Two distinct issues. One the capture of the image digitally or on film,
two the delivery of the movie in the theater. This thread was about the
distribution. I would agree that film is still better in capturing the
image but digital video is close to, equal to or better than film in the
theater.

So capture with film distribute with digital IMO.

Bob Miller

birdman wrote:
If you really want to understand this issue there are two main factors:
Electronic systems have less flicker than film based systems for a variety
of reasons, including the frame rate chosen for professional movies a
zillion years ago and the mechanics of film projection. For some viewers
this is the only thing they see and are convinced about the superiority of
video systems.
However current electronic imaging systems have limited resolution and
limited dynamic range compared to film. There are many prominent
cinematographers who do not want to use current hi-def based video systems
for this reason. You cannot effectively light a dramatic scene or work in
the outdoors if you only have two f-stops of lighting values to work with or
everything will look like a tv soap opera. You must understand that a
cinematographer was originally called a "lighting cameraman". They do not
merely aim the camera, but design the lighting so that the balance of
foreground and background light achieves the desired effect. It is this
control of light values in the scene that distingushes the professionally
made dramatic film. This is what Oscars are given for.
Movies are shot on color negative film, the ability of which to reproduce a
range of light and shadow is still far greater than any video based system.
This is why most television shows are shot on film and then, to save money,
edited and shown on video. When film is transferred to video the wider
dynamic range of lighting values is compressed down. If that range of light
values was never captured in the original media there is no way to recreate
it. Someday this will change but the least progress in all digital imaging
systems has been in expanding the dynamic range of the digitial sensors.
A well projected film image has far more depth and texture than any current
video system can reproduce. Most cineplexes do not project films very well,
have poor quality screens, etc. Therefore most moviegoers have rarely or
never really experienced what film is capable of reproducing.
If you get over the eye candy of recent Star Wars films and look at what
they really are the limitations are self-evident. Human beings have to be
lit so that they will fit into the limited computer generated video
backgrounds. These kinds of film makers know that the audience, particularly
Americans (I'm one too), is so dumbed down that if they will even come out
to see these kinds of movies they will accept anything.

"Dave C." wrote in message
eenews.net...
For a little over a thousand bucks (cheap!, relatively speaking), a
properly
adjusted home theater setup will kick the CRAP out of any movie theaters'
image quality AND sound quality.

I think it is the experience of going out and being part of a social
activity...


--
The (new and improved) Runaway Bride...
Only at:
http://www.cafepress.com/dwacon/601709






---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0525-5, 06/25/2005
Tested on: 6/25/2005 11:06:47 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

"Dave C." wrote in message
eenews.net...
For a little over a thousand bucks (cheap!, relatively speaking), a
properly
adjusted home theater setup will kick the CRAP out of any movie theaters'
image quality AND sound quality.

I'm not saying do away with movie theaters. But why do movie theaters
still
insist on using film based projectors? Most hit films are released on DVD
in widescreen shortly after the film is released in theaters. Heck, some
of
them are released on DVD simultaneously.

So what's the point of using the old dinosaur projectors, exactly? DVD
offers the same image quality (better, depending on the display
technology)
and better sound quality than the scratchy soundtrack that accompanies
movies on film.

So why not use CRT or even DLP projectors to play DVD movies in ummmmmm,
movie theaters?

If you blew a DVD image up to the size of a movie screen you would be sorely
disappointed. Film has a magnitude more resolution than a DVD. End of
discussion!

"Dave C." wrote in message
eenews.net...
Does anybody know a way to roughly compare the resolution of 16mm film to
HDTV? I am very curious.

Film is (sort of) analog, so the resolution is (almost) infinite. But you
should check out the image quality of a good DLP projector showing
high-def
content on a large, WIDE screen sometime. It can look better than the
output of most movie theater projectors. So don't put too much weight on
resolution. It's just a number. -Dave

So what are you calling a large wide screen? Surely not the size of even the
smallest movie theater screen in your town. You cannot compare a "home" DLP
projector with a 35mm projector in a theater. You are getting very confused
with home theater and theater. The two do not meet ANYWHERE.

"Mr Fixit" wrote in message
...
In article "Clark W.
Griswold, Jr." writes:

"Dave C." wrote:

But why do movie theaters still
insist on using film based projectors? Most hit films are released on
DVD
in widescreen shortly after the film is released in theaters. Heck, some
of
them are released on DVD simultaneously.

So what's the point of using the old dinosaur projectors, exactly? DVD
offers the same image quality (better, depending on the display
technology)

Wrong. You have some research to do on resolution of 70mm film vs DVD.
Even 35mm
(4000 lines) prints have a resolution an order of magnitude greater than
DVD
(700 lines). You would be seriously unhappy with a DVD projected on the
typical
theater screen, even with a commercial projector.

Actually big theater chains in some of the larger markets are already
experimenting with digitally downloading special high resolution images
and using high res, high intensity projectors. This eliminates the need
for the expensive film (and hundreds if not thousands of copies of it) and
transportation costs plus the displayed image never deteriorates. It also
greatly simplifies theater automation. Literally the popcorn girl can run
the show and never have to worry about a film break or missing a cue mark
or showing reels out of order or having to change a lens, replace a
cracked mirror in the lamphouse or bother with focus. No one even has to
come in to "make up" the show, knocking the leaders & tails off each reel
and splicing all 5 or 6 reels together on big horizontal platter film
delivery systems or vertical SWORD transports. Projector maintenance is
practically eliminated; few moving parts except the cooling fan. Yes a
fairly expensive investment, but the payback occurs within the first
couple of years.

I think you are sorely mistaken if you think that a high end digital
projector is maintenance free. They need to be focused, the sources of light
need to be maintained and kept up to spec. etc etc. Problem is that the
popcorn machine in most movie theaters gets more maintenance than the
projectors....film or digital. I don't think that's gonna change and I don't
imagine that a spectacular new digital projector is gonna look spectacular
or new in a few months or a few years.

"D J" wrote in message
...
Currently there are about 300 dcinema theaters in the US. Within 5 years
expect most major markets to have several dcinema screens. Also expect
most people to flock to these theaters. The big advantage will be no
degradation in quiality after the 1000 showing and resolution equivalent
to film.


What you mean to say is no degradation of the source material. The
projectors....well that's another story.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:23:18 -0400, "Dave C." spewed forth
these words of wisdom:

For a little over a thousand bucks (cheap!, relatively speaking), a properly
adjusted home theater setup will kick the CRAP out of any movie theaters'
image quality AND sound quality.


We have a theater with a Lucasfilm-licensed Barco DLP system. I believe that
the movies are shipped on removable hard drives. Star Wars Episode III was the
best-looking digital display I had ever seen!

--
"I'm not a cool person in real life, but I play one on the Internet"
Galley

Dave C. wrote:
For a little over a thousand bucks (cheap!, relatively speaking), a properly
adjusted home theater setup will kick the CRAP out of any movie theaters'
image quality AND sound quality.

I'm hardly a home theater expert, but $1,000 wouldn't get you anywhere
near the quality of most movie theaters. Even if you're not factoring
in the TV/projector, you'd have to spend a lot more than that to have a
real high-end system. This was a real bad attempt at trolling.

"dwacon" wrote:

I think it is the experience of going out and being part of a social
activity...


Used to be, but no longer. Getting raked over at the box office, followed by the
concession stand, and then dealing with cell phones, crying babies,
conversations, running commentary and people eating 7 course meals out of wax
paper have destroyed that experience for a lot of people.