Unfortunately, it's less than half the equation. 1 film, 4000 prints -> the printing side really adds up. And there is a definite shift there moving towards digital projections.
Originally Posted by Markster
I've read somewhere that digital is interesting for the cinema industry for the reason that the distributor can have the cinemas to "download" the film and show it, the idea is to get rid of the physical distribution of the film. A digital video projected on screen never deteriorates, and it is easier to protect it from "leakage" before the first show. Cinema halls are more free to choose which film to show and to change their plans. Cinema networks can more easily distribute "films" among halls.
On the other hand, small independent cinemas might be reluctant to make the investment and they wouldn't see all the advantage. So maybe digital cinema will grow up without entirely killing the projection of real film.
My humble idea is that digital cinema will favour piracy an awful lot and if I were a film distributor I would keep things on real film at least until the DVD - Blu-Ray distribution stage.
With theaters trying to maintain their relevance, I don't understand why they are going to digital. They should be advertising film and charging a premium for it, rather than the other way around. If all I'm getting when I go to the theater is a digital projection, I might as well stay at home and watch a disc.
[QUOTE (and one of the main claims to fame of digital video cameras is their "overcranking" capabilities - up to 120 fps on the cheapest Red cameras and up to 600 fps on the Phantom - this is much harder or impossible to do with film).[/QUOTE]
Not at all true. There's nothing harder or impossible about it. Just takes a different camera body.
The vast majority of films you see in the theater are shot on film and yes it matters what you shoot on. The public doesn't realize it and probably never have. They don't know why it looks so good. I'd rather work on productions that shoot film too. It's a different mindset and the job is taken seriously. I got out of the camera department because of video, they just took the fun out of it. The way people are shooting digitally now isn't really saving much money since the lenses and support cost the same or more per week. Then the media must be recorded to film anyway for theatrical release. Film projectors require maintenance but not firmware upgrades. Obselescence isn't built in either. If it breaks, someone likely can get it going again without shipping the whole thing overseas where it was built.
Film is sold in 400, 1000 and 2000ft lengths with 1000' being the most common and 2000' being used for multiple camera sitcoms. 1000' lasts 11minutes at 24fps. 500T is the most used stock on interiors. I don't know what it's running now but the last I checked was about $600 for a 1000' roll. blah blah blah.
Last edited by wildbill; 04-04-2011 at 06:45 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I know what I want but I just don't know how to go about gettin' it.-Hendrix
I think it's 70mm film running horizontally.
Originally Posted by Klainmeister
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Anyone game to talk about time code and the nightmares involved when you try to handle all these frame rates? Especially when you're working in post with a US co-production. I forget the detail, it only recurs in nightmares about the past. As far as I know the frame rates relate to AC mains frequency.
Originally Posted by Gaga
BTW part of the American use of film is, to my knowledge, the large quantity of production and post production sprocketed film gear in US studios, perhaps it's changed since I was there. Countries like New Zealand (Peter Jackson) have a smaller inventory of equipment and can change more easily.
Also as so much of PJ's work is for digital processing it makes sense to have a digital master, saves all that telecine transfer.
Film shot for cinema release is 24 frames per second (exact)
Mains frequency in Europe is 50Hz.
The PAL television standard (europe) is 50 interlaced fields per second
Film shot for TV in PAL land is often shot at 25 frames per second. This translates nicely to 50 interlaced fields, as both upper and lower field can represent the same frame.
Film shot for cinema release (24fps) is often shown on PAL TV at 25fps. The small increase in motion speed isn't noticeable, although often the audio has the pitch shifted as it is easier to spot the difference there.
Mains frequency in USA is 60Hz.
The original NTSC television standard (USA) was 60 interlaced fields per second. However, with the introduction of colour TV, in 1953 it was necessary to tweak the standard slightly to reduce interference from the colour information, this means technically NTSC these days is 59.94 interlaced fields per second.
Unfortunately films shot at 24fps don't translate nicely to 60 (or 59.94) fields. To work around this a '2-3 pull down' is used. This means the first frame of film is represented by 2 fields, the second frame of film is represented by 3 fields, the third frame is 2 fields again etc. onwards. This means every two frames of film becomes 5 fields of NTSC, therefore 24 frames per second becomes 60 interlaced fields.
Now, as already mentioned, colour NTSC isn't 60 interlaced fields these days, it's 59.94. Therefore anything shot on film for TV use is actually shot at 23.976 frames per second. This then means it accurately translates to NTSC.
Anything shot for cinema release at 24fps still gets transfered to NTSC at 23.976, and once again the slight change in speed goes unnoticed.
Problems can start to occur when syncronising sound if film was shot at 24fps but is being telecined at 23.976fps. The audio will start in sync, but the 0.1% difference will gradually become evident and the two will drift apart again.
Crystal sync. movie cameras will often have settings for 23.976fps, 24fps and 25fps. It is important to know what your post production route is before you start exposing film to make sure you run the camera at the best speed. If you get it wrong then it can cause a lot of hassle (and expense) to work around it.
Edit: Incidentally the terms 'i' and 'p' for 'interlaced' and 'progressive' are totally meaningless when shooting film, which only works in 'frames'.
In a bid to make the output from video cameras appear more 'film like' a number will shoot in 'progressive' mode, rather than 'interlaced'. This basically means both upper and lower fields represent the same moment in time - in much the same way a frame of film does. So rather than recording 50 'interlaced' fields, they capture 25 'progressive' frames. The terms 25p, 50i, 50p, 60i, 60p are all related to HD video, nothing to do with shooting film at all.
Last edited by Ian Cooper; 04-05-2011 at 05:24 AM. Click to view previous post history.
As for digital projections: It's actually HARDER to control leakage before. All it takes is a hacker and you get perfect cinema-quality bootlegs. No VHS stuff with people in front, no DVD ripping needed... You essentially open the door to massive profit loss, and before the movie's even out!
Way to shoot yourself in the foot, hollywierd!
Canon AE-1P 35mm | 50mm/f1.8 FDn | 28mm/2.8 FD | 70-200mm/f4-5 FD | 35-70mm/F2.8-3.5 Sigma FD
Because they can save a boatload on printing costs for each release. I don't know what the exact costs total up to, but I think it's in the millions. 4000 release prints for a typical Hollywood movie at a couple thousand a pop.
Originally Posted by Markster
Film may still be needed
I remember a few years back my husband told me that our local police department was still using film to photograph crime scenes. Negatives can't be altered, but digital images can. If prosecutors start losing cases because digital crime scene photos are suspect, there will still be a demand for film.
Originally Posted by Gaga