Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > No DLP for Indy

No DLP for Indy
Thread Tools
Lava Lamp Freak
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 05:36 PM
 
Steven Spielberg is requiring that Indy 4 only be presented in 35mm. Reading through the comments on JoBlo, it seems a lot of people dislike DLP presentations. I'm confused by this, as I always prefer going to digital theaters since the picture is cleaner and doesn't jump around like film projections.

What's the deal with 35mm being better than digital?

No digital Indy 4?
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 05:50 PM
 
It's especially odd considering how big of a hard-on George Lucas has for anything digital.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 06:06 PM
 
I think the reason is that there was no DLP in 1957, so how could they have possibly used it ?

-t
     
d4nth3m4n
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Far above Cayuga's waters.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 06:32 PM
 
maybe he's miffed that they're going to stop making polaroid film next year.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 08:10 PM
 
Snooty.
     
::maroma::
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: PDX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 08:35 PM
 
Perhaps he wanted to keep it feeling even more like the old Indy movies. From what I've heard a lot of people are concerned that it will be too modern and not as "raw" and "gritty" as the previous films. Keeping it 35mm would help that, I would guess.
     
SirCastor
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 08:47 PM
 
The only thing I can think of is a matter of practicality. DLP theaters are few and far between.

Still... for something as big as this, I would think they'd make every effort.
2008 iMac 3.06 Ghz, 2GB Memory, GeForce 8800, 500GB HD, SuperDrive
8gb iPhone on Tmobile
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 11:50 PM
 
Piracy arrr! DLP would mean prefect clones, arrrr sorry.
     
Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2008, 04:22 PM
 
There's only a handful of DLP projection theatres in the who US and probably not many more in the world.

There's nothing wrong with film. It looks great when the prints are new.

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2008, 07:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Lava Lamp Freak View Post
What's the deal with 35mm being better than digital?
There's two issues here. One is that 35mm movie film has a wider dynamic range than any of the digital formats, which still blow out when overexposed and clog up when underexposed. As a lot of directors and cinematographers (although not Spielberg) like to push their film to get funky effects, shooting on digital limits what you can do in camera. This gets more complicated when you consider that there are several issues at play with using digital cameras: the quality of your CCD(s), the quality of your conversion and/or compression process, etc. The technology just isn't there yet.

The other issue is digital projectors, which are still a very young technology. Personally I don't like them, as I can see artifacting and banding, especially in areas which transition from light to dark. Assuming that the new Indiana Jones film will have a fair number of explosions and the like, I can understand why Spielberg wants this.

There's a third issue which has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with politics and money. One of the reasons the studios are pushing digital projectors is that they want to move to a completely new form of distribution: digital downloads straight to the theaters. There are some legitimate reasons for this. It saves a lot of money in film, processing and duplication costs, and it theoretically means a better product at the end. No more film getting damaged or lost in transit, no more having to run a spliced film because you can't get a new copy for a few days, etc. However, directors and theater owners rightly see it as a way for the studios to exercise even more control over the industry, which would be a bad thing.

Imagine this scenario: Theater chain A is competing with theater chain B. MegaMovieStudio, Inc., allied with Chain A, suddenly has "technical difficulties" and can't get the downloads to Chain B's theaters until Sunday of opening weekend. It is unfortunate that Chain B missed an entire weekend of the new blockbuster's profits, but these things happen.

Or, imagine that a director is having a dispute with MegaMovieStudio, Inc. Even though his contract gives him final cut, the studio wants him to make a more family friendly version of the film. He refuses, and a week before the film is supposed to open there's a server crash at the studio and all the copies of his work are lost. Too bad.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2008, 08:17 PM
 
Go to Wikipedia and read the Indy 4 page. It says that Spielberg is going to the same look of the old Indy films. To do that, he's not shooting digital. He's even doing as little CGI as possible.

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2008, 08:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post
It says that Spielberg is going to the same look of the old Indy films. To do that, he's not shooting digital. He's even doing as little CGI as possible.
He's like the anti-Lucas. Good for him.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2008, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post
Go to Wikipedia and read the Indy 4 page. It says that Spielberg is going to the same look of the old Indy films. To do that, he's not shooting digital. He's even doing as little CGI as possible.
Yay! That means top-notch props and miniatures.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Montezuma58
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Madison, AL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2008, 09:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by SirCastor View Post
The only thing I can think of is a matter of practicality. DLP theaters are few and far between.

Still... for something as big as this, I would think they'd make every effort.
The majority of the screens in town here have digital projectors.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:00 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,