|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Video's obsolescence - Film's ultimate saviour?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 03-04-2009 03:13 PM
quote: Damien Taylor
What is the max R/W cycles on SS hard drives up to these days?
Plenty for non-database applications ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Now, seriously, wikipedia says:
quote:
Flash-memory cells will often wear out after 1,000 to 10,000 write cycles for MLC, and up to 100,000 write cycles for SLC[10], while high endurance cells may have an endurance of 1–5 million write cycles (many log files, file allocation tables, and other commonly used parts of the file system exceed this over the lifetime of a computer).
Basically, you can read the hell out of them day and night for years and years and years. But if you write the same block only 100 times a day, in may go bye-bye in less than 10 years.
Drives have wear-level mechanisms and failure fallback zones, so they make sure that "the same block" is not written over and over by swapping it with another block that is not written-to often, so the whole drive will fail pretty much close to the end of the total useable life rather than the life of a single block.
Truth is: for many uses, many many years (say 8 or more of constant use).
For some uses: very little (say a year or two).
But stuff like this makes you think about it twice
http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/storage/ssd-failure-rate-is-10-20-per-cent--268368
quote:
A large computer manufacturer is reported to be getting 20-30 per cent of its SSD flash memory-equipped computers returned due to technical failure and poor performance.
According to IT research firm, Avian Securities, between 10-20 per cent of SSD returns are due to straightforward technical failure, far higher than the 1-2 per cent failure rate of standard hard drives.
"There is an order of magnitude higher in failure rates," Avi Cohen, head of research at Avian Securities explained to CNET.
One has to be careful what kind of usage they are given and what to buy.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
James B Gardiner
Film Handler
Posts: 91
From: North Altona, Victoria, Ausrtalia
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 03-07-2009 06:30 AM
Hi all,
Interesting topic. Firstly let me inform you that I was an original employee of Kodak on the Cineon project. Basically where the 2K and 4K resolutions sizes actually came from.
I also have 15 years of Post production film and TV experience.
Now, 4K, interestingly enough this came form the fact that, in general, at that time, the average size of film grain was equivalent to 2k. So to be able to scan and print back with near no loss, you want to scan at double the mean size of the grain. as such, 4K. Film has improved greatly since then however. This was the general gist I was told while on the project. I was in the software team. Nightly I would build the software tree and monitor the revision control system for problems.
After that I was involved in building a film recorder we used in our own company to transfer ads to film. We did many thousands of the years.
Now, in general, from this experience I state this to be the case. In general, any film being distributed with a reasonable number of prints needed will look worse then 2k digital projection. Film does not copy well at all. (Random grain to random grain transfer) So in "general" a 2K digital show is sharper then typical film shows. Its just the way it is guys.
But YES, 35mm film can look much better then 2K DCI. Film also has some other looks that some people warm to. But then again Digital also has a feel that the younger people would probably prefer. (Ie your clients)
Archival.
Digital is it guys. most if not all films go though a DI. Why, because it is cost effective and you can spend more money where it is better spent. For example the script, story line etc.
As all films (Worth keeping) are DI, there is large portions of the archival of that film that will have to be digital anyway. You may consider this the weakest link, but in any case, part of the archive film, may as well be all. In any case, computer and storage technology is improving so fast...
I am sure its going to be fine.
(I'm personally waiting for the laser imprinting into crystal type data storage. Theoretically posible, amazing storage potential, and will last for a LONG time)
Now, let me also tell a few other stories on this.
In my company we where involved in a few presentations and conferences. One in particular, we had Kodak there taking up Film over digital. During this guys talk he was basically completely misleading and bending the truth so much I considered it lies. Eventually we cornered the guy and discussed the crap he was sprouting.. He's arguments quickly fell apart when talking to some one who actually knew what there where talking about. And he eventually came clean with us. Kodak had a FUD campaign going. (Fear , uncertainty and doubt) It basically came down to him saying, every year we delay the digital evolution, the extra billions we (Kodak) make.
What can I say, he was right. Can you blame him/Kodak for doing business to make money..
Tho, to be honest, it has not been Kodak that has slowed the move to digital. Domestic film cameras changed over many years ago now. The main reason for this is simply COST.
One would think that as a big industry that Cinema is, the Bean counters would have worked out some way earlier then now to get this industry to make the change.
I personally think it be lead from production.
For years as a younger person, I always wondered why the hi end of town did not embrace digital earlier. It saves money..
Unfortunately, this is not what drives decision in Hollywood.
One, the hi end DOP's simply do not want to learn a new skill. And why should they, it is a skill that revolves around understanding the technology and equipment. Going to digital would have been risky. So this makes it very generational.
Two, strangely enough the people who make a decision on what production technology to use are generally getting a % of the production costs. So. keep them high, make more money, spending other peoples money. The DI came into fashion more because of the capabilities not the costs.
There are quite a few strange business issues here. That is only a few.
I know there is a lot of Film lovers in this forum, and I do not, by any means, mean to offend. I am just pointing out my experience. And my final point is. At the end of the day this is all about making money. Film producers do not make films to loose money..... As a cinema owner, this should be your aim too. Eventually Film will simply become too expensive to use for production AND presentation. This is a very Darwinian concept but, like Oil running out, it will eventually happen.
The fact is, like it or not, if you plan to be in exhibition, you are likely going to have to jump to Digital within 10 yours. Film simply will not be made any more. Sure vinyl records are still made, but Film is a lot harder and not domestic. (a niche product but with so many people in general pitting a little into it to keep it running) You are not likely to see film for cinema hold on like that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-07-2009 01:12 PM
quote: James B Gardiner
Firstly let me inform you that I was an original employee of Kodak on the Cineon project.
Impressive.
quote: James B Gardiner
Now, in general, from this experience I state this to be the case. In general, any film being distributed with a reasonable number of prints needed will look worse then 2k digital projection. Film does not copy well at all. (Random grain to random grain transfer) So in "general" a 2K digital show is sharper then typical film shows.
I understand you are making a general claim...film copies actually rather well. It isn't like digital in that the copy is identical to the original but that does not mean a higher resolution film duped necessarily means that its dupe, even 4 generations or more away had degraded to the point that a lower resoution digial copy will be more faithful. And that is the crux of all analog versus digital duplication...analog degrades on dupes but the question is how much. I've seen such a range in release prints that I would hazard to state anything generally. One thing digital has for sure...the dupes look identical to each other...one isn't likely to get one of the bad clones...unless it gets corrupt.
As to 2K being sharper...the PIXELS are sharper but that does NOT mean there is more information there. In fact, their lack of detail, from my experience, makes a digital image lose its depth. As an example...you could have a 4x4 resolution image blown up to the big screen...the 4 pixels will be tack sharp but the image they represent, unless they are four boxes stacked in a cube, will be impossible to determine...don't confuse the apparant sharpness with detail.
quote: James B Gardiner
Its just the way it is guys.
Sez you...and we ALL have our opinions here; and many type them.
quote: James B Gardiner
Digital also has a feel that the younger people would probably prefer.
I have not found an older/younger person correlation at all when it comes to digital/film. The younger folks, generally, are less concerned about quality than cheapness and speed. Those two are probably THE reason for digital's prominance in both consumer and professional. If you are willing to make the deal with the devil, there are MANY more tools at even the lay-person's access in the digital domain.
quote: James B Gardiner
Archival.
Digital is it guys.
Opinion...not currently a correct one. Do you want to compare how many motion picture titles/elements are being "Archived" on film versus digital, including born-digital?
quote: James B Gardiner
Digital is it guys. most if not all films go though a DI. Why, because it is cost effective and you can spend more money where it is better spent.
See above...if you do the deal with the devil, yes digital intermediates afford one many more options and speed...BUT, anyone that thinks that a 2K DI looks like anything but pure amature garbage really doesn't have an eye. 2K is WAY too low to capture the image faithfully if one is to show it on the big-screen. I'm really hoping that the trend continues to move away from 2K DIs...they really look bad...particularly if you see a film dupe off the OCN...it is litterally night and day.
