This is topic Maintaining film projection ability long-term 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=011617
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-04-2014, 12:12 PM:
I'm spinning this issue off from the "Who is still running film in 2014 out of choice?" thread, because I suspect it has the potential to drag it off topic.
In relation to comments by Steve, Brad and Jim on that thread, I would speculate that any venue that wishes to maintain film projection long-term faces five essential challenges.
1. Institutional "buy-in" - the willingness of the ownership/leadership/policymaking authority within the exhibiting organization to continue investing in film projection capability long-term.
2. Availability of prints.
3. Maintenance of equipment.
4. The projection and maintenance skills base.
5. Regulation going forward (e.g. in relation to nitrate).
With the exception of 2, these are basically the exact same problems that the operators of other heritage technology have had to address, and in particular, I would guess, classic transport vehicles. Unfortunately, 2 is a unique one to our business, and once film stops being made, it is the major reason why I am more pessimistic than many for the chances of film projection still being done on any significant scale, apart from in theatres that are directly owned and controlled by archives that themselves hold major print collections.
Other technology heritage museums have proven that all these problems except 2 can be overcome if enough money is thrown at them. In recent years, non-profits have restored an Avro Vulcan and a Lockheed Super Constellation from rusting wrecks to airworthy, and in Britain the Computer Conservation Society have brought transistor-driven mainframes from the '60s back to life. The National Railway Museum in York only abandoned attempts to restore an iconic 1930s steam locomotive because the financial management of the project left a lot to be desired, and the money ran out. There was no insurmountable technological barrier.
At the moment we don't know how big the problems will be once projection technology is totally obsolete. It isn't as yet: spares for many projectors, their peripherals and audio gear are still readily available, and service companies still have techs who know what to do with them. On that score, the real fun will start in 10-20 years time, when the only parts left will be cannibalized ones and even retired techs who started their careers in the '80s will be hard to find.
But once film is no longer made, I can't see any way to prevent the number of projectable prints out there declining steadily and unstoppably. The only way to inhibit that decline will be storage of the prints in atmospherically controlled vaults (in the case of acetate: polyester is supposed not to need it, though questions over the integrity of the binder layer in long-term storage at room temperature and humidity remain), combined with a rigid policy of only allowing their use on well-maintained equipment and by properly trained and assessed personnel. The engineers and pilots who work on restored aircraft have to pass type rating exams and their work is closely monitored. As the supply of prints diminishes and we reach the point at which archives hold the only decent ones left, I wouldn't be surprised if they introduce similar regulation over the people who handle them.
The related issue I'd speculate is currently live is that the "film forever" crowd are essentially in denial about how long film stock - and especially color film stock - will continue to be made. Only last week a friend who works at the National Archives told me that Kodak have just announced the discontinuation of several more lines, including all 16mm intermediate stocks and one of their two lines of print stock, and announced yet another price hike on some others. OK, the recession in southern Europe is extending the "long tail" of theater conversions (I recently heard it said that Greece, Italy and Spain are probably the only remaining countries in the developed world where conversion to DCP has not reached 50%), but the complete end of mainstream release printing can't be far away now. OrWo, Tasma and perhaps one or two others I've missed may carry on with b/w and may pick up some of the archival market that Kodak will likely walk away from, but I have not heard one person who has ever spent a day of his or her life doing paid work in the film stock manufacture business try to claim, seriously, that the manufacture of color film, and all the chemistry and infrastructure needed to process it, could survive as a boutique, niche-market operation. It would be like building a Concorde in a garage. The math simply doesn't add up.
Am I being overly pessimistic?
In the short term, however, establishing a program of repertory/cinemtheque projectionist and maintenance training has to be the no. 1 priority for the "museum cinema" sector, while the expertise is still readily available to pass on.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-04-2014, 12:34 PM:
Do you have a source for the information on Kodak's discontinuation of 16mm intermediate films? I found the discontinuation notice about 2393 on the Kodak web site, but there is nothing about 16mm intermediate materials.
Agreed that we have ten to twenty years before we need to worry about projection and service skills (there are plenty of talented and under-employed projectionists right now), but the discontinuation of materials vital to the production of films and the making of prints is a disturbing possibility.
On a related note, and perhaps less disturbing for archives and institutions that want to maintain film for historical reasons, many of the skills involved with the production of films by photochemical means are also being lost as people retire and move on to other work. Try finding a negative cutter or animation cameraman in 2014. They exist, but are getting increasingly rare. Same for competent laboratory technicians who are knolwedgeable about film processing, photochemical timing, and optical printing.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-04-2014, 01:47 PM:
I speculate: "What is that big thing over there? Someone told me that it was used before we got our first d-projector? Don't touch it/it might blow up"
Knowledge is lost quite quickly in an industry that gets all new staff every 6 months. Two or three changes from now, yes becomes no; black becomes white. etc.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-04-2014, 04:40 PM:
One of the things to consider is that 3D printing technologies will make it practical to economically obtain one-offs of obsolete parts.
One of the questions when it comes to film as a presentation medium, is how long is it WORTH preserving as anything other than a hobby or museum exhibit? Within a very short period of time, resolution standards will render moot the argument about digital not being as good as film. And if film is being used for archive purposes, why would there be need to risk an archived print for any reason other than scanning to make a digital copy.
When it comes to archive purposes, various digital mediums are becoming so large and inexpensive that it's not issue to create multiple redundant backups that can be stored in different locations. And even if those backups are prone to degradation over time, having multiple copies will make it highly unlikely that the entire original will ever be lost.
Even if film stock continues to be available for archive purposes, it requires a good deal of expense to create and maintain an archive print, not to mention the space requirements.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-04-2014, 05:14 PM:
quote: Scott Norwood
Do you have a source for the information on Kodak's discontinuation of 16mm intermediate films?
Not that I'd feel comfortable naming on a public web page. This was told to me in an informal conversation: I wasn't told that this was off the record or that I couldn't quote it, but I don't think he expected to be named, either. I'll give you some more context in a private email.
quote: Justin Hamaker
how long is it WORTH preserving as anything other than a hobby or museum exhibit? Within a very short period of time, resolution standards will render moot the argument about digital not being as good as film. And if film is being used for archive purposes, why would there be need to risk an archived print for any reason other than scanning to make a digital copy.
Those who advocate keeping film projection alive use two arguments, one of basically emotional and the other which has some objective substance.
The emotional argument is that if we lose the technology with which a movie was originally created, post-produced and shown, we lose the ability to give audiences the ability to see it in the way that audiences saw it when it was initially made. The "experience" of seeing it, in a subjective sense, is different, and if we lose the ability to recreate that, we lose the ability to understand the movie's provenance.
The more objective one is that the now obsolete technology gave the people who made and showed movies with it opportunities and limitations that are fundamentally different from those which digital technology gives us now, and that by giving audiences - even very few, and only in a small number of venues - the chance actually to work with them, we understand the movie better. For example, today's teenagers who can take 1080p footage on their cellphones have a hard time understanding that in the 1970s, you couldn't use most film stocks indoors without lots of artificial light, because they were too slow. If they got the opportunity to shoot some real film and have to deal with these issues themselves, they would understand why some 1970s movies look they way they do more effectively.
But I agree: the "should we try to do this at all?" question is a totally valid one, and we shouldn't just assume that the answer is a foregone conclusion.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-04-2014, 05:28 PM:
I'll admit, I'm a bit more pessimistic when it comes to being able to support film equipment. While there is currently a bottomless pit supply of USED and worn gear out there...the supply of new parts for wearables has started to dry up FAST. I think the former caused the latter. That is, while people were keeping their film machines going until they could replace, they used the used equipment as parts supplies (makes perfect sense to me) so manufacturers of spare parts (e.g. Wolk or even Strong...in the States) would see their parts sales go to zero and need to close up shop.
The next thing that is likely to happen is all of the junkers out there will finally meet their end and even if they don't it will be increasingly difficult to mate up some piece of gear with an operating theatre that needs it.
In case the word has not gotten out yet, Kinoton is to discontinue their film projection equipment as soon as April 2014 (yes that is just a month left). All USA manufactured equipment is already done and even parts for them, including wearables are becoming no longer available.
While it is true that 3D printing will be able to replicate some parts, it won't do all nor will the materials necessarily have the right characteristics desired. Most of the projection equipment parts can be replicated with suitable CNC machining and gear hobbing. The question is the cost of doing it on 1-offs or small runs.
Then there are the things required to properly set up projection equipment...you know...test film. It has been hard enough to get "good" test film for the last 20+ years...film that you can bank on its alignment qualities...who will produce measured film to test/set up or keep in calibration in the future? How stable will existing supplies be in the typical storage condition they are in now?
As for archiving on Digital...there is the geometric problem of migration. The entire history of motion pictures will need to migrate to each new digital medium until that really stabilizes (if it ever does). It isn't a matter of the cost of having two or three HDD to hold current stuff...it is the cost of CONSTANT migration to ensure that you never lose what you have and the problem keeps growing.
