The end of film for TV production?

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Next time a questionnaire asks me what I do for a hobby, can I put "correcting the unmitigated drivel of Thomas James"?

Phil, for once we agree on something.

[Michael Most]

I truly think film will be around the rest of my lifetime...beyond that isn't relevant to me now, is it?

 

I think you've completely missed my point in favor of expressing your own personal POV again. I was trying to make a larger, perhaps more significant point about a polarized society, and the dangers of that when trying to come up with intelligent, meaningful discussion. I was, in essence, trying to point out that there's room, and need, for multiple methods of achieving high quality imagery and both are valid in certain situations. I was also trying to point out that the momentum is clearly on the side of digital methods, and those that want to argue about how photochemical imaging is going to make some massive comeback and ultimately "win" are ignoring the reality of where we are in the technological world and where we're likely going.

 

It wasn't all about you.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

...and those that want to argue about how photochemical imaging is going to make some massive comeback and ultimately "win" are ignoring the reality of where we are in the technological world and where we're likely going.

I've never argued this personally. My argument has always been more like "film will die but not for lack of quality but only because people are cheap and lazy." Sadly, the "film is dead" people argue that digital is "better" which is why I keep coming back and never giving in. If they were to say "film is dying despite being a superior acquistion medium" then I would totally agree with that. Digital cameras (cinema) are not equal to film and they aren't even close in my opinion and in the opinion of most people if they would be honest. I've seen posts at reduser.net by die-har RED fanboys who still concede that if film was the same price to shoot as RED, they'd shoot film anyday. This tells me that many people are shooting digital for the wrong reasons.

[Terry Mester]

First of all you do not need a 20 foot screen for your home theatre. If you want a bigger screen just sit closer to the television. Screen size is all relative. IMAX is using this very same trick to convert the multiplex theatres into IMAX screens and all they are doing is moving the screen closer to the audience.

I'm talking about determining "resolution". You have to use the same size screens in order to accurately compare resolution. Comparing 5 and 20 foot screens is comparing apples and oranges.

 

Second of all it is a known fact that Blu-Ray is better quality than what you get at the multiplex. The only advantage of the multiples is not everyone has a Blu-Ray player yet but with these devices on sale for less than $100 the theatre owners are running scared.

Third of all the money to pay for the digital projectors will be financed with the money saved from film prints. The theatre owners will probably not have to pay a cent in order to convert to digital as it will all be financed by the studios.

You're confirming my point that people will stay home if theaters go Digital. They don't need to go out to a theater if they can get the same quality at home. The studios are very stupid if they think that the small savings from Digital Projection will be to their benefit. Theaters are the geese who lay the studios' golden eggs. The studios will be cutting their throats by pushing Digital Projection on theaters.

 

In any event, Film Theaters will ALWAYS be around. The more theaters that go Digital, the more novel that Film Theaters will become, and the more people will want Film. This same thing is happening with Photography. Countless photographers who went entirely Digital are coming back in part to Film, and many young photographers who never used Film are coming to it. Film will NEVER die, and I'm not the least bit worried about that happening. The colour quality of electronic image capture will never match the colour quality of natural optical image capture on Film. It doesn't matter what complicated software they try to devise in order to achieve the "Film look" -- Digital will never achieve that look.

 

Also the "it will never happen in my lifetime so why bother" attitude is not the philosophy of the futurist. The futurist like the George Lucas who is the champion of digital cinematography as well as nuclear powered rocket propulsion knows that those who control the future also control the present.

Well, if George Lucas is advocating something as nutty and insane as nuclear powered rockets :lol: :lol: :lol: , then that would confirm how nutty Digital Projection is! As I mentioned earlier, the Optical duplicating process has plenty of room for improvement which would improve the 35mm movie experience, and they can start making bigger productions with 65/70mm which would be even better. I hope that you don't seriously believe that Digital could ever compare to 65mm.

[Michael Most]

I've seen posts at reduser.net by die-har RED fanboys who still concede that if film was the same price to shoot as RED, they'd shoot film anyday. This tells me that many people are shooting digital for the wrong reasons.

 

I don't disagree with that. But I would also say that if a project is very budget driven, and particularly if it has an inexperienced director, the economy of digital is not a "wrong" reason.

[Michael Most]

You're confirming my point that people will stay home if theaters go Digital.... The studios will be cutting their throats by pushing Digital Projection on theaters... Film Theaters will ALWAYS be around. The more theaters that go Digital, the more novel that Film Theaters will become, and the more people will want Film....Film will NEVER die...

 

I don't know what alternate universe you might be living in, but in this one, every survey and every study has concluded that given a look at both, theatergoers prefer digital projection to film projection by a very, very wide margin. Reasons often cited are lack of dirt, lack of scratches, lack of weave, less flicker, and the fact that the picture still looks good in its second or third week of release. Not cited (because most theatergoers would not be aware of it) is much greater consistency between theaters due to the lack of chemical variations that are typical of the high speed release printing processes used today.

 

and I'm not the least bit worried about that happening. The colour quality of electronic image capture will never match the colour quality of natural optical image capture on Film. It doesn't matter what complicated software they try to devise in order to achieve the "Film look" -- Digital will never achieve that look.

 

You've now exited the discussion of digital projection and entered the world of origination. Origination has nothing to do with the differences between film and digital presentation. In fact, since virtually all theatrical releases are now finished using digital intermediate methods, the film projection is actually sourced from the same digital files that are used to make the digital cinema release. Great care is taken by digital intermediate facilities to ensure that the look of the digital cinema version and the film version are essentially identical, with the only difference being the method of delivery and projection. If you want to say that film origination often produces a more satisfying image than digital origination, that might be a fair statement. But it has no bearing on any differences between projecting the final result of the digital finishing path digitally or on film.

[Terry Mester]

I don't know what alternate universe you might be living in, but in this one, every survey and every study has concluded that given a look at both, theatergoers prefer digital projection to film projection by a very, very wide margin. Reasons often cited are lack of dirt, lack of scratches, lack of weave, less flicker, and the fact that the picture still looks good in its second or third week of release. Not cited (because most theatergoers would not be aware of it) is much greater consistency between theaters due to the lack of chemical variations that are typical of the high speed release printing processes used today.

Who produced these surveys? The manufacturers of Digital Projectors? I don't trust them. Dirt, scratches, flicker? I don't notice such problems.

I do however completely agree that low quality prints are unacceptable. That is to be blamed on wretched studio people who have no commitment to quality! That is not to be blamed on the Film itself!

 

... In fact, since virtually all theatrical releases are now finished using digital intermediate methods, the film projection is actually sourced from the same digital files that are used to make the digital cinema release. Great care is taken by digital intermediate facilities to ensure that the look of the digital cinema version and the film version are essentially identical, with the only difference being the method of delivery and projection. ...

This is also to be blamed on studio people more concerned about saving money. As I've mentioned, there is room for improvement in the optical duplicating process. However, the resolution of the Film Recorder is still much higher than a 2 Megapixel Digital Projector. So, the 35mm print from a DI will be of higher resolution than a Digital Projector.

[K Borowski]

Reasons often cited are lack of dirt, lack of scratches, lack of weave, less flicker, and the fact that the picture still looks good in its second or third week of release.

 

That is essentially a meaningless survey, because most people think digital projectors are *already* used for movies, and have been since the early '90s.

 

It seems as if to get someone to know that a movie is being projected on film, you almost have to add physical damage for modern-day people to even realize that they aren't watching a big television screen.

 

Dirt, scratches, and the like do *not* appear unless prints aren't properly handled.

 

I have a favorite discount theatre back home, you know, a second-run one. I have seen 35mm prints, literally, on the last show, the last night before they are going to be sent back to the scrapyard or the vault, and they are STILL scratch-free and very clean.

[K Borowski]

This is also to be blamed on studio people more concerned about saving money. As I've mentioned, there is room for improvement in the optical duplicating process. However, the resolution of the Film Recorder is still much higher than a 2 Megapixel Digital Projector. So, the 35mm print from a DI will be of higher resolution than a Digital Projector.

 

That isn't true either. Due entirely to the 2K DI process, mind you, 35mm prints will have lower resolution than 2K projectors (assuming they use lossless compression, of which I am not entirely sure; pretty sure they are compressed to 50% of their proper size). You're taking a 3MP image and copying it on film twice or thrice thereafter.

 

Keep in mind now that image loss isn't as bad on 2K films as it would be copying optically (the medium is much higher-resolution than the 2K master), but it still looks worse than DLP.

 

Hopefully this problem will be solved with 4K DIs. Why can't the transfer houses just go to 3.2K in the interim?

 

 

I distinctly remember being able to see pixelation, though, on the early 2K DI films, specifically from EFILM ones, from all the way back in the projection room with a pair of focusing binoculars.

 

So film is clearly not the cause of reduced image quality in the cinema these days, digital is. Let me say it again:

 

 

"THE BIGGEST HIT IN IMAGE QUALITY IN THE CINEMA THESE DAYS IS DUE TO THE 2K DIGITAL INTERMEDIATE PROCESS."

[Terry Mester]

... I was thinking here if you were to use a lens to reduce Super35 to a HD 2K CCD size. Just like optically reducing 70mm to 35mm. ...

I think that this is the reason why so many producers are considering Genesis or Red One to be an adequate alternative to Super35mm. Whether it be an electronic scan of Super35, or the Genesis or Red image, in the end the extra Pixels are being deleted to produce the final 2 MegaPixel HDTV file format. The software process for doing this in the computer is going to be very arbitrary and brutal to the original larger image. However, I've thought of a way to avoid this problem with Super35, and I have an experiment to propose for lab technicians.

If you were to optically reduce Super35 to a Super16 Intermediate Positive -- the same as reducing 70mm to 35mm through a lens, and then scan the Super16 IP (a very fine grain Film) to produce the HDTV video file, I think that you'd find this S16 HD image file to look even better than the final S35 HD file produced by reducing the original scan from Super35.

By using this method, nothing in the original Super35 image would be lost because nothing needs to be deleted from the Super16 image to convert it to HD. The Super16 Frame basically matches an HD CCD 1 to 1. This technique is definitely worth testing out to see the results. If a cinematographer is going to be shooting Super35 for an HDTV production, then you don't want to be losing any portion of your image capture.

[K Borowski]

I think that this is the reason why so many producers are considering Genesis or Red One to be an adequate alternative to Super35mm. Whether it be an electronic scan of Super35, or the Genesis or Red image, in the end the extra Pixels are being deleted to produce the final 2 MegaPixel HDTV file format. The software process for doing this in the computer is going to be very arbitrary and brutal to the original larger image.

 

While I'm sure a 1:1 "contact scan" would be better than the processes currently used, I am not aware of any scanner thta resolves images through this process.

 

The quality of the scans has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons why this process has become popular. The file size of the final product and ease-of-use of the process have everything to do with why it is popular.

[Michael Most]

Who produced these surveys? The manufacturers of Digital Projectors? I don't trust them. Dirt, scratches, flicker? I don't notice such problems.

 

Trade publications, the National Association of Theater Owners, and various industry groups including the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have all conducted and cited surveys that all come to the same conclusion. And, quite frankly, if you claim that you never see dirt, scratches, and flicker in a theater you must either be vision impaired or attending only studio screenings of one-off prints.

 

I do however completely agree that low quality prints are unacceptable. That is to be blamed on wretched studio people who have no commitment to quality! That is not to be blamed on the Film itself!

 

This is also to be blamed on studio people more concerned about saving money. As I've mentioned, there is room for improvement in the optical duplicating process. However, the resolution of the Film Recorder is still much higher than a 2 Megapixel Digital Projector. So, the 35mm print from a DI will be of higher resolution than a Digital Projector.

 

Obviously you feel that "studio people" - whomever they are - are clearly the very personification of evil in an otherwise perfect film based world. But the fact is that you can't make 9000 prints that are all identical and perfect. This has nothing to do with "studio people," it has to do with limitations and variations in a chemical based, mechanical process. As far as saving money, well, yes, that is what technology allows us to do. If it didn't, your car would cost $800,000. I don't even know how to begin to respond to your statement about resolution, because I'm not sure you understand how any of this works. A piece of film doesn't have a specific resolution, it's made up of millions of random silver halide grains. A film recorder is a digitally fed device that puts an image on those grains, but the resolution of the film recorder and the resulting image on the negative that's created are only loosely related. At that point, the negative is then used to either make prints directly (in the case of very small runs, or in the case of very large studio releases that can afford to manufacture multiple digital negatives) or to make an IP, which is then in turn used to make multiple IN's that are used to make the release prints. So especially in the latter case, there is additional loss in going through 3 more film printing generations that ultimately yields prints of considerably less resolution than a 2K digital projector. And even in the direct printing case, the loss is considerable.

[Terry Mester]

..."THE BIGGEST HIT IN IMAGE QUALITY IN THE CINEMA THESE DAYS IS DUE TO THE 2K DIGITAL INTERMEDIATE PROCESS."

This is good to know as I thought they were already using 4K or even 6K.

[Michael Most]

While I'm sure a 1:1 "contact scan" would be better than the processes currently used, I am not aware of any scanner thta resolves images through this process.

 

The quality of the scans has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons why this process has become popular. The file size of the final product and ease-of-use of the process have everything to do with why it is popular.

 

Dear Karl and Terry,

 

While I respect the opinions of all, and certainly support the ability of everyone to post their own opinion, both of you are way over your heads in attempting to discuss these kind of technical issues. I've tried to provide some explanations for the things you've questioned, but a lot of your basic assumptions are so off the mark that it's just not worth trying to answer each one. You guys are certainly entitled to your own opinions on matters of personal preference, but as there are qualified people here to talk about the technical aspects of things, your seriously inaccurate assumptions are just confusing the issues.

 

Terry, the native aspect ratio of Super 16 is 1.66:1, not 1.77:1. If you put a 16x9 image on a S16 frame, you're cropping the top and bottom of the frame. Second, all film has grain, and the grain on S16 stocks is exactly the same as on 35mm stocks. So if you have a smaller image - which you do on 16mm - the grain is proportionally larger - more than 4 times larger, in fact. That's why 16mm is "grainier" than 35mm even though the actual grain is identical. Third, there is no way to do either a lossless optical reduction or enlargement, because even discounting the grain (which can't be discounted, but....) in either case, the image must pass through lenses - which have loss in both light level and resolution - in order to accomplish that. Your assumptions about using such a process are typical of someone who has never actually had to do any of these things, but is using "logic" to assume how they work.

 

Karl, I don't know where you get the notion that compression means losing resolution, or that digital projection uses some magical form of "lossless" compression. And I don't know why you seem to think that properly conducted surveys are meaningless when you don't even know the conditions that were used to conduct the tests. And if you don't think that dirt and scratches are the normal consequence of typical platter based theater projection systems, well, then you must be attending studio screenings as well, because I don't know of any multiplex theaters (the vast bulk of theaters in the US today) that use anything other than platters.

 

I really wonder if either of you have actually gone to properly equipped digital projection venues. All I can tell you is that I, and almost everyone I know - most of whom work in the film industry, many of whom are directors of photography, and all of whom have eyes at least as discriminating as yours - seem to universally prefer digital projection, at least as seen in properly equipped and maintained venues. We just don't see a downside. That doesn't mean we don't also appreciate and value things like 70mm projection when that is possible (we have a few theaters here in L.A. that have special screenings of such pictures on occasion). But that is just not the way things are done anymore, nor is it going to return in any serious capacity. So the choice is between high speed 35mm release prints and digital projection. For most of us, as I said, digital wins out in that scenario by a reasonable margin.

[Michael Most]

This is good to know as I thought they were already using 4K or even 6K.

 

Almost all high end DI's these days are done either at 4K or at 2K using scans that were done at 4K and scaled down to 2K. Mostly the latter. That is the "normal" operating procedure at the three most dominant DI vendors.

[K Borowski]

Michael, I have worked both platter-based and show-reel projection. I've worked with acetate, polyester, 35mm, 70mm, 16mm, and 8mm film.

 

When I worked in 35mm platter projection we never scratched prints, maybe one in fifteen we'd get partial, subtle scratching.

 

The only film that got scratched was leaders, trailers, and the tails of the films in the platter system, which would fall on the floor when the platter shut off.

 

 

So I don't know how you can tell ME when I have seen both products literally side by side, through binoculars, projected right next to each other, that everyone universally prefers digital projection, especially with film projection being a compromised product these days.

 

I wasn't the only one up in that booth who felt that film could look better, and should look better, either. It was, ironically, a guy who hated working with film as much as I loved working with it who felt the same way. Most other people, I am sure you will be shocked by this, JUST DIDN'T CARE.

 

I've also had an opportunity to see side-by-side 2K DIs and optical prints. Guess which one I liked better?

 

As for most movies being done through 4K DIs res.'d down to 2K, you are wrong there again too. Most DIs are straight 2K, all the way through, and they look it. If you were to look at "Julie & Julia" or "The Time Traveler's Wife," two films that had EFILM DIs [needlessly], I bet you could see the pixel patterns even on a release print the compression and the color bit-depth is so bad.

 

 

That 35mm equipment in your "neck of the woods" is improperly maintained, run by idiots, or mis-run by idiots is irrelevant to me. That you like new DLPs over the aforementioned, poorly maintained apparantly process is also.

 

But don't you tell me that a 4th generation, anamorphic contact print of a film like "There Will Be Blood" well-projected, in focus by a guy in the booth that knows what the hell he is doing will look better than a DLP of the same.

 

And give it ten years, twenty years, I bet improperly-trained monkeys will find a way to make even 4K DLP projectors produce shoddy results.

 

Think of a VHS tape run through a VCR with dirty heads a few too many times, or a "previously viewed" rental DVD. I'm sure you can picture just as clearly as I scenarios where theatres won't be able to play chapters of certain movies because their server is F-ed up.

[Terry Mester]

... At that point, the negative is then used to either make prints directly (in the case of very small runs, or in the case of very large studio releases that can afford to manufacture multiple digital negatives) or to make an IP, which is then in turn used to make multiple IN's that are used to make the release prints. ...

The release Prints are the weak link in the duplicating process. This part of the process has the lowest quality control in order to achieve speed (saving money) in producing thousands of Prints. This deficient high speed process is the reason why Digital Projection can look comparable to 35mm Projection. I personally believe that the studios should be more concerned with quality rather than speed!

 

Dear Karl and Terry,

Terry, the native aspect ratio of Super 16 is 1.66:1, not 1.77:1. If you put a 16x9 image on a S16 frame, you're cropping the top and bottom of the frame. Second, all film has grain, and the grain on S16 stocks is exactly the same as on 35mm stocks. So if you have a smaller image - which you do on 16mm - the grain is proportionally larger - more than 4 times larger, in fact. That's why 16mm is "grainier" than 35mm even though the actual grain is identical. ...

I know that there is minimal cropping to fit Super16 to HDTV. As for grain, IP has much finer grain than 250 or 500 ISO Camera Negative used for scanning at present.

 

... Karl, ... And if you don't think that dirt and scratches are the normal consequence of typical platter based theater projection systems, well, then you must be attending studio screenings as well, because I don't know of any multiplex theaters (the vast bulk of theaters in the US today) that use anything other than platters.

...

Since each Frame of Film is only 1/24 of a second, a little bit of dust on a Frame is not going to be readily visible. I do believe in blaming poor quality theaters for their negligence rather than blaming Film.

[K Borowski]

Well, it is impossible to eliminate dust, but, in a good projection booth, it certainly is kept to acceptable levels.

 

Some corporate offices of the big chains used to dictate that the booth be swept and mopped *daily*. I doubt anyone ever followed that particular recommendation, but even on a weekly basis, I bet projection would get a lot cleaner.

 

Most theatres use dust covers on prints overnight or during long breaks between projecting them.

 

 

Terry, I don't think you understand, though that you want to transfer film at the earliest generation possible. A 16mm dupe would NOT be as good as transferring the OCN, unless it were a very old, inadequate scanner you were using.

 

I would prefer, personally that the OCN not be scanned and that the master positive be used instead, but that is more as a matter of protecting the original.

[Terry Mester]

... But don't you tell me that a 4th generation, anamorphic contact print of a film like "There Will Be Blood" well-projected, in focus by a guy in the booth that knows what the hell he is doing will look better than a DLP of the same.

 

And give it ten years, twenty years, I bet improperly-trained monkeys will find a way to make even 4K DLP projectors produce shoddy results. ...

Karl, am I understanding you correctly here. Are you praising DLP? That's how it reads.

 

... you want to transfer film at the earliest generation possible. A 16mm dupe would NOT be as good as transferring the OCN, ...

I do agree with you. I'm talking here about a S16 IP produced from a S35 Negative.

[K Borowski]

Karl, am I understanding you correctly here. Are you praising DLP? That's how it reads.

 

 

I do agree with you. I'm talking here about a S16 IP produced from a S35 Negative.

 

I am saying 4K DLP has a higher resolution, spatially, than 35mm film.

 

I don't know of any movies that are distributed in 4K though. Almost all DLPs are apparantly still 2K, which is worse than a 35mm release print of 30, 40 years ago. . .

 

I read somewhere on the internet that there are actually 4K screens being torn out in parts of the country because there isn't any content available for them; the "new IMAX experience" is a pair of twin 2K projectors.

 

The quality is going down, everywhere, as Michael and Thomas suggest, but it is BECAUSE of digital, not the high-speed optical printing process they like to scapegoat.

 

 

Why do you keep talking about how adding a generation to the scanning process would be better? It won't. You still have to somehow optically reduce the 35mm image to the 16mm image. . .

 

You need to become more versed in the way the industry works and the standards in play to fully understand what is going on. I see it not as a conspiracy, but as a combination of lowered 35mm standards, due to digital, coupled with a concerted marketing push to go digital. Add incompetent projection, possibly the worst projectionist training EVER in some theatres, and Thomas and Michael's arguments make perfect sense on the face.

[K Borowski]

But don't you tell me that a 4th generation, anamorphic contact print of a film like "There Will Be Blood" well-projected, in focus by a guy in the booth that knows what the hell he is doing will look better than a DLP of the same.

 

Sorry, that should read worse, Terry.

 

Despite all the problems that Michael and Thomas like to bemoan about the 35mm production process, a 4th generation contact print was still better than 2K DLP today.

 

The 2K DI process is however better than the 35mm optical blowup process from S35, which it replaced.

[Michael Most]

I've also had an opportunity to see side-by-side 2K DIs and optical prints. Guess which one I liked better?

 

I don't have to guess, you've already made it clear that your mind is already made up. But I would contend that it doesn't matter, because there are so few pictures finished photochemically today that you wouldn't get to see more than one or two in a year.

 

As for most movies being done through 4K DIs res.'d down to 2K, you are wrong there again too. Most DIs are straight 2K, all the way through, and they look it. If you were to look at "Julie & Julia" or "The Time Traveler's Wife," two films that had EFILM DIs [needlessly], I bet you could see the pixel patterns even on a release print the compression and the color bit-depth is so bad.

 

But my guess is that you didn't, so you're guessing based on preconceived prejudices against, of all companies, EFilm. As for how DI's are done, I don't know where you are or who you talk to, but EFilm does essentially all of their work using 4K down to 2K scans and has for at least the last year. I'm not wrong, I'm not guessing, I'm telling you how it is based on my own friendship and conversations with the head of engineering there. You're putting words in my mouth if you're saying "4K DI res'd down to 2K." That's not what I said. I said that the scans are done on a scanner that operates at 4K and scales to 2K for a 2K output. The DI work itself is done at 2K, but the general feeling - borne out by testing - is that this method provides you with a print that is much closer to a full 4K path than a "straight" 2K scan does. I'm sure you don't believe that either, but it really doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. I've seen the tests, and so have a lot of other people.

 

But don't you tell me that a 4th generation, anamorphic contact print of a film like "There Will Be Blood" well-projected, in focus by a guy in the booth that knows what the hell he is doing will look better than a DLP of the same.

 

If you're trying to scare me, it's not working. And if you're trying to intimidate me, that's not working either. I've already stated that you're entitled to your opinion. Just don't pass it off as fact.

[Michael Most]

I don't know of any movies that are distributed in 4K though. Almost all DLPs are apparantly still 2K

 

Among the 4K releases over the last 2 years have been The DaVinci Code, Angels and Demons, Hancock, Wolverine, and a few others. Sony has already committed to all releases from this point forward going out as 4K DCP's, and has taken over and rebuilt their own DI facility in Culver City to ensure this. Their upcoming release "2012" will go out as a 4K DCP. Warner Bros. was an early champion of 4K DI's and is quickly moving forward in that direction. There have also been restorations that have been exhibited using 4K DCP's, Dr. Strangelove being one of the most prominent.

 

Spider Man 3 was also a 4K DCP, one of the first.

[Michael Most]

Despite all the problems that Michael and Thomas like to bemoan about the 35mm production process, a 4th generation contact print was still better than 2K DLP today.

 

I have never, ever said that there are any problems with "the 35mm production process." If anything, I have argued in favor of film origination, and have worked in film production for almost 30 years. All I've talked about is digital **projection**. That has absolutely nothing to do with origination.

[K Borowski]

Using a 4K scanner to do 2K scans and making 2K masters down-converted from 4K scans are too different things.

 

 

I have seen "Julie and Julia" and "Time Traveler's Wife" and you can see the digital grid on a 3rd generation print.

 

 

"The Goods," "Extract," and probablby "Sorority Row" are photo-chemical through-and-through.

 

First one isn't even hard-matted. Ditto with "Sex & The City" the movie.

 

A substantial number of low-budget comedies (save the Sandler & McFarland ones now) are 35mm optical.

 

 

As for DLP projection, if you agree with me that 2K is inadequate, why advocate DLP projection at this time, when it is almost entirely 2K installations?

 

I know for a fact that one chain has just decided to pull its 4Ks out there is such a lack of material. I'm talking about actual 4Ks not 2Ks downconverted. BTW, only films I'd heard of done in 4K were "Dark Knight" and "DaVinci Code."