What exactly happens when a film is projected digitally?

L

L1N3ARX

Well-known member
I just went to see Sherlock Holmes 2, and it was a bit of a jarring experience to say the least. I realize to the average audience member, this kind of thing probably doesn't matter much and might be unnoticeable to most... but wow, was I shocked. The film appeared exactly as it does on a display @ 120hz, you know, the classic "soap opera" look. At first I almost thought it was a result of shooting HD, but the Genesis / RED / Alexa (the standards... ) have never looked so completely artificial in my eyes. I was so taken out of the experience that I actually pulled out my phone and looked up on IMDB (in the friggin theater!) to find out that it was indeed a 35mm feature shot on a panavision. The only explanation is that somehow, some extremely nasty trickery was employed in the projection process to rob me of a real movie going experience. I was pretty disappointed to say the least... the 120hz / soap opera look almost induces me to vomit. It completely destroys the experience, at least for me. I don't know why I'm so sensitive to this kind of thing, but I absolutely hate it.

So, what is actually going on here? Is it that the film is being projected digitally and somehow the frame rate is being doubled? I don't know much about the mechanisms of digital projection, if somebody could enlighten me, I'd love to know.
 
L1N3ARX said:
I just went to see Sherlock Holmes 2, and it was a bit of a jarring experience to say the least. I realize to the average audience member, this kind of thing probably doesn't matter much and might be unnoticeable to most... but wow, was I shocked. The film appeared exactly as it does on a display @ 120hz, you know, the classic "soap opera" look. At first I almost thought it was a result of shooting HD, but the Genesis / RED / Alexa (the standards... ) have never looked so completely artificial in my eyes. I was so taken out of the experience that I actually pulled out my phone and looked up on IMDB (in the friggin theater!) to find out that it was indeed a 35mm feature shot on a panavision. The only explanation is that somehow, some extremely nasty trickery was employed in the projection process to rob me of a real movie going experience. I was pretty disappointed to say the least... the 120hz / soap opera look almost induces me to vomit. It completely destroys the experience, at least for me. I don't know why I'm so sensitive to this kind of thing, but I absolutely hate it.

So, what is actually going on here? Is it that the film is being projected digitally and somehow the frame rate is being doubled? I don't know much about the mechanisms of digital projection, if somebody could enlighten me, I'd love to know.
Click to expand...

I disagree completely. The digital projections I've seen have not given me any sense of 'soap opera', 'tv', or any other 'negative' attribute. The fact that when the credits flow smoothly rather than jump around because of wear on the projector, or wear on the film stock, gives me the sense that the rest of the film was 'smooth' as well... although for most viewing situations the crappy sprocket and film feed usually was hidden by the human persistence of vision.

And of course any other defects in the print were 'gone' in the digital presentation as well, such as scratches and dust. Maybe people who complain loudly about 'digital' always were able to see a film, in a shinny new projector, and the first run of the print through said shinny new projector... but there were many occasions where by the time I'd see the film in a theater, unless it was the 12:01 AM local first day of release showing, the print usually had some visible defects.

To me the digital projection, and attendant digital distribution, should be welcomed, especially by people who are looking for ways to get their films into distribution, and would find the making of 2000 prints, an insurmountable road block, because a distributor would not want to put out that kind of money on 'their film'... but with a digital distribution, there may be more risk takes who do put something out, because 'it's almost free'... well, if the distribution is via the network... running disks around is not all that 'cheap', but since they can be reused... is cheaper than film prints...
 
You don't have to worry about a movie with a scratch through the print because some 17 year old projectionist doesn't know his job.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I disagree completely. The digital projections I've seen have not given me any sense of 'soap opera', 'tv', or any other 'negative' attribute. The fact that when the credits flow smoothly rather than jump around because of wear on the projector, or wear on the film stock, gives me the sense that the rest of the film was 'smooth' as well... although for most viewing situations the crappy sprocket and film feed usually was hidden by the human persistence of vision.

And of course any other defects in the print were 'gone' in the digital presentation as well, such as scratches and dust. Maybe people who complain loudly about 'digital' always were able to see a film, in a shinny new projector, and the first run of the print through said shinny new projector... but there were many occasions where by the time I'd see the film in a theater, unless it was the 12:01 AM local first day of release showing, the print usually had some visible defects.

To me the digital projection, and attendant digital distribution, should be welcomed, especially by people who are looking for ways to get their films into distribution, and would find the making of 2000 prints, an insurmountable road block, because a distributor would not want to put out that kind of money on 'their film'... but with a digital distribution, there may be more risk takes who do put something out, because 'it's almost free'... well, if the distribution is via the network... running disks around is not all that 'cheap', but since they can be reused... is cheaper than film prints...
Click to expand...

