Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Will 4K be the next 70mm?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Will 4K be the next 70mm? (Page 13)

This topic comprises 16 pages: 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Author

Topic: Will 4K be the next 70mm?

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 03-21-2011 09:15 PM

I agree that common movies won't be made with a better-than-4K DI. But at that point, why even bother with the comparison? What are you comparing? OF COURSE the native 4K will be better. It is incredibly idiotic to think otherwise. I wouldn't bother with the expense and trouble of setting up a split-screen comparison just to see how much it lost in the generational process in going to film. They could have done it at 11K but chose not to. So making digital look better than film is exactly what they were trying to do.

And oranges taste way better than apples. Oranges are therefore better than apples.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 03-21-2011 10:14 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
I agree that common movies won't be made with a better-than-4K DI. But at that point, why even bother with the comparison? What are you comparing?

Exactly my point!

And I love apples AND oranges...and other fruits, too. (Let your filthy mind wander...)

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 03-24-2011 12:16 AM

Production realities involving the use of digital intermediate is one thing. Making broad comparisons between film formats and digital is another. IMHO, if someone is going to compare digital to film they ought to be doing the comparison against "film done right." So many variables are involved that it's too easy for results to be unfairly weighted either way. Apples versus oranges does indeed become an end result.

Outputting 4K to 70mm is hardly any better than blowing up 35mm material onto a 70mm print. In so many digital versus film comparisons, even starting way back with the clearly inferior 1.2K resolution systems, the "tests" were baked at least a little to make digital look better. Honestly those shows were more on the side of product marketing demonstrations for digital projectors than they were impartial tests. If 1.2K was better than film back in 1999 why did things jump to 2K and then 4K?

Another possible head-scratcher in this digital versus film situation was the Pulse and Wild Ocean source footage was originated on film. Why not shoot identical footage of the same scenes on film and video and then do all film and all video workflows and presentations to have a pure film versus video comparison? The differences would be interesting to see.

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 03-24-2011 11:22 AM

quote: Scott Jentsch
If one dismisses the observations of the 4K film of Wild Ocean vs. the 4K digital presentation of Wild Ocean, and just focuses on the Pulse clips instead, one could infer from the comments made in the press release and from Howard Hall's report that the 4K presentation of Pulse was still equal to, or better than, the 70mm film presentation of Pulse.

Exactly - it's a key passage in the report.

But - note this other crucial point:

the 4K projection was 16x9 and did not fill the vertical axis of the screen

Given that the screen size was 72ft x 53ft to begin with (itself somewhat small for IMAX) then the effective screen size for the 4K projection of Pulse was 72ft x 41ft, approx., or about three-quarters the full height of the screen.

Really the fair comparator here should be with something like IMAX DMR, and not full-frame IMAX.

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

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

posted 04-05-2011 03:47 PM

quote:
Andrew Orin from
FotoKem who made the film prints, estimated that even the ?Pulse? clip
had degraded to between 5.5 and 6K via the printing process (assuming
original camera negative is about 11K).

I did not know there was so much loss. How much is lost from 35mm camera negative? Is the 35mm camera negative about 4K or more? Then, what is the resulting resolution on the prints, assuming there is no digital intermediate?

Another question, would it be possible to print the scanned image at 11K directly onto IMAX film? If that was possible the IMAX film would look much, much, much better than 4K, wouldn't it?

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 04-29-2011 09:47 PM

tonight at the Gruman's Chinese Theater, there is a digital presentation of 'Spartacus' via 4K DLP (Barco) (as DCinema notes) - tell me this looks superior to the less than spectacular Universal bluray release??

Turner Classic Movies selects Barco's 4K to show restored films at the TCM Classic Film Festival

Barco has been selected as the exclusive 4K digital cinema projector supplier for the 2011 TCM Classic Film Festival, bringing to the big screen digitally-restored classic films like Citizen Kane, The Godfather and Breakfast at Tiffany's. With more than 70 screenings planned and dozens of movie celebrities in attendance, Barco joins a highly celebrated event to honor the classic era of American and European cinema.

Barco, a worldwide leader in digital cinema, is partnering with Turner Classic Movies (TCM) to present some of the most iconic films of the 20th Century, projecting them in dazzling DLP Cinema® Enhanced 4K resolution to entertain classic film aficionados and a new generation of movie goers. Barco's DP4K-32B will be showing films that have been painstakingly digitally restored to their original glory.

“Turner Classic Movies believes in the highest standards in presentation, and Barco's unparalleled technology allows us to show these renowned classics in their most pristine form,” said Genevieve McGillicuddy, managing director of the TCM Classic Film Festival and senior director of brand activation for TCM. “We're proud to work with Barco in presenting these films as they were meant to be seen.”

The flagship model among Barco's fully DCI-compliant line of digital cinema projectors, the DP4K-32B features Texas Instruments' 1.38” DLP Cinema® chip to achieve stunning images in 4K resolution (4,096 x 2,160). Its ultra brightness and vibrant color accuracy produces razor-sharp images to offer a premium viewing experience. The DP4K-32B's efficient optical design and patented DMD cooling system result in exceptionally long lifetime and the lowest total cost of ownership.

“We are honored that TCM has chosen Barco to help celebrate these internationally-acclaimed classics,” commented Patrick Lee, VP Digital Cinema for Barco North America. “Their choice of digital cinema projectors speaks volumes about their dedication to upholding the highest standards in presentation. We both admire and respect their commitment to restoring such an important part of motion picture history.”

The TCM Classic Film Festival runs April 28-May 1, 2011 in Hollywood, California. Screenings and events will be held at Grauman's Chinese Theatre, the Chinese 6 Multiplex, the Egyptian Theatre, the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel and the Music Box Theatre, which is celebrating its 75th anniversary."

~~~

other digital projected "films" include:
- Taxi Driver
- To Kill A Mockingbird
- That's Entertainment
- Fantasia
- Streetcar Named Desire
- Outlaw Josey Wales
- Goldfinger
- An American in Paris

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

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

posted 04-30-2011 07:35 AM

quote:
“We're proud to work with Barco in presenting these films as they were meant to be seen.”

So films from the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s were meant to be seen digitally. It is a shame really. The only way I like to see those films is on film and it is a pity that we will no longer be able to do that in the future. How come there is no one out there that understands the importance of showing these classic films on their original medium? Am I the only one who likes to see classic films on film? Isn’t there a business model to show film prints of these classic films anymore?

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 04-30-2011 11:49 AM

well the remaining 57 films at the Turner Classic Movie Film Festival are 35mm ... and 1 DVD

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-30-2011 12:35 PM

I love seeing (and showing) films on film when the print is in good condition.

But you're kidding yourself if you think watching an abused print is closer to the musical truth.

Yes, I'd honestly prefer digital (even a Bluray) over a worn-out print.

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

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

posted 04-30-2011 01:33 PM

quote: Manny Knowles
I love seeing (and showing) films on film when the print is in good condition.

But you're kidding yourself if you think watching an abused print is closer to the musical truth.

Yes, I'd honestly prefer digital (even a Bluray) over a worn-out print.

I never said an abused print is closer to the original experience. Why digital is always compared to film done badly?

Luckily I have the chance, at least once per year at the Bradford Widescreen Weekend, of seeing film done very well, and frankly this is my preference.

I also prefer to see a vintage print in fairly good condition of a classic film than an over-polished digital version.

What I mean is that films that were never meant to enter the binary domain of zeros and ones should be preserved in the analogue domain as much as possible. It is an ethical standpoint and also from the point of view of the viewer I always prefer a good 35 or 70mm print than its digital surrogate.

I am referring to films produced in the 20th Century only, I assume that nowadays films are created and exhibited in a digital environment.

Moreover, I think specialised cinemas should team up together to procure new film prints of these classic films. Digital’s ubiquity will remove the charm specialised theatres had, which made many of us to travel miles to see those precious new prints. Would I travel the same distance for a screening of a Blu-ray or a digital file? Frankly not. As film screenings become rarer and rarer, I think many of us will seek those places that do film properly and I would hope that there is a business model to keep some cinemas showing classic films on film, at least in big cities.

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 04-30-2011 01:38 PM

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Why digital is always compared to film done badly?

Because film IS done badly so often, and even if you want and can make it right, you're always stuck with the print you get. Keeping your machines in good condition can be accomplished with 35mm and digital. But a bad print just spoils the experience even on the best 35mm machine.

I wish we all had good 35mm prints all the time. Unfortunately, I just see too many used up or cheaply made prints.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-30-2011 01:42 PM

My response exactly.

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
What I mean is that films that were never meant to enter the binary domain of zeros and ones should be preserved in the analogue domain as much as possible.

