Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: why is the "digital transition period" being handled so badly?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » why is the "digital transition period" being handled so badly? (Page 9)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Author

Topic: why is the "digital transition period" being handled so badly?

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 11-25-2011 07:40 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
In reality Justin...it is because your skills of evaluation suck! It is the honest truth. You are in the industry and look at DCP every day and SHOULD know better than the average consumer that thinks we have been using DVDs for the last decade or more.

That's so sweet of you to say.

Since it's so obvious you know better than I, what I'm seeing with my own eyes, I'll be sure to go and get them checked.

| IP: Logged

Peter Castle
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 220
From: Wollongong University, NSW ,Australia
Registered: Oct 2003

posted 11-25-2011 08:37 PM

I've compared quite a few BluRays with the DCP version. I can see the difference, usually colour depth and (slight) compression artifacts. I'd always show a DCP in preference. BUT...

In the late eighties and early nineties we used to screen a particular movie at least once a year. In 1992 we closed for reconstruction. The following year we approached the distributor to renew our regular booking and were told they had destroyed their prints as no-one was booking.

In two weeks time we screen the movie again, having finally got approval to show from BluRay. OK, it's not the main feature that our audience is paying to see (it's the support of a double feature), but at least they'll get the opportunity to see a classic (in my opinion) on the big screen, not possible on 35mm or DCP.

I'm not intending to tell my audience that it is coming from BluRay, but if they ask how we are able to show it I will tell them. It is the movie they want to see, not the format.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 11-26-2011 04:20 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
What goes into an image is more than sharp pixels. It is what is contained in those pixels

On the comparison of BR against DCP is the size of the file content: How many GB's did the 'Avatar' file on the actual drive contain against the GB's size on a BR of 'Avatar'?

If memory serves me correctly, the JPEG2000 filesize for 'Avatar' was around 161 gB's. How many BR's would have to be made to fit this one file?

I see some serious compression here to squeeze 161 gB's down to 15gB's for BR release.

Course also - the the production end for making DCP files and BR files could be completely different as well-each from a different source.

Looks like an "apples and oranges" comparison syndrome again that's going to mislead the public like crazy.

I've always looked at DVD and BR releases to be "the MP3 of video" due to it's compression from the original source..and you lose some bits during the compression.

"Dang!" looks like analog video (and audio) is still winning in the background.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

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.