"Film is Finished"

[Galen Rath]

Thanks, I will see the results the next time I visit my son.

This is not really a side discussion.

It illustrates that film is finished because people are getting accustomed to the even movies made with film look like video on their TV's. Why should production companies invest in film when in the future no one will care?

[Jason Garrett]

For that matter though; I’ve been picking up bits and pieces and I’m really not sure on just what is the format if that is the correct terminology for theater projection? I’ve seen topics of discussion on Blu-ray being limited to 4:2:0? (I’m not any kid of expert on all these color science/space specs) So, what are the specs of what gets projected in your local theater? I could probably Google this, but since it is being discussed.

How much of the playing field is leveled at the final theater projection for that matter? I’m just curious why it seems that I’m only really now taking notice of the warmth of film vs. digital on my $1k plasma at home vs. a presumably astronomically priced projection system in the theaters. Is it purely the factor of it being a more controlled environment at home that I perceive or is there some factor of the theaters digital projection systems not reproducing the nuances?

[Jason Garrett]

Finding this: Digital Cinema Initiatives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Digital cinema - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok, so, I was ballpark on the concerns translating to the projection systems as well – despite an obviously decidedly higher spec of the actual material than your home Blu-ray discs.

Sorry, I answered my own question there, but maybe this is relevant to discussion – if the final quality isn’t going to be ‘seen’ in your theater then what’s the point? I rather enjoy it on my plasma at home, but it seems like I’m in the minority unless OLED takes over and is superior maybe? Just rambling

[Jon Fairhurst]

Regarding color space, we don't see color resolution as finely as we see luma resolution, so 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 are generally acceptable for end distribution. By the time you get close enough to the screen to see the lack of color resolution, you are a bit too close for the available luma resolution.

Of course, there are test patterns, such as the intersection between green and magenta color bars, where lack of chroma resolution is noticeable, but with real-life scenes, 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 generally hold up. It's really in acquisition where we want 4:4:4.

It's similar for bit depth. 8-bits is generally enough for end distribution. But hopefully, it was shot with more bit depth and properly dithered. Otherwise, you'll see contour lines on smooth surfaces, like balloons.

Then there's color gamut. In the theater, we get DCI, which has a much wider gamut than Rec. 709.

And then there's coding. Consumers get about 20 Mbps if they are lucky. Digital cinema doesn't skimp on the bits.

So, for natural scenes (not test patterns) with good dithering, non-extreme colors, and little motion, consumer video can look fantastic. Push it too hard and it can break, while digital cinema isn't breaking a sweat. But then again, look at the prices of TVs, BD players, and Discs. Compare that to the cost of building a proper theater and buying DCI films on large hard drives.

FWIW, Ultra HD is defined by BT.2020. It will provide 10 or 12 bits of depth and a color space wider than DCI. And the new HEVC codec is more efficient than MPEG 2 or 4. UHD isn't just about more resolution...

But coming back to the original point... will it be shot on film? And for me (who shoots medium format B&W here and there), I would only shoot film for the vintage look.

[Mike Paterson]

This thread seems like the perfect opportunity to plug a Kickstarter campaign I'm supporting for a lovely film about the last roll of Kodachrome ever developed - please support and share if you can: DWAYNE'S PHOTO (launching at SXSW) by Sarah George — Kickstarter

[Mark OConnell]

Six Hollywood Studios Now Have Agreements with Kodak | Studio Daily