' and 'Digital'; there are many posts on the subject, mainly by Leo and myself. Look at the thread 'News item: UK pioneers digital film network' in this forum; you yourself contributed to that thread, just over two years ago. Most of the concerns that I have about the project I expressed in that thread; the majority of them are not technical issues. I strongly support the aims of the project, but I am not yet convinced that this is the best, or the most cost-effective way of achieving them; time will tell. The show was run from a Doremi digital cinema server, but the installation also includes a Christie interface, for playing video signals, in various analogue and digital formats, through the system for 'alternative content'. Arts Alliance own, and install the equipment, and there is a requirement to screen a certain amount of non-mainstream content on the system each year. The project was funded mainly by the National Lottery, though each cinema is responsible for funding any enabling works, such as building, HVAC, electrical sound system upgrade works etc. Something over 100 cinemas have been selected to have these systems installed in something over 200 screens. I think the project runs for five years, at the end of which there will be an option for the cinemas to buy the equipment at a much reduced cost, if they wish to do so. [ 03-05-2007, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Stephen Furley ]  |  IP: Logged Richard P. May Expert Film Handler Posts: 243 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Jan 2006 posted 03-05-2007 11:44 AM                     What was the title of the film being projected? Based on your comments, it was originally photographed in Technicolor 3-strip, with non-color sections. RPM  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 03-05-2007 11:56 AM                     'Wizard of Oz'  |  IP: Logged Caleb Johnstone-Cowan Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 593 From: London, UK Registered: Mar 2006 posted 03-05-2007 12:08 PM                     Wasn't it 'Wizard of Oz'? We've had it on re-release over here, my old workplace was running it on the same projector but they have the QuVis server. I saw it in 35mm, wasn't in Academy though which I thought was a bit poor. Did you show 35mm ad/trailer reel and then switch to digital?  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 03-05-2007 12:23 PM                     Caleb, The earlier DSN installations used the QuVis server, but they have recently switched to the Doremi one. I think we are towards the end of the installations. It's very odd that you say it wasn't in Academy; it certainly was when we ran it. Are you sure there wasn't a setting wrong somewhere? The screening I ran was a Saturday morning children's show; there are no adverts or trailers with these. There will be two 'normal' screenings of it this week on Wednesday and Thursday, which will have adverts and trailers. Yes, these will be run on 35mm at 1.85, and then changeover to the digital at 1.37 for the feature, just as with a feature on film. Normally I would close the curtains between the trailers reel and the feature, but they're broken at the moment, so have to be left open until fixed.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-05-2007 12:25 PM                        Thanks; I didn't realize that the UK thing was still in process. Are the booking terms for these shows the same as film? If so, is the only advantage to the exhibitor one of reduced shipping costs?  |  IP: Logged Caleb Johnstone-Cowan Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 593 From: London, UK Registered: Mar 2006 posted 03-05-2007 12:54 PM                     With the Christie you just choose the aspect ratio on the touch screen. Even then, we had a play around with the test files on the QuVis player, they all ran in the right ratio without intervention by us. When I saw it, at the Chelsea Cinema, it was in 35mm. I can only presume that they got a copy that had been printed as 1.85, cropping the top and bottom of the image slightly. Guessing that isn't the effect showing an Academy film through a 1.85 lens is. Wasn't too bothered, just thought that they might be a bit more fussy about things like that considering it is a Curzon.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 03-05-2007 12:56 PM                     Sorry Caleb, I mis-read your comment re the aspect ratio. How were the 35mm prints done, were they cropped to some widescreen aspect ratio, or 1.37 within 1.85, or what? quote: Scott Norwood When programs are available in both film and digital formats, which one gets booked and why? This is unclear at present. We are showing 'Apocalypto' this week, which is obviously available on digital, but we are running it on film. We are bringing back 'Pan's Labyrinth' at the end of the month, but when I asked about it that will also be on film. I believe that they will eventually run on digital everything that is available in that form. I hope that doesn't mean that if something is only available on film they won't show it. quote: Scott Norwood Are the booking terms for these shows the same as film? If so, is the only advantage to the exhibitor one of reduced shipping costs? I have no idea on this one. One advantage that we will have is that we often run a film for a week, then take it off, then bring it back. Sometimes a film comes back five or six times, with just a week or two off between runs. This tends to happen with any film that has Judi Dench in it, 'Ladies in Lavender', 'Mrs. Henderson Presents' etc., and also with 'The Queen'. With film we have to break down the print and send it back each time, then make up another print, sometimes in worse condition, a week or so later. With digital we have enough disk space to keep such a film loaded on the system, and just obtain a new key for