But frankly, I think the technically knowledgeable people in the theatres and in the audience are the ones who truly know the real story, and can "tell it like it is".

Unfortunately, I haven't read this article, yet, but I plan to. Many of the magazines and newspapers out there today have turned into nothing but lowly tabloids, reporting only part of the story. I think you'll agree that this is totally unacceptable, and gives both Time and 35MM projection a bad rep.

I'll definitely be sending a letter and an email.

Tao, I did see "Star Wars" in 1977 and it did have Dolby Noise Reduction...I may have gotten the specific type incorrect? I'll go back and take a peek at my Dolby Press Release Packet, which gives a timeline of info.

Your welcome, John P. I was hoping that by using your name and acomplishments, I would "raise eyebrows" and draw some more attention to F.T.

I posted this story in the "who are you thread", but just to repeat a little...I was in Jr. High School when the battle erupted between I.A.T.S.E. and theatre owners. It was well covered by both major local newspapers as well as by the local ABC, NBC and CBS affiliates. At that time, I was hoping to become a projectionist as a career, but saw it flush down the drain before my eyes! In fact, the career guidance consulors in both Jr. High and High School had information about the trade of "Motion Picture Projectionist)...anyone remember S.R.A.?

--------------
This article upset me.

Today's Hollywood is driven by corporate greed. Cost cutting measures are being put in place at a breakneck speed in order to squeeze more content out in less time. These same cost cutting measures directly affect on-screen quality.

Here's an example: Spider-man broke records opening weekend because theaters were deluged in over 3500 prints. In order to get these thousands of miles of film into the theaters, production labs have to run duplication printers at speeds in excess of 10,000 feet per minute! This is the standard way release prints are made. Is it any wonder that the image we see in the theater bobs and weaves all over the screen? Is it any wonder the prints we see are grainy and under-exposed?

Is it any wonder that we see dirt and scratches all over the print given the fact that the equipment and film materials are handled by the same people that pop your popcorn and rip your tickets? At one time, being a projectionist was a coveted union job that was only obtainable after rigorous apprenticeship, and state mandated licensing exams. Heck, back then there was no such thing as a multiplex. Now you have to factor in that these same concessionists have to handle not one but up to 30 of these machines on top of selling tickets.

Your article states that film is highly perishable. Perishable? There are prints of movies that are over 100 years old that look better than current new prints. Technicolor Imbibition printing techniques and Kodachrome reversal film stocks will keep faithful color images lasting decades. Conversely, I have videotape that is a mere 20 years old that has oxide flaking off the base and is not playable that was stored in the same location as rolls of Kodachrome from 1940 that looks like it was shot yesterday.

Do you remember seeing films in the 1950's and 1960's? Do you remember how sharp, colorful and clean the presentation was? Back in those times, each print (of only several hundred) that was presented in a theater was struck off of the original camera negative. These prints were then carefully road showed around the country being handled only by trained professional projectionists at each stop) The prints you and I see today in a theater are sometimes up to 6 generations away from the original negative. I once saw a modern show print (called an EK) print of the David Fincher movie 'Seven' It looked as if I was watching reality right before my eyes. There was not a single scratch or speck of dirt or any detectible film grain for that matter. This was because the print was a one off of the original negative at normal speeds in a carefully calibrated printer. The terrible images that you see are more so due to the haste in getting the media out into theaters.

Regardless, the resolving power of a 35mm mass produced film print is still greater in resolution than DLP. There are still nuances in a projected film frame that current digital systems cannot reproduce. Resolution measurement dictates it, (4000X5000 vs. 1280X1024 pixels). Not to mention that motion picture film doesn't suffer from the 'lossy' mpeg compression artifacts (jagged edges and flickering squares).

The saddest truth is that due to the declining quality of both story as well as presentation of movies, the general public is used to the poor presentations that most are subject to. Switching to digital isn't really going to draw any more people as your article states. It's just too bad that society is so attention span impaired that they don't know what it was like to wait for months for the newest Technicolor release starring Cary Grant to make it to their local theater for upwards of a 6 month run. It's all now, now, now, me, me me for 12 weeks and then out to the local Blockbuster Video. The lab industry is doing it's best to push the release printing speeds to keep up with this kind of demand, as is Hollywood doing it's best to shoot an entire production in as little time as possible in order to get it's little pet projects filled with product placements out into the theaters. Film isn't dead. Film died in the '70's when road shows union projectionists and real artists died.

Looking at, say, the past 20 years of film exhibition and the relative demise of "professional movie projectionist" as a career, concurrent with the widespread adoption of automation in the booth, do you think that technical presentation quality overall has declined? Stayed about the same? Improved? I'm referring to the quality of the image on the screen: Brightness, scratched & dirty prints, etc. (Not talking about showmanship issues such as slide shows, advertising, or curtains.)

It seems to me like presentation quality has improved overall. But maybe I've just been lucky to have good theaters near me all this time. Going back 20 years or so, I can remember seeing many prints that were scratched to hell or very dirty, even during a 1st-run. Another thing is that it used to not be unusual for a show to be interrupted due to a major problem in the booth such as the film breaking or something. I see a lot of movies, and I can't recall the last time a show had to be cancelled or interrupted due to a mechanical problem or film breakage. (Actually, I do remember the last time: It was a 70mm print of "The Last Emperor", film broke or got stuck during a preview of "Three Men and a Baby" and we watched the image burn.) Scratched prints also seem to be a rarity now.

The other thing I want to mention is that it seems like, overall, print quality is greatly improved compared to, say, 20 years ago. I know from lurking here that there are problems with defective prints, but as a general rule, do you guys think print quality is worse, the same, or better?

I honestly think that (in general, and in my experience anyway), movies look and sound better than ever. But like I said, maybe I've just been lucky.

 |  IP: Logged

Release prints may be made at printing speeds greater than 1,000 feet per minute, but nowhere near 10,000 feet per minute.

As good as it looks, KODACHROME is not a viable film for release prints. It is a high contrast reversal film with a very complex process unsuited to high speed processing.

Most images (except optical effects) are Original Negative --> Master Positive --> Duplicate Negative --> Release Print. Six generations would be very uncommon.

I don't know of any lone projectionist having to handle 30 screens. (Would be interesting to poll Film-Tech people to find out who handles the most screens at once).

Most experts agree that a scan of at least 4000 x 3000 pixels is necessary to capture the information on a full-frame 35mm negative.

I really believe that release prints made today generally have much BETTER quality than those of years ago (cleaner, sharper, less grainy, better color, less contrast buildup, etc.). High speed printing and processing do not necessarily compromise quality. Much as everyone would like a direct print from the original camera negative, duplicate negatives are necessary to reduce the risk to the original negative. Prints from duplicate negatives "done right" can match the quality of direct prints.

"Film Done Right" does not need hyperbole --- release print quality today can stand on its own, and doesn't need to resort to extraordinary or impractical procedures.

The best theatres, that have "Film Done Right", definitely exceed the picture and sound presentation quality of the past.

The worst theatres will find a way to ruin a presentation every time, and fix complaints by ignoring them and handing out passes.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

 |  IP: Logged

Thanks for the clarifications.

A few after thoughts though -

-I really wasn't trying to suggest Kodachrome be used for release prints. It was more of an example of film longevity and color archival usefulness.

-I pulled the 6 generation dupe comment out of an article from American Cinematographer I read several years back. Yes, it was talking about optical effects (prior to widespread CGI)

-Sure, most 30 screen houses have several projectionists. What if one calls in sick? Union operators had relief operators and someone was supposed to be on call at all times. (AFAIK)

-Release prints - I kind of stand my ground on this one. Every film I go see at the local cinema (where film is done as best as can be in my area) I constantly find myself comparing the image quality to that of 'classic' films of the 60's and 70's I honesly see more graininess and muddiness in today's release prints than prints made 25 years ago that still have good color (while not taking IB into consideration) What I have yet to prove is whether or not modern camera stock is grainier or release prints are grainier. I should have clarified that earlier in my letter.

Jyoti Thottam

Not that it matters, but I sent them an apology and correction.

Regarding image quality and whether things today are better, the same, or worse compared to 20+ years ago, I probably should have addressed the question to several distinct areas:

Quality of new prints as they come from the labs.

Theater staff and the amount of damage they cause by improper print handling.

Condition of the mechanical equipment projecting the prints, including light output and other factors affecting image quality.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve