This is topic You may find this URL offensive. 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=003809
Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 08-04-2002, 06:23 PM:
 
This site isnt all that bad as it serves it purpose but I think you will find the URL offensive! www.filmisdead.com


Im in the electronic display business myself but my love is film collecting (just bought a platter from Brad)Thanks Brad.

You guys should send an email in numbers letting him know film is not dead

 

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 08-04-2002, 06:46 PM:
 
Boy, what planet are they from? I bet they believe in that special speaker wire, too.

 
Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 08-04-2002, 07:03 PM:
 
Will anyone else join me in saying, "How retarded!?!"

Josh
 

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-04-2002, 09:05 PM:
 
Variety pronounced "Film Is Dead" when Ampex introduced 2-inch video tape almost 50 years ago. Guess which format still thrives???

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion


 

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 08-04-2002, 10:10 PM:
 
And there was a Josh type punky guy....Ray Dolby....working at Ampex when the quad VTR was introduced
Richard Fowler
TVP-Theatre & video Products Inc. www.tvpmiami.com
 
Posted by David Baum (Member # 568) on 08-04-2002, 10:14 PM:
 
at the Cinemaexpo in Amsterdam in June, Kodak had tremendous success among the attendace: they were announcing the big return of 70mm! everybody was enchanted.

we'll see. for me, digital cinema was introduced way too early: once 10MB digital cams will be used and once 3DLP will reach 6million mirrors or more, then the situation will be different.
filming with 1920x1080, projecting with SXGA at the max and on 15-20meters is not appropriate. Also, there's a giant difference between 3DLPS with black chips and real 1000:1 or more contrast ratio ( which is better than film btw) and early 3DLPs with poor 300:1 CR and non black chips: bottom line, there's cinema digital and cinema digital
 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-04-2002, 11:34 PM:
 
So sad. The forum has 36 less posts than it's member count. Perhaps we should all mutually pick a day sometime this week to "attack" the server and all register and give them some good old fashioned FILM traffic!

Anyone up for it?
 

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-05-2002, 12:00 AM:
 
Retard is a mild word, Josh.


 

Posted by Steven Privett (Member # 718) on 08-05-2002, 12:30 AM:
 


[ 10-03-2003, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Steven Privett ]
 
Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 08-05-2002, 12:42 AM:
 
Josh I will join you in saying how Retarted.

Brad let me knwo what day we are to bombard the server and I iwll join in.
 

Posted by Brian Hogan (Member # 940) on 08-05-2002, 01:51 AM:
 
its a damn good thing that this UBB is setup in a more pleasing way. not only is the filmisdead UBB retarded, but it makes my eyes hurt just looking at the layout
 
Posted by David Rigby (Member # 1301) on 08-05-2002, 04:00 AM:
 
I've only just noticed the 'film-tech digital' heading It could be those nasty FilmisDead people hacking Film-Tech (or possibly even George himself!)....but I suspect it's Brad's wry dense of humour up to its tricks again!

Anyone else fail to notice right off?

David
 

Posted by Peter Kerchinsky (Member # 1098) on 08-05-2002, 04:52 AM:
 
Brad
Count me in!
 
Posted by Joseph D. Olson (Member # 1340) on 08-05-2002, 05:28 AM:
 
How retarded, indeed. I hope if everybody does suddenly decide to go digital for some stupid reason that more 70 mil, Cinerama, and even Maxivision will show up to show those digital punks what's what.

People will always resoundlingly vote with their ass in a seat.

------------------
So if old projectionists don't die, what happens when new projectionists get old?
 

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-05-2002, 06:57 PM:
 
Digital geek no. 4 wrote...

>>There were burn marks all over the film and the theater was set up pretty poorly. I would rather watch it on my Princeton than the theater. Everything seemed washed out from wear.<<

Ummm....yeah...that 'wear' will wash that image right out of your nasty film print. Nasty film! Nasty!
 

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 08-05-2002, 07:49 PM:
 
Bombarding a server?!?! Flooding a forum?!?! Count me in!!

I think I'll go check out that site now.

=TMP=
 

Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 08-05-2002, 08:13 PM:
 
Thank God there is a voice of reason in, of all people, "HDTVGuy" in his post in the "Film is Dead" [sic] forum in proclaiming that film is not dead (emphasis his). Other than that, I agree, the site is lame.

Well, if film is dead as they claim, why, oh why, did they give the site the highly oxymoronic name of Digital Film Forum, complete with all the lame film-related graphics?


 

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-05-2002, 11:08 PM:
 
Interestingly, even Sony, which is currently doing a fair amount of promotion for the 24P HDCAM format (which is what Lucas used for SW II), isn't claiming that 24P is a "replacement" for film, but rather that it is an "alternative" format to 35mm, much like 16mm, super-16, etc. They even seem to be pretty honest about the weaknesses of the current generation of HDTV equipment.

I watched a fair amount of 24P material today (projected via DLP) and was generally impressed. It doesn't look like film, but it doesn't look like video, either. It's really a totally different format and should be treated as such. Personally, I think that most "movies" would still look better if shot on film, but I can see the usefulness of having another format which a) allows a high shooting ratio for very little extra cost and b) allows the use of a smallish, lightweight camera.
 

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 08-05-2002, 11:16 PM:
 
Count me in as well

Josh

------------------
"Film is made of silver, video is made of rust"
'nuf said
 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-06-2002, 12:04 AM:
 
Ok, what's a good date? How about this coming Saturday? Can everyone (you too lurkers) head over to that website and post something? Just anytime from 12:01am Saturday morning to 11:59pm Saturday night. Let's see how many pro-film posts we can get there. Be nice, be rude, it doesn't much matter. Just whatever you do don't mention this website. Let's make the webmaster scratch his head wondering why all of a sudden his site is getting so much traffic.

