Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Another attempt at a news article from Fox News

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Another attempt at a news article from Fox News (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Another attempt at a news article from Fox News

Victor Liorentas
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 800
From: london ontario canada
Registered: May 2009

posted 01-08-2012 10:52 PM

I am sick and tired of articles about film purist missing scratches or other film defects as if that is what's being lost with super sharp perfect digital!
Film done right has none of that crap!
Good prints on good equipment equals magic!That is being lost.
Digital and silver screens are making me a very angry man.
Those who are fine with silver screens and hot spots on low rez sharp digital screens are suspects to me.
I suspect you need better glasses. [Smile]

Maybe you never knew what the magic looked like to begin with?
Sorry but Frank Angel got me worked up with his hot spot post. [Mad]

Excellent post Frank!

| IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 01-09-2012 02:19 AM

Since silver screens have been a part of cinema almost as long as there has been cinema, and became a metonym for cinema long before most of us were born, I find it bizarre that film purists would have such a hatred for 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 01-09-2012 02:48 AM

Maybe it's because, regardless of the origination of the projected image, that it is image degradation? [Roll Eyes]

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 01-09-2012 03:06 AM

quote: Joe Redifer
I haven't seen Planet Terror. That had fake film damage as well?

Yeah. And it used the fake damage a lot more liberally than Death Proof.

quote: Edward Havens
Since silver screens have been a part of cinema almost as long as there has been cinema, and became a metonym for cinema long before most of us were born, I find it bizarre that film purists would have such a hatred for them.

And aside from 3D revivals, it was also only used in a widespread fashion before most (if not all) of us were born. There's a reason people started using other materials... and it isn't because of a blind hatred for silver colored stuff...

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 01-09-2012 03:14 AM

I wonder if Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez would love it if they were in the booth with me and at the end of the night I removed the platter brain and just pushed one of their prints onto the floor and dragged it around for a while. I then put the movie back together. Would they be first in line full of giddiness to see the newly damaged version of the print the next morning?

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 01-09-2012 04:30 AM

Although I've never bothered checking on it, but I heard Tarantino got into trying out this type of movie because of the fact that he, as a collector of films, bought a copy or two of films that'd gone through the wringer in this manner from grindhouses. Assuming what I'd heard is true, it wasn't just an homage to people that fuck shit up but also an homage to the type of experience they themselves had.

Oh and on the "film damage" I much preferred Tarantino's way of handling it since it seemed more realistic. The "Planet Terror" bit was just like they tried to throw every bit of fake damage they could all the time non-stop. With Death Proof it mostly was just at the changeovers like what tends to occur in "film done wrong."

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-09-2012 06:54 AM

quote: Justin Hamaker
I have people come up to me every week and tell me the digital picture is the best picture they have seen on any movie screen - not just at my theatre. And I heard quite a few comments to this effect when we played Hugo.

I think that there is a difference between the first impression that one gets when seeing D-cinema and how one feels about it over time.

If you spent your entire life listening to recorded music on LPs and cassette tapes and someone played an MP3 file for you, you might respond by saying that it sounded great because it had no hiss and no pops or crackle. But if you spent a year listening only to MP3s and then heard a good LP, the response might be quite the opposite and the limitations of the compressed digital format would be readily apparent by comparison.

Same thing with D-cinema. If they care at all, people generally like it when they first see it, but may feel differently once they become accustomed to it and then go back to watching a good 35mm print on a good system.

quote:
I am sick and tired of articles about film purist missing scratches or other film defects as if that is what's being lost with super sharp perfect digital!
Film done right has none of that crap!

Exactly! I don't doubt that there are some morons out there who like seeing film damage, but this point of view insults those who work hard to provide proper damage-free film presentations. There is nothing inherent to film that causes damage. This is an operator problem, not an issue with the medium.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 01-09-2012 01:27 PM

quote: Chris Slycord
And aside from 3D revivals, it was also only used in a widespread fashion before most (if not all) of us were born. There's a reason people started using other materials... and it isn't because of a blind hatred for silver colored stuff...

And I might add that the silver screens that were fairly widespread and developed in conjunction with Fox for CinemaScope were NOT for 3D; they were lenticular and curved SPECIFICALLY so as to avoid hotspots while getting a higher gain. The 50s wave of 3D films lasted only for three to four years the most, then along came CinemaScope and whatever silver screens were still in theatres were ripped out and replaced with lenticular scope screens, a very different animal that what is being used today for 3D. Not until the 80s when an even much shorter run of 3D films needed silver screens did they come back for a few years and only in very limited runs.

So no, 3D silver screens were NEVER used for broad release 2D films as they are now; the use of silver screens and their demonstrable and documented hotspotting issue for standard 2D presentation has ONLY come about with the widespread use of digital.

It is not "film purists" having a blind hatred for digital; it is simply people here who have dedicated their careers to getting the best possible presentation out of ANY technology by looking unbiasedly at the issues. If someone concludes that certain changes are not a step up but backwards, that doesn't make them "blind" but on the contrary, quite open-minded. The use of 3D silverized screens for 2D presentation is decidedly a negative; there is no disputing that conclusion.

What I can't understand is how digivangelelists can simply dismiss such an obvious problem in an all-consuming desire to say that digital is best without acknowledging any of its weaknesses. This attitude that "the common moviegoer won't care and will accept bad presentation so that makes it OK," quite frankly, is antithesis to what we believe on this forum. It's the old "mediocrity is fine" argument....and not for nuthin, it sucks big time.

| IP: Logged

Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 01-09-2012 02:49 PM

Nice new scrabble word. metonym.

Had to look it up.

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 01-09-2012 04:04 PM

With this debate about digital vs film, I keep coming back to one point. Those who favor film keep pointing out the weaknesses of the digital picture vs those of a film picture - often as though the differences should be obvious to anyone who looks at a digital screen.

The problem is I keep looking for these weaknesses on my digital screens and I just don't see them. If they are so obvious, I shouldn't even have to look for them, I should simply be able to know they exist. And I say this not as someone who only occasionally watches a digital presentation. I say this as someone who has set up 8 digital projectors. I say this as someone who periodically goes through my auditoriums and tweaks the screen files to ensure the best picture. And I say this as someone with ~15 years experience working with 35mm film.

As I've said before, I'm not comparing digital to a pristine 70mm presentation because I have not basis for comparison. I am simply speaking of my experience in the various theatres where I have watched movies. And including the various film presentations I have seen at ShoWest/CinemaCon.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 01-09-2012 06:36 PM

quote: Bruce Hansen
Even though I think Fox News = Fox communist propganda,

Wow, someone clearly has their left and right mixed up.

This misinformation being reported on film is a problem with just about every news organization. It is frustrating. But hey, let's face it. Dusty, dirty, scratched, splicey sub-par presentations of crappy quality prints are the norm when it comes to film these days. It's sad, but that's reality.

| IP: Logged

Bruce Hansen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 847
From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 01-09-2012 09:04 PM

quote: Mark J. Marshall
hey, let's face it. Dusty, dirty, scratched, splicey sub-par presentations of crappy quality prints are the norm when it comes to film these days.

Maybe at your theater, but some people still care.

| IP: Logged

Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004

posted 01-09-2012 09:38 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
I suppose it's only a matter of time before somebody uses some software to add "film"-like things (scratches, dirt, splices) to a digital print from beginning to end, in order to make it seem more film-like. Many of the film people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

I was at a post production house some years ago, and they were working on a clip from Phantom Mess ADDING "film grain", "dirt", and "scratches" to the DC file. It looked like [bs]

and I told them so. They didn't like me much after that. [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 01-09-2012 10:54 PM

quote: Bruce Hansen
Maybe at your theater, but some people still care.

The people that care (including me), and the good presentations they put on (including mine) with film are in the minority. The norm is a crappy presentation.

| IP: Logged

Kenneth Wuepper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1026
From: Saginaw, MI, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 01-10-2012 06:37 AM

My experience with an ad agency was also unpleasant.
They were making an ad for a film series and it opened with the count down leader showing before a very scratch enhanced title card. I pointed out that we would fire the operator who caused this to happen in our theatre. They were angry that I had canned their display of artifacts that they just knew would say "film" to the viewers.

Their enhanced version did NOT air, thank you very much!

KEN

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.