|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Arclight LA Star Wars Disaster
|
|
|
|
|
Marco Giustini
Film God
Posts: 2713
From: Reading, UK
Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 12-24-2015 09:43 AM
Alan,
Sorry, didn't mean to sound harsh!
quote: Alan Plester
my main point was, the cinema only lost one show when I was on in 20 yrs, sorry for any confusion, if there was any.
I agree that on 35mm you could compromise on several things in order to run a show. Digital is like Dolby Digital: once the data being read from the prints is not enough for the error correction, then you have no digital sound, nothing you can do about that.
Digital is digital. It works or it doesn't. But I wouldn't just consider such an event to say that 35mm was better. Yes, you've lost one show in 20 years but then I could say that over 20 years a 'digital audience' would never experience a sound issue or a scratched print.
Considering that that was the norm with 35mm, I'd be happy with the extra lost show to be honest.
In our example, also, a projectionist equivalent (i.e. an IT guy) may have been able to identify a faulty drive, eject it from the array and continue the show properly. If the cinema chose not to hire a competent guy to run the equipment then you can't really blame the equipment, can you?
Wish you and the forum a Merry Christmas!!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-24-2015 09:50 AM
quote: Tyler Purcell
JPEG2000 is considered a lossless codec by much of the industry. It CAN BE lossless at high bandwidth, but of course is not when presented at cinemas where bandwidth is a problem.
JPEG, be it the original flavor or the new "2000" is NOT lossless. Even at its maximum quality settings it's still not lossless. The compressed image might be hard to distinguish between the original, but the format is still throwing away data permanently.
quote: Tyler Purcell
JPEG is also intraframe meaning, the compression is based on single frames and not a group like a transport stream. You can't make JPEG2000 a transport stream, it's always basing its compression on individual frames, not variations on one frame like most MPEG systems.
Yes, every image in a JPEG2000-based DCP is separately encoded. One could say the imagery in a DCP is not even a real video file. It's just many thousands of static images held inside a single container file that might as well be a folder. But since JPEG2000 works like that it makes it very inefficient compared to true video codecs like MPEG-4 AVC and HEVC.
quote: Tyler Purcell
Because JPEG is so good at representing the original media, it's the number one long-term archival format.
Number one according to who?
In the graphics and photography world TIFF with lossless LZW compression is a pretty much a universal standard. Photoshop PSD images are almost a de facto standard due to the application's popularity. Many photographers will archive RAW images since they're considerably smaller in file size than a fully inflated TIFF. Adobe and others have tried pushing DNG, but I don't think they're getting very far with it.
JPEG is not an archive quality format, be it the original version or the 2000 variant. Millions of images are traded in JPEG and stock images are commonly sold in JPEG. I get lots of different kinds of graphics and image files from customers in my work. Out of all the JPEG images I get I very rarely ever see any .JP2 files despite the fact several professional quality applications, including Photoshop, can open and generate such files.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 12-24-2015 12:05 PM
quote:
If my digital system breaks down... for whatever reason, through my fault or not... the only thing I can tell my customers is that I have called the Network Operation Center in some town far away and that a technician will come to fix it in a day or so. I still take all of the blame but I have no ability to solve problems. Not fair!
... and yet, at least in the case of Barco machines, you can attend factory-sponsored training. That, at some point, should qualify you to troubleshoot most anything in your machines. The main drawback for you would be the opportunity to gain the kind of experience a full-time tech would have, but at least you'd be far more help to a NOC or other service company, if that was required.
From what formal entities could you get comparable training in practical 35/70mm booth operations? At least in my experience, so much of the craft was passed down by others, whose qualifications you'd have to judge at a later date. If you were lucky... you'd get lucky.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 12-24-2015 02:44 PM
Bobby, I was part of building the archival architecture at Iron Mountain, these are the guys who store/archive MOST of the visual content. They brought me in as a consultant to help with these decision making processes and during our testing, we found JPEG2000 to be the best format and henceforth, ALL media is now stored in that format. The biggest reason why comes down to file size and corruption. The way JPEG encodes it's images, even if there are bits of data missing, you can still re-create the image. With Tiff based formats, if any part of the data block is missing, the frame can't be created. Plus, JPEG2000 is way more efficient then Tiff, offers real-time proxy viewing and is native to many GPU's for instant playback.
If you wish to read up on lossless motion JPEG, here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_JPEG
I personally prefer Tiff for camera original, but the industry is heavily JPEG2000 based, most of the cameras shoot that and everyone distributes using it as well.
| 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
Printer-friendly view of this topic