THE BACKLOT
By William Kallay
EDITOR'S NOTE: In 2012, directors Peter Jackson
and James Cameron are advocating to shoot films at 48 frames-per-second.
Standard film is shot and projected at 24 frames-per-second. The higher
frame rate results in a lifelike presentation in a movie theater.
Imagery is also sharp. Jackson has filmed "The Hobbit" at 48
frames-per-second.
In 2008, Super Vista Corporation's Robert Weisgerber unveiled the digital version
of his stunning Super Dimension-70 projection system.
A friend of mine told me not to be a Luddite some years
ago. I always considered myself fairly up-to-date on new
technologies. When my friend gave me that advice, I was
sitting out the then current revolution happening in
professional and consumer photography - the digital
photography. This was "way back" in 2004 and nearly
everyone I came across had jumped from film to digital.
I was reluctant not because the quality had finally
reached a point where it was very good. I was reluctant
to give up a medium I loved, and that was film. I've
since gone through a variety of simple point-and-shoot
and digital SLR cameras since then, and I've fallen in
love with the ease of digital photography. I suppose my
only fear now is the ability to open my digital files 25
years from now, but that's another subject.
I mention my own foray into digital because of my own
fears, if you will, of digital cinematography and more
importantly, digital projection, used in the movie
industry. For nearly ten years now, the film industry
has been plugging away at exhibitors to enter into
digital projection. For the studios, it's a no-brainer.
They save lots of money on prints and distribution. For
exhibitors, it's really more about marketing than making
money. Digital projection, according to its proponents,
is supposed to revolutionize how we see movies. In
reality, we're seeing glorified HDTV. The pictures are
bright and clear with no shaky jitter. Dust and
scratches are a thing of the past. Fine. But a good
projectionist who handles a film print properly and who
maintains the projection equipment can have a
presentation that surpasses digital projection.
The movie exhibition industry has changed drastically in
the last 15 years. Digital sound essentially killed the
idea of fine picture quality in 70mm prints and six
track analog sound. Megaplex cinemas (over 20 screens
under one roof) killed the concept of large single
screen theaters or multiplex theaters with sizable
screens and auditoriums that I grew up with. In the
process, movie presentation quality has gone
significantly downhill and consumers pay a much higher
price at the box office and concession counter for the
privilege. This is not to say that there aren't fine
movie houses or fine movie presentations anymore,
because there are. But for the most part, it isn't the
same.
Not much, to be honest, gets me to go to a movie theater
these days. I think the presentation is more subpar than
it used to be in the dreaded local movie theaters of my
youth. I don't like the idea of spending a lot of money
at a theater when I have to sit through commercials. And
my local theaters have embraced digital projection,
which to my eyes, is cold and fatiguing. I yearn for
better presentation for my money. I yearn for something
that resembles film running through a projector, not
something that resembles my HDTV at home.
I guess I'm a Luddite in regard to movies today. Yet,
maybe there's hope. I've seen the future of movie
presentation, and by my own admission, it shattered what
I've thought about digital projection.
A New Way To See Movies
In 2002, I had the pleasure of meeting an inventive gentleman named
Robert C. Weisgerber. Born and raised in New York, Weisgerber still had
the accent of a guy who was familiar with Times Square and Fifth Avenue.
He was classy and knew a heck of a lot about the roadshow movies of the
1950s and 1960 I love. I had just seen his
demonstration of a spectacular new film presentation, Super
Dimension-70. He wanted to bring back the thrill of seeing movies again
on the big screen. His passion showed in the images he presented that
day at the Harmony Gold Theatre on Sunset Blvd. The 70mm images from his
short film, narrated by Walter Cronkite, were crystal clear and
breathtaking. Robert and his producing partner, Barrie O'Brien, became
friends of mine.
When SDS-70 was introduced to both film industry professionals and the
media back then, companies pushing digital cinema were making inroads in
motion picture exhibition. Their argument was that film was a dying medium
and doomed for the dinosaur pit. Digital was the way to go and those
backing d-cinema claimed it was superior to film presentation. Film
purists knew that was stretching the truth quite a bit. What impressed
me about Robert's system was that it could be placed in any current
theatre without adding tremendous expense to the operator or studio.
Audiences would get a bang for an extra buck or two. I haven't heard any
consumer rave about going to see a movie in digital projection. I've
heard them rave about 70mm. And I've heard them rave about IMAX.
