|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Will 4K be the next 70mm?
|
|
|
Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover
Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 11-01-2010 01:39 PM
quote:
James Cameron and George Lucas aren't the only powerful filmmakers. To go with an obvious example, Steven Spielberg can pretty much do whatever he wants. As long as his films continue to make money, the studios won't have a problem keeping him happy --
My point is. Lucas and Cameron have gone/embraced digital. The time is soon for Speilberg, I believe his next movie is digital 3D. You must have filmaker support before you will ever get exhibitor/audience support.
quote: Manny Knowles
even if that means a few hundred 70mm prints. If those 70mm prints can be proven to outsell the other formats, a comeback is completely possible.
Which makes no sense, if you need a much longer run time (at least 3-4 more weeks), then whats the point.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Most of us don't believe it's going to happen. A big reason why these threads generate a lot of pages is because many of us just aren't going to tolerate it when someone makes the extremely dumb-assed claim that 2K digital or 4K digital is somehow equal to 70mm. It isn't! Those "digital" formats are NEVER going to be as good as 70mm.
70mm may not ever make a comeback, but Hollywood movie studios and movie theater companies should not be let off the hook for dropping the standards of production and presentation quality to a permanently lower level. 35mm isn't as good as 70mm. Digital sure as hell isn't as good either. Movie fans are stuck with lesser quality imagery because the "filmmakers" and theaters are more concerned with using systems that are faster and easier than something using something better.
Video ("digital") production and projection will have to improve to much higher standards in numerous areas before it could ever honestly pass itself off as being equal or superior to 70mm. IMHO, it still hasn't matched 35mm.
On the production side new video cameras with native 8K or 16K resolution (and appropriate lens systems to match) would be necessary. Digital intermediate use and CGI renderings would need to match those resolution levels. Right now 2K is still the de facto standard and many of those "2K" projects are really rendered natively in 1080p and blown up slightly to 2K. My understanding is most DI systems with 4K capability won't let you edit in color at 4K resolution; you have to do color work on lower resolution "proxy" footage and then apply the changes to the 4K data. 8K DI work has been used in a handful of cases, mostly on 65mm/70mm film material for a few Blu-ray projects.
Companies like Red, Panavision and Canon can keep on developing new CCD and CMOS imagers as much as they like. It's a bigger step to build full camera systems and lens packages around those new chips and a more difficult step above that to get movie productions to actually originate across the board in that higher resolution. A movie production that uses a Red camera to shoot in 4K, but then dump the footage down to 2K in post is only a 2K movie in the end.
Digital projection has a couple serious drawbacks: unsatisfactory contrast and brightness. 4K just doesn't seem to be ready for giant sized screen use with the complaints I've seen about brightness levels. No digital system has black levels that match that of film. 70mm can be used on really huge screens and deliver unmatched levels of brightness along with superior contrast.
There may never be a 70mm revival, but nothing as good as 70mm is coming along anytime soon.
You call people dumb all day for making there point but the people going to movies are spending money on what they want, and that is digital. These people are the opinions that matter the most.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover
Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 11-01-2010 01:55 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
The general public, by and large, doesn't know any better about the difference between film and "digital." They're not "voting" for digital. There has been a long running joke about the movie theater industry and its customers in particular: if you put out lawn chairs and projected the movie on a bed sheet people would still pay to see the movie anyway.
It's stupid to assume the public knows about the nuts and bolts details of what technology is used in a projection booth much less expect them to make a buying choice based on that technology. At best the theater can only try to put across a basic idea of what their new system does and hope that impresses the customer.
Even though the customers may not know (and can't honestly be expected to know) where a new technology such as "digital" or 3D is succeeding or failing, the damned movie distributors and movie theater operators sure as hell do know the difference. They know full well when they're delivering a product with no compromises in quality versus something merely good enough. The standard of good enough is what we have now. The "digital" buzz word doesn't make it any better. It just adds a pretentious layer of marketing bullshit to the equation.
Well, this is were I disagree. The consumer full well knows the difference between 35mm film-vs-digital. They are choosing digital.. I am ready to choose digital over film if need be. ( I would not of said this until I saw Hereafter in ETC) They can even tell the difference between 35mm and IMAX as most of my friends will tell me they noticed the difference in The Dark Knight.
Everyone I know in my circle of friends, tells me that digital is more clear and more sharp.
As for the movie companies, are you kidding me? They know exactly what the consumer wants, and it is not 70mm.
UltraAVX (which sucks BTW), ETC, digital 3D, Dbox, is what the consumer wants, and the movie companies/chains are giving it to them.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God
Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 11-01-2010 06:04 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
No they don't. And you have never offered any proof, just your own opinion of "digital" after seeing it in a couple recent movies. All you're doing is repeating the same nonsense over and over just to keep this thread going. ....and: The judgment standard of "everyone I've talked to" is hardly scientific at all. It's just another way of saying "I know a lot of people agree with my opinion, but I want it to sound more like fact than what it really is: just an opinion."
Thank you Bobby, couldn't have said it better. Some people are just trolls who like to cause contention and stir the pot. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) I don't even bother to read it anymore.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Once when we were in the middle of getting new seats, we only had 30 seats and a vast expanse of bare linoleum for one night. We got an unexpected big group of high school kids. Every one of them sat ON THE FLOOR for the duration of the movie. The next night the word got around and we had people showing up with lawn chairs, bean bags, etc. and they had a great time. A couple days later the new seats were in and I heard a couple of people saying "Awwww, we can't sit on the floor!"
So we thought, why are we spending all this money on new seats? Should have just taken ALL the seats out! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
LOL great story!! Some years back I did a rental for an outdoor film, the first year we had 1500 people, the next over 3,000 and the last year I did it was around 4800. People loved the idea of a movie "in the park" and it was a huge success. I was projecting 35mm with a 300' throw and 40' wide screen. (All were films already out on video.) Loads of fun. After those first three years, the operators went to another a/v company who did DLP on a screen only 22' wide (and 4:3 aspect ratio) and the people who came out were pissed!! The first time drew a huge crowd (who didn't know better) but each year after attendance plummeted to the point they are now lucky to draw over 800 people.
Sad thing was that this a/v company charged them just as much as I did and "sponsored" the rest of their fees.
And why did the operators go to DLP? Because they wanted to project their home-made sponsor's trailer instead of the custom-printed sponsor's credit rolls I had gotten made for them. (Generic white lettering on black background, all they were willing to co-pay for.)
I don't think they're doing it anymore.
quote: Victor Liorentas
With the 2k DI brick wall of most films i can still see more detail in a decent 35mm print projected on well maintained equipment! It is uncanny how more clear and sharp it is with depth and resolution to boot!
If its 4k or a pre DI print forget it, 35mm blows DCinema away entirely!
Now that sums it up quite nicely.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover
Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 11-01-2010 06:25 PM
quote:
I think you need to step back for a bit and look at your comments. I honestly believe that you don't realize how stupid and inexperienced you sound when saying things like this. It makes it extremely difficult for people to take what you are saying with any amount of seriousness.
Bottom line: The consumer only thinks that digital = better. This is what they have been taught to believe since the compact disc was introduced. That's where their "knowledge" ends. Sad to say, that's where their concern about the exhibition format usually ends as well. I've had people request that I rewind movies because they were late. When I tell them "no" they become confused and say things like "Aren't you just using some kind of fancy DVD or whatnot?" I'm sure many people who actually work in the exhibition industry have similar stories. This alone proves that the customer has no clue and usually no concern about the format. There are indeed some educated customers out there, like Bobby for instance, but the rule of thumb about the general public is as I've laid it out.
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.
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.
After all, if 35mm was superior to digital, then consumers would choose the film version and vice versa
| 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