Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Ebert Concedes Defeat on Digital

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Ebert Concedes Defeat on Digital (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Ebert Concedes Defeat on Digital

Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 11-05-2011 10:26 AM

As I said, clueless.

His health issues are common knowledge and it is a tribute to him and technology he can work at all.

I would suggest you do some reading.

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 11-05-2011 10:30 AM

quote: Sam D. Chavez
As I said, clueless.

His health issues are common knowledge and it is a tribute to him and technology he can work at all.

I would suggest you do some reading.

I suggest you do some reading and stop discriminating about his disability which has no affect whatsoever on whether he watches a movie at home, the theatre or wherever.

This is what he said

I watch as many movies on TV as most people

He cannot speak. How that have any affect on watching a movie?

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 11-05-2011 10:38 AM

Here is what Mr. Ebert said about 70mm, exactly:

We've shown a lot of restored 70mm prints at Ebertfest, and they look breathtaking. But 70mm is no longer a viable format. (When any industry says a format is "no longer viable", that means "it may be better, but it costs too much.")

A difficulty with assertions like this is that for many years, the industry - and audiences - had no difficulty paying for the far more expensive IMAX DMR format. Often, "Not viable" means "Not interested" [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 11-05-2011 10:45 AM

Tom, wake up and show some respect. Don't post on this thread again.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 11-05-2011 11:12 AM

I don't think Ebert's health necessarily had much to do with the current stance. Sure, him saying that he sees movies on his TV as much as anyone else might make it seem like he's primarily watching them at home due to his health, but remember that he still likely watches more movies in theaters than the average person, given his career.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 11-05-2011 12:51 PM

For new, regular Hollywood feature movies, there isn't much point to projecting them on film since the original finished product is typically a 2K resolution set of files on hard discs. Digital projection is going to show that digital file more faithfully than a 35mm high speed release print dub of the file.

If the movie is shot on film and post produced in an entirely film-in/film-out process then it would be better to see it projected on film. Few if any feature films use the old school method anymore. Maybe Ebert has become all too aware of this.

I posted a couple comments in Ebert's blog entry, bringing up a pet peeve of mine: videographers calling themselves "filmmakers" and their footage "digital film." It's a bunch of pretentious bullshit. Like I said in Ebert's blog, if they're going to kill off film no one making movies should be allowed to use the term "film" to describe what they're doing. They're shooting video. Not film.

| IP: Logged

Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004

posted 11-05-2011 01:03 PM

quote: Brad Miller
Tom, wake up and show some respect. Don't post on this thread again.

Thank you for saying that Brad, you saved me the rant. [beer]

Perhaps Mr. Petrov should get a little vacation from our luxury resort.

I have also conceded defeat in this conversion....I may be crossing over to the dark side soon as well. [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 11-05-2011 01:49 PM

And it's also no longer "footage" either if you're shooting on digital...

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 11-05-2011 04:13 PM

Why do we measure the width in mm but the length in feet?

| IP: Logged

Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 11-05-2011 04:48 PM

Sounds like an Andy Rooney kind of question.

| IP: Logged

Doug Willming
Film Handler

Posts: 45
From: San Antonio, TX, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 11-05-2011 07:52 PM

I myself I have not read a post from Tom Petrov that adds anything of value or enlightenment and would prefer he be blocked from this forum.

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 11-05-2011 10:09 PM

Without defending the merits of his posts on other topics, I have to get Tom's back on this one. Sam made a point about Ebert's health affecting his judgment about the issue of film, and Tom called him on it.

Had Sam actually read the article, he would have noted that Ebert has actually been one of the supporters of film and he was basically acknowledging the reality of the marketplace.

In this case, Tom was not out of line.

| IP: Logged

Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 11-05-2011 10:19 PM

Edit.

I see Justin posted as I was writing. As I feared, my comments were not well understood and this is on me.

I was trying to comment with some sarcasm to Tom's comment about Roger Ebert seeing most of his movies on line these days and this struck me as clueless as of course Mr. Ebert's life has changed due to his health issues but certainly not his judgement or style.

Please read on.

In reviewing my previous posts on this thread it occurs to me that my comment about Karma, Tom and the low rent facility could be read as directed at Roger Ebert due my poor sentence construction.

I have been in Ebert's company many times over the years at the Telluride Film Festival and have nothing but admiration for his work and how he carries on. He does love his work and his own story is quite compelling.

I apologize for any impression I may have left to the contrary.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 11-06-2011 12:03 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
For new, regular Hollywood feature movies, there isn't much point to projecting them on film since the original finished product is typically a 2K resolution set of files on hard discs. Digital projection is going to show that digital file more faithfully than a 35mm high speed release print dub of the file.

If the movie is shot on film and post produced in an entirely film-in/film-out process then it would be better to see it projected on film. Few if any feature films use the old school method anymore.

I think Christopher Nolan is, but don't quote me on that.

I agree though: a 2K DI isn't really going to look much better on film if it's 2K in and out. Honestly though, I just want to see the movie whichever way a given director sees as "proper". That's why I was pissed at James Cameron for not deciding on a single aspect ratio for Avatar. I even have a little beef with Christopher Nolan on the Dark Knight over the same issue, but forgive him because he chose to shoot on IMAX.

AJG

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 11-06-2011 06:02 AM

Whilst agreeing re. the poor 2K standard for theatrical presentation, at least film projection from a 2K source provides a different viewing experience over video and avoids / remediates problems with the latter that are often expressed (flatness, continuous image display, lack of emotional engagement, viewing fatigue).

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.