Why aren't blu-ray released the same day a movie is hitting theater?

[dunksby]

Originally Posted by KevinNYC

This is not true. Plenty of movies are still shot on film cameras.
Here's a list from Kodak. The Dark Knight Rises was shot on film.

When the image converted from analog film to a digital format, they scan the images and you can choose to scan at 2K, 4K, or even 8K. 2K is 2048 horizontal pixels which is similar to the 1920 x 1080 of 1080p HD. 8K scans are used very rarely because it's overkill for a movie shot in 35mm. However, for films shot in 65 or 70mm, like Baraka, it is worth it. This scanning is usually done way before the blu ray is created, since almost all editing is digital these days.

35mm is said to have a resolution somewhere between 3 and 4K.

The Dark Knight mixed both 35mm film and IMAX film, when they scanned the film, they scanned the 35mm sections at 4K and the IMAX sections at 8K.

So plenty of movies are shot on film and 35 mm film can be considered to a higher resolution than 1080p HD. However, even when films are shot digitally, they can be shot at a higher resolution than 1080p HD.

The Arriflex digital camera can output to 3K. Hugo was shot on this camera
The RED digital camera claims to output to 5k. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Prometheus were shot on this camera.


When a film is digitally projected in a theater, it can be projected at 4K

Yea films are great but they cost too much and now that a cheaper alternate is here I believe it's gonna go out of common use. Even the film camera manufacturers are giving up on them.

[dunksby]

Originally Posted by NoGunzJustSkillz

they are starting to offer same day releases on comcast demand for mostly independent movies. prices are like $80-$100 I think. if they released the blu ray same day as it's released in the theater, they'd just price jack. blu-ray's would be like $100.

Their biggest concern is piracy.

[NuggetsFan]

Why would they hurt an area where they make alot of money? If you could just get the movie on netflix or buy it etc. than you'd lose alot of money at the boxoffice. There's a reason why you never see huge budget movies go straight to DVD. Current system you have the box office + DVD\blue ray release.

I'm sure some movies would be fine, on average they'd probably lose lots of cash.

[KevinNYC]

Originally Posted by dunksby

Yea films are great but they cost too much and now that a cheaper alternate is here I believe it's gonna go out of common use. Even the film camera manufacturers are giving up on them.

Film camera manufacturers have embraced digital and abandoned film, but plenty of movies will still shoot film for a while.

For the biggest budget Hollywood movies, the cost is not that much of a factor. It's what tool do they want to use to get the look they want.

Check out last year's cinematography Oscar winner, Robert Richardson on which to use

This year, there's a mix of digital and film among the nominees for Best Cinematography. How much does shooting on film vs. digital matter to you?

CRONENWETH: I still like the notion that some formats support certain stories better than others, and I like the idea that we are afforded the luxury of different story telling tools. But having said that I feel the gap between the two has closed for all intents and purposes.
RICHARDSON: Digital capture and film capture both have their advantages and disadvantages. I shot Hugo on digital with the Alexa and am now in the process of shooting Django Unchained on 35mm anamorphic. I feel comfortable with either digital or film — the director and the project should determine the course of choice.



If you think about Django Unchained being a throw back to old Spaghetti Westerns it makes sense they are shooting on film.

Rose, thanks.

[ukplayer4]

Originally Posted by dunksby

The only reason cam rips are popular it's because of dumbass color blind Mfers like you who are too aesthetically impaired to notice and appreciate the difference of blu-ray quality versus the cam rips. They are just stupid sheep whose only reason to watch the crappy cam rip is to keep up with what's hot and cool.
Seriously you call yourself a movie producer but have the nerve to patronize us and claim you can't see any difference between 720p and 1080p? You my friend are the jackass here.

first question- how would being "aesthetically impaired" have anything to do with noticing the difference between 720 and 1080? did you mean visually impaired but wanted to sound a bit more intelligent by using a word you think makes you sound more informed? ooops. its always best to look up the meaning of words before you try to incorporate them into sentences.

although i was pretty drunk when i posted my first response the irony here is that im actually qualified to talk about this stuff having done extended studies and essays on it that are backed up with actual statistical data. ive also had lengthy conversations with the former head of distribution for the uk film council, coincidentally he largely shares a similar viewpoint as my own. but if you cant even get your head around this pretty simple notion thats fine. you actually have nothing to base your simple minded opinion on. i could actually point you to studies online that fully support what im suggesting.

you are also making alot of stuff up, i never said there wasnt a difference between bluray and camrip, damn your pretty slow if you read that into my post. i said people are so keen to see a film when they want to see it they are willing to put up with horrible quality cam rips, damn your pretty thick to misinterpret this.

im not a "producer" i wouldnt refer to myself as such, why dont you look up what a producer actually does so that you are aware. i dont even want to get into why pixels are so exaggerated when discussing image quality. but again, ive shot and post produced multiple digital formats and blown them up onto cinema screens before i formed my opinions but dont let someone informed sway your opinion in any way....

[ukplayer4]

Originally Posted by KevinNYC

Film camera manufacturers have embraced digital and abandoned film, but plenty of movies will still shoot film for a while.

For the biggest budget Hollywood movies, the cost is not that much of a factor. It's what tool do they want to use to get the look they want.

Check out last year's cinematography Oscar winner, Robert Richardson on which to use



If you think about Django Unchained being a throw back to old Spaghetti Westerns it makes sense they are shooting on film.

Rose, thanks.

spot on. even deakins is shooting on digital now, you want grain? add grain. digital has come a long way in the last few years the RED image is beautiful, even the red one that fincher/von trier etc shoot on, but something about the alexa is just so filmic, even tho there is alot less resolution, its about 2.5k compared with the modern red mysterium sensor which is 5k.

Originally Posted by dunksby
Yea films are great but they cost too much and now that a cheaper alternate is here I believe it's gonna go out of common use. Even the film camera manufacturers are giving up on them.

it makes perfect sense to still shoot on film for alot of productions, firstly because the film image actually is alot more forgiving and needs less working in post than digital. for a studio production it actually doesnt even save much money. its more about reliability.
film is still a lot harder to get wrong, for a great example of getting digital wrong see public enemies.

im totally skeptical of peter jackson shooting the hobbit in 48fps, ive shot with higher frame rates and unslowed down its horrible and unfilmic, no blur(once again we see less is more) makes for an unpleasing image.

[dunksby]

Originally Posted by ukplayer4

spot on. even deakins is shooting on digital now, you want grain? add grain. digital has come a long way in the last few years the RED image is beautiful, even the red one that fincher/von trier etc shoot on, but something about the alexa is just so filmic, even tho there is alot less resolution, its about 2.5k compared with the modern red mysterium sensor which is 5k.







it makes perfect sense to still shoot on film for alot of productions, firstly because the film image actually is alot more forgiving and needs less working in post than digital. for a studio production it actually doesnt even save much money. its more about reliability.
film is still a lot harder to get wrong, for a great example of getting digital wrong see public enemies.

im totally skeptical of peter jackson shooting the hobbit in 48fps, ive shot with higher frame rates and unslowed down its horrible and unfilmic, no blur(once again we see less is more) makes for an unpleasing image.

I personally prefer films for all the obvious perks but only as long as the digital method is lacking, if this transition is needed to for the tech to develop into an ideal alternate then I guess we have to bear with a few of these blunders and experiments.
About the 48pfs that Jackson is pushing, I think he is being an idiotic geek on this matter, human eyes observe at 15fps I don't see how excessive fps is gonna make an improvement while it is clear that it will just make shit worse. I mean it's like using those fake ass download managers that claim to increase your download speed by 110% or something theoretically impossible.

[dunksby]

Originally Posted by ukplayer4

first question- how would being "aesthetically impaired" have anything to do with noticing the difference between 720 and 1080? did you mean visually impaired but wanted to sound a bit more intelligent by using a word you think makes you sound more informed? ooops. its always best to look up the meaning of words before you try to incorporate them into sentences.

although i was pretty drunk when i posted my first response the irony here is that im actually qualified to talk about this stuff having done extended studies and essays on it that are backed up with actual statistical data. ive also had lengthy conversations with the former head of distribution for the uk film council, coincidentally he largely shares a similar viewpoint as my own. but if you cant even get your head around this pretty simple notion thats fine. you actually have nothing to base your simple minded opinion on. i could actually point you to studies online that fully support what im suggesting.

you are also making alot of stuff up, i never said there wasnt a difference between bluray and camrip, damn your pretty slow if you read that into my post. i said people are so keen to see a film when they want to see it they are willing to put up with horrible quality cam rips, damn your pretty thick to misinterpret this.

im not a "producer" i wouldnt refer to myself as such, why dont you look up what a producer actually does so that you are aware. i dont even want to get into why pixels are so exaggerated when discussing image quality. but again, ive shot and post produced multiple digital formats and blown them up onto cinema screens before i formed my opinions but dont let someone informed sway your opinion in any way....

1- I know the meaning of the word, it's not my problem you don't get the point, a better image quality makes for better aesthetic appreciation.
2- I didn't say you could not differentiate between them, I was talking about the Cam rip whores, but I give you this one since I was too mad myself to word it correctly.
3- I don't care about the studies, people who watch cam rips are slaves of media and hype, they don't watch movies to appreciate the movie itself they watch it so that they don't look like an idiot when the rest are talking about the movie. Now if the studies show that those are real film enthusiasts then I'm happy I'm not aware of them.
4- I thought you produced indie films as in a filmmaker? What's up with your obsession with terminology? Well if you are not then I was mistaken, I just always though you were dunno where that notion came from.