As to the script, storyline...I have yet to see the Intermediate have any affect on improving the script or story.
quote: James B Gardiner
One in particular, we had Kodak there taking up Film over digital. During this guys talk he was basically completely misleading and bending the truth so much I considered it lies.
In your opinion.
quote: James B Gardiner
Eventually we cornered the guy and discussed the crap he was sprouting.. He's arguments quickly fell apart when talking to some one who actually knew what there where talking about. And he eventually came clean with us.
Not that doubt that people spout lies or anything...but do you have any proof on that? It is a bit slanderous to claim one is spouting lies. Can you get this person to admit it here? If not, it is probably a story best kept to you and your buds because without that sort of proof, it is hersay, at best.
quote: James B Gardiner
I always wondered why the hi end of town did not embrace digital earlier. It saves money..
Is it possible the people making the decision might have thought that the film looks better? I get it that you like the digital image...that is great but it does not make it fact.
The rest of your statement is again opinion that is a bit slanderous that one would choose one format over another because they don't want to learn the new format. Creative types, in my experience, always tend to try and be the most creative. It is not always the case but more often than not.
quote: James B Gardiner
Film producers do not make films to loose money..... As a cinema owner, this should be your aim too
You don't need to explain that to an exhibitor...they desperately try to make money.
However, at the exhibition side of the biz, film presentation remains substantially cheaper. Look at the physical plant investment...If an exhibitor plunks down say $25K on a film system (platter, console, projector, lenses, automation...etc). What is the life span of that equipment...projectors are showing in excess of 50-years and, for sure, the life of the complex. The average life of a complex is 20-25-years before it either needs a serious renovation or it is so dated compared to a newer complex that it shuts down....that amounts to $1K/year for projection. Its peanuts and there doesn't need to be any subsidizing of it.
With digital...everyone needs that VPF of not $1K/year but $1K per title! And it is only a 10-year deal. So at the end of 10-years what is one to do? Who pays for the next generation? The fact it needs a VPF should be a HUGE red flag that financially it isn't viable yet. I don't think that anyone really believes that digital will not take over some day. But from the business side, it is a poor move for exhibition...it costs more and it does not generate any more money doing so.
On film equipment...we have many choices...in digital very few with just two manufacturers of imagers. And while some chose not believe it...the DLP division of TI is shrinking...there is not evidence of any R&D and, of all things, DLP has been demoted so much that within TI...DLP now reports to their ANALOG division.
Since you are into the money side of things...what is the potential market for DLP? Presumming you are correct in its adoption...once full penetration has been accomplished...what is the potential yearly sales of DLP going to be? Does anyone in semiconductor manufacturing produce in quantities that low? Because if you are honest with yourself, if DLP wins the DCinema world...you are talking abotu 3000-5000 chips tops to service exiting installations and cover new-builds.
quote: James B Gardiner
The fact is, like it or not, if you plan to be in exhibition, you are likely going to have to jump to Digital within 10 yours.
Just like my opinions on the situation...yours remains an opinion.
quote: James B Gardiner
You are not likely to see film for cinema hold on like that.
Film will likely be shown in cinemas, in some fashion, longer than either of us will be alive and I plan on many more decades of that.
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
James B Gardiner
Film Handler
Posts: 91
From: North Altona, Victoria, Ausrtalia
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 03-07-2009 05:25 PM
Steve,
I see your having a hard time with this transition..
Just a few more bits.
As a DI is 2K (Well near all are), going from this 2K finish to a lossy analog transfer, obviously it is not going to have as much detail as 2K master to 2K DCI.
2K DCI is the accountants choice. Accountant asks. If we do a 4K DI, who will tell the difference. "1 or 2 %". Will it ad value or better ROI. "No". Well, we are not doing a 4K DI then....
Once the distributors have a reasonable DCI footprint, do you expect them to offer the costly Film any more?? I don't. Or if you want it, you're going to have to pay extra to get it. (You pay for the print now)
You seem to think the tail wags the dog.
In reality, the distributors have limited reliance on exhibition, however, distributors have more options. Exhibitors do not have as many options, tho some do exist.
James
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
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