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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Film era fades to black (Page 2)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Author Topic: Film era fades to black William F Green Film Handler Posts: 84 From: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Registered: Jun 2005 posted 09-25-2011 07:52 AM                     Do you know what - there are too many who don't see the whole picture. UNLESS you are the person paying for the new booth equipment AND understand the consequences/benefits of conversion then it's all just opinion. Too many tech guys and gals, promote the virtues of digital without considering the cost/benefits and also the downsides. There are benefits to digital but it's got nothing whatsoever to do with quality of presentation as presented in that lame article at the start of this thread - thought we had seen the last of that type of stupid press release. It is to do with long-term overall costs and industry politics, nothing else. If quality were the deciding factor then all movies would be run in 70mm but they're not. So let's not kid ourselves that this is about 'quality'. The only reason there is a large-scale change-over to digital is the VPF deals that allow theatres to make the switch less painfully. Without that incentive it would take decades to see the end of film. Independent operators such as us are making the switch because we have no choice - soon 35mm supply is likely to dry-up and so to continue in business we have to make a switch so that we have a supply of movies into the future. Is it better? No, not really. Is it worse? No not really, it's just a new and different way of doing things which is some ways is better and some ways worse. We have also never lost a show due to a specifically 35mm related problem. The only show we ever lost was down to electrical problems (blown fuses etc) which apply equally to any technology. Also another important point is that our 35mm machine is now around 30 years old and still functioning exactly as intended. The series 1 digital we have just bought is referred to as 'old' although it's was only manufactured in 2007!  |  IP: Logged Christian Appelt Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 505 From: Frankfurt, Germany Registered: Dec 2001 posted 09-25-2011 10:07 AM                     I guess by now the thread starter got what he wanted, both the BS article he quoted and the thread title have been chosen well.  |  IP: Logged Edward Havens Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 614 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Mar 2008 posted 09-25-2011 11:12 AM                     Going back to a comment made earlier in the thread... if the gentleman quoted in the article is a 50 year exhibition veteran, I'm fairly certain he has run a print 1,000+ times at least once in his career. I didn't get started until 1986 and I've run a print 1,000+ times (good old "Crocodile" Dundee).  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 09-25-2011 11:47 AM                     Thx, Justin for your comment - it does make sense where digital is making work easier on your end. ..my longest duration was a six month stint with "Star Wars" in a single screen house with a changeover booth in 1977! ..in the middle of the run, I had to get another print, for the original began to literally fall apart-the acetate base on two reels was decaying causing cracks along the sprocketholes.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-25-2011 12:16 PM                        quote: William F Green Is it better? No, not really. I would have to argue that. Given the quality of lab work these days (from what's being posted here), I think the digital picture looks better than our film picture would if we were still running film. Also: No cue marks (sure WE all love'em, but to the audience they could be a distraction), no noticeable "CAP codes" on the picture, and all other behind-the-scenes advantages like ease-of-use, flexibility, time savings, etc. Nope, can't say that I miss film much at all.  |  IP: Logged Frank Cox Film God Posts: 2234 From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada Registered: Apr 2011 posted 09-25-2011 01:01 PM                        I really don't miss film either. Digital is a lot less work. Make-up consists of starting the file copy into the server, walking away and coming back in an hour or so to spend ten minutes making up the playlist. Done. Tear-down? 30 seconds hitting delete after the last show is over. I'm not rushing to get it done in time to haul the cans to the bus depot before they close, plus my freight bill is a quarter of what it used to be. My movie never jumps out of frame in the middle of the show because the yahoo that had it before me put an out-of-frame splice in the middle of a reel, there are never any lovely green scratch lines down the picture, I'm not trying to guess which reel is reel three because the head doesn't match the start (is it because the last guy took six feet off of the start of this reel, or is this head attached to the wrong reel?) Setting up Seven took me literally all day. It was cut out of frame in several places, bent and folded in others, and if you can think of a problem that print had it. I resorted to putting it on on the platter one reel at a time while running my fingers along the film and checking everything that "felt funny", then playing it and marking the bad spots with trailer spools as they came through, then going back over it to do my fixes, removing that reel from the platter and doing again. For every reel. Then doing my actual build-up of the movie, QC screening it and finding two out-of-frames that I had still missed. That movie was so black that finding a frame mark was a challenge all on its own, too. I used to spend about 20 minutes per day cleaning my projector and platter, getting crud off of the rollers, wiping up stray oil, cleaning the aperture, etc. Now all I have to do is boot up the machine and turn on the auditorium lights. I used to "start work" about a half-hour before opening time, getting the projector cleaned up and threaded up, putting the float cash in the drawers and making popcorn. Now I start about ten minutes before opening time. My picture and sound are far better than they ever were with film, too. That's partly because I put in a whole new sound system when I switched to digital, of course, but my picture is brighter and steadier than anything I could ever get out of film, too. The public doesn't notice the picture quality, unfortunately, but I do.  |  IP: Logged Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 09-25-2011 01:11 PM                     The people who don't miss film much at all are usually managers who had projection forced on them when it was decided that a dedicated projectionist was a waste of money. I don't blame their delight but it's always a slap in the face to me being a true film guy. I want digital also,just not this level of digital. Digital projection which eclipses todays standards is what excites me! I am a film guy who wants to see the movie experience go to a much higher level and if digital is what will make that happen than I'm on board for that but to see film scuttled for a basic reproduction of what film already does is very very annoying! Yes I know digital has strengths over film but we all know that film could exceed all of it if it were treated fairly.  |  IP: Logged David Mann Film Handler Posts: 14 From: Bakersfield, Ca. USA Registered: Aug 2008 posted 09-25-2011 03:26 PM                     WEELLLL, We will see how tickled pink the pro-digital people are when they start receiving the bills for the lamps that don't last as long, and are higher priced. I'd much rather have to deal with replacing a $1,000 movement than a $27,000 light engine. I'm just sayin'.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-25-2011 06:56 PM                        Dave, I see you have missed the point of my post ENTIRELY. Number one, I am not romanticizing film at all. I was not comparing film with digital or the merits of either. I happen to be an advocate of installing digital now in two venues where I work and I certainly understand that digital is at a point in its evolution were it is good enough that it is well becoming the way today's movies are released in the majority of commercial theatres, period. That's a given. Nowhere do I contest this or even suggest it is a bad idea. The point of that post, if you take the time to read it thoroughly, is that what I hate about the debate that swirled around digital when it was first launched and seems to continue unabated, this article being a prime example, is how the praisse of digital always needs to painted film as being some sort of technological villain, a way of watching movies that ruined the moviegoing experience what with all those dirty, scratched faded and jumping images, and if you listened to these people who mouthed this BS, film made movies nothing but some garbage medium that consisted of grindhouse level, marred and inferior presentation, unworthy of the filmmaker's vision. They repeat the same nonsense, it seems to me, as a way of praising the virtues of digital. It is unnecessary because digital can stand on its on and needs none of that negative foolishness. What really makes the hair on the back of my head stand up (which is the only place I have hair, btw) is that those foolish babblings about how bad film is, is basically saying that film, the medium by which billions of people all over the world have been entertained and inspired and edified for a century -- in other words, the compilation of our entire movie heritage which were ALL experienced on FILM -- that somehow film itself DETRACTED from the experience rather that enabled it. And IMHO, that is pure crap. And such proclamations seem to me to be singularly disrespectful of the medium that gave us our great movie legacy, our American artform -- those thousands upon thousands of great motion picture. There is no need for it -- digital is doing just fine without denigrating film. As for GWTW, I can go back and find more than one occasion on these boards when I too have said that personally, I never liked GWTW. I think it is not much more than a very long soap opera, painfully over-acted and at times even silly, just brilliantly marketed. I think at one point I said I only like the open, the moments before the intermission and The End title because of that great score. But again, you miss my main, obvious point -- I used GWTW only because it is iconic -- I could have used any number of great FILMS that were born on film, were shown on film and most importantly, were loved by millions who experienced them on FILM; GWTW summed all that up nicely. So I am sorry you didn't get what I was trying to say. It certainly is not a post comparing film to digital at all. You would be right if you said you can find posts of mind where I did say digital was a big mistake, but only if you looked at much older posts; nearly a decade ago when digital was first hoisted on the industry as the end of all our presentation problems when it was 1K and 1.3K and DCI wasn't even a thought yet, back then the few digital 1.3Ks I saw looked like a turd on a stick and to me, sure I said it was crap. It seemed like people who should have known better back then were lauding it as some kind of godsend to fix film, AND they were using the same modus operandi, i.e., pissing on film and the faults that mostly a bottle of Film Guard and real projectionists could easily correct rather than a $120,000 investment in an demonstrably inferior digital technology. And back then, the digevangelists seem to be purposely ignoring the faults that were clearly visible to anyone with eyes. So can you find me ranting against digital conversions at THAT TIME, yes you can, as did others here too. But that was then and this is now. Again, reread my post; I am not making ANY comparisons about digital vs projection, or whether it as boring or not for projectionists running film in commercial booths -- all I was saying was, STOP PISSING ON FILM HISTORY whenever anyone talks about a damn digital box installation.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 09-25-2011 08:36 PM                     quote: David Mann ..than a $27,000 light engine. ..something we don't worry about when we do the required bulb changes before the bulb warranty listing.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 09-25-2011 11:05 PM                     $27,000 light engine, eh? Who is YOUR dealer that is jacking the price sky high?  |  IP: Logged Ian Parfrey Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1049 From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E Registered: Feb 2009 posted 09-26-2011 12:00 AM                     Frank. I agree whole heartedly with your previous posts, and I thank you for putting your perspective into words that explain how I envisage the current state of play. No matter how hard those 'digevangelists' bleat, film done right can still blow the digital projected image out of the water. It just frustrates me no end that it was the adoption of the Digital Intermediate that started the rot re: image quality, and I long for the entire film-based process to be photochemically based. I recently screened a 1 light from the original 35mm camera negative and the image snapped off the screen like you wouldn't believe! Yours was a great read and again, many thanks.  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 09-26-2011 01:00 AM                        Ian, do you realize how disingenuous you are being? You are belittling the people who prefer as "digevangelists" while sanctifying the virtues of film. But you are talking about the average film presentation in the average multiplex, you're talking about an almost ideal situation using a pristine print. I'll grant that your example may well blow away a digital presentation. I haven't seen it, so I have no personal perspective. But I do know that the average digital presentations I have seen are far superior to the average film presentation. Even in a booth staffed by first rate projectionists using well maintained equipment, I would argue that they would struggle to have the consistent quality of presentation seen from an average digital projector. While the first rate projectionist may be able to have everything just right on his screens, he still can't account for the lack of consistent quality in the average mass produced 35mm print, to say nothing of what might have been done to the print at another theatre before he received it. I embrace digital projection because of what it means for the average presentation at the average theatre, which is where the vast majority of moviegoers see movies. I make no commentary on whether the optimal film presentation is better than the optimal digital presentation, or vice versa.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 09-26-2011 02:49 AM                     quote: Justin Hamaker of what it means for the average presentation at the average theatre, which is where the vast majority of moviegoers see movies ...definitely were it's heading to... We on the operating end see things on the screen differently than what the average moviegoer sees, yet they hold the trump card.  |  IP: Logged Ian Parfrey Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1049 From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E Registered: Feb 2009 posted 09-26-2011 04:38 AM                     Justin. I judge any presentation format by this criteria... 1) It MUST be reliable. It has been my gross misfortune that ever since our location ( a single screen Arthouse weekend screener) had switched to digital presentation- nudging 2 1/2 years now - we have had to cancel 5 shows due to server drive failure, incompatibility file type used by the distributor's drive, replacement drives being blank, ingestion refusal and corrupted drives. In my total 32 years in the projection industry, I have had to cancel ONE (1) screening using 35mm film based projection and this was due to a severely damaged and irrepairable print. Shows have been delayed, but only one was cancelled. Not good enough. 2) It must be economical to run. In all aspects bar electrical power consumption, the digital system we use fails. Spare parts for our Panasonic projector are horrendously expensive when compared to the Cinemeccanica Vic 8 we have on site. This does not take into account the obsolescence that will inevitably attack our digital equipment, and in particular our location's financial bottom line when replacement time comes (again). Not good enough. 3) The system should be easily repairable should a fault occur. 'Nuff said. Now, when the digital chain is operating correctly, it does indeed throw a fine performance - but when compared to 35mm using my above criteria then I am sorry but digital blows chunks. Granted, these examples are solely my own and others here may have better experiences, but I really don't care how 'You Beaut' the latest bit of Digi-Kit is, if it increases the chance that I have to get up and apologise to my audience that the show can't go ahead due to equipment problems then that piece of equipment has NO PLACE in a location where paying audiences make the effort to come out and be entertained. Pracie. Upgrading means to improve reliability, cost effectiveness and quality of presentation and as far as I am concerned, digital is sorely lacking in all three criteria.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.