Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Fantastic Beasts in 5/70mm

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Fantastic Beasts in 5/70mm (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Fantastic Beasts in 5/70mm

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 09-28-2016 10:18 AM

quote: Tyler Purcell
So when you look at what has changed quality wise, we really haven't seen the dramatic bump in quality expected from this move to digital.

We have seen an end to horrendously scratched and dirty 35mm prints playing at your typical mall multiplex. I'm probably going to be flamed for this, but I think the evidence is there that for your typical movie theater patron, who does not have access to the prestige, first run houses or art/rep places that are making a long term commitment to doing film right, the 35mm to DCP conversion has achieved an overall improvement in the viewing experience. And as you point out, the photographic quality of the last Star Wars 35mm release fell way below what the medium is capable of.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

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

posted 09-28-2016 11:02 AM

I am as pro-film as anyone, and I completely agree with Leo that the average mini-mall type of theatre never had good film presentations (between lousy operators, decades-old equipment that had been poorly maintained, and low-quality prints). D-cinema at least forced these places to install new equipment and do some maintenance, as well as largely taking operators and prints out of the pool of potential problems.

For the average moviegoer, this has been a net improvement.

The unfortunate side effect is that it basically rewarded incompetence and punished those who actually were putting on a good presentation with film (and who are now forced to own and maintain two separate projection systems).

| IP: Logged

Frederick Lanoy
Film Handler

Posts: 88
From: North of France
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 09-28-2016 03:43 PM

quote: Leo Enticknap
We have seen an end to horrendously scratched and dirty 35mm prints playing at your typical mall multiplex. I'm probably going to be flamed for this, but I think the evidence is there that for your typical movie theater patron, who does not have access to the prestige, first run houses or art/rep places that are making a long term commitment to doing film right, the 35mm to DCP conversion has achieved an overall improvement in the viewing experience.

I still love film (35 mm, 70 mm, IMAX 70 mm) but I agree with Leo too. Most part of the time, the level of quality used to be dramatically low at the typical mall multiplex. So, even with 2K projectors, going digital was a big noticeable improvement.

| IP: Logged

Rick Raskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1100
From: Manassas Virginia
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 09-28-2016 05:06 PM

I have to agree with Leo too. Presentation quality is overall better at the sub run level. But the technical issues I read about are infinitely more complex at all levels.

The digital change reminds me of the change to digital networks in the telephone industry. Yes, technical issues were more complex but they were eventually solved. Believe it or not, today's digital fiber networks are actually easier to maintain than what existed in the near past.

I believe the same will happen in the exhibition industry as the technology matures.

| IP: Logged

Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015

posted 09-29-2016 02:24 AM

Here is the problem... digital's "improvement" only exists because it takes the labor out of a once labor intensive position. Digital in of itself isn't magically better then film, it just requires less user interface, which means less room for error. With film, everything needs to be perfect and for quite a long time, it was that way. As I always say, if one theater projecting film can be good, there is no excuse for the rest to be bad.

Unfortunately, digital doesn't offer the audience anything they can't get at home. With home theater displays/projectors and sources. sometimes better resolution then theatrically released material, I'm amazed anyone goes to the theater. I use to see 2 - 4 movies a month and now I see around 5 movies a year in the theater. Why? Because I have an excellent home theater and why waste money on 2k distribution when I can see it exactly the same at home.

The move from film to digital is the first nail in the coffin for cinemas. Cinemas no longer offer a special/unique experience. It will take a few more years, but once day and date releasing happens online, cinemas will fold very quickly. Only the profit centers will remain and probably eventually close thanks to super high pricing as a consequence. The theater experience will be reserved for special movie rides like what's happening in Asia today. People go to "experience" a movie, rather then simply watch it.

| IP: Logged

Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 10-19-2016 12:38 PM

quote: Frederick Lanoy
I still love film (35 mm, 70 mm, IMAX 70 mm) but I agree with Leo too. Most part of the time, the level of quality used to be dramatically low at the typical mall multiplex. So, even with 2K projectors, going digital was a big noticeable improvement.

Not just the mall. Even back in the day in NYC, there were only a few theaters that did 70mm really well post the reserved seat era: the Ziegfeld, the Loews Orpheum and the Loews Astor Plaza.

There were a fair number of other 70mm theatres, such as the Gramercy, Bay Cinema, New Paramount/Columbus Circle, New Fine Arts, Baronet, Coronet, National, Embassy I II III, Angelica 57, 86th St East Twin, Movieland, Chelsea, Regency, 1st and 62nd, Beekman, Park & 86th, 34th St. Showplace, Guild 50th, Criterion, Worldwide 6, Loews NY Twin, Murray Hill 4, Sutton, and the East 85th (+ theaters in the outer boroughs), but most were "just okay" at best.

The presentation quality of digital struck home when I was in Cape Cod a few summers ago and went to a digitally-equipped local movie house. Before digital, they usually would have gotten some scratched and dirty hand-me-down print. With a DCP, the presentation quality was every bit as good as a NYC theater and the theater itself was beautiful.

I've found most of the presentations at the Dolby Vision/Atmos screen at the AMC Empire 25 to be quite incredible. I brought my brother, who lives in Sweden and afterwards he said he didn't think he could see a movie in a "regular" movie house ever again.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

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.