|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Multiple Reference Frames (or, What's up with the "acordian" leaders?)
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 06-12-2012 01:46 AM
quote: F. Hudson Miller
Unfortunately, also the ability to get any commercial format for most older titles will also fade away.
I hope that's a little pessimistic. For starters, scanning technology is getting cheaper and better all the time. Only five years ago, a 'big iron' scanner such as a Spirit or a Scanity, plus the hardware, software and human resources needed to take an archival film preservation element in one end and output a 2K DCP at the other would cost at least half a million in upfront investment for a system that could process an hour of film a day at most. Half that money will now get you one that runs in real time, and 4K for this ballpark price is just around the corner. We are already at the stage at which the cost of producing a DCP from 35mm preservation elements is no more than that of making a projection print, all relevant factors being equal. Many studio archives and larger commercial collections are already scanning to 4K with lossless compression as their principal digital asset of a given title, and then rendering out whatever other formats are needed from that. Non-profit and government archives will soon follow suit, although the costs involved are still too much for many of them.
The big danger is that most audiences will regard the BD as "good enough", and that if special interest distributors and archives charge significantly more for the DCP, then your rep or cinematheque programmer who has a budget that allows programming two titles on BD or one on DCP, then the technical quality will end up taking a back seat in the list of factors being weighed up.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 06-12-2012 08:49 AM
The studios and archives are already converting older titles to DCP, so there's no question (in my mind) as to whether they'll continue to be available in a professional format. Obviously, they will probably transfer the most profitable repertory titles first -- unless they have restoration plans, in which case, we'll probably have to wait till that happens.
In the meantime, if I have a choice between a beat-up 35mm print and a Bluray -- I'll at least consider the Bluray. A lot will depend on the quality of the video transfer/compression versus the issues with the print. In many cases, Bluray isn't merely "good enough" -- it's better than what you'd get otherwise. That's part of the perception issue. Theoretically, of course film would win. But, in practical terms, "it depends." We're not comparing perfect apples to perfect apples.
The incentive to migrate everything to DCP lies in the fact that a DCP is cheaper to store and ship than a 35mm print, and will last longer than a 35mm print without wear-n-tear. So why wouldn't they go with DCP?
Yes, I realize that the hard drives are subject to wear-n-tear but they're also cheaper to replace than a 35mm print.
And, yes, I'm aware that losing data is a possibility. But I'm not suggesting that they discard negatives or essential elements. After all, they're going to need them again when everything goes to 16K.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 06-12-2012 11:49 AM
quote: Manny Knowles
In the meantime, if I have a choice between a beat-up 35mm print and a Bluray -- I'll at least consider the Bluray. A lot will depend on the quality of the video transfer/compression versus the issues with the print. In many cases, Bluray isn't merely "good enough" -- it's better than what you'd get otherwise. That's part of the perception issue. Theoretically, of course film would win. But, in practical terms, "it depends." We're not comparing perfect apples to perfect apples.
Very good point. A high bitrate (as in, consistently in the high 20s and 30s) BD, mastered from a properly timed intermediate film element on a decent scanner will compare very favourably to a worn, scratched and faded typical 35mm release print from the '70s or early '80s, for example. Likewise, a new archive viewing print of a full-scale restoration project will be a better bet than a single layer BD, transferred one-light from an ancient 16mm film society print and encoded at bitrates in the teens or below.
But my fear is that arthouse and rep programmers will neither be willing nor able to make that sort of comparison (either due to lack of technical knowledge, or the opportunity to compare the BD and print before booking). In the dying days of 16mm, arthouse distributors started selling screening venues licence-only deals to project VHS tapes bought from a store. The cost of screening a title this way was less than half that of renting the 16mm print, and the result was a lot of VHS screenings. This time around, unless distributors price DCP rentals realistically, we're going to see the same result.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
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