|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: I'm curious to know why many on Film-Tech seem to be so negative on digital cinema
|
|
|
|
|
Mark J. Marshall
Film God
Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 08-04-2008 12:54 PM
quote:
I say get the 2K systems out there and let the technology mature so we can get past this "low point" in exhibition!
Yeah! So when everyone has 2K projectors installed, we can go back to square 1 and start ripping them out and installing 4K projectors! Someone will be busy.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
With the 150 million plus cost on the average negative I personally can't blame them for wanting to cut corners. A failure of any film with that cost can mean instant end of the road for any studio. On top of the negative costs the you have distribution, advertisiing, film storage, transport, etc. If you can come up with a more practical route I'm sure they might listen to you. So far no one else has had a better idea.
I was going to suggest that IMAX just show their movies in 5 perf 70mm, but the more I think about it... since normal 35mm theaters are downsizing to digital projection, maybe IMAX should just commit to showing all of their movies on 35mm. It would look bigger and better than an average digital movie theater's image if they did it right, and think of all of the money they would save on shipping costs. Imagine, you IMAX guys, you could build up your movies in no time at all because it would be six reels now instead of 482 reels. Just think... every theater in America would probably already have a handful of the new "35mm IMAX Experience" projectors on site. Think of all of the instant revenue they could generate on licensing fees alone!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark J. Marshall
Film God
Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 08-06-2008 12:51 PM
Firstly movies are still recorded in one fashion or another by capturing individual frames, then they are produced as individual frames, and the data stream is carrying data for those individual frames that make up the movie to the projector. What the projector does with it and how those frames hit the screen is what we're talking about here. More specifically, what happens BETWEEN the frames. Most likely, one of two things happens, and I admit I don't know which (if either of these) is correct. Either:
1) The mirrors all switch to off and then switch back on for the next frame, or
2) Nothing happens, and the mirrors just switch to the next frame.
If #1 happens (which is what I suggested in the beginning), then there is no reason to believe that it wouldn't be very very quick, almost instantaneous, and the amount of black on the screen in between the two frames would be nowhere near what it is with a film projector shutter blocking the image, which would lead to a brighter picture.
If #2 happens, which is what Louis is suggesting, then there would be absolutely NO black between the frames at all like there is with the shutter in the 35mm film projector, which would indicate even MORE light hitting the screen, which even further makes my point that the lack of the mechanical shutter in the DLP projector blocking the light 48 times in a second (like the one in a film projector) is one of the things that makes the DLP image brighter on the screen than the film image, even with in some cases a lower wattage bulb.
And I'm not talking about the difference between one scene and another for crying out loud.
Maybe I'm not explaining myself right or something... I don't know.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin McCaffery
Film God
Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-06-2008 03:30 PM
quote: Ben Wales
Director for "The Dark Knight"
Christopher Nolan would not and was not happy to see his Movie screened in 2K D-Cinema like in London's Premier Odeon Cinema at Leicester Square, where it is on good old 35mm Film
Just got back from seeing The Dark Knight in 2k and if Nolan saw anything like this, I can imagine how apppalled he would be.
As I previously commented after seeing Iron Man, the picture was under illuminated. This can be blamed on the theatre (same theatre as Iron Man, different screen). How much of the washed outedness of the whole film is the theatre and how much digital, I don't know, but I bet it looks much better in 35mm.
The red refraction around high contrast items was even more prominent in this film because of all of the white shirts people wear and the highly illuminated scenes (like the new batcave with the ceiling of flourescent lights, or the apartment with windows on all sides).
Particularly annoying is "digital drag" (for lack of a better phrase) in fast moving scenes with high contrast.
This is a movie with lots of parallel lines in all directions which cause obvious breakup when people or objects move in front of them.
And the whole thing looks like someone took Photoshop and "sharpened" the image.
Don't know what it looks like in perfect 2k, but out here in the real world it looked like crap. Which is a pity for a movie getting raves for its cinematography..
OT: anyone else thing Heath Leger was channeling Tom Waits (not the voice, but the speech patterns and movements)>
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
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
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
!! 
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic