OT but relevant - movie theatre high def digital

In article ,
Atheist Chaplain wrote:

also ad into the mix the film studios resolve to completely phase out film
distribution within the next couple of years

Please post your source. NO distributor has threatened to cut off the
supply of film prints at this point. It will take more than a couple of
years in any case. DCIP has optimistically stated that it will take
them three years to convert approximately half of the screens in the US
to DLP, if and when they get the financing needed to start. These are
major chain theatres; the second half will take longer. This does not
even consider the 65k+ 35mm screens outside the USA.

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.

Bull****. If they do this, then they will have almost nowhere to exhibit
their product.

--
Scott Norwood: ,
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?

In article , Me wrote:
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.

Has he actually shot a resolution chart?

--
Scott Norwood: ,
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?

Scott Norwood wrote:
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.

Well, he is spared the joy of sharing his popcorn with a rat, as occurred in
the large screen (not IMAX but the same size screen) theater where I saw
"Master and Commander".

Father Guido Sarducci wrote:

One more time, less subtly: ng nettiquette includes not pointing out
minor spelling and grammar errors.

"Nettiquette"? The irony meter overloads.

Anyway, you are wrong (as usual).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette

Eh? From RFC1855:

"- Messages and articles should be brief and to the point. Don't
wander off-topic, don't ramble and don't send mail or post
messages solely to point out other people's errors in typing
or spelling. These, more than any other behavior, mark you
as an immature beginner."

-- Doug

Scott Norwood wrote:
In article , Me wrote:
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.

Has he actually shot a resolution chart?

I don't know, but he's won several oscars, and is renowned for critical
attention to technical detail.
Have you ever seen resolution charts featured in a movie scene?

"Father Guido Sarducci" wrote in message
...
In message , "Bill
Graham" said:

I think they get mixed up between "its" the personal pronoun, and the
contraction for "it is"......This is an easy mistake to make.

No it isn't. Do you write "their's"? What about "hi's"?

If I am writing the contraction for "their is", then yes....I may write
their's. I wouldn't think it was wrong, in any case....Perhaps not common,
but wrong? - No.....Not to me. As for hi's....I don't know what that
means....Certainly there is no "Hi is" I might use "he's" for "he
is"....Probably I wouldn't, but I wouldn't consider it wrong, either.

I am a logical person. My lifelong love has been mathematics. When I write,
I use logic, just as I do with everything else. If it is logical, but not,
"correct" then I will use it anyway.....Sorry if that disturbs you. But
English, unlike French, is a "living language". Its usage changes with the
people who use it.....Every year there are some new words that are added to
the dictionary. So, I believe that it is my duty as a logical person to
promote these changes, and help make the language more logical.

"Bill Graham" wrote:
No it isn't. Do you write "their's"? What about "hi's"?

If I am writing the contraction for "their is", then yes....I may write
their's.

Uh, yass... can you give a URL to a place where there's
an example of a sentence using that?

I wouldn't think it was wrong, in any case....Perhaps not common,
but wrong? - No.....Not to me. As for hi's....I don't know what that
means....Certainly there is no "Hi is" I might use "he's" for "he
is"....Probably I wouldn't, but I wouldn't consider it wrong, either.

No "Hi is" but there's a "their is"???

I am a logical person. My lifelong love has been mathematics. When I write,
I use logic, just as I do with everything else. If it is logical, but not,
"correct" then I will use it anyway.....Sorry if that disturbs you. But
English, unlike French, is a "living language". Its usage changes with the
people who use it.....Every year there are some new words that are added to
the dictionary. So, I believe that it is my duty as a logical person to
promote these changes, and help make the language more logical.

Logically, there's a way to use "their is" in a sentence?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"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)

It's usually just a typo from writing too fast and not
wanting or needing to go over something with a fine
toothed comb before posting. I can't imagine why anyone
is concerned about it, because the *intent* is to
communicate, and that simply has no effect on
understanding a sentence, whether it is used correctly
or not.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Scott Norwood wrote:
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.

That is not the sole advantage by far.


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.

Anamorphic is further loss as it is, in effect, lossy compression.

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.

You do continue to point out why 4k is much more resolution than
projected film. Keep up the good work.

But don't forget also how many successive copies of a frame are made
before it gets to print. Losing resolution with each step. (3 or more,
typically).

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.

Of course they care as they are the ones paying the rent on the film and
dealing with the mess when something breaks. Who do you think pays for
transport? The cost of transport of a digital movie is a small hard
disk ... or high speed internet to the theatre's servers.

In effect with digital there is hardly a need for a projectionist. Just
need a technician to make sure the right projection lens is mounted (and
that can be automated (eliminated?)) and to change the lamps when
they're dying. One or two tech's can run the movie side of a 40 screen
'plex w/o breaking a sweat.

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.

Horsecrap. Prints suffer through the brutal process of running through
a projector and fade through _use_ under the best conditions. Their
ability to lie in a cool, dry place and not degrade is irrelevant
compared to the master print. IMAX is an example of massive projectors
engineered to baby the expensive prints - and even they need to be replaced.

Theatre projectors torture prints - they have a finite life when in use.


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.

Hardly. I'll go only for those movies that really have a need for the
big screen.


--
-- 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.

Scott Norwood wrote:
In article , Me wrote:
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 2Kand
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.

Has he actually shot a resolution chart?

"This year's Academy Award for a resolution chart..."

--
-- 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.