This is topic Are we the last of a dying breed? 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=009065
Posted by Jordan Dee (Member # 3984) on 01-11-2008, 04:44 AM:
I just go the word from my GM that Regal is changing all the theatres in our district to digital projectors throughout 2008. I'm not sure what to think of this. It just seems that I might be out a job... Where in the world would all those expensive projectors and platter systems go? I like 35mm! Any thoughts? Is the 35mm projectionist going to be out dated in the next couple years?
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-11-2008, 05:22 AM:
I'd be very surprised if full-time technicians disappeared from cinemas in the same way that musicians did after the conversion to sound. When I was in the business, handling films and operating/maintaining the projection equipment was probably only around half the job. The rest included everything from fixing the glasswasher in the bar to getting the viruses out of the manager's PC after he'd been downloading porn (not to mention replacing about 62 million light bulbs). All those jobs are still going to need to be done, and digital projection equipment itself will need some ongoing attention.
But once the big chains have gone over, traditional film handling skills are going to disappear from mainstream theatres. There will be arthouse, rep and rerelease theatres that will continue to project film for a very long time, not least because archives are sitting on hundreds of thousands of viewing prints which at present are uneconomic to digitise, given the total demand for them (i.e. one screening every 3-5 years, in some cases).
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-11-2008, 07:34 AM:
Well, film is obsolete my friend even though many here will tell you its not. Kodak will tell you that it is. They are working like rats in an ant hill to develop digital technology so they can continue to exist. I am a die hard film fan too but since I enjoy working in this field I have been adapting my ways to digital over the last two years. Digital does have its advantages (operationally) and disadvantages(cost). Film has its own set of advantages and disadvantages... scratches and dust... film wears, operationlly in some locations its a nightmare... film is a quaint old fairly archaic system that needs to retire like NTSC will be doing shortly. Its all about changing your ways and adapting... if you are stubborn and nieve like many here then you'll eventually be out of work.
Mark
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 01-11-2008, 08:45 AM:
I have to disagree with you Mark, especially your comments on scratching and dust - anyone who has learnt anything from this Forum or their workplace knows that these problems are not a function of the medium per se but of the way it is (mis) handled and (mis) used. This should be self-evident at this stage.
And to say that film is "quaint" is just incorrect. Are oil paintings "quaint"? Are musical instruments "quaint"? Is pen and paper "quaint"?
For sure, digital will take over mainstream cinema exhibition, but only for - perceived - "economic" reasons. It has nothing to do with the art and craft of Cinema, which is very sad indeed.
Theoretically, the industry could continue with film exhibition indefinitely if it wanted to. It has nothing to do with any inherent "disadvantages" of film. It's just a choice. If people want digital instead of film, then that's their choice. It's just like apples and oranges.
I think we should have both BTW ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-11-2008, 09:24 AM:
Odds are that both film & digital wil co-exist for quite some time.....15 years? 90%
8% that digital will replace film in that time.
2% that we will revert back to film for some reason.
You cannot be pro-70mm and pro digital at the same time. There are still many who covet 70mm projectors even though no releases have been available since....1985???? Louis
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 01-11-2008, 10:44 AM:
Ah, but you can! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Apart from the growing number of 70mm restorations, there are also the increasing advantages of shooting on 65mm, paradoxically due to the increasing resolutions of home entertainment and D-Cinema formats. As well as offering a rich source negative for those formats, it also opens the door to better IMAX blow-ups, better 35mm prints where these are still used, and limited 70mm prints for selected theatres that can do "Roadshow" style engagements.
You can in fact have the best of all worlds with both film and digital - the latter opening the door to 3-D, the former retaining all the advantages we are familiar with.
It's like the Artist's palette - charcoal, oils, watercolours, acrylics, etc. Filmmakers - and audiences - are in a kind of paradise today with so many options to choose from ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Posted by Alban Birch (Member # 4121) on 01-11-2008, 10:57 AM:
No 70mm release since 1985? There have been 14 DTS-70mm alone. Remember Titanic?
Posted by Jonathan Wood (Member # 4614) on 01-11-2008, 11:03 AM:
I think film will continue for a good time yet. It seems everyone in the US is going digital much quicker than the rest of the world. I can only speak for the UK but I think were pretty typical of the rest of Europe, only a relatively small fraction of screens are digital. As a regular reader of the excellent BKSTS journal 'Cinema Technology' I am constantly amazed to read news of new 10 , 12, 15 screen multiplexes opening up with only at most 2 digital projectors installed, the rest of the screens being fitted with brand new 35mm equipment. Film is a medium producers, exhibitors and distributors trust, if digital was ready it would have taken over by now. I remember as far back as 1996 announcements claiming film was dead and digital would be everywhere by the turn of the century. What happened ? Too many tech problems and ongoing concerns about piracy. I'm sure these are arguments you've all heard before, but what about the world beyond the US? Take India for example, surely one of the most if not, THE most prolific producers of motion pictures, can you see all those thousands of rural cinemas going digital? Dont think so some how. Film is reliable and it is a system that works, that's why its still here. I'm sure one day digital will be the norm but some how I cant see it being the 2k systems that are out there now, we already have 4k and then what? Who remembers Video 2000, it was only the 80's but today you'd be hard pressed to find a video recording medium that isn't solid state, my point being any new technology in its infancy as is digital cinema, has historically gone through many transformations before becoming a workable reliable system, just in time for it to become obsolete! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-11-2008, 11:55 AM:
Is film dead? Maybe eventually but not yet, no matter what George Lucas a primary investor in Digital research and therefore, a primary beneficiary in its proliferation.
I was amazed when I read that Carmike of all chains was going all Digital in all markets. It makes little sense to me with the cost of the projectors. But wait does it make little sense? Think about a Carmike operation (oh lord) usually old equipment maybe nearing worn out. The mass amount of screens they have change them all they must have gotten a great deal on per unit basis they get rid of all that old worn out equipment, they can replace all the mega plex equipment and get the little operations converted at the same time. It is a brilliant move.
So it would follow that all the big boys will make the conversion right? Well probable not like that, most of the big boys don't have 40 to 60 year old projectors and 30 to 40 year old platters in their mega-plex operations. Most have fairly new equipment so what is the driving need to replace it. Is there a cry from the paying public for Digital projection like there was for Digital sound? UM NO there is not!
The cry for the Digital projection comes from Hollywood where the savings would amazing. A wide release of 90 minute film cost about $1500 to make the print (each and everyone) and about $200 to get the print to the point we pay for the rest of the delivery. You do a little math and a 3400 location count of probable 5000 actual prints runs an astounding 8.5 million bucks to get the movie in those theaters. The cost of the digital print is no where near that and it cost less to deliver as well.
Of course they wanted to Hollywood could by everyone digital equipment and re-coup the cost in less than year. Do away with film all together but it is not Hollywood's way to do anyone any favors especially the exhibitors!
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 01-11-2008, 11:56 AM:
When they get rid of those minimum wage projectionists, they will have to replace them with people who know video projection and people who know servers. Things may work fine for a while, but that will not last, and those new people will be a lot more expensive than the minimum wage projectionists. Cost savings? I don't think so. Greedy corporate America never seems to think things through very well. Remember Enron, World Com, Tyco, and on and on. Don't forget, greed is an emotion. Greed makes you stupid!
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-11-2008, 12:26 PM:
quote: Jonathan Wood
...but what about the world beyond the US? Take India for example, surely one of the most if not, THE most prolific producers of motion pictures, can you see all those thousands of rural cinemas going digital? Dont think so some how.
I was recently chatting to an Indian colleague who is quite well connected to the Bollywood world, who reports India is taking digital VERY seriously. Think about all those bulky, heavy film prints that are currently transported by the Indian railway system, at considerable cost, to small cinemas in the rural hinterland. The problem is that their definition of 'going digital' consists of surplus stock VGA projectors off the back of a container ship from China, plus a DVD player. I think it's quite possible that it'll be a developing country where 35mm completely disappears from the mainstream film industry first, thanks largely to the hugely cheap IT hardware coming out of China, Taiwan and Korea.
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 01-11-2008, 12:39 PM:
quote: Ron Funderburg
You do a little math and a 3400 location count of probable 5000 actual prints runs an astounding 8.5 million bucks to get the movie in those theaters. The cost of the digital print is no where near that and it cost less to deliver as well.
You may be told that, but actually the cost of bulk release prints is a lot less than what those promoting digital over film will have you believe. This argument also ignores the very large costs of mastering material for D-Cinema, but most of all the perceived "savings" in print manufacture and distribution are actually negligible if one looks at the financial situation of studios as a whole.
This is because what look like significant savings at the distribution end are in fact very small in terms of overall costs and revenues. In terms of the major conglomerates, the difference between film and digital exhibition financially is essentially meaningless.
Indeed - vastly more is spent on film marketing and advertising than on prints. Print costs are actually a tiny part of the equation.
If you want real savings in film production costs, you go after the actors and others who are taking grossly immoral sums of money out of the film industry.
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-11-2008, 12:46 PM:
Brian ever paid for a print? I have and 90 minutes cost me $1500 over 2 hours you are charged 2000 + now maybe Hollywood doesn't get charged as much as they charge us but that is the listed price on making a print. A 70 mm print cost in excess of $15,000 to have made!
As to the actual rank of cost of a movie yes some actors are paid a great deal of money but then so are pro-football players, Basketball and base ball. Come on no one is worth $120 million for anything!
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-11-2008, 01:23 PM:
quote: Ron Funderburg
no matter what George Lucas a primary investor in Digital research and therefore, a primary beneficiary in its proliferation.
George Lucas pioneered digital PRODUCTION techniques, not projection.
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 01-11-2008, 02:05 PM:
All I can say is sit back and enjoy the rest of the ride while it lasts. Remember this, you know it is going to happen when the equipment comes in the door. Don't trust any talk just wait for the equipment to show up. If you are not in a position of management then try to get in it or look for something else to do.
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-11-2008, 02:31 PM:
Tim I'm not talking about the work that Lucas has done I'm talking about his pushing the Digital medium for the theater he wants all presentation to be in Digital he has clearly stated it several times.
Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 01-11-2008, 02:59 PM:
I know the digital conversion is causing a booth tech I know to specialize in rebuilding Simplex projectors for new builds. This chain has been buying these from another chain and the tech is finding the heads to be in troublesome shape and has to replace numerous bearings, sprockets, gears, shafts...he got chewed on for spending so much on parts and his response was "Do you want the new theatre to open with crappy presentation?" He's still rebuilding...
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-11-2008, 03:31 PM:
A dying breed - thus, if one wants to start up a discount business, which way should he go then...film,digital, or have both available?
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 01-11-2008, 06:19 PM:
I'm waiting to see some much bigger companys than mine do a full conversion. That attitude alone has been enough to generate some pretty strong comments by a few of my brethren... some of them now "former". Some of them were sure that we'd all be digital by now, and said so. Their projected "drop dead" dates all passed, and not a whole lot has changed since then.
Personally, I don't know how so many of you come by information that makes you feel as strongly as you do, yet come up with such different prognostications.
Seems safer to just watch the big guys and let it be at that.
BTW... A few months ago, our local Deluxe outlet doubled it's square footage. Somebody must've forgotten to tell them they wouldn't be needing it.
BTW2... Is there anything to the story that the digital stuff is being mastered on film because the digital media doesn't hold up as long, or the formats change? Funny if it's true. Imagine having to keep an AppleII around, just so you could read an archived 'AppleII Basic' cassette!
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 01-11-2008, 06:20 PM:
quote: Ron Funderburg
Tim I'm not talking about the work that Lucas has done I'm talking about his pushing the Digital medium for the theater he wants all presentation to be in Digital he has clearly stated it several times.
Yet he has a pair of Simplex XLs in the Stag.
When the DLPs went in here, the writing was on the wall... and I am learning that that 'unattended fully automated booth' fairy tale is coming true. I have been notified that my services as a projectionist here will no longer be needed by summer.
Leaving me with some career choices to make... Do I remain with the company as a technician, servicing the few non-DLP venues we have and doing sound system service, or do I try for a job with Christie as a DLP tech, or do I find another job with a company that hasn't jumped onto the DLP bandwagon?
-Aaron
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 01-11-2008, 06:23 PM:
Why not be qualified for both? From what I've read (here?), some of the IP-types that are working on those digital machines, don't know where to put the oil can on the 35s they're contracted to work on.
Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 01-11-2008, 06:40 PM:
Last of a dying breed? Yes, eventually. In the meantime, in my area (NY-NJ metropolitan) the conversion has been slow. One ten-plex opened two counties south of us this summer, but I'm not seeing digital conversions in the metropolitan area, save for a few random 3-D installations.
Everyone in this area has a lot of money wrapped up in 35mm equipment, so unless you are the new kid on the block, digital is still prohibitive cost-wise.
That's not to say that will be the case a few years down the road.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-11-2008, 07:19 PM:
Ah, how quaint.
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 01-11-2008, 08:10 PM:
quote: Ron Funderburg
Brian ever paid for a print? I have and 90 minutes cost me $1500 over 2 hours you are charged 2000 + now maybe Hollywood doesn't get charged as much as they charge us but that is the listed price on making a print.
Sorry to go back here but I do need to reply to that Ron.
The figure I was using was given to me before Christmas and was based on bulk release of a major feature. That figure was very similar to figures used for Virtual Print Fees; indeed I was told it was actually less in some cases.
You're quite right in that large-scale bulk release print pricing can be significantly different to that for single prints or low quantities.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-11-2008, 08:32 PM:
Aaron...why not just add Digital to your arsenal of talents? Why let a change in technology be the end of the line? I know some techs that hung it up when test equipment got computerized. It may seem silly to those of us that don't think twice about firing up the laptop but to some, it was a hurdle that could not be gone over. I saw the same thing to an old-timer projectionist when confronted with platters! Now it is the same film but with a longer path...he had been running projectors for about 60-year (he was around 80 at the time and was sharp as a tack)...but for some reason he just could deal with that extended film path...we gave him WEEKS to just play with the platters to get comfortable with them...but it just wasn't going to take...so he retired (this was about 20-years ago).
For a tech, digital projection should just be the next step unless you are really close to retirement and Aaron, you don't look THAT old to me. Since you are considering Christie (and I see MiT has a Help Wanted post here on FT) it appears you are considering making the jump to digital but it really doesn't need to be a jump...more of a step. You still need to bring your screwdrivers, wrenches, BIG hammer, computer and such. The sound is pretty much the same as always. A-chains go much faster! I still find that I can spend as much time tweeking a DCinema machine as a film machine though, if not more so...when was the last time you converged a film machine? The big hit to the tech is that color meter...they are expensive and essential (it would be kinda like doing an A-Chain without an "O-scope" or analyzer...a waste of time).
Steve
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-11-2008, 08:39 PM:
Yeah Aaron, if Gulbrandsen can do it.... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(Just kiddin' Mark!)
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-11-2008, 09:00 PM:
quote: Brian Guckian
I have to disagree with you Mark, especially your comments on scratching and dust - anyone who has learnt anything from this Forum or their workplace knows that these problems are not a function of the medium per se but of the way it is (mis) handled and (mis) used. This should be self-evident at this stage.
You are right... its not a function with the medium itself it is a problem with the medium and the poor help available. You must think that everyone reads Film-Tech.
quote: Brian Guckian
And to say that film is "quaint" is just incorrect. Are oil paintings "quaint"? Are musical instruments "quaint"? Is pen and paper "quaint"?
Hardly so... the perforated medium and spinning sprockets are indeed VERY quaint... weather they be spun electronically or mechanically it more represents an old International farm tractor. Some musical instruments can be very quaint, the Harpsichord for instance... pen and paper...? Pen and an ink well are certainly quaint!
quote: Louis Bornwasser
Odds are that both film & digital wil co-exist for quite some time.....15 years? 90%
8% that digital will replace film in that time.
2% that we will revert back to film for some reason.
Look for 50% conversion in about 4 years or slightly less. Regal, AMC, Cinemark, Carmike... oh and the 8700 members of CBG.... who else is there that really matters? What these chains do will affect what the rest of the world ultimately HAS TO DO. But film will be around for alot longer than 15 years... more like 150 years or longer for vault items, Leo could say with more certainty on this. And then there are collectors some of whom store prints with great care. General release prints will become too expensive to manufacture in quantity when digital saturation is at about 50% so it will become difficult to convince distribution to strike prints for the smaller markets as they now do. CBG will help out it's 8700 members there. Even less film will be manufactured by then anyway as Kodak continues to slow down manufacturing because of lower demand. Oh and yes the slowdown in print stock manufacture will also cause it to cost alot more.
90% that film will replace digital.. the gears are already in motion for that and its happenning as you read this.. so you don't have to wait for some industry friends predictions as Jack O. seems to think .
quote: Jonathan Wood
I think film will continue for a good time yet. It seems everyone in the US is going digital much quicker than the rest of the world.
What is happening here will affect the rest of the world... trickle down effect.
quote: Ron Funderburg
It makes little sense to me with the cost of the projectors.
Carmike does not own the projectors, AIX does and thats also why only Christie can service them.
quote: Bruce Hansen
When they get rid of those minimum wage projectionists, they will have to replace them with people who know video projection and people who know servers.
Actually it will be easy to find "kids" that can operate D-Cinema. As a test all you need to know is if they can do e-mail.. surf the web, download, and know that when a computer hangs or does something strange that they have to re-boot. But finding a "kid" that recognizes when an intermittent is in need of oil or a screw that holds the sprocket on the shaft comes loose is next to impossible... "kids" of today are computer oriented... few are mechanically oriented or even inclined... times have changed! The techs will deal with the actual serverproblems either at the location or by remote access.
quote: Ron Funderburg
Tim I'm not talking about the work that Lucas has done I'm talking about his pushing the Digital medium for the theater he wants all presentation to be in Digital he has clearly stated it several times.
Ron... Thats kind of a Dah thing... stuff filmed digitally always looks better presented digitally. Ever see any of the Pixar movies projected digitally?
quote: Aaron Sisemore
Do I remain with the company as a technician, servicing the few non-DLP venues we have and doing sound system service, or do I try for a job with Christie as a DLP tech, or do I find another job with a company that hasn't jumped onto the DLP bandwagon?
Aaron,
First you need to be happy in your work. If you're not happy then you should find other work so you are happy. If you go to Christie expect 70+ hour work weeks... You need to balance your decision on happiness in your work and on how many years you still need to work before retirement. Decide from there... You no doubt are certainly capable of doing both film and D-Cinema... these types of techs are more valualable to a company like Christie... keep in mind that BARCO is also not too far from you up in Sacramento.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Yeah Aaron, if Gulbrandsen can do it....
One system this week and two next week! All Dolby based... thank god!
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 01-11-2008, 09:52 PM:
In Australia we will still be training and employing projectionists till at least the end of this decade.
The situation is that majors have a few dci systems that get occasional use – most wide releases are 100% 35mm, with a mix of new and imported used prints.
Independents are the same, except that an increasing number of independent cinemas are installing 2k servers to play a growing number of releases on dlp projectors of the 1.3k variety. The quality of the files, these new servers and projectors is very good on average-sized screens. Particularly when compared with some of the used prints.
There are several benefits to this mixed system. The cinema can get an earlier date on a limited release movie; extended seasons and repeats are just a phone call away; you can rewind FilmGuard media at leisure ready for the next 35mm show and your xenon gets to rest for a couple of hours.
Films such as “As It Is In Heaven” and “Death At A Funeral” have taken millions more here from digital copies. Several excellent productions – “The Jammed” and “4” for example were released exclusively in this format.
One downside is that there were some dodgy installations using cheap data projectors and DVDs.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-11-2008, 09:59 PM:
Deleted post ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-11-2008, 10:00 PM:
Mark, I didn't say that things produced in digital don't look better in digital. I'm saying that all the push by those in the business for it is economic. Lucas makes money off the digital process and it is a financial thing and it those pushing the locals to do digital aren't doing it for artistic reason they are for economic reason. And only their economics matter not ours! And that is most certainly a DUH thing! and MU-LA thing! And a put more money in Mr. THX's pocket thing!
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-11-2008, 10:07 PM:
(not to drift this comment of mine back into the UNION topic of yore..) I was union from the mid 70's til early 80's when the contracts ran out and were not resigned, but my employer (MANN) kept me on the union payscale arrangements, OT and wage that the previous contract was at so I can keep caring for that one theatre I was working at.
Only thing was that managers would come and go in this theatre, and I would either be praised that I was caring for that theatre, or hassled to no end due to that the $$ sign was more important and shouldn't be making as much as I am, or doing tons more to make up for what I'm being paid with.
But still, my hourly wage was nothing compared to what the big cities were getting at that time.
Luckilly, with my technical "bent" is what's keeping me in this industry in a decent wage income bracket.
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-11-2008, 10:29 PM:
Monte I worked for Commonwealth in the late 70's and early 80's. I was a hot shot manager that liked all my projection staff (and yes they made more money than I did). When I owned my own theatres late 90's until 2 years ago, I paid my mangers more than the projection staff and paid the projection staff well! Maybe if I hadn't paid everyone so well I would still be in business.
I made the choice to go to work for people that are fresh in the business. I don't know if it was a mistake or not yet (well I do but I'm not willing to say it in public) it certainly has been a challenge!
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-11-2008, 11:04 PM:
Ron, Perhaps you could elaborate on how Mr Lucas makes $$ on the projection end of D-Cinema...
Thanks,
Mark
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-11-2008, 11:16 PM:
Are there THX certified digital projectors? If the answer is yes then he mkaes money off it there! I would assume since he stated he was an investor in Digital projection technology when in the early part of this century that he still owns whatever stock he had in that as well.
Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 01-12-2008, 12:08 AM:
Some of the D cinema installations I have seen pictures of have Christie lamphousing that looks similar to what is used with their 35mm projectors. Like the current consoles, would these not have xenon bulbs that need adjusting, beam spread focus gears that sometimes need adjustment and replacing, shaded pole blowers that need oiling and or replacing, diodes in the power supply...?
Seems these theatres would be going through a lot more xenon bulbs as these units also play the pre-show programming as well.
Some kid with computer skills won't know how to do work on these...
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 01-12-2008, 12:27 AM:
quote: Adam Martin
Ah, how quaint.
The moderator must spank this user severely for using generic, deceptive teasers!
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-12-2008, 04:38 AM:
quote:
Are there THX certified digital projectors? If the answer is yes then he mkaes money off it there!
MAny folks have invested in D-Cinema Technology. For instance... If you own stock in Texas Instruments, Dolby or Doremi as thousands do then you have also invested in this technology. Although he may front money to help begin development of new technologies its doubtful that George needs to buy any stocks since he's pretty well set for life from past film revenue alone.
Definately not through THX since Lucasfilm sold off THX three years ago.
quote: James Westbrook
Some kid with computer skills won't know how to do work on these...
Exactly! Just as that is the technicians job with film equipment today it will also be with D-Cinema next month. BTW... changing a lamp with the Christies is a breeze since it auto aligns itself. Have already witnessed kids doing this several times...
Mark
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 01-12-2008, 10:07 AM:
But yet...where is the ART and CRAFT with ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif)
?
How does the audience or filmmaker gain anything artistically from what is being touted as a soulless money-saving exercise?
How does Cinema as an artform - 3D excepted - benefit from ?
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-12-2008, 11:20 AM:
Mark do not take this as an attack on Lucas or anyone else innovation and advancement of any technology is made by and pushed by those that will make money off the that innovation. It is not a bad thing.
You also seem to be looking for me to put a smoking gun out on something! Lucas is pushing Digital Cinema as hard Colt pushed his hand guns as are several other groups and organizations. What is with the person defense of George Lucas is close personal friend sorry if I offended you it is not my intent.
I still maintain anytime anyone or any group push hard on this change of technology or that technology they will make money off the use. I can't see Microsoft saying to use Mac or Mac saying to use Windows it isn't in the best interest! Kodak is moving in the digital field because it is in their best interest! Lucas is pushing Digital because he sees it in his best interest! That is all I am saying but if you want to defend him have it!
I'm not attacking anyone here so please stop acting like I am!
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-12-2008, 02:26 PM:
quote: Ron Funderburg
Lucas is pushing Digital Cinema as hard Colt pushed his hand guns as are several other groups and organizations.
Lucas is pushing for Digital Cinema simply because he believes that his movies will look better projected digitally -- and in a lot of situations, he is right.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-12-2008, 06:29 PM:
quote: Brian Guckian
But yet...where is the ART and CRAFT with ?
Cinema film projection is now a lost art except for a few. Blame that on who ever you want to.
quote: Brian Guckian
How does the audience or filmmaker gain anything artistically from what is being touted as a soulless money-saving exercise?
D-Cinema has the ablity to more preserve on a large scale the art of film making that the Director and DP put on film. Money saving D-Cinema it is not... overall. Equipment is more expensive but daily operating cost is about the same as film. The elimination of film manufacture, the chemicals involved and the thousands of release prints is eccowise and a very good thing really.
quote: Brian Guckian
How does Cinema as an artform - 3D excepted - benefit from ?
By providing more a consistant projection standard that is not dependent on the average (or should I say below average) booth personel of today.
Mike is dead on right about Lucas.
BTW: The D-Cinema system I finished up installing this morning looks far superior to its film counter part right across the hall. The film system is no slouch either consisting of a well maintained DP-70 and 3kw Xetron/Big Sky lamp lighting up a 45 foot screen. The D-Cinema system is on a similar size screen although a 10 foot shorter throw. Everyone there agreed the Digital system far surpassed the film in overall projected quality. The film was a tad bit sharper...sure. Again... I think it has a lot to do with the light comming from the digital equipment... the light is simply amazing. The sound from the D-C system can literally be overwhelming... some sound systems will need to be revamped to be able to accomodate it's dynamic range. Its very similar to being in a mix down stage.
Mark
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-12-2008, 07:10 PM:
I agree with Mark on the benefits of digital Cinema. I disagree with anyone that digital Cinemas is pushed because pictures look better it is now and always has been a business and Lucas is in it to make money, well more money just like everyone in the film industry or fore that matter most any industry. We are in a business gang 70MM disappeared because it cost to much, 35MM will in time give way to digital in film presentation because digital will be more economical. If it was only what looks good on the screen all those big screen formats of the past would still be around.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-13-2008, 06:33 AM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
The elimination of film manufacture, the chemicals involved and the thousands of release prints is eccowise and a very good thing really.
Even once you factor into account the chemicals, plant and energy which go into manufacturing all that IT hardware and its much shorter obsolescence cycle?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-13-2008, 07:14 AM:
No one knows what the obsolescence cycle is going to be. You will also see a steady increase of recycling of electronic gear over the next decade brought about by the supposed "Global Warming" trend.
Mark
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-13-2008, 12:39 PM:
To answer the question of the thread the old fashioned film handler is a dying breed or more likely a changing breed. Platers were suppose to end the need for real projectionist but it didn't and this will be same the job will change not disappear.
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 01-13-2008, 05:08 PM:
Ofcourse we are the last of a dying breed, I've been told that for over 20 years! It comes as no surprise to me.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-13-2008, 10:06 PM:
On another note Louis said... "You cannot be pro-70mm and pro digital at the same time."
I say why not... both are excellent formats... I just don't discuss the dead format very much... doesn't mean that I don't fantasize that it might return some day....
Mark
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-14-2008, 06:22 AM:
quote: Ron Funderburg
To answer the question of the thread the old fashioned film handler is a dying breed or more likely a changing breed. Platers were suppose to end the need for real projectionist but it didn't and this will be same the job will change not disappear.
Actually, it did, at least in numbers. Where it took 15 well-trained projectionists to run fifteen screens, platters and automation eliminated 14 of them. And even enticed the exhibitor to replace that trained one with one who would not need quite as much training and who was not in it as a career, thus allowing Mr. Exhibitor to hire him/her at a lower, some might even say, non-living wage salary. THAT is what gave exhibition an erection when patters and automation came on the scene, not that new system would give better image quality or improve presentation -- that was the LAST thing on their minds.
And that is how all the poor presentation quality that we have documented here in lenghty threads has come to pass. It's not that film can't be look and sound spectacular, it is just that all the other factors have conspired to prevented it from acheiving anywhere near its potential in most of your average assembly-line multiplexes.
Modern distribution patterns also contribute to this decline given the number of prints that have to be made in very short time frames. This is where have gotten today. That is why many, like Mark, hold that digital offers the ability to provide consistant quality at a higher level, NOT of what film is CAPABLE of, but better than what actually is presented on the majority of screens throughout the country. Film offers the theoretical possibility of superb image quality....digital offers actual, consistant results which are better than most film presentations in the average multiplex -- at least while everything is brand new.
The issue of course is, that's the way it is today, with all the digital projectors spanking new out of the box. Problem is, they are being put into the same booths where exhibitors weren't concerned enough about hiring well-trained projectionists/technicians, albeit at higher salaries. They are being put into booths were bulbs are being run long past their rated hours, and in booths where managers want to show a better bottom line by refusing to keep a supply of lens cleaner or where there is only a supply of the cheapest masking tape. What makes anyone think that ten years into the digital scenario that the same concern ONLY for the bottom line won't have the same detrimental impact on digital equipment and presentation quality as it had when the projector in the booth was film-based?
I don't know the answer because that remains to be seen, but given the past history of how exhibition approaches maintenance and concern for booth equipment, I am not convinced at all that history won't repeat itself and we will find the same kind of neglect and unconcern about the equipment and presentation that these very same people had for film won't be visited on digital. Putting in different equipment isn't going to change that mindset.
In fact, digital may make it worse, because Mr. Exhibitor is going into the digital era thinking this equipment will run itself FOREVER without so much as a thought to what's going on in the booth....you KNOW they are salivating because they think that all they will need to run 15 , 20, 45 screens is grunt of an assistant manager to push icons on a touch screen and that's the extent of it. This is their wet-dream come true....they finally have their "people-less" booth.
In that environment, a digital projector will be just prone to neglect as was the film projector that it replaced. Only difference is, now the exhibitor won't have to buy ANY masking tape.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-14-2008, 07:28 AM:
quote: Frank Angel
Where it took 15 well-trained projectionists to run fifteen screens, platters and automation eliminated 14 of them.
Yes, those 15 projectionist are now operating well oiver 150 screens!
quote: Frank Angel
In fact, digital may make it worse, because Mr. Exhibitor is going into the digital era thinking this equipment will run itself FOREVER without so much as a thought to what's going on in the booth....
Actually the screwdriver happy booth mongerswill depart... this equipment does not need a tinkerer around.
quote: Frank Angel
In that environment, a digital projector will be just prone to neglect as was the film projector that it replaced. Only difference is, now the exhibitor won't have to buy ANY masking tape.
Actually he will be doing so at the possibility of a very expensive mirror replacement so I disagree. A BARCO DP-100 lamp module is about 9 grand to replace...the entire module is actually cheaper than replacing the mirror and associated pieces.... Christie is more reasonable but still over a couple grand. Once the lamp expoleds onthese neglectful owners they'll be changing their tune. Also Digital projectors that a re equiped with light loc are able to maintain proper light levels throughout their normal lamplife... so being left unattended is completely feesable. Dealers will certainly see more service contracts happen.
Mark
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 01-14-2008, 12:22 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
On another note Louis said... "You cannot be pro-70mm and pro digital at the same time."
I say why not... both are excellent formats... I just don't discuss the dead format very much... doesn't mean that I don't fantasize that it might return some day....
Good to hear, Mark!
I agree with what Frank says in that essentially, where there are bad attitudes in film presentation today, these will be continued into the digital domain ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-14-2008, 04:52 PM:
A long, long time ago in my life far far away I would hope and pray that all films would filmed in Ultra Panavision and shown only on Cinerama screens with 6 track (or even 7 track) magnetic sound! It was a hope, a desire, a dream of mine from the late 60 (even when I wasn't an adult or in the business) up to the late 80s when it became obvious that it would never happen.
Oh well maybe Digital will be able to be shown in giant screens and hold quality! But for goodness sakes lets not have theaters with 10 foot screens anywhere anymore it is an embarrassment for that to happen!
Posted by Andres Briano (Member # 4621) on 02-16-2008, 11:17 AM:
quote:
I remember as far back as 1996 announcements claiming film was dead and digital would be everywhere by the turn of the century. What happened ? Too many tech problems and ongoing concerns about piracy.
THAT´S IT! Those of us who love film and don´t care about digital, should study to become excellent Hackers so that we can help piracy make digital crash and burn!
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 02-16-2008, 12:48 PM:
Andres the movies often hit the net before they hit the theater so no hacking is necessary at this point. Film is easy to copy while it runs. No hacking is necessary for the film to be copied and distributed they are hoping digital is less easy. Beats me if you can copy it with a camcorder. What about it guys can you copy a digital picture with a camcorder? Who knows the answer to that?
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-16-2008, 03:37 PM:
Oh, yes, very much so. Camcorder copies look even better now because there's no shutter in the projector.
Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 02-16-2008, 04:16 PM:
I hear there's a new system to stop camcorder copies with digital projectors. It involves projecting an interference pattern in addition to the picture - the pattern is invisible to the naked eye, but wreaks havoc with the camcorder CCD.
There's also the method of putting IR lamps behind the screen and flashing them at random - again the naked eye can't see them, but they'll cause the camcorder picture to be blotchy and washed out. This works with film as well as digital
Have you ever heard of a 'rogue' projectionist sneaking in a mini-telecine and copying the film that way, during a normal showing? I've never seen it happen, but I have heard rumors.
With digital projection, after the initial set up of the projector you can lock the booth door and not have anyone going in and out (except when the bulb needs changing). Everything can be done from a master console and server, in a back room off the lobby.
I reckon that before long, when everything is 100% digital, projectionists will no longer be 'film handlers' and will be trained completely differently. Nobody will need to build up prints and thread up projectors any more; instead people will be trained how to ingest digital prints onto a server, and set up start timers. Perhaps the wage will go down as you won't have as much to do!
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 02-16-2008, 06:32 PM:
Thomas wrote quote: Thomas Pitt
Have you ever heard of a 'rogue' projectionist sneaking in a mini-telecine and copying the film that way, during a normal showing? I've never seen it happen, but I have heard rumors.
I have heard of it but not seen it. I heard in the old days (pre-camcorder) of delivery people dropping prints off at labs and film copies made. I mean the pirate thing isn't a new deal it is just way more common now.
Tim what a pity so cracking codes is not that big a deal! I guess we can put in the kind of measures that Thomas documented. The biggest savings for the film company is that people to pay to see the product and it sounds like copying will be made easier not harder so maybe Digital isn't as close as it would appear. If 70MM could make a comeback I would vote everything go 70MM
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-17-2008, 12:24 AM:
quote: Ron Funderburg
Digital isn't as close as it would appear.
Ron, it's already here, my friend. It's here. We've been installing them like crazy with no end in sight.
As the title of this thread portends, it's over with.
Posted by Peter David Bruce (Member # 4447) on 02-17-2008, 02:08 AM:
looks like our cinema is to go totally digital sometime over the next year.
i will sorely miss 35mm.
Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 02-17-2008, 05:26 AM:
quote: Thomas Pitt
With digital projection, after the initial set up of the projector you can lock the booth door and not have anyone going in and out (except when the bulb needs changing). Everything can be done from a master console and server, in a back room off the lobby
It could also be controled remotely, so the Cinema of the future will operated on a Operational by a control center (Film Studios/Cinema HO?) and at the sites will just see a Technical A/V Manager running/basic Maintance the system and the future for the 35mm Projectionist is bleak and one Cinema operator here in the UK is starting this process with just one Technical staff with D-Cinema (Digital Video) builds .
Posted by Peter David Bruce (Member # 4447) on 02-17-2008, 05:33 AM:
Thats terrible. Ive spent all my life waiting for a job like this. I cant have it taken away from me. I WILL NOT go out without a fight.
my rule; computers are only as good as the people that control them. Even these digital setups need experienced, qualified people to run and maintain them. We shall all have to adapt.
Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 02-17-2008, 05:43 AM:
The main problem with Cinema Exhibutors as seen over the years, they also see ways to cut operatonal costs like staffing and maintance, except for some exceptional Cinemas and Art Rep Sites.
I really doubt you would be paid as well like a A/V Engineer could earn, but could consider get some back ground training in 2K Cinema when it arrives and then look for a better career, just look what compienes like Electrosonic etc pay for A/V Engineers.
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 02-17-2008, 06:00 AM:
We have a brand new 9 cinema multiplex, 2 are 1.3K and 1 is 2K. I can't see the rapid deployment of digital in Aussieland simply from the fact that not all distributors offer it. To date we've only had 2K digital (let's forget about the substandard 1.3K) from Disney, Sony, Roadshow and (I think) Fox. Would love to have seen Transformers in digital but Paramount do it. ALL distributors jumping on board is a precondition to widespread acceptance. And then, of course, there's the cost of the equipment. Given that we're a brand new multiplex, if digital had been viable we would have done it.
I'm in 2 minds about digital; as a movie watcher I say "bring it on!" I don't care what you guys say about 35mm, digital is sweet as! As a projectionist I'm dreading it - my job is about to become relatively boring.
Posted by Peter David Bruce (Member # 4447) on 02-17-2008, 06:18 AM:
you think we will get bored and intentionally hit it with a hammer so that we have something to do?
'oops, darn it... would you just look at that... ill HAVE to fix it now'
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 02-17-2008, 06:20 AM:
I see you're an "ideas" man.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 02-17-2008, 10:34 AM:
I was initially attracted to this line of work (as an engineer) because there were many very smart, very old (80!) people still working back in 1971.
Alas, most are all gone; not replaced with anyone except young kids, even then only temporarily. For whatever reasons,the tradition has been broken. Read the posts above...work here until you can move on as an engineer. We once were the destination! Louis
Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 02-17-2008, 02:06 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Also Digital projectors that a re equiped with light loc are able to maintain proper light levels throughout their normal lamplife... so being left unattended is completely feesable
Actually that feature should be disabled; it has caused one of our 6k bulbs to explode in the projector because it was running it at ~7kW to keep up with "light demand" (which was too high anyway).
The easiest solution is to manually set the current level every week up to the rated wattage cap on the bulb, then replace when it gets too low (that's your call there).
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-17-2008, 07:28 PM:
Surely such a feature should have thresholds that can be set appropriately?
--jhawk
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-18-2008, 06:32 AM:
Yes it is supposed to have been told what size lamp is in it and thus set the range. The reason to disable the feature is that it has been shown to erratically adjust the lamp during a show.
Steve
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-18-2008, 10:00 AM:
Kyle,
What lamp was it that blew... how many hours did it accumulate and has your cooling system been verified to be at least adaquate?
The biggest problem with it is in the BARCO where there are so few bulbs in the list to specify what you have in the projector in order to have the correct operating current range, and this was with the latest software rev. having been installed in the machine! This is one place Christie definately has them beat. The 4.2K that I used in the last install in a DP-100 was not even on the list even though it was an approved lamp so I left the CLO feature turned off. CLO or "Constant Light Output" is also still an expensive option on the Barco, about 2 grand... but is included as standard with all the Christie models.
There are several different lamp involved functions in all Christies included as standard....
Lamp-Loc is not a(CLO Type) auto-level feature on the Christies... it is a feature that automatically adjusts the position of the lamp correctly after you replace it, again something the BARCO does not have! There is a sensor(white box)in the light path right after the integrator rod and before the 90 degree heat filter that detects the light level comming down the integrator rod as the lamp stepper motors move the bulb through its X-Y-Z range. The feature works great and when its done a quick check with the PSA to see if you need to tweek it manually a tad bit is in order... I didn't have to on either of the ZX's that I installed. Its an identical feature on the CP-2000.
The Christie's Constant Light Output function called Light-Loc only allows the lamp current to exceed it's maximum current by 10% which isn't much. You read the screen brightness level at both low and high current settings of the lamp and this is stored in memory and the constant level in FL is displayed on the CDP throughout the life of the lamp as well as there being constant brightness on the screen... it can remain fairly constant when set up properly and I've not noticed any flicker or such in the image watching stuff projectoed with the ZX. Also no need to worry about majorly exceeding the max. current of the lamp and risk an explosion! Older CP-2000's that have thyrister power supplies do have a flicker and or articact problem however that is noticable under certain types of image circumstances!! Later CP-2000's have a similar but larger switcher like the one in the ZX. The other nice feature of the ZX is it's simmer mode for the lamp where when closing the dowser it places the lamp at a lower operating current to increase it's operating life. Steve... I think you'll find that the ZX's Light-Loc works just fine. As you know if a Christie/Ushio lamp explodes its probably been run to at least 10X it rated operating hours... if it explodes under the warranty duration you'll be getting a new lamp AND reflector from them for free. Ditto from OSRAM since Ushio makes MANY of OSRAM's short gap lamps.
Mark
Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 02-18-2008, 12:32 PM:
quote:
The biggest problem with it is in the BARCO where there are so few bulbs in the list to specify what you have in the projector in order to have the correct operating current range, and this was with the latest software rev. having been installed in the machine!
Is there no way to add a lamp to the list like you can with an NEC?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-18-2008, 10:53 PM:
Not that I am aware of. You have to punch up a lamp thats close to your operating current range. I think its the manufacturers way of keeping non-approved lamps out of their projectors. Funny though since Ushio is making Christie AND Osram short gap lamps.... I just love those fellows that say they get more life out of the Osrams . The ZX and CP-2000 also have their "contained" lamp list but its a bit more up to date than whats in the BARCO.
Mark
Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 02-19-2008, 02:14 AM:
quote: Kyle Anderson
Actually that feature should be disabled; it has caused one of our 6k bulbs to explode in the projector because it was running it at ~7kW to keep up with "light demand"
LightLOC is designed to only allow a +10% increase over maximum wattage. The maximum is set by choosing the correct lamp in the TPC. If for some reason the TPC cranked output to maximum, it probably wasn't because of the LightLOC, but more of a fluke or software glitch. I've heard of a few times that this has happened, but it didn't matter what size lamp was specified, nor did it matter if LightLOC was enabled or disabled.
It's a great feature, and works well in most cases. Like Mark said, it focuses the bulb rather than just jacking up the current to optimize the light.
EDIT:
I might also add that I've found it beneficial to "Do Auto" midway through bulb life. On average, I have seen an increase of over 2fl coming out of the integrator (according to the cheezy FL meter on the TPC). I wish they would instead just specify it as a generic "Light Level" meter. Even after calibration and entering measurements of on-screen light levels, it's way off after a few weeks and doesn't provide an accurate representation of screen luminance.
Posted by Fred Tucker (Member # 4482) on 10-05-2008, 05:45 PM:
I am all for digital conversion, I dont think the job of a cinema technician will be extinct but it will change just like it has before.
Carmike for instance thinks it is cheaper to wait for a lamp to explode then to replace it at the end of its life, with that method of thinging you arent going to get a better picture. Just like there can be film done wrong digital can be done wrong too. Its not idiot proof and there will always be maintenance to be done.
Posted by Andrew Bangs (Member # 4938) on 10-06-2008, 12:40 AM:
The only thing to change with digital cinemas for us technicians is the amount of us that will be needed the training required to do the job and the amount we will get paid. If you want to keep doing this job in the digital era start learning what you can now so you can be that Tech.
Just my $.02
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2