Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Old 04-13-12, 12:32 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Matthew Chmiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 13,263
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

A great article posted in yesterday's L.A. Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film. But the Consequences of Going Digital Are Vast, and Troubling."

I'm not going to post the entire article as it came out to twelve pages when I tried to do a copy and paste, but it's a great read. Some key portions:

Shortly before Christmas, director Edgar Wright received an email inviting him to a private screening of the first six minutes of Christopher Nolan's new Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises. Walking into Universal CityWalk's IMAX theater, Wright recognized many of the most prominent filmmakers in America Michael Bay, Bryan Singer, Jon Favreau, Eli Roth, Duncan Jones, Stephen Daldry. If a bomb had gone off in the building, he thought, it would have taken out half of the Directors Guild of America.
"It was a surreal experience because it felt like we were all going to get whacked," Wright recalls.

As the directors settled into their seats, Nolan addressed them with words ripped from the plot of an old Batman serial.

"I have an ulterior motive for bringing you here," the British director announced.

And then he made a plea for 35mm film.

Nolan pointed out that The Dark Knight Rises was made on celluloid. That he is committed to shooting on film, and wants to continue doing so. But, he warned, 35mm will be stamped out by the studios unless people people like them insist otherwise.
The new format is called a DCP, or Digital Cinema Package. It is a virtual format, a collection of files stored on a hard drive. Roughly the size of a paperback novel, the hard drive is mailed in a lightweight, foam-lined plastic case to the theater, where it's inserted (or, in the lingo, "ingested") into a server that runs the digital projector. DCPs won't run on traditional film projectors, however. So if they want to play the new format, theater owners must update their equipment.

For this privilege, exhibitors can expect to shell out from $70,000 to $150,000 per screen. Because the studios will save so much money on shipping costs, they've agreed to help finance the conversion. For the next 10 years, they will pay theater owners a "virtual-print fee" for each new release shown digitally.

To speed the conversions along, the studios are using a classic carrot-and-stick model of coercion. The offset money is the carrot. The punishing stick? Studios will no longer be releasing 35 mm prints.

It's not so bad for first-run theater chains, which play only new releases. Art-house and repertory theaters, however, which play classic and older movies, are largely dependent on print loans from studios. Increasingly, the prints are remaining locked in studio vaults. Last November, 20th Century Fox sent its exhibitors a letter to that effect: "The date is fast approaching when 20th Century Fox and Fox Searchlight will adopt the digital format as the only format in which it will theatrically distribute its films. ... We strongly advise those exhibitors that have not yet done so to take immediate steps to convert their theaters to digital projection systems."

John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theatre Owners, drove the point home at the association's annual convention last year in Las Vegas. "Simply put," he said, "If you don't make the decision to get on the digital train soon, you will be making the decision to get out of the business."

Belove, of Cinefamily, believes many theaters will choose just that.

"Hundreds of art houses will go out of business," he says. "Already some theaters are shoving under."

Belove recently returned from a conference of art-house theater owners. Most of the attendees were operating on annual budgets of less than $500,000. Upgrading on that budget is prohibitively expensive.

"The pressure's on me," he says. "I know I'm going to be forced to do a major outlay."

But the alternative also is lousy. Already there are films he couldn't show for lack of a DCP-compliant projector. He couldn't get a print of A New Leaf from Paramount for an Elaine May retrospective he wanted to do. Ditto for Saul Bass' Phase IV for a Bass retrospective, and Andrzej Zulawski's The Important Thing Is to Love for a Zulawski retrospective. Studio Canal in France would supply only a DCP.

"This is classic cinematheque stuff," Belove says with frustration.

And then there was Valentine's Day. Instead of a 35mm print, the studio offered Belove either a DCP or a DVD of Breakfast at Tiffany's.

While Cinefamily couldn't show the DCP version without a costly upgrade, it could choose to show a DVD or Blu-ray. Blown up on the big screen, however, a relatively low-resolution DVD looks, in Belove's opinion, terrible.

"We can look at a DVD right now," he says, walking into the darkened auditorium. On the screen, a trailer is playing. A man and a woman are having sex. "See how the blacks aren't black?" Belove whispers. "That's DVD. Look at the textures. Look at his jacket. Look at his face. You can't see a lot of detail."

After the trailer, the feature begins. "OK," he says, "now it's film. See how much blacker the black is?"

Stepping outside, Belove lights a cigarette and runs a hand through his hair. "Why would I charge people for a format they could see at home?"
There's a lot of great trivia within the article (like Pixar deleting all of Toy Story 2), but it's an interesting read. There's only three theaters left here in Vegas that project in 35mm (all being independent chains: a multiplex, a drive-in, and a second-run) and who knows if they'll go all digital or just end up out of business based upon how the business is trending. It would suck especially for that drive-in as I had some of the best moments of my young adult life there.
Old 04-13-12, 12:50 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Ash Ketchum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,131
Received 112 Likes on 83 Posts
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Is there any way Nolan can override the wishes of the studio and set up special screenings in 35mm at selected sites? I'd much prefer to see THE DARK KNIGHT RISES on film than digital.
Old 04-13-12, 12:57 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Why So Blu?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,090
Received 441 Likes on 359 Posts
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

It's a great article. I wish they'd gotten Robert Rodriguez in on the discussion.
Old 04-13-12, 01:19 PM
  #4  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Posts: 20,053
Received 164 Likes on 124 Posts
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

1. I thought I read that Nolan shot The Dark Knight Rises in full IMAX 70 mm. Is that not the case?

2. That article claims
James Cameron's Avatar got the ball rolling back in 2009. The 3-D blockbuster could only be shown via digital projectors, and so the first wave of theaters upgraded in a hurry.
There were 35 mm prints of Avatar, they were 2D. And the IMAX 3D prints were on celluloid too.
Old 04-13-12, 01:25 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carrollton, Ga
Posts: 4,809
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Interesting article! I can appreciate Nolan's passion for 35mm film. But I can also understand why studios not want to use it any longer. Studios are all about the bottom line. Everything about film is difficult. It's difficult to use, store, restore, etc. Almost everything about digital is cheaper, easier, and better, unless you prefer the look of dirty, yellowed film prints, cigarette burns and flicker.

I'll never understand the aversion to improving technology some in the filmmaking industry have. They're luddites. I suspect Nolan could create a film with 4K digital or future 8K digital, that could produce the look of film along with a vastly superior image quality. The desperate need to save film is something I'll never get. Again, I can understand preserving classic films in this format. I've seen many movie shot in digital, and I didn't enjoy the film less because it wasn't film. In fact, the cleaner, flicker-free image was much more pleasing.

I know my opinion will be unpopular(as all of them seem to be here), and I also know it's unpopular to say anything halfway positive about a film studios. But I can understand the motives in this situation.
Old 04-13-12, 01:38 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
 
DaveyJoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 19,189
Received 100 Likes on 72 Posts
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

^Now I understand why you like Len Wiseman.
Old 04-13-12, 01:43 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

It's all very silly. Especially the digital fear tactics. If you keep enough back-ups there's no risk.

35mm is great but unnecessary, film directors need to stop having nostalgia about it and just go digital. They should be grateful on their knees there is still an audience for theatrical cinema, and they should be doing their best to adapt to it.

Even I myself prefer film to digital, but it's a small issue ... make something good and it can even be on a VHS tape. It's lame, they act like they're entitled to shoot on film, not caring that it's irresponsible to the producers who were kind enough to give them millions.
Old 04-13-12, 01:47 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Originally Posted by Terrell View Post
I know my opinion will be unpopular(as all of them seem to be here), and I also know it's unpopular to say anything halfway positive about a film studios. But I can understand the motives in this situation.
I agree with you. It was a bigger issue 5+ years ago when digital wasn't as good. At this point though there is no reason, it is just directors with nostalgia being stubborn and afraid of change, thinking like they know better. 35mm isn't a big loss. Focus on making something good, that is what matters. If these directors want film, they should take a couple million out their bank account and make an indie film. or pay for the extra cost out of their salary. I would respect that. but they want to use other peoples money for it, as if they're entitled to it. that is where they're just being mules
Old 04-13-12, 01:47 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Matthew Chmiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 13,263
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Originally Posted by Ash Ketchum View Post
Is there any way Nolan can override the wishes of the studio and set up special screenings in 35mm at selected sites? I'd much prefer to see THE DARK KNIGHT RISES on film than digital.
He has a lot of power, but he doesn't have that much power. I would say a majority of the screens The Dark Knight Rises plays on will be digital only based upon the sole fact that AMC, Cinemark and Regal have upgraded a majority of their theaters to DLP.

