|
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Film era fades to black
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God
Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 09-30-2011 11:05 PM
quote: Justin Hamaker
And even then, I have a hard time seeing a 35mm presentation surpassing the digital presentation. You could argue it's just as good, but I can't see it being better.
I agree with this one. We opened up that "What's Your Number" in 35mm today and really wished I had the digital on this one since the film, is in flat, I really had to tune in the bulb to get the best light output for this flat feature to look good on a 42 foot screen...talk about serious light loss and image quality on a screen this big with a flat feature. Now, film scope features can almost give a digital presentation a good run if the lab work was done correctly...
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Digital also helps those who couldn't do film right
You know there is a good out for all of this to settle down, and that is: To attack this whole problem at the beginning .. and that is, at the film makers themselves.
Have studios and indies shoot their movie stories on 65mm, high grain negative film using the best Panavision and ARRIFLEX cameras available, use dolly trucks and tracks (forget about any form of hand held devices, as steadycams and such), THEN produce 2 and 4k digital releases from the 65mm printing negatives. For sound has already been taken care of: 5.1 stereo surround in the majority of the venues.
..might see a rebirth of 70mm presentations...in digital, 4K form
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 10-01-2011 05:01 AM
quote: Justin Hamaker
The average 2K presentation in the average theatre today is far superior to the average 35mm presentation. As I've said over and over, I'm not talking about digital vs 35mm in the ideal settings, I'm talking about digital vs 35mm in the average multiplex. And even then, I have a hard time seeing a 35mm presentation surpassing the digital presentation. You could argue it's just as good, but I can't see it being better.
I am not saying that nowadays the 35mm presentation is better to the 2K digital, although the 35mm prints I have seen from 4K DI (restorations) look (to my eyes) better than 2K presentations. What I am complaining about is that the industry has not improved presentation and has settled with a just OK presentation. As I said, maybe in smaller populations presentation has improved but not in big cities.
quote: Justin Hamaker
Using digital from the time of Toy Story 2 (1999) as a barometer for today's digital is completely unfair. I saw Star Wars Episode 1 at the Metreon in San Francisco in digital at around the same time and was largely unimpressed. But the picture from the average 2D presentation is bright, sharp, and completely free of any noticeable pixelation.
I am not doing this Justin. As you can see from my post, I start by relating my first contact with digital but I say that the last film I have seen in 2K DLP, which had a 4K DI, was a good experience.
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Have studios and indies shoot their movie stories on 65mm, high grain negative film using the best Panavision and ARRIFLEX cameras available, use dolly trucks and tracks (forget about any form of hand held devices, as steadycams and such), THEN produce 2 and 4k digital releases from the 65mm printing negatives. For sound has already been taken care of: 5.1 stereo surround in the majority of the venues.
..might see a rebirth of 70mm presentations...in digital, 4K form
Absolutely, or maybe systems like DMX Cinema in 4K and with laser projection.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Paul H. Rayton
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 210
From: Los Angeles, CA , USA
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 10-01-2011 11:26 AM
Yep, like Greg says, this somewhat emotional subject is being flogged to death in this thread, and others. While we are all here "feudin' and fussin'", you might want to check what's happening in the real world, which is that (as I have commented in another thread), like it or not, Kodak is teetering on the brink of extinction. Yesterday (Fri., Sep. 30), the financial news pages brought the report that Eastman Kodak Co. had retained the services of a law firm well known for handling bankruptcy cases... And their stock was in the area of 75 CENTS per share (if you're interested in investing right now in a company with no future...!)
There's a detailed report on the Reuters web site, including a salient photo at the start of the article, showing some people walking past a Kodak office building in the middle of a snowstorm. Get it? Cold and stormy is their future. The Reuters article can be seen here: <http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/30/us-kodak-idUSTRE78T4DC20110930>
Sadly, color film of the quality that we've been accustomed to seeing and handling is exceptionally difficult to manufacture, esp. to the degree of precision, stability and reliability they've achieved. I've taken a "behind the scenes" tour inside their plant, and seen something of what's involved. Film is a fine example of one of the achievements of the industrial revolution. There may be a successor company to come in and pick up the pieces, but no one can afford a massive manufacturing infrastructure for a product that simply isn't selling. Translation: film, if available, will be lower quality, and more expensive, and lab work, if available, will be more expensive.
Deal with it.
We can lament the passing of film, and go see movies on film in museums and such, but for the general mass market anymore -- get ready to watch your movies via some electronic process. And, as for complaints that d-projection doesn't have the same contrast characteristics as film, well, just wait a bit. Other illumination and/or projection systems will come out, and things will just get better. After all, it took the movies decades to come up with full color systems, it wasn't done overnight. And, BTW, how long did it take for the movies to learn to "talk"? Again, not overnight.
Finally, if you're curious about that manufacturing process that creates "film", there was an extensively-illustrated article in a publication called "Film and Digital Times", done about a year ago. I saw it posted elsewhere on F-T (and now don't remember the original poster -- sorry!), but the author was able to take dozens of photos that I could not do when I took my tour at Kodak a few years ago. Probably Kodak is now seeing the handwriting on the wall, and wanted people to appreciate some of their legacy of precision. You can download a nice PDF of it here: <http://www.fdtimes.com/news/kodak/a-cinematographers-tour-of-kodak/>.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
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