Paramount Stops Shipping Film Prints to US Theaters - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 133 Old 01-23-2014, 12:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HopefulFred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,868
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 178 Post(s)
Liked: 215
Keep in mind that Paramount's decision here is only a distribution change. Directors can still choose to record with film. Some will for a while yet.

The digital intermediate has been the standard for a number of years, even for directors who insist on shooting film. Paramount has simply decided to stop making prints for distribution, not to force directors into using digital cameras.

I know that I have a really hard time detecting the difference between watching super35 and 4K. The only differences I can spot are the stability and quality improvements that come with digital cinema projection.

I hope the small art-houses and drive-ins don't get squeezed out and that this rising tide lifts all ships, but it might not. That will be the only downside to this change.
AaronMK likes this.
HopefulFred is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 133 Old 01-23-2014, 12:20 PM
Member
 
jmaccool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: CA
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 18
fierce_gt,

I hear what you are saying about it not being better, not the point I was trying to get across. However digital cameras have come a long way and I would say are nearly as good a film ones perhaps even better (probably depends on who you ask). I think your idea of digital not being able to capture the same nuances as analog is not true. It is true if the program and hardware are not able to capture those details but the detail is there and digital is capable. Digital is 1’s and 0’s which are used to create pretty much anything in the electronic world. All that has to be done is write more of that code for a richer capture of the film, music, color, contrast ratio or whatever media/medium one is trying to get. I don’t think that right now either is better, one is just more efficient and cost effective. I am very certain that digital can surpass analog in every way once the tech world releases that next step. Heck who knows, there might be a new form of electronic capturing around the corner that will surpass both. My real point here is not to embrace technology for the sake of it but rather look at films (movies) brethren (digital cameras) and see how it has evolved and have faith that it will do the same…it will and probably much faster than the camera did.

John M.
jmaccool is offline  
post #93 of 133 Old 01-23-2014, 12:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KBMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Grass Valley, CA
Posts: 2,875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 42
My neighbor works for Beale AirForce Base, and he is in charge of the 70MM FILM for the U2 Bomber. I asked him why they are still using film, and he gave this answer....."Digital only shows 200 shades of grey...Film, on the other hand, renders 600 shades of grey".....they used this technique before Hurricane Katrina Hit, and then an after fly-by for damage essesment.....FOOD FOR THOUGHT...

Terrence
"Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?...."No, have you?" -ALIENS

KBMAN is offline  
post #94 of 133 Old 01-23-2014, 01:08 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,050
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1469 Post(s)
Liked: 2758
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBMAN View Post

My neighbor works for Beale AirForce Base, and he is in charge of the 70MM FILM for the U2 Bomber. I asked him why they are still using film, and he gave this answer....."Digital only shows 200 shades of grey...Film, on the other hand, renders 600 shades of grey".....they used this technique before Hurricane Katrina Hit, and then an after fly-by for damage essesment.....FOOD FOR THOUGHT...

8-bit digital video reproduces 256 shades of gray,10-bit reproduces 1024 shades and 12-bit goes up to 4096. 10-bit video is available to consumers. I'm sure the military has better. I'd think that film is used for the resolution it is capable of, not for the dynamic range.

Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is offline  
post #95 of 133 Old 01-23-2014, 01:17 PM
Member
 
rushfan2112's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 177
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtBee View Post

I totally understand the move from a business point of view, but I miss the look of film in the theater. I now feel I am looking at TV, which really is the case. Except my plasma at home often has a better picture than what I see at the theater. My last trip in September was to see Rush at a mega-plex. The supposed 4k image was out of focus and full of digital artifacts. At least in the past, generally the scratches and splices didn't show up until the movie made it to the drive in.

I also saw this movie in our local big name, fancy pants movie theater. First time back in a theater in over 15 years (maybe 20, I'm too old now to remember biggrin.gif )

I was so surprised at how crappy the movie looked on the screen but I figured maybe it was just my eyes. I mean with what we paid for tickets and this being new technology and all it had to just be my old lousy eyesight eh? rolleyes.gif

An "Analog Kid" in a digital world
rushfan2112 is offline  
post #96 of 133 Old 01-23-2014, 07:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
AlexanderDelarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Omaha
Posts: 632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by awblackmon View Post

Boise Idaho has several second run theaters which are very popular and well attended. It is one of these theaters which has installed 4k projectors with Dolby 7.1 sound in each of it's screens. For awhile it was the only 7.1 theater in the area. Only recently has a newly built first run theater installed Atmos and 7.1 screens. Only one of the dollar theaters still has film projectors. That will change by the end of 2014 when they too will be running 4k and 7.1 like the rest of the theaters in that discount theater chain.


