Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Indiana Jones - Episode IV: Attack of the Clones

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Indiana Jones - Episode IV: Attack of the Clones (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Indiana Jones - Episode IV: Attack of the Clones

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-28-2005 09:26 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
What all this has to do with Indiana Jones: Attack of the Clones is beyond me.

Same director! Ding ding ding!

Okay. Kinda lame way to drag it back to topic.

Considering how Harrison Ford is getting up there in the years, what's the movie going to be called? Indiana Jones and the Inventors of Depends?

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-28-2005 09:58 PM

I think Indy ought to have a kid named "Nevada Jones." Colorado gets most of the derring-do throughout the movie, but then gets into some horrendous scrape towards the end, and that's when Indy shows up when least expected (after having been left for dead by some savages somewhere) and saves the day. And then dies of a heart attack or something, leaving Nevada to star in Indy V, VI, VII and VIII.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 06-28-2005 11:47 PM

I wonder when they'll make the prequels.

| IP: Logged

Adam Wilbert
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 590
From: Bellingham, WA, USA
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 06-29-2005 02:59 PM

yeah. Where the heck is the DVD release of Young Indiana Jones Chronicles?

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 06-30-2005 09:01 AM

Screeeetch! Back the other direction...

quote: Aaron Haney
I don't want to stop it. I just don't want it to look like ass.

Patience, man, patience. Vitaphone sounded like ass for the first couple of years; then optical sounded like ass for, what, 40 years? Anamorphic lenses looked like ass, really, until Panavision came along and eliminated the "mumps". You wanna talk image quality? Well, the switch from nitrate to safety stock was certainly a step down.

There is a context to this.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-30-2005 12:55 PM

Still, the issue remains that commercial cinema must maintain an exclusive, higher standard of image quality for movies. It has to be something you can't equal at home. Instead it's moving toward something you can duplicate pixel for pixel at home.

For some considerable time now, I have known people who prefer watching DVDs at home because they invested a good amount of money in home theater systems. Over the past few years many theaters have allowed sound to just get weak for whatever reason. Sometimes theaters have no choice but to turn down the sound because of some old guy's complaints. In either case, I hear more comments like, "Batman was pretty good; it ought to sound fantastic on DVD!"
[Roll Eyes]

Whether anyone finds that kind of thinking stupid or not really makes little difference. It is a growing marketing problem of customer perceptions. The folks running movie theater chains need to get on the stick about this.

The same can of worms will be opened regarding 2K D-Cinema systems. Those with decent home setups will say, "I'll just get the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc and have every bit as good a picture at home." With complacent theater maintenance some markets can be expected to see a growth of viewers who find their home systems actually appear significantly better.

| IP: Logged

Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 06-30-2005 09:04 PM

Bobby - while there are some people with great home theatre setups, the fact is that most people have large, but extremely crappy monitors and their audio is almost as bad. Since the advent of computer audio and MP3s, people have accepted far worse audio quality. So it's not that people can see it better in their homes, it's that people really don't give a damn about the quality or can't tell the difference. You know where most people buy their AV equipment today? From Wal-Mart or the equivalent.

I have never been to a home theatre that was setup properly. I've been to one that looked great (it was a multimillion dollar setup made to look like Radio City Music Hall), but the owner didn't even know how to operate it (he eventually called his son to get it going.) It was okay, but not great.

Even people with great equipment don't use it properly. They complain about letterboxing because they want the whole screen used, they turn the contrast up to ridiculous levels and they turn up the surrounds so there's more coming from the rear than the front (and that's if they don't place the surrounds in the front.) Or, they plug a $69 DVD player into an expensive monitor or use the video line out on a better player instead of the component video.

It's an unfortunate reality and I wish it weren't true, but it is.

It's not that I don't think that theatre owners should provide the best possible experience, but home systems generally don't make the grade either.

I saw Batman the other day on a screen that is normally quite good. The whole movie played in analog with no surrounds. No one in the theatre knew the difference. I eventually moved to another screen. It was like watching a different movie.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 07-01-2005 08:42 AM

quote:
If 2K is plenty good enough for John and Kodak, then it should be good enough for the rest of us! Pretty soon Kodak will be an all digital company, as very few people will need film ever again. It's coming!

Kodak and 4K:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/digital/showeast1.jhtml

quote:
"We are committed to doing our part to help ensure that the digital projection technology of the future matches or exceeds the best possible image quality that exhibitors can present with 35 mm equipment," says Kodak Entertainment Imaging Division President Eric Rodli. "We believe that will ultimately require higher resolution digital projectors with a capacity for faithfully reproducing the full dynamic range of nuances in colors and contrast that today's films are capable of recording."

The Kodak CineServer unveiled at the conference is designed to enable exhibitors to decrypt, decompress and send content to up to 2K resolution projectors. Rodli says that Kodak is committed to a 4K system and will provide leadership as digital projection technology continues to evolve. He also stresses that film quality sets a moving target.

Last year set records for motion-picture FILM sales. This year may be even better. [thumbsup]

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 07-01-2005 06:18 PM

I know, with 900,000 screens of just the low budget stuff printed at super-fast speeds resulting in piss-poor registration! I sure hope you recycle a lot of that film somehow.

By the way, why even release 2K capable equipment if it's not good enough for you? You LOVE 2K! It is indeed good enough for Kodak or else they would not permit it to go to market. It is simple as that. Imagine all of those poor theaters that will have to upgrade AGAIN when the 4K comes out just to keep up with the Joneses. And then you'll come out with 8K and everyone will upgrade AGAIN! This had all better be free for theaters! And absolutely no theater should be left out. There can be no exceptions. I'm watching you guys!

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 07-01-2005 06:29 PM

quote: Martin Brooks
So it's not that people can see it better in their homes, it's that people really don't give a damn about the quality or can't tell the difference. You know where most people buy their AV equipment today? From Wal-Mart or the equivalent.

Yes, I would acknowledge the fact many people buy very cheap Wal-Mart type 5.1 bookshelf style setups with tinny speakers that would probably piss off a bat colony.

I would also acknowledge the fact very few home users will "properly set up" a home theater system -depending on the definition you want to use for "properly set up." Some would say that requires an acoustically perfect room with top of the line wall treatments, cost is no object hardware and a hell of a lot of EQ equipment used to dial in everything perfectly.

Sure, few people besides some ultra-rich geeks are going to do that with their home setups. But I argue most movie theaters are horribly out of whack as well.

I see the situation being separated into three categories. Great commercial theaters, which there are very few anymore. Good home theater systems where the sound will at least be satisfactory in quality.

The third category is most commercial theaters, where there's little if any bass response, poor coverage in the surrounds and a generally weak overall character in the audio. There's a lot of theaters out there where you have to wonder if the show is playing in digital sound at all. I have to walk up the theater stairs and try peeking through the port glass to see if the digital playback is engaged at all (easier to do in a DTS house).

We can put the cheapie Wal-Mart crap into a fourth category. But its hardly worth mentioning. I think most of that crowd rarely, if ever, visits a commercial theater. And they have a death grip on a vast collection of VHS tapes (and buy all their DVDs in pan and scan).

I think most customers in most markets have only the second and third categories for available choices -if they care about sound. For a couple grand, they can have pretty decent sound they can crank up or not at home. Or they can listen to weak sound at most theaters and wonder if the show's only playing in analog.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

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.