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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Ebert Concedes Defeat on Digital (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Ebert Concedes Defeat on Digital Jake Spell Master Film Handler Posts: 294 From: Johns Island SC Registered: May 2009 posted 11-06-2011 07:50 PM                     This is very sad to hear, I myself do agree that film will likely live on in some small way for many, many years to come. Given the low cost to obtain reasonably good 35mm equipment Im sure that some die hard might put on in their own home and occasionally watch a good old celluloid print just for the nostalgia. Plus Im sure many countries like the US have extensive 35/70mm prints that will be kept indefinably and one can only hope that will be shown every so often...  |  IP: Logged Tony Bandiera Jr Film God Posts: 3067 From: Moreland Idaho Registered: Apr 2004 posted 11-08-2011 01:46 PM                     Why am I not surprised that Justin thinks Tom is right? Sam, the intent of your post was clear to everyone, no need to apologize. Jake, you are spot on. I am keeping one projector setup for my own use, and who knows, it may end up being pressed into emergency service when some local venue gets caught with its 35mm (or digital) pants down on a critical show. UC Irvine will be keeping its two 35mm facilities operational well into the future, or at least until I'm dead.  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 11-08-2011 02:10 PM                        Tony, thanks you for the personally disparaging comment. Nothing like going negative on a person for expressing their opinion. However, if you read my comment again you will see that I was not supporting Tom for his views on the death of film but rather for his comments calling out Sam for suggesting Ebert's health has affected his opinion on the issue. After re-reading Sam's comment, I can see this isn't what he meant, but his wording makes it easy to mis-interpret. For what it's worth, I have never intended to indicate I think film should completely go away in all instances. My stance has always been that film is not the best option for the average multiplex, for a variety of reasons, now that there is a viable alternative. While digital does present a host of new issues to the industry, I firmly believe the average presentation at the average multiplex will be better and more consistent than with film.  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 11-08-2011 02:53 PM                       Thanks Justin, I knew after re-reading my own post that it could be taken another way, and there was also the post that got locked down that mentioned bringing attention to someone's health being as being low down. It's not like this is the first time my mouth got me into trouble. The part of one of Tom's posts that made my blood boil was Tom's comment, wildly paraphrased "so he can't talk, what's the issue"  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-08-2011 03:57 PM                     quote: Brad Miller Tom, wake up and show some respect. Don't post on this thread again. Or even better, go away permanently. Tom has shown time and time again he is not capable of showing respect to anyone.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 11-08-2011 04:10 PM                     I, myself agree with that digital has to be in this new era of the industry. Granted, the lot of us here know how to run film correctly and properly, but unfortunately, the typical managers and employees working in the cinema don't have the clue what is "proper" and "correct" on handling film presentations. For these people, film handling is a definite pain in the neck to handle - it actually overwhelms them..and with the pay they get, they see what the dollar value that goes with the job..making them say: "why should I care?" ..and now, they are crying on how to make the job simpler. Now, you got a server and projector. Injest the content in the server, build the playlist (takes 5 min) and save it, hit "Play" and walk away...pretty easy to get the job done (and some are doing LMS injests and autostarts to really make the job simple). Guess who wins now: the owners and managers since they got the other half of the business down to a simple form and no worries on mechanical/electronic breakdowns - they definitely don't miss film. It's what they really need .. and want, to stay in business.  |  IP: Logged James Westbrook Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1133 From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa Registered: Mar 2006 posted 11-08-2011 10:33 PM                     Projection has been simplified, yes, but the other challenges of running the multi-screen monstrosities stand out more now that my attention has been diverted toward them. Roger Ebert is a very good writer. He may get some of the facts wrong now and then, but he has the knack of stringing sentences together which is lacking in modern times.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-09-2011 02:56 PM                     quote: James Westbrook Roger Ebert is a very good writer. He may get some of the facts wrong now and then, but he has the knack of stringing sentences together which is lacking in modern times. As opposed to Tom who has the knack of stringing sentences together lacking punctuation or any semblance of coherence in modern times or any other.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-09-2011 03:18 PM                        quote: Monte L Fullmer Granted, the lot of us here know how to run film correctly and properly, but unfortunately, the typical managers and employees working in the cinema don't have the clue what is "proper" and "correct" on handling film presentations. True, but this is not a problem that exists due to film. It is a problem that exists due to the fact that people are unwilling to pay for quality. There are lots of highly talented projectionists who are available to work for theatres that care and are willing to pay them an amount that is commensurate with their skill. Unfortunately, most are not, even though it would probably be less expensive to do so than to install big-screen TV sets in their theatres. In any case, this is a war that was fought and lost twenty or thirty years ago. I do not disagree that D-cinema will improve the presentation quality in many theatres, but that is due primarily to incompetent audiences, managers, and theatre owners, not due to anything that is inherent to the film medium. I do maintain that the higher cost and shorter expected lifespan of D-cinema equipment will have a long-term negative effect upon the economics of the exhibition industry, and that many theatres will close as a result. Unless film distributors respond by reducing film terms or compensating in some other way (the VPF concept is a joke, as it is a once-only deal that ignores the increase in ongoing expenses), D-cinema will do a good job of killing off most theatres in the next two decades. And I will not even address the quality issue here. I can prove that 35mm is (or can be, given quality lab work) measurably better than the current generation of D-cinema equipment in resolution and color depth, but I can accept that some people prefer the "look" of DLP, especially given the poor quality of many release prints. Whatever. They are different media and should be considered as such.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-10-2011 02:02 PM                     Perhaps Ebert, by virtue of his profession and his fame, has the luxury of seeing carefully-selected prints *professionally* projected in special screening rooms. I suspect that if he was watching movies with the general public, he might've conceded sooner.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.