|
Related Topics:
| Shooting S16 for best possible 35mm - Take an S16 movie like Primer and compare it to one like Leaving Las Vegas or Thirteen, and you can see that not all for 16->35 are the same! Primer was waaaaay grainy. What is the main reason for this? I assume of course that..
Fuji 35mm Reala 8592 - For all you out there not shooting 16mm, here is some 35mm. I have at least 40K of 8592 recans, tested. I also have factory selaed which could be mixed in to complete a feature package. Email for details. Mike Luehring Media
35mm editing table - Is an older model 6 platter editing table worth Bart Bervoets
35mm stock and lab costs, compared to 16mm - Hello -- I am trying to determine a cost between shooting 16 and 35 on a basis, since a per-foot basis would not be accurate for a set shooting ratio since i assume there are fewer frams in a 35mm foot. Can anyone shed some light?..
DI to 35mm technology and Super 8mm Digital Intermediate - Group, Has anyone seen a DI to 35mm of Super 8mm. Thoughts? I want to shoot Double Super 8mm. With a Canon DS8, real metal pressure plate, very steady camera, steadier in than Kodak's plastic carts in a plastic camera... Will..
|
|
|
Next: Cinematography General: Worth holding onto 16mm camera?
|
| Author |
Message |
External

Since: Apr 01, 2007 Posts: 20
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:29 pm
Post subject: 35mm movies to Blu Ray Archived from groups: alt>movies>cinematography, others (more info?)
|
|
|
Here is a "curly" one for some of us. Now with Blu Ray movie titles
available, you need to ask, is the source (35mm) now good enough for a high
standard like 1080P. 35mm has been the accepted standard of movie making now
for many years and to give you an idea of the quality of 35mm in the home,
if you are old enough to have a drawer full of slides, you will notice they
are also 35mm (in most cases anyway). To put it more simpler, I don't
believe 35mm will stack up against 1080P.
I have yet to experience a movie/video recorded in 1080P and played back on
a monitor similar to that of the Sony "X" series. So my point is, until
movies are produced "all the way", right from acquisition, in 1080P, we will
not see the benefits of this magnificent format. I am now shooting in 1080i
and I can assure you that even this lower end HD format, still blows away
DVD quality movies.
Many years ago, I predicted that cinemas will one day become fully digital.
I was told, that it would never happen. My answer then was that nothing was
changing as rapidly as the electronics industry and we would see the quality
improve to the standard that film will become obsolete. Well today, here in
OZ, we see this happening on a growing pattern. Unfortunately, we are not
being subjected to the best HD format and projection equipment being used. I
witnessed one such movie in a Cinema last week and was so disappointed with
the quality, I walked out.
1080P (or higher as it becomes available) will become the accepted standard
of movie making and it is not that far off.
DAVO >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Sep 27, 2005 Posts: 56
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:59 pm
Post subject: Re: 35mm movies to Blu Ray [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"DAvid" <davideo.RemoveThis@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:PfXPh.7587$M.2621@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Here is a "curly" one for some of us. Now with Blu Ray movie titles
> available, you need to ask, is the source (35mm) now good enough for a
> high standard like 1080P. 35mm has been the accepted standard of movie
> making now for many years and to give you an idea of the quality of 35mm
> in the home, if you are old enough to have a drawer full of slides, you
> will notice they are also 35mm (in most cases anyway). To put it more
> simpler, I don't believe 35mm will stack up against 1080P.
>
> I have yet to experience a movie/video recorded in 1080P and played back
> on a monitor similar to that of the Sony "X" series. So my point is, until
> movies are produced "all the way", right from acquisition, in 1080P, we
> will not see the benefits of this magnificent format. I am now shooting in
> 1080i and I can assure you that even this lower end HD format, still blows
> away DVD quality movies.
>
> Many years ago, I predicted that cinemas will one day become fully
> digital. I was told, that it would never happen. My answer then was that
> nothing was changing as rapidly as the electronics industry and we would
> see the quality improve to the standard that film will become obsolete.
> Well today, here in OZ, we see this happening on a growing pattern.
> Unfortunately, we are not being subjected to the best HD format and
> projection equipment being used. I witnessed one such movie in a Cinema
> last week and was so disappointed with the quality, I walked out.
>
> 1080P (or higher as it becomes available) will become the accepted
> standard of movie making and it is not that far off.
>
> DAVO
>
Just a matter of correctness Davo. 35mm slides taken by the average full
frame 135 format camera have in fact a larger area of exposed emulsion (36mm
x 24mm) as opposed to 35mm movie film which uses the same filmstock format
except the frames are not arranged lengthwise along the filmstrip (as in a
typical still camera), but across the filmstrip in a similar fashion the
half frame still 135 photography.
The exception in the movie industry was VistaVision which unlike every other
movie format ran the film horizontally. The idea was to produce a higher
resolution negative than the smaller framed vertical running formats for
widescreen productions. Unfortunately it wasn't very popular, being
introduced by Paramount Pictures in 1954. It did however make a brief
comeback in later years the format was considered albut defunct by the early
1960s, the camera system was somewhat revived for visual effects by John
Dykstra at Industrial Light and Magic, starting with Star Wars, as a means
of reducing granularity in the optical printer by having increased original
camera negative area at the point of image creation. Its usage has again
declined since the dominance of computer-based visual effects.
As for getting an acceptable resolution from 35mm filmstock, that is a
fairly variable thing. There are many high resolution film emulsions out
there being developed especially for the large screen theatre motion picture
industy. Film resolution isn't everything. Some directors choose some
filmstock that is especially grainy or shoot for a particular colour cast
for visual effect. No doubt most HT buffs would prefer as high a resolution
as possible with perfect colour balance, real world film cinemaphotography
is something else again.
No doubt there will still be a swag of movies shot on 70mm filmstock just
aching to be transferred to 1080p. However if transferred in their original
theatrical format Joe Public viewing any of the HR digital formats will
still be missing a bit with black bars on top and below the picture.
Metrovision, PanaVision are just a couple of the movie formats wider than
16:9.
Cheers,
Alan >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Feb 04, 2004 Posts: 8
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:59 pm
Post subject: Re: 35mm movies to Blu Ray [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <46109bd4$0$14988$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
Alan Rutlidge <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
[snip]
>The exception in the movie industry was VistaVision which unlike every other
>movie format ran the film horizontally.
Err...unlike every other movie format except IMAX (which is horizontal 15-perf
70mm).
--
Scott Norwood: snorwood RemoveThis @nyx.net, snorwood RemoveThis @redballoon.net
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon? >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Jan 10, 2007 Posts: 9
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:58 pm
Post subject: Re: 35mm movies to Blu Ray [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Apr 3, 8:24 am, "DAvid" <davi....TakeThisOut@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutli...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>
> news:46109bd4$0$14988$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
>
> > Just a matter of correctness Davo. 35mm slides taken by the average full
> > frame 135 format camera have in fact a larger area of exposed emulsion
> > (36mm x 24mm) as opposed to 35mm movie film which uses the same filmstock
> > format except the frames are not arranged lengthwise along the filmstrip
> > (as in a typical still camera), but across the filmstrip in a similar
> > fashion the half frame still 135 photography.
>
> > The exception in the movie industry was VistaVision which unlike every
> > other movie format ran the film horizontally. The idea was to produce a
> > higher resolution negative than the smaller framed vertical running
> > formats for widescreen productions. Unfortunately it wasn't very popular,
> > being introduced by Paramount Pictures in 1954. It did however make a
> > brief comeback in later years the format was considered albut defunct by
> > the early 1960s, the camera system was somewhat revived for visual effects
> > by John Dykstra at Industrial Light and Magic, starting with Star Wars, as
> > a means of reducing granularity in the optical printer by having increased
> > original camera negative area at the point of image creation. Its usage
> > has again declined since the dominance of computer-based visual effects.
>
> > As for getting an acceptable resolution from 35mm filmstock, that is a
> > fairly variable thing. There are many high resolution film emulsions out
> > there being developed especially for the large screen theatre motion
> > picture industy. Film resolution isn't everything. Some directors choose
> > some filmstock that is especially grainy or shoot for a particular colour
> > cast for visual effect. No doubt most HT buffs would prefer as high a
> > resolution as possible with perfect colour balance, real world film
> > cinemaphotography is something else again.
>
> > No doubt there will still be a swag of movies shot on 70mm filmstock just
> > aching to be transferred to 1080p. However if transferred in their
> > original theatrical format Joe Public viewing any of the HR digital
> > formats will still be missing a bit with black bars on top and below the
> > picture. Metrovision, PanaVision are just a couple of the movie formats
> > wider than 16:9.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Alan
>
> Thanks for the correspondence Alan. Nice to see my post wasn't over the
> heads of everyone who read it. You are quite correct in your statement that
> 35mm movie film and 35mm home slides are not exactly the same for the
> reasons you stated. I was just attempting to offer a simple comparison to
> the uninitiated.
And the backpedalling begins. >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Apr 02, 2007 Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:04 pm
Post subject: Re: 35mm movies to Blu Ray [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Apr 2, 9:29 am, "DAvid" <davi... DeleteThis @bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Here is a "curly" one for some of us. Now with Blu Ray movie titles
> available, you need to ask, is the source (35mm) now good enough for a high
> standard like 1080P.
> DAVO
I don't think you realise the resolution capabilities of 35mm film.
It is far in excess of what you can get on HD 1080P using
electronic cameras or transfers using digital telecines.
The scans used in computer CG are generally 4000 X 4000
pixels so are about 16 times the number of pixels used by
1080P images.
This is what is used when film is transferred to digital for computer
graphics or effects etc not what is capable on the original camera
film
negative which is much higher again.
In terms of bandwidth some years ago a comparison between SD TV
resolution and what was common on 35mm film was made by Kodak.
The resolution on SD 525 lines was about 6MHz, on HD at 1125 lines
was about 30 MHz, and film was over 80 MHz at that time.
This was heavily promoted at the NAB show by Kodak.
Film emulsions are much higher these days so there is not
any chance of 1080P being anything like film resolution.
NHK in Japan has demonstrated Super high Resolution HDTV but
even this has still not got a resolution capability approaching what
is available on contemporary film.
Admittedly there is a loss of resolution when film is printed to
release prints but it still is capable of exceeding 1080P resolutions
on the screen in a theatre. >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Jun 12, 2005 Posts: 25
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:18 pm
Post subject: Re: 35mm movies to Blu Ray [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I've shot eight feature films in 24P/1080, over twenty in 35mm, and
1080P doesn't match the resolution of 35mm. Any visual efx company or
post house can tell you that. 35mm is considered roughly 4K (4096
pixels across) whereas 1080P is only 1920 pixels across.
I just completed a digital intermediate for a feature at 2K (35mm
scanned at 2048 pixels across) and we had to cut in some 1080P
material into the movie as stock footage, and even on a 2K digital
projector, the 35mm-to-2K looks sharper than the 1080P material. And
definitely when you cut in 1080P material into a 35mm movie that
hasn't gone through a digital intermediate, you can see that 1080P is
softer. I had to do that for "Akeelah and the Bee", which was shot in
35mm anamorphic, did not go through a digital intermediate. We shot
some of the real national spelling bee in Washington D.C. in 1080P HD
and cut that into the movie and it is noticably softer.
I've also seen plenty of side-by-side 35mm vs. 1080P tests at HD post
houses around town, some projected onto 50' wide screens.
So 35mm is definitely good enough for 1080P broadcast and Blu-Ray DVD.
You can see some 1080P-to-35mm features out in the theaters right now:
"Zodiak" (Viper), "Reign Over Me" (Genesis) and "The
Lookout" (Genesis).
Generally 1080P is considered a cheaper -- not better -- alternative
for TV shows that normally would have shot 35mm film. For example,
many Sci-Fi Channel shows like "Battlestar Galactica" are shot 1080P.
Most efx work for feature films are done at 2K, which is slightly
higher in resolution than 1080P (2048 versus 1920) and 2K is
considered to be working in half-resolution because 4K scanning
resolves 35mm more accurately. See this article:
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/video_digital_cinemas_special/index.html
David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Apr 01, 2007 Posts: 20
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:24 pm
Post subject: Re: 35mm movies to Blu Ray [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:46109bd4$0$14988$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Just a matter of correctness Davo. 35mm slides taken by the average full
> frame 135 format camera have in fact a larger area of exposed emulsion
> (36mm x 24mm) as opposed to 35mm movie film which uses the same filmstock
> format except the frames are not arranged lengthwise along the filmstrip
> (as in a typical still camera), but across the filmstrip in a similar
> fashion the half frame still 135 photography.
>
> The exception in the movie industry was VistaVision which unlike every
> other movie format ran the film horizontally. The idea was to produce a
> higher resolution negative than the smaller framed vertical running
> formats for widescreen productions. Unfortunately it wasn't very popular,
> being introduced by Paramount Pictures in 1954. It did however make a
> brief comeback in later years the format was considered albut defunct by
> the early 1960s, the camera system was somewhat revived for visual effects
> by John Dykstra at Industrial Light and Magic, starting with Star Wars, as
> a means of reducing granularity in the optical printer by having increased
> original camera negative area at the point of image creation. Its usage
> has again declined since the dominance of computer-based visual effects.
>
> As for getting an acceptable resolution from 35mm filmstock, that is a
> fairly variable thing. There are many high resolution film emulsions out
> there being developed especially for the large screen theatre motion
> picture industy. Film resolution isn't everything. Some directors choose
> some filmstock that is especially grainy or shoot for a particular colour
> cast for visual effect. No doubt most HT buffs would prefer as high a
> resolution as possible with perfect colour balance, real world film
> cinemaphotography is something else again.
>
> No doubt there will still be a swag of movies shot on 70mm filmstock just
> aching to be transferred to 1080p. However if transferred in their
> original theatrical format Joe Public viewing any of the HR digital
> formats will still be missing a bit with black bars on top and below the
> picture. Metrovision, PanaVision are just a couple of the movie formats
> wider than 16:9.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
Thanks for the correspondence Alan. Nice to see my post wasn't over the
heads of everyone who read it. You are quite correct in your statement that
35mm movie film and 35mm home slides are not exactly the same for the
reasons you stated. I was just attempting to offer a simple comparison to
the uninitiated. One also has to allow for the fact that the optical audio
striping on the movie film stock impedes slightly onto the exposed emulsion
as well, thus making it smaller again.
I could never understand why the television manufacturers never produced
their new you beaut Widescreens in PanaVision/Cinemascope (2.35:1) as that
is the main movie format these days. 16:9 was never a big hit in movie
making. So now we are faced with black bars for a long time to come, that is
unles during the digital transfer to BluRay, they may zoom the image into
16:9 which would be a real shame. Maybe the next generation televisions will
be 2.35:1 so we can all start over again.
DAVO >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Apr 01, 2007 Posts: 20
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:28 pm
Post subject: Re: 35mm movies to Blu Ray [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Scott Norwood" <snorwood.DeleteThis@redballoon.net> wrote in message
news:euqua8$92q$1@reader2.panix.com...
>
> In article <46109bd4$0$14988$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> Alan Rutlidge <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>>The exception in the movie industry was VistaVision which unlike every
>>other
>>movie format ran the film horizontally.
>
> Err...unlike every other movie format except IMAX (which is horizontal
> 15-perf
> 70mm).
>
> --
> Scott Norwood: snorwood.DeleteThis@nyx.net, snorwood.DeleteThis@redballoon.net
> Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
> Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?
Unfortunately, 70mm will die if it hasn't already. The tremendous costs
associated with 70mm (film stock, cameras and of course projection
equipment) is the writing on the wall. Ultra high definition video will be
the future for film makers and considering the amount of CG used in movies
these days, it makes it all a lot simpler and cheaper to produce.
DAVO >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Apr 01, 2007 Posts: 20
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:08 am
Post subject: Re: 35mm movies to Blu Ray [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
<100246.2055.RemoveThis@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:1175555091.425440.326640@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 2, 9:29 am, "DAvid" <davi....RemoveThis@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> Here is a "curly" one for some of us. Now with Blu Ray movie titles
>> available, you need to ask, is the source (35mm) now good enough for a
>> high
>> standard like 1080P.
>> DAVO
>
> I don't think you realise the resolution capabilities of 35mm film.
> It is far in excess of what you can get on HD 1080P using
> electronic cameras or transfers using digital telecines.
> The scans used in computer CG are generally 4000 X 4000
> pixels so are about 16 times the number of pixels used by
> 1080P images.
> This is what is used when film is transferred to digital for computer
> graphics or effects etc not what is capable on the original camera
> film
> negative which is much higher again.
> In terms of bandwidth some years ago a comparison between SD TV
> resolution and what was common on 35mm film was made by Kodak.
> The resolution on SD 525 lines was about 6MHz, on HD at 1125 lines
> was about 30 MHz, and film was over 80 MHz at that time.
> This was heavily promoted at the NAB show by Kodak.
> Film emulsions are much higher these days so there is not
> any chance of 1080P being anything like film resolution.
> NHK in Japan has demonstrated Super high Resolution HDTV but
> even this has still not got a resolution capability approaching what
> is available on contemporary film.
> Admittedly there is a loss of resolution when film is printed to
> release prints but it still is capable of exceeding 1080P resolutions
> on the screen in a theatre.
I accept your loyalty to film over video. However, it does not change the
fact that the future of film is dead. Of course Kodak will continue to
promote film over anything else. They have the most to lose. Film prints of
mega movies mean many millions of dollars to them but the much lower costs
of Ultra High Definition (UHD) hard drives will be the way of the future.
UHD cameras and projectors when commercially available will spell the demise
of the film movie industry.
DAVO >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Apr 01, 2007 Posts: 20
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:06 am
Post subject: Re: 35mm movies to Blu Ray [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"TG'sFM" <suvvdj.RemoveThis@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1175554711.724559.307140@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 3, 8:24 am, "DAvid" <davi....RemoveThis@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutli...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>>
>> news:46109bd4$0$14988$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Just a matter of correctness Davo. 35mm slides taken by the average
>> > full
>> > frame 135 format camera have in fact a larger area of exposed emulsion
>> > (36mm x 24mm) as opposed to 35mm movie film which uses the same
>> > filmstock
>> > format except the frames are not arranged lengthwise along the
>> > filmstrip
>> > (as in a typical still camera), but across the filmstrip in a similar
>> > fashion the half frame still 135 photography.
>>
>> > The exception in the movie industry was VistaVision which unlike every
>> > other movie format ran the film horizontally. The idea was to produce
>> > a
>> > higher resolution negative than the smaller framed vertical running
>> > formats for widescreen productions. Unfortunately it wasn't very
>> > popular,
>> > being introduced by Paramount Pictures in 1954. It did however make a
>> > brief comeback in later years the format was considered albut defunct
>> > by
>> > the early 1960s, the camera system was somewhat revived for visual
>> > effects
>> > by John Dykstra at Industrial Light and Magic, starting with Star Wars,
>> > as
>> > a means of reducing granularity in the optical printer by having
>> > increased
>> > original camera negative area at the point of image creation. Its
>> > usage
>> > has again declined since the dominance of computer-based visual
>> > effects.
>>
>> > As for getting an acceptable resolution from 35mm filmstock, that is a
>> > fairly variable thing. There are many high resolution film emulsions
>> > out
>> > there being developed especially for the large screen theatre motion
>> > picture industy. Film resolution isn't everything. Some directors
>> > choose
>> > some filmstock that is especially grainy or shoot for a particular
>> > colour
>> > cast for visual effect. No doubt most HT buffs would prefer as high a
>> > resolution as possible with perfect colour balance, real world film
>> > cinemaphotography is something else again.
>>
>> > No doubt there will still be a swag of movies shot on 70mm filmstock
>> > just
>> > aching to be transferred to 1080p. However if transferred in their
>> > original theatrical format Joe Public viewing any of the HR digital
>> > formats will still be missing a bit with black bars on top and below
>> > the
>> > picture. Metrovision, PanaVision are just a couple of the movie formats
>> > wider than 16:9.
>>
>> > Cheers,
>> > Alan
>>
>> Thanks for the correspondence Alan. Nice to see my post wasn't over the
>> heads of everyone who read it. You are quite correct in your statement
>> that
>> 35mm movie film and 35mm home slides are not exactly the same for the
>> reasons you stated. I was just attempting to offer a simple comparison to
>> the uninitiated.
>
> And the backpedalling begins.
>
Obviously, over your head TG.
DAVO >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Apr 03, 2007 Posts: 2
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:55 am
Post subject: Re: 35mm movies to Blu Ray [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 02:08:08 GMT, "DAvid" <davideo.DeleteThis@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>UHD cameras and projectors when commercially available will spell the demise
>of the film movie industry.
So, will those projectors become so cheap that they become affordable in
3rd world countries? Can't really see that happening. Maybe they will have
a few of them in the capital, but the rest of those countries will still
project good old film. So that would mean loosing half of the world
population as your audience by switching to digital distribution only. Did
the bean-counters think of that one? :-D
cheers
-martin-
--
Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Apr 03, 2007 Posts: 13
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:53 am
Post subject: Re: 35mm movies to Blu Ray [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 22:28:55 +0000, DAvid wrote:
>
> "Scott Norwood" <snorwood.RemoveThis@redballoon.net> wrote in message
> news:euqua8$92q$1@reader2.panix.com...
>>
>> In article <46109bd4$0$14988$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>> Alan Rutlidge <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>The exception in the movie industry was VistaVision which unlike every
>>>other
>>>movie format ran the film horizontally.
>>
>> Err...unlike every other movie format except IMAX (which is horizontal
>> 15-perf
>> 70mm).
>
> Unfortunately, 70mm will die if it hasn't already. The tremendous costs
> associated with 70mm (film stock, cameras and of course projection
> equipment) is the writing on the wall. Ultra high definition video will be
> the future for film makers and considering the amount of CG used in movies
> these days, it makes it all a lot simpler and cheaper to produce.
And yet it still doesn't deliver what gives film it's superior look and
feel. I think that day is a long way off - if ever. Then again, the two
formats shouldn't be compared to each other anyway, probably.
--
/J/
I haven't slept for ten days, because that would be too long - Mitch Hedberg >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Apr 01, 2007 Posts: 20
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:53 am
Post subject: Re: 35mm movies to Blu Ray [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Jeßus" <127.0.0.1.RemoveThis@koalatelecom.com.au> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.02.23.53.45.35728@G3.jebus-net...
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 22:28:55 +0000, DAvid wrote:
>
>>
>> "Scott Norwood" <snorwood.RemoveThis@redballoon.net> wrote in message
>> news:euqua8$92q$1@reader2.panix.com...
>>>
>>> In article
>>> <46109bd4$0$14988$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>>> Alan Rutlidge <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>>The exception in the movie industry was VistaVision which unlike every
>>>>other
>>>>movie format ran the film horizontally.
>>>
>>> Err...unlike every other movie format except IMAX (which is horizontal
>>> 15-perf
>>> 70mm).
>>
>> Unfortunately, 70mm will die if it hasn't already. The tremendous costs
>> associated with 70mm (film stock, cameras and of course projection
>> equipment) is the writing on the wall. Ultra high definition video will
>> be
>> the future for film makers and considering the amount of CG used in
>> movies
>> these days, it makes it all a lot simpler and cheaper to produce.
>
> And yet it still doesn't deliver what gives film it's superior look and
> feel. I think that day is a long way off - if ever. Then again, the two
> formats shouldn't be compared to each other anyway, probably.
>
> --
> /J/
> I haven't slept for ten days, because that would be too long - Mitch
> Hedberg
>
Why shouldn't they be compared? Can you remember the days of
standard8/super8 film and projectors? Look what happened to them and that
was thanks to video cameras and recorders. If you look around, you will
notice many cinemas are already converting to digital but unfortunately (in
most if not all cases) it is being done to save money, not give moviegoers a
superb experience. Ultra High Definition will not have any artifacts or
pixelation which we currently see on DVDs and even HD television programmes.
A film can be destroyed by bad projector gate/sprocket alignments and each
print can cost upwards of $3,000 each, plus there is the splicing for the
platters and the unsplicing from the platters so the film can be forwarded
on.
DAVO >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Sep 27, 2005 Posts: 56
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:06 am
Post subject: Re: 35mm movies to Blu Ray [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"DAvid" <davideo DeleteThis @bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:XofQh.8465$M.6283@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:46109bd4$0$14988$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> Just a matter of correctness Davo. 35mm slides taken by the average full
>> frame 135 format camera have in fact a larger area of exposed emulsion
>> (36mm x 24mm) as opposed to 35mm movie film which uses the same filmstock
>> format except the frames are not arranged lengthwise along the filmstrip
>> (as in a typical still camera), but across the filmstrip in a similar
>> fashion the half frame still 135 photography.
>>
>> The exception in the movie industry was VistaVision which unlike every
>> other movie format ran the film horizontally. The idea was to produce a
>> higher resolution negative than the smaller framed vertical running
>> formats for widescreen productions. Unfortunately it wasn't very
>> popular, being introduced by Paramount Pictures in 1954. It did however
>> make a brief comeback in later years the format was considered albut
>> defunct by the early 1960s, the camera system was somewhat revived for
>> visual effects by John Dykstra at Industrial Light and Magic, starting
>> with Star Wars, as a means of reducing granularity in the optical printer
>> by having increased original camera negative area at the point of image
>> creation. Its usage has again declined since the dominance of
>> computer-based visual effects.
>>
>> As for getting an acceptable resolution from 35mm filmstock, that is a
>> fairly variable thing. There are many high resolution film emulsions out
>> there being developed especially for the large screen theatre motion
>> picture industy. Film resolution isn't everything. Some directors
>> choose some filmstock that is especially grainy or shoot for a particular
>> colour cast for visual effect. No doubt most HT buffs would prefer as
>> high a resolution as possible with perfect colour balance, real world
>> film cinemaphotography is something else again.
>>
>> No doubt there will still be a swag of movies shot on 70mm filmstock just
>> aching to be transferred to 1080p. However if transferred in their
>> original theatrical format Joe Public viewing any of the HR digital
>> formats will still be missing a bit with black bars on top and below the
>> picture. Metrovision, PanaVision are just a couple of the movie formats
>> wider than 16:9.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan
>
> Thanks for the correspondence Alan. Nice to see my post wasn't over the
> heads of everyone who read it. You are quite correct in your statement
> that 35mm movie film and 35mm home slides are not exactly the same for the
> reasons you stated. I was just attempting to offer a simple comparison to
> the uninitiated. One also has to allow for the fact that the optical audio
> striping on the movie film stock impedes slightly onto the exposed
> emulsion as well, thus making it smaller again.
> I could never understand why the television manufacturers never produced
> their new you beaut Widescreens in PanaVision/Cinemascope (2.35:1) as that
> is the main movie format these days. 16:9 was never a big hit in movie
> making. So now we are faced with black bars for a long time to come, that
> is unles during the digital transfer to BluRay, they may zoom the image
> into 16:9 which would be a real shame. Maybe the next generation
> televisions will be 2.35:1 so we can all start over again.
>
> DAVO
>
It's my understanding (read it somewhere) that a human's field of view is
close to 16:9, hence the reason for choosing that aspect ratio over others.
Of course it may have been advertising hype used around the time of the
introduction of WS TVs but it seems like a plausible explanation.
Cheers,
Alan >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Apr 03, 2007 Posts: 4
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:19 am
Post subject: Re: 35mm movies to Blu Ray [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Alan Rutlidge wrote:
> However if transferred in their original
> theatrical format Joe Public viewing any of the HR digital formats will
> still be missing a bit with black bars on top and below the picture.
> Metrovision, PanaVision are just a couple of the movie formats wider than
> 16:9.
True. I know it's crazy but I'd like to see displays wider than 16:9.
Ideally, they'd be the widest possible ratio (widest I've ever heard of
was 2.56:1 or something).
I know 16:9 is the trade-off/compromise between all the various ratios,
but ideally, you want the height of the image to remain the same while
the width changes with different ratios - just like in the cinema. And
you don't want the widest movies to have less resolution as they
currently do with DVD and HD formats - you want them to have the same
vertical resolution but better horizontal.
A an 2.5:1 ratio screen sounds ridiculous but it's possible that display
technologies could become light and cheap enough that it could be done
commercially in the future. Maybe a screen that could actually be
flexible and roll or fold up for packaging/storage/transport and
unroll/unfold for use? I'm obviously not talking anything near-term
here. Or perhaps 2 displays which somehow were able to be borderless,
placed side-by side with an unnoticable seam? I don't think it's out of
the realm of possibility. Just not currently feasible or practical.
LH >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
|