Film v.s Digital

[Blu Man]

Do you prefer movies to be shot with film or digitally? Which do you prefer to see at the theater? Or do you not give a shit?

[SomethingMore]

went with option D, although it could just as easily be C.

That said, a movie like 28 Days Later is impossible for me to watch because of how bad it looks on DVD/Blu-ray as a result of the source material.

[Blu Man]

went with option D, although it could just as easily be C.

That said, a movie like 28 Days Later is impossible for me to watch because of how bad it looks on DVD/Blu-ray as a result of the source material.

Was that shot digitally?

[TheVelvetRope]

Do you prefer movies to be shot with film or digitally? Which do you prefer to see at the theater?

Which question is the one for the poll? Those are two rather different questions. I generally prefer things shot on film, but digital projection often makes for an outstanding presentation.

[Ash Ketchum]

I love film. I want to see grain and scratches and those little punch marks they used to have at the end of each reel to signal to the projectionist that the switchover was coming. I think I've seen only one digital presentation--SIN CITY--and it was very disorienting. I miss the flicker of a film projector. Even if I can't see the flicker when a film is projected, my nervous system knows it's there.

I haven't had the opportunity many times in my life, but whenever I've held a strip from a 35mm movie film in my hand and held it up to the light to look at the images, I've felt something powerful. Maybe it's a chemical reaction. Film is made of chemicals, just like our hearts and our circulatory system and so much of our biology. What's "digital" made of?

[SomethingMore]

001101100011011000110110

[FinkPish]

Was that shot digitally?

It was shot on mini-DV for almost all of the film, except for the final scene (35mm) and the flashback scene (8mm).

I vote for film. Digital isn't quite to the level of film yet, even the Red Digital camera. The motion blur still looks like video, no matter how much processing/telecine they do to it. The scenes in Che that were shot on the Red camera were really obvious to me.

[Drexl]

went with option D, although it could just as easily be C.

That said, a movie like 28 Days Later is impossible for me to watch because of how bad it looks on DVD/Blu-ray as a result of the source material.

That's a resolution issue, not a video vs. film issue though.

Is this actually a question of what we want to see projected, or what we want shot? As of now I would probably prefer film to be shot, but projected digitally (for quality control reasons due to the crappy theaters around here).

[Blu Man]

That's a resolution issue, not a video vs. film issue though.

Is this actually a question of what we want to see projected, or what we want shot? As of now I would probably prefer film to be shot, but projected digitally (for quality control reasons due to the crappy theaters around here).

The poll is for shot.

[droidguy1119]

Yeah, I could care less what a filmmaker chooses to shoot with, but whenever I can go to the slightly-farther-away-theater and see something in DLP I always do it. I am to DLP like Homer is to donuts.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_m-5Kc_3lk1M/SXI5dq5MH6I/AAAAAAAAAlg/KFm2-ctMHl8/s320/drooling_homer-712749.gif.png

[Michael Ballack]

I became sold on digital watching Star Wars Episodes 2 and 3 on the dlp screens in theaters. Episode 2 had some screen door effect when up close, but I saw episode 3 on one of the newer kodak dlps and I don't see how film could have been any better. Film is great with certain prints when seeing early on before it's run so much and worn out, but film is to digital as newspapers is to the internet. We have to move on. Digital will only continue to get better.

[Blu Man]

I became sold on digital watching Star Wars Episodes 2 and 3 on the dlp screens in theaters. Episode 2 had some screen door effect when up close, but I saw episode 3 on one of the newer kodak dlps and I don't see how film could have been any better. Film is great with certain prints when seeing early on before it's run so much and worn out, but film is to digital as newspapers is to the internet. We have to move on. Digital will only continue to get better.

Picture quality wise, a good copy of film that is taken care of a focased correctly, will alway's beat out digital.

[Kurtie Dee]

They used to make do with charcoal drawings on cave walls you know!
What's "digital" made of?
Digital film is made of our ability to perceive it.

Film is beautiful, and there will always be purists, but like the number of people who still crave to listen to wax cylinders, their numbers will dwindle.

[PopcornTreeCt]

Don't care.

[Solid Snake PAC]

I don't give a damn in what form a film is actually shot in, I respect what the director shot it in. Digital or actual film at a theater? I haven't seen a showing in Digital so I don't know what that's like.