I wouldn't presume to know what the intent of the inventors was.

Technologically, the industry has a long history of being on the cutting-edge, often abandoning old technology completely in favor of the new.

Are you not happy that they are being preserved at all? Is it "film or nothing" with you?

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

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

posted 04-30-2011 01:47 PM

quote: Carsten Kurz
Because film IS done badly so often, and even if you want and can make it right, you're always stuck with the print you get. Keeping your machines in good condition can be accomplished with 35mm and digital. But a bad print just spoils the experience even on the best 35mm machine.

I wish we all had good 35mm prints all the time. Unfortunately, I just see too many used up or cheaply made prints.

As I said, I suppose that specialised theatres could team up to produce new prints by competent companies as Fotokem and adhere to strict rules when handling the prints. I have seen some of these prints produced by Fotokem and frankly they are gorgeous. People seek to replicate traditional experiences, some of us like myself because we prefer them and some others because its rarity or nostalgia. I think there must be a financial value in showing classic films in good prints on film. The big chains would not be interested but independent cinemas? Why not?

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-30-2011 01:49 PM

I personally know of a theatre that recently inquired about underwriting/commissioning a new print of a movie from the 80s and the studio was not interested -- regardless of who was paying.

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

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

posted 04-30-2011 01:58 PM

quote: Manny Knowles
I wouldn't presume to know what the intent of the inventors was.

Technologically, the industry has a long history of being on the cutting-edge, often abandoning old technology completely in favor of the new.

No, I do not presume to know and please note I am not talking about the future, I am talking about the cinema heritage. Nevertheless, the fact that directors as Christopher Nolan, Steven Spielberg or Quentin Tarantino do not like their films shown digitally tells me that, hopefully, I am not talking nonsense. And yes, there are some other film directors that prefer their films shown digitally.

I know that the industry has changed technology, yet the invention of colour does not mean that film directors won’t use black and white anymore. Black and white is beautiful and can help some stories enormously, I think. I wish we could replicate film heritage completely and new nitrate prints and dye transfer prints were still produced but I know this is impossible. But, at least, if classic films are re-released in new 35mm and 70mm (I would personally re-release Technirama and VistaVision films in 70mm) we would keep part of the cinema experience of the past intact, including a dedicated projectionists.

To me the mystique of seeing classic films the old way is very important and makes the experience all the better when I know the film is running in the booth and I do not mind some scratches now and then.

quote: Manny Knowles
Are you not happy that they are being preserved at all? Is it "film or nothing" with you?

Of course I am happy they are being preserved. Nevertheless if we are talking about electronic presentations I will have them at home, amongst other things because I prefer the look provided by 'plasma' monitors than 'DLP' technology, albeit I know that the DLP technology at the pictures will be better than my plasma at home. I do not know, I seem to accept electronic images better when seen on a monitor. I have a friend who prefers some DVDs to Blu-rays, because he finds the Blu-rays extremelly sharp and lacking the film look and I know what he means.

quote: Manny Knowles
I personally know of a theatre that recently inquired about underwriting/commissioning a new print of a movie from the 80s and the studio was not interested -- regardless of who was paying.

What you say about this studio is shocking. Well, it is all about money. There is a cinema palace in Barcelona, 1,800 seats that was in the verge of closing down when a film director came up with the idea of resurrecting the big cinema experience with titles from the 70s, 80s and 90s in 35mm. These are monthly screenings but so far all but one of the screenings have been sold out events, and they are doing it on a Thursday evening. Audiences, especially younger audiences, are amazed at seeing these films for the first time on a big screen and on an auditorium that only has one screen, with showmanship presentation, curtains, lights, … Many people have asked if they were showing DVDs or proper prints and so some people are interested in film being shown. We are talking about films like Jaws that are mainly limited to the TV circuit nowadays and all of the sudden in a city a cinema brings in 1,800 paying patrons. If this is repeated in other cities, wouldn’t it be worth new prints? For instance, there are no screenable prints of Superman, wouldn’t it be worth producing new ones if it is going to bring this extra revenue? You can produce 2K prints and show it everywhere or/and also produce 35mm and show them in specialised theatres marketing well that you are showing film. I know which screening I would choose.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 16 pages: 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

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.