Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,745   Posts: 1,515,611   Online: 932
      
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 100
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    970
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    That's a red herring. Totally unrelated to the subject here
    ... just wondered if it was simply some sort of anti-digital knee-jerk reaction.

  2. #52
    PhotoJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Regina, SK, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    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.
    And plasma would be better still. No joke.
    Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

    A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.

    Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?

  3. #53
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,105
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    That's a red herring. Totally unrelated to the subject here.
    Possibly a red herring, or maybe food for thought. The emergency technician had better not email a lossy jpg to a radiologist for consultation. I can just see it now: "what is that funny four-leaf clover-shaped thing inside his lung. oh yea jpg compression artifact". It's an absurd statement. I know the lossless medical image standards (DCOM) will ensure that won't happen.

    Sal, I get what you're saying. My logic for sticking with film draws from a similar sentiment, the 'alternative to film isn't good enough for me'. Lately, I've been feeling that 'although there is an alternative that is pretty good, film always worked, has always been great and has never been better'. I feel we're at an apex and am very pleased to be making the best of film, at a time when its replacement is certainly more convenient but I may argue it is not better.

    p.s. I work for Kodak but the opinions and positions I take are my own and not necessarily those of EKC.
    Last edited by Bill Burk; 12-26-2012 at 09:31 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: disclosure appropriate

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    ... just wondered if it was simply some sort of anti-digital knee-jerk reaction.
    No knee-jerk reaction. In an emergency situation, I couldn't care less what x-ray technology might be employed to diagnose a problem. I've no idea how digital x-ray performance compares to film. It's just not relevant to motion picture projection.

    I'm a recently retired electrical engineer; digital technology doesn't scare me or put me off in any way. This thread is centered on the subject of inferior theater feature projection systems coming into widespread use. Well before the technology is sufficiently mature at a price affordable to theater owners. That is all.

    I'm not one who still buys vinyl records. I find CDs vastly superior to what were typical pressings and playback systems average listeners could afford before the mid 1980s. I'd have preferred SACDs to CDs, but can live without them. At a certain point one must listen to music. The same thing applies to theater projection. If/when digital projection (affordable to theater owners) can match the sharpness and dynamic range of 35mm prints properly projected, I'd happily go along. However, what's happening now is akin to iPods and MP3s. Inferior reproduction to a point where someone discerning can't listen to music / enjoy the feature.

  5. #55
    Ross Chambers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Blue Mountains NSW Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    703
    This horse looks close to half dead, no matter how you flog it. I speak as one who has passed many thousands of feet of 35mm and 16mm film through my hands, synchronisers, Moviolas and Steenbecks. My heart is not joyful at all but my head accepts this fate. It's interesting that (and I've not seen it yet) there have been criticisms of the super faithful reproduction of the double frame rate cinematography of "The Hobbit" Quite often I was asked as an editor to supply a frame for stills use; the all too often problem was that film shot at 24 fps was blurry and smeared as single frames if there was particular motion. That's what you have been looking at for all these years--and as a motion picture it worked like a charm.

    See: http://nofilmschool.com/2012/10/fuji...loid-done-for/

  6. #56
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,908
    Images
    222

    Petition to support 35mm movie projection

    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    Stone,
    try Woody's Midnight in Paris or To Rome with Love as 35mm and as D-cinema if available around You.

    Georg
    How would that ever happen, I live on Fairfield County, CT near NYC ... I would have to travel to the Midwest to find a theater playing old movies like that in some quaint town. Nothing like that around here.


    ~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

  7. #57
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,011
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    How would that ever happen, I live on Fairfield County, CT near NYC ... I would have to travel to the Midwest to find a theater playing old movies like that in some quaint town. Nothing like that around here.


    ~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:

    The New York crowd here can correct me, but I would be surprised if there are no theatres left in the area who are not capable of showing older/foreign/limited distribution films.
    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

  8. #58
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,908
    Images
    222

    Petition to support 35mm movie projection

    Quote Originally Posted by arealitystudios View Post
    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.
    As my last comment all I have are megaplexes around here, so all the theaters are state of the art, massive, and in no way dim, even with 3D sometimes it's almost too bright for me...

    You did say they barely made the transition so they probably have lower quality projectors, I'll ask my theater next time to see what Lincoln was projected from.

    Also, I just arrive 10 minutes past the show start time. When the crowds are big there are more previews but it takes longer to get in, during slow times there are lesser previews but its faster to get in, just to avoid all the adds...


    ~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

  9. #59
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,908
    Images
    222

    Petition to support 35mm movie projection

    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    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.
    I disagree with that one entirely, the digital projection is certainly better than the 1080p, it's 4k which is twice 1080 and LCD's have a terrible trailing effect, it's much worse than digital projection...


    ~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

  10. #60
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,908
    Images
    222

    Petition to support 35mm movie projection

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    Possibly a red herring, or maybe food for thought. The emergency technician had better not email a lossy jpg to a radiologist for consultation. I can just see it now: "what is that funny four-leaf clover-shaped thing inside his lung. oh yea jpg compression artifact". It's an absurd statement. I know the lossless medical image standards (DCOM) will ensure that won't happen.

    Sal, I get what you're saying. My logic for sticking with film draws from a similar sentiment, the 'alternative to film isn't good enough for me'. Lately, I've been feeling that 'although there is an alternative that is pretty good, film always worked, has always been great and has never been better'. I feel we're at an apex and am very pleased to be making the best of film, at a time when its replacement is certainly more convenient but I may argue it is not better.

    p.s. I work for Kodak but the opinions and positions I take are my own and not necessarily those of EKC.
    My GF (The Doctor at Yale with a double MD hehe) says the digital x-rays are 10 times better than the old ones, for many reasons, one is image quality and ability to easily zoom into an area to more clearly see, second is speed, not waiting for development nor some intern to bring it up from radiology or another department if the patient has multiple things going on... She just pulls it up on any computer anywhere in the hospital. Heck I think she can pull it up at home...




    ~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



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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