How Advances in Digital Film Making and Exhibition
Are Destined to Radically Alter Your Movie Going Experience
The feature film industry is
entering a new era of technological advances that are challenging many of the
old ways of thinking about filmmaking.
More significant, these advances promise to dramatically change the expectations
and experiences of movie going audiences.
Some technological changes are responsible for the emergence of contemporary
high-quality 3D movies while other innovations have been triggered by the popularity
of 3D movies.
Until
the last decade, little has changed in the manner in which feature films are
made nor how feature films are exhibited to audiences. Film formats have come and gone and color
became ubiquitous in the U.S. during the late 60’s. However, in the last decade
we’ve seen what is arguably the most significant advancement in feature film
technology. Sometimes referred to as the
“Digital Age of Cinema,” the early 2000’s saw Hollywood accepting the fact that
film may no longer be the dominant medium for making and exhibiting movies,
paving the way for digital cinema to become the default standard.
The Transition to
Digital Was Not Universally Accepted
Yes,
the dawn of digital cinema marked the end of an era in film-making. I remember in
the late ‘90s when a few film purists, archivists and directors bemoaned the
fact that the rich texture of film grain and the ‘breathing’ of film as it
passed through the projection shutters gives a feature film an organic feel
that should never be lost. They
considered it an essential part of the art of film-making.
Indeed to some, it was part of the art back in the day. Today—with the use of digital cameras, the digital intermediate process and digital cinema exhibition—the nuances of natural film grain and film weave are gone. When grain is desired, it is typically a visual effect rather than a natural aspect of the medium.
The Digital Intermediate
Of
course, many directors still shoot on film stock. When Legend3D converted the majority of Transformers: Dark of the Moon 2D-to-3D
shots, we accommodated Michael Bay’s preference for shooting actors on
anamorphic 35mm film. Since film is a single
camera, 2D process there was no other way to inter-cut those shots within the 3D
film without meticulously executed 2D to 3D conversion of each frame of the
film. There are many other directors who, like Michael, prefer the look and
feel of film stock for certain type of shots. But regardless, how images are captured,
the common denominator today and one of the most significant advances in the
history of post-production is the Digital Intermediate (DI) process where all
forms of media within a feature film are converted to a digital conform. Whether a title is shot on film stock, shot
with digital cameras, created entirely in CG or converted from 2D-to-3D, DI has
become the norm in post-production and as far as feature film exhibitors are
concerned 35mm distribution prints are all but being replaced by digital
projection systems worldwide.
Digital Film
Production Makes 3D Possible.
Most
contemporary creative and technical filmmakers have come to accept the inevitable;
“digital is here to stay.” Actually, I
don’t think there are many legacy creative types who miss the tactile sensation
of celluloid or polyester running through their hands, or the technical skills and
patience that accompany the use of splicers and glue and the periscopic
experience of viewing edits on a Moviola or on the later flatbeds.
Those days are largely gone and today’s film
professionals are more comfortable with a keyboard and a mouse. In addition to all the superior visual
effects, compositing, digital color grading, etc. that DI has given us, one of
the most important advantages of digital film production is that it has ushered
in the age of stereo theatrical exhibition.
Without digital projection, 3D would have an insurmountable hill to
climb to gain acceptance. As recently as
two years ago, there were attempts to employ analog film for 3D exhibition, but
those attempts were met with criticism that analog 3D film projection—even
though it was not the old fashioned red/blue or cyan anaglyph—represented a
step backward. Analog film formats for stereo, often called “over and under”
are still around though most professionals do not consider it a lasting format.
