Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Another attempt at a news article from Fox News

This is topic Another attempt at a news article from Fox News 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=011128

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-08-2012, 11:55 AM:

R.I.P. Film Projectors

My comments below...

quote:

By Michelle "Durp" Macaluso
Published January 07, 2012

The odds are good that the next movie you watch will be displayed by a digital projector. After a reign of more than 100 years, 35mm film projectors are quickly becoming a thing of the past.

More than half of projectors in use today are digital. And the world's theater industry will be completely digital in the next four years, according to Texas Instruments, which makes the chips that power many all-digital projectors.

Digital projectors make crisper pictures and enable 3D films. But will skipping the celluloid change your experience of watching the new Mission: Impossible or Sherlock Holmes flick? Absolutely, says Michael Harrison, a projectionist at the Tower Theatre in Fresno, Calif.

"The feeling [from a digital projector] is very plain and sort of programmed to me," Harrison told FoxNews.com. "Film itself has an aesthetic and an appeal and vibrancy of color, with some sort of life that's not in digital."

John Moses, an instructor in Film Studies at Fresno City College, agreed that digital projection tech might take the magic out of the movies.

"There's something maybe magical about the little scratches that cross the celluloid," he told FoxNews.com. "And the colors are going to be a little less vibrant."

Many Hollywood directors still prefer to shoot with film cameras as industry bible Variety recently noted: Among other things, they value the discipline of knowing they must wrap -- the end of the reel is near.

How a film is shot is different from how it's projected, of course -- but both affect the quality to your eyes.

Texas Instruments points out that a digital presentation will be cleaner -- there's no dust, jitters or splices, after all. And you'll no longer see the changeover cues, those black dots that appear in the corner of a film to let a projectionist know when the reels needs to be switched.

Digital cuts costs for studios too, since distributors no longer need to ship huge reels of film to theaters around the country. And films arrive at the local megaplex much faster via the matrix than via planes, trains and automobiles.

In the digital system, studios supply theaters with a downlink from their network that can be captured on the theater's management system. The theater operator then sets up playlists with the day's program, the movies and trailers that entertain theatergoers.

Yet smaller theaters may find it difficult to survive if they don't make the switch -- and the very high cost of installing digital projection systems may be more than they can afford.

"Studios and other companies are helping commercial theaters help the big chains make that conversion," Moses told FoxNews.com. "They're going to be less concerned with a small independent theater."

Christie makes projectors for sale to movie theaters around the world. Almost two years ago, the company went digital -- after making film projectors for over 80 years.

"Because of the economic advantages of distribution via digital content, I became quite concerned about the future of Christie," Jack Kline, president and COO of Christie Digital Systems, told FoxNews.com. "If we didn't have a solution we could actually become extinct."

The company Kinoton, which calls itself "one of the biggest manufacturers of professional film projection technology," declined FoxNews.com requests for an interview. But experts say most film projector makers are racing to build and sell new digital models.

Is Kodak, the company that single-handedly pioneered much of the film industry getting involved in the rush? Not so much, the company said.

Kodak recently told Variety that its film business was still profitable and quite viable.

"We're still making billions of feet of film and will continue to do so," Ingrid Goodyear, vice president of marketing said. "For the foreseeable future we still see film to be an important part of Kodak's business."

America's cinema industry is big business; it's the largest film industry in the world. Last year, box office numbers reached an all time high at $31.8 billion, according to the Motion Picture Association of America. Yet despite the big bucks, attendance is steadily falling, and expected to hit a 16-year low in 2011 -- something expensive 3D moves can only do so much to offset.

Digital projectors have helped those 3D movies take form and improve quality for the audience. For example the box office hit Avatar would have been impossible to achieve with film.

"It's given us better animation and dynamics not as practical on 35mm film -- and a clearer and more steady picture," Kline said.

Most of us aren't cinephiles -- we're not rushing to see the latest foreign film and are more concerned with comfortable, stadium seating than how the images hits the screen. But no one wants to lose the classics; Raging Bull, or Citizen Kane or Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Many small theaters are concerned that the transition might make movies that were printed on film obsolete.

"We need to make the best of the transition so that [film] won't disappear entirely and people can go to museums and see movies projected on 35mm," Moses said.

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

Fox News isn't exactly known for their accuracy.

quote:
Digital projectors make crisper pictures and enable 3D films.

3D has been presented on actual film for over half a century.

quote:
"There's something maybe magical about the little scratches that cross the celluloid," he told FoxNews.com.

Scratches? That's film done wrong! Michael Harrison you suck.

quote:
"And the colors are going to be a little less vibrant."

