4K Movies Releases

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

‘The Last Days of Celluloid”…

b.t.w., reminds me, Variety will be posting an article on that ^ topic (the demise of film prints) around 3:00 P.M. (Pacific time) today with interviews from the likes of Marty S., Christopher Nolan, etc. for those celluloid reminiscers.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

No, don’t take it that way. The way you should take it is that I am not saying one way or another, i.e. neither confirming nor denying.

For context, something to keep in mind is that despite the fact that you personally like the look of the first Ghostbusters Blu-ray, there are a lot of Ghostbusters cinephiles who believe the ‘look’ of the first Blu-ray rendition in general, and in particular a few notable scenes, appears nothing like the original theatrical presentations which they viewed multiple times as avid fans of the flick. I’ll bet some would say that your phrase “there's room for improvements” is like describing torture as “enhanced interrogation techniques”.

Anyway, if you would like some straightforward insider news which I can reveal, I refer you to this post from the ‘The Last Days of Celluloid Thread”… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ot#post7314494

P.S. What the hell, is the last post on that thread ^ by JacobJeans spam? or, has he been smoking too much weed?

Attention Ice, see the P.S. ^ as I think you need to pay the Mods more $$.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Apparently, there are pictures of a guy standing on a rooftop at the time of the explosions. From what I have read, he did not react to the explosions. Could be a total innocent of course. Interesting, though.
It sickens me, that children are a victim of what can only be described as a sub-human act.

Well I’m not following the latest developments in that tragedy because it is just too depressing when I think of the acute pain and suffering involved, not to mention the years of rehab/therapy which will be needed for some of the victims.

All I can tell you is that my wife informed me last night when I started to watch the Arsenal vs. Everton match that the 5? year-old sister of the boy who was killed, lost her leg in one of the blasts and their mother suffered a serious brain injury. That family got hit particularly hard.

I must say that it was nice to see you folks from across the pond sensitive to the Boston tragedy (given terrorist bomb blasts have been a bit more common in the U.K. as compared to the U.S. and with greater casualty counts), for before the Arsenal match, there was a moment of silence....don’t tell me the score, for I feel asleep on the couch about 15 min. into the match.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well I’m not following the latest developments in that tragedy because it is just too depressing when I think of the acute pain and suffering involved, not to mention the years of rehab/therapy which will be needed for some of the victims.

All I can tell you is that my wife informed me last night when I started to watch the Arsenal vs. Everton match that the 5? year-old sister of the boy who was killed, lost her leg in one of the blasts and their mother suffered a serious brain injury. That family got hit particularly hard.

I must say that it was nice to see you folks from across the pond sensitive to the Boston tragedy (given terrorist bomb blasts have been a bit more common in the U.K. as compared to the U.S. and with greater casualty counts), for before the Arsenal match, there was a moment of silence....don’t tell me the score, for I feel asleep on the couch about 15 min. into the match.

Words can't express what I personally feel about these attacks, I'm sure the majority of the population feel the same way. I'm not even a people person to be honest, I'm a introvert if anything, but human loss is human loss. To be denied a life is the ultimate tragedy.

[Penton-Man]

March Madness followers in the U.S. know what I’m referring to > the tragedy in Boston puts into perspective how relatively trivial a compound fracture of the tibia is, no matter how gruesome it looks like live on television.

I was actually quite surprised how much national attention that injury got.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

b.t.w., reminds me, Variety will be posting an article on that ^ topic (the demise of film prints) around 3:00 P.M. (Pacific time) today with interviews from the likes of Marty S., Christopher Nolan, etc. for those celluloid reminiscers.

Filmmakers
http://variety.com/2013/film/news/fi...ld-1200375732/

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I only buy the best.

Apparently, that also applies to the Dubai police dept. -
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04...ource=Register

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Filmmakers
http://variety.com/2013/film/news/fi...ld-1200375732/

I hope you're not being sarcastic. Digital sucks. The only camera i like is the Arri alexa and that's because it sort of replicates the film look. Movies like Skyfall and In Time are perfect examples of this. The RED camera is a bad camera IMO, i don't care how high the resolution is. The social Network looked flat and dull with no depth. Digital doesn't make me feel like i'm watching a movie. It makes me feel i'm watching a made for TV special.

Reading that article is sad. I'm sorry for the people who will be losing their jobs. And the theaters that will have to shut down. This digital transition is the worse thing ever.

Nolan simply isn’t satisfied with the quality of digital projection at the current standard, 2K resolution, which has only slightly more pixels than high-definition TV. “I think at a point where studios try to force theaters into converting by actually withdrawing film prints, that’s a very dangerous situation,” he cautions. “Because it means the vast majority of theaters will be showing something that frankly isn’t much better than what you can get in your house.”

Nolan maintains that 35mm prints offer “a depth to the image that digital formats don’t have. “You’re allowed to be in the world that is being projected in a profound way,” he says. “And, it’s what’s always distinguished the theatrical experience from the home entertainment experience.”

Digital can never ever replace film. I don't know what movie enthusiast can remotely be happy about this digital push. There's only one reason why this is happening and it ain't because of quality.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by saprano

Digital can never ever replace film. I don't know what movie enthusiast can remotely be happy about this digital push. There's only one reason why this is happening and it ain't because of quality.

Please. People said the same thing about digital sound.

Better stop watching that HDTV, because EVERYTHING is digital now.
You want to pretend there aren't crappy film prints? That there aren't 35MM films with no depth? 2K or not, most digital theater presentations are more consistent than the film projection of the past.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Apparently, that also applies to the Dubai police dept. -
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04...ource=Register

Sweet!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Please. People said the same thing about digital sound.

Better stop watching that HDTV, because EVERYTHING is digital now.
You want to pretend there aren't crappy film prints? That there aren't 35MM films with no depth? 2K or not, most digital theater presentations are more consistent than the film projection of the past.

I don't think Higher frame rates are much incentive for the digital push. I know I couldn't care less about it. I know many others who feel that way. Give me film any day. Can't be beat.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I don't think Higher frame rates are much incentive for the digital push. I know I couldn't care less about it. I know many others who feel that way. Give me film any day. Can't be beat.

Take that film and run it through the projector 200 times.

Then take a digital 2K "print" and run it 10000 times.

What do you think will still look like new after that?

We haven't even talked about which format has uncompressed sound either.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

I hope you're not being sarcastic....

Nope, not at all. I have always liked the look of film ; otherwise, I wouldn’t have taken the time to post this link a few weeks ago… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ji#post7352513

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

...The RED camera is a bad camera IMO, i don't care how high the resolution is. The social Network looked flat and dull with no depth

To be fair, RED has improved their camera and workflow since TSN.

It’s difficult to totally minimize the difference in resolution between 4K and 1.3K, from http://filmmakermagazine.com/68031-b...meras-in-2013/

“Here’s a fun fact: the count of 4096 pixels across derives from a 1980s Kodak study of the resolution necessary to preserve all the detail in a frame of Super 35mm color negative during a digital scan.

How much of that 4K resolution ever made it to the big screen? Given that a 35mm master positive was first struck on a contact printer (from an Academy frame with fewer than 4096 pixels across), then a dupe neg was struck from the master positive for release printing, then the release print was struck from the dupe neg? Let’s not forget projector jitter, gate buckle, out-of-sync pulldown, an oil-splattered lens not sharp across the screen, keystoning and that smudged port glass!

Answer: never more than 1.3K”

(which ^ was reiterated at an SMPTE section meeting about a year ago…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ol#post5981959

Or, for people who would like to read the classic ITU study…http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

^ which essentially found, in summation, that -
1. MTF resolution of release prints measured out (using a microdensitometer scan of the film element in the lab) at only 1000 lines of resolution.

2. the highest resolution that the expert assessors could still discern in the sharpest part of the screen in the most performing movie theater was about 875 lines/PH

3. the average resolution in the sharpest part of their screen of the six movie theaters was about 750 lines/PH

All 3 findings ^ being pretty wanting in comparison to 4K projection (if the bitrate of the DCP is high enough, which is a concept best left for another time).

[saprano]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Please. People said the same thing about digital sound.

Better stop watching that HDTV, because EVERYTHING is digital now.
You want to pretend there aren't crappy film prints? That there aren't 35MM films with no depth? 2K or not, most digital theater presentations are more consistent than the film projection of the past.

Have you seen a quality 35mm print? Or IMAX? If you have you wouldn't be saying this. Yes, film print degrades so what? It may not be as consistent as digital but when new, or even old IMO, it has a quality and look to it that you can NEVER get with digital.

Skyfall is my favorite digitally shot movie but i know for damn sure if it was shot on film it would've looked so much better and more realistic.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

Digital can never ever replace film.

Never is a long time. The only thing I have my doubts about ever happening in the wide world of entertainment (which includes the sub-category of major league professional sports), is the Chicago Cubs ever winning the World Series.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

...Give me film any day. Can't be beat.

Just in case you’re right, I don’t plan on giving up my 8 and 16mm film projectors.

At the very least, they are devices to subtlety torture the relatives whom I don’t particularly like who come to visit us (in order to really do things like going to Disneyland, the beach, etc.) by, (after dinner in the evenings) having them sit through the few celluloid movies I made (shot, edited, sound mixed myself ) as a young whipper-snapper which, now in retrospect, are boring as hell.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Take that film and run it through the projector 200 times....

Even better torture for some of my visiting relatives.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by saprano

Have you seen a quality 35mm print? Or IMAX? If you have you wouldn't be saying this. Yes, film print degrades so what? It may not be as consistent as digital but when new, or even old IMO, it has a quality and look to it that you can NEVER get with digital.

To say you'll never get that with digital is short sighted. Audiophiles swore the same thing with audio when CD came out and now the entire industry is high res digital. Sure there's still vinyl addicts but they're about as common as Siberian Tigers.

Skyfall is my favorite digitally shot movie but i know for damn sure if it was shot on film it would've looked so much better and more realistic.

I'm sure all that extra grain and optical degradation would have made it "more realistic". A digital source through digital post straight to a 4K projector is inferior to a 35MM print at least 2 generations away from the original?

[KRW1]

Vinyl addict right here. You can still buy pretty much every new release on vinyl, so I wouldn't say we're quite that rare yet. Looking forward to the new Daft Punk next month.