From: JEFFREY PAULL (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Apr 26 2010 - 13:38:51 PDT
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>.