Not true if the digital projector was setup properly.

quote:
Texas Instruments points out that a digital presentation will be cleaner -- there's no dust, jitters or splices, after all.

Again, film done wrong. I have ran prints over 1500 passes without the slightest hint of dust. Sure that was with FilmGuard, but the medium of film isn't the problem here. With prints made at a Technicolor lab and on a quality projector that has been well maintained, jitter is not an issue it is so slight.

quote:
And films arrive at the local megaplex much faster via the matrix than via planes, trains and automobiles.

Hey idiot, the sentence is: And movies arrive at the local megaplex much faster via the matrix than via planes, trains and automobiles.

quote:
Christie makes projectors for sale to movie theaters around the world. Almost two years ago, the company went digital -- after making film projectors for over 80 years.

Prove it. SHOW ME a Christie film projector from 80 years ago!

quote:
The company Kinoton, which calls itself "one of the biggest manufacturers of professional film projection technology," declined FoxNews.com requests for an interview.

Misleading statement. NOW they are "one of the biggest" since essentially every other film projection manufacturer has shut down! [Razz]

quote:
For example the box office hit Avatar would have been impossible to achieve with film.

A blatant lie.

quote:
Most of us aren't cinephiles -- we're not rushing to see the latest foreign film and are more concerned with comfortable, stadium seating than how the images hits the screen. But no one wants to lose the classics; Raging Bull, or Citizen Kane or Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Mr. Writer, are you really that stupid? Digital projection has nothing to do with "losing the classics".

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 01-08-2012, 12:06 PM:

Fox News = [bs]

And really, when was the last time ANY reporter got the technical facts right?

And "Durp"? How credible can someone with the name "Durp" possibly be?

And this:

quote:
And films arrive at the local megaplex much faster via the matrix than via planes, trains and automobiles.

Since when did Keano(sp?)Reeves start distributing D-Cinema? And when did John Candy ship film prints?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-08-2012, 12:09 PM:

I added the "Durp". It was obvious Fox News forgot to use the writer's full name.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 01-08-2012, 12:45 PM:

Gotcha. [thumbsup]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-08-2012, 12:58 PM:

Oh wow! I had no idea that film was on its way out. Thanks for informing me, Fox News!

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 01-08-2012, 01:07 PM:

Any reference to Fox News (sic) should always have a (sic) following "News" (sic).

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-08-2012, 01:57 PM:

A point of fact, film does have a larger color gamut than digital. Kinoton was always one of the largest film projector manufacturers since they had world-wide distribution. Though I would have pegged Cinemeccanica as the largest producer of projectors in a world-wide statement. I think folks in the US tend to think of Simplex and Century as universally used around the world when they are mainly popular in the USA. Now there are numerous Century knocks offs.

-Steve

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-08-2012, 06:24 PM:

Another typical reporter ploy:

quote:
The company Kinoton, which calls itself "one of the biggest manufacturers of professional film projection technology," declined FoxNews.com requests for an interview.

the inference being that the fact they declined an interview means they have something to hide or can't dispute the reporter's allegations, when in fact, they just many not want to waste their time giving an interview when they feel they will be misquoted and taken out of context. Or maybe they've read his columns and just don't like the SOB. News people seem to have the mistaken idea that you HAVE to talk to them just because they shove a camera & mic in your face.

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 01-08-2012, 06:39 PM:

Even though I think Fox News = Fox communist propganda, I will agree with one thing, digital projection looks cheep to me. Digital projection does not have the same "feel" as 35MM film. I do think that theaters have cheepened their product by using digital, and will need to lower their ticket prices. If I wait a few months, I can rent the same thing for $1, and watch it at home ON TV (just like at the theater), but I don't have the distractions like some idiot on their cell phone, or over priced popcorn; and if I need to use the rest room, I can just hit pause, and I don't miss anything. Therefore, going to the theater to watch TV is worth $1 to me. There is no way that I will pay $10 to watch TV for 2 hours.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 01-08-2012, 07:43 PM:

The one comment I will make is that I have people come up to me every week and tell me the digital picture is the best picture they have seen on any movie screen - not just at my theatre. And I heard quite a few comments to this effect when we played Hugo.

Factual errors aside, this article represents the experience and point of view of the "average" movie goer.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-08-2012, 08:50 PM:

Unless people are given a DOUBLE BLIND test, all the anecdotal "evidence" like this is of no significant value other than for the marketing departments -- if you can convince the populous to buy your product because you've created the PERCEPTION that it is better, it doen't really matter if it is or not -- you are going to sell more product.

All those raves about digital can simple mean 1) an exhibitor's film presentation was so suck-ass awful that now that he has a new, out-of-the-box and well-aligned system, yes it looks better, and/or 2) people are TOLD they are watching a digital picture and, well, digital HAS to be better -- it's the latest marketing buzz-word. You have test subjects that are predisposed to preceive whatever they are watching as better. If you didn't TELL them what format they were seeing...if you didn't TELL them it was a digital presentation, would they still come up with positive assessments?

And let's face it, if most exhibitors ripped out whatever 20 year old film projector that was being using and put in a spanking new, out-of-the-box Kinoton that had been as meticulously installed, aligned and tweeked as is done with a spanking new out-of-the-box digital projector, they would see an improvement as well (assuming whoever was making his film presentation look like crap before, isn't allowed to TOUCH the print)? Of COURSE newly installed equipment will look better than decades old stuff that's been neglected and of COURSE a technolgy that eliminates dirt and scratches by eliminating humans who create them is going to have an advantage, but this is an inherantly unfair playing field. DOUBLE BLIND and THEN see what they say; in fact, do what they do in some double blind tests is to actually give the opposite information and see how that affects perception.

Furether, unless something is happened drastically differently in other parts of the country, at least here in NYC, I see film about as often as I see digital, and in the last two years I have see equal problems that've made me go and complain to the manager -- once was a film problem (incorrectly framed) and the other was a digital problem (dramatically underlet AND with a glarring hot spot). Film and digital presentation are running about neck and neck, at least here.

And lastly, there is that other unspoken elephant sitting in front of the screen. Unless you are talking about Dolby or Panvision (which I have never seen) which are a minority of systems, get used to those big, ugly, hot spots with digital because the primary reason many exhibitors went digital was because they thought they just had to have 3D, and as we all know, the majority of the 3D installs are of the polarizing sysemts and they come with a big, ugly PERMANANT hot spot on ALL digital projection in those theatres, be they 3D OR 2D. All digital in those theatres will be marred. And unlike film, which can be kept clean and free from scratches by insisting on good standard practices, silver screen hotspots CAN'T be eliminated by good standard practices -- they will be there every time that regular Joe Movie Goer --you know, the one you think actually knows what is digital and what is film, and that digital is better -- he will see a hot spot every time he sits down to watch a digital presentation. Or do you think he is so critically astute that he can't abide the occasional scratch or fleck of dirt but is so obtuse that he won't notice an unevenly lit screen with a humungous hot spot sitting in the middle of it? Film scratches can be eliminated. Silver screens will never be as long as there is 3D.

Out-of-frame racking can be fixed (it was within a few minutes at my show); on the other hand, that dark underlit, hotspotting digital presentation couldn't be fixed at all (a free pass -- presumably to another dim, hotspotting presentation -- was the only fix I got).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-08-2012, 10:00 PM:

I think it's pretty hilarious that this site, Film-Tech, has been dedicated for over 10 years to eradicating jump, weave, scratches, dirt, damaged film and visible splices. And now we find out that people actually miss all those things. "There's something magical about the little scratches??" Give me a freaking break.

I suppose it's only a matter of time before somebody uses some software to add "film"-like things (scratches, dirt, splices) to a digital print from beginning to end, in order to make it seem more film-like. Many of the film people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-08-2012, 10:16 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I suppose it's only a matter of time before somebody uses some software to add "film"-like things (scratches, dirt, splices) to a digital print from beginning to end, in order to make it seem more film-like.

Robert Rodriguez did this very sort of thing with Planet Terror, one half of the Grindhouse double feature with Quentin Tarantino's way too talky Death Proof. He shot the movie using video cameras and then added all sorts of artificial scratches, burns, etc. to the footage to attempt to make it look like film.

I'm sure there's more examples than just that one. Fundamentally, the very act of taking video footage and twisting its native color gamma out of whack and attempt to make it look like film is pretentious all on its own.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-08-2012, 10:31 PM:

I saw Death Proof and the entire first half of it (which was about 45 hours) had fake film damage and dirt. It went away when the story shifted to the stunt chicks (which itself was about 30 hours long). I haven't seen Planet Terror. That had fake film damage as well?

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-08-2012, 10:46 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
The one comment I will make is that I have people come up to me every week and tell me the digital picture is the best picture they have seen on any movie screen - not just at my theatre. And I heard quite a few comments to this effect when we played Hugo.

I would have to say that as people start getting used to the digital look (vs film) you will see more and more people prefer digital. At first I did not like digital presentations, but I have gotten very used to it and now prefer it, if the movie is listed as a digital presentation then all the better.

