Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: the end of projectionist trade?

This is topic the end of projectionist trade? 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=002058

Posted by Carl King (Member # 398) on 03-20-2001, 02:23 PM:

Well, well. Based on what I saw in the pics of Showest we film projectionists could be in real trouble real soon. It looks like everybody and their uncle had a digital projection system for sale. Now Quallcomm and Technicolor are giving 1000 of them away.

If this technology takes off( and I can't see why it wouldn't) there won't be any film used in your average cinema within 10 yrs or less.

Scary thoughts.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 03-20-2001, 02:29 PM:

When digital projection surpases the quality of film-as it eventually will-I will welcome the changeover (no pun intended). Since I've never watched a digital presentation, I can't say if we're at that point yet or not.

Posted by Tom Kroening (Member # 201) on 03-20-2001, 03:52 PM:

Its going to be a long time before film isn't used. Standards in DLP have to be adopted. We would need a system of enormous bandwidth to deliver these movies (probably better to deliver on cd's). There still must be a tech to do system maintenance. Im sure most projectionist will become managers save maybe one to be the tech. I don't think we have to worry just yet... give it 5 - 10 years.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 03-20-2001, 04:19 PM:

I think Tom is very likely to be correct.

I heard yesterday that video projecion comes under the trade of the International Brotherhood of Electricians.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 03-20-2001, 04:28 PM:

It's hard to tell what system, if any, will replace film projection. Obviously, whatever system that winds up being, will have to be more desirable in all concerned aspects, rather than just one or two. In other words it's "package" must be more attractive than film's "package". It might not be the current crop of video projectors that overthrows film.
Those of us who were around in the 50's might recall how "our friend the atom" was going to do just about everything for us, cheaper and better. Well we got down that road away and found out there were "some problems" and so that idea slipped by the wayside, along with jet packs, so you could fly to work, or flying cars. Watch those news reels (I think they're from Popular Science) and you'll see a whole pile of predictions about how life will be, way up in the year 1980 or so. Quite a laugh.
All this digital everything is all exciting and "buzzy", but that doesn't mean that there won't be a deadend to it too, somewhere down the road. There is a possibility it will "win", but not a certainty. Personally, I think they'll have to go away, before they'll find a "package" that will beat film's "package".

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 03-20-2001, 04:58 PM:

They said in the 1980's that Video cinemas would take over 35mm projection within 5 years, but we all still run film today.

The present DLP video system will no doubt be superseded with a better and improved system than the present DLP projection system, so my own view is that we are a long way before E cinema takes over film.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-20-2001, 05:02 PM:

The world is in a constant state of change. Nothing lasts forever. Unfortunately when you try to replace something as cool as film with something that, in its current state, is clearly inferior, well it really hurts. It's kinda like listening to MP3's as opposed to the uncompressed CD tracks (or even well maintained LP's). Do you honestly think a 128kbps MP3 sounds CD quality? Of course not! But it is easier to deal with than a CD and you can fit more of them in the same amount of space.

The same is true with digital projection. It is promised to make everything easier and more profitable, but they put quality low on the list of priorities instead of on the top. But eventually the quality WILL surpass, by far, 35mm film. Eventually 70mm as well I believe. Who knows what the future will bring?

Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 03-20-2001, 05:42 PM:

E-Cinema won't be the main thing responsible for killing the projectionist trade. Ignorant and incompetent theatre executives who refuse to employ projectionists are the bigger and more immediate problem.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 03-20-2001, 06:49 PM:

I agree with George and will add to it the idea of apathy on behalf of the movie goer. If they will settle for less, they will be given less. I guess it will be the same mentality that let Beta slip away infavor of being able to get more movies at lower resolution on a single tape, that will help to kill F-Cinema.

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-20-2001, 08:41 PM:

lets see what percentage of the total number of screen in northamerica would a 1000 units represent
maybe more important what percentage of worldwide screens?
One must remeber that the foriegn market often represents more income than the domestic one
AT the 300,000.00 per screen it is a wayoff in the present ecconomy

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-20-2001, 10:24 PM:

"Film Done Wrong" invites unfair criticism like "See the movie, not the film". We all know that "Film Done Right" will be hard to beat for years to come.

------------------
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 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Frank Rapisardi (Member # 435) on 03-21-2001, 05:19 AM:

I saw a demo at the Showcase Cinemas in Randolph Ma. Not perfect yet;but it is coming! Projectionists may soon be put on the endangered list. I was told that once resolution improves a bit more as well as what to do about black levels and pixels film will be a thing of the past!Remember;we are using technology that goes back to to very beginnings of cinema presentation.Other than wide screen and color and digital sound not much has really changed over the years.We had all better learn about this within the very near future;or begin thinking about other jobs.Sorry! But this will happen.The studios stand to be the big winners with this.

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

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 03-21-2001, 08:02 AM:

With digital cinema, instead of a projectionist, theaters will likely need a sysadmin to keep things running. That will probably end up being more expensive, not less, than the way things are now, at least as far as theaters are concerned.

I see a lot of people using the terms DLP and "digital cinema" interchangably. Digital cinema does not necessarily mean DLP. Weren't people saying in other threads that, based on the demos at ShoWest, JVC's D-ILA technology is already superior? And then there's laser projection probably coming in the not too distant future. DLP does not have everything all sewn up by any means (I hope).

John, I agree that TI's slogan "see the picture, not the film" is an unfair slight. How about a little truth in advertising ... "see a bunch of over-sized pixels, not the film".

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-21-2001, 10:24 AM:

There will be a projectionist in some capasity for some while now. These things are not going to take over overnight. The projection trade is almost gone anyway. But that does not mean film can not be done right.

I am non union and I care about everything that goes on in my booth. I train everyone who works in my booth. I wish I could maintain all the booths in town. Even when film is gone someone still has to have the training and knowledge to maintain the new equipment on site. This has to be the way because it takes the stress off of the manager in keeping his screens up and running. Nothing is perfect and problem free in any technology. I think learning some of this knew technology would be interesting. But the technology needs to be the best it can be and not require upgrades for at least ten years before I will consider it right for it to effect my job.

I do not think our industry the exhibitors should accept that either. I have been doing this a long time, not as long as some of you in here, but long enough to know what people want. People like to be able to hear their movie without being blown out of their seats. They like their movie in focus. That is the two most comon complaints. Only a couple of times has anyone complained about scratches. It was on a movie I had received in that condition and was unable to get a replacement print. Only once have I heard anyone complain about seeing dirt on the picture. I was watching Independance Day at one of the other theaters. It was having shedding problems and during the desert scenes it looked like a black speck invasion.

The one thing that I see could be the most anoying thing in the new dlp technology is some of the little tiny mirrors becoming defective causing the black continuous specks in the picture no matter what you are showing. THese chips are probably the most expensive things in the unit to replace. My point being we the exhibitor must be wise in our decisions before making this jump.

People may not really care at all. They are the ones that are going to be hit with even higher ticket and concession prices.

The people I feel the most sorry for are those who run their on smaller chains who enjoy doing this buisiness who will not be able to afford the new technology and all the drive-ins that will shut down because they can not get the propper light levels and pictures on the screen to look right because of the long distances and size of the screens. People at DTS who will not be making DTS units because the digital signal will be with the downloads. Just a lot of sad faces I see in our future. It makes my heart hurt.

Just a note I have edited this post so it can be read more easily. Sorry about any spelling errors. For the record I do not drink. This was all written in a concious state.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-21-2001, 10:46 AM:

IMHO, digital cinema technology will continue to improve, especially with regard to resolution, color reproduction, and contrast ratio. But there are many unanswered questions about who will pay, and if it will really produce overall savings and better quality in the real world.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 03-21-2001, 11:00 AM:

Let's not forget the 'inevitable' paperless office of the 1980's. Even Xerox were seriously concerned about this as it was perceived as a serious threat at the time.

Of course, it never happened. That's not to say that digital projection wont, but what if it becomes another paperless office?

Filmless cinemas = paperless office?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-21-2001, 11:12 AM:

I don't think that anyone doubts that electronic projection will eventually replace 35mm for regular theatrical screenings. Nor does anyone seriously doubt the potential for electronic projection to eventually exceed the quality of 35mm (and, probably, 70mm) film. Note that I am referring to the exhibition format here; no one (except Mr. Lucas) seriously believes that 35mm will be displaced as an origination format in the forseeable future for most productions.

The remaining question is "when" -- it could be five years or it could be twenty. The other important question is whether theatre owners will settle for something that is "good enough" or whether they will demand something that at least matches the quality of the best 35mm release prints. There are also issues with 35mm -- will the quality improve substantially within the next few years? (which might delay the onset of its electronic successor) will 35mm become substantially more or less expensive to produce and distribute in the forseeable future?

Obviously, no one really knows the answers here, although any electronic or mechanical equipment will require skilled technicians to install and maintain it, even if the skills involved in doing so will change as the equipment does. Certainly, when the (no pun intended) changeover to electronic projection happens for mainstream theatres, someone is going to make a killing on the installation of all the new hardware. Also, the job of the projectionist involves more than threading film; knowledge of sound systems, optics, and showmanship will still be necessary, for example.

I guess that I'm trying to say that, in many cases, the idea of "projectionists" as skilled craftsmen died a while ago, when theatre owners realized that they could lower their standards without losing enough customers to offset the cost savings of having "popcorn kids" run the booth. Still, though, there is a demand for skilled and interested employees from the few theatre owners who do care about quality, as well as from the service/installation/upgrade side of the business.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years, although I am not terribly encouraged about a lot of this, given the tendencies of this industry to shoot itself in the foot (over the long term) by settling for standards of quality in all aspects of exhibition which are "good enough" to not upset too many customers.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 03-21-2001, 11:36 AM:

Scott: Interesting distinction about origination versus exhibition.

One concept that has always plagued me, though, is this: let's assume we continue to originate on 35MM, or even 70MM, and must make a choice about film or digital projection.

Everyone knows that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Therefore, how is it scientifically or technically possible that the technique of taking a camera negative and printing it onto another piece of film then shining light through that piece of film onto a screen can be beaten? After all, that is the shortest and purest through-line from the camera to the screen, and it's in the same format - a 1:1 transfer.

I fail to understand how running a camera negative through a telecine then projecting it electronically can 'improve' upon projecting the o-neg pos print itself (or even a carefully made release print), since it is less direct and a conversion from the native format to another one. To my way of thinking, it MUST be worse, or at least look different to what was on the film, irrespective of how technologically evolved the telecine/e-projectors are. In this case, 'different' means a less accurate representation of the original negative.

Can someone elaborate on how converting a film image to an electronic one might provide more information than was originally present, or transfer more to the screen?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-21-2001, 12:09 PM:

Michael:

The concept of using a "digital intermediate" to modify the color reproduction, tone scale, graininess, or apparent sharpness of an image is already reality:
http://kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/newsletters/images/spring99/digital.shtml
http://kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/newsletters/inCamera/oct2000/oBrother.shtml
http://kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/newsletters/inCamera/oct99/scan.shtml

As scanning and recording costs come down for highest resolution digital intermediate, the creative flexibility and ability to enhance film images will certainly increase and become widely used.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 03-21-2001, 03:42 PM:

Apart from the very important concerns about the quality and cost of digital projection, there are some others that we have not considered yet:

1: Trailers. Okay, maybe not the most important thing to some people, but this is an important form of advertising for us. My theatre, for example, is about a mile away from our competition. This means that we split bookings. It is very important for us to watch our trailer placements so that we're not advertising for them. Now while your average 20 plex is going to get every movie that comes out and therefore does not have to worry about trailer placement that much, there are a lot of locations like mine who do. My concern is this-how will trailers be handled on the digital projectors? Will theatres be able to program their own programs, with the exception of the 'attached' trailer, or will the distributers take it upon themselves to do the programs themselves, ie 4 Fox trailers on a Fox movies, etc.

2: 'Print' moving. In the theatre business we have to predict the future. We have to decide which movie will be the hit for this weekend. But sometimes we are wrong. If a DLP system takes 4 hours to load the movie it would be impossible to switch auditoriums between shows. If it takes a tech to laod the discs and there isn't one in house, it will be either very costly or impossible to change auditoriums. I can see a lot of money being lost here.

3: Ability to cancel shows and interlock. Again, sometimes business dictates you cancel a dud so the blockbuster can be on two screens. For example, back over Thanksgiving when the Grinch had just opened we, like everyone else, were doing phenomenal business with it. We only had 2 prints, while we had 3 prints of the dud 102 Dalmations and 2 prints of Charlies Angels-which by this time was slowing down. So, we canceled the earliest show of Dalmations (it was showing every 45 minutes, they didn't have to wait the long for the next one, the few that cam to it that is) and the earliest show of Charlies Angels. There were no lost sales on either one, as was mentioned above the Dalmations people only had to wait 45 more minutes and the Angels people only had to wait another half an hour. HOWEVER, because of that we were able to interlock both prints of Grinch, having it on 4 screens and getting out biggest day ever in terms of revenue on Black Friday. Now, would that have been possible with digital cinema? Certainly not with DLP. I also wonder if companies like Disney are going to have the techs 'lock in' showtimes so that that show will run no matter what.

While the issues I just raised belong more to the Ground Level forum, I put them in this thread to keep it all in one place. I think that NATO is going to have to get going and work with the companies developing digital projectors to solve these issues. Its not the quality I'm concerned about, it WILL surpass 35mm, I garauntee it. Its the independence of the exhibitors and their ability to make scheduling and programing decisions I'm concerned about.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-21-2001, 06:10 PM:

Everyone needs to understand that when digital projection starts to become more comon place it will require new rules.

You must be careful in dropping a screen of something to add a screen of something else. You could very easily be violating your contract agreement with the film companies.

It is policy with our company that any such decision requires approval from the booking department. Usualy the answer is no.

If film companies find out that you do this they can pull the film or not allow you to play the next big product.

As far as moving films it would be nice if the data holding units could be swapped between units this would solve that problem.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 03-21-2001, 06:35 PM:

According to our DM Darryl this is all right. According to him, "The film companies know we do this." We're actually supposed to page him everytime there is a sellout to discuss possible interlocking.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-21-2001, 06:52 PM:

We used to do that here but then the film companies started complaining to the booking department and the booking department told us that we had to ask them first.

They said the film companies where complaining that the monies where not being distributed properly or something.

Probably someone out there not doing something right. You do the right thing by contacting your upper managment to get approval. That takes things off of your head.

I remember when we had three prints of cable guy which was a total dog and we were selling out Nutty Professor so we dropped one cable guy and interlocked Nutty. Now you just get screwed.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 03-22-2001, 02:05 PM:

John P: That's a good point - I remember seeing a demonstration of Kodak's Cineon film scanning/recording system a few years ago at the Australian Film and Television/Radio school. A scene was shown as a standard release print, then the same scene was shown again but this time it had been input and output back to film. The result, as I remember it, was pretty much indistinguishable, and I'm sure that this technology has only improved since. Therefore, digital intermediate steps - when handled well - have little to no impact on the visual qualities of the final release print.

I guess the distinction I wanted to make was more about the actual projection of the image, and how it is technically possible that digital projection of a film-originated image could improve the result provided by film projection of this same image (irrespective of any intermediate stages being optical or digital). In other words, although it is possible to digitally store and/or manipulate film-originated images with full preservation of the camera negative's visual integrity, I still cannot understand how digitally projecting the same - no matter how good the projector - can possibly surpass the image provided by actual film projection.

Bear with me while I make sure I have described this hypothetical scenario correctly: We shoot something on 35MM negative, which is then scanned in and manipulated in the digital domain. This digital file is then 'locked' and we call it file 'X'. If we project file 'X' digitally by outputting straight to a digital projector on one hand and output 'X' to film and project that release print on the other, can the digital projection of file 'X' SURPASS the projected release print of the same?

Logically, I would once again conclude that the best case scenario would be a stalemate. Therefore, digital projection of film-originated images cannot be superior to film projection of film-originated images. Is my argument flawed somehow? What do you think?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-22-2001, 02:47 PM:

A 1280 x 1024 pixel digital display is pretty much limited to that resolution. If the digital image file has higher resolution, the projector acts as a "filter". There may also be some manipulation/filtering of the data to avoid "aliasing" with the fixed array of pixels (see the postings by Evans Criswell about this phenomenon).

But even though a film negative has much higher resolution, sharpness losses can occur in printing and projection. Slippage in contact printing occurs when the proper relationship of a short perforation pitch original (BH-1866 perf) to a long pitch receiver (KS-1870 print perf) is not maintained. Sharpness loss in projection can occur with old unsharp lenses, or with thermal effects causing "focus flutter" that is beyond the depth of focus of the projector lens. With care, printer slippage and "focus flutter" can both be controlled. It's all part of "Doing Film Right". Many of the screening rooms and theatres at Kodak achieve 80 line pairs per mm resolution, as measured by the SMPTE 35-PA test film. For a scope frame of 20.955 x 17.526 millimetres, 80 lp/mm is equivalent to about 3300 x 2800 pixels. Even the Lucasfilm TAP Guidelines expect close to this high resolution from theatres.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-23-2001, 07:57 PM:

quote:
film projectionists could be in real trouble real soon.

They have been, for over 20 years!

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Posted by Joe Schmidt (Member # 822) on 04-12-2001, 04:45 AM:

Incompetent management is reaping its own reward, as we see now in the current bankruptcy of carmike cinemas, and there's more on this in my Pearl Harbor thread.

It might be the chain can be rescued but the people at the top will have to be fired as a first step. I speculate the bankruptcy is just a manipulation to keep themselves employed at outrageous salaries. Often, that is exactly what these processes are; but perhaps the bankruptcy trustee will see thru the scam.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 04-12-2001, 08:03 AM:

That's the problem. More and more industries have no real "owner" now, they're publically traded. "Management" pretends they're in it to make money, but really the game is "aquiring market share" to boost the stock and raise capital. Problem is they fight this battle in every town, overextend themselves and have to resort to unreasonable tactics to save their jobs (theatres without projectionists). It seems silly to think that 200 people out there have paid to enjoy a film and it's not even worth having a guy in the booth.

When you had small-time owners, at least when competition came in and threatened his lifestyle, even if it meant he had to cut his staff, you knew that he HAD to do it and that he probably at least knew how to run the show properly.

I hate to think that this whole shift in the way most businesses operate (huge corporations) and what it's doing to competant people who've worked and owned smaller versions and what it is doing to the economy. The masses can't afford to live on part-time at Wal-Mart. AND, we end up having to support this crap investing in Mutual Funds!

But digital projection, though it won't ever be as cost-effective as film/projectionist, it's computer equipment, which up here depreciates over 4 years and is not an "expense". Film projectors I imagine (since they are very reliable) depreciate much slower and of course you can't ammortize staff! I think, at the end of the day, this is their motivation, it'll LOOK much better
(ie- they'll be able to con more investors) with how they "twist" the numbers on their balance sheets.......

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-12-2001, 11:45 AM:

No there's nothing to fear about Technicolor and Qualcomm getting into things together. With them both in it, things will get screwed up twice as fast. Neither is a quality oriented company in the least. All they are after is the buck.
We USED to sell Qualcom Cell phones at our store but they were, like Technicolor, Nothing but trouble. This partnership guarantees that their system will go down the tubes twice as fast as if just Technicolor were attempting it.

Yes, I felt the JVC system was far superior to anything DLP that was on display at the show. IMHO it makes DLP obsolete. The interesting thing is that most all image sources were film transfers.........
Mark @ GTS