Are we living in a digital world?

[steve]

<font color='#000000'>I've learned something fundemental during ISF Training. &nbsp;We are spending so much time and efforts to recreate an analog image digitally with our video. &nbsp;3/2 pull down and interlacing are prime examples. &nbsp;If we are spending so much effort going digital to represent what was once analog, why go digital?

Discuss here.</font>

 

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#8D38C9'>With movies we do it because digital is hobbled by attempting to mimic the single most annoying element of film, namely the 24 fps frame rate. &nbsp;That drives me nuts- for the motion artifacts people dislike in DVD, the choppiness of pans d/t the relatively slow film frame rate is far worse. &nbsp;It can nearly drive me out of a theater.

In the future, I'd like to see even higher def picture resolution at a considerably higher &quot;frame rate&quot; (although that's not a perfect term to use for digital video, it'll suffice). &nbsp;The problem will always be adapting it to the inadequacies of the tens of thousands of existing movies (as we try to do with 'prog scan' &amp; 3:2 pulldown).

Note: &nbsp;I'm not saying digital beats film in all respects, just in that one very significant one. &nbsp;Although one day I expect digital will trump it in every conceivable way- every thing this possible is inevitable, IMOHO.</font>

 

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#8D38C9'>I guess that didn't exactly address your precise question!

&nbsp; We do it because digital is more economical and easier to manipulate losslessly. &nbsp;And we do it because we should be looking forward, not backward.</font>

 

[EdR]

<font color='#000000'>I must also admit that I do not miss hiss, clicks and pops, and degradation with frequent playing either.</font>

 

[abe]

<font color='#000000'>Analog, in terms of media , is gone.

VHS vs. DVD,   Cassette/LP vs. CD,  the reason of going digital is obvious.  DVD, CD are not perfect but they are on the right direction.</font>

 

[A. Vivaldi]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>

Rob Babcock : <font color='#000000'>I guess that didn't exactly address your precise question!

  We do it because digital is more economical and easier to manipulate losslessly.  And we do it because we should be looking forward, not backward.</font>

<font color='#000000'>This guy has a way of asking really deep questions that makes you wright a lot without ever answering him!

</font>

 

[pam]

<font color='#000000'>Digital is more practical and cost less. It is the only format that allows studios to make more money for distributing films.

Cost:      How much would cost a copy of a 35 mm film in every home?
Practical: Putting a 35 mm film on a projector is much more difficult than putting a DVD in your player (but less than doing a grayscale calibration).

Nothing in the DVD/HD-DVD world can even remotely compare to 35 mm (milimeters) film.
Latest scanners for 35 mm diapositives is 5400 dpi so you are talking of 7440 X 4960 pixels for 35 X 24mm: 18 times more than 1920 X 1080.
At 14 Mega pixels, Kodak's top of the line pro digital camera does not even pretend to compare to 35 mm.
They just pretend having the same format and being the best of the digital 35 mm.

Now, some motion picture film in 70 mm (65 mm of film) has much higher resolution than 35 mm.
First 70 mm film was Laurence of Arabia. Last 70 mm film was Titanic which is by far the film (which has got the most box office money: 1.8 B$, 40% more than 'The return of the King').

Just go in a theater in the first row and compare the resolution of 5% of the screen to your home theater.

On the audio side, you will probably have a better quality at home than in your theater. Especially 5K to 10K systems.</font>

 

[steve]

<font color='#000000'>What about 3/2 pull down? &nbsp;Doesn't this make the motion seem more stop go stop go? &nbsp;We are attempting to recreate 24 frames per second, however a digital interpretation is not 24 frames per second, but digitally corrected at two different speeds that together emulate 24 frames per second. &nbsp;If you watch certain scenes on DVD's very carefully, it is possible to see this stop-go motion however subtle it may be.</font>

 

[hopjohn]

<font color='#000000'>Convenience and preservation are the key reasons to move to digital medium.

As long as analog is the reference by which we measure the digital interpretation, digital technology will suffer. 3:2 pulldown is not a perfect solution, and some other solutions do seem to be taking shape that might improve upon it, but until film makers decide that the art of using film is dead, then then problem will continue to exist.

Just as the CD was cited as being infereior to vinyl, so to people have said that digital video is too revealing or harsh. Film grain isn't a part of the presentation, but since it's existed for the life of motion pictures, it's abscense is immediately detectable somehow rendering digital video as lesser by those who refuse to accept DV's superiority. DV can even be manipulated to look like film, though I think the idea is dumb. Think of what would be said if film were a technology that was somehow disovered after digital, how high would the praises for film be then?. All of film's inferiorities have become sentimentally enjoyable, &nbsp;but people need to start accepting it as obsolete.</font>