Digital Cinema: Are we there yet?

[HookedOnSound]

The other day I heard how we are on the verge of movie theatres going digital. From a logistical standpoint in regards to distribution alone this makes sense.

I still enjoy going to the movie theatre because of the size of screen. Then I started to think and wonder if the digital movie theatre experience can be just as good if not better than the current 35mm movie film experience? In respect to image quality (presuming optimal film viewing conditions which isn't always the case)

A large screen projection system is something I dream about and hope to eventually own in my home and I am aspiring to reproduce the same quality as film can deliver, with the advent of digital technology I am curious to see if I can achieve my goals with today's technology.

I did some digging on the internet and here's what I found so far:

35mm movie film is almost identical to what you have in a 35mm film camera, only instead of 24/36 frames per roll, its multiple by the thousands on a reel. 35mm file has a useable area of about 24mm by 18mm once you deduct the holes for the sprocket wheels.

Film is an analog medium, so it doesn't have "pixels" per se, but if were to approximate the required resolution of 35mm film we would need a digital resolution of about 20 million "quality" pixels to match a top-quality 35mm shot. What this means is that a 5300 x 4000 digital camera would be required to produce a shot equivalent to a scan from a quality 35mm camera. I don't even think they exist yet to capture 20 million pixels.

The eye, however, is not as discerning when looking at a picture in the usual context as it can be when looking at things blown up. So many can also argue that a shot of around 9 million pixels would look as good to the eye as a 35mm shot, except when blown up very large and looked at quite closely.

From what I have read, the highest digital cinema projectors can display 4096 x 2160 pixel resolution. Thus called "4K digital projectors" costing as much as $ 60,000 each in some reviews online that I have seen.

Based on info I have found on the net, the eye, however, is not as discerning when looking at a picture in the usual context as it can be when looking at things blown up. So many can also argue that a shot of around 9 million pixels would look as good to the eye as a 35mm shot, except when blown up very large and looked at quite closely.

George Lucas shot the film "Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clone" with a Sony HDW-F900 HDCAM, a professional grade camcorder that records 1920 x 1080 pixels.

At even 1920 x 1080 ( about 1.5 MB per frame in Jpeg format as an example, hoping mpeg can compress more) resolution, for a 2hr movie, the storage requirements would be somewhere around 253GB per film (7200 seconds x 24 fps x 1.5MB per frame). I think I a going to buy stock in Seagate or other Hard Drive mfg's. LOL


So what does this all mean?

This is strictly my opinion but from what I can tell, digital cinema viewing has the potential to approximate film but we still have a long way to go. From what I can tell, if the actual recording is still done at half lower resolution (referring to a Sony HDW-F900 HDCAM at about $100,000 per camera), it will be a long time until we can say digital is better than film. Your only ever as good as the source.

I was hoping that the new HD broadcast formats regulated by the ATSC would somehow help consolidate all the different technologies into possibly one cohesive digital solution that would be transportable into almost limitless viewing experiences but I was expecting too much.

Costs $$$, Storage, Image capturing, Image transfer/rendering, distribution/bandwith limitations etc. are all real challenges that we are still facing today.

I guess I'm going to have to wait a while...until then I just have to dream (In Technicolor of course)

Comments are welcomed.

Thanks for reading.

 

[WmAx]

Film is an analog medium, so it doesn't have "pixels" per se, but if were to approximate the required resolution of 35mm film we would need a digital resolution of about 20 million "quality" pixels to match a top-quality 35mm shot. What this means is that a 5300 x 4000 digital camera would be required to produce a shot equivalent to a scan from a quality 35mm camera. I don't even think they exist yet to capture 20 million pixels.

Have you paid attention to picture quality in theatres? Not exactly sharp images -- not from one I've ever seen.

