Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: How much time left for film?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » How much time left for film? (Page 5)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: How much time left for film?

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 06-07-2008 08:09 PM

Well, that is the key...the film should work as a 2D film and just let 3D add to the experience.

Note...with all of this 3D craze they are not offering it in film. I would like to see a comparison of a Digital 3D versus a film 3D (using an over/under polorized system) in terms of boxoffice.

The film system will be cheaper to install (just need the silver screen and the lens...plus the glasses...but they are of the lowest cost type).

Then look at the profit of the two digital versus film in terms of equipment cost versus boxoffice receipts.

I'm continually amazed at how much picture quality degredation is allowed in the name of 3D.

For 3D, you typically get 1/3 to 1/5th the light, wacked out colors (over saturated due to the silver screen), and with most of the digital versions, lower resolution. The 1.3" chips can't use their entire resoultion with triple-flash 3D so you only get something on the order of 70% of the resolution...yet all of this is blessed and okay and desired! Note, by lowering the white level to 3-5fL you also knock your contrast ratio down by an equivalent percentage. What part of the image ISN'T compromised by adding the 3rd dimension?

Now I know that there are those that are doing dual projector stuff and the new .98" chip projectors can use the full imager, but this is not the norm and the fact remains that the spec for 3D is only 3-5fL or your color saturation will be all wrong.

I just can't see 3D catching on this time any more than it did in the past.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 06-07-2008 08:38 PM

After seeing Beowulf in Real D, I can see the 3D catching on. Unlike the Red/Blue glasses 3D, I was able to watch the entire movie without my eyes hurting and the glasses were fairly comfortable to wear. Furthermore, I felt that the 3D was mainly used to add depth perception to the film, rather than gimicks with things flying at you.

Whether it actually catches on will remain to be seen, but I actually think most people will go for 3D once they realize it's a different experience than in the past.

And I don't think the average customer cares about subtle details in screen brightness and other issues. The average customer isn't even aware of cigarett....er... change-over cues or glue splices mid frame.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-07-2008 09:05 PM

3D has its own set of technical challenges to overcome, things a customer may have a harder time overlooking than a random scratch, fleck of dirt or roughly assembled splice.

Just like the situation with surround sound, 3D demands the viewer find a seat in the theater's "sweet spot." At least with RealD, if you sit too close to the screen objects moving forward toward the viewer are going to look like they're splitting in two. Ghosting effects can be a distracting problem too. The knitting needle in the Coraline trailer is a pretty good test case to use. The upside is many digital 3D equipped theaters are also stadium seated and audiences tend to gravitate to the highest rows in the rear of the auditorium.

quote: Steve Guttag
Well, that is the key...the film should work as a 2D film and just let 3D add to the experience.

Agreed. The main failing of 3D movies in the 1980s was that those movies were crap regardless of whether you saw them in 2D or 3D. The 3D part of it added a viewing factor to distract audiences from how bad the movie was.

Recent movies that have used digital 3D or IMAX 3D processes have been better than any of those 1980s 3D movies. Despite its poor commercial performance, I thought U23D was an excellent concert movie and wonderful to watch in 3D. Beowulf was a pretty good movie as well, even though the dreaded problem of CGI people looking "dead" still showed itself on screen from time to time. Beowulf didn't seem gimmicky the way 3D movies from the 1980s were.

I'm not getting a good vibe from Journey to the Center of the Earth. It looks like it may be pretty silly. I hope I'm wrong about that. Coraline looks more interesting.

I think a lot more attention will be given to 3D in 2009 when Dreamworks' Monsters Vs. Aliens and James Cameron's Avatar arrive in theaters. Both appear to be the most ambitious movies ever put together with 3D in mind. If either or both are successful it could legitimize the use of 3D on many more movies.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-08-2008 04:22 PM

quote: Damien Taylor
Apart from the paddle man and the dancers, were there any other obvious 3D scenes in House Of Wax? Its been so long but I remember there were a few scenes in the 2D version where it seems like they were showing off. But the story still holds up quite well, probably since the director couldn't see 3D.

There are films that will excell in 3-D and films that are not helped in the least. In House of wax the best part is when the Wax Museum burns down... the entire theater I was in filled with 3-D smoke. What a cool effect it was. Also the 3-D effect added much depth when in the Museum itself adding to the creepieness factor. A film like Dial M For Murder was just as slow moving in 2-D as it was in the 3-D side by side version I saw. The only striking point being the hand that comes out of the screen at you during the murder. I think Hitchcock coulda done alot better had he had more time and a better script. North By Northwest woulda been great in 3-D!!

quote: Steve Guttag
Now I know that there are those that are doing dual projector stuff and the new .98" chip projectors can use the full imager, but this is not the norm and the fact remains that the spec for 3D is only 3-5fL or your color saturation will be all wrong.

The studios are wanting to see that go much higher in the near future and with dual projector it is actually pretty easy to accomplish.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 06-08-2008 10:52 PM

I love film, but how much longer will we have oil to burn in our cars, wear as our clothes, walk on as carpets and run as strips through our projectors?

There are alternatives and I am afraid that we will eventually have to accept the replacement of film just as we had to accept the elimination of silver sound tracks and (sob) magnetic sound.

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 06-14-2008 07:55 AM

quote: Justin Hamaker
Unlike the Red/Blue glasses 3D, I was able to watch the entire movie without my eyes hurting and the glasses were fairly comfortable to wear

Polarized 3-D has been around for a long-time, even before the 1953 3-D craze, the fact that in some areas they did not bother having proper polarized 3-D and went for the cheap anaglyphic version does not deny the fact that good 3-D has been around for many years. I have seen many examples of interlocked projection in polarised 3-D from the 50s and it looks amazing. Many digital advocates imply that there was only anaglyphic 3-D before digital, which is a big lie, and if not what has been IMAX doing for so many years.

quote:
I think Hitchcock coulda done alot better had he had more time and a better script. North By Northwest woulda been great in 3-D!!

Hitchcock did not want to use 3-D and was forced by Warners to shot the film in 3-D and so he placed the dual cameras at a distance between themselves as to show the less 3-D effect possible. Nevertheless 3-D reinforces the theatrical aspect of the film and I prefer it in 3-D.

| IP: Logged

Andy Frodsham
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 238
From: Stoke on Trent, Staffs, UK
Registered: Nov 2006

posted 06-20-2008 12:30 PM

You know, I've given-up worrying about this anymore! I think I've come to accept the fact that, like vinyl recordings, film will lose its place at the top of the pyramid. Sadly, this isn't because that place isn't deserved anymore but because teams of faceless accountants have decided its the way business must go.

I'd love to think that digital cinema is a fad which will go away, but we all know deep-down that isn't going to happen. One thing though, if they have to do it, I hope and pray they do it right!

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 06-21-2008 07:19 PM

Ya know I was discussing going to movies with someone at work and the conversation drifted to the digital preshows, and the guy actually said "You can see a huge drop in quality when they switch over from the digital projector to film. It goes from nice and crisp and clear to muddy and murky and ugly". That's pretty much a direct quote.

Now mind you he's talking about the digital preshow, not D-Cinema. He actually thinks the digital preshow looks better than 35mm film. Never mind that the pixels are the size of golf balls and it's never anywhere near as bright as it should be, etc. etc.

And from that I conclude that there is no hope. [uhoh]

| IP: Logged

Damien Taylor
Master Film Handler

Posts: 493
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2007

posted 06-21-2008 10:05 PM

The general public really is the way to look to see the attitudes of the masses. As projectionists, we will never be unbiased in our appreciation of one format over another. As people with such passion for our craft, its sometimes hard to think about all the people who just don't care, and what they think about the film to digital change. Nothing.

Muddy, murky and ugly sounds like a lot of cinemas unfortunately. All too often when I see a film at a multiplex with a turret I find it is at least a little out of focus or has drifted and not been checked. Since I started at my current job where we are still using the barrel I've become a focus perfectionist so I suppose I notice more.

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 06-22-2008 01:41 AM

Damien, I have used both and I actually prefer the turret. Both flat and Scope lenses seem to stay sharp most often with the turret. If not, it is easy to make a slight adjustment regardless of the system.

You are correct in assuming that the presence of someone who gives a damn will make a difference.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-22-2008 10:21 AM

I agree Ron... Turrets generally but not always offer much more fine adjustment of many aspects of the image. Focus can usually be controled as well as a single lens mount machine and image position is definately easier to control and set up.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Damien Taylor
Master Film Handler

Posts: 493
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2007

posted 06-22-2008 05:18 PM

I definitely agree, but the "set and forget" mentality towards automated equipment by the few booth jockeys out there I've seen working, should stop.

| IP: Logged

Jack Theakston
Master Film Handler

Posts: 411
From: New York, USA
Registered: Sep 2007

posted 06-22-2008 07:26 PM

I run dual strip on a semi-regular basis at my screening room. So long as you're phase is correct (and sync, of course), and you're keeping an eye on your vertical alignment, there should be no problem at all.

That being said, I've never run a digital 3-D show, but I've seen how it's run. There are a lot of things I still shake my head at, but have to concede that it's the simplest foolproof answer at the moment.

The biggest problem today is the photography. Shots misaligned, convergence points all over the place, total lack of respect of the stereo window, and unleveled cameras make for the stuff of eyestrain and headaches.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.