What do you think of the 7.1 in the theater?

Epson Pro Cinema 6030 | OPPO BDP - 103 | Pioneer Elite VSX 70 | Definitive Technology PM 1000 (L/R) | PC 2000 (C) | SR8040BP's (7.1) | Rythmik LV12R | Carada Criterion Brilliant White 118" | URC MX 780 & MRF 350 | ATS Acoustic Panels | Sanus AV Rack | DirecTv | Roku 2 | Monoprice 12AWG |
AlexanderDelarg is offline  
post #97 of 133 Old 01-23-2014, 09:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tenthplanet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Mexico, South of Oregon, Not as far east as Vegas
Posts: 1,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopefulFred View Post

Keep in mind that Paramount's decision here is only a distribution change. Directors can still choose to record with film. Some will for a while yet.

The digital intermediate has been the standard for a number of years, even for directors who insist on shooting film. Paramount has simply decided to stop making prints for distribution, not to force directors into using digital cameras.

I know that I have a really hard time detecting the difference between watching super35 and 4K. The only differences I can spot are the stability and quality improvements that come with digital cinema projection.

I hope the small art-houses and drive-ins don't get squeezed out and that this rising tide lifts all ships, but it might not. That will be the only downside to this change.
It should be pointed out that most 4k capable digital projectors are only being fed with 2K for most pictures. When 4k distribution is the norm expect to see improvement.
AaronMK likes this.

"Bring out yer dead!".."Wait I'm not dead yet!"..(Sound Austrian here) "WRONG !!" (You know what happens next..)
tenthplanet is offline  
post #98 of 133 Old 01-24-2014, 06:37 AM
Member
 
Mean Gene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 184
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 22
I used to go to the theater on a regular basis, but rarely anymore. As others have noted, the behavoir of others in the theater has just gotten out of control. I only go now when it is a film that if you don't see opening weekend will be ruined by internet spoilers, etc.

$1.59 Redbox rental on my 65" vt60/7.1 system where I can eat my own snacks and pause it if I need to go to the bathroom, etc. is too hard to beat nowadays.
Mean Gene is offline  
post #99 of 133 Old 01-24-2014, 07:18 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 21,665
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 756 Post(s)
Liked: 752
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtBee View Post

I totally understand the move from a business point of view, but I miss the look of film in the theater. I now feel I am looking at TV, which really is the case. Except my plasma at home often has a better picture than what I see at the theater. My last trip in September was to see Rush at a mega-plex. The supposed 4k image was out of focus and full of digital artifacts. At least in the past, generally the scratches and splices didn't show up until the movie made it to the drive in.

If the picture looked like that you should have gotten you rmoney back. I've done that several times at AMC theaters. If there are any issues I either get coupons for free popcorn and drinks or tickets to future shows. And if there is a really big problem I get all of that plus a refund on the tickets for that day.

Although we don;t go to the movies like we used to. My GF and I used to average around one movie a week, but now we only see one or two a month in the theater. At least the AMC locations in my area are all digital now. Well at least the three we go to are. I would think the other six locations in the area are also. I know I never want to see a movie on film ever again.

39TB unRAID1--53TB unRAID2--36TB unRAID3
LED DLP
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme

aaronwt is offline  
post #100 of 133 Old 01-24-2014, 07:39 AM
Member
 
ArtBee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Troy, IL (STL)
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

If the picture looked like that you should have gotten you rmoney back. I've done that several times at AMC theaters. If there are any issues I either get coupons for free popcorn and drinks or tickets to future shows. And if there is a really big problem I get all of that plus a refund on the tickets for that day.

Although we don;t go to the movies like we used to. My GF and I used to average around one movie a week, but now we only see one or two a month in the theater. At least the AMC locations in my area are all digital now. Well at least the three we go to are. I would think the other six locations in the area are also. I know I never want to see a movie on film ever again.

It was an AMC theater!!! I only go to the theater to see the Bond movies, every several years, but made an exception for Rush. I was with my wife and sister in law, so I would have gotten plenty of grief for my visual OCD asking for a refund. rolleyes.gif

I should add we saw Skyfall a year before at a different chain, and it was an excellent presentation. But still looked like video to my eyes.

In my youth we were blessed with a small local chain's theater built in the mid 60's. It had a superb sound system, deep curved 70 foot screen, and 800 seats. Supposedly it was the largest screen east of the Mississippi when opened, and in a small town! Saw many of the 1970's sci-fi movies there in 70mm and it was always an experience. Some of my friends worked for the company and I was aware of the extent they went through to ensure technical excellence. To my eyes, the current theaters simply do not stack up.

Art
ArtBee is offline  
post #101 of 133 Old 01-24-2014, 07:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 168 Post(s)
Liked: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmaccool View Post

This is an audio/video forum which I always assumed would be after cutting edge technology and the best manufactured products. I realize that there are some issues with digital film but that was the case for digital photos which is now the standard. This is a natural evolution and I am shocked it did not happen right along with photography. Film and photo are the same things; the difference is one shot seen at a time instead of hundreds and thousands strung together to make photos move. I realize the reason for this taking longer is the cost associated with it, apparently only consumers can afford to adapt to this new technology (digital cameras) and not corporations, LOL. It was a money game plain and simple. Once the tech is perfected (which won’t take long) digital film will look as good as digital photos do and will make the manipulation much easier for post production add ons and mods, e.g. CGI and other effects. I am genuinely surprised to hear all this hemming and hawing from a bunch of A/V tech nerds like myself. JMHO

John M.
I would submit, it's not really the same thing.

For one thing, the conversion to digital photography didn't require anyone to lay out 10's of thousands of dollars to replace working equipment to show movies that don't actually make the theaters any money. In the case of digital photography, most people just bought a digital camera when they needed a new camera - or, later on - simply got one for free with a phone.

Further, digital photography makes far more sense for individuals. 1) It saves them money when shooting a lot of pictures. One picture or 10, it's all the same price. 2) It's less wasteful. People would develop and print a whole roll of film, sometimes only getting a few "keepers" out of 24-36 exposures. Digital lets you keep and print only the ones that are worth keeping. 3) Digital photos can be carried around on devices we already carry with us. You don't need the wallet with a bunch of photo holders to show off you family anymore.

Quality wise, it's a different story, too. With still photos, most people never blew up their photos to anything larger than 5x7. 8x10 and larger were only for professional portraits for most people. Now, people look at photos on screens that are often no more than a megapixel or two - if even that.

With digital movies, the resolution at many theaters (especial those that made the switch early or are now buying the cheapest projectors) is not much better than what you see at home - and it's being blown up to 10 or even 20 times larger than your screen at home. It's like watching Youtube videos on a smart phone vs. your big screen TV. What looks great on the phone, doesn't look as great super-sized.

Look, if the whole process had been 4K through and through to actually improve on what we got with 4th and 5th generation distribution prints, then I'd be on board. Instead, what we're getting is TV resolution at a premium price and all the annoying people sitting around you to boot.

My worry is, we're going to have a generation gap in movies from the early 2000's to 2015 or so the way we had in TV from the mis\d 80's to the early 2000's when so much quality was lost to SD video formats being used in the production chain to edit or create special effects. We literally have thousands of movies now that can never look any better, even if we actually get real 4K quality in the home. Even worse will be if the studios simply never bother upgrading their workflow (most still edit and master only in 2K, even when shooting on film or 4K digital) because they know the theaters can't support it and won't pony up to upgrade.

On the other hand, movies from earlier eras can be scanned from master film copies that still have plenty of resolution in them for the next home video format. That is, if they decide it's worth it when everything new would look worse by comparison.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #102 of 133 Old 01-24-2014, 02:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
xvfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 682
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post


My worry is, we're going to have a generation gap in movies from the early 2000's to 2015 or so the way we had in TV from the mis\d 80's to the early 2000's when so much quality was lost to SD video formats being used in the production chain to edit or create special effects.

Does anyone find the colour grading in post processing is becoming far too heavy? Watching Top Gun in HD seems so natural to the eyes. Then seeing the 2009 Bruce Willis Surrogates film. It seems too clean, too perfect and strangely unnaturally rich. The blacks are far too deep in Surrogates as well. It seems so heavy compared to the 80s and 90s films.

I also like this grain in the older films.
xvfx is offline  
post #103 of 133 Old 01-24-2014, 03:52 PM
Member
 
kenkraly2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Not surprised to hear about this news. It was going to happen sooner or later.
kenkraly2004 is offline  
post #104 of 133 Old 01-24-2014, 07:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
AlphaPie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 313
The one reason I visit the movie theater: It's nearly impossible to keep from getting a movie ruined for me, be it commercials that spoil just about everything, friends talk about it, articles online (even this forum), co-workers blabbing about it. It's simply too hard to isolate myself from spoilers between the time of theatrical release and the bluray release. The new Star Wars movie is probably something I'll have to see in theaters to avoid any spoilers. I'm the type of viewer that likes to know almost nothing besides the bare basic premise about the movies I watch before I view, there is nothing like the first time. wink.gif

Denon 4520CI on order - Polk 9.3 w/ wides
Sharp 60" - HTPC - Wii U - Sony BDP-S1100 - Monster HTS3500
DIY sealed 15" x2 sub build almost started
AlphaPie is offline  
post #105 of 133 Old 01-25-2014, 05:05 AM
Member
 
bighvy76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 25
I read JJ Abrams decided to film star wars 7 in 35mm instead of digital. Thought that was pretty cool
bighvy76 is offline  
post #106 of 133 Old 01-25-2014, 07:22 AM
Advanced Member
 
Aarghon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 303
bighvy: Totally agree, it would break the "feel" of that movie compared to the rest of the series if shot in digital.

But it will be shipped in digital format. To me, film it traditionnal, and use the cost advantage of digital transfer for distribution. Best of bost worlds tongue.gif

Polk Audio LSIM703, Polk Audio LSIM704c, Energy Rc-70 surrounds, Energy rc-mini heights
Dual Reaction-Audio BPS212
Pioneer Elite sc-61 AVR
Pioneer Elite n50 network player
Marantz CD6004 cd player, Marantz UD5007 Blu ray player
Panasonic Tcl55dt60 led tv,Playstation 3 and a lot of old consoles
Aarghon is offline  
post #107 of 133 Old 01-25-2014, 09:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,125
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 685 Post(s)
Liked: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmaccool View Post

fierce_gt,

I hear what you are saying about it not being better, not the point I was trying to get across. However digital cameras have come a long way and I would say are nearly as good a film ones perhaps even better (probably depends on who you ask). I think your idea of digital not being able to capture the same nuances as analog is not true. It is true if the program and hardware are not able to capture those details but the detail is there and digital is capable. Digital is 1’s and 0’s which are used to create pretty much anything in the electronic world. All that has to be done is write more of that code for a richer capture of the film, music, color, contrast ratio or whatever media/medium one is trying to get. I don’t think that right now either is better, one is just more efficient and cost effective. I am very certain that digital can surpass analog in every way once the tech world releases that next step. Heck who knows, there might be a new form of electronic capturing around the corner that will surpass both. My real point here is not to embrace technology for the sake of it but rather look at films (movies) brethren (digital cameras) and see how it has evolved and have faith that it will do the same…it will and probably much faster than the camera did.

John M.

I agree with you, I'm not a vinyl or tube amp supporter personally. I just recognize that newer isn't always better, and I can appreciate the debate that enthusiasts want the best, and not the newest. the rest of the world will want the newest, this forum is about finding the best.

but I think the sooner we adopt digital, the sooner it will develop into the best as well. there's more room to grow with digital than film.
AaronMK likes this.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #108 of 133 Old 01-25-2014, 10:25 PM
Member
 
jmaccool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: CA
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Thank you, that is all I meant. Digital has far more potential than film.
jmaccool is offline  
post #109 of 133 Old 01-26-2014, 07:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SubaruB4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Greenwich, Connecticut
Posts: 1,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

I'm glad to see film go. I used to lug film canisters up to the projection booth when I worked at the Avon Cinema in Providence, RI 25 years ago. That was the only part of the job that I did not enjoy.

Digital projection already beats film in many categories and it will only get better as resolution, color gamut, and dynamic range increase. Film-based IMAX may look great, but it is far too cost-prohibitive for even the biggest productions to use for an entire movie, and the venues for viewing it on release are few and far between.

4K digital projection is truly a leap forward and I welcome the end of film as we know it.
I work at UPS so at first I did not really notice but a local theater is really the only one that still uses film, the weight for most of the incoming shipments are around 46 lbs per canister and most of them look like they have seen a war zone.
SubaruB4 is offline  
post #110 of 133 Old 01-26-2014, 03:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
Kascnef82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 40
With digital projection, there's greater freedom to add more trailers before the movie. No wonder why the previews are just as long as the preshow itself.
Kascnef82 is offline  
post #111 of 133 Old 01-26-2014, 10:10 PM
Senior Member
 
awblackmon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Boise, Id. U.S.A.
Posts: 265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderDelarg View Post

What do you think of the 7.1 in the theater?

I have seen only a couple of movies that actually had a 7.1 track. The sound was pretty good. They play the Dolby "all around you" trailer that is fun. I stay home for the majority of my movies but my mother wants to get out to a movie on occasion so we try to pick this theater when we go out. Good price, pretty good picture and pretty decent sound. The other budget theater in town in the same chain should be upgrading by years end.

reeltheater.com

The newest theater in town has several screens with the Atmos sound system. I do like the sound there very much. I don't have any other theaters nearby with competing 3D sound systems like the Auro system Maybe later one of the theaters in town may install it or when another new theater opens they may have it installed. Heaven knows our area is growing fast and there is room for some new theaters.

Movie theaters, both first run and budget theaters are well attended. People in this area like going out to movies. I have no doubt new theaters will open here in the next few years.

Alan in Boise

103 inch AT screen with 9.x playback. IB sub woofer system. Two manifolds with 2 15s and 2 12s. Line array with 2 15s. Running main channels with Minimus 7s. Have front wide and front hight and rear surrounds. Room is perfect size for smaller speakers like the Minimus speakers. Approx. 17x13x8. Tower speakers were taking up to much room.
awblackmon is offline  
post #112 of 133 Old 01-27-2014, 04:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tleavit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver, Wa
Posts: 1,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Once you scan film and project it digitally, there's scant difference between that and an all-digital production. There's no denying that film-based IMAX looks fantastic, but even that level of quality is achievable through digital capture. Motion pictures are going through a transition that occurred a decade ago in still photography. Soon enough the idea of shooting with film will be nothing but an anachronism, even for a director like Nolan. Anything film can do, digital capture can replicate.

Maybe I'm fortunate because we have new theaters with Atmos backed by Christy 4K projectors because on the 80' screen they look absolutely amazing. I went to a new IMAX theater in San Fran when I was there for a conference and watched Elysium. I almost got a migraine from the utter choppiness of motion. I haven't seen many movies in IMAX and don't plan to in the future, Ill keep my Cinetopia smile.gif


I'm sure there were lots of movie fans who said many of these same things when they went from Black and white to color smile.gif

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" -Arthur C. Clarke
tleavit is offline  
post #113 of 133 Old 01-27-2014, 04:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tleavit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver, Wa
Posts: 1,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by bighvy76 View Post

I read JJ Abrams decided to film star wars 7 in 35mm instead of digital. Thought that was pretty cool

Even better if we get puppets and real models over CGI. I look back and this is what really made the first star wars so great and the next 3 terrible.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" -Arthur C. Clarke
tleavit is offline  
post #114 of 133 Old 01-27-2014, 04:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
Kascnef82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by tleavit View Post

Even better if we get puppets and real models over CGI. I look back and this is what really made the first star wars so great and the next 3 terrible.

No fake 3d!!!!
Kascnef82 is offline  
post #115 of 133 Old 01-27-2014, 06:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by tacodan 
Evolution in profits, not quality. End. Another sad example. Same for imax, moving to digital is a downgrade. The accountants won again!
Yes its garbage!!

DIGITAL AUDIO/VIDEO IS UTTER TRASH,analog is MUCH BETTER!!!! (Always has been/will be)
Dude111 is offline  
post #116 of 133 Old 01-27-2014, 11:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tleavit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver, Wa
Posts: 1,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude111 View Post

Yes its garbage!!

DIGITAL AUDIO/VIDEO IS UTTER TRASH,analog is MUCH BETTER!!!! (Always has been/will be)

As an IT guy, I always scoff when someone says "never".

I remember my computer science professor telling us that Intel would *never* make a processor faster then the Pentium 100mhz.
AaronMK and fredxr2d2 like this.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" -Arthur C. Clarke
tleavit is offline  
post #117 of 133 Old 01-28-2014, 08:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 168 Post(s)
Liked: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by tleavit View Post

As an IT guy, I always scoff when someone says "never".

I remember my computer science professor telling us that Intel would *never* make a processor faster then the Pentium 100mhz.
That's a guy who shouldn't have that kind of job.

Seriously, did he think they would just stop researching and making things better? He may as well said we'll never see a better storage medium than the floppy disk.

When it comes to technology, you can't talk in absolutes.

That being siad, I predict we'll never have flying cars like they do in The Jetsons, Back to the future and The Fifth Element. It's not that they can't make them, it's that people suck.

1) No matter how automated you make the process and how many safeties you put in place, someone will find a way to pull a boneheaded maneuver that takes a minor fender bender and creates mass death when cars fall from the sky and kill people on the ground and destroy city blocks. No matter how foolproof you make them, some fool will launch himself through the roof of his garage or land on the neighbor's kid.

2) People barely maintain their road vehicles as it is. We all know someone who lets the oil light or check engine soon light run for a week or more before doing anything about it. Failure to maintain a road vehicle usually just means you break down on the side of the road. Failure to maintain your flying car could crash you onto a playground full of kids.

3) See above when it comes to keeping fuel in the vehicle.

No doubt, personal flying vehicles will come about, but you'll need a pilot's license for them. The idea everyone can operate one is fantasy. The tech to create the vehicles cheaply and efficiently enough will certainly happen, but humans suck at meeting basic obligations to society, which is why we won't all be able to operate one.

Self driving cars will certainly happen for the majority only because it's likely those would be safer than the way too many people drive now days. Further, a malfunction would have much fewer fatal consequences.
Aarghon likes this.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #118 of 133 Old 01-28-2014, 09:27 AM
 
bralas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lafayette, LA
Posts: 117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20

Film is still the industry benchmark for resolution, color depth and (characteristic) sublime / unmatched color saturation aesthetic.  

bralas is offline  
post #119 of 133 Old 01-28-2014, 10:06 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 168 Post(s)
Liked: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by bralas View Post

Film is still the industry benchmark for resolution, color depth and (characteristic) sublime / unmatched color saturation aesthetic.  
Not to mention contrast levels.

Digital really falls short when you're trying to get that nice shadowy foreground element in front of a bright daylight sky.

Having said that, though, a lot of photographers miss the potential of a simple neutral density filter, but that is more a symptom of mediocrity that develops with so many productions constantly running these days: the craft isn't there more often than not.

All the tools in the world don't matter if the photographer lacks basic understandings of light and shadow and composition. Guys like Welles and Kubrick nailed it every time because they understood it and made sure their photographers did, too.

Too often, others don't and the sloppiness jumps out like an ugly toad.

What we get instead of quality shooting is post produced video full of crushed blacks and orange and teal colors.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #120 of 133 Old 01-28-2014, 12:43 PM
Member
 
AaronMK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

8-bit digital video reproduces 256 shades of gray,10-bit reproduces 1024 shades and 12-bit goes up to 4096. 10-bit video is available to consumers. I'm sure the military has better. I'd think that film is used for the resolution it is capable of, not for the dynamic range.

I'm curious about the ability of current sensors to accurately capture such dynamic range in a single exposure, and suspect this might also be an issue.
AaronMK is offline  
Reply Latest Industry News

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off