|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Batman vs superman in 70mm
|
Ari Leedsw
Film Handler
Posts: 53
From: Stoughton, MA
Registered: Feb 2016
|
posted 02-22-2016 09:58 AM
1500 vertical lines translates to 2,775 horizontal, about 2.6K, so even more than I stated, about 2,500.
I did not know 5203 (Kodak Vision2 50D) resolved 5,000 (+ binary whatever) lines. That's even better than I thought.
For one, "Pulp Fiction," the equivalent of the day, 5245.
Also every daylight exterior scene in general shot on film, unless they're shooting on fast stock, with massive neutral density filtration (remember the exposure is only 1/45 second, very long in stills terms) for effect.
Until the early 1980s, granted the film was grainier, all films were shot on 100-speed or slower film, again very fine-grained.
More detailed response to follow when I have a moment.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-22-2016 10:40 AM
quote: Ari Leedsw
YEAH really. If they didn't go with cheap and established infrastructure, they would be laser-recording straight onto the print stock, which can probably hold 5 or 6K.
Laser film recorders don't work fast enough to crank out 35mm release prints, certainly not at 16-bit per channel 4K, much less 5K or 6K. Time and cost would make the quantity of prints very limited.
With most movies being shot with video cameras between 2K and 4K resolution and "color timed" via digital intermediate there's no point in outputting to film anyway other than for archival purposes. A 35mm laser recorded print wouldn't show anything more than what would be on a hard disc DCP. Sound would be of lesser quality (lossy DD or DTS).
The only advantage a 35mm laser recorded print could possibly show is a better quality anamorphic 'scope image, but that would only happen if such a higher resolution image was maintained in post production, which isn't the case. It's often shot as cropped Techniscope junk right in the camera. If anamorphics are used in camera the footage gets knocked down to Techniscope quality right after it leaves the camera.
quote: Tyler Purcell
Unfortunately no matter what we do as filmmakers or theater owners, the cinema is dying. Gimmicks like Laser projection, ATMOS audio and 3D/4D are the final straws to get people into the seats. There isn't much more that hasn't been tried and theaters are running out of time as they spent millions constantly upgrading their new technology to keep them current.
Unless some revolutionary breakthrough takes place to make laser projectors far less expensive they're never going to be installed in more than a few theaters. The cost of Dolby Cinema and IMAX with Laser installations are staggering.
Immersive surround formats like Dolby Atmos can bring a lot to the movie-going experience and deliver something that can't be matched in home theater without a hell of a lot of cost and complication. Unfortunately properly configured Dolby Atmos systems are very costly to purchase and install. Even if Dolby sold the CP-850 cinema processor for a far more affordable price, like say several thousand dollars rather than $30,000 or more, the theater operator would still have to spend a ton of money on lots of amplifiers and more powerful speakers. Not many cinemas are installing Atmos because of this. Complicating matters further, Hollywood still isn't changing how it makes sound mixes for feature movies. The sound mix is practically the last thing produced and it's done just at the last damned minute. If a lush, complex "3D" sound mix is desired the freaking sound designers are going to need more time to put that stuff together.
Next-gen immersive surround has hit a plateau and is going to go no farther until two critical things happen: 1.: Dolby and various manufacturers of speakers and amplifiers can figure out a way to reduce the costs of these systems, 2: movie studios change their production and post-production work flow to manage sound design as more than a last minute after thought.
I'm not optimistic about sound production to get more time to create more elaborate mixes. If anything media company stock investors are pushing tighter production deadlines. This is one of the reasons why we get some of the crappy looking CGI effects and other fake looking crap in movies. Churn and burn.
4K UHDTV sets are well on their way to becoming standard in electronics stores. 1080p TV sets have already been shoved aside in the high and mid range price categories. Over the next few years we'll see HDR capability become standard in TV sets. Meanwhile commercial theaters will be stuck with a very high cost upgrading projectors to keep up with what's happening in the consumer electronics space.
Commercial theaters have to do something to stay ahead of home theater. If they can't do it with technology they have to make up for it with style, service and showmanship.
quote: Tyler Purcell
Yet, the studio's haven't woken up to the fact, they're not truly offering anything special at the cinema. Content in most cases is worse then pay television (HBO/Cinemax) and Web (Netflix/Amazon). Theater content turns around so quickly to video, it's almost irrelevant it had a theatrical run. Most people wait for home release and likewise, the theaters loose quite a bit of business.
This is really the bigger, more fatal in the long term problem for traditional theatrical movies. Many Hollywood movies are bland, safe, predictable and just very formulaic. The Save the Cat! method has made many big studio movies okay yet forgettable. I see them once and I'm done. No need to watch it again, much less buy a copy of it. This is contributing to an overall decline in home video sales. Studios are screwing themselves further by pushing "Digital HD" over physical media. Why bother buying a virtual copy of a movie that's going to hog hard drive space when you can watch the same thing for next to nothing on Netflix or Amazon Prime in another month or two?
Premium cable TV shows and series definitely have a lot more creative freedom to take chances, do unpredictable and even upsetting things with main characters and make a lot more edgy content. They may not have the huge production and advertising budgets of feature movies, but
quote: Tyler Purcell
What needs to happen is the cinema needs to turn back into a special place to watch content you can't see at home. Motion picture film is part of that solution because you can't watch a 35 or 70mm print at home. Plus, dramatic/creative/artistic projects shot on celluloid should be projected on celluloid and have limited runs to draw audiences. Studio's should start making more 10M films and road-showing them across the country for limited release only.
Unfortunately the funding model for movie productions does not support this approach. If anything the bean counters at global media companies who own the movie studios want movies produced and distributed in an ever faster cycle. They have a single minded pursuit of gaming positive cash flow numbers to boost profit. Nothing else matters. Lots of money gets borrowed to fund movie productions. And even if it's the studio's own money they don't want that to be tied up in a movie production any longer than it has to be.
Ultimately the movie industry and movie theaters will live or die based on what the public wants. I think movie studios and media companies are very much taking customers for granted as if they're just going to keep going to theaters regardless of movie quality or ticket prices. There's a real danger in that because we're getting into uncharted territory. It won't be long before most people in America have access to huge 4K TV sets and have Internet connections fast enough to stream 4K content. There's no doubt TV shows will figure in big with viewer habits. The big question is whether they'll get very fickle Hollywood movies and theaters at that time, thinking watching a TV show at home is a better value.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-22-2016 12:22 PM
quote: Tyler Purcell
Studio's should start making more 10M films and road-showing them across the country for limited release only. Make the cinema an experience that can't be seen at home. If you wish to see the movie ever, you've gotta come onto the roadshow.
Hmm, limited release, roadshow only. Thanks a lot, you just cut out about 90% of the theaters in the country including mine.
People should stop dreaming about "theatrical only" content. While that would be a wonderful thing, it'll never happen. When a movie costs $200 million to make, the studio needs to get all the money back they can, and that means they need the home-video, network, airline, etc. revenue. But the most important thing is the wide theatrical release that drives all the sales down the road.
If the studios want to do something to "save" the cinema industry, they need to lengthen the window. That's literally the best and only thing that would really work long-term. I would even be willing to pay a little more film rent which could be put into the "post theatrical video ad campaign," since the studios would have to re-promote their movies more for video if the window was longer. Maybe it could be 1% for every month past the 90-day window.
quote: Tyler Purcell
Make the cinema an experience that can't be seen at home.
Theaters already provide something that you can never get at home: A 30-to-80 foot wide picture in a huge room with huge sound, with a lot of other people all concentrating on the same movie. People in the theater vs home debate are always forgetting that the movie itself isn't the entire experience. There are a lot of elements to it. When all goes well, it can never be duplicated in the home, just like a rock concert can't be duplicated in the home. As theater owners we are responsible for making sure the experience is the best possible. Some operators are better at that than others.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ari Leedsw
Film Handler
Posts: 53
From: Stoughton, MA
Registered: Feb 2016
|
posted 02-22-2016 01:42 PM
No, that I completely understand.
People don't know 4K and 2K generally, no, but you'd better believe they've been "educated" by TV ads as to UHD, HD terminology.
I guess I'm lucky as I have access to 16mm,35mm, 70mm, and 4K. LOL, and I could lug an 8mm projector up there too, I guess.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 02-22-2016 01:58 PM
Bobby: I agree with much of what you said.
The problem with ATMOS is that the system isn't tambour matched. Each speaker has a different frequency response and that is off-putting. Plus, as everyone knows, soundtracks are made in post, so all the mixers do is pan from front to back, left to right, rather then use multiple mic's on location to re-create the feeling you're actually there. Honestly, ATMOS is a pain for the mixers and as you pointed out, they don't have the time to deal with it.
I don't personally think UHD will add very much to this problem. The big hit was the conversion from 4:3 standard definition to 16:9 high definition. From now on, even if the resolution increases tremendously, I don't think we'll see technology taking away much more audience then it already has. Ticket prices are the deciding factor now and they are only going to increase.
Christie and Barco laser projectors are dropping in price VERY fast. We should see them become more radially available in the next year or two. The problem is, a lot of theater companies lease projectors for long terms. So they can't break the lease and that causes a huge problem with upgrades. This could be why the roll-out of 4k projectors has taken such a long time and why MOST bigger theaters are still 2k, where the smaller theaters have migrated to 4k already because they can out-right buy anything they can afford since they don't have to outfit 100's of screens at once. We do have ONE decent theater chain in So Cal called "Arclight Cinemas" and they are all 4k projectors.
The film industry is slowly waking up to these problems, but they seem to be combating them with bigger productions rather then more content. They throw ALL their eggs into one basket and as you said, it turns out boring/flat content. I do think people will eventually stop going and the production companies will have to change their tune.
Mike:
My concept is constantly roving roadshows. So all theaters will constantly have new content. Today part of the biggest problem is content sits for weeks/months with very few people in the seat. Imagine theaters/every screening totally full because the content will only be around for two weeks before it's replaced by another film. It's a model that has worked in the past and can work in the future if done properly. Plus, if a lot of people used this distribution method, we'd see cheaper content, lower ticket prices, driving more people to the theaters. It's a win-win for the production companies especially on lower-cost content.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-22-2016 01:59 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Premium cable TV shows and series definitely have a lot more creative freedom to take chances, do unpredictable and even upsetting things with main characters and make a lot more edgy content. They may not have the huge production and advertising budgets of feature movies, but
That sentence didn't get finished. Following the "but" I meant to say TV productions have the luxury of more running time, splitting a story into multiple parts, a mini-series or even an entire series. Hollywood movies get stuck having to satisfy certain story items on the check list and then hurry to wrap up things, typically nice and happy. This contributes to the paint by numbers feeling of many movies.
Since TV has more luxury in how to handle time and more freedom to do what it will with characters TV shows often have more OMG! moments in them than conventional movies. Premium cable TV shows have another luxury in being able to show stronger levels of adult content, stuff that would get a NC-17 rating in a Hollywood studio movie.
quote: Ari Leedsw
Your point is well taken though. I'm aware of the data and exposure bottleneck, but boy, things would sure be different if they didn't view film as a liability and take every conceivable step to try to KILL IT, wouldn't they?
The decision makers in the movie industry don't care in the slightest about film or digital. They only care about what will make them more money and more of it faster and faster and faster. Filmmaking heritage means nothing to those people. They certainly don't care about improving the movie-going experience. Talk of increasing the theatrical release window will go nowhere with those bean counters.
The movie moguls actually look at movie theaters as an inconvenience they have to tolerate. They're looking for ways to get around the theatrical model -go direct to video yet still make all the same amount of money, if not more. Some of those guys don't realize there literally would be no movie industry without commercial movie theaters. The whole product model collapses without theaters. They don't have that big picture view, so they push for cheaper and faster as production models -using "digital" as a cornerstone of the cheaper-faster process.
In the end a certain level of same-ness is washing over both TV and movie productions in how they look. They're using the same camera systems, production techniques, digital back lot methods, the same post production work flows, etc. The 2 hour feature movie has a bigger production and advertising budget, but often a more bland, safe and lame script.
quote: Tyler Purcell
The problem with ATMOS is that the system isn't tambour matched. Each speaker has a different frequency response and that is off-putting.
I don't know of any movie theater sound systems that have stage speakers and surrounds that are perfectly timbre matched. They're completely different kinds of speaker systems. But with good enough quality sound gear combined with someone who knows how to properly tune the system any ordinary 5.1 system or Atmos system can sound great. Atmos does have an advantage of incorporating subwoofers into the surround field, but not every theater with Atmos has those installed.
That's really the biggest problem with Atmos on the hardware front, theaters can go all over the place in configuring it. One system may be a full tilt maxed out setup that will blow away listeners while another is effectively only a 9.1 system with next to nothing in terms of object panning capability.
quote: Tyler Purcell
Plus, as everyone knows, soundtracks are made in post, so all the mixers do is pan from front to back, left to right, rather then use multiple mic's on location to re-create the feeling you're actually there. Honestly, ATMOS is a pain for the mixers and as you pointed out, they don't have the time to deal with it.
Production audio on set is indeed usually just mono boom mic audio to record dialog. They may separately mic other audio on set. Much of it is just for reference to get replaced later by ADR, foley, etc.
Still, editing surround isn't quite as crude as you describe. ProTools has some powerful tools to let audio editors move and position sound objects more precisely in creating conventional 5.1 or 7.1 mixes. Atmos just expands that 2D space into a cubic 3D zone and is able to address specific speakers more precisely. But it takes more time and work to properly flesh out a really good Atmos mix. Unfortunately a lot of Atmos mixes don't sound much different than regular 7.1.
quote: Tyler Purcell
I don't personally think UHD will add very much to this problem. The big hit was the conversion from 4:3 standard definition to 16:9 high definition. From now on, even if the resolution increases tremendously, I don't think we'll see technology taking away much more audience then it already has.
The movie industry has already been surviving in a market where only a fraction of the general public visits movie theaters often. There's lots of people who just don't go to the theater at all. All it takes for commercial theaters to get in deep trouble is losing a significant chunk of that core, frequent viewer market. Any number of things could turn them off, be it lame content or ticket & concession prices that finally get too big to stomach. The movie theater going demographic trends young. Millenials, Generation Y, whatever you want to call them, can be a very fickle, very unpredictable bunch. A lot of older people have already been staying at home.
In past decades movie theaters had a very clear advantage over home viewing in that the picture quality was not only bigger, but it was a lot better too. HDTV narrowed much of that quality gap. Now 4K is set to become common place in the home while a lot of commercial movie theaters are stuck with 2K. I don't know how much of an impact that will make on the movie theater business, but it at least warrants some serious concern. It's foolhardy to look at technological improvements as if they'll have no impact on the business model.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 02-22-2016 05:17 PM
IDK where ya'll are getting the $2500/print cost.
I've made a lot of 35mm prints and they're usually 1500/1600 for a 6 reel'er.
Anyway..
Bobby; I do film production so I know some of the issues related to audio recording. Most recordists don't bother collecting "room tone" and if they DID, they'd do it with a single channel or stereo mic configuration. What they SHOULD be doing is using a 6 mic pickup and going out to record location sounds for each scene (foley) work using that rig. The problem is, nobody does it! I'm fluent in protools and have mixed several productions, we always cheat the whole way through using stereo or even mono sources and create faux stereo for many mono originals, then put phase shifts and delays on them for the side and rear channels. The whole thing is silly because anyone in the post production industry can hear what they do in the mix and it's just silly. They really don't have the time to do it right these days, aside from a few smaller productions who maybe want it to sound amazing, but can't afford to do an ATMOS mix. Funny enough a lot of people HATED Interstellar's mix, but I felt they did a good job with it. So far I have yet to hear an ATMOS mix that sounded any good. In fact, most of them are lacking the dynamics we've come so accustom to.
In terms of my UHD comment. When you look at the demographics of movie goers, you see a direct trend that connects to people with some sort of decent income. These kinds of people are what keeps the industry floating today and they're the same people buying UHD TV's and content. Most of them care more about seeing something first run, then the prices they pay. So sure, technology has made an impact, but that big hit is over. Even if the theaters raised the price to $25/seat, I think the profits would still be high like they were in 2015 and honestly, that's all they care about.
Unfortunately it's an unsustainable future and raising ticket prices won't help anything. Making epic films like stage plays which are very unique, long and more then just entertainment, that model maybe the only solution we have to saving the industry. Yes it will be bad for theaters, but this current model is the death of theaters. Constantly having to upgrade to keep customers happy. High rental costs on properties and of course marketing cost more today then ever. So the whole theater industry is unfortunately dying on the vine. Unless someone comes up with an alternative model, it's going to die. In fact, the model of direct to VOD I think will reign supreme in the future because even though pirating is out of control, there are still enough people who don't know how to pirate and people would rather spend less money/watch at home anyway. The only real solution to pirating is lower prices and more people watching. That will combat it head on and it takes a HUGE property like a Marvel film to test the waters. Whatever studio is willing to take that risk, will certainly either be successful OR flounder. I personally think, there will be nothing but success from that business model. $12/ticket and you don't have to leave your home.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ari Leedsw
Film Handler
Posts: 53
From: Stoughton, MA
Registered: Feb 2016
|
posted 02-22-2016 05:21 PM
It's something like $250 for 2,000' of 2383 (Vision Print stock) right?
Sure the big labs had volume deals, but there's the cost of exposing, processing, cutting, packaging, and shipping.
And this was when the volume was 2,000 per title for major releases. That's obviously not there anymore, so there's still the setup cost, labor cost.
How many reels is the average flick anymore?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
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