|
|
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals » |
Top deals |
New deals
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() $45.00 1 hr ago
| ![]() $82.99 1 day ago
| ![]() $74.99 | ![]() $22.95 14 hrs ago
| ![]() $26.59 1 hr ago
| ![]() $27.99 9 hrs ago
| ![]() $41.99 6 hrs ago
| ![]() $20.99 1 hr ago
| ![]() $101.99 1 day ago
| ![]() $34.99 11 hrs ago
| ![]() $7.00 4 hrs ago
| ![]() $19.96 8 hrs ago
|
![]() |
#11701 |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]()
... which might explain the immediate subsequent return to Moviola.
![]() I had a restless need to get a Spielberg dig in there, somewhere, despite my defense of his practice. Thanks for providing the opportunity, Jeff. ![]() |
![]() |
#11702 | |
Power Member
|
![]() Quote:
Even with a 4K DI source, I'm sure more than a few film-based theaters with less than optimal projection would be would be showing an image with less than 2K worth of spatial resolution. But why punish theaters who show film done right by cooking a 2K limit into the print itself? Any movie project using digital intermediate in the post production process ends up with the digital intermediate being the real "master print." If the finished product is merely 2K, I'm not going to feel inclined to see the movie in a film-based theater. Not even 15/70 IMAX. I think it's a waste of time. There's only so many native pixels in that finished image. And I'll see pretty much all of them in a standard 2K d-cinema theater or even at home on Blu-ray. |
|
![]() |
#11703 | |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]() Quote:
Seriously, it's gotta be a handful of 35mm theatres that can beat a 2K projector for viewable pixels. And while I will never argue against assuming the best and shooting for the moon, I think there's much to be said for considering the practical realities of the marketplace and weighing them against diminishing returns. Even a print made from a 2K DI (which, I agree with you, needs to be relegated to the past, ASAP) is going to present greater spatial resolution than probably a majority of pre-digital release prints (again, before the shaky projection gate makes it all moot, anyway). Last edited by Doctorossi; 12-29-2009 at 05:25 PM. |
|
![]() |
#11704 | |
Retired Hollywood Insider
Apr 2007
|
![]() Quote:
Well, the theater they are speaking of (UltraStar Cinema) in the piece is located in the Mission Valley area near San Diego and is currently showing (feeling, I guess would be also applicable in this case) Sherlock Holmes with this technology. If anyone decides to attend let us know about the experience. Other locations in North America per the D-BOX press release from this month are as follows: Santikos Theatres Silverado 19 in Tomball, Texas; Wehrenberg Theatres Ronnies 20 Cine in St. Louis,Missouri; Emagine Entertainment’s Canton Theatre in Canton, Michigan; Emagine Entertainment’s Cinema Hollywood Theatre in Birch Run, Michigan; Cinéma Beloeil, in Beloeil Quebec; Cineplex Odeon Queensway Theatre in Etobicoke, Ontario; Mann Chinese 6 Theatre in Los Angeles, California; Theatres at Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota; Galaxy at the Cannery in Las Vegas, Nevada; Galaxy Highland Theatre in Austin, Texas; UltraStar Cinemas in Surprise, Arizona; and UltraStar Apple Valley in San Bernardino, California. P.S. I don’t know if it would be a good idea though to completely outfit a theater in Calif. with only these D-BOX seats because if there was an earthquake during the presentation, I guess there’s a chance that nobody in the audience would recognize the event and thusly not even attempt to duck for cover. Of course, from personal experience, if you’re doing the wild thing early in the morning, you’ll also completely miss ![]() http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northridge_earthquake Last edited by Penton-Man; 12-29-2009 at 05:38 PM. Reason: added a P.S. |
|
![]() |
#11705 | |
Senior Member
|
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
#11706 | |
Banned
Feb 2009
Toronto
|
![]() Quote:
I have can only assume that the workflow for DI involves scanning either a cut neg (doubt it), or scanning each relevant reel and a consolidation based on EDL only done at Scanning output. But, then again, I've only stepped foot in Technicolour here in Toronto for a screening, never for a full DI. ![]() And, yeah, I'm again with you... Frankly, we'd have fewer Michael Bays without digital editing allowing for patently rediculous overcutting, and the "analogue" nature of the steenbeck/moviola would result, hypothetically, in a different editing style. As per good old Murch, remember, he likes to -stand- while cutting, and uses his spacebar as his main cut too (play clip, hit space, and if he does it on the same frame twice in a row, he makes a cut there... there's footage of this on the edting doc on the Bullet BD, as I'm sure you lot know...) And yeah, Doc, my 'crazypants' wasn't meant entirely to be an epithet... Yet, in the end, know of any sound designers still doing filmwork where they're cutting tape? Last edited by sharkshark; 12-29-2009 at 09:12 PM. |
|
![]() |
#11707 | |
Banned
Feb 2009
Toronto
|
![]()
Sorry, Penton, we were talking about film editing, not rumble seats...
![]() Haven't been yet to the local one (Etobicoke is the West end of Toronto...), but had a friend see both 2012 and SH in D-Box. SH was aparently disapointingly shakey, but aparently for 2012 it made for some amusing times. And, no, I know of nobody rediculous enough to do this at home... I mean, are there really no other upgrades you can make to your Home Theatre before investing in ass vibrators and shaky platforms? Quote:
|
|
![]() |
#11710 | |
Blu-ray Count
Jul 2007
Montreal, Canada
|
![]() Quote:
let me explain why with a fictional (and possibly slightlty exagerated example) Lets say something is shot on film and it is the equivalent of 8k, it then goes through the normal "film" process and gets projected in the theatre where it is the equivalent of 2k. How did it go from 8 to 2? some of the detail is lost by making copies (going from negative to positive or positive to negative), some is lost due to cheaper film stock used for projection, some is lost due to the projectioning set-up(screen, lens, focus....). Now let's say I go back to the start and the 8k print, I go through a DI for editing and it is now 2K, but that 2K print will be printed on film and go through all the exact same steps of the previous example. Now the effect won't be as bad, 2k won't go 6k less or even 3/4 less to .5k but it will soften it and so your 2k could end up showing at an equivalent 1.7k. On the other hand if we stay digital (for the sake of argument shown on a digital 2k projector) then it stays 2K but the "theatre" set-up will be similar, how good is the screen, what is the uniformity of the lens, how well it is focused. At my home, even though I have an LCOS projector, I can see each pixel (and even then the focus is not perfect) in theatres, when they have the DLP projectors, I can tell because I get a headache and feel "uncomfortable" (would not call it nauseous, but a bit like that),but even though I know it is a DLP (which tends to have larger space then LCoS between pixels)and the image is much bigger, no matter how close I go, the pixel structure cannot be seen. That does not mean that real detail is lost, but it could (especially when we all agree how badly they focus film projectors) |
|
![]() |
#11711 |
Blu-ray Count
Jul 2007
Montreal, Canada
|
![]()
can't talk for Bobby, but slightly improved top end (or improved start to be more precise). It is all that matters. Let me ask you this, let's say in a few years we get a new home format that is 2160p if the DI was 2K what will it mean for what it will look like? let's say a few years back they used a DI that was close to 720p because 720p was more then good enough for DVD, what would we be getting today on BD? Yes maybe the theatres can't show it as well as we do now, yes BD is limited to 1080p, but movies are for ever. Some of my BDs go back to the 40's, long before I was borne. Why limit ourselves to small improvement in the top end now when in the future that choice will be big improvement at any end when we don't need to?
|
![]() |
#11712 |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]()
I see where you're going, Anthony, but I don't agree with the math you use to get there.
If we're talking about a typical 35mm production, we're looking at vaguely 4K available in the exposure, at best (plus or minus, depending on a million variables). If we make a print-master from the cut negative and print off of that (ignoring any opticals), we're two generations away from the neg and we've lost some resolution each time. What's left (in this idealized scenario, probably a little more than 2K) goes into the projector, where it copes with a wobbly gate. Meanwhile, if we take that same negative and DI it at 2K, we can put that 2K pretty much straight onto the screen (focus of the film and digital projectors being essentially equal for the sake of argument). Now, while your best-case film print may be putting a little more than 2K onto the screen, it's doing so within the loosey-goosey tolerances of that commercial projector gate. Meanwhile, the digital projector, at a consistent 2K (depending on photography, of course), is throwing those pixels with dead-on precision. The result is greater visible/usable resolution. |
![]() |
#11713 | |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]() Quote:
As for DIs, I prefer a visual-acuity-centric approach to a media-centric one and advocate scanning to 1.2K per 10 degrees of intended image width. ![]() |
|
![]() |
#11714 | |
Blu-ray Count
Jul 2007
Montreal, Canada
|
![]() Quote:
On the other hand (since the discussion was to DI or not DI for film presentations -no choice for digital presentations) why not have the best possible for film presentations. If you DI at 2K then that is the max the theatrical presentation can be even for film projection. And like I said before it also limits you in the future. |
|
![]() |
#11715 |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]()
I think you're misunderstanding the discussion point. It wasn't about 'to DI or not to DI' or at what resolution to DI (I think we are all in agreement with the higher-the-better principle); it was about the relative benefits of film versus digital projection as an end-product.
A by-product of this discussion may be the impression that I prefer digital projection, which is not (often) the case. My point is just that, for most theatrical feature presentations, digital provides more viewable spatial resolution than does 35mm film. Spatial resolution is, of course, not the only criterion of interest to me. |
![]() |
#11716 | |
Power Member
|
![]() Quote:
Do you really, honestly think 35mm release prints are capable of only less than HDTV quality resolution? I disagree with that absolutely. If the source material is of high enough quality a 35mm print will trounce 2K digital, especially in a theater showing film done right. Also, that sort of statement doesn't make any sense when earlier you said a 35mm film presentation of 2K material would provide better contrast than a D-cinema show. That's at least sort of contradictory. Any movie studio choosing to go with 2K just because some multiplex theaters are goofing up film projection shows is a blatant invitation for any movie-goer to just stay at home and watch movies on TV. If I'm going to go with the notion that commercial theaters can't do the job right, why should I bother watching the movie at all until it appears on HBO? The movie industry needs to get its collective head out of the deep recesses of its collective rear ends and start paying attention to how its product is displayed on the theatrical end. If the movie industry cannot summon the will to do this then they will be done in by the ordinary television industry eventually. Right now Hollywood movie distributors only seem fit to keep commercial movie theater businesses teetering on the brink on bankruptcy. They don't seem to realize those commercial movie theaters they love to abuse are the lone thing keeping them in business. What are they going to do without the theaters? Try to market their movie product to HBO, NBC, CBS, etc.? Good luck on that!! |
|
![]() |
#11717 | ||||
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]() Quote:
I'm disagreeing with your assertion that commercially-screened 35mm release prints provide increased spatial resolution. I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that they can provide a better viewing experience. Quote:
I would pose that not many real-world 35mm release prints carry notably more than 2K in the celluloid. Factor in getting that info onto the screen, viewable, and we're describing the cinema-going experience of a lucky very few. Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, to reiterate, I agree that a good 35mm film presentation can produce a better experience than a 2K digital projection. Generally, I prefer the film print. However, this is because of contrast, as I think that even in the best of circumstances, the difference in spatial resolution between what you actually see on the screen with 35mm film and with a 2K projection is negligible. |
||||
![]() |
#11718 |
Banned
Feb 2009
Toronto
|
![]()
heh, Bobby, you should read the Doctor's posts more carefully. He's a nuanced guy...
![]() Anyhoo, if I may re-butt in again, Doc, what's being overlooked is that resolution is hardly ever of consequence (how many sit too far back in a theatre to begin with?), yet the differences in colour representation between some digital and film presentations are for many clear. When was the last time you saw a digital presentation that fooled you into thinking it was actually projected film, or vice versa? Was this strictly because of image stability or percieved resolution, or is it that the subtle differences in colour representation twig the educated viewer to see the distinguishing characteristics. If this may be granted, then, again, the DI output to film versus DI > existing digital projection systems lacks the sense of irony that at first blush seems to hold. Obviously there's nobody here that would argue that at the capture stage there's a digital technology that's identical to any given film aquisition. In fact, that link that Penton provided a few weeks back where they tested the various rigs shows that these differences are real, and the whole point was to demonstrate clearly the differences so that they could be exploited creatively. Thus, in the end, QT prefers the look of light shining through film stock over digital projection, and as I said before, I'm not sure for his type of films that many would make the contrary position, given the obvious caveats regarding the care required for a top notch cinematic presentation (analogue or otherwise). |
![]() |
#11719 | |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]() Quote:
I hesitate to put any disgustingly finer point on it, as this is all anecdotal, unscientific (though somewhat scientifically-informed) and deeply subjective. Meanwhile, no need to 'butt in', shark. Surely to the chagrin of some, this remains a public discussion. ![]() |
|
![]() |
#11720 | |
Retired Hollywood Insider
Apr 2007
|
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||
thread | Forum | Thread Starter | Replies | Last Post |
Ask questions to Compression Engineer insider "drmpeg" | Insider Discussion | iceman | 145 | 01-31-2024 04:00 PM |
Ask questions to Blu-ray Music insider "Alexander J" | Insider Discussion | iceman | 280 | 07-04-2011 06:18 PM |
Ask questions to Sony Pictures Entertainment insider "paidgeek" | Insider Discussion | iceman | 958 | 04-06-2008 05:48 PM |
Ask questions to Sony Computer Entertainment insider "SCE Insider" | Insider Discussion | Ben | 13 | 01-21-2008 09:45 PM |
UK gets "Kill Bill" 1&2, "Pulp Fiction", "Beowulf", "Jesse James", and more in March? | Blu-ray Movies - North America | JBlacklow | 21 | 12-07-2007 11:05 AM |
|
|