Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

 

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.

 

In which case I don't see how it is evidence for your assertion that:

 

 

I don't think the decline in theater ticket sales is really related to the transition from Film to Digital.

 

 

...unless you are suggesting that the revenue had been boosted by 3D income and that has somewhat masked the decline of cinema which has been ongoing for a long time?

 

Personally I think the transition from film to digital has barely begun so you may well be right. I think there has been pressure on ticket sales for a long time from a wide variety of sources. Home video being an obvious one and that hasn't always been digital, so it's not a pure case of film to digital.

 

The cinemas has only really recently gone over to video projection. The first stage which we can already see taking place is the merging of Cinema and Television. They are becoming essentially the same thing for the most part. This has had a very positive impact on television where the quality of cinematography has taken a huge leap forwards almost across the board. Even soap operas are shot on the Alexa now and it's hard to really notice a difference in quality between cheap TV drama shot on digital and a movie shot on digital. To be honest sometimes the TV dramas look better now than the low end movies.

 

Beyond that it seems more than likely that the internet will merge with TV. At the end of the day there will just be different kind of platforms that deliver video rather than there being anything special about cinemas per se.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

The cinemas has only really recently gone over to video projection. The first stage which we can already see taking place is the merging of Cinema and Television.

...

Freya

 

I do distinguish between 'TV' and 'Cinema', but it is mainly on content and style of treatment, rather than the technology of capture and delivery.

 

Since I grew up before the the use of 'home' Tape/DVD/BD presentation, the only place where I saw most 'cinema' movies, was on TV... often after 10-11 pm Saturday nights... and for more popular films seen on TV, were 'pan and scanned' to fit in to the 4:3 TV aspect ratio...

 

In addition, some films were edited for 'TV' to conform to FCC regulations on what could be shown said on TV. And further... due to the technical aspects of TV, 3:2 Pulldown, bandwith limiting the signals, etc, so as to 'fit' into the signals of NTSC. (PAL had similar, but only need to speed up 24 fps to 25...)...

 

That to me is 'TV'... and by extension, 'video'... limited resolution which is apparent both in color and spatial aspects.

 

Digital film on the other hand, has been working towards removing thos limitations, so I do not see a theatrical presentation, digitally projected as 'video' or 'TV'...

 

To me it is Digital Film.

 

From my view, then what is happening, is that more cable content, and some broadcast TV content is tending to look more like theatrical film techniques, such as single camera, specific lighting for the shot, lighting that has more contrast/depth, and less avoiding of certain set/costumes that were problematic for TV broadcasts... which may still be problematic, but can be dealt with by 'broadcasters' rather than the originators.

 

To me, the Alexa is not a 'video camera', but a Digital Film camera, because I think the designers were directed to 'Film' and not 'Video'... If they had been directed to 'Video' then they would have produced an HD, Rec. 709 device, and spent marketing bucks to convince users that was the 'best'...

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

  • Premium Member

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

 

 

sorry I meant the game of thrones, not the boardwalk empire, just quoted the whole message when in a hurry...

Edited by aapo lettinen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I do distinguish between 'TV' and 'Cinema', but it is mainly on content and style of treatment, rather than the technology of capture and delivery.

 

Since I grew up before the the use of 'home' Tape/DVD/BD presentation, the only place where I saw most 'cinema' movies, was on TV... often after 10-11 pm Saturday nights... and for more popular films seen on TV, were 'pan and scanned' to fit in to the 4:3 TV aspect ratio...

 

In addition, some films were edited for 'TV' to conform to FCC regulations on what could be shown said on TV. And further... due to the technical aspects of TV, 3:2 Pulldown, bandwith limiting the signals, etc, so as to 'fit' into the signals of NTSC. (PAL had similar, but only need to speed up 24 fps to 25...)...

 

That to me is 'TV'... and by extension, 'video'... limited resolution which is apparent both in color and spatial aspects.

 

Digital film on the other hand, has been working towards removing thos limitations, so I do not see a theatrical presentation, digitally projected as 'video' or 'TV'...

 

To me it is Digital Film.

 

From my view, then what is happening, is that more cable content, and some broadcast TV content is tending to look more like theatrical film techniques, such as single camera, specific lighting for the shot, lighting that has more contrast/depth, and less avoiding of certain set/costumes that were problematic for TV broadcasts... which may still be problematic, but can be dealt with by 'broadcasters' rather than the originators.

 

To me, the Alexa is not a 'video camera', but a Digital Film camera, because I think the designers were directed to 'Film' and not 'Video'... If they had been directed to 'Video' then they would have produced an HD, Rec. 709 device, and spent marketing bucks to convince users that was the 'best'...

 

Digital film sounds like one of those new archival systems. It's a bit of a daft name.

Aside from that if we go with your special definition of video as only being standard definition for some reason, or only certain colour spaces (which I feel is strange as Video technologies have always covered a wide range of different standards but what the hey!) It doesn't really change the point that I'm making that Television and Cinema now share much of the same technology. What name you want to call it isn't really the point. Television productions are still being made on the same equipment as cinema productions and both share similar distribution technologies. I mean even if we want to pretend that Arri made the Alexa with only the cinema in mind then it still doesn't escape the fact the camera is very popular in he broadcast video sector right now.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Not many 2014 films were shot on film. But they include three of the eight best picture nominees. Of the top ten world wide box office draws, two were all film and two were hybrid. Not bad, considering what a vfx-heavy year it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about cameras that shoot film for TV shows? Film Video cameras?

 

I'm sure there are people who use Alexas to shoot 'tv' shows for broadcast, and I suspect some of them shoot in HD/Rec 709 mode to avoid having to process to that spec in post.

 

When Film film cameras were used extensively for TV, they were... well... Film cameras... In that era, when a Film camera was used to specifically record a TV screen, it was called a kinescope... despite using Film as the capture medium. Once tape recording became possible for TV signals, kinescopes disappeared unless for some form of specialty work, such as 'editing' those early video tapes...

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

Does anyone know if Super 16 shows like The Walking Dead, and other S16 shows in the recent past (That 70's show, Gilmore Girls, earlier seasons of Psych and Burn Notice) were scanned at 2k or 4k?

 

Thanks!

Not sure about Gilmore Girls, Psych, and Burn Notice, but That 70's Show was 35mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Mr. Mullen.

 

I definitely feel that we're going to be seeing a lot more Super 16mm and even Super 8mm shot projects become a lot more popular in the future.

 

And I say that for a few reasons...

 

1. Filmmakers will be able to come out with a different look, hard to replicate with even computer effects.

 

2. I don't know about anyone else, but I see colors in those two formats which I don't normally find in 35mm and/or digital. Maybe they're just more pronounced in those formats.

 

3. And lastly, it's cost effectiveness.

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...