|
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Digital: Scope inside Flat?
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-15-2010 06:00 AM
quote: Tom Petrov
From what I am reading, she is claiming that digital is the perfect way to go and see a movie right now and I agree with her.
Oh thats right...your a troll because you clearly don't read things very well or make intelligent statements. But you sure make a lot of them!
She said the image was perfect, not that it was the perfect way to see a movie...there is a difference. Perfection is almost always an unattainable situation but can be a fine goal.
quote: Tom Petrov
Also, I have yet to see 35mm be crisp and clear as digital.
I don't know...perhaps you suck at showing 35mm? Or perhaps you misinterpret film resolving more detail into thinking it is less crisp. Or you are using the current, but not historical or even 100% practice of using an inferior 2K DI as a means of judging the delivery medium. It can only deliver what it was given. Your complaint should be with the 2K DI.
quote:
Her comments having nothiing [SIC] to do with 70mm. Her comments are based on 35mm vs 2k/4k
Her comments were "digital is perfect." She also made the false comment that 4K would not bring anything to the table in her smallish theatres. By encouraging her to see images that are MUCH closer to "perfect" than what she is experiencing she could more properly evaluate her 2K pictures with respect to perfection.
quote: Tom Petrov
35mm and 2k are comparable are they not?
Comparable in the sense you can line up a list of pros and cons with their end results. The only way that 35mm wont run away with the list of pros is if you deliberately mutilate 35mm's source material...with a 2K digital intermediate. A temporary situation that, in no way, reflects on 35mm's capability. However, even this discussion is straying FAR from the discussion. My questions to Elise were to get one of understanding on why her comfort level was higher on the digital equipment over the film equipment. My only comments on digital vs film were with respect to simply wrong statements (2K digital being somehow perfect).
quote: Tom Petrov
Thats fine, but Elise is simply talking about 35mm vs Digital.
She was actually talking about her comfort level of film versus digital as well as her perception of digital's image quality. The gauge was not part of it. I brought up 70mm, not to sway the discussion there...though it seems to bother you when 70mm is held in high regard...as a means of showing how the current 2K image is FAR, FAR from perfection...note too...I also used 4K digital...something like 35mm film that is roughly 4-times greater in resolving power. Her only statement on 4K was that it would bring nothing to a theatre with a 30ish foot wide screen...I countered with that statement was false and why.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elise Brandt
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 160
From: Kuusankoski, FIN/ Kouvola, Finland
Registered: Dec 2009
|
posted 11-15-2010 07:01 AM
Krhm. Now this has evolved on its own... right. The fact is, there was a 4K presentation I missed (darn train scedules) that I would have wanted to see, a very rare opportunity around here. I have yet to compare 2K to 4K with my own eyes. That it makes no difference on a small screen was an opinion offered by our equipment provider who I trust in this matter above anyone else. The guy has decades of experience on film and he was to my knowledge the first one to sell digital in the coutry. I do think he lurks around here sometimes, too.
One thing that Steve said, about the rebooting habit. I'm on my second smart phone at the moment, and I never rebooted my old ones, ever. But these ones, sometimes I have to. As they say, they're more tiny computers than phones...
My point here was indeed digital versus film in general, and I do leave out of the equation the 70mm because I have no experience with it, having never even seen it. Would have to go out of the country for that... I will have to, soon. So that's entirely my shortcoming and affects my view a lot.
And no ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) I don't definitely know if Any part would be available in a few hours but I have been given to understand that this is the case. I'm crossing my fingers on not having to be proven wrong on this.
To close, I like to point out to Steve that the fact I Can call for help and get it (there is a certain solidarity in the industry here, everyone knows each other are willing to help out if they can. Scrathing each others' backs as the proverb goes) does not mean that I do, every time. I can and will when I run into a wall, that's for sure, but not before I've tried to find the door first and tried every key there is.
Uih. Back to work. And hoping that our luck holds and everything always runs as smooth as now. Oh I know it won't... but one can always hope.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 11-15-2010 12:19 PM
Steve, before you get too involved in your arguments for 35mm, remember many theaters have 35mm equipment in poor condition. Image stability alone will kill resolution. Then again burned lenses or even dirty optics, fake port windows, too much heat on the film and discolored reflectors will murder the end quality too...among other things.
