|
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Digital: Scope inside Flat?
|
|
|
|
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God
Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 10-24-2010 05:51 PM
quote: Tom Mundell
What's meant by floating screen?
A floating screen is just that with the way the screen frame is built and being supported mainly from the back wall, to where it looks like the screen is actually "floating" away from the back wall about 4 feet to allow the speaker cabinets to be behind sitting on platforms in the screen frame.
There is no side or top flat black dubatene fabric material next to the screen to frame it. Just the dubetene material to cover the back wall.
Or the back wall, if being covered with black core, was painted flat black.
Also, there is no masking tabs for flat and scope. Thus, the 1.85:1 film presentations left the sides of the screen unused and some customers would complain on "why the picture isn't filling the entire screen and I'm not getting my money's worth?"
It was the extreme and cheapest way for a cinema builder to buy and hang a screen since no complicated screen frame had to be built and not having to worry on masking motors (fear that if they begin to have problems, that's money out of their Hawai'i vacation monies that has to be spent).
The frame was built from roll tube steel so the vinyl could be wrapped around the frame and with the use of screen springs, it was held on pretty tightly - also less maintenance involved.
It was a construction concept that came out in the mid 70's to simulate what you would be seeing a movie at a drive-in .. even with small lights just barely glowing on the sides of the screen to give it a "dusk" effect to frame the screen.
Thus, with digital presentations, the floating screen, esp in flat, can fill the entire screen with the drop maskings coming down for scope.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elise Brandt
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 160
From: Kuusankoski, FIN/ Kouvola, Finland
Registered: Dec 2009
|
posted 10-29-2010 08:39 AM
quote:
(..and you didn't bounce out of your seat, head to the lobby and raise hell with the management or similar that the movie wasn't right ?? ... REALLY ...!)
Yes, I did. This was mainly because I was about 16 years old at the time and went to the competitor. Yes, shame on me. I sat through it debating to myself whether I should raise hell or sit tight and wonder at the thing, whether to trust myself to know what's off or take the embarrasment of a kid my age telling me "it's just fine, just go back and shut up, that's what it's supposed to look like". Only now do I know it's not supposed to look like that...
Plus it really was the closest competition my theater has, so... selfish of me, I assume that the people who sat through the movie with me and didn't raise hell and knew that something was off, would end up coming to us the next time.
I know, shame on me.
And, Tony. Shame on me for not knowing in advance what you mean, yes. All I get irritated at is that in seemingly each thread where some D-cinema issue is discussed, there at some point will be a post from you saying "see, you should've stuck to film, D-crapema sucks". You might mean that both systems have their upsides and downsides, but I couldn't see it in the post, or in any of them. I haven't been here long enough to know you, or what your position on this transition is, I only have seen the "D-crapema" posts, which obviously has given me the wrong impression of what you think about the D-cinema and us who have taken it home and married it, so to say.
Thank you for clearing that up. Now I won't be annoyed anymore ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God
Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 10-29-2010 08:20 PM
No problem Elise.
I am very much of the "old school" so I can admit a fair bit of my position on DLP is based on some bias, but in reality I have several issues with DPL as an exhibition medium:
- Excessive cost as compared to a comparable screen sized-film setup;
- Added complexity in electronics and reliance on computer technology which is prone to freeze-ups and crashes;
- Increased lamping costs vs. film (lamp life and cost);
- Planned obselesence (first 2k, now 4k, soon 8 or 16k);
- Visible image artifacts which to me are more distracting than film issues;
- Little or no cost benefits to the exhibitor;
- And what I said in my last post about how this was forced upon exhibs as a foolproof, cure-all to film's "issues".
Digital has its rightful place in cinema, in both production and post-production, as it can, in the right hands, (like that'll ever happen in H'wood) produce a better, more creative end product.
Film has world-wide compatibility, a huge existing and pretty refined infrastructure, and most importantly PROVEN archival ability. DLP has none of that and especially for the last bit, never will.
Do you think that, unlike now, someone 100+ years from now will be able to successfully read or playback DLP media? Yet even a film over 200 years old will be able to be reproduced/projected without any major hassles.
Even in the television world there are obsolete media formats that we are currently hard pressed to reproduce as the equipment for those media are no longer made. And TV is a lot younger than film.
I'll end this with a direct quote from a patron exiting an early DLP system screening:
"I can't believe I paid good money to watch a f'ing giant screen TV."
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elise Brandt
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 160
From: Kuusankoski, FIN/ Kouvola, Finland
Registered: Dec 2009
|
posted 10-30-2010 08:56 AM
Glad we're on good terms, Tony. Thank you.
I might show my age here in this issue. I am -after all- only thirty, so just a kid when compared to the guys who have been in the industry for longer than I have drawn breath, and some even twice that! So... I say yes, I do think film is inevitably gone in a few years and DLP is the thing that will kick in for the next few decades, and after the next big thing comes after that I'll be the one (hopefully) swearing that the new method will never be as good or as reliable.
Just today I was showing our remaining (and partly retired) film projectors to a group of 11-year old kids (birthday party at the movies they had a blast) and they wondered at the seniority of the equipment "wow man, this shit is really really old, how long has it been since it was used?" "um, well, there's the exact same machine twirling away just beyond that door, remember we just saw it... this here was put off to pasture like a year ago... and yes it still works!" unreal moment there. These are kids only twenty years younger than me and they already see film as gone, gone, long gone. Right, these are kids who have no clue of the industry as a whole but still, it's the attitude change that I'm after. It's all digital now, even for them. And if you ask them, it always has been
I'll embrace anything that won't cripple the business financially (so far the Finnish chamber of film has been great enough with helping with the costs) and will offer the customers a better experience (as digital so far has done -more than we ever hoped) and will allow us to bring in more money. We are in it both for the love and the money, after all.
I was not just a bit touched by the enthusiasm those kids had. Amazing... I got a better look throught their eyes at the things that are so commonplace for me, I am so glad and grateful I get to be in this profession. Seriously. And man, great opening for SAW VII last night too.
I won't close to a quote (but will keep yours in mind) but a bit of a sentimental (hormonal? Damn...) note. I. Love. My. Job. I love the digital projectors we have, mainly because I understand them. I have a relationship of mutual respect with them that I could never achieve with the film equipment. There was awe and respect, but never the co-operation that I have with this stuff. It's embarrassingly like when someone insults them, they insult my brother. Not rational, but I think it might be allowed.
... and it's time to go back to the reports before I get smirked at -too late thanks. And have a good night!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 10-30-2010 11:23 AM
If you have a full container DCP and you show scope, you are cropping off the top and bottom of the "full container" image to create a 2.39 scope image. (In a scope DCP, this top and bottom area is black.)
If you have a full container DCP and you show flat, you are cropping off the sides of the "full container" image to create a 1.85 flat image. (In a flat DCP, the sides are black.)
If you run a scope movie in flat, you then see the black bars AND you still crop off the sides. In other words, flat doesn't use the entire width of the chip and scope doesn't use the entire height.
Sadly there are (crappy) people (that don't deserve their jobs) out there in the industry who take the attitude that "it doesn't matter" and instead sell systems that have essentially no capability to present a movie properly. They don't have alternate lenses or zooming capability for format changes, some of them leave it in "flat" all the time and don't even bother making any sort of automation connection, etc. I've even been into a show theater where they clearly didn't even bother to calibrate colors! To these kinds of lazy farts that only want a quick buck, cropping off part of the picture is fine. The industry is suffering enough with people's home theaters competing against your presentation. Don't support these people. Do it right or get out of the business.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-11-2010 07:36 PM
quote: Elise Brandt
wow man, this shit is really really old, how long has it been since it was used?" "um, well, there's the exact same machine twirling away just beyond that door, remember we just saw it... this here was put off to pasture like a year ago... and yes it still works!" unreal moment there. These are kids only twenty years younger than me and they already see film as gone, gone, long gone. Right, these are kids who have no clue of the industry as a whole but still, it's the attitude change that I'm after. It's all digital now, even for them. And if you ask them, it always has been
Elise, it's "gone" for them only because no one has taken the time to educate them that our motion picture history is film not digital; our cinema heritage was born of motion picture film as in 35mm and 70mm and shown in that medium.
They only know digital because that's what they know at home and all the media talks about. Until someone showed me, I had no idea at all how that light that came out of that small hole in the back wall of the theatre stretched itself out and wound up as a huge image in front of me. Someone had to teach me how that happened. And I am glad someone did.
What a shame that you missed the opportunity to explain to these kids that motion picture film is at the very core of our film heritage and that all the greatest films of all time were captured on motion picture film and shown on motion picture film projectors and that had nothing at all to do with digital. Digital has a long way to go before it becomes the sole medium upon which new, great cinematic works are capture and reproduced. Until then, the coming generations should learn and understand their past and how those 100 AFI's Greatest Films of all Time came into being -- all on film....all projected and ENJOYED by hundreds of thousands of millions on film, and without a single digital camera or projector anywhere to be found.
To let those kids think that film, the greatest medium of all time is "gone gone gone" or is somehow insignificent, and even worse, treat it as if it never was -- well that was a missed opportunity. When they pointed to that "old" projector, you could have pointed out that some of the greatest films ever made and ever seen were projected through that very piece of old looking equipment. That new digital projector? More than likely, it hasn't projected a single great film yet. And maybe not for quite awhile given the likes of SAWn running through it currently.
While you say you embrace anything that won't cripple the business financially, well, let me point out that film isn't crippling the business; isn't, wasn't and won't.
And although I understand how you may love your digital projectors, I would be willing to bet that if you spent some time working with your film projectors, running film, after you get a few weeks under your belt running shows, I'll bet you would build a relationship with that equipment every bit as strong as what you seem to have to your digital hardware. In fact, where you say you have become married to your digital, I think if you don't actually become and outright polygamist and take a Century or Simplex on as a second spouse, then certainly you'll find it as a lover on the side, irresistable! And like all such situations, you probably will find the illicit lover on the side the more exciting of the two!
You may even come to see that digital box for it's true cold and unaffectionate nature; your film projector, however, is passionate, hands-on, lots of physical contact -- lots of give and take, generating a true bonding of the physical and spiritual.
You handle it with care and it rewards you with a presentation that is deeply satisfying to your spirit. Mistreat it, and you will know about it. The digital unit couldn't care less about you -- in fact, it doesn't need or want you to even touch it. You build the show remotely, you tell it when to start...remotely, it performs as told. It starts, but you don't feel its vibrations, you don't hear its response and not to disillusion you about it, that digital box is oblivous to you -- it couldn't give a crap about you if you stood on your head next to it. Quite frankly, it doesn't care if you are even in the room when it starts the show.
Unlike a film projector, you don't need to know its idiosyncracies, you don't have to know what kind of oil it likes to be fed. You don't have to carefully clean its parts. You can't listen and learn the sounds it makes, or know when it is purring or when it is struggling just by this sounds. With a film projector you know right away if it needs you to look after some immenent trouble that only you will recognize and can prevent because you understand its the sound of its voice; it can talk to you.
Nope, there is a bonding between man and machine that happens only with a 35mm or 70mm (even a 16mm) projector that can't possibly happen with that inert, unmoving, completely unaffectionate black digital box which could care less if it is you operating the show or any random stranger off the street.
Definately have respect for the digital technology, Elise, but believe me, the satisfaction that you will have if you get to know and work with a film projector will be much more rewarding and personal. And yes, it may be that years from now film will be a technology that is no longer used commercially (still a big question mark, that), but that is still no reason to dismiss the history and the greatness of cinema ON FILM. After all, what has the mantra of the digevangelists been all this time -- that digital CAN LOOK AS GOOD AS FILM. And they are still trying. You never hear them say, digital can look as good as video, which, after all, it is.
Teach your children well.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elise Brandt
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 160
From: Kuusankoski, FIN/ Kouvola, Finland
Registered: Dec 2009
|
posted 11-12-2010 12:38 AM
Worry not, Frank. I do teach my kids well, as my father taught me. He taught me to love the 35-machines since I was six years old. I may have not known what kind of oil they liked, or even who made them but I developed the kind connection with them that you're so worried I don't have.
