From: Ken Paul Rosenthal (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Apr 26 2010 - 14:43:49 PDT
My film, Crooked Beauty premiered April 17 here in San Francisco, originated on super 8 and was projected digitally. My eye is obsessively discriminating--and the projection looked beyond fabulous. The image filled the entire screen, the glorious grain of super 8 was palpable, with nary a pixel or digital hiccup in sight. Neither myself nor anyone--I spoke to--in the filled to capacity house felt they were looking at a digitized image. Here is my process, and how I intend to project over the course of the extensive touring and festival screenings I anticipate over the next year:
1) Transferred super 8 as a Pro Rez 422 HQ 1080p, 1920x1080, 23.98 compressed file. These HD transfers were done at Pro 8 in Burbank, CA.
2) Edited in Final Cut.
3) Projected a Pro Rez 422 HQ file via a computer for the premiere.
4) Depending on what any one festival is capable of/prefers, I will give them either a file (my preference), or an HD Cam or Digi Beta tape.
5) As for my tour, I will use a Mac Mini and project a Pro Rez 422 HQ file, thru my own, portable HD projector. I'll have a palm-sized portable drive with duplicate back up files, as well as tape and dvd copies, just in case. Phil at Pro 8 recently did some side by side comparisons, and he insists the Pro Rez projection, blew away Blu-Ray DVD. And all this devices can fit into a suit case with room to spare.
Though it's been said before, Super 8'nt dead!
Ken
www.crookedbeauty.comwww.kenpaulrosenthal.com
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:38:12 -0400
> From: email suppressed
> Subject: FRAMEWORKS Digest - 25 Apr 2010 to 26 Apr 2010 - Special issue (#2010-74)
> To: email suppressed
>
> There are 8 messages totalling 616 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics in this special issue:
>
> 1. Digital projection Basic questions (6)
> 2. Screening in Bloomington, IN (April 18th, 2010)
> 3. Real cine projection: Yes, but . . .
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:18:37 -0700
> From: Myron Ort <email suppressed>
> Subject: Re: Digital projection Basic questions
>
> Anyone have experience using consumer level digital projectors?
>
> Is it possible to project a "film" file that is less compressed than
> what seems to be necessary for a DVD?
>
> Any tips or ideas would be educational for me at this point.
>
> Any recommended equipment and reasons?
>
> Myron Ort
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:49:00 -0400
> From: lj frezza <email suppressed>
> Subject: Re: Digital projection Basic questions
>
> --000e0cd13b6af1e5a10485283a9c
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> if you're projecting from a computer, the file size shouldn't matter for the
> projector
> i'm actually looking to buy a projector, myself and i'd some any
> reccomendations
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Myron Ort <email suppressed> wrote:
>
> > Anyone have experience using consumer level digital projectors?
> >
> > Is it possible to project a "film" file that is less compressed than what
> > seems to be necessary for a DVD?
> >
> > Any tips or ideas would be educational for me at this point.
> >
> > Any recommended equipment and reasons?
> >
> > Myron Ort
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ljfrezza.com
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
> --000e0cd13b6af1e5a10485283a9c
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> if you're projecting from a computer, the file size shouldn't matte=
> r for the projector<br>i'm actually looking to buy a projector, myself =
> and i'd some any reccomendations <br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On =
> Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Myron Ort <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"ma=
> ilto:email suppressed</a>></span> wrote:<br>
> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; borde=
> r-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Anyone have exper=
> ience using consumer level digital projectors?<br>
> <br>
> Is it possible to project a "film" file that is less compressed t=
> han what seems to be necessary for a DVD?<br>
> <br>
> Any tips or ideas would be educational for me at this point.<br>
> <br>
> Any recommended equipment and reasons?<br>
> <br>
> Myron Ort<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> __________________________________________________________________<br>
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <<a href=3D"mailto:PipCh=
> email suppressed</a>>.<br>
> </blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br><a href=3D"http://ljfre=
> zza.com">ljfrezza.com</a><br>
> <p>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
> <p>
>
> --000e0cd13b6af1e5a10485283a9c--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:53:00 -0500
> From: Jeff Kreines <email suppressed>
> Subject: Re: Digital projection Basic questions
>
> I have a feeling that digital projection using consumer projectors will be
> replacing 16mm projection more quickly than most of us would like -- there
> is very little 16mm release printing going on these days. With the death of
> reversal stocks, 16mm release prints are either made off of the original
> negative (which is dangerous and more expensive) or off of dupe negs --
> which add two generations to the process (IP and dupe neg) and greatly
> reduce quality.
>
> DVD and BluRay are not the solution, at least not at the moment, I don't
> think.
>
> There are some very good codecs that do not need fast computers or hard
> drives to play back high resolution files at 24 fps. I like the Cineform
> codecs a lot -- and we use them with the Kinetta Archival scanners. You can
> capture at greater-than-HD resolutions (we use 2.4K x 2K for our smaller
> scanner, 4K x 3K for the big one) and set playback at whatever speed you'd
> like -- so those working at 12-16-18 fps can get real 12-16-18 fps
> projection, not always simple with film projectors. You also get the
> advantages of 10 bit log rather than 8 bit images.
>
> We use to travel with projectors and speakers and amps and an EQ with room
> analyzer -- a pain. I could see easily travelling with a bright digital
> projector and a small computer to feed it -- or a dedicated box like WDTV or
> similar, even Apple TV is ok but limited right now to 720P.
>
> For those of us wanting to use every pixel for 4:3 film projection, an
> expensive option would be to use a 1.33x anamorphic projection lens rotated
> 90 degrees, and stretch the image electronically so that 1920 x 1080 with
> squeeze projects as the equivalent of 1920 x 1440 through the lens. (These
> lenses are not yet affordable.)
>
> There will be 4K projectors from EPSON in the next year or so that should be
> in the high-end consumer price range -- these might be amazing.
>
> I love film projection. I wish I could foresee a long life for it,
> especially in 16mm. But Kodak seems to care only about cheap ink-jet
> printer ink these days -- IDIOTS! -- so we will have to improvise and find a
> replacement that doesn't lose the qualities that are important to us all.
>
> Jeff "still has many 16mm projectors" Kreines
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Myron Ort" <email suppressed>
> To: <email suppressed>
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 1:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Digital projection Basic questions
>
>
> > Anyone have experience using consumer level digital projectors?
> >
> > Is it possible to project a "film" file that is less compressed than what
> > seems to be necessary for a DVD?
> >
> > Any tips or ideas would be educational for me at this point.
> >
> > Any recommended equipment and reasons?
> >
> > Myron Ort
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:54:49 -0400
> From: Curtis Miller <email suppressed>
> Subject: Screening in Bloomington, IN (April 18th, 2010)
>
> Thanks everyone who submitted a film. The event was a success. Over
> fifty people attended and I think everyone had a great time. I am
> going to try to do this again next fall. I will post more information
> on the fall event this summer.
>
> Once again, thanks everyone who submitted a film,
>
> Curtis Byrnside Miller
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:39:43 +0100
> From: "email suppressed>
> Subject: Re: Digital projection Basic questions
>
> Can someone explain the point of shooting reversal then making
> reversal prints or an interneg then positive print, unless one wants
> to mix colour and black and white? I remember a Kodak film path poster
> from years ago, in which reversal-interneg-print was a not-recommended
> option, and if you go that route it must be more expensive than
> straight neg-pos, surely?
>
> Most of the filmmakers, I know, in the UK anyway, shoot neg then print
> to pos. I do that myself and have never had problems. Why is it
> dangerous? It shouldn't be if the lab are half competent.
>
> In London, at least for now, one can get good prints done in colour
> and black and white neg-pos, and I've also had very good results from
> Niagara in Toronto, notwithstanding it's a dry gate printer there.
>
> Nicky Hamlyn.
>
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2010, at 19:53, Jeff Kreines wrote:
>
> > I have a feeling that digital projection using consumer projectors
> > will be replacing 16mm projection more quickly than most of us would
> > like -- there is very little 16mm release printing going on these
> > days. With the death of reversal stocks, 16mm release prints are
> > either made off of the original negative (which is dangerous and
> > more expensive) or off of dupe negs -- which add two generations to
> > the process (IP and dupe neg) and greatly reduce quality.
> >
> > DVD and BluRay are not the solution, at least not at the moment, I
> > don't think.
> >
> > There are some very good codecs that do not need fast computers or
> > hard drives to play back high resolution files at 24 fps. I like
> > the Cineform codecs a lot -- and we use them with the Kinetta
> > Archival scanners. You can capture at greater-than-HD resolutions
> > (we use 2.4K x 2K for our smaller scanner, 4K x 3K for the big one)
> > and set playback at whatever speed you'd like -- so those working at
> > 12-16-18 fps can get real 12-16-18 fps projection, not always simple
> > with film projectors. You also get the advantages of 10 bit log
> > rather than 8 bit images.
> >
> > We use to travel with projectors and speakers and amps and an EQ
> > with room analyzer -- a pain. I could see easily travelling with a
> > bright digital projector and a small computer to feed it -- or a
> > dedicated box like WDTV or similar, even Apple TV is ok but limited
> > right now to 720P.
> >
> > For those of us wanting to use every pixel for 4:3 film projection,
> > an expensive option would be to use a 1.33x anamorphic projection
> > lens rotated 90 degrees, and stretch the image electronically so
> > that 1920 x 1080 with squeeze projects as the equivalent of 1920 x
> > 1440 through the lens. (These lenses are not yet affordable.)
> >
> > There will be 4K projectors from EPSON in the next year or so that
> > should be in the high-end consumer price range -- these might be
> > amazing.
> >
> > I love film projection. I wish I could foresee a long life for it,
> > especially in 16mm. But Kodak seems to care only about cheap ink-
> > jet printer ink these days -- IDIOTS! -- so we will have to
> > improvise and find a replacement that doesn't lose the qualities
> > that are important to us all.
> >
> > Jeff "still has many 16mm projectors" Kreines
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Myron Ort" <email suppressed>
> > To: <email suppressed>
> > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 1:18 PM
> > Subject: Re: Digital projection Basic questions
> >
> >
> >> Anyone have experience using consumer level digital projectors?
> >>
> >> Is it possible to project a "film" file that is less compressed
> >> than what seems to be necessary for a DVD?
> >>
> >> Any tips or ideas would be educational for me at this point.
> >>
> >> Any recommended equipment and reasons?
> >>
> >> Myron Ort
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________________________
> >> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:48:49 -0400
> From: bryan mckay <email suppressed>
> Subject: Re: Digital projection Basic questions
>
> --Apple-Mail-4--201129826
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=US-ASCII;
> format=flowed;
> delsp=yes
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> The projector itself isn't going to be the choke point here. The
> resolution and brightness and other tech specs of the projector are
> certainly going to affect the quality of the projection to a great
> extent, but the system you're projecting from (tape, DVD, computer,
> etc.) is going to make a huge difference. If you're projecting from a
> computer, it needs to be a fast, powerful machine. Anything with a lot
> of single-framing (think hand-painted Brakhage) is going to require
> more computing power because there's less interpolation in the
> compression algorithms and there's more for the processor to deal with
> cranking out.
>
> Feel free to contact me off-list if you have more specific questions.
> The film festival I co-organize (the Boston Underground Film Festival)
> went tapeless for the first time this year, so I have a rather long
> litany of complaints, pros and cons, tips and suggestions, etc.
>
> On Apr 26, 2010, at 2:18 PM, Myron Ort wrote:
>
> > Anyone have experience using consumer level digital projectors?
> >
> > Is it possible to project a "film" file that is less compressed than
> > what seems to be necessary for a DVD?
> >
> > Any tips or ideas would be educational for me at this point.
> >
> > Any recommended equipment and reasons?
> >
> > Myron Ort
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
> --Apple-Mail-4--201129826
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <html><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
> -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">The projector itself isn't =
> going to be the choke point here. The resolution and brightness and =
> other tech specs of the projector are certainly going to affect the =
> <i>quality</i> of the projection to a great extent, but the system =
> you're projecting from (tape, DVD, computer, etc.) is going to make a =
> huge difference. If you're projecting from a computer, it needs to be a =
> fast, powerful machine. Anything with a lot of single-framing (think =
> hand-painted Brakhage) is going to require more computing power because =
> there's less interpolation in the compression algorithms and there's =
> more for the processor to deal with cranking =
> out.<div><br></div><div>Feel free to contact me off-list if you have =
> more specific questions. The film festival I co-organize (the Boston =
> Underground Film Festival) went tapeless for the first time this year, =
> so I have a rather long litany of complaints, pros and cons, tips and =
> suggestions, etc.<br><div><br><div><div>On Apr 26, 2010, at 2:18 PM, =
> Myron Ort wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote =
> type=3D"cite"><div>Anyone have experience using consumer level digital =
> projectors?<br><br>Is it possible to project a "film" file that is less =
> compressed than what seems to be necessary for a DVD?<br><br>Any tips or =
> ideas would be educational for me at this point.<br><br>Any recommended =
> equipment and reasons?<br><br>Myron =
> Ort<br><br><br>___________________________________________________________=
> _______<br>For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <<a =
> href=3D"mailto:email suppressed</a>>.<br></div></blockq=
> uote></div><br></div></div></body></html>=
> <p>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
> <p>
>
> --Apple-Mail-4--201129826--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:05:46 -0500
> From: Ed Inman <email suppressed>
> Subject: Re: Digital projection Basic questions
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Jeff Kreines <email suppressed>
> >I have a feeling that digital projection using consumer projectors will be
> >replacing 16mm projection more quickly than most of us would like...
>
> That already happened years ago. It has been at least a decade since 16mm played any significant role in the "film" festival I used to work for (and at least five years since we had even a single 16mm print).
>
> These days it is the 35mm projectors that are being replaced left and right to the tune of 200 to 300 theater auditoriums a month. They have to be at least 2K "DCI-compliant" to book major studio releases. And the very cheapest, used bargain basement DCI-compliant theatrical digital projector will cost you about $35,000 from what I gather.
>
>
> >There are some very good codecs that do not need fast computers or hard
> >drives to play back high resolution files at 24 fps.
>
> I'm not an expert at this, but I know in 2008 and 2009 most of our festival was run off of laptops with "consumer" grade projectors set up in the auditoriums on a table. To me it looked like total crap on the big screen--far worse than the most horrid 16mm dupe.
>
> This year, for the first time, everything was run directly off of Avids through professional theatrical digital projectors. And as much as I have despised digital projection from the start--and still prefer film projection--the improvement in overall quality was truly remarkable. For the first time I could actually watch essentially homemade videos on a big screen without giving myself a headache.
>
> So, while my diatribe is probably veering off the original question a bit, perhaps the good news is that digital projection, even the "consumer" grade variety, is undoubtedly getting better all the time.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >I love film projection. I wish I could foresee a long life for it,
> >especially in 16mm. But Kodak seems to care only about cheap ink-jet
> >printer ink these days -- IDIOTS! -- so we will have to improvise and find a
> >replacement that doesn't lose the qualities that are important to us all.
> >
> >Jeff "still has many 16mm projectors" Kreines
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:38:51 -0400
> From: JEFFREY PAULL <email suppressed>
> Subject: Re: Real cine projection: Yes, but . . .
