Question for a Projectionist about what I'm seeing...

[Matt Beasley]

I'm hoping someone here can help clarify what I've been experiencing.

Lately, when I go to the movies, the image often looks like it was shot with a digital camera. For years, I assumed this was because filmmakers were choosing digital for its convenience and cost, even at the expense of quality. The first time I noticed this was during the shootout sequence in the 2009 film "Public Enemies." From that point on, everything in the movie looked digital to me. Since Michael Mann is known for using digital cameras, I attributed it to that.

However, things became more confusing when I learned about the shooting process for "Dune 2." The digital effect I noticed was absent throughout that movie. I found out there was some post-processing done, possibly involving filming the digital image on actual film. I wondered if this was a "solution," but couldn't find confirmation online.

A few weeks ago, I began to suspect the issue might be related to the projection, not the filmmaking. Every time I see this digital look, it's at the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin, Texas. In contrast, movies I've watched at the local IMAX at the Bob Bullock Museum don't have this effect. I saw "Dune 2" at the IMAX. This was confirmed further when I watched "Trap" at the Drafthouse and noticed the digital look again, even though Shayamalan shot it on film.

Other recent examples where I noticed this digital look include "Horizon Part 1," "Longlegs," and "Ferrari." Interestingly, "Ferrari" is another Michael Mann film, but when I watched it at home, the digital look wasn't there. My TV has the "Motion Smoothing" option turned off, and what I see in the theater resembles a slight "Motion Smoothing" effect.

Curiously, I recent saw Alien at the Drafthouse, and the the effect was not there.

I've tried explaining this to others, but no one seems to understand. My fiancée isn't a frequent movie-goer, so it's not surprising she doesn't notice it. I've posted about this on other message boards, but no one has responded with a similar experience or explanation. I feel like I'm going crazy, pointing out the screen and asking if anyone else sees it, but no one does.

The other day, I visited the Austin Film Society's theater and spoke with a projectionist. He was unfamiliar with what I described but suggested it might be related to laser projectors, which are used by the Austin Alamo Drafthouses. He also mentioned that movies might be encoded at different framerates than they were produced, which could explain the effect (?) It’s mind-boggling to think that a film shot at 24FPS could be upscaled to 60FPS, ruining the film look before it reaches theaters. However, artificially increasing the framerate seems like a plausible cause.

I thought maybe someone here could potentially make sense of all of this for me. Thanks in advance.

[Leo Enticknap]

Can you describe what you mean by "digital look"? Visible pixels / rastering / rendering artifacts? A color space that doesn't appear film-like to you? Absence of picture weave? You mentioned motion that doesn't look to you like 24 FPS, but is that all? All DCI digital projectors are capable of reproducing 24 FPS natively, and the overwhelming majority of DCPs are mastered that way.

I can believe that an interested, but untrained eye, could notice a significant difference between xenon arc and laser illumination, especially laser phosphor with a faded phosphor wheel. But I'd be interested in a description of what it is you're seeing that screams digital to you.

[Ryan Gallagher]

If you really want to narrow it down what to attribute your observations to, I would suggest treating yourself to the same film twice, once at the Alamo where you often see the “digital” effect, and again in another venue to see if it remains, and you might be better equipped to articulate it after an A to B viewing.

So much goes into the film production chain with lots of digital intermediates (or even film intermediates), it gets complex in a hurry trying to speculate if it is something in the film-making process, or something more projector/venue/presentation specific.

But as Leo hints, difference between laser and xenon would be my guess, or how laser interacts with their particular screens perhaps. I’ve even heard laser projectors have more subjective experiences at the individual level due to the narrow color wavelengths and differences in color perception.

Or perhaps a 2K vs 4K presentation is contributing something?

[Carsten Kurz]

'Public Enemies' has been partly shot with actual 'video cameras'. What you experience is probably the 'soap-opera' effect which is caused by certain frame rate/shutter combinations. Where Public Enemies only showed this in certain scenes (e.g. action/night shootings), the topic was big when Peter Jackson released 'The Hobbit' shot entirely in HFR (High Frame Rate).

Now, we had so many discussions about this issue on this forum, that it's useless to bring it up in a new thread here again.

I suggest you start a Google search 'Hobbit HFR soap opera' and read about it yourself.