The 20MP equivalence thing is B.S., from what I can tell, so far. Do you have a good concept of how sharp/resolute a 20MP equivalent image would appear? And what do mean by 20MP? A 20MP digital camera(Bayer-type sensor format) or the physical spatial resolution limits of a 20MP file? These are different things. A standard Bayer sensor system used in digital cameras is able to, on average, use just over half the spatial resolution physically possible, given the file constraints. A Foveon system, on the other hand, can almost use all of the available spatial resolution within the image dimensions. I have seen several carefully performed/controlled experiments of digital cameras compared to color 35mm film, both under the best condtions possible. 35mm color film(ISO100) demonstrated the ability to slightly out-resolve a 6MP Bayer camera(3.5MP Foveon). Hardly 20MP. However, 35mm B&W film has a much greater resolving ability as compared to color 35mm film.

The digital movie cameras probably compare to the Foveon system -- as this is basicly a R, G and B sensor for every spatial position. The Bayer sensors are designed for cost efficiency -- and do not have R, G and B for every spatial position, therefor(due to luminance(G) not being samples at every point) the effective resolution is reduced.

As for movie film, I don't know how it compares to photography film. How much is degraded in the transfers? Aren't all modern movies digitized for editing today? Subsequenty transferred back to analog film? How much degradation occurs after the film is played back several times in a theatre?

-Chris

 

[BMXTRIX]

I actually saw Star Wars II & III at a digital cinema here in the DC area and it looked very good. As good as film? I don't know about that, but I wasn't complaining either. It was good.

When you think about storage requirements it is almost a joke - 253GB? I can pick up a terrabyte for under a grand these days. What's 250GB gonna matter?

Really, once the equipment is in place, you aren't burning film which is very expensive, you can do instant reviews of the shot, so there is no guess work. The distribution and rights protection can be a tiny bit better (not much). I think we all suffer a bit in the final product, but it is most definitely the future and will eventually replace film almost 100% I have no doubt. At least inside most of our lifetimes I expect. The conversion from film to Blu-Ray Disc will be a matter of a few mouse clicks instead of a full frame-by-frame capture process and the entire film will stay true to the final decisions of the director. No film degredation or issues.

I'm not sure the overall quality is there quite yet, but give it 10 years or so... yeah, we will se it happen I truly believe. I would expect a movie to be much closer to 2 terrabytes in file size when all is said and done - at the very least - to be a film replacement.

I'm not buying stock in Fuji Film - that's for sure. Put me in the Western Digital camp for sure.

 

[HookedOnSound]

WmAx,

you pointed alot of good things, the Foveon system is a great system due to spatialization, it can take advantage of higher resolution. I know Sigma cameras uses it for its digital cameras but I don't think it's used elsewhere yet.

As to your question about picture quality at the theatre? i go to a very recently built theatre (less than 4 yrs old) in our city, it's actually very good.

The whole 20Mega pixel is unrealistic for sure and I did point out that 9M pixel has been reported as being good enough also. It's all relative to what they with the frame also, if they don't crop/enlarge it than 20Mega Pixel is irrelevant, but for argument, wouldn't be better to have a little more overhead than say 6 Mega Pixel?

And you are correct about editing, most film are edited in the digital realm which saves Hollywood a ton of cash. Apparently, SW II: Attack of the Clones cost a mere $16,000 to edit as oppose to $1.8 million doing the conventional way (film). From what I understand, the movie is then transferred back to film for distribution to the movie houses.

Degradation are also issues of film and I agree with you as well. Everytime you play film, the film degrades.

My vote is still goes towards the digital camp but I doubt that I will happen anytime soon for all Movie theatres. We're talking $$$. In North America, isn't there something like 3,000 theatres? Even at 3 cameras at $60000 each per theatre, that's a $180,000 investment. They'd have to sell a whole lot of popcorn.

Any guess when all theatres go digital? We just got a new theatre about 4 yrs ago in our city of about 100,000 ppl, I have a feeling they won't be one of the first to upgrade.

Thanks for the post.