4K Movies Releases

[Penton-Man]

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.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It is surely all about convenience...

Maybe it all started as an initiative by a handful of caring people in the Hollywood motion picture business whose mission it was to save projectionists?…

The Projectionist - YouTube

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

PeterTHX... STOP reading Wiki for information....

Read the following information form Widescreen Review, when they interviewed the president of DTS who is named Terry Beard

I knew you'd comment on the wiki so I included all the other information links...including the one from DTS themselves, which you conveniently ignored. Beard was either wrong or playing some dangerous marketspeak. He did not have the best reputation and hasn't been involved with DTS not that long after that interview.

Stop wasting my time.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

In the real world….seems a lot of folks are handling film incorrectly -

“In order to minimize wear and tear on our archival prints, films may generally be screened no more than three times on any loan. Requests for additional screenings will be considered on a case-by-case basis”…
http://www.cinema.ucla.edu/collectio...nt-loan-policy

Yes many archival prints have a minimum run policy. Also, many prints are not allowed to be spliced together and several of them must be run "reel to reel"..the 70mm of 2001 out of Toronto Canada is required to be run "reel to reel" as per the contract.

However, it is very easy to break the runs if one wants to....reel to reel is generally the best way to minimize print damage

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

PeterTHX... STOP reading Wiki for information....

Read the following information form Widescreen Review, when they interviewed the president of DTS who is named Terry Beard...

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I knew you'd comment on the wiki so I included all the other information links...including the one from DTS themselves, which you conveniently ignored. Beard was either wrong or playing some dangerous marketspeak...

But sir, I thought that all people who posted by their full ‘Real Names’ on audio/video forums or AV websites, meant that their given statements were a guarantee of factual accuracy to the topic at hand…. rather than them using the perception of the transparency of that voluntary personal identifying criteria as a marketing vehicle for either their own opinion (egotistical gain) or product (financial gain).

How can you not believe someone who uses their full real name (or is quoted as such) on an AV website or forum?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Yes many archival prints have a minimum run policy. Also, many prints are not allowed to be spliced together and several of them must be run "reel to reel"..the 70mm of 2001 out of Toronto Canada is required to be run "reel to reel" as per the contract.

However, it is very easy to break the runs if one wants to....reel to reel is generally the best way to minimize print damage

I guess archival prints are then more prone to degradation than ‘non-archival’ prints because the former have a minimum run policy. Page – you missed the point of the post.

[Penton-Man]

Attention ODEMAX…
https://twitter.com/ODEMAX

Code name ‘xMassif’ …. http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/f...macon_2013.pdf

Red folk – I think it’s time to call on the Turbo Ace Octocopter (click on the first Aerial Video clip…unless you’re a motorcycle fan-atic like me, then the 2nd will do ) Bonus points goes to any SoCal local who can tell me what freeway and park that is which is shown in clip #1.

http://www.turboace.com/

and do some Red Recon on these pilot test locations. Sheesh, first the Sony ‘puck box’ and now this. Seems to me, Sony's attacking on two fronts now.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I guess archival prints are then more prone to degradation than ‘non-archival’ prints because the former have a minimum run policy. Page – you missed the point of the post.

I didn't miss no point, they limit the use of archival prints as very few people will treat the print correctly. For some movies, a new print will never be made so preservation is important. Ideally you would want to run an archival print reel to reel, this is best possible way, however, not too many theatres are capable of running reel to reel. Completely destroying a film print is very easy to do, building up the print and using a platter method can increase the risk of damage.

Also, an archival print not more prone to degradation than a brand new print...the same principals apply.

Have you ever run a 35mm projector?

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Beard was either wrong or playing some dangerous marketspeak. .

So,

1. DTS states "6 track" on the disc

2. The manual claims it is 6 tracks..

3. The president of DTS says it is 6 tracks...

Yet, YOU claim it is not, and YOU source WIKI....

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

So,

1. DTS states "6 track" on the disc

2. The manual claims it is 6 tracks..

3. The president of DTS says it is 6 tracks...

Yet, YOU claim it is not, and YOU source WIKI....

And several other sources which you ignored.

So shut up about it.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

And several other sources which you ignored.

So shut up about it.

Isn't this thread slightly off-topic?

[saprano]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It's not crazy. Crazy is ignoring technological advances and claiming something isn't as good or will never be good, yet the industry as a whole has seen fit to switch to it. You dodged the question about audio the same way those audiophiles of the 80s did.

Digital is not an advancement over film. No way. Again, where is the digital replacement for 70mm? And even if they do come up with one it's still going to have that cartoon flat digital image.

The industry switching to digital doesn't mean it's better. There only doing this save money.

Apples and oranges comparing 2 different movies with 2 different directors and cinematographers. Besides, how was the 3D quality of Spider-Man 3? Oh, that's right...

No it isn't apple and oranges. I'm comparing the look of digital (soft, flat, TV look, no dimensionality) to film (organic, realistic texture, tons of dimensionality).

No cinematographer and digital tinkering will make films superior qualities into digital. Yes that includes Skyfall which i said had the closest film look i've seen. It still falls short to 35mm and especially 70mm.

And did you really bring up 3D????? Nah, i repeat, you're not that crazy.

How much is actually shot in native IMAX each year?

Now who's dodging questions.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by saprano

Digital is not an advancement over film. No way. Again, where is the digital replacement for 70mm? And even if they do come up with one it's still going to have that cartoon flat digital image.
.

I will agree with you, digital is not an advancement over film, I will say that shooting digital has met a quality that does make it comparable. The other end of the equation is that of the exhibition, digital presentation are good but 35mm is still superior.

One of the worse things that digital has introduced is the reversal of the scope and 1.85 image, digital now needs the image to be shot in 16x9 to take advance of the whole sensor, without shooting in 16x9, a presentation will not be projected in full 1080p for a scope image.

With 35mm, scope used to use the whole film frame and when projection it would use the whole film image as well, this changed with digital.

Also, digital is not capable of capturing and then reproducing the number of colors that film can, this is one of the most significant limitations of digital...

But you are 100%, digital is not a advancement, it is simply a much cheaper alternative...

Originally Posted by saprano

No it isn't apple and oranges. I'm comparing the look of digital (soft, flat, TV look, no dimensionality) to film (organic, realistic texture, tons of dimensionality).
.

For me, I don't really care if the movie is shot in digital anymore, however I would like to see it in projected witht film, the problem is that most movie theatres do not handle film correctly and most film presentations are sub par from the lack of maintenance that generally I would seek out a digital movie as you never know what you might get from the big cinema chains with 35mm

What is significant is that, a number of films over that last few years have won Cinematography Oscars and were shot in digital, and there were a number of movies also nominated for that were shot in digital....Digital has allowed the cinematographer to take many more risks..

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

I didn't miss no point...

The point is, in the end, it is the final result that matters. Common practice in the theatrical exhibition business proves PeterTHX’s point on the previous page essentially that film degrades with handling and running it through a projector….which is why places (not just like U.C.L.A.) have minimum run policies.

Enough.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Isn't this thread slightly off-topic?

Stee, at least people here aren’t peeing in jars…“He actually left jars of urine on the set, just like over in the corner and stuff. He would go off and he would pee and then he would bring it back, and it seemed like a form of protest." -

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...s-8508257.html

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

No cinematographer and digital tinkering will make films superior qualities into digital. Yes that includes Skyfall which i said had the closest film look i've seen. It still falls short to 35mm...

This is where I don’t share your sentiments. I’m a bit more optimistic , plus, not to mention the fact, try mounting a typical cinema-grade 35mm film camera with a 400 ft. mag on that Octocopter which I posted previously.

On the contrary Sap, I think/hope that a combination of improved sensor technology and tweaking RAW images with curves during the color grade will eventually improve to the point of at least simulating the organic look (logarithmic color space) of film.

You posted a lot of comparison screenshots for Peter THX to examine on the last page, but for some perspective it might be good to keep in mind how far digital has come in such a relatively short time….compare images of Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) shot with a Sony CineAlta HDW-F900 to Drive (2011) , shot primarily with an Arri Alexa –
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...818&position=9

Anyway Sap…Sony, vis-à-vis Amazon, is calling for you in a new ad….
http://www.amazon.com/gp/mpd/permali...7&linkCode=ur2

Or, “Don’t have extra change in your piggy bank? Well, you’re in luck. We’re (Sony Electronics) giving away one Sony 4K Ultra HD TV 55”class (model XBR-55X900A). Yep – you heard that right!”…. https://blog.sony.com/2013/04/4k-twitter-sweepstakes/

[Penton-Man]

Soccer fan-atics ”The test paves the way for further HEVC-based transmissions, notably at the Upcoming World Cup tournament in Brazil next summer”
http://broadcastengineering.com/sate...ion-successful

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

running it through a projector….

Not at all true.....the cause of damage to a film print is not generally from the projector, it usually happens when you use a platter on both payout as well as rewind or when making up films....

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The point is, in the end, it is the final result that matters. Common practice in the theatrical exhibition business proves PeterTHX’s point on the previous page essentially that film degrades with handling and running it through a projector….which is why places (not just like U.C.L.A.) have minimum run policies.

Enough.

Not if film is handled correctly, and that is what you are missing. It is only the last 20 years that we have seen such disgusting presentation of film. I can easily shown a digital presentation wiht a worn projector bulb and dirty lense or port glass, granted the source of digital does not degrade, but you can still mess digital up...there are a few places to see good film presentation and the link you sent me clearly points out what I have been saying, the archival prints are not allowed to be spliced together or built up, the must be run reel to reel....this is all done so the "chance" of messing it up will be minimized, but PeterTHX incorrectly gives the impression (like he has with DTS not being 6 tracks) that film will degrade each and every time and that is not the case, he even stated that film can't be run more than 200 times without damage....again not true.

Not sure how old you are, but if you have seen 35mm film projected correctly (over 20 years ago) without the poor handling that we see today, you might agree that film is a far superior medium and does not degrade if handled correctly. Film does not scratch or get dirty with proper handling and care..

Have you even projected 35mm film?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

One of the worse things that digital has introduced is the reversal of the scope and 1.85 image, digital now needs the image to be shot in 16x9 to take advance of the whole sensor, without shooting in 16x9, a presentation will not be projected in full 1080p for a scope image.

No different from Super35 (the majority of 2.4 presentations) where nearly half the negative area is exposed and then lopped off for release prints.

There are anamorphic digital productions now too: Total Recall is one.

Also, digital is not capable of capturing and then reproducing the number of colors that film can, this is one of the most significant limitations of digital...

4:4:4 resolves BILLIONS of colors. Once they switch to 48-bit color we're talking trillions. People act like they will never continue to refine and advance digital capture methods.

Not if film is handled correctly, and that is what you are missing. It is only the last 20 years that we have seen such disgusting presentation of film.

I can remember horrible presentations in the 1970s.

this is all done so the "chance" of messing it up will be minimized, but PeterTHX incorrectly gives the impression (like he has with DTS not being 6 tracks) that film will degrade each and every time and that is not the case, he even stated that film can't be run more than 200 times without damage....again not true.

Look at the post again. I was talking about your average 35MM print run in your average theater. By the way: film can be damaged when being spliced together to be put on the platter...that's not even ONE run. The thing is, you can run a digital presentation millions of times without degradation, which is IMPOSSIBLE with film. (And Dolby Stereo literature says they're 4 channel, are you going to ignore that it's only 2 tracks too?)

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by saprano

Digital is not an advancement over film. No way. Again, where is the digital replacement for 70mm? And even if they do come up with one it's still going to have that cartoon flat digital image

YOU thinking it's flat doesn't make it so. At my presentation of Revenge of the Sith, made with relatively primitive cameras compared to today, the image had a near-3D quality to it.

No it isn't apple and oranges. I'm comparing the look of digital (soft, flat, TV look, no dimensionality) to film (organic, realistic texture, tons of dimensionality).

Also seen plenty of ugly films, flat, colorless, dirty. And I didn't see you just ignore the fact that a lot of TV is shot on film too.

No cinematographer and digital tinkering will make films superior qualities into digital. Yes that includes Skyfall which i said had the closest film look i've seen. It still falls short to 35mm and especially 70mm.

Again, don't pretend there won't be advancements in digital. In the past 10 years digital has made huge leaps in quality that even experienced cinematographers who also swore digital wasn't good enough are taking a hard look.

Now who's dodging questions.

You are dodging the question: you keep harping on 70MM yet the amount of material actually shot in 70MM is miniscule. And if you don't think 8K digital is in the works...

[Brightstar]

Oblivion was shot in 4k sounds cool