Sounds more like they're trying to make a high profile director and movie a scapegoat. Yeesh, why release 10 major digital 3-D films in 2009 anyway? Spread 'em out a little. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wonder if he and Lucas arm wrestled over whether or not it'd be digital.
quote:For more than a year now, both Hollywood and NATO have been in agreement that by 2009 there will need to be anywhere from 4,000 to 6,000 screens with 3-D capability in order to handle the full-digital-3-D releases, beginning with the March 27 opening of Monsters vs. Aliens.
There's two groups you don't normally see working together.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
As I understand it Lucas rolled his eyes several times, but refused to tell Stephen what was the matter, even when Spielberg offered him an ice cream cone!
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
What does NATO have to do with movie screens?
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Wouldn't you like to know...
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
NATO also stands for the National Association of Theatre Owners.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
Oh, shush. Let us have our delusions. Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Are we talking about the 3D that involves funny glasses? Is that fad seriously coming back?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Am I really the only one who thinks the quality of the old film reels is superior? Digital always looks fuzzy, even in hi-def, and especially during fast-action scenes. Give me proper film any day.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Actually, you're right Eaquae. 35 mm film is still of higher quality than the latest digital cinema technologies. (I'm not taking into account 3D, here.) The problem, though, is that 35 mm often, maybe more often than not, does not get the quality of projection it deserves. The film itself can collect scratches and dirt over time; the image can fade. The projectionist unions were busted (and by busted what I mean is: they quietly went away) back in the mid '90's, and the skills of people running the films has decreased. With older 35 mm projectors, you often get a dim image onscreen because the bulb isn't focused properly.... So while the actual image of 35, in its native form, is better than digital, the trade-off is that most people will never notice the difference. And the obvious pros of digital projection are that the film will never fade or become scratched because there is no film.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: Are we talking about the 3D that involves funny glasses? Is that fad seriously coming back?
Kinda but not really. There's still glasses involved, but the lenses are no longer different colors and wearing them no longer gives me a headache.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: Am I really the only one who thinks the quality of the old film reels is superior?
I don't think anyone in the thread's made a statement to that effect. Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Not in the thread, but in the article:
quote:Spielberg's insistence against releasing Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull digitally was overruled last month when Paramount announced that it would indeed open the summer blockbuster on some digital screens, but the fact that it won't be a full digital release, coupled with the fact that Spielberg still doesn't "get" the fact that digital is superior to film, is a problematic issue for an industry having difficulties installing a necessary amount of digital projectors by 2009.
What can I say? For once, I'm on Spielberg's side. And every time I go to the theatre I see the Digital!!! screens being promoted, and it's just one of the many things that makes me cranky. I'll resist getting an LCD or flatscreen or whatever TV as long as they still make CRT ones. Maybe the mythical non-blurry flat screen TVs exist somewhere, but I've never seen one. Same for digital projectors. Fight them, Spielberg!
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Read on. It's mainly studio execs and theater owners pushing for this. I don't think most customers -care- which format is used. Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: Are we talking about the 3D that involves funny glasses? Is that fad seriously coming back?
Kinda but not really. There's still glasses involved, but the lenses are no longer different colors and wearing them no longer gives me a headache.
So it's like the polaroid glasses you get in IMAX 3D films?!? *slobbers*
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: Are we talking about the 3D that involves funny glasses? Is that fad seriously coming back?
Kinda but not really. There's still glasses involved, but the lenses are no longer different colors and wearing them no longer gives me a headache.
So it's like the polaroid glasses you get in IMAX 3D films?!? *slobbers*
They are in that they are glasses, but they don't have different colored lenses.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Can a person watch the movie -without- glasses? Or does it look blurry?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: Read on. It's mainly studio execs and theater owners pushing for this. I don't think most customers -care- which format is used.
Hey, stop getting in the way of my crankiness with your convenient truths! Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: I'll resist getting an LCD or flatscreen or whatever TV as long as they still make CRT ones.
Hold on. You find CRTs superior to LCD, DLP, or plasma screens in terms of blurriness? What are you using as an input source?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I am not using anything. I don't own one. I can only judge by what I see on other people's screens. Who knows?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think a regular ole TV is fine for most things, but I've seen some pretty stellar images on 1080i screens.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
EL: Well, what are you using as a monitor right now?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
At home it's an old CRT, 17 inches or so. Here we just got a new flatscreen of some sort and I miss the old tv.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
And they're both of comparable size and the input is of comparable resolution (i.e. are you hooking up the same laptop/pc to both)?
PS: Sorry to be so, um, interrogatory?
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: Can a person watch the movie -without- glasses? Or does it look blurry?
Its blurry.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: And they're both of comparable size and the input is of comparable resolution (i.e. are you hooking up the same laptop/pc to both)?
PS: Sorry to be so, um, interrogatory?
Oh, you meant what am I using for a computer screen? It's a laptop. The TVs just get cable. Or really, I have no idea what you're talking about. (Not to sound snarky. I just really don't know. I'm a low-tech kind of girl.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Sorry, take no offense. Its just that coming across someone that still prefers CRTs over anything else is charmingly anachronistic to me I'm just trying to track down exactly what the cause is.
I guess I'm accidentally mixing up terminology since I have a computer monitor that I regularly use as a TV (and vice versa I guess) So if I understand correctly, you have a CRT at home that gets cable and a flatscreen of some sort over there that gets cable. You also have a laptop (with an LCD screen).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Eaquae, the issue could be that your particular cable signal is poor, either because it is not properly grounded, or is too low in power. You may also have seen a lot of newer tvs with poor input sources, or HD tvs with regular input sources, which will tend to make the picture worse than a crt. You also may simply not be familiar with the latest plasma tvs, which are clearly better than CRTs.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Sorry, take no offense. Its just that coming across someone that still prefers CRTs over anything else is charmingly anachronistic to me I'm just trying to track down exactly what the cause is.
"Charmingly anachronistic." I like that. Beats "completely nuts." I also prefer film cameras to digital for picture quality, though I have a digital for convenience (especially travel).
Orincoro, there may well be TVs that are better than CRT, what with the hookup and feed and whatever else, but I haven't seen them yet. Maybe sometime in the future I'll be forced to change my mind.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ginol_Enam:
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: Can a person watch the movie -without- glasses? Or does it look blurry?
Its blurry.
Ah, I knew they'd find yet another way to make going to the movies annoying. Score another point for buying the DVD...
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: Read on. It's mainly studio execs and theater owners pushing for this. I don't think most customers -care- which format is used.
Of course they are. With movies being released onto DVD format closer and closer to the time in theatres, owners aren't making nearly as much money as they used to. If movies are released in nothing but a digital format, projection can become automated very quickly. There may not be projectionist unions anymore, but someone still has to run the projector, and reset it once a film is done etc. General maintenance will still be required of course, but imagine the possibility if movies came out on something like a DVD. You can build machines that can be programed with the start times of the movie and just kind of make sure it's turned on at the start of the day. Even a lot of the maintenance can be automated, because there are technologies to determine when a light bulb needs to be changed. Granted it's a different type of projector, but those home theatre projectors and the ones used at offices will give you a message if the bulb is in need of changing.
On a slightly different topic, has anyone else seemed to notice that the quality of a movie seems to be a corollary to how quickly movies are released to home video. Good movies still take months, bad movies are sometimes out before theatres stop showing them.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
And really bad movies are released directly to DVD. Makes sense
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)