Talk:Digital cinema

Exposure Latitude Adjustment

I have added the fact that the lack of exposure latitude can be handled and mitigated through techniques used with reversal film stocks which also have the problem. Please reword my adjustments as I am not a good technical writer. 66.32.95.85 12:07, August 25, 2005 (PST)

More Info Needed

However, I think this article needs more information on hybrid motion picture production: More information about mixed media filming (both HD and film), and more important, filming on film stocks but completing the post in digital. 66.32.95.85 12:07, August 25, 2005 (PST)

Film versus Digital

"There are certain laws of Quantum Mechanics that would need to be repealed before a video camera could ever equal the performance of a film camera. Electronic sensors haven't gotten all that much better over the last ten years, it's more that camera manufacturers have gotten better at disguising their deficiencies!"

What utter rubbish! What laws of Quantum Mechanics? Show us please this verifiable scientific data. That digital cinematography could equal film, in terms of resolution, dynamic range, latitude, and DOF eventually I would say is undeniable and self-evident and is only a matter of pixel count, bit depth, quantization and the physical dimensions of the imaging device. Furthermore, although 35mm film is often quoted to have an equivalent pixel resolution of somewhere between 4-6k, in its original NEGATIVE form, it is also demonstrable that once a well worn release print is shown in many provincial theatres (which is quite often) then it's resolution is dramatically reduced through worn print, bad projection setup/lens and dirty impaired screen. Whilst HD skips this multi-generational degradation, the problem of dirty screens and bad projection can remain; the point is that any talk of 35mm's inherent superior resolution is subject to various qualifying conditions and is almost impossible to verify in absolute common practice.

To replicate the particular 'qualities', as seen in a modern aesthetic sense, that make 'film' look like 'film', as opposed to video, is however a matter of really accurately simulating film's many peculiar 'artifacts' such as jitter, grain, speckles and floating image registration etc. However these are strictly speaking not qualities but defects that were never intended in the first place and manufacturers of film equipment and producers have striven to minimize their effects over many years. It is only recently, since the so called digital revolution, that mostly young filmakers, striving to emulate a 'glossy Hollywood' look on video, perceive these defects to be positive qualities.

I think, on the other hand, it is highly unlikely that the average public patron will even notice the difference between 2k and 4k digital projection since they have a hard time distinguishing between 16:9 SD and HD video. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 80.58.2.44 (talk • contribs) 11:04, January 1, 2006

Wiki Education assignment: History and Theory of New Media

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Queenones87 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jnolan27 (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead image makes no sense

The lead image shows some seats in a movie theater with the caption "Stadium seating rows closer to digital cinema screens offer significantly more immersive experiences." What does that have to do with digital cinema? More immersive than what? Film? How? I can't find anything in the article that discusses this. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Effect on distribution

The citation given for the statement "To print an 80-minute feature film can cost US$1,500 to $2,500" doesn't seem to say anything of the sort. The closest thing I can see in that article to that figure is an anecdote about how much large format splicers cost, which is a completely different thing. 103.240.114.196 (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a bit about the cost of prints toward the end. She says she needed to raise $30,000 to make a print for a festival in Berlin. But it's unclear how much she actually spent, and that also included sound and a negative. And this was for one (or maybe three) prints, I'm sure the big time distributors are paying less when they order a hundred prints at a time. I think the best we could do with that source is say "thousands of dollars" but even that is a stretch. Probably best to find a new source. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)