As a film major who would prefer to be a film director that makes good films. At the moment I'm all about shooting digital for it's ease and lightweight mobility. It makes a shoot so much more easier. I can edit on the fly. BUT it just doesn't look natural enough. Something just doesn't click right with me visually. With film I feel that an image is cleaner with moving objects. You know, if the only way I can shoot something is digital than fine I'll do it. I do prefer to work with film over digital. Understanding the hassles that comes with the process. I have to agree...I like 28 Days later..but the way it was shot for the most part bothers the hell out of me. Only in the latter 3rd with Jack's revenge does it really pay off for me. The grittiness and whatnot..

[scott1598]

i like the form that shows me a good movie with good acting and a good story :)

[filmerp]

While I "prefer" the texture/luminance of film (both originated and projected), I make an effort to see DLP projections of movies shot digitally, if only to pay attention to how digital is progressing as a medium. I certainly appreciate digital as a choice, like in Collateral and Zodiac.
No doubt, there has been an amazing jump from the dreadful looking Once Upon a Time in Mexico to the gorgeous Benjamin Button, although the trailers for Knowing seem to display a soft, creamy lack of skin texture that film does so well, so perhaps digital hasn't caught up quite yet.

[Suprmallet]

Picture quality wise, a good copy of film that is taken care of a focased correctly, will alway's beat out digital.

Incorrect. Around 5K resolution, the difference between film and digital is not discernible to the naked eye. That means no one, not you, not me, not Michael Bay, could tell the difference. I manage a movie theater with many 2K projectors and if you're not in the first five rows, you'd never know it was digital, unless something is wrong with the transfer or projector. So between 2K, which is the norm now, and 5K, which is what digital interpositives are made at, there is an area where most people will not know the difference, and eventually will get to the point where no one can tell the difference.

Now, aside from resolution issues, I prefer digital due to several factors:

1. No film jitter. There's no physical frames moving up and down, thus nothing to jitter. Image is always rock steady.

2. No film to break/tear/get tangled/burn. Yes, digital shows can have problems, but they're far easier to fix than film that gets torn or tangled, etc. Easier problems to fix means less time off screen. Win/win.

2a. No film to SCRATCH. Each showing is pristine, because there's no physical film which accrues scratches and other signs of wear and tear.

3. Uncompressed sound. Unlike film, which uses lossy Dolby Digital 5.1, or higher bitrate lossy DTS, digital uses uncompressed sound.

Given these obvious benefits, it's clear that digital is already preferable to film for projection purposes. Once higher resolutions become the norm, there will be no reason to use film for projection on the 35mm level.

IMAX is a different film size using a very different projection system, and thus is far more valuable as film than these new IMAX digitals that are popping up. But that's a discussion for another thread.

[Matthew Chmiel]

No doubt, there has been an amazing jump from the dreadful looking Once Upon a Time in Mexico to the gorgeous Benjamin Button, although the trailers for Knowing seem to display a soft, creamy lack of skin texture that film does so well, so perhaps digital hasn't caught up quite yet.
It also depends on the cinematographer.

I think a good example of this is Scary Movie 4 and Superman Returns. Both came out around the same time, both shot on the (then new) Panavision Genesis.

There are many times during Scary Movie 4 where it looks like it was shot on video, especially during any scene that took place at night or in the dark. Superman Returns, with the exception of one or two shots, I wouldn't have been able to tell the difference if it was shot on film or digital.

[filmerp]

It also depends on the cinematographer.

I think a good example of this is Scary Movie 4 and Superman Returns. Both came out around the same time, both shot on the (then new) Panavision Genesis.

There are many times during Scary Movie 4 where it looks like it was shot on video, especially during any scene that took place at night or in the dark. Superman Returns, with the exception of one or two shots, I wouldn't have been able to tell the difference if it was shot on film or digital.

Certainly the cinematographer's process has a lot to do with the final product, but I found Superman Returns especially indicative of the same 'painted' uniform skin tones that I'm seeing with Knowing. While Supes was Genesis and Knowing is RED, their lack of full tonal range may have been an aesthetic choice in post. While not necessarily a bad choice, it's one I can definitely spot on screen.

[FinkPish]

Certainly the cinematographer's process has a lot to do with the final product, but I found Superman Returns especially indicative of the same 'painted' uniform skin tones that I'm seeing with Knowing. While Supes was Genesis and Knowing is RED, their lack of full tonal range may have been an aesthetic choice in post. While not necessarily a bad choice, it's one I can definitely spot on screen.

I think that has more to do with color timing, not necessarily with the stock or technology used. The digital shots in Che looked just as full and rich as the film shots, because they were graded the same.

[wd40cloud]

Film for me. I remember watching Michael Mann's Collateral for the first time and not liking the softness of it. Granted if I know a flick is shot digitally it doesn't mean I won't watch it though.

[Suprmallet]

Just like in film, there are different grades of digital. There's consumer-grade DV, which is standard definition, up to very high resolution cameras like RED. In the same way that film runs from 8mm to 70mm. You wouldn't say celluloid is a terrible medium because 8mm looks bad blown up. Similarly, 480p DV footage isn't the final say on digital, either.

[Blu Man]

Incorrect. Around 5K resolution, the difference between film and digital is not discernible to the naked eye. That means no one, not you, not me, not Michael Bay, could tell the difference. I manage a movie theater with many 2K projectors and if you're not in the first five rows, you'd never know it was digital, unless something is wrong with the transfer or projector. So between 2K, which is the norm now, and 5K, which is what digital interpositives are made at, there is an area where most people will not know the difference, and eventually will get to the point where no one can tell the difference.

Now, aside from resolution issues, I prefer digital due to several factors:

1. No film jitter. There's no physical frames moving up and down, thus nothing to jitter. Image is always rock steady.

2. No film to break/tear/get tangled/burn. Yes, digital shows can have problems, but they're far easier to fix than film that gets torn or tangled, etc. Easier problems to fix means less time off screen. Win/win.

2a. No film to SCRATCH. Each showing is pristine, because there's no physical film which accrues scratches and other signs of wear and tear.

3. Uncompressed sound. Unlike film, which uses lossy Dolby Digital 5.1, or higher bitrate lossy DTS, digital uses uncompressed sound.

Given these obvious benefits, it's clear that digital is already preferable to film for projection purposes. Once higher resolutions become the norm, there will be no reason to use film for projection on the 35mm level.

IMAX is a different film size using a very different projection system, and thus is far more valuable as film than these new IMAX digitals that are popping up. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Film has better dynamic contrast then digital. The range of colors a copy of 35mm film can give off is stunning.

[iamiam]

Film has better dynamic contrast then digital. The range of colors a copy of 35mm film can give off is stunning.

That may be, but badly lit scene shot on film would have lot less "dynamic contrast" than one shot digitally, properly lit.

[Suprmallet]

Film has better dynamic contrast then digital. The range of colors a copy of 35mm film can give off is stunning.

And a lot of people think vinyl sounds better than MP3. The fact remains that digital projection will ultimately become the industry standard.

[RocShemp]

Vinyl does sound better than mp3. Now replace "mp3" with "well mastered (read: not excessively boosted/compressed) CD" and you'd make a good point.

Personally, I prefer film but digital is definitely catching up. And I firmly agree with you, Suprmallet, that digital will eventually become the industry standard. And, given how well digital is evolving, I welcome that.

[Giles]

Film has better dynamic contrast then digital. The range of colors a copy of 35mm film can give off is stunning.

I noted that too, when I saw 'Star Wars: Revenge of Sith' in both DLP and 35mm the latter's colours were superior

however the flipside is that sometimes that isn't the case. The colours for 'Madascgar 2' in IMAX-(2K) Digital trounced the 35mm print I saw.

I saw an absolutely clean print of 'Revolutionary Road' that looked stunning - one of the best 35mm prints I've seen as of recently.

35mm prints though on the Uptown screen, the reel change marks are large and distracting to say the least.

now 70mm that's another beast entirely! unreal - the most ideal way to experience a movie IMO.

I will though tend to gravitate in seeing films 'digitally'.

[Steve Phillips]

While I love the look of a great 35mm print; the fact is that these days, most of the prints are hastily and poorly made. Theaters tend to have underlit bulbs and out of focus projection is all too common.

I tend to seek out digital screenings now because the average 35mm screening at a multiplex seems to be far inferior to the digital showings.

[Giles]

While I love the look of a great 35mm print; the fact is that these days, most of the prints are hastily and poorly made. Theaters tend to have underlit bulbs and out of focus projection is all too common.

I tend to seek out digital screenings now because the average 35mm screening at a multiplex seems to be far inferior to the digital showings.

and that's one of the major problems at the Uptown theatre there's not enough light being thrown on the screen, which results in the image being dim and most of the prints I've seen there look like they've been dragged in dirt. A 35mm print of I saw of Atonement was so fuzzy it became a distraction. Poseidon in 35mm was terribly grainy comparing it to the film seen in Hidef - the difference was night and day.

Digital also has it's kinks, some of those projectors have brightness issues, Bolt was set too dark resulting in the 3D imagery to not 'pop'. I've heard audio dropouts during digital projection, something that never happens on 35mm prints.

[Suprmallet]

Vinyl does sound better than mp3. Now replace "mp3" with "well mastered (read: not excessively boosted/compressed) CD" and you'd make a good point.

Personally, I prefer film but digital is definitely catching up. And I firmly agree with you, Suprmallet, that digital will eventually become the industry standard. And, given how well digital is evolving, I welcome that.

Replace MP3 with FLAC, taken from a well mastered CD. :)

[RocShemp]

Replace MP3 with FLAC, taken from a well mastered CD. :)

Gotcha. ;)

[Jay G.]

I've heard audio dropouts during digital projection, something that never happens on 35mm prints.
I regularly hear audio dropouts on 35mm film projections at the reel changes, since the digital soundtrack has to re-sync with the film.

[Blu Man]

I regularly hear audio dropouts on 35mm film projections at the reel changes, since the digital soundtrack has to re-sync with the film.

Reel Changes? All the new projectors the most theaters use (unless they can't sfford it) use platters.

[DonnachaOne]

Yes Blu, but the film still comes on reels that have to be connected together. At the point where two reels are spliced together with tape, there'll be a quick dropout or pop of sound as the system readjusts (Generally speaking, the pop is minimized if you write over the tape on the soundtrack with black marker).

[Jay G.]

Reel Changes? All the new projectors the most theaters use (unless they can't sfford it) use platters.
They're still delivered to the theaters in reels though, and the theaters splice the reels together to thread onto the platters. At those splice points, the movie jumps from one reel of film to another, and the digital track has to re-sync.

I think a lot of editors are cognizant of this, and audio cues are typically ended before the reel change (much like how they will visually change the shot at a reel change and/or quick fade to black), to minimize how noticeable it is. However, it's there.

[Giles]

I regularly hear audio dropouts on 35mm film projections at the reel changes, since the digital soundtrack has to re-sync with the film.

if the print is being read right, any film that a digital soundtrack (DTS, Dolby Digital, SDDS), no audible dropout is supposed to be heard (at all), if you hear a dropout it's reading the non-digital soundtrack, and/or is an indication you're hearing the film in 4-Channel sound, not 5.1

They're still delivered to the theaters in reels though, and the theaters splice the reels together to thread onto the platters. At those splice points, the movie jumps from one reel of film to another, and the digital track has to re-sync.

I think a lot of editors are cognizant of this, and audio cues are typically ended before the reel change (much like how they will visually change the shot at a reel change and/or quick fade to black), to minimize how noticeable it is. However, it's there.

the reel changes are ugly IMO. Do they really think the theatre folk who join the reels together are THAT blind... I've seen 70mm prints at the AFI Silver where the reel changes are thin white circle rings, which are less obvious than the black one's nowadays.

[Jay G.]

if the print is being read right, any film that a digital soundtrack (DTS, Dolby Digital, SDDS), no audible dropout is supposed to be heard (at all)...
The only way you'd get no dropout is if the reels were spliced perfectly. Imperfect splices, and the DTS has to re-sync with the timecode, and DD and SDDS have to rebuffer the codec.

http://cool-palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/amia-l/2002/12/msg00143.html

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/6631510-post10.html
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/3920-post7.html

[DthRdrX]

The biggest diference to me is that all of the DLP shows I've attended have featured extremely bright and punchy images. I'd say that has made it a night and day difference for me.

[Giles]

The only way you'd get no dropout is if the reels were spliced perfectly. Imperfect splices, and the DTS has to re-sync with the timecode, and DD and SDDS have to rebuffer the codec.

http://cool-palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/amia-l/2002/12/msg00143.html

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/6631510-post10.html
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/3920-post7.html

I guess I'm lucky, I've never heard a single dropout from a current DTS or Dolby Digital screening. Early on, when Dolby Digital first came out (as well as the introduction of SDDS), I heard dropouts - in scenes that were nowhere near or at the reel change mark.

As I mentioned before, if you're hearing pops or clicks at the reel change, it's also possible the audio decoder is not reading the digital soundmix from the print itself - my neighborhood AMC is notorious for doing this, you'd think you'be hearing the film in 5.1 but the way the film was being decoded was in 4-channel analog sound, the audio indicator: the reel change click (and the fact that the surround channels weren't as aggressive or loud as a standard 5.1 soundmix should sound)

secondly there should be no sound from a DTS soundtrack since all the sound is coming from a CD-ROM that is playing in tandem with the image, if the reel change is not spliced correctly and the time code is not in synch with the CD-ROM soundtrack, the result would be silence.

[Giles]

in cases of DLP. Flawed presentations:

The Golden Compass - the whole movie flickered, very noticeably during very bright daylight or snow scenes. (Cinema De Lux - Aud. #8)

30 Days of Night - the film started with no sound, restarted with sound, then sound dropped out, restarted the movie for third time with no problems there after (Cinema De Lux Aud. #8)

Nightmare Before Christmas - during one of the songs a line was dropped (audio dropout) (Tysons Corner)

Bolt (3D) - Image from projector was not outputting enough light, scenes were too dark and as a result the 3D image were not achieved. (Cinema De Lux #7)

any 3D movie at Regal Gallery Place, if you're sitting in the prime midde spots you get the glare of the ceiling light right above you on your glasses, that stays on the entire time of the movie. Not a fault of DLP, but the boneheads who constructed this theatre by placing the lights directly above you and not being able to manually turn them off completely.

Some of the best films I've seen digitally:

- Peter and the Wolf (last year's Oscar winner: Animated Short) Landmark's 4K system - the imagery was the closest in looking like 3D without the glasses.
- Tropic Thunder - (Cinema De Lux) the saturated colours and sharpness were excellent.
- 300 (Cinema De Lux) even with the grain intact, it was a fantastic pictuure
- Cherry Blossoms (Landmark E. Street) shot in Hidef and projected digitally, beautiful imagery
- Sharkwater (AFI Silver) - the hidef scenes had my jaw on the floor
- Midnight Movies: From the Margin to the Mainstream (AFI Silver) the scenes from 'El Topo' looked they were shot the day before.

Of the DLP equipped theatres I've been to in the DC metro area my faves are:
- Regal Gallery Place (despite the lighting issues) the output of the light from the projector gives the best brightest image of the bunch. (the 5.1 sound levels is also superior: 'Prince Caspian' (DLP) sounded wonderful [AMC Mazza Galleria's 35mm/non-digital sound presentation was horrible in comparison])
- AMC Georgetown - any 2.35 scope film is massive as the auditorium is wide. Pixar's 'Cars' was fantastic!
- Cinema De Lux (screen 8) I think the screen is the area's largest and with the kinks worked out, the digital presentations I've seen recently have been great.
- Landmark E Street (screen 3) while it's not a large screen, the Academy Award shorts (as well as 'Cherry Blossoms') this year were projected and framed correctly when compared to last year's presention shown in auditorium #1 (where the projector is placed off to the side and not directly in front of the screen, the 35mm projector is obviousily given higher priority).
- AFI Silver (Auditorium #1) even though all the auditoriums are outfitted to DLP, very films are actually projected as such, I guess the AFI favours 'film' over digital presentation. The auditoriums systems benefit from the annual Silverdocs festival where most of the films are sourced from non film sources and are presented digitally.

I've only been to one of the three area IMAX-Digital screens so I can only say that the Hoffman presentations I've seen are excellent, when sitting in the prime seat (I'm not telling what it is ;) ).

IMAX (film) wise, with three screens to choose from, the Samuel L. Johnson (at Natural History) is the most impressive and classey, the one at Air and Space is very box like and just architectually: blah. Udvar Hazy is unfortunately not equipped to playback IMAX 3D (go figure?).

[Jay G.]

I guess I'm lucky, I've never heard a single dropout from a current DTS or Dolby Digital screening.
As I mentioned before, film editors typically end audio cues before the reel change, so the dropout isn't typically that noticeable. I usually notice it in that the audio for the next scene starts a split second after the visuals starts up again, after a cut or fade-out.

Looking into the digital formats, it looks like SDDS and DD have a form of buffering their signal for a few frames.

http://www.sdds.com/pdfs/dfp2000quickguide.pdf
Do not mark splice points on a plattered print with excessively long permanent ink, polish, etc. ONLY mark the splice for the length of the splicing tape (approximately 1 inch). Adherence to this procedure will ensure proper digital playback through the splice points of the film.

http://www.sdds.com/pdfs/dfp2000uguide.pdf
With a good SDDS print played on a fully working SDDS system, these two LED’s should be on all the time, apart from through splices. Frequent dark bursts indicate a faulty print or a faulty SDDS system.

With your SDDS reference loop, the LED’s should stay on at all times apart from through the splice.

http://stason.org/TULARC/movies/production/4-5-What-are-the-three-commonly-used-digital-sound-formats-f.html

It all gets a bit technical, but what I've noticed is that the digital audio formats for 35mm are mentioned as being able to "accommodate" splices, not that they navigate them without interruption.

The audible "pops" can occur if the digital audio fails for long enough that the system temporarily reverts back to analog. So it's possible to hear a pop from time-to-time while otherwise listening to a mostly digital audio presentation.

[Maxflier]

Couldn't care less.

I do find it incredible that someone could not watch 28 Days Later because the PQ of the DVD or Blu-Ray is not good enough for them.

[TheySentYou]

as someone aspiring to go to film school to learn film production in the next 3 years, i truly wish i knew half the technical knowledge as some of you people.

any websites that someone could recommend that could possibly tutor me on the differences and technical aspects of 35mm, 16mm, digital, the pricing on these cameras for personal purchase or rental, etc etc??

[SomethingMore]

Couldn't care less.

I do find it incredible that someone could not watch 28 Days Later because the PQ of the DVD or Blu-Ray is not good enough for them.

I'm not a huge fan of the movie as it is, so maybe that has something to do with it. But I tried to give it an honest repeat viewing relatively recently, and the PQ was unbearable. I'm all about preserving artistic intent and all that jazz, but even my favourite director (David Lynch) made a similar choice with Inland Empire, and the film suffers because of it.

Another lesser-known example is Melvin Goes to Dinner, directed by Bob Odenkirk. He had it filmed on SD video with a PAL handycam, solely because he figured 50i video was easier to convert to 24fps film than converting 60i (NTSC) video to 24fps film. This may be true, but man... that movie looks horrible on NTSC DVD, which is probably how most people saw it.

[Blu Man]

in cases of DLP. Flawed presentations:

The Golden Compass - the whole movie flickered, very noticeably during very bright daylight or snow scenes. (Cinema De Lux - Aud. #8)

30 Days of Night - the film started with no sound, restarted with sound, then sound dropped out, restarted the movie for third time with no problems there after (Cinema De Lux Aud. #8)

Nightmare Before Christmas - during one of the songs a line was dropped (audio dropout) (Tysons Corner)

Bolt (3D) - Image from projector was not outputting enough light, scenes were too dark and as a result the 3D image were not achieved. (Cinema De Lux #7)

any 3D movie at Regal Gallery Place, if you're sitting in the prime midde spots you get the glare of the ceiling light right above you on your glasses, that stays on the entire time of the movie. Not a fault of DLP, but the boneheads who constructed this theatre by placing the lights directly above you and not being able to manually turn them off completely.



I went to the new all digital theater in Portland Oregon and watched The Bucket List (DLP) when the theater first opened. When the preveiws started their wasn't any picture, only sound. I informed the manager and he send a projectionist to fix it. I ended up hearing all of the preveiws but never seeing any. They did however get it fixed by the time the actual movie started. And then the image didn't match up with the screen correctly so the edges of the screen were not being used.

