Jump to content

I've noticed I don't pay for digital movies at the theater anymore.


Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

I don't think HFR is affecting screen brightness, it's just the typical problem with 3D projection through polarized filters in the booth and on your face, causing an effective light level of something as bad as 5 foot-lamberts instead of the 14 or so that is standard for 2D. To compensate, the color-correction of 3D movies crank up the brightness, causing a video-ish clippy-ness (not in the original) with dull whites during projection that is not pleasant. I see that problem whether the 3D movie was shot with an Alexa or with a Red camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk of boycott does sound a little strange but the actual title of this thread is one I can agree with.

The bottom line is that I'm mostly quite happy to watch video at home as I always have done.

There isn't really a very compelling reason for me to go to the cinema. It isn't because I'm angry and am staging a boycott, it's just that I'm not really all that interested in going to a cinema to watch video projection. I can do that at home or at a friends place or I can just watch on my laptop.

 

There are a few things proping up the cinema experience. One of them is still 3D and that is probably also the big thing driving people to shoot digital. The other thing is must see tentpole movies that you have to see right away which is why those kind of movies are a big thing right now.

 

The studios seem to understand the issues they are facing and have done a good job of adapting the cinema model to make it a must see for some people. I'm not one of those people anymore however, I can't stand the 3d "experience" which I find unpleasant and would rather watch the 3D film without the glasses and I'm not into comic books characters enough that I would rush to the cinema.

 

At some point things are likely to take a turn for the worse in cinema unless the movie studios can do an incredible job of staying on top of their game.

 

In the long run I expect there will still be cinemas just as there are still shops in spite of amazon and ebay but I'm expecting there might be less of them and that they will be exploring new opportunities like live video from Operas and football matches.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last Hobbit was OK in 3D but the colours were very dim like in the previous parts, almost like a half bleach-bypass. This has to be caused by the HFR screening, the theaters are quite good in general with proper screening and bright image

The Hobbit movies in general were graded to be very dim and kind of dreary, with so little contrast. The scenes inside the Lonely Mountain with Smaug were especially dark. I'm sure 3D didn't help that at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk of boycott does sound a little strange but the actual title of this thread is one I can agree with.

The bottom line is that I'm mostly quite happy to watch video at home as I always have done.

There isn't really a very compelling reason for me to go to the cinema. It isn't because I'm angry and am staging a boycott, it's just that I'm not really all that interested in going to a cinema to watch video projection. I can do that at home or at a friends place or I can just watch on my laptop.

 

For me going to a movie house is as close to 'ritual' as I come... and just as many religious believers can 'read their holy book' at home... often they go to a meeting house for that 'group' event.

 

I like to see what the audience reaction is to the story. I've not got into these 'internet' group view deals... and I really don't think it would replace the theater experience in this regard...

 

I would probably see more artsyfartsy films but the closest theater that shows such, is 40 miles away... the ones closest show the usual fare Hollywood has been producing of late... So that's what I see... ok... I do go on 'discount night' or 'sunday mornning matinee' prices...

 

And for the most part, technically, Hollywood films have something to learn from, even if the story is well trodden into the ground.

Edited by John E Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the critical point for me is finding reasons to visit the cinema...

 

The music bit is wrong, FYI. The reason early CDs sounded poor was that mastering engineers didn't know how to master for a transparent medium. As evidenced by countless pleasant sounding recordings done with all-digital workflows, there's nothing inherently wrong with digital audio. And the music industry never left tubes behind, they're just reserved for specialty purposes, now that there are alternatives.

Edited by cole t parzenn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, hold on everyone, take five, after reading some of the comments I gotta weigh in on all of this...

 

When I said 'boycott', it didn't start out like that. I just noticed that I didn't have a desire to go see movies shot digitally so gradually I only went and paid for movies that were shot on film. Okay, then after that...it turned into a boycott. You can just say I'm voting with my wallet.

 

Mr. Bitic mentioned before, "Why have people (producers since they're paying) all of a sudden chosen to not shoot film?" I may have an answer for that, Maybe, and this is only my opinion, but they know it will probably just end up on the internet the same day it's released or even before. So they don't feel like it's even worth it to go through ALL the trouble of shooting film if people are just going to rip it off ruining its shelf life. They just want to make their movie, make their cash and go on to the next project. (I understand this may not be the case with cgi movies, it's a workflow thing.)

 

I mean if you go to http://www.glowgaze.com, Selma is already playing there, and in fact, it was playing there since Tuesday (Jan 7) of last week, then later in the week it had its expanded theater release on Friday (Jan 9) for all the paying customers. Now maybe some of you don't want to look at that aspect of the industry but it's happening, and something has to change or the industry will drastically change and maybe not in a good way.

 

I even spoke to a guy today, he's 25 years old, and I asked him, "Dude, do any of your friends, the people that you know, pay for movies or go to the theater?" He just looked at me and shook his head. He replied that he just saw a movie (forgot the name but I know it's not on Netflix yet) on his lap top yesterday.

 

Oh, I remember the days of working in the movie theater when Forest Gump came out, it was in the theater like for ten months, Titanic too. Remember that song, 'Video killed the radio star'? Maybe soon it will be 'Video killed the movie industry'.

 

Now I have a cousin, he's a just your average guy, he's a cop, has spending money for whatever he wants to buy, and I asked him, "When was the last time you went to the movie theater?" He drew a blank, he couldn't even remember when, and this comes from a guy who loves movies, always has. Instead his thinking is, "If a movie comes out that I think I'll like, I'll just buy the blue-ray for twenty-bucks, it's a lot cheaper than movie tickets plus food and I can watch it whenever and however many times I want." So you see, the guy earlier who posted that who has the sick big screen and boombastic sound system isn't alone.

 

I did recently see "The Imitation Game", of course shot on film. It was a WWII movie, thought it would interest me, not that I'm big on war movies, but I like period pieces, and WWII is interesting. Visually, it had some great shots, especially the few aviation scenes, but whenever they shot indoors, in quite a few scenes the people were facing the big windows and their faces were just completely white washed with cloudy day light. That happened on a lot of scenes, it started to bug me. But there were plenty of great shots and great photography that allowed me to not focus on that. Maybe there was an artistic reason for that, but for me, it just reminded me of a poorly lit digitally shot movie.

 

Now that I can actually feel some of you just wanting to respond with your comments, I'll finish with saying, I do get a lot out of digitally shot things, i.e. nature shows, that show Revolution was good and that was digitally shot, stuff I shoot with my iPhone, but if I'm sitting in the theater, I don't want to be watching something that I could've just as well watched at home.

 

Best regards,

Alexander

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think the main reason for shooting digital is to be able to see and process the material more quickly. maybe also to save some lighting gear ( =money &time) .

Also there's possibility to watch over the production more efficiently so the producers don't have to trust the filmmakers as much as before, they can even be on set and watch a somewhat accurate preview of every single take if they want like clients watching a commercial shoot :ph34r:

 

In most movies, there is no specific reason to shoot on film just to be able to get a bit better visuals for some scenes. For example those low budget US comedies would gain nothing if shooting on film (than supporting Kodak and the local Lab :lol: ) Digital is "just as fine" from producer's POV and digital workflow may help the production to get better end results if the digital capturing helps for example them to archive better acting performances or more naturalistic lighting. also handheld and long takes can be easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely understand what your saying regarding workflow, but at what cost?

 

Going back to my original argument, "I don't hear people raving about movies these days (especially digitally shot movies)," and "shooting digitally does not appear to be having a good effect on the movie industry as a whole." I went to the movies last friday night and it was scarce, in a major area inside a huge mall. Now why is that?

 

Actually what I do hear people talking about are TV series, quite a few actually. But one specifically I would like to note for the sake of this argument. Isn't it interesting that the Walking Dead was such a hit (shot on Super 16 by the way) but as soon as they switched to digital, you don't even hear people talking about it as much anymore. I know die hard fans of that show that just lost interest.

 

A good story on film works!

 

Now there exceptions to the rule in some way, Avatar broke Titanic's record, but wouldn't you say that was just because of the 3D technology? That's what I heard people were excited about and telling me about, the 3D technology. No one said anything about the story. Would that movie do even close to what it did if it was 2D and had to rely on the just the story? All I can tell you is that I didn't see that movie in the theater, I saw it home and it put me to sleep. zzzzzzz.........zzzzzzzzzzz........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The absolute best cinema experience I have ever had was a series of 70mm prints with 6 track dolby that were shown at the Gaumont Grand Ecran pl Italie in Paris (sadly closed now http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_%C3%89cran_Italie). I remember 2001 was a religious experience, and The Abyss was incredible. I saw one of the Imax 70mm prints of Interstellar and was not so impressed I think because the viewing experience was uncomfortable both the Imax seating and the dimensions of the screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't make sense to me. It's like everybody just decided they don't want to shoot on film anymore.

 

Plenty of filmmakers WANT to shoot on film, but, as David pointed out, budgetary concerns often make digital the smarter choice. Also, for comedies in which the actors may be doing long, improvisatory takes, digital makes more sense.

 

I suspect that the beginning of the end for shooting on film was the takeover of digital projection. Surely the demand for exhibition film stock was largely keeping film producers and film processors running to such a degree that once that went away, the demand for negative stock alone couldn't make film profitable.

 

While I love the look of film, the best digital cinema cameras in use today are pretty damn good, and it's not such a huge compromise to use them if you have to.

 

 

 

Actually what I do hear people talking about are TV series, quite a few actually. But one specifically I would like to note for the sake of this argument. Isn't it interesting that the Walking Dead was such a hit (shot on Super 16 by the way) but as soon as they switched to digital, you don't even hear people talking about it as much anymore. I know die hard fans of that show that just lost interest.

 

The Walking Dead has been around for, what, five seasons? Perhaps people are tiring of the show because it's been around for a while, rather than because the show switched from film to digital.

Edited by Ravi Kiran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely understand what your saying regarding workflow, but at what cost?

 

Going back to my original argument, "I don't hear people raving about movies these days (especially digitally shot movies)," and "shooting digitally does not appear to be having a good effect on the movie industry as a whole." I went to the movies last friday night and it was scarce, in a major area inside a huge mall. Now why is that?

 

I don't think the decline in theater ticket sales is really related to the transition from Film to Digital. 3-D prices have tended to increase ticket sales numbers, but when one looks at the number of tickets sold, they are on a downward trend.

 

There may be many reasons for that... and most industry magazines and articles tend to point to how 'media' is consumed these days with mobile devices, in home 'theaters', multiple viewing screens in the home, etc.

 

Back in the olden days... before TV... there was only one place for motion pictures to be seen, then TV... which did cut into some amount of movie house ticket sales, and guess what... a round of 3-D films came out, the 'wide screen', as well as 'big color', bouyed up the theater experience...

 

Fast forward, to modern times... with most people buying 'smart' phone/mobile devices, and many people transitioning from only viewing media via either movie house or TV (even cable providers are feeling the pinch on how mobile is affecting how content is obtained), there should be no wonder why 'theater' sales is down.

 

Further, while there's a lot of hoopla about 'piracy', I'll bet that 90% of the vewing population uses legitimate means to view content, in the US and Europe. I'm sure that is the same for most places, but I can't be as sure as I am about the US/Europe. (I'm also sure someone will come up with some MPAA supported 'study' which says that most Hollywood studio execs are trying to find crayons to make their signs on card stock to stand at LA freeway entrances with placards like 'Will Produce Blockbusters for Food'... right...).

 

But speaking of 'blockbusters'... I think one of the reasons for the decline in theater attendance, in addition to the alternatives mentioned, is that in many cases the 'material' just does not excit the viewers who would attend theaters...

 

And that for 99.999% of the vewership is more important than is it Film or is it Memor... I mean Digital...

 

As for why TV is gaining... I personally distinguish between Broadcast TV and content which is produced for 'cable' distribution, but for the most part would require much editing before the FCC would allow it to be broadcast via Broadcast TV.

 

I think most of the shows that everyone talks about that have a great draw, are produced as 'cable content', and as such, are not regulated by the FCC to the same level as Broadcast, and have often dealt with subjects in ways that the broadcasters have avoided.

 

So, while there are a few shows which may have been made for Broadcast TV that have garnered 'critical acclaim', for the most part cable content providers such as HBO or STARZ are the ones producing the 'draw' for cable... and given how things are going, there's beginning to be some break up in the love affair between cable content providers and cable distributors.

 

Consumers are becoming more aware of how the Internet can allow them to view what they want, when they want, and where they want, rather than being dependent on the cable distributor's spigot, and having to buy 'bundles', of which 90% are 'throwaways' for most viewers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Walking Dead has been around for, what, five seasons? Perhaps people are tiring of the show because it's been around for a while, rather than because the show switched from film to digital.

 

"Boardwalk Empire" closed after 5 seasons, and from the IMDB all seasons were shot on film... Some stories 'wind down'... and only a shark jump kicks them into a few more seasons...

 

"Game of Thrones" seems to be still going strong, and by the IMDB specs, has been shot with Alexas for all of its seasons...

Edited by John E Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... speaking of "Game of Thrones"... as I was typing the above... the Wife sent me a notice about an IMAX presentation of Episodes 9 and 10 of "Game of Thrones"... with 'digitally remastered in to the image and sound quality of The IMAX Experience®'... etc. etc. etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

"Boardwalk Empire" closed after 5 seasons, and from the IMDB all seasons were shot on film... Some stories 'wind down'... and only a shark jump kicks them into a few more seasons...

 

"Game of Thrones" seems to be still going strong, and by the IMDB specs, has been shot with Alexas for all of its seasons...

I actually saw them using arricam st in some scenes when watching making offs but it was some of the early seasons, 1 or 2 I think. Mostly Alexa show, yes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't think the decline in theater ticket sales is really related to the transition from Film to Digital. 3-D prices have tended to increase ticket sales numbers, but when one looks at the number of tickets sold, they are on a downward trend.

 

What evidence do you have that people buy more tickets when they are more expensive? That's an intersting idea but I don't think it's true at all. I really don't think that cinemas are selling more tickets because of 3D. If you have any evidence of that I'd love to see it but it's not been my understanding of the situation.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think he is saying that the cost of the tickets have kept the sales up in terms of money but the number sold is down.

 

3D generally did better than 2D of the same movie in the same theater complex, hence the rush by theater owners to install 3D, but the difference has been falling. However, I don't think it costs the theaters much more to run a 3D screening, now that they have the equipment, other than recycling the glasses, so even a slim sales advantage is probably still worth it to them now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Isn't it interesting that the Walking Dead was such a hit (shot on Super 16 by the way) but as soon as they switched to digital, you don't even hear people talking about it as much anymore.

 

The Walking Dead is still shot on film. I use the same film lab, they confirmed that last week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What evidence do you have that people buy more tickets when they are more expensive? That's an intersting idea but I don't think it's true at all. I really don't think that cinemas are selling more tickets because of 3D. If you have any evidence of that I'd love to see it but it's not been my understanding of the situation.

 

Freya

 

I should perhaps been a bit more clear... From Box Office Mojo(*), it seems that 2002 was the 'highest ticket sales in terms of number of tickets sold' year, and has been declining ever since. However, the sales in dollars, has increased, with last year being about $10B.

 

Elsewhere I've read in various industry blurbs, that some observers conjecture that 3-D sales has 'bouyed' the ticket sales income, even while in general ticket sales counts are declining. I think that floation device is losing some air...

 

* Box Office Mojo may or may not have absolutely accurate numbers, but since I don't have access to expensive industry reports, it seems to serve some amount of information on the financial aspect of how 'well' movies are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't that match the ratio of film movies to digitally shot movies that came out in 2014?

 

Last week, when I went to the movies, I got there early and looked at every theater in there, there's like 15 or so, and most, except the movie I was watching and Taken 3, was digital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Last week, when I went to the movies, I got there early and looked at every theater in there, there's like 15 or so, and most, except the movie I was watching and Taken 3, was digital.

 

 

Whoa there, fella. TAKEN 3 was shot on film. ALL FILM, not a hybrid show.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2446042/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So out of five Best Cinematography Oscar nominations this year, only one was shot on film...

 

Gonna be a tough year as theres no obvious Chroma Key winner this year.

 

I'm guessing birdman but hoping for GrandBudapest Hotel.

 

Freya

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...