Post by Neil MidkiffThere's no inherent reason why a digital cinema system couldn't be made
that equals or surpasses 70mm photography, but at present it would be
far too costly to compete with what the current market calls "good
enough". And of course the present state of the industry cares little
about quality, as the subject line of the current thread indicates.
The problem isn't digital, yes. The problem is that people don't care about
quality.
Post by Neil MidkiffI saw The Sound of Music in a gloriously fresh-looking 70mm print a
couple of years ago at the California Theatre in San Jose, and I am not
one bit thrilled by the possibility of seeing it in 4K (or 2K) digital
now. But I can well believe that ten or twenty years from now the state
of the art might make it practical to reproduce the 70mm experience
digitally, if those of us who can tell the difference in projection
quality can convince the rest of the audience to demand better than what
we're being given in digital cinema now.
Right now we have the ability, with current 8k technology, to come pretty
close to the resolution of a typical 70mm print even if perhaps not the best
possible 70mm prints.
The first problem is that resolution isn't everything, and 2k resolution can
look pretty good on a big screen if the greyscale is good enough. The
greyscale on current systems is not good enough. However, this is an
engineering problem that can be solved.
The second problem is that the theatre owners don't care, the studios don't
care, and the audiences hardly care. This is a much harder problem to solve.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."