George being a guy one would think would know at least SOMETHING about presentation should know that that demonstration does not reflect the majority of theatres out there.

 |  IP: Logged

Anyway...the test, as reported (and we know how the press doesn't always get things right) has it's ups and downs. A true test would have both film origination and video origination and each presented on both video and film. That is, "if I shoot with this, what will it look with that." comparison.

As to a reel from a "mall theatre" there IS validity in showing what happens to the "typical" film print. If a computer were to psudo-randomly pick a print of a 6 reel film such that each reel was chosen from a different theatre and assembled as a complete print...just what do you think it would look like? Since it is random, you might get a reel from one of Brad's theatres and it would be perfect but for that statisicial possibility one would have to believe that nearly 17% of the theatres out there are good. I'm not that optimistic but I grant that it IS possible. But the other five reels will be a mix of scratched and otherwise wasted prints.

Next, I would want a listing of all DLP shows that faild vs all scheduled shows and compare that failure rate versus all film presentations that didn't run vs scheduled shows (all of the above presumming they were not cancelled ue to lack of attendance or power outages...just failures associated with the medium).

After all, how well is the director's "vision" coming across if the system locks up or dies? Here, I think film will be a clear winner.

What bugs me about George Lucas is doing is that he seems to be more interested in pushing a new technology rather than pushing the BEST technology. For conventional "Hollywood" films and storytelling in general is 65mm origination with 70mm projection period. Bar none! Let that be DCinema's target. Not until DCinema can top 65/70 will it EVER be state of the art.

Lucasfilm used to represent the best this industry had to offer. Now it seems like it represents new technology even though it is inferior to what is available. There will always be new out there, if it is cheaper, it doesn't need to be pushed. Pushing the limits on quality is another issue. Too much of the world is "good enough."

I wonder how that meeting would have gone if Mr. Lucas had instead pushed the 65mm/70mm medium as what everyone had to shoot in. Then showed them how it can look as compared to ALL other mediums. Then go back and show a 1954 film _Oklahoma!" and ask...why cant our images look as good as they did nearly 50 years ago? Technology should allow us to advance not regress, as DCinema currently offers.

DCinema is going to come with or without Mr. Lucas' help though he may be able to help shape it. I have no problem with him trying to improve it and making it the best medium. I do have a problem with it being used in the main-stream at this point in time. It just isn't ready.

Mr. Lucas, make experimental movies to develop DCinema until it is ready. Use the best medium you have until it truely is toppled. The look of EP:2 was "junk" in either film or DCinema if you are judging on a mainstream scale. It shouldn't be passed off as anything other than what it was...an experiment into DCinema. To pass it off as a final product is wrong.

Steve

quote:

---

But isn't it true that, for the most part, prints are not taken care of?

---

Speaking as a guy who runs used prints about 80% of the time, I would have to say that for the most part, the prints we get are in very good to excellent shape. I remember in my earlier projecting days, it was common to find multiple scratches and mega-dirt around the reel ends....this isn't the case any more. I would guess that at least 80% of the prints we get are virtually new-looking. We usually run about 3 to 5 weeks off the break. When we do receive damaged film, a call to TES has almost always solved the problem.

The biggest problem these days from my view is the way the prints are packaged and shipped. The bands come off, the tape doesn't stick, the reels fall apart in the under-filled shipping cans...this leads to more damage than projectionist mishandling, I think. The biggest projectionist problem I run into with used prints is bad splicing and poor handling of the heads and tails (fingerprints, etc), and not sticking the end of the film down firmly when shipping (although this last one is probably caused more by TES "inspectors" than projectionists).

"""The comment on that the advent of digital cinematography bieng compared to the advent of sound not being applicable or even close is missing the point. The point was to compare a time where a new technology changed the way films were made and presented, which either left a slew of filmmakers in the dust or forced them to come along for the ride."""

Then this comment was made in response...

"""All technological change is not the same. Some technologies allow you to do things you couldn't do before. Other technologies allow you to do the same things as before, just in a different way. The introduction of sound was the former; digital cinema is the latter. I feel this distinction makes the author's comparison a bit of a stretch."""

The point is missed again here.

What I had referred to was not the change in technology, but the advent of it. This is a major change in how films are made and presented. Yes I know that sound and picture are not the same. But recall our history that when sound was added, there was a huge change. When color was added, there was a huge change. Imagine if someone was still making huge science fiction blockbuster films with spaceships still hanging from fishing line? Sure it can still be done, but it would be financial suicide.

My point is that digital filmography and presentation are just a huge a change as the advent of sound, color, cgi special effects, blue screen special effects, green and red screens, DTS, Dolby Digital, SDDS, stereo, surround sound, stadium seating, concave screens, scope presentation, super 35, etc.

Some of these things are just nice additions, some are required if you want to really play along. It is possible that Digital Films will win out, and everyone will have to play along. If you think this cannot happen, just ask the creators of Betamax if this cannot happen. VHS, a far inferior video format, won, all because of marketing pushes and info campains that just wasted Beta. The same could happen to Film IF, IF we just sit here and talk about it. George Lucas has power, and that power can be used to totally destroy how film SHOULD be done.

We have to do more than just bitch about it.

Suggestions???

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut http://www.muellersatomics.com/

I wonder what the maintenance costs are going to be on these machines? I'll bet those costs will be sky high. We are not dealing with mickey mouse parts like a pad roller or gate bands. We are dealing with very costly CCD chips, and those WILL fail, as some DLP booths have already found out. That nice little blue spot on the screen is not cool.

OK, let's blow up a computer, too. That'll create some headaches as well. Real time to load a program? HAH! What a joke. When it finally loaded, did it load correctly? I guess they will find that out on ticket refunds.

I would LMAO if the computer fried itself about 5 minutes before the end of the loading.

But the computer manufacturers and sodftware people will say, "That will never happen with OUR equipment!" (Yeah, right....) What a load of

Q. Delving a little further into the digital subject: I just watched “Episode II,” which was shot on digital video – and speaking as a lay viewer, I couldn’t distinguish it from a movie shot on film. If you like the way it looks, will you convert to digital tape?

A. I’m less worried about shooting movies digitally than I am about projecting movies digitally. I think that George Lucas’ concept for, you know, 25,000 theatres with digital projectors is nothing short of a total disaster.

Q. Really.

A. Yeah. It offers good things for the studios and the filmmakers, and unbelievably bad things for audiences.

Q. How so?

A. Well, the reason it’s good for studios is, obviously, they save tens of millions of dollars a year on having to make 35-millimeter prints. And if you don’t have to make all those prints, you gain more post-production time – you just have to make a final mix and a master tape, and then that gets satellite-beamed or whatever.

For instance, on “Men in Black II,” I’ve lost a month of joyful post-production simply because we’re making 8,500 prints worldwide – and they need a month to do that.

Also, a digital release is perfect for George Lucas and the kinds of films he makes – because he can make a version with four more scenes, and four weeks into the run, when the movie’s making only $65 million a week, George can take out full-page ads saying, “Now with four additional scenes,” without having to make 4,000 new prints. He can literally satellite it to all the theatres.

So for those reasons, I think it’s great. Where it is a total disaster – and I don’t understand why George Lucas doesn’t realize that – is in any modern art form, it is always the delivery system that is the weakest link. In terms of television, it’s how bad the picture is, it’s how bad the sound is … now what you’re going to do is take a mechanical medium – a light bulb with film running through it – and you’re going to have a digital projector with 57,000 moving mirrors? Believe me: Three days into any setup, everyone will be seeing a green, blue and red band around everyone’s faces when the projectors get out of alignment. You’re going to have no one who cares enough to even fix them.

So the concept of digital projection is incredibly frightening to me. You can’t imagine how often – based on heat, humidity, temperature – these things go out of sync. And I think it will be a disaster for the moviegoing public, but it will be a helpful thing for studios and directors. It will give them more control.

 |  IP: Logged