> The video projector they have is an HD projector however the quality did not
> match what you would find in high end commercial theaters so the 2K transfer
> looked like crap compared to the print. You can have a 2k transfer done on
> your film but if the digital projector being used to present the work is low
> end then its going to look as best as that projector can look.
Right. It's all about the projector, NOT the scan. That a projector is 'HD'
tells you nothing. You can get an HD projector for $750. A GOOD projector for a
small venue will run over $10,000. And forget resolution. A 3 chip DLP at 720P
will totally kick butt on a 1080P LCD.
> My opinion is if you want the look of film then you need to project film...
This just is not true. People are constantly condemning or characterizing
digital technology categorically based on bad experiences with some specific
hardware. However, the capabilities and qualities of the hardware, especially
projectors, varies very widely. A digital scan of a 16mm film shown on a good
video projector will look more like a 16mm projection of a clean print than it
will look like a projection of the same scan on a routine 'business/classroom'
class video projector. And no, we're not talking about the digital cinema
projectors used in commercials theaters, which are ungodly expensive, and
art/indie venues are not going to have. We're talking about the kinds of
projectors any serious motion picture art venue should be able to afford to buy
or rent, and should be using if they're inviting the public to view work in
> because really they are two completely different processes in projecting a
> moving image
Different processes, yes, but the proof is in the image that results, and good
video projection of a film scan looks very good, and very filmic. I have seen
revealing side-by-side comparisons. The similarities outweigh the differences,
and in general, the video actually looks BETTER due to the inevitable wear on
the film print.
No video projector reproduces the subtle flicker of film projection, or the
subtle movements in registration that occur as any film moves through the gate.
These are relatively small things, and one might consider them flaws, or the
special little imperfections that make the film medium truly magical, or simply
irrelevant. I would guess that for over 99% of anyone who is ever likely to
view Dana's film, they would fall into the later category.
New-generation Hollywood movies look cold, flat and dead on screen because the
images are either captured digitally or created inside a computer in the first
place, and then heavily processed digitally in ways that make everything look
like a comic book -- NOT because they are projected digitally...
FrameWorks mailing list