|  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

re: "The Death of Film" by Jyoti Thottam

As a Machinist and Master Film Handler, I am very disappointed by Jyoti Thottam's inaccurate, misleading and one-sided article. As a passionate and dedicated craftsman, I can personally attest to the fact that with quality projection equipment and proper film-handling practices, modern print films can be run hundreds upon hundreds of times without showing the slightest signs of wear or damage. If Steven Soderbergh cannot run a film once without damaging it, then something is seriously wrong with his and his "projectionist's" film-handling capability! In short, film damage, which is so common in today's cinemas, is the direct result of unqualified, uncaring, minimum wage concession stand employees that large theatre chains choose to have operate their projection equipment. Considering the ever increasing box office and concession stand prices, the actions of these corporations is wrong and unjust to both film-makers and consumers alike. Both parties deserve the best possible presentation.

Many of us who are passionate about the art of film presentation take part in an internationally reknown forum and web-site called "Film-Tech". The list of participants is very impressive; from Academy Award Winner (tm) John Pytlak (Senior Technical Specialist, Eastman Kodak Company), to cinema equipment manufacturers, technicians and projectionists. Many of us have pleaded with these large cinema chains to change their ways. Unfortunately, our pleas fall on deaf corporate ears.

Up until the Ronald Reagan era, the Motion Picture Projectionist, like many other professions, was considered to be a skilled trade-craft. Besides being a Master Film Handler, the projectionist also had to be a mechanic and electrician. In order to become a projectionist, one had to be voted into the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (I.A.T.S.E.) and undergo a formal apprenticeship. The candidate also had to pass state licensing exams, which in many cases included becomming a licensed electrician. With the advent of Xenon illumination systems, safety-film, and the automation systems that make todays multi-plex theatres possible, theatre owners felt that there was no longer a need for skilled projectionists. In an article titled "Battle Over Hours Stretches To A Year" by Bill Bank, AZ Daily Star April 15 1979 D1/5, Ernie Furman, Director of Operations for Syufy Enterprises (Century Theatres) said that automation has lessened the need for skilled projectionists and accused I.A.T.S.E. of "featherbedding". "The projectionist unions don't want to recognize the fact that automation has replaced some of their work. Most of the time the equipment functions on its own. The only thing someone is needed in the booth for is to service the equipment before you start and rethread (the reel) which takes all of about 60 seconds." Oh how his assessment was wrong! If anything, the modern automated systems have increased the need for a skilled projectionist because there are many more screens to care for. Furthermore, with the advent of various digital sound formats, todays cinema technicians need to have a strong electronic and computer background. OH how Mr. Furman would have eaten his words had he spent a week working with me! Little by little the major theatre chains opted to replace the skilled projectionist with inept concession stand employees. The result was inevitable; the quality of cinema presentation took an uncontrolled downward spiral.

So whatever happened to the skilled projectionist? Some went to work for the cinema chains as in-house technicians. They are usually assigned to a district which includes dozens of theatres in several states comprising hundreds of screens. It is all they can do to maintain the projection equipment, which is generally abused by inept floor staff. Others branched out as independent service technicians and equipment dealers. Some are still employed in select cities as I.A.T.S.E. projectionists. Many retired or left the trade all together.

There is also a large contigent of very skilled non-union projectionists like myself for whom quality film presentation is a passion. Unfortunately, generally speaking, our efforts are jeopardized by corporate executives who are more than willing to sacrifice quality for profit.

I was employed as a projectionist for one of the most successful theatre chains in the country. The theater were I worked, a modern 20-plex, was one of the few in the company to employ a small, dedicated projection staff. The result, I am proud to say, was a consistant presentation of unsurpassed quality that was recognized by the public throughout our state, as well as at corporate level. Films ran an average of three months @ 3-7 shows per day, 7 days per week. Furthermore, prints were constantly transfered between screens within the same complex. With care, pride and professionalism, prints in my care looked just as good after three months as they had on opening day; spotless, with no color-fading, dirt, scratches, etc. etc. On the other hand, I would occasionally visit other theatres in our community-both within our company as well as the competition. All of these other theatres used unqualified personnel in their booths, and the result continues to be an embarrassment to the film exhibition community.

So how were my colleagues and my efforts rewarded? Our general manager, an individual who would go for three months without stepping foot inside the projection booth, took the credit and reaped the financial benefits of our hard work. In turn, we were paid not much more than minimum wage @ less than 40 hrs/wk w/no benefits. Any mention of I.A.T.S.E. was taboo. Furthermore, the corporate executives and general manager told us: "Thank you for your hard work and devotion. Thanks for making this theatre a shinning example. Please do not forget that you are expendable."

Since leaving this cinema chain, I have done some work as an independent technician. I have also contacted corporate executives of my former employers competition with offers to be their area projectionist, the goal being to correct their problems and obtain a consistant first-class presentation. They have never responded to my offers. Generally speaking, their projection booths have pretty good equipment, but are badly abused and in a sorry state of disrepair. They do have a contract technician, who is a very competitent individual but not local. He is only called upon when there is a dire emerengcy. Considering that film-makers and the Hollywood elite are so concerned about first-class presentation, it is no wonder that they have not forced these major cinema chains to clean-up their acts!

In this article, Steven Soderbergh states, "Film wears out and runs at the mercy of projectors with weak lamps and worn gears." There is no excuse to allow projection equipment to fall into such an advanced state of disrepair. This statement reflects poorly on Mr. Soderbergh's (and large cinema chains) film handling ability and their unwillingness to properly maintain their projection equipment. The fact is that the combination of quality (and properly maintained) projection equipment utilizing LaVezzi VKF (Very Kind To Film) Sprockets (tm), which are the industry standard, and Kodak (tm) polyester based film, problems relating to film breakage and sprocket hole damage have all but been eliminated. Let me reiterate: scratched and dirty prints are the direct result of the incompetitent minimum-wage concession stand people whom the major cinema chains choose to have handle the film and operate their equipment! As for "weak lamps" used to project film; the same light source used to project film, (Xenon), is used to project digital cinema. In fact, digital cinema requires a higher wattage lamp and smaller screen than film. Furthermore, cinema experts are recognizing that the "old-fashioned" carbon-arc illumination systems produce a far superior light to Xenon, and this is very noticable in the projected screen image.

Those who are pushing for digital cinema are trying to convince the public that this new format is flawless. Hogwash! Computers never crash? A case in point: although the modern cinema digital audio systems are capable of reproducing wonderful sound, they are computer based and do fail. Good "old-fashioned" analog sound back-up (with Dolby SR noise reduction) prevents the screens from "going dark".

Decades ago, the financial success of a motion picture was determined throughout the entire length of it's run. Today, opening weekend makes or breaks a picture. Can you imagine the devastating consequences to the studios and film-makers should a major theatre's digital projection system crash on opening weekend? To make matters worse, it will most probably take a technician at least a day or two to get on-site to repair the system! (Many of the theatres that do run digital projection utilize conventional film projection in-sync as a back-up system)

What about the small independent "art-houses" and cinemas in rural communities that are having enough difficulty trying to maintain a profit? They definitely won't be able to afford these digital projection systems and their expensive computer upgrades that will surely be needed every year. These businesses will most likely be forced to close shop?

On the other hand, there are many fifty-year-old projectors still in service. Many of these machines have earned legendary reputations for providing excellent image and sound quality, not to mention reliability and dependability. In the hands of a skilled projectionist, thes machines will run for years before the need for overhaul. And then an overhaul might cost only a few thousand dollars at best. As I previously stated, this is more than can be said about a computer, which needs expensive upgrades every year. I can personally attest to my statements about these older projectors; I own 4 of them that I rescued from salvage and am currently restoring. Computers should only be built as good as these machines!

As for image quality; digital projection has many years to go before it can match the overall quality of 35mm film-in color-contrast, sharpness and resolution. Furthermore, many major cities are seeing a restoration of their old large format theatres. Many classic films that were shot on 70mm film, such as "Patton", are now being rereleased. Many of todays young movie-goers are in awe after experiencing a 70mm film for the first time, and many older patrons are rediscovering what a true movie-going experience was all about. When "Star Wars" premiered in 1977, I went to see it three times. In our community, it was shown in 70mm with Dolby Noise Reduction at a large two screen theatre. Words cannot describe that movie-going experience! A large theatre chain purchased that cinema, tore it down, and replaced it with a multi-plex. Needless to say, this cinema now has horrorable presentations! Digital projection will probably never be able to match the quality of 70mm film!

I stand by the claims that I have made in this letter in regards to the quality of film...so much so as to offer a open-handed challenge to Jyoti Thottam and Steven Soderberg so that I can (personally) demonstrate the virtues of, as John Pytlak would say, "Film Done Right!"

Will Kutler, A.A.S.
Machine Tool Technology (Machinist)
Motion Picture Projectionist

Wow! I think you crafted the best letter of the bunch...it should be required reading for everyone in the film industry harboring that bug up where the sun doesn't shine driving them to declare that D-cinema is the cure for everything except cancer! .

For the record, here is the letter I sent last Sunday to the editor. It may not rank up there with Will's epic, but, hey, every little bit counts!

=======

Dear Jyoti Thottam,

I provide contract projectionist services for film festivals held at a local multiplex theatre.

While up in the projection booth preparing film prints for a film festival that ran last mid-March, I would occasionally take a look at the movie being shown from the projector behind me. That movie was "Lord of the Rings," and the theatre has run the same film print since the movie opened several months before. Even though that print had experienced over 300 passes through a projector, the picture still looked as if the movie had its maiden showing--no specks or scratches (I'll admit a brand-new lamp in the projector helped). It took nothing special to achieve this--just clean, well-maintained equipment and staff who have respect for the the equipment and pride in what they do.

(...And there are many out there with pride in film projection. Just visit the excellent Film-Tech Web site to gauge the level of passion.)

With observations like these, the "film gets dirty and scratched with each showing" assertion compared to digital's alleged show-to-show perfection does not hold water. Digital equipment can malfunction; dead pixels in the imaging element of the projector or a digital dropout can manifest themselves on screen more distractingly than the occasional speck of dirt on film. As digital projection requires twice the lamp power as film projection to light a comparable screen, energy is wasted and the digital image will deteriorate quicker since larger lamps age and blacken sooner. I will not comment on the obsolescence and compatibility issues. Lastly, it's a proven fact that film resolution is vastly superior to digital, a fact not lost on Eastman Kodak.

Save digital projection for PowerPoint presentations. For a movie theatre, film is still the best.

Sincerely,

Jon Miller

======

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

Here's an aside to this same issue -- Variety just carried a story (either this week or last) that challenges Time Mag for its cover featuring a full head shot of a pensive Yoda and the feature story on Ep 2, with it's soft, obviously non-critical "reporting." Variety raised the question, how do you critique a film when you have already used a dozen pictures and gushed about its opening and its "social" impact and in short, basically become one with the film's marketing department. How? Let Uncle Frank tell you....

These editors have simply joined the ranks of the rest of the entertainment industry -- they are ALL whores -- the whole damn lot of them (except Ted Koppel). Their laughable excuse is that they are just covering a significant "event." The fact that they are pandering to the Lucas corporate machine and even further blurring that line between real news and entertainment/advertisment seems to not bother them one iota.

What happens if a real critic now wants to give a serious critical review of the film and wants to say that it is a piece of crap? How does he do that once his magazine has run 6 pages on the "magic" of Ep 2? What happens when a reporter uncovers the fact that all those photogenic kids who sleep in the ticket lines weeks before tickets go on sale and garner live "news" coverage night after night are actually aspiring actors and are being paid to do it? Bet they don't carry THAT as a side-bar next to the pictures of Yoda.

 |  IP: Logged

Scott, your suggestion on the wording of the snipe is more streamline, but I was thinking more in terms of hitting harder and specifically to get the idea across that film is BETTER than digital and I wanted to also make the strong connection to equate the word VIDEO PROJECTION with digital. I think digital has a built-in positive connotation because of CD quality over LPs. "Video projection" on the other hand has the connotation of all those projection tvs that most people have seen and think are not as good as regular tv. Most of the public certainly perceive them as inferior to even the worst Cinema presentation. I want to make that mental connection to video projection as being inferior to film.

Final text:

"This theatre only uses Ultra High Resolution Motion Picture Film in our presentations. Film is the ONLY format capable of displaying all the visual nuances captured by the film camera.

No low resolution digital video projection equipement is ever used."

Cross fade: "Motion Picture Film: the first and only choice for over 100 years; the first and only choice for the next 100 years."

If Josh doesn't mind lending a variant on his great quote (and if the lab can do a cross fade without adding a great expense).

quote:

---

Screw CinemaScope. Bring back Todd-AO and VistaVision!

---

Technirama! (my school pride shows)

Will Kutler's letter was very well-written and comprehensive. He has put his finger on most of the major problems facing the theatrical exhibition industry. Of course, if magically exhibition were fixed, there's still a problem of low-quality content coming from many in the production side ...

A small factual error:

quote:

---

When "Star Wars" premiered in 1977, I went to see it three times. In our community, it was shown in 70mm with Dolby SR Noise Reduction at a large two screen theatre.

---

Dolby A. Either that or it wasn't 1977.

 |  IP: Logged

--CUT HERE--
With regards to the article by Jyoti Thottam:

As one who is interested in the progress being made by Texas Instruments, Hughes, Kodak, and others towards film-less movie exhibition, I feel compelled to point out several factual errors in this article.

First, the assertion that the current generation of DLP projection technology can produce pictures "as sharp and rich as the best film print" is wholly untrue. Even the relatively low-quality high-volume release prints which the majority of the public sees during the course of a film's release have more than double the resolution of DLP, even considering high-speed release printing and other factors that tend to result in sub-optimal prints. Additionally, all of the DLP playback systems currently in use in commercial theatres rely on so-called "lossy" compression techniques which take away even more of the original information that existed on the film negative, and which results in odd-looking digital "artifacts."

Just as importantly, however, technology has existed for quite some time to produce release prints for theatrical exhibition of much higher quality than those which are ordinarily seen. For example Technicolor's dye-transfer printing process, recently re-introduced after nearly thirty years, produces exceptionally sharp prints and has
the ability to produce highly saturated colors which no video system (or even standard Eastmancolor print stock) can match. Also, properly made 70mm prints are exceptionally sharp, even whem made from 35mm source material, and are necessary for large screens in order to achieve industry-standard screen-brightness levels.

While 70mm prints require special projection equipment, there are hundreds of 70mm-equipped cinemas in the United States alone (I maintain a web site which lists over 300). Sadly, it has been years since the last wide 70mm release (Titanic was printed in 70mm, but only distributed to ten theatres). If producers and distributors cared about image quality, they would take an active interest in ensuring that 70mm and/or dye-transfer prints were made of their films and made available to theatres for exhibition.

Next, the assertion that motion-picture film inherently shows visible degredation after its first screening is, also, false. While film print can be damaged by untrained or uncaring operators, the problem is one of the operator, not of the medium. In the right hands and with equipment and minimal maintenance, a given film print can literally last for hundreds or thousands of shows without visible deterioration. I have worked as a projectionist and can say from experience that proper film care is not difficult; it simply requires an operator who cares enough to handle the medium properly.

If we were to put DLP systems into the hands of the same people who regularly misthread film projectors and smear popcorn grease on the port glass, why should we expect it to fare any better? Actually, the results would probably be worse, as digital formats tend to either work or not work, while film equipment (which in many theatres is 30-50 years old) will continue to run for years with minimal maintenance using standard hand tools. Other problems with theatrical presentation such as dim pictures, dirty screens, and bad sound, are maintenance or design issues which will remain as long as customers continue to pay high prices for mediocre presentation quality, causing theatre owners to care little about improving their operations.

With regard to the issue of digital exhibition making it easier for low-budget films to find an audience, I strongly disagree. A one-off 35mm print of a standard-length feature film from 35mm camera negative can be made for about $2000. A 35mm blowup from 16mm negative can cost about $20,000. While this is not cheap, scanning a negative or intermediate element and mastering for DLP exhibition can cost in excess of $100,000, at one of the few facilities in the world which are equipped to do it. Furthermore, most of the exhibition venues for art-house and low-budget films are operated on shoestring budgets. These are the venues which are most likely to suffer if DLP projection becomes widespread, as they are unlikely to be able to afford the significant capital investment required.

Finally, the article fails to mention the problem of equipment obsolescence. Even if a worldwide storage and distribution standard for digital cinema is developed, technology will continue to move forward and upgrades will be required. A typical top-of-the-line film projection system can be had brand-new for less than $30,000 and will last for decades (I am not including the cost of sound equipment, as this remains essentially the same for digital projection). It can be "upgraded" to the latest standards of image quality by threading a new print made on the latest film stock (which Kodak, Fuji, and others continue to improve). What are the chances that a DLP projector manufactured in 2002 will be usable in five years? Ten years? Thirty years? If the record of the computer industry is anything to go by, the answer is "not likely."

Let me emphasize here that I am not some anti-digital zealot who is trying to push an agenda. I work as a network administrator and am always eager to learn about new technologies and make use of them when they provide tangible benefits. I do believe that digital cinema will happen at some point in my lifetime (at least for smaller screens at typical multiplexes) and I even believe that the quality really will eventually exceed that of the best 35mm prints and that it will even be economically justifiable at some point. That time has not come yet, however, and the industry would be shortchanging filmgoers if it were to rush headlong into a conversion to a medium which is clearly "not there yet."

A 70mm 5-perf print had 60,310 runs at 30fps at 2500 watts
Another 70mm print had 29,111 runs at 30fps at 2500 watts
Another 70mm print had 28,468 runs at 30fps at 4000 watts
Another 70mm print had 26,317 runs at 30fps at 4200 watts

The six 35mm print samples supplied for evaluation had between 15,474 and 36,494 runs before being retired.

Admittedly, these prints were projected using carefully maintained "loop cabinet" projection systems, with properly conditioned projection rooms and on-line film cleaning. But they do show that with "Film Done Right", quality prints can be shown tens of thousands of times, entertaining millions of people during their lifetime.

Mr. Thottam and Time Editorial Staff:

There is probably little I can add to the stinging (and well-deserved) criticism you've no-doubt already received regarding the inaccuracies in the article "The Death Of Film". The article is biased and factually inaccurate in so many ways as to boggle the mind, not to mention that it actually advocates diminishing the filmgoing experience for paying customers. Truly one of the most asinine, [digital projection] industry-serving, cheerleading puff pieces ever printed in an alleged "news" magazine.

At the very least you could have spoken to someone who knows something about "Film Done Right" to get an opposing viewpoint. I suggest you have Mr. Thottam contact Mr. John Pytlak of Eastman Kodak for a rebuttal and for some FACTUAL information about the current state of film vs. digital. Mr. Pytlak can be reached at:

[john's email addy]

PS: John, hope that's OK. Not that I expect they will actually make an effort to get the facts.