That was an excellent link to a story that sums up how full of the RIAA really is in their rant that 70 million downloaders are criminals. The major labels' monopolistic control of the music industry, radio and concert sales and the bland nature of pop music today is why sales are decreasing --it is not over downloads. There's nothing decent to download.

 |  IP: Logged

Bottom line...cds are more economical and versitile.

If you are looking for "audiophile" quality, then vinyl is definately the way to go!

The most expensive audiophile sound systems on today's market are tube systems. And today's new vinyl prints are spotless! I have some new vinyl...and you should see just how spotless the printing/striking is!

Differences between tubes and transistors is even vs odd harmonic distortion.

Film can and will be scratched in many theatres as long as the industry tolerates all the things that lead to such scratching, so perhaps they see digital as more idiot-proof. Also even if people have turntables, not many have them at work or in a car...

Is it cost or quality driving the entry of digital? Right now many people say digital can't measure up(haven't seen it myself yet). So it must be cost, with perhaps the eventual goal of quality exceeding film? Or maybe just cost with the eventual goal of landing somwhere in the ballpark so customers don't notice the difference? The ears that can tell the difference in vinyl aren't the same ears buying the majority of the releases on cd.
Anyway my opinion is you have two camps, the technical side driving the quality of digital and the money side driving the flexibility and cost savings of digital. Then you have the film guys saying neither side is currently near the finish line. But the question is, will they get there? And will one get there before the other, and the format goes wide because of the financial aspects before the quality aspects surpass film? And finally, if the quality flexibility and financial benefits all surpass film, will there still be people out there who have trouble accepting digital over film?

You said; "Seems like the "film-techs" are more attached to film as a format, for quality reasons but also pre-nostalgia, kinda like vinyl junkies saw the writing on the wall but didn't want to let go, and were eventually forced to by the industry who switched for cost reasons."

You will find that us "film-techs" are not holding on to a vintage technology for nostalgia reasons. If you are thinking that you have seen some really great DVD's, and wonder why we are so attached to film, I wonder if you realize where that DVD came from? Film is a superior medium, by far and away. A standard 35mm film frame holds in comparison about 19 million parts to a high end digital frame holding about 2 million parts. Now you tell me, are we holding on or are you just not getting the picture???

You said; "Film can and will be scratched in many theatres as long as the industry tolerates all the things that lead to such scratching, so perhaps they see digital as more idiot-proof."

Sure it will be scratched. But digital technology is far from idiot proof. In fact, they need more attention then film projectors do. And from costlier technicians. It is not a plug it in and forget about it solution. The industry will tolerate anything as long as it makes money. If we all switch to digital, and those all have problems, they will tolerate that as well. If you don't want to see a scratched movie, then learn what theaters in your area DONT scratch them, and go there instead.

You said; "Is it cost or quality driving the entry of digital? Right now many people say digital can't measure up(haven't seen it myself yet). So it must be cost, with perhaps the eventual goal of quality exceeding film? Or maybe just cost with the eventual goal of landing somwhere in the ballpark so customers don't notice the difference?"

It is cost. The problem is cost will not really come that far down. You will not see millions of units flooding store shelves, as only 36 thousand screens exist in the USA. With multiple manufacturers, you will not get much in the way of supply and demand. Cost will remain prohibitive, and with digital formats constantly changing and trying to improve, what theater has the time to keep changing out equipment, and the money to do it? Film projectors have 50 plus years to them and all use the same superior format.

You said; "And finally, if the quality flexibility and financial benefits all surpass film, will there still be people out there who have trouble accepting digital over film?"

Hey, I will be the first one to rush out if the quality surpasses film, and the cost makes it worth it. When that happens, most of us will change. However, that is so far off it is fantasy dream world right now. By the time digital gets to 19 million parts, film will be to 25 million parts. We are talking 20 to 50 years from now, and even then, film may still not get surpassed. Once again, we are talking compatibility. There is one standard 35mm projection format, and many manufacturers of that equipment, all adhering to that format.

With Cd's, it took years before they settled on a format. It took years to settle on a DVD format. Those are consumer end products. Projection systemst are not. Cost and quality are paramount. It will take 50 years before a real comparison can be reached, and even then, it may not surpass.

Film is here to stay, at least in my lifetime. And I plan to live forever.

Dave

Dave, I do agree with you on much of what you said. The general tone of discussions I've read on film tech seems like a lot of people have serious problems with digital technology as it is and doubts about where it is heading in the near future. Perhaps they will embrace it when it is "ready". I do wonder how many people are rooting for it's success though.

Two friends of mine went seperately to Detroit to see Episode 2 in digital. One, who knows basically nothing about projection loved it and said it looked great. Another, who has run projection for over 20 years got there to find the equipment was not working and shows were cancelled. So there you go.

I should probably say where I stand on it. I'd hate to see film replaced as a format. If it were replaced by a format that is higher quality, easier to operate/more idiot-proof, easier to deliver and cheaper, I think this would be a big consolation and even something to embrace, but embracing it wouldn't make me feel better about film disappearing. I feel the same way about vinyl, I didn't like to see it go, and I do my part to make sure it's still available on my own releases whenever I can afford it. But having said that I buy a lot of discs, way more than vinyl, because of the convenience of being able to play them at work or in the car, or just end to end without flipping sides. CD does have many advantages over vinyl, just as I imagine digital may eventually have advantages over film.

One thing though, you say film is here to stay, and in some ways I agree, but I also see digital becoming more dominant or even THE dominant format in both of our lifetimes. And who knows, maybe we'll be around long enough to see both cds and digital replaced by the next big thing.

Oh one more thing, I realize I tended to generalize in my previous posts about other people's opinions, and I probably shouldn't do that.

Computers are tricky. They require too much electrical stimulation to operate properly. Film is a lot more easy, just a bunch of chemicals. And if you shake film, drop it, whatever, it doesn't have its hard drive erased.

If it worked, I would embrace it. I think most people here would. But it definately does not do what the manufacturer promises. True, most consumers don't notice the difference. They are not trained to. So cost becomes the major issue. And since this is not a consumer product, the cost will not dramatically decrease anytime soon. Studio TV production video cameras routinely cost 50 grand and above, no matter what. they are not consumer end, so the price does not go down, as there will be no mass production to drive the price down.

So film is definately here to stay. The only way that digital projection could win out is if someone provided the projectors free of charge, in lieu of a few minutes of commmercials at the start of the show. But consider the cost. with total conversion costing about 150 thousand per screen, and 36 thousand screens, you are talking about a $5.4 billion dollar switch out. The industry only takes in about 8 to 9 billion per year. Sometimes we get lucky and pull about 11 billion. Even if the prices were cut by three, thats still more than the amount of profit made in a two year period. This industry is a very low profit margin industry, especially at the theater level, where the equipment change would have to take place.

Banks would not finance this change, because the cost savings on booth personel would not be realized, as expensive techs would have to be hired and trained. Hey, I am all for it, I would have a real high paying job. So would all these people. But the cost shows a no go on the idea.

It would have to be cheap as hell, and only have to be done once. Thats the problem, theaters don't want to install anything that is costly, hard to repair, and has a lifespan of three years or less, before it no longer works or is outdated. Machinery always outlasts technology.

So thats where I stand at least. I think you have a pretty good grasp on the problem, and make a pretty good point on technology vs. nostalgia. The people here do hold on pretty tight to film, but they do have very good reason.

I'm in that camp as well. We may disagree on whether digital will enter the theatres in any significant way but I think we agree that everyone in the technical side should be vigilant and expect a better presentation if it does. Right now film is better so we all hang on to it, for very good reason.

 |  IP: Logged