With film, and current knowledge, one can keep it stored for about 1000 years. That is an awfully long time without having to migrate. Sure, I would keep multiple copies anyway and in different geographical locations...but still.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-04-2014, 05:34 PM:
quote: Leo Enticknap
I have not heard one person who has ever spent a day of his or her life doing paid work in the film stock manufacture business try to claim, seriously, that the manufacture of color film, and all the chemistry and infrastructure needed to process it, could survive as a boutique, niche-market operation.
How much of that cost is due to patents? Would the costs drop dramatically if the proprietary patents on the processes were put into public domain?
Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 03-04-2014, 08:51 PM:
There's a book: Making Kodak Film which I bought after a recommendation on here. It's a stunner.
What is necessary to make film would make your hair curl. There will be no effective small scale production of film unless someone has a huge wad of money to sink into it. And it wont be long before all the people who knew how to make the process work are no longer about...
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-04-2014, 10:44 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
In case the word has not gotten out yet, Kinoton is to discontinue their film projection equipment as soon as April 2014 (yes that is just a month left). All USA manufactured equipment is already done and even parts for them, including wearables are becoming no longer available.
They were the last ones left worldwide still making 16mm and 70mm mechanisms, weren't they? A trawl of the other makers I can think of who were producing projectors relatively recently reveals that:
Cinemeccanica sort of say that they're still making the Vic 5, but their site doesn't mention 70 at all.
Proyecson asks you to contact them if you're interested in 35mm. I'm guessing this means that they have some "new old stock" mechanisms, or reconditioned ones traded in for digital stuff, but that they're not actually manufacturing film gear anymore.
Monee - were making projectors in 2011 according to this, but I can't find any evidence online to suggest that they still are.
Those are the only ones I can think of that were manufacturing projector mechanisms relatively recently. That really is the end of an era if Kinoton are pulling out.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-04-2014, 11:57 PM:
Leo, you are really passionate about film?
Do you still run 35mm at your theater?
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-05-2014, 11:42 AM:
Apologies in advance for the long post. In reponse to Terry:
Film is an information storage medium and an industrial technology that has come and will go, just like many others, from papyrus and illuminated manuscripts to the floppy disc.
Once it's gone (which in terms of a mainstream access format is almost now, but as an archival preservation medium possibly won't be for centuries), I feel that it's important that future audiences have the opportunity to learn what production, post-production and exhbition on film involved, and the capabilities and limitations of the technology. But during the 15 years or so I worked in projection booths, I was banging my head against those limitations all the time (mainly bad prints that had been misused earlier in their lives), and the fact that film is being replaced by something that, subjectively at least, removes a lot of them is something I welcome.
So basically my response to you is the same as my response to Justin. I feel it's very important that, for as long as possible, there are at least a small number of places where expertise and resources can be concentrated, and in which film projection can take place regularly for as long as possible into the future. That is because a huge amount of the 20th century primary historical record was created using it, and once it's a legacy technology, being able to experience it actually working will make it a whole lot easier to understand how those records were created and received, what they tell us and what they don't.
What it will not do - and this is where my frustration with the "film forever" tendency, the AMIA Film Advocacy Group, etc. etc., comes in - is unlock some sort of magic, without which the world is a fundamentally worse place. Film projection is an industrial process, not a religious rite! For example, is anyone seriously arguing that in order to understand the significance and impact of the Declaration of Independence, you have to go to Washington DC, queue up for hours and eyeball the original manuscript, and that if you read the text on NARA's website there's something fundamental you're not getting? The fact that the original is preserved and displayed the way it is tells us something about the impact of its contents, not the other way round.
What will help you understand its contents is the knowledge that in those days, handwriting a document of that length and complexity was something that could only be done by someone who was very highly educated, and needed expensive materials and a lot of time. For that knowledge to be kept alive, it helps that there are a few people out there who are still creating written manuscripts using c18 materials.
Likewise, is seeing a DCP of Citizen Kane going to prevent you from understanding why the movie is important, whereas with the projection of a nitrate print on a carbon-lit 1941 Motiograph, you're suddenly going to get it? The "film forever" tendency claim loudly and often that there is something unique, special and valuable about the experience of watching that medium specifically projected on a screen, but I have never once heard any of them make any serious attempt to articulate why, in an objective sense. That's beacuse, unlike the argument that keeping a legacy technology alive helps us to understand its historical significance, the "something special" argument is essentially an emotional, faith-based one.
The other thing that strikes me about all this is that as a general rule, the most vocal film advocates are people whose experience of film projection has been almost exclusively in prestige, well-funded venues in major city centers, with projectionists and techs who know what they're doing, top end equipment and access to archive and first-run rep prints. As someone who has both worked at and been a paying customer of venues that had to show worn-out and badly damaged prints, did not have the money to buy the lenses and plates needed to show a film in the correct ratio, etc. etc., the DCP is one helluvan improvement for me.
The reason I started this thread is that I'm interested in cutting through the emotional BS and getting a sense of how far into the future it will be possible to project films to a theatrical audience, where, in what ways and at what cost, based on the actual evidence we have, not "this is special and we must save it, whatever it takes". I'm interested in how much of what it takes we have now and will realistically continue to have, and for how long, and believe that the regulars on F-T are better qualified to discuss this than the semi-informed and emotionally motivated people who tend to dominate the discussions on the more academic and archive-focused lists and forums.
Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 03-05-2014, 12:12 PM:
In response to David's plug of the Making Kodak Film book. There has been great headway made in Italy by the Ferrania company. They are on the verge of re-launching scotchchrome color reversal and plan to make it available in many motion gauges. They have the means of manufacturing many different kinds of color stock in smaller quantities than Kodak (still huge though!) Maybe it will be possible for this company to provide film stock in boutique quantities for the foreseeable future because I don't expect Kodak to be in the business of motion stock much longer.
I know forum rules require posting the content of a link, but there is just SO much to read and look at here with sub links. I'm just going to leave this here. Mods please let me know if I indeed need to go back and parse out the content. http://www.wittner-cinetec.com/info/filmferrania/english.php
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-05-2014, 12:16 PM:
Nice response Leo, very interesting!
quote: Leo Enticknap
I'm interested in cutting through the emotional BS and getting a sense of how far into the future it will be possible to project films to a theatrical audience, where, in what ways and at what cost, based on the actual evidence we have, not "this is special and we must save it, whatever it takes"
I think on a small niche scale, projecting film to a theatrical audience will not be hard going forward, when Dark Knight Rises was released, there were a small number of IMAX digital screens that still had their IMAX film projection equipment that was used for the The Dark Knight Rises, once the movie played its 4 week run, the film projectors were moved to the back of the booth and out came the digital projectors once again. I did not hear of any issues, and IMAX was on the ball and did the hiring of projectionists for The Dark Knight Rises at these select locations.
When The Master was released, the Varsity in Toronto was a select venue to play the movie in 70mm, the Varsity had been a digital theater for a least a few years and you would have to go back to the early 80s to find the last 70mm to play at the Varsity. Again, there were no issues with the film projection and the print eventually made its way to another 70mm house in Toronto to play sub run. What it is interesting about the The Master at the Varsity is that Cineplex is notorious for being cheap, and the simple fact they installed 70mm for the movie is a miracle IMO. From what I understand, there was a projectionist in the booth for the entire run.
Going forward, I think there will be very limited area for 35mm presentations, the studios will allow a select 35mm/70mm roll-out if they think they can make money doing it. There will be companies that will still have the equipment to take care of the installs on a lease by lease basis.
If you go back 10-15 years, I doubt anyone would of predicted that we would see another 70mm select release like we did The Master in 2012. I fully predict that we will see a 250-500 print release of Interstellar in 35mm in select theaters this November.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-05-2014, 12:38 PM:
Leo: thanks for your PM.
Some quick math: last I heard, there were about 100k cinema screens worldwide (which I assume refers to commercial cinemas). If film goes away on a commercial level, but 1% of this equipment survives, we have +/- 1000 screens' worth of projection equipment to supply venues that desire to exhibit film.
Presumably, most of the surviving equipment will not be in daily "grind house" use, so the expected lifespan will be somewhat longer than the 20-50 years that would typically be expected. New polyester-base prints do not shrink and should be at least dimensionally stable for many decades or centuries. So, I think that it is fair to say that someone, somewhere will be able to exhibit film in 100 years' time, even if all equipment and film production were to cease tomorrow. Will anyone be showing film in 1000 years? Probably not.
Agreed with comments made in other threads that there is some value to having film exhibitors standardize on a small set of makes and models of projection equipment in order to make small-scale parts manufacturing viable. Not sure how that would happen, though.
Also, conventional B&W emulsion should be able to be manufactured on a small scale (even in someone's basement), although quality-control would likely be poor until/unless volume increases. Precise slitting and perforating are probably more difficult than making and coating the emulsion.
Regarding the perceived "magic" of film presentation:
Is there still some question about the difference (if any) in how projected film is perceived versus how projected video is perceived? I believe that there is/was some notion that the flicker from projected film had some influence on brain activity. Also, there is the difference between light going through something (film, SXRD) and light bouncing off of something (DLP). Was any of this ever properly researched? (I don't know.)
Additionally, there is the issue of how accurately a DCP (or "restored" print or 16mm reduction print, etc., etc.) represents the way a given film looked and sounded when it was first released. I have not seen very many repertory DCPs, but we need to be wary of things like remixed soundtracks, "cleaned up" original material, de-graining, and the like. An original print of an original release of a film avoids these issues (though potentially introduces others, such as physical damage, missing footage, etc.). There are also limitations to the DCP format itself, such as no support for frame rates lower than 24. And nothing that I have seen projected from DCP really resembles a dye-transfer print or 70mm print or anything of that sort. Most of these issues will be fixed at some point in the future (I hope), but we aren't there yet.
In any case, I agree that we need to identify some of the "magic" qualities of film so that they can be replicated (or at least understood).
Apologies for the long post, but I sort of agree with both sides here. There is something special about film exhibition that is worth retaining past the point when all films have been scanned and are available in other formats, just as people restore and maintain steam trains, piston aircraft, and the like. It may not last forever, but I see no reason to give it up prematurely.
Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 03-05-2014, 07:00 PM:
quote: Scott Norwood
Will anyone be showing film in 1000 years? Probably not.
Not to be sarcastic, but Arthur C. Clarke's short story "History Lesson" comes to mind.
I agree with the comments that film is simply a delivery medium. As such, it has been eclipsed by the emergence of digital projection. Just as cars eclipsed horse and buggy, things change as technology evolves. Will there still be any film projection in 100 years? Are there any horses and buggy rigs today? Ancient Alien theorists say a resounding yes. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Gary Wachter (Member # 5833) on 03-05-2014, 08:40 PM:
Here is a good article on the long term outlook from the IEEE:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/standards/will-todays-digital-movies-exist-in-100-years
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-05-2014, 10:23 PM:
When it comes to archiving, how many of the movies released each year are really worth the full archive treatment - were everything is saved. Especially when you get outside that 5-10 year window when data migration becomes an issue. Most movies are never going to see a re-release or a special edition DVD, so wouldn't a high quality blu-ray (or equivalent) of the finished movie be adequate in most cases?
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-06-2014, 07:34 AM:
Ya know Justin...that sort of philosophy existed (in a sense) back in the day...when films were just that...for the moment. Studios didn't nothing to preserve them...never thinking about how the world might change and how their trash may turn to gold later. Who is to say what is valuable? It was valuable enough to be made.
Film offers, at the moment, the cheapest long-term storage solution. I don't, generally, like to make permanent decisions for future generations. So I wouldn't want to say..."eh...this B-movie only gets the BluRay storage treatment."
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-06-2014, 11:51 AM:
If B&W stock can be made by a boutique operation but color cannot, what about reviving dye transfer printing? Of course that will alter the look of the result when the point of continuing film projection (as opposed to using it as an archive medium) was to show things the way they were originally seen.
I would also like to quote the "What We Are About" statement from the Mssrs. Hall, Antos, and Westphal of the Northwest Chicago Film Society:
The Northwest Chicago Film Society exists to promote the preservation of film in context. Films capture the past uniquely. They hold the stories told by feature films, but also the stories of the industries that produced them, the places where they were exhibited, and the people who watched them. We believe that all of this history–not just of film, but of 20th century industry, labor, recreation, and culture–is more intelligible when it’s grounded in unsimulated experience: seeing a film in a theater, with an audience, and projected from film stock.
They run mostly excellent prints but if the time should ever come when the only ones available are scratched, splicy, and faded if color, then a DCP will be a better representation of the original performance. I hope that never happens but if it does, a good portion of the experience would still be there.
Posted by Elena Rossi-Snook (Member # 8069) on 03-06-2014, 12:15 PM:
Maybe I'm out of my depth by contributing here but I thought it funny that Leo should mention papyrus. Presentation by Library of Congress at the 2013 Association of Moving Image Archivists' conference gave stats for uptick in market for parchment and velum. Sure, there's really just one producer but they are seeing record sales.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-06-2014, 03:54 PM:
quote: Scott Norwood
Additionally, there is the issue of how accurately a DCP (or "restored" print or 16mm reduction print, etc., etc.) represents the way a given film looked and sounded when it was first released. I have not seen very many repertory DCPs, but we need to be wary of things like remixed soundtracks, "cleaned up" original material, de-graining, and the like.
That happened in restorations and re-releases done photochemically, too. But yet only a tiny minority of purists believed that this created an authenticity problem.
quote: Scott Norwood
An original print of an original release of a film avoids these issues...
True, but how many rep presentations on film actually used them? I once say a side-by-side projection of a reel of the 1942 The Jungle Book - an original 1942 IB release print on the left and the BFI's mid-1990s restoration on the right. They looked totally different in every possible way: grading, color fringing on the IB print, picture stability and audio (the projectionist flipped back and forth to let us compare). Yet I strongly suspect that if you were to screen that 1990s print now, film purists would congratulate you for respecting the film's medium authenticity, whereas if you were to project a DCP made from it (or at least, from the same IN used to make the print) you'd be condemned for having gone over to the digital dark side.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-06-2014, 05:09 PM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
When it comes to archiving, how many of the movies released each year are really worth the full archive treatment - were everything is saved. Especially when you get outside that 5-10 year window when data migration becomes an issue. Most movies are never going to see a re-release or a special edition DVD, so wouldn't a high quality blu-ray (or equivalent) of the finished movie be adequate in most cases?
I don't think the film preservation issue is as big as some try and make it out to be. It is blown way out of proportion. Justin, you are right, 99% of the movies made will never see a re-release
I look at the way we watch movies today at home, how many of the current blu-ray movies that are released are sourced from the original camera negative? (there are some) but how many releases are not from the original scan? Way more than just some, sure, a movie like Gorillas in the Mist had to originate from a 35mm print somewhere, somehow but most likely, the data from the original scan was used for this release, not a new 35mm scan from the original negative.
I don't deny that there are hundreds or thousands of movies that have simply disappeared from the face of the earth because the original negative was not preserved, most of these movies are probably pre-70s. But, since 1974 (40 years ago) how many movies have we really lost? Since 1974, how many important or popular movies have we lost? Is there really a crisis going on?
In my blu ray player is the movie "Eve of Destruction" with Gregory Hines from 1991, did the studios really go into their archive and use the pristine 35mm camera negative? I highly doubt it. Will the movie vanish from the face of the Earth in the year 2091? Most likely not.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-06-2014, 07:20 PM:
You wouldn't normally use the camera negative to make a digital master from directly, because it won't be graded, it won't have fades, dissolves, titles etc. incorporated into it. It is literally the raw shots as they came out of the camera. The digital master from which a DVD or BD would be authored would either be transcoded from the final DI that exists after post-production is complete, or created by scanning an intermediate element (ideally one that is specially graded for scanning/telecine, on low contrast stock). You could scan a release print directly (and some lower-budget DVD labels do), but you'd lose detail in the midrange, and capture dirt, scratching and other artefacts.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Since 1974, how many important or popular movies have we lost? Is there really a crisis going on?
It depends on your definition of lost. There are quite a few which only survive in low quality and/or incomplete versions.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-07-2014, 02:54 PM:
And there are so many post-70's films where the rights are "lost" or ambiguous and no one knows if prints exist, much less if there is a master negative or elements. Most of these films are indies, but even some major studio films it is questionable if a usable copy exists.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-07-2014, 05:36 PM:
quote:
What it will not do - and this is where my frustration with the "film forever" tendency, the AMIA Film Advocacy Group, etc. etc., comes in - is unlock some sort of magic, without which the world is a fundamentally worse place. Film projection is an industrial process, not a religious rite!
Religious rite? Well no. But an experience that is unique to FILM projection, well yes. At least at the moment. Your position is that the movie is the movie, regardless of how it gets to the end user. While I could buy that the story remains the same, I do not buy that the experience remains the same. The method of presentation does change the experience one has. How can you equate a process that inherently has a form of flickering (even rapidly with 3-wing shutters) and complete image updates with a process that does not do the same thing? Forgetting the subjective better/worse...they are not the same.
quote: Leo Enticknap
For example, is anyone seriously arguing that in order to understand the significance and impact of the Declaration of Independence, you have to go to Washington DC, queue up for hours and eyeball the original manuscript, and that if you read the text on NARA's website there's something fundamental you're not getting? The fact that the original is preserved and displayed the way it is tells us something about the impact of its contents, not the other way round.
I was going to leave that out...but actually it does go to the point. In terms of the data of the DOI...yes, even a text version of it conveys the data...and perhaps even the emotion. It is quite another thing to be standing in front of a document and seeing the actual thing that people wrote...there is a connection to the document (despite the thick glass, low light...etc)...your eyes are seeing the same thing those people that signed it saw. It becomes something more than just a thing from the history books...it has a life of its own then. Why do people visit places they have seen in books? Surely the book will show a picture with ideal lighting and weather.
quote:
Likewise, is seeing a DCP of Citizen Kane going to prevent you from understanding why the movie is important, whereas with the projection of a nitrate print on a carbon-lit 1941 Motiograph, you're suddenly going to get it? The "film forever" tendency claim loudly and often that there is something unique, special and valuable about the experience of watching that medium specifically projected on a screen, but I have never once heard any of them make any serious attempt to articulate why, in an objective sense. That's beacuse, unlike the argument that keeping a legacy technology alive helps us to understand its historical significance, the "something special" argument is essentially an emotional, faith-based one.
This is where you just plain wrong on many levels...particularly the science one. When the film makers judged the image (or sound) and said "that is what represents my vision or shot or take or whatever" that is what they were presenting. In the case of Citizen Kane, in particular, you are talking about a movie that changed how movies were shot, forever. How it was lit and how the image was composed, how depth of field was...etc. There are before CK and after CK. To somehow scoff off that not seeing it in manner in which it was approved sufficiently retains what is important is just plain silly. You may get the story but you may not get all of the emotion that was put into it...particularly the more it is viewed and the more details that are retained (or lost).
Because YOU can't measure something (you being anyone that can't quantify a perception) does not mean it is not measurable or a real difference. You may merely lack the knowledge to quantify it. Why do most people have a favorite color? Why would one prefer a color over all others? I don't know but there are people that study that. Are people studying the effects of seeing an image that flickers or updates in a manner that film projectors present versus other forms? Did you know that when people focus a film projector, they focus on the last exposure (e.g. in a double shutter, the focused image is after the second opening of the shutter)...we know this because it was studied and with high speed photography it could be proven. That is data we have. How people perceive images, what causes pleasure...etc. with HOW movies are presented...how well is that studied? It isn't for the person that says "I like this better than that" to justify their reason...if you think there is no reason, you need to prove that by studying the situation and coming up with the measurements that prove it one way or another.
I've seen nitrate projected...NOTHING looks that good...to me, at least. It is the kind of thing that I noted before I was told I saw nitrate. "That looks really good." And it is a pretty uniform reaction to those that have seen it. Why? The simple flippant remark is the silver content. Is that it? Maybe...but it seems to be more than just the blacks...it is the overall look of it...just seems better to me. There are high-silver content modern film stocks...never looked as good to me.
But I put it too you...there is more to how people perceive images than merely the frame rate update via the eyes? I'll go a step further from my own experience...I could tell you the brand of projector showing a film and that I like some better than others...how does that all weigh in? Certainly lens technology has changed over the years...did they go for a certain contrast look based on the lenses of the day and when we see things on modern equipment we aren't seeing the real thing or are we seeing what they were striving for but couldn't attain? The safe bet is to try and see it under the same conditions.
Does this mean a hill of beans to the teen of today...probably not...will it in their life? I don't know. But I sure wouldn't want to deny the future person that IS interested in how things worked and looked and what changed the world in the 20th Century.
quote: Leo Enticknap
The other thing that strikes me about all this is that as a general rule, the most vocal film advocates are people whose experience of film projection has been almost exclusively in prestige, well-funded venues in major city centers, with projectionists and techs who know what they're doing, top end equipment and access to archive and first-run rep prints. As someone who has both worked at and been a paying customer of venues that had to show worn-out and badly damaged prints, did not have the money to buy the lenses and plates needed to show a film in the correct ratio, etc. etc., the DCP is one helluvan improvement for me.
I don't think you'll get an argument from most that DCPs and digital in general have been a great way to bring classics to the masses. It is a fact of society that it cost money to give a shit about preserving something to do something "right." As such, it is going to be the larger metropolitan areas that will have the financial resources to put towards those sorts of things (not just film). However, people from all walks of life can certainly take a trip to such a place and see/experience something they may not (particularly as we go forward) have experience before. Some will likely come out with a headache from all of the flickering...and I'll wager some come out smitten with the film bug.
One thing that really scares me though is seeing the film legacy so poorly handled. That is, the crappy DCPs of films and even the crappy photo-chemical dupes that have zero contrast or have other preventable defects past off as great because it is film...I fear that these crappy dupes will be what film is remembered for...not the awesome magic that I had the pleasure of seeing, experiencing...including the communal experience of seeing it in a large movie theatre with 1000ish of my closest friends.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-07-2014, 07:08 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
This is where you just plain wrong on many levels...particularly the science one. When the film makers judged the image (or sound) and said "that is what represents my vision or shot or take or whatever" that is what they were presenting. In the case of Citizen Kane, in particular, you are talking about a movie that changed how movies were shot, forever. How it was lit and how the image was composed, how depth of field was...etc. There are before CK and after CK. To somehow scoff off that not seeing it in manner in which it was approved sufficiently retains what is important is just plain silly. You may get the story but you may not get all of the emotion that was put into it...particularly the more it is viewed and the more details that are retained (or lost).
If detail - even subtle midtones - can survive the bare minimum of three generations of photochemical duplication (some of them optical) which took place between camera negative and release print on every shot of Kane, then they're certainly going to survive two plus the scanning and DI processes (the closest-to-original suriving element is the generation #2 IN that was exported to Britain in 1942 and from which the UK prints were made, and then preserved by the BFI - the cut camera negative and the only known generation #1 IP were destroyed in a lab fire in 1972) involved in creating the recent BD and DCP.
Furthermore, Kane was shot on mainly on 1231, with a few shots on 1232. The grain density of 1231 is roughly equivalent to 2.5 to 3K. Therefore, assuming that the optics of the scanner and the sensitivity of its imaging device are up to the job, a 4K scan is going to capture everything there is to capture. You do not have to lose anything significant about how it was lit, how the images are composed and the depth of field. You might, if the transfer is done badly, but a lot of 35mm rerelease prints were made badly, too (the last one I saw was of The Wages of Fear, printed on color stock and with a purple hue across the image that was seriously distracting).
Which leaves us with the physiological viewing experience / flicker issue. Granted, it could be part of the reason why some people value the experience of seeing film projected, on a subconscious level. Again, if this is a factor, it's another totally subjective one. About the only way you could try to quantify it, I guess, is to do something like the Kuleshov experiment, only projecting each image on film first, and then on DCP (using the same DI to create both the print and the DCP), and then ask each member of the audience which they prefer, and why. What would be even more interesting would be to fit a shutter in front of the lens of a digital projector, timed to behave exactly as it would in a film projector (i.e. obscuring the transition between images and then again at the midpoint between them), and even more interesting still to simulate a poorly timed shutter that way. If an overwhelming majority of the audience said that they liked the poorly timed shutter simulation, should we start showing classic movies that way?!
As for seeing Kane in the way it was approved, we're talking about a method of seeing it that did not exist until 77 years after the cinematographer's death, so we're seriously getting into a "what if?" scenario there. All we do know is that Toland rejected dozens of answer prints out of frustration at the lab not being able to achieve the look he wanted. It could be that if he'd had an Arri Alexa or a Red at his disposal, he'd have been delighted!
quote: Steve Guttag
I've seen nitrate projected...NOTHING looks that good...to me, at least.
I would guess that I've seen around 30 to 50 feature film presentations on nitrate, and they ranged (in terms of the photographic quality - not taking into account handling artefacts on the prints) from amazingly good to unwatchably bad, just like the acetate and polyester prints I've seen. In particular, the IB ones were nearly all bad. In fact, I can't recall ever having seen an IB print made before the mid-60s with acceptable registration of the three dyes.
quote: Steve Guttag
One thing that really scares me though is seeing the film legacy so poorly handled. That is, the crappy DCPs of films and even the crappy photo-chemical dupes that have zero contrast or have other preventable defects past off as great because it is film...I fear that these crappy dupes will be what film is remembered for...not the awesome magic that I had the pleasure of seeing, experiencing...including the communal experience of seeing it in a large movie theatre with 1000ish of my closest friends.
Here is where I think we're in complete agreement. The reason why I'm cagey about the archival community going out all guns blazing on a "film forever" campaign is that we're increasingly going to be in a situation whereby it'll take less money and stand a better chance of success to create a decent DCP from archival film preservation masters than it will a film print, and that the variables which at the moment carry a serious risk of the viewing experience being degraded in theater with film are, on balance, less likely to be a risk digitally.
I still believe that part of what is influencing this conversation is that the most vocal film projection (for classic/archival shows, into the indefinite future) advocates are motivated, at least in part, by having spent their entire adult lives seeing decent prints projected by dedicated professionals in well-equipped venues. We're a self-selecting group - we wouldn't even be on this forum if we didn't care about projection (film and digital) done right, and wanted to to all we could to achieve that. Where the film to digital transition can really help, IMHO, is in boosting the quality of presentation in situations where previously you'd have had to put up with a worn-out print shown by someone with a significant skills gap and/or in a theatre that was less than ideally equipped.
As long as it's possible to retain film capability without sucking resources away from providing access to classics/re-releases/other archive titles by other means, then I'm all for doing that (and furthermore, am willing to take part in any initiative or project to further that aim). I just don't feel that this should detract from issues which have the potential to affect the viewing experience for a much bigger audience, fighting the crappy DCP menace (which as another thread is documenting, has already materlialised) being chief among them.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-08-2014, 08:37 AM:
quote: Leo Enticknap
Where the film to digital transition can really help, IMHO, is in boosting the quality of presentation in situations where previously you'd have had to put up with a worn-out print shown by someone with a significant skills gap and/or in a theatre that was less than ideally equipped.
Agreed, completely. I don't think that anyone here is advocating having low-quality operators showing low-quality prints in low-quality venues. DCP and even Blu-Ray and sometimes DVD is better than that, and we should all be happy that these formats have provided greater access to films to more people than was ever possible in the past. This is generally a good thing.
But my argument is that just because a good video presentation of a film beats a bad film presentation does not mean that we should give up on providing the paying public with quality film presentations of quality prints of classic films. No one would put up with an "art museum" with framed inkjet prints of famous paintings on its walls. Why do (some) people so readily accept "film" exhibitors who do the same?
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-08-2014, 11:49 AM:
quote:
If detail - even subtle midtones - can survive the bare minimum of three generations of photochemical duplication (some of them optical) which took place between camera negative and release print on every shot of Kane, then they're certainly going to survive two plus the scanning and DI processes
Stop right there. I've yet to see a good DI from film...I don't believe they accurately represent the film element they are suppose to duplicate...as such, I submit your claim is false.
quote: Leo Enticknap
Therefore, assuming that the optics of the scanner and the sensitivity of its imaging device are up to the job, a 4K scan is going to capture everything there is to capture
An assumption that I and others will completely reject based on past experience. The DI does not capture the film image. You are starting from a false premise. Is your contention that the image is strictly a function of resolution? Are you saying that a line that appears straight in a film image that magically gets little stair steps in a digital image is the same image? The depth of the digital image always looks notably flatter to me too.
quote: Leo Enticknap
You do not have to lose anything significant about how it was lit, how the images are composed and the depth of field.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I certainly don't agree with it. I have seen no evidence to that effect and quite a bit to the contrary though not specifically on Kane. While a bad film dupe also degrades from the original, it does not excuse or justify what a DI may also do.
quote:
I guess, is to do something like the Kuleshov experiment, only projecting each image on film first, and then on DCP (using the same DI to create both the print and the DCP),
No, NO, NO
That is exactly a bullshit comparison. If you want to do a REAL shootout...you use the best film elements that survive (be they an original release print or negative...closer to OCN the better) and if a negative is the best that exists, then you strike a print, directly, from that...you do NOT put a DI in the middle...that is where the contamination to the film image comes in. There is so much example of that in modern print releases. There was a phony IMAX shoot out where 15/70 didn't look so great as compared to the 4K digital...however, there was a DI in the middle of the process...let the 15/70 skip the DI and go straight from the negative. Let the DCP use a DI (since it needs one)...then you will see what each format has to offer. The only source should be the source itself (the OCN or closest generation to it). The film version should, ideally, not have any DI in its steps if you really want to see what the film has to offer.
quote: Leo Enticknap
As for seeing Kane in the way it was approved, we're talking about a method of seeing it that did not exist until 77 years after the cinematographer's death
In what sense? They didn't approve it on its original release. It didn't change cinematography as we know it ever since its release? We didn't have to wait 77 years for that.
The what ifs on modern equipment at yesteryear's disposal is also garbage. recordings, film or otherwise, are a function of their place in time to begin with. In audio would Jimi Hendrix have done what he did if he was born 30-years later? What you do in your time is a function of your time. That is one reason I hate some of the revisionist history I see in Star Wars re-issues or ET's policemen using walkie talkies instead of guns and all of that garbage. Part of what makes recorded history is what people were able to do with the technology they had...take the pyramids, for instance.
quote: Leo Enticknap
In fact, I can't recall ever having seen an IB print made before the mid-60s with acceptable registration of the three dyes.
I saw a cartoon from a friend's collection that was color and nitrate...I don't recall registration problems in particular...I'll have to ask. While the image looked fantastic, it wasn't presented in "ideal" conditions.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-08-2014, 12:07 PM:
quote: Scott Norwood
a bad film presentation does not mean that we should give up on providing the paying public with quality film presentations of quality prints of classic films. No one would put up with an "art museum" with framed inkjet prints of famous paintings on its walls. Why do (some) people so readily accept "film" exhibitors who do the same?
Respectfully, I do not agree with you. The reason is that I firmly do not believe that the paying public agrees or even cares that you might be showing a film presentation of a classic film. Sure, to you and me it should be important that the film is shown in 35mm, but other options are available that serve the need. I think there is a little too much "Romance" of the idea of watching an old 35mm print of a movie, fun yes, does it matter? Not really. But that is my opinion and I can see how you might think otherwise.
quote: Leo Enticknap
You wouldn't normally use the camera negative to make a digital master from directly, because it won't be graded, it won't have fades, dissolves, titles etc. incorporated into it.
I am no expert on this, but I believe studios are using the original camera negatives for their 4K restorations and bluray releases. I think James Cameron said in an interview somewhere that they scanned the original negatives for the Titanic 3D re-release.
quote: Martin McCaffery
And there are so many post-70's films where the rights are "lost" or ambiguous and no one knows if prints exist, much less if there is a master negative or elements. Most of these films are indies, but even some major studio films it is questionable if a usable copy exists.
But I don't see some big crisis going on? The media goes on about how film is a better storage option, but I don't see the important movies from the 1970 onward being lost or in any danger of being lost. In 100 years are we really going to be playing in theaters some of the movies that were released today? I don't think so. The important ones will survive the less important ones might not. We don't have to save or preserve every film ever made.
And these movies that were lost in the 70s, does the media mention them in their articles?
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-08-2014, 12:58 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
Is your contention that the image is strictly a function of resolution?
No, hence the qualifier "assuming that the optics of the scanner and the sensitivity of its imaging device (i.e. the range of tones it is able to capture) are up to the job" in my earlier remark.
quote: Steve Guttag
If you want to do a REAL shootout...you use the best film elements that survive (be they an original release print or negative...closer to OCN the better) and if a negative is the best that exists, then you strike a print, directly, from that...you do NOT put a DI in the middle...that is where the contamination to the film image comes in.
That would also be misleading, because the vast majority of theatrical audiences see a projected print (assuming an all photochemical post-production workflow) that is at least three generations removed from the camera negative, often with optical printing involved in at least one. Showprints were occasionally made straight from the o-neg, with timing and opticals done individually, but only for things like gala premieres and Oscar nomination screenings. The general public almost never saw one.
Therefore, to eliminate as much bias as is practically possible you would need to screen a shot taken on film and then duplicated using the industry standard sequence of duplication stages to a print (camera neg > FGIP > IN > release print), and one taken on a CCD-based digital camera and then duplicated using industry standard DI processes to a DCP.
quote: Steve Guttag
In what sense?
Gregg Toland died in 1948, and the first version of the DCI DCP standard was published in 2005 (sorry - 57 years!).
quote: Steve Guttag
The what ifs on modern equipment at yesteryear's disposal is also garbage. recordings, film or otherwise, are a function of their place in time to begin with. In audio would Jimi Hendrix have done what he did if he was born 30-years later? What you do in your time is a function of your time.
Exactly, and that includes playback as well as recording. Very few people would try to argue seriously that listening to a CD rerelease of a Hendrix album, or a Beethoven symphony not played on period instruments, prevents you from understanding what those musicians were trying to achieve.
quote: Steve Guttag
That is one reason I hate some of the revisionist history I see in Star Wars re-issues or ET's policemen using walkie talkies instead...
Or the dog in The Dam Busters being renamed Jigger, Digger or Trigger, depending on which Sunday afternoon TV version you see...
That is not the same thing as changing the access medium. The technicians who scan old movies or digitize the 1/2" studio masters of Hendrix albums would claim that they are trying to reproduce the aesthetic properties of the source in the duplicate as closely as possible. We can argue until the cows come home as to how successfully or otherwise they've managed to achieve that. But I doubt if whoever dubbed The Dam Busters or Photoshopped the ET cops' guns into walkie talkies would claim that they were respecting the integrity of the original. They are deliberately changing it, knowing what they are doing, for political and/or commercial reasons.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I believe studios are using the original camera negatives for their 4K restorations and bluray releases.
For a full-scale restoration, yes, you'd start with the o-neg, if you have it. However, if you do use the o-neg, you have to recreate all the post-production steps that were done originally. That means retiming each shot (if you don't have printer light punch tapes or other original timing data) based on whatever evidence you have, e.g. release prints, recreating opticals, dissolves, titles, SFX, and all of that sort of stuff.
Not all theatrical and consumer video re-releases are the result of a full-scale restoration: in fact, not many of them are. For an older movie being re-released, the usual route is to take the fine grain interpositive that is duplicated from the cut camera negative and which incorporates all of the post-production, strike an internegative on a specific type of stock optimised for telecine/scanning, scan that and then transcode the scan data to produce the DCDM, DVD and/or BD master. Sometimes this involves minor restoration steps, e.g. automated dust busting or correction of dye fading.
But it doesn't require you to re-do all the post-production, which is why full-scale restorations starting from the o-neg are often very difficult, expensive and time consuming projects. For that you're effectively going back in time to the wrap of the final day on the set, and retracing the filmmakers' steps from there to the opening night.
Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 03-08-2014, 01:16 PM:
quote: Leo Enticknap
I can't recall ever having seen an IB print made before the mid-60s with acceptable registration of the three dyes.
I have. A 1940s cartoon projected in ideal conditions at the AFI Theater when it was located at L'Enfant Plaza. It was stunning, so much so that I remember it today almost 40 years later.
Both of my now adult children could care less about the method of presentation. For them it is all about content. Sad, but true.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-08-2014, 01:51 PM:
quote: Leo Enticknap
telecine/scanning, scan that and then transcode the scan data to produce the DCDM, DVD and/or BD master.
so if we have done all that, then the whole idea of "preserving" a print is pointless. Somehow, somewhere the movie will be able to be seen. In the last 40 years, how many influential or important films have we lost because we did not preserve the original negatives? None. Modern bluray releases do not need to be scanned. The media makes an issue out of nothing.
There is no crisis going on.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-08-2014, 02:17 PM:
Hi Leo...how is your Saturday? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote: Leo Enticknap
That would also be misleading, because the vast majority of theatrical audiences see a projected print (assuming an all photochemical post-production workflow) that is at least three generations removed from the camera negative, often with optical printing involved in at least one.
Yes and no. If one is trying to see what the film-makers saw when they approved the look...then you are looking for the closest thing to the OCN. If you are merely looking for what the typical audience saw...then you are looking for an original release print. And those that have seen both know that the release prints looked notably worse than the "EK" prints (though they probably were not called that then). I have run an EK print side-by-side to a "Select" print (two theatres...the primary and the overflow) and the difference was more than apparent...the feel of the movie changed. I've also noticed that the difference between a release print from the 70s and earlier look much better than release prints from the 90s and later. My guess is that there is another set of generations between the OCN. Of course, in the older movies, one can see an instant quality change when an optical is "spliced" in like a fade out/in on the older titles.
I'm not looking for a bias either way...but I do think the digital proponents feel that film is getting a beneficial bias if it isn't somehow getting the worst release print comparison. I don't think you'll get too much argument from many (possibly most) "pro-film" people that the general public is doing better with DCPs and is likely to keep doing better as time and technology allows us to meet and exceed the EK prints of yesteryear.
With respect to the 77 vs 57 years. I'm not following you. Mr. Toland died before DCPs...so what? What he approved was what he approved. Again, I feel that recordings of any nature reflect the time they were made in...I'm not too interested in the opinions of what someone may have done at a later time...even from the same person since they will have changed and been influenced by what came later.
quote: Leo Enticknap
Very few people would try to argue seriously that listening to a CD rerelease of a Hendrix album, or a Beethoven symphony not played on period instruments, prevents you from understanding what those musicians were trying to achieve.
Actually...yeah a I would. Unfortunately, most people never get to hear the TAPE recordings of period rock...they also don't listen on the studio monitors they used to do the mix. But the medium DOES make a difference and the delivery method heavily can influence the feel of the music. If you know that a recording was mixed using Altec 604s as the reference monitors (just using them as an example since they were used on a LOT of records)...you'd be amazed at how listing to the same song you already know changes when you hear it back as close as possible to what they were mixed on. There is more to a song than notes on a page or sound from speakers...there is emotion in the performance. Why do people go to live presentations when they have "perfect" recordings of the same songs?
A friend of mine has a rather extensive collection of recorded music...and also an extensive collection of the equipment originally used to play it back. One thing he discovered is that the sound is often improved if it is played back on the period piece rather than a "modern" piece of equipment that tries to simulate the response of the older piece. It makes a difference.
quote: Leo Enticknap
The technicians who scan old movies or digitize the 1/2" studio masters of Hendrix albums would claim that they are trying to reproduce the aesthetic properties of the source in the duplicate as closely as possible. We can argue until the cows come home as to how successfully or otherwise they've managed to achieve that.
And I'm not trying to downplay their artistry/efforts too. Their work is going to to have a better chance of preserving these elder works of art. However, try as they might, it is but a facsimile of they are trying to dupe. Some clearly do a better job than others. And a frightening thing is that they are all lumped together...those that are effectively "auto-scanned" and those that were meticulously preserved, transferred with every effort to capture what is believed to be the essential elements of the original.
In film preservation...you have the works of those like Bob Harris that actually will try to find original costuming and such to ensure things like color is right...find the best elements that exist and go to town trying to make the best of whatever exists...and then there are those that merely dig up what is around and dupe that and call it "restored." There is a difference between a Bob Harris restoration and most others...though I don't always see eye-to-eye with Bob (particularly on sound), there can be no question that he always tries to get whatever there is of existing elements to make it the best possible.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The reason is that I firmly do not believe that the paying public agrees or even cares that you might be showing a film presentation of a classic film. Sure, to you and me it should be important that the film is shown in 35mm, but other options are available that serve the need. I think there is a little too much "Romance" of the idea of watching an old 35mm print of a movie, fun yes, does it matter? Not really.
While your statement may reflect many, if not most, of the public...it is flat out wrong as a definitive statement. It all depends on the market. There are plenty of sites from around the world that make a point of presenting classic titles on film and they get great attendance as a result. There are people that will travel further to seek out an film presentation. This is not unique to film but any art form. You will find that one has to be in a certain market to have enough of these types of people to make such a venture viable. The same could be said for many museums too. Pick the furthest corner of your country to place a film theatre or museum...heck a library...and you are likely to have no visitors/customers. Place it in a major metropolitan area...the results are going to be very different.
I consider myself very fortunate that in my area (essentially Washington, DC), we have the AFI/Silver. It is a venue that will likely be presenting film and classic titles for the foreseeable future.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
In 100 years are we really going to be playing in theaters some of the movies that were released today? I don't think so. The important ones will survive the less important ones might not. We don't have to save or preserve every film ever made.
Since we are showing films made 100+ years ago still...I would say you are likely very wrong. Yes there is a survival of the fittest in movies, like music (who thinks that the radios's playlist is incredibly short?...perhaps if they used the top 10 songs rather than the top 3 of any month they'd have more variety).
Ever see the movie The Match King? Probably not. I guess it wasn't one of the "winners" in the natural selection of things. However, I was able to see it at the AFI/Silver. The Library of Congress had a copy and made a protection copy. Wow...anyone that doesn't know the lesson of "those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" (I'm probably paraphrasing). The story could have been from 2000-2008 and would have it right in...though matches are not what they once where...substitute current commodities for matches. It being based on a true story makes it even more fascinating. (Look for the book with the same name)
You can't download it, rent it or buy it. However, I would hope that eventually it does make it to some form of electronics so that it isn't lost to the public. Fortunately, I got to see it in a theatre with 100s of people (on film, natch). Of course, I would hope that places like the AFI/Silver could keep showing it so people can enjoy a piece of time too.
I come back to...I wouldn't want to make a decision for future generations as to what is a keeper and what is a tosser. If it was important enough to be made in the first place...it is likely a keeper too...even if it is a piece I don't personally care for. What we leave for future generations is what we record about ourselves and our entertainment...films, paintings, stone tablets, records...including the technology that made/used them is all part of it.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-08-2014, 03:29 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
I come back to...I wouldn't want to make a decision for future generations as to what is a keeper and what is a tosser.
Just to clarify my original statement, I was referring to titles which are archived digitally, and must undergo data migration every 10 years or so to avoid corruption or to keep up with new technologies.
If you have a film print in a vault, obviously you hold onto that print. But when it comes to digital archives, I think there will be many cases where there is no need to migrate as long as the current copies are still playable. And many cases where there is no need to archive every shot of the movie. Besides, any new cut of the movie will be just as much of a departure from the creator's original vision, as post production work using technologies that were not available at the time the movie was originally made.
One thing I think would be interesting is to see visual effects from movies updated with current technologies when possible. I'm not suggesting you simply replace the original movie with an update, but it would be interesting to see a movie like RoboCop(1987) with updated visuals in place of some the horrible looking miniatures and green screen shots. But this of course would assume the raw footage used to create those shots still existed.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-08-2014, 04:18 PM:
I tend to say no to that sort of update too. Mind you...it has been done, quite a bit. Look at Star Wars. Or the original series of Star Trek on BluRay.
While I can understand cleaning up the limitation of the technology of the day or the budget of the day...So long as the original form remains available and is the definitive version. As I said, movies record history. Like it or not...part of Star Wars' charm is its effects and they were seemingly cutting-edge for their day though I suppose they all had been done before to a degree.
I wouldn't want a law/regulation preventing an "improvement"...I just want to ensure that the original always remains.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-08-2014, 04:37 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
Since we are showing films made 100+ years ago still...I would say you are likely very wrong. Yes there is a survival of the fittest in movies, like music (who thinks that the radios's playlist is incredibly short?...perhaps if they used the top 10 songs rather than the top 3 of any month they'd have more variety).
I get that, and I am not saying that there won't be re-releases in 2114, but its not like we have major re-releases in the year 2014 of 100 year old movies. These rare screenings of original prints like The Match King are complete rare one-offs in most cases. Good for you that you were able to watch it, I have not, but that does mean there is a crisis going on like the media portrays. The Match King survived not because film lasts a long time, it survived because someone took good care to make sure that the film (which lasts a long time) would last that long. Match King also struggles to live on today because video, streaming etc were not something producers were thinking of like today.
There is nothing to suggest that a film like Avatar or Skyfall which originated in a digital format would not be able to be viewed in 100 years. Agreed, a DCP from 2009 might not work in 2109, but with careful care and data migration, the movie will sure live on.
quote: Steve Guttag
What we leave for future generations is what we record about ourselves and our entertainment...films, paintings, stone tablets, records...including the technology that made/used them is all part of it.
I respect your POV, but I think there is a little too much "romance" of the love of film in your POV.
quote: Justin Hamaker
One thing I think would be interesting is to see visual effects from movies updated with current technologies when possible. I'm not suggesting you simply replace the original movie with an update, but it would be interesting to see a movie like RoboCop(1987) with updated visuals in place of some the horrible looking miniatures and green screen shots. But this of course would assume the raw footage used to create those shots still existed.
Absolutely not. A very bad idea. Terrible idea Justin.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-08-2014, 05:22 PM:
There is no romance about it Terry. It is just a philosophy that transcends the film medium for me. What we are as a society is what we leave behind...this is true throughout time.
The Match King survives due to sheer luck and due to its lack of luck...virtually nobody gets to see...not because they wouldn't want to...but because nobody even knows about it anymore.
Heck, movies like "It's a Wonderful Life" could have easily fallen into obscurity like "The Match King" However, "It's a Wonderful Life" is getting to be pretty close to your 100-year movie that still has some pretty major theatre showings (granted...it isn't an extended run it was a summer movie, after all). DCPs and video have really helped it find its way back into movie theatres. While I've always had the opportunity to see it on film due to collectors and certain theatres that play it annually, most others were relegated to it on the little screen. Who would do a major run on that title when you know it is only going to play a couple of days a year and then need to be stored for the next 350 days? This is where DCPs have helped though the transfer was not worthy of that movie...but it did allow a theatrical experience all over the country this past holiday season. Again, I have no problem with digital allowing more people to appreciate the movie and theatrical experience but please don't say that the video or DCP version is sufficient to accurately represent the movie to EVERYONE...to most, perhaps, but I'll take the 35mm prints I've seen over the DCPs I've seen.
As for "born-digital" losing something like that is easier than one might think...digital storage just isn't a "set and forget" proposition. Once something goes out of popularity for a current generation, is when the possibility of permanent loss begins. Out of sight is out of mind and it is easy to let things slip.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-08-2014, 05:48 PM:
Fair enough you can have your opinion on the matter, I just don't agree with you.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-09-2014, 01:24 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
so if we have done all that, then the whole idea of "preserving" a print is pointless. Somehow, somewhere the movie will be able to be seen. In the last 40 years, how many influential or important films have we lost because we did not preserve the original negatives? None. Modern bluray releases do not need to be scanned. The media makes an issue out of nothing.
There is no crisis going on.
You're conflating two separate issues: the preservation of "born analog" and "born digital" originals.
One aspect of these two issues is the same: that most of what doesn't survive is lost either because the active decision is made to junk it, or because no active and ongoing effort is made to keep it and it gets lost by omission. You're right that in the last 40 years or so, the amount of stuff that falls into the latter category is tiny. Most of the iconic "lost films" (The Mountain Eagle, London After Midnight) we keep talking about are, as David Pierce's recent research on American lost films has revealed, from the silent era. But that was why they were lost. In 1926, Hitchcock was not a widely celebrated genius, The Mountain Eagle did not get a very wide release (and no export), and no-one thought it was culturally important enough that it had to be kept.
I would say that there were two reasons for the post-1970s period being different. 1 - the nonprofit film archive movement really got going in the '60s and '70s; and 2 - so did TV and home video, which provided an aftermarket for "old" feature films, and thus an economic justification for for-profit archiving to take place. Before then, the only commercial archives of any significance were stockshot libraries based on newsreel collections.
However, I'd speculate that we're potentially in a much stickier situation with born digital. However wonderful digits are as an access medium, they remain lousy as a preservation medium. No-one has yet invented a "store and ignore" digital carrier that matches the longevity and hardware/software compatibility of film in atmospheric storage. There are basically two options: "always on" storage such as a RAID-based server, or storage on offline media combined with regular migration. Research is still going on as to the comparative costs of film preservation vs. digital preservation using known-to-work methods we have at present (including by one of my former students), but early indications are that per minute of running time at a given image quality and per year of reliable archiving, film is still a lot cheaper.
Stories have also emerged of studios losing digital intermediate files from movies made in the last 10-15 years on early generation LTO tapes, forcing them to go back to filmout IPs for rerelease material.
But the fact remains that all the signs are that the manufacture of color film won't be happening for much longer. So developing cheaper and more reliable digital archiving solutions is something we're simply going to have to do. Given that much bigger players than the film archive movement are now generating "big data" and trying to archive it (e.g. big IT gorillas like Google), the resources they can bring to the table should produce a breakthrough soon.
quote: Steve Guttag
Hi Leo...how is your Saturday?
It kinda turned into Sunday while I wasn't looking. Dratted DST...
quote: Steve Guttag
If one is trying to see what the film-makers saw when they approved the look...then you are looking for the closest thing to the OCN. If you are merely looking for what the typical audience saw...then you are looking for an original release print.
I would take issue with the "merely". If the whole object of the exercise is authenticity, then you have to ask, authentic to what? What the typical audience saw represents the impact and effect a movie (or sound recording, or whatever) had on the society it was released into. Sometimes that went against some of what the principal creatived involved in making the movie were trying to achieve. What is the authentic version of My Darling Clementine, for example? The version as mass-released, or John Ford's originally approved cut, now preserved in UCLA, which is quite a bit longer, has hardly any musical cues, and portrays Earp as a more complex character, less of straightforward hero, with no hesitation in stooping to his opponents' level if he needs to?
While it's great that the Ford cut is preserved, I don't think you can make a case for it being more valuable than the studio-approved version in what it tells us about its subject matter. The same applies to the technical and aesthetic properties of a movie, too. Hardly any of the public ever saw a showprint straight from the OCN, or heard the 1/2" studio masters of a Hendrix session played on a tube-amplified Ampex and 1970s reference speakers. In fact, as consumer technologies like Dynagroove (audio signal optimised for cheap, entry-level playback equipment) show, the end listener was often given something deliberately very different.
quote: Steve Guttag
With respect to the 77 vs 57 years. I'm not following you. Mr. Toland died before DCPs...so what? What he approved was what he approved. Again, I feel that recordings of any nature reflect the time they were made in...
My point is that the playback experience also reflects the time in and the technology with which it's being viewed or listened to, too; and that in evaluating authenticity and/or making value judgments, we have to be aware of that and cannot try to pretend that the factor isn't there.
quote: Steve Guttag
I wouldn't want to make a decision for future generations as to what is a keeper and what is a tosser.
Try not to hit the ceiling too hard ... on my very first day as a student on an archiving master's degree, about the first thing the professor told us was that the mark of a good archivist was not what (s)he decided to keep, but what (s)he decided not to keep! His point was that archives are not bottomless pits, and that there is a cost to keeping anything in a way that safeguards its long-term existence. It's not going to happen by accident (or at least, you can't guarantee that it'll happen by accident). All competently run archives will have an acquisitions policy which says what they'll take and what they won't, and part of that policy will be determined by what their expansion capacity realistically is. There will be a disposal policy, too: for example, if the British Film Institute has a print of a Hollywood B-movie that hasn't been used for 40 years, and then discovers that the Library of Congress has the OCN and an IP in very good condition, they may decide that this shelf space can be put to better use with something else on it.
We haven't tried to preserve every single written record ever created, and now we're at the point where anyone with a cellphone can create relatively high quality moving images (i.e. they can create video as easily as they can write), we cannot realistically do this with movies, either.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-09-2014, 01:47 PM:
quote:
the first thing the professor told us was that the mark of a good archivist was not what (s)he decided to keep, but what (s)he decided not to keep!
Nothing quite as entertaining as a bar full of conventioning archivists arguing over the merits of microfilm vs actual newspapers ![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
I've a friend who is an archivist who just started at new university. Somedays it seems all she does is bitch about how much more stuff she needs to toss.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-09-2014, 04:40 PM:
How is your Sunday Leo?
quote: Leo Enticknap
I would take issue with the "merely". If the whole object of the exercise is authenticity, then you have to ask, authentic to what? What the typical audience saw represents the impact and effect a movie (or sound recording, or whatever) had on the society it was released into.
I don't see how you can claim either has more merit than another. The look of what got approved is where the most value is because one can likely still create what the masses saw from that. I absolutely agree that there is a high value on knowing what was seen by the masses but I put a lesser value to it. I also feel that what the masses saw in yesteryear was much closer to what the studios saw than what happened later in life when catalog titles became valuable again and things were made from multi-generational dupes. I would never consider release prints from the 90s (and probably 80s) to be representational of look that the film makers were going for. In the name of preserving irreplaceable elements (OCNs and such), release prints seemed to move down the trough a bit. As such, I come back to the EK print (or its historical equivalent) as being the best representation of the movie.
When it comes to the "cuts." That is indeed a slippery slope. Certainly, the biggest value is in the release version or versions as there were not only one. Stanley Kubrick was well known for editing even after release! Even movies like Apocalypse Now are not identical in the 70mm and 35mm forms (70mm showings were supposed to have a handout that had the end-credits but also the bombings scene was also excised). There are also "Roadshow" versions as well as the regular versions of some movies...so even in release print status, you have multiple cuts. I would tend to place the highest value to the more prestigious cut (e.g. the "Roadshow" version) over one that may have been cut to fit a running time.
"Directors Cuts" are something altogether different. While I think there is value to them as their vision may have been negatively altered due to studio demands, the release version should have the highest priority. That said, director's cuts have been put into release (American Graffiti and Blade Runner come to mind) but I would be inclined to treat them as entirely different titles
But as far as preserving the look of the movie...the EK print or equivalent has to be the definitive version.
quote: Leo Enticknap
In fact, as consumer technologies like Dynagroove (audio signal optimised for cheap, entry-level playback equipment) show, the end listener was often given something deliberately very different.
In cinema we have the "near field mix" which is not representational of the movie sound track...don't believe me...have fun talking to Brad about that. Is it worth preserving a mass-consumer version though it is a degraded? Probably to a degree from understanding how the masses were treated in an historical perspective. But again, going back to the master tapes...you can generate the rest...the master tapes is what caught the sound they were looking for. And yes, I do believe people should try to keep the equipment used to play/display historical elements...those pieces contributed to what was appreciated. Playing back on "modern" equipment may alter the integrity of what was believe better. As an extreme example...people have commented on some BluRay releases where the movie was degrained...making it look worse. I think it better to leave it as is and let the viewer/listener decide. There is a big difference between repairing obvious damage and trying to overcome technology of the day. The technology is part of what was being recorded, like it or not. So, removing scratches...okay, removing grain...not okay.
quote: Leo Enticknap
My point is that the playback experience also reflects the time in and the technology with which it's being viewed or listened to, too; and that in evaluating authenticity and/or making value judgments, we have to be aware of that and cannot try to pretend that the factor isn't there.
I agree so I also think we should try to preserve the technology of how things were viewed and listened to as well.
As for my keeper/tosser comment. I would agree that every existing version of everything is impractical to keep...I was not trying to imply that. I was mainly referring to making an entire title extinct because it was deemed not worthy by today's audience.
If something was important enough to be offered to the masses, it is probably worthy of being preserved to some degree. Odds are, if it was a low-budget thing, there probably aren't much remaining of it anyway and one isn't going to have a lot of choice in the "version" of what is to be preserved.
I can certainly appreciate the difficult decisions an archivist has when it comes to throwing things away...it is permanent but there isn't room for everything from everyone. Each year, the LOC lists the movies that are admitted to the preserved list...it isn't an automatic thing as some might think. Even such classics like Marry Poppins JUST made the list!
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-09-2014, 06:24 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
In cinema we have the "near field mix" which is not representational of the movie sound track...don't believe me...have fun talking to Brad about that.
You're just going to dredge up some "F bombs" with that one. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Altering the mix for the home video market is insane. NO two home theater systems sound the same, so what in the heck are they trying to mix for??? There is no standard!
Also it is entirely possible that a remix released on DVD/bluray could become THE definitive version if the original masters are ever lost (floods and fire DO happen). With the lossless tracks on blurays, if the master recordings WERE lost, at least an exact identical copy is available on tens of thousands of blurays they could source it from without (at least in theory) any loss of quality...unlike the picture.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-11-2014, 12:03 PM:
Interesting film on the importance and difficulties of film preservation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytt1eehq_jI&feature=youtu.be
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-12-2014, 04:21 PM:
quote: Leo Enticknap
However, I'd speculate that we're potentially in a much stickier situation with born digital. However wonderful digits are as an access medium, they remain lousy as a preservation medium. No-one has yet invented a "store and ignore" digital carrier that matches the longevity and hardware/software compatibility of film in atmospheric storage.
Yes, nobody has invented a store and ignore digital carrier, but that does not mean we are in any danger of losing any of the important films from the modern era. Some film somewhere somehow will still exist. A modern bluray is sufficient at this point in time of projecting to a large audience even if the master data is destroyed or lost. The media is making a bigger issue out of things than they really are.
In the past three days I have watched six movies from the 1950s and 60s on DVD, there was no need for me to watch these movies on a large screen in B/W 35mm to enjoy them. Sure, these movies required 35mm to be scanned at some point in time to be able watch them today but there is nothing to say that my dvds will not be able to be played in the near future.
I also don't buy the idea that you need to be able to watch the movie in the way it was originally projected or recorded. This is just "romanticizing" the idea of 35mm film. Yes it is cool to watch it this way, but it is not required to enjoy it. Most average people do not care.
This week at the Tiff Lightbox in Toronto, they screened The Never Ending Story, The Goonies, Basic Instinct, The Black Stallion, The Wizard, and a lot more of others, they were all presented in digital. Nobody seemed to balk or complain that the 35mm prints might of been more "authentic".
quote: Leo Enticknap
But the fact remains that all the signs are that the manufacture of color film won't be happening for much longer.
I think the manufacture of 35mm color film will be happening for a lot longer than people think. We might not see 35mm release prints at some point in time, but I think 35mm color film will be around longer than some think.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-12-2014, 08:00 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
A modern bluray is sufficient at this point in time of projecting to a large audience even if the master data is destroyed or lost.
Unless, of course, that modern blu-ray has a tendency toward disc rot... like, say, that movie "The Prestige" a few years back as an example...
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-13-2014, 12:26 AM:
Chris, your example of The Prestige having bluray rot is a manufacturing defect. It would be just the same as the original 35mm negatives of The Prestige having a manufacturing defect as well.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-13-2014, 01:05 AM:
Apologies for radio silence - snowed under for the last couple of days (OK, not a good metaphor, given the 80-degree sunshine in SoCal, but it'll have to do).
Still cogitating Steve's recent post - more soon.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-13-2014, 09:11 AM:
Wow...here is your 50-cents for that word Leo!
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-13-2014, 11:24 AM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
bluray rot is a manufacturing defect
I don't know if you'd call it a defect or just a characteristic of the materials used. The materials in the blu-ray can supposedly degrade over time and make it unreadable.
Back when CDs were a hot thing, it was called CD rot, same thing. I heard it was mostly experienced by people who live in tropical areas with high temps/high humidity. I don't know if it was limited to certain manufacturers or not -- but since CDs and Blu-Rays are just basically plastic and aluminum, it probably would have been across several (or all) manufacturers.
Since our area here is neither tropical nor very humid, I've never seen it myself. I've still got quite a few CDs that I bought back in the very early days of CD and they all still play fine, but I guess it can happen.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-17-2014, 04:14 PM:
CD rot was caused by the dyes in some early screen-printed CD labels in the 1980s eating away at the substrate, if I remember correctly.
As for Steve's earlier points, they basically boil down to how important you believe medium specificity to be in communicating authenticity, either in an objective sense (evidence that an obsolete medium does or doesn't give you about the production and/or consumption of the original recording) or a subjective one (artistry, personal vision etc.). I get the impression that, all other relevant factors being equal, he believes that it is necessarily more so than I do.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-24-2014, 01:41 PM:
quote: Leo Enticknap
Research is still going on as to the comparative costs of film preservation vs. digital preservation using known-to-work methods we have at present (including by one of my former students), but early indications are that per minute of running time at a given image quality and per year of reliable archiving, film is still a lot cheaper.
A good short documentary on how difficult film can be for preservation can be found on the special features dvd for Roman Holiday. The 35mm print was stored at the Paramount archives.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-24-2014, 03:01 PM:
With regard to CD rot, couldn't this issue be resolved by using a high grade metal disc, rather than a plastic disc. I know a metal disc would be prohibitively expensive for consumer applications, but it seems like a metal disc would be ideal for archival applications. Furthermore, I would imagine the money involved with the film industry would allow for the creation of a larger, high capacity disk which would allow images to be stored at the highest possible resolution. Even if such a disc were to cost $2,500 - $5,000 each to produce, wouldn't it be worth the cost?
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2