I've found there are VERY FEW theaters that actually do everything right to show off 35mm's full potential. With the edge enhancement and other digital trickery going on, to the layman digital APPEARS to be sharper to them.
Its a legitimate argument on both sides. In the end though, its the public that we have to impress to keep them coming back and not sticking to blu-rays at home.
Steve is absolutely correct that 35mm as a format can outperform any flavor of digital right now, but lets do a reality check. Right now, as in today, when we take into account the foolish 2K DIs, the SHITTY labwork being done at Deluxe (they have gotten worse somehow), the candy counter/manager projectionist and everything else that goes into the pot...digital is better in the end. Nobody (with rare exception) will ever see how good 35mm CAN look any more.
Then again there are a number of installers out there that don't do proper convergence, boresight and color calibration with digital, so maybe I shouldn't be giving digital quite so much credit. Those sort of things will kill a digital presentation's potential quality too, its just not as noticeable to the layman.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Hooper
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 532
From: Fort Worth, TX, USA
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 11-19-2010 02:14 PM
I went back to the scene of the crime this week to see if I could handle the new "projection" going forward. It once again looked awful. ![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif) I could not get passed it. What they have done to the theatre has ruined it. And it's an insult to the rest of you who *do* do it right. It's really too bad. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
The most rediculous part (aside from the whole thing) is it's bad enough the scope image creates blank screen black bars at the tops and bottoms of the flat-masked screen, but when a flat trailer plays within this "scope programming", you also get blank screen bars on the sides too! Basically, it's a small flat box inside of a flat-masked screen. It's an insult to paying customers and a tragedy to the industry.
I sent an email to Cinemark to complain, and to suggest a technician come out to look at and fix this installation, but I'll bet you my email was just deleted without being read.
As much as I love the theatre, unfortunately I will not be back. They've really ruined it.
And what the hell, I'll name names. This is the CENTURY 24 twin theatre in San Jose, CA. Once run with pride by the Syufy's, turned into a complete joke by Cinemark. ![[thumbsdown]](graemlins/thumbsdown.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce McGee
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1776
From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular.
Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted 11-19-2010 02:17 PM
I build the feature first. Add the title, then feature cue which is 0 00 00. Then, add the credit cue, name it, and save it.
Then, build the entire show. First thing is 2D to 3D scope/flat.
Only my 220's have this strange mask problem. The 320, other than not liking trail mixes, has not acted up one time, and is programmed just like the 220's are.
No, I didnt have to do the hard-start. I give the projector a little time to see the trail mix, or the multiple copies of the feature, and open the drop down menu 2-3 times, and the thing works.
My tech told me that he was fielding lots of calls about theatres loading the wrong version of HP on their projectors.
I simply read the sheet and decided what to run.
For Eric, the theatres cant help with flat features being advertised on a Scope screen. It's the way they are distributed by the studios. There's always been black sides on flat feature trailers presented in scope. I see them every day. I doubt the studios are going to change because somebody doesent like seeing a small picture on the big screen.
The same thing can be said about scope features advertised with a flat film. My people constantly try to adjust the framing on scope on flat trailers. They've tried to say that I built the things out of frame, too. Thats never happened.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 11-19-2010 04:43 PM
quote:
As much as I love the theatre, unfortunately I will not be back. They've really ruined it. [Frown]
And what the hell, I'll name names. This is the CENTURY 24 twin theatre in San Jose, CA. Once run with pride by the Syufy's, turned into a complete joke by Cinemark. [thumbsdown]
Eric,
If they don't listen to direct communication, put your comments out there for all to see, and maybe public embarrassment will help. At the least, others will know to watch for the problem, and maybe they'll complain as well, and the problem may eventually get fixed.
We created the Reader Comments feature for just such a purpose. Here's the comments page for the Century 24 on Winchester Blvd. in San Jose:
http://www.bigscreen.com/Marquee.php?theater=1322&view=comments
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
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