If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
OT but relevant - movie theatre high def digital
In article , Alan Browne wrote: New Your Times blog/article. http://preview.tinyurl.com/d6a6mj Two points: - the Sony unit (and TI DLP units) costs more than a film projector (and probaby will become obsolete in under a decade, whereas film projectors can easily last 20-50 years) - the resolution is lower than the resolution of 35mm film This does not sound like a good investment for theatre owners. -- Scott Norwood: , Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/ Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
OT but relevant - movie theatre high def digital
Scott Norwood wrote:
In article , Alan Browne wrote: New Your Times blog/article. http://preview.tinyurl.com/d6a6mj Two points: - the Sony unit (and TI DLP units) costs more than a film projector (and probaby will become obsolete in under a decade, whereas film projectors can easily last 20-50 years) Since the TI units have been in installations over the last few years (and continue) it would seem that some theatres see the advantage. - the resolution is lower than the resolution of 35mm film This does not sound like a good investment for theatre owners. Theatres in prime locations spend continuously on improvements whether it is the sound system, projectors, seating, decor, etc to keep the place appealing. You may have noticed in the article that there are places charging $20 a head for premium service. 35mm film projected in theatres is lower resolution than SLR 35mm in the first place since it is typically anamporphic. Since the movie is all about movement, resolution counts for less. Further, most movies are filmed at EI 250 - 500 or so resulting in more grain. And for that matter the print in the theater is usually about 3rd or more copies away from the original. 4k x 2k pixels when you're seated in a theatre is quite a bit finer than your eyes resolving power as well. As to distribution costs (no prints to make), repeatability (no more splicing, scratches, blotches, fading), etc. it is much easier to deal with than film reels. Whether it's a good investment or not is up to Sony to show. Not that I care that much. With my 1080p plasma, blu-ray and 5.1/6.1 sound, I don't go to many movies anymore - though I do enjoy it when I do. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
OT but relevant - movie theatre high def digital
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
... Scott Norwood wrote: In article , Alan Browne wrote: New Your Times blog/article. http://preview.tinyurl.com/d6a6mj Two points: - the Sony unit (and TI DLP units) costs more than a film projector (and probaby will become obsolete in under a decade, whereas film projectors can easily last 20-50 years) Since the TI units have been in installations over the last few years (and continue) it would seem that some theatres see the advantage. - the resolution is lower than the resolution of 35mm film This does not sound like a good investment for theatre owners. Theatres in prime locations spend continuously on improvements whether it is the sound system, projectors, seating, decor, etc to keep the place appealing. You may have noticed in the article that there are places charging $20 a head for premium service. 35mm film projected in theatres is lower resolution than SLR 35mm in the first place since it is typically anamporphic. Since the movie is all about movement, resolution counts for less. Further, most movies are filmed at EI 250 - 500 or so resulting in more grain. And for that matter the print in the theater is usually about 3rd or more copies away from the original. 4k x 2k pixels when you're seated in a theatre is quite a bit finer than your eyes resolving power as well. As to distribution costs (no prints to make), repeatability (no more splicing, scratches, blotches, fading), etc. it is much easier to deal with than film reels. Whether it's a good investment or not is up to Sony to show. Not that I care that much. With my 1080p plasma, blu-ray and 5.1/6.1 sound, I don't go to many movies anymore - though I do enjoy it when I do. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. also ad into the mix the film studios resolve to completely phase out film distribution within the next couple of years and its the theatres that DON'T change to digital that will be suffering. At a recent conference on the Gold Coast in Australia, the head of Disney (I forget his name) and several other studio heads were on stage, shoulder to shoulder stating to everyone there that they will not be producing 35mm film prints by the end of 2010. Piracy was the major reason stated (though we all know this is a furphy) but the cost of production was the second one, and when it cost around $3000 per print of an average length movie, and you will need anywhere up to 300 prints for Australia alone, then ad transport cost (paid for by the Cinema) and you see that it is expensive. A digital print can be sent out on a HDD for a fraction of the cost, and some locations are installing Satellite equipment so the movie can be downloaded that way. -- [This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International] "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
OT but relevant - movie theatre high def digital
Scott Norwood wrote:
- the resolution is lower than the resolution of 35mm film Really? "If you shoot at 4K, but want a “film look”, then you finish at 2K and add some grain. It’s easy. It looks like film. However, if you finish and screen at 4K. the result is like shooting in 65mm, like the old epics used to do" That's from an expert in the industry who has actually done the comparison. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
OT but relevant - movie theatre high def digital
"Paul Furman" wrote in message ... Bill Graham wrote: "John McWilliams" wrote Alan Browne wrote: Father Guido Sarducci wrote: Alan Browne said: Consistently placing an apostrophe in the possessive "its" is major ignorance, or carelessness, or possibly arrogance. There are just a handful of posters who do that. I think they get mixed up between "its" the personal pronoun, and the contraction for "it is"......This is an easy mistake to make. (I do it all the time) And what better motivation to learn than the threat of public humiliation ;-) Consistently getting "B's" instead of "A's" on most of my college English papers should have been a better motivation, but alas..... |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
OT but relevant - movie theatre high def digital
"John McWilliams" wrote in message ... Bill Graham wrote: "John McWilliams" wrote in message ... Alan Browne wrote: Father Guido Sarducci wrote: In message , Alan Browne said: Consistently placing an apostrophe in the possessive "its" is major ignorance, or carelessness, or possibly arrogance. There are just a handful of posters who do that. I think they get mixed up between "its" the personal pronoun, and the contraction for "it is"......This is an easy mistake to make. (I do it all the time) It's easy to cu When you write "it's", sound it out for the contraction it is. (sometimes it's "it has".) You don't need to say it out loud, unless you read that way.... :-). Naaa.....These days, I depend on the spell checker programmers....Pretty soon they will write the coding that can tell the difference. Until then, I will just have to put up with the public ridicule..... |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
OT but relevant - movie theatre high def digital
"SteveB" wrote in message ... "Paul Furman" wrote in message ... semoi wrote: The movie business as it has been constituted since its beginning is doomed. With the penetration of HD screens in the home market and the reshaping of the financial landscapes the math does not favor stressed consumers paying $10 a ticket and insane prices for concessions when a high def version of the same media, viewable at home, is available shortly later for a fraction of the price. Do the math: even now it is cheaper to buy a Bluray disc then two movieplex tickets . . . cheaper *than* two tickets [not *then*] I love mistakes in grammar and spelling, particularly when they are on advertisements someone paid for. In Los Angeles, there's a store that has a huge sign in front "STATIONARY STORE". I guess they were having trouble with it showing up every day, so they concreted it down. I'm starting a photo collection of mistakes and odd signs. You can send them to Jay Leno, too..... |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
OT but relevant - movie theatre high def digital
"Atheist Chaplain" wrote in message ... "Alan Browne" wrote in message ... Scott Norwood wrote: In article , Alan Browne wrote: New Your Times blog/article. http://preview.tinyurl.com/d6a6mj Two points: - the Sony unit (and TI DLP units) costs more than a film projector (and probaby will become obsolete in under a decade, whereas film projectors can easily last 20-50 years) Since the TI units have been in installations over the last few years (and continue) it would seem that some theatres see the advantage. - the resolution is lower than the resolution of 35mm film This does not sound like a good investment for theatre owners. Theatres in prime locations spend continuously on improvements whether it is the sound system, projectors, seating, decor, etc to keep the place appealing. You may have noticed in the article that there are places charging $20 a head for premium service. 35mm film projected in theatres is lower resolution than SLR 35mm in the first place since it is typically anamporphic. Since the movie is all about movement, resolution counts for less. Further, most movies are filmed at EI 250 - 500 or so resulting in more grain. And for that matter the print in the theater is usually about 3rd or more copies away from the original. 4k x 2k pixels when you're seated in a theatre is quite a bit finer than your eyes resolving power as well. As to distribution costs (no prints to make), repeatability (no more splicing, scratches, blotches, fading), etc. it is much easier to deal with than film reels. Whether it's a good investment or not is up to Sony to show. Not that I care that much. With my 1080p plasma, blu-ray and 5.1/6.1 sound, I don't go to many movies anymore - though I do enjoy it when I do. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. also ad into the mix the film studios resolve to completely phase out film distribution within the next couple of years and its the theatres that DON'T change to digital that will be suffering. At a recent conference on the Gold Coast in Australia, the head of Disney (I forget his name) and several other studio heads were on stage, shoulder to shoulder stating to everyone there that they will not be producing 35mm film prints by the end of 2010. Piracy was the major reason stated (though we all know this is a furphy) but the cost of production was the second one, and when it cost around $3000 per print of an average length movie, and you will need anywhere up to 300 prints for Australia alone, then ad transport cost (paid for by the Cinema) and you see that it is expensive. A digital print can be sent out on a HDD for a fraction of the cost, and some locations are installing Satellite equipment so the movie can be downloaded that way. You can't beat the group experience though.....I remember seeing a movie that was so bad some guy stood up during the final credits and shouted, "This was the worst movie I have ever seen!"....and the audience gave him a standing ovation....:^) |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
OT but relevant - movie theatre high def digital
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
... "Atheist Chaplain" wrote in message ... "Alan Browne" wrote in message ... Scott Norwood wrote: In article , Alan Browne wrote: New Your Times blog/article. http://preview.tinyurl.com/d6a6mj Two points: - the Sony unit (and TI DLP units) costs more than a film projector (and probaby will become obsolete in under a decade, whereas film projectors can easily last 20-50 years) Since the TI units have been in installations over the last few years (and continue) it would seem that some theatres see the advantage. - the resolution is lower than the resolution of 35mm film This does not sound like a good investment for theatre owners. Theatres in prime locations spend continuously on improvements whether it is the sound system, projectors, seating, decor, etc to keep the place appealing. You may have noticed in the article that there are places charging $20 a head for premium service. 35mm film projected in theatres is lower resolution than SLR 35mm in the first place since it is typically anamporphic. Since the movie is all about movement, resolution counts for less. Further, most movies are filmed at EI 250 - 500 or so resulting in more grain. And for that matter the print in the theater is usually about 3rd or more copies away from the original. 4k x 2k pixels when you're seated in a theatre is quite a bit finer than your eyes resolving power as well. As to distribution costs (no prints to make), repeatability (no more splicing, scratches, blotches, fading), etc. it is much easier to deal with than film reels. Whether it's a good investment or not is up to Sony to show. Not that I care that much. With my 1080p plasma, blu-ray and 5.1/6.1 sound, I don't go to many movies anymore - though I do enjoy it when I do. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. also ad into the mix the film studios resolve to completely phase out film distribution within the next couple of years and its the theatres that DON'T change to digital that will be suffering. At a recent conference on the Gold Coast in Australia, the head of Disney (I forget his name) and several other studio heads were on stage, shoulder to shoulder stating to everyone there that they will not be producing 35mm film prints by the end of 2010. Piracy was the major reason stated (though we all know this is a furphy) but the cost of production was the second one, and when it cost around $3000 per print of an average length movie, and you will need anywhere up to 300 prints for Australia alone, then ad transport cost (paid for by the Cinema) and you see that it is expensive. A digital print can be sent out on a HDD for a fraction of the cost, and some locations are installing Satellite equipment so the movie can be downloaded that way. You can't beat the group experience though.....I remember seeing a movie that was so bad some guy stood up during the final credits and shouted, "This was the worst movie I have ever seen!"....and the audience gave him a standing ovation....:^) I have been that man in the past ;-) -- [This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International] "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
OT but relevant - movie theatre high def digital
In article , Alan Browne wrote: Since the TI units have been in installations over the last few years (and continue) it would seem that some theatres see the advantage. The only real advantage is 3D capability. Features could be released in 3D on 35mm film, but that has not happened with the current 3D fad. Theatres in prime locations spend continuously on improvements whether it is the sound system, projectors, seating, decor, etc to keep the place appealing. You may have noticed in the article that there are places charging $20 a head for premium service. The other items that you mention were all improvements. 35mm film projected in theatres is lower resolution than SLR 35mm in the first place since it is typically anamporphic. Anamorphic has nothing to do with it. A frame of 35mm motion-picture film is four perforations tall with a soundtrack on one edge--less than half the size of a 35mm still frame. Of course the resolution is lower. As to distribution costs (no prints to make), repeatability (no more splicing, scratches, blotches, fading), etc. it is much easier to deal with than film reels. Exhibitors don't care about distribution costs unless it saves them money. Scratches and film damage are the result of poor film handling, not the medium. Fading takes decades with modern print stocks and is not an issue for the typical release print. Not that I care that much. With my 1080p plasma, blu-ray and 5.1/6.1 sound, I don't go to many movies anymore - though I do enjoy it when I do. It's your loss, I guess. -- Scott Norwood: , Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/ Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Welcome to rec.politics.non-photo-relevant | Frank ess | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | November 18th 06 07:56 PM |
I don't know if this is really relevant... | Dave | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | September 3rd 06 09:59 PM |
OT (But relevant) -- P/S Pocket Camera | Norm Dresner | Digital SLR Cameras | 7 | September 8th 05 03:46 PM |
Is this topic RELEVANT??????? | me | Digital Photography | 17 | November 10th 04 12:32 AM |