When the Megapixels Replace the Millimeters…

[Digigenic]

When the Megapixels Replace the Millimeters…

“Yeah, I like the organic feel of shooting in 35MP UDD on ¼ mercury …”
-Jacob Mason- in the year 2010 8)

Film projection is nearing the end of its' life, it’s incapable of transcending its’ tangible source, unless it relies on digital technology to facilitate the projection process. Today, many of the movies originally captured on film are converted to digital for all sorts of reasons, for the DI process, for transfer to DVD, for transfers to the web, etc. The only time it’s necessary to be viewed in its’ original format is for the theaters, where it becomes so ridiculously prone to error that it makes you wonder why projectionists haven’t been getting paid more. Probably because they know they’ll soon be replaced by automated digital projectors.

Digital projectors that are capable of receiving full quality digital streams directly through cable and/or satellite will leave room for unlimited development in camera and media manufacturing. An entirely new process for presentation will be born, along with an entirely new arena for viewing this ultra dynamic content. It won’t matter if it was originally captured on DV, HD, 35mm, or 70mm; it will all be adjusted and presented accordingly from one projector.
Everything will be seen through digital signals, because digital signals can operate in an infinite range, and know no boundaries.

 

[sinjinza1984]

When the megapixels replace the millimetres

When the megapixels replace the millimetres

Digital is a more convenient method of capturing, storing, and projecting images. However, our local cinema manager is too cheap to even replace the broken seats and emergency exit signs in his theatres. Something tells me that he's not going to be too keen on replacing every single projection system in each of the ten cinemas in our complex.
I also have to point out that digital standards are constantly changing. Within ten years, I can almost guarantee that the codecs used encode and decode a film will be all but obsolete, therefore rendering these films 'un-showable'. There are already dozens of 'extinct' video formats, such as BetaMax, so how can we be sure that the media we're using today to archive our material will still be accessible in even five years time.
Lastly, the one problem with digital media (especially those being sent over long distances via cable) are prone to corruption. How many films are going to suffer because of poor-quality copies sent to a particular cinema?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Assuming that the digital projection matches 35mm print projection for resolution and color, contrast, black levels... I think we'll find that all the old problems of improper 35mm projection will just be replaced by a host of new problems of improper digital projection.

Just look at all the artifacts on digital satellite and cable-TV... we can look forward to blocky pixel breakups and freeze frames on our 50' cinema screen in the future...

 

[MarkG]

A lot depends on how the footage gets to the cinema. The problem with digital broadcast is that it's using about the lowest bit-rate they can get away with, so they can stuff as many channels as possible into the limited bandwidth. If movies are distributed to cinemas on hard disks, they can use a much higher bandwidth than broadcast HD with a more efficient codec than MPEG-2, and eliminate pixel artifacts.

But I agree, my parents have digital broadcast TV, and some of the artifacts are absolutely horrible: same with some of the broadcast HD I've seen when they use lots of fast cuts or fast pans.

 

[Lazlo]

I don't think film will leave for a LONG time... I mean, I forgot where I read this (maybe on this forum), but it's a great point: We still shoot films in black and white... Black and white hasn't been deemed obsolete, and film has the same intangible quality that black and white still has that keeps people interested.

 

[JimT]

Video Pixels vs. Film Grain

Video Pixels vs. Film Grain

I supposed that at some point digital pictures could match film for resolution and color, contrast, and black levels. However, will video ever be able to match the soft edges and blended look that film can achieve with millions of random grains, grains that are in a different random pattern in every frame of film? I suspect that digital signals with their mathematical symmetry (under current technology) will necessarily have some kind of sharp-edged pixels (no matter how many of them there are) as opposed to film's randomly shaped and arranged grains. Then again, perhaps future filmgoers might at some point call the film look old-fashioned and more like a painting than whatever their modern projected image might then be. It is an interesting problem to ponder. JimT

 

[laurent.a]

Also, don't forget most of the projectors on the planet are in countries where one can't imagine replacing them by digital ones. Far too expensive !

Also there is still not one standard system all over the world but 2 or 3 of them...

 

[wburke]

these type of crazy statements have been floating around for the last decade.
maybe when the machines take over in the year 2011 will us sorry humans wish we had stuck with film.

 

[laurent.a]

One of the camera tech at Panavision Marseille tells me he has seen a 35 mm positive made from a Genesis HD footage, he says it really looks like being shot in 35 mm !

Also, the Vyper is now on 10 minutes tapes (no more HDD)...