Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,700   Posts: 1,548,685   Online: 1152
      
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 100
  1. #61
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,662
    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.
    No art cinema in NYC? We've got them out here.In LA there's more than one, SF I know of one offhand, same with Santa Cruz. Those are just in places I know well.
    You're more likely to find a theater like that in NYC because there's enough population to draw on. Hard to believe there would not be any.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  2. #62
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225

    Petition to support 35mm movie projection

    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    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.
    Maybe but I'm not spending $30 train ticket or $60 gas and tolls to pay $16 to see an old movie in a NY cinema... Lol


    ~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. #63
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,468
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    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
    Sorry Stone:

    A 4K projection is only effectively twice 1080 if you are viewing at the same distance. I tend to view my 1080 TV at living room distances, rather than movie theatre distances.

    It is a fools errand trying to express the resolution of film in terms of megapixels, but if you do, the 35mm cinema projection prints are probably about 12 - 16K per frame.
    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

  4. #64
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,662
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Maybe but I'm not spending $30 train ticket or $60 gas and tolls to pay $16 to see an old movie in a NY cinema... Lol
    I thought you work in NYC, so I figured you probably spend some time there after work on occasion.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  5. #65
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,662
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    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...
    I have seen digital x-rays, and their definition well exceeds film x-rays I have seen. I think at least part of it is the ability to sharpen the hell out of them, which would look awful on a photograph. Or maybe it's just enhancing contrast that does it.
    Last edited by lxdude; 12-27-2012 at 02:02 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  6. #66
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225

    Petition to support 35mm movie projection

    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    I thought you work in NYC, so I figured you probably spend some time there after work on occasion.
    Ahh well, after a 14 hour day, IF I started at or before 4am then sure, I might have time but the last thing I want to do is stick around when I'll only have 4 hours sleep as it is between the 10 hour turn around time, minus 2 hours each way, minus shower/shave on one end and wind down time on the other, it's not usually feasible to stick around after work. The movie industry is a tough business to be in and have a life... I'm on set too many hours to do anything afterward. Perhaps if I get lucky, but every time I get a really short day, I'm out at say 3pm? All I can think is... Man if I don't leave right now I'll hit all the rush hour traffic!! So, it's hard, good thought though, you really didn't know the situation so it's nota bad idea, just hard for me.


    ~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. #67

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,101
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    ...LCD's have a terrible trailing effect, it's much worse than digital projection...
    Rise and decay time artifacts associated with LCD "glass" vary widely from one product to another. I referred to "my" TV, which was selected with that parameter (among others) in mind. There is no "trailing effect" visible at all. I'm very attuned to these things, having spent a career dealing with commercial aircraft cockpit displays and flight simulator visual systems.

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    109
    I went out to see the HFR (High Frame Rate) presentation of the "Hobbit" in 3D and Imax. The movie is projected at 48 frames per second, which can be done with the new digital cameras/projectors. This was positively the worst motion picture image I have ever seen for a newly released major motion picture. It looked like a videotape of a television studio production. EVERY INTERIOR SET LOOKED ARTIFICIALLY LIT! You could see the make-up on all the actors and all the colors were unsatisfying; thin. This will kill off HFR for the time being.

    By contrast, the best motion picture color image I have seen in the last few years was a showing of a nitrate Technicolor dye-transfer 35mm print of a 1944 US Army film about the WACs (Women's Army Corps) made to encourage enlistment in WWII. This showed thousands of people and all the faces looked beautiful. Only dye-transfer Technicolor could make actors look younger and thinner. Most cinemas are not licensed to show nitrate and the surviving prints are rare, so few people on Earth can really say they know what these DT prints look like. I believe they are the finest moving color image process.

    I know that there are a lot of EK loyalists out there, but Kodak has never produced a color image as good. But remember, Technicolor used EK black and white film stock for image acquisition; used EK manufactured matrices for the dye-transfer process; and imbibed the dyes onto EK release print stock. So Technicolor was actually an offshoot of EK products.

    Digital motion pictures are like electric guitars compared to classical violins.

  9. #69
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,325
    Images
    20
    Plenty of art houses in NYC that have film projectors, since many films aren't available in digital formats--Anthology Film Archives, IFC Film Center, Walter Reade Theater (Film Society of Lincoln Center), Museum of the Moving Image, Museum of Modern Art, and small houses like The Quad Cinema and Film Forum, university film departments like Columbia, and I'm sure that many of the commercial theaters still have the capability to project film. I think the only place to see The Dark Knight Rises in 70mm IMAX in the city was a commercial theater near Lincoln Center.
    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

  10. #70
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225

    Petition to support 35mm movie projection

    Quote Originally Posted by falotico View Post
    I went out to see the HFR (High Frame Rate) presentation of the "Hobbit" in 3D and Imax. The movie is projected at 48 frames per second, which can be done with the new digital cameras/projectors. This was positively the worst motion picture image I have ever seen for a newly released major motion picture. It looked like a videotape of a television studio production. EVERY INTERIOR SET LOOKED ARTIFICIALLY LIT! You could see the make-up on all the actors and all the colors were unsatisfying; thin. This will kill off HFR for the time being.

    By contrast, the best motion picture color image I have seen in the last few years was a showing of a nitrate Technicolor dye-transfer 35mm print of a 1944 US Army film about the WACs (Women's Army Corps) made to encourage enlistment in WWII. This showed thousands of people and all the faces looked beautiful. Only dye-transfer Technicolor could make actors look younger and thinner. Most cinemas are not licensed to show nitrate and the surviving prints are rare, so few people on Earth can really say they know what these DT prints look like. I believe they are the finest moving color image process.

    I know that there are a lot of EK loyalists out there, but Kodak has never produced a color image as good. But remember, Technicolor used EK black and white film stock for image acquisition; used EK manufactured matrices for the dye-transfer process; and imbibed the dyes onto EK release print stock. So Technicolor was actually an offshoot of EK products.

    Digital motion pictures are like electric guitars compared to classical violins.
    Man you make my mouth water the way you describe the nitrite... Mmm haha


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ 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