[Tig] Spell checked version of previous message....

digital.praxis at virgin.net digital.praxis
Thu Aug 1 03:39:49 BST 2002


My thanks to Sam Holtz for the following corrected version of my previous
message. My only excuse for the poor spelling and bad english of the
original is that I'm a long way from home, in Auckland, away from my usual
PC setup and, in truth, my spelling is crap at the best of times!

Thanks again Sam.

Steve

PS. Sam, if you want to correct my 'off-white white paper' on Cinecitta's
DI setup, please feel free.

************************************************************************
Having used most digital projectors with our DI operation we have found 
that the impression given by a large screen projector seems to provide a 
level of comfort to clients who are expecting to see the final results 
'projected' (film usually) while working from a monitor presents a more 
'video' environment, making clients feel less at ease with what they are 
seeing. I say this as we seem to get quicker sign-off on material we show 
projected rather than on a monitor. This has to be as a result of the 
environment rather than actual technical reasons as I have found it easier 
to get a grade 1 monitor to balance to final film output better than 
digital projectors (better color range on a monitor than a projector? Not 
my area of knowledge but its what I seem to have found from empirical 
tests). 

Quality of the projection has not been seen as an issue by clients as there 
comes a point when good enough is good enough. This is probably the main 
point to all I try an achieve. When something is good enough it will become 
a standard if what it offers is of benefit. How many audio people will tell 
you that CDs are better than records? None, as CDs provide a quality that 
is inferior to the best 'record' setup, but that's the point. Most people 
don't, or didn't, have 'the best setup' making CDs a very acceptable and 
beneficial alternative. 

The same is true of digital projection. If you see a print struck from the 
original neg (or first generation i/n) in a top quality cinema digital 
projection is inferior. But how many people ever see such quality? For the 
majority digital projection shows an image that is equal to what they are 
used to in their local flee-pit with the benefits offered buy a 
non-physical image transport (no degradation, scratches, dust, chemical 
blemishes, no weave, less focus issues, more stable colorimetric, etc). In 
short, digital projection is likely to become the equivalent of the CD in 
the audio world. Good enough for the majority, leaving purists to savior 
the extra quality of a good film projection. 

Is this a sad view of the future? I'm not sure. But is a business view 
of the future based on human nature. When (not if) the cost issues are 
overcome digital will become a standard. It may be different to what we see 
today, but not much. Better contrast, improved resolution? Maybe. But for 
one, I'm happy with what I see at the moment given the 'normal' film 
alternatives. 

Would I go out of my way to see a good film projection rather than digital? 
Yes! But then I'm not an average punter, and at the end of the day they pay 
all our wages, and for them if the image looks 'better' than it did 
yesterday when they saw that scratched, jumpy, out of focus film then we 
are just waiting for the fat lady to sing. 

AS ALWAYS THESE ARE MY VIEWS, AND MINE ALONE... Some who read this will 
know why I say this. 

Steve Shaw 
Digital Praxis 




--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .







More information about the Tig mailing list