Paramount makes the switch from film to all digital

[alchemist11]

Makes sense considering the move to use 4K+ in future/more films. Some directors like Nolan and Tarantino won't be changing the way they make a film, but at least the transition to digital for cinema use is now easier (making copies of film for each cinema hall vs one master digital copy that can be copied several times to a hard drive). It's also good for the environment and saves money and time.

 

*For curious souls, there is a really good documentary called Side by Side starring Keanu Reeves on film versus digital and talks about the rise, positives and negatives of each format and opinions from different directors. Nolan and Tarantino explicitly say they will continue to make films using film while others like Lucas and Cameron support digital now.

[Dudenstein]

As someone that works at a theater as a second job I'm kind of in the middle of this. I understand the benefits of the digital format from the consumer and production standpoint but there's something satisfying about cuttingand splicing the reels of a movie together. It feels like the movie is partially my doing when we play it on the big screen. It just seems impersonal when I just preload and ingest aovie into the projectors and paste some trailers in the beginning of the feature.

With that said going digital makes projection life so much easier. We don't have to run back and forth between projectors to start a feature or fix a problem. We have full access to all the projectors through our central command center in the building. And no more dealing with brain wraps. Those were a bitch to fix hahaha

[Puppet]

I don't think they are saying that they will stop shooting film, just that the delivery method is going to be all digital projections, which isn't really that new, all the cinemas in my area have been using digital projectors for a while now.

 

Most movies are shot digitally anyway, quite a few will use film for certain scenes and rarely the whole movie will be shot this way, cost being the major factor.

 

Nothing beats the look of 70mm film IMO.

[mr moose]

Nothing beats the look of 70mm film IMO.

That's because it is essentially 4k resolution with a fucking huge screen to boot

[Sidiox]

I don't really understand how film can deliver much different video quality. As far as I know every single movie is shot digitaly, how else are you going to add visual effects and stuff to it? So I don't think putting it all on digital takes any quality away. especially since those digital movies are probs still in raw (since this other guy said that those movies were around 200GB). 

[Puppet]

That's because it is essentially 4k resolution with a fucking huge screen to boot

 

I would say more like 16k, but it isn't really comparable, the amount of dynamic range and the absence of digital artifacts mean it will be a long long time before displaying it becomes an issue, in fact I don't think displaying it will ever be an issue.

[Puppet]

I don't really understand how film can deliver much different video quality. As far as I know every single movie is shot digitaly, how else are you going to add visual effects and stuff to it? So I don't think putting it all on digital takes any quality away. especially since those digital movies are probs still in raw (since this other guy said that those movies were around 200GB). 

 

There is no need to deliver them in Raw, the extra data would not be needed and they would be a lot larger than 200gb if they were. Most 1080p Blurays can be up to 25gb, so if you think about it this is about right as most digital projectors are 4k, they are most likely encoded differently too.

 

Modern film will be converted to digital for post processing anyway, although film is also great for processing, you can recover a lot of details out of blown out highlights with film, with digital Raw it really degrades the footage. But the whole back and forth conversion process is probably the main reason why the want the delivery methods to be going fully digital as well as making it easier to deliver specialized movies in high framerates or 3d.

[s3ns3]

isn`t the camera important ? i mean if they only convert them in digital doesn`t do much only reduces cost right ?

 

and why when i think of digital for movies,soap opera effect comes to my mind ? i don`t want that

Edited January 20, 2014 by s3ns3

[Puppet]

isn`t the camera important ? i mean if they only convert them in digital doesn`t do much only reduces cost right ?

 

and why when i think of digital for movies,soap opera effect comes to my mind ? i don`t want that

 

I was looking up some stats there, not sure how reliable they were, but apparently only 60% of theatres in the US are digital which is actually pretty bad compared to 94% in the UK. 

 

It's definitely all about costs, film is cheaper for the theatres but more expensive for the studios. This is basically Paramount saying switch to digital or you won't be showing our movies. I think it only applies in the US though as poorer countries may not be able to afford the switch.

[s3ns3]

I was looking up some stats there, not sure how reliable they were, but apparently only 60% of theatres in the US are digital which is actually pretty bad compared to 94% in the UK. 

 

It's definitely all about costs, film is cheaper for the theatres but more expensive for the studios. This is basically Paramount saying switch to digital or you won't be showing our movies. I think it only applies in the US though as poorer countries may not be able to afford the switch.

hmm ok got it. cost. i donno about affording the switch couse many Eu countries have lastest tech theaters already. im sure they are digital and don`t use 35mm .

 

so if you say that 60% of theaters in the US are digital maybe they are the one who are holding the switch. 

Edited January 20, 2014 by s3ns3

[Puppet]

hmm ok got it. cost. i donno about affording the switch couse many Eu countries have lastest tech theaters already. im sure they are digital and don`t use 35mm

 

Yeah I don't think the US theatres will struggle to switch over, I think it's just because some have been around longer and just haven't bothered.

 

The EU probably has a higher volume of newly built cinemas which probably started out digital.

 

Its a good thing IMO. Shot on film>Shot on digital... Displayed on film<Displayed in digital. Again my opinion, movies shot on digital are still great.

[c.bert]

why has it taken so long surely it costs them a fair amount for the film and it just is a lot lot worse 

[mr moose]

why has it taken so long surely it costs them a fair amount for the film and it just is a lot lot worse 

A good quality stock film might cost more in the long run (assuming heavy use of hdd doesn't result int hem needing replacing every movie or two) but it is leagues in front of digital for quality. 

 

My brother in law (who is a major movie buff) asked why the old classic films he has on blu ray look so good when they were recorded on film decades ago.  He was surprised to hear that  35mm film stock from the 60's and 70's was able to be scanned and resolved at 2K before the image became degraded.

[Ultimate_PIMP]

only sometimes, sometimes they are mastered so flat they may as well be recording on wax.

Well that's your opinion. I doubt you have ever heard vinyl on a good turntable setup. On a good setup with a new vinyl, there is no comparison.

[dalekphalm]

Well that's your opinion. I doubt you have ever heard vinyl on a good turntable setup. On a good setup with a new vinyl, there is no comparison.

Well, there is comparison. Most especially because audio quality is a very subjective thing. On paper, CD and digital format (Lossless digital), is superior to vinyl in every way. Wider dynamics, etc. Many people like the softer or warmer sound that vinyl produces, but that sound is actually a distortion from the original mastered work.

 

The problem with CD's and digital is not that they are worse (or better even). The problem is that often they are just mastered to a lesser quality. The beauty of digital is that you can reproduce the mastered sound perfectly, but if they did a bad job mastering it, then that will be passed along.

[mr moose]

Well that's your opinion. I doubt you have ever heard vinyl on a good turntable setup. On a good setup with a new vinyl, there is no comparison.

 

Doubt all you want, my opinions about SQ are founded on 30 years experience. I have heard shit vinyl and good vinyl I have heard shit cds and I have heard good cds. The fact of the matter is cds are superior in every way. The only difference is how the music is engineered/produced and even then the mastering on some vinyl leaves a lot to be desired.

 

Pro-tip. I am not going to have wank fest over gear.  I have heard enough to know what's real.

[TheProfosist]

I'm wondering how this is going to work with resolution. since film has no set resolution from what i understand, but then again 4k geting pretty mainstream and that might be more than you'll need for the movies. but the whole "eh i could watch this at home" thing comes into play I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK

There are specific film/cinema resolutions/speecifications they are are also unsurprisingly to me far more specifically defined.

I dont mind iMax but 35mm is ergh-.-

Atleast iMax looks outstanding i mean... look at the Dark Night outstanding

Yes there is no replacent for imax yet which is why I believe the next starwars will still be film. I beleeve I red that recently.

I don't mind, It was always going to happen, but don't fool yourself into thinking that current digital has a higher resolution than 35mm. It's not like still photography and even some of the worst 35mm film stock has a digital resolution equivalence of 1080p. The advantage here of course is that digital footage doesn't degrade with time.

Film really doesnt have a resolution but there does come a point where scanning it at a higher res gains you no additional picture quality. If I remenber 16mm was already struggling with 1080p but I may be wrong. Either way the reason I percieve its going to be better is that the whole work flow will be digital which should allow for less chances of quality loss.

[TheProfosist]

Also would like to point out that this pertains to the releasing of the movies tp theatures not the recording of them initially. Many films for some time have been fully digital recordings but there are still many theatre's that arent full digital or have digital at all.

[ionbasa]

Yes there is no replacent for imax yet which is why I believe the next starwars will still be film. I beleeve I red that recently.

Coincidence: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/105840-star-wars-vii-will-be-shot-on-film/

[TheProfosist]

I had one Sony play perfectly for about half of the movie and then change to a loud static blasting through all the speakers in a packed 300 seat screen, that got the customers some comp tickets. The fault turned out to be some board in the actual projector (not the Dolby processor boards as usual) had to cancel all the shows in that screen for the day and most of the following so that a tech could pop over and fix it. give me a good old 35mm with a belt you can change any day.

Before the main switch over we had a Christie and Barco digital projector. Those things just worked perfectly! even during power surges they would just carry on playing as usual.

Well even on film dolby and dts are digital... if I remeber correctly dolby is perfered because it can be on the film while dts can not amd has to be separate.

[TheProfosist]

Coincidence: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/105840-star-wars-vii-will-be-shot-on-film/

Could be was either or something a friend on facebook posted. If it was that sorry I didnt give it credit. Tapatalk on my phine allows me to skim all the current stuff on the forum quite quickly to the point wherenif I just read something and dont reply I probably forget where I read it.

[mr moose]

There are specific film/cinema resolutions/speecifications they are are also unsurprisingly to me far more specifically defined.

Yes there is no replacent for imax yet which is why I believe the next starwars will still be film. I beleeve I red that recently.

Film really doesnt have a resolution but there does come a point where scanning it at a higher res gains you no additional picture quality. If I remenber 16mm was already struggling with 1080p but I may be wrong. Either way the reason I percieve its going to be better is that the whole work flow will be digital which should allow for less chances of quality loss.

yes this basically how it works,  They (film guru's) worked out that even the poorest of professional 35mm film scanned at the highest resolution possible before the image became grainy or defective was about 3Megapixels (2048x1536), it also interesting to note that due large fluctuations in film chemicals and lense quality the highest resolution able to be scanned was 12megapixels (4k ultrawide).  Yes film really is that good and along side the cost of digital equipment is more than likely one of the chief reasons it is taking sol long for the industry to change over.

[TheProfosist]

yes this basically how it works,  They (film guru's) worked out that even the poorest of professional 35mm film scanned at the highest resolution possible before the image became grainy or defective was about 3Megapixels (2048x1536), it also interesting to note that due large fluctuations in film chemicals and lense quality the highest resolution able to be scanned was 12megapixels (4k ultrawide).  Yes film really is that good and along side the cost of digital equipment is more than likely one of the chief reasons it is taking sol long for the industry to change over.

Yes analog stuff does rely far more on quality of components, the processes, and storage before and after shooting. Also when making stuff that is analog digital you also have to consider the quality of the device and the technology doing the conversion.

Yes it could be but if you think about it they have defiantly payed off that equipment by now but i know just like everything else theyll ride pure profit as long as they can, hey just look at windows XP.

[b45op]

Well even on film dolby and dts are digital... if I remeber correctly dolby is perfered because it can be on the film while dts can not amd has to be separate.

 

We basically used DTS on one screen for subtitled shows these did come on dvd seperate from the film which are loaded into a box that uses the dts timecodes on the film to keep in sync. But yeah the sound on film has been digital for years hence the processor before going to the amps. see this link for more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound-on-film its pretty interesting.

 

What I was describing in that issue had nothing to do with the actual sound on the movie file itself or the fact it was digital. It was a hardware issue with the projector itself as I found the Sony 4k projectors to be unreliable at the best of times. had the issue occurred with one of the 35mm projectors we had I could have fiddled around in the sound rack and switched out the faulty card myself instead of calling a tech because of over hyped security on the projectors. Besides with the Dolby sound processors you could switch to mono sound if needed which would allow you to get through the film without as many complaints even if it did sound like crap.

[TheProfosist]

We basically used DTS on one screen for subtitled shows these did come on dvd seperate from the film which are loaded into a box that uses the dts timecodes on the film to keep in sync. But yeah the sound on film has been digital for years hence the processor before going to the amps. see this link for more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound-on-film its pretty interesting.

 

What I was describing in that issue had nothing to do with the actual sound on the movie file itself or the fact it was digital. It was a hardware issue with the projector itself as I found the Sony 4k projectors to be unreliable at the best of times. had the issue occurred with one of the 35mm projectors we had I could have fiddled around in the sound rack and switched out the faulty card myself instead of calling a tech because of over hyped security on the projectors. Besides with the Dolby sound processors you could switch to mono sound if needed which would allow you to get through the film without as many complaints even if it did sound like crap.

Whooo! so I was right, do not asked me where I picked that up as I couldnt tell you. I used to erad just about eveything when I was far more into encoding and it was my main hobby.