Many who saw Robert's SDS-70
presentation fell back on the myth of 70mm being super expensive and
cumbersome. You'd think that directors, studio executives and studio
accountants who
complained about 70mm had to load the reels themselves onto
projectors! But those who saw SDS-70 were totally impressed with it.
Oddly, those same studios who complained about the
expense of 70mm prints
have invested even more money in IMAX and IMAX 3-D prints. Those prints
are much
more expensive and cumbersome than any 70mm format. In addition, many
exhibitors have been installing digital projection
systems in many of their theaters. So much for saving
money!
SDS-70, in my opinion, was a burst of energy movies
needed. It was spectacular to see and it didn't cost an
exhibitor or studio too much to use. Seemed like a smart
idea to me, especially considering how much studios try
to save money. Instead, they invested in digital
projection, digital 3-D, IMAX prints, IMAX 3-D prints,
35mm prints and claimed that the movie exhibition
industry was dragging its feet over the roll out of
digital projection. Yet here was a cost effective and
box office drawing projection system that would knock
people's socks off. For a generation of movie goers who
liked everything they experience to be amped up past 11,
SDS-70 was perfect. Instead, the movie industry and
exhibition industries took their own very expensive
route into the billion dollar or so rollout of digital
projection. Weisgerber went back to the lab.
In late 2007, Weisgerber invited me and other members of the film industry
and press to the famed National Theatre in Westwood, CA. The National
was in its last days as a movie house, only to be
replaced by a retail store. This was a famous and once
very popular theater where many of Steven Spielberg's
movies were presented on its big screen. It was also the
venue in which Douglas Trumbull unveiled his own super
projection system, Showscan. Weisgerber was there on
that balmy night to
present his new DMX projection format, which is a digital version of his vaunted
SDS-70 system. Would DMX, a 2K digital projection format, rival his 70mm
system? And would it blow away standard d-cinema as we presently know
it?
There was a considerable crowd there that night.
Considering that wildfires had blanketed the Southern
California sky with ash, it was a good showing.
Weisgerber asked his projectionist to run the original
SDS-70 short. As I raved back in 2002, this a stunning
example of how good 70mm can look, especially at 48
frames-per-second (standard film runs at 24
frames-per-second). The effect of watching this
hyper-sharp and bright film is miraculous. Watching this
short film again, this time on the National's famous
60-foot
screen, was nothing short of stunning. This, to me, is
what watching spectacular movies is all about.
What I Saw
Weisgerber asked his projectionist to run the digital
version of SDS-70 in his new DMX format. To say that I
was stunned with the quality is an understatement. How
in the world did Weisgerber get digital projection to
look this good, and how did he manage to maintain most
of the high quality of his 70mm system? This couldn't be
right. No way could digital projection look as good as
70mm, especially his SDS-70 system. What I saw in DMX
was a presentation that maintained the quality and look
of 70mm, but in an efficient mode of delivery.
Weisgerber then rolled out some samples of DMX that
caused the audience that night to say, "Wow!" He
compared a 35mm version of SDS-70 with DMX. He then
showed a new 35mm-to-DMX test and it was almost as sharp
and clear as his 70mm footage. I won't blow the surprise
in how that footage was actually filmed, but it was a
test to show how 35mm could look in DMX. This footage,
as an example, simply looked spectacular. It looked
nearly as good as a film shot in 65mm. It far surpassed
any digital presentation of a 35mm originated film I've
seen in the last few years. It felt natural and there
was no eye fatigue. The imagery was sharp, bright and
had depth to it without the need for stupid 3-D glasses.
Has James Cameron or Jeffrey Katzenberg seen this
technology?
The biggest surprise came when a few clips from "The
Searchers" (1956) were shown. The audience confessed
that they had never seen the movie look that good. DMX
maintained most of the quality of the film's old film
stock, while giving it a sharp and fresh look that
wasn't unnatural. The only parts that looked a little
unnatural were some motion scenes where the 48
frames-per-second rate made the film motion a bit too
defined, but they were minor. What Weisgerber said after
the clips were shown shocked the audience. They were
watching these clips from a DVD transferred to DMX.
Warner Bros. didn't have a high definition version
available at the time. I could just imagine how good a
catalog movie, which was shot in VistaVision, would look
in DMX or SDS-70.
