Yes, sad but true... and just shows how great capture media the negative film is, since after all those digi gimmicks You can still tell the difference what the source media was.
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Petition to support 35mm movie projection
I haven't quite payed attention to it before but I'll try to look and see, honestly I haven't noticed a difference but haven't been looking either...
Originally Posted by georg16nik
The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just wondering if those who would refuse to view a digitally projected movie would also refuse to let a doctor make a digital xray in an emergency situation.
try Woody's Midnight in Paris or To Rome with Love as 35mm and as D-cinema if available around You.
The digital x-rays made by my dentist are not made for artistic or entertainment purposes. At least I wouldn't pay for them as art or entertainment. But then, YMMV I suppose...
Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel
"There is very limited audience for the arty stuff, and it is largely comprised of other arty types, most of whom have no money to spend because no one is buying their stuff either. More people bring their emotions to an image than bring their intellect. The former are the folks who have checkbooks because they are engineers, accountants, and bankers—and generally they are engineers, accountants and bankers because they are not artists."
— Amanda Tomlin, Looking Glass Magazine, 2014
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I recently saw Lincoln in the theater at a local smaller venue that just barely transitioned to digital. I was probably one of the few people who paid attention but the picture quality was noticeably diminished. For those who have seen this film, there are multiple scenes in dimly lit rooms and under the digital projection the dark areas fall to black very drastically. It was almost like watching a laptop screen from an off angle.
It bummed me out.
Between this, the large crowds, the bad food, and the 40 minutes worth of trailers I must endure for movies I have no interest in I have very little reason to go to the theater anymore. Heck, I only have to wait a month or two now before the film is available through netflix or my local library. I used to love the theater experience but it feels like movie theaters are going out of their way at this point to make the whole thing miserable.
And don't even get me started on 3-D. I have only seen two films in 3-D and in both cases the picture was so dim I had to strain to see what I was looking at. Add to this the fact that 3-D makes me feel ill after about 20 minutes and you won't see me shelling out extra for a 3-D movie anytime in the near future.
Film studios have been complaining for a couple years now that box office revenues are falling. As far as I'm concerned they are only hurting themselves in the long run in their attempts to shave costs and increase revenue with "features" nobody really wants.
Imagine Mona Lisa "painted" using a computer and a graphics tablet. My bets are that it would look very differently, closer to kitsch than masterpiece.
Originally Posted by mrred
Dim screens have been a problem for years, apart from the issue of digital projection. Movie theaters have been known to use lower wattage bulbs in 35mm projectors to save money.
I have no problem with using digital intermediate editing techniques and equipment. They are really powerful and flexible tools that enhance the quality of editing, while still maintaining extremely high resolution. And then when the editing process is finished, they are also perfectly capable of being used to create very high quality release prints on film, which can then be projected optically with very high quality.
These editing tools are a particularly good example of where a marriage between film and digital can enhance film, and together enhance viewing enjoyment.
Unlike the situation with digital capture or digital projection, the tools involve almost no compromise in image quality.
While they may encourage the incorporation of computer generated special effects, they don't necessitate them.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
That's a red herring. Totally unrelated to the subject here.
Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel
If I want to see a feature film, there's no point going to a theater that projects it using current, inferior digital technology. I can watch it at home on my 1080p lcd television with much better image quality. Had the theaters waited another, who knows, 3-5 years, so large screen projection technology might catch up, then perhaps my attitude would be different. They didn't and it isn't.