Fact is - 12 years later, 99,99% of all cinema movies are still shot at the classic 24fps rate (some at 25), and HFR didn't make it.There have been only a hand full of HFR releases since then, and hardly anyone liked the look. Admittedly, HFR was originally proposed e.g. by James Cameron in order to improve the 3D perception in 3D movies. 'The Hobbit' e.g. was only released in HFR-3D, while the 2D versions all used the standard 24fps frame rate. The soap-opera effect was still very visible in the 2D-24fps version because the non-standard shutter look was baked in. They improved that a bit in the two other parts of 'The Hobbit'.

Occasionally, you will see this effect even with 24fps material when they used a shutter of more than 180 degree (which means, a shutter/exposure time longer than half a frame duration). Which is what you saw in 'Public Enemies'. This often happens when night scenes are actually shot at night and when the DOP chooses a longer exposure time/a larger shutter angle in order to gain some more light. Sometimes this is also done as an in-camera effect in order to illustrate documentary, action cam, or news footage.

Cinema projectors don't use motion interpolation/smoothing.I don't think what you noticed at Alamo Drafthouse is caused by their projectors.Most IMAX use laser projectors now as well (although of a very special design), btw. Also I don't know if all Drafthouse locations have already disposed of their previous Sony (non-laser) kit. They may actually run a mix across their chain or auditoriums.


And, btw, the 'average projectionist' doesn't have a clue about these things. If there is a projectionist in the classic sense at all.

[Steve Guttag]

There is a definite difference in look between xenon and laser projection. I would hesitate to call it a video look so much as cartoonish...where colors appear exaggerated and even a hue shift. I tend to see laser projected images as redish in color while others tend to see them greenish (metamerics).

Laser-phosphor is all over the place. Low-end laser-phosphor that uses two blue laser banks, one for blue and one off of a yellow phosphor wheel for the rest...their color is so-so but nothing that someone is going to run out of the theatre thinking "what was that?" The colors are just inaccurate. And those that remove the notch filter (to get more light) get an even more exaggerated color spectrum. These projectors also tend to be in the S2K category (e.g. NEC's NC900) so you get a really bad contrast mixed in (around 1600:1). This could give the feeling of video but I don't see it has video...just low-rent image.

Upper-end laser-phosphor where there are Red and Blue lasers with an extra Blue that goes through a green phosphor wheel. Their light appears cold. The green is definitely "different" from the red and blue and even the untrained eye will notice that something is up with the color. Again, nothing that will drive people out of the theatre but if you look at the same image side-by-side with an RGB system (or xenon) versus an RBB system, the RBB, even if set up by the same meter, will look "colder." I wouldn't term it video like, however.

On the up-side, people don't normally notice speckle so much on the LP systems as green is always a fabricated color and, on lower systems, so it red.

4K projection tends to have a smoother image, even if from a 2K source. 4K tends to have a lower contrast too, particularly xenon projected it can get pretty low.

Alamo bought into the Sony stuff so I'm wondering if the look he is seeing might be a function of the Sony system as it is using a form of LCoS rather than DLP and how they refresh their image. They are 4K (unless a 3D attachment is present then it is bad 2K). The pixel density is great and the contrast is normally very good. Color uniformity has not been the best in my observations as they contaminate rapidly (I believe the light engine swaps are supposed to be annually). I'm wondering if you just don't like the Sony look and associate it with video. If so, you're in luck, the Sony stuff is all discontinued and will be leaving as they die. Ironically, Sony bought Alamo so they'll get to see the house brand be replaced with something else (the last I checked Barco S4 stuff).

[Matt Beasley]

> Can you describe what you mean by "digital look"? Visible pixels / rastering / rendering artifacts? A color space that doesn't appear film-like to you?

It's not pixilation or rendering artifacts. It's not like what you might see in a low bitrate version of a movie where the blacks are crushed. I wouldn't necessarily attribute the issue to color, but I'm open to being wrong. I don't know what picture weave is to address that.

The digital look is akin to other phenomenon for which I am familiar. It looks kinda like "Motion Smoothing"/"Soap Opera Effect", but with the effect turned down fairly low. It looks kinda like the old Pan and Scan effect on VHS, when there's an artificial "pan" as the cropped image moves within the frame. It looks kinda like watching the Hobbit or Avatar 2, but the effect is not nearly so aggressive.

I know it's not any of these issues, but what I'm seeing is triggering in me the same non-film look that these issues illicit.

It's most obvious to me when the background is static and there's something slightly moving in the frame - most typified by a character speaking to the camera.

Yesterday, I decided to go to the Drafthouse and actually spoke to the projectionist. He wasn't very helpful and he clearly lacked some of these technical distinctions. He was unfamiliar with Pan and Scan, shutter speed, and flicker frequency - so I'm starting to understand that there are various levels of expertise in this field.

After that unproductive discussion, I opted to go see "Deadpool and Wolverine." The effect for which I'm talking about was *not* present in that movie. So, color me even more confused.

But I'd be interested in a description of what it is you're seeing that screams digital to you.

It's most obvious at the edges of moving objects. The edge of the object appears hyper clear, moving with unnatural clarity. In action sequences, the effect is nullified as the motion blur takes over. I apologize for not having the proper vocabulary to distinguish it further.

I would suggest treating yourself to the same film twice, once at the Alamo where you often see the “digital” effect, and again in another venue to see if it remains, and you might be better equipped to articulate it after an A to B viewing.

I'll see if I can do this. Going to see "Trap" at a different theater with a digital projection is an option.

difference between laser and xenon would be my guess...

I'll try and A / B test along these lines.

Alamo bought into the Sony stuff so I'm wondering if the look he is seeing might be a function of the Sony system as it is using a form of LCoS rather than DLP and how they refresh their image.

Can you provide more information here? I too am thinking it may be tied to the 4K laser projectors the Drafthouse uses.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Matt, This list is no doubt incomplete, as I expect it does not include all films that only occasionally turned on the HFR features for certain scenes. But at least a couple you mention are on it, so perhaps what Carsten suggested being a possible cause.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...gh_frame_rates

Or/Additionally, as Carsten also suggested, from your further description it really sounds like you could also be noticing an artistic choices in shutter speed (aka shutter angle), to either enhance or diminish motion blur in moving scenes. You can go as crazy or as minimal as you like with motion blur of course by playing with light/shutter-speed/shutter-angle, to get even more motion blur they will often shoot/show even less than 24fps (though the DCP is still 24, they just repeat frames for that stop motion pacing look but with lots of blur). The narrated sequences on 2046 are a great example of that look, shot at 12fps and slower shutter speed (higher shutter angle), then just repeated every frame twice (step printed up to 24fps). But shutter speed/angles beyond normal still have a definite "look" even when shot at the normal frame rate. I believe the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan is often cited for an example of that "dreamy" look. You can also "step print" a 24fps footage and end up with a 1/2 speed slow motion type look with or without the other variables.

I have not seen all the films you mention so can't say if they each used something like that in all or some scenes without lots of googling.

The A to B comparison in two theatres with different systems would be the way to rule out presentation variables and assume these are all film-maker decisions. However not all theatres support HFR scenes, so your film maker variables might change even on the same film if it is one of those, but only a handful of film makers are fans of using it.

PS, "Weave" refers to the phenomenon in film projectors when there is movement in the lateral positioning of the film as it rolls. In a perfect presentation there is none, but people got used to a little of it and now are nostalgic about it (there are even video editing filters to introduce weave). "Bounce" is the vertical instability of film projection btw. But audiences are far more sensitive/annoyed by that cause the frame to frame difference is inconsistent, where as weave may take many frames to move between it's limits. People who intentionally watch a lot of film presentation at various venues will definitely have seen both, worse the closer you sit of course.

[Steve Guttag]

My money is on that he doesn't like the Sony look. See if you can find out what projector the image you don't like (or associate with video) is using. Again, Alamo is full of Sony projectors of their various models. On the largest of screens, they likely were using Barco DLPs (Sony had issues, historically, being bright enough on larger screens so the bigger chains used Barco and Christie to augment their Sony installations).

[Marco Giustini]

I'm going to put my bet on "brightness".

A dull and dark image (low contrast, low brightness, high ambience light, bad sound, low sound level) which makes the screen look like "an old TV".

