Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: I'm curious to know why many on Film-Tech seem to be so negative on digital cinema

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » I'm curious to know why many on Film-Tech seem to be so negative on digital cinema (Page 9)

This topic comprises 18 pages: 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 16 17 18

Author

Topic: I'm curious to know why many on Film-Tech seem to be so negative on digital cinema

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 08-02-2008 03:39 PM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Payback was processed using the "Bleach Bypass" technique to gain a certain look which the Dp was after. I think he achieved the look he was after.

Although it wasn't what the director wanted. The directors cut on DVD is a big differance over the theatrical version with no bleach effect.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-02-2008 04:44 PM

Darryl,

I have them both and prefer the original. The dreamy effect created by the bleach bypass is an entire missing aspect not in the D.C. version... I think you'll find that MEl did more of the decision making and directing on that film than Brian did.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 08-02-2008 05:17 PM

quote:
Steve

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Unfortunately, the quality of film is directly affected by the human element. Digital Cinema is also affected, but to a lesser degree. It's easy for many of us on this forum to say that "our" film presentation meets or exceeds the quality benchmark used against 2K, but we are a very small representation of the screens in the world, and we have no control over print quality or how the movie was filmed.

Tristan, I do appreciate what you (and others, including Justin and maybe even Mark) are saying.

However, to put it in other words..."its okay to have a glass ceiling, so long as there is a cement floor." For me, this just is never good enough...not when I can constantly achieve a higher quality.

Yes there is a human factor...but see...I think humans should be a source of increased quality, not liability. It is just that many cinemas today do not use their humans as effectively as they should. This isn't limited to the cinema industry by any stretch.

There exists, ample means to have high quality film presentations that exceed digital for less money.

If you hire idiots or allow them to behave like idiots (and pay them like idiots) then it is no small wonder that you (figuratively) will have idiotic projection quality. When did it become acceptable to put on a crap show? It was not overnight...it has been erroding over decades. The solution remains to improve ones own standards. Some will say...well digital does that...not really...it is unreasonable to presume that digital projection will be maintained any more than film projection will be. One only need search these forums to get reports that the very same Carmike theatres that had bad film reputations before are having bad digital representations (wrong formats selected and such)....heck some installers will take the easy route and if they have a constant height screen...zoom the lens for scope and reduce the imager for 1.85...thereby giving something less than 2K for ALL images! Sloth knows no limits!

You are effectively asking me to lower my standards in order to accept those that should NOT be showing movies in the first place can continue with their wrong ways of careless projection because "that is the real world." With the token that at least these lackluster operators won't be damaging films and potentially improve their operation.

So long as there is a cost effective means to obtain a superior performance, that is the direction I intend to go and ecourage you and everyone else to do the same. I'm sick and tired of being told to settle for less quality (not even in the cinema industry...every freakin industry) because such and such is "cheaper" (due to slave wages or working conditions) or because it is "new" thus the old is antiquated (such a stupid rational...take the best of the old, combine it with the best of the new and then you have something). When I think of Digital I think of many things that have improved but I also think of many things that actually have gotten worse...including audio, photography...not that the digital versions of those two don't have their shining moments to be proud of...too many hacks in the quest of cheap thed to overwhelm the good. Heck, most of the "Digital" TVs I see are just plain hideous compared to CRT based ones...not that CRTs are not without faults (convergence, blooming...just the obvious ones that the layperson will pick off)...but the disgusting pixelated stretchy crap I see damn near everywhere is just depressing.

If I install film, I do my damndest to get as much out of it as humanly possible. Likewise with my digital projection...including the lowly LCD projectors all of the way up to my DCinemas...I don't like to settle for "good enough." The best wins. If all of the techs on Film-Tech took this approach, the film (and digital) installations would be far better than they are now. If all of the exhibitors that read Film-Tech would take this attitude, their shows would never have dropped to what many people here (myself included) perceive as a low projection quality problem. When was last time the president of NATO complained about print quality in the last 30 -years? It didn't just "get this way" it was allowed to happen.

I guess this is why I jumped over poor Justin...his particular circumstance (which is hardly unique) of having showing the movie dumped on him when he should be managing has skewed his peception of projection as a time consuming nusence. Digital provides a means to severely cut that out of his life and trade in some more traditional problems. I maintain, he shouldn't have had to deal with the booth at all...professional technicians that actually know what they are doing, that are properly trained and equipped should be servicing the booth...projectionists that are properly trained and equipped to show the movies (and pass this right along the food chain up through to the studios) and the problem also all but vanishes with a substantial improvement in perception to the movie industry as a result. Again, the problem didn't just happen...it was allowed to happen (not by Justin...his predecessors and the owners of theaters and circuits). There have been people asleep at the wheel for far too long. The solution is not to provide a bed but to wake them up. Digital is certainly easier but it is far more expensive and much more risky as a long term technology. And, for now, it doesn't have the quality we had 50 years ago. In 2008, it is a poor custodian for the future. I don't begrudge the fact it has to start somewhere though.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Geoff Jones
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 579
From: Broomfield, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 08-02-2008 06:45 PM

Oh, come on Steve. Haven't you been reading this thread long enough to know that everything you are saying is wrong?

Digital is better. Human beings can't operate film properly. Film sucks. The audience doesn't care anymore anyway. Nobody can tell the difference. Employees cost too much. Movies aren't good any more anyway.

Honestly, what's the point?

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 08-02-2008 10:26 PM

Don't think I'm not as disgusted with the Hollywood side of things too! Come on 2K DIs? Just how far DO you have to lower the bar? Film prints for sure show these up. Thankfully, there does seem to be a trend towards the higher rez DIs, if DIs are so needed.

Then again, when did Super-35 become acceptable? Once again, the bar was lowered. So you justify 2K resolution by cutting the film resolution in half? Okay, so you don't want to use anamorphics...don't want the astigmatism or lens flare...I get it...we have something called 65mm...it will get you spherical lenses with your wide screen and it will look fantastic in 70mm, 35mm or digital. Even VistaVision (8/35) will get you spherical lenses without going DOWN in quality.

The prior generations strived for something better than the past...this crop seems to be content with settling on a least-common-denominator that doesn't live up to the present.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 08-02-2008 11:59 PM

It's ironic to me... In the 50s when people started staying home to watch TV, the studios did all sorts of creative things to make the theater experience BETTER than TV.

Today, as people start to install HDTVs in their houses and again start to threaten to stay home... the studios' answer is to start shooting movies with mediocre (compared to film) HDTV cameras and put what basically amounts to HDTV in the theaters. Never mind a bigger picture (even IMAX seems intent on self destructing), or any other ideas that may make the theater experience unique and better to what's available at home. Nope... just move the home theater experience (commercials and all it seems) into the theater.

It's almost like everyone in this industry who makes decisions has forgotten how to do this. And it's not that hard.

| IP: Logged

David Kilderry
Master Film Handler

Posts: 355
From: Melbourne Australia
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 08-03-2008 05:23 AM

Mark I take your point on digital 3D, but it is not as good as 15/70 IMAX 3D. If digital was the revolution the studios would have the public believe, then we would be 95% digital now.

Instead we will have a long slow changeover. Digital had the chance to dare to be different........and instead chose 2k!

3D is the unexpected knight in shining armour for the digital push, but 3D will only truely change our world when we can ditch the glasses.

David

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-03-2008 07:31 AM

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Today, as people start to install HDTVs in their houses and again start to threaten to stay home... the studios' answer is to start shooting movies with mediocre (compared to film) HDTV cameras and put what basically amounts to HDTV in the theaters. Never mind a bigger picture (even IMAX seems intent on self destructing), or any other ideas that may make the theater experience unique and better to what's available at home. Nope... just move the home theater experience (commercials and all it seems) into the theater.

Mark,

With the 150 million plus cost on the average negative I personally can't blame them for wanting to cut corners. A failure of any film with that cost can mean instant end of the road for any studio. On top of the negative costs the you have distribution, advertisiing, film storage, transport, etc. If you can come up with a more practical route I'm sure they might listen to you. So far no one else has had a better idea.

As much as we all appreciate and love 70mm, myself included, shooting films with 65mm gear and projecting on 70mm isn't going to happen nor is it going to help... today there are not enough cameras, labs, and projectors in theaters to make it practical nor matter one bit. 70mm prints overall actually didn't fare all too well back in the 80's. Most of the 70mm prints produced back then got trashed by those showing them, some within just a few days of opening dates.

I see all this whining by members here to bring 70mm back a far bigger waste of time than the existing 2K Digital system is. I say get the 2K systems out there and let the technology mature so we can get past this "low point" in exhibition! Somehow I can't imagine most of you on this site having lived through the early days of color and sound [Big Grin]

.
Well those technologies matured and came of age pretty darn quickly and I believe that digital will also run a similar course. If progress dictates it the light engines and circuit boards used in the equipment are changable and not a permanent thing. For now we all will have to put up with the way it is like it or not in order for it to move along and mature.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 08-03-2008 07:50 AM

Steve
I appreciate that you seem to understand my attitude about digital vs. film comes from the reality of my situation rather than laziness. As we all know, any real work on a projector has to be done either before or after opening and tacking that on to a 10-12 hour day can be difficult.

Maybe you have picked this up from posts in other threads and maybe not, but I do try my best to put on a good presentation within the constraints I have. As I mentioned in this thread, I was at the theatre until about 4:30am a week or so ago making a new flat aperture plate for one of my projectors (and yes I did use a target film). And part of the reason I've started following Film-Tech on a regular basis it so I can fix problems on the projectors I inherited when I took over the theatre 3 years ago.

When I'm training people to run projectors, I teach them that it needs to be right 100% of the time and I try to teach them why things need to be a certain way rather than just how to do it - for example why you set the intermittent at a specific point, how the frame of film relates to the projected image in flat and scope, etc. As you know, this is very time consuming and along with all my other duties, it's difficult to take the training much beyond proper threading and VERY basic maintenance. But one thing I do is when we have a problem, I try to have as many of my projection people as possible present so they can see what I do to solve the problem.

And for the record, salary is not the primary reason I have difficulty retaining people who are competent enough to run projectors. The main issue is that I live in a fairly small community where the kids want to leave as soon as they get done with high school (or community college if I'm lucky). And because of the size of the theatre and the market, we simply can't offer enough hours in the slow months to make it worth while for someone trying to support themselves.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-03-2008 11:59 AM

quote: Justin Hamaker
And for the record, salary is not the primary reason I have difficulty retaining people who are competent enough to run projectors. The main issue is that I live in a fairly small community where the kids want to leave as soon as they get done with high school (or community college if I'm lucky). And because of the size of the theatre and the market, we simply can't offer enough hours in the slow months to make it worth while for someone trying to support themselves.

Justin,
In the first line you say you pay enough... in the last line above you say you can't give them enough hours. To me its one and the same thing... it all boils down to how much a person makes a month as to weather they stay at a job or not. Pay them enough per hour to make up the difference or give them normal 40 hour work week with decent pay and they'll generally stay around. I've seen it in many of the small towns I service... Its simple really, pay em poor wages or give barely enough hours with decent wages and they leave the dock... give them really good pay and a short week or decent pay and a 40 hour week and they stay. Simple really!

The only place I know of that doesn't work is in Wyoming becuase Halliburton hires many of the kids and pays them 80+grand a year to go out and drill gas wells.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Geoff Jones
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 579
From: Broomfield, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 08-03-2008 05:25 PM

Here's a question - Does anyone think digital and film can co-exist happily well into the future?

Here's a scenario I'd like to see, even if I'm not confident it will happen:

All of the "average" theatres that can't seem to avoid scratching their prints would use digital projection on their 20-40' screens. Hollywood wouldn't have to pay $150m to have crap like The Mummy 3 on 4000 screens starting every half hour.*

But most communities would still have a few "above average" film auditoriums, hopefully with 60'+ screens. It would be sort of analagous to how The Dark Knight is playing in a superior format on a few larger screens right now.

This scenario would match the restaurant world. You can go to McDonalds and get an inferior (but consistent!) product, or you can go to a nice steak house. And folks can also stay home and cook themselves in their "home restaurant."

Would Hollywood pony up a few bucks to strike film prints for those "above average" theatres with Film Done Right? Would they show up anywhere outside of SoCal? Would folks like Christopher Nolan help make it happen?

* I wonder if the digital movement is related to the fact that Hollywood has realized the only way it recoup the costs of shit movies is to release 4000 prints and market them so heavily that they bring in a bundle on their opening weekends before the word gets out how lousy they are. But I digress.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-03-2008 06:58 PM

quote: Geoff Jones
But most communities would still have a few "above average" film auditoriums, hopefully with 60'+ screens. It would be sort of analagous to how The Dark Knight is playing in a superior format on a few larger screens right now.

We have above average "digital" screens bigger then that here in SLC! I just got home from a showing of "The Dark Night" at Megaplex's Gateway Theater #3 and the quality there was superlative, so was the sound. It's a pretty decent THX approved room. In fact the image at 45 feet wide was sharp enough to easily see the grain in the negative in the 35mm lensed shots. It was also easy to tell what scenes were shot in Imax and which were not.

quote: Geoff Jones
This scenario would match the restaurant world. You can go to McDonalds and get an inferior (but consistent!) product, or you can go to a nice steak house.

Actually McDonalds fared better in healthy places to eat over TGIF, Ruby Tuesday and other steak type places. Not that I love MickeyD's but they have done more over the last several years to get the gunk out of their food than most other chain type restaurants. There was a recent article on Yahoo news that ranked the chain restaurants and McD came in better that you'd think.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 08-03-2008 08:02 PM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Pay them enough per hour to make up the difference or give them normal 40 hour work week with decent pay and they'll generally stay around.

If we had someone walk through the door who was already a qualified projectionist, we might consider this. But there is no way to justify paying a high wage to someone who is just learning and doesn't have the ability to fix most projection issues.

And from a corporate perspective, it would difficult to justify hiring such a person when they already have someone on salary who is qualified to handle many issues - specifically me. But of course that gets into the whole messy issue of corporate priorities which I prefer to stay out of.

[ 08-03-2008, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: Justin Hamaker ]

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-03-2008 10:05 PM

Justin,

That is exactly that corporate mentality that has ruined the cinema going experience. Weather you hire someone that is union or not is one story but for any plex not to have at least one qualified full time projectionist merely says that corporate doesn't really give a dam. You will very definately need someone with at least very basic IT experience when digital hits your screens!! Good luck finding anyone to work for you based on how your flow of customers goes up and down [Roll Eyes]

.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Geoff Jones
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 579
From: Broomfield, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 08-03-2008 10:29 PM

quote:
We have above average "digital" screens bigger then that [60 feet] here in SLC! I just got home from a showing of "The Dark Night" at Megaplex's Gateway Theater #3 and the quality there was superlative, so was the sound. It's a pretty decent THX approved room. In fact the image at 45 feet wide...

I'm sure that's a small anecdotal non-sequitur on your part, and you aren't actually suggesting that a 45 foot screen is bigger than a 60 foot screen. 'Cause that would just be silly!

Also, when I referred to a "nice steak house," I wasn't actually thinking of a place like Ruby Tuesday or TGIF. I was thinking of a place with tablecloths on the tables and menus that aren't laminated: a place that really isn't part of a "chain." I apologize for not being more clear and concise!

Cheers,
Geoff

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 18 pages: 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 16 17 18

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.