One of the biggest surprises, and a pleasant one, was the number of Directors of Photography included with the electronic engineers.  John Brooks and Leon Silverman set the tone of mutual respect for the day’s discussion about the future of cinema.   Phil Barlow’s (Disney) opening statements revolved around the projected ease of distribution and benefits to the studios and exhibitors in favor of the digital revolution.   He stated candidly that he didn’t understand how it all was going to work, or how the economics would succeed, but none the less appreciated it and was all for it.  Phil stated that in the past 100 years, cinema had only had four major changes: 1) The advent of Sound added to the picture, 2) Color Images, 3) Cinemascope (or other wide screen format), and 4) Digital Audio.  He was the first of many to say that for the digital revolution to succeed it needs to be embraced by the following four groups: 1) Talent – i.e., the industry’s creative community, 2) The Studios, 3) The Exhibitors, 4) The Public.  It would appear from his comments that the digital revolution was simply an extension of the past four “revolutions.”  One doesn’t have to think about that very much to realize that film has a number of things going for it, not the least of which is the archival aspect, and secondarily the fact that it’s a world wide system with standards.  These two issues nagged the digital revolution’s participation in the future of cinema.

 

 

Ed DiGiulio chaired this committee with Art Cosgrove (Kodak), Allen Daviau, ASC, and John Gault (Sr. VP at Panavision’s Advanced Digital Imaging; formally with Sony’s High Def Development Center).  This committee discussed the issues surrounding digital image acquisition v/s film imaging.  The issues of quality/economics/better life (or viewing experience) outlined in the overview was revisited again.  The problems of putting an uncompressed image onto tape (D5 at the moment) were covered.  In fact John Gault mentioned he wouldn’t want to be the person to send a disk array, or the current storage medium, to Australia to digitally capture the images for the next Star Wars prequel.  Allan Daviau brought up the fact that film is a system that works, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”  The cameras are durable, the film dependable, with a familiar and varied support system.  As of this moment there are no cameras on line with a 2K resolution – except film cameras.  (“Pleasantville” was outputted at 2K to give you an idea of the quality I’m talking about.)  Most Directors of Photography I’ve spoken with would like a 4K resolution, which is comparable to the resolution of film.  I’ve heard of cameras coming on line with 4K and even 7K resolution.  I’ve also seen stills shot at 4K that are incredible.  Many catalogues today are shot with large format digital cameras.  Most of the panelists feel that the questions about digital image acquisition isn’t “if,” but “when.”   More importantly, when should one use it, and when is it appropriate?  The sticky issue of archiving the images was addressed in an interesting manner in the next panel.

 

The post-production of film is the area most likely to change drastically.  If you know people in the Post-Production business, then you’ve watched the consolidation and closing of many post houses.  The way commercials are posted now will be the archetype for film post in the near future.  The future role of electronic color correction will become standard in a telecine bay (or tape to tape bay) with a DeVinci, or other color correction consul, connected to a Rank or Phillips/Kodak Spirit.  The role of the optical printer will diminish as the cost of digital effects decreases.  (Shades of Lynn Dunn and his electronic optical printer he was trying to develop in the early ‘70’s while I worked at Film Effects of Hollywood.)  Dean Cundy, ASC, presented a film test he shot that had been timed on print, and also timed at the Kodak Cinesite and output onto film.  The different shots in the test exhibited normal problems cinematographers encounter everyday.  In the film world, some of these problems couldn’t really be addressed, but in the digital world, they were generally addressed successfully.  The biggest change he made in the shots he timed actually involved adding a dramatic sky to a flat-lighted scene in a farm field.  This is really an optical, but I believe he included it because it was a simple quick solution to a problem we often encounter.

 

 

1.  The cost of the new digital devices relative to their real benefit to the project.

 

2.  What happens to the post houses as new version updates are introduced.  Many post houses are continually on the edge of solvency with the continued investment in software that is made obsolete by the next year’s better, updated version.  They are “Slaves to new updates,” as Rob Hummel stated and received audience’s applause.

 

3.  This discussion led to the advocacy of standards for the electronic image.  This is a thorny problem that won’t be solved until the software/hardware interfaces mature.  As any of us with a computer know, the changes in just the last 5 years have been huge along with the difference in prices and values.  The changes in the digital realm similarly have also been huge.  If you remember a couple of years ago, the proposed standard for digital TV in the US was obsolete before it could be instituted.  In fact, there is no digital standard for TV in the US, although there is an audio standard.  I believe it was Bill Gates who said, “Things never happen within a two-year span as quickly as we expect, but they always happen faster in the five-year span than we expect.”  I think that’s what we’re looking at here.

 

4.  The digital environment allows added controls on manipulating the image, as already demonstrated by Dean Cundy, ASC.  Those of you who have worked with a colorist in a telecine bay know what I’m talking about.  As I mentioned earlier, the colorist can change the overall color, or just an individual area with a power window, or even the characteristics of the image.  More grain can be added, effects like solarization, high contrast, desaturation, high saturation, mono saturation (like sepia), and a great deal more can be done to change the image.  This is a good news/bad news scenario.  The good news is there is more control and ability to realize a vision than ever before, and much more quickly than can be done with the current photochemical process.  The bad news is a producer, director, or studio head can go into one of these suites and totally change a Director of Photography’s vision.   This already happens to a certain extent now, but with the advent of electronic timing, it will be much easier to compromise a Director of Photography’s vision, and easier for him to realize his vision.  I think it will also allow more sloppy work since much of it can be “fixed in post.”  Perhaps we’re entering a stage where the image is only the beginning and how it evolves in post is considered part of the overall process and “vision” of the Director of Photography and the creative team around him.

 

5.  The business plan for the labs will need to change radically with the loss of film products being processed.  The labs are in the “image business”  and will need to investigate how to adapt to the new paradigm.  (The distribution of film in the digital realm would radically change the labs as we know it.  But more about this later.)  If a film is scanned into the digital realm and cut, assembled with all the effects, and timed, then out put on a color I.P. to print the dup negs to make the release prints, the labs will only be processing camera original, I.P.’s, dup negs, and answer prints.  As I mentioned, if the films are distributed electronically, the labs will only be processing camera original.  Most of the labs make their major profit on the processing of release prints.  This would all change, and there probably would be some labs closing their doors.

 

6.  Finally the issue of archiving was questioned.   An audience member asked the moderator to poll the audience with the question, “Would you archive in the digital realm?”  Not one hand was raised in favor of archiving in the digital realm.  Everyone in the room agreed that film is the archival medium.  Later in the day, Dr. Alan J. Masson, Director of Film Engineering at Kodak, causally mentioned that  Black and White color separations on a polyester base have a shelf life of 500 years at room temperature and humidity (70° F 50% humidity) when processed and washed to archival standards.  The dye stability for 2244 Color Intermediate Estar film is 100 years at room temperature.  (Please note that this was determined by ANSI – not Kodak.)  Needless to say, this was an eye opener for most people in the room who think of processed film as having a maximum 100-year shelf life.  Another aspect about the archivability of film is that with a magnifying glass and a light anyone can see the image.  This is not the case with anything in the electronic world.  Have you seen a movie on Betamax recently, or tried to get parts to fix one?

 

7.  Screening Examples for Digital and Film Projectors

 

First, I must mention that the individual manufacturers picked the film elements to demonstrated their individual machines.  There was no common test element (except for the RP 40 screened on each machine before the lunch break).  This fact made it difficult to compare the individual machines.  The exception is Boston Light & Sound’s projector was used as the “film” projector for both digital projector’s side by side comparison.  It was the only constant.

 

A demonstration of the Texas Interments digital projector, the Hughes/JVC projector, and Boston Light & Sound, Inc.’s’ Kinoton 35mm projector presenting a reel of “The Thin Red Line” printed on Technicolor’s new Dye Transfer Process ended the morning session.  Since there were screenings at the end of the day, I’m going to group all the screenings together here.  

 

Each of the projectors screened the RP 40 Test image.  This is a black and white small checkerboard pattern surrounded with different indicated aspect ratios and acuity patterns positioned in different places of the image area.  Most people don’t think electronic images shake.  Virtually all of the projectors indicated some side to side weave and vertical movement.  While the amount of movement varied, the film projector was as steady as the electronic projectors, if not more so.  All of them were well within SMPTE standards.  Spokespeople for these digital projectors said the movement must have been introduced during the telecine process.  The JVC/Huges projector also was slightly soft and had color fringing.  There were very few video artifacts.  The TI projector looked pretty good.  There were some pixel artifacts in the tones just below middle gray, but over all, it had a pretty clean image with good contrast.  When the Kinoton 35mm projector screened the image, it was a clear, sharp image with excellent contrast.  The movement of the film in the gate was about equal to the smallest movement on the digital projectors.  When the Technicolor print was screened, it was quite amazing.  I don’t believe the muted colors really showed Technicolor’s process off the way “The Wizard of Oz” might, but the muted tones and deep blacks were stunning.  

 

Side by side comparisons were presented at the end of the day.  This “test” a half screen of digital projection with the other half being film.  Both were supposed to be in synch, but varied from a little to a great amount.  This fact was bothersome in viewing the images.  TI showed sections of "Braveheart” while JVC/Hughes used “Shakespeare In Love.”  John Baily’s comment after the screening summed up my thoughts exactly.  In the TI demonstration he found his eye finding something he liked on both sides of the screen.  Each medium handled tonalities and colors differently and better than the other did at different points.  But he said he found it difficult to concentrate on the images since they were from a finished film that had quick edits and didn’t allow him to really examine the images.  On the JVC/Huges presentation, he said he’d seen “Shakespeare In Love” about five times, and none of them were as bad as that.  (An audience member stated later that when he’d viewed the film, it was worse than what he viewed in the auditorium.  The print was faded, scratched, etc.)  The JVC/Huges projector didn’t handle the transitions from dark to light very well.  The contrast seemed to great, and the subtleties of the photography were lost when compared to the print side, which was quite wonderful.  

 

It came out in the panel discussion that the projectors were set up in the timing rooms during the tape to tape timing of the films.  I found this interesting since we all know how monitors vary greatly, evidently the projectors do too.  The manufacturers were taking no chances by timing to a monitor then screening the tape on the projectors.  I wonder how this is going to be solved in the future if these machines go into the theatres?

 

The afternoon session began with distribution.  I know this may be off the track of what we camerapeople might be interested in, but if the distribution doesn’t drive the digital electronic devices, the way many people think it will, then there may be no “revolution,”  or a smaller, more specific, one at best – like in post-production.  After Steve Morley (Qualcomm) and Bill Mead (Sony Cinema Products) stated how rosy the future will be with satellite uplinking or fiberoptic delivery of films, Al Shapiro (New Line Cinema) stated that his company simply won’t distribute anything electronically.  He reasoned that once a digital copy goes out, a perfect digital copy could be pirated.  The issues regarding security in the electronic era were debated.  One panelist mentioned that the encryption on DVD’s were broken at NAB by two guys with laptops in a panel truck in the parking lot outside of the convention center in two days time.  This was an example of how smart people encrypt and other smart people break codes, especially when there’s a lot of money involved.  Different security systems were proposed, none of them failsafe.  But an interesting issue that did surface was the programming on screens.  Many people have stated that the theatres can pull non-profitable films and replace them with other higher grossing films.  Al Shapiro sad flatly, that won’t happen.  When his company contracts with a theatre chain, it’s for a specific film for a specific time on a specific number of screens in specific locations.  A theatre owner changing a poor-performing film for another better performing film would be in breach of contract.  He didn’t see this part of the distribution changing.  There are too many merchandising and commercial tie ins to films today.  This fact lessons the argument for electronic projector’s ease of changing programs in a theatre to be more “responsive” to the audience’s demands.  

 

There was one more presentation about the architecture of the megaplexes, and how using digital projectors would give more seating space.  Both digital projector manufacturers contradicted this.  The bottom line at theatres isn’t different than many of us have been told, these facilities will be destinations to see "ride” films.  Some may have rides or other amusements connected to them, along with theme, or chain, restaurants.  

 

What is the future of cinema, and how it affects us?  I don’t see an digital electronic camera taking the place of film in the near future.  There may be places for it in production.  The choke point is the time it takes to store the information, and how to store the information.  My concern, also voiced by Steven Poster, ASC, is that there may be a rush to embrace the new technology, and in that race there will be a lowering of the bar of quality that we have right now shooting film.  In this “technolust” (thanks Rob Hummel and Garrett Smith) something inferior, and not lasting, may replace the working system we have in place.  

 

Until we see a whole digital system in place, the digital revolution it can’t be evaluated.  A camera with a 2K resolution doesn’t yet exist, and all the digital projectors used D5 uncompressed images timed to the individual projectors – this is something that probably won’t happen in the real world.  The one projector that screened images from a video camera also showed the problems of that medium’s lack of ability to carry contrasty exterior scenes without desaturating the mid-tones and blowing out the highlights.  The cost of a digital projector and a D5 playback machine is a great deal more than the Kinoton projector.  Think about the maintenance issues too.  Instead of a projectionist’s rate to run the projectors and occasionally oil the movement, an engineer will have to come in and adjust the digital projectors.  What’s the cost of that?  Finally, film is a world wide standard that is in place.  Will developing nations embrace a technology that is so high tech (read this as expensive)?  India, South America, Asia and all the other countries use 35mm projectors.  To change would cost more than the patrons of the theatres can afford to pay.  Free market economics say this probably won’t happen, at least in the manner it now exists.

 

There’s an issue no one has really addressed.  Maybe the electronic/digital wall has finally been hit.  If the storage of 50 Megabites/frame/24fps can only be solved with compression, something of the image will be lost.  Who knows what it will be?  Maybe the smooth transitions from light to dark lighting evocative of a mood an actor strives to express will be lost.  Or any high speed shots (50MB/frame/96fps) of a spray of water back lighted behind a couple walking in the sunset that captures the romance of the moment in a manner we can never perceive “real time.”  Will these cameras replace an Eymo as a crash cam in stunt work?  I don’t think so.