I can't remember the last time I saw a film in a theater. It's been years.

Floyd Gondolli: This here's the future. Videotape tells the truth.

Jack Horner: Wait a minute. You come into my house, my party, to tell me about the future? That the future is tape, videotape, and not film? That it's amateurs and not professionals? I'm a filmmaker, which is why I will never make a movie on tape.

It must have been a jaw-dropping realization for him.

Celluloid heroes never really die.

"Many of the nation's remaining mail-order company that processing film from still cameras has closed"

Is that English?

Peter Jackson is shooting the Hobbit in 3D with 16 RED cameras, recording at 5K, at 48FPS. It is going to be *Stunning*

You tell me we're heading in the direction.

OK, I'll say it. I don't know the difference.

I mean, I know the difference in the technology. But I have no idea what technology was used to record any movie or TV show I've ever seen.

Granted, the vast majority are on DVD or Blu-ray on a 32" TV, so maybe I'm just not picking up on it.

Yeah, because if you are going to make dog-shiat like 'Transformers' and the 4th or 5th remake of 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' then it should at least look really good.

Kuta: Celluloid heroes never really die.

you beat me to the punch.

Great, now can we start accepting that the frame-rate for feature cinematic films is too low and start showing movies in a framerate that somewhat resembles real life?

bikerific: OK, I'll say it. I don't know the difference.

I mean, I know the difference in the technology. But I have no idea what technology was used to record any movie or TV show I've ever seen.

Granted, the vast majority are on DVD or Blu-ray on a 32" TV, so maybe I'm just not picking up on it.

Well, it's certainly true that technology makes the "best possible" feats more impressive. Doesn't mean all projects will hit those heights tho.

/nor that all devices will make use of it

Knara: Great, now can we start accepting that the frame-rate for feature cinematic films is too low and start showing movies in a framerate that somewhat resembles real life?

No kidding. Watching the background hop around during a pan is painful.

I've been more amused for the short projects popping up all over the internet. They tend to be more creative, more interesting, and less popcorn, brain fried crap.

Down to seeing one or two good movies a year, and amusing myself with the professionally styled amateur stuff now online.

Knara: Great, now can we start accepting that the frame-rate for feature cinematic films is too low and start showing movies in a framerate that somewhat resembles real life?

Showscan and 30 fps Todd-AO FTW.

I bet Douglas Tumbull will be happy to get some steady work again, so long as James Cameron doesn't continue to try to rip off Showscan from him.

/Still prefers 70mm film to any digital projection. Digital still looks too real. Film still looks like a movie to me.

spman: As a film projectionist for the last 7 years, I was saddened to see the skills that I had spent so many years perfecting rendered totally obsolete. I wonder if this is how the buggy operators felt when the first Model T's came off the assembly line? Thankfully I saw the axe coming before it fell and found a new job before the pink slip came, and I'm actually in a much better position now than I was before. Oh well.

How is Marla Singer, anyways?

spman: As a film projectionist for the last 7 years, I was saddened to see the skills that I had spent so many years perfecting rendered totally obsolete. I wonder if this is how the buggy operators felt when the first Model T's came off the assembly line? Thankfully I saw the axe coming before it fell and found a new job before the pink slip came, and I'm actually in a much better position now than I was before. Oh well.

CSB:

My grandfather was a typesetter for the Detroit News, back when that sort of thing was done by hand. According to my dad, he could type something crazy like 240 or 260 words per minute. (The typesetting machine operated much like a typewriter). In the 1950s or 1960s, technology evolved and some of the typesetting became automated. My dad (an engineer) and my grandfather apparently got into heated arguments over whether this was a good thing. My dad argued efficiency; my grandfather quality control.

At any rate, my gramps died in the late 1960s, before I was born. He was unionized, so he had some job security, and while he was close to retirement age I'm not sure what he would have done if he'd lived much longer.

Not Available: spman: As a film projectionist for the last 7 years, I was saddened to see the skills that I had spent so many years perfecting rendered totally obsolete. I wonder if this is how the buggy operators felt when the first Model T's came off the assembly line? Thankfully I saw the axe coming before it fell and found a new job before the pink slip came, and I'm actually in a much better position now than I was before. Oh well.

CSB:

My grandfather was a typesetter for the Detroit News, back when that sort of thing was done by hand. According to my dad, he could type something crazy like 240 or 260 words per minute. (The typesetting machine operated much like a typewriter). In the 1950s or 1960s, technology evolved and some of the typesetting became automated. My dad (an engineer) and my grandfather apparently got into heated arguments over whether this was a good thing. My dad argued efficiency; my grandfather quality control.

At any rate, my gramps died in the late 1960s, before I was born. He was unionized, so he had some job security, and while he was close to retirement age I'm not sure what he would have done if he'd lived much longer.

Died in a battle against a typesetting machine, after defeating it?

/grampa was a tin-driving man
//let it wop, let it wop, let it wop on down

Actually they mostly suck but it has nothing to do with digital.

With the new RED cameras you can get a 4k production setup with editing station for under 50K. In the next 10 years this will shrink to probably under 10K. This is a great thing, bringing high quality film making to nearly anyone with the desire to make a movie. There will be a glut of crap, but people without the connections or luck to get a foot in the door will be able to actually get stuff out there.

TimeWaste: Peter Jackson is shooting the Hobbit in 3D with 16 RED cameras, recording at 5K, at 48FPS. It is going to be *Stunning*
It's a start, but I'd rather see filmmakers skip the 3-D gimmicks and instead start shooting (and projecting) in at least 60FPS. With any luck, we might yet see an updated version of Douglas Trumbull's Showscan become viable.

Orange and teal disagrees

Therion: Except for all of the theaters that show 2-D movies through 3-D lenses. Then the films just look dark and murky.

(most Austin theaters do this, and it pisses me off)

You live in austin and you're going to a theater other than the Alamo? What are you, crazy?

/The Alamo Theaters are one of the top things I miss since I left Austin.

Fish in a Barrel: Knara: Great, now can we start accepting that the frame-rate for feature cinematic films is too low and start showing movies in a framerate that somewhat resembles real life?

No kidding. Watching the background hop around during a pan is painful.

I suppose this comes down to personal preference, but 24 FPS looks absolutely correct to me. Not realistic, mind you, but aesthetically pleasing. We got TruMotion on our LG, which displays the image at 30 FPS, and it has an unpleasant, alienating quality.

Therion: Unfortunately, The Alamo is one of the theaters that shows 2-D movies through darkened 3-D lenses.

(or did, I haven't been back in a couple of months because of this ...)

I could have sworn that at some point the Alamo had actually posted on their blog that unlike most theaters they "knew" the difference between the 2D and 3D lenses.

I guess they're a bunch of lying liars who lie.

There's nothing "real life" about panning. The eye doesn't pan across a "static" vista -- try it yourself. Your eye will flit from one object to another. You can even try holding your eyes straight ahead while turning your head; go ahead I'll wait. :)

Now, hold up a finger to one side and move it across your field of vision. *Now* your eye will smoothly track to follow.

You can throw all the fps you want at panning, it still won't be real life.

"Celluloid" film, being flammable, was phased out 'way back when; its "death" is no news.

Subby, I'm sorry you took TFA's author at his word....after all, he is just some blogger, not someone widely regarded as a motion picture "authority."


/Sheesh!!!!!!

"We didn't need dialogue, we had faces"

/Change is good

Fellini8.5: You can throw all the fps you want at panning, it still won't be real life.

Although if you shoot at a higher fps and playback at the same fps, you can pan faster before you can see the strobing. The thing is playback is a standard speed so it doesn't really matter.

Digital in a lot of ways makes film making easier, and I think the quality and the cost is at a point now where it's unlikely we're going to see much negative being shot at all anymore. The thing that I wish would go away is 3D. It's a colossal pain the ass to work with and all the studios want to do is make it as gimmicky as possible. They always want shiat flying at the camera... and if there isn't enough at the end of principal photography... they'll add shiat in post.

dothemath: Yeah, because if you are going to make dog-shiat like 'Transformers' and the 4th or 5th remake of 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' then it should at least look really good the only parts people are going to give a fark about anyway are all chroma-keyed actors pretending to be horrified at computer-generated special effects anyway, so who the fark are you kidding?.

FTFY.

/but, but, Optimus Prime won't look as good unless we use Kodachrome!
//last time we had this argument on Fark, I got one of the celluloid-fanatics to say that a digital theater screwed the pooch so he went home and watched it on Blu-Ray...

I can't help but notice that there's almost no one defending celluloid film this time.

/Heard that some college's film programs only teach it with actual film, up to and including editing via splicing with a razor blade and pasting
//I pity those fools, seeing as I get a chuckle from every job interview that sees I know how to do linear tape-to-tape editing

Ishidan: dothemath: Yeah, because if you are going to make dog-shiat like 'Transformers' and the 4th or 5th remake of 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' then it should at least look really good the only parts people are going to give a fark about anyway are all chroma-keyed actors pretending to be horrified at computer-generated special effects anyway, so who the fark are you kidding?.

FTFY.

/but, but, Optimus Prime won't look as good unless we use Kodachrome!
//last time we had this argument on Fark, I got one of the celluloid-fanatics to say that a digital theater screwed the pooch so he went home and watched it on Blu-Ray...

Uh, Kodachrome is for still photos only.

Which shows how much relevance celluloid has in the modern world.

/Can't believe no one's come in here with the "film has INFINITE resolution!" bs yet.

Ebert says celluloid film dead?

Was he smiling when he said it?

Fireproof:
/but, but, Optimus Prime won't look as good unless we use Kodachrome!
//last time we had this argument on Fark, I got one of the celluloid-fanatics to say that a digital theater screwed the pooch so he went home and watched it on Blu-Ray...

Uh, Kodachrome is for still photos only.

Which shows how much relevance celluloid has in the modern world.

/Can't believe no one's come in here with the "film has INFINITE resolution!" bs yet.

Kodachrome formats: Kodachrome film was manufactured for 74 years in various formats to suit still and motion picture cameras, including 8 mm, Super 8, 16 mm, and 35 mm for movies and 35 mm, 120, 110, 126, 828, and large format for still photography. (Wikipedia)

Get your facts straight, son. There's room for both film and digital. I take it you've never had the pleasure of using a 4"x5" monorail camera?

lohphat: Allansfirebird:

Showscan and 30 fps Todd-AO FTW.

I thought Showscan was 60 fps...?

Showscan can run 60-42 fps, and then it's printed down to 24 fps for commercial exhibition.

Teenwolf: It must have been a jaw-dropping realization for him.

nice