Jump to content


Photo

Movies Ruined By digital


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#21 aapo lettinen

aapo lettinen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1022 posts
  • Other
  • Finland

Posted 29 November 2017 - 07:35 AM

 

 

The irony is that more often than not films nowadays are released in that awful teal-and-orange palette. So whoever did it though it was OK because he had his Instagoggles on. Yuck.

 

 

reminds me of the Matrix trilogy and the moss-green madness back then  :blink:

 

anyway, one can also accidentally make somewhat similar type look from normal looking movie if using the jpeg2000 xyz (DCP source) version as a raw material and just making the rgb exports from it without converting the colour space, or converting the wrong way. that will make somewhat overall green colour shift to the whole image and if slightly adding contrast or boosting saturation it could look exactly like the stills posted here


  • 0

#22 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 313 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 29 November 2017 - 04:12 PM

I remember watching Peter Jackson's The Hobbit movies at the cinema a few years ago. I was bored beyond belief sitting there watching. I detested the very look of what I was sitting through. To me it wasn't cinema it was digitally snazzed-up cartoons. Even the actors and sets looked like CGI. The color grading was awful and fake looking. The whole thing looked cheap and fake to me. The art design as it were of the very look of the cinematography gave me the impression of cheap and tacky plastic and fake chrome. I got the impression of a very poor quality desert one felt compelled to eat because one was with friends yet you were nearly gagging on the cheap, industrial fake-sugar sweetness taste of it. I remember the part with the village being attacked by the flying dragon, and the villagers piling into boats and the shots of their scared faces. I sat there and I couldn't have cared less if the whole lot of them were nuked from orbit. Just absolute care factor zero. These days I watch films like David Lean's 'Ryan's Daughter' on DVD. Now that's a movie. Shot on real film cameras. Oh yes, and man can you tell it's the real thing. Just looks so ..... beautiful!!!! You know why? Because it's real. I've given up on any film shot on digital, unless possibly a Star Wars film but that's it, none else. I didn't bother to see the latest Blade Runner. Just not worth going out for. Too many other things I'd rather do.


  • 1

#23 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 313 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 29 November 2017 - 05:46 PM

New big budget films shot on film I think need a limited release as film-projected prints, at a higher ticket price if need be. Then a general digital release for a longer run at the cinema (to get around the problem of the print quickly wearing out). Was talking to this terrific guy in Brisbane a few days ago, literally just up the street, who is a real knows-everyone, get-it-done person. He has worked in just about every industry you can name that needs hands-on, practical people. I suddenly clicked, and said to him, "Hey, I bet you've worked in cinemas." Yep, I was right. He knows all the old Brisbane cinemas. I asked him about all the old projectors. Knew them by brand name. He thinks he knows where there are come 35mm projectors up for grabs. He warned me they are very big. I said I've got a big shed I can store them in. He told me the big problem will be getting hold of prints. He also said he's going to find me a 16mm projector. If I do get hold of some projectors maybe they will just sit and gather dust but I'm not going to let them be thrown into land fill.


  • 1

#24 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 29 November 2017 - 05:52 PM

Step 1: Open your own cinema

Step 2: ????

Step 3: Profit


  • 0

#25 fatih yıkar

fatih yıkar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts
  • Other
  • Turkey

Posted 29 November 2017 - 08:17 PM

I remember watching Peter Jackson's The Hobbit movies at the cinema a few years ago. I was bored beyond belief sitting there watching. I detested the very look of what I was sitting through. 

Yeah this is another example, when i blame technology so many people here dont't agree with me but if digital technology not shows up hobbit movies would be look like the lord of the rings trilogy, such a good opportunity missed....

 

New big budget films shot on film I think need a limited release as film-projected prints, at a higher ticket price if need be. Then a general digital release for a longer run at the cinema (to get around the problem of the print quickly wearing out). 

I been thinking is movies shot on film could be release on film-projected theaters before dcp release ... like the Tarantino make the roadshow for hateful eight only one day but if the movie only released film print and one or two month later release digitally in theaters, ıt will be prize for the theaters still run film projection...

 

Also many people here complain about film prints damages,dust,scratches things like that but as i remember i saw many movies from prints when i was teenager and never saw a big problem like that, i asked couple of old projectionist about problems of prints, they told me we know all that risk about prints because of that we are so careful all the time and they said they run some film prints over than 300-500 times and ıt still has no scratches,dust or damages still looks brilliant,  so how accurate things are about cons of film prints?


Edited by fatih yıkar, 29 November 2017 - 08:19 PM.

  • 2

#26 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1904 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 30 November 2017 - 12:01 AM

Fatih .. I have the answer.. Choose life.. don't worry about pixel peeking.. get out of your bedroom.. make you're own films.. grade them anyway you want.. concentrate on scripts and acting.. get drunk at the wrap party.. go to the cinema to "see" a film.. not the grade.. if its a film good you won't even notice it..  choose life ..son.. choose life.. 


  • 3

#27 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 313 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 30 November 2017 - 12:17 AM

That's right, Fatih, the problems of film prints are these days exaggerated. I easily remember decades of seeing 35mm film projection, big blockbuster films that had already been showing several times a day, for several weeks, and the look of the prints was absolutely fine. Never once witnessed a frame burnout or anything major happen, and I was an avid cinema goer. Worst thing that ever happened was (I think) a projector broke down and the manager came out 'on stage' and apologised and chatted with us for a bit while the projectionist frantically made the repairs. I seem to recall she had us all laughing with her wit. We gave her strong applause when the curtains opened again and the film was ready to show. Occasionally seem to recall a film showing would start to judder momentarily, probably torn sprockets, but this righted itself in about a second or less. Yes, some vertical lines started to appear after a few weeks of daily showings, dust, and maybe some popping sounds in the soundtrack, but personally I loved all of that stuff. It was just the movies. As I said, of many years of enjoying film prints at the cinema I never once experienced a major problem. There was never a showing I went to that was cancelled because a print became unwatchable. I seem to recall that the Star Wars films, shown on cinemascope 35mm prints, would run several times a day for many weeks, all the one print. They went fine. Even at the end of a run, a film was still very watchable.


  • 1

#28 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 30 November 2017 - 12:56 AM

Yes, some vertical lines started to appear after a few weeks of daily showings, dust, and maybe some popping sounds in the soundtrack, but personally I loved all of that stuff. It was just the movies.

 

I'm going to explain this in summary: we used to go to the movies, now we all just watch big TVs. Going to the movies used to be its own experience. Now it's like watching TV.


  • 2

#29 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1904 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 30 November 2017 - 01:08 AM

 

I'm going to explain this in summary: we used to go to the movies, now we all just watch big TVs. Going to the movies used to be its own experience. Now it's like watching TV.

 

 

Well not really.. you leave the house.. you see other people .. you get wear your best regalia ..  its a social activity .. but you don't do it every day.. who can afford it, except for sound recordists .. and the other days you can watch, at least these days .. fantastic tv content.. its better than it has ever been.. on a nice big tv.. whats not to love.. best of both worlds..  all this gnashing of teeth about how the world was better with hand cranked cameras and typhoid ..  relax.. life is hard and then you die.. lets  worry about The Orange twat tweeting facist propaganda 


  • 1

#30 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 30 November 2017 - 01:39 AM

Robin, I don't know who you're talking about. I'm an adult and don't worry about birds outside tweeting or whatever. Orange? Is that an attack on Zippy from RAINBOW? My daughter still hasn't figured out what Zippy is and she's smarter than me. Maybe it's getting light bounces off of Rod, Jane and Freddy's tans.

 

You know, it's odd now that I think about it, I went and watched AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON when it came out and paid $1.25 for my ticket which I'm sure I still have somewhere in storage. That was in 1981 when the FILM prints were made on FILM. It opened in about 2000 theatres which meant that 2000 35mm prints had to be pulled at about $2000 each or $4,000,000.00 just for prints.

 

Four million dollars just for prints and the movie cost $1.25 to watch.

 

Now they deliver the VIDEO files digitally to the VIDEO projectors and it costs $12.50 to watch the stuff. It costs ten times MORE and it looks ten times worse. And it is much easier for pirates to copy the thing.

 

I hope the digital fad ends soon.


Edited by Samuel Berger, 30 November 2017 - 01:40 AM.

  • 4

#31 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1904 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 30 November 2017 - 03:32 AM

Well yes everything was cheaper in 1981.. inflation Im afraid..cinema was about $3-5 in London.. but an average house was also about $60,000.. now its close $1m in nearly all of London.. in that respect .. and considering the cost to actually make the product.. ie a film.. the tent poles being 100,s of millions now.. compared to even 10 million being a huge budget in 1981.The price has actually gone down a lot when you consider god know what percent inflation from then to now..

 

Although Im sure your right.. this digital thing is a passing phase .. as is the color green.. be gone both of them I say ..

 

PS No not Zippy.. a far more dangerous Clown Im afraid ..


  • 0

#32 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 313 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 30 November 2017 - 05:50 AM

An ante-room in the castle. Enter Lady Macbeth.

 

"Out, damn spot! Out, I say.


  • 0

#33 fatih yıkar

fatih yıkar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts
  • Other
  • Turkey

Posted 30 November 2017 - 08:13 AM

maxivision.png

 

Like the Charles said there, going a movie theater is an Experience. In old times many people just go to theater for that experience, not for one particularly chosen movie, they go,select randomly a movie and watch it.

Inflation is main reason but why the ticket prices not drop after digital revolution?  Dcp files more cheaper than $1500 film prints

 

Even though digital projection is better than film projection, in my opinion theater should run film prints. You have to give me something that i can't get at home. Now 60 inches tv's are really cheaper and home theater projectors gives really beautiful images at 130 inches and prices getting drop every year.

While the ticket prices are rising in theaters and now movie theaters has 10 or 15 small screen instead of one giant, big screen.

 

Btw i always wonder how it looks MaxiVision 24 or 48 system, so many time Roger Ebert praise that. There are good articles about this subject...

https://www.rogerebe...-i-grew-up-with

https://www.rogerebe...ixels-with-that


  • 0

#34 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1904 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 30 November 2017 - 08:38 AM

Just invite a while load of strangers over to your place .. charge them entry fee and $100 for pop corn.. same as the movies.. no ..?

and a good earner too ..


  • 0

#35 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 30 November 2017 - 03:47 PM

Well yes everything was cheaper in 1981.. inflation Im afraid..cinema was about $3-5 in London.. but an average house was also about $60,000.. now its close $1m in nearly all of London.. in that respect .. and considering the cost to actually make the product.. ie a film.. the tent poles being 100,s of millions now.. compared to even 10 million being a huge budget in 1981.The price has actually gone down a lot when you consider god know what percent inflation from then to now..

 

Although Im sure your right.. this digital thing is a passing phase .. as is the color green.. be gone both of them I say ..

 

PS No not Zippy.. a far more dangerous Clown Im afraid ..

 

I see some logical fallacies there, you know. And how odd that houses are so expensive in the caliphate of London...perhaps because the Saudis are buying up real state in droves. I saw that on the news today.

When they take over, do suppose you'll see them hurling homosexuals off the top of the tower of London? We shall see...Hopefully Brexit will place a solid wedge between them and their silly get-rich-quick schemes.

 

It's not the colour green that needs to go, it's orange and teal grading. I think in about 20 years people will avoid it like the plague in order to not appear "vintage". 

 

Zippy is not to be mocked, but I'm sure Bungle is scarier. Both were shot on video though, except exteriors. No idea what it was, with the ITV and the BBC always switching from videotape to 16mm everytime someone takes a gander outdoors and back to video again when they walk in!

 

Take care, and while in Japan, please don't get kidnapped by the Kim guy to shoot a Godzilla film, because if you suggest to them you'll do it digitally, they might hold you there forever.


  • 0

#36 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1904 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 30 November 2017 - 06:16 PM

I,m a big fan of the color green.. much ignored.. if its good enough for Arri Alexa ,its good enough for me.. Im pretty sure the dear leader is old school 35mm .. and he does have a home cinema too..


  • 0

#37 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 November 2017 - 06:54 PM

Does anyone seriously think that if an image is greenish, its because it was shot digitally instead of on film???
  • 1

#38 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 30 November 2017 - 09:54 PM

Does anyone seriously think that if an image is greenish, its because it was shot digitally instead of on film???

 

Regular green or Sony green? Because  if it's Sony green then somebody tried to get a usable image with a Sony. By golly by jingo by crikey, don't do that! ;-)


  • 0

#39 David Hessel

David Hessel
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 November 2017 - 10:10 PM

Plenty of people can get useable images from a Sony, beyond useable. Only the incompetent ones cannot.
  • 0

#40 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 30 November 2017 - 10:18 PM

Plenty of people can get useable images from a Sony, beyond useable. Only the incompetent ones cannot.

 

Stuart told me to use emojis. I'll go tell him it's not working.


  • 0


Technodolly

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC