This is topic Wrong-headed logic concerning digital projection 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=005688

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 12-27-2003, 04:35 PM:
 
At one time or another, all of us have had to scream for a replacement reel, or in a worst case senario, a replacement print, be it a lab error or an example of film done wrong by a pervious exhibitor.

I recently heard a comment by someone in the industry (who shall go unnamed) who said: "Oh, you shouldn't bother the distributors about damaged or improperly printed prints and reels. That just makes their case for going to digital projection."

Well, this old bull saw red!! I replied that if that is their justification for pushing digital, then we are all in trouble. Granted, this is one of many arguments used to push digital. So... do you mean to tell me that we should all screw our patrons with rotten presentation so the studios will not push the digital argument? Excuse me, but

I further replied to this wrong-headed logic that if the studios think they are going to get a trouble-free presentation simply because they are converting to digital, they are sadly mistaken. Is it really about the presentation folks, or is it just about the $$$$$$.

Rant over. Your comments??
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-27-2003, 04:42 PM:
 
the bottom line is the bottom line but the bottom can be reached very quickly with a bad presentation
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-27-2003, 05:01 PM:
 
I always demand replacement reels, even if the fault was on our end.

While it is my belief that someone somewhere in distribution is indeed keeping a mental tally of these kinds of things with every intention of (re)mounting the case for dCinema, I do not see this as any reason to hide (or ignore) the fact that a reel needs to be replaced.

Rest assured, there will be defective DVD-ROM's, too.

Defective DVDs will then fuel the need to move on to the next phase -- distribution via satellite transmission.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 12-27-2003, 06:45 PM:
 
Until a huge Thunderstorm passes thru as you are trying to download the big next harry potter adventure. Causing data coruption in the sat signal. It really has nothing to do with film damage. It is all in the cost savings of not having to print all those reels. Hollywood distributors could really care less about print quality. If they did they would demand that all reels were inspected closely and replaced if needed before sending them to other theaters.

That is what scares me and why I will not accept DCinema in it's curent stages because I fear that they will want to standardize everything at levels that are just not acceptable to the paying customers in reguards to picture quality.

We all must do our part in making sure that we maintain our films and request replacement reels if they are deffective or damaged even if it requires the wallet to be pulled out to pay for the reel.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-28-2003, 02:35 AM:
 
I don't think the dCinema standard will be locked down to where it is today. Not for long, anyway. Like all digital technology, there will be upgrades. The designers will see to that -- it's their meal ticket.

When the industry moved from silent to sound, didn't theatres have to upgrade? When 70mm, CinemaScope, 3D and the 1.85 ratio were introduced, didn't changes have to be made? Isn't digital audio becoming something of a "must have" item? What about all those red LED's as a result of cyan tracks?

There has always been retooling.

Similarly, I think that the dCinema standard will continue to evolve. We'd have to upgrade, just like we've always done. A resolution bump would be akin to what happend in the past when 35mm theatres opted to upgrade in order to accomodate 70mm.

BTW I don't recall the phenomenon of "rain fade" affecting the old C-Band dishes so not *all* satellite technology is adversely affected by thunderstorms. I think "rain fade" came in with the little DSS dishes.

Back to those dCinema upgrades. I think we could look forward to significant (but optional) resolution bumps biannually. Thing is, they'd have to make today's releases with that in mind. I said it in that other thread and I'll repeat it here: Production should stick to using film until the digital capture technology can match or exceed that.

Yeah, yeah...I know...I can already hear some of you "believers" ready to chime in...

But there's always 65mm...

What am I going to do with you's !?
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-28-2003, 04:36 AM:
 
I'm with Manny on this.
We don't hesitate to order replacement reels when we find something we don't like. Last year, I ordered two for a single print of LOTR. They were supplied overnight without question. As others have said elsewhere on this board, the huge number of prints that the labs have to turn out in short order is bound to create a few bad reels, and I guess I can accept that... to a point, so long as individual issues can be addressed quickly. I have no problem ordering replacements, nor do I see any correlation between this issue and digital in any way. I think we should have every expectation that the quality of the reels we receive are as high as possible.

Accordingly, I remain barely tolerant of studio splices. Having fully converted to digital sound only helps a little, as I now have utmost sympathy for anyone playing these prints in analog. The fact that these splices have an aggravating habit of landing in the middle of the frame doesn't help any, either!

... and you do NOT want to get me started on those damned non-Kodak cap codes!
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-28-2003, 12:15 PM:
 

quote:

---

I don't think the dCinema standard will be locked down to where it is today. Not for long, anyway. Like all digital technology, there will be upgrades.

---

quote:

---

When 70mm, CinemaScope, 3D and the 1.85 ratio were introduced, didn't changes have to be made?

---

Yes indeed, but the big difference in these technological "leaps" is that they benefited BOTH exhibition and the studios, mainly in that they each caught the imagination of the public....they offered something tangible that the public saw as desirable, and the bottom line of that was that they lured more butts into more seats. Both halves of the industry reaped the monetary rewards of increased box office.

On the other hand, the "upgrade" from a film-based technology to a video-based technology offers nothing new to the public (yeah, yeah, all that hype about a steadier picture -- as if the public won't go to the theatres because film isn;t steady enough for them). Fact is, that until Deee-Cinema can present some spectacular, immediately apparent improvement over what the public gets now from what film offers in picture and sound, digital will never move ahead to usurp film's dominance. The public will only demand digital because they see it as a MUCH better format. And just slapping the word "digital" on the marquee will never be enough to draw them into the theatre if when they go in, they see and hear nothing more that what they have always seen and heard.

So if you take the pubic out of the equation (thus negating the exhibitor's reason to buy into it) then digital technology becomes a purely internal economic move within the industry -- who gains, who looses. If the savings that digital affords the distributor in print and shipping costs were somehow passed on to the exhibitor and the added cost of yearly maintenance plus the electrical consumption costs (it takes a 7000w xenon into a digital nano-mirror module to light a 40ft screen while it only takes a 2000w xenon through a film frame to light the same size screen) were somehow SHARED with the distributor, then MAYBE there might be a chance for this technology to penetrate the market in a significant way, regardless of its impact (or not) on the public.

Comparisons to technology conversions to things like silent to sound, B&W to color, 1.37:1 to Cinerama or Todd-AO or CinemaScope, mono to surround stereo, are all pretty much meaningless because digital offers nothing that dramatic or that compelling for the public, so it's only the economics of it that will drive the change; without a new economic model, the move to digital will remain as it has so far....totally stagnant.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-28-2003, 01:03 PM:
 
I'm short on time so all I will say for now is that I enjoyed reading your response. I will have to read it again when I have more than just this little moment.

I look forward to reading other interesting posts when I return from this...family event...
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-28-2003, 02:42 PM:
 
this...family event...

Oh God...there are more of him out there!
 

---