the next run. The key for 'Wizard of Oz' is valid for several months by the way, I can't remember exactly how long. Edit: quote: myself I believe that they will eventually run on digital everything that is available in that form. Sorry, that was badly worded; I will clarify. I meant that I believe that eventually they will always run in the digital format if the film is available both ways, not that they will show everything that is released in the digital format. At present it looks like only about one film per month will be in digital, but this will clearly increase in time; how quickly this will happen remains to be seen. I'm hoping to be able to hire the cinema for something myself in a couple of months time, if I can get them to quote me an affordable price. This would be for a digital show, most likely run either from a DVCAM tape, or from a laptop. [ 03-05-2007, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Stephen Furley ]  |  IP: Logged Caleb Johnstone-Cowan Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 593 From: London, UK Registered: Mar 2006 posted 03-06-2007 10:26 AM                     I can only guess it was 1.37 within 1.85, with the masking at 1.37 width. Either that or they hadnt set up the academy properly for the screen size. The Clocktower is probably the kind of cinema the Film Council had in mind for the d-cinema network. Makes your programming more flexible I guess, easier to bring back popular films and you could make money out of conference facilities as well. Would love a digital projector for our university theatre/cinema, we've got two mothballed FP20s and a Favorit 16B, with a spare projector space! Did you get chosen by the Film Council or did you have to apply for one?  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 03-07-2007 03:47 AM                     Caleb, why don't you 'unmothball' the FP-20s, and get some film running on them? I only work at the place as a relief, so I can't tell you a great deal about it. Cinemas which met certain requirements, which were listed on the DSN website, I'm not sure if they are still there, were able to apply to be selected. The main requirements were to be a currently operating full time cinema, or to be under construction and to be operating as such within a certain period, and to show a certain proportion of what the UKFC terms 'Specialist' film. Beyond that requirement the cinema is free to use the equipment for whatever other purpose it wishes; it could show mainstream film, video, Powerpoint presentations etc. The requirement to be a currently operating cinema, or about to become one, is one of my concerns about the project; it offers no help to any community which does not have a cinema, but wishes to open one, or re-open a dormant one. The project does enable certain cinemas to have digital projection equipment installed which could never have afforded to buy it themselves at current prices, but where does that leave very similar cinemas which were not selected? What happens if distributors of 'specialist' films decide to release only in digital format at some time in the future, due to the greater number of cinemas now able to handle it? I have a number of other concerns about the project, which I wrote about in the of the thread which I mentioned earlier; it is, as yet, too early to tell whether most of those concerns will prove to be justified. The costs which the cinema has to pay, though far less than the total cost, can still be considerable, as can the practical difficulties of actually fitting the equipment in, as was the case at Croydon. According to the DSN website there's also a monthly charge which has to be paid. While this is quite small, if only a handful of digital screenings are made, e.g. the three this month, the amount per ticket sold for a digital show can be considerable. Lack of dirt, scratches, fading etc. on old prints, and ease of bringing back a film after a short break are obvious advantages. Video material can be shown with higher quality than can be done with a conventional video projector, and the sound quality can be better than is possible with 35mm Dolby SR tracks, though there is a downside here; we are having problems with the sound on the digital system. On 'Wizard of Oz' it was only a problem in a couple of very brief places, but on certain other material that we have tested the system with there is serious distortion and 'rasping' noises. A full B chain alignment wouldn't hurt, but I think that the greater dynamic range of the digital tracks may well be showing up shortcomings in our existing sound system which weren't heard with conventional analogue tracks. More upgrading may well be necessary. It may not be a bad thing that, after tomorrow, it's over a month until the next scheduled digital screening; it does at least give time to sort out these sort of problems. I'd be interested to know if anywhere else that has had this equipment installed has had similar problems. When the cinema was opened, twelve years ago it was designed to be suitable for private hire presentations, conference work, etc. in addition to normal cinema screenings. Two FP-30Ds were installed, which are unchanged apart from conversion to red readers about four years ago. Between these is a large port, covered by a wooden flap, hinged at the bottom, fitted with a deck chair type leg, which lets down to form a support for a slide or video projector, or behind which could be stood a Hortson 16mm machine which was stored in the corner of the projection room. This had not been used for several years and was removed at Christmas while the building work was going on, and to get the digital equipment through the door. I think it's still in store downstairs, but I doubt that it will be brought back, so we have lost one facility, albeit one which has not been used recently, but