High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
Rules HDTV Forum Gallery LINK TO US! RSS - High Def Forum AddThis Feed Button AddThis Social Bookmark Button Groups

High Definition Media A place to discuss BD and UHD Content from physical and digital media

So when does the end of theaters come?

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-25-2007, 06:14 AM   #76  
SD HURTS MY EYES
 
Stew4HD's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tejas Baby
Posts: 9,989
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post
That will amaze home viewers & impact theaters' ticket sales.
Just yesterday someone posted an Article that 30% of homes have HDTVs. And 50% by 2010. I bet most of those sets are 40 inches are larger.
Not to argue.. well, ok, to argue.. 40" hardly constitutes wall size. 70", 110", 140", that is closer to wall size.

No disputing that TV hurt the cinema, VCRs hurt the drive-ins, but I still don't see theaters going away. Will there be less of them, possibly.
Stew4HD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 06:29 AM   #77  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post
That's good. Instead of a weak "restaurant" rebuttal, you came-up with some good solid arguments of why Gaming Arcades are not the same as Theaters (arcades screens are tiny & theaters are big). You may be right that the theaters large screens will keep people coming to them.



But I'm still not convinced. We know the invention of TV has a serious impact on 1950s movies (even driving megastudio MGM to near-bankruptcy). Now we have HDTV that will be able to deliver pictures with almost 10 times the resolution of the old NTSC standard, and no interlace flicker (1080p on bluray/hd-dvd).

That will amaze home viewers & impact theaters' ticket sales.
Just yesterday someone posted an Article that 30% of homes have HDTVs. And 50% by 2010. I bet most of those sets are 40 inches are larger.


As for Digital Cinema, according to wikipedia there are 2K and 4K versions which are 2048 and 4096 across. In contrast film has this resolution, and therefore exceeds what Digital can do:
35mm = 24mm wide * 200 == ~5000 pixels edge-to-edge
70mm = 49mm wide * 200 == ~10,000 pixels """
IMAX = 70mm wide * 200 == ~14,000 pixels """

Source (this paper performed a test using Kodak negatives, and found it gets 210 lines per mm): http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Tech...Resolution.pdf . One must also take into account the TRUE resolution of digital, due its discrete nature, is actually a function of the discrete fourier transform, so its analog resolution is 4096 * 0.7 = 2876 lines horizontal. So essentially 35mm is twice what Digital Cinema 4K can offer, and 70mm is four times the resolution.
The invention of TV ushered the golden age of cinema when all the improvements came:

1. Cinemascope
2. Multitrack sound
3. 65/70mm production

That is exactly what will happen when the conversion to DC happens - much better than you can get at home.

Troy - I told you NOT to use that white paper because you do not understand the film process. All that paper does is measure a single static frame of film to measure it's specs.

Unfortunately when the process goes from TN to print - more than half of that is lost due to the way we create a print:

Taking Negative - To Interpositive - To Internegative - to High Speed Printing Process. Each step creates a loss in resolution because film is analog and when we do anything with analog - we lose in the generation loss - the print is three generations old by the time it is printed. Then the HSPP creates even more loss.

Now we are at the theater with the print. Because of the design of the 35mm projector - when the film passes through the gate it does not rest squarely and flat against the plate with the opening for the light from the light source - this means it is impossible to get all the resolving information on the frame - we can not optomize focus - more resolution lost.

If you keep quoting the white paper - it just means you want to be right as opposed to how things work and why my statement rings true. It is not a question of who is right - just put that aside for a moment - it is based on the process and the limitations created to get an image from a camera up onto a screen.

The reason why IMAX looks so good is not just the large format. It is because their projectors have the special apparatus that uses suction to stick the frame flat against the plate so every bit of data on in the frame is shown on the screen. And that IMAX movie theaters are sparse so the print is made directly from the TN - maximum resolution

Last edited by Lee Stewart; 07-25-2007 at 06:35 AM..
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 07:50 AM   #78  
Wii 480p looks good to me
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,083
Default

For me the golden age of cinema happened BEFORE the arrival of cinemascope and other improvements. Sure the pictures LOOKED better, but there's something deficient in the storytelling that doesn't measure up to the Golden Age classics of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s.
Quote:
...All that paper does is measure a single static frame of film to measure it's specs....
FALSE. Why don't you try READING the paper? Once you do that, you will see they measured the *projected moving image*, not a static single frame. ----- AFTER you've read the paper, then come back and we can discuss the merits or demerits of their 210 lines/mm *projected* measurement.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Stew4HD View Post
Not to argue.. well, ok, to argue.. 40" hardly constitutes wall size. .
It depends on the wall. 40" would cover most of the wall in my tiny apartment. :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stew4HD View Post
Will there be less of them, possibly.
Yeah that's what I was saying. They won't disappear completely, just as arcades have not disappeared..... there will just be lot less of them.

I know I stopped going to the theater. Why bother? I can see the same thing at home & invite my friends over to watch it with me (or me go to their place). And we don't have to worry about screaming kids drowning out the sound, or rude people blocking the view, or kicking the back of our chairs..... home viewing is just overall much more comfortable.

Last edited by electrictroy; 07-25-2007 at 08:04 AM..
electrictroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 09:25 AM   #79  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post
For me the golden age of cinema happened BEFORE the arrival of cinemascope and other improvements. Sure the pictures LOOKED better, but there's something deficient in the storytelling that doesn't measure up to the Golden Age classics of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s.
We are not discussing plot or movies are we? We are discussing movie presentations - the technology behind the image - your times were B 7 W with mono sound!


Quote:
FALSE. Why don't you try READING the paper? Once you do that, you will see they measured the *projected moving image*, not a static single frame. ----- AFTER you've read the paper, then come back and we can discuss the merits or demerits of their 210 lines/mm *projected* measurement. .
This is the link that you showed:

http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Tech...Resolution.pdf

It is a 14 page paper. Go to page #7 - see the graphs - now check the RP - release print - says 2000x800. Now go to page 8 - those numbers are even lower - where are you getting your info from? Everything in that link supports everything I have posted - the degredation of the image due to generations and the amount of resolution on the screen (or lack of).

They also say the max resolution as tested is 2400 or 106 lp/mm you have some other number - almost twice as much.

Last edited by Lee Stewart; 07-25-2007 at 09:32 AM..
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 09:39 AM   #80  
Wii 480p looks good to me
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
We are not discussing plot or movies are we? We are discussing movie presentations - the technology behind the image
Oh. Well then you're correct..... TV helped usher in better picture & sound. I was just confused when you called it "golden age", because most historians call the 50s/60 the "silver" age, and they are referring to the quality of the story.

I apologize for misinterpreting your meaning.



As for the paper, on page 6 it reads: "In the summer of 2001, the ITU commissioned a test of film resolution. It consisted of photographing a back and white resolution test target using Kodak Vision 200T color negative film, 5274, a common high performance Kodak film. These images were then processed through the standard film replication processes to achieve a release print.

"The release print was shown in theatres and an informed audience selected the resolution pattern that represented the limit of visual resolution projected in a nominal theatre setting..... .....The absolute resolution of 2400 lines per picture height corresponds to 106 lp/mm [that's ~210 lines/mm] higher than Kodak quotes on their spec sheets." <------ This is where I was grabbing my info from.



I like the concluding paragraph: "We have seen that even at 4K resolution, we cannot display information to match the resolution of the HVS for viewers seated less than about 2 screen heights back." (In other words the digital image is inferior to what a film image would be.)

Last edited by electrictroy; 07-25-2007 at 09:46 AM..
electrictroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 10:15 AM   #81  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post
Oh. Well then you're correct..... TV helped usher in better picture & sound. I was just confused when you called it "golden age", because most historians call the 50s/60 the "silver" age, and they are referring to the quality of the story.

I apologize for misinterpreting your meaning.



As for the paper, on page 6 it reads: "In the summer of 2001, the ITU commissioned a test of film resolution. It consisted of photographing a back and white resolution test target using Kodak Vision 200T color negative film, 5274, a common high performance Kodak film. These images were then processed through the standard film replication processes to achieve a release print.

"The release print was shown in theatres and an informed audience selected the resolution pattern that represented the limit of visual resolution projected in a nominal theatre setting..... .....The absolute resolution of 2400 lines per picture height corresponds to 106 lp/mm [that's ~210 lines/mm] higher than Kodak quotes on their spec sheets." <------ This is where I was grabbing my info from.

I like the concluding paragraph: "We have seen that even at 4K resolution, we cannot display information to match the resolution of the HVS for viewers seated less than about 2 screen heights back." (In other words the digital image is inferior to what a film image would be.)
Your information is once again based on the theoritical limits of 35mm film - approx 4000x2000. So I hope you now understand that this does not equal what is actuallly seen on the screen.

As Digital Cinema will be 4000x2000 (8 megapixels - 4 times the resolution of HD) and every pixel will be up on the screen - against 2000x800 - 1.6 megapixels . . . I was wrong:

DC will have 5X the resolution of projected film - not 4. That will allow the viewing distance to be moved towards the screen as opposed to away from it.

Are we done?
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 10:37 AM   #82  
Wii 480p looks good to me
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,083
Default

No because your previous post is incoherent.

If 35 mm (according to the paper) is ~5000 lines from left-to-right, and 70mm is ~10,000 lines, how can you sit there and claim 4000 digital is better? 4000 is not greater than 5000 or 10,000.
electrictroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 10:39 AM   #83  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post
No because your previous post is incoherent.
That means you don't understand - you choose the numbers from a single frame which are the numbers shown on that chart. Those numbers were not referenced any other place in the report - what? You picked out the largest numbers?

Quote:
If 35 mm (according to the paper) is ~5000 lines from left-to-right, and 70mm is ~10,000 lines, how can you sit there and claim 4000 digital is better? 4000 is not greater than 5000 or 10,000.
Where are these numbers coming from? Show me a link. And you are now saying that the 14 page report is not true. So why are you even quoting it?

Last edited by Lee Stewart; 07-25-2007 at 10:44 AM..
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 11:34 AM   #84  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 53
Default Film Resolution

Interesting how this thread has turned into a shouting match about the resolution of film, as if that really had anything to do with the survival of movie theatres. But, Matt Cowan's paper (I know him personally, btw) is referencing an ITU study, so first I'll point to that directly:
ITU Study

There's another paper from the EBU that claims similar numbers, although drawn from a variety of other sources, not one single study:
EBU TEch 3289-E:Supplement 1
AlenK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 11:42 AM   #85  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlenK View Post
Interesting how this thread has turned into a shouting match about the resolution of film, as if that really had anything to do with the survival of movie theatres. But, Matt Cowan's paper (I know him personally, btw) is referencing an ITU study, so first I'll point to that directly:
ITU Study

There's another paper from the EBU that claims similar numbers, although drawn from a variety of other sources, not one single study:
EBU TEch 3289-E:Supplement 1

Well I don't know what Troy is using but the link that I am using above is also done by Matt Cowan:

http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Tech...Resolution.pdf

And I am comparing the resolution of film as projected to the proppsed specs for Digital Cinema which is coming very soon. So you only got it half right.
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 12:24 PM   #86  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 53
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
Well I don't know what Troy is using but the link that I am using above is also done by Matt Cowan:

http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Tech...Resolution.pdf.
You'll notice in the above paper that Cowan doesn't actually do any measurements himself. Instead, he references the ITU study I pointed to. I'm just trying to be helpful by providing the original source for the data you are using in your arguments. Or do you think that having more information is a bad thing?

Quote:
And I am comparing the resolution of film as projected to the proppsed specs for Digital Cinema which is coming very soon. So you only got it half right.
Are you feeling argumentative? I haven't taken a stand on the issue, yet you seem to want to pick a fight. I'm fully up to the challenge, but it would be rather pointless because I essentially agree with your position. That's one of the reasons I supplied the link to the EBU study. I hope that you and "electrictroy" read both it and the complete ITU study. They are "illuminating."

Last edited by AlenK; 07-25-2007 at 12:33 PM.. Reason: typo
AlenK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 12:33 PM   #87  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlenK View Post
You'll notice in the above paper that Cowan doesn't actually do any measurements himself. Instead, he references the ITU study I pointed to. I'm just trying to be helpful by providing the original source for the data you are using in your arguments. Or do you think that having more information is a bad thing?

Are you feeling argumentative? I haven't taken a stand on the issue, yet you seem to want to pick a fight. I'm fully up to the challenge, but it would be rather pointless because I essentially agree with your position. That's one of the reasons I supplied the link to the EBU study. I hope that you and "electrictoy" read both it and the complete ITU study. They are "illuminating."
Red: No fight - Unfortunately I usually fight fire with fire:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlenK
Interesting how this thread has turned into a shouting match about the resolution of film, as if that really had anything to do with the survival of movie theatres.
Thank you for the additional info - I do appreciate it. Troy can be very stubborn at times
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 12:45 PM   #88  
My Projector is High Def.
 

Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marlborough, MA
Age: 45
Posts: 7,087
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stew4HD View Post
I miss drive-in theaters, dammit!
Come visit Cape Cod, Mass. There is a drive in theater in Wellfleet. And its actually a lot of fun. They always play 2 titles that are current theater releases!
mshulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 12:46 PM   #89  
SD HURTS MY EYES
 
Stew4HD's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tejas Baby
Posts: 9,989
Default

Drive-ins are definitely better in the northern states where it is not too hot to sit in the car .
Stew4HD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 12:57 PM   #90  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stew4HD View Post
Drive-ins are definitely better in the northern states where it is not too hot to sit in the car .
How many left up there? Can't be many.

Right here in Ft. Laud we have a 6 screen "Multiplex" Drive In. From Oct. to beginning of May the place is packed every weekend night. During the day it is a huge flea msrket with rides on the opposite side of the street with a overhead pedest. bridge to connect the two.

Nice read from Wiki on Drive In's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive-in_theater
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


to So when does the end of theaters come?
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Marlowe's Back From the Honeymoon: FAST & FURIOUS 2-DISC SPECIAL EDITION (Universal) Peter Marlowe Blu-Ray Movie Reviews and Software discussion 21 10-26-2010 04:03 PM
A Marlowe Exclusive: THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT - UNRATED (2008; Universal) Peter Marlowe Blu-Ray Movie Reviews and Software discussion 30 08-28-2009 02:42 PM
THE UNBORN: UNRATED (Universal/Rogue/Platinum Dunes/Relativity Media) Peter Marlowe Blu-Ray Movie Reviews and Software discussion 9 07-14-2009 08:21 PM
Marlowe At The Movies: FAST & FURIOUS (Universal) Peter Marlowe At The Movies and Movie Discussions 20 05-09-2009 11:37 PM
My Take On...THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR DELUXE EDITION (Universal) Peter Marlowe Blu-Ray Movie Reviews and Software discussion 24 01-08-2009 12:20 AM
Another (Relative) Blast From The Past: THE HAUNTED MANSION (Disney) Peter Marlowe Blu-Ray Movie Reviews and Software discussion 11 01-05-2009 08:38 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:11 AM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands