Patrick Sun
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1999
- Messages
- 39,660
The Wizard of Imax doesn't not perform for an audience!
They said something about it possibly hurting our eyes which I can't see a reason why that would be.Vic Pardo said:Why does everyone have to leave in order to reboot the projector? Can't they just do it in the booth while everyone's sitting in their seats?
Wayne_j said:They said something about it possibly hurting our eyes which I can't see a reason why that would be.
I'm a realist and I realize that film is gone for all intents and purposes. Too expensive, too many problems, yada, yada. It's too bad because for me, film had a wonderfully organic quality about it. When film would physically pass before a lens and a shutter at 24 fps, the images on the screen took on a luminescent quality that I have yet to find with digital.DaveF said:Overall, I prefer digital. The problems have been much less. I don't have to worry about the dusty, mildly scratched print just a week after opening.
When I did my taxes and tallied all my admission tickets to the movies last year, I realized that every ticket had a two-digit price. That may be the first year that's ever happened.Jesse Skeen said:And of course with reduced costs and paid ads showing before the movie you'd think prices would go down, but instead they just keep going UP!
I loved reading how (non-Hollywood) people always get all bent out of shape over "This director did 20 takes!", etc., when I agree, the film stock is probably the cheapest thing. Renting a studio (or location), building sets, renting camera, lighting and sound equipment, paying a cast and crew, all of that costs money. When you've already paid for all of those things and you're there on the set, to my thinking, it's silly not to do the extra take if you think you need it. Stanley Kubrick was one of many directors who I've read quoted as saying basically that.Bobby Henderson said:Digital has done little if anything at all to lower costs in movie production. People in Hollywood have joked for many years that 35mm film stock was the cheapest thing on a movie set.
Agreed.Mark Booth said:My gripe is that there aren't any projectionists anymore.
I'm usually OK with common width screens, but the closest Regal RPX has gone too far. Masking comes down from the top of the screen and scope films are shown on the bottom of the screen meaning that most of the audience has to look down at the screen.Bobby Henderson said:One of the things I really don't like about new theater designs is too many have common width screens. That includes IMAX branded theaters by the way. The "flat" 1.85:1 aspect ratio is bigger than 2.39:1 'scope. I've criticized common width screens for many years, often saying they make Driving Miss Daisy bigger than Die Hard. In 35mm, the 'scope format was the biggest format. It used all of the 4-perf 35mm film frame. It often delivered better image quality than cropped 1.85:1 imagery. With d-cinema everything has gone into reverse. Scope is now the smaller format. It has fewer pixels (2K scope is 2048 X 852 and 2K flat is 1998 X 1080). D-cinema projectors are only geared for single lens use since their imagery chip crop 'scope. There is no true anamorphic solution for 'scope in d-cinema. With the combination of hardware and the market growth of common width screens I predict use of the 2.39:1 aspect ratio will start dramatically falling off before this decade is finished.