And yes, a poorly maintained Sony would achieve all of the above when it comes to picture

[Harold Hallikainen]

We were originally asked to develop the LSS by a chain with a lot of Sony projectors due to luminance drift.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I've seen "Trap" on a Sony R510P this weekend. The picture had issues, but that was due to the T-Core in this machine being boiled (or fried, whatever you prefer) beyond "fixable by re-calibration". But I can't say that I've seen a particularly "digital-like" look.

Many Sony projectors have color issues, due to non-calibration or worn-out T-cores. Also, the contrast level of most SXRD seems to be lower than their DLP counterparts, but I'm not so allergic to the image as some are around here, at least not if everything is "mostly fine" with those machines, which seems to be getting more complicated over time though.

Like Ryan indicated: Shutter angle is an issue and can cause a "video look". Public Enemies had this going for quite a few shots. The Hobbit in HFR had both the shutter angle, the resulting lack of motion blur and the higher frame-rate working against it.

[Matt Beasley]

So, afterwork today I went to one of the more less quality theaters here in Austin - the Metropolitan 14. I watched about 30 minutes of "Trap" and did not see the same effect I had at the Alamo Drafthouse. The Alamo that I frequent has new, upgraded 4k Laser projectors from Sony. When I spoke to the manager at the Metropolitan, they said they are using 4K Sony projectors as well, but said he thought there "bulb" not "laser". I could tell the overall brightness of the Metropolitan theater wasn't as bright as how it is at the Alamo as well.

Does this sounds like the a possible solution to y'all? Bulb projection vs laser?

[Carsten Kurz]

Without proper inspection, it is hard to say what type of projectors are installed there. Alamo was all Sony during the last 10 years. They use their own Sony SXRD/LCoS imager, which is very different from DLP. We have both a Sony SXRD and a Barco DLP, and in my opinion, the SXRD has a more analog, film like look - also because these panels use in fact LCD technology with some inherent smear, and thus exhibit less stuttering/strobing on high contrast edges like DLPs do. Also, the imager has a different fill factor with a diagonal pixel raster, and together with their inherent 4k capability, their pixels look less jaggy/squarish than a DLP.
Most people I talk to find the Sony image more analog. Yes, sometimes their colors are also more analog ;-)

Now, recently Alamo announced they would move the whole chain to laser projectors, as the Sonys are declared EOL in 2027.
However, this won't happen in short time, so, I guess that as of now, some locations are all Sony, some all DLP laser, and some may have a mix across auditoriums.

To make things worse - there are two types of these Sonys, the 51x, which use an array of UHP bulbs, and the 81x, which use a laser light source. So, they may actually use Sony laser projectors in some auditoriums. I am pretty sure what you are complaining about has nothing to do with brightness or color, but frame rate or shutter, and as such depends on the movie. Once you settled on this effect, it is hard to ignore it.

Yes, depending on the frame rate and shutter combination, this effect can be strong or subtle, also, there is post production software that manipulates the images to a varying degree, so it may look stronger in certain scenes of one movie, and less so in other scenes or a different movie. Add CGI sequences which have their own shutter/motion blur created in software, and you must admit that the issue is not easy to tackle.

[Brad Miller]

I am betting that Alamo has a mix of Sony and DLP (likely Barco) like Steve Guttag mentioned in his post above and you like the look of the Barco and the Sony look is what you are trying to describe. You need to go back to the Alamo and ask what model projector they have in each auditorium and then compare what you are seeing. Perhaps they wouldn't mind if you quietly walked the auditoriums for 15 minutes to compare, promising to stay against the entry wall out of sight.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Another production aspect to consider now is the use of virtual sound stages (those wrap around high density LED walls). Depending on the type of shot and virtual background quality, I could see a potential to notice abnormalities around the edges of real life foreground things, especially when moving slowly relative to the pixels in the backdrop.

This effect could be exaggerated the less dense the pixel grid, being closer, longer focal length lens, wider depth of field (or one that included the pixel wall), etc. It could also maybe do weird things when the grid (or sone multiple of it) closely resembles the camera sensor density.

but I think Brad had the right idea, since you seem to have narrowed it down to something about the particular rooms (so projector/screen etc). If it really is a projection type symptom you notice, should be visible (to you) on all films with that combo gear, not just a handful.