Originally Posted by Moridin
I think DOFP should pass $250m US, I need to see a trailer or something (and see how The Wolverine does, I'm cautiously optimistic about both, quality-wise) before going higher.
Like someone else mentioned, Hobbit1 already crossed $300m. I think TASM2 will hold around the same as the first ($262m).
You're completely forgetting about other competition like Transformers 4 & The Hunger Games: Mockingjay p1, Bond 24 (unless it's moved back).
Other potential mid-$200m films:
How to Train Your Dragon 2
Pixar Dinosaur film
Guardians of the Galaxy
I doubt Guardians of the Galaxy will cross the $200 million mark at domestic box-office.
Originally Posted by Super Film
Movies shot on digital cameras versus movies shot on film. There's a debate as to the visual quality of digital film (and photography for that matter). That digital sensors lack a dynamic range in picking up details and can blow out highlights and permanently lose the details within them--whereas film can recapture any lost detail because of being under/over-exposed, from within the negative. There's also the fact that film has a grain that some viewers expect out of movies while others enjoy the "clarity" (or lack of grain) in digital pictures.
It's also widely held that the resolution of digital images is below that of film and while digital film is projected at 2K resolution, higher than that of our 1080p televisions, film itself is much higher than that.
It should be noted that I'm no expert, this is information culled from the internet that I very well could have interpreted incorrectly.
Originally Posted by Mulholland '49
It's kind of hard to explain. Digital video cameras record movement whereas Analog cameras take pictures. Those individual pictures are projected at a certain speed of (24 fps) and it makes it look like you're watching movement.
Furthermore, Singer mentioned yesterday that he is using some of this kind of technology:
Thanks for explaining! I hope they don't go digital!