Sound like a plan?


 

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 08-06-2002, 01:05 AM:
 
I am so there.....
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-06-2002, 02:37 AM:
 
I am soooo over trying to argue with people who haven't got a clue or who already have slammed the door shut to opinions other than their own. It's like trying to reason with the people who BELIEVE the earth is 5000 years old despite the huge body of science which proves otherwise. Reason won't work with them and you're stuck making rational arguments to people who might as well be holding their ears and yelling "la la la la la la."

But overloading a server buffer.....now you're talking FUN! Just kidding -- we all know it's not the mature thing to do. Actually we should let the yuppie scum revel in each other's stupidity, using the their site to out brag each other on who's got the biggest plasma display and the highest high-rez DVD player....like pimply pubescent teenagers in a kind of a mutual mental masturbation club. In fact, we should encourage the site to flourish so that they are kept isolated -- like-minded jerks among like-minded jerks, as it were. Who wants these people anywhere near the film industry or film collection anyway? Surely we don't need them coming over here cluttering up our threads with their inane gibberish.


 

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 08-06-2002, 04:35 AM:
 
im in this should be FUN!
 
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-06-2002, 06:31 AM:
 
quote:
This site isnt all that bad as it serves it purpose but I think you will find the URL offensive! www.filmisdead.com[/QUOTE]

I don't find the URL offensive. When it comes to the graphic design on their web site, that's a different matter altogether.

p.s. maybe we need a new smilie for nausia?

 

Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 08-06-2002, 11:07 AM:
 
Im there.
 
Posted by Helmut E. Dorausch (Member # 1356) on 08-06-2002, 11:37 AM:
 
Are these the same YAHOOS that are going to PAY for all the theater conversions???? Unless the Federal Reserve is making special donations, it appears to me that most chains are still going to be paying for a couple of years, for all the megaplexes.
Maybe Mr. Pytlak will bring us up to date, by expanding on the
fact that 35 mm has quite a way to go before it achieves its FULL potential.

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

 

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 08-06-2002, 11:37 AM:
 
The most famous line from "Ghost" To Brad "ditto" all of the above.
 
Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 08-06-2002, 01:47 PM:
 

Guess I need to brush up on my 'usless post-ing skills'!

...In fact, I'll practice those skills on their boards! *evil cackle*

*returns from the other board grumbling*
Apparently, I used at least one 'keyword' that triggered something to put my post in a queue, such that the administrator of the forums over there will read it before it gets posted in case of any potentially offensive comments!


 

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-06-2002, 02:30 PM:
 
I've just noticed what I typed; I meant nausea, of course.

Alan, I see you are from Rochester, what sort of place is it. Is there any reason why a fair proportion of the world's camera makers seem to have been based there? I believe that a small, rather obscure photographic company is tsill there today , but, in the past, there were many others. Some, like Folmer& Schwing, were owned by Kodak for a while, but there were others which were not. Very often, when you see a fine old wood and brass camera it has a Rochester makers plate on it. I've often wondered why so many camera makers should gather in one place.

 

Posted by John Daily (Member # 1362) on 08-06-2002, 02:32 PM:
 
quote:
Just whatever you do don't mention this website. Let's make the webmaster scratch his head wondering why all of a sudden his site is getting so much traffic.

I'd take it easy on the rudeness. On the web sites that I run, I have logs that tell me exactly where each visitor came from. In any event, count me in!
 

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-06-2002, 02:51 PM:
 
Gracia, wait until Saturday!
 
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-06-2002, 02:52 PM:
 
quote:
Film is made of silver, video is made of rust"
'nuf said

I thought film was made from cotton fibres, acid and old bones, and silver nitrate, which is filthy, horrible muck. Makes very good images though.

Autually, I'm not sure what the polyester stuff is made from, is it petrochemical based? If so, it is rotting marine organisms. No doubt John can tell us.

 

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-07-2002, 11:54 AM:
 
IMHO, the best way to show the superiority of "Film Done Right" to current digital cinema systems is to Just Do Film Right!

I registered at the website, and hope that reasoned discussion will prevail.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
 

Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 08-07-2002, 12:14 PM:
 
I didn't get overzealous! There just happened to be two things I felt compelled to respond to posted on those forums.

...but then I had to comment on the terms used for my 'member status'!

I'm saving the inanity for Saturday!

------------------
In some cultures, what I do is considered normal.
 

Posted by David Rigby (Member # 1301) on 08-07-2002, 12:31 PM:
 
In a response to another discussion about digital projection on an email forum part of my reply was

"The people driving digital projection are the suitiest suits on earth - your corporate presentation types - "

With that in mind, check out that Jim bloke's picture on his corporate website

Funnily enough, that also brings to mind lots of past discussions about vested interests! Administrator of the www.filmisdead.com is a digital TV 'consultant' (whatever one of those is)? Surely not!!!

I'll be there on Saturday...

David
 

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 11-28-2009, 03:34 PM:
 

It has been 2670 days since the last post.


 
Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 11-28-2009, 03:34 PM:
 
Well, well, well.

It looks like the "FilmIsDead" site is, well....dead.

..or maybe those Digital-dickheads couldn't even upload a fart in a fog.

Oh dear.

How sad.

....and prophetic. [Big Grin] [beer]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-28-2009, 06:47 PM:
 
Well, it's finally Saturday, let's film-bomb the site!
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-30-2009, 08:43 PM:
 
quote: Ian Parfrey
those Digital-dickheads couldn't even upload a fart in a fog.
[Big Grin] Ian, hysterical phrase! Almost made me blow my coffee out my nose!!
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2