which could possibly have been again in the future. It is possible to control a slide projector from the auditorium, from where there are also audio and video feeds to the projection room, though these are seldom used. There is also a lectern, with suitable facilities, which can be installed in the auditorium when required. The only frequent use for this centre projection position in recent years has been for video, and since that can now be done by the digital projector, shouldn't be necessary in future. Unfortunately, the space between the two 35mm machines, while somewhat greater than normal, was not wide enough to fit in the digital machine. There was a similar large port and flap to both left and right of the 35mm machines. Because of the rather wide spacing of the 35mm machines these are well off axis, and have never been used for any sort of projection, though the right-hand one was sometimes useful to look through while working at the bench. The only way they were able to install the digital machine was to make a new port, partly overlapping the position of the old right-hand one, and to move the sound rack, making it very difficult to get to the desk, due the the railings around the hole in the floor which houses the fire escape ladder. This position is not ideal, and there is some keystoning of the image, though it's not noticeable most of the time; you only really see it during the credits. It was suggested that one 35mm machine be removed and a tower installed, as has been done at certain other venues, but we often have to run the first half of a film while still making op the second half, often run three of four different films during the day, normally only have one projectionist on duty, and the tower spools are rather too heavy for one person to lift, though I have done it in the past, when I have worked on towers a few times. Also, it makes a much later get out on Thursday night, not to mention that it would be difficult to find space to fit in a tower. Installing a platter would be impossible; the projection room is so shallow from front to back wall, that you just couldn't fit one in. Re-positioning all three projectors, and eliminating the fourth position would require major work. Removing film altogether and going 100% digital overnight might now be possible for an all mainstream cinema, but certainly isn't in our situation. Even the NEC digital equipment which we have is quite large. Short of building a new arts centre there's really no ideal solution. I think my choice would have been to try to get all three machines repositioned.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 03-07-2007 04:07 AM                        There was a presentation on a new generation of digital Technicolor restoration technology at AMIA '05, and the demo included bits of The Wizard of Oz. I can't remember the exact details, but if I remember the gist correctly three acetate separation interpositives made in the '50s were scanned individually (the original nitrate negatives for two of the three strips have decomposed in all or most of the footage, and the software can't give as consistent a result when starting with mixed positive and negative sources) at 8k, and then realigned and registered in a computer. The end result was then burnt out to b/w separation negatives for preservation, and downconverted to all the digital formats needed for access (everything from 4k d-cinema to 720i video). In cases where differential shrinkage isn't an insurmountable problem (and modern optical step printers can now deal with 3-4% without taking a significant vertical stability hit), photochemical restoration of three-strip is still preferred by some archivists, because they believe it gives more accurate impression of the tonal range and density of original prints - getting back to what you said about the image looking almost 'too' clean and bright. The studios are also using this digital system to work on features that were shot on coupler stocks and then preserved on acetate seps which have now shrunk and deformed (the original camera negs being problematic due to dye fading). We were shown some clips from Chinatown in that presentation - the subtlety in the greens and browns in the orange grove scene was amazing - more detail in the picture than I'd seen in any film print.  |  IP: Logged Caleb Johnstone-Cowan Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 593 From: London, UK Registered: Mar 2006 posted 03-07-2007 06:18 AM                     quote: Stephen Furley Caleb, why don't you 'unmothball' the FP-20s, and get some film running on them? Money. We've tidied up the projection booth so that it looks remotely presentable but the quote was ten grand for a full service of both FP20s. Was told that they run but probably wouldn't make it through a show. I've got no idea if the sound system works either. Would possibly have to spend money on a new rewind bench as well as a full cleanup of the booth. We'll probably try and apply for funding next year to sort things out. Shame because it would be the fourth largest auditorium in the West End (presuming places like the Dominion can't run film anymore) and possibly the largest with a 16mm projector installed, don't think the Empire or Odeon LS/WE have one. The three digital installs I've seen all needed an extra port cut, one needs a curtain over the port not being used to prevent excess light. The digital we had at work was a pain because it was between the platter and 35mm projector. I get the impression that the project wasn't planned that well, what with switching server 3/4 through. Also having one projector in a multiplex is pointless. You need one in a medium sized screen and one in the smallest screen to justify 'specialist' content and continue runs from the medium screen.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.