|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Will 4K be the next 70mm?
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 05-04-2011 03:43 PM
Tom, I had heard about this new print of 2001 being produced.
I am sure showing classic films on pristine 35/70mm prints is not a massive business, not at all! But it would be good if it could be a viable one. Most of these classic films have already made their money back and so any extra revenue should be welcomed by the studios.
As I mentioned, I have been doing a bit of surfing on the net and finding about other people who also like to see classic films on the big screen and I was gladly surprised to find out that the majority of them prefer to see them on film with many saying they had (rightly) asked for their money back for a (non-advertised as such) Blu-ray screening. The business of showing classic films relies very much, in my opinion, in showing film prints. There is no need to produce many prints since there is no need for a simultaneous release. Those prints can be circulated and I would imagine that if they are properly handled will last many years.
I think the main problem with issuing new prints of classic films, especially 70mm prints is the risk of prints being trashed by careless or inexperienced projectionists. I am sure that with the increase of digital screens there are plenty of good projectionists available. The same way that staff in museums that handle precious work of art are properly trained and monitored, there should be strict rules as to who can screen those prints.
Cleopatra, a film mentioned in another thread, is still attracting audiences because of the gorgeous 70mm print. I think the film has other merits but although I have seen it twice in 70mm (mag sound rules!) after seeing it on DVD I would not have gone to see it on 2K DLP.
Let’s take a film like The Red Shoes, no one would stop going to see it because they are showing an original dye transfer Technicolor print, however, some of us will not go if what they are showing is a 2K digital print and so digital screenings of classic films could affect the exhibition side.
What I am trying to say is that there must be a solution to preserve both film heritage and film exhibition heritage without having to lose money, just by keeping strict rules as to who can handle the prints and maximising the fact that real film is being shown, as film screenings become rarer they will become more precious and if the prints are produced without recurring to digital bottlenecks it would be a feast for the eyes to see film every now and then.
Imagine a film like Ryan’s daughter, do you need plenty of 2K hard drives being distributed to many cinemas simultaneously? I do not think so. I think it makes more sense to produce a good 70mm print and circulate it around the world.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-04-2011 04:39 PM
quote: Steve Guttag
If digital was being used properly, they should be scanning the OCN at a higher resolution than the film can represent, work on it at that resolution and then print the INs directly from said High-resoltuion. At that point, you have almost the same as the OCN doing the printing and you also improve the high-speed printing process.
I'm all in favor of this approach, but there are two problems.
#1. 2K provides the most functions in specialized DI software. You're able to work in full color at deep bit depths and turn on a lot of other bells and whistles in the software. At 4K some of that disappears. In 6K or 8K levels you may not even be able to work in full color; you would have to work in lower resolution "proxy" imagery for color preview and then see individual color channels at full resolution. Render times increase geometrically as one jumps from 2K to 4K to 8K.
#2. The studio guys signing the checks really don't want to pay extra for that quality level. They would prefer to keep doing as much of the post production work as possible in 2K resolution. It's faster, cheaper and pretty close to HDTV standards, the way the bean counters who dream of day and date release to theaters and video think movies should look. It conforms to their business model.
Honestly, I don't think movie studios collectively are very serious at all about moving up to 4K based production on a widespread basis. Sony is the only one making a legitimate effort, but that's tied into pushing Sony-branded 4K digital projeciton gear.
If we see further erosion of the theatrical release window and the closure of many movie theaters I guarantee 4K production efforts would be abandoned in favor of doing everything in 2K.
quote: Steve Guttag
As for film motion...I don't consider that a good or acceptable trait of film and prefer digital, in that respect.
Digital projection is nice in that it can throw a completely steady image. The black levels and other factors aren't as good. When it comes to capturing motion, film beats the hell out of video. CCD/CMOS latency is one of the factors that makes video look so much like video.
quote: Steve Guttag
Digital also can not seem to deal with credit scrolls and is subject to Moiré, depending on content...where film is impervious.
Type and graphics will do more to reveal an image's limited level of native resolution than photographic material. This is why I use vector-based imagery for type, logos and other graphical items in my layouts whenever possible.
The folks doing the title work need to take a hint from people in TV production. You have to properly anti-alias type and graphics if you're going to convert into a pixel-based format. I have seen these kinds of goofs even on some film prints. The end titles to Fantasia 2000 in IMAX had extremely visible pixel edges. It was as if they rendered the titles in HDTV resolution (or less), didn't do anything to anti-alias the type and blew it up straight to 15-perf 70mm.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 05-05-2011 01:56 AM
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Not only I get it but also I fully know it and I have known it for a long time. Yet you use an ambiguous term when you refer to filmmakers. Who are the makers, the directors or the producers?
Anyone who had anything to do with the movie and who would care if it looked like shit on-screen. How's that? Specific enough for you? ![[fu]](graemlins/fu.gif)
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Billy Wilder disliked very much the Technicolor hues and preferred black and white, Woody Allen would have used more black and white had it not been because of the producers, Fritz Lang was forced to use Cinemascope which he thought only good to film snakes and Hitchcock never used anamorphic even when outside Paramount production values and did not like stereophonic sound because it meant different versions of his sound mix. And how about Chaplin’s dislike of sound? You do not get much more filmmaker than him.
All of them would prefer the DCP if the alternative was a beat up film print that looked like shit.
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Some minor jump and weave on film done right doesn’t disturb me and I would accept that this is because I have always seen films with a bit of jump and weave and therefore it feels natural to me.
As I suspected, you're part of your own problem: You are miscalibrated...and apparently too set in your ways to be intellectual about this. Enjoy your symptom.
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
So, you have concluded that I love film even if it is “film done wrong”, well it is your prerogative to believe this as it is your prerogative to believe that a DCP is better than a good 35mm print.
Indeed I have. You're hopeless.
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
I recently saw Ben Wales’s 70mm print of Dersu Uzala, which is an original print from the 70s (Russian colour does not fade) and I was amazed, the quality was outstanding. After seeing these beautiful images (with technology from several decades ago) to go back to the true feel and look of a Playstation on a 2K Super Digital Cinema? Frankly not, not in a lifetime.
Like I said, film is great when it works. Even so, I suppose you'd be in 7th heaven even if it was faded, dirty, splicey and scratched. Just so long as it's film, right?
quote: Steve Guttag
Manny also seems to miss that when things were done as technology came out...the technology almost always improved the image/sound and was often HARDER than what came before it. Digital has not been about better, it has been about cheaper/easier on the production side. It is what happened to the recording industry all over again. It isn't like the music has gotten any better with the new technology...in fact, with MP3, it has gotten much worse.
Not exactly a fair comparison, but anyway...
Most (probably all) of the MP3's in my collection sound better than the vinyl records and cassette tapes in my collection. The records and tapes have seen better days, just like so many of the film prints I've been hissing about. They may not be examples of audio perfection but they outperform the analog alternatives. I'm not saying that "good enough" is ideal. Just that better is better. That's all.
And here's why it's not apples to apples, Steve -- CD's are just too inconvenient to deal with. Portability and ease of purchase are strong reasons in favor of MP3's for me. That's not an issue for me as far as film versus digital.
And, once again for the record -- I've always been in favor of originating on film. But if they're going to make film prints from a DI instead of cutting the OCN, then I don't see the point.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 05-05-2011 06:04 PM
quote: Manny Knowles
Anyone who had anything to do with the movie and who would care if it looked like shit on-screen. How's that? Specific enough for you?
Manny, there was no need to make this a personal issue. You can keep your , you need it more than me.
You are spreading blatant lies by saying I like scratched and faded prints, shame on you for manipulating the debate.
I will reiterate it once more. I am not talking about the future of cinema production and exhibition. I am talking about the history of cinema in the 20th Century, both in terms of how the films were made and how they were presented. What’s wrong with you? Why can’t you understand that some of us like to experience those old films as they were originally shown?
I am comparing a 2K DCP with a properly produced and projected 35mm or 70mm print. You are the only one who is comparing the 2K DCP with a trashed film print.
Isn’t it funny how DCP body snatchers are unable to use the word film without accompanying it with words like scratches, jump, wave, faded, trashed, …
As I said, I prefer to see a 4K restoration on a 35mm print than the DCP on a 2K DLP projector. No restoration of a classic film will be done at lower than 4K and so, unless you have a 4K projector, you are better off with a 35mm. I saw the 35mm print of the 4K restoration of The Sand Pebbles and the print was beautiful. I would always choose the print if there is, at least, a 4K DI because of the element of the mechanical projection that adds to the original experience.
When I mentioned that I would accept some minor motion when seeing classic films I did not say it is a good quality of film projection, I said it does not disturb me and I assumed that it is probably because I am used to it. But in any case, part of the experience of seeing those old films is that element of motion inherent to film projection. I insist, however, that the stillness of digital projection does not help some static shots (in my opinion).
You call me hopeless for wanting to see classic films on proper film prints on the big screen. You also seem to forget that Christopher Nolan, who probably is also hopeless to your eyes, insisted that all premieres of Inception were in 35mm, at least in Europe, and NOT in 2K DCP. I have read a recent interview with Christopher Nolan where he says that 35mm projection is the best. Tarantino and Spielberg are also advocates of film screenings.
This is an interesting debate and there was no need whatsoever to be nasty.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 16 pages: 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 15 16
|
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
![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic