or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › Paramount Stops Shipping Film Prints to US Theaters
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Paramount Stops Shipping Film Prints to US Theaters - Page 3

post #61 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassConfusion View Post

and to further that point,,, ANYTHING that isn't properly stored is at risk of being lost/damaged. So the point that one is "easier" to lose than another is a bit of an awkward arguement

If a movie starts out digital then the original is pristine and can be backed up. If a movie starts out as film then it is compromised the moment the first print is made—it's best to digitize that sucker before the original degrades too much.
post #62 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by bighvy76 View Post

Won't digital movies be easy for piarateers to get a copy and share it?

+1, that right there is the only thing that was going through my mind, I don't know how much gigs a film of this caliber would eat up, but there are tiny ssd, and thumb drives that exceed 128gb.

Just might 2cents


Djoel
post #63 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djoel View Post

+1, that right there is the only thing that was going through my mind, I don't know how much gigs a film of this caliber would eat up, but there are tiny ssd, and thumb drives that exceed 128gb.

Just might 2cents


Djoel
DCPs (Digital Cinema Packages) are over 100 gigs and encrypted. That still fits on a $50 hard drive, cracking the encryption is the bigger issue. Also, you can be sure that if you stole a DCP the FBI warning you see before movies would suddenly become meaningful. It's not the same thing as ripping a Blu-ray.
post #64 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by p5browne View Post

Going to the Theatre:
Pros - Wife was bugging you to take her out to diner and a movie. So clears that up. Cons: she can't stand hearing you crunch your popcorn! So much for the evening out!
Cons: Ticket Prices, GON who sat it the seat before you covered in who only knows what, audience of sick people spreading the news, totally too load!, cell phones, people talking, spilled pop, ADVERTISEMENTS, washroom requirements and no pause button, weather, parking, lineups to get in, yucky music in the entrance, need I go on? Could probably fill the page with cons!
How many can remember the actual last time they went to the movies?
Good idea about the digital - it was too hard training the popcorn girl how to load the film!




Con: Getting shot
post #65 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

DCPs (Digital Cinema Packages) are over 100 gigs and encrypted. That still fits on a $50 hard drive, cracking the encryption is the bigger issue. Also, you can be sure that if you stole a DCP the FBI warning you see before movies would suddenly become meaningful. It's not the same thing as ripping a Blu-ray.


Sounds like a challenge to some these kids.


Djoel
post #66 of 133
The whole Target credit card mess was a 17 yr old Russian kid.... kids these days lol
post #67 of 133
Especially kids hating western civilization, lol!
post #68 of 133
The funny thing is that they actually make film copies of digital movies. It's much much cheaper as a back up storage. Seems it's a lot more expensive and dangerous to keep digital at the moment. I'm all for digital though and it advancing.
Quote:
After they started converting their storage to digital, they discovered that the most affordable and reliable method was making new film backups. Even though film deteriorates with age, right now it's still the more stable and reliable method for high-quality archiving. The New York Times reported on this problem in December, 2008. The previous month, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences released the results of a yearlong study on digital archiving. Their findings? Storing a digital master costs $12,514 a year, versus $1,059 to keep a film master.

But it's not just about price; as mentioned, digital technology is incredibly fragile, and also unreliable. Hard drives have to keep spinning, be checked and re-checked, and then the data has to be moved to new systems every few years, with multiple back ups. We're talking terabytes of data, about 25TB for a 4K scan of a two hour film, and that's just for the actual assembled cut of the film, never mind the raw materials which would consume hundreds, if not thousands, of hours worth of viewing. You also have to have the processing hardware to view it. Hard-drives eventually wear out (and can freeze up if not spun for a year or two), and so you'd have to replace each and every one of those terabyte-sized servers every couple years, an expensive undertaking just for the hardware (imagine, if you converted a studio library, how many hundreds of thousands of drives that would be). Keep in mind you have to make sure there's no data lost or corrupted in all those moves as well. And of course, every five or ten years, new technology systems arrive that must be adaptable to the older digital storage systems, or the older systems must be moved to newer, up-to-date systems. Ken Weissman, supervisor of the Library of Congress' Film Preservation Library, has written about the staggering logistics of such endeavors

http://savestarwars.com/filmpreservation.html#ch4

Actually that entire article is fascinating.
post #69 of 133
this may be a good reason to improve digital storage then. I still have to think there's a lot more room for improvement on digital storage than on film. I mean, in theory it's just 1's and 0's, they could carve it into stone for all eternity if they found a big enough rock. I'm sure they can come up with some solution for long term, reliable storage for a 'master' of digital content.
post #70 of 133
What is hilarious is if they wanted to look like "old film", they could.
post #71 of 133

yes, it would be cheaper.  However the format doesn't last as long apparently.  You're going to need to keep copying the master.  I think that studios will have no problem with doing this with their big hits.  It's the smaller films I worry about.

post #72 of 133

One last thing I just thought about.  With the eventual elimination of film as a visual medium I'll miss being able to put a piece of film up to the light and seeing an image.

post #73 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trepidati0n View Post

What is hilarious is if they wanted to look like "old film", they could.

They already do things like digitally add grain artifacts, film scratches, burn marks, make the film look jumpy as if the reel snagged, etc.
post #74 of 133
A sign of the times whether you like or not. Most everything submitted in this thread has already been covered in the 2012 documentary Side By Side.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/side_by_side_2012/

Available on Blu-ray and DVD, also streaming on Amazon Instant Prime Video and Netflix.
post #75 of 133
A fundamental question, how should a movie look? 4K digital reality or film? I love movies so will watch whatever format regardless but when friends come over, we always start with the opening of Flight of the Phoenix from 2004. 35mm Panavision, it just feels right, like we're at the movies.
post #76 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orbitron View Post

A fundamental question, how should a movie look? 4K digital reality or film?
Well, Oblivion was shot in all digital with Sony CineAlta F65 and Red Epic cams at 4K resolution and I'd say for that particular movie they got the "look and feel" 100% perfect with the all digital production.
post #77 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orbitron View Post

A fundamental question, how should a movie look? 4K digital reality or film? I love movies so will watch whatever format regardless but when friends come over, we always start with the opening of Flight of the Phoenix from 2004. 35mm Panavision, it just feels right, like we're at the movies.

All I can remember is I wasn't in an apartment when I owned that blu-ray so I didn't have to worry about neighbors. My god that scene made the townhouse shake biggrin.gif
post #78 of 133
Funny you mention shake - this week my audio guy is installing an infinite baffle subwoofer consisting of (4) 15" drivers in addition to the 2 in room subs. Not only will i feel the impact, i will get concussed too!
post #79 of 133
Well then I have even less of a reason to go to a theater now. I was already going on a very rare basis like others on this thread but if this is going to be digital now the sound quality will be even closer on a regular basis to what we get on a bluray disc.

Oh well, i'll save my money and enjoy the movies in my pajamas.
post #80 of 133
I think this only concerns 8% of the viewing public.

If anything, I want theaters to list the specs of their machines... Are they 2k, 4k, etc.

Compare a digital camera (photo) from 1998 to one now... hug different in image quality.

The same evolution is happening in digital movies. It might take longer, but the fundamentally better technology is digital.
post #81 of 133
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.
post #82 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassConfusion View Post

I know I am going to be a loner on this opinion so go easy on me.

Am I the only one who thinks everyone on here is missing the point of going to the movies?? To me it's about going out, a date, hanging out, getting out the house, being social, watching a new movie, etc etc. I've been getting pretty active on this site so yes quality definitely does matter a lot to me to the point where I've been blowing my budget out the water on audio (and tv later on this year or next depending on the 4k movement), but I'm not going to let digital vs film ruin my experience, what kind of baby would I sound like whining about the video quality of a movie when people are making plans to hang out lol. well to each their own, I know everyone doesn't have the same view as me, maybe I'm the one missing the point.
But with that much cost savings it's easy to see that the whole industry will be going this way

Yup, that's been my view forever about movies; I view them as a social occasion, seeing a movie usually with friends or family, and I enjoy being part of a larger group of people I don't know, but who are all interested in the same
movie experience. Being among the crazies lining up the first day for many of the big movies from the 70's through the 90's were some of the best times of my life. I still love going to the movies as a way of getting together with a friend, or family,etc.
When I go out to a movie I feel like I've "done something" that day, had an experience. When I watch at home, as pleasurable as it can be, it feels like, well, I've watched another movie, and nothing more.

I had always assumed, coming to a home theater forum like this, that most people here would have been driven by the same feelings. What I found out was the opposite: people here tend to build home theaters not because they "love going to the movies" and they want more movie experiences, but more like they dislike the movie-going experience and want an alternative to having to go to the movies. Blame will always go on their fellow man - "movie crowds these days are awful" - but little has truly changed, I find. I can't remember the last movie experience that was "ruined" by...anything or anyone really. I think people generally get more socially isolated and curmudgeonly as they age. biggrin.gif
post #83 of 133
As someone who used to shoot film, I'll certainly miss the look. When I saw the re-release of the Bladerunner Final Cut in the theaters several years ago, it was projected film and one of the most beautiful images ever.

At the same time, if digital in the hands of a Roger Deakins can now make images like those in Skyfall, which held me mesmerized in the theater for it's gorgeous cinematography, I'm good with digital! (And I've seen numerous digitally shot movies I think look gorgeous, film like and artistic, so I'm not worried).

Though one post here stopped me in my tracks: the one that pointed out how Drive In movie theaters will likely not survive the change to digital. We have a local Drive In movie theater that I love going to with the kids.
I know they use film, because we visited the projectionist one time, in his reefer-filled projection bunker. I'll be really, really bummed if that place has to bite the dust any time soon.
post #84 of 133
We can have different memories of watching film and watching digital. One of my striking memories of film is taking my parents to see 2001 A Space Odyssey when it came out. It was something they would not normally have gone to see but I thought they would like it.

The film jammed about half way through and we got to see the film melt, projected onto the big screen :-) Eventually the projectionist noted the problem...

On the digital front, when I went to see Disney's UP in 3-D, part way through the film there was a projector malfunction and we only saw the right-hand half of the screen in 3D. Another striking memory :-)

When it comes to digital distribution, on one occasion for one of the restored classic films we had to wait a bit for the showing as the initial satellite distribution came through corrupted, so the studio had to re-send it to the theatre.

Times change.
post #85 of 133
I went to a theater in the 70's , we watched 3 Stooges and most everybody was smoking weed.
post #86 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orbitron View Post

I went to a theater in the 70's , we watched 3 Stooges and most everybody was smoking weed.

Nearly there again.
post #87 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

As someone who used to shoot film, I'll certainly miss the look. When I saw the re-release of the Bladerunner Final Cut in the theaters several years ago, it was projected film and one of the most beautiful images ever.

At the same time, if digital in the hands of a Roger Deakins can now make images like those in Skyfall, which held me mesmerized in the theater for it's gorgeous cinematography, I'm good with digital! (And I've seen numerous digitally shot movies I think look gorgeous, film like and artistic, so I'm not worried).

Though one post here stopped me in my tracks: the one that pointed out how Drive In movie theaters will likely not survive the change to digital. We have a local Drive In movie theater that I love going to with the kids.
I know they use film, because we visited the projectionist one time, in his reefer-filled projection bunker. I'll be really, really bummed if that place has to bite the dust any time soon.

our last remaining drive in shut down a couple years after i graduated high school. the last movie i saw there was fast and furious 2 i think... haha.

it is definitely a shame, but it's a totally different market these days. drive in movies SUCK in every imaginable way, except for the experience. as kids, we'd pack up in the van with a cooler full of food and it was an awesome night. as a teenager, we'd go to get away from parents, and have a place to be 'alone', but as an adult without kids, there's nothing but memories that would ever make me want to go back. terrible audio, terrible video, the 50% chance that my car won't start when i try to leave...

it's too bad, because it really was a great time as a kid. but the prices didn't add up, it just wasn't a profitable business anymore. of course it hurts that we only have about a 4month 'season' of good weather, and the sun sets between 8:30 and 9:30 during those months, so geographically, we weren't well suited for an outdoor theatre(it usually wasn't until around 11pm at the earliest that it was even dark enough to see the movies...)
post #88 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by umeng2002 View Post

I think this only concerns 8% of the viewing public.

If anything, I want theaters to list the specs of their machines... Are they 2k, 4k, etc.

Compare a digital camera (photo) from 1998 to one now... hug different in image quality.

The same evolution is happening in digital movies. It might take longer, but the fundamentally better technology is digital.

thats an interesting idea! i wouldn't mind that also. i've never seen any local theatres even mention specs(whether it's digital or film, what resolution digital, how many speakers, etc) at best we get 'this theatre supports dolby' generic stuff
post #89 of 133
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.
Edited by jmaccool - 1/23/14 at 10:13am
post #90 of 133
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.

there's a reason many still prefer vinyl, tube amps, or crt monitors. i agree with your sentiment, but the debate is not as easy as newer = better. like you said, it's about the cost, and digital is becoming cheaper, that's why it's changing. whether or not it's 'better' is still highly debated. i remember as a kid 'digital' being such a buzz word, and anything that was digital was automatically high tech and better. my first clue that this may not be true was when game consoles implements 'analog' joysticks for better control. and after that i did realize that the 'on/off' control of digital isn't always better than the 'dimmer switch' control of analog.

the question i always have, is how many steps can you get with the digital tech, and is it enough to make it look continuous like analog. we are NOT there yet, but getting closer all the time.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Latest Industry News
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › Paramount Stops Shipping Film Prints to US Theaters