my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » R.I.P Film Projectors (Page 3)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Author Topic: R.I.P Film Projectors Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-27-2011 02:47 PM                     You have to take the bases too!  |  IP: Logged Kyle Cranney Film Handler Posts: 3 From: St. George, UT Registered: Mar 2011 posted 12-27-2011 03:05 PM                     I can vouch for Mark's garage, and his storage sheds. He's like the keeper of the Museum of Film.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-27-2011 03:33 PM                     I don't understand this psychological need that people have to declare film dead. It's weird. Disregard the quality aspect of the two formats. As many of you predicted, years ago, the cost factors ended up being a wash and, in fact, in some cases digital is more expensive. What else do you gain? Labor savings? Maybe. Depends on how you do the math. It's a fucking VIDEO PROJECTOR. Plain and simple! It's a big, expensive, complicated video projector. Nothing more. The only difference between video and movies is marketing. What fancy-ass high-fallutin' words can some marketing "expert" come up with to describe video that will make people want to have it? DIGITAL! And people are so fucking stupid that they buy it! Here's a good example: "MiO Water enhancer." What is this stuff? It's a little bottle of liquid flavoring that you pay $3.99 for. You squirt some into your bottled water and you drink it. Do you want to know what it really is? KOOL-AID! It's fucking Kool-Aid! Yes, people are so FUCKING STUPID that they are willing to pay $4.00 for KOOL-AID... something that they can buy in the supermarket, five for a dollar. And it's all because some marketing asshole thought up the words, "water enhancer." And, people are stupid enough to fucking believe it! And, people are stupid enough to jump on the bandwagon and declare film "dead" because some fucking asshole at Fox News wrote an article that says so. People are just fucking weird.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-27-2011 03:36 PM                     are they the reel 5000 bases or just century ones  |  IP: Logged Ben Wales Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 602 From: Southampton. England Registered: Jul 99 posted 12-27-2011 03:59 PM                     [QUOTE]are they the reel 5000 bases or just century ones /QUOTE] I think they were a complete set he had pulled out the Cinerama 70mm Theatre a few years, some where I had a message from Mark G about them.  |  IP: Logged Ian Parfrey Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1049 From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E Registered: Feb 2009 posted 12-27-2011 05:20 PM                     Mark. Any chance of getting a list of stuff you have for disposal? I'm in need of a Century DAW2 film trap and intermittent pad assy. I wholeheartedly agree with Randy's comments above. One very spot-on observation and I'm interested to see how it pads out.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-27-2011 05:34 PM                     Gord... They are reel Westrex 5000 bases!! BUT... you have to come get them... I won't ship because I don't want to even move them, or even touch them for that matter. The Westrex Penthouses have unused 6 tack Teccon Heads in them. I think there is an extra 5000 head and possibly an optical reproducer. There is a complete and runnable Simplex with a Western Electric 211A sound reproducer. Three point base. No lamp house though. I have an old ORC 1600 watt xenon I'll throw in to who ever buys it. What is not for sale in my Garage: The VistaVision Projector None of the Phillips FP-56 stuff. None of the Strong Switchers. There will be like 14 or so Century Projectors and related junk available in the very near future... so hang in there. Randy... Let me know how it pans out in the not too distant future when you have no film to run. Mark  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-27-2011 07:40 PM                     My point has very little to do with the medium through which content is presented. For all I care, you could stick an aerial into somebody's skin and run a signal through his brain. (Yes, it's from The Normal.) No, the question is why do people have the pathological desire to build one complex, abstract concept upon another then use this as a basis to decide what's real? Why can't people just perceive reality as it is and act upon that? The way it is, now, all we have to do is think up some new words or series of words to describe something and people will flock to it as if that thing really is new when, in reality the object in question is just a rehash of something that's been around for years. Compare: MiO Liquid Water Enhancer -- http://www.kraftbrands.com/mio/ You mix it with water and drink it. It tastes sweet and artificially fruity. Kool-Aid -- http://www.kraftbrands.com/koolaid/ You mix it with water and drink it. It tastes sweet and artificially fruity. Mio = Kool-Aid. The difference? MiO costs $3.99 each. Kool-Aid costs $1.00 for five of them. Other than that, some slick marketing person built up one abstract marketing concept on another until he was able to hornswoggle the consumer into paying TWENTY TIMES the price for virtually the exact same product. The same thing goes here: Digital video is to MiO as movie is to Kool-Aid.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-27-2011 10:20 PM                        quote: What fancy-ass high-fallutin' words can some marketing "expert" come up with to describe video that will make people want to have it? DIGITAL! And people are so fucking stupid that they buy it! I don't think it's anything to do with people being stupid or not. It's just what people want to do. They want to go out to the movies. Not sit at home in front of their TV. They don't care how the picture gets there -- just that it's there. Most of them have thought we were projecting video for years anyway. Done properly, a digitally projected image looks almost exactly like a properly-projected film image .... to the vast majority of people.  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 12-27-2011 11:42 PM                        Randy, I really have to disagree with the point you're attempting to make. Comparing Film vs. Digital to different types of water flavoring is completely off base. The conversion from film to digital is completely changing the movie theatre business model. Not only does it change the way content is received and delivered to the screen, but it changes the economics, and it changes what it means to be a "movie theatre" with the accessibility to alternative content. Perhaps an article from Fox News, or some other consumer news outlet, is unnecessary because the changes don't substantially affect the consumer. But that's a different issue. Rather than comparing the change to water flavoring, perhaps it would be more appropriate to compare it to something like broadcast vs cable television. Yes, both resulted in a picture being delivered to home television. But the change had much broader implications than simply improving the quality of the picture.  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 12-28-2011 12:18 AM                       The real point here is who is being sold. The cinema owner really has no choice, he needs to play content to make money and stay in the game. "Digital" really has nothing to do with it, it just is the new "standard." AFAIK no one in studio land is really trying to sell digital as better than film to the audience, it's just happening right under their nose. They just want to see a movie. So, the only net difference is that 3D is feasible at any cinema with no real fuss so more people can experience it, FWIW. The broader implications don't really matter to the audience. If they don't see the alternate content on the big screen, they will see it at home. The implications are all inside baseball stuff that matters only to us in the game, IMHO.  |  IP: Logged Ian Parfrey Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1049 From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E Registered: Feb 2009 posted 12-28-2011 12:30 AM                     quote: Sam D. Chavez The implications are all inside baseball stuff that matters only to us in the game, IMHO. I totally agree - with one addition. It matters greatly to those small movie houses that cannot afford to convert and hence close. THIS aspect of the conversion issue really gets on my tits.  |  IP: Logged Richard Hamilton Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1341 From: Evansville, Indiana Registered: Jan 2000 posted 12-28-2011 07:38 AM                     quote: Ian Parfrey really gets on my tits. Ian, that's a good one. Never heard that expression before, but you bet your ass, I'm gonna use it Rick  |  IP: Logged Damien Taylor Master Film Handler Posts: 493 From: Perth, Western Australia Registered: Apr 2007 posted 12-28-2011 07:38 AM                     We all know digital is capable of great things, and while film is awesome, it's just no longer practical. As Ian said, the thing that sucks is the venues being left behind. We've established that 99% of people just want to see the movie and don't care about the format, but the cinemas that can't afford the upgrade and close because they can't show anything aren't even fulfilling that need.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-28-2011 08:21 AM                     Justin, the physical comparison is irrelevant. I specifically chose the water/movie comparison because they are two different things. The point I am making is that, simply by calling things by a different name, we trick people into thinking they are something different. Do you remember the old joke of calling a garbage man "Sanitation Engineer?" A Sanitation Engineer is still a garbage man, no matter how you look at it. Some empty suit in the marketing department of Kraft Foods came up with a way to sell Kool-Aid by giving it a different name. Some empty suit in a corner office somewhere in Hollywood came up with a way to sell digital video by giving it a fancier name and declaring film "dead." It's nothing more than a trick of words. Yes, it is changing the face of the movie industry and it's redefining what it means to be a movie theater. I don't think it's a good change at all. The general public and most of the people in the movie theater industry have been hoodwinked by word tricks. That's why I think people are so stupid.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.