|
|
Posted by ViNNY on 10/11/05 20:04
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <434bf995$0$15069$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
> Ben <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>>It would require an *incredibly* tatty 35mm film projector to give
>>>results in a cinema as soft as PAL at its best. And I doubt such a
>>>beast was ever used in UK mainstream cinemas. Of course if the lenses
>>>etc were filthy and it wasn't focused correctly...
>
>
>>I suspect what they discovered was that in a significant minority of
>>cases projectors were being manned by incompetent/indifferent minimum
>>wage teenagers who didn't know/care any better. Incorrect focus was
>>probably the main cause, although once you get down to the n-th
>>generation transfer that makes it to your local multiplex, the effective
>>resolution of the film is lower than people think (obviously I mean the
>>actual content, not what the film stock is capable of).
>
>
> I'm no expert on film, but I'd say there were no 'n-th' generation
> transfer. The cost of film stock makes this ludicrous. A 35mm print of a
> feature film costs many thousands. So it makes sense to make it from an
> original 'master'. This is why there's been a dash to video projection.
> Nothing about picture quality but purely to save money. And to extend
> life. A real film is easily damaged. And frequently were.
Obviously, with films that get simultaneous or near simultaneous release
worldwide, the cinema starts with a brand new print. If it's something
that's been out for a few months in the States, chances are what your
watching has been in near constant use since the US opening weekend, and
when the number of screens over there has fallen off, the print has been
shipped on to UK cinemas to save money.
Digital projection can and will eventually save money by saving time
from wrapping to premiere. Something like Sin City would never have had
to touch 35mm, making it able to transmit from Robert Rodriguez's
PowerBook directly to 20,000 screens worldwide. In theory, anyway.
2k digital projection can look very close to film. 4k I would imagine
will be stunning quality, with the usual tradeoffs in pros and cons you
get as everything else switches to digital.
-Vin
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|