Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,926   Posts: 1,585,139   Online: 884
      
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 117
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by momus View Post
    I haven't watched a first run American film in a theater in over 10 years, so I can't say I'll notice anything different. As long as non American films will still be shot on film I can watch stuff on the DVD at home. How anyone can watch a full digital movie is beyond me, or look at a digital photograph for that matter. It just looks so bad!

    To me, a digital picture looks "surreal & plasticky"....totally cold with zero atmosphere. A print from a film negative somehow looks more "real"and has atmosphere....possibly not as technically "perfect" as the best of digital these days.

    But then, when was real life ever perfect?

  2. #22
    David Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    near Dallas, TX USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,345
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by momus View Post
    I can watch stuff on the DVD at home.

    How anyone can watch a full digital movie is beyond me, or look at a digital photograph for that matter. It just looks so bad!
    ??? Just what is it you think you're watching on the DVD?

  3. #23
    Truzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctic amateur View Post
    No scratches, no jitter, no distracting dirt on the film, no eye-searing flicker…I agree, it's horrible!
    I prefer those imperfections over pixelation, combing, and whatnot. Both have viewing "artifacts," and I feel film does better in general, despite the artifacts. Perhaps because it's what I grew up with, or perhaps because I feel a switch to "new" technology should not mean re-embracing problems similar to what had been largely surmounted in the old medium. For example, listening to satellite radio in my mothers minivan is not unlike listening to AM when driving under bridges, trees, or around large buildings.
    Another example is the local news stations doing quick interviews on-location. The "trained" digital camera operators consistently show that anyone can do their job. Contrast changes if the interviewee simply turns their head a bit, making the whole scene constantly change like some bad avant-garde attempt. With a film camera, even if the exposure is bad, at least it's consistently bad, without inducing seizures. I feel analog video-tape is better in this respect.

    That said, I've seen very few movies at the theatre in the past 10 years, and watched very few of them when they made it to DVD or TV. I would say I watch fewer movies than my parents and grandparents did at a similar age. Movies have not been overshadowed by DVD/blueray, video games, or the WWW in my case. Movies no longer appeal as a quality entertainment experience for me. Hollywood no longer puts much effort into something I feel is worth my time. It cannot even do yet another version of some literary classic without focusing on effects and forgoing the original storyline except for character names.
    Truzi

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,131
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Sad, I'm surprised Marti was ok with that, but I guess he's progressive...
    Assuming that change always signifies progress is a ubiquitous error.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Bourgogne, France
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    41
    I am helping a non-profit movie theater here 80 miles South east of Paris (France). I am currently a projectionnist for this movie theater, and my job is online Producer for movies and Tv shows.
    The digital print has changed our lives. The quality is now perfect. Nobody want to go back to film print.
    But as a Producer, I always make an positive film print of all our productions. It's the only secure backup in film industry.

  6. #26
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,164
    Kinda sad considering that Paramount is the oldest of the Hollywood Studios still in existence but since Viacom bought Paramount they can be considered more of a TV Studio than a Movie Studio. UCI Cinemas is owned by Paramount so is Dreamworks Studio so this is really not a good sign. Digital projection does not equal a good anamorphic print projection since it's mostly 2K as oppossed to 4K+ from a good anamorphic print let alone 8 to 12K projection from a 70mm print.
    Too many Harvards MBAs in La-La-Land and to few dreamers and true artists
    Regarding Perfect quality what is perfect nothing so the medium that shows life shouldn't be either. I know plenty of projectionists who prefer film to digital projection and there are problems with digital projection and most of them can't be solved by a quick glue job like in the film days

  7. #27
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
    Our local art house just pulled out the projector last week. They have been unable to get many of the films they wanted to show this entire past year as they were never issued on film.
    That sucks but also seems strange. What type of films would an art house want to show that were never issued on film?
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  8. #28
    Alan Klein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Jersey .........formerly NYC.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    514
    The article focused on theatres - projection of digitally shot or digitally processed analog film. The other half of the story is that pictures can still be shot with film and then converted to digital for display which still happens. Where are we with the filming of cinema still using film?

  9. #29
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,087
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    That sucks but also seems strange. What type of films would an art house want to show that were never issued on film?
    Art house not necessarily means only classic but also low budget or off-the-main-track movies. And if those are recent ones they most likely are only released as digital files.

  10. #30
    Truzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,272
    The Cleveland Cinematheque shows old film, experimental movies, and even some newer foreign films. I'm pretty sure it's all film, but the point is, an "Art House" may show something new enough to be digital.
    Truzi

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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