If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Paramount Pictures to begin phasing out film for major releases. Technology marches on   (latimes.com) divider line 80
    More: Sad, Paramount Pictures, Digital electronics, United States, movies  
•       •       •

3697 clicks; posted to Geek » on 18 Jan 2014 at 3:30 PM (12 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-18 12:01:14 PM
Yeah the sad tag definitely applies. I'm still lamenting the loss of betamax and wax cylinder recordings.
 
2014-01-18 12:06:04 PM
Let's be honest. Five years ago, film was superior to digital, but today it is not. Nostalgia is not by itself a reason to keep doing things a certain way.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2014-01-18 12:09:09 PM

Hollie Maea: Let's be honest. Five years ago, film was superior to digital, but today it is not. Nostalgia is not by itself a reason to keep doing things a certain way.


In other words, you'll get over it?
 
2014-01-18 12:55:50 PM
I am actually surprised that any major studios are still working with film.
 
2014-01-18 01:29:59 PM
Well, superior to film? No, not as long as digital has less dynamic range than film AND uses a bayer pattern. This will all get solved within half a dozen years, ten at the most. What killed film is economics. Even with digital's clear limitations, the few things it doesn't do as well -- yet -- are so compensated by the economics that no-one cares.  Last year I shot more than 22k images and my cost of production was in the basement relative to running a wet darkroom.
 
2014-01-18 02:14:50 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I am actually surprised that any major studios are still working with film.


Spielberg and Tarantino said they'll only work with film, *shrug* They're auteurs or some shiat.
 
2014-01-18 02:56:51 PM
Digital cinema is 4K, with some enhancements.  With the RED and Sony 4K pro equipment (and a full editing toolchain), and 4K in the cinemas, that's what you're going to get.

For about 4 more years.

8K is coming, the camera equipment is in limited release, and the tool chains are almost ready.  Japan has mandated 8K over the air broadcast in time for the Tokyo Olympics, which will really push the tech into the market faster.
 
2014-01-18 03:06:41 PM
Maybe someday everything will be digitized so Spielberg will stop asking the poors to donate to the preservation of rotting film stock.
 
2014-01-18 03:45:33 PM
Don't worry, hipsters will bring it back.
 
2014-01-18 03:47:33 PM
Not happy.

www.moviequotesandmore.com
 
2014-01-18 03:48:59 PM

Bareefer Obonghit: Yeah the sad tag definitely applies. I'm still lamenting the loss of betamax and wax cylinder recordings.


Videos just look warmer on betamax.  You'd understand that if you were a *real* videophile like me.
 
2014-01-18 03:49:30 PM

Hollie Maea: Nostalgia is not by itself a reason to keep doing things a certain way.


Hmmmph. Tell that to the conservatives.
 
2014-01-18 03:52:51 PM

JustSurfin: Digital cinema is 4K, with some enhancements.  With the RED and Sony 4K pro equipment (and a full editing toolchain), and 4K in the cinemas, that's what you're going to get. For about 4 more years.  8K is coming, the camera equipment is in limited release, and the tool chains are almost ready.  Japan has mandated 8K over the air broadcast in time for the Tokyo Olympics, which will really push the tech into the market faster.


I wonder if the introduction of 8K projectors will create a market for used 4K projectors.  If so, then independent theaters in rural towns that have closed their doors might be able to reopen in a few years by buying second hand gear off the gray market.

Going on a tangent, but I wonder how much support the studios have given small studios with the transition to digital.  Obviously the studios are saving a lot of money via digital distribution.  Are they using any of those savings to help the little guys out?


Mugato: Maybe someday everything will be digitized so Spielberg will stop asking the poors to donate to the preservation of rotting film stock.


I understand that is what they're already doing.  Transfer old films to digital, assign a team to clean up the footage and then save the results to digital archives.
 
2014-01-18 03:55:23 PM
They've already phased out talent, originality, creative writing, and plot.  I guess something had to be next.
 
2014-01-18 03:59:07 PM
I just wish all analog recordings would go away.  There's no point when you can put hunreds of hours of MP3s on a tiny SD card.
 
2014-01-18 04:03:07 PM
I'm OK with this but the high frame rates that look like soap opera video should be outlawed.
 
2014-01-18 04:07:17 PM

darwinpolice: Bareefer Obonghit: Yeah the sad tag definitely applies. I'm still lamenting the loss of betamax and wax cylinder recordings.

Videos just look warmer on betamax.  You'd understand that if you were a *real* videophile like me.


I know yer being facetious..but honestly, Beta was the better format at the time, And the profesional version of Beta was pert-near the industry standard for broadcasters until digital took over. VHS only won because Sony wouldn't allow third party licensing of the tech.   ;)

as per the article? I honestly thought all the studios were already doing this?  special DVD players and/or dedicated broadband connections and all that.

Mugato: cameroncrazy1984: I am actually surprised that any major studios are still working with film.

Spielberg and Tarantino said they'll only work with film, *shrug* They're auteurs or some shiat.


they can work in real film stock all they want, once it's time for the flick to be distributed it'll be digitized and put on a DVD
 
2014-01-18 04:15:25 PM

gaslight: Well, superior to film? No, not as long as digital has less dynamic range than film AND uses a bayer pattern. This will all get solved within half a dozen years, ten at the most. What killed film is economics. Even with digital's clear limitations, the few things it doesn't do as well -- yet -- are so compensated by the economics that no-one cares.  Last year I shot more than 22k images and my cost of production was in the basement relative to running a wet darkroom.


It's allowed cinemas in the UK to be more clever about scheduling. My theater recently had a single showing of Gremlins, and a showing of Dirty Dancing the following week. And that means no-one sending reels of film around.

Then again, film gave me a free showing of The Phantom Menace. It melted just before the end, so we all got a refund.
 
2014-01-18 04:25:54 PM
farkeruk:

Then again, film gave me a free showing of The Phantom Menace. It melted just before the end, so we all got a refund.

did the movie commit suicide?

:D
 
2014-01-18 04:36:57 PM

Bareefer Obonghit: betamax


Which was always a pity as Betamax was the better standard when compared to VHS's picture quality.  OTOH until HD & cheap digital kit really took off BetaCam stuff was quite popular with indie and small film companies and the editing equipment could be found in a lot of studios.  I think there was even Betacam HD equipment but I don't recall it being that popular.
 
2014-01-18 04:37:57 PM
Put them on commission.
 
2014-01-18 04:43:34 PM
And yet they refuse to adapt to the change for better technology in consumer demand for digital distribution. Movie studios will be dragged kicking and screaming into this century by the market like it or not.
 
2014-01-18 04:48:24 PM

gaslight: Well, superior to film? No, not as long as digital has less dynamic range than film AND uses a bayer pattern. This will all get solved within half a dozen years, ten at the most. What killed film is economics. Even with digital's clear limitations, the few things it doesn't do as well -- yet -- are so compensated by the economics that no-one cares.  Last year I shot more than 22k images and my cost of production was in the basement relative to running a wet darkroom.


I see this trotted out every chance a hobbyist gets.

Honestly, what percentage of non 'enthusiast' person can tell the difference? That is, for the general public, does it really, honestly, matter? Or is this one of those 'I spend every waking moment masturbating furiously to indy bands you've never heard of and sticking my cock in LP holes' issues?

I'm obviously leaning towards the latter.
 
2014-01-18 04:48:50 PM

Saturn5: I just wish all analog recordings would go away.  There's no point when you can put hunreds of hours of MP3s on a tiny SD card.


Why do you care? It's not like you are forced to buy it.
 
2014-01-18 04:49:26 PM

Cerebral Knievel: Beta was the better format at the time


Yes and no.  While Betamax had more resolution and better color separation than VHS in short-play mode, you couldn't store a feature length movie using it.  For that, you needed Betamax's extended-mode, which was about on-par with VHS short-play mode.  So for movies, it was kind of a draw.

One thing I disliked about both formats is that neither used component video (Y/C).  If your television didn't have a good comb filter, you'd end up with a lot of dot crawl.  It was especially noticeable with subtitle lettering.
 
2014-01-18 05:04:57 PM
A wide-release movie will play in 2000-4000 theaters, and if that costs $2K/ea for film instead of $100/ea, that's a lot of cash for even a blockbuster. For Oscar-bait films that will maybe bring in $15 million, tops, a few million could mean the difference between profit and loss (assuming real-world, not Hollywood accounting). Film also degrades, requires careful storage, breaks, etc. Once most theaters are digital (i.e., now, in the US at least), film has no chance.
 
2014-01-18 05:11:51 PM

JustSurfin: is coming, the camera equipment is in limited release, and the tool chains are almost ready.  Japan has mandated 8K over the air broadcast in time for the Tokyo Olympics, which will really push the tech into the market faster.


well that's just great. we'll be able to see the pores and flaws on Godzilla's face.
 
2014-01-18 05:15:17 PM

Saturn5: I just wish all analog recordings would go away.  There's no point when you can put hunreds of hours of MP3s on a tiny SD card.


Yes there IS a point........ the hiss in the background of mp3's  really sucks.
 
2014-01-18 05:19:17 PM
The only thing that bugs me is that it's another nail in the drive in coffin.

I like the experience.
 
2014-01-18 05:25:47 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I am actually surprised that any major studios are still working with film.


its in part to how much it costs for the equipment to project a movie in the digital format, its not cheap and as the studios take the lion's share of ticket sales the theater owners are not exactly over flowing with cash to make the change.
 
2014-01-18 05:34:15 PM

AngryDragon: They've already phased out talent, originality, creative writing, and plot.  I guess something had to be next.


Return of the Spacebots vs Superhero Team: Sequel 4 starring Poof McHarrington and Lana DelMarva is a tremendous achievement.  I have no idea what you're going on about.
 
2014-01-18 05:37:36 PM
Those that have netflix should definitely watch the documentary Side by Side. Its a great documentary on the merits of each media, though I think some of the directors who solely prefer film spew some ill informed technological shortcomings eg. not being able to store data in some long lasting format. I think Chris Nolan was the one who said that.
 
2014-01-18 05:47:16 PM
How long until they just release everything on a 32GB MicroSD card that I just plug directly into my TV? Do we really need a disc of any sort now for home or theater? Just put the theater 'print' on a 64GB card and FedEx it to them. You could hold a dozen movies on MicroSD cards in the space taken by a single DVD case, which would give me back a shiat load of space.

/not to mention the space and wall wort for the BD Player I currently have
 
2014-01-18 05:51:18 PM
Yeah this was a big deal for small theaters who could not afford the upgrade to digital playback devices.
 
2014-01-18 05:52:25 PM
The guys at the Smithsonian are probably cheering from their nitrate-film-filled box of fiery death.
 
2014-01-18 05:55:37 PM

DigitalCoffee: How long until they just release everything on a 32GB MicroSD card that I just plug directly into my TV? Do we really need a disc of any sort now for home or theater? Just put the theater 'print' on a 64GB card and FedEx it to them. You could hold a dozen movies on MicroSD cards in the space taken by a single DVD case, which would give me back a shiat load of space.

/not to mention the space and wall wort for the BD Player I currently have


While I think thats most likely where the future is going, the cost of mfg a BR disc as it stands is far cheaper than a microSD card. Just check the consumer prices and you'll see a huge difference between blank BR media vs microSDs of the same capacity.
 
2014-01-18 06:08:02 PM

Dired: A wide-release movie will play in 2000-4000 theaters, and if that costs $2K/ea for film instead of $100/ea, that's a lot of cash for even a blockbuster. For Oscar-bait films that will maybe bring in $15 million, tops, a few million could mean the difference between profit and loss (assuming real-world, not Hollywood accounting). Film also degrades, requires careful storage, breaks, etc. Once most theaters are digital (i.e., now, in the US at least), film has no chance.




A single print can be shown in two auditoriums nearly simultaneously.
 
2014-01-18 06:20:15 PM

K3rmy: Not happy.

[www.moviequotesandmore.com image 330x143]


How ever shall we insert surprise dick pics in this new digital format?
 
2014-01-18 06:32:30 PM

Rhomboid Goatcabin: Yes there IS a point........ the hiss in the background of mp3's really sucks.


That's what happens when the notes you can only hear on vinyl get mashed into digital.
 
2014-01-18 06:50:58 PM

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: A single print can be shown in two auditoriums nearly simultaneously.


A single digital copy can be shown in thousands of auditoriums simultaneously.
 
2014-01-18 06:51:55 PM

Hollie Maea: . Nostalgia is not by itself a reason to keep doing things a certain way.


My wife says the exact same thing after sex.
 
2014-01-18 06:52:25 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I am actually surprised that any major studios are still working with film.


I didn't see anything in TFA that said studios were going to stop shooting with film, only that their distribution was going digital-only.
 
2014-01-18 06:54:28 PM
What resolution are they digitizing old films now? Star Wars, for example. When 8K becomes the viewing standard in 10-20 years, are they going to have to re-digitize the films all over again, or have they already been stored in a high-res format for future releases?
 
2014-01-18 06:55:35 PM

Virtual Pariah: The only thing that bugs me is that it's another nail in the drive in coffin.

I like the experience.


Put a TV in your garage.
 
2014-01-18 07:21:48 PM

kroonermanblack: gaslight: Well, superior to film? No, not as long as digital has less dynamic range than film AND uses a bayer pattern. This will all get solved within half a dozen years, ten at the most. What killed film is economics. Even with digital's clear limitations, the few things it doesn't do as well -- yet -- are so compensated by the economics that no-one cares.  Last year I shot more than 22k images and my cost of production was in the basement relative to running a wet darkroom.

I see this trotted out every chance a hobbyist gets.

Honestly, what percentage of non 'enthusiast' person can tell the difference? That is, for the general public, does it really, honestly, matter? Or is this one of those 'I spend every waking moment masturbating furiously to indy bands you've never heard of and sticking my cock in LP holes' issues?

I'm obviously leaning towards the latter.


If you're making home videos, it doesn't matter. If you're a storyteller, it matters. The general public can tell the difference between a film shot on a handycam or iphone, and a film shot with something better. If you're seriously trying to tell a story, you select the means that best conveys the message. Sometimes that's an iphone, sometimes it's a GoPro, sometimes it's a Red, and sometimes it's an Arri.
 
2014-01-18 07:37:56 PM

Without Fail: Virtual Pariah: The only thing that bugs me is that it's another nail in the drive in coffin.

I like the experience.

Put a TV in your garage.


Let's all go to the kitchen,
Let's all go to the kitchen,
Let's all go to the kitchen,
And get ourselves a treat!
 
2014-01-18 07:52:50 PM
As a cinephile, I can tell the difference, but I know the majority of people cannot, and don't care.

I don't fear digital distribution/projection. I'll be worried when they stop shooting on film.

There are plenty of movies still being shot on film. DIT color grading/correction is often expensive enough that shooting digital can be as costly as developing film.

The only cinematographer so far that can trick me into thinking I'm watching
film when its not is Roger Deakins.
 
2014-01-18 08:03:18 PM

ol' gormsby: kroonermanblack: gaslight: Well, superior to film? No, not as long as digital has less dynamic range than film AND uses a bayer pattern. This will all get solved within half a dozen years, ten at the most. What killed film is economics. Even with digital's clear limitations, the few things it doesn't do as well -- yet -- are so compensated by the economics that no-one cares.  Last year I shot more than 22k images and my cost of production was in the basement relative to running a wet darkroom.

I see this trotted out every chance a hobbyist gets.

Honestly, what percentage of non 'enthusiast' person can tell the difference? That is, for the general public, does it really, honestly, matter? Or is this one of those 'I spend every waking moment masturbating furiously to indy bands you've never heard of and sticking my cock in LP holes' issues?

I'm obviously leaning towards the latter.

If you're making home videos, it doesn't matter. If you're a storyteller, it matters. The general public can tell the difference between a film shot on a handycam or iphone, and a film shot with something better. If you're seriously trying to tell a story, you select the means that best conveys the message. Sometimes that's an iphone, sometimes it's a GoPro, sometimes it's a Red, and sometimes it's an Arri.


I agree, those who know what to look for can tell because the different artifacts and limitations show up if you know where to look for them. I was watching the very interesting Chinese film A Touch of Sin last week. It's four short stories about the rough and tumble Chinese economy. Anyway, the director had a habit of shooting very wide in one scene and yep, the LoCA was there, but badly scrubbed out to look like a weird grey watercolour at the edge of a man's shirt. In film, he'd not have been shooting so wide. I may have been the only person in the cinema to notice.
 
2014-01-18 08:03:28 PM
i love when i get to see movies or documentaries in different film formats... 35, 8, 16, 70, etc...or whatever they are.  always keep me interested. most video i see, meh.

same with camera film and slides. i used to always try and figure out what type of camera made the picture. i'm not a good photographer but i loved seeing candids people took with a 110 camera or a disc. then a 35.

i can't tell much of a difference on most audio formats. i'm in my mid-40's and spent my teen years on motorhead, maiden, metallica, and megadeth. i probably couldn't tell the difference between a record and a digital recording like people clamor about.

i do have good eyesight. mostly from about the length from my eyes and out. from arms length in...god help me...or at least eyeglasses.
 
2014-01-18 08:05:38 PM

nytmare: What resolution are they digitizing old films now? Star Wars, for example. When 8K becomes the viewing standard in 10-20 years, are they going to have to re-digitize the films all over again, or have they already been stored in a high-res format for future releases?




Few films have been digitized.

Star Wars needed to be digitally enhanced because the original film had degraded so badly( Darth Vader's helmet had turned blue).
 
Displayed 50 of 80 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report