|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Disney, Dolby and Digital Cinema -> OT Bring back 70mm; film stock; hdtv; other stuff
|
|
|
Joseph L. Kleiman
Master Film Handler
Posts: 380
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 07-04-2005 01:25 PM
What it comes down to is four things:
For the studios - digital prints only cost $200 to $300 each - big savings.
For the filmmakers - we get a more accurate playback image of what they filmed, if filmed in digital, and those like Cameron and Lucas that are falling in love with 3D have a platform of thousands, rather than a couple of hundred theaters with that capability. If "Shark Boy" had been shown in digital 3D in full color, it could have easily doubled its grosses.
For the exhibitors - what John Fithian coined ODS, or other digital stuff - 3D (without having to spend $1.5 million on a large format theater), advertising, and broadcast of live events). Not to mention cost savings by downsizing of the dedicated projectionist.
For the patrons - a propensity of operations have poor prints or projection (majority on this board hopefully excepted!) which will be replaced by fairly decent digital image.
That's not to say I haven't seen bad digital presentations. At the 2004 Consumer Electronics Show, TI had a special screening of "Last Samurai" and it looked like it was transferred from a 35mm print with really bad emulsion. Film choice is another thing. I've chastised myself for wanting to see every digital film that's come out - thank you very much Eddie Murphy and "Pluto Nash!" Other questions abound. If the idea is to convert all screens to digital within the next decade, if the theaters I go to are full of concession trash from prior shows and loud people are talking on cell phones, what's going to make that change? Who's going to make sure the projector is in focus, properly framed, and free of debris? Who’s going to maintain these systems? I've been to a number of theaters where they take pride in the presentation on film and frankly a few weeks in the image looked as pristine as a digital print. I certainly don't want to see film go. I'm the kind of guy who, although I think DVD's are cool, still hangs onto my laserdiscs.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today
Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99
|
posted 07-05-2005 03:13 AM
quote: Mattias Ohlson
Hdtv broadcast is ideallly 18-19Mbit/s but sometimes this is decreased. From what I know it is not uncommon to have one SD channel with the HD leaving even less for HD. Also with new encoding I exect 1080p to go down closer to 10Mbit/s.
What? Who cares?! This is completely irrelevant. That's like saying "I'm using the Cinepak codec at 1,000 megabits per second, but you are using the Divx codec at only measly 50 megabits per second at the same exact resolution and frame rate. Your video MUST look inferior. My logic is infallible!" Also, who cares about broadcast HDTV? All of my references point to the upcoming high definition DVD formats, which will not use the same codec as ATSC. I remember having an argument with some guy on another website who claimed that a 720x480 video was technically high definition just because the bitrate was so damned high. I made sure he know that he was wrong. Actually I bet he still believes he was right. People. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Also, you say by the time people have 1080p, theaters will have 4k? Yes, that may be available to new installations. But do you think a bunch of theaters will actually PAY to upgrade their 2K or sub-2K systems to 4k? No way. Theaters are cheap. Look at what they pay their employees. They HATE spending money. They are against it in every way. Will studios pay to upgrade the existing installations? HELL NO! So sorry my friend, theaters will forever be stuck at 2K except for new installations. I wouldn't put it past the studios to make 4K movies incompatible with anything projector beow 4K, though.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ted Costas
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 119
From: Hollywood, CA, USA
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 07-05-2005 02:01 PM
Ahh the days of 70mm... those were fine days indeed.
But they are gone.
Sorry. I started working for TAP looking at 70mm prints exculsively. I am very fond of the quality of those prints. But like an old football player that retires and goes to the hall of fame (if he's lucky), so will 70mm prints. We can visit them and try and relive the old days, but 70mm prints are for the film "hall of fame", to be talked about fondly in web sites like this, and occationally shown at a special event. But they ain't a comin' back.
Now to respond to a few of you...
Martin Brooks - Movies that make money need more than an opening weekend (yes, the opening is vital) to make their full potential. The term "legs" is only applied to movies that can hold a screen for a bit -- and those are the tent pole releases the studios dream of. They need to look good for more than the first days shows... so there is an advantage to the long term quality of a digital show.
Bobby H. - 4K is in the DCI spec. It is what the industry is striving for. 2K on a big screen, with the correct space dialed in, looks really good. Unfortunately for me, I don't have a room in my house that could hold a 60 foot screen... but other than that, sure... HDTV is as good as 2K, whatever you say. Also, Bobby, movies are for people to escape the reality of their lives... even during the great depression, people found a way to see a movie to take a two hour escape from their day. The poorest people need entertainment just as much as the richest people do, and a good story and a good presentation will do the trick everytime.
Joe R. - That was wrong... the mediocrity comment. If Dolby isn't constantly pushing the technology envelope, who is? I'd tell you about some of the stuff we are developing, but I'm afraid that you may not be able to fully grasp the magnitude of the concepts in general, and the general public is far from being ready to adapt to these technological vississitudes. Actually, Joe, you may be the perfect candidate for live testing... we want to implant 12 discrete channels into your brain with an input plug at the base of your neck. This will guarentee the best sound option at all times (say in case you enter a theatre that doesn't offer Dolby sound). I'm kidding about the above, except your mediocrity comment was still, to quote Brad, "wrong."
And for everyone who made a comment about attendance being down. The reason is simple -- good movies. We need more of them. We are two blockbusters short of last year's numbers and nobody is jumping out of widows because of it.
Don't worry, be happy.
And again - the comments expressed here are mine, and not that of Dolby, although I bet there is a sentence or two here that they would agree with.
Yours, Ted
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-05-2005 08:28 PM
I dunno there Ted...
70mm is dead because? The film stocks are available, the projectors are available...heck even the infernal platters that run them are available. Perhaps the company you work for has little use for it. The CP650 can't really handle it too well...unless a DTS player is used ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
As for just the films being the problem with attendance...that is way too simple a rational. It is certainly a contributor. Technology can't make a film...just improve its experience.
However, today films cost a bit more, the mainstream theatres oversaturate their customers with ads and previews to the point of annoyance, the cost of gas has gone up to affect disposable income. You compare it to depression times...most people didn't need cars back then...they lived in the cities and had many theatres to choose from. The theatre might have A/C when their homes did not. The theatre had "news" that even the illiterate could appreciate. Customers were treated far FAR better when going to the theatre back in those days than they are today. After all, back then people came to see the movie and to have a "night out"...not be around rude people on cell phones, forced to watch way too many ads...the whole atmosphere of the theatres back then was true glitz and customer service...right down to usshers that would actually show you to your seats.
Least you think too highly of movies back in the depression era. Only one major studio made money....MGM...with more stars than in the sky. Warner Brothers broke even and the rest lost money.
quote: Ted Costas
I'd tell you about some of the stuff we are developing, but I'm afraid that you may not be able to fully grasp the magnitude of the concepts
Not that Joe needs any defending...but he probably can grasp concepts better than you...just judging by your respective posts.
Dolby needs no defending...they have made a very definate positive mark on the industry. Ray Dolby has pioneered audio improvement above and beyond most in the industry. Come on...Dolby-A and Dolby-SR are achievements of a life time. Dolby Digital is certainly and achievement in making the most of a tiny amount of storage space. The with the exception of the CP45 and SA10, their processors have certainly stood the test of time and support by a company. I don't think that anyone that puts in a box with the Dolby badge on it worries about it working or performing well. The CP650 remains my most reliable processor though the remotes have been a bit flakey (seemingly have been worked out...now years into production).
However, Dolby Labs have not always been behind the best sound available...SVA was pushed over 4-track magnetic when Dolby-A on 4-track would easily provide superior sound. Likewise, 70mm's dismissal in the light of Dolby Digital when Dolby-SR is available for 70mm seems like settling for grade B when grade-A is available and the picture quality of 70mm remains the highest-definition.
As for digital pictures....they are certainly coming. As someone that has HDTV and a relatively high pixel count projector 1366 x 768 on a 10-foot wide screen. I would say HDTV is okay for the home but not great on the big screen.
I've seen 2K digital and a lot of 1.3K digital for DCinema...they can look pretty damn impressive from the booth...but they do tend to fall apart as one gets closer to the screen. 4K is too low a target for DCinema though I can understand it as a stepping stone to bigger and better things. One thing DCinema should have done is to have started with 2K rather than adopting an AV format with 1.3K that even AV is abandoning in favor of 1400 x 1050 imagers.
I'm interested by Dolby's Digital Cinema offering though question the rather deeeeeeeeep storage unit (most cinemas will be removing the rear doors on the their racks to accommodate this device.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-05-2005 09:59 PM
quote: Ted Costas
The poorest people need entertainment just as much as the richest people do, and a good story and a good presentation will do the trick everytime.
Yes, that's true. There is escapist value in visiting a commercial movie theater. But many low income families can't afford to do that. It's even pretty costly for a lot of middle income families just trying to escape debt. They're being pushed to settle for the bargain theater or just watching at home on whatever setup they can afford.
If price isn't the issue, you have the usual negatives people associate with the theater experience: ringing cellphones, crying babies, noisy teenagers, 30 minutes of trailers (all louder than the movie itself). As great as stadium seating is, it has also allowed more jerks to stick their feet on your seat.
There is some freedom in watching movies at home. You don't have the theatrical atmosphere, but you don't have all the annoyances either. You can adjust the sound as loud as you like. And you can pause the show when you have to take a break.
The most important attraction is the movie itself. But so many releases are just so derivative. We have all these TV shows turned into movies, sequels of bad movies and other shows that are just garbage. "Batman Begins" was a good movie. But did we need to re-start that franchise when the old one started just 16 years ago? How about a "blockbuster" based on an entirely new story?
Presentation quality is a huge issue on the Film-Tech forums. But "film done right" seems even more rare now, even with many thousands of screens equipped for digital surround sound. I can only think cost cutting on theater maintenance has something to do with this. Profit margins for theater chains has to be hurting with windows between theatrical and DVD release being ever more narrow.
This is an area where I can HDTV-quality digital cinema systems can actually be a threat to the long term health of commercial cinemas. The term digital cinema may attract more viewers at first. But the biggest fans of the video technology could be among the first to abandon the theater in favor of getting a 1080p home HD rig and proclaiming the setup to be every bit as good as what the best theater can offer. They'll be sure to brag to every one of their friends.
So, if the customer has it in his head that his home system provides image and sound quality as good as any theater, he's not going to have much problem waiting for the HD-DVD, Blu-Ray disc or whatever format is used. Waiting won't be much of a problem either with big releases taking as little as a season to go from the big screen to home release.
quote: Ted Costas
4K is in the DCI spec. It is what the industry is striving for. 2K on a big screen, with the correct space dialed in, looks really good.
4K may be in the DCI spec, but is not what's happening in practice. 2K remains the de-facto standard. It stays stuck there since most CGI work and digital intermediate work is rendered at that level. Over the last five years computer processing power and disc storage capacity has grown enormously -to levels more than adequate to handle 4K economically. But most in Hollywood are using the technological gains to do 2K work even faster and more cheap.
There needs to be some strong upward pressure on Hollywood to produce their product using digital standards like 4K, and even reconsider larger film formats for production. Sure, we may never see 70mm used as a theatrical release format again. However, you can still shoot a movie on 65mm or VistaVision and have an enormously superior original to manipulate digitally.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
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
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
in 3D is still 
Printer-friendly view of this topic