With that being said, the Humber cinema 2 had an outstanding presentation of 35mm when I was worked there briefly. I was amazed at how great the image was...it was a brand new projector which was installed.

IMO part of digital is getting used to the look, I perceive the digital image as clearer, sharper and brighter. Once you get used to it, there is no going back to film. I also like how Cineplex Odeon in my area mentions whether the movie is film or digital.

quote: Frank Angel
Unless people are given a DOUBLE BLIND test, all the anecdotal "evidence" like this is of no significant value other than for the marketing departments -- if you can convince the populous to buy your product because you've created the PERCEPTION that it is better, it doen't really matter if it is or not -- you are going to sell more product.

I would like to see the results of a double blind test as well.

I also would like to see what the producers and directors have to say about which format to see the movie in.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-08-2012, 10:52 PM:

I am sick and tired of articles about film purist missing scratches or other film defects as if that is what's being lost with super sharp perfect digital!
Film done right has none of that crap!
Good prints on good equipment equals magic!That is being lost.
Digital and silver screens are making me a very angry man.
Those who are fine with silver screens and hot spots on low rez sharp digital screens are suspects to me.
I suspect you need better glasses. [Smile]

Maybe you never knew what the magic looked like to begin with?
Sorry but Frank Angel got me worked up with his hot spot post. [Mad]

Excellent post Frank!

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 01-09-2012, 02:19 AM:

Since silver screens have been a part of cinema almost as long as there has been cinema, and became a metonym for cinema long before most of us were born, I find it bizarre that film purists would have such a hatred for them.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 01-09-2012, 02:48 AM:

Maybe it's because, regardless of the origination of the projected image, that it is image degradation? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-09-2012, 03:06 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I haven't seen Planet Terror. That had fake film damage as well?

Yeah. And it used the fake damage a lot more liberally than Death Proof.

quote: Edward Havens
Since silver screens have been a part of cinema almost as long as there has been cinema, and became a metonym for cinema long before most of us were born, I find it bizarre that film purists would have such a hatred for them.

And aside from 3D revivals, it was also only used in a widespread fashion before most (if not all) of us were born. There's a reason people started using other materials... and it isn't because of a blind hatred for silver colored stuff...

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-09-2012, 03:14 AM:

I wonder if Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez would love it if they were in the booth with me and at the end of the night I removed the platter brain and just pushed one of their prints onto the floor and dragged it around for a while. I then put the movie back together. Would they be first in line full of giddiness to see the newly damaged version of the print the next morning?

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-09-2012, 04:30 AM:

Although I've never bothered checking on it, but I heard Tarantino got into trying out this type of movie because of the fact that he, as a collector of films, bought a copy or two of films that'd gone through the wringer in this manner from grindhouses. Assuming what I'd heard is true, it wasn't just an homage to people that fuck shit up but also an homage to the type of experience they themselves had.

Oh and on the "film damage" I much preferred Tarantino's way of handling it since it seemed more realistic. The "Planet Terror" bit was just like they tried to throw every bit of fake damage they could all the time non-stop. With Death Proof it mostly was just at the changeovers like what tends to occur in "film done wrong."

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-09-2012, 06:54 AM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
I have people come up to me every week and tell me the digital picture is the best picture they have seen on any movie screen - not just at my theatre. And I heard quite a few comments to this effect when we played Hugo.

I think that there is a difference between the first impression that one gets when seeing D-cinema and how one feels about it over time.

If you spent your entire life listening to recorded music on LPs and cassette tapes and someone played an MP3 file for you, you might respond by saying that it sounded great because it had no hiss and no pops or crackle. But if you spent a year listening only to MP3s and then heard a good LP, the response might be quite the opposite and the limitations of the compressed digital format would be readily apparent by comparison.

Same thing with D-cinema. If they care at all, people generally like it when they first see it, but may feel differently once they become accustomed to it and then go back to watching a good 35mm print on a good system.

quote:
I am sick and tired of articles about film purist missing scratches or other film defects as if that is what's being lost with super sharp perfect digital!
Film done right has none of that crap!

Exactly! I don't doubt that there are some morons out there who like seeing film damage, but this point of view insults those who work hard to provide proper damage-free film presentations. There is nothing inherent to film that causes damage. This is an operator problem, not an issue with the medium.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-09-2012, 01:27 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
And aside from 3D revivals, it was also only used in a widespread fashion before most (if not all) of us were born. There's a reason people started using other materials... and it isn't because of a blind hatred for silver colored stuff...

And I might add that the silver screens that were fairly widespread and developed in conjunction with Fox for CinemaScope were NOT for 3D; they were lenticular and curved SPECIFICALLY so as to avoid hotspots while getting a higher gain. The 50s wave of 3D films lasted only for three to four years the most, then along came CinemaScope and whatever silver screens were still in theatres were ripped out and replaced with lenticular scope screens, a very different animal that what is being used today for 3D. Not until the 80s when an even much shorter run of 3D films needed silver screens did they come back for a few years and only in very limited runs.

So no, 3D silver screens were NEVER used for broad release 2D films as they are now; the use of silver screens and their demonstrable and documented hotspotting issue for standard 2D presentation has ONLY come about with the widespread use of digital.

It is not "film purists" having a blind hatred for digital; it is simply people here who have dedicated their careers to getting the best possible presentation out of ANY technology by looking unbiasedly at the issues. If someone concludes that certain changes are not a step up but backwards, that doesn't make them "blind" but on the contrary, quite open-minded. The use of 3D silverized screens for 2D presentation is decidedly a negative; there is no disputing that conclusion.

What I can't understand is how digivangelelists can simply dismiss such an obvious problem in an all-consuming desire to say that digital is best without acknowledging any of its weaknesses. This attitude that "the common moviegoer won't care and will accept bad presentation so that makes it OK," quite frankly, is antithesis to what we believe on this forum. It's the old "mediocrity is fine" argument....and not for nuthin, it sucks big time.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-09-2012, 02:49 PM:

Nice new scrabble word. metonym.

Had to look it up.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 01-09-2012, 04:04 PM:

With this debate about digital vs film, I keep coming back to one point. Those who favor film keep pointing out the weaknesses of the digital picture vs those of a film picture - often as though the differences should be obvious to anyone who looks at a digital screen.

The problem is I keep looking for these weaknesses on my digital screens and I just don't see them. If they are so obvious, I shouldn't even have to look for them, I should simply be able to know they exist. And I say this not as someone who only occasionally watches a digital presentation. I say this as someone who has set up 8 digital projectors. I say this as someone who periodically goes through my auditoriums and tweaks the screen files to ensure the best picture. And I say this as someone with ~15 years experience working with 35mm film.

As I've said before, I'm not comparing digital to a pristine 70mm presentation because I have not basis for comparison. I am simply speaking of my experience in the various theatres where I have watched movies. And including the various film presentations I have seen at ShoWest/CinemaCon.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-09-2012, 06:36 PM:

quote: Bruce Hansen
Even though I think Fox News = Fox communist propganda,

Wow, someone clearly has their left and right mixed up.

This misinformation being reported on film is a problem with just about every news organization. It is frustrating. But hey, let's face it. Dusty, dirty, scratched, splicey sub-par presentations of crappy quality prints are the norm when it comes to film these days. It's sad, but that's reality.

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 01-09-2012, 09:04 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
hey, let's face it. Dusty, dirty, scratched, splicey sub-par presentations of crappy quality prints are the norm when it comes to film these days.

Maybe at your theater, but some people still care.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 01-09-2012, 09:38 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I suppose it's only a matter of time before somebody uses some software to add "film"-like things (scratches, dirt, splices) to a digital print from beginning to end, in order to make it seem more film-like. Many of the film people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

I was at a post production house some years ago, and they were working on a clip from Phantom Mess ADDING "film grain", "dirt", and "scratches" to the DC file. It looked like [bs]

and I told them so. They didn't like me much after that. [Big Grin]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-09-2012, 10:54 PM:

quote: Bruce Hansen
Maybe at your theater, but some people still care.

The people that care (including me), and the good presentations they put on (including mine) with film are in the minority. The norm is a crappy presentation.

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 01-10-2012, 06:37 AM:

My experience with an ad agency was also unpleasant.
They were making an ad for a film series and it opened with the count down leader showing before a very scratch enhanced title card. I pointed out that we would fire the operator who caused this to happen in our theatre. They were angry that I had canned their display of artifacts that they just knew would say "film" to the viewers.

Their enhanced version did NOT air, thank you very much!

KEN

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-10-2012, 08:24 AM:

Unfortunately, adding scratches and crap to invoke "film" is a convention to the point of being a cliche in the entertainment world today. TV shows do it all the time for flashbacks and bad documentaries with "re-enacted" footage have scratch loops where you see the same dirt and scratches repeating.

Like the sound of a stylus sliding across a record, scratches and dirt are being sold as the iconic image of film. The only bright side is, in time, digital breakup and stuttering will be the iconic image of digital.