• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How come movie theatres still use film rolls?

J

jEct2

Golden Member
Why?

If movies come out in DVD quality, why don't they show that in theatrical release?

We still see screen burns and jitters.... this is 2005 people!

question 2:
Why are we still filming/viewing TV in 30 FPS? Rapidly panning scenes are painful or indecipherable to eyes on the big screen because of motion blur...

Why not 60 FPS or better?
 
For theaters, the quesiton is easy. It's very expensive to convert the industry over to digital projection. It's heading that way, but will take another decade (IMHO).
 
They are afraid people will steal the digital copies and make perfect copies of them. Also, the cost of a digital projector is probably 10x the cost of film. There really is no incentive for theaters to switch over to digital right now unless they get strong armed like Lucas did when SWTPM came out.
 
Originally posted by: jEct2
Why?

If movies come out in DVD quality, why don't they show that in theatrical release?

We still see screen burns and jitters.... this is 2005 people!

question 2:
Why are we still filming/viewing TV in 30 FPS? Rapidly panning scenes are painful or indecipherable to eyes on the big screen because of motion blur...

Why not 60 FPS or better?
Click to expand...


Try finding a system that will project to that resolution without using film? Its much higher quality for the size than equivalent digital projectiong on a DVD.... not to mention how its shot


/thread
 
ugh, dvd quality is 480x740. film is beyond hd. digital projection also suffers from the screen door effect. i'd rather watch film than video.
 
Star Wars Episode II was the first film ever filmed completely in digital format and it hasn't been out long enough for the industry to economically completely change over to digital projectors.
 
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
ugh, dvd quality is 480x740. film is beyond hd. digital projection also suffers from the screen door effect. i'd rather watch film than video.
Click to expand...

What's screen door effect?
 
Originally posted by: jEct2
Someone answer question 2.
Click to expand...

Think about it, if you increase the frame rate to 60fps, you need double the film in order to film. Also, when SDTV is only 30fps why would you need to record anything above that when it cannot be supported?
 
because theatres are made for film... there is this quality to film that is so good... the theatres should never stop using it even if its the year 2100... homes yes digital is good, but film belongs in the theatre...

Its the same reason why they still shoot in film... most filmmakers prefer film over digital... to a casual viewer it doesnt matter, but it is very important to a filmmaker...
 
go look at a screen door. Basicly it looks like all the pixels have black outlines.

Also if moving to digital I would assume they would also go High Def. Aren't 720P or 1080P > film?
 
Originally posted by: dxkj
Originally posted by: jEct2
Why?

If movies come out in DVD quality, why don't they show that in theatrical release?

We still see screen burns and jitters.... this is 2005 people!

question 2:
Why are we still filming/viewing TV in 30 FPS? Rapidly panning scenes are painful or indecipherable to eyes on the big screen because of motion blur...

Why not 60 FPS or better?
Click to expand...


Try finding a system that will project to that resolution without using film? Its much higher quality for the size than equivalent digital projectiong on a DVD.... not to mention how its shot


/thread
Click to expand...

The pixel size doesn't have to be that small to cover the whole projection screen. They could just use an adequate size and enlarge it and I bet it'd still look 1000x better than film rolls...
 
Originally posted by: jEct2
Originally posted by: dxkj
Originally posted by: jEct2
Why?

If movies come out in DVD quality, why don't they show that in theatrical release?

We still see screen burns and jitters.... this is 2005 people!

question 2:
Why are we still filming/viewing TV in 30 FPS? Rapidly panning scenes are painful or indecipherable to eyes on the big screen because of motion blur...

Why not 60 FPS or better?
Click to expand...


Try finding a system that will project to that resolution without using film? Its much higher quality for the size than equivalent digital projectiong on a DVD.... not to mention how its shot


/thread
Click to expand...

The pixel size doesn't have to be that small to cover the whole projection screen. They could just use an adequate size and enlarge it and I bet it'd still look 1000x better than film rolls...
Click to expand...

Not true. 35mm film is much higher resolution than current digital standards. You probably have to start recording in 25MP resolution to get the quality of 35mm. Then you also forget some movies are recorded in 70mm.
 
Originally posted by: jEct2
Someone answer question 2.
Click to expand...


This is to painful to bear... NEVER shoot a movie in 60 fps... Film is shot in 24 fps and should stay there... I hate 60 fps video and it should just die...
The point is, filmmakers prefer the motion blur, thats what separates film from TV and 60 fps... to an average joe, 60 or 24 fps doesnt matter, but to a filmmaker it has such a HUGE difference...
Film is an art and it has a look and feel... the film grain, the fps, etc. all affect the outcome of the movie
 
I sure hope they don't unless $$ per ticket to watch a movie at a cinema stays the same. I wouldn't want to watch a movie for $20 per ticket.
 
Currently, money. The technical standards are complete.

It makes no economic sense for the exhibitors to spend a couple hundred million of their own money just to save the studio on print costs. The major studios are going to have to pay for the digital projectors, give them to the exhibitors, and pay to have them installed.

The studios realize this and are setting up a finance scheme to take care of the retrofit and spread the costs out by putting what the prints would have cost to make back into the fund. Eventually the print costs will repay the cost of the retrofit.

 
Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Originally posted by: jEct2
Originally posted by: dxkj
Originally posted by: jEct2
Why?

If movies come out in DVD quality, why don't they show that in theatrical release?

We still see screen burns and jitters.... this is 2005 people!

question 2:
Why are we still filming/viewing TV in 30 FPS? Rapidly panning scenes are painful or indecipherable to eyes on the big screen because of motion blur...

Why not 60 FPS or better?
Click to expand...


Try finding a system that will project to that resolution without using film? Its much higher quality for the size than equivalent digital projectiong on a DVD.... not to mention how its shot


/thread
Click to expand...

The pixel size doesn't have to be that small to cover the whole projection screen. They could just use an adequate size and enlarge it and I bet it'd still look 1000x better than film rolls...
Click to expand...

Not true. 35mm film is much higher resolution than current digital standards. You probably have to start recording in 25MP resolution to get the quality of 35mm. Then you also forget some movies are recorded in 70mm.
Click to expand...


yup, you cannot just enlarge dvd to a giant screen and expect it to look good. pixels are squares and regular, our eyes are very good at detecting patterns. already many people see screen door effects on the projection tv sets we buy😛 let alone the artifacts u could see ona huge screen. even hd is inferior. and lets not even get into the quality of imax. heck, look at films that were filmed in digital, like collateral. they didn't look film like at all, they looked bad. they have a home video type quality to the colors and such, not pleasing. probably won't notice if you only saw collateral on dvd. and theaters..why should they spend the massive amounts on digitalprojection when its still beta tech? digital keeps getting better,why buy now and get stuck? its not as if the theater owners can afford to keep upgrading over and over, and i don't feel like paying a higher ticket price so they can.
 
Originally posted by: Rami7007
Originally posted by: jEct2
Someone answer question 2.
Click to expand...


This is to painful to bear... NEVER shoot a movie in 60 fps... Film is shot in 24 fps and should stay there... I hate 60 fps video and it should just die...
The point is, filmmakers prefer the motion blur, thats what separates film from TV and 60 fps... to an average joe, 60 or 24 fps doesnt matter, but to a filmmaker it has such a HUGE difference...
Film is an art and it has a look and feel... the film grain, the fps, etc. all affect the outcome of the movie
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I'll never shoot a movie at 60 fps....... :/
 
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Originally posted by: jEct2
Originally posted by: dxkj
Originally posted by: jEct2
Why?

If movies come out in DVD quality, why don't they show that in theatrical release?

We still see screen burns and jitters.... this is 2005 people!

question 2:
Why are we still filming/viewing TV in 30 FPS? Rapidly panning scenes are painful or indecipherable to eyes on the big screen because of motion blur...

Why not 60 FPS or better?
Click to expand...


Try finding a system that will project to that resolution without using film? Its much higher quality for the size than equivalent digital projectiong on a DVD.... not to mention how its shot


/thread
Click to expand...

The pixel size doesn't have to be that small to cover the whole projection screen. They could just use an adequate size and enlarge it and I bet it'd still look 1000x better than film rolls...
Click to expand...

Not true. 35mm film is much higher resolution than current digital standards. You probably have to start recording in 25MP resolution to get the quality of 35mm. Then you also forget some movies are recorded in 70mm.
Click to expand...


yup, you cannot just enlarge dvd to a giant screen and expect it to look good. pixels are squares and regular, our eyes are very good at detecting patterns. already many people see screen door effects on the projection tv sets we buy😛 let alone the artifacts u could see ona huge screen. even hd is inferior. and lets not even get into the quality of imax. heck, look at films that were filmed in digital, like collateral. they didn't look film like at all, they looked bad. they have a home video type quality to the colors and such, not pleasing. probably won't notice if you only saw collateral on dvd. and theaters..why should they spend the massive amounts on digitalprojection when its still beta tech? digital keeps getting better,why buy now and get stuck? its not as if the theater owners can afford to keep upgrading over and over, and i don't feel like paying a higher ticket price so they can.
Click to expand...

One notable upside of digital film is that unlike a print it will not degrade through the run or be damaged by the theatre.

I've seen 2K presentations that look pretty good and the systems likely to be installed will be the 4K solutions soon to be offered by several companies.

As I said, the customer will not be paying for this.
 
Anybody who thinks that "DVD Quality" is a good thing needs to have their eyes checked.

Any HDTV has display capabilities far in excess of what the current DVD medium can provide. Imagine that on a theater sized screen & you're looking at serious suckage.

Digital theaters project using 2K+ transfers, many times the pixel count of DVD.

And as already stated film is far, far in excess of any current digital format.

Most modern movies are digitally mastered prior to film printing anyway, so the film you see in theaters has probably been printed from a 4K transfer.

As for the scratches, dust, etc. that invariably build up - that's one of the drawbacks of film. Right now that's about the ONLY drawback of film, with the exception of durability & distribution film is by far the superior medium.

Viper GTS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top