|
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Another Christopher Nolan anti-digital rant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-18-2015 01:30 PM
DCP can and does still get goofed up from time to time. The person assembling the play list must have at least a decent level of computer literacy and an understanding of various screen and sound formats. Mistakes won't cause any damage to the DCP file, unlike what happens with film prints in the hands of someone who doesn't care. But goof-ups still can ruin a show.
I'll also add a booth person's goof up with a DCP sometimes isn't taken as seriously as it is with film. Someone like me who notices something is wrong might be seen as just being a pain in the ass. "Hey, it's digital. It's perfect already. What do you want?" There's more hell to pay if someone messes up a 35mm print. There's no undo button for that.
In the bigger picture scheme of things, something is greatly wrong in American culture. Big businesses view labor as a throw-away commodity and this is compounded by many people in the work force not having good work ethics, like taking pride in doing a good job. Declining values in various plateaus from the executive level down to the high school kid making minimum wage compounds a lot of negativity. In this scenario, someone who takes pride in carefully and correctly showing film is a pretty rare thing anymore.
It's almost comical how ill-prepared some theaters were at showing Interstellar. An AMC location in Dallas ruined their 35mm print the very first show. Durp! It makes me think management didn't even try to find someone actually qualified to run a film projector. They dumped the job onto someone who wasn't prepared.
quote: Justin Hamaker
Despite what people like Nolan think, the average movie goer does not care about the media the movie is projected from - in fact, the average movie goer would not be able to tell the difference between a clean 35mm print and a digital presentation.
The average viewer may indeed not care what medium is being used to show a movie. But I think it is dangerous for any movie theaters to base their standards of practice on this. It's very easy for that "viewers don't care" thing to be turned against the theaters. Why should a viewer care about the difference between watching a movie at a movie theater versus watching at home? Can they tell any difference? Do they care about any difference?
Ever shorter windows between the theatrical release date and home video release date are going to test that "viewers don't care" angle. The ever improving quality of consumer electronics (HDTV sets, video playback, etc.) is also going to test that.
Commercial movie theaters have to do something to keep customers loyal to that platform rather than let them abandon it all of a sudden like they have a few other kinds of businesses over this past decade.
quote: Lyle Romer
I've been able to see the pixel grid when close enough to a screen with an image coming out of a 4k Sony projector (running the full imager, not split for 3D). Unless Sony is using much better lenses (which I can't imagine), you should certainly be able to see the pixel grid from 2k if you are close enough and it is focused and the projector isn't vibrating.
Seeing comments like this and reading plenty in the past about the "screen door effect" is why I wonder if projectors are being dialed just enough out of focus to hide that grid. I don't expect to see a pixel grid as sharply defined as it is when I get right up close to my TV set. But I would expect to see at least a little bit of it on material that can easily reveal the pixel grid, such as technical looking subject matter and hard edged graphics. This especially goes for 2K. If the optics aren't good enough to do with 2K then that's pretty damned miserable performance.
I can take a picture of my TV set with my new smart phone and see the pixel grid on the image pretty clearly. That's coming from a phone camera with a tiny, diffraction prone lens and tiny image sensor. How big are the 3-chip DLP image sensors in the average d-cinema projector? I'd be willing to bet they're larger than any smart phone camera sensor. Most d-cinema projector lenses I've seen up close are pretty big and look really expensive. For all that money I would expect better resolving power.
In addition there is the issue of the perforation patterns on movie screens. Some companies are now selling screens with much tighter micro-perf patterns. I understand these kinds of screens can fight moiré in d-cinema setups. But this assumes a setup where the pixel grid is defined well enough to clash with a screen's perf pattern. How often do theaters actually run into this problem?
quote: Leo Enticknap
However, the people who don't still exist: a theater manager I met recently described film as a "f***ing pain in the ass", and expressed the honestly held belief that the industry would be a lot better off if it had started projecting from VHS in the 1990s.
That's pretty crazy. I don't think there would be any movie industry today if it had switched to projecting images off low resolution video tape 20 years ago.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ari Leedsw
Film Handler
Posts: 53
From: Stoughton, MA
Registered: Feb 2016
|
posted 02-20-2016 10:23 AM
At least from the perspective of a speaker of American English, I don't think "rant" is an appropriate use of the word, here.
Nolan is absolutely right. What the hell is the point of going to see a movie that is 1/4 the resolution of what I can watch in my living room?
"Theatre experience" to me often means sticky floors and seats.
I could not care less about how many speakers Dolby has added. I could not care less about how many people are in the theatre with me staring at their iPhones during the movie.
The one exception I have had with audience was seeing "H8teful Eight" in 70mm.
I paid to see "Star Wars" at matinee prices, as I will be Goddamned if I pay Cinemark $25. Did not pay a cent for concessions from those WalMart-outdoing BASTARDS. And I would have sneaked in the back door had I had more time.
I was with a group of filmmakers, in the two shows I stole, and cinephiles, who went out of their way to go to a premium experience. This in the same theatre that is still showing 2K "projection" of Star Wars (shot on film, by the way)! ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif)
Blowing up a shit file on a gigantic screen impresses me zero. And even the typical, ignorant theatre goer is going to catch on to this gimmick.
Charging premium prices for a gigantic screen that plays what is, in effect, the same thing as an uncompressed Bluray, and slapping brand names and logos on the same is going to bite these guys in the asses eventually, pardon my French.
People like Nolan, Tarantino, Pfister, Spielburg are doing their best to SAVE film, SAVE the cinema experience, and they are fighting what may be a losing battle against short-sighted accountants who want to maximize profit and don't care if, in so doing, they kill off the theatre industry.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 02-20-2016 09:56 PM
The people who read and write on this site are a self-selecting group. Most theatergoers don't care how the image is put on the screen. Market research has shown time and time again that they do care about things like, how easy it is to park at the venue, what the ticket price is, does the movie have a big name star in it, etc. etc. Occasionally, Hollywood has used technology as way to promote and sell its films, but hardly ever in isolation.
Do you think the Weinsteins would have bankrolled The Hateful Eight if it didn't have three A-listers heading the cast? Do you think they would have agreed to a film-only release with no DCP version at all? They tolerated Tarantino's obsession with UP70 because they believed that the movie would still make them a big profit, despite the extra overheads.
So yes, theaters will get away with charging customers $25 to see a 2K DCP, if they are providing what most of those customers want most of all - easy parking, comfortable seats, welcoming staff, and a well-written and directed movie with big names in it. And personally, I'd prefer a well made 2K DCP to around 90% of the typical 35mm prints (made on high speed panel printers with an unstable picture, color balance all over the place, etc. etc.) seen in multiplexes during the medium's final decade as a mainstream release format.
The minority of theatergoers who care about the image and audio quality will seek out the minority of theaters that pride themselves on providing it. But they'll always be a minority, in both cases.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
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