|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: D-cinema...what is everyone thinking???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Haney
Master Film Handler
Posts: 265
From: Cupertino, CA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 08-04-2006 08:14 PM
Most of what we see in theaters these days has already been run through a digital intermediate at 2K resolution. And it sucks. As John P. pointed out, you can't see good detail in wide shots or crowd scenes. It's less noticable in closeups, but that's not all there is to movies. Those few movies with 4K digital intermediates look much smoother and more detailed. That's the goal digital cinema should be heading towards. 2K isn't enough.
And then there is the issue of contrast. Aside from the occasional movie printed on Kodak Vision Premiere, which looks great, most movies these days are printed on cheaper stocks, which leaves us looking at milky blacks. Yet every single d-cinema presentation I have seen has been even worse. You want to see really muddy, milky looking dark scenes? Just go look at one of these Dolby D-cinema installations. Yuk.
quote:
And BTW, it was Richard Cook, now a big mucky-muck at Disney, back then around the time TOY STORY first came out who said he would be perfectly comfortable with "releasing all Disney films in digital because it's good enough right now" said he; and he was talking about 1.3K!!....you know, the system that is already obsolete. THIS kind of mentality is what we are up against, my friends. And it SHOULD scare us....rightfully so because we may very well be dooming future generations to visual mediocity....quality that is much lower than what we have been privileged to experience ourselves. And THAT prospect is like a knife in my heart to know that my descendants may never get to see LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, MY FAIR LADY, 2001, et al, the way I saw them. There is something evil about today's power brokers who don't care that this many come to pass, and it means nothing to deprive future generations of the best that our truly indiginous art-form can give.
Well said, although Cook's statements were actually more around the time of Toy Story 2, or just a little bit later. But yes, he did indeed say that 1.3K systems were already "good enough", which is ludicrous.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-05-2006 08:09 AM
quote: Brad Miller
Carl, the problem is that to do the training properly, I would need to set up a training center with a wide variety of equipment. Training centers without this are only really training on the theory, and not the specifics of each model of machine. Short of that, it would take a bunch of local theaters to permit in-house training which would end up forcing the cancellation of shows. As you can imagine, getting through all of the obstacles of setting up such seminars would be an issue. Plus then there is the issue of students. I don't think large groups would be proper training either, maybe half a dozen maximum.
Reality Check..... Unlike the ballpark in the cornfield... you could build it but no one would come! You could train at your facility until your pants catch on fire but it wouldn't do a bit of good since you'd be talking to the wall at the other end of your classroom. Do you actually think any employer is going to pay big money to send a $4.00 per hour employee to your facility? The only way for this to ever work is for you to train a bunch of very competant people of your own and send them out to individual theater sites like the old Kodak training program. The only way to really get things straightened out is to get the theater owners... large and small... to first pay their projectionists at least a half way decent wage so thay are not being replaced by another no-nothing every three or four weeks when they are offered another 3 bucks an hour at the local McDonalds.
What I see is huge turn around in the booths and the lack of any film handling related mechanical aptitude test that should be required of any booth personel applying for the job. That and the huge turn around I see are the largest cause of no one knowing anything about proper film handling in the booth let alone having anyone that could recognize a mis-aimed giudance roller, mal-functioning pay out, low oil, or a loose screw.
If you want to do something good to start off with come up with a standard test for film handler prospects that cold be downloaded from this site to filter out those that don't even have the ability to hold a screw driver, recognize a loose screw in a piece of equipment, or a mis-aimed guidance roller or let alone handle a roll of cleaning media properly. There are way too many of these sorts of people attempting to run the booths out there today. Also you'd best be prepared to re-visit the sites every time there is turn over the the booth and the kiddies have run off to work at McDonalds.
Oh, and you will also need to train them for proper digital operation at the same time since it is quickly making inroads at many locations (there will soon be nearly 50 of them in SLC alone) and you will be visiting booths that are digitally equipped as well as film equipped... As John P. mentioned "Digital Done Right" is just as important as "Film Done Right"!!
Mark
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Haney
Master Film Handler
Posts: 265
From: Cupertino, CA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 08-05-2006 02:37 PM
quote: Cameron Glendinning
When the film started the picture was even but a little dim. Within 5 minutes the CW3 (lets not call them a projectionist) ajusted the Xenon. Well it was really bright in the very middle and pitch black on the edges, It was a horrible experience and I often wondered what happened when the action moved away from the centre of frame.
Now that was over 10 years ago now and to be honest the situation of poor staffing has only got worse. So when people say that 1.3K dig was good enough, well they may have a point.
How would going digital have prevented that situation? Digital projectors have Xenons, too.
I'm constantly surprised when people propose digital as a solution to problems that could just as easily happen with either digital or film projectors, such as poor/uneven lighting, focus, etc. Going digital would not help in those cases, yet people talk as though it would. It just doesn't make sense, and goes right back to Brad's original question: What is everyone thinking?
| 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
![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
If it's not there to begin with, good chances are that you are not going to be able to create it artificially. If the resolution wasn't captured to begin with nothing you can do is going to be able to "create" it after the fact.
Printer-friendly view of this topic