1080i or 720p?

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

As John has said film at 24fps is mainly based on the economics of presenting an acceptable image to the audience within an acceptable cost for film distribution, storage, cost and size of projectors etc. Gentlemen we are stuck in the economics and technology of the last century. The limitations of the technology governed how films are made.

I fully agree - I don't believe there is anything 'magical' about 24fps either, rather the result of historical compromises. Before the 'talkies' arrived the standard was 16fps, projected with a three bladed shutter, and I believe this was not because it was considered optimum, but the minimum (for cost reasons) that could be got away with before judder became totally objectionable. The move to 24fps came about mostly because of sound, and the necessity for the film to move faster linearly for acceptable reproduction. Since sound meant new equipment anyway, a new fps standard didn't cause too many problems.

Not many years ago I would have cried at the thought of digital projection replacing film in the cinema. A visit to IBC 15 months ago with the d-cinema demonstration, followed by a trip to my local cinema changed that. It left me wondering why film-makers weren't clamouring for the 'HDTV look', rather than the other way round! For some information about what's happening in the UK, there's this report - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4297865.stm - albeit now nearly a year old.

My understanding of European plans for HD are for broadcasting systems to allow for either 720p or 1080i transmission, but for 1080 to be far more common. (Much drama is currently made 1080p/25, to be transmitted 1080i/50.) The goal is ultimately seen as 1080p/50 for production at least, though transmission in that standard is likely to take a lot longer owing to bandwidth limitations. In the meantime 1080i is seen as the most likely way forward, sport etc produced as such, drama produced 25p and transmitted segmented field. The expectation is that manufacturers will move toward 1080 native resolution for screens.

[Don Donatello]

for hollywood actual film cost are very low when compared to the budget so a increase of 35% for film is very little in a 50mil + budget... if it sells more tickets they will do it ...

hollywood wants digital projection ..and i believe they see it as it lower piracy. right now prints are taken out the back door at night and transferred to tape ... with digital delivery they could track copies very easy ...

[Matthew Greene]

Camera Negative is a small part of the budget but the part of the chain where film is the biggest cost is in distribution, Imagine the cost of producing and delivering 2500-3000 feature length prints for a large nationwide release. It's usually in the tens of millions.

[Kristian Indrehus]

Originally Posted by Matthew Greene

Camera Negative is a small part of the budget but the part of the chain where film is the biggest cost is in distribution, Imagine the cost of producing and delivering 2500-3000 feature length prints for a large nationwide release. It's usually in the tens of millions.

That´s one reason why cinema´s want to go digital. There are never enough copy´s, because they cost too much. So they can only keep their copy for a set period of time. The prints are circulated to the different cinemas. The small ones gets them later when the copy´s are worn out. In the digital world all big releases open the same day at every cinema all over the world, and is taken off when the crowd doesn´t show up anymore.

Add: And did you know they make copy´s out of copy´s. In countries like mine where they add subtitles, you might end up looking at a scratchy copy of a copy with sharp subtitles and unfocused picture.

Go digital !