|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: MI:3 170 Digital Cinema Screens DCDM by Kodak
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-10-2006 04:55 PM
quote: John Pytlak
Kodak has always advocated 2K or better systems, along with most cinematographers.
But my understanding is that the 2K projectors are NOT backward compatible in that you can't simply install a new 4k or 8K nano-module when those become commonplace. So "or better" will rarely be the case for those theatres that jump on this "rollout."
So what is going to happen, and this is my main objection to the way the industry has handled digital, is that there will be an uneven playing field out there of theatres equipped with 2K rez and theatres with 4K rez and then 8K and whatever else comes down the pike, and the consumer will have no way of knowing what quality will be on that screen after they plunk down their $10 or $15 bucks. Exhibition certainly will not re-invest every time Hollywood decides they have a new so-called state-of-the-art digital technology. This will be the industry's dirty little secret.
To say that the 1K originals were "beta" products and, "hey, that's the risk you take when you invest in something that is not the standard," is a bit facetious, not to mention a bit of revisionairy history as well. Does anyone remember those early press releases ever saying that the Technicolor's 1000 DLPs were "beta" equipment or that the resolution was admittedly only marginal but that it would improve with subsequent upgrades (upgrades which we now know meant completely different projector heads)? I certainly don't. In fact, I recall every press release saying that those first digital projectors produced images that were not only BETTER than film, but would do away with film in theatres as we know it within FIVE years -- you know, the same crap they regurgitate with EVERY new "rollout."
The thing is, for the studios, image quality was never, EVER the goal of going digital. Does anyone really think those committees sat around looking at 70mm reels and said, "THAT's what we've got to match?" Please. And as far as I can see, nothing has changed. Their only goal and evidently their major wet-dream is simply to do away with making prints, no matter what the cost to image quality. It's not, "let's get a technology that will supersede what we now get with film," it's, "Let's get a technology that does away with print costs. Quality level? Oh, whatever is just under the threshold were people will complain."
You remember how pleased-as-punch they were with 1K? I guess they thought if they said it is better than film often enough, it would somehow become reality. Well, it hasn't become reality by virtue of their repetition and just because people with vested interests sat down and decided that 2K was good enough and then went ahead and made it a "standard," doesn't make it better than or even as good as film. In fact, that DCI has put an imprimatur on 2K mediocrity makes it even worse because those committee members will be dead and gone long after generations will have to live with those low quality images for a long, long time. This is a technology that should have waited another 10 years for them to get it right before rolling it out.
Come back and tell me that a new digital technology can let me give my audience a more impressive visual impact and better experience than I got when I first saw a 70mm presentation of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA or SOUND OF MUSIC, and I will be first in line to figure out how to get such a technology into my booth. Hell, I would settle for an image that was only AS GOOD as 70mm.
What I would like to know is, why is an industry that claims it is hurting for audience, why is it settling for mediocrity instead of striving for the spectacular? 70mm made me sit there nearly speechless and in total awe. We are now offered digital 2K and I sit there with my eyes ACHING to see what isn't there....like wouldn't it be nice to actually see strands of hair on top of actors' heads instead of big blobs of black. Big blobs of black might work for CG CARTOONS (remember all the oohing and aahing they all made over the DPL TOY STORY?) but it sure doesn't cut it for real-life images.
I'll say it again....with the Hollywood people who are now steering this ship, get out your life jackets; WE ARE DOOMED.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-10-2006 06:58 PM
Sony has a 4K digital projector "SXRD" (their advertising term, kinda like that "VEGA" thing that looks more like "WEGA"). I think it's still in that demonstration phase similar to what SDDS was stuck in from Summer 1993 to Summer 1994.
The real thing that kills 4K is next to nothing is being produced in native 4K format. Few CGI effects sequences are rendered in 4K. Few, if any, digital intermediates are rendered at native 4K levels either. There's a lot of pie in the sky talk about 4K in the film industry. Sadly, there's very little in the way of actual follow through. Current technology is more than up to the task of dealing with 4K -and can do so now at faster rate than Hollywood effect shops could deal with 2K in the year 2000.
Film distributors got spoiled by that DVD thing. DVD let executives off the hook for bad decisions and poor product by making bad movies profitable. Over the last few years Hollywood studios have, on average, been "phoning it in." That's what they say about a prima-donna actor who sleep walks through a role. Well that's what they're doing here with all their remakes, sequels of shitty films and send ups from TV. Their output lately reminds me of how bad popular music has become -with all the rap crap reigning preeminent, complete with sampled melodies from other truly original songs recorded long ago. All things derivative and regurged are king in Hollywood.
Those studios are so spoiled by home video revenue they are ignoring the very venue that makes the movie industry a movie industry: the commercial movie theaters.
That is why I contend the "2K" standard has a sort of tyranny against progress. 2K is close to the HDTV standard. Film industry executives are hell bent to get the movies into home video release as fast as possible and producing at 2K standards can make that happen even faster.
quote: Steve Guttag
There is also zero excuse not to support the 1.3K DCinema projectors (and they are DCinema projectors...they were the shoulders that the current 2K projectors stood on to get to where they are now). Sure they are frozen in time technology wise but they do have the Link Decryption just like the 2K and 4K machines...it is just a matter of getting them the 1280 x 1024 files.
I seem to remember griping about how digital projectors would quickly become obsolete. But even in my most negative of viewpoints on D-Cinema did I guess Hollywood would cease to provide any video product to play on those things. The development is pretty staggering.
| 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
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic