No digital Indy 4?

Quote:
your local theater still doing things the old-fashioned way, and hasn't converted to digital projection yet? Don't sweat it, you'll still be able to catch INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL when it hits in a few months.

In fact, that's the only way you'll be able to see the whip-smart relic collector, per orders of The Beard himself.

Indy's cousin 'Ohio Munson' tells us Paramount is informing theaters that per Steven Spieberg, INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL will NOT be available in digital format. The studio is requesting that complexes who can't project 35mm format let them know.

There you have it. Our favorite scrappy part-time professor (who, sadly, is named after the dog) prefers to remain firmly in the 20th century for now.

http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=19949

I wonder if this will affect the blu ray/hddvd version! If there unwilling to show it in digital at the theathers i bet there unwilling to release on blu/hddvd. Even though i like this ideal for the theathers because it will give the movie a throw back look, but for my colection at home id like a hd version.

---

[Post edited by Scionguy05 on Feb 28, 2008]

Cool, how long after the release to Theaters can we expect Amazon to start accepting pre-orders on the VHS release???

The irony is that George Lucas was trying to get theatres to convert to digital projectors when the Star Wars prequels were coming out.

Whether a theater projects a movie digitally or from plain old film strip has no bearing on how the movie was made or how it might be transferred to disc in the future. The vast majority of movies are filmed the old-fashioned way, on strips of film, not digitally.

However, in the current process of editing a film, the film strip is converted to high-definition digital images, anyway, and stored on a hard drive, usually at about 5000 scan lines. Then it can be converted back to film strip for exhibition in theaters with film projectors or sent out via hard drives to theaters with digital projection systems.

In either case, the studio has the high-def masters for down-converting to DVD, HD DVD, and Blu-ray.

I have no idea why Spielberg doesn't want his new movie projected digitally. Maybe he sees something wrong with the way digital projection looks. I have two theater complexes I normally attend on a weekly basis, one projecting everything digitally and the other traditionally. I see little difference between them from my usual center-middle seating position. But I'm sure this is a new controversy that will help videophiles to thrive now that the hi-def disc formats have ended.

John

---

[Post edited by John J. Puccio on Feb 28, 2008]

That means little to us as movie watchers. But it sure sucked for the effects houses that did the special effects. Applying effects to celluloid is WAY more time consuming than digital.

Scionguy05 unbelievably said -

Quote:
"If there unwilling to show it in digital at the theathers, i bet there unwilling to release on blu/hddvd."

Huh? - Well, that's a BAD bet!

How do you think the studios MAINLY make their profits from their investment into movies and TV shows? BY RE-SELLING THEM ON HOME VIDEO, both tape, disc, and streaming/download. They also make money from cable/satellite PPV sales, and finally for broadcast on TV. But the primary product driving studio profits is from HOME VIDEO SALES.

And FYI - Blu-ray and HD-DVD are both DIGITAL formats.

-JIMI (the VooDoo Child)

"Applying effects to celluloid is WAY more time consuming than digital." --spoonard

Huh?

I think you might be confused about digital filming and traditional photographic filming. All CGI special effects these days are done digitally, whether they are then inserted into regular film-strip-based stock or not. The live action in most films today is shot with a regular film camera (digital filming is still in a minority, despite Lucas), and then the digital special effects are applied in post-production, after the film stock has been transferred to the digital domain. After that, if the movie is going to be shown theatrically, it is converted back to film strip in reels, and if it's going to be shown theatrically in digital projection, it's sent to the theaters on hard drives.

Later, as pointed out above, it's all converted to the digital domain for down-conversion to DVD, HD DVD, Blu-ray, and whatever.

John

Quote:
That means little to us as movie watchers. But it sure sucked for the effects houses that did the special effects. Applying effects to celluloid is WAY more time consuming than digital.

As John pointed out both film and video originated material is composited digitally these days. Actually I've done plenty of composites for both, and without a doubt film is way easier to work with than any form of digital acquisition. Everybody thinks HD is grain-free but this is far from the truth. Digital acquisition produces 'noise' rather than grain which is ugly and a pain to deal with. Film grain is actually very uniform and easy to match between elements when compositing. Plus digital has less tonal and dynamic range, harsher black areas and is usually artificially sharpened. One of the reasons people see digital and think it is sharper is that the cameras usually add artificial edge sharpening during image processing. Most good DOPs with crank this down since it can cause problems for the compositors among others. All of this makes film (16mm too, but especially 35mm) was easier to deal with in VFX. Especially if they are captured with high quality 2k scans rather than a telecine.

Love hendrix

Quote:
Huh? - Well, that's a BAD bet!

How do you think the studios MAINLY make their profits from their investment into movies and TV shows? BY RE-SELLING THEM ON HOME VIDEO, both tape, disc, and streaming/download. They also make money from cable/satellite PPV sales, and finally for broadcast on TV. But the primary product driving studio profits is from HOME VIDEO SALES.

And FYI - Blu-ray and HD-DVD are both DIGITAL formats.

I know thats how studios make there money(home video sales) I should have been more clear on my statement. I meant since they dont want to use digital at the theathers( speilberg-lucas) that maybe they wont use blu ray or hddvd(at first), because if you look at the history of these 2 directors films it seems like they take forever to use a new format. Hell it forever for star wars to go to dvd.
Im pretty sure they will release indy 4 in high def, easy money! But will they redue indy 1-3 in high def, before indy 4 is ready for home video release for a hi def package release.

Odds are, Paramount will want to cash in on the popularity of the new Indy 4 film to rake in even more cash from Blu-ray sales of the old films. It's money in the bank. Why wouldn't they take the opportunity? On the other hand, studios do a lot of things that don't make any sense, so who knows.

John

John... I strongly believe Paramount will indeed release the 'INDY' series on Blu-ray (and again on DVD) this year - they could use the profits! Remember, the last few years the studio has not had the kind of success with their film output as in past glory years, even openly chastising Tom Cruise, declaring that his personal behavior cost the box office of M:I:3 around another $100 to $150 million (less). That's a lot of money.

If they've got Spielberg and Lucas on board for a hi-def release this year, then expect major promo adv for the 3 films already on SD-DVD. Sure, they we'll remaster them for hi-def, and release a new SD-DVD box set as well - and unlike some films, the 'INDY' movies have appeared on DVD in just one edition (to my knowledge).

FACTOID: during the final year of the LaserDisc format here in the USA (1998-99), Paramount was preparing another widescreen release of each film, this time remastered in 5.1 sound [the first widescreen editions were Dolby Surround 2.0 stereo], but then CANCELLED them after already announcing a forthcoming release previously in the Image Entertainment monthly magazine. Was a real disappointment to us LD fans!

-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)

I would be surprised if they didn't release Indy 4 in hidef. I'm thinking the releases available will be like this...

DVD - Indy 4 1 Disc
DVD - Indy 4 2 Disc Collectors set
Bluray - Indy 4 Disc (maybe a 2 disc set)
Bluray - All four Indiana Jones in a box set

If I know George Lucas, he will take advantage of the Indy 4 release and make it an event. Historically when he released one of the Star Wars movies (or even one of the Trilogies) on DVD, his video game division (Lucasarts) would release a Star Wars game on the same day to coincide with the movie release to maximize sales and profits. This has worked very well for him.

---

[Post edited by Falcon01 on Feb 29, 2008]

The thing is, why not digital?

I mean, since I began going to the digital theatre close to me, everytime I go back to the 'regular' one, I can't keep out noticing all the little specs, lines and 'imperfections' of film...does that mean that I don't love filmmaking???

I understand how they want to continue giving them the 'sunday matinee' thing, but come on, we are in 2008, digital is more enjoyable. It doesn't make any sense why they would want 'film only' (again, except for the matinee thing).

Two weeks ago I went to an IMAX theatre and saw I Am Legend, WOW...specially the first minutes of Dark Knight...WOW...

Check out the_dvd_chef's post on page one of this thread....

Actually I've done plenty of composites for both, and without a doubt film is way easier to work with than any form of digital acquisition. Everybody thinks HD is grain-free but this is far from the truth. Digital acquisition produces 'noise' rather than grain which is ugly and a pain to deal with. Film grain is actually very uniform and easy to match between elements when compositing. Plus digital has less tonal and dynamic range, harsher black areas and is usually artificially sharpened. One of the reasons people see digital and think it is sharper is that the cameras usually add artificial edge sharpening during image processing. Most good DOPs with crank this down since it can cause problems for the compositors among others. All of this makes film (16mm too, but especially 35mm) was easier to deal with in VFX. Especially if they are captured with high quality 2k scans rather than a telecine.

I love movies, but I don't enjoy when a print is in bad shape, when it has all those artifacts, scratches, etc...and you avoid all of that with digital, just the same way all the pics you store on your PC won't fade in color over time.

Quote:
I love movies, but I don't enjoy when a print is in bad shape, when it has all those artifacts, scratches, etc...and you avoid all of that with digital, just the same way all the pics you store on your PC won't fade in color over time.

What kills me are the boneheads that film a movie in digital and purposly put in the artifacts, scratches, etc. All for the artistic effect -- oh brother!

I understand that it's their 'artistic' way of doing movies Tim, however, it's not something that I personally enjoy (BTW, was your comment sarcastic? I didn't get it as sarcastic). Why don't then film on film...because they might want to release a new 'version' of the movie??

Either ways, we'll enjoy Indy regardless of...

EDIT: I had the fortune of seeing No Country... in a new theatre...however, the print looked in bad shape (it looked fuzzy, with no detail), but I later realized that it was because of burned in Spanish subtitles (which looked very very sharp)...I know that it had nothing to do with the post, but my 2 cents...

---

[Post edited by mvckalel on Feb 29, 2008]

Quote:
What kills me are the boneheads that film a movie in digital and purposly put in the artifacts, scratches, etc. All for the artistic effect -- oh brother!

Yeah, and this kind of post-processing can be expensive. It's one of the many reasons digital acquisition usually costs more than film.

Quote:
I mean, since I began going to the digital theatre close to me, everytime I go back to the 'regular' one, I can't keep out noticing all the little specs, lines and 'imperfections' of film...does that mean that I don't love filmmaking???

No, but it does mean your looking for them. Your brain usually filters these things out but when you go in thinking 'this isn't digital so I'm going to see dirt and scratches' your brain becomes much more aware of them and they become distracting.

Here's some news on new Special Edition Indiana Jones DVDs:

Quote:
While the DVDs may not be in Blu-Ray or the late HD-DVD format, they do have some bonuses that will sure to please Indy fans.

http://www.theforce.net/latestnews/story/Indy_Special_Edition_DVD_Details_112913.asp

Looks like they are just going to be SDVDs and not hi def but who knows.

---

[Post edited by Jedi_Soljah on Mar 3, 2008]

Quote:
While the DVDs may not be in Blu-Ray or the late HD-DVD format, they do have some bonuses that will sure to please Indy fans.

I guess someone informed them about blurays bonus features problems. Speaking of which, has Warner announced released dates for The Matrix trilogy and Batman Begins yet? These movies have been available on HD DVD forever and yet they never released them on bluray. Are they waiting for confirmation that profile 2.0 works or what? Holy delays Batman!

Maybe they wanna add 12 HD audio tracks with the Directors commentary on 5.1 channel surround as well. Cause that's what people really want! :p

---

[Post edited by Falcon01 on Mar 3, 2008]

Quote:
No, but it does mean your looking for them. Your brain usually filters these things out but when you go in thinking 'this isn't digital so I'm going to see dirt and scratches' your brain becomes much more aware of them and they become distracting.

The theatre I usually go to, I just found out, is THX certified...and since I began going there months ago, I've become more picky with how the movie looks and sounds, and how comfortable I am in the theatre...I don't enjoy going to a theatre and watching a print that has been shown like a thousand times and it shows, it's just not enjoyable...

The example that I gave was the soft image that comes with subtitles in No Country... that was bad, but the theatre is almost brand new...

---

[Post edited by mvckalel on Mar 4, 2008]