Hmm, well I guess it isn't a result of the projection method. Through my own experience, I've never been of the opinion that digital projection could seriously effect the aesthetic of a film... like when I project a DVD / BLU RAY or any digital file from my computer onto my wall, it looks fantastic... just like the original film. I love projecting my movies. But whatever I witnessed tonight... was seriously a travesty. I wonder what on earth could transform the look of film to a low-rent 2nd tier soap opera. I am more curious than anything, what is the cause of this effect. I'm half tempted to go down to another local theater, one much older and without any new technology and see if there is any difference, there just has to be.
 
L1N3ARX said:
Hmm, well I guess it isn't a result of the projection method. Through my own experience, I've never been of the opinion that digital projection could seriously effect the aesthetic of a film... like when I project a DVD / BLU RAY or any digital file from my computer onto my wall, it looks fantastic... just like the original film. I love projecting my movies. But whatever I witnessed tonight... was seriously a travesty. I wonder what on earth could transform the look of film to a low-rent 2nd tier soap opera. I am more curious than anything, what is the cause of this effect. I'm half tempted to go down to another local theater, one much older and without any new technology and see if there is any difference, there just has to be.
Click to expand...
Smoother is better, right? 120hz HAS to be better than 24 fps becuase is more!! Sounds to me like some idiot at your theater switched the 120hz or (gasp) 240hz frame blending on. Although thinking about it I'd be surprised if a commercial projector even had that option. My friends dad, who claims to be a audio/visual guru, argued and refused for 30 minutes with me to turn off the 120hz blend on his HD tv for movies. His logic was smoother must be better. But after I said that I would not, could not, watch The Dark Knight like that he gave in and afterwards admitted that it was much better haha! But you're right it gives that 60i soap opera feel when it's on. It quite litterally makes me sick and I would have asked for my money back if that happened to me, saying that it was not displayed as the filmmaker intended, thus ruining my experience.
 
L1N3ARX said:
I was so taken out of the experience that I actually pulled out my phone and looked up on IMDB (in the friggin theater!) to find out that it was indeed a 35mm feature shot on a panavision.
Click to expand...

The only thing that takes me out of a movie more than poor projection... is someone on their phone in the middle of a movie... don't be that guy.
 
Theaters are in the past for me. Can't go there...cell phones and the people that use them are the new normal. Thank god for large flat panel tvs.
 
TiE_Shepherd said:
The only thing that takes me out of a movie more than poor projection... is someone on their phone in the middle of a movie... don't be that guy.
Click to expand...

I actually felt okay doing it... just this once. I was sitting in the very last row with everybody else in the center / front of the theater. It was an afternoon showing with only a few people, no one noticed :happy:. But really, what a disappointment. I kept waiting for the entertainment tonight logo to pop up and the interviewer to break-in and cut to another behind the scenes clip. Never been distracted like that before in a movie.
 
Al MacLeod said:
Theaters are in the past for me. Can't go there...cell phones and the people that use them are the new normal. Thank god for large flat panel tvs.
Click to expand...

Every second time I go to a cinema these days I think "why"? Went to see Tinker, Tailer, Soldier, Spy the other day: a serious atmospheric film. Spent the first half hour of the film trying not to be distracted by the guy eating popcorn loudly besides me. Oh joy.
 
Oh and when I saw Tinker Tailer I was trying to work out which digital camera it was shot on because I thought the noise in the shadows was pretty bad. I'm no pixel peeper but I was distracted. Turns out it was shot on film and the cinema was just projecting a poor digital copy. Oh joy.
 
I see a few possibilities here. The first is that the projectors your theater use are non-standard and played something back weird. The second is that you weren't prepared for the fast paced and effects/CGI filled style of that particular film. It looks unusual. The third is that you read something about digital projection written by a traditionalist before you went in and had that on my mind, so your eyes were the issue.
 
Searcher said:
Every second time I go to a cinema these days I think "why"? Went to see Tinker, Tailer, Soldier, Spy the other day: a serious atmospheric film. Spent the first half hour of the film trying not to be distracted by the guy eating popcorn loudly besides me. Oh joy.
Click to expand...

Not to derail the read...

This is why I have an issue with theaters. Unless I know it is going to be a loud film, I won't go unless it's 10am on a Thursday. Popcorn and plastic wrappers should be banned in theaters. It only takes one person with terrible manners and no sense of personal awareness to ruin a movie.
 
i've never minded an audience in a theater (unless it gets really bad, you know those three or four people in the back who keep shouting "clever" responses to what's going on-screen... chrissakes)
but overall i think it adds to the atmosphere and the fun. You can always watch an intimate movie at home in a controlled atmosphere... but you'll never get the same entire crowd of people all in anticipation and joint excitement of a movie.
Of course, I prefer the big action movies at the theater, the huge anticipated releases where everyone has fun. There's absolutely no better time to watch Inglourious Basterds than on opening night in a packed theater with an entire crowd roaring at the funny parts. Nothing amplifies emotion during a movie than an entire crowd experiencing it with you.
(But then, I'd never watch the movie Adam anywhere but in bed next to my girlfriend... atmosphere is everything in experiencing a movie)


and now, back to your regularly scheduled thread.
 