Also when I saw NT 2 all of the dark scenes had a lot of static blurr to them.

[droidguy1119]

I do find it incredible that someone could not watch 28 Days Later because the PQ of the DVD or Blu-Ray is not good enough for them.Maybe I missed a post, but I think what they were saying was not that it was hard to watch but that the film doesn't benefit from the Blu-Ray treatment since it was shot on SD digital video cameras.

[Jay G.]

Maybe I missed a post but I think what they were saying was not that it was hard to watch...
I guess you did:
That said, a movie like 28 Days Later is impossible for me to watch because of how bad it looks on DVD/Blu-ray as a result of the source material.

[Brian Shannon]

I don't care. Never even stop to think about it

[Giles]

as someone aspiring to go to film school to learn film production in the next 3 years, i truly wish i knew half the technical knowledge as some of you people.

any websites that someone could recommend that could possibly tutor me on the differences and technical aspects of 35mm, 16mm, digital, the pricing on these cameras for personal purchase or rental, etc etc??

I recommend you get a subscription to American Cinematographer.

[Giles]

I went to the new all digital theater in Portland Oregon and watched The Bucket List (DLP) when the theater first opened. When the preveiws started their wasn't any picture, only sound. I informed the manager and he send a projectionist to fix it. I ended up hearing all of the preveiws but never seeing any. They did however get it fixed by the time the actual movie started. And then the image didn't match up with the screen correctly so the edges of the screen were not being used.

Also when I saw NT 2 all of the dark scenes had a lot of static blurr to them.

in regards to previews, when I went to see 'Coraline' over at Gallery Place, the movie just started, no previews, they were actually tacked on after the film. 'Earth' looked great in DLP, considering a bulk of it was actually shot with hidef cameras.

[side comment: Ron Fricke's upcoming 2010 70mm film 'Samsara' will be released in three formats: the aforementioned 70mm, 35mm AND DLP (rumored Sony 4K and standard 2K)]

[Ash Ketchum]

as someone aspiring to go to film school to learn film production in the next 3 years, i truly wish i knew half the technical knowledge as some of you people.

any websites that someone could recommend that could possibly tutor me on the differences and technical aspects of 35mm, 16mm, digital, the pricing on these cameras for personal purchase or rental, etc etc??

Instead of "aspiring" to go to film school...just go to film school! You can't learn this stuff from websites, you have to touch the film and the equipment with your hands and talk to actual human beings, filmmakers and crew members who know this stuff and work with it everyday, not the know-nothings who spend all their time on computers.

Better yet, get a job as a p.a. (production assistant) and learn the business from the bottom up on an indie or documentary film crew. Start out as a volunteer or unpaid intern and if you impress the people you're working with you may get a (low) paying job next time. That's how you learn.

[Blu Man]

I recommend you get a subscription to American Cinematographer.

I've bought one issue of that mag and found it very insite full. I bought The Dark Knight issue and I loved the quote by Chris Nolan on the back cover.

"I shoot with film because I feel responsible for putting the best image possible on the screen."

[TheySentYou]

Instead of "aspiring" to go to film school...just go to film school! You can't learn this stuff from websites, you have to touch the film and the equipment with your hands and talk to actual human beings, filmmakers and crew members who know this stuff and work with it everyday, not the know-nothings who spend all their time on computers.

Better yet, get a job as a p.a. (production assistant) and learn the business from the bottom up on an indie or documentary film crew. Start out as a volunteer or unpaid intern and if you impress the people you're working with you may get a (low) paying job next time. That's how you learn.

i actually plan on doing everything you just mentioned, but... not to drift onto a personal note, i'm currently in a full-time touring metal band and i'm in the process of finishing one last record... thus, in two years i'll be able to get all of that over with, then save up for another year to move (i live in Fort Smith, AR... no p.a. jobs available here unless it's commercial advertisement - which i'm actually looking into interning for). thanks for the advice though!

[Blu Man]

I watched the trailer for Public Enemies last night (in HD) and I could tell instantly it was shot digitally. It's a perfect example of how much better film is then digital.