Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Dragon Tattoo - crap film print

Mark Toia

Mark Toia

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Could be anywhere in the world today.
Just got back from watching the movie the "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"...

My comments are, Fantastic cinematography, fantastic directional piece.. all round, great film.. Always been a fan of david Finchers work.
But what completely pissed me off was watching the film from some scratched up print, jittering, soft grainy film print crap...

I've just been editing all day in my suite and Im lucky enough to have a very good 2k projector spreading an amazingly crisp, rich image across 15feet of wall...
And since shooting RED, I just see perfect pictures... Even my 1/2 res offline edits look better than what I just saw at the theatre.

So when I go to see a movie that looks as soft as a projected DVD... I get might annoyed. I so want my $15 dollars back.
Such a pitty that a production company or studio put so much money into making a 4k film, for it to be presented so badly.

I cannot wait for theatres to go 4k... It couldn't happen sooner for me.
 
I couldn't agree more.

I just watched Soderbergh's Haywire in a small local theater, film print, and couldn't get over how terrible it looked. Soft, jittery, and overall a painful to watch. Watching the trailer on my iPhone was more exciting than my theater experience.

It's time all theaters switched over to digital projection.
 
Mark Toia said:
Just got back from watching the movie the "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"...

My comments are, Fantastic cinematography, fantastic directional piece.. all round, great film.. Always been a fan of david Finchers work.
But what completely pissed me off was watching the film from some scratched up print, jittering, soft grainy film print crap...

I've just been editing all day in my suite and Im lucky enough to have a very good 2k projector spreading an amazingly crisp, rich image across 15feet of wall...
And since shooting RED, I just see perfect pictures... Even my 1/2 res offline edits look better than what I just saw at the theatre.

So when I go to see a movie that looks as soft as a projected DVD... I get might annoyed. I so want my $15 dollars back.
Such a pitty that a production company or studio put so much money into making a 4k film, for it to be presented so badly.

I cannot wait for theatres to go 4k... It couldn't happen sooner for me.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it looked good but texture and color vice it was almost as soft as that torrent file i did not download... have to look our for that digital cinema sign outside the theater next time..
 
Tom Lowe said:
Bottom line: film prints SUCK.
Click to expand...

I imagine they cost a $h!%load too no? Whats the hold up with the theater people? Havnt enough of them shut down already? Time to step it up. I can see why George Lucas pioneered THX certification now.
 
..sad but true. I no longer go and see Films at the theater for this very reason. I have been very disappointed on several occasions by the quality of the print, you get all amped up and excited about the film just to have it fall apart on the big screen either through ratshit projection or damaged film. Now I wait for the BR disk and watch it at home...
 
Tom Lowe said:
Bottom line: film prints SUCK.
Click to expand...

Well its a little more complicated than that. Release prints are horrible. They are on the same quality level as watching the movie on DVD. But if it was an answer print or a wet gate EK print. That would put most digital projection to shame. The problem is they just can't make that many answer prints as it would destroy the original film negative. Not to mention it would take a very long time because all general release prints are printed at high speed. So I'm so glad that theaters are mostly digital now, or at least most of the ones in my area. Because now people get a perfect show the first time and the last time the movie shows.
 
Whatever the most pristine copy is, scan it to digital, and then it will never be degraded again... it will just be 1s and 0s.
 
In Prague our only 4K theatre told me that they dont know if they will get GwDT in 4K quality, so I wrote email directly to distributor and didn't got any response. :(
 
By reading these posts and also by my own underwhelming experience, I think Red, Sony and all advocating 4K should really try to push bigger awareness not only on the distributors but also on potential audiences and consumers. I didn't have a chance to se Tattoo in 4K and what I saw as an audience member was a good looking film like any other, nothing more nothing less. And that's a real shame, with the technology here and ready!
 
Tom Lowe said:
Bottom line: film prints SUCK.
Click to expand...
Not always. A lot depends on how they're made, what they're sourced from, and how they're projected. So much can be caused by bad projection, especially with questionable lenses, keystoned theater layouts, on projectors that aren't well-maintained.

I would agree that, in general, I'd rather see digitally-captured material on a digital projector. But I've also seen some very good prints made from D.I.'s, and they were fine.

On the other hand: I just saw War Horse at a screening a few days ago, and the print was really soft. And I don't doubt the original looked a lot better. Contrast has a lot to do with apparent sharpness, too.

Bear in mind, more people in the world will see a movie on a print than they'll ever see it digitally projected -- at least for the next few years. But the tipping point is coming.
 
Also remember film prints degrade a little every time they're used. So this far out of the release, that same print's already been run through the projector a bunch and has degraded quite a bit which could easily contribute to what you saw.

That's why smaller independent theaters often have such lower quality projections, it's because they're getting the used prints from the big box guys at a premium and continuing to use them, albeit charging you a lower price.
 
Digital will always win vs chemical print. Because with digital you scan the optimal source ONE TIME, and it will never, ever degrade... ever. What you scan at the source will be the same 1s and 0s coming out of the 2K or 4K projector.
 
I first watched it on our 4K projector at RSH then took my wife to see it in a small neighborhood theater displaying a worn out film print. There was a point where she asked me what are all those white dots dancing on the screen. Waiting for my geeky explanation :)
Much different viewing experience. I love the motion and life that film has (sometimes/context) but when the print gets F'ed up, it just starts getting distracting.
Looking forward to seeing more movies delivered in 4K. There is absolutely nothing like it, when it's done right.
 
I just got back from HUGO... my goodness, what a boring film, My kids turned to me half way through it and said, Dad.. why is this in 3d ? hahhahaha... from the mouths of babes.

What is really disconcerting is that when I play a blueray in our home cinema, (20 foot screen) its brighter, sharper, more brilliant than any theatre I've ever been too. And the sound is even better.

I really think Cinemas over all need to step up.

I'm very much temped to not go to another movie theatre again, I'll just wait another 2 to 3 months, buy the BLUR RAY and watch it home... Cheaper and better experience over all... and I can own it and watch it again and again...

4k releases are the only way to project.
RED, bring out that LASAR projector and save the day!
 
Jan Balster said:
I couldn't agree more.

I just watched Soderbergh's Haywire in a small local theater, film print, and couldn't get over how terrible it looked. Soft, jittery, and overall a painful to watch. Watching the trailer on my iPhone was more exciting than my theater experience.

It's time all theaters switched over to digital projection.
Click to expand...

Yeah I noticed the same soft print yesterday for Haywire... but then again thought the movie was too over exposed too especially in the opening scene. What a terrible experience.
 
I watched the original 3 girl movies back to back at home yesterday. With all your comments I think I'll wait and watch the remake at home as well.
 
The single best looking moving image i've ever seen was the Inter-positive dailies from a feature i worked on like 8 years ago. One light timed to neutral, from Kodak 5219, in DuArt Labs in NYC. Shot on Arri Standard speeds. My brain exploded. To this day im waiting to see something that looks that good.

But thats basically the cleanest that footage was EVER going to look, EVER.

Last film i saw in theaters.... god, i have no idea....

All i remeber is i felt like i paid $14.50 for nothing.
 
Tom Lowe said:
Bottom line: film prints SUCK.
Click to expand...

Yet, what do I do when an old school producer is bringing me $2M in post and INSISTING they shoot 35mm... I just shake my head and take their $... because did all I could to convince them
but in the end... right now... FILM s where these films currently end up being projected and its hard to argue with that. Its their money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top