|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Digital Cinema = The death of theaters?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 11-11-2010 11:13 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
One would figure Dolby would try to find some way to get that "TrueHD" brand into movie theaters. But no! Let's dig up the old Dolby Surround brand and apply it to an audio format that doesn't have any Dolby encoding to it at all.
It may be because Dolby TrueHD is a codec that is not based on Dolby technology. It has its origins in the MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing) Lossless technology, which was first used on DVD-Audio. My understanding is that MLP was licensed by Dolby and used as the basis for TrueHD.
Dolby TrueHD Frequently Asked Questions (PDF) -- Dolby.com
As a result, Dolby may be prevented from marketing the TrueHD brand in segments other than home theater, or they may be reluctant to use a brand that represents technology that wasn't born in-house. It may also have been a conscious choice not to use a brand that has been established in the consumer market in a product intended for the professional cinema market.
From an insider's perspective, marketing 7.1 sound in Digital Cinema with the Dolby brand is nonsensical and unnecessary, and bordering on inaccurate. However, from the consumer's perspective, adding the recognizable Dolby brand to something like this makes sense and is actually a marketing win by Dolby for getting their brand publicized on something that doesn't really have anything to do with them (a la "Disney Digital 3D").
What's worrisome is that Dolby has not produced anything in-house on the sound side of things since Dolby Digital EX. They've got their name on Dolby 3D, but it certainly seems that RealD has a bigger share of that market as well. DTS is eating Dolby's lunch in the Blu-ray market, too. It's interesting how tides can turn in a short time!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Smith
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 201
From: Youngstown, OH
Registered: Jan 2010
|
posted 11-29-2010 09:21 PM
In all fairness, digital is more analog than film is.
Film grains are either latent-imaged or not latent-imaged. (The only exception to this is base fog, the closest thing about film to analog, kind of like tape hiss.) Digital images are converted from ANALOG sensors that are digitally converted into digital values. So a raw analog output is quantized digitally.
Well, I think digital is great! I mean, look at how it helped still photographers make a whole lot more money. And look at how it helped labs be ultra efficient (no more pesky test-prints and exposures, right?)
Oh, wait, um, err. . . .
I guarantee the same built-in planned obsolescence is going to plague this industry and turn it into the equivalent of what fast food has become: You have to LOSE MONEY on your dollar menu just to get them in the drive thru!
___
How can I reply to myself 10 minutes later?
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Also, new TV programs like Lost or Mad Men have better production values than many films and are indeed very cinematographic.
To paraphrase "Planet of the Apes," Thank you, thank you for calling out 35mm content :-)
Unfortunately, "Lost" is off the air, and television is shedding 35mm shows like flies, and 16mm is all but dead ("Friday Night Lights," "Crash" (cancelled) and maybe three others are all that are left in the States).
What is incredible to me is how all these 35mm shows (CSI knock offs, Law and Orders) shed 35mm mid-run. I *think* CSI held out, but may be digital now too.
I've heard some talk about 4K content on here. 35mm is more than adequate if you use 200T stock or slower and shoot scope! "4K" digital right now is both a lie, and a sad joke.
Why is it that "Star Trek" was shot on 50T 4-perf. (same amount of film as true anamorphic 4-perf.) film for the first two seasons and 100T after that without any troubles and on a television budget?
I really believe that 2K DIs have caught on not for the reasons that are listed (4K takes up too much time, is too expensive), it is a deliberate move by the studios to kill off the labs, and put-into-line cinematographers that stubbornly refuse to compromise, and maybe kill off the pesky theatre component too.
There is nothing about digital that is NOT about reduced cost, ease of use, and lack of skilled training, sorry.
And, thanks to 35mm DIs, home movies are ALREADY better than 35mm prints. Movies reach the screen with probably 1.2-1.4K across of resolution Compare to 1.98 K lines at home.
The only place this doesn't hold true is with 35mm anamorphic films. Digital projectors crop the chip. 35mm projectors use MORE film.
2K movies are only 10% bettter than 1.98K home theatre.
The only bright spot on the horizon is that 4K cannot be seen as appreciably better on a television monitor compared to a cinema screen.
(Aside: Most people don't care about any of this shit PERIOD They care about getting out of the house seeing a new movie with a crowd and having fun. Sitting with a couple friends in your basement isn't the same level. It's psychological, not quantitatively better for most. It's only those of us that don't accept what people tell us to be true (ads, marketing, politicians, religion) that take issue with this.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 12 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
|
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
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic