Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Hats off to Speilburg

This is topic Hats off to Speilburg in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000801

Posted by Chris Erwin (Member # 176) on 03-26-2000, 09:52 AM:

In the March 2000 edition of Kodak Cinema Notes, on page 4,Filmmakers were asked about the future of cinema. Steven Speilberg replied:

"Arts stimulate something inside of us. I'm going to direct all my films on film until they close the last lab down."

Brovo,Brother Speilberg.
(I too am a Theta Chi Alumni)

I like your take on things. If digital takes over I declare we can NEVER call a motion picture presented on DLP a "film" again.
Call it "video". No more "filmmakers" ... "videomakers".

Call 'em as ya' see 'em.

Rant over,
--Chris

What's everyone else's take on this comment?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-26-2000, 10:06 AM:

Personally, I think you could have gotten Mr. Spielberg's name spelled correctly. Or are you referring to another director that didn't direct _Raiders of the Lost Ark_

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 03-26-2000, 03:32 PM:

Picky, picky. The great thing about Spielberg is that no matter how you spell his name, people know who you're talking about... unless you spell it "Spielbergo" and you're talking about his non-union, Mexican counterpart.

In a perfect world, there would be room enough for movies which were made to be shown digitally. And then there'd also be room for movies which were made to be shown on film. It's too bad so many want to live in a "one size fits all" world. That's the same kind of thinking that killed 70mm.

So, let Spielberg make his FILMS and show them that way. And let all those BLAIR WITCH PROJECTS fill up the digital auditoriums. So far, nobody's had the guts to show something like THE HORSE WHISPERER digitally. Let's hope that the truly great cinematographers and their directors continue to show us how great film can look... and let the digital proponents continue to produce their videos too.

There's been a lot of speculation about what will be cost effective for theatres and what will be cost effective for distributors. Let's hope SOMEONE can still show us what is "art effective" as the years go on.

Posted by Chris Erwin (Member # 176) on 03-27-2000, 06:11 PM:

Steve,

I'm sorrie. I can't spell no good.

--Chris

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-27-2000, 07:20 PM:

>>"Steve,
I'm sorrie. I can't spell no good.

--Chris"<<

Hey, my spelling generally sucks too. It is just that when one honors someone, it normally considered proper to at least spell their name correctly. In the case of SS, just about everyone's video collection (presuming you have a video collection) will have at least something the man made to reference off.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 03-30-2000, 09:53 AM:

I was a little disappointed with Speilberg's quote. In 10 years there won't be much film left, so that means fewer and fewer of his movies. I would love to have film forever, but remember, this is America. Land of convenience and simplification. It hasn't got a chance.

------------------
"Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" - Homer Simpson

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-30-2000, 06:50 PM:

Spielberg's quote was just PR crap. Sure he loves film, but his movies can be digitized no matter how he shoots them.

On the subject of spelling, I have to say that the ONLY thing I don't like about this forum is the way many people don't bother to check their spelling on just about everything, let alone people's names. I realize this problem is not unique to this forum; it exists on the internet in general, but we're supposed to be professionals here, right? It only takes a minute to proofread your posts.

I'm not trying to "dis" anyone here...it's just that a post that is spelled properly, and contains complete and proper sentences, with appropriate paragraph breaks, is much easier to read and understand. It's also more likely to make a positive impact.

OK, rant mode off. Apologies if I rubbed anyone the wrong way.

------------------
Mike Blakesley
www.goforsyth.com/roxy

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 03-30-2000, 09:45 PM:

Acktually i theenk i spel jus fyn.

To be perfectly honest, I have noticed that several times my posts end up having spelling errors and gramatical errors, even though I do make sure they do not before I post. When I go back to correct it just does the same thing. This could be a problem with ISP or browser incompatibility. Brad can you confirm if this has ever been a problem before?

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-31-2000, 04:35 AM:

Click the edit button, correct your errors and click "submit".

If after that you still see the problems, your browser is cacheing. It has been corrected for the rest of the world (or a clear browser).

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 03-31-2000, 06:14 AM:

I think what Mr.Speilberg means is that digital projectors today are not as good as he wants them to be and i think he's right. Speilberg loves film i mean 'real' film he started very young makeing home movies in 8mm. And his love for the large format also showed when he made 'Always' shot and released in 70mm. Speilberg BTW is also in the club with Martin Scorsese and others that show there love for the old films that need a helping hand (restoration)

To Dave i to have had simular problems, you have to clear your cache the hard way. Brad was very helpful in telling me how to do it (and the rest of the world,sorry about that Brad)

------------------
It's the new small talk. You do it so awfully well! - My Fair Lady

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-31-2000, 06:41 AM:

Always was shot on 35mm, not 70mm.

The IMDB stats...

----------------------------

Technical Specifications for
Always (1989)

Page 22 of 27

Camera
Panavision Cameras and Lenses

Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm

Cinematographic process
Spherical

Printed film format
35 mm

Aspect ratio
1.85 : 1
----------------------------

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage".
Indiana Jones.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-31-2000, 07:43 AM:

Except for "special venue" (e.g., IMAX, iWERKS, ShowScan), only a few feature films have been shot on 65mm camera negative film since the early 1970's. These include "Baraka", Branaugh's "Hamlet", "Far and Away" and sections of "Brainstorm" and "Little Buddah". Of course, originating on 65mm negative and releasing 70mm prints offers the "ultimate" in image quality for theatres. But shooting 35mm negative, and making 70mm prints can also produce excellent quality. Many of Spielberg's earlier films had 70mm prints available. I recall that "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" had several hundred 70mm prints. Unfortunately, 70mm prints are rarely available today, despite their significant advantages on very large screens. "Titanic" only had about twenty 70mm DTS prints, reportedly made at James Cameron's personal expense. I saw two of them (at Mann's Chinese in Hollywood, and the GCC North Park in Dallas), and the quality was superb.

I wrote two articles on the "Splendor of 70mm":
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/december98/pppp.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/march99/pytlak.shtml

IMHO, any screen larger than 25 X 55 feet deserves the quality and luminance that only a 70mm print can provide. I'm sorry that distributors don't agree.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by Chris Erwin (Member # 176) on 04-02-2000, 09:35 PM:

Thanks,Brad. I went back and corrected my spelling. Anyway to change the spelling on the topic?

--Chris

Steve G.,I do have a video collection,but no need to go to that extreme; I should have caught the error because I was TYPING FROM THE ARTICLE!!! Oh,well. I now know one thing,
I shouldn't post anything before I totally wake up!

Thanks for everyone's input.