Paramount no longer using film for movies

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I'm afraid your'e mistaken.

As I said, it all depends where you draw the line. At one level, there is no such thing as digital electronics, because the transfer of energy is an analogue process, as is the storage of data, whether in a RAM bit or on magnetic disk. At a different, conceptual, level the whole process is entirely digital, as we use binary logic to aquire, store and display the image.

However, as this seems to be turning into a troll, I'll leave it there.

Have a nice day.

:angel:

 

[Samouraï]

But it's all about releasing on film not shooting. Did I get this right?

Correct, this is about distribution. The end of film in cinema is still a long ways off.

And this is simply a business decision. Striking a print is extremely expensive.

 

[Photo_Smith]

As I said, it all depends where you draw the line. At one level, there is no such thing as digital electronics, because the transfer of energy is an analogue process, as is the storage of data, whether in a RAM bit or on magnetic disk. At a different, conceptual, level the whole process is entirely digital, as we use binary logic to aquire, store and display the image.

However, as this seems to be turning into a troll, I'll leave it there.

Have a nice day.

:angel:

Why do you think its a troll? Surely you can see if the information is human readable it has to be analogue?

It has nothing to do with analogue voltages in Ram just plain old the eye sees in analogue.
So when you stated:
"I use a laptop and the data remains digital right up to when the LCD pixcel twists on (or off)."

Is just false because at each pixel level of your display has a potential of a discrete value of 0-255 for each RGB pixel so is certainly not on or off just like the sample of a digital camera but in reverse.
No lines need to be drawn, the systems are a mix mix of digital and analogue during processing, what the eye sees is always analogue.

 

[Addy101]

Correct, this is about distribution. The end of film in cinema is still a long ways off.

And this is simply a business decision. Striking a print is extremely expensive.

And it is sound one. I don't know 'bout other countries, but over here (The Netherlands) digital distribution is good for smaller cinemas. In the Olden Days the distributor gave smaller cinema's one popular film and a couple less popular ones. That made is impossible to compete with big cinemas. With digital reproduction it is easier to distribute films and that means that smaller cinemas can get films that will be popular in their town, in stead of the films that are available.

Directors will choose the medium (digital/film) that will give the look they're after. If your on a budget of almost $190.000.000,- the price of film will be no problem.

 

[Samouraï]

And it is sound one. I don't know 'bout other countries, but over here (The Netherlands) digital distribution is good for smaller cinemas. In the Olden Days the distributor gave smaller cinema's one popular film and a couple less popular ones. That made is impossible to compete with big cinemas. With digital reproduction it is easier to distribute films and that means that smaller cinemas can get films that will be popular in their town, in stead of the films that are available.

Directors will choose the medium (digital/film) that will give the look they're after. If your on a budget of almost $190.000.000,- the price of film will be no problem.

It's a sound financial decision, but I still prefer film for viewing. The flicker of film is extremely important to the experience. Unfortunately, most theatres are showing 2K copies of movies (which look like utter tripe). Once 4K and 8K are ubiquitous, I'll find it hard to argue for film prints, as everyone goes through a digital intermediary, anyway. Honestly, the magic is lost in the DI process. Analogue colour correction is visually preferable and surprisingly more expedient than scanning and working through a computer.