Finally someone else who has experienced this 120Hz look of digital projection. I saw "In Time" a little while ago in digital projection and was taken aback with the high refresh rate look. I complained to my friends but no one else noticed or was bothered by it. Even posted about it here on dvxuser:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...ake-and-more&p=2477748&viewfull=1#post2477748

I don't think it's all digital projectors, just ones that are set incorrectly to have high refresh rates. I theorized that maybe the projector was previously set up that way for Real3D projection, since 3D usually calls for a higher RR, and hadn't been reset for 2D.

I've seen other digitally projected films that didn't exhibit the "soap opera" look, but "In Time" was very distracting. It's definitely not the way it was shot as I have seen an early release of the Blu-ray and it looks/moves like normal on a 60Hz display.
 
Last edited:
This high refresh rate look drives me bonkers when watching movies on a so called "state-of-the-art TV".

I'm sure in a movie theater, paying $12+ per ticket, it would absolutely make me crazy as well.

Does anybody know the exact term to describe the problem on home TV sets? I've asked and asked and no one seems to be able to tell me.
 
I think this time it was the movie itself... When I went to see Sherlock Holmes 2, it was also very jittery.
The beginning action scene looked horrible. Very blurry that you couldn't see a thing. I was with my girlfriend, who doesn't know anything about film, and she was complaining and asking me why it looked so bad.

This hasn't happened to me before. And since were talking about the same movie, perhaps it was just the movie itself and not the projector this time?
 
I've heard nothing but terrible things about refresh rates. If I may ask, what, then, is the purpose to 240hz? Besides to make film look terrible. Is it purely a "Look, my TV has bigger numbers so you should buy it"?
 
qazwsx said:
Finally someone else who has experienced this 120Hz look of digital projection. I saw "In Time" a little while ago in digital projection and was taken aback with the high refresh rate look. I complained to my friends but no one else noticed or was bothered by it. Even posted about it here on dvxuser:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...ake-and-more&p=2477748&viewfull=1#post2477748

I don't think it's all digital projectors, just ones that are set incorrectly to have high refresh rates. I theorized that maybe the projector was previously set up that way for Real3D projection, since 3D usually calls for a higher RR, and hadn't been reset for 2D.

I've seen other digitally projected films that didn't exhibit the "soap opera" look, but "In Time" was very distracting. It's definitely not the way it was shot as I have seen an early release of the Blu-ray and it looks/moves like normal on a 60Hz display.
Click to expand...


Glad you're able to see it as well, but no so much that it exists ha. I really think it doesn't have to do specifically with all "digital projection" just perhaps a setting which allows for higher refresh rates (if that even exists). Since I really do not know anything about digital projection, especially in theaters, it would be awesome if someone who knows about this kind of thing could enlighten us. It really was a spot on replication of what you see on any newer tv displaying footage @ 120hz. Next time I go to the theater, I'm going to arrive early and see if I can't get a sneak peek at what goes on up in the projection booth, and maybe interview the manager to get a feel of what their setup is like. Who knows... maybe every single projector in my local theater has changed over and now this is a setting that I'll have to get use too? I sure hope not.

I think digital projection is very promising, it just needs to be executed properly and theaters which are starting to implement this technology just need to be well educated about it.
 
L1N3ARX said:
The film appeared exactly as it does on a display @ 120hz, you know, the classic "soap opera" look.
Click to expand...

I doubt the theater was doing anything other that 24 fps. There wouldn't be any need.

Modern HDTVs OTOH (in the USA market anyway) need to be able to handle 60i, 60p, 30p, and 24p. The low end TVs just run at 60Hz, which makes them fine as TVs, but induces "judder" in 24 fps playback, like movies on Blu-ray. By judder I'm referring to 3:2 pulldown. See the big Wikipedia article on telecine for more.

To get around this, higher end TVs raise their refresh rate. The lowest common denominator being your scape goat 120Hz. At this level, it shows each 60 fps frame twice in succession, each 30 fps frame four times, and each 24 fps frame five times. This completely eliminates judder from 24 fps playback. This is a good thing. Let me repeat -- 120Hz refresh in a TV is a good thing.

The refresh rate itself has nothing to do with your problem. It does not induce the so-called "plastic look", or "video look", or "soap opera" look. What does that, is application of so-called "smoothing" algorithms. What these algorithms do is change those frames by interpolation -- they look ahead and see what's moving and generate new frames that are midway between the two. So instead of seeing the exact same frame five times in succession (the way it should always work), you get as many as five "smeared" frames, all a little different. And I agree, this generally looks like crap.

I can't imagine that any theater projection system would have this option; but maybe they do. IDK.

All I'm saying is, whatever caused your problem, it's not the refresh rate of your projection system. While refresh rate is a marketing talking point and therefore easy to find and make a scape goat of, it's really not your problem. Best to let that one go.

Just out of curiosity, what did the theater management have to say about your complaint?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top