Film

[Critique]

Hello,

Basically, I was in the Cinema only yesterday, and noticed that there were 'Pips' in the film, black blobs at points on the screen, like you see on film (Used in those disposable camera's and the likes, not as in DVD's and Harry Potter), and I was wondering, do we still use film in the cinema's? Because, I'm sure we stopped at one point, with a film I watched last year looking very HD and fantastic. Also, I've never seen a film in 3D on film, if that makes sense.

Answers?

[Jovis]

I don't know about projection, but films are certainly still shot on film. It's a high quality medium.

[all new Phil]

Cinemas are slowly making the change from film to digital. It's been a bit of a long drawn-out process, mainly due to the cost (you're talking a good £20-30,000 for each projector), and the negotiations between the cinemas and the distributors as to who should foot the bill. Digital cinema is a massive benefit to distributors as it cuts out the huge costs of producing the print and the amount of time it takes for something to get from camera to screen. It's also a benefit to cinemas as it is simpler to show - a print needs to be made up manually by the projectionist, with the different reels literally stuck together and wound onto the platter. A digital film arrives on a hard drive and is simply left to load into the server before it can be shown.

A fair few deals with distributors have already been struck (Odeon and Warner Brothers just last week in fact), with more probably very soon.

3D films come from 3D-capable digital projectors (to show a 3D film, special filters are required on the projector, and a silver screen is needed instead of the standard white ones). Whilst it *is* possible to have 3D from a print, the quality isn't great. Most cinemas in the main chains have 1 3D-capable digital projector installed, and there is a massive programme underway to have more installed this year due to the number of 3D films scheduled for release.

The black pulse you mention, by the way, indicates that it is about to change to the next reel of the film.

[Critique]

Thanks for clearing that up, I have only ever imagined Cinema's using reels of film in the olden days, but obviously not, very old fashioned and out of place in our world of Blu-Ray and HD I think.

[barcode]

The black pulse you mention, by the way, indicates that it is about to change to the next reel of the film.

I think there showed this once in a episode of Colombo

[Luke-H]

Thanks for clearing that up, I have only ever imagined Cinema's using reels of film in the olden days, but obviously not, very old fashioned and out of place in our world of Blu-Ray and HD I think.

Not really, the resolution of film far exceeds that of Blu-ray and HDTV. Not quite sure what the megapixel-equivalent of film is, but I'm sure someone round these parts will.

[Pete]

Indeed the remastering of the original 60s Star Trek episodes into HD was possible not just due to having computers to enhance the effects but becuase the bits with the actors in was shot on film and therefore had more than enough resolution to rescan it into HD.

What is the pixel equiv of the digital projector btw phillybabes? The fountain of knowledge suggests that

"The DCI specification for digital projectors calls for two levels of playback to be supported: 2K (2048×1080) or 2.2 MP at 24 or 48 frames per second, and 4K (4096×2160) or 8.85 MP at 24 frames per second."

Which seems reasonable, how does that compare in real life terms? Does it only work on the smaller screens or in the big massive ones too?

[Sput]

Thanks for clearing that up, I have only ever imagined Cinema's using reels of film in the olden days, but obviously not, very old fashioned and out of place in our world of Blu-Ray and HD I think.

Not really, the resolution of film far exceeds that of Blu-ray and HDTV. Not quite sure what the megapixel-equivalent of film is, but I'm sure someone round these parts will.

I assume it would be determined by the diffraction limits of the lenses you are using

[Gavin Scott]

Indeed the remastering of the original 60s Star Trek episodes into HD was possible not just due to having computers to enhance the effects but becuase the bits with the actors in was shot on film and therefore had more than enough resolution to rescan it into HD.

What is the pixel equiv of the digital projector btw phillybabes? The fountain of knowledge suggests that

"The DCI specification for digital projectors calls for two levels of playback to be supported: 2K (2048×1080) or 2.2 MP at 24 or 48 frames per second, and 4K (4096×2160) or 8.85 MP at 24 frames per second."

Which seems reasonable, how does that compare in real life terms? Does it only work on the smaller screens or in the big massive ones too?

Scanning 35mm film at 4K gives a pixel count of 4096×3072, which is greater in resolution than the best delivery method currently used.

Film is better in very measurable sense, but its expensive and it degrades.

Unfortunately Stark Trek TNG can never be rescanned to HD. Although it was shot on 35mm film, it was then encoded to a very new (at the time) non-linear editing system, and the original film footage was not retained.

Shame

[Pete]

Unfortunately Stark Trek TNG can never be rescanned to HD. Although it was shot on 35mm film, it was then encoded to a very new (at the time) non-linear editing system, and the original film footage was not retained.

Shame

But given the inherant flaws in the set design and lighting for the first season in particular (all that cardboard stuck on the displays) that's perhaps a good thing. You get HD Picard on the First Contact blu-ray so that's good enough surely

[Sput]

I hear the dynamic range is so perfect in that film that the glare from Baldy's head actually causes eye damage, and that "First Contact" refers to corrective lenses.