Why distribute movies on film at all?

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.

Well you're not a home theater expert, that much we can agree on. Your
typical living room or family room can be filled with fantastic video and
sound for very little money. Oh, and if you think only a high-end home
theater can beat the video and sound quality of the average movie theater,
you need both your eyes and your ears checked.

Check out the following:
http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Onkyo...oductDetail.do

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/JVC-3...oductDetail.do

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Sony-...oductDetail.do

Note with tax and a couple of A/V cables to hook it together (speaker cables
are included with the Onkyo system) you are still under $1000. This setup
will work just fine for all but the largest of living rooms or family rooms.
And properly adjusted, it WILL offer better sound quality AND image quality
than ANY movie theater. In fact, it will kick the crap out of the average
movie theater on both counts. It's not even a close contest. Compared to
even a low-end home theater like is listed above, the average movie theater
sucks, as far as image quality and sound quality goes.

By the way, it took me about 30 seconds to spec out that system
bove. -Dave

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.


Are you dumbed down too?

The differences in resolution is very interesting. Currently my TV has
better resolution than the DVD equivalent stuff I watch. So I was concerned
that TVs might have more resolution than films had to offer. From what you
wrote about film resolution, I have nothing to worry about.

Looking to the future, what can we expect to see with HDTV quality?
So what material will not be HDTV quality? I assume that anything made with
16mm film or better will be transferable to an HDTV capable media. Will old
TV shows be substandard to HDTV? I see Hogan's Heroes on one of the HD
channels and it is very good HD quality. What about other TV shows? Are they
shot on VHS type media or film or digital ?

noone




"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." wrote in message
...
"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." writes:

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.

Um, no.

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

Um, again, no.

Current DVDs don't even touch consumer grade HDTV.

And *some* movies *are* already being released directly
to theaters in digital. But it's not DVDs.

The technology is coming (and in some cases here - see,
for example, some recent films which were released in
both film and digital formats - only a *very* small subset
of theaters are equipped for digital). But it's still
very expensive and theaters aren't installing it that fast.

See, for example,

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/c...ia-access.html

For several years, the roll-out of new digital projection systems
has stalled over technology specifications and the issue of who
would pay the $100,000 or more per system to install digital
projections in theaters. Technology standards are mostly complete,
but funding remains a sticking point.

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

Nope. You're quite alone. DVDs are nowhere near adequate,
nor is your theoretical sub-$1000 system.


Or have I just been trolled?

--

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


DVD's don't approach the resolution of projected 35 or 70 mm film
DLP's don't approach supplying the blacks or the color richness of film
Your premise is full of crap...and/or you need a new set of eyes.

"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

spread out the home image over 40 foot screen and I think it would be a bit
dim and the 720P resolution of the DLP would be apparent and limiting

open up the space and your 250 watts per channel home theater sound would be
a bit hollow sounding

high quality digital theater projection systems exist but cost a bit of
money
.... and the theater business is not exactly flush with money at the moment

"nonone" wrote in
:

The differences in resolution is very interesting. Currently my TV has
better resolution than the DVD equivalent stuff I watch. So I was
concerned that TVs might have more resolution than films had to offer.
From what you wrote about film resolution, I have nothing to worry
about.

Looking to the future, what can we expect to see with HDTV quality?
So what material will not be HDTV quality? I assume that anything made
with 16mm film or better will be transferable to an HDTV capable
media. Will old TV shows be substandard to HDTV? I see Hogan's Heroes
on one of the HD channels and it is very good HD quality. What about
other TV shows? Are they shot on VHS type media or film or digital ?

noone




"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." wrote in message
...
"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...

An awful lot of TV is STILL shot on film. I'm pretty familiar with the
history of the Buffy series. The first season was shot on a budget and
an 16mm film. After that it was all shot with 35mm film.

Some taped shows from the 60's and 70's might not be up to HDTV standards
but the rest of them, including a lot of the stuff from the 50's in black
and white certainly is. Just a matter of re-kinescoping the films to a
higher resolution.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
God is an evolutionist.

"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
9...
"Dave C." wrote in
eenews.net:


DVD is too low resoultion when blown up to the size of a theatre
screen.



Do you think anyone would notice at the average viewing distance of a
movie theater, though? Also, a new high def format has just been
"agreed" upon. So resolution shouldn't be a problem much longer,
regardless of viewing distance. -Dave

Even 16mm film is WAY better than HDTV. Good widescreen filmed
productions are much higher resolution and better contrast than any HDTV
product yet on the market. Maybe when fiber optics are run into every
home and your local cable company can count on 10-20ghz of bandwidth,
into the home, you'll start to see that.

That said, I'm quite happy watching movies on my HDTV.

I attended a HD conference in Hollywood a few years back... the analysis by
the industry was that 1080 was equivalent to the actual performance of 35mm
in distribution.

The problem was that 35mm practice was in general quite poor compared to its
inate resolution and the resulting product at the mall cineplex was easily
matched by 1080.

You're trying to compare a 29" [interlaced] 16x9 picture [nice choice - a
4:3 ANALOG tv] displaying a 720x480 source to a theatre screen tens of
THOUSANDS times larger, where tje "...practical on-screen resolution of
celluloid film is between 900 and 2000 lines [progressive]..." ?
(
http://www.iee.org/OnComms/Circuit/b...ntVersion=true
)

"mini DV captures frames in 720 x 576 resolution (PAL). A film negative on
the other hand has a scanned resolution of around 2,000 x 2,000. The lower
frame resolution of mini DV [is] (roughly 1/3 of 35mm film)"
[3x 720x576=2160x1728]
(
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:8...elluloid&hl=en
)

And that is just physical resolution, never mind color and contrast. Troll
or just plain stupid, I can't decide. Next time you go to a movie, /pass/
on the $1 admission last-run theatre, and try a big 1st run movie house
instead.


Dave C. wrote:

Your
typical living room or family room can be filled with fantastic video and
sound for very little money. Oh, and if you think only a high-end home
theater can beat the video and sound quality of the average movie theater,
you need both your eyes and your ears checked.

Check out the following:

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Onkyo...oductDetail.do


http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/JVC-3...oductDetail.do


http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Sony-...oductDetail.do

Note with tax and a couple of A/V cables to hook it together (speaker
cables
are included with the Onkyo system) you are still under $1000. This setup
will work just fine for all but the largest of living rooms or family
rooms. And properly adjusted, it WILL offer better sound quality AND image
quality
than ANY movie theater. In fact, it will kick the crap out of the average
movie theater on both counts. It's not even a close contest. Compared to
even a low-end home theater like is listed above, the average movie
theater sucks, as far as image quality and sound quality goes.

By the way, it took me about 30 seconds to spec out that system
bove. -Dave

Dave C. wrote:
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.


Well you're not a home theater expert, that much we can agree on. Your
typical living room or family room can be filled with fantastic video and
sound for very little money. Oh, and if you think only a high-end home
theater can beat the video and sound quality of the average movie theater,
you need both your eyes and your ears checked.

Sorry, but watching a letterboxed movie on a 32" 4:3 CRT isn't going to
compare to the experience at *any* of the local movie theaters around
here. I'm not an expert, but I'm not a sucker either.