Of course, it never happened. That's not to say that digital projection wont, but what if it becomes another paperless office?

Filmless cinemas = paperless office?

One concept that has always plagued me, though, is this: let's assume we continue to originate on 35MM, or even 70MM, and must make a choice about film or digital projection.

Everyone knows that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Therefore, how is it scientifically or technically possible that the technique of taking a camera negative and printing it onto another piece of film then shining light through that piece of film onto a screen can be beaten? After all, that is the shortest and purest through-line from the camera to the screen, and it's in the same format - a 1:1 transfer.

I fail to understand how running a camera negative through a telecine then projecting it electronically can 'improve' upon projecting the o-neg pos print itself (or even a carefully made release print), since it is less direct and a conversion from the native format to another one. To my way of thinking, it MUST be worse, or at least look different to what was on the film, irrespective of how technologically evolved the telecine/e-projectors are. In this case, 'different' means a less accurate representation of the original negative.

Can someone elaborate on how converting a film image to an electronic one might provide more information than was originally present, or transfer more to the screen?

The concept of using a "digital intermediate" to modify the color reproduction, tone scale, graininess, or apparent sharpness of an image is already reality:
http://kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/newsletters/images/spring99/digital.shtml
http://kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/newsletters/inCamera/oct2000/oBrother.shtml
http://kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/newsletters/inCamera/oct99/scan.shtml

As scanning and recording costs come down for highest resolution digital intermediate, the creative flexibility and ability to enhance film images will certainly increase and become widely used.

1: Trailers. Okay, maybe not the most important thing to some people, but this is an important form of advertising for us. My theatre, for example, is about a mile away from our competition. This means that we split bookings. It is very important for us to watch our trailer placements so that we're not advertising for them. Now while your average 20 plex is going to get every movie that comes out and therefore does not have to worry about trailer placement that much, there are a lot of locations like mine who do. My concern is this-how will trailers be handled on the digital projectors? Will theatres be able to program their own programs, with the exception of the 'attached' trailer, or will the distributers take it upon themselves to do the programs themselves, ie 4 Fox trailers on a Fox movies, etc.

2: 'Print' moving. In the theatre business we have to predict the future. We have to decide which movie will be the hit for this weekend. But sometimes we are wrong. If a DLP system takes 4 hours to load the movie it would be impossible to switch auditoriums between shows. If it takes a tech to laod the discs and there isn't one in house, it will be either very costly or impossible to change auditoriums. I can see a lot of money being lost here.

3: Ability to cancel shows and interlock. Again, sometimes business dictates you cancel a dud so the blockbuster can be on two screens. For example, back over Thanksgiving when the Grinch had just opened we, like everyone else, were doing phenomenal business with it. We only had 2 prints, while we had 3 prints of the dud 102 Dalmations and 2 prints of Charlies Angels-which by this time was slowing down. So, we canceled the earliest show of Dalmations (it was showing every 45 minutes, they didn't have to wait the long for the next one, the few that cam to it that is) and the earliest show of Charlies Angels. There were no lost sales on either one, as was mentioned above the Dalmations people only had to wait 45 more minutes and the Angels people only had to wait another half an hour. HOWEVER, because of that we were able to interlock both prints of Grinch, having it on 4 screens and getting out biggest day ever in terms of revenue on Black Friday. Now, would that have been possible with digital cinema? Certainly not with DLP. I also wonder if companies like Disney are going to have the techs 'lock in' showtimes so that that show will run no matter what.

While the issues I just raised belong more to the Ground Level forum, I put them in this thread to keep it all in one place. I think that NATO is going to have to get going and work with the companies developing digital projectors to solve these issues. Its not the quality I'm concerned about, it WILL surpass 35mm, I garauntee it. Its the independence of the exhibitors and their ability to make scheduling and programing decisions I'm concerned about.

You must be careful in dropping a screen of something to add a screen of something else. You could very easily be violating your contract agreement with the film companies.

It is policy with our company that any such decision requires approval from the booking department. Usualy the answer is no.

If film companies find out that you do this they can pull the film or not allow you to play the next big product.

They said the film companies where complaining that the monies where not being distributed properly or something.

Probably someone out there not doing something right. You do the right thing by contacting your upper managment to get approval. That takes things off of your head.

I remember when we had three prints of cable guy which was a total dog and we were selling out Nutty Professor so we dropped one cable guy and interlocked Nutty. Now you just get screwed.

I guess the distinction I wanted to make was more about the actual projection of the image, and how it is technically possible that digital projection of a film-originated image could improve the result provided by film projection of this same image (irrespective of any intermediate stages being optical or digital). In other words, although it is possible to digitally store and/or manipulate film-originated images with full preservation of the camera negative's visual integrity, I still cannot understand how digitally projecting the same - no matter how good the projector - can possibly surpass the image provided by actual film projection.

Bear with me while I make sure I have described this hypothetical scenario correctly: We shoot something on 35MM negative, which is then scanned in and manipulated in the digital domain. This digital file is then 'locked' and we call it file 'X'. If we project file 'X' digitally by outputting straight to a digital projector on one hand and output 'X' to film and project that release print on the other, can the digital projection of file 'X' SURPASS the projected release print of the same?

But even though a film negative has much higher resolution, sharpness losses can occur in printing and projection. Slippage in contact printing occurs when the proper relationship of a short perforation pitch original (BH-1866 perf) to a long pitch receiver (KS-1870 print perf) is not maintained. Sharpness loss in projection can occur with old unsharp lenses, or with thermal effects causing "focus flutter" that is beyond the depth of focus of the projector lens. With care, printer slippage and "focus flutter" can both be controlled. It's all part of "Doing Film Right". Many of the screening rooms and theatres at Kodak achieve 80 line pairs per mm resolution, as measured by the SMPTE 35-PA test film. For a scope frame of 20.955 x 17.526 millimetres, 80 lp/mm is equivalent to about 3300 x 2800 pixels. Even the Lucasfilm TAP Guidelines expect close to this high resolution from theatres.

quote:

---

film projectionists could be in real trouble real soon.

---

When you had small-time owners, at least when competition came in and threatened his lifestyle, even if it meant he had to cut his staff, you knew that he HAD to do it and that he probably at least knew how to run the show properly.

I hate to think that this whole shift in the way most businesses operate (huge corporations) and what it's doing to competant people who've worked and owned smaller versions and what it is doing to the economy. The masses can't afford to live on part-time at Wal-Mart. AND, we end up having to support this crap investing in Mutual Funds!