Jump to content

SPOILER TALK: Avengers: Endgame


John

Recommended Posts

In the US at least, distributors forced all movie theaters to go digital.  Film is reserved for high-power picky directors' roadshows, like Nolan and Tarantino.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was actually a big thing around here, the expense of being forced to go digital resulted in small/local/non-chain theaters either a) begging for money/holding fundraisers, or b) closing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Digital has been the standard for well over a decade now.

 

In 2K, though; which is a great substitute for 35mm film projection.

 

4K digital projection is considerably more rare (and probably what @The Original refers to), but with the right footage it is a good approximation of 65mm projection.

 

There's nothing in terms of digital projection that's quite like IMAX. An IMAX contact print is something like 7K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Original said:

 

When did this happen? I thought this would've been big news.

 

Around the time of Avatar as I remember.  Or at least following that phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Disco Stu said:

 

Around the time of Avatar as I remember.  Or at least following that phenomenon.

 

I think it had a lot to do with the promise of 3D, which Avatar led the way on.  I still saw Avatar on film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stefancos said:

 

You honestly havent noticed in the last decade or so that cinema's project digitally?

 

 

 

No, I didn't. I thought they were just really good prints. Digital always seemed like some unobtainable and expensive luxury to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Disco Stu said:

I definitely remember James Cameron being one of the filmmakers leading the publicity for all theaters to go digital.

 

He definitely was.  I only know for a fact that I saw Avatar on film because I saw it at a theater that never converted before it closed (the one I used to manage, in fact).  I'm sure plenty of projectors were switched over at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blast from the past.

 

An article from 2005.

 

Quote

Filmmakers who issued statements applauding Wednesday's announcement include George Lucas, John Lasseter, Robert Zemeckis and Robert Rodriguez.

 

Another supporter, longtime digital cinema advocate James Cameron, is among directors pursuing projects that use stereo 3-D techniques created specifically for digital projection. Cameron's CGI/live-action feature Battle Angel, based on the Yukito Kishiro graphic novel Battle Angel Alita, is designed for 3-D and is slated for a mid-2007 release by 20th Century Fox.

https://www.wired.com/2005/07/hollywood-plots-end-of-film-reels/

 

Alita came out only 12 years late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Original said:

Digital always seemed like some unobtainable and expensive luxury to me.

 

2K DIs have been a thing since the late ninties. So it only made sense to skip the needless process of reprinting the digital master on filmstock to project it.

 

The best photochemical answer prints of 35mm are about 2K, and the picture isn't as clean and nowhere near as steady as a digital projection, so 2K digital projection was the sensible way to go.

 

Now that we have 4K DIs and films shooting on larger formats, though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Digital is fine. I think it makes more of a difference overall if you FILM on film instead of digital. 

 

I just hope that nobody tries the Pete Jackson Memorial Garbage Frame Rate ever again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mstrox said:

Digital is fine. I just hope that nobody tries the Pete Jackson Memorial Garbage Frame Rate ever again.

 

Coming in 2019

 

Paramount Gears Up for Ang Lee’s ‘Gemini Man’ in 120 Frames Per Second, Even After ‘Billy Lynn’ Failure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as we can watch the films in standard 24fps, let the filmmakers experiment with whatever they want. I'm all for trying out stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see any of them in HFR, but in 24fps they looked just like any other film.

 

The use of 3D was pristine, though, and the RED EPIC produces great footage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Drax, but that is absolutely hilarious that you thought you were still watching 35mm film prints when you went to the movies!  Movie theaters most everywhere on earth have been digital for sooooo long now!  That's why it makes news when a director like Tarantino or Nolan releases special print versions of their new films, etc.

 

The expense that theaters had to put out to upgrade their projectors from print ones to digital ones may have been a tough pill to swallow, but it's been more than made up by the significantly smaller downtime and repair cycle and not needing to have an employee tied up assembling prints and running them through a machine and checking out every screening to make sure they are working right, etc.

 

I cannot fathom how any fan of cinema hadn't noticed that movie theaters were all digital now, and had been for what, half of your adult cinema-going life?  Amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jay said:

That's why it makes news when a director like Tarantino or Nolan releases special print versions of their new films, etc.

 

Its not so much that its film, its that they're large format film.

 

65mm contact prints are 4K+, and the IMAX footage in Nolan's prints is pushing 7K, much more than digital projection can allow for today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jay said:

I cannot fathom how any fan of cinema hadn't noticed that movie theaters were all digital now, and had been for what, half of your adult cinema-going life?  Amazing.

 

I only see about two or three films at the cinema a year in the 2010s anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Original said:

 

I only see about two or three films at the cinema a year in the 2010s anyway.

 

Oh I thought you went more frequently than that.  So out of all the movies, it took an Avengers one to get you out the door? Interesting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jay said:

 

Oh I thought you went more frequently than that.  So out of all the movies, it took an Avengers one to get you out the door? Interesting...

 

Cinemas are just too dear, and I catch up a lot on cable TV anyway.

 

Last year I only saw Ready Player One and Avengers: Infinity War. And it took a fair bit of nagging from Stefan and Quint to influence me to see RP1.

 

This year I only planned on seeing Avengers: Endgame, Godzilla: King of the Monsters and Rise of the Skywalker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's kinda ridiculous that people didn't realize that the US has been digital for such a long time now.

 

The opposite is true. I live in greater NYC, and on the rare occurrence some theater is showing film - they publicize it to the high heavens because it is so rare.

 

Film is dying, I thought surely every knew that. Anyone who follows cinema. Shooting on film is close to death. Projecting on film is nearly dead.

 

This has been the story over a decade now. I find it hard to believe people didn't know they were watching digital. Projected film looks completely fucking different!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

It's kinda ridiculous that people didn't realize that the US has been digital for such a long time now.

 

The opposite is true. I live in greater NYC, and on the rare occurrence some theater is showing film - they publicize it to the high heavens because it is so rare.

 

Film is dying, I thought surely every knew that. Anyone who follows cinema. Shooting on film is close to death. Projecting on film is nearly dead.

 

This has been the story over a decade now. I find it hard to believe people didn't know they were watching digital. Projected filn looks completely fucking different!

 

Jesus way to rub my nose in it, why dontcha?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since most films until quite recently were shot on 35mm before being put through a DI, you still get the filmic look from 2K projection, because the DI retains the grain structure of the negative.

 

The main differences are the amount of grain and the steadiness of the image. If you're printing the DI back unto filmstock to project it, you're not getting any photochemical loses, but you are getting more grain because you're putting the answer print's grain structure ontop of whatever grain is in the DI. If you go directly to 2K projection you only get whatever grain is in the negative, which is preferable.

 

As for steadiness, 35mm projects are wobbly buggers, so that the image isn't as steady. That plays a huge part in making 2K projection superior to film projection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.