But I do prefer the new ones, even though I've loved the old ones for twenty-five years and worked with them for twelve. I loved the and still do. As my kids will the older one loves to pretend he's running film on the machine that sits in the lobby, the one those kids looked at.
What I was marvelling at is that kids today don't know, exactly as you said, because they haven't been taught. On the other hand, neither does anyone else! As you also said, what the audience knows is that the light comes out of the hole and makes a picture. Very few have any idea what happens back there... we do like to show them, even more since there are two very different technologies to show!
I love the digital more because it speaks to me in the way film doesn't. Film is like fire to me, it does what I need it to do when I treat it right, but I am forever nervous with it. With digital, I am mych more comfortable for some reason. I'm of a different generation and I grew up learning computers and whatnot, while the generation of my father (and you, I would dare say) had to learn that from scratch. It's like my English, I knew it before it was taught to me at school because I listened to it (in the movies) every single day, for hours a day, for years. Just like that with digital, the concepts are familiar to me like they are familiar to the kids today. Film? For me that was like English to my father who started learning as an adult and never quite could do it. I developed the love for the film projectors, sure, but only started learning as an adult, and never quite got there. Once the digital got here, the basis of operation was already familiar to me, and the software part very easy to get. Instant familiarity. Plus by pushing a wrong button you can't make anything break
I will probably talk about hard drives and flash drives the way you talk about oils and parts, lovingly. It's so odd, isn't it?
The history of cinema should absolutely be one thing for the kids to learn, and I will definitely be the one to tell anyone what little I know. But in this professional discussion I do take the side of the new technology and prefer it (yea, five years ago I did say we would never go digital, that would kill the magic and so, kill us... ok, I was wrong. I have been and will be wrong in many, many other things too )
quote: Frank Angel
While you say you embrace anything that won't cripple the business financially, well, let me point out that film isn't crippling the business; isn't, wasn't and won't.
Not yet, But it's a real possibility that in five years, it will. Or even sooner... remember, we are a small country and small changes affect us greatly. We only have screens in hundreds, not thousands. And when even two hundred of them will change to digital (I'd say in the course of 2011-2012), well... film prints will be very hard to find, and more costly.
quote: Frank Angel
Unlike a film projector, you don't need to know its idiosyncracies, you don't have to know what kind of oil it likes to be fed. You don't have to carefully clean its parts. You can't listen and learn the sounds it makes, or know when it is purring or when it is struggling just by this sounds.
Oh, but I do! I know exactly what time it takes for the lamp to strike after the cue, and I know something's amiss if the timing doesn't fit. And I can find the reason too! I can look at the screen at any time and know if something's wrong and in half a second I know how to fix it and in another second I have fixed it. (something that took me a while longer with film...) I know the sounds, quiet as they are, and I know the clicks. I know how the machine behaves and you might think I'm crazy (I probably am anyway) but it does talk to me. And it does listen!
quote: Frank Angel
After all, what has the mantra of the digevangelists been all this time -- that digital CAN LOOK AS GOOD AS FILM. And they are still trying.
Hmmh, I never heard that. As good as? The way I hear it, it looks Better than film can look, it does. Film looks great, sure, but when you compare it to the digital picture... well, you can't! Film picture might live more, and so be more personal every time, but digital picture is -well- perfect! Sharp, steady image that you can control to a pixel!
You write beautifully, by the way Frank. I just feel about the new machines as you do about the old, that's the only difference. And let's face it; it's personal anyway. Anyone could operate either of those systems and the machines wouldn't care one bit. They're machines. It's what we are used to and know that makes us respond to them, and we have been living in different times and environments.
Again, it's like my father and me. You ask him anything about the old projectors, he'll tell you. Ask me? I'll call him and tell you. Ask about the digital, he just might call me and ask
But the kids? I'm afraid they won't have the opportunity to work with film as I have done. I do think it'll be long gone before they get to that age. But rest assured, they Will Know about it, and they will respect the history of it. Will they love it? I have no idea. But just like me, they will have grown up around the stuff and grown to see it as a family member.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
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
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic