I tech specialising in cinema exhibition technology.
I find these comparisons are always subjective and have a slant to the baken in artistic result of film due to the birth of the moving image being film based. The versions above look different as they were retimed/regraded. The results are some ones artistic intent. Not a factor of the medium.
Film can definitely look better then general digital projection of today if care is taken in the production of the print (number of interpos/interneg copies etc). Digital has a worse black level. But in general, going digital has greatly lifted the quality of cinema across the board.
In terms of next generation digital, sorry film has no chance in competing with the black levels and peak luminance. Or the control of how the directors intent can manipulate the pixels if desired.
This is a vinyl vs CD all over again. Which, by now in numerous blind test vinyl has admitted defeat. But again subjectively, many people still think vinyl is better.
WARNING: the indee.tv tool sounded interesting..
But I just went to test it and though I used the free version, I used a simply video download tool to grab the SCREENER, WITHOUT THE WATERMARK.
If they used encription it would help, but the above means they are generating the watermark in real time and sending a pure/clean version to the end user. I expect there are plenty of ways to get around that if you really try.
be informed, this is not as "safe" as they indicate.
"Trusted by the lagest studios in the industry." Sorry, no. they would have qualified the tool before they used it for anything important. I expect they are looking at it..
If you make a film, its a huge deal, Protect it properly. Thats why I checked out indee.tv as it sounded like a fantastic tool (Especially for the price and what it said it did.. but doesn't). Unfortunatly its more of a gimic. Tho they do have some good ideas.
Does this address issues with, for example using with protocols, the video audio lock is not reliable.. has this been addresses?
These developments do indicate how non-proprietary codecs are the future and what the industry wants. The powerful companies (mainly Apple) that forces ProRes down our throat for personal gain (Lock out competition) I hope will be behind us soon.
Apple seem to have realised that FCP and total lock down into the Apple hardware is causing them just as much harm as good. The top end pros are integrating with cloud and other Non-Apple workflows. This artificial barrier is now turning people away not locking them in. (Why Apple has been pushing RDDs into SMPTE of there codec to reduce the push away by the larger multi nationals that make cotent)
Yes general, work for self, editors rely on the Apple ecosystem, but pretty much everyone else has good reason do not use Apple. Especially if you render a lot. Non OSX is the only way capability and cost effective wise. Also cloud integration issues etc..
The Mac Pro is amazing hardware but again the wrong move for our industry. I got hammered when I dumped on the trash can when it first came out. But look where we are now Trashcan panned for exactly the reason I stated when it was released... The new Mac Pro tower is more than we need as creators.. A generic mainboard with threadripper and general GPU cards is 1/3 as much as MacPro and far more capable. (MacPro took to long to make, and came out just before a large jump in price to performance, making it already lacking.. But if you just want something that "just works" yes good for that, but your paying for it.)
I use a lot of Linux for all the tools I develop, and man does it crank.. I just hope more tools move for Linux. Much better for enterprise level production. Easy to scale. For better performance for your dollar. (Most super computers are based on Linux kernels. and for good reasons.. With these large core count CPUs now coming to market.. Linux is the path.. We just need to get better, idiot proof implementation in Linux.. The large corporates will put up with this can can afford the technical staff to make it all work..)
Yes exactly right. They will be forced to self distribute. The offers they will get will be insulting. Plus the industry does not want to encourage this behaviour as the machine cannot take advantage of it.
I have heard this a few times. But no one has ever come up with good commercial reason for it. Window release come into existence as it was more profitable. Get people to pay for content more then once is obviously a more profitable path.
With content only having the one path, streaming, as a path the profit does not sound like it can make as much money as windowing.
This is why Theatres are bewildered at this as to them it does not make commercial sense.
But hell, I am ready to listen to anyone with a common sense reason why going to the single path streaming release is the more profitable path..