1080p footage on a theatre screen
- Thread starter kevinkt
- Start date
drapeama
Well-known member
Not on the big screen, but the last episode of House S06, shot on a 5D Mark II.
Anyway, if it looks good on a full HD tv, it will on a theater screen : the HD footage will be basically printed on a 35mm film so...
...unless i'm totally out of the track.
Last edited:
You mean specifically from a 7D, or 1080p in general?
If it's the latter, Avatar comes to mind.
From the 7D, I was impressed to see some of Phillip Bloom's work on a 40' screen, and even some of my own shots look pretty nice projected at about 12' on a high end home theater system.
If it's the latter, Avatar comes to mind.
From the 7D, I was impressed to see some of Phillip Bloom's work on a 40' screen, and even some of my own shots look pretty nice projected at about 12' on a high end home theater system.
drapeama
Well-known member
xmephestox
Carbonite Member
your average theatrical projection is at 2k. 2k is only a small percent larger than 1080p, maybe 20-25% difference. 1080p projects very well. a lot of hollywood films shoot 1080p and have a 2k filmout.
Genesis, Vipercam, D21, F23-F35 are all 1080p cameras
Genesis, Vipercam, D21, F23-F35 are all 1080p cameras
drapeama
Well-known member
Apocalypto has been shot with Genesis
Miami Vice and 80% of Collateral on a Viper
and i think that Star Wars episode 1-2-3 have been shot using the F23 (not sure)
Barry_Green
Moderator
No F23 was used on Star Wars. SW Episode 1 was 35mm film. SW episode 2 was F900 HDCAM. SW Ep 3 was F950, IIRC.
Snapper123
Well-known member
I think different cameras should have been used for Avatar, the whole time I watched the film, it felt so much like watching a cheap Sci-Fi channel flick. Not sure if it was the directing style (Titanic sure didn't look like that) or the cameras, but overall, the textures looked so cable tv-style....bad movie IMO anyway, I don't see how in the world so many people liked it, especially when even the theme of it was pretty dorky. Same as 2012, that movie was actually better in storyline, but it looked so fake in the textures compared to films like Independence Day...I just don't know what's up with these recent films.
But anyway, one thing I want to mention....I think most cinemas nowadays are equipped with not only 1, but 2 digital projectors. Most cinemas display 1080P pre-preview commercials (for local car lots, insurence companies, ect ect) before the official previews start, then the actual film and film previews are shown on another digital projector (either 2K or 4K). I'm not even sure that film projectors are used anymore, I think filmouts have practically ceased to exist since a couple years back. I even think the films shot on film are transferred to 2K/4K digital to be sent out across to all the theaters across the country. I may be wrong, though, as I have still seen those huge crates at my town's cinemas that most likely contain the film stocks. Maybe the official projectors they use are dual purpose. I know at least that the local advertisement projector is all digital - and that projector could be used, in theory, to display digital 1080P films almost instantly without filmout. I'm not exactly how sure stuff coming from the Canon series DSLR's would look, though, anything from them barely looks decent at 1080P on a computer screen. I mean, it'd probably look the same as we see it on our computer screens, but even then, the cinematic quality of it....meh. But I've always wanted to march down to a local cinema and ask them if I can test a piece of footage, mentioning that "I want to look into paying to have an advertisement during the pre-preview section." lol.
But anyway, one thing I want to mention....I think most cinemas nowadays are equipped with not only 1, but 2 digital projectors. Most cinemas display 1080P pre-preview commercials (for local car lots, insurence companies, ect ect) before the official previews start, then the actual film and film previews are shown on another digital projector (either 2K or 4K). I'm not even sure that film projectors are used anymore, I think filmouts have practically ceased to exist since a couple years back. I even think the films shot on film are transferred to 2K/4K digital to be sent out across to all the theaters across the country. I may be wrong, though, as I have still seen those huge crates at my town's cinemas that most likely contain the film stocks. Maybe the official projectors they use are dual purpose. I know at least that the local advertisement projector is all digital - and that projector could be used, in theory, to display digital 1080P films almost instantly without filmout. I'm not exactly how sure stuff coming from the Canon series DSLR's would look, though, anything from them barely looks decent at 1080P on a computer screen. I mean, it'd probably look the same as we see it on our computer screens, but even then, the cinematic quality of it....meh. But I've always wanted to march down to a local cinema and ask them if I can test a piece of footage, mentioning that "I want to look into paying to have an advertisement during the pre-preview section." lol.
Last edited:
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
I had a 30 minute short I shot on a 7D projected across a 35' screen from a 1080p blu-ray a couple months back and honestly, it more comes down to your competence as a shooter/cinematographer then anything else.
*Of course it is not the best image ever but it looked very very pretty.
*Of course it is not the best image ever but it looked very very pretty.
aituv
Well-known member
"Mr. Snapper123, what you've wrote is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent opinion were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this forum is now dumber for reading it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
^ altered quote from billy madison.
Russell Fowler
New member
Most of the cinemas are still 35mm film based due to high cost of the hardware and the financing required.....they are going for 3D locations initially for digital. Advertising projectors are primarily XGA resolution or low end HD 720p LCD business type of hardware. The pace of digital deployment of 2K/4K is ramping up but depending on the market.....two to five more years.
35mm filmout of digital files have more options with units such as the Cinevator which is capable of making a one off print or negative with soundtrack in one pass.
35mm filmout of digital files have more options with units such as the Cinevator which is capable of making a one off print or negative with soundtrack in one pass.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
yeah and here is a link to the list price of the cameras that Cameron used, $115, 800.00 list price, and his Fusion 3D system uses two of them at a time.
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/ext/cinealta/shoot/hdcf950.shtml
I don't think that it has anything to do with directing style or the type of cameras used. Avatar's look is true to Cameron's vision of how it is supposed to look. Its a different type of sci-fi. He could have made Pandora and the Navi look like really scary aliens in an ultra realistic netherworld, as we've seen in so many big budget sci-fi movies. He certainly has the money and access to the technology to do that. But then, Avatar would have been just another sci-fi movie that looks exactly like all the others before it. Nothing new or interesting about that. Many Avatar fans actually thought that those blue anime-esque characters were sexy and cool. People went back to see that movie again and again, not because they cared about the technical details of the equipment used to produce it but because of its divergent (unconventional) visuals and because it employed formulaic, old skool storytelling that wins every time---the humble and unseemly underdog comes out of left field, overcomes huge obstacles, defeats the bad guys, wins the battle, saves the day, gets the girl, brings resolution, and becomes the beloved hero. That theme isn't dorky at all. People LOVE movies like this because they like to see the beaten down little guy make a comeback to kick the big bad guy's ass (and get the girl) in the end. If you strip away Avatar's sci-fi elements you might recognize that the theme of the story is exactly the same one used over and over again in many successful movies. Whats different are the characters, the locations, and the situations they're in.
I agree with you about filmouts though. With today's video technology filmouts aren't necessary. I mean, a filmout is considerably cheaper than shooting on 35mm, but its still ridiculously expensive. I've seen 1080p that looks awesome when blown up on the big screen. If you want the film look you can get something that is extremely close to it with good makeup, lighting, color correction, and applied filters. (I'm especially curious to see what else cameras like the new AF100 will do). From here, video technology can only get better. I don't know that video will ever completely replace film, but mainstream features are using more and more video in their production sequences to cut costs, and when it comes to $$$ there's no argument that shooting on video has a huge advantage over 35mm film. Certainly, badly shot video will always look bad---even if you transfer it to film. But if its done the right way most lay people won't recognize (or care about) the difference.
Back when I was in school, I had instructors who claimed that "real" filmmakers always shoot on 35mm film. But that was a while ago, when video cameras and editing software weren't anything like what they are now. I can't think of any reason for an indie producer to spend money on a filmout now---unless you're working the film festival circuit and they require the reels.
RyanMKincaid
Well-known member
I agree with this statement about the textures. I think the reason why ID4 looked better then say 2012 was because all of the effects for 2012 was computer generated where as ID4 actually blew up scale models. Same with the original 3 SW films versus the 3 prequels. The textures between the different sets of films are evident. The latter just scream green screen to me.
As for Avatar itself, I don't think it was bad. But what fans of it are forgetting is that we saw this movie before in 1989 with Kevin Costner's Dances With Wolves and that film DID win Best Picture. In essence and as much as I love James Cameron, he basically took the story and re-wrote it for a Sci-Fi audience.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
Overall an impressive work.
Don't forget that much of the target audience is under the age of 17 or perhaps 6, so what may seem dorky to a pro like yourself, means big bucks on a global distribution scale, and that's what it's all about, money.