FILM 90% OBSOLETE? <cope@ca.inter.net> <mwsm@panix.com>

FILM 90% OBSOLETE?

Forwarded message from MC "Matthew Cope" <> <>

[ Subject: Film 90% Obsolete?
[ From: MC <> <>
[ Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005

Cinemas set for digital revolution

Cinema is the last major entertainment industry yet to
embrace the digital revolution, with movies still shot
and displayed on celluloid film, but technology is
finally set to change it.

In most cinemas today, huge machines spin spools of 35mm
film, projecting the image on silver screen, more or less
the way films have been exhibited since the birth of
cinema in the late 19th Century. The digital revolution,
which has long since swept the music and home video
markets, is coming, and is expected to have a huge impact
on the film industry.

"The way that films are made, produced and distributed is
changing almost beyond recognition," Chris Atkins, a
London-based film producer, told BBC World Service's
Analysis programme.

"It's quite similar to the revolution that happened in
the music industry about 15 years ago, when people
stopped recording everything on quarter-inch tape and
releasing it vinyl; everything got recorded to a hard
disk and released on CD."

Question of warmth

Mr Atkins explained that for producers, there are two
reasons why cinema remains the last vestige of analogue
technology.

First, the data storage needed to hold just one frame of
cinema image is huge, and only recently computer
technology has advanced to be able to hold these vast
amounts of data.

Also, there a "very romanticised love of film - the
actual celluloid stuff itself - in the film industry."
This has caused "a lot of people to put the brakes on
technology, and stop that technology moving forward".

Atkins' latest film, A Woman In White, directed by
Richard Jobson, was shot digitally on High-Definition
(HD) video.

The format was pioneered by Star Wars director George
Lucas, and its champions argue it is the first digital
format that truly replicates traditional film - and at a
fraction of the cost.

Jobson shot over 100 hours of material digitally. Atkins
said the movie's entire $2m budget would have been
swallowed up by physical film if he had used it,
something he said happened frequently in the 1980s and
1990s.

"Good actors cost money. One of the reasons we've done
reasonably well is we've saved money on the budget by
going digital, and spent that money on more expensive and
better actors," he added.

Film critics are divided in their views of how digital
film looks on screen, however.

While some contend that it lacks warmth, others say it
looks more beautiful.

Paul Brett, a former head of exhibition and distribution
at the British Film Institute (BFI), pointed out that a
strip of celluloid has black bars dividing each frame.

Digital film does not have these and, as a result, "in
layman's terms, it's 15 percent brighter."

"It just pops off the screen at you in a luminescent
fashion."

Piracy fears

At the start of 2005, there were around 300 cinemas in
the world with digital projectors. By January 2006, it
will be 2,000, and this is anticipated to grow
exponentially into the future.

Producers embrace this, pointing out that currently even
digitally-shot film then has to be put onto 35mm prints
for screening, which, Atkins said, is "weight for weight
as expensive as gold."

A celluloid print run costs around £100,000, while for a
digital distribution the cost could be cut to one-
hundredth of that, around £1,000.

In the UK alone, 200 digital projectors are being
installed this year by the UK Film Council, which argues
it will give the public access to a wider variety of
films.

But the UK Film Council is funded by public money, and
their move indicates how cinemas have been slow to adapt
to the digital revolution. The BFI's Paul Brett said this
was with good reason. While digital filming cuts the
distributors' costs, it does nothing for the cinema
chains. Indeed, it could be more expensive.

"They don't get any benefit from it," he said.

"And to make it a double whammy, the cinema has to pay
for all of this equipment and then upgrade it roughly
every three years."

And fears of how easy it could be to pirate digital films
has also been responsible for the slow uptake, in
particular where Hollywood is concerned. "There's a huge,
unspoken fear in Hollywood about digital," Brett said.
"Once you've got digital, it's very easy to replicate.

"It's difficult to take six cans of film and put it onto
a videotape.

It's an elaborate process that takes skill and care, and
is difficult to hide.

"The whole thing about digital piracy is that it just
looks like you're playing with your recorder at home.
It's very easy to hide, and the duplication is very easy
to do and distribute.

"So any major leap forward in this field is going to be
accompanied by belt-and-braces determination to ensure
the copyright is protected as far as is humanly
possible."

Celluloid nostalgia

For the directors themselves, the coming of the digital
revolution is a mixed blessing.

Indian film director Karan Razdan is highly enthusiastic.
He told Analysis, "it's going to bring about a sea change
in the subjects, budgeting, and quality of cinema."

"The budget coming down means that you're going to have
more experimentation with stories. That kind of
experimentation is definitely going to bring about a big
change." he added.

Razdan also said it will become much easier to shoot
films, and that in itself would save more money, as the
amount of time needed to make a film could be reduced.

But acclaimed British director Shane Meadows confessed to
being "nostalgic" about celluloid.

He said that while "film will always exist," it will
become "80 or 90% obsolete."

"There will still be some people that won't use anything
else," he added. "There is a certain nostalgia that goes
with film. But like everything nowadays, we can't help
ourselves, and we always want the most modern version of
whatever's available."

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...gy/4681859.stm

Published: 2005/07/14 11:13:19 GMT

BBC MMV

End of forwarded message from MC "Matthew Cope" <> <>

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.

Dr. Jai Maharaj

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:23:19 GMT, (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
wrote:

>FILM 90% OBSOLETE?
>
>Forwarded message from MC "Matthew Cope" <> <>
>
>[ Subject: Film 90% Obsolete?
>[ From: MC <> <>
>[ Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005
>
>Cinemas set for digital revolution
>
>Cinema is the last major entertainment industry yet to
>embrace the digital revolution, with movies still shot
>and displayed on celluloid film, but technology is
>finally set to change it.
>
>In most cinemas today, huge machines spin spools of 35mm
>film, projecting the image on silver screen, more or less
>the way films have been exhibited since the birth of
>cinema in the late 19th Century. The digital revolution,
>which has long since swept the music and home video
>markets, is coming, and is expected to have a huge impact
>on the film industry.
>
>"The way that films are made, produced and distributed is
>changing almost beyond recognition," Chris Atkins, a
>London-based film producer, told BBC World Service's
>Analysis programme.
>
>"It's quite similar to the revolution that happened in
>the music industry about 15 years ago, when people
>stopped recording everything on quarter-inch tape and
>releasing it vinyl; everything got recorded to a hard
>disk and released on CD."
>
>Question of warmth
>
>Mr Atkins explained that for producers, there are two
>reasons why cinema remains the last vestige of analogue
>technology.
>
>First, the data storage needed to hold just one frame of
>cinema image is huge, and only recently computer
>technology has advanced to be able to hold these vast
>amounts of data.
>
>Also, there a "very romanticised love of film - the
>actual celluloid stuff itself - in the film industry."
>This has caused "a lot of people to put the brakes on
>technology, and stop that technology moving forward".
>
>Atkins' latest film, A Woman In White, directed by
>Richard Jobson, was shot digitally on High-Definition
>(HD) video.
>
>The format was pioneered by Star Wars director George
>Lucas, and its champions argue it is the first digital
>format that truly replicates traditional film - and at a
>fraction of the cost.
>
>Jobson shot over 100 hours of material digitally. Atkins
>said the movie's entire $2m budget would have been
>swallowed up by physical film if he had used it,
>something he said happened frequently in the 1980s and
>1990s.
>
>"Good actors cost money. One of the reasons we've done
>reasonably well is we've saved money on the budget by
>going digital, and spent that money on more expensive and
>better actors," he added.
>
>Film critics are divided in their views of how digital
>film looks on screen, however.
>
>While some contend that it lacks warmth, others say it
>looks more beautiful.
>
>Paul Brett, a former head of exhibition and distribution
>at the British Film Institute (BFI), pointed out that a
>strip of celluloid has black bars dividing each frame.
>
>Digital film does not have these and, as a result, "in
>layman's terms, it's 15 percent brighter."
>
>"It just pops off the screen at you in a luminescent
>fashion."
>
>Piracy fears
>
>At the start of 2005, there were around 300 cinemas in
>the world with digital projectors. By January 2006, it
>will be 2,000, and this is anticipated to grow
>exponentially into the future.
>
>Producers embrace this, pointing out that currently even
>digitally-shot film then has to be put onto 35mm prints
>for screening, which, Atkins said, is "weight for weight
>as expensive as gold."
>
>A celluloid print run costs around £100,000, while for a
>digital distribution the cost could be cut to one-
>hundredth of that, around £1,000.
>
>In the UK alone, 200 digital projectors are being
>installed this year by the UK Film Council, which argues
>it will give the public access to a wider variety of
>films.
>
>But the UK Film Council is funded by public money, and
>their move indicates how cinemas have been slow to adapt
>to the digital revolution. The BFI's Paul Brett said this
>was with good reason. While digital filming cuts the
>distributors' costs, it does nothing for the cinema
>chains. Indeed, it could be more expensive.
>
>"They don't get any benefit from it," he said.
>
>"And to make it a double whammy, the cinema has to pay
>for all of this equipment and then upgrade it roughly
>every three years."
>
>And fears of how easy it could be to pirate digital films
>has also been responsible for the slow uptake, in
>particular where Hollywood is concerned. "There's a huge,
>unspoken fear in Hollywood about digital," Brett said.
>"Once you've got digital, it's very easy to replicate.
>
>"It's difficult to take six cans of film and put it onto
>a videotape.
>
>It's an elaborate process that takes skill and care, and
>is difficult to hide.
>
>"The whole thing about digital piracy is that it just
>looks like you're playing with your recorder at home.
>It's very easy to hide, and the duplication is very easy
>to do and distribute.
>
>"So any major leap forward in this field is going to be
>accompanied by belt-and-braces determination to ensure
>the copyright is protected as far as is humanly
>possible."
>
>Celluloid nostalgia
>
>For the directors themselves, the coming of the digital
>revolution is a mixed blessing.
>
>Indian film director Karan Razdan is highly enthusiastic.
>He told Analysis, "it's going to bring about a sea change
>in the subjects, budgeting, and quality of cinema."
>
>"The budget coming down means that you're going to have
>more experimentation with stories. That kind of
>experimentation is definitely going to bring about a big
>change." he added.
>
>Razdan also said it will become much easier to shoot
>films, and that in itself would save more money, as the
>amount of time needed to make a film could be reduced.
>
>But acclaimed British director Shane Meadows confessed to
>being "nostalgic" about celluloid.
>
>He said that while "film will always exist," it will
>become "80 or 90% obsolete."
>
>"There will still be some people that won't use anything
>else," he added. "There is a certain nostalgia that goes
>with film. But like everything nowadays, we can't help
>ourselves, and we always want the most modern version of
>whatever's available."
>
>Story from BBC NEWS:
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...gy/4681859.stm
>
>Published: 2005/07/14 11:13:19 GMT
This should have happened five years ago.
People in the photographic community have argued that it wasn't until
digital still cameras reached about 5 megapixels in size that they
could do a reasonable job replicating film. In fact, digital has
surpassed film now, with much greater dynamic range and resolution,
in the 35mm size. However, moving images do not need this much
resolution. If you ever look at a 35mm film frame that has any
movement happening, it looks blurred. It's the stringing together of
many frames that appears to make the image sharp. Because of this,
lower resolutions (1-2m) are all that is needed to duplicate and
surpass 35mm film for projection.
-Rich

