|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Digital Comments in MPAA! You Suck
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 09-20-2003 04:40 PM
quote:
Better yet, let's side-by-side compare DLP to a 70mm print from a 65mm negative! Even 'digitally-sourced' (then scanned directly to 65mm) material would blow away the DLP!
IMO, that's irrelevant. The point isn't to compare DLP with what is theoretically possible with film. It's to compare it with how film is used in the market today. Know anyone besides IMAX who is going to shoot a commercial film on 65mm? Those days are long gone. Ron Howard tried it on "Far and Away" and there was a great big collective yawn.
Another issue is that TI, for example, makes both single chip and 3-chip DLP projectors. We shouldn't confuse the single chip projectors, which are made primarily for home theater and corporate use with the devices made for theaters. I have a feeling that if digital cinema becomes the norm, a lot of theaters are going to try to get away with projectors that aren't much better than what they're using for digital ad presentations.
I agree with those who think we should wait for better technology and 8K chips. But nonetheless, don't blow off digital projection, because from what I've seen so far, it already looks impressively good and I was very predisposed to hate it. I see motion artifacts on DVDs that drive me nuts and when I walk into a high-end home theater store, I see images that I can't stand on $30,000 monitors. I'm using a 20 year old Sony TV which I think provides a better picture.
One aspect of digital cinema that you would think would be at least as good as film is the sound. Yet every time I've been in a situation where I was able to compare digital on one screen with 35mm on another, the 35mm presentation had better sound. I don't understand why this would be the case, especially if they were using DTS on both, although I suspect I was hearing Dolby Digital on both.
And although prices come down far slower on professional equipment than on consumer equipment, you know prices are going to come down. Having said that, studios and distributors are going to have to recognize that if digital cinema is going to happen, they're going to have to share the cost with the theaters or otherwise make the economics for theaters better.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evans A Criswell
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1579
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 09-21-2003 12:48 AM
quote:
So you're saying that if I shot something in 24p on a DVX100 camcorder and played it back in 24p on a DLP projector (all of this is completely possible in the confines of someone's home) it's NOT video?
Assuming a DVX100 camcorder grabs frames all at once like a digital still camera does, and doesn't use a scanning spot, then yup, that's what I'm saying. It's digital cinema, but I wouldn't call that video. Now if you shot it with a high-definition TV camera which uses the same technology as older standard-definition TV camera (using a scanning spot that's only at one place spatially at any point in time), just at a higher resolution (such as 1080i), I'd say that it originated on video, regardless of what you played it on or converted it to.
Here's my simpler distinction between the two: Take two adjacent scan lines from a field (or frame, if progressive). Are they from the same time? If yes, then I wouldn't call it video. If no (the data for the two scan lines were sampled at two different points in time due to the scanning pattern used), then I call it video.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-22-2003 09:34 AM
Here we are getting all bent out of shape about pixels, resolution and all of that. But don't you guys get it? This switch isn't about image quality; it's about saving money. The folks in Hollywood are trying to eliminate printing and shipping expenses -- I'm convinced that's ALL that this is about.
Personally, I think revisiting 70mm would be fabulous but it's a step in the wrong direction as far as the studios are concerned -- twice the weight on each print! And, from the theatre operator's perspective: who's going to pay for THAT upgrade? It's kind-of the same problem with switching to video -- we've already got these 35mm projectors here. I realize that some theatres are already equipped to handle 70mm but, let's face it, most are not.
The switch to video is inevitable. I'm not agreeing that it's better, mind you. I'm saying that the switch is inevitable because that's what the studios want. The technology will continue to evolve, issues of title availability will get resolved and, eventually, a "must-see, digital-only" release will come along and then the floodgates will open.
As for the high cost of conversion, I think the studios should take on part of that responsibility. After all, it's going to save them money in the long-run. They could easily increase the house nut and/or rework the split ratios for houses that convert. If they REALLY want to force the issue, they could make that a "limited-time-only" offer.
Now, let me ask you this: How much sooner would the industry have embraced a switch to digital if the studios paid for (and retained ownership of) the playback equipment? I'm thinking we'd have well over 1,000 houses from as early as "Episode I."
My hunch is that the argument over image quality is merely a stalling tactic. I'm not saying that it's not a real concern, just that I find it hard to believe that the entire exhibition industry is as concerned about film quality as we are. I'm trying to be real here -- look around at how many cinemas are showing trashy prints through an underlit lamphouse and crappy lenses? How many are still running analog sound through a system that hasn't had so much as a level-set since its installation?
My point is that even in its current manifestations, digital projection would actually mark an improvement in many situations.
35mm could stay around for "premiere engagements" in the same way that 70mm got used in the 80's. But would theatres agree to pay extra for a 35mm print? Would they agree to pay shipping costs on that print?
Ultimately, this is going to come down to economics. The studios want to save on printing and shipping; the theatres don't want to pay for new machines. The way I see it, quality doesn't even enter into the debate. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be one of the major concerns...just that in all probability, it isn't.
For my own part, I just hope they're difficult and fussy to install. I also hope that they break down a lot. Otherwise, I'm out of a job. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
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
![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif)
for what it cost to totally replace the environmental systems here.
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
particularly IF the customers liked what they saw.![[thumbsdown]](graemlins/thumbsdown.gif)
![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
! And Branaugh's 'Hamlet' was another example of the wrong way to push 65mm origination. What needs to be done is for someone to have the cojones to shoot a film in 65mm that isnt some artsy-fartsy 4-hour Shakesperean snoozefest... (Perhaps one of the next 'Harry Potter' or 'superhero franchise du jour' films for example). With DTS, the cost and environmental issues of the mag striping are nonexistent, Picture quality, especially with the new stocks from Kodak, would be incredible.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
But I should demand they use the original CAP I helped Kodak develop for the MPAA twenty years ago.
Printer-friendly view of this topic