AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Another nail in the coffin for film
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Another nail in the coffin for film - Page 3

post #61 of 168
1/4/11 at 4:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by brantmacga View Post

so does this mean the cheap "dollar" theaters will be going away in the coming years?

the only theater we go to on a regular basis is where movies go 6wks or so after their initial release, and they charge $1.99 per ticket. all of their projectors are strictly film; nothing digital. There's usually a few film cans laying in the corner when you walk in.


The 'stadium' theater is around $10 per ticket, which adds up when you're taking a family out. Plus another $20 for drinks and popcorn. I love movies, and I love going to the movie theater, but not for $50.

I hope the cheap theaters can keep going for awhile.

The digital projectors for small theaters are less than half the money for 35mm. Not to mention, you only need one projector per theater, not two, there are no reel changes in digital cinema, and the commercials/trailers/feature movie are sequenced from a playlist.

Digital does get pricey for large venues and for 3D, but film did as well.

If the cheap theaters do go away, it won't be from equipment costs. It will be because of one of the current efforts to stream new movies for a fee directly to one's home screen.

It really all depends on human behavior. Going to the theater is a public social occasion. Watching a movie in your home is not. The question is, which experience do you crave more.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #62 of 168
1/4/11 at 5:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

Laziness it not an excuse for mediocre images.

And resolution is but one rather small part of the picture. I'm the first one to cheer the continued improvements in digital cameras, it just irritates me when people sit around saying "film is dead!" as if digital cameras have vanquished film altogether in quality and in reality.

Many of the choices to shoot digitally have to do with economics, not picture. And that's fine.

The capacity of digital cameras to enable filmmakers is amazing. You see them deployed brilliantly in films like Children of Men, or in Michael Mann's amazing night shots (which simply aren't possible at all on film), or in allowing James Longley to shoot Iraq in Fragments practically by himself with some prosumer camcorders. I have seen, and continue to see, digital cameras deployed for excellent reasons and to excellent effect. But often, the reason is arbitrary, or cost-related, and the comparison to 35mm just doesn't hold up, yet. It will, but it doesn't yet.

Everything I've seen so far that I've really applauded on digital, has been either because it enables the filmmaker to make something not achievable on film logistically, OR because it goes all-in to capture a style that is possible digitally that is not possible on film (a-la Michael Mann).

I mean, you can say that realistically 35mm film prints in the theater barely reach 1080p quality, and are soft and full of grain. And you could logically say that a pristine digital 1080p or 2k viewing of something shot in HD, say even HDCAM or HDCAM SR will beat 35mm film.

But I just recently watched the french film Cache, shot in HDCAM I believe, and it looks like absolute sh*t. And you could preach all you want about it yielding far better MTF than what is accomplished at an average multiplex on generations-away 35mm, but at the end of the day it still looks like unmitigated sh*t. And when I see a film like that, the only excuse is cost. Because I can't fathom anybody looking at that and going "gee, wow, that looks just fantastic!" And sadly, it's also a fascinating film that might stand up to time, but just a few years later I look at that and go: eww, god that's a hideous-looking disaster. If it were 35mm, which is totally doable for this kind of very simple film, it would absolutely stand the test of time. Instead, it looks like a cheap mess, which is exactly what it is, and it's really unfortunate. And to me, that's frustrating be, because people are bailing out of film before there's an adequate lifeboat for them to jump into. They're bailing out into the ocean for nothing more than a life-vest, and it absolutely shows.

And the quicker digital cameras move along and my complaints become quaint and moot, the better.

Because I'm getting sick of looking at garbage, when films from 20-30 years ago kick the pants off anything I've seen digitally yet.

And when I see something like The Thin Red Line, it's abundantly clear: there's no digital camera that can make that film. Or even when I see low-budget productions, something like Mira Nair's Monsoon Wedding, shot in 16mm, it would be a horrible shame if she had the capability to shoot that digitally and was forced to do that because of cost or logistics. An absolute travesty. And we can wax on about 4k cameras and distribution, and laugh at the low MTF and grain of 16mm, but at the end of the day Monsoon Wedding would be a cruel joke shot on the Red One.

Chris:

If Hollywood REALLY cared about a high quality projected product, they never would have abandon 65/70mm cinematography, but they did. Because of money. And that is why digital is taking over from film . . . money.

And your exaggeration of what resolution is on a release print makes me

You have seen this before I am sure. It still holds true even today:

http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Tech...Resolution.pdf
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 168
1/4/11 at 7:12pm
Cheap "dollar" theaters are long gone in this area.

When I see a film it is usually a matinée for $7.25. Sometimes I treat myself to a snack. I'm old enough to see the film in the evening at the same price though but I just like the light crowds you get a matinées.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 168
1/4/11 at 10:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

Cheap "dollar" theaters are long gone in this area.

When I see a film it is usually a matinée for $7.25. Sometimes I treat myself to a snack. I'm old enough to see the film in the evening at the same price though but I just like the light crowds you get a matinées.

that's what i like about the 'dollar' theater; no crowds of people just hanging around outsite, and the theater itself is never packed.

plus its cheap!
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 168
1/4/11 at 11:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

The digital projectors for small theaters are less than half the money for 35mm. Not to mention, you only need one projector per theater, not two, there are no reel changes in digital cinema, and the commercials/trailers/feature movie are sequenced from a playlist.

What are you talking about? You only need one film projector in a film theater. At least since the nearly universal adoption of platters, which was lifetimes ago. Nobody changes reels anymore. You don't actually think there's a projectionist up there switching reels off, do you?

No normal theater does that, it's silly.

The only theater I've EVER seen do that, is a small local non-profit that plays extremely rare stuff, and they don't splice together the reels, and there actually is a projectionist running dual 35mm machines.

But no actual movie theater does that.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 168
1/4/11 at 11:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Chris:

If Hollywood REALLY cared about a high quality projected product, they never would have abandon 65/70mm cinematography, but they did. Because of money. And that is why digital is taking over from film . . . money.

And your exaggeration of what resolution is on a release print makes me

You have seen this before I am sure. It still holds true even today:

http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Tech...Resolution.pdf

You can have all the MTF in the world, but if it looks like feces smeared across my face, I really don't care. Resolution is such a small part of overall picture quality. It's important, but people are going gaga over the the specs on sensor photosites, and it's just ridiculous. Nobody is getting 4K actual resolution off a sensor with all the de-bayering going on, and real-world lens performance. And you have to cripple the lenses to avoid aliasing as well, which anyway isn't always done because I see aliasing all the time in digital stuff.

That's my point. If you take this narrow-minded approach and just poo-poo all over 35mm because the MTF ends up really poor in the average theater, you get to the logical conclusion that even rudimentary HD camcorders and HDCAM stuff should blow 35mm out of the water. But it doesn't. That stuff looks like total sh*t in comparison. Even compared to 16mm it looks like sh*t.

MTF doesn't tell you anything about latitude or color or motion or texture, or any of that. It's one tiny and miniscule attribute of many.

If we just look at MTF, and don't actually put any thought into it, D-cinema would have stopped at 1024x768 projectors that I saw years ago. Well yeah, maybe they did exceed film's resolution realistically on average. So what? You're staring at ugly pasty blocks.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 168
1/4/11 at 11:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Chris,

I don't know if 'Social Network' (shot on Red) is still in theatres, but you owe it to yourself to see 'Zodiac' (shot with Viper) on Blu-ray.

'Benjamin Button' was shot using a combination of film and digital.

I may have to check that out. I almost rented Zodiac a couple times, because it's Fincher, I'm just generally not a fan of serial-killer movies so I passed on it.

The most recent Red One film I think I've seen, projected at what I believe may have been 4k during the Seattle Film Festival, was Night Catches Us. It dripped a lot of resolution, and you were very THERE, but the filmmakers discussed originally intending to shoot in 16mm, but because of logistical obstacles they shot it on the Red. I'm not sure if it was a mistake or not, 16mm would have looked a lot more like the 70s that's for sure, a-la Black Dynamite's look for instance. It looked good, but there was surely banding going on, and some strange texture noise happening, and sometimes skin was funky looking, and anytime there's highlights of course the clipping is always nasty, just sort of the usual.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 168
1/5/11 at 12:09pm
The digital film to see will be Born To Be Wild when it releases in April. It should show us what the pinnacle of digital capture will be for the next few years.

Unfortunately, it's going to be a 3D release, which is going to make it more difficult to make the comparison, I'd really prefer to see a 2D version, but I doubt that will be possible.


AFA cheap theaters are concerned, I'll think we'll always have then because their business model is really about teenagers who just want someplace to go that's not one of their parent's houses. There's really not many places you can go and be entertained for a couple of hours when you're a teenager without it costing a fortune.

But what i expect to see is for 'dollar' theaters to have access to big catalogs of old films on a server farm and be able to rotate a bunch more movies in and out based on demand. For instance, it'd be cool if you could rent a screen and a movie of your choice for a purchase of something like 20 tickets (I never see that many people in the dollar theater, so it should be good deal for the theater owner).
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 168
1/5/11 at 3:26pm
Nobody has mentioned that with film you are limited to the number minutes you can get out of a magazine which can be pretty limited while HD cameras can store an hour or more on a drive. That would make things a lot more productive and watching "making of" feturettes particularly Rodriguez's, who champions HD use, the ability to just keep going when an actor blows a line is important.

Of course with any artform the artist always sees the flaws the public never notices.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 168
1/5/11 at 6:21pm
If we go to a theater, it is usually to what our family calls the $3 theater. I've been concerned what will happen if digital becomes "required", but so far I've been able to convince myself that it won't happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brantmacga View Post

so does this mean the cheap "dollar" theaters will be going away in the coming years?

the only theater we go to on a regular basis is where movies go 6wks or so after their initial release, and they charge $1.99 per ticket. all of their projectors are strictly film; nothing digital. There's usually a few film cans laying in the corner when you walk in.


The 'stadium' theater is around $10 per ticket, which adds up when you're taking a family out. Plus another $20 for drinks and popcorn. I love movies, and I love going to the movie theater, but not for $50.

I hope the cheap theaters can keep going for awhile.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 168
1/6/11 at 1:41pm
Quote:
IMAX Corporation (NASDAQ: IMAX; TSX: IMX) and Cinemark Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: CNK) today announced an agreement for Cinemark to acquire two new digital IMAX® theatre systems in Cinemark complexes located in Lancaster, CA and Corpus Christi, TX. Both theatres are expected to open by April of 2011. In addition to adding two new sites, Cinemark will upgrade all six of its film-based IMAX locations to IMAX digital theatres, also planned for completion by April of 2011.

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/PR.aspx?newsID=2150

Upgrade? IMO, that's a downgrade.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 168
1/6/11 at 8:19pm
There was a mention of Kodak no longer making B & W film in this thread.

A couple of years ago my cousin took her kids to the Abraham Lincoln Library and the youngest son asked her when did the world become colored. I thought this was interesting observation seeing how he kept seeing all of the B & W pictures in the museum and nothing was in color. Some of us can still remember film in B & W as well as TV but kids his age have probably never been exposed to B & W. Everything they see now is in color from text books to TV and film. I really think the next evolution will come with holographic images making digital pictures obsolete. I recently saw where IBM was working on a holographic phone where you could see the person you are talking with in a holographic image. I wonder what it would be like seeing a movie done in holographic images. This would be way beyond 3-D.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 168
1/6/11 at 10:46pm
kodak still has some panchromatic b&W still print films. There was a newish tmax 400 introduced recently as well. A bunch have been discontinued in some speeds and formats, and others single packs have been discontinued so you have to buy 5 rolls. I dont use 8x10 film so dont know much about availability. here are a few i can remember...

Plus-X
125 in 120, 135 format

T-MAX
100 in 4x5,120, 135 formats
400 in 4x5,120, 135 formats

Tri-X
320 4x5 format
400 120, 135 formats

C41
BN400CN, 135 format

there was a 3200iso one still available iirc

I dont even use kodak all that much atm. besides Kodak, fujifilm and Ilford, I'm trying out a lot of german made Adox and Maco, Croatia with EFKE, Czech with Foma, and a couple of chinese B&W film manufactures.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 168
1/7/11 at 6:52am
Quote:


Jackson will shoot both Hobbit movies in 3D using no less than 30 RED EPIC digital cameras, each of which - according to the RED Studios press release - has 5K resolution, can shoot up to 120 frames per second and has a new HDRx mode for the highest dynamic range of any digital cinema camera ever made The EPIC's small size and relatively low weight makes it perfect for 3D - where two cameras have to be mounted on each 3D rig.

Ain't to many epics shot on digital. Let's just hope it will look grand. The digital cameras seems finally "up to date"
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 168
1/7/11 at 10:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Wilkins View Post

A couple of years ago my cousin took her kids to the Abraham Lincoln Library and the youngest son asked her when did the world become colored. I thought this was interesting observation seeing how he kept seeing all of the B & W pictures in the museum and nothing was in color.

Was his name Calvin?

Reply
Reply
post #76 of 168
1/7/11 at 10:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

Nobody has mentioned that with film you are limited to the number minutes you can get out of a magazine which can be pretty limited while HD cameras can store an hour or more on a drive. That would make things a lot more productive and watching "making of" feturettes particularly Rodriguez's, who champions HD use, the ability to just keep going when an actor blows a line is important.

This is a double-edged sword. The limitations of the film medium required a discipline that's fading in the digital age. It used to be that directors really had to decide what was important in a shot, and whether a shot was really needed for the movie before shooting -- and actors had to hone their performances in advance to make sure that they got it right in as few takes as necessary.

Nowadays, directors just keep shooting and shooting anything and everything that comes to mind, and actors' performances (even within a single, unbroken shot) are stitched together from multiple takes seamlessly blended into one another. There's hardly any need to try to do things right while shooting the movie. "We'll just fix it in post!" is the mantra that rules Hollywood today.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 168
1/7/11 at 3:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post
Nobody has mentioned that with film you are limited to the number minutes you can get out of a magazine which can be pretty limited while HD cameras can store an hour or more on a drive. That would make things a lot more productive and watching "making of" feturettes particularly Rodriguez's, who champions HD use, the ability to just keep going when an actor blows a line is important.

Of course with any artform the artist always sees the flaws the public never notices.
I mentioned that "digital" has allowed movie and music making to become somewhat mainstream (cheap hard/SSD drives and software, compared to expensive celluoid film and tape machines). Though I don't (think) film will be totally dead for yet another 15 or so years.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 168
1/7/11 at 3:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Was his name Calvin?

That Sunday CaH strip was the first thing that I thought of when I read the post you quoted. Classic.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 168
1/7/11 at 8:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by brantmacga View Post

so does this mean the cheap "dollar" theaters will be going away in the coming years?

the only theater we go to on a regular basis is where movies go 6wks or so after their initial release, and they charge $1.99 per ticket. all of their projectors are strictly film; nothing digital. There's usually a few film cans laying in the corner when you walk in.


The 'stadium' theater is around $10 per ticket, which adds up when you're taking a family out. Plus another $20 for drinks and popcorn. I love movies, and I love going to the movie theater, but not for $50.

I hope the cheap theaters can keep going for awhile.

All of the cheap film theaters in my area have closed
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 168
1/9/11 at 1:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratpacker View Post

Classic.

Thanx for posting that.

God, how I miss C&H.
Reply
Reply
post #81 of 168
1/10/11 at 1:55pm
This is an interesting thread.

My guess would be that India has more 35MM projectors and cameras than any country in the world. Is India building digital theaters? I am sure some Indian company will take over where the other parts company left off. The Indians are not going to throw away their 35MM gear quickly.

BTW Does anyone know if the best Panasonic digital cinema quality cameras are as good or better than the best Sony stuff? I know George Lucas uses the Sony cameras, but they are twice the cost of Panasonic's best, which are often on sale as well. Sony does not even publicly list their prices, which I think is another example of Sony arrogance, which I don't like. I would rather buy Panasonic.

What is the best looking all digital movie shot to date? I thought the last Star Wars movie looked very good, but Collateral looked a bit thin, as did Miami Vice. Miami Vice used crappy old digital cameras meant to be used indoors only.

For Panasonic's best see:

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp...GroupId=112002

I want one of these to film a documentary. Is it possible to really get a film look with these cameras? I like the cinematography in such films as Up In The Air and Capote. Could you get that look with digits instead of film?
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 168
1/10/11 at 4:28pm
The most notorious use of handheld, low quality video cameras was the last few years of the Law and Order series. Even in ABCs 720p video, the shakeycam shots were poor quality and entirely nauseating if you suffer from motion sickness.

As for India, it is already the center of the universe for digital post-processing and mastering services, many Hollywood films get mastered there due to the low labor cost. Nor are the Indian workers members of the various Hollywood guilds.

Who knows how many digital cinemas India has? The economics say that YES, Bollywood will go digital.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 168
1/10/11 at 6:55pm
I was referring to movies.

Desperate Housewives uses 720 progressive and it looks good, but it is not a movie shown on a 30 foot wide screen.

I don't investigate every movie I rent on DVD. Maybe some are shot in digital and I don't even know it. The last digital shot movie I know I watched was Johnny Depp in Public Enemies, which had allot of very bad shaky camera stuff, which can be accomplished with film as well. I thought it looked pretty good otherwise, with more detail and contrast than other digital shot movies. I do not understand why 35MM film usually makes everything look better given that it is all turned into digits in the end.

The cost of the Panasonic camera seems to be about the cost of film stock on a regular film. I wonder how it looks on the big screen.

If you want to see a poorly produced and shot film, see The Brown Bunny. I watched it a few days ago. At least I watched the whole thing. I got half way through Inception and gave up.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 168
1/11/11 at 9:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

The most notorious use of handheld, low quality video cameras was the last few years of the Law and Order series. Even in ABCs 720p video, the shakeycam shots were poor quality and entirely nauseating if you suffer from motion sickness.

The Law & Order franchise is on NBC, which is 1080i.
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 168
1/11/11 at 12:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by inky blacks View Post

[b][color="Purple"]

What is the best looking all digital movie shot to date? I thought the last Star Wars movie looked very good, but Collateral looked a bit thin, as did Miami Vice. Miami Vice used crappy old digital cameras meant to be used indoors only.

Zodiac or Benjamin Button. It looks film-like, with great cinematography and art direction(CGI)
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 168
1/11/11 at 4:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddywhite View Post

Zodiac or Benjamin Button. It looks film-like, with great cinematography and art direction(CGI)

WOW! I have seen both those films and had no clue they were shot on video. If that is true, then there is no reason in hell for anyone to shoot on film unless they are making an IMAX film.

http://www.digitalcinemanow.com/viper-film-camera.html

Both those films were shot with the Thompson Viper camera, which I have never heard of. It was also used on Collateral, which I thought looked lousy. Go figure.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 168
1/11/11 at 4:56pm
What's that on top of it, a film magazine or some digital recorder?
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 168
1/11/11 at 6:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post
What's that on top of it, a film magazine or some digital recorder?
Looks like the digital tape drive.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 168
1/11/11 at 6:39pm
More likely a hard drive looking like a film magazine. Cameras have been designed to work with existing 35mm lenses and gear hence they are designed like a 35mm film camera. The Sony Genesis started that trend. Remember the Sony commercial a couple years back of the $100K+ Genesis falling off a building and splintering into all kinds of gadgets including consumer cameras to give the impression that the technology was filtering down the consumer?
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 168
1/12/11 at 6:55am
Thompson Viper camera

http://www.cinematography.net/Files/viper_brochure.pdf


ARRI

http://www.arri.de/
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Another nail in the coffin for film