Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,930   Posts: 1,585,424   Online: 1070
      
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 100
  1. #41
    georg16nik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    801
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    ..
    And in fact, I'm fairly sure the original film is digitalized anyway in order to edit it, then turned film again after... Seems kind of silly to be so particular when it's all digitalized anyway.
    ...
    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.

  2. #42
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,011
    Images
    227

    Petition to support 35mm movie projection

    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    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.
    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...


    ~Stone

    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
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,091
    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.

  4. #44
    georg16nik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    801
    Images
    15
    Stone,
    try Woody's Midnight in Paris or To Rome with Love as 35mm and as D-cinema if available around You.

    Georg

  5. #45
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,657
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    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.
    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...

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  6. #46
    arealitystudios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    214
    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.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Bucharest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by mrred View Post

    I don't look at the "Mona Lisa" to notice what canvas it is on or what paint was used. If I wanted to do that, I expect I would never get to see the art.
    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.

  8. #48
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,487
    Images
    20
    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.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  9. #49
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,954
    Images
    60
    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.
    Matt

    “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

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,136
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    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.
    That's a red herring. Totally unrelated to the subject here.

    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.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin