|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The "I hate digital" rant thread
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-17-2010 12:06 PM
Question: do service technicians charge the same rate for work on film equipment and digital equipment? I would have assumed that they did, but Frank's post now has me wondering.
As for me, I have not personally worked with anything newer than the 1.3k ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif) systems, but I have about twelve years' worth of experience with 35mm (with some 16mm and 70mm thrown in for good measure) and will weigh in here, anyway:
Advantages:
For theatres that practice "film done wrong," digital projection (meaning DCI-level equipment) will be an improvement. Since digital equipment either works or doesn't, it will force exhibitors to perform necessary maintenance or risk losing shows (rather than, say, scratching a print). The port glass and lenses will probably still be dirty, however, and speaker diaphragms will probably still be blown. Still, the installation of the new equipment will essentially force these theatres to have a technician go through the entire projection and sound system and fix issues that should have been fixed years ago. Many theatres are also getting new screens, due to the current 3D fad. At least in the short term, all of this is a net gain.
For theatres that show "alternative content," digital projection can potentially increase revenue. Personally, I do not believe that "alternative content" will be a big winner for most theatres over the long term, but that doesn't mean that smart exhibitors cannot make money with it now.
Major film distributors will likely win over the long term, due to the reduction of print manufacturing and storage costs. "Filmmakers" (really videomakers, unless they shot their material on film) who prefer to have their work screened digitally will win as more venues are equipped with DCI projection equipment.
With extra tracks to play with, there may be some interesting developments in cinema sound systems in the future. If this comes to fruition, sound designers and mixers (and, likely, audiences) will win as well.
Disadvantages:
The big losers here are obviously small mom-and-pop theatre operations, which will not likely be able to afford to convert, or whose theatres may have physical limitations which would be cost-prohibitive to fix in order to install new equipment. Many theatres will close if/when 35mm prints become unavailable, and many communities may be left without a cinema.
Non-theatrical venues (and, by that, I include theatres which occasionally program films, but which mostly fill their schedules with other events) will lose out, too. Except for a few wealthy "non-profits," few will be able to justify the conversion, and may drop film programming entirely (or, almost as bad, switch to SD or HD video). In many such venues, film programming exists because the equipment is already installed and paid for. Once this is no longer the case, the programming will likely go away.
Over the long term, exhibitors in general will likely lose. There is no economy of scale for this equipment (total worldwide market of 100k units with an estimated lifespan of ten years). A ten-year replacement cycle will cost more than film equipment ever did, even if it saves some on labor. It will no longer be possible to buy equipment that will last for fifty years. Furthermore, maintenance issues and equipment failures are more likely to require an expensive engineer, rather than someone on the theatre staff, to resolve.
Venues which currently have top-quality film equipment and operators will also lose out. We all know that, under the right circumstances, 35mm film prints will provide a better image than 2K (and probably 4K) digital systems. This is to say nothing of 70mm, for which some infrastructure still exists, and which could provide demonstrably better image and sound quality than any digital system is likely to offer in the forseeable future. A film system can also be more flexible, allowing for such things as frame rates other than 24fps and better support for aspect ratios narrower than 1.85. Furthermore, 16mm, 35mm, and 70mm film capability will be needed for repertory screenings for many years (decades) to come, requiring many venues to install two projection systems (film and DLP). The wholesale push towards an all-digital exhibition system will eventually lead to increased print costs, and will also stifle the potential for improvements in film stock and lab techniques.
Smaller film distributors and independent filmmakers will lose, at least in the short term, due to the need to provide material in both film and DCI format, or risk losing bookings. Filmmakers who desire to have their work presented on film may also lose if they are forced to distribute to DCI-only houses.
Over the long term, film archivists will probably lose. Once film elements are no longer produced for new films, someone will need to store, back up, and transcode digital files every few years. I can legitimately take a roll of film negative, put it on the shelf for fifty years, and expect to take it off the shelf and make a print of it then. Digital storage, by contrast, requires ongoing maintenance. This will not be cheap and, at some point, it may not be done, leading to increased costs and greater potential for loss of material. On the other hand, when digital storage is maintained and format conversions can be made without loss, this may be an improvement over film. Maybe this should be listed as a wait-and-see item.
The average film-goer may win or lose, depending upon the current quality of his local theatres and his preferences for 3D or 2D exhibition and film vs. digital image quality (yes, they look different, and each has its proponents).
For me personally, I happen to like film and the physical/mechanical nature of it. I like the flexibility of the medium, and the way in which it has been adapted to various widescreen processes, different sound formats, and such. I like the idea of being able to find a fifty-year-old reel of film and project it immediately. I like the idea that film is a self-documenting format, requiring only a light source and a lens to recover the images. And I like the fact that the quality continues to improve, with better emulsions and both mechanical and electronic projection equipment.
I also feel strongly that films that were originally photographed and intended to be exhibited on film (which is to say, pretty much anything made before the latter half of this decade, and many current films) should be exhibited that way. Proper repertory exhibition will (or should) require film for forever. Just as seeing a photograph of the Mona Lisa is not the same thing as seeing the actual painting, watching a digital scan of a film element is not the same thing as watching an actual print, preferably from the original release, of that same material. Every film fan should have the experience of seeing an original nitrate print of a favorite film. I would hate to see the time come when this is no longer possible.
I realize that digital exhibition has a number of advantages, as well as a different and distinct look. If film and digital exhibition could survive side-by-side (as is the case now), I would be very happy. My fear, however, is that, in a decade or so, it will be both difficult and expensive to have film prints made and exhibited, and every new print will immediately become an "archive print," available only to a handful of museums (musea?) and screening rooms. Therefore, I hate digital to the extent that it is likely to lead to the demise of film as a mainstream exhibition format.
Finally, I hate the idea that we are moving backwards, at least at the very high end of exhibition. In the 1950s, the very best theatres had Cinerama and Todd-AO. Only Imax (real, 15/70 Imax) is an improvement over these formats, and even that seems likely to meet its demise at some point in the future. Shouldn't movies now look and sound better than they did in the 1950s? If so, then why aren't we using 70mm now while we wait for 12k DLP?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God
Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 08-20-2010 12:16 AM
quote: Scott Norwood
Question: do service technicians charge the same rate for work on film equipment and digital equipment?
Answer: No. Digital techs are in the range of $125-150 per hour and up in the L.A. area, whereas film technicians are (and have been for quite some time) in the %50-75 per hour range.
D-Crapema requires a lot of training and you need to go to the specialized schools for each brand of projector (and I would imagine server, but the servers are pretty limited on what breaks or can be repaired I'd guess). Most of those schools cost money, and that cost will get passed on to the end user.
quote: Frank Angel
<snip> ....theatres that run sloppy and ill-maintained booths with dirty, scratched film images on the screen, letting bulbs burn long after their useful lives to save a few pennies will be putting a digital projector in that same booth without fixing those same poor operating conditions and worse, without fixing that grindhouse mind-set and thinking it will solve everything. But sorry to say, a new digital projector won't change that core problem. And yes, digital will look all shinney and brand new because it's just out of the box, but just give it a few years after being stuck in a dirty operation where the mentality is to let it just "run itself" and see how well it fairs in a few years or the first time it needs a service call in a place where management wouldn't do service calls when film was the format because a film technician "cost too much." Wait till that same exhibitor sees what a certificed digital technician's service call bill will be and see how long that digital projector goes unserviced and ill-maintained.
A BIG "amen" to that!! That is why I get down on people who dare to post on here that D-Crapema is gonna end their maintenance expenditures. And I just serviced a big multi where thay have learned the hard way that their in the big house is eating xenons at a rate that is appalling. (6k lamp with 500hr useful life) Do the math folks.. with 5 shows a day, average 2 hours per show and you're gonna get just over 1.5 months of life out of a 500hr bulb!! Most film xenons can easily exceed their warranty life (and without risking an expensive color wheel or light engine) by a factor of 2 times or more. Plus they are a lot cheaper.
quote: Scott Norwood
<snip>The port glass and lenses will probably still be dirty, however, and speaker diaphragms will probably still be blown.
Exactly. And I have seen this firsthand already.
quote: Scott Norwood
<snip>Still, the installation of the new equipment will essentially force these theatres to have a technician go through the entire projection and sound system and fix issues that should have been fixed years ago.
Not always true. Again I have seen firsthand conversions done yet the problems of blown speakers, poor room acoustics, badly done "B" chains, etc. having been left behind. The mentality is/was that they spent all that money on the projector they cannot afford to fix the other things broken. Sad but true.
quote: Scott Norwood
Only Imax (real, 15/70 Imax) is an improvement over these formats, and even that seems likely to meet its demise at some point in the future.
Already dead according to one source I spoke with. There will supposedly be no more new 15/70 installs and the existing ones are to be phased out. I know of one venue (was there just last week) where the 15/70 gear is idle and there are four (!) IMAX prints just gathering dust. Evidently IMAX cares so little for film that they won't even request those prints back. (2 of them have been there since last Xmas!!)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic