|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Blu-Ray vs DCI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 04-28-2007 03:22 AM
quote: David Zylstra
This point was brought up at the Digital Cinema Summit in Las Vegas at NAB - the statement was that when archived classic films were scanned and a digital print was created the resulting product was superior to the original prints created - the explanation was that when the original prints were created from the negatives the technology didn't exist to get the 3 dye layers to converge properly and detail was lost . . . . obviously if the archived negatives were used to create 35mm prints today we could see the same increase in detail. This also shows how great 35mm is an that films from 50 years ago can have as much detail recorded as films from this past year.
From the 'the technology didn't exist to get the 3 dye layers to converge properly' comment I assume we're talking about 3-strip, with IB printing. My experience is somewhat limited, I've seen an original nitrate trailer for 'Becky Sharpe' projected, and even though it would have been made when both the negatives and the matricies were new, the registration wasn't that good. I've also seen demonstration reels projected from both Chineese IB prints, and the ones made by Technicolor a rew years ago. Of all of these, the recent print, I can't remember the title, was by far the best in this respect, but the digital transfer of 'Wizard of Oz' seemed to be perfect, I could see no colour fringing at all, enen standing right in front of the, admittedly small, screen; the Academy picture is probably about three metres wide. In this respect I have no doubt that the digital 'print' was better than the original prints of 'Oz' would have been, though I do have other issues with the digital version. It looked closer to a film print than many other digital tranfers I have seen, but it still looked different to my eye. While accuracy of registration of images is something that can be measured the 'quality' of an image is subjective; if somebody prefers the 'look' of one type of image to that of another then you really can't argue with that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 04-28-2007 06:23 PM
quote: Stephen Furley
If they were only let out to people who would look after them properly then existing black and white prints, on proper black and white stock, and colour prints on recent stocks, would be good for many decades to come.
The good news here is that there is in fact some work being done on this very issue at present. Essentially it's to do with formally approving venues to handle archive / repertory / specialised prints. I hope to have more information in due course.
Regarding screening digitally-produced material only using digital projection, personally I like the slightly softer quality of high-resolution digital images transferred to film. Pixar-produced animations come to mind, as does the likes of Shrek.
Having said that, I saw a recent demo of footage from Star Wars Episode II projected via a Christie CP2000 onto the giant Cinemarama screen at Bradford UK and the results were very good (despite the source material being shot at less than 2K resolution - perhaps it was scaled up and had some processing done on it).
quote: Frank Angel
Didn't somewhere in the threads conclude that roughly about 50 -55ft should be the limit for a good, bright 35mm blowup? Past that, go to 70mm? Or is 55ft too conservative? I just spoke with someone who is looking to put in a 75ft width screen. Too big, no?
My understanding is that 60ft is regarded as the limit for 35mm projection in terms of visible jump / weave, flicker, grain magnification, illumination uniformity and heat stress on the film. But after 50ft one is starting to push it, hence the recommendation to look at 70mm beyond this. 75ft would appear be too big normally for 35mm, but machines with electronic intermittents and properly-specified lamphouses, together with appropriate cooling and high-definition lenses might help significantly in mitigating the effects of over-magnifying the (relatively) small 35mm frame.
| 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
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic