Dragon Tattoo - crap film print

[Marc Wielage]

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.

Let me give you a counter argument: leave your digital files and a film print in a box for 50 years. Which will you be able to recover in 2062?

Granted, if the storage medium plays back, and if the drives exist, you'll have no problem. But that's two big if's. I've already had two experiences (on major films, one of which made about $500 million) where half the LTO tapes got corrupted in a 7-year period. Now, multiply that amount of time by 7. Lots of things can go wrong in 50 years.

As to the Dragon print, I'm positive Light Iron and David Fincher made beautiful prints of the show, and I bet under optimum conditions, the prints will look fine. There are advantages and disadvantages to digital, but the pendulum is swinging more towards digital. The time element is the wild card, and I'm nervous about how digitally-acquired projects will survive after a decade or two. Heck, there are NBC shows shot on videotape in the 1980s that you can't play back now (or only with great difficulty), and those were analog. Same problem. LTO is still magnetic tape, and tape can -- and will -- go bad over time.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Let me give you a counter argument: leave your digital files and a film print in a box for 50 years. Which will you be able to recover in 2062?

That's not a counter argument; it's a different topic.

 

[Denizhan Nacar]

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.

The original European version of the movie is more authentic and a great work of art...Very impressive trilogy

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1132620/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1216487/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1343097/

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Maybe you can show them why.. Red is the way to go. Might be a good wake up they just might not know.

LOl. you don't think I tried? some people don't even want to listen Sean... and at this budget you just smile and say "OK"

 

[Jason Comparetto]

What a shame to throw away the quality in the very last step of delivery. Sad

 

[Chris Pickle]

Saw Mission Impossible in Florida over the holidays. Looked absolutely horrible. Ugly, dirty, scratched print.

One of the problems though, is that the theatres spend the money on Digital projectors so that the studios can save money. Yes, the image would be better looking which should benefit the theatre, but they need to see a savings as well, if they are to amortise the new projectors.

 

[Brett Reynolds]

Saw Dragon on a 4K projector...Awesome. It was so "steady" and sharp it felt more 3D than 2D.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

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.

I saw such a crap showing of War Horse. It was in a really small cinema, and the projection was mostly out of focus (I think there was something wrong with the lens as parts of the frame were in and parts out) showing a scratched up print...

 

[Marc Wielage]

That's not a counter argument; it's a different topic.

Tom, you said: Because with digital you scan the optimal source ONE TIME, and it will never, ever degrade... ever.

I would call it "degraded" if the data evaporates and you can't get it back.

Read the cover story in Daily Variety from last week: "Acad Sounds Alarm About Fragility of Digital Production." This is a very, very sobering story. The article stresses over and over again that film lasts a long time, and also cites the same thing I've been saying: that there are numerous examples of films less than ten years old where the digital files have been lost, corrupted, or incomplete.