16x9 digitally projected onto cinema

T

tobnoj

New member
does anyone have any experience with any dvx footage projected on the cinema via a digital projector. i do some work for a company that does cinema advertising and just wondering how it will look. would the 16x9 lose some resolution if it was scaled up or would it be best to shoot in 4x3 and then letterbox it?

i know theres hundreds of 16x9 topics, but i have done a search and haven't found an answer.

thanks
 
1080 i or progressive projection

1080 i or progressive projection

tobnoj said:
does anyone have any experience with any dvx footage projected on the cinema via a digital projector. i do some work for a company that does cinema advertising and just wondering how it will look. would the 16x9 lose some resolution if it was scaled up or would it be best to shoot in 4x3 and then letterbox it?

i know theres hundreds of 16x9 topics, but i have done a search and haven't found an answer.

thanks
Click to expand...
:) :huh: The only info i have came from an avid expo where i spoke to the projectionist .He showed me the projector and the memory unit which housed the memory of the show being projected in 1080 interlaced or progressive .
It looked to be the size of a giant oceanliner trunk on wheels like the rodie transport cases .
Anyway he said the memory needed to project a 2 and a half hour feature was 1 and 3/4 terrabits .
I dont know what the delivery medium is and like all projection the issues are screen throw , distance from projector to screen , screen material , light source and the condition of the reflector .
i hope someone with more knowlege can add to this by detailing what the delivery material is .Raid removeable hard drives? /or dvd or cd type discs?

possible someone should start a string on projection, .
In a heart beat you could get a representative of the Digital Cinema Initiative to post on this site a very fine detailed workflow and a estimate on how the dvx footage looks when projected .
remember dvx seems to be around 400 to 500 lines the uprez is really an illusion from what I can tell, See the strings by Jan( panasonic queen) .She can answer your question . I added my comments because i wish to encourage more people to regard this issue and the recent developments in
digital projection .I am a film person .I love film .
But if we filmamkers can get out of print and major develpoment cost it will be Digital Financial Relief . a new department of the government DFR ,Lucas can be the commisioner .
 
Bruce Morgan said:
:) But if we filmamkers can get out of print and major develpoment cost it will be Digital Financial Relief . a new department of the government DFR ,Lucas can be the commisioner .
Click to expand...

That's funny! Well put... :laugh:
 
I can't speak for the DVX, but have had some of my DV (PD150) stuff shown on a BIG screen. That was shot 4:3 and converted to 16:9 and looked terrible! It had been de-interlaced though, so was getting down to pretty bad resolution.

My next film is hopefully going to have more of a life on the big screen, and I would not even consider a SD camera for it. I don't think SD cuts it on the big screen, and I have seen a fair amount at festivals.
 
I just saw 9 songs (that was shot with the dvx) digitally projected on a big screen and thought it looked really nice, blown out windows aside.
 
mmm said:
My next film is hopefully going to have more of a life on the big screen, and I would not even consider a SD camera for it. I don't think SD cuts it on the big screen, and I have seen a fair amount at festivals.
Click to expand...

Have you seen "November?" To the average viewer, including myself who is not an average viewer, the movie looked like a "movie" but it was shot on a DVX in mini-DV format. How about "Mad Hot Ballroom." Same thing. Looked like a movie.

There are a couple of others out there as well in the theaters but there is one that really proves a point. "My Date With Drew." Shot with only a consumer grade camera with NO external mike, no Stedicam, no extra lights, just a little mini-DV camcorder hand held. I saw it at the Archlight theater in Hollywood with one hell of a big screen and the movie got applause at the end.

After 30 seconds into the movie the technical aspects, or lack of, meant nothing. In fact, the audience was told that the movie was being done on a crappy little camera.

It didn't matter because the subject and the people were interesting. There was a story. This movie really changed how I think about the technical aspects and wanting to get the right look.
 
we have used a xm1, and a dvcam (forget the model, one up from the pd series?) and its alright. but you have to use the 4x3, keeping with the aspect ratio so it isn't blown up. we have to design things around 4x3 so it fills up the wholescren, which gets annoying. i like ads that are full screen. the sony HDV cameras are nice and would be good because they are HD, but i have heard to many things about artifacts when a subject moves and dropouts. i also film a lot of skateboarding/bmx type of stuff so the sony's would be too bulky and the whole artifact thing.

the files are saved on a data dvd, and a little computer reads the files and than outputs onto the digital projector. so it isn't dvd's that are being viewed, just uncompressed .avi files.
 
Kelly Olsen said:
Have you seen "November?" To the average viewer, including myself who is not an average viewer, the movie looked like a "movie" but it was shot on a DVX in mini-DV format. How about "Mad Hot Ballroom." Same thing. Looked like a movie.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen November, but would like to. I have heard that looks good. My main judgement comes from seeing a lot of stuff shot on film and projected off SD video (beta SP and DV(CAM)) at festivals, and I didn't think that holds up because of the lack of resolution. I went to see 28 Days Later with a bunch of nurses who all commented on how bad it looked. We were near the front though, and the XL1 is lower rez than the DVX when used progressively.

Personally I don't think that a lot of 35mm projection is up to scratch these days. War of the Worlds was nearly unwatchable in my local multiplex.

HD is so cheap now, why not aim to use it if you are going to be playing on big screens?
 
BTW, everyone seems to say it is better to shoot 4x3 and crop to 16x9, but I can't see why. If you shoot 16x9 in camera, the distortion is done pre-compression. That way it is possible to have a 16x9 without any further recompression. If you were editing uncompressed, it may be different, but most people don't.
 
I really think if your going to show the DVX on a screen, then shooting 4:3 with the 16:9 anamorphic adapter is the way to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top