Will digital replace film completely?
Jim Nason
a lifelong fan of filmed motion pictures, as are many on this news group. I
enjoy the technical side of film production as well as the artistic result
from a complementary blend of technology and art.
That said, I realize, sadly, that film is a dying medium, whether we are
talking about celleloid or the newer film bases. While I realize that
digital origination and presentation are becoming more pervasive, I don't
enjoy the medium as much. Realistically, I foresee a time when digital will
replace film absolutely, except for special events.
Can anyone offer serious speculation as to when this changeover will be
largely complete? I am not in a position to offer an educated guess.
Secondly, what level of digital technology will have to be achieved in order
to match and surpass the resolution of 35mm film, and same question as
applies to 65mm film?
Bowing (reluctantly) to the inevitable,
Jim Nason
Jim Nason
"Jim Nason" <jhn...@metrocast.net> wrote in message
news:BP2dnTdu8M7CMbvW...@metrocastcablevision.com...
Jim Nason
rjn
> That said, I realize, sadly, that film is a dying medium, ...
A major newspaper is predicting that the Kodak brand will
vanish in 2010. I doubt it, but it says something that the
notion could even be seriously entertained.
> Can anyone offer serious speculation as to when this changeover will be
> largely complete? I am not in a position to offer an educated guess.
It would be interesting to see a % chart of digital penetration
in cinema halls, and a plot of silver halide 35mm prints per month.
> Secondly, what level of digital technology will have to be achieved in order
> to match and surpass the resolution of 35mm film, and same question as
> applies to 65mm film?
That, alas, is not the criterion for digital conversion.
The exhibitors today seem to be quite content with "2k"
(2048x1080 DCI "container" and Christie DLP projectors).
Even moving them to 4K is a hard sell.
My personal opinion is that 4K deep color at max DCI bitrates
does not reach the theoretical capability of 35mm, but beats
what the typical 35mm hall actually throws on the screen.
65mm, esp 15-perf, is another matter. Start at 8k (which
has been demonstrated, but is unlikely to find a market).
IMAX, who might be expected to care about what digital
would equal 15-perf, has released an IMAX Digital product
that is some sort of dual projector 2K. Not encouraging.
And yes, cinema 2K is only 5% more pixels than full HDTV
(DCI is a 5x higher bit rate than, say, Blu-Ray, but you'll
notice that this gets zero discussion in video forums).
The next big thing is more likely 3D than 4K.
--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:na...@ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Can anyone offer serious speculation as to when this changeover will be
>largely complete? I am not in a position to offer an educated guess.
Spottiswode says it will begin around 1956 and predicts that within a couple
years after that, electronic projection will be universal.
>Secondly, what level of digital technology will have to be achieved in order
>to match and surpass the resolution of 35mm film, and same question as
>applies to 65mm film?
Problem isn't the resolution, the problem is the grey scale. You can expect
a minimum of something like 8k or so from a decent 35mm EK print. Problem
is that your corner multiplex doesn't get an EK print, they get crappy multi
generation prints made at high speed. And these days a lot of those films
even if they were shot on film and projected on film went through a 2k digital
intermediate which bumps the resolution way down.
4k isn't as good as a good 35mm print, but it's better than a lot of crappy
ones.
The PROBLEM, though, is that the grey scale and color gamut of the film prints
is still far, far better than the digital systems. (And sadly, the grey scale
of a good B&W print is a couple stops wider than that of the best color
print too). While improving digital resolution would be a good thing, much
more important at this stage of the game is to improve the greyscale.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Mutley
I suspect that commercial movies will go the way of home movies did
back in the 1980s. Video
Greg Faris
If you�re seeking a trend projection, on the presentation side, the only thing
we can say is that digital technology is coming to market faster and faster,
and usually beats even professionals� estimates for market maturity. At the
introduction of the DVD, many observers at SMPTE and AES offered views that it
would take over 20 years for this technology to fully supplant VHS cassettes,
mostly because people would be reluctant to give up their existing machines
until they had stopped working, or until they could no longer get cassettes.
This projection proved to be wildly conservative.
It is true, as Scott says, that resolution is not the issue (or is no longer
the issue) but this has partly to do with the fact that 35mm and 70mm
projection systems rarely perform anywhere near their theoretical potential,
due to instability, jitter, weave, motion artifacts attributable to the film
transport cinematic and thermal considerations, not to mention dirt, dust,
scratches and damage from accidents. A good benchmark might be vinyl records,
compared with CD�s and other digital formats. Enthusiasts will point out that
the analog system is not limited in bandwidth or dynamics, while the digital
system is. This notwithstanding, the overwhelming majority prefer the
constrained system without the pops, clicks, hisses and scratches. We might
expect film-based systems to occupy a "niche" market, similar to vinyl, in the
very near future, although unlike vinyl records, film-based technologies are
prevalent in initial acquisition, where their intrinsic qualities and strong
preferences by some artists are not hampered by the presentation
inconveniences mentioned above.
After many years working with 70mm presentation systems, I feel that 4K is
easily the equivalent, when one considers all of the aforementioned
degradations that typically occur. But the fact that 70mm presentation died
out long before there was anything comparable to replace it, and that even
35mm prints have been degrading in quality in recent years should serve as
ample proof that quality concerns alone are not driving the market, except in
rare and special circumstances.
In article <hg7072$qbq$1...@panix2.panix.com>, klu...@panix.com says...
Bhairitu
Then you have the problem of presentation. My local all digital
multiplex (8 screens in the burbs and I don't know how they were able to
afford it) outside of a screwup with the computer regarding starting on
time the presentations are always consistent the last showing as good as
the first.
Can't say that about film. I recently saw "The Road" at the local art
house that has only film except for the intermission stuff and film now
looks washed out compared to digital. I'm not talking about the look of
"The Road" but the trailers that played before it on film.
What bugs me regardless of medium is theater who don't clean the screen
well after some miscreant has thrown a drink at it. There always seems
to be remaining splotches. Don't they have insurance for that? Or at
the local digital multiplex one auditorium has a blown center speaker
that buzzes and is annoying. It's been this way for a year and I
reported it via email and the manager even followed up with me. When I
saw a film in that auditorium a few weeks back I told them again and
they told me "the owner won't replace it."
Scott Dorsey
>
>What bugs me regardless of medium is theater who don't clean the screen
>well after some miscreant has thrown a drink at it. There always seems
>to be remaining splotches. Don't they have insurance for that? Or at
>the local digital multiplex one auditorium has a blown center speaker
>that buzzes and is annoying. It's been this way for a year and I
>reported it via email and the manager even followed up with me. When I
>saw a film in that auditorium a few weeks back I told them again and
>they told me "the owner won't replace it."
Yes. Basically, digital cinema doesn't fix the most serious problems with
typical theatres these days. What's worse, the patrons don't care. The
problems are not technical ones when it all comes down to it...