Movie about digital versus film motion picture process

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 6, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jun 6, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    nick Guest

    On Jun 6, 12:43 pm, RichA <> wrote:
    > Haven't seen it, looks like it might be interesting.
    >
    > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2014338/


    Anyone see this when it first came out? Looking at how terrible it
    looked, I never would have thought it represented any kind of future.

    "The first movie shot with Sony's High Definition Video System (HDVS),
    an analog video format with 1225 lines of resolution. The video master
    was then printed to 35mm film to be projected in theaters."

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093092/
     
    nick, Jun 6, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    moviePig Guest

    On Jun 6, 1:32 pm, nick <> wrote:
    > On Jun 6, 12:43 pm, RichA <> wrote:
    >
    > > Haven't seen it, looks like it might be interesting.

    >
    > >http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2014338/

    >
    > Anyone see this when it first came out?  Looking at how terrible it
    > looked, I never would have thought it represented any kind of future.
    >
    > "The first movie shot with Sony's High Definition Video System (HDVS),
    > an analog video format with 1225 lines of resolution. The video master
    > was then printed to 35mm film to be projected in theaters."
    >
    > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093092/


    Afaik, analog *didn't* have any kind of future. Digital, however,
    always had Moore's Law going for it (...and still does).

    --

    - - - - - - - -
    YOUR taste at work...
    http://www.moviepig.com
     
    moviePig, Jun 6, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    Me Guest

    Me, Jun 6, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 7/06/2012 2:45 p.m., Rich wrote:
    > Me<> wrote in news:jqoah7$o0p$:
    >
    >> On 7/06/2012 4:43 a.m., RichA wrote:
    >>> Haven't seen it, looks like it might be interesting.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2014338/
    >>>

    >> http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/23698/cinemacon-hobbit-48fps-reactions
    >> Some mixed reaction there to 48 fps 4k digital.
    >> But hard to say if that reaction is unbiased.
    >>

    >
    > Just keep any critics over the age of 50 out of the pool and you'll
    > probably get an unbiased response.
    >

    I don't think that's it.
    If there was bias, then possibly by theatre owners who don't feel that
    they're going to get a guaranteed financial return out of investment in
    new digital projection equipment.
     
    Me, Jun 7, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>> http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/23698/cinemacon-hobbit-48fps-reactions

    >> Some mixed reaction there to 48 fps 4k digital.
    >> But hard to say if that reaction is unbiased.

    >
    > Just keep any critics over the age of 50 out of the pool and you'll
    > probably get an unbiased response.


    Nope, just like analog Vs digital music, B&W Vs color photos's, valves Vs
    solid state etc. retro nostalgia has no age limits.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jun 8, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    atyl Guest

    X-No-Archive:

    On Jun 7, 11:20 pm, Rich <> wrote:
    > Me <> wrote innews:jqpr4j$2l8$:
    >
    >
    >
    > > I don't think that's it.
    > > If there was bias, then possibly by theatre owners who don't feel that
    > > they're going to get a guaranteed financial return out of investment in
    > > new digital projection equipment.

    >
    > Inexorably, digital is replacing film projection.  No theatre will be able
    > to resist it for long.  I noticed in the past few years a downturn in the
    > quality of the film processing, resulting in variations in density and
    > colours.  Result was uneven projections, flickering light levels and I
    > won't miss film.



    Really, you noticed that? You sure you're not exaggerating? I've
    noticed the opposite. I once saw the same film twice at two different
    theaters, once on a Sony 4k DCP projector and once on film. The
    quality on both was fantastic, but film had the edge IMO. Although to
    be fair, the movie itself was shot on film (anamorphic lens w/ Kodak
    Vision stock). All of a sudden, the deciding factor in quality is
    capture medium - at least, that seems to be the one argument the pro-
    digital camp falls back on. And it's true that digital is superior in
    that regard, although I see no reason why film can't catch up. But
    when it comes to imagary, the actual LOOK of the movie, film has never
    been better than it is now. The latitude of Kodak vision stock is
    extraordinary, with its ability to double the light value, rendering a
    range of tones from dark to light with approximately 13 stops.


    Your beefs look like it's with the projector, not with film itself.
    Saying there's a downturn in film processing is a falsehood. The
    truth is, the technology has never been better. And that's a fine way
    to go out.
     
    atyl, Jun 8, 2012
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mike

    Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner

    Mike, Jul 1, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    850
    Roger Halstead
    Jul 5, 2004
  2. Big_Orange
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    1,483
    W.K.M.
    May 29, 2004
  3. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    646
  4. Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo

    Re: Mozilla versus IE versus Opera versus Safari

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo, May 8, 2008, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    761
    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    May 8, 2008
  5. Dale

    motion picture film still there

    Dale, Mar 1, 2014, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    96
    nospam
    Mar 1, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page