digital capture VS film capture (1 Viewer)

[Richard--W]

Yeah I know. But the math doesn't correspond to the eyes, RAH.

 

[Worth]

My position is that the technology is problematic. As an aside, a screening of SKYFALL at the Arclight -- where I go as often a possible when I'm in L.A. -- was flawless compared to the second time I saw it in Albuquerque. The second time it was as dim and ill-defined as ZERO DARK THIRTY. If SKYFALL had been shot on film and projected on film, it would not have looked so dim.

Skyfall's cinematographer, Roger Deakins, disagrees with you on that: http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1650

There is as much hype about the 'excellence' of film as there is about many of the new digital cameras. How quickly we can gloss over the unstable projection, the scratches and reel change dirt, the quality loss that comes from a poor dupe (any dupe) or a blow up done with a bad optical lens. The way I have seen some film prints projected lately, yes, I prefer to see digital projection even if it has to be 2K. As I said, there is no quality loss from the scanned negative to the digital projector at any theatre the film might be viewed in - other than the down res from 4K to 2K if the projector is 2K and the film scan is 4K. With film there is the loss of resolution from the output neg to the print and even further loss if the print is made from an IP/IN.

 

[Doctorossi]

I'm not sure what you hope to gain from this poll, Richard. Despite the dubious nature of the claims your opinion appears to be built upon, you seem to have your mind well made up about the "correct" answer to this question. So, do you really care what other people think (and if so, why?) or is this poll just veiled rhetoric? Meanwhile, I've experienced extremely dim film projections and extremely dim digital projections, but I have no idea what projection lamp lifespan has to do with image capture in either medium.

 

[Ruz-El]

All of Richards descriptions of what he saw in the theater sound more like a bulb issue (a bad bulb or one turned down by the projectionist to try to make it last longer. I know Edgar Write was rallying pretty hard a while back on this problem making his film look bad at a screening he attended) instead of a print or format issue.

 

[Doctorossi]

All of Richards descriptions of what he saw in the theater sound more like a bulb issue (a bad bulb or one turned down by the projectionist to try to make it last longer. I know Edgar Write was rallying pretty hard a while back on this problem making his film look bad at a screening he attended) instead of a print or format issue.

Indeed. Oh, to be a fly on the wall at the dailies sessions in which 'dim' digital captures are given a pass.

 

[Richard--W]

Perhaps it was only a bulb issue at the screening of ZERO DARK THIRTY, but what I saw there occurs everywhere all the time. I also think it is a capture issue, because movies lacking resolution and definition are everywhere, in theaters and on DVD and blu-ray. I'm not the only one who thinks so. If and when movie theaters convert to luminous monitors perhaps it will no longer matter.

I'm not sure what you hope to gain from this poll, Richard. Despite the dubious nature of the claims your opinion appears to be built upon, you seem to have your mind well made up about the "correct" answer to this question. So, do you really care what other people think (and if so, why?) or is this poll just veiled rhetoric?.

Sheesh! I'm not sure what you hope to gain by asking such a devious question, doctorossi, or how you are allowed to get away with it but you have a lot of nerve. Despite the seemingly civil wording your question appears to be built on, you seem to have your mind well made up as to my motives. So, do you really care if the initial post was sincere and meant to be taken at face value, or is your reply just a veiled insult?

Meanwhile, I've experienced extremely dim film projections and extremely dim digital projections,

Check.

but I have no idea what projection lamp lifespan has to do with image capture in either medium.

I believe that you have no idea, since nobody suggested that it does. I'm going to post both questions -- this and the deleted one -- at other forums because I'm sincerely interested in the replies.

 

[Doctorossi]

I also think it is a capture issue, because movies lacking resolution and definition are everywhere, in theaters and on DVD and blu-ray. I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Resolution and definition? I thought the issue was brightness and contrast?

I'm not sure what you hope to gain by asking such a devious question, doctorossi, or how you are allowed to get away with it but you have a lot of nerve.

Perhaps if you do not presume an ulterior motive, you will be able to see that there's nothing devious about my question and then you will no longer have to wonder how I'm "allowed to get away with" a sincere (and, IMO, very reasonable) question. I think that would be nice.

Despite the seemingly civil wording your question appears to be built on, you seem to have your mind well made up as to my motives.

While you may exhibit a tendency to ask questions about which you already know the answers and while that tendency might color your expectations of others, please allow me to assure you that there are some people who ask questions because they do not already have the answers.

I believe that you have no idea, since nobody suggested that it does.

Per my personal, anecdotal experience, you suggested that it does. You see, in my personal, anecdotal experience, major Hollywood productions do not allow "dim" cinematography to slip through into production. Therefor, any dim movies experienced on the screen tend to be a product of improper projection rather than improper production. You seem to be drawing a correlation between the production process and the appearance of underlit projection in theaters and, to explain why, I can only guess that you must lack some technical understanding of the processes and factors involved.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Dim. I couldn't tell the color of Jessica Chastain's eyes in a close-up in daylight. But the projection at this Harkins is usually up to professional standards. The manager told me only two of his auditoriums are equipped with 35mm now. My position is that the technology is problematic. As an aside, a screening of SKYFALL at the Arclight -- where I go as often a possible when I'm in L.A. -- was flawless compared to the second time I saw it in Albuquerque. The second time it was as dim and ill-defined as ZERO DARK THIRTY. If SKYFALL had been shot on film and projected on film, it would not have looked so dim. These problems simply did not exist when films were shot on film and projected on film. Even a cheap best-light 16mm transfer from the 1970s has more resolution and better definition than a digitally captured and digitally projected movie today.

Isn't this inconsistent? As far as I know, the Arclight is all digital, so if that is the case then you saw a flawless digital show there and a less good one in Albuquerque. Can't blame the capture technique in that case. (again, if I am correct in the assumption that Arclight ran it as a digital show).

 

[Richard--W]

Here we go again. Another thread filled with more lunatic accusations, wheel spinning and double-talk from doctorossi. Cease and desist. Don't you ever do this again.

 

[Richard--W]

Isn't this inconsistent? As far as I know, the Arclight is all digital, so if that is the case then you saw a flawless digital show there and a less good one in Albuquerque. Can't blame the capture technique in that case. (again, if I am correct in the assumption that Arclight ran it as a digital show).

Has the Arclight gone all-digital? I didn't know that. The projection there is consistently reliable. Plus I used to live in the neighborhood and I'm just used to the place. There is no obnoxious "pre-show" advertising. I assumed the Arclight was projecting the digitally-captured SKYFALL on film since I read that some venues were screening it on film.

 

[Doctorossi]

Here we go again. Another thread filled with more lunatic accusations, wheel spinning and double-talk from doctorossi. Cease and desist. Don't you ever do this again.

*sigh* I don't know where to begin, so I won't. Enjoy your thread.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi
*sigh*
I don't know where to begin, so I won't. Enjoy your thread.

Richard is a mod?

 

[Richard--W]

Russel G is a mod? My initial post was quite sincere, no matter what that lunatic doctorossi implies.

 

[Robert Harris]

"Maybe it's the bulb. No, sir. It's the power. They're leaving. That's it, then."

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by Richard--W
Russel G is a mod?
My initial post was quite sincere, no matter what that lunatic doctorossi implies.

I SHOULD be a mod! C'mon! NO NAME CALLING!
and doctorossi brought up some good points if you're actually looking for a discussion and not an affirmation of your opinion, which seems to be a bit miss-guided.

 

[Richard--W]

Russel G, doctorossi's innuendo is inappropriate, offensive and objectionable. He contributes nothing. But he certainly derailed the thread. He's laughing his sick & twisted head off because no one is going to discuss digital vs film capture after he turned the discussion into a false issue about motives and meaning. I've been through this nonsense with him before, and to complain about him does no damn good.

 

[Richard--W]

Jeez!. I was never looking for an affirmation of my opinion. Take the initial post at face value and stop listening to doctorossi. doctorossi used the edit function to reword the first of his insulting posts. It's still a put-down, though. Since he derailed the thread, it no longer matters. This thread is dead.

 

[Ruz-El]

I think what killed this thread is no one is seeing what you're seeing, or agreeing with your causation that "digital capture causes dim movies"...

 

[Ronald Epstein]

This thread is closed.