|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 4K and 2K DCP have similar bitrates
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-07-2016 01:39 PM
quote: Pietro Clarici
Guess what? Cost. A smaller DCP can be duplicated faster, and it's easier and more cost effective to transfer it. Transponder time and bandwidth aren't cheap.
As a paying movie theater customer, I am not very sympathetic at all to that. From my perspective it's penny pinching, quality harming bullshit.
If the movie DCPs are going to be encoded at quality levels low enough that they're not on a quality tier clearly above that of consumer video then why should I pay so much more just to watch the DCP version? It's bad enough I see so many 'scope movies shown letter-boxed on un-masked, common width theater screens. Dumbing the bit rates down to near Blu-ray bandwidth gives the whole thing even more of a TV in public feel. Cheap, unprofessional, fast-food style showmanship.
The movie industry is going to cut its own throat in the long run by not being concerned about these details. The deciders think only a few nerds give a damn about this stuff. But it hits a lot more people on a subconscious level. Other kinds of consumer oriented businesses, like restaurants for instance, obsess over details.
I'm struggling to remember just when the last time was that I bought a movie on Blu-ray disc. It's at least a year, if not longer. And I'm supposedly more of a movie buff than most people. BTW, I don't buy virtual copies of movies to stream or store on hard disc either. This summer was not the best for the movie industry. It could be a warning for tougher times ahead. The studios' tactic of taking audiences for granted, spoon feeding them sequels, remakes, etc. might be starting to catch up with them. There are so many other options for entertainment out there and so little time.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edward Summerhays
Film Handler
Posts: 16
From: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Registered: Sep 2016
|
posted 09-07-2016 06:22 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
As a paying movie theater customer, I am not very sympathetic at all to that. From my perspective it's penny pinching, quality harming bullshit.
Agree with Bobby on this. I not at all oppose to digital, although problem with digital is, there are so many temptations to be lazy. All the 'benefits' of digital seem to benefit the studios, and not the consumer.
I live in Sydney, and am lucky to be near the largest cinema screen in the world. I have gone back time and time again to watch movies made by Christopher Nolan, projected in IMAX 1570, because of the care he puts into his films.
He even edits photo-chemically, to preserve the quality. That dedication to the cinema experience has be going back to see the same movies time and time again, even though I own them on blu-ray (I have seen Interstellar twice in IMAX 1570, and haven't even cracked the seal of the blu-ray I own).
He doesn't have the mentality of "well it will save a bit of time in data transfers to do it this other way".
4K cinema is getting me back into looking forward to seeing movies at the cinema, because it's superior quality to what I can experience at home (although I guess that gap is closing also). I guess my point is, the studios should priorities the cinema experience over what might save them a few bucks.
I read someone online, although can't verify if this is true, someone inquired to Disney why The Force Awakens didn't have a 4K DCP. They said it was due to time and budget constraints. Yes, the movie that made $2billion couldn't afford a 4K DCP ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pietro Clarici
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 136
From: Foligno (PG) Italy
Registered: Sep 2008
|
posted 09-08-2016 06:03 AM
Full disclosure: I don't share Nolan's views. I certainly agree that the industry should strive to get every workflow to its absolute best, but I don't think "analog" processes like 70mm shooting and photo-chemical editing are necessarily better. They help create a very specific aestethic which Nolan is very fond of, but I think other great authors and directors of photography have shown that digital done right, with current-gen cameras and 4K digital intermediate, can be just as good.
quote: Edward Summerhays
He doesn't have the mentality of "well it will save a bit of time in data transfers to do it this other way".
That's the point: of course he doesn't, but neither did Tarantino or Scorsese. The local distributor screwed up in a phase that was beyond their control, and created 2K over-compressed DCPs for Hateful 8 and Wolf of Wall Street (which to my best knowledge were distributed in 4K everywhere else) without the directors even knowing. I don't know why they were allowed to, but that's what happened. And to me, that's deeply worrying: it shows that they think they'll get away with substandard files, because customers won't notice. And that they don't care at all about theatrical presentation, because in the end it'll be easier to just do digital day-and-date releases.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-08-2016 11:34 PM
quote: Pietro Clarici
I certainly agree that the industry should strive to get every workflow to its absolute best, but I don't think "analog" processes like 70mm shooting and photo-chemical editing are necessarily better.
I'll give you one very clear example where film-based production, work-flow and exhibition are far better than digital: 'scope format presentation. The 2.39:1 'scope format is the most popular aspect ratio for Hollywood movies. And it's a pathetic, low resolution, low quality JOKE when digitally projected in commercial movie theaters. Simple as that. It is SHIT. It is a LIE.
On the 4-perf 35mm film platform, the 2.39:1 'scope format was the biggest, brightest, highest resolution format. It looked better than flat ratio movies because it used all the negative of the 4/35mm frame. In D-Cinema, 'scope movies go to the extreme opposite end of the spectrum because their images are the smallest and lowest in resolution. Compounding the problem even worse: thousands of newer theater screens have HDTV shaped screens where 'scope images are letter-boxed regardless of the projection setup. Traditionally 'scope movies are supposed to be bigger than regular movies. They all had the same screen height in the past, but the 'scope movies opened up to more expansive widths.
With all the stupid corner cutting and quality compromises that have taken place with d-cinema I feel like the movie watching experience at home is not really inferior at all to the commercial theater movie watching experience. The content in both mediums are treated in very much the same way. It wasn't that way with film.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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