... just wondered if it was simply some sort of anti-digital knee-jerk reaction.
That's a red herring. Totally unrelated to the subject here
If I want to see a feature film, there's no point going to a theater that projects it using current, inferior digital technology. I can watch it at home on my 1080p lcd television with much better image quality.
That's a red herring. Totally unrelated to the subject here.
No knee-jerk reaction. In an emergency situation, I couldn't care less what x-ray technology might be employed to diagnose a problem. I've no idea how digital x-ray performance compares to film. It's just not relevant to motion picture projection.... just wondered if it was simply some sort of anti-digital knee-jerk reaction.
Stone,
try Woody's Midnight in Paris or To Rome with Love as 35mm and as D-cinema if available around You.
Georg
Stone:How would that ever happen, I live on Fairfield County, CT near NYC ... I would have to travel to the Midwest to find a theater playing old movies like that in some quaint town. Nothing like that around here.
~Stone
The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I recently saw Lincoln in the theater at a local smaller venue that just barely transitioned to digital. I was probably one of the few people who paid attention but the picture quality was noticeably diminished. For those who have seen this film, there are multiple scenes in dimly lit rooms and under the digital projection the dark areas fall to black very drastically. It was almost like watching a laptop screen from an off angle.
It bummed me out.
Between this, the large crowds, the bad food, and the 40 minutes worth of trailers I must endure for movies I have no interest in I have very little reason to go to the theater anymore. Heck, I only have to wait a month or two now before the film is available through netflix or my local library. I used to love the theater experience but it feels like movie theaters are going out of their way at this point to make the whole thing miserable.
And don't even get me started on 3-D. I have only seen two films in 3-D and in both cases the picture was so dim I had to strain to see what I was looking at. Add to this the fact that 3-D makes me feel ill after about 20 minutes and you won't see me shelling out extra for a 3-D movie anytime in the near future.
Film studios have been complaining for a couple years now that box office revenues are falling. As far as I'm concerned they are only hurting themselves in the long run in their attempts to shave costs and increase revenue with "features" nobody really wants.
That's a red herring. Totally unrelated to the subject here.
If I want to see a feature film, there's no point going to a theater that projects it using current, inferior digital technology. I can watch it at home on my 1080p lcd television with much better image quality. Had the theaters waited another, who knows, 3-5 years, so large screen projection technology might catch up, then perhaps my attitude would be different. They didn't and it isn't.
Possibly a red herring, or maybe food for thought. The emergency technician had better not email a lossy jpg to a radiologist for consultation. I can just see it now: "what is that funny four-leaf clover-shaped thing inside his lung. oh yea jpg compression artifact". It's an absurd statement. I know the lossless medical image standards (DCOM) will ensure that won't happen.
Sal, I get what you're saying. My logic for sticking with film draws from a similar sentiment, the 'alternative to film isn't good enough for me'. Lately, I've been feeling that 'although there is an alternative that is pretty good, film always worked, has always been great and has never been better'. I feel we're at an apex and am very pleased to be making the best of film, at a time when its replacement is certainly more convenient but I may argue it is not better.
p.s. I work for Kodak but the opinions and positions I take are my own and not necessarily those of EKC.
How would that ever happen, I live on Fairfield County, CT near NYC ... I would have to travel to the Midwest to find a theater playing old movies like that in some quaint town. Nothing like that around here.
Stone:
The New York crowd here can correct me, but I would be surprised if there are no theatres left in the area who are not capable of showing older/foreign/limited distribution films.
I disagree with that one entirely, the digital projection is certainly better than the 1080p, it's 4k which is twice 1080 and LCD's have a terrible trailing effect, it's much worse than digital projection...
~Stone
The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe but I'm not spending $30 train ticket or $60 gas and tolls to pay $16 to see an old movie in a NY cinema... Lol
My GF (The Doctor at Yale with a double MD hehe) says the digital x-rays are 10 times better than the old ones, for many reasons, one is image quality and ability to easily zoom into an area to more clearly see, second is speed, not waiting for development nor some intern to bring it up from radiology or another department if the patient has multiple things going on... She just pulls it up on any computer anywhere in the hospital. Heck I think she can pull it up at home...
I thought you work in NYC, so I figured you probably spend some time there after work on occasion.
Rise and decay time artifacts associated with LCD "glass" vary widely from one product to another. I referred to "my" TV, which was selected with that parameter (among others) in mind. There is no "trailing effect" visible at all. I'm very attuned to these things, having spent a career dealing with commercial aircraft cockpit displays and flight simulator visual systems....LCD's have a terrible trailing effect, it's much worse than digital projection...
I went out to see the HFR (High Frame Rate) presentation of the "Hobbit" in 3D and Imax. The movie is projected at 48 frames per second, which can be done with the new digital cameras/projectors. This was positively the worst motion picture image I have ever seen for a newly released major motion picture. It looked like a videotape of a television studio production. EVERY INTERIOR SET LOOKED ARTIFICIALLY LIT! You could see the make-up on all the actors and all the colors were unsatisfying; thin. This will kill off HFR for the time being.
By contrast, the best motion picture color image I have seen in the last few years was a showing of a nitrate Technicolor dye-transfer 35mm print of a 1944 US Army film about the WACs (Women's Army Corps) made to encourage enlistment in WWII. This showed thousands of people and all the faces looked beautiful. Only dye-transfer Technicolor could make actors look younger and thinner. Most cinemas are not licensed to show nitrate and the surviving prints are rare, so few people on Earth can really say they know what these DT prints look like. I believe they are the finest moving color image process.
I know that there are a lot of EK loyalists out there, but Kodak has never produced a color image as good. But remember, Technicolor used EK black and white film stock for image acquisition; used EK manufactured matrices for the dye-transfer process; and imbibed the dyes onto EK release print stock. So Technicolor was actually an offshoot of EK products.
Digital motion pictures are like electric guitars compared to classical violins.
Man you make my mouth water the way you describe the nitrite... Mmm haha
~Stone
Please note that as described by falotico, the film base was nitrate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_base )
But of course, nitrite is used in processed meats - that's probably why your mouth is watering.
.. I think the only place to see The Dark Knight Rises in 70mm IMAX in the city was a commercial theater near Lincoln Center.
Dead Link RemovedOut of the 100 or so Imax prints that were made, a limited number were show prints struck from original Imax camera negative, says David Hall. Those prints are showing in Imax venues in select cities, including Los Angeles, New York and London. Chris very much likes to see an original camera negative printed to film, he notes. Theres nothing quite like it. Digital technology has certainly come a long way, but a print from a DI never looks quite the same.
Anybody who sees an original-negative print of a film shot in Imax is looking at the best image quality available to filmmakers today, Nolan observes. As long as any new technology is required to measure up to that, I think film has to remain the future.
Pfister concurs, adding, An artist has to be open to new technology, but my argument is, Dont make this equipment obsolete for the wrong reasons, because this format really is superior to anything else out there.
A good read.
Dead Link Removed
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?