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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Large Format Forum   » Beauty And The Beast in 70mm (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Beauty And The Beast in 70mm 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 01-02-2011 05:43 PM                     .... and if the studios wish to divest themselves of the ONLY quality that differentiates the 'Cinema going experience' from sitting on your arse watching videos at home then cinemas will eventually be phased out. Think the music industry with online downloading and the closing of record stores. The parallels here are obvious. Got to a record shop, browse and by a full bit-depth cd OR download a compressed-as-all-fuck mp3. Who wins here? Certainly not the record store owners.. or the consumer. Transpose that scenario onto the cinema industry. Go to a cinema and (SUPPOSEDLY) watch a super-high quality movie and have a differentiable experience from downloading a compressed-as-all-fuck file/dvd/blu-ray/whatever. This has been my theory all along that the studios consider the exhibition industry as a drain on their profits. Rid the exhibitors and reap thy rewards. How to do this? Give them shit to show. e.g shitty 2k intermediates output to 35/70. See the comparisons here with the music industry? What is the saddest of all is that the Cinema as an exhibition medium has the tools NOW to blow the audience out of the water and yet we give them shit. That aint no way to run a sustainable industry.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-02-2011 06:28 PM                     quote: Ian Parfrey Got to a record shop, browse and by a full bit-depth cd OR download a compressed-as-all-fuck mp3. Who wins here? Certainly not the record store owners.. or the consumer. In the case of music CD the mastering practices are so bad (deliberate clipping of the audio waves and various compression techniques to make the music louder) you're screwed no matter how you buy the music. In technical terms the quality level is badly compromised -this is regardless of the fact current technology can allow never before seen levels of quality in popular music. Then you have the music itself. The popular music industry has pretty much been regurgitating the same stuff since 1990. Only a handful of companies control nearly the entire industry. There is no healthy house-cleaning of styles like we used to see every few years. The last major house-cleaning of music styles happened in 1990. The practice of reselling the same old thing is not just being practiced by the music industry. The entire entertainment industry is doing this on an increasing basis. It's sad that it now makes news for a new movie not based on any previous movie or other work (such as Inception) to be a hit. TV is populated with lots of "reality TV" shows or numerous flavors of CSI, Law & Order, etc. Corporate America says it's too risky to fund new ideas. So let's just keep repackaging the old ideas in different wrappers. America's entertainment industry is so bent over, pants down around the ankles, just waiting to take it up the butt dry by some upstart foreign competitor. The opportunity is so obviously there I won't be surprised at all when it happens.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-03-2011 08:24 PM                     I remember reading a long time ago that a "full-length" feature has to be at least 80 minutes. This was to qualify for an Academy Award. However, this was at least 20 years ago, so I could be out-of-date.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-04-2011 11:02 AM                     I was always under the impression that it was 70 min or more for a feature  |  IP: Logged Jeffry L. Johnson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 809 From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 01-06-2011 03:57 PM                        The International Federation of Film Archives (FIAF) defines feature length as at least four (4) reels or 4000 feet in length or 40 minutes long. Here's the AMPAS rule for length of a short film. Academy Awards Rule 19 web page quote: Rule Nineteen: Short Films Awards DEFINITIONS A short film is defined as an original motion picture that has a running time of 40 minutes or less, including all credits.  |  IP: Logged Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 01-06-2011 04:24 PM                     Anything under 40 minutes is considered a short. A film that runs 40-65/70 minutes used to be known as a "streamliner."  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-07-2011 01:15 AM                     Wow - it's worse than I thought! I wonder how many people would pay $14 to see a 45min "feature" at the Arclight in Los Angeles...  |  IP: Logged Mark Lensenmayer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1605 From: Upper Arlington, OH Registered: Sep 1999 posted 01-07-2011 07:08 AM                     When the local AMC Imax, Jr. showed the Hubble movie, they ran it the first 2 shows only and with a $5 ticket. I wouldn't have gone if they charged their full Imax price.  |  IP: Logged Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 01-07-2011 01:07 PM                     quote: Manny Knowles I wonder how many people would pay $14 to see a 45min "feature" at the Arclight in Los Angeles... Those were the days, of course, when most theaters were playing double features, and it wasn't quite as offensive to have a 45-minute feature on the second half of the bill. (For what it's worth, TCM has been running some of Hal Roach's streamliners from the mid-40s recently, and sometimes even 45 minutes seems too long for them.)  |  IP: Logged Michael Barry Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 584 From: Sydney, NSW, Australia Registered: Nov 1999 posted 05-18-2011 07:24 AM                     I definitely see your point, Manny. Most people probably wouldn't do that. However, for the record, I would pay $14 to go to the Arclight for just about any movie of practically any running time, and would feel that it was excellent value. But that's just me. I love that place. I love LA generally. I love America generally. Heck, I just love everything.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-18-2011 07:10 PM                     ^ = stoned  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

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.