|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Maintaining film projection ability long-term
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Kraus
Film God
Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 03-06-2014 11:51 AM
If B&W stock can be made by a boutique operation but color cannot, what about reviving dye transfer printing? Of course that will alter the look of the result when the point of continuing film projection (as opposed to using it as an archive medium) was to show things the way they were originally seen.
I would also like to quote the "What We Are About" statement from the Mssrs. Hall, Antos, and Westphal of the Northwest Chicago Film Society:
The Northwest Chicago Film Society exists to promote the preservation of film in context. Films capture the past uniquely. They hold the stories told by feature films, but also the stories of the industries that produced them, the places where they were exhibited, and the people who watched them. We believe that all of this history–not just of film, but of 20th century industry, labor, recreation, and culture–is more intelligible when it’s grounded in unsimulated experience: seeing a film in a theater, with an audience, and projected from film stock.
They run mostly excellent prints but if the time should ever come when the only ones available are scratched, splicy, and faded if color, then a DCP will be a better representation of the original performance. I hope that never happens but if it does, a good portion of the experience would still be there.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 03-06-2014 03:54 PM
quote: Scott Norwood
Additionally, there is the issue of how accurately a DCP (or "restored" print or 16mm reduction print, etc., etc.) represents the way a given film looked and sounded when it was first released. I have not seen very many repertory DCPs, but we need to be wary of things like remixed soundtracks, "cleaned up" original material, de-graining, and the like.
That happened in restorations and re-releases done photochemically, too. But yet only a tiny minority of purists believed that this created an authenticity problem.
quote: Scott Norwood
An original print of an original release of a film avoids these issues...
True, but how many rep presentations on film actually used them? I once say a side-by-side projection of a reel of the 1942 The Jungle Book - an original 1942 IB release print on the left and the BFI's mid-1990s restoration on the right. They looked totally different in every possible way: grading, color fringing on the IB print, picture stability and audio (the projectionist flipped back and forth to let us compare). Yet I strongly suspect that if you were to screen that 1990s print now, film purists would congratulate you for respecting the film's medium authenticity, whereas if you were to project a DCP made from it (or at least, from the same IN used to make the print) you'd be condemned for having gone over to the digital dark side.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 03-06-2014 05:09 PM
quote: Justin Hamaker
When it comes to archiving, how many of the movies released each year are really worth the full archive treatment - were everything is saved. Especially when you get outside that 5-10 year window when data migration becomes an issue. Most movies are never going to see a re-release or a special edition DVD, so wouldn't a high quality blu-ray (or equivalent) of the finished movie be adequate in most cases?
I don't think the film preservation issue is as big as some try and make it out to be. It is blown way out of proportion. Justin, you are right, 99% of the movies made will never see a re-release
I look at the way we watch movies today at home, how many of the current blu-ray movies that are released are sourced from the original camera negative? (there are some) but how many releases are not from the original scan? Way more than just some, sure, a movie like Gorillas in the Mist had to originate from a 35mm print somewhere, somehow but most likely, the data from the original scan was used for this release, not a new 35mm scan from the original negative.
I don't deny that there are hundreds or thousands of movies that have simply disappeared from the face of the earth because the original negative was not preserved, most of these movies are probably pre-70s. But, since 1974 (40 years ago) how many movies have we really lost? Since 1974, how many important or popular movies have we lost? Is there really a crisis going on?
In my blu ray player is the movie "Eve of Destruction" with Gregory Hines from 1991, did the studios really go into their archive and use the pristine 35mm camera negative? I highly doubt it. Will the movie vanish from the face of the Earth in the year 2091? Most likely not.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 03-06-2014 07:20 PM
You wouldn't normally use the camera negative to make a digital master from directly, because it won't be graded, it won't have fades, dissolves, titles etc. incorporated into it. It is literally the raw shots as they came out of the camera. The digital master from which a DVD or BD would be authored would either be transcoded from the final DI that exists after post-production is complete, or created by scanning an intermediate element (ideally one that is specially graded for scanning/telecine, on low contrast stock). You could scan a release print directly (and some lower-budget DVD labels do), but you'd lose detail in the midrange, and capture dirt, scratching and other artefacts.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Since 1974, how many important or popular movies have we lost? Is there really a crisis going on?
It depends on your definition of lost. There are quite a few which only survive in low quality and/or incomplete versions.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-07-2014 05:36 PM
quote:
What it will not do - and this is where my frustration with the "film forever" tendency, the AMIA Film Advocacy Group, etc. etc., comes in - is unlock some sort of magic, without which the world is a fundamentally worse place. Film projection is an industrial process, not a religious rite!
Religious rite? Well no. But an experience that is unique to FILM projection, well yes. At least at the moment. Your position is that the movie is the movie, regardless of how it gets to the end user. While I could buy that the story remains the same, I do not buy that the experience remains the same. The method of presentation does change the experience one has. How can you equate a process that inherently has a form of flickering (even rapidly with 3-wing shutters) and complete image updates with a process that does not do the same thing? Forgetting the subjective better/worse...they are not the same.
quote: Leo Enticknap
For example, is anyone seriously arguing that in order to understand the significance and impact of the Declaration of Independence, you have to go to Washington DC, queue up for hours and eyeball the original manuscript, and that if you read the text on NARA's website there's something fundamental you're not getting? The fact that the original is preserved and displayed the way it is tells us something about the impact of its contents, not the other way round.
I was going to leave that out...but actually it does go to the point. In terms of the data of the DOI...yes, even a text version of it conveys the data...and perhaps even the emotion. It is quite another thing to be standing in front of a document and seeing the actual thing that people wrote...there is a connection to the document (despite the thick glass, low light...etc)...your eyes are seeing the same thing those people that signed it saw. It becomes something more than just a thing from the history books...it has a life of its own then. Why do people visit places they have seen in books? Surely the book will show a picture with ideal lighting and weather.
quote:
Likewise, is seeing a DCP of Citizen Kane going to prevent you from understanding why the movie is important, whereas with the projection of a nitrate print on a carbon-lit 1941 Motiograph, you're suddenly going to get it? The "film forever" tendency claim loudly and often that there is something unique, special and valuable about the experience of watching that medium specifically projected on a screen, but I have never once heard any of them make any serious attempt to articulate why, in an objective sense. That's beacuse, unlike the argument that keeping a legacy technology alive helps us to understand its historical significance, the "something special" argument is essentially an emotional, faith-based one.
This is where you just plain wrong on many levels...particularly the science one. When the film makers judged the image (or sound) and said "that is what represents my vision or shot or take or whatever" that is what they were presenting. In the case of Citizen Kane, in particular, you are talking about a movie that changed how movies were shot, forever. How it was lit and how the image was composed, how depth of field was...etc. There are before CK and after CK. To somehow scoff off that not seeing it in manner in which it was approved sufficiently retains what is important is just plain silly. You may get the story but you may not get all of the emotion that was put into it...particularly the more it is viewed and the more details that are retained (or lost).
Because YOU can't measure something (you being anyone that can't quantify a perception) does not mean it is not measurable or a real difference. You may merely lack the knowledge to quantify it. Why do most people have a favorite color? Why would one prefer a color over all others? I don't know but there are people that study that. Are people studying the effects of seeing an image that flickers or updates in a manner that film projectors present versus other forms? Did you know that when people focus a film projector, they focus on the last exposure (e.g. in a double shutter, the focused image is after the second opening of the shutter)...we know this because it was studied and with high speed photography it could be proven. That is data we have. How people perceive images, what causes pleasure...etc. with HOW movies are presented...how well is that studied? It isn't for the person that says "I like this better than that" to justify their reason...if you think there is no reason, you need to prove that by studying the situation and coming up with the measurements that prove it one way or another.
I've seen nitrate projected...NOTHING looks that good...to me, at least. It is the kind of thing that I noted before I was told I saw nitrate. "That looks really good." And it is a pretty uniform reaction to those that have seen it. Why? The simple flippant remark is the silver content. Is that it? Maybe...but it seems to be more than just the blacks...it is the overall look of it...just seems better to me. There are high-silver content modern film stocks...never looked as good to me.
But I put it too you...there is more to how people perceive images than merely the frame rate update via the eyes? I'll go a step further from my own experience...I could tell you the brand of projector showing a film and that I like some better than others...how does that all weigh in? Certainly lens technology has changed over the years...did they go for a certain contrast look based on the lenses of the day and when we see things on modern equipment we aren't seeing the real thing or are we seeing what they were striving for but couldn't attain? The safe bet is to try and see it under the same conditions.
Does this mean a hill of beans to the teen of today...probably not...will it in their life? I don't know. But I sure wouldn't want to deny the future person that IS interested in how things worked and looked and what changed the world in the 20th Century.
quote: Leo Enticknap
The other thing that strikes me about all this is that as a general rule, the most vocal film advocates are people whose experience of film projection has been almost exclusively in prestige, well-funded venues in major city centers, with projectionists and techs who know what they're doing, top end equipment and access to archive and first-run rep prints. As someone who has both worked at and been a paying customer of venues that had to show worn-out and badly damaged prints, did not have the money to buy the lenses and plates needed to show a film in the correct ratio, etc. etc., the DCP is one helluvan improvement for me.
I don't think you'll get an argument from most that DCPs and digital in general have been a great way to bring classics to the masses. It is a fact of society that it cost money to give a shit about preserving something to do something "right." As such, it is going to be the larger metropolitan areas that will have the financial resources to put towards those sorts of things (not just film). However, people from all walks of life can certainly take a trip to such a place and see/experience something they may not (particularly as we go forward) have experience before. Some will likely come out with a headache from all of the flickering...and I'll wager some come out smitten with the film bug.
One thing that really scares me though is seeing the film legacy so poorly handled. That is, the crappy DCPs of films and even the crappy photo-chemical dupes that have zero contrast or have other preventable defects past off as great because it is film...I fear that these crappy dupes will be what film is remembered for...not the awesome magic that I had the pleasure of seeing, experiencing...including the communal experience of seeing it in a large movie theatre with 1000ish of my closest friends.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 03-07-2014 07:08 PM
quote: Steve Guttag
This is where you just plain wrong on many levels...particularly the science one. When the film makers judged the image (or sound) and said "that is what represents my vision or shot or take or whatever" that is what they were presenting. In the case of Citizen Kane, in particular, you are talking about a movie that changed how movies were shot, forever. How it was lit and how the image was composed, how depth of field was...etc. There are before CK and after CK. To somehow scoff off that not seeing it in manner in which it was approved sufficiently retains what is important is just plain silly. You may get the story but you may not get all of the emotion that was put into it...particularly the more it is viewed and the more details that are retained (or lost).
If detail - even subtle midtones - can survive the bare minimum of three generations of photochemical duplication (some of them optical) which took place between camera negative and release print on every shot of Kane, then they're certainly going to survive two plus the scanning and DI processes (the closest-to-original suriving element is the generation #2 IN that was exported to Britain in 1942 and from which the UK prints were made, and then preserved by the BFI - the cut camera negative and the only known generation #1 IP were destroyed in a lab fire in 1972) involved in creating the recent BD and DCP.
Furthermore, Kane was shot on mainly on 1231, with a few shots on 1232. The grain density of 1231 is roughly equivalent to 2.5 to 3K. Therefore, assuming that the optics of the scanner and the sensitivity of its imaging device are up to the job, a 4K scan is going to capture everything there is to capture. You do not have to lose anything significant about how it was lit, how the images are composed and the depth of field. You might, if the transfer is done badly, but a lot of 35mm rerelease prints were made badly, too (the last one I saw was of The Wages of Fear, printed on color stock and with a purple hue across the image that was seriously distracting).
Which leaves us with the physiological viewing experience / flicker issue. Granted, it could be part of the reason why some people value the experience of seeing film projected, on a subconscious level. Again, if this is a factor, it's another totally subjective one. About the only way you could try to quantify it, I guess, is to do something like the Kuleshov experiment, only projecting each image on film first, and then on DCP (using the same DI to create both the print and the DCP), and then ask each member of the audience which they prefer, and why. What would be even more interesting would be to fit a shutter in front of the lens of a digital projector, timed to behave exactly as it would in a film projector (i.e. obscuring the transition between images and then again at the midpoint between them), and even more interesting still to simulate a poorly timed shutter that way. If an overwhelming majority of the audience said that they liked the poorly timed shutter simulation, should we start showing classic movies that way?!
As for seeing Kane in the way it was approved, we're talking about a method of seeing it that did not exist until 77 years after the cinematographer's death, so we're seriously getting into a "what if?" scenario there. All we do know is that Toland rejected dozens of answer prints out of frustration at the lab not being able to achieve the look he wanted. It could be that if he'd had an Arri Alexa or a Red at his disposal, he'd have been delighted!
quote: Steve Guttag
I've seen nitrate projected...NOTHING looks that good...to me, at least.
I would guess that I've seen around 30 to 50 feature film presentations on nitrate, and they ranged (in terms of the photographic quality - not taking into account handling artefacts on the prints) from amazingly good to unwatchably bad, just like the acetate and polyester prints I've seen. In particular, the IB ones were nearly all bad. In fact, I can't recall ever having seen an IB print made before the mid-60s with acceptable registration of the three dyes.
quote: Steve Guttag
One thing that really scares me though is seeing the film legacy so poorly handled. That is, the crappy DCPs of films and even the crappy photo-chemical dupes that have zero contrast or have other preventable defects past off as great because it is film...I fear that these crappy dupes will be what film is remembered for...not the awesome magic that I had the pleasure of seeing, experiencing...including the communal experience of seeing it in a large movie theatre with 1000ish of my closest friends.
Here is where I think we're in complete agreement. The reason why I'm cagey about the archival community going out all guns blazing on a "film forever" campaign is that we're increasingly going to be in a situation whereby it'll take less money and stand a better chance of success to create a decent DCP from archival film preservation masters than it will a film print, and that the variables which at the moment carry a serious risk of the viewing experience being degraded in theater with film are, on balance, less likely to be a risk digitally.
I still believe that part of what is influencing this conversation is that the most vocal film projection (for classic/archival shows, into the indefinite future) advocates are motivated, at least in part, by having spent their entire adult lives seeing decent prints projected by dedicated professionals in well-equipped venues. We're a self-selecting group - we wouldn't even be on this forum if we didn't care about projection (film and digital) done right, and wanted to to all we could to achieve that. Where the film to digital transition can really help, IMHO, is in boosting the quality of presentation in situations where previously you'd have had to put up with a worn-out print shown by someone with a significant skills gap and/or in a theatre that was less than ideally equipped.
As long as it's possible to retain film capability without sucking resources away from providing access to classics/re-releases/other archive titles by other means, then I'm all for doing that (and furthermore, am willing to take part in any initiative or project to further that aim). I just don't feel that this should detract from issues which have the potential to affect the viewing experience for a much bigger audience, fighting the crappy DCP menace (which as another thread is documenting, has already materlialised) being chief among them.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-08-2014 11:49 AM
quote:
If detail - even subtle midtones - can survive the bare minimum of three generations of photochemical duplication (some of them optical) which took place between camera negative and release print on every shot of Kane, then they're certainly going to survive two plus the scanning and DI processes
Stop right there. I've yet to see a good DI from film...I don't believe they accurately represent the film element they are suppose to duplicate...as such, I submit your claim is false.
quote: Leo Enticknap
Therefore, assuming that the optics of the scanner and the sensitivity of its imaging device are up to the job, a 4K scan is going to capture everything there is to capture
An assumption that I and others will completely reject based on past experience. The DI does not capture the film image. You are starting from a false premise. Is your contention that the image is strictly a function of resolution? Are you saying that a line that appears straight in a film image that magically gets little stair steps in a digital image is the same image? The depth of the digital image always looks notably flatter to me too.
quote: Leo Enticknap
You do not have to lose anything significant about how it was lit, how the images are composed and the depth of field.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I certainly don't agree with it. I have seen no evidence to that effect and quite a bit to the contrary though not specifically on Kane. While a bad film dupe also degrades from the original, it does not excuse or justify what a DI may also do.
quote:
I guess, is to do something like the Kuleshov experiment, only projecting each image on film first, and then on DCP (using the same DI to create both the print and the DCP),
No, NO, NO
That is exactly a bullshit comparison. If you want to do a REAL shootout...you use the best film elements that survive (be they an original release print or negative...closer to OCN the better) and if a negative is the best that exists, then you strike a print, directly, from that...you do NOT put a DI in the middle...that is where the contamination to the film image comes in. There is so much example of that in modern print releases. There was a phony IMAX shoot out where 15/70 didn't look so great as compared to the 4K digital...however, there was a DI in the middle of the process...let the 15/70 skip the DI and go straight from the negative. Let the DCP use a DI (since it needs one)...then you will see what each format has to offer. The only source should be the source itself (the OCN or closest generation to it). The film version should, ideally, not have any DI in its steps if you really want to see what the film has to offer.
quote: Leo Enticknap
As for seeing Kane in the way it was approved, we're talking about a method of seeing it that did not exist until 77 years after the cinematographer's death
In what sense? They didn't approve it on its original release. It didn't change cinematography as we know it ever since its release? We didn't have to wait 77 years for that.
The what ifs on modern equipment at yesteryear's disposal is also garbage. recordings, film or otherwise, are a function of their place in time to begin with. In audio would Jimi Hendrix have done what he did if he was born 30-years later? What you do in your time is a function of your time. That is one reason I hate some of the revisionist history I see in Star Wars re-issues or ET's policemen using walkie talkies instead of guns and all of that garbage. Part of what makes recorded history is what people were able to do with the technology they had...take the pyramids, for instance.
quote: Leo Enticknap
In fact, I can't recall ever having seen an IB print made before the mid-60s with acceptable registration of the three dyes.
I saw a cartoon from a friend's collection that was color and nitrate...I don't recall registration problems in particular...I'll have to ask. While the image looked fantastic, it wasn't presented in "ideal" conditions.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 03-08-2014 12:07 PM
quote: Scott Norwood
a bad film presentation does not mean that we should give up on providing the paying public with quality film presentations of quality prints of classic films. No one would put up with an "art museum" with framed inkjet prints of famous paintings on its walls. Why do (some) people so readily accept "film" exhibitors who do the same?
Respectfully, I do not agree with you. The reason is that I firmly do not believe that the paying public agrees or even cares that you might be showing a film presentation of a classic film. Sure, to you and me it should be important that the film is shown in 35mm, but other options are available that serve the need. I think there is a little too much "Romance" of the idea of watching an old 35mm print of a movie, fun yes, does it matter? Not really. But that is my opinion and I can see how you might think otherwise.
quote: Leo Enticknap
You wouldn't normally use the camera negative to make a digital master from directly, because it won't be graded, it won't have fades, dissolves, titles etc. incorporated into it.
I am no expert on this, but I believe studios are using the original camera negatives for their 4K restorations and bluray releases. I think James Cameron said in an interview somewhere that they scanned the original negatives for the Titanic 3D re-release.
quote: Martin McCaffery
And there are so many post-70's films where the rights are "lost" or ambiguous and no one knows if prints exist, much less if there is a master negative or elements. Most of these films are indies, but even some major studio films it is questionable if a usable copy exists.
But I don't see some big crisis going on? The media goes on about how film is a better storage option, but I don't see the important movies from the 1970 onward being lost or in any danger of being lost. In 100 years are we really going to be playing in theaters some of the movies that were released today? I don't think so. The important ones will survive the less important ones might not. We don't have to save or preserve every film ever made.
And these movies that were lost in the 70s, does the media mention them in their articles?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 03-08-2014 12:58 PM
quote: Steve Guttag
Is your contention that the image is strictly a function of resolution?
No, hence the qualifier "assuming that the optics of the scanner and the sensitivity of its imaging device (i.e. the range of tones it is able to capture) are up to the job" in my earlier remark.
quote: Steve Guttag
If you want to do a REAL shootout...you use the best film elements that survive (be they an original release print or negative...closer to OCN the better) and if a negative is the best that exists, then you strike a print, directly, from that...you do NOT put a DI in the middle...that is where the contamination to the film image comes in.
That would also be misleading, because the vast majority of theatrical audiences see a projected print (assuming an all photochemical post-production workflow) that is at least three generations removed from the camera negative, often with optical printing involved in at least one. Showprints were occasionally made straight from the o-neg, with timing and opticals done individually, but only for things like gala premieres and Oscar nomination screenings. The general public almost never saw one.
Therefore, to eliminate as much bias as is practically possible you would need to screen a shot taken on film and then duplicated using the industry standard sequence of duplication stages to a print (camera neg > FGIP > IN > release print), and one taken on a CCD-based digital camera and then duplicated using industry standard DI processes to a DCP.
quote: Steve Guttag
In what sense?
Gregg Toland died in 1948, and the first version of the DCI DCP standard was published in 2005 (sorry - 57 years!).
quote: Steve Guttag
The what ifs on modern equipment at yesteryear's disposal is also garbage. recordings, film or otherwise, are a function of their place in time to begin with. In audio would Jimi Hendrix have done what he did if he was born 30-years later? What you do in your time is a function of your time.
Exactly, and that includes playback as well as recording. Very few people would try to argue seriously that listening to a CD rerelease of a Hendrix album, or a Beethoven symphony not played on period instruments, prevents you from understanding what those musicians were trying to achieve.
quote: Steve Guttag
That is one reason I hate some of the revisionist history I see in Star Wars re-issues or ET's policemen using walkie talkies instead...
Or the dog in The Dam Busters being renamed Jigger, Digger or Trigger, depending on which Sunday afternoon TV version you see...
That is not the same thing as changing the access medium. The technicians who scan old movies or digitize the 1/2" studio masters of Hendrix albums would claim that they are trying to reproduce the aesthetic properties of the source in the duplicate as closely as possible. We can argue until the cows come home as to how successfully or otherwise they've managed to achieve that. But I doubt if whoever dubbed The Dam Busters or Photoshopped the ET cops' guns into walkie talkies would claim that they were respecting the integrity of the original. They are deliberately changing it, knowing what they are doing, for political and/or commercial reasons.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I believe studios are using the original camera negatives for their 4K restorations and bluray releases.
For a full-scale restoration, yes, you'd start with the o-neg, if you have it. However, if you do use the o-neg, you have to recreate all the post-production steps that were done originally. That means retiming each shot (if you don't have printer light punch tapes or other original timing data) based on whatever evidence you have, e.g. release prints, recreating opticals, dissolves, titles, SFX, and all of that sort of stuff.
Not all theatrical and consumer video re-releases are the result of a full-scale restoration: in fact, not many of them are. For an older movie being re-released, the usual route is to take the fine grain interpositive that is duplicated from the cut camera negative and which incorporates all of the post-production, strike an internegative on a specific type of stock optimised for telecine/scanning, scan that and then transcode the scan data to produce the DCDM, DVD and/or BD master. Sometimes this involves minor restoration steps, e.g. automated dust busting or correction of dye fading.
But it doesn't require you to re-do all the post-production, which is why full-scale restorations starting from the o-neg are often very difficult, expensive and time consuming projects. For that you're effectively going back in time to the wrap of the final day on the set, and retracing the filmmakers' steps from there to the opening night.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic