Not only are there many storage formats to use (all with their advantages and disadvantages --and reliability problems on long term storage and data recovery), but then you have consider HOW the data will be stored.

For instance, there's lots of stock image banks like Corbis, PhotoDisc and others. They all have their opinions on what is an appropriate resolution for "high res" archival quality. There are differences in opinion on what image res is good enough. Some think 2K is just fine while others like myself point out a 35mm 4-perf frame can hold over 12 million pixels of real image detail. How far do you go in devoting data space per frame for archival?

On top of that, you have other issues in how the film image is digitally aquired. Some archival places prefer to make a well balanced high res drum scan and then do nothing to the image. Others may want to "correct" the color or adjust sharpness, etc.

Anyway, the whole business of digitally archiving films opens up many cans worms, to use an old cliché. Many people, including myself, believe the film stock itself is the real piece of archival media.

 |  IP: Logged

Consider that AOTC cost $US120M to make WITHOUT film. So what if they saved $US2M?

Kenneth Branaugh's 'Hamlet' was filmed and released in 70MM and the budget was $US18M!!!!!!!!

...and which do you suppose might look better?

There are newer D-ILA based projectors out there, but I haven't been able to compare them side-by-side. I'd love to check the Kodak system, but for some reason you have to go to Rochester to see it. TI is also rumored to have an HD resolution chip in the works.

I'm sorry, but I chuckle at folks blowing $7,000 to $20,000 on flat screen TVs thinking they've got the best possible thing when they only deliver at best a little over 50% of a 1080i HDTV image. That's DLP for you. Impressive contrast ratio, whatever that means. Native pixels however --the low number sucks much ass.

A release print made with KODAK VISION Premier Color Print Film 2393 from a well exposed negative can have black densities well above 4.0, or over a 10,000:1 brightness range on the print itself:
http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/products/curves/2393Char.pdf

Standard SMPTE 196M specifies "Screen luminance due to stray light shall be less than 0.16% (600:1 theater screen contrast ratio) for review rooms and primary theaters. For all other theaters, the luminance due to stray light shall be less than 0.25% (400:1) theatre screen contrast ratio)." So stray light from the projection optics and port glass, as well as the ambient light in the theatre, tend to reduce the contrast ratio considerably from that available on the film itself:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/december99/pytlak.shtml

Did the engineers decide it was a POS, or are they licking their wounds?

Frank

PS -- Ever try to play a 2 inch quad video tape recorded only as short a time ago as the 60s? Good luck.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Could you expand on what "Laser-rot" is?

It is caused by corrosion of the aluminum data surface of the disc, usually making the disc unplayable. Here is a site with a good picture of a CD with Laser Rot: http://www.rdrop.com/~half/General/CDRot/CDRot.html

I have read reports of it affecting DVDs as well.

-Aaron

CDs and DVDs are less-susceptible to laser-rot due to their small size and surface area, reduced tendency to warp, and improved mfg. techniques. But they're not immune.

[oops - I got pulled away from the computer in the middle of writing my post, came back and finished, then discovered Aaron had already answered the question]

Evans