Does anyone else see the film frames with all the 'SFX' vertical lines throuout the image and immediately say 'this strip of film is horribly scratched'?

Also (though I think the effects are causing it to appear that way) are there 'KS' perfs on the left side of the film and 'BH-ish' perfs on the right?

Just some things to ponder.

Vive Le FILM!

Also (though I think the effects are causing it to appear that way) are there 'KS' perfs on the left side of the film and 'BH-ish' perfs on the right?"

Interesting artifacts, ironically in a DIGITAL medium (.pdf file).

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

=TMP=

P.S. Personally, I believe the word Film should be capitalized. It's only fair since DLP has 3 capital letters...

The poster is wonderful. Remember that the Camel is a racehorse designed by a committee. Anyone can find fault but only the artistic "create". So your idea is great and everyone else can make one of their own on their computer. Let's post them on a separate place and then we can all throw darts at them.

It is ironic that the Court Theatre is finishing "Monsters Inc." and opens Friday with "Ice Age". I will post your sign in the box office and see if anyone comments about the oxymoron!

Great job.

Yes, it does, but what happens if you take a projector with the TI chip, not the DLP cinema ones, but the lower cost, lower resolution ones, and play a VHS tape through it, as I have done at a festival? Due to it using the TI DMD system, the entire image appears at one time, as you put it. Does this mean that the picture from the VHS tape is no longer video, but has become something else?

The answer to that depends on how you define 'video', and you will find almost as many definitions as there are people debating the subject.

Take a standard, PAL or NTSC video signal, feed it to a standard monitor, a flat screen LCD, a crt projector, an LCD projector, a plasma screen, one of the large outdoor displays made up of thousands of coloured lamps of some sort, an Eidophor, or any other display device you can think of. Each will look different, not surprising, given that totally different technologies are used to produce the images. Does this mean that some of the pictures, produced from the same signal, are video, while others are not?

Is an image shot on film, transferred to some electronic form, and then transferred back to film still film? If not, what is it? Same question for an image originated by a digital, or analogue, electronic camera, and fransferred to film for exhibition, or a computer generated image.

I Don't think it is now as simple as 'film' Vs 'video'.

What does it mean if a theatre displays a poster stating that they project film? It means that they are doing exactly what almost all theatres are doing today, the good ones, and the bad ones, there is nothing special about that.

Can they say that the film has a higher resolution? What if the film image has been rendered at low resolution from a digital source? You could transfer it to 15/70 if you wanted to, but the resolution wouldn't be any higher. What if the film had never existed in digital form, but had just been badly printed?

What happens when someone reads the poster on their way into a theatre, and then sees a very poor print, badly printed, or damaged by a previous venue? Do they then associate film in their mind with poor quality?

I am not even sure that most people would know the difference between film and video. A few years ago a screening of a film at a local art house had to be cancelled, due to the non-arrival of the print. This was a film which had been on release for some months, and was already available on video. One person pointed out that it was available at a video store a few minutes walk away, and they could go and rent a copy there. They didn't seem to realise that the theatre didn't project VHS. (Nor, it would seem, that the few pounds charged by video stores is for home viewing only, not for public exhibition.)

There is a serious lack of knowledge among large sections of the public about these matters, but I am not sure that this poster, at least on its own, would help; it might just be misleading, and cause more confusion.

The difference between film and video is easy. With film, you have a filmstrip that went through a camera when the movie was made.

Video is deservedly tagged onto anything not originally filmed. I would call "Star Wars: AOTC" a video, or in the case of its 35mm release prints "a video blow-up". Same kind of terms as "70mm blow up" for describing all those 35mm-filmed movies that used 70mm primarily for the mag audio.

Josh

 |  IP: Logged

Which had the overall best presentation... Northpark or the Chinese? I hear that Northpark is the only theater that didn't scratch their print of 70mm Titanic.