>
> I will not miss the "hand-made" look of 16mm, meaning:
> - gate weave,
> - the sparkly dots of dirt on the neg used, to make the print
> - SLIGHTLY soft image on the screen,
> - frame line showing on the screen,
> - "rain",
> - hair-in-the-gate, ( - and the thrill of trying to remove it while the film is running!)
> - lack of both top and bottom octaves on the track,
> - the John Cage music of the old 16mm Bell & Howells,
> - Loose-The-Loop SURPRISE!
> - and, of course, the shlepping of cast steel projector and separate speaker case.
> - and I always loved the feel of threading the film by hand!
>
> - Jeffrey Paull
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon 26/04/10 14:53 , Jeff Kreines email suppressed sent:
> > I have a feeling that digital projection using consumer projectors will be
> >
> > replacing 16mm projection more quickly than most of us would like -- there
> >
> > is very little 16mm release printing going on these days. With the death
> > of
> > reversal stocks, 16mm release prints are either made off of the original
> >
> > negative (which is dangerous and more expensive) or off of dupe negs --
> >
> > which add two generations to the process (IP and dupe neg) and greatly
> >
> > reduce quality.
> >
> >
> >
> > DVD and BluRay are not the solution, at least not at the moment, I don't
> >
> > think.
> >
> >
> >
> > There are some very good codecs that do not need fast computers or hard
> >
> > drives to play back high resolution files at 24 fps. I like the Cineform
> >
> > codecs a lot -- and we use them with the Kinetta Archival scanners. You
> > can
> > capture at greater-than-HD resolutions (we use 2.4K x 2K for our smaller
> >
> > scanner, 4K x 3K for the big one) and set playback at whatever speed you'd
> >
> > like -- so those working at 12-16-18 fps can get real 12-16-18 fps
> >
> > projection, not always simple with film projectors. You also get the
> >
> > advantages of 10 bit log rather than 8 bit images.
> >
> >
> >
> > We use to travel with projectors and speakers and amps and an EQ with room
> >
> > analyzer -- a pain. I could see easily travelling with a bright digital
> >
> > projector and a small computer to feed it -- or a dedicated box like WDTV
> > or
> > similar, even Apple TV is ok but limited right now to 720P.
> >
> >
> >
> > For those of us wanting to use every pixel for 4:3 film projection, an
> >
> > expensive option would be to use a 1.33x anamorphic projection lens rotated
> >
> > 90 degrees, and stretch the image electronically so that 1920 x 1080 with
> >
> > squeeze projects as the equivalent of 1920 x 1440 through the lens. (These
> >
> > lenses are not yet affordable.)
> >
> >
> >
> > There will be 4K projectors from EPSON in the next year or so that should
> > be
> > in the high-end consumer price range -- these might be amazing.
> >
> >
> >
> > I love film projection. I wish I could foresee a long life for it,
> >
> > especially in 16mm. But Kodak seems to care only about cheap ink-jet
> >
> > printer ink these days -- IDIOTS! -- so we will have to improvise and find
> > a
> > replacement that doesn't lose the qualities that are important to us all.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jeff "still has many 16mm projectors" Kreines
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "Myron Ort" email suppressed
> > >
> > To: F
> > email suppressed>
> > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 1:18 PM
> >
> > Subject: Re: Digital projection Basic questions
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Anyone have experience using consumer level digital
> > projectors?
> > >
> >
> > > Is it possible to project a "film" file that is less
> > compressed than what
> > > seems to be necessary for a DVD?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Any tips or ideas would be educational for me at this
> > point.
> > >
> >
> > > Any recommended equipment and reasons?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Myron Ort
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at (address suppressed)
> > om>.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________________
> >
> > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at (address suppressed)
> > om>.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of FRAMEWORKS Digest - 25 Apr 2010 to 26 Apr 2010 - Special issue (#2010-74)
> ********************************************************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.