|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Will 4K be the next 70mm?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 11-01-2010 09:56 PM
I still look up things for "ads that confuse" from time to time. Some stack ads for the New York Times and Los Angeles Times may denote digital showings (along with the alphabet soup of DD, DTS, SDDS showings). Most newspapers don't do any of that crap anymore. Usually 3D, IMAX/Fake IMAX is all most theaters are listing these days.
quote: Tom Petrov
If you don't think the consumer can tell the difference, then keep believing that. From the conversations I have had, the consumer can tell the difference.
Again, you could just be making up that crap. "From the conversations I've had," yeah, whatever. You previously read or ignored comments from seasoned veterans of showing 70mm that 70mm engagements typically drew much larger crowds than other theaters showing the same movie in 35mm. Back when I lived in New York City I almost always watched any movie exclusively in Manhattan, even if it was only in 35mm. The theaters were run a lot better. And it was even better still when the show was in 70mm. Staten Island had a few decent theaters, but I preferred to ride the ferry and subway to see the show in a much better way. I have a lot of ticket stubs of 70mm shows from the Ziegfeld theater.
quote: Tom Petrov
Better or worse, there is a difference, and don't discount the people who are paying for the ticket. They are smarter than you think.
Really?
Tom, I have every reason to be a digital fanboy like you. My day job is doing computer graphics work. I have a significant amount of money tied up in digital cameras, computers, software, etc.
I've been doing this kind of work for more than 20 years and my experience in dealing with hundreds upon hundreds of customers makes me conclude the average person doesn't know shit when the word "digital" is involved. They have no idea about the concepts of raster versus vector when it comes to reproducing logos and other kinds of graphics. They have no idea about aspect ratio, which explains why I get billboard "designs" from customers composed on letter sized paper in portrait orientation but they want the fucker on a 10' X 30' or 14' X 48' landscape board! They have no idea about native resolution since they often in their first attempt provide web page low res quality digital images instead of high resolution original camera images. On top of that, the US Army believes Microsoft PowerPoint is the only computer graphics application that has ever been developed. The trouble is PowerPoint is not and never will be a real computer graphics application. It's just a damned slide show application. Nothing more.
Anyway, Tom, you think the customers know their stuff on "digital." I'm here to tell you they really do not.
quote: Tom Petrov
After all, if 35mm was superior to digital, then consumers would choose the film version and vice versa
And this comment shows you really don't know what you're talking about when judging the two formats on an informed, fair basis.
Right now 35mm isn't going to do as good because damned near every movie made by Hollywood studios and most others is bottlenecked through a fucked up HDTV-quality production pipeline. So any comparisons of digital versus 35mm right now are totally moot. That's because the original source image is compromised from the get go. Laser recording the HDTV quality image to 35mm film isn't going to make it 35mm quality. You're only ever going to have the native detail rendered from the digital intermediate, and more and more often that's a lot less than what the camera recorded!
A lot of "digital" productions would love to claim they're 4K but various factors disqualify them on the claim. If anything anywhere at all in the production pipeline is dumbed down to cheaper/faster 2K then the movie is only ever going to be 2K or even just 1080p. When you down-sample and destroy 75% of those native pixels you're never ever going to get them back. So 2K it is! And that goes for damned near every Hollywood studio "film" being made these days, even a lot of the ones shot in "4K Red Digital Cinema." It ain't 4K unless 4K is maintained 100% all the way. All CGI visual effects/animation/rendering in 4K. All DI work in 4K. All node-based compositing in 4K. Zero 2K. Very few movies are delivering that. Instead 2K is the faster, more affordable, more stock holder friendly standard. Besides, the customers are assholes and idiots! What do they know!? The movie is going to be out on Blu-ray in a few weeks and that's a hair under 2K resolution anyway!
| 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
Printer-friendly view of this topic