Higher Spatial Resolution
Due
to the life and death implications of digital radiology not to mention the huge
revenue opportunities of that industry to the medical community, the giant
radiology equipment manufacturers like Siemens, GE, etc have historically partnered
with the major teaching hospitals around the country, allocating enormous
R&D budgets in an effort to push the state of the art as far as conceivably
possible. As a result, medical imaging has always been
considered the pinnacle of imaging quality and resolution demands. That is until now. Today, digital cinema is considering the
introduction of spatial resolution and dynamic range solutions for digital
cinema that actually come close to exceeding the gold standard of medical
imaging, diagnostic mammography. Before my entry into visual effects, my focus
was on neurobiological and medical research and my career spanned the
pioneering eras of neuroscience and digital medical imaging. In fact medical imaging was the original foundation
of the Legend3D process and I frequently refer back to that technology when
assessing current and future trends in feature film capture and exhibition. Back in the 80’s and 90’s the Holy Grail of diagnostic
medical imaging was 4K, 10bits for mammography. That was valued as the closest approximation to
analog x-ray film and was the lowest resolution considered optimal for the clinical
detection of minute calcifications and early stage cancerous breast
anomalies. However, the capture, display
and storage technology at the time was not sufficiently advanced to handle that
kind of data throughput. Today mammography
remains in the 2K to 4K range with some scanning sensors delivering up to 6K at
14 bits. However, the 4K standard
remains the minimum resolution for much of diagnostic radiology. It took a long time for diagnostic radiology to
move up to 4K and it’s an even bigger step for digital cinema. Today filmmakers
have 8K cameras in their toolbox as well as super resolution scanners that subsequently
down-sample to 4K. Some people call some of the higher resolution solutions above
4K “faux resolution” because the full capture resolution is not realized on the
output but instead is used to calculate a lower resolution of 4K image. However, it’s been demonstrated that down
sampling does appear to improve resolution as well as contrast and will
undoubtedly be a giant step for theatrical exhibition. However, getting these advances installed
world wide will be a significant task because the vast majority of theaters
around the world currently exhibit feature films at a maximum resolution of 2K,
so to exhibit 4K movies there has to be an upgrade in projectors and also an
upgrade in servers due to the added bandwidth.
The real benefit of higher spatial resolution is the ability to install
much larger screens. However, once again
we have a cost benefit ratio that the exhibitors will have to tackle and one that does not necessarily come
out positive on the side of further advancement.
Interest in Higher
Frame Rates For 3D
There
is another contribution to higher spatial resolution in feature film commonly
referred to as temporal resolution. Whether scanned from film or directly
captured from digital cameras, 24 frames per second creates an additional
dimension of “time” which significantly increases the effective spatial
resolution on the big screen; offering a perceptual resolution actually greater
than 2K or 4K. This coupled with down
sampling from 8K and higher physical spatial resolutions could eventually
produce super high-resolution feature film exhibition. But it doesn’t stop there. Temporal resolution is about to have an even
greater influence on the movie going experience with the latest interest in
introducing high frame rates that are well above 24 frames per second.
Recently
we have been hearing a good deal about higher frame rates, particularly from
Peter Jackson who is shooting The Hobbit
in 3D at 48 frames per second.
It’s
well known in the Industry that 24 frames per second originally became the
standard for film because 24 frames was the slowest that film could run through
the projector with reasonable fidelity for the first sound on film formats from
Western Electric. It was an arbitrary
number that was intended to save money on film stock yet it was fast enough to
allow for sound.
For an in-depth
commentary on frame rates I’d like to direct you to the excellent Scott
Squires’ blog, “The Effects Corner”.
In
today’s digital world we are close to no longer have restrictions on frame rate
for exhibition and in addition to Peter Jackson’s use of 48 frames per second
on The Hobbit there is also talk of
60 or even 120 frames per second in an attempt to give the audience a more
realistic 3D visual experience. One
advantage of the higher frame rates for 3D is that it removes a great deal of
motion-blur, which tends to cause visual stuttering when an object is rapidly
moving horizontally across the screen. However,
one consequence of higher frame rates sometimes considered negative is the loss
of grain, even artificially inserted. Some say that 48 frames per second and
higher comes across as “live” video. I
believe that any objections to the look created by higher frame rates are simply
due to the fact that we are not yet used to it. Certainly, you can have an immersive 3D
experience with 24 frames per second or any of the higher frame rates being
proposed. I believe that in the right hands, the different frame rates above 24
frames per second can profoundly change the 3D visual experience for the better,
particularly when considering advances in higher physical spatial resolution
mentioned above. How VFX pipelines will
handle these higher frame rates and their massive increase in data has yet to
be determined as well as how the resulting increase in bandwidth requirements will
be accommodated within the Blu-ray format.
However one thing is certain— increased frame rates will create a whole
new, more vivid visual experience for the movie going audience.
Conclusion
So
will 3D, higher spatial resolution and higher frame rates become the new
standard? Or should they be considered simply another part of the director’s
tool-box or toy-box? Up for consideration is whether 3D is appropriate for all
genres? To me, the fact that four out of five of the top-grossing movies of all
time are 3D makes that a moot question. Aside from its obvious appeal to
audiences, I personally, believe that proper creative execution of 3D can
enhance any feature film genre. However, it’s highly questionable whether increased
frame rates are appropriate for all films or film genre. Budgetary and technical considerations aside,
3D and higher frame rates, like film grain and black and white, should probably
be a creative consideration by the filmmaker and there is little doubt that many
filmmakers will continue to prefer shooting and exhibiting their feature films
in 2D at 24 frames per second. As for
higher spatial resolution, it certainly would seem to make sense for
significantly bigger screens than we are used to at our local Cineplex, but
does it add enough to warrant the additional production expense considering
amount of data already being generated by 3D and higher frame rates? With
exhibitors just recovering from conversion to digital and 3D, will they see the
cost benefit of the necessary build out and retrofits as well as the cost of
new projectors? I believe it is not
likely for a long time. As far as the
home theater industry is concerned, we are already working with 240hz and
higher frame rates in HDTV 3D sets that greatly increases the perceptual
resolution but I don’t believe that higher resolution will motivate the
purchase of new TVs. In fact, until you
get to 55” displays, resolution above HD is probably not a significant
differentiator. On the other hand, I
believe quality 3D at higher frame rates will motivate consumers to upgrade.
As
a visual effects innovator for the past 25 plus years, I’m the last person to
join some critics suggesting that particular technological advancements in
moviemaking and exhibition should be discouraged, avoided or not considered at
all. Regardless of the technology
employed, it’s the quality of the story and the talent of the creative and
technical filmmakers that make or break a movie. If new and even radical technological
advances can help filmmakers create more compelling visual stories then I say, bring
it on. Just remember to consider the
enormous bandwidth and storage demands on production from the beginning to the end
of their pipelines and the consequent cost to the studios, visual effects
houses, conversion vendors, post production houses and last but certainly not
least, the exhibitors.
I’d
like to thank my colleagues, Garrett Smith and Rob Hummel for reviewing this
blog and the invaluable suggestions and edits offered:
Garrett
J. Smith
is currently CTO of Ha Productions based in Santa Barbara. He previously served
as vice president, production technology and digital mastering operations at
Paramount Pictures. During his 24-year tenure at Paramount, Garrett
participated in the development of DVD, HDTV and Digital Cinema Initiatives.
Prior to Paramount Pictures, he worked in various post-production positions
including; post-production supervisor for “Ripley’s Believe It or Not”;
director, post-production for Columbia Pictures Television; and manager, film
services at CBS Network Television. Garrett is a member of the Academy of
Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and serves on the Science and Technology
Council. He is also an associate member of the American Society of
Cinematographers and an adjunct associate professor at the USC School of
Cinematic Arts.
Rob
Hummel
is the President of Group 47, Inc. Formed to acquire and improve upon the
technology behind DOTS; the advanced digital archival storage media originally
developed by Eastman Kodak. Previously, Rob was President of Legend3D, the
leading 2D to 3D conversion services company for major motion pictures and
television. He was the chief liaison
between Legend and film studios, using innovative solutions to enable studios
to convert movies into 3D efficiently and economically. He began his career as
the director of production services for the Technicolor Laboratories, and then
moved on to Douglas Trumbull’s visual effects company during the making of
Blade Runner (1982) and to post-production work on Tron (1982). A former president of DALSA Digital Cinema,
Hummel has also served as senior vice president of production technology at
Warner Bros., where he oversaw digital post-production (mastering films for
digital cinema, HDTV, DVD, etc.) and digital restoration work on such classics
as “Gone with the Wind” and “The Wizard of Oz.”
He previously worked in
post-production, animation and Imagineering at Walt Disney Studios, headed
animation technology at DreamWorks, and helped launch digital cinema units at
Technicolor and Sony. Hummel currently serves as the Chair of the
Public Programs Committee of Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences’
Science and Technology Council and sits on the Scientific and Technical Awards
Committee. Rob has hosted several
programs at the Academy on Film Formats, Film Technology, and 3D Stereoscopic
Imaging. He is also an associate member
of the American Society of Cinematographers and editor of the 8th edition of
the American Cinematographer, and authored most of its articles. Rob has taught
classes at the USC and the UCLA and is an Honorary Visiting Professor at the
Kanazawa Institute of Technology in Japan.
