|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: UA+REGAL+EDWARDS??????ALL DIGITAL????
|
Darryl Spicer
Film God
Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 02-07-2001 05:19 PM
These are the last coments I am going to make on this subject for now. This is a depressing thread because I can see myself on a park bench talking to my grandchildren using the word I remember when.I remember when there were these huge outdoor theaters. They called them drive-ins. You could park your car and watch a movie among other things. I remember when they used to play movies at the small town theater. Now you have to drive 100 miles to see a movie. I remember when it was fun to put a movie together and threading a movie up and having everything run perfectly with no problems. Being able to play a film for many weeks without having a single problem or scratches develope. I remember when it was fun to be able to talk to other people that did the same thing you did and learn a lot from them and the good feelings that you have when you where able to help them with a problem. I remember when....excuse me grandpa...what is film? Oh thats the way movies used to be and fun to watch....Why don't they still use it? Some rich guy decided that video looked better...well kids are we going to sit around here and talk about the old days or are we going to the digital video plex to watch jaws 10?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-07-2001 08:17 PM
I say that the advertisers will ultimately pay for the digital infrastructure. It is the biggest pool of money and they have a big interest in getting their message across. If they can control (and control is a key issue in the digection) what is on your screen they can bill appropiately.I don't see digection happening as fast as many people do because I don't think the money is there. The technology is already passable. VHS teaches the lesson (or even NTSC) that one doesn't have to have the best, just good enough for something to succeed. As for film 35mm isn't good enough for most screens. I just did a six plex using Schneider and ISCO lenses...the grains in these 12 foot tall pictures was just too large for me. If this industry was interested in quality and selling their customers what they can't get at home, theatres should be going with 70mm until digital is ready for prime-time (both technically and financially). 5/70 was the best format to ever come down the pike (30fps too, 24fps flickers too much). Steve ------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 02-07-2001 08:42 PM
Steve said: "As for film 35mm isn't good enough for most screens. I just did a six plex using Schneider and ISCO lenses...the grains in these 12 foot tall pictures was just too large for me."Graininess is mainly a function of the film format, camera negative film speed, and whether the negative was properly exposed. Certainly a 500 speed negative that is underexposed by three stops will produce a smoky, grainy 1.85:1 image. But a well-exposed, moderate speed 35mm camera negative will produce images with very acceptable grain levels, even on very large screens. I certainly agree with you that the ideal is to have 65mm camera negative film and 70mm prints. But even Super-35 cinematography (e.g., "Titanic") can look very good with a 70mm print projected on a 30 x 66 foot screen. And a 35mm "scope" print of that negative can look very good on a 20 x 48 foot screen. (Not to say there aren't examples of grainy or unsharp Super-35 ("Size Does Matter on the Fourth of July", if you know what I mean  ) A recent 35mm print that I was especially impressed with for grain and sharpness was "The Thin Red Line", shot in 35mm anamorphic. We all know that a higher frame rate will improve flicker, strobing and motion rendition, especially on large screens. Cinerama and the original Todd-AO had it right almost 50 years ago. Showscan, Super Dimension 70, ClearVision, MaxiVision, and others keep trying. Recall the SMPTE task force study about ten years ago that supported the change. But distributors don't want to pay for it. ------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Walsh
Film God
Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 02-07-2001 09:05 PM
While it will be sad to see film go away, it will be OK if the technology that replaces it gives the same quality for less money, or gives better quality for the same money. Right now, digital projection seems to give less quality for more money!I don't think it's completely fair to say that 35mm isn't good enough for most screens. My own feeling is that 35mm's limit is about 50 feet wide (scope.) Obviously, it's somewhat subjective, but if all other parts of the projection system are set correctly, I think the picture more than just acceptable. Personally, I think that many 35mm releases lately are just done poorly- just slightly out of focus. I wonder if some studio-types are saving money on 35mm releases, saying; "Since digital projection is the next thing, we only have to make our 35mm prints look as good."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-07-2001 11:04 PM
quote:
The only reason I think that an anti-trust foul may be called is that there are other multi-nationals, like Sony, that would stand to be hurt by a full VI. Big companies have the lobbying power and money to make big stinks. Where it will be interesting is waiting to see which guy blinks.
I was thinking yesterday about why Sony didn't make the first move on end-to-end programming & exhibition, expecially since they already had so many of the pieces. As was mentioned, Sony is perceived as a Japanese company, & the US is still pretty nationalistic, so Sony would probably dodge lots of damaging bullets by being the *second* verticallly-integrated organization. Really, they're ready to just jump & even pull out front as soon as the concept does not look strange & dangerous to the US consumers. Let someone else have all the ugly PR & biggest legal bills in their startup costs.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Aaron Haney
Master Film Handler
Posts: 265
From: Cupertino, CA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 02-09-2001 02:55 AM
From the article Ky linked to: quote:
"Phil Anschutz has a bug up his butt about this and is convinced he's going to blaze the trail," says Jonathan Taplin.
Oh boy. There goes the neighborhood. Judging by how wonderful a reputation some of Anschutz's other companies have (just do a web search for "consumer opinion" in regards to Qwest), I think it's safe to say this is going to be yet another decrease in the quality of the movie-going experience.  ------------------
Aaron Haney
Professional Complainer
Apple Computer, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic