![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
I'd edit that if I were you.
Random question about Cinemas/Pictures
- Thread starter SkScotchegg
- Start date
I'd edit that if I were you.
Far from it. In the film world there are 3 types of prints:-
Original neg print. Only a few of these are struck and they are used for the premieres.
Show prints. They go out to the 'top' theaters.
Next we have the bulk print and the quality can vary but on the whole they are okay.
Depending on who the distributor is the cost of each print for a bulk print is $1000. In the US a triple A title will open with 6000 prints (6000 x $1000 for a release in print costs). On average feature film is around 5/6 reels long (each reel is 2000 foot and it runs at 90 foot per minute/ 24FPS). This is a hell of a lot of film and the shipping costs are HUGE.
The move to Digital Cinema is for many reasons.
Distributor:-
Save costs in printing and shipping. The movie can be delivered on a small HDD (via satellite in the future).
Security/piracy is greater than 35mm and now has dynamic watermarking.
No recycling costs.
Exhibitor:-
Higher quality film prints.
Quality is the same on the first screening as it is on the last a few weeks later. 35mm gets scratched each time it is projected
Greater flexibility to schedule movies. The same digital DCP can run in more than one screen if the film is a success without ordering another print.
3D
There are many other reasons for the industry to switch over and the above are just a few of them.
Im with you on this one, obviously theres the odd imperfections from reels etc but it doesnt really spoil the overall quality of a film, in general i find cinema screening > HD screening.
errr you're telling me it's harder to copy data than nick ten thousand foot of film?
actually on the subject of
isn;t that less then the ressoution of a 30" monitor?
Great post.
After reading that im all for digital upgrades, need to bump the res though, 1080p doesnt cut it imo.
It is all pretty irrelevant, cinemas will price themselves out of, well, themselves at some point soon. They put the price up, less people go so they put the price up to try and compensate. Rinse and repeat. What family on a budget is going to pay £30 to see a film ??
Sorry, back on topic now....
Sorry, back on topic now....
Hmm so it comes down to distribution costs, but technically celluloid is still far superior. It worries me that theyve only decided on 2048x1080 though - Im sure if someone can bust out that 1080p graph regards when you can tell the difference that 1080p on the size of a cinema screen would look pretty poor...
Perhaps its the distance you are viewing it from, but to me it sounds like its going to be more grainy...
Whats the normal size of a cinema screen - just having 2048x1080 pixels would mean they are probably ~1/2 cm each in size (based on the guess of a 10mx5m screen - I know its not the right ratio
) 
ps3ud0
Perhaps its the distance you are viewing it from, but to me it sounds like its going to be more grainy...
Whats the normal size of a cinema screen - just having 2048x1080 pixels would mean they are probably ~1/2 cm each in size (based on the guess of a 10mx5m screen - I know its not the right ratio
) ps3ud0
Last edited:
A well projected 35mm film print will be a lot better than a well projected Digital 2k film. The problem is that a lot of cinemas don't have the staff with the skills, or the willingness to pay for equipment upgrades/improvements.
The best you can get is a good 70mm film print. The problem is they don't print films in 70mm anymore (it costs too much), and you need specialist equipment to show it.
The best you can get is a good 70mm film print. The problem is they don't print films in 70mm anymore (it costs too much), and you need specialist equipment to show it.
How does this affect IMAX since they use 70mm film compared to 35mm - I presume if/when they go digital it cant be to such a low standard...
I understand the point that celluloid after many reprints and the technical skill of the projectionist means that you wont get to see the film in its true glory - but its absurd to think the digital standard to take over just assumes all these errors and probably wont improve the clarity of the films. Im pretty sure that 35mm film can easily output much more than Digital 2k requires. No doubt you could double the res and just mean youd need a 4 times bigger HDD
ps3ud0
I understand the point that celluloid after many reprints and the technical skill of the projectionist means that you wont get to see the film in its true glory - but its absurd to think the digital standard to take over just assumes all these errors and probably wont improve the clarity of the films. Im pretty sure that 35mm film can easily output much more than Digital 2k requires. No doubt you could double the res and just mean youd need a 4 times bigger HDD
ps3ud0
Last edited:
I'd have thought so
Having worked with both Digital 2k and 35mm projectors, Digital 2K is pretty good in general. As others have pointed out film degrades overtime and gets scratched/worn as it's played if its not handled well.
With Digital 2k you can however see the pixels if you get close enough. Although close enough is pretty near, but you need to be pretty much on top of the screen
Original neg print > Digital cinema
Bulk print < Digital cinema
35mm has jump and weave as it is a mechanical process. Prints get scratched from day one. Replication can vary ie colour, satuation and black levels.
Digital is perfection from day one at every screening.
I have worked in the film industry for 25 years and most of that was with celluloid technology. I never thought I would be a digital fan-boy for one minute but having worked on the original specs and been involved in digital cinema from 1999 I am a now convert.
Bulk print < Digital cinema
35mm has jump and weave as it is a mechanical process. Prints get scratched from day one. Replication can vary ie colour, satuation and black levels.
Digital is perfection from day one at every screening.
I have worked in the film industry for 25 years and most of that was with celluloid technology. I never thought I would be a digital fan-boy for one minute but having worked on the original specs and been involved in digital cinema from 1999 I am a now convert.
I understand the point that celluloid after many reprints and the technical skill of the projectionist means that you wont get to see the film in its true glory - but its absurd to think the digital standard to take over just assumes all these errors and probably wont improve the clarity of the films. Im pretty sure that 35mm film can easily output much more than Digital 2k requires. No doubt you could double the res and just mean youd need a 4 times bigger HDD
One of the main problems is that digital cinema is constantly evolving. No cinema wanted to invest (costs in the region of £50-100,000 per screen) while the equipment they were buying would be outdated within a year. There was recently a big push by the UK Film Council to get 500 screens installed with Digital 2k which had become a standardised format.
Of course manufacturers are now starting to tout the benefits of Digital 4k projectors
.
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 2,982
- Location
- England - Leeds
Thanks for the replies, some of the members of this forum responded as if I was asking a stupid question, but thanks anyway to the people that have responded with the indepth technical information, its been a good read.
All I really meant when I posted was that when I've been to the cinema I see things on the screen, I'm not sure how to word it? Like lines? and other things? I dont know the technical words, so even though the big screen is amazing and the sound is amazing, the quality I see when I go to the cinema isnt as good imo as what I'd see at home watching a high quality DVD on my 20" widescreen HD monitor. Thats what I think anyway, so I just wondered why they havent made better quality screens at the cinema, I mean maybe perhaps rather then have the film come from a projector why doesnt the film actually come from behind the screen sort of thing like how a monitor words or something, but on a huge scale, I dont know...
SkScotchegg
All I really meant when I posted was that when I've been to the cinema I see things on the screen, I'm not sure how to word it? Like lines? and other things? I dont know the technical words, so even though the big screen is amazing and the sound is amazing, the quality I see when I go to the cinema isnt as good imo as what I'd see at home watching a high quality DVD on my 20" widescreen HD monitor. Thats what I think anyway, so I just wondered why they havent made better quality screens at the cinema, I mean maybe perhaps rather then have the film come from a projector why doesnt the film actually come from behind the screen sort of thing like how a monitor words or something, but on a huge scale, I dont know...
SkScotchegg
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
If you were projecting from behind the screen you'd need a load of empty space to project from. For most cinemas that would mean taking out a load of seats to move the screen forward. Besides, I don't think it would add any benefit.
Another thing that might be swaying you is the colours. Lots of people who buy flat panel TVs or watch films on their PCs say how alive and vibrant the colours look (that's generally how the screens are set up in shops and how they are delivered) but in reality these settings oversaturate the picture and it's not very life like. In the cinema colours are more natural and muted and due to experience of their own TVs people think this is bad.
Another thing that might be swaying you is the colours. Lots of people who buy flat panel TVs or watch films on their PCs say how alive and vibrant the colours look (that's generally how the screens are set up in shops and how they are delivered) but in reality these settings oversaturate the picture and it's not very life like. In the cinema colours are more natural and muted and due to experience of their own TVs people think this is bad.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
Because it costs something like $30 million to distribute a film (Hollywood Blockbuster) to all major cinemas in the USA, due to having to print out the film onto multiple reels.
Digital would be far, far cheaper.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
Apologies
Those 'lines' that you see are scratches in the film mostly likely from the celluloid in the projecter (as opposed to the original recording).
Film, essentially, is dead. Digital Projectors, Digital Genesis Cameras, Digital Editing & Digital Distribution are all becoming more mainstream in Hollywood and cinema chains. Films like Superman Returns used digital cameras, for example.
Digital does not have the quality of film. Simple as that. It just isn't as good.
However, it is becoming better but crucially, it is about 95% cheaper to used digital over film.
For example, amateur filmmakers now use Prosumer 1080i/p Digital cameras instead of 16mm film cameras. The reason? A HDCAM/Mini HDV tape costs about £10-£30 for two hours of footage.
A HD camera, of course, is expensive to buy, but once you've bought it, then the rest of the payments for tape will be minor, compared to the increasing budget that you'd need for film.
16mm costs something like £3,000 (pure guess) for two hours worth of frames (and that's not including wasted reels and multiple takes, etc).
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical Issues in Cinema Resolution.pdf
As ever, it comes down to cost.
The technical solutions are there, and indeed much preferable to those currently in practice.
One of the larger problems is the long-term is the storage of digital media, especially that of such high resolution (and thus size).
Celluloid lasts for a considerable amount of time, with modern master prints offering an exceptionally slow rate of degradation in comparison to something like a hard drive, for instance, whose mechanical reliability and content parity cannot be guarenteed.
While this is a significant issue, the long and short is that cinemas obviously don't want to pay any money if they can avoid it. If it was cheaper / easier to set up than normal screens then I'm sure they would all be converted in a flash.
As ever, it comes down to cost.
The technical solutions are there, and indeed much preferable to those currently in practice.
One of the larger problems is the long-term is the storage of digital media, especially that of such high resolution (and thus size).
Celluloid lasts for a considerable amount of time, with modern master prints offering an exceptionally slow rate of degradation in comparison to something like a hard drive, for instance, whose mechanical reliability and content parity cannot be guarenteed.
While this is a significant issue, the long and short is that cinemas obviously don't want to pay any money if they can avoid it. If it was cheaper / easier to set up than normal screens then I'm sure they would all be converted in a flash.