RichA

In article <>,
RichA <> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:23:19 GMT, (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
>wrote:

[Much of the original post snipped - wjv]
>
>>FILM 90% OBSOLETE?

>>Forwarded message from MC "Matthew Cope" <> <>
>>
>>[ Subject: Film 90% Obsolete?
>>[ From: MC <> <>
>>[ Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005

>>Cinemas set for digital revolution
>>
>>Cinema is the last major entertainment industry yet to
>>embrace the digital revolution, with movies still shot
>>and displayed on celluloid film, but technology is
>>finally set to change it.

....

>>Paul Brett, a former head of exhibition and distribution
>>at the British Film Institute (BFI), pointed out that a
>>strip of celluloid has black bars dividing each frame.

>>Digital film does not have these and, as a result, "in
>>layman's terms, it's 15 percent brighter."

That is a bogus argument. Whomever made that statement doesn't
realize you can't compare like that.

>>"It just pops off the screen at you in a luminescent
>>fashion."
....

>>Story from BBC NEWS:

>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...gy/4681859.stm

>>Published: 2005/07/14 11:13:19 GMT

>This should have happened five years ago. People in the
>photographic community have argued that it wasn't until digital
>still cameras reached about 5 megapixels in size that they
>could do a reasonable job replicating film. In fact, digital
>has surpassed film now, with much greater dynamic range and
>resolution, in the 35mm size. However, moving images do not need
>this much resolution. If you ever look at a 35mm film frame that
>has any movement happening, it looks blurred. It's the stringing
>together of many frames that appears to make the image sharp.

Actually you can change the shutter speed independent of film rate
and the individual pictures will be quite sharp. However when
projected the film looks jerky, so you have to be careful as to
how fast you set the shutter to retain the flow.

>Because of this, lower resolutions (1-2m) are all that is needed
>to duplicate and surpass 35mm film for projection.

Not true. Have you seen Collateral. That film is gorgeous - shot
completely digital and transfered to film for projection. The
prints didn't look like the typical film with no grain apparent.

The pin-point colors in the black sky still stayed with the proper
color. And you would have never done that with only 2K digital.

Collateral was the first to be shot with the new Grass Valley
Viper 4K digital cameras. It was the first digitally shot and then
film projected that really looked great that I had seen.

The interesting interviews with Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise is that
they had to work very hard. In film they could should about
10 minutes maximum before a pause for reload. With the Grass
Valley units Mann could shoot 56 minutes continuously if he wished,
but that made for far fewer breaks than the actors were used too.

It's truly an impressive looking work - but then Mann has alway
done excellent work.

Bill



--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

Bill Vermillion

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:42:30 -0400, RichA <> wrote:

>>First, the data storage needed to hold just one frame of
>>cinema image is huge,

It's about 12MB for a single 2K frame, the current standard compromise
resolution for doing visual effects and digital intermediates, and
about 1/4 the actual full resolution of film.

>>Also, there a "very romanticized love of film - the
>>actual celluloid stuff itself - in the film industry."
>>This has caused "a lot of people to put the brakes on
>>technology, and stop that technology moving forward".
>>
>>Atkins' latest film, A Woman In White, directed by
>>Richard Jobson, was shot digitally on High-Definition
>>(HD) video.

The problem with this article is that is talks about benefits of
digital film making in the theoretical, then dives in to talking about
HD in particular, without mentioning that HD has severe limitations
and doesn't live up to all the potential of digital filmmaking.

It's not about "romanticized love of film". You are NOT going to get
the color depth and dynamic range of film when you shoot HD. Shooting
HD is always going to be a compromise. The only reason it works is
because the average viewer's untrained eye won't notice the difference
unless you have a side by side comparison. But once you know what to
look for, the difference is HUGE. 4:2:2 compression seriously degrades
the image.

>>The format was pioneered by Star Wars director George
>>Lucas, and its champions argue it is the first digital
>>format that truly replicates traditional film - and at a
>>fraction of the cost.

What these type of articles always fail to mention is that by the time
the HD elements were mixed in with matte paintings and CG, very little
of the original image is intact. And the result is that Lucas' most
recent movies look more like video games than film. You want to see
the difference? Play "Snow Falling on Cedars" side by side with
"Phantom Menace", and see if HD looks as good as film.

>>Digital film does not have these and, as a result, "in
>>layman's terms, it's 15 percent brighter."

This is the first clue that the writer doesn't know what he is talking
about. There's no such thing as "digital film". If that's his way of
saying "tape", he's clueless.

>>"It just pops off the screen at you in a luminescent
>>fashion."

The other problem with this article is that is doesn't seem to
distinguish the difference between shooting and projecting the image,
and how the current technological limits impact these two areas
completely differently. For example, this discussion of the "black
bars" between frames could only potentially be in issue in projection.
It has nothing to do with how the frames are capured in the first
place.

>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:23:19 GMT, (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
>wrote:

>This should have happened five years ago.
>People in the photographic community have argued that it wasn't until
>digital still cameras reached about 5 megapixels in size that they
>could do a reasonable job replicating film. In fact, digital has
>surpassed film now, with much greater dynamic range and resolution,
>in the 35mm size.

This is misleading. While true for still cameras, there are only a
couple of platforms that can capture digital images at film resolution
continuously at motion picture speed. These systems, while great for
specialized applications, particularly in visual effects, are still
rather cumbersome for using to make an entire full length motion
picture, and using them is more expensive than film at this point.
They are not going to replace film cameras for the bulk of movie
making until the logistics surrounding their use becomes a little
easier to deal with.

> However, moving images do not need this much
>resolution. If you ever look at a 35mm film frame that has any
>movement happening, it looks blurred. It's the stringing together of
>many frames that appears to make the image sharp. Because of this,
>lower resolutions (1-2m) are all that is needed to duplicate and
>surpass 35mm film for projection.

This isn't just misleading, it is plain wrong. The minimum resolution
needed to capture all the detail of a full apurature 35mm frame is
4096x3112 pixels, or 12.7 megapixels. The more common half-resolution
2K scan (2048x1556) is 3.2 megapixels, but there is a very noticeable
difference in quality between the two when both resolutions are
compared on a projection screen using moving footage. I've seen it
myself running tests for a major studio's investigation of the digital
intermediate process. The 2K scan is visibly softer than a 4K scan. If
what you were implying about motion blur requiring less resolution
were true, you wouldn't be able to see such a quantifiable difference
with the naked eye.

Your statement also doesn't take into effect the shutter angle used in
the cinematography, which can cause the image to look more or less
sharp.

HD has the 2 megapixel resolution you claim is enough, but the reason
it isn't used for most films yet is because it simply doesn't hold up
as well when projected on a full size screen. And the studios still
like shooting film to protect themselves for the next format that is
going to be higher resolution than HD. The only reason the slightly
better 2K scans have become a standard in film post production is
because of the massive storage required for 4K scans, and the immense
rendering time needed when 4K frames are processed for color
corrections or visual effects.

When shooting 4K digital (12 megapixel) becomes more practical, it
will be used and probably replace film fairly quickly. Until then,
most directors and DPs won't settle for 1 or 2 megapixels unless
budgets or time dictate that requirement. Yes, there are exceptions
(Rodriguez, Lucas, Cameron), but they are few and far between.

Mark Spatny

>Collateral was the first to be shot with the new Grass Valley
>Viper 4K digital cameras. It was the first digitally shot and then
>film projected that really looked great that I had seen.
>
>
>
The Viper is strictly 2K/1080p. There has no 4K feature film been shot
so far with a
digital camera.

Michel Hafner

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:15:57 +0200, Michel Hafner <>
wrote:

>
>>Collateral was the first to be shot with the new Grass Valley
>>Viper 4K digital cameras. It was the first digitally shot and then
>>film projected that really looked great that I had seen.
>>

>The Viper is strictly 2K/1080p. There has no 4K feature film been shot
>so far with a
>digital camera.

For those interested:


http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/pr...f/viper_ds.pdf

Mark Spatny

"Mark Spatny" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:15:57 +0200, Michel Hafner <>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>Collateral was the first to be shot with the new Grass Valley
>>>Viper 4K digital cameras. It was the first digitally shot and then
>>>film projected that really looked great that I had seen.
>>>
>
>>The Viper is strictly 2K/1080p. There has no 4K feature film been shot
>>so far with a
>>digital camera.
>
> For those interested:
>
>
> http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/pr...f/viper_ds.pdf

Copyright 2003....nothing more recent?

Alpha

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 15:14:53 -0700, "Alpha" <> wrote:

>>>The Viper is strictly 2K/1080p. There has no 4K feature film been shot
>>>so far with a
>>>digital camera.
>>
>> For those interested:
>>
>>
>> http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/pr...f/viper_ds.pdf
>
>Copyright 2003....nothing more recent?

Not on the Thomspson web site.

Mark Spatny

Alpha wrote:

>"Mark Spatny" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>
>
>>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:15:57 +0200, Michel Hafner <>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Collateral was the first to be shot with the new Grass Valley
>>>>Viper 4K digital cameras. It was the first digitally shot and then
>>>>film projected that really looked great that I had seen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The Viper is strictly 2K/1080p. There has no 4K feature film been shot
>>>so far with a
>>>digital camera.
>>>
>>>
>>For those interested:
>>
>>
>>http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/pr...f/viper_ds.pdf
>>
>>
>
>Copyright 2003....nothing more recent?
>
>
>
>
>
Dalsa makes a 4K camera but no feature film has been shot with it so far.
http://www.dalsa.com/dc/origin/origin.asp

Michel Hafner

In article <>,
Michel Hafner <> wrote:
>
>>Collateral was the first to be shot with the new Grass Valley
>>Viper 4K digital cameras. It was the first digitally shot and then
>>film projected that really looked great that I had seen.

>The Viper is strictly 2K/1080p. There has no 4K feature film been shot
>so far with a
>digital camera.

The article I read was in an issue of Millimeter last fall. Part
was done on the new Vipers - and part on Sony 900?

From the article and the sidebar ISTR there were 9 post-production
facilites, and I >think< there was also an adverstising insert
about this in the same issue.

As I recall when the DP basically said the 4Ks were new and untried
- Michael Mann said something like "then we'll use them".

They were ecstatic about the night shots keeping the color.

So it's was not full 4K but a combination for the original
shooting, and since they had no 4K editing suites everything was
converted [I assume].

I don't recall the exact issue but it came out last year near fall
- so it was probably near the time frame of the theatrical release.

Bill


--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

Bill Vermillion