|
|
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 03-07-2009 08:08 PM
I think it's obvious, for Steve included, that likely someday most cinema "stuff" (production, distribution, exhibition) will be done digitally and film for any such "new" applications will be mostly gone.
There are some wide-ish discrepancies on WHEN some of us feel this will happen. Time will tell.
But what most of us agree is that digital exhibition, as it stands today, doesn't offer enough advantages to exhibitors to outweight the dissadvantages.
Those that benefit the most from digital are those that don't have to hardly pay for it, or, actually, for them it's cheaper to use digital than to use film. Distributors are the main beneficiaries in this chain.
You are "correct" in that exhibitors are the ones that pay for film prints on way or another, but the cost is spreaded across the industry and it sets the base price.
If exhibitors wanted to switch to digital voluntarily and distributors DISCOUNTED the price of the print that we "already pay", then we would have nor an advantage nor a dissadvantage. Same price. Exhibitors don't get a "print" but they also don't "pay of it", so fair deal.
Except exhibitors would have to throw away their perfectly good, "top quality" 35mm equipment and replace it with expensive, perhaps not so good digital equipment (or perhaps better, but not a whole lot).
But the way it stands, and not counting VPF, the distributors want to continue the same (say 60-40) share, same prices, same everything, but they still want the exhibitors to switch to digital.
![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
Exhibitors will switch to digital voluntarily if:
A) A reliable 4K 3D $30k TOTAL "convertion kit" per screen existed. Why? Well, it brings more quality in non-scratched and rock solid "prints" of good sharpness, it brings 3D, it brings less labor costs, at a reasonable price.
B) The distributors would pay for it with VPF or reduced cuts. Then it's "free" equipment, and we still get 3D and reduced labor.
Distributors benefiting from digital by saving the cost of prints, faster market times (less interest in $200m movies), more availability (digital prints of just about any movie, old or new, can be handed to exhibitors in 24h), but then not willing to pass any of those advantages to exhibitors, who have to pay the full bill for no benefits (same or less quality than 35mm, increased maintenance and operating cost, increased equipment obsolence and technology fights with competitors, missing shows from failures) or just small benefits (3D and reduced labor costs).
The industry has been feeding Kool-Aid and "lies" about the benefits of digital for years (remember the 1.3K of 10 years ago?) trying to get exhibitors to pay the millions for digital switch over so they could eat the free cake.
They've been yelling: "3D, 3D" Well, "perfect" 3D has been here before for the past 60 years many times and it has never significantly impacted the industry. 3D=good? Yes, but only a small %% Everybody welcomes another option to entertain public with good 3D, but this NEED NOT COME with the whole "digital" attachment.
Current 3D movies could be made available in over/under or whatever film format they wanted. They don't want to do that because it's just another black mail tool for digital convertion.
Small producers should take notice and make their future 3D productions available in film too if they want wider exhibition.
But I have the feeling distributors will fold in and start nice VPF programs any time now worldwide, as they are fools for each month they don't do it they are shifting millions of dollars from the chain to Kodak/Fuji now that "decent" and "cheaper" (not enough, but getting there) DCI equipment exists.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-07-2009 08:21 PM
quote: James B Gardiner
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.
I pretty much agree with what you say. I find that many die hard film people, especially DP's have an infinitely difficult time accepting digital of any sort. Fact is that film is now really obsolete and digital is here to stay and it's making more inroads by the hour and is also improving nearly as fast. The problem is similar to converting a fan of the Didge 440 Hemi to drive a Toyota Prius!
I truely agree with your assessment that at best 1 or 2 percent of people might notice a difference in a 4K DI. Will there ever be any 4K projectors out there in quantity? Not if Sony is the only one making them! Several people on this site definately exist in that 1 or 2 percent catagory. There have also been an interesting few on this site that have loudly objected to digital( kinda like Louis still does) who having finally gotten to see good digital content first hand abruptly changed their minds about it. I believe the owner of this site is one of those people!
Indeed the future is digital, not film. Kodak, probably in my life time will discontinue making film all together and become one of the largest producers of CCD imagers and related hardware. I know they are already well on their way to this level now. I also believe the future holds more in store for projection of content digitally than it does for projecting film.
Mark
| IP: Logged
|
|
James B Gardiner
Film Handler
Posts: 91
From: North Altona, Victoria, Ausrtalia
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 03-07-2009 11:35 PM
While I am on this topic. Let me discuss other miss conceptions.
Firstly, back in the early days when 2/4K was the hot thing and production companies would say. If you are not doing at least 2k, you are not serious and your quality was not good enough etc.. (Total rubish as many of the top films where not actually doing it at that time)
For many years, these production companies would say, you must use us, and our big expensive toys as they do real 2k not that 1920x1080 sub quality workflow. This use to make me laugh as... The arri laser was the tool of choice, and it did 2K recording.. Tho, the production companies etc (This is one of the big points that pulled the kodak guy on) would leave out a very important bit of information. The laser was a line array and could not move based on the area of film it could write to.. The 2K limit included the sounds area. So in reality, after taking this into consideration, you only got effective about 1850 resolution across. Not 2k as lead to believe. This was happening for a few years while arri laser upgrade the system to actually ring true to what was being said.
You know the saying. Lies, damned lies and statistics. Replace the statistics part with "large companies connected with production."
Now the current day version of the same problem..
4K. Back in my days at Kodak, when we say 2K or 4K, we talk about fill bit depth per pixel scanned. That is what 4K means in film.. For example, if looking at typical TV YUV colour space of 4:2:2. We do not have the full colour information per pixel.
Now, 4K is the rage right now as with the Red camera, its very easy to do.. The problem is. The Red camera, if considering 4K as above, is NOT 4K.
Its a 4K black and white Cmos sensor with a bayer filter to give you the colour. THIS IS NOT 4K. It works out to be about 2.9K equivalent when equated to full bit depth per pixel.
So. In reality its not 4K. So why go to 4K for the finish product? Personally I think its an Ego thing. "I did my film in 4K, arn't I so great" If you have not noticed, the production industry is home to a lot of egos.
Real 4K will be with us when the 6K RED camera comes out. That will give us a real 4K finish..
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 03-08-2009 05:35 AM
A few statments that I feel really need some more discussion.
quote: Julio Roberto
Current 3D movies could be made available in over/under or whatever film format they wanted
In my opinion, under / over 3D had some real issues, it was far too easy even for experienced operators to chop 1/2 a frame out and make it out of sync. Digital 3d really does have some advantages in my opinion. I personally prefer it to IMAX film 3D but that is just me.
As for a 2D picture, film does have the some real advantages. firstly its already installed and cheaper to run. Most of the advantages of digital. ie clean images, no dust or no scratches have been negated by most film titles having very short runs and large numbers of prints required for wide day and date release.
Film Techs own product Filmguard is another extremly low cost option, its ability to remove base scratches and clean a film print to better than new has to be seen to be believed.
Cinema is a low margin business. The cost advantages of this change are all for the distributer, I doubt that the public would apreciate the even more expensive popcorn and soda prices that this very costly technology could possibly bring as cinema owners attempt to retain existing margins.
My opion is that this technology will not sell any extra tickets.
quote: James B Gardiner
But then again Digital also has a feel that the younger people would probably prefer. (Ie your clients)
Is it our clients? Young males are not big moviegoers anymore and I doubt its film grain that keeps them away. Perhaps its new technology that keeps them at home? I'm not sure.
The other question that this brings though is why do film makers spend so much time and effort recreating the film look through digital means? I mean really 24 frames per second? fake grain, film gammas? In my opinion this is one of the main limiting factors of emerging digital technology. I can apreciate that film look is a major issue as we have been trained over our lifetime that that is what movies look like.
At the cinema I work at it's mature age 40 year old plus audience that pay my wages, people who have already devoloped a life long movie going habit, do you think they care, see a need to pay more for or will even notice this new technology?
quote: James B Gardiner
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.
I look forward to asking some of my friends in the ACS this one! From my understanding DOPs paint with light. From my own experience behind the camera, digital is easier, less risk proned and not much to fear, after all on location you can see exactly what you have got! no wait from the lab!(#RED excluded) It does tend to slow things down though compared to film but this is subjective.
I personally do not know one cinematographer who fears digital, but all (even the young ones) are passionate about film.
Personally James I am curious about why you think 2k digital is so wonderful, I'm sure you do have a good reason. With Mark and his point of view, well he is payed to install the technology. How do you plan to profit/ or enjoy 2k technology?
I have nothing to fear with digital, I will not be losing my job when its installed. Personally I would hope that the technology that will replace film would be noticably better than what is now widely avaliable at home (1080p).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
James B Gardiner
Film Handler
Posts: 91
From: North Altona, Victoria, Ausrtalia
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 03-08-2009 06:01 AM
Cameron,
I do like digital, but I must admit, film can look just as good and better. However, the production technology and the new environment that is developing around the world of making and distributing films dictates that we need to change. I am passionate about this industry thriving.
Polyester or digital projectors.. Whatever works.
As long as we keep wonderful stories on big screens.
On younger people.
The younger generation are use to hi-resolution LCD type displays. Solid, sharp, no grain. So really, you show them a grainy film print. What would they think.
They are used to super clean new digital cameras etc..
Now, these people may not be your main patrons right now, but in reality, you need to work on them to get them to take on Cinema as part of their future if exhibition is going to have a future.
Selling not just a "Movie" but a night out. An experience. Something they cannot get at home even with the best home theatre systems.
Some of the better cinemas already do this, but many do not. I feel that exhibition really needs to take on this culture in a bigger way. The younger generation may be watching moves any why they can get them, but as they grow older they will put more effort into how they watch films. As a wine drinker saves up for that special, more expensive bottle, that he takes his time to drink and appreciate.
James
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-08-2009 05:24 PM
I've spoken to a number of "younger" filmmakers/videomakers at festivals (most of whom were exhibiting on videotape. Anecdotal evidence suggests that (almost) no one seriously believes that any video/HD system is better than 35mm for acquisition purposes. There is some debate about whether 1080p HD is preferred to 16mm acquisition; HD doesn't have grain and looks "cleaner," but 16mm has more resolution.
Those who are shooting on video are doing so for reasons of cost and convenience. One can legitimately make an HD feature on a budget of $10k, while a 35mm feature would cost 10x that, at a minimum.
There is a small but vocal minority of videomakers which doesn't like film and wants nothing to do with it. Again, this group generally sees film as being expensive and cumbersome, and isn't terribly concerned about aesthetics.
As for exhibition, video seems to be popular at film festivals because it is cheap. Also, 16mm is unpopular because most setups are poor and, even under the best conditions, sound quality is not very high. Since most productions are edited on video, anyway, the filmout or negative cut/answer-print or blowup process just adds an expense that few want to undertake. Most seem to think that, if the film is sold for distribution, this expense will be absorbed by the buyer.
| 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