I walked out of the National with a smile on my face. I
was no longer a Luddite when it came to digital cinema.
Weisgerber had done it right.
Seeing DMX Today
In late summer 2008, I was invited to see a new demo of
DMX at the classic Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood. This
theatre was nicely restored by the American Cinematheque
in the late-90s and has shown a number of films since
then. The screen is almost 60-feet wide and one of the
projectionists, Paul Rayton, is considered one of the
best in the business. Since the National no longer
exists, Weisgerber and O'Brien set up shop here.
Weisgerber showed the same clips as he did in 2007, but
added some new ones from Disney. Clips from some of
Disney's special venue films and a preview from "Pirates
of the Caribbean: At World's End" were shown. Let me
just say that I've never seen the "Pirates" movies look
this good. I was seeing sharpness and clarity that I
haven't seen in most movies today. The daytime shots of
"At World's End" looked exceptionally clear and bright.
What really surprised me were the shots of night and
rain. There is a sequence in "At World's End" in which
Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) and Davy Jones (Bill Nighy)
swordfight on a ship's mast. DMX pulled out all the
elaborate detail in this sequence, including the
so-called flaws in the visual effects. This
demonstration really showed how good DMX is.
The next demonstration showed clips from a couple of
Disney's special venue films. These are films that are
shown exclusively in some of Disney's theme parks.
They're usually shot in 65mm film, then shown on large
screens at the various parks in 70mm or 70mm 3-D. One of
the clips was from "Muppet-Vision 3-D," a staple at
Disney's Hollywood Studios and Disney's California
Adventure for some time now. The film in 70mm 3-D has
always looked soft to my eyes. 3-D, in general, just
doesn't look natural to me. However, DMX 2-D version
really brought out the clarity and color of the Muppet
film to life. There's a character made from early CGI
animation
who pops in and out of the scene. I've never seen him
look this clear, and his early CGI flaws really show.
This isn't a comment on the original filmmaker's ability
to bring this character to life with the technology at
hand. It's just to show how good DMX is at bringing out
details.
The next clip used a few scenes from Disney's "Mickey's
PhilharMagic" attraction in Florida. This film uses many
of Disney's characters with computer animation in 3-D.
The clips showed Donald Duck getting into trouble, and
clips of Ariel singing (there was no sound on these
clips). These were shown in 2-D DMX. All I can say is,
"Wow!" The films looked outstanding. Of course, these
clips may have been taken directly from the digital
master files, but they still looked like 70mm film.
What's DMX?
DMX is an off-shoot of Weisgerber's Super Dimension-70
(SDS-70) film projection system. In that 70mm version,
film is preferably shot on 65mm film at 48
frames-per-second, then screened in 70mm on SDS-70
projectors at the same frame rate. The result is a
hyper-realistic, yet natural looking film presentation.
Scenes with action or fast movement are intensified with
the higher frame rate. Yet there are subtle scenes that
can easily lend themselves to drama that work equally as
well in SDS-70.
DMX takes that same approach for higher quality
presentation into the digital age, and in my opinion,
does it well. The system uses Texas Instruments' DLP
technology (a technology that has been around since the
1970s, by the way) at 2K resolution. With a few
proprietary software upgrades, DMX turns standard DLP
projection into something spectacular. The result is a
film-like presentation that actually feels like you're
watching film in 70mm. I didn't think it was possible
for digital to look this good, but here it is.
With all the talk of 4K projection and 3-D, DMX trumps
those formats. IMAX is unveiling its own digital format
for smaller screens in some markets. I haven't seen it
to remark about the quality. It should be very good. But
in basing my own impressions about SDS-70 versus IMAX
film presentation, SDS-70 is far superior. I would
imagine, based on what I've seen in DMX, that it will be
a better presentation.
DMX requires no major theater upgrades as an IMAX or
digital system would. It uses its technology through
existing digital projection systems. There is no need to
modify an auditorium or replace the current screen. The
additional beauty of this format is that it's more than
capable of filling a large 60-foot screen with no
problem. Both SDS-70 and DMX utilize the natural aspect
ratios that films were shot in, without letterboxing as
IMAX does with its DMR prints.
There have been many theaters built in the last few
years that have a large 50-foot or more screen. There
are two issues with those large screens. One, many
theaters have built the screens so that the masking
comes down to create a widescreen effect. This goes
completely against the logic of shooting in widescreen.
Widescreen movies are meant to be larger and wider when
projected. Two, many of these screens are so large that
a standard 35mm print or digital presentation looks
faint. The image quality is usually mediocre. DMX solves
this by not only putting a super sharp image on-screen,
but it pumps out enough light to fill the screen evenly.
The result is a very pleasing picture.
Backwards Thinking
I applaud that IMAX has sold commercial exhibitors on
using IMAX Digitally Re-mastered (DMR) prints. At least
IMAX screens aren't filled with "enhanced 35mm prints"
that don't belong on an IMAX screen in the first place.
Audiences are getting 70mm prints that were essentially
considered dead by the mid-1990s. Early in this decade,
many theaters that had an expensive IMAX screen would
show 35mm prints to fill those seats at night. IMAX
finally got into the game and started producing the IMAX
DMR prints to maintain their market. The results have
been successful, though we're really seeing either
digital or 35mm originated film usually letterboxed for
the IMAX screen. The results have been mixed. Some
prints look absolutely great, while others (mainly shot
in the Super 35 format) look okay in comparison.
Since the initial unveiling of DLP with "Star Wars:
Episode I - The Phantom Menace" in 1999, digital systems
have come and gone. DLP is already on its second
incarnation with 2K projection as opposed to 1.3K
projection. Boeing tried a satellite system that was
supposed to beam movies around the world to theaters.
That didn't last long. JVC had D-ILA for theaters, but
didn't go far. Kodak had a prototype system some years
ago that didn't go far, either. Sony's been struggling
to get its projection system on the market. The
technology has changed so much that it's questionable if
today's digital projection won't be out-of-date in the
next ten years.
I'm not suggesting that technology doesn't move forward.
I believe that it must, but it should be under the best
conditions of having a technology that won't be obsolete
in five or ten years. The new technology should surpass,
not equal, a high quality 35mm film print. What the
studios and some exhibitors are doing is basically
throwing out something that has worked for a century for
new technology that may not be compatible with
tomorrow's technology.
Think about it. I'm sure that many people spent a
fortune on early HDTVs, only for the technology to
become vastly superior in little time. The new HDTVs
have much thinner screens, as well. I'm
sure that many large rear-projection HDTVs are filling
up dumps.
Dolby Laboratories and Digital Theater Systems
(DTS) released Dolby Digital and DTS Sound in the early
1990s, proclaiming that their sound quality was
identical to the original sound mix. Not quite, and
those formats killed better quality analog movie sound
in the process. Now both companies have introduced much
higher quality "bit-for-bit" soundtracks for Blu-ray
disc in Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA (Master Audio). Who
knows if these formats will make into the movie
theaters, but I'd imagine that they'd be good for movie
exhibition.
My point is that the companies and individuals behind
digital cinema and digital 3-D aren't looking at the
whole picture. They're looking, as many business owners
do, at the bottom line. They're also settling for the
easy route, rather than trying to do something with high
quality. I believe that high quality and going the easy
route can work for the studios and exhibitors.
The studios for years have tried to come up with cheaper
(and usually lower quality) costs to off-set their
expenses. First it was the rollout of digital sound in
the 1990s, which essentially killed off widespread use of
70mm prints. Theater chains like to cut corners as much
as possible, too. Either way, the consumer who goes to a
movie theater today spends much more than he/she did not
too long ago. And in reality, outside of stadium seating,
a consumer
doesn't get an improved picture and/or sound
presentation that would have with a 70mm print. The consumer is hit with a barrage of
commercials, digital slides of local doctor's offices,
and today's latest hit song. Consumers who watch digital
projection are basically watching glorified HDTV and
getting charged a lot of money for it. Answer Is 3-D?
I love film presentation when it's done correctly. I've
seen both 35mm and 70mm prints that are gorgeous. The
way film flickers through the projector casting a big,
bright image on the screen is what makes going to the
movies special. Digital projection, to me, is cold. It
reminds me of how the compact disc first wowed many
people with its crystal clear sound, free of so-called
imperfections of the analog LP. Isn't it amazing how
some people are now embracing that "old" LP in favor of
CDs and better yet, MP3 recordings?
Some studios are pushing for digital 3-D cinema. They claim that
audiences are clamoring for the format, and that movies will certainly
benefit. They also claim that 3-D has been very successful at the box
office. Truthfully, I've heard of no one raving about seeing a current
movie in 3-D (except for my daughter). The 3-D is still not refined
enough to where it is visually natural. I still get headaches after
watching digital 3-D, and I think the process mutes the color scheme of
movies and deadens the image quality. Studios and their PR departments
will tout how much money 3-D movies make. But that's misleading. When I
took my daughter and two of her friends to see "Hannah Montana: Best of
Both Worlds" in 3-D, I nearly passed out when the girl at the box office
told me how much it cost. It was almost $60 for a matinee on a kid's
movie. Studios and exhibitors will charge an extra $2 or more for a
digital 3-D movie. That's why the movies are making more than they
normally would in 2-D. If "Meet the Robinsons" was in 2-D, I don't think
it would've made half the money it did in 3-D, just as an example. The
"Hannah Montana" movie probably would've done just as well in 2-D simply
on the fact that Miley Cyrus is popular now.
I don't believe that digital 3-D, which really isn't that much better
than traditional 3-D, is the answer to bring audiences into a theater. I
think it's a novelty and doesn't add anything special to seeing a movie.
Some die hard fans love the format, and that's great. Me, I much prefer
the natural appearance of DMX.
I Love DMX
I love DMX because it does film presentation right. It
looks stunning on a big screen, it's cost effective, it
blows away almost any theater presentation today, and
it's compatible with digital systems that are currently
installed in movie theaters. If there is a digital
cinema presentation that could save studios money and
increase exhibitor revenue with a few inexpensive
upgrades, DMX is it. This is a format that I don't mind
paying an extra $2 on my movie ticket, because I'm getting my money's
worth.
The picture quality of DMX is exceptional. It's almost like looking
through a crystal clear window. Rather than putting on silly 3-D glasses
that I believe cause needless headaches and diffuse the color and
sharpness of the original images, DMX offers dimensional quality
(depending on the film's content) that far surpasses 3-D. You use your
own two eyes and there's no need for 3-D glasses that pollute the
environment anyway. DMX is free of flicker and the "rainbow effect" that
is associated with some digital projection. The format also allows for
uncompressed digital sound, which makes a huge difference in sound
quality.
I don't own stock or any piece of Super Vista Corp. (the
owner and inventor of SDS-70 and DMX), nor am I employed
by them. I'm not an employee of the company. I am
friends with both Robert Weisgerber and Barrie O'Brien
and I do think they're wonderful people. But I admire
what Weisgerber and O'Brien have done with both SDS-70
and DMX. Weisgerber really believes in giving a movie
audience a bang for its buck. What he has done with DMX
is built a far better engine than anybody else has. It's
clearly superior and clearly smart in the way it's
executed. For all the cries of print costs, the digital
cinema conversion and what have you, DMX is the answer
people have been looking for. It's cost effective for
both the studio and exhibitor. It offers a truly
excellent film experience that you can't get at home, in
IMAX or digital 3-D.
I've seen a lot of innovation over the years in regard
to digital cinema. The first tests I saw in 1999 with digital
cinematography were okay, but nothing special. Digital projection looks
okay, and it has gotten better. But it's merely acceptable.
I've seen various test films direct from the negative on IMAX films.
I've seen what a Viper motion picture camera can do. I've seen
surprisingly good high definition video to 70mm prints. I've seen
comparisons between 35mm, 70mm and digital projection on the same day.
By far, 70mm presentation (especially if the film was shot in 65mm) is
still the best way to see movies. I think that DMX nearly replicates
that perception of seeing 70mm film on a big widescreen. It's really
that good. Super Dimension-70 is even better, but as the world goes more
digital, I think that DMX is a great format.
People will still go to the movies. Economic crashes, wars, television,
the Internet, home theater and other pastimes haven't killed off going to
the movies. I think what has been lost over the years is a sense of
showmanship and quality in movie presentation. DMX brings that thrill of
seeing movies back to the big screen.
There has to be something that is superior to 35mm or digital projection
to ramp up the box office and make going to the movies exciting again. For digital cinema to survive and make sense,
it's got to have something better than what consumers
get at home. That's why I think DMX is the answer.
Special thanks to Robert Weisgerber and Barrie O'Brien
Photos: © Bill Kallay. All rights reserved.
Images of "SDS-70" & "DMX" © Super Vista Corporation.
All rights reserved.
Originally posted here on October 28, 2008.