Originally Posted by Mabuse View Post
1. I thought I read that Nolan shot The Dark Knight Rises in full IMAX 70mm. Is that not the case?

2. That article claims There were 35 mm prints of Avatar, they were 2D. And the IMAX 3D prints were on celluloid too.
1. Nolan shot a little under an hour of footage in 70mm. The remainder of the film was shot in 35mm.

2. A majority of Avatar's IMAX 3D screens were digital as IMAX started the conversion to digital projectors in 2008. I posted in a thread on HD Talk which had a list of theaters still projecting IMAX in 70mm to this day and there's 50 theaters are so left in North America.

Originally Posted by Terrell View Post
I know my opinion will be unpopular(as all of them seem to be here), and I also know it's unpopular to say anything halfway positive about a film studios. But I can understand the motives in this situation.
When I saw The Dark Knight in 2008, I saw it three times. Once in 35mm, once in 70mm IMAX, and once in 2K digital projection. The 35mm and 70mm prints beat out the digital version by a long shot; it was nearly a night and day difference.

However, that was in 2008 and now we're in 2012. 4K projectors are becoming the norm in most theaters now. AMC and Regal have gone exclusively to Sony's Digital Cinema 4K projection system. You also have other chains that are competing with IMAX and coming up with their own large-screen formats that either use top-of-the-line digital projectors like Cinemark's XD and Regal's RPX. While film will eventually go away, at least the theaters are offering some incentives on why one would want to catch a film in digital. Based upon my past experiences, I prefer digital setups as there's less chance for fuck ups. The few times I've gone and seen a film in 35mm recently, there's always been something that is off. Let it be misframed projection, to ghosting, to whatever. Those issues tend not to exist in digital theaters.

Another problem is studios aren't releasing any content in 4K other than Sony. I would assume The Dark Knight Rises will be released in 4K like Inception, but where's the content to take advantage of this technology that exists?
Old 04-13-12, 01:51 PM
  #10  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Posts: 20,053
Received 164 Likes on 124 Posts
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Here's the potential pitfall. Digital is NOT cheaper for exhibitors. If they sink a lot of money into digital at the same time attendance is dropping (and it is dropping) you're going to see more theater chains go out of business and further consolidation. Many of you may not remember this but 10-12 years ago exhibitors were sprinting to build the biggest multiplexes possible, 20 to 30 screen monsters, and just as they finished construction attendance dropped, many chains went bankrupt, and the theaters today are very different, consolidated under only two companies nation wide.

People's appetite for movies is still very high, but how they watch those movies is changing. More and more each day "going to the theater" is just one of many options a viewer has when he/she wants to see a movie. There will always be a place for theaters, but asking them to sink big bucks into new and ever changing digital projectors right as the landscape is changing might kill theaters completely.
Old 04-13-12, 01:53 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
arminius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Here I Is!
Posts: 6,967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Originally Posted by CloverClover View Post
It's all very silly. Especially the digital fear tactics. If you keep enough back-ups there's no risk.

35mm is great but unnecessary, film directors need to stop having nostalgia about it and just go digital. They should be grateful on their knees there is still an audience for theatrical cinema, and they should be doing their best to adapt to it.

Even I myself prefer film to digital, but it's a small issue ... make something good and it can even be on a VHS tape. It's lame, they act like they're entitled to shoot on film, not caring that it's irresponsible to the producers who were kind enough to give them millions.
>
Old 04-13-12, 02:24 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Matthew Chmiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 13,263
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Originally Posted by Mabuse View Post
Here's the potential pitfall. Digital is NOT cheaper for exhibitors. If they sink a lot of money into digital at the same time attendance is dropping (and it is dropping) you're going to see more theater chains go out of business and further consolidation. Many of you may not remember this but 10-12 years ago exhibitors were sprinting to build the biggest multiplexes possible, 20 to 30 screen monsters, and just as they finished construction attendance dropped, many chains went bankrupt, and the theaters today are very different, consolidated under only two companies nation wide.

People's appetite for movies is still very high, but how they watch those movies is changing. More and more each day "going to the theater" is just one of many options a viewer has when he/she wants to see a movie. There will always be a place for theaters, but asking them to sink big bucks into new and ever changing digital projectors right as the landscape is changing might kill theaters completely.
... and that's why the studios need to help pay for more of these digital installations. Not every theater, specifically the independently owned ones, will be able to afford to convert all of their screens over to digital. The studios need to foot some of the bill just like they foot the bill for 3D glasses.

However, if theaters want to succeed, they need to focus more on the customer service aspect as well. What benefits do I get going there besides seeing a movie on a larger screen and better sound system than I have in my house? While I love the theater closest to me because the staff isn't full of fucktards, another theater I go has the most inept staff in the world.
Old 04-13-12, 02:27 PM
  #13  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Posts: 20,053
Received 164 Likes on 124 Posts
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Originally Posted by Matthew Chmiel View Post
... and that's why the studios need to help pay for more of these digital installations. Not every theater, specifically the independently owned ones, will be able to afford to convert all of their screens over to digital. The studios need to foot some of the bill just like they foot the bill for 3D glasses.
As the article points out the time is rapidly approaching when studios will no longer subsidize conversion and the cost will be entirely upon theaters.
Old 04-13-12, 06:05 PM
  #14  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Originally Posted by Mabuse View Post
Here's the potential pitfall. Digital is NOT cheaper for exhibitors. If they sink a lot of money into digital at the same time attendance is dropping (and it is dropping) you're going to see more theater chains go out of business and further consolidation. Many of you may not remember this but 10-12 years ago exhibitors were sprinting to build the biggest multiplexes possible, 20 to 30 screen monsters, and just as they finished construction attendance dropped, many chains went bankrupt, and the theaters today are very different, consolidated under only two companies nation wide.

People's appetite for movies is still very high, but how they watch those movies is changing. More and more each day "going to the theater" is just one of many options a viewer has when he/she wants to see a movie. There will always be a place for theaters, but asking them to sink big bucks into new and ever changing digital projectors right as the landscape is changing might kill theaters completely.
This is why studios AND exhibitors have been so big on 3D. It gets people into theaters and can't be pirated.

The thing is, though, digital is inevitable. The studios are saving money, and they make the movies. The distributors will have to keep up. In the long run it may mean the studios will have to continue to subsidize, but it's going to happen.

Of course, as someone who works daily with 70mm IMAX, I would love for some film formats to stick around. There are no digital systems capable of reproducing the fidelity of 70mm IMAX, and I would hope that IMAX doesn't rush to a digital solution that is inferior, but money is money.
Old 04-13-12, 07:38 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell
Posts: 31,961
Received 292 Likes on 208 Posts
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

You would think studios would not support this format for fear of piracy.
Old 04-13-12, 07:39 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Matthew Chmiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 13,263
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Originally Posted by Supermallet View Post
Of course, as someone who works daily with 70mm IMAX, I would love for some film formats to stick around. There are no digital systems capable of reproducing the fidelity of 70mm IMAX, and I would hope that IMAX doesn't rush to a digital solution that is inferior, but money is money.
IMAX is rushing to a digital solution with their laser projectors that will be replacing all existing 70mm and digital setups currently in place. While that laser projector will most likely be 4K in resolution, nobody knows if it'll be a similar system to what exists now and consist of actually 2 4K projectors.

It'll be interesting how IMAX plays out within the next few years.
Old 04-13-12, 08:06 PM
  #17  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Formerly known as "Solid Snake PAC"/Denton, Tx
Posts: 39,239
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Here's the thing of film from a visual standpoint. It has a look. Each stock has it's look. A look that can't be created by digital. YET. It's closer than ever now. But I like to shoot on 16mm to make my projects. that's my preferred film. I don't have a reason for 35mm yet. And digital is such a pain in the ass when it comes to motion, the blur it gives off at times etc. I'll keep shooting on film until it's gone. My 16mm film has a look. A look that can't be created by digital yet unless it's in post. But that's pointless when I'm shooting.
Old 04-14-12, 11:08 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carrollton, Ga
Posts: 4,809
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Now I understand why you like Len Wiseman.
I don't really give a damn what you think, nor did I ask for your opinion. You're just another nimrod on the internet who thinks his opinion is superior.

As for Wiseman, I have no special affinity for Wiseman. I happen to think he's a pretty good director. He certainly has room to improve. I thoroughly enjoyed Live Free or Die Hard. Too bad the studio had to chop it up so they could sanitize it. I also liked the original Underworld, and I enjoyed the two hour pilot to Hawaii Five-O that he directed. I'm also interested to see what he can do with Total Recall. If you don't like that, tough sh*t.

I also love the work of Christopher Nolan, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, Ridley Scott, and Paul Thomas Anderson. Then again, I'm not a film snob. I don't need every film to be Best Picture caliber to enjoy it, nor does it need critical approval. I also don't need your approval of my tastes.

Now, would you like to add something substantive, or would you prefer to continue being a smartass?

Last edited by Terrell; 04-14-12 at 11:16 AM.
Old 04-14-12, 11:15 AM
  #19  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carrollton, Ga
Posts: 4,809
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Originally Posted by Matthew Chmiel View Post
He has a lot of power, but he doesn't have that much power. I would say a majority of the screens The Dark Knight Rises plays on will be digital only based upon the sole fact that AMC, Cinemark and Regal have upgraded a majority of their theaters to DLP.


1. Nolan shot a little under an hour of footage in 70mm. The remainder of the film was shot in 35mm.

2. A majority of Avatar's IMAX 3D screens were digital as IMAX started the conversion to digital projectors in 2008. I posted in a thread on HD Talk which had a list of theaters still projecting IMAX in 70mm to this day and there's 50 theaters are so left in North America.


When I saw The Dark Knight in 2008, I saw it three times. Once in 35mm, once in 70mm IMAX, and once in 2K digital projection. The 35mm and 70mm prints beat out the digital version by a long shot; it was nearly a night and day difference.

However, that was in 2008 and now we're in 2012. 4K projectors are becoming the norm in most theaters now. AMC and Regal have gone exclusively to Sony's Digital Cinema 4K projection system. You also have other chains that are competing with IMAX and coming up with their own large-screen formats that either use top-of-the-line digital projectors like Cinemark's XD and Regal's RPX. While film will eventually go away, at least the theaters are offering some incentives on why one would want to catch a film in digital. Based upon my past experiences, I prefer digital setups as there's less chance for fuck ups. The few times I've gone and seen a film in 35mm recently, there's always been something that is off. Let it be misframed projection, to ghosting, to whatever. Those issues tend not to exist in digital theaters.

Another problem is studios aren't releasing any content in 4K other than Sony. I would assume The Dark Knight Rises will be released in 4K like Inception, but where's the content to take advantage of this technology that exists?
I would agree wholeheartedly as it pertains to 2K. I didn't find 2K digital projection to be all that good. 35mm and 70mm easily beat 2K by a country mile. But I don't see that problem with 4K, and future 8K(and you knows it's coming sooner than we think).

I also agree with your point about it being more difficult to screw up a digital screening than a film screening. I've seen many 35mm presentations ruined from the projectionist not knowing what he's doing.

I just think at the end of the day, it's more important what's on the medium, ie the movie, rather than what the medium. Is the Dark Knight going to be a different movie on digital versus film? I highly doubt it.

You would think studios would not support this format for fear of piracy.
To be honest, film never stopped piracy, or even slowed it down. That's the unfortunate truth.
Old 04-14-12, 01:01 PM
  #20  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Originally Posted by devilshalo View Post
You would think studios would not support this format for fear of piracy.
The digital files are encoded and require a time-sensitive key to unlock. I have not yet heard of any digital prints being leaked.

Originally Posted by Matthew Chmiel View Post
IMAX is rushing to a digital solution with their laser projectors that will be replacing all existing 70mm and digital setups currently in place. While that laser projector will most likely be 4K in resolution, nobody knows if it'll be a similar system to what exists now and consist of actually 2 4K projectors.

It'll be interesting how IMAX plays out within the next few years.
I know that IMAX is looking to replace film with laser projectors, but if they can't do better than 4k (and two digital projectors is a stupid solution), what's the point? What differentiates IMAX from regular digital at that point? Nothing. They at least need to get a digital solution that can do 8k, imo, if they plan on staying in business.
Old 04-14-12, 01:26 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 36,850
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Originally Posted by Matthew Chmiel View Post
1. Nolan shot a little under an hour of footage in 70mm. The remainder of the film was shot in 35mm.
Really? Wasn't the plan to shoot the action sequences in IMAX and the dramatic scenes in "standard" 70mm?
Old 04-14-12, 10:25 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Matthew Chmiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 13,263
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Originally Posted by Supermallet View Post
I know that IMAX is looking to replace film with laser projectors, but if they can't do better than 4k (and two digital projectors is a stupid solution), what's the point? What differentiates IMAX from regular digital at that point? Nothing. They at least need to get a digital solution that can do 8k, imo, if they plan on staying in business.
70mm IMAX has a resolution of around 10000 7000 (1.44:1).

2K digital cinema has a resolution of either 2048 1080 (1.85:1).

4K digital cinema has a resolution of 3996 2160 (1.85:1).

The reasons why digital IMAX uses two projectors is to increase brightness for large screen use and to hide the visible pixel grid. It might still have the same resolution as your normal 2K projection system, but digital IMAX has the capability of using 4K digital sources. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol was sent to digital IMAX theaters as a 4K DCP. Since the projectors extract two separate images, the resolution could achieve something higher than 2K.

If IMAX uses two 4K laser projectors, the same thing applies. Better brightness, a less visible pixel grid and the ability to get sources that's greater than 4K.

It's not as great as 70mm film, but it'll be a far better digital system than what exists now.

Originally Posted by RocShemp View Post
Really? Wasn't the plan to shoot the action sequences in IMAX and the dramatic scenes in "standard" 70mm?
No, but Nolan could've shot additional scenes in 65mm a la Inception.
Old 04-15-12, 04:38 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Nick Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 26,421
Received 503 Likes on 334 Posts
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

We're going to go digital, like it or not. Studio economics support it.

Nolan sounds a little like Joe Walsh in the late 1980s complaining about CDs. Walsh thought that the only genuine rock and roll sound came from a vinyl record. The big companies ignored him, too.
Old 04-15-12, 05:24 PM
  #24  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Originally Posted by Matthew Chmiel View Post
70mm IMAX has a resolution of around 10000 7000 (1.44:1).

2K digital cinema has a resolution of either 2048 1080 (1.85:1).

4K digital cinema has a resolution of 3996 2160 (1.85:1).

The reasons why digital IMAX uses two projectors is to increase brightness for large screen use and to hide the visible pixel grid. It might still have the same resolution as your normal 2K projection system, but digital IMAX has the capability of using 4K digital sources. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol was sent to digital IMAX theaters as a 4K DCP. Since the projectors extract two separate images, the resolution could achieve something higher than 2K.

If IMAX uses two 4K laser projectors, the same thing applies. Better brightness, a less visible pixel grid and the ability to get sources that's greater than 4K.

It's not as great as 70mm film, but it'll be a far better digital system than what exists now.
But will that be enough to get people to pay the (imo) exorbitant prices theaters are charging for digital IMAX? I wouldn't pay more for that, frankly.
Old 04-16-12, 02:16 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Matthew Chmiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 13,263
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: LA Weekly: "Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film."

Originally Posted by Supermallet View Post
But will that be enough to get people to pay the (imo) exorbitant prices theaters are charging for digital IMAX? I wouldn't pay more for that, frankly.
No idea. However, I do agree that the price for digital IMAX is bullshit. Why the increase in price despite the fact some digital IMAX screens are barely any bigger than a normal screen? The same applies to XD, RPX, DFX, whatever other "big screen" formats chains are coming out with.

It sucks as the one legitimate IMAX screen Vegas had, at the Luxor, had an amazing 68 x 48 foot screen. I was okay paying a higher premium seeing The Matrix sequels there. On the flip side, I'm not okay with paying a premium seeing a DNR'd to death version of The Hunger Games in digital IMAX (on a screen that's a bit smaller at 60 x 46).

Wait. Let me rephrase that.

I'm not okay with paying $3 as MoviePass covers the other $13 to see a DNR'd to death version of The Hunger Games in digital IMAX.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.