Have a news tip for us?
Just email . Ideas for stories, links to interesting articles, and press releases are welcome.
Director: Blu-ray offers better pix than theater
posted by
Michael Zoldessy
on
June 11, 2008 at 9:45 am
Since the advent of High-Definition TV, film buffs have debated whether it offers a better picture than what can be seen in your local movie theater.
However, Jon M. Chu, director of the Disney hit Step Up 2 The Streets, believes the argument should now cease:
The Blu-ray high-def disc wins by a mile, he says.
While Blu-ray might be driving people away from theaters, I’m pretty sure “Step Up 2” is causing greater damage.
Read the full story inTV Predictions.
Comments (13)
and you get a 50 inch tv @ home and a 30ft screen in a theater……
i have a 32 inch Sony HDTV (CRT) and watching movies at home on my PS3 (Blu Ray and upscaled DVD) and on cable is better than watching a blurry screen at my nearby movie theater in Rockaway with the loud surround sound. Not only that, I can pause the movie anytime I want with a bluray and do stuff that you can’t do in the movies!!!
I can’t imagine any fan of movies and movie theatres thinking that watching a film on a tiny 32 inch TV is more satisfying than seeing it on a well-run screen.
It’s simply untrue.
DVD Resolution: 720x480
1080p Resolution: 1920x1080
2k Digital Projection: 2048x1080
4k Digital Projection: 4096x2160
and 35mm is estimated at 10k, potentially.
So, no. Maybe the image is over-processed more for this release, but the resolution simply isn’t there. You could mess with the image processing the same way before printing the film. Now, operator error in the theater is another story; this is the real benefit of digital projection. It idiot-proofs the projection process, which is why it can look better than 35mm often.
BWChicago, I have seen Ironman at Cinema Banque Scotia (AKA: Paramount) in Montreal in Cinema 4 which has an Digital projector and it blow the 35mm film projection away (and that cinema has top notch film projection.) It is the lab’s fault that the print does not look as good as it should be.
Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. The only real advantage of digital projection – and it’s a big one – is that it greatly reduces the potential for introducing human error. But everyone seems to forget that 35mm as a medium CAN surpass it by leaps and bounds.
I’ve never seen a film in this format (outside of IMAX), but how does DLP compare to 70MM?
No matter what HDTV you have, Blu-ray player (or standard DVD) or how sophisitcated your Home Theater system is, it doesn’t beat watching a movie in a theater (wheather is DLP, 35MM, or 70MM).
The fact that Justin places great value on being able to pause the movie anytime to “do stuff…” would suggest that he just doesn’t get it.
Film done wrong has a tough time competing with decent DLP setups at home or in a theatre because of all the variables for error but film done right is tough to beat.The low quality release prints of today make it near impossible for film done right to happen but 70mm can blow everything away with ease.
I think this Article is just one of those Hyped up and uncorrect about BluRay, here in the UK at present seams to be low or no major interest in BluRay.
Only last week I visted several large Video stores and most had a poor & small selection of BluRay, while the rest was DVD, most people are happy with their standard DVD, why change to something twice the price of a disk?.
And I agree the best way to see a movie is in the Cinema, that is of coarse set up and projected correctly!.
I don’t think that Mr. Chu has experienced either “Baraka” or “Lawrence of Arabia” in 70 mm.
Cinemark: I have not seen a digital presentation that stands up to any 70 mm format. Not even close.
JSA
The director is talking about his own film which most likely was shot on 35mm and utilized a 2k DI. With the lack of care and the sloppiness of high speed printing today it’s no wonder the typical release prints would be inferior to the HD version which would be much closer to the source.