|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 04-04-2006 05:35 PM
quote: Scott Jentsch
Perhaps the best way to go, then, would be to embrace the fact that these technologies should help theaters deliver a great presentation from the technical side of things, and allow their staff to concentrate on the customer service side of the movie experience.
I do not think this is what many theatres are doing nowadays with many cinemas being already poorly staffed. Not long ago I had two very bad experiences with two cinema “managers”, one who did not know the difference between video screening and film screening and the other one who did not know that you cannot screen an anaglyphic 3-D film if the print has faded.
quote: Scott Jentsch
Given that there are few things to hang a marketing hat on in regards to technology, it would be a mistake to try and market going to the movies using a technology angle. Many people don't care about the technology that makes things happen.
People used to care back in the 50s, otherwise how do you explain the success of VistaVision, 3-D, Cinerama, Todd-AO, stereophonic sound, …
I think that 65/70 with 9 channels of uncompressed sound is still a very marketable thing. The five channels behind a slightly big curved screen when the recording has been properly done (like those technicians at Todd-AO used to do) are amazing, how many channels can you put behind a home cinema screen? They knew how to record an orchestra properly in those days.
quote: Scott Jentsch
Those who do care about the technology side of things are going to see through any false attempts to trumpet technological differences that don't contribute to a better experience.
65/70 contributes enormously to a better experience.
One of the main problems I have with digital is that it pretends to finish with film, which is something I like very much. If digital came as an extra tool I would be happy with it but since it wants to take away something I like I am not happy. Cinema studios and exhibitors should make use of the different textures available and market them properly. This forum and others have proven that there are audiences for digital and for film. At the end of the day I think it is down to personal taste. Some people like stereoscopic photography some others don’t (or can’t see it because of eye problems), some people prefer big screens, some people prefer medium screens, some like digital, some like film, some like dye transfer Technicolor, why not cater for all these tastes? Why not educate audiences on the huge amount of textures cinemas can offer? Why reduce everything to 2K? Isn’t that boring? At least in the past you had more variety.
I really do hope that film continues in both the capture and the exhibition, but as I said a long while ago, I reckon this is a very expensive taste and unless there are enough of us who would pay for film it won’t continue. I am positive though.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-04-2006 08:07 PM
quote: Patrick de Groot
I see some reactions in the following style: it (DC) is the same as they can get at home. That's plain wrong. Pixel count isn't everything you know. There is a big difference between a DC projector and a (whatever brand or type) beamer. The difference is even bigger when comparing plasma or lcd (ugh!) panels to digital cinema.
Good luck on convincing average people about those points.
Even today, many people with HDTV sets at home feel they already get a better presentation at home just watching heavily data compressed 480p DVD movies.
Pixel count may not be everything, but it is a huge part of the picture. Sure, a Christie CP2000 2K 3-chip DLP projector is going to have a lot more lamp power than any TV set. But then it has to light up a much larger screen. Such a projector is not needed at all for any kind of home viewing setup; that would be overkill.
I've seen a lot of plasma and even LCD type TV sets that do look very good for closer, living room style viewing. Many better models are using 3 imagers, not just 1, for resolving the picture. I recently saw a 60" Sony SXRD TV for under $5000 that looked great. The area turning me off about current models is most lack support for 1080p signal inputs from devices like Blu-Ray players or a Playstation3 game console, and don't support native 1920 X 1080 pixel display for doubling the screen's use as a computer monitor.
In the end, the only clear distinction digital cinema will have above home theater on technology is the quality of the video signal itself. HD-DVD will be heavily compressed. Blu-Ray won't have compression quite as severe, but its data rate will run anywhere between 10% and 20% of the bandwidth used by commercial video projectors. And that's only so long as the content providers stick to the D-Cinema spec of 150Mb/s-250Mb/s. I would not put it past movie distributors to squeeze data rates down to levels much closer to Blu-Ray to economize on satellite bandwidth fees.
To put it simply, there is no simple way theaters can say "our digital video is better than what you can watch at home." They're just going to get drawn into a destructive numbers game, one in which home theater is only going to keep up relentless improvement.
I think 70mm on giant commercial screens and more use of large format special venue programming is a good way for commercial theaters to maintain a clear message of technical superiority over home theater. Of course, the "restaurant angle" of providing quality atmosphere and quality product should be in place in all movie theaters. Right now that certainly isn't the case and it is encouraging more people to stay at home. The crappy, regurged product is encouraging people to find other forms of entertainment.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per Hauberg
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 883
From: Malling, Denmark
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 04-06-2006 07:07 PM
Sorry for getting onto this tread so late.
I guess, I've said, what I've got to say about 70mm during the last 5-6 years, and as the tread allready is 50 percent reissue and about 40 percent one mans war against the rest of Film-Tech or vice versa, I'll not repete myself here.
I do wish for 70mm to come back, but I don't believe in it anymore. "Look for it only in books. It's a civilisation, gone with the wind" (quote: the trailer for the worst thing ever happened to 70mm)
The only reason, film producers and distributors of today want to go digital, is that they believe, they'll save real big money by doing it. -Not because, films will be better. They know, they won't - and they couldn't care less. It's money - and like closing the cinema window versus the dvd - it's money THIS quarter - not even looking at the budget a year forward anymore, because in a year, those suits, making the descisions of today, are no longer in the movie business, -they are selling automobiles or laundry machines or whatever - just making $$.
As for blow-ups, now we are back in time: Think back to Doktor Zivago, -one of the first blow-ups - Very few could see the difference. -Not that I would in any way talk against using 65mm negative again, but to point out, that 35mm neg with the right cinematographer and the right lab care could open the possibility for 70mm presentation of other than bigbigbudget productions. And as it has allready been mentioned, DTS makes the distribution print affordable, compared with the magnetic sound track of yesterday. And therefore, as the tread originally opened: It would not only be a better way to improve the cinema experience, it would be much cheaper that what we are facing right now.
But - as it has also been mentioned allready: If just someone would see to, the 35mm prints were made as good as they can really be today. So many prints are made from 3rd (or more) generation internegatives in such a hurry, that they really show the audiences, that dvd is better. That's about to be even more dangerous for business that the fact, that the stories, the filmmakers have to tell, are so bad. Just to have something coming up, they've got to make remake after remake. I know, I'm beginning to get old, but when they do remakes of film, I've been running myself, I feel, they are turning upside down once too often. I really don't feel, its been so long, since I last ran "The Poseidon Adventure", and shortly, it's there again, - this time without Leslie Nielsen as the skipper, Gene Hackman as the priest, Ernest Borgnine, Shelly Winthers and so on. No newcommers can do it better (or just as good). Someone ought to be able to make the special efects somewhat better, though... And what about "Springtime for Hitler" Nathan the Lame instead of Zero Mostel, -Mathew Broderick instead of Gene Wilder. Holy merde ! -Sorry - derailed tread !
My two DP70's will be 46 years of age this summer - and I still don't want to replace them, because "Nobody does it better" - But I would be more than willin' to buy a couple of dts readers (ok, two couples, then) and a pair of new Isco's - rather than investing (lend) money into an oversize television., which will be outdated in four years or so.
BTW, Monte (post of jan., 29th) Look again on that picture of Mr Wales and his "DP70" - and then watch once more at the basement ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
To Digital Cinema - May it be strangeled in birth !
Per (Grumphy old man)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 45 46 47 48 49 50
|
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
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
made me lie down with all 280 pounds on a turned-over foot. -No replacement available for booth - no rest for the foot - three months to recover - and it's still not good.... But i'm beginning to surface !![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic