Comment 2TZ6 Re: IMAX killed it


Interstellar and the end of the film era


IMAX killed it (Score: 2, Interesting)

by on 2014-11-09 00:57 (#2TYN)

I suppose IMAX is to blame... Trying to squeeze more money out of their customers, they introduced "IMAX Digital" so they could show just any regular film nice and cheap, but charge IMAX prices for the ticket. Angering your customers who are paying big bucks and keeping film alive, is a losing propsition.

Another negative is the move to 3D. Whether you like 3D or not, it has divided audiences in half... Some won't ever watch a 3D movie, others won't pay to watch the regular 2D versions anymore.

But I suppose as long as IMAX and Cinemark XD are able to demand huge ticket prices, and fill their theatres, film won't be going away just yet.

Re: IMAX killed it (Score: 2, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-11-09 14:43 (#2TYQ)

IMAX didn't kill film. Film is *expensive* and *heavy* and a huge pain in the ass to do anything with. Don't get me wrong, I love film, I was a projectionist for 4 years while in college, but I can tell you from plenty of first hand experience how much of a giant pain in the ass it is to do anything with film. Just to show a single movie I would need to put in probably about one "running length" of time before the movie even started to prep the film. Compare to a digital set up where you just go download an press a button. It's no big surprise that's winning out over film.

For what it's worth, I saw Interstellar yesterday in 35mm at a local theater (no one is showing 70mm IMAX around :() and I thought it looked great, much better than many of the digital movies I've seen lately. Real film lent a grittiness to the movie that meshed well with the story and desperation and it would be impossible to replicate that with digital. Of course, it also sucked when the sound cut out for 30 seconds during one scene because there was no way to rewind it, but oh well.

Re: IMAX killed it (Score: 1)

by on 2014-11-10 03:04 (#2TYS)

Real film lent a grittiness to the movie that meshed well with the story and desperation and it would be impossible to replicate that with digital.
Impossible to replicate? Are you daft? You could easily transfer a digital print to film, then digitize the film... And that's the hard way. Easy way is to push the button on your digital processing suite that says "film grain".

Re: IMAX killed it (Score: 1, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-11-10 17:45 (#2TZ5)

Actually, it impossible.

Film running through a projector is tricky. The film, as a whole, must keep moving, obviously. But 24 times per second, the film directly in front of the lamp will stop, the shutter will open, and the image will be projected to the screen. This introduces a little bit of jitter that would be technically feasible to do on digital, but no sane person would implement that because it would be "degrading" the presentation of the movie. A good projector introduces very little jitter, but it's still there, and when you remove it (because it's all digital) it dilutes some of the ambiance of the movie. Add in little bits of dust or scratches, which occur even on a brand new print, and those are even harder to realistically replicate in digital, since you want them to be mostly imperceptible, since you rarely notice them directly, but you do notice their absence.

A lot of this might have to do with what "feels" right based on "how we used to do it when I was a kid!" But you know what, who's to say that's wrong? Digital is great for a lot of things, but when telling a story to beings living in an inherently analog world, sometimes having the story be told *perfectly* actually makes the story less engaging, since it doesn't feel "real'.

Re: IMAX killed it (Score: 2, Interesting)

by on 2014-11-10 18:08 (#2TZ6)

I'm under the impression (but don't have references) that the big difference is the blanking interval for a film projector. With digital projectors the "lamp" is on all the time and there is smearing as the image is rewritten for every frame. Any "object" that is moving quickly across the frame suffers with current digital schemes. In theory is should be possible to blank the "lamp" while the digital image is redrawn, but the reality is that the light sources are not bright enough to be pulsed on and off every frame--the screen image would be too dim. Film projectors use *very* bright & hot lamps--which can melt through the plastic film if it happens to stall in the feeding mechanism.

Perhaps another Pipedotter can give some more detail about this??


Time Reason Points Voter
2014-11-12 19:32 Interesting +1

Junk Status

Not marked as junk