81–87 of 87 posts
All that just to ensure a film doesn't get copied and pirated...and yet it still does
Nope, as it says in the article, it is also to track how much the film is being played, to ensure that they are being paid correctly.
This is the part that made me cringe: The [DRM key] arrives as an email zip attachment that then needs to be unzipped, saved onto a memory stick and uploaded onto the server. Seriously? That's how we're delivering time-sensitive digital information? In 2012 ? Ugh, it makes my head spin. Is there some reason that the projector can't be connected to the network directly, so the vendor can push the key straight to it wi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The actual transmission of the key could be done over a custom channel, like a serial connection only used to read the drm key. It would be even more secure than using a usb stick.
The key is useless without the server and feature it is issued for. There is no need to secure the transmission of the key. Automated delivery over http(s) is starting to get more and more normal (most screen servers don't have such capabilities yet, so you will need a Theatre Management System or separate box which will receieve the key and deliver it to the server).
Even if the internet connected box gets hacked, they have no chance of accessing the screen server through the serial cable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is interesting, my interpretation of what they were saying was for _new_ prints. But in the case of old prints, I see your point. Long term, I hope this is self-correcting. People still like vinyl, and although you can't find a Tower Records anywhere on earth, you can find vinyl shops that are still doing really well. The same could end up being true for film-projecting theaters. My bias for digital probably clo…
A good, clean, new 35mm print is very clearly distinguishable from from a 4k projection. Even casually you can see the difference. Not to mention how a good 70mm print looks. Or that a large percentage of screens aren't 4k but 2k. 4k is ok for me for most current releases. The difference is there, but I don't care too much. 2k is distracting. But I cry at the idea of a rep house screening of 2001 even in 4k. Pay for…
What difference are you referring to? If you're talking about clarity/pixels, the source format is as important as the projection. Academy and super 35 waste a lot of space on the frame. Super 35, which was really common for big time movies a few years ago because you could use spherical lenses, actually requires an intermediate step making it anamorphic for projection... which makes it less clear on the print.
The only 35mm source format I would argue provides higher resolution on 35mm than a 4K projector is going to be anamorphic (aka Panavision or 'Scope). It requires no intermediate step before projection. It looks like Nolan is shooting Dark Knight Rises anamorphic and 70mm for the IMAX stuff.
Other than resolution, the blacklevels of film are higher and there's weave on film. Plus, unless you only go to high end theaters that take projection seriously, your typical projector jockey at the local AMC can barely get the movie in focus. I once saw Saving Private Ryan projected with no matte. So every time an effects shot came on, the top and the bottom were cropped. Non effects shots had full frame. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte)
Anyway, given what we've seen with digital photography, I'd expect the technology here to advance pretty fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A good, clean, new 35mm print is very clearly distinguishable from from a 4k projection. Even casually you can see the difference. Not to mention how a good 70mm print looks. Or that a large percentage of screens aren't 4k but 2k. 4k is ok for me for most current releases. The difference is there, but I don't care too much. 2k is distracting. But I cry at the idea of a rep house screening of 2001 even in 4k. Pay for…
> A good, clean, new 35mm print is very clearly distinguishable from from a 4k projection. Even casually you can see the difference What difference are you referring to? If you're talking about clarity/pixels, the source format is as important as the projection. Academy and super 35 waste a lot of space on the frame. Super 35, which was really common for big time movies a few years ago because you could use spherical…
But yes, you're right that the capture method is the biggest influence. And since digital is becoming the default choice even on mainstream projects, 35mm projection would eventually seem sort of silly anyway. Even Malick is shooting Alexa now!
Plus there's all the 2k DI stuff that's been out there, muddying the waters even more.
Nolan is one of the few with both a strong preference and the financial clout to hold on to high quality film capture, but I suspect a couple of projects down the road even he will have to give in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't think there's a place for it in smaller / specialized venues for some time? It makes sense for mainstream Hollywood not to bother with it anymore, but I for one would appreciate to be able to see Bela Tarr on 35mm or Antonioni on 70mm again. I know many of these older prints are passed around too rather than struck per showing.
This is interesting, my interpretation of what they were saying was for _new_ prints. But in the case of old prints, I see your point. Long term, I hope this is self-correcting. People still like vinyl, and although you can't find a Tower Records anywhere on earth, you can find vinyl shops that are still doing really well. The same could end up being true for film-projecting theaters. My bias for digital probably clo…
I have a weaker opinion of vinyl, but from what I understand, it's a similar situation. Vinyl is probably a lot worse than film for retaining quality technologically but because of commercial interests, sometimes the vinyl release has far better mastering than the digital release. You can see this with older music, such as David Bowie's original releases on RCA and the later CD versions that are "remastered" such that they have a lot more dynamic compression. And you can see it in new releases as well with electronic music, where the vinyl release is targeted at DJ use and the CD one for listening at home, leading to different mixing. So while digital may be strictly better than vinyl in terms of retaining quality of input, due to cultural reasons the input is uneven depending on medium.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I once went to a theatre where the projectionist came out and announced that they had just broken a lens (apparently they had the largest lenses in town at the time) and couldn't project the film as they wanted to. They offered a refund, but for those who stayed, let us vote on what to do: use a smaller lens and see the film normally but smaller, or use the proper size lens but put up with 3-4 minute pauses every 20…
> but how does a broken lens lead to 20-minute segmentation? I think a "proper" analogue theatre has two projectors. With the films split into reels, one reel is played through one projector, and then when it's time to switch to the next reel, the projectionist cues it up on the second projector, and then switches between the two. Like a DJ mixing records, I suppose. So if one lens is broken, they need to stop the fi…