|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: More d-cinema morons
|
|
|
Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-21-2004 05:18 AM
whether or not your associations and interpretations are the same, they are 2 aesthetics, and many would have them be one.
2 recent digitally shot films that i liked a lot were 28 days later and the company. they both found ways of exploiting the characteristics of video photography that were, to my eyes, quite beautiful. yes, i saw them presented on film, but that is one of the options available, which can be good or bad.
quote:
Hence digital is another medium, operating alongside film, as it too continues - this must be the way forward.
Going back to Leo's comments near the top of the thread, the enrollment of the arthouse cinema community (over here at least) into this false opposition that digital is "replacing" film is indeed tragic, and I see the impact of this all the time now.
it is exactly this "replacement" notion that bothers me. film and video have coexisted as similar yet different media for some time. i'm happy with that. but many in the "industry" (a term i am using for its negative connotations) want to bury one in favor of the other. it's as if painting were phased out in favor of digital photography, and all museums shut down, making their collections available only on the internet. it's not the same thing.
i have nothing against further developments in video projection per se, as long as film continues to thrive. i can't really offer any insight into the business side of things.
carl
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 02-21-2004 03:20 PM
quote:
Going back to Leo's comments near the top of the thread, the enrollment of the arthouse cinema community (over here at least) into this false opposition that digital is "replacing" film is indeed tragic, and I see the impact of this all the time now. Whilst the focus is on the "digital future", festivals and many art venues (not all of course) continue to damage prints, show films with incorrect lenses and plates, cut out service calls and neglect the day-to-day stuff whilst waiting for this promised revolution to happen. It's being used as an excuse to avoid dealing with the here and now!
Which is all the more reason why we are redoubling our efforts here to provide more FILM training, resources and information.
Amen to that! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The tragedy is that if the Film Council spent a fraction of what it's pumping in to its digital cinema programme on (i) helping venues with 35mm equipment maintenance and upgrade and (ii) projectionist training, then the very print quality problems which they cite as the main reason for converting to digital would go away.
The arthouse/rep sector is caught in a vicious circle. Because it operates on a shoestring budget, venues very often have less than ideal equipment, as you point out. The projectionist often has to do many other jobs as well and does not get the training and support (s)he needs to handle and project 35mm properly. Add to the fact that there are often only one or two prints of art/rep releases doing the rounds, and they tend to get pretty tatty pretty quickly.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-21-2004 05:45 PM
quote:
Why not compare cinematography to photography? That's certainly closer than likening it to painting.
Or do you really think that "Catch That Kid" is a work of Art? For that matter, do you not regard photography as a legitimate art form?
i brought up painting because we're more conditioned to think of that as art, and that's the direction i was trying to take the discussion. of course photography is legitimate art, and so is painting, and they are different, even though the former can give us a facsimile of the latter.
i haven't seen catch that kid, but probably i wouldn't find it very artful. we're getting into "eye of the beholder" territory, but i think most people would agree that not every usage of an artistic medium is itself artistic. crime-scene photographs are not generally considered art (though i have seen old crime photographs in a gallery). to be generous, i'd have to say that catch that kid is most likely a bad work of art of some sort, and would be better if the intent behind it were more artistic. and that includes the choice and suitable use of its medium.
carl
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 02-22-2004 05:12 PM
Manny -
Point taken re. my above statement that analogue video equated to hard realism whilst film equated emotional truth. Subjective it's true, but I've seen similar sentiments expressed before in interviews with DoPs and Directors, in e.g. American Cinematographer.
I think Carl said it better when he pointed out that the aesthetics are different, and that it's the "replace film with digital" mindset that is causing all the problems.
Surely the healthy evolution of this is to introduce D-Cinema for its distinct possibilities whilst retaining and enhancing the Film infrastructure as well.
Hence as Bobby said :
quote:
If there is any direction commercial movie theaters need to take, it is probably one of diversification. I don't think blowing $200,000 on D-Cinema systems is the right idea.
But it is! IF...it is used for showing concerts, stage shows and non-feature film content (diversification - already happening), and show features on 35mm as normal (or large format) - it's the best of all worlds during this transition phase - which could undoubtedly last a very long time.
Re. upgradeability of the D-Cinema heads, is not the current engineering approach with the TI DMDs (for example) to make upgrading of the chipset possible without replacing the whole unit? Certainly the licensees must be more than aware of the rapid obsolescence issue.
The other fatal flaw in the "replace film with digital" approach is the expectation that it will save money - I completely agree with Gordon's comment that it will actually cost MORE. A cinema owner I know told me the distributors will have to have x quantity of prints as back up, so how much money are they really going to save on a release in the overall scheme of things (look at promotion budgets for instance)?
Basically - I think D-Cinema is a worthwhile new medium that is being pushed for all the wrong reasons ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-22-2004 11:18 PM
The thought of having to replace a $200,000 projection system with another after only a few years is just not going to work. At those cost levels it would make more sense to install IMAX.
A 35mm projection system can last decades. It is proven technology even if it is icky analog.
Here's another possible downside to the D-Cinema thing, it could allow other "unqualified" competitors to get into the market of showing movies.
One of the things Hollywood likes to talk about is beaming D-Cinema movies via satellite to various theaters. They talk about providing more choices of shows and make it all sound like pay per view broadcasting.
When the business of pay per view comes in, then you have other competitors like sports bars suddenly saying, "we can pay to receive that D-Cinema transmission and show the movie in a place where customers can smoke, drink beer, and watch the movie for less money!"
This factor really has to be considered. A 35mm projection system is not the type of thing that can be rigged up just anywhere. A commercial movie theater, and its booth, is designed for that kind of equipment.
Video projection has a lot more room for miniaturization and portability. Not every DLP projector is big. Some can be small. And who's to say the "D-Cinema" show at the sports bar will even be projected at all? Maybe they'll just patch the DVI into some 80 inch plasma screen over where they do Karaoke.
Margins are pretty tight for commercial movie theaters. Blurring the lines between video and film projection will also blur the lines on who can show a movie if it is based on video.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 18 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 16 17 18
|
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
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic