G-FEST XIX - July 2012

[kiryugoji04]

[MekaGojira3k]

[Thomas]

Destroyah? If true I'm actually tempted to go see this one.

[heroforhirerob]

[kiryugoji04]

[Thomas]

[MekaGojira3k]

[MekaGojira3k]

[kiryugoji04]

[heroforhirerob]

[TripMasterMunky]

[Goji 84]

[Goji 84]

Somebody I know recently e-mailed J.D. Lee's, and it would appear that the DVD of GAMERA THE GIANT MONSTER is being screened, and not GAMMERA THE INVINCIBLE.

This makes a lot more sense, considering how awful all of the available DVD copies of GAMMERA are.

[MekaGojira3k]

That must be a relief for those who wanted to go. I can't even imagine the copy I have of Gamera the Invincible on a screen that big. Ugh.

[kiryugoji04]

[John Schuermann]

Speaking as someone who works actively in the film and digital projection industry, I'd like to point out that digital projection of a well authored Blu-ray will almost always look better than projection of even a pristine 35mm print. Even DVD can sometimes look better than 35mm, especially if the print the DVD is struck from is in physically better shape than the 35mm print in question. I posted this on another thread, but I imagine many here have not seen this:

http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

The long and the short of it is that - while the film print itself might have *potentially* greater resolution than digital - by the time the film itself passes through the projection mechanism and hits the projection screen, perceived picture quality and resolution is greatly reduced. The highest resolution averaged on 6 different projection screens was about 685 lines per picture height. Compare that to the 1080 lines per picture height of Blu-ray (or 480 of DVD). Even an answer print screened in a top quality theater with well calibrated projection equipment only averaged about 875 lines per picture height. One of the things often commented upon by filmmakers upon seeing high quality transfers of their films to Blu-ray is how much better the film looks than even the initial theatrical run of pristine prints.

In other words, don't be so down on non-35mm projection

Of course, all bets are off when projecting a DVD or Blu-ray derived from a crappy print

[canofhumdingers]

John, I know we've had this discussion before in another thread, but I wanted to chime in for the sake of others in favor of actual prints. Granted, I don't disagree with many of the points you make, there is just SO much more than that that makes film the better choice. Especially when comparing it to dvd. Bluray, I'll grant, is much more likely to fare well in a theater projection compared to 35mm.

Some of the reasons film is still better despite the resolution debate:

-no compression artifacting.
-no 2:3 pulldown.
-No judder (from the pulldown).
-no aliasing (you still can't convince me that there's not some ocassional aliasing even on well done dvd transfers if there's a really tight pinstripe pattern on someone's clothes or the like. I still see it from time to time).
-film has a warmth that I still haven't seen reproduced by any digital projection to date. I realize this is really subjective, but I know I'm not the only one who thinks this. Digital projection in movie theaters still feels cold & sterile, for lack of a better word. I will admit that it seems to be getting better with the really good digital projectors when they are set up & calibrated correctly but they still aren't quite there yet. & don't get me started on the many digital projectors I've seen that AREN'T set up well. Ugh! (of course, I can say that about film too...good projectionists are getting harder & harder to come by!).

[John Schuermann]

Yes, we have had this discussion

I will concede on DVD compared to a good 35mm print. However, a few counterpoints:

-no compression artifacting.

Artifacting can be distracting, but a well authored Blu-ray should not have obvious artifacting. Much of the time artifacting is visible because of poorly calibrated monitors (jacked up contrast, brightness and sharpness) and the wrong gamma settings.

-no 2:3 pulldown.

There is no 2:3 pulldown on 24P Blu-ray.

-No judder (from the pulldown).

See above.

-no aliasing (you still can't convince me that there's not some ocassional aliasing even on well done dvd transfers if there's a really tight pinstripe pattern on someone's clothes or the like. I still see it from time to time).

Will concede aliasing, but still maintain that has more to do with poor deinterlacing, poor authoring, or poor upconversion to non-native resolutions than being inherent to the DVD format. Blu-ray should not suffer from these problems unless poorly scaled to other than native resolution.

-film has a warmth that I still haven't seen reproduced by any digital projection to date. I realize this is really subjective, but I know I'm not the only one who thinks this. Digital projection in movie theaters still feels cold & sterile, for lack of a better word.

Interesting, in that people say the same thing about digital audio, where the truth is that digital audio is much closer in sound to the original source elements than any analog delivery format (and yes, that applies to digital audio mastered from analog source elements).

If one compares an actual 35mm film frame to a 2K or 4K high quality digital scan of the same frame, they are essentially indistinguishable. That softer, "analog" quality to film projection (or analog audio) is simply a pleasing artifact that film projection (or analog audio gear) creates. However, it is actually distortion (pleasing though that distortion may be).

[MouthForWar]

This is such an interesting debate, but since you guys seem to know more about it than my dumbass (I'm just like "Durr, I like 35mm more cuz its perty"). Honestly though, I just prefer the LOOK and feel of actual film (it just feels natural), so it isn't necessarily "this has a higher resolution than that." Especially since that also kinda depends on the film's condition (or even the projectionist at the theater).

But you guys are the real experts so I'll just let you guys handle this.

[kiryugoji04]

But, aside from all that, I'm skipping the movies I'm skipping because I just don't want to see them at the Pickwick!

[John Schuermann]

Make sure you guys take in my "Tohoscope: History of Widescreen Kaiju Eiga" presentation on Saturday at 3 It's a modified version of the presentation I've been doing on the history and technology of widescreen cinema for several years now (normally I do it for home theater industry types). Then you can determine for yourselves if I know what I am talking about or not. It's good knowing in advance who the hecklers are

If all goes well I will be showing kaiju film clips on a 2.35:1 screen using a home theater projector equipped with an anamorphic lens. Makes for a cool demo.

Too bad Biollante is not in 2.35:1 / 2.40:1, or you'd have to endure my comments on that as well

[MouthForWar]

They're showing Biollante again? I wonder if it'll freeze again.

[MekaGojira3k]

[kiryugoji04]

[MekaGojira3k]