|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: "Digital projection" at renovated Elsinore Theatre
|
|
|
|
|
Tao Yue
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 209
From: Princeton, NJ
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 11-22-2004 09:14 PM
First, a factual correction. William Hopper wrote of themovies that Elsinore was showing:
quote: William Hooper
They're all available in good prints, except for perhaps "Robin Hood" which I think I read somewhere did not have a print struck of the restoration.
Actually, Warners did strike new prints of [em]Robin Hood[/em] just like they did for Singin' in the Rain. However, I didn't notice any publicity about new 35s for Meet Me in St. Louis, the third Technicolor 3-strip film that Warners reregistered digitally.
Scott Norwood wrote:
quote:
By using video instead of film, they're saving probably $100 in shipping ... Are they that hard-up for cash that they would compromise quality for the sake of saving a lousy $100? ... As for archive prints, I've been sort of surprised lately at the sort of rare one-of-a-kind prints that distributors will send out without actually talking to the operator or even knowing who he is.
Shipping can contribute a substantial amount if shipping by air is required. (sometimes by the distributor, sometimes because they've booked it into another theater the Wednesday after you run it) Take as an example Spartacus — 130 pounds from California to Massachusetts by Fedex 3-Day Saver is $250 plus insurance, ditto return. $350 on DVD with 6-track surround or $850 on film with 4-track surround, plus the cost of an operator, plus the worry of damaging the film. Granted, this is an extreme example, but many films are in similar circumstances. A well-funded PAC may still go for the film, but with budgets stretched the way they are, the DVD really begins to look appealing.
As for the practice of sending out really high-quality prints without a peep, perhaps this is because the studios' rep divisions consider this to be the last hurrah for viewing classics on film and figure that they might as well show off those prints to someone while they still can? Just speculation.
| IP: Logged
|
|
William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 11-23-2004 02:15 AM
As it's been pointed out elsewhere, 16mm is inadequate for these venues. When it's run, there has to be the "We could only get this movie in 16mm", the sigh, the poor-quality movie. If it's a one-time or once in a blue moon thing, it doesn't affect attendance, as the expectation is that there will be a theatrical-quality presentation next time.
So 16mm doesn't really solve the problem; like video on cheap video projectors, it's a resolution only to those aspects of the whole problem which have not been disregarded for expedience. Attendance, audience satisfaction, etc. are disregarded for easier title availablility, not having to run film, etc.
These venues aren't running 2K Barco projectors, either. They're running crummy conference room projectors with image quality *worse* than 16mm. What problems are they solving, & what aspects of the situation are they choosing to disregard? The biggest one is ticket sales; they're not important to some of these non-profits that operate exclusively on grants & can afford to show contempt for the audience. It either doesn't matter to them if they come back or not, or they can create & use irrelevant ideas like "old movies don't work well in this town" to spuriously maintain their own self-esteem & credibility.
As far as rental costs, most PAC's that don't program film regularly but just run a series have a sponsor pick up the rentals for ad space. The rental cost is pretty much inconsequential to the choice of running film or (legally) video.
Leo's more attuned to archive titles, & I can see how it would be tempting & perhaps the only feasible way for some archives to get some material out to avoid damage - LOC or BFI could start up a program of issuing PD titles in their collections out on DVD for theatrical use. They'd be the only ones, though, & the selection would be small & not particularly marketable to general audiences: copyright term still extends back to 1927 now.
Easily the ugliest thing, on any quality video projector, is watching that damn menu screen projected until the film starts. If you've had to sit through the menu screen's looping audio on some theater's screen, you'll know that it may be one of the only things worse than Movie Tunes.
Although I've never quizzed anyone or overheard anyone say it, I'm pretty sure that *anything* that gives away the fact that a DVD is being run - menu screen, "Warner Home Video" title, final DVD credits, etc. - reinforces in folks minds the whole "Well we could have stayed home & just rented the DVD" disinclination to return to a non-current release program.
quote: Tao Yue
As for the practice of sending out really high-quality prints without a peep, perhaps this is because the studios' rep divisions consider this to be the last hurrah for viewing classics on film and figure that they might as well show off those prints to someone while they still can? Just speculation.
Of course they don't want to spend more money than they have to, as far as I can tell & have heard from one studio rep division guy, they strike new prints of popular library titles all the time, as a matter of course, this week even. They still send a level of pre-crappied prints to venues that they've learned wreck prints, are platter houses, cut leaders on "Do Not Platter" prints, etc.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 11-23-2004 02:31 AM
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the major problem with digital projection for arthouse/rep/archive titles is not going to be the cost of the projectors - Moore's Law seems to be kicking in with a vengeance now and forcing down prices while increasing performance - but the cost of producing HD scans of film originals. I understand that a 2k 24p HD scan of a 35mm feature costs around $10k (assuming a one-light scan from a specially timed interneg or f/g pos - the cost goes up quite a bit if you have to time the scan).
For a Hollywood studio that's a drop in the ocean, especially given that once you've had the film scanned you've got your theatrical, TV and DVD masters, and also that subsequent copies can be made virtually for nothing. So a $10k mastering cost versus a seven-figure sum for a big print run to release a blockbuster looks very attractive. But if you're an archive or a small, specialised distributor (e.g. Kino or Milestone in the US, or Artificial Eye or Metro-Tartan in Britain) which would only have struck one or two prints in the first place, this could be a significant economic barrier. The risk, of course, is that a low-res format such as digibeta (or even worse, bogstandard DVDs) will replace 35mm for theatrical projection by default in this market; and so when we go to the theatre a few years down the line, we'll see proper HD versions of mainstream titles, but low-res digital video copies of more specialised films.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic