Movie Film's Last Gasp - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 79Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 07:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
Orbitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 200 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Yes, the original Flight of the Phoenix with Dirty Dan Duryea. I've seen it but not in a few years and only on my 50" plasma. Too bad it's never been released on Blu-ray, only DVD in 1.85:1.
I'll get it again and check out on the big screen.

Film Editor Michael Luciano received an Academy Award nomination.

Last edited by Orbitron; 08-03-2014 at 07:35 PM.
Orbitron is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 07:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wuther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by dargo View Post
Most big budget films if they are shot on film get converted to digital for effects work. So what makes film warm and fuzzy is lost very fast.
Next to nothing gets 'lost' when a new production gets converted from the film format to a digital format certainly not with current technology anymore then converting from one digital format to another digital format. Digital vfx work on film production is nothing new and the only thing that will look dated years from now will be the digital vfx not the live footage recorded on film.
wuther is online now  
post #93 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 07:29 PM
Senior Member
 
Aryn Ravenlocke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ, USA
Posts: 485
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aras_Volodka View Post

I do have one question though... I know JJ is filming in IMAX and 35mm film... I've read that using both formats in the same film is distracting when it changes from one to the other... but I didn't notice in previous films where those changes between formats took place... does anyone know of an example I can see on the net somewhere?
Both The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises switch back and forth depending on the scene. With TDK, the opening scene with the bank heist is one format (introducing the Joker and all) and then once the title sequence and movie begin (Gordon on scene investigating) the presentation changes widescreen (2.35:1) aspect.
Aryn Ravenlocke is online now  
post #94 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 07:31 PM
Senior Member
 
Aryn Ravenlocke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ, USA
Posts: 485
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediFonger View Post
do a double blind (pun intended) test footage shot w/35mm and digital cap unprocessed unfiltered uncompressed and have all those directors pickout which is which
I suspect true veteran film makers, especially the more talented DPs would have little difficulty picking out which is which. But that doesn't mean that he digital image is any better or worse, simply that they have a trained eye.
Aryn Ravenlocke is online now  
post #95 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 07:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,494
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 178 Post(s)
Liked: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
The working negative is 36x24. 22x16 or 22x18 is done with a aperture plate in the gate added in copying from the working negative to the copy print designated for distribution.
How can you have a 36 wide negative when the film stock is only 35mm wide? That is the 'Vista Vision' aspect but for Vista Vision the film runs sideways, just like in a 35mm photo camera.
olyteddy is online now  
post #96 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 08:06 PM
Member
 
jurid001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 164
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dargo View Post
On the other hand people like George Lucas who jump the gun with say Star Wars Revenge of The Sith shot at 2K is stuck there for ever, even the Hobbit films at 5K are stuck at that resolution while film can be captured at 8K.
You can scan film at 100K, that will be 100K of garbage. Same discussions were going on in photography about 10 years ago when the transition was happening. It was established that one could produce equivalent to 35mm film pictures with about 6MP digital (Bayer pattern), and about 3.4MP with 3-color sensor (Sigma-style). That's for photography, with frames twice as large as in movies, in order to match 35mm film in movies about a half of that would be required.

Don't forget that any movie (shot on film or digital) we see even in the best theaters are still 2MP (2K), even though many shown using 4K projectors.

A2, A35, 150, 62fd, s6200, WDTV LIVE, HTPC w/ HD-DVD/BD
jurid001 is online now  
post #97 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 08:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
Based on what evidence? The color negatives of the 1990s and early 2000s were the finest-quality films Kodak had ever made. They were able to change the size and shape of the halide particles, finally going with the Vision 3 stocks, and actually work very competitively on price. The only thing that killed Kodak from a "change" point of view was money, politics, the economy, and the 2007 WGA strike, which forced all the new TV pilots to shoot with AFTRA talent (which was authorized for TV only, not film). So the collapse really began when the TV business swung almost entirely towards digital in a 90-day period.


No color wheels on 3-chip projectors. Use one of those, and make sure it's calibrated correctly, and you'll see terrific pictures.


You may have missed my comment earlier where I said I was in a position to display a digital image side-by-side with a film image and play them in real time. One thing that shocked us was how "murky" the blacks were in the film print, at least using regular Kodak Vision stock. If we used the much-more-costly Vision Premiere print stock, then the blacks were a little closer, but still not the same.


I can recall ads for still photography going back to the 1930s where they do refer to a camera as being capable of "capturing a moment in time." I think that's all they're saying.


You must not get out much. I don't think this was a terrible movie, but it certainly wasn't a very good one. There's been hundreds of better-shot films made entirely or mostly on digital, several of which won Oscars for cinematography. I wouldn't call Hugo, Gravity, or Life of Pi trash, and even the Roger Deakins movie shot on Alexa, Skyfall, I thought looked very good. The Artist looked extremely film-like -- even more amazing when you consider they were trying to imitate the look of B&W nitrate film, not just regular film -- and I think Avatar and Benjamin Button also digital cameras to recreate a world we couldn't possibly see otherwise. All of these movies looked terrific to me, but maybe I'm just focusing on the wrong thing.
Are you talking about the Kodak T-grain film stock? That's been around since 1982 and still probably used today. I wish i could remember what Polaroid and Fuji were calling there "new" film stock. They were hyping it to have the equivalent to 13,00ppi's or something, i remember i didn't know what a PPI was, so i had to ask someone who did. Well beyond what the human eye could see. I saw many prints off this film, it was ultimate film for lack of a better word. The Fuji guys took a picture of a door on building 506 i think, there at Universal, had it developed on a life size scale and glued/taped it to a wall on the P&P building directly across from the Technicolor building's, and put this same picture of a door on SS 17. It was a laugh a minute watching people try to "open" a picture door. I even fell for it. I don't think there was no way this could have been done with standard run of the mill film at that time. I just don't see it. This same capture process was also on 65 and 35MM film. Yes it was expensive, but whoa, the images that stuff rendered, was incredible. But, yet, digital was "cheap" and won out.

I have dealt with, more than i care to think of, 3-chip projectors. That is moving into yesterday, as laser is very fast taking over as king. With the FDA finally making there final rules of laser light sources for commercial and private distribution, there is currently around a 6 month waiting list from Christie, Barco, Sony and NEC for 6P projectors. I was told by Barco that 3 out of 4 coming off the assembly line is going straight to IMAX. Me, and some others, would like to see what can be done with a white laser light engine on a true film projector.

I was talking about the vista views that were done on Need For Speed. Need for Speed won't win much, because they went off the normal path and went down there own. I mean who has the nerve in Hollywood to film with Hero Go-Pro 3's? Canon 501's? Even the baby Alexa. There was not cut up cars on dolly rigs pulled around, no sound stage with a green screen. They were out there. The part were they are filling up the Mustang while they are driving down the interstate at 80 mph was all real. Most actors/actresses today would want that stunt done on a sound stage were they could keep there hair in place.

Need For Speed isn't going to get a lot of industry nods, simply for there use of certain cameras, like the go-pro 3 and cannon 501. Despite a 203 million box office. The same people who are harking on there choice of camera, are the same ones who are harking on JJ's and Chris's, and others, use of film for there projects.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #98 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 09:00 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post
How can you have a 36 wide negative when the film stock is only 35mm wide? That is the 'Vista Vision' aspect but for Vista Vision the film runs sideways, just like in a 35mm photo camera.
That's a good question. Does 34.98MM sound better?

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #99 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 10:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
Orbitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 200 Post(s)
Liked: 141
If you like 70mm, next year we will have "The Hateful Eight" from Tarantino.
Orbitron is online now  
post #100 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 10:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,494
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 178 Post(s)
Liked: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
That's a good question. Does 34.98MM sound better?
no. you can't use the whole width due to sprockets.

olyteddy is online now  
post #101 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 10:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post
no. you can't use the whole width due to sprockets.

It has been a long time since i have handled film, but i'm pretty sure end to end is 34.98MM. Nobody i know off subtracted the perforations or audio track from the total.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	oldstock.jpg
Views:	18
Size:	104.4 KB
ID:	195889  

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #102 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 11:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,494
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 178 Post(s)
Liked: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
It has been a long time since i have handled film, but i'm pretty sure end to end is 34.98MM. Nobody i know off subtracted the perforations or audio track from the total.
No one disputes the width of the film stock. What is being discussed is the image size. In the post that started this you claim:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
The working negative is 36x24. 22x16 or 22x18 is done with a aperture plate in the gate added in copying from the working negative to the copy print designated for distribution.
And as I pointed out, because of the sprockets, you just can't use the whole width of the film stock, hence the discrepancy. Take another look at the Wikipedia illustration and you'll see the actual sizes of the frames. Most film, iirc, is shot in 'Academy' ratio and later cropped for projection.

Last edited by olyteddy; 08-03-2014 at 11:25 PM.
olyteddy is online now  
post #103 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 11:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Aryn Ravenlocke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ, USA
Posts: 485
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orbitron View Post
If you like 70mm, next year we will have "The Hateful Eight" from Tarantino.
I absolutely love 70mm. I rather doubt any of the cinemas in my area do 70mm presentations though. I suspect they will all be getting digital copies of the 70mm print. Spartacus, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, and Branagh's Hamlet were all majestic pieces in 70mm.

Obviously, there are ways to make film look spectacular without going the 70mm route. But I do confess a nostalgia for it.
Aryn Ravenlocke is online now  
post #104 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 12:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post
No one disputes the width of the film stock. What is being discussed is the image size. In the post that stared this you claim:

And as I pointed out, because of the sprockets, you just can't use the whole width of the film stock, hence the discrepancy. Take another look at the Wikipedia illustration and you'll see the actual sizes of the frames. Most film, iirc, is shot in 'Academy' ratio and later cropped for projection.
OK. Here it is from my collection of Universal material, that i have not looked at in 14 years. The latest is from Kodak circa 1999.

Motion Picture 35MM Full Aperture is, holding the Film perforations vertical,(NOTE:MM=Millimeters) 21.95MM by 18.6MM. IMAX 70MM viewed from holding Film perforations Horizontal, 70MM by 48.5MM. NOTE: This is the capture area only. For more information on total film width and maximum length refer to diagram:C.

Nope, can't upload diagram C. Nice Kodak not for distrubition Copyright mark at the bottom of the diagram. Sorry.

That Wikipedia picture you keep referencing, you can keep Academy, Flat and scope and toss the others. They are long dead formats. "original" 70MM,(70MMx24.25MM) better known as panavision, died in 1961. John Dykstra and George Lucas brought it back to life for the VFX shots on Star Wars. It has enjoyed a good run for VFX, but not one movie since 1961 has been entirely filmed with it.

Two things. 1st no mater if it is on 65MM, it is copied to 35MM for distribution, in flat or scope. IMAX is filmed on IMAX 70MM film and shown on IMAX 70MM film. As a further note IMAX is only slightly larger on all four sides than Academy ratio. TV's 4:3 is smaller than Academy. 2nd, there is not enough projectionist left to swap a film projector from 35MM to 65MM or original 70MM. It would take me a few hours, i started as a projectionist assistant in 1984. Even back then it was flat or scope. No one filmed nor showed Academy anymore, it's just a reference. And those who do show Academy, is showing 1930 up to 1951 Motion Pictures, such as art houses, or theaters that specialize in classic content. Or it's the beginning of a Disney Wizard of Oz reboot/prequel.

There is 36 working film projectors in theaters scattered around Texas. I maintain 9 of them. 1 of these 9 shows limited new theatrical releases. They don't make them anymore, films and projectors. New parts are becoming harder and harder to get. The nature of lenses between a film projector and a digital projector is worlds apart, so they won't even interchange and display correctly. Studios have pulled teeth to stop from sending film prints. The only prints out there are 35MM, 65MM, 70MM and a limited supply of IMAX 70MM because IMAX is/already going 100% digital capture and display via dual Barco 4K projectors.

Prior to 1975, a projectionist was sent "raw film" raw as in copied from the original negative, with out cropping done. It was the projectionist job to set the projector for what was showing, flat or scope or panavision or panorama, Academy if you go back far enough. It was also the projectionist job to have the correct lens for the format showing. It was also the projectionist job to run and preview the film for any problems, before the box office opened to insure the best audio and image possible. Today, it is press start.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	234perf.jpg
Views:	24
Size:	102.2 KB
ID:	195945  
DeadEd likes this.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #105 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 01:44 AM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hollywood, USA
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 234 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Are you talking about the Kodak T-grain film stock? That's been around since 1982 and still probably used today.
No, the effect didn't really hit until Kodak was able to employ the T-grain particles in all the layers, which was in 1989. I think the first time I really noticed really, really sharp pictures from film was with 5296 (EXR500):

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/About...2000/index.htm

We practically picked our jaws up off the consoles when shows initially started using it around 1989-1990. I actually got into a few arguments with producers who were too cheap to spend the extra 5 cents/foot (or whatever it was) on the new stock, which would've been maybe $2000/week. Eventually, Kodak dropped the old stock and everybody was forced to switch, and I think it made film images much, much sharpers as a result, and also dropped the apparent grain by at least 1/3.

[quoteNeed For Speed isn't going to get a lot of industry nods, simply for there use of certain cameras, like the go-pro 3 and cannon 501. Despite a 203 million box office. The same people who are harking on there choice of camera, are the same ones who are harking on JJ's and Chris's, and others, use of film for there projects.[/QUOTE]
I think the bad reviews kept a lot of people away. I'm generally reluctant to see any films inspired by video games, because I'm old fashioned enough to want good stories, good characters, plots that make sense, and action scenes in service of the story. You don't often get that with films like this.

There have been an ocean of movies made with a lot of different cameras. I worked on a fairly big-budget network series a few months back where they were reluctant to throw the $85,000 Alexa in a swimming pool, so they used a Canon 5D instead. I defy anybody to tell the difference in those brief shots. In general, I think it makes more sense to shoot on the same type of camera for the entire film, but in the end, it's a creative choice by the director and DP.

i think you can get away with crap like GoPros and Canon 5Ds for short bursts, but I wouldn't want to hang on a big wide shots with cameras that shoddy and compressed for more than a few seconds. Luckily, most action films like this are cut so fast, you never get a real good look at anything.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #106 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 09:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8,018
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Liked: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by RSF_LA View Post
Up until the late eighties and the 90's it was common to do a film finish of TV shows. Tape finish started to be heavily promoted, from what I remember particularly by Laser Pacific, at somewhat of a discount but more importantly the ability lock into the final edit at a later point. A lab I was associated with in the early '90s tried to promote film finish with electronic titles to eliminate the cost and time of opticals. This created something ready for future HD syndication with only the need to add HD titles. At that point HD didn't seem certain and at best many years, perhaps decades, in the future. Those early Laser Pacific masters were analog which came from old MkIII Digi 2s which even by Cintel standards at the time were rather jittery. Even worse was when the the desire came to re-transfer the OCN for HD versions, much of their proprietary EDLs were lost. Even then, I don't think there were references to edge numbers. Too late I guess to say we told you so.
Dick Wolf, (Law & Order), was unique in the 90s as he did a cut negative finish and only titled in video just as you described. That did pay off in HD syndication. All offline post production was done on CMX6000s and Lightworks but the final edit was cut negative and effects were still film opticals. (Cop shows especially in those days din't need much if any fancy computer VFX)

Remember too that Laser Pacific developed the 24frame video system that enabled creating a 625/PAL version as a simple dub. Most European broadcasters would not accept electronic standards conversions. The 24 frame video master was simply played out at 25hz - just as a film transfer. For 525/NTSC, 3/2 was added to the final air master. This was re-invented again for HD to initially solve the 1080i/720p problem as well as to satisfy the 1080i/50 requirements. Many other LA facilities also began 24 frame mastering but mostly for features. It never really caught on for episodic TV shows for SDTV. In fact there was a long legal battle between Laser Pacific and Snell over patent infringement for the process. 24frame video did become the standard though for HDTV episodic production around 2001.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!


Last edited by Glimmie; 08-04-2014 at 09:31 AM.
Glimmie is offline  
post #107 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 10:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
javanpohl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,119
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 116
If these guys that are investing in Kodak actually wanted to do something useful with their time, they should help develop digital filming technology and styles that emulate the look of film. Seeing that they did a pretty fantastic job in that regard for Skyfall, it seems feasible that there'd be a way to shoot digitally that is indiscernible from film. Investing in film is like spending $100,000 on surgery for someone who's 90 years old. Film. Is. Dead.
fierce_gt likes this.
javanpohl is offline  
post #108 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 10:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
wuther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aryn Ravenlocke View Post
I absolutely love 70mm. I rather doubt any of the cinemas in my area do 70mm presentations though. I suspect they will all be getting digital copies of the 70mm print. Spartacus, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, and Branagh's Hamlet were all majestic pieces in 70mm.

Obviously, there are ways to make film look spectacular without going the 70mm route. But I do confess a nostalgia for it.
The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were shot on 35mm however. There is an excellent 70mm print of 2001 going around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by javanpohl View Post
If these guys that are investing in Kodak actually wanted to do something useful with their time, they should help develop digital filming technology and styles that emulate the look of film. Seeing that they did a pretty fantastic job in that regard for Skyfall, it seems feasible that there'd be a way to shoot digitally that is indiscernible from film. Investing in film is like spending $100,000 on surgery for someone who's 90 years old. Film. Is. Dead.
Yeah they should waste time trying to reinvent the wheel, makes a lot of sense. Lucas added fake film grain to his last two SW films but if he had simply shot on film they would look great at 4K instead of being locked into 2K although the vfx would had to be done at 4k as well.

Last edited by wuther; 08-04-2014 at 10:52 AM.
wuther is online now  
post #109 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 12:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Sick Mother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Man there are some super-knowledgable members in this thread. Lots of great info and none of the bickering!

Forgive me if this is the wrong place to ask, but I've had a question for some time now and knew no one to ask. Surely someone here will know.

Why does the IMAX footage in TDK and TDKR look markedly better than the 35mm footage on my blu-ray disk? FYI my television is an Elite PRO-70X5FD, professionally calibrated and viewed at approx. 8ft. I am confused because the resolution is locked at 1080p/24fps. I realize there is more to an image than that, so what is accounting for the dramatic difference?

Thanks in advance.

John
Sick Mother is offline  
post #110 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 12:40 PM
Member
 
jurid001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 164
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 10
4K projection using 4K files

Movie theaters have moved to digital, many have 4K projectors. However, to the best of my knowledge, all of the theaters use 2K files. At least for major movies. Anybody has seen a 4K projection from a 4K file? What is IMAX doing with 4K?

A2, A35, 150, 62fd, s6200, WDTV LIVE, HTPC w/ HD-DVD/BD
jurid001 is online now  
post #111 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 01:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
javanpohl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,119
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post
Yeah they should waste time trying to reinvent the wheel, makes a lot of sense. Lucas added fake film grain to his last two SW films but if he had simply shot on film they would look great at 4K instead of being locked into 2K although the vfx would had to be done at 4k as well.
My point is that film is dying, there are no "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s here. Eventually it will either be completely extinct or the costs will be vastly prohibitive. That no distributor or movie theater chain is interested in shipping, receiving, splicing, storing huge quantities of film stock ensures that scenario. Digital, on the other hand, will continue to decline in price and/or improve in quality. If you can make digital do what film does, in terms of your perceived quality, that would be a better way for you to spend your time.
fierce_gt likes this.
javanpohl is offline  
post #112 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 03:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ovation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sick Mother View Post
Man there are some super-knowledgable members in this thread. Lots of great info and none of the bickering!

Forgive me if this is the wrong place to ask, but I've had a question for some time now and knew no one to ask. Surely someone here will know.

Why does the IMAX footage in TDK and TDKR look markedly better than the 35mm footage on my blu-ray disk? FYI my television is an Elite PRO-70X5FD, professionally calibrated and viewed at approx. 8ft. I am confused because the resolution is locked at 1080p/24fps. I realize there is more to an image than that, so what is accounting for the dramatic difference?

Thanks in advance.

John
At 1080p, the BD is showing you a down-rezzed version of the image captured on either 35MM or IMAX film. The IMAX film is a much higher resolution source than the 35MM, so even though the final resolution to you is fixed at 1080p, the portions down-rezzed from IMAX were working with a higher quality image than on the 35MM. An inexact analogy, but think of it as taking a picture of a picture with a 1080p rez camera--the picture of the IMAX image will look better than the picture of the 35MM image, even though your two pictures will be the same resolution.

(another inexact analogy--think of the IMAX image as the original and the 35MM a second generation copy on a photocopier--If you take a 1080p photo of the original document and one of the second generation copy of the document, each photo will have a 1080p resolution but the image quality of the original document will look better than the one of the second generation copy of the document)
Ovation is offline  
post #113 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 03:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,607
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 891 Post(s)
Liked: 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post
I gotta wonder about people who make statements like that just what kind of flicks they like and what kind they do not watch also from what eras.

What movies is the film format 'delaying'?
you misunderstood me. the movies aren't being delayed, that'd be a weird statement to make. the development of the digital technology MAY be getting delayed. if 100% of movies were captured by digital means, there'd be more push and more money to make digital capture and processing, and distribution better.


I have some issues(mainly regarding black levels) with current theaters. I find it a bit stupid that commercial theaters actually look worse than they used to, and in fact look worse than what I have at home now. but I don't think that's a limitation of digital, it's just a limitation of the current standard(and moreso the application of it at my closest theater).


so, basically what I'm saying, is that I assume the state of commercial movie theaters will be better 10yrs from now if we abandon film now, than if we fight to keep film going for another 5 or so years. Unless film can get better, digital going to surpass it soon enough anyway. it's pretty close already, so I'd rather see that effort put into making digital as good as film, instead of trying to save film.


from reading some of your pro-film arguments, you talk as if film is an infinite resolution source, but that's really not the case. film grain is like pixel structure, and imo, if you can see the grain, that's a bad thing. that's not how real life looks, and THAT is what the goal should ultimately be(for the capture method, directors can decide to doctor it however they wish afterwards). at some point, some point very close to where we are right now, digital will have a higher 'resolution' than film. and the only way to increase the resolution of film, is to use larger film. I think it's far more likely to see 8k, or 16k formats in my lifetime than it is to see them shooting on 280mm film(or whatever ridiculous size would be required).


throw in the fact it's been years since any of the local theaters even showed film, and there's really no benefit at all to me. by the time it's displayed on screen, at home or in the theater, I'm watching a digital movie.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One

Last edited by fierce_gt; 08-04-2014 at 03:41 PM.
fierce_gt is online now  
post #114 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 03:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,607
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 891 Post(s)
Liked: 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by glasseye View Post
I do see film's usefulness as an archiving medium. A hundred years from now, you'll still be able to access (and maybe re-purpose) the image and sound data on a reel of film. That may not be true with today's digital files. Try viewing a 3/4 inch videotape, for example, or stuff stored on a Bernoulli disk.
I'm curious about this, cause I don't really know the details, but is film actually better for archival purposes? it would seem to me that a digital source would be better since it could be duplicated indefinitely without any loss. how many times can a print be restored? also the difference in storage space and climate control etc. I didn't think film was all that easy to maintain.


I'm just wondering, if we factored in the amount of care is takes to maintain film, could you not maintain a digital file for about the same amount of money? even if the physical storage devices needed to be replaced every 5-10yrs, that process could be repeated indefinitely with no loss of quality, and I'm pretty sure it's easier to store a hdd than a reel of film, no?


also, I don't see why more permanent methods couldn't be developed. I mean a digital file could be carved into stone if one wanted to. but I still think the ease of transfer is what would make it potentially better.

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 online now  
post #115 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 04:35 PM
Member
 
They_call_me_Roto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Detroit Rock City
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by jurid001 View Post
Movie theaters have moved to digital, many have 4K projectors. However, to the best of my knowledge, all of the theaters use 2K files. At least for major movies. Anybody has seen a 4K projection from a 4K file? What is IMAX doing with 4K?
I am asking out of curiosity: do you know that theaters are all using 2K files? I certainly do not know the answer to this one. But I do know that a few films in the past couple years have been shot with the Sony F65 in a native 4K resolution. Yes I understand that the studios could easily dumb down the video to 2K but if there are a reasonable number of movie theaters using 4K projectors, why wouldn't they issue a 4K version to such theaters. Seems like a lot video technology being wasted.

JR

Packing a lot of sound into a small room.
266 square feet/2128 cubic feet
7.2 with 9 driven speakers
They_call_me_Roto is offline  
post #116 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 04:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
Orbitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 200 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Last gasp for mom and pop theaters that don't have funds to convert to digital.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/08/...nhappy-ending/
Orbitron is online now  
post #117 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 05:47 PM
Senior Member
 
Sick Mother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovation View Post
At 1080p, the BD is showing you a down-rezzed version of the image captured on either 35MM or IMAX film. The IMAX film is a much higher resolution source than the 35MM, so even though the final resolution to you is fixed at 1080p, the portions down-rezzed from IMAX were working with a higher quality image than on the 35MM. An inexact analogy, but think of it as taking a picture of a picture with a 1080p rez camera--the picture of the IMAX image will look better than the picture of the 35MM image, even though your two pictures will be the same resolution.

(another inexact analogy--think of the IMAX image as the original and the 35MM a second generation copy on a photocopier--If you take a 1080p photo of the original document and one of the second generation copy of the document, each photo will have a 1080p resolution but the image quality of the original document will look better than the one of the second generation copy of the document)
Thank you for the response. That clears things up for me a bit. Would anyone have a take on a high quality IMAX transfer like in TDK vs 4k for the home? When I watch IMAX footage, I must say I can't imagine an image any sharper.

Thanks.
Sick Mother is offline  
post #118 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 06:02 PM
Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by They_call_me_Roto View Post
I am asking out of curiosity: do you know that theaters are all using 2K files? I certainly do not know the answer to this one. But I do know that a few films in the past couple years have been shot with the Sony F65 in a native 4K resolution. Yes I understand that the studios could easily dumb down the video to 2K but if there are a reasonable number of movie theaters using 4K projectors, why wouldn't they issue a 4K version to such theaters. Seems like a lot video technology being wasted.
The vast majority of Digital Cinema Packages (DCPs) are indeed 2K, even if many of the theaters they're going to have 4K projection. Mostly this has to do with the expense and logistics of doing a 4K finish - even if the original image capture was done at 4K, it's much faster and cheaper to render VFX at 2K. Even for a non VFX-intensive movie, the file sizes for 4K imagery balloon such that most productions opt for a 2K Digital Intermediate that is then used for the 35mm filmout and DCP mastering.

As Moore's law marches on, it will become easier and cheaper to keep the pipeline 4K all the way through, and we'll start seeing more and more 4K DCPs in cinemas.
dschulz is online now  
post #119 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 07:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by javanpohl View Post
If these guys that are investing in Kodak actually wanted to do something useful with their time, they should help develop digital filming technology and styles that emulate the look of film. Seeing that they did a pretty fantastic job in that regard for Skyfall, it seems feasible that there'd be a way to shoot digitally that is indiscernible from film. Investing in film is like spending $100,000 on surgery for someone who's 90 years old. Film. Is. Dead.
That completely misses the point of shooting on film.
hanshotfirst1138 likes this.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #120 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 07:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,494
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 178 Post(s)
Liked: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
OK. Here it is from my collection of Universal material, that i have not looked at in 14 years. The latest is from Kodak circa 1999.

Motion Picture 35MM Full Aperture is, holding the Film perforations vertical,(NOTE:MM=Millimeters) 21.95MM by 18.6MM. IMAX 70MM viewed from holding Film perforations Horizontal, 70MM by 48.5MM. NOTE: This is the capture area only. For more information on total film width and maximum length refer to diagram:C.

....
Exactly. The film stock is 35mm wide, the capture area 22mm wide. That leaves room for the sound track and also allows contact printing.
olyteddy is online now  
Reply Latest Industry News

Tags
frontpage

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