Why distribute movies on film at all?

"nonone" wrote:

Does anybody know a way to roughly compare the resolution of 16mm film to
HDTV? I am very curious.

35mm film is about 4000 lines of resolution. 16mm would be half that. 70mm
prints would be twice that. HDTV is either 720 or 1080 lines - no comparison.

Of course, at home you are sitting 12' from the screen, where as in a theater
you might be 60' or more...

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 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? Think of all the money that would be saved in producing and
shipping heavy, bulky rolls of film. A DVD can be shipped anywhere in the
U.S. in two days for less than three bucks. If time is not critical, it can
be shipped for a buck.

Some might say we should do away with movie theaters entirely. I think they
should just upgrade their video and sound technology to compete on a level
playing field with the family rooms of many of their customers. I've heard
all the complaints about obnoxious patrons, cell phones, etc. interrupting
movies. All of that crap combined doesn't disappoint me as much as to pay
10 bucks for a ticket to see a movie displayed at a low level of brightness
(cheap projector bulbs) with a grainy soundtrack.

A DLP projector (for example) with a bad bulb STILL looks better than a
film-based projector, if the source is up to snuff. (such as any DVD player
hooked up with component cables) Sure, DLP can not display true black. And
y'know what? . . . your average movie patron will never notice. They will
see the really BRIGHT display of a DLP and think (Wow). So black looks
gray? Who the frick cares?

Meanwhile, the soundtrack will be like 1000% improved if the source is DVD.
Even the worst DVD movies produced today offer 5.1 channel dolby digital. I
hate dolby digital, but the source (DVD) sounds MUCH better than any movie
theater, even at the relatively low bandwidth of DD 5.1 encoding. Some DVD
soundtracks go up to 7.1 channel DTS (awesome), which very few movie
theaters are even equipped to handle, at the moment.

Heck, my own Onkyo/Yamaha/Cambridge Soundworks setup in my living room would
blow the woofers off of any movie theater sound system for a seating area of
about 150 seats or less. At extreme volume levels, even. And my home
theater is hardly top end. Give me a Circuit City credit card and I could
make any movie theater sound 1000% better, regardless of seating capacity.
If I can do it using consumer grade equipment bought retail, imagine what
the pros could come up with, starting with the source of any good quality
DVD player and building a (multi-hundred seat) movie theater around it using
professional grade electronics.

Isn't it about time for the film projector to go the way of the dodo? I
think all movies should be released on DVD only. Anybody with me? -Dave



I think that the issue is more copmlicated than that. Personally not
having black "blacks" infuriates the hell out of me, and I have never
seen a digital projection that matches a good film one. Digital just
doesn't have the latitude or subtlety of film, it lacks contrast and
everything looks very uniform to me. Now all our cable stations (in the
UK) have gone digital I have to put up with lockups and pixelated
images. Same with CD's over vinyl, inferior sound quality. I'm sure most
people won't notice but why are we taking a step back? I long for a
mobile phone signal that sounds as good as a terrestrial line. The list
seems endless.

On another note I saw "The life aqautic" at an older cinema and the
sound quality was terrible becuase it was mixed for 5.1 and the
antiquated system couldn't handle it. The new remixed Star Wars Dvd's
are distracting to me. Why is "better" sound equated with sound that
pops out at you from all corners of the movie theatre? Isn't this just a
gimmick. Stanley Kubrick always said he didn't trust surround sound and
I am really starting to agree with him, it seems there are very few
people on the planet who can actually mix a proper track nowadays.

Subtlety is so important to a movie. Visuals and sound that are even
slightly off can make all the difference when watching a film as the
brain has to struggle subconciously to compensate. Often people will
dislike a movie for no other reason than dodgy sound but they won't even
understand that was the reason themselves.

Digital projection will also offer pirates unbelievable quality
dupes as films will be ripped more often by jacking into the data stream
rather than sitting there with a wobbly camera.

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

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.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:17:57 -0500, (Mr Fixit) wrote:

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.
Where?
Thumper


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.

Sony
NYC

In article Thumper
writes:

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:17:57 -0500, (Mr Fixit) wrote:

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.
Where?
Thumper


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.

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.


"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? Think of all the money that would be saved in producing
and
shipping heavy, bulky rolls of film. A DVD can be shipped anywhere in the
U.S. in two days for less than three bucks. If time is not critical, it
can
be shipped for a buck.

Some might say we should do away with movie theaters entirely. I think
they
should just upgrade their video and sound technology to compete on a level
playing field with the family rooms of many of their customers. I've
heard
all the complaints about obnoxious patrons, cell phones, etc. interrupting
movies. All of that crap combined doesn't disappoint me as much as to pay
10 bucks for a ticket to see a movie displayed at a low level of
brightness
(cheap projector bulbs) with a grainy soundtrack.

A DLP projector (for example) with a bad bulb STILL looks better than a
film-based projector, if the source is up to snuff. (such as any DVD
player
hooked up with component cables) Sure, DLP can not display true black.
And
y'know what? . . . your average movie patron will never notice. They will
see the really BRIGHT display of a DLP and think (Wow). So black looks
gray? Who the frick cares?

Meanwhile, the soundtrack will be like 1000% improved if the source is
DVD.
Even the worst DVD movies produced today offer 5.1 channel dolby digital.
I
hate dolby digital, but the source (DVD) sounds MUCH better than any movie
theater, even at the relatively low bandwidth of DD 5.1 encoding. Some
DVD
soundtracks go up to 7.1 channel DTS (awesome), which very few movie
theaters are even equipped to handle, at the moment.

Heck, my own Onkyo/Yamaha/Cambridge Soundworks setup in my living room
would
blow the woofers off of any movie theater sound system for a seating area
of
about 150 seats or less. At extreme volume levels, even. And my home
theater is hardly top end. Give me a Circuit City credit card and I could
make any movie theater sound 1000% better, regardless of seating capacity.
If I can do it using consumer grade equipment bought retail, imagine what
the pros could come up with, starting with the source of any good quality
DVD player and building a (multi-hundred seat) movie theater around it
using
professional grade electronics.

Isn't it about time for the film projector to go the way of the dodo? I
think all movies should be released on DVD only. Anybody with me? -Dave

Anybody with me?

I think you're an idiot. Does that count?


--
damnfine

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.

When the AMC theater on 42nd St. started doing digital a few years ago I
invited myself into the projection room and got the full tour. They were
showing the same movie in adjacent theaters so you could go from one to
the other in just a few seconds. One was in digital and the other in
film. The digital was brighter, more saturated color, no dirt specks or
hairs jumping around the screen. No jitter, rock solid.

In comparing the two over and over again I was amazed just how bad the
film version was. I had no feeling that the digital movie was digital
though when you went right up to the screen it was obvious. No one in
the theater knew or cared. It was real good. Since then I have seen a
number of digital movies in theaters and have never been disappointed. I
would make a point of going to the digital version of any movie in the
future if that choice exist.

I am sure that in all major cities there are digital theaters so anyone
should be able to go see for themselves.

Bob Miller

Mr Fixit wrote:
Sony
NYC

In article Thumper
writes:


On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:17:57 -0500, (Mr Fixit) wrote:


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.

Where?
Thumper



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.