|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Rocky Horror Digital
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-26-2012 06:17 PM
Scott, I respect your feelings about watching 'film on film', but there is another aspect to this: what if the DCP of a classic title actually improves on its quality?
Earlier this year, the Film Forum ran breathtaking digital restorations of some classic films, Grand Illusion and Children of Paradise were the two I saw. They looked spectacular, they were shown in 4K and I have no trouble believing that these were the best presentations of these films in probably the last 60 years. Children of Paradise especially, the negative of this film is beat to shit, and for years the US prints had export stamps pounded into the image area. Now, spotless. I await the new restoration of Jaws, and I am dying to see the 8K restoration of Lawrence of Arabia. I may be the Lone Ranger on this, but I for one would be happy to see a carefully made DCP of a classic film rather than a heavily bicycled and beaten up 35mm print any time, film origination notwithstanding.
It's sad in a way that the few rep houses still on 35mm will take a pounding on this, but for the classic movie lover there's not much to cry over, especially since the opportunity to view these films in pristine restored condition in the cinemas that survive is a real possibility.
quote: Frank Angel
Fox seems to WANT to kill the art house
Why would Fox want to kill art-house when they are one of its biggest players? There are three Fox Searchlight films in theaters as we speak: Beasts of the Southern Wild, Ruby Sparks and The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. What Fox wants is to not make 35mm prints anymore. If they are smart, and small cinema owners are lucky, they will extend the no-more-prints cutoff for the Searchlight division past the tentative late-2013 date. We'll see.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 08-27-2012 05:33 AM
quote: Manny Knowles
Scott -- the problem I have with your analogy is that, well, it's just wrong.
I do not think it is completely wrong. Personally I think that he should be referring to lithographs in the art world. This would be the perfect analogy, there is an original but there is also a traditional procedure to produce copies of that original. Picasso, for instance, is known to have used lithographs quite often. Would new digital prints of those lithographs have the same look and/or value?
If you find this boring or pedantic, please stop reading.
The medium in film is important; ask Paul Thomas Anderson or Christopher Nolan or Alfred Hitchcock, who never used anamorphic lenses or Billy Wilder, who hated Technicolor. It is part of the final look of that work and film is mainly a visual medium. Digital and film projection look different.
Granted, most people do not notice that, but many of us do.
I think it is fascinating to talk about the medium in a film forum like this one. This is not about making money or a viable business process; it is about the beauty of film as a medium.
I have seen some restorations on film that are amazing, much better than some digital screenings (even those that were done digitally but printed back onto film). I think that nowadays digital restorations are missing the last step, producing a print, they are not restoring that. You may say it is too expensive, the print will be damaged, or any other arguments, but it cannot be denied that the closest experience to the one audiences originally had would be printing that restoration (even if done digitally) on film.
Moreover, most repertoire cinemas have 2K projectors whereas most restorations are done at least at 4K and hence a 35mm print, if properly done, may look better, in particular the blacks can look much better on a film print. In any case, they produce different looks, obviously.
As I said, you may say that talking about this is a waste of time, but if you cannot talk about film on film-tech, where can you? I really do not want to enter into a nasty argument, I think it is an interesting subject.
I think Scott’s point is perfectly valid. There is no reason why a digital restoration can’t produce an amazing 35mm print.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 08-27-2012 11:20 AM
I have just found this quote from a film archivist from Australia, which I think is relevant to our discussion.
NFSA Senior Curator Meg Labrum and Film and Video Specialist Susanne Haydon said it best at a lecture in 2010:
“It is a popular assumption that audiovisual archives of the future will be entirely virtual – a vast amount of digital files, containing the world’s recorded moving image and sound experiences. However, this quite misses one of the fundamental principles of such archives, which is that they are preserving not just the content of their collection, but also, to every possible extent, the complete viewing experience. And so that means that the content, the carrier, and the means of viewing and reproduction are inseparable from each other.”
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 08-27-2012 12:07 PM
quote: Manny Knowles
I could say the same thing right back at ya, buddy. Who the f*ck do you think you are!? If you only want people to agree with you all the time, you're in for a disappointment.
Why are you so belligerent and rude Manny? I fail to understand it. I just said this jokingly because inevitably some people will find the subject pedantic or boring and I mean the subject of film exhibition for classic films, the issue of preserving the film format and the references to lithographs. I personally find it interesting and I think other forum members do.
It was not meant to offend, not like your post. I get a lot from reading other people’s information, your assumption on me is rubbish but frankly I do not want to start another online fight. I am happy to read different opinions and learn from them, I have learnt a lot from members on this forum. Some written sentences do not work, and I accept that mine probably does not work as I wished, it was not my intention but your abuse was uncalled for. As always, I kindly return your gestures and words to yourself, keep them please.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 08-27-2012 12:23 PM
quote: Manny Knowles
Oh you were joking -- well then you need to add smilies -- that's how that works -- Seriously dude -- it's 2012 -- get with it.
I thought about the smilies, I'll do it from now on. Seriously, I do not mind at all about new technology, as I said Prometheus looks great on digital IMAX. But seriously as well, can we talk about the merits of keeping film projection for classic titles? I really enjoy it when people recreate the original projection systems, three-strip Cinerama, original 3-D dual projection, 70mm, ... I find it fascinating. I think you can embrace both, the new technology and an admiration for the old.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 08-27-2012 12:49 PM
In rare cases, yes. For example, I'd go see a 3 strip Cinerama screening at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood, CA -- but I'd be there primarily to observe a demonstration of the technology -- the movie itself would be secondary, maybe even irrelevant.
A crucial difference is that 3-strip Cinerama can't be presented at every theatre -- it has to be shown in a purpose-built venue -- and I think it's a sufficiently rare format that handlers would be acutely aware that they need to bring their "A-Game."
The trouble is that standard 35mm presentation doesn't enjoy that same level of recognition. Presentation quality varies wildly, and the prints are handled without due care and attention. And the studios have lost faith.
Even IMAX has become so commonplace that it's done wrong now. Just take a look at this thread.
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
I find it fascinating. I think you can embrace both, the new technology and an admiration for the old.
If you knew me, and knew where I worked, you'd see that I agree with you. For example, one of my favorite accomplishments was presenting "Metropolis" with live orchestra playing the original score by Gottfried Huppertz. (But the "print" was digital.)
And FWIW, I run film "all the time" -- on changeovers! With film, the frustration comes in knowing that excellent projection is so often compromised by a substandard print.
-----------
And now...One more thought on the subject of "original format" -- How open are we to seeing "Lawrence of Arabia" on 70mm with DTS sound? -- Does it matter that the "original format" was mag tracks?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
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
![[fu]](graemlins/fu.gif)
Who the f*ck do you think you are!? If you only want people to agree with you all the time, you're in for a disappointment.
Printer-friendly view of this topic