Clicky here.

It's pretty awesome. Upon reading the article I learned that digital projection can match even the best film presentation, and that film can only be run once without causing wear to the print. It's a good thing I don't have a high opinion of Stevie Soderburg, cause he's the one who says that film only looks good the first time you see it and consistently gets worse each showing thereafter (or something to that effect). Apparently he's never seen a good projectionist nor has he ever heard of Filmguard. It's kind of funny... my prints always look BETTER after months and months of running them, and I would be willing to bet my life and the lives of everyone I have ever known on that fact. Why do magazines like Time only interview idiots when writing articles like these?

That is pathetic. I have a hard time believing that this guy's studio projectionist is that bad. I can understand some of the penny pinching theaters that are around today only being able to run a film one time before it is scratched or dirty, but a studio projectionist? My longest print run was 1500 runs and that thing left flawless! One run...geez!

Then again this comment is coming from the guy who is shooting his next movie on a consumer NTSC miniDV camera known as the XL1. Now the XL1 is indeed a fine camera, but NOT for theatrical use! Oh no wait, technically that camera is a "digital" camera. Ah, I see my mistake now. That means it will be perfect! What a load of .

I will put away my crystal ball.
 

I want to see who the first studio/producer will be who will have invested umteen million dollars to produce a film and then say, "gee, I think I'll by-pass those pesky theatres and just play this film in a wide DVD release." Yeah, that will happen.
 

Too bad -- digital needs to stand on its own compared to good quality film showings which, I think, the majority of you guys (and gals) do. It can't yet compare in price, in quantity of locations, in software availability, so it tries to compare where it can. Right now, that's long term quality.

Digital has great potential. Image quality CAN be excellent, it CAN maintain a high level of quality over many showings, etc., etc.

It's not there yet, and until its proponents are willing to compare to GOOD film presentations (that good old idea of "film done right"), it's not going to get there in the eyes of the majority.

One man's opinion...

Pat
 

quote:

---

So, how many of us have written to Time mag to refute the anti-film claims made in that article? Time to speak up, film fans!

---

JYOTI THOTTAM

Reports of the Death of Film are a bit premature. With 30,000 screens in the US and 400,000 screens world wide running film the fact there are 30 digital projectors running now isn't a significant factor.

Truth is Film looks better on screen. It has a higher resolution that current digital systems. You get more light on the screen with a smaller xenon lamp that with digital. The current digital systems use a 7,000 watt xenon while most theatres use 2,000 to 4,000 watt lamps. The lamps in the digital systems will burn out at the same rate or faster than the ones in the film systems. The fact that digital resolution is so poor that the manufacturers don't recommend putting the digital system in a theatre where the screen is larger than 30 feet wide. That's about the size of a typical medium size screen.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a film Ludite, I am fascinated by the digital projectors. I find their technology fascinating and the images are the best video images I have ever seen. I will even go seek out Star Wars to see the digital image vs. the film image. Note Star Wars was originated digitally so the film version shouldn't look significantly better.

I am a theatre owner. We opened an art cinema with 5 screens for about $300,000 and that included all the equipment and a nice remodel. For the same $300,000 I could have equipped one screen with a digital projection system and been able to play just a handful of digital releases. The exhibition industry is notoriously budget conscious. We will not spend money until the system is proven and demonstratably better than film.

It is the films distributors that are pushing for the change as it will save them money. It will neither save us any money or increase our revenue.

Please note that a well operated theatre can play the same film print with no decline in quality for months on end without scratches or any of the other faults Steven Soderberg talks about. It's called Film done Right by Kodak and they should know, they sold 13 billion linier feet of Motion Picture Film Stock worldwide last year.

Digital systems are prone to their own set of problems. The lamp gets old. The file gets corrupted, there are digital artifacts (little squares) on the screen.

There is a reason that film has been around for 100 years, it works and it works well. We have backwards compatibility. We can play a film print from 1938 just fine. And if we could send a new print of Star Wars back to that projectionist in 1938, he could play it just as well.

Yes, I believe that Digital Cinema will come but not as fast as people may think. Give it 20 years. And no, Film will never die. It may become a museum piece but it will be around as long as I live, of that I am sure. It just looks better.

Ian Price
Rialto Cinemas Lakeside
Santa Rosa CA, 95405
http://www.rialtocinemas.com

For information on Film Done Right go to http://www.film-tech.com

You have been mislead by Mr. Soderbergh. It sounds like he may have money invested in digital projection. A film can be run many,many times without any scratches or dirt, if handled correctly. Digital projection is NOT as good as 35MM film. Give it another 10 years, and it may come up to the quality of 35MM film, and down to a reasonable price.

You are doing your readers a very big disservice by printing one sided, inaccurate information. You need to do better research.

 

Make sure to put ATTN: JYOTI THOTTAM in the subject header to make sure it gets to the misinformed author of this fluff.

When you do, please post your letter.

Here is what I sent:
Jyoti,

I am surprised a writer for TIME magazine is composing such misinformed articles as your "The Death of Film". I am assuming you *think* everything you posted in that article is 100% accurate. You could not be more wrong. In fact, with few exceptions, most everything in there is incorrect.

FILM can be run hundreds and hundreds of time without the slightest sign of wear, provided proper online film cleaning and handling is involved. Now granted a great many theaters these days DO use popcorn jockeys to operate their projectors and their presentation suffers greatly. In those instances, yes I would prefer to screen a movie on video (excuse me, I meant "digital"). However, there are many professional projectionists out there in the world who when armed with a film print can blow away anything that TI, Barco, JVC or Kodak Digital Cinema can throw on screen "digitally"...and they can do it a thousand times in a row with that same film print!

Rather than rant on and on in an email to you about why your article is doing the readers of TIME magazine such a disservice, I will point you to a website that I run. Please visit www.film-tech.com and look in the "Film Handler's Forum" for a current discussion of your article. While you are there, feel free to browse around the site. It shouldn't take you too long to realize that there are a lot of caring professionals in the film industry. It is sad that Steve Soderburg failed to hire a professional film operator. More sad than that is the fact that you bought into all of the lies regarding digital projection and proceeded to print them, which of course has now spread false information about film around the world faster than a computer virus. My opinion of TIME magazine has been substantially lowered.

Brad Miller

"I just read your article about digital cinema. I am wondering if Time makes a habit of only interviewing misinformed people when it gets its stories. As you no doubt already know, your article was fairly one sided and the actual facts were misrepresented. Yes, digital cinema will eventually be mainstream. But did you talk to any real projectionists about this, or just Soderberg? A projectionist who cares about quality will tell you that he/she can run a film print over a thousand times without any wear. Yes, it is possible. Have you heard of Filmguard? Probably not. I would very much like to see an article that evenly represents BOTH sides here. As it stands now it seems like amateur reporting. It's almost as if Soderberg called Time, told his story and you just printed it. How far from the truth can my statement be? Probably not very.

Joe Redifer
Film-Tech
www.film-tech.com "

I've been listening to this lopsided argument for years now and the bias in these reports is transparent. First time I heard this "film is dead" concept was in a "report" on CBS News Radio here in New York where the announcer confidently stated as fact, that in five to ten years at the most, all movies will be shown without film. No explanation was given for such a statement or why. For news organizations such as Time Mag and CBS radio to regurgitate marketing hype such as this and present it as fact is just slipshod, mediocre reporting and they should be called on it. And I intend to do just that.

Notice that in these reports, there is never any mention of the economic model of DLP, never any mention of the notorious obsolescence that plagues computer-based systems, never any mention of the fact that getting the film from the studio to the theatre costs money, whether it is a guy driving a truck or guy delivering hard drives or a satellite uplink -- none of it is free. A media cleaning unit and a bottle of FilmGuard will keep a 35mm motion picture print pristine indefinitely, even if booth personnel aren't quite up to the snuff of trained projectionists. But even before FilmGuard, for decades, prints played in first run booths manned by trained, knowledgeable projectionists and after a year or more, they looked as good as when the film first opened (there is that legend about THE SOUND OF MUSIC playing the Rivoli in NYC for more than a year with a backup print sitting in the booth in the event that wear and tear would eventually require swapping the main print with the backup -- the backup was never was opened). So even this idea that film must degrade after the first showing is nothing but gibberish, yet it presented as fact, by people who should know better. And as Pat pointed out, at this juncture, longevity is the ONLY thing that DLP has over film, and even that is questionable.

Now to forge a letter to Time and figure out how to do it without using a lot of four letter words. Unfortunately, not using the word "bullshit" ten or fifteen times may be a lost cause.
 

(Edit) My mistake - the email Brad provided IS for the editor of Time.

att JYOTI THOTTAM et all

Film is far from dead and I think it would have been wise for you to have researched your article in greater depth
There are many caring and professional projectionists and operators out there that daily try to present the best possible presentation to the paying public.
Intrinsically film is not a flawed medium for in caring hands it should run several hundred presentations before becoming worn or flawed and then in an almost un-noticeable form for 1000 showings
The regrettable reality that many multiplex operators have chosen to remove professional showmen from there booths and replace them with button pushers with no regard for the paying public.
Digital projection eventually will offer many vastly improved presentation but at present it is still little better than 16mm quality on many large screens. If the industry, that is claiming this is a quality improvement, would actually look back at many of the films photographed on 65mm and printed on 70 mm back in the 60's they would blow most current 35mm (let alone digital projection) away.
As a service engineer (dolby and THX certified) ,I daily service install and repair many cinema installations and install new ones including the new digital projectors and have yet to find one (digital projector) that out performs a old and worn 35mm machine from the 50's
I personally feel there is a false push of a economic vision similar to an enron driving this push that also will leave many independently owned theatres out of the loop. Also it is a myth that electronic projection will allow more independent films to be presented as these machines native format is not directly compatible with any of the current sub high end pro standards and on the issue of standards there are yet none for this technology that are world wide compatible (look at TV with NTSC, PAL, SECAM) all incompatible world formats.
Also the leasing arrangement between large theatres and the providers of this wonderful new technology exclude any alternate programing that doesn't come from them since they own the transmission and delivery means (Boeing)
Also in there case the rental of the machine is actually below their cost for at the current rate they have negotiated 5 cents per head doesn't even cover the cost of the 7K xenon lamp that is being used. (I think that should be the object of an investigation for anti trust dumping in the market place)
I hope you will go out into the field and visit several theatres and film festival venues and get all the information on this "brave new world" that isn't as rosy as it is being presented
Gordon McLeod
G.A.McLeod Enterprises
Toronto Ontario Canada
 

Un saludo
 

And furthermore, I think we can all agree that no matter how much care a select few take in maintaining their prints, it's just not the norm, or anywhere close to it . And producers are right to be concerned with what most of the audience sees.

So Soderbergh is right to desire the theoretical reproducibility of digital projection. And digital projection is a lot closer to perfect reproducibility than film is.

Journalistically, I don't think there's anything wrong with this article. Sure, for us, the idea of film going away in favor of digital is hard, uncomfortable, and unfriendly to contemplate. But it doesn't mean that it isn't going to happen eventually. Of course, when it happens is a big question...

--jhawk
 

"Hi Jyoti,

As a very serious film buff and extremely picky movie goer when it comes to technical quality of film presentation, I was very disappointed to see such an inaccurate article get published about "the death of film." Equally disappointing is how a very talented director such as Steven Soderbergh espouses very inaccurate claims about how film projection works. If his own private projectionist gets dirt and scratches on a print after only one run, Steven needs to find himself another projectionist.

And I really have to say I laughed out loud when I heard he was "digitally filming" (really just plain videotaping) his next movie using a $4,000 enthusiast "pro-sumer" Canon XL-1s MiniDV format camera. That's not exactly in the same league as a Panavision Panaflex Platinum or Arri 535 film camera.

"Digital Cinema" is a sham. Nothing more. Since so much of the general public behaves like cattle when it comes to all things digital, they automatically eat it up when the marketing folks hit them with the very very wrong notion that digital equals perfect. It does not. "Digital Cinema" is only an effort on the part of Hollywood Studios to cut costs. They figure if they can electronically distribute a film in video form to theaters they won't have to spend millions of dollars on film prints. "Digital Cinema" has absolutely nothing to do about improving film presentation quality.

First let's look at numbers. A Texas Instruments DLP system can only display a maximum of 1280 X 1024 pixels. That's roughly the equivalent of what a 17 inch computer monitor can display. It falls far short of the native 1080 X 1920 pixel resolution of 1080i HDTV. That one tidbit alone makes DLP a marketing Pandora's Box for any commercial movie theater willing to install one of those $200,000 to $300,000 systems. Home theater fans already have the capability to install sound systems superior to any commercial movie theater (if they're willing to spend the money). With the crude, low resolution standards used by these glorified video projection systems, home theater fans can install their own systems that beat digital cinema in both terms of picture and sound.

The image detail native to a 35mm 4-perf film frame is roughly 4,000 X 3,000 pixels. That's well above the capabilities of all digital cinema systems. Projectionists and technicians who care about "film done right" can dependably show films with bright, razor sharp imagery.

Here's another thing to consider. Just like DVD, all "Digital Cinema" video projection shows use a heavy amount of data compression on the video stream. You're not going to see 1280 X 1024 video in uncompressed form. With DLP shows like "The Perfect Storm" and "Dinosaur", I not only saw effects of a pixel grid showing up on screen, but I also saw bad compression errors that most DVD authoring experts would find unacceptable (quantizing errors in dark backgrounds, blotchy problems in red areas, mosquito noise, etc.). Film may get its little spots of dirt and hairs in a badly maintained projector, but please don't consider a lossy compressed DLP video stream as perfect either.

There is a very serious economic issue concerning movie theaters. Do the Hollywood studios really expect the theater chains to pay $200K to $300K per screen for systems that don't even hold up to HDTV standards much less even film? Many circuits are languishing in bankruptcy right now. Even if they did have the cash on hand to "upgrade" to these video systems, how long will each system last? A good film projector can be had for $30,000 and can last for decades. These overpriced DLP projectors may not even last half a decade before the theater has to upgrade to some other system.

To finish, I believe part of the success of movie theaters is giving its customers sound and image quality they cannot have at home. DLP is not the way to deliver that. Film is. Well operated 35mm film projectors do the job nicely. If Hollywood wants to electrify the public with great image quality, why don't they have some of their product shot in 70mm? "Lawrence of Arabia" was made 40 years in 70mm format and looks a damned sight better than most any film released today.

Actual image quality is what counts, buzzwords like "digital" are irrelevant.

Best Regards,

Bobby Henderson

 

The other thing I've become to hate about digital cinematography, is when the action moves across the screen the figures don't flow, but jerk. I saw Windtalkers last week on a 50 ft screen and this irritation becomes VERY evident, not to mention nauseating.

Just a hair-splitting tech thing, but "Backdraft" was shot in Super35 format and featured a small number of 70mm prints for release (1 70mm print in NYC, 2 or 3 in L.A. and 5 70mm prints in Chicago --I guess Chicago got more since the movie was filmed there).

The 70mm showing I watched in NYC at the Ziegfeld was pretty good. I liked a lot of the fire photography in it. Super35 prints tend to look noticeably better in 70mm than they do in 35mm 'scope. Still, the very best is putting a 65mm originated image onto 70mm.

70mm still kicks ass even though it is an "analog" film format.
 

"I think claims that film is dead [May 6] are rather premature. Digital is inevitable but I would be very disappointed to see the current systems become the defacto standard. My impression on watching a digital presentation is that while at first glance it seems clear and free of dirt and scratches, eventually I found my eyes straining for detail and nuance that simply was not there. This comes as no surprise when you realize that the current system, as installed at a few dozen theatres, actually projects an image with substantially less resolution than ordinary high definition television. And HDTV was designed to be a consumer format!

"For a chip maker like Texas Instruments, the market to equip a few thousand movie screens is small potatoes. They know that the real market, when costs come down, will be high definition home theatre systems. Why then should cinema owners invest heavily in a system that is no better than what people will have in their homes in just a few years? If they want to continue to provide something people cannot get at home the conversion to digital should wait until an 'ultra' definition system, something just for theatres, is available.

"I recently had the privilege of projecting a brand new 70mm film print of 'Patton' (1970) at Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival at the University of Illinois. The image quality was nothing less than stunning. No one who saw that presentation would claim that film is dead just yet. When the digital folks can provide pictures like that I'll be first in line to sign up. Until then, thanks, but no thanks."

Nice slanted journalism. You seem to be under the impression film has
many problems and digital projection's only fault is the expense, and
this is only a problem because of those cheap-_ss theatre owners. Try
thinking of digital projectors as what they will be, big expensive
computers that hundreds of people will be depending on at each sitting
of a movie. As we all know Computers never crash, are always
serviceable, and a well-informed technician is just a phone call away.
I know this sounds like I'm pitching an outline for a new Disney
fantasy. The documentary version is that many, maybe half of all the
film projection rooms have equipment that is 30 years old or more. Why?
Because the equipment was built to last and to be repaired and rebuilt
on location. Do you know anyone with a computer over even 10 years old?
What's going to happen when someone, or some chain, outfits a 10 plex
with a million dollars worth of equipment and after 5 years that
investment is only worth 5% of the original value? Just try to find a
buyer then, or a bank that will use the equipment as collateral. We've
just invented disposable theatres! After making an investment that has
a preset life, ticket prices will have to soar. When ticket prices rise,
patrons become more selective of what they see, and attend less often.
Your article stated that Hollywood will save $800,000,000.00, this
sounds like a lot of money to most, but to an industry as large as the
American film industry, this is only a few percent. This percentage
could be made without the conversion to digital just by writing better
scripts, with a bonus benefit of making the patrons happier...what a
concept!.
I'll bet in the last year hollywood could have axed 20 movies that were
crap from the beginning and saved as much money. The percentage of good
movies the patrons would have seen would be higher too. A more pleasing
product to the customer...what a concept.
You also mentioned how the quality of digital exceeds film. Instead of
comparing digital to washed out films like "Erin Brockovich", try
comparing to "Backdraft" or "Casino". I could go on listing the problems
that we already know digital projection will present, and will find even
more when it comes to be the standard forced by the corporations. A
standard being sold with the help of misinformed pawns like yourself.

I manage a 20 screen theatre complex that is within the top 10 theatres in the USA for my chain (Loews Cineplex Entertainment). I strongly disagree with your article on Digital Cinema. I have been in this business for about 6 years many of those years has involved running projection equipment. Film is a very high quality medium, presented correctly film can and will look as good on its last run in a discount house as it does it's first run in a premier cinema.

Digital projection has a long way to come. We can show film on 70 foot screens and attain images that are sharp and bright. We pride ourselves on "Film Done Right". I think you should checkout www.Film-Tech.com to see what "reel" people in the industry think. In the fairness of accurate reporting I implore you to explore the otherside of the issue. Maybe a story on "film-tech" and "film done right" would be a good way for your respected publication to stay fair and objective in your reporting.

I feel that through mis-information and innacurate reporting you have done a great dis-service to the hard working men and women of the motion picture industry. I urge you to either print a retraction or to do an article exploring the other side of the issue.

Respectfully,
Sean F. McKinnon
Theatre Manager
Loews Liberty Tree Mall 20

 

Regardless of what you and the press may think, it is a proven fact that DLP is not near the quality of film yet, and especially film done right. You can stop by my theater anytime and I will show you how UN-degraded my films are with every week's worth of runs that I put on them and just how they are supposed to be handled. Maybe I wouldn't have a problem with that article or your comment IF it were true. Other than that both comments were nothing more than a mildy amusing joke. Furthermore I am not too concerned or uncomfortable about DLP taking over until it reaches or exceeds the level of quality that film is currently capable of today. I am just about fed up with people who say that film quality will only stand up for short runs. Truth is if your prints degrade with runs, you are the problem not the film.

------------------
"And, hey! You be careful out there too, gosh darn ya!"

~Ethan.

It's "jhawk", all lower case, all one word. It is important that you remember this. Image is everything.

Actually that is true. Image is everything in the cinema. And until DLP can match 35mm it just won't be the same. But just like everyone else it all boils down to money, which is still an insane issue at this point. Even with mass production, digital cinema would still be close to $100,000 per screen. And you can't use anything lower than a 7,000 watt xenon on nothing bigger than a 45 foot screen? Oh yeah sign me up! Sounds like a deal to me!
 

I recently read your article on the eventual demise of film based motion picture exibition. I rather strongly believe that a large portion of the information in you article is false.

Many people seem to have the idea that film in itself is very fragile and wears out quite easily. This could not be farther from the truth. The movie straight story comes to mind. This film ran at our theatre for 3 months, and left in equal or better shape than we received it in. With the aid of online film cleaning, films can survive many thousands of passes without suffereing and wear at all.

The second item that rather bothered me was that you blame the machinery for film damage and wear. Generally it is the fault of an innept operator that is the cause of film damage. I have seen machines from 1935 run a current movie without any blemish in image or sound. If the majority of theaters around the world took time and money and invested them in the projection staff, many of the pitfalls of film based projection today would dissapear. If a print is scratched in your theater, you have no one to blame but yourself. That is a fact.

Lastly, a brief opinion on the digital projection issue. the technology is not ready at this point for a completly digital presentation. Period. The current breed of DLP chips do not have enough resolution to fill those very large screens. Untill the resolution and light efficiency of the systems improves, DP will not take hold. The digital image must also be compressed in order to make it small enough to fit on an easily transportable medium. this introduces compression and digital artifacts such as loss of detail and color smudging into the image. Another problem is the sheer number of small single screen theatres all over the countrysides and small towns of this country. Most of these theatres are owned by a family who operate the theatre as a side to their main jobs. There are at least 10 to 15 of these small theatres alone in my state of North Dakota. The cost of digital projection is simply too high for these small gems to upgrade. Many are still running their original setups dating back to the 1950's.

In conclusion, film will be around for quite some time, especially in a money driven industry such as ours. It just isnt cost effective.

Thank you for your time, and best wishes,

Joshua Jones
www.film-tech.com

Maybe several years in the future (or even father than that) video projection may have a native capability to show an image truly as sharp as a 35mm print. If electronics people develop some high speed CCDs and video storage formats that can capture full motion video at 4000 X 3000 pixels or better, then we can talk about replacing 35mm film with that format.

Steve Kraus mentioned a very good point in his letter. The market for DLP chips in commercial movie theaters is extremely limited. So much so that there would be no way at all to amortize out the cost of micromirror development if those chips were sold exclusively to movie theaters. The real market is in computer gear and consumer home theater. That is really where Texas Instruments is counting on making money. "Digital Cinema" is just a way to market it. So, even if a new super-duper resolution video format is developed, you can count that electronic format being sold to people in their homes at a much cheaper price.

All the more reason to breathe new life into 5-perf 70mm, VistaVision and 70mm special venue film formats. I don't think theaters showing video instead of film will last very long. What's the point if people think they may be able to match the image and audio quality in their home?
 

"This theatre only uses Ultra High Resolution Motion Picture Film in our presentations. Film is the ONLY format capable of displaying all the visual nuances captured by the film camera.

No lower resolution digital video equipement is ever used."

We'll put it in our attraction reel and also print it out and post it in the lobby. Sure would be nice if a bunch of independent or even some of the chains that haven't yet bought into this folly would commission a nice, slick 1-sheet that proclaims a similar statement with some eye-catching, film oriented appropriate graphics.

I also wish there were an easy way to get the patrons to equate the fact that video projection was/is used in the porno theatres. I haven't figured out a way to say that without it being offensive, but I am working on it.

Maybe it's time we did a little propagandizing of our own -- plant the idea that DLP is a lesser format.
 

I am writing to you in regard to a recent article published in TIME entitled "The Death of Film." I have been employed as a professional motion picture projectionist for over 12 years and have found that this article is completely false and represents poor judgment on behalf of Time Magazine to report such false and misleading information.

Film, if presently correctly, does not show wear after it's first run! I have personally run many films with no detectable loss in quality hundreds upon hundreds of runs. Film is by far superior in quality to ANY digital medium currently in development by surpassing it in resolution, sharpness, color, contrast and white balance. The new digital projection systems employ an image compression system that is most noticeable, and results in digital pixel artifacts which appear as block squares.

In this article it was stated that the latest digital projection systems "can deliver images as sharp and rich as the best film print, without ever degrading." This is simply not true! Digital projection quality just isn't there yet. Digital cannot yet accurately reproduce low light and low contrast images the same way that film does. Quite frankly, digital projection cannot deliver the nuances, integrity and richness of color that film provides.

Studios have already implemented a "watermark" technology as a weapon against counterfeiting and piracy used for more than 20 years called CAP-Code. With this technology, pirated material can be traced back to the original screen it was played on.

Film is far from death. Please print a retraction and be more responsible when reporting about the benefits of this new technology.

Regards,

Jeff Skallan
Motion Picture Projectionist

Oh and did you know when you point a video camera at a DLP screen there is little to no flicker?

Any, digital is better? I mave taken my parents' 1960s Bell and Howell Super 8 camera and filmed things that would most probably have ruined a video camera!

Personally, I would love toi get my hands on a good 16mm camera...and there are plenty to be had...the old machines used by news cameramen/war photojurnalists during WWII are still around and are excellent machines! Problem is the cost of the film...which is beyond my budget!
 

Of course, it could prove interesting in the event of a problem, since no theatre is perfect and we have all had problems of various types.
 

Actually, with most theatres having slide projectors these days, you could make up a couple of slides to do this and it would cost you next to nothing. Just make sure your slide projector puts up a decent image.

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

------------------
This one time, at Projection Camp, I stuck a xenon bulb....
 

""Film Is Dead!" was a banner headline on page one of Daily Variety in 1956 when Ampex invented video-tape. Other predictions that went awry were as follows: Television will kill radio. Television will kill the cinema. Television will create a "theater in every house with benefits for children and cultural education."That last prediction was made in 1930 by David Sarnoff, the founder of NBC and RCA, who apparently didn't envision Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?. A prediction was made that all movies in the future will be produced in 3-D format. All movies will be produced in Cinerama format.All movies will be produced in CinemaScope format.All movies and dramas for television will be produced and distributed in high-definition video format within 10 years. The New York Times made that last prediction in 1982.The moral is that if you are going to predict the future, you'd better have some grounding in the past. Otherwise you are destined to repeat the same mistakes."

Victor J. Kemper, ASC (Past) President
http://www.kodak.ch/US/en/motion/story/commentary.shtml

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

No lower resolution digital video equipement is ever used."

Frank, this is actually a rather good idea. You have no idea how many people think that theatres run video tape or DVD. If they don't know what they are watching, the can't have a frame of reference to compare.
 

The paper "Assessing the Quality of Motion Picture Systems from Scene to Digital Data" was published in the February/March 2002 SMPTE Journal.

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

...the paperless office.
 

re: "The Death of Film" by Jyoti Thottam

As a Machinist and Master Film Handler, I am very disappointed by Jyoti Thottam's inaccurate, misleading and one-sided article. As a passionate and dedicated craftsman, I can personally attest to the fact that with quality projection equipment and proper film-handling practices, modern print films can be run hundreds upon hundreds of times without showing the slightest signs of wear or damage. If Steven Soderbergh cannot run a film once without damaging it, then something is seriously wrong with his and his "projectionist's" film-handling capability! In short, film damage, which is so common in today's cinemas, is the direct result of unqualified, uncaring, minimum wage concession stand employees that large theatre chains choose to have operate their projection equipment. Considering the ever increasing box office and concession stand prices, the actions of these corporations is wrong and unjust to both film-makers and consumers alike. Both parties deserve the best possible presentation.

Many of us who are passionate about the art of film presentation take part in an internationally reknown forum and web-site called "Film-Tech". The list of participants is very impressive; from Academy Award Winner (tm) John Pytlak (Senior Technical Specialist, Eastman Kodak Company), to cinema equipment manufacturers, technicians and projectionists. Many of us have pleaded with these large cinema chains to change their ways. Unfortunately, our pleas fall on deaf corporate ears.

Up until the Ronald Reagan era, the Motion Picture Projectionist, like many other professions, was considered to be a skilled trade-craft. Besides being a Master Film Handler, the projectionist also had to be a mechanic and electrician. In order to become a projectionist, one had to be voted into the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (I.A.T.S.E.) and undergo a formal apprenticeship. The candidate also had to pass state licensing exams, which in many cases included becomming a licensed electrician. With the advent of Xenon illumination systems, safety-film, and the automation systems that make todays multi-plex theatres possible, theatre owners felt that there was no longer a need for skilled projectionists. In an article titled "Battle Over Hours Stretches To A Year" by Bill Bank, AZ Daily Star April 15 1979 D1/5, Ernie Furman, Director of Operations for Syufy Enterprises (Century Theatres) said that automation has lessened the need for skilled projectionists and accused I.A.T.S.E. of "featherbedding". "The projectionist unions don't want to recognize the fact that automation has replaced some of their work. Most of the time the equipment functions on its own. The only thing someone is needed in the booth for is to service the equipment before you start and rethread (the reel) which takes all of about 60 seconds." Oh how his assessment was wrong! If anything, the modern automated systems have increased the need for a skilled projectionist because there are many more screens to care for. Furthermore, with the advent of various digital sound formats, todays cinema technicians need to have a strong electronic and computer background. OH how Mr. Furman would have eaten his words had he spent a week working with me! Little by little the major theatre chains opted to replace the skilled projectionist with inept concession stand employees. The result was inevitable; the quality of cinema presentation took an uncontrolled downward spiral.

So whatever happened to the skilled projectionist? Some went to work for the cinema chains as in-house technicians. They are usually assigned to a district which includes dozens of theatres in several states comprising hundreds of screens. It is all they can do to maintain the projection equipment, which is generally abused by inept floor staff. Others branched out as independent service technicians and equipment dealers. Some are still employed in select cities as I.A.T.S.E. projectionists. Many retired or left the trade all together.

There is also a large contigent of very skilled non-union projectionists like myself for whom quality film presentation is a passion. Unfortunately, generally speaking, our efforts are jeopardized by corporate executives who are more than willing to sacrifice quality for profit.

I was employed as a projectionist for one of the most successful theatre chains in the country. The theater were I worked, a modern 20-plex, was one of the few in the company to employ a small, dedicated projection staff. The result, I am proud to say, was a consistant presentation of unsurpassed quality that was recognized by the public throughout our state, as well as at corporate level. Films ran an average of three months @ 3-7 shows per day, 7 days per week. Furthermore, prints were constantly transfered between screens within the same complex. With care, pride and professionalism, prints in my care looked just as good after three months as they had on opening day; spotless, with no color-fading, dirt, scratches, etc. etc. On the other hand, I would occasionally visit other theatres in our community-both within our company as well as the competition. All of these other theatres used unqualified personnel in their booths, and the result continues to be an embarrassment to the film exhibition community.

So how were my colleagues and my efforts rewarded? Our general manager, an individual who would go for three months without stepping foot inside the projection booth, took the credit and reaped the financial benefits of our hard work. In turn, we were paid not much more than minimum wage @ less than 40 hrs/wk w/no benefits. Any mention of I.A.T.S.E. was taboo. Furthermore, the corporate executives and general manager told us: "Thank you for your hard work and devotion. Thanks for making this theatre a shinning example. Please do not forget that you are expendable."

Since leaving this cinema chain, I have done some work as an independent technician. I have also contacted corporate executives of my former employers competition with offers to be their area projectionist, the goal being to correct their problems and obtain a consistant first-class presentation. They have never responded to my offers. Generally speaking, their projection booths have pretty good equipment, but are badly abused and in a sorry state of disrepair. They do have a contract technician, who is a very competitent individual but not local. He is only called upon when there is a dire emerengcy. Considering that film-makers and the Hollywood elite are so concerned about first-class presentation, it is no wonder that they have not forced these major cinema chains to clean-up their acts!

In this article, Steven Soderbergh states, "Film wears out and runs at the mercy of projectors with weak lamps and worn gears." There is no excuse to allow projection equipment to fall into such an advanced state of disrepair. This statement reflects poorly on Mr. Soderbergh's (and large cinema chains) film handling ability and their unwillingness to properly maintain their projection equipment. The fact is that the combination of quality (and properly maintained) projection equipment utilizing LaVezzi VKF (Very Kind To Film) Sprockets (tm), which are the industry standard, and Kodak (tm) polyester based film, problems relating to film breakage and sprocket hole damage have all but been eliminated. Let me reiterate: scratched and dirty prints are the direct result of the incompetitent minimum-wage concession stand people whom the major cinema chains choose to have handle the film and operate their equipment! As for "weak lamps" used to project film; the same light source used to project film, (Xenon), is used to project digital cinema. In fact, digital cinema requires a higher wattage lamp and smaller screen than film. Furthermore, cinema experts are recognizing that the "old-fashioned" carbon-arc illumination systems produce a far superior light to Xenon, and this is very noticable in the projected screen image.

Those who are pushing for digital cinema are trying to convince the public that this new format is flawless. Hogwash! Computers never crash? A case in point: although the modern cinema digital audio systems are capable of reproducing wonderful sound, they are computer based and do fail. Good "old-fashioned" analog sound back-up (with Dolby SR noise reduction) prevents the screens from "going dark".

Decades ago, the financial success of a motion picture was determined throughout the entire length of it's run. Today, opening weekend makes or breaks a picture. Can you imagine the devastating consequences to the studios and film-makers should a major theatre's digital projection system crash on opening weekend? To make matters worse, it will most probably take a technician at least a day or two to get on-site to repair the system! (Many of the theatres that do run digital projection utilize conventional film projection in-sync as a back-up system)

What about the small independent "art-houses" and cinemas in rural communities that are having enough difficulty trying to maintain a profit? They definitely won't be able to afford these digital projection systems and their expensive computer upgrades that will surely be needed every year. These businesses will most likely be forced to close shop?

On the other hand, there are many fifty-year-old projectors still in service. Many of these machines have earned legendary reputations for providing excellent image and sound quality, not to mention reliability and dependability. In the hands of a skilled projectionist, thes machines will run for years before the need for overhaul. And then an overhaul might cost only a few thousand dollars at best. As I previously stated, this is more than can be said about a computer, which needs expensive upgrades every year. I can personally attest to my statements about these older projectors; I own 4 of them that I rescued from salvage and am currently restoring. Computers should only be built as good as these machines!

As for image quality; digital projection has many years to go before it can match the overall quality of 35mm film-in color-contrast, sharpness and resolution. Furthermore, many major cities are seeing a restoration of their old large format theatres. Many classic films that were shot on 70mm film, such as "Patton", are now being rereleased. Many of todays young movie-goers are in awe after experiencing a 70mm film for the first time, and many older patrons are rediscovering what a true movie-going experience was all about. When "Star Wars" premiered in 1977, I went to see it three times. In our community, it was shown in 70mm with Dolby Noise Reduction at a large two screen theatre. Words cannot describe that movie-going experience! A large theatre chain purchased that cinema, tore it down, and replaced it with a multi-plex. Needless to say, this cinema now has horrorable presentations! Digital projection will probably never be able to match the quality of 70mm film!

I stand by the claims that I have made in this letter in regards to the quality of film...so much so as to offer a open-handed challenge to Jyoti Thottam and Steven Soderberg so that I can (personally) demonstrate the virtues of, as John Pytlak would say, "Film Done Right!"

Will Kutler, A.A.S.
Machine Tool Technology (Machinist)
Motion Picture Projectionist

Wow! I think you crafted the best letter of the bunch...it should be required reading for everyone in the film industry harboring that bug up where the sun doesn't shine driving them to declare that D-cinema is the cure for everything except cancer! .

For the record, here is the letter I sent last Sunday to the editor. It may not rank up there with Will's epic, but, hey, every little bit counts!

=======

Dear Jyoti Thottam,

I provide contract projectionist services for film festivals held at a local multiplex theatre.

While up in the projection booth preparing film prints for a film festival that ran last mid-March, I would occasionally take a look at the movie being shown from the projector behind me. That movie was "Lord of the Rings," and the theatre has run the same film print since the movie opened several months before. Even though that print had experienced over 300 passes through a projector, the picture still looked as if the movie had its maiden showing--no specks or scratches (I'll admit a brand-new lamp in the projector helped). It took nothing special to achieve this--just clean, well-maintained equipment and staff who have respect for the the equipment and pride in what they do.

(...And there are many out there with pride in film projection. Just visit the excellent Film-Tech Web site to gauge the level of passion.)

With observations like these, the "film gets dirty and scratched with each showing" assertion compared to digital's alleged show-to-show perfection does not hold water. Digital equipment can malfunction; dead pixels in the imaging element of the projector or a digital dropout can manifest themselves on screen more distractingly than the occasional speck of dirt on film. As digital projection requires twice the lamp power as film projection to light a comparable screen, energy is wasted and the digital image will deteriorate quicker since larger lamps age and blacken sooner. I will not comment on the obsolescence and compatibility issues. Lastly, it's a proven fact that film resolution is vastly superior to digital, a fact not lost on Eastman Kodak.

Save digital projection for PowerPoint presentations. For a movie theatre, film is still the best.

Sincerely,

Jon Miller

======

Here's an aside to this same issue -- Variety just carried a story (either this week or last) that challenges Time Mag for its cover featuring a full head shot of a pensive Yoda and the feature story on Ep 2, with it's soft, obviously non-critical "reporting." Variety raised the question, how do you critique a film when you have already used a dozen pictures and gushed about its opening and its "social" impact and in short, basically become one with the film's marketing department. How? Let Uncle Frank tell you....

These editors have simply joined the ranks of the rest of the entertainment industry -- they are ALL whores -- the whole damn lot of them (except Ted Koppel). Their laughable excuse is that they are just covering a significant "event." The fact that they are pandering to the Lucas corporate machine and even further blurring that line between real news and entertainment/advertisment seems to not bother them one iota.

What happens if a real critic now wants to give a serious critical review of the film and wants to say that it is a piece of crap? How does he do that once his magazine has run 6 pages on the "magic" of Ep 2? What happens when a reporter uncovers the fact that all those photogenic kids who sleep in the ticket lines weeks before tickets go on sale and garner live "news" coverage night after night are actually aspiring actors and are being paid to do it? Bet they don't carry THAT as a side-bar next to the pictures of Yoda.

May they all wake up in the middle of the night and find crumbs in their beds.
 

Scott, your suggestion on the wording of the snipe is more streamline, but I was thinking more in terms of hitting harder and specifically to get the idea across that film is BETTER than digital and I wanted to also make the strong connection to equate the word VIDEO PROJECTION with digital. I think digital has a built-in positive connotation because of CD quality over LPs. "Video projection" on the other hand has the connotation of all those projection tvs that most people have seen and think are not as good as regular tv. Most of the public certainly perceive them as inferior to even the worst Cinema presentation. I want to make that mental connection to video projection as being inferior to film.

Final text:

"This theatre only uses Ultra High Resolution Motion Picture Film in our presentations. Film is the ONLY format capable of displaying all the visual nuances captured by the film camera.

No low resolution digital video projection equipement is ever used."

Cross fade: "Motion Picture Film: the first and only choice for over 100 years; the first and only choice for the next 100 years."

If Josh doesn't mind lending a variant on his great quote (and if the lab can do a cross fade without adding a great expense).

And Brad, we ain't afraid of black letters on a white background....not when armed with FilmGuard!

 

quote:

---

Screw CinemaScope. Bring back Todd-AO and VistaVision!

---

Technirama! (my school pride shows)

Will Kutler's letter was very well-written and comprehensive. He has put his finger on most of the major problems facing the theatrical exhibition industry. Of course, if magically exhibition were fixed, there's still a problem of low-quality content coming from many in the production side ...

A small factual error:

quote:

---

When "Star Wars" premiered in 1977, I went to see it three times. In our community, it was shown in 70mm with Dolby SR Noise Reduction at a large two screen theatre.

---

Dolby A. Either that or it wasn't 1977.

--CUT HERE--
With regards to the article by Jyoti Thottam:

As one who is interested in the progress being made by Texas Instruments, Hughes, Kodak, and others towards film-less movie exhibition, I feel compelled to point out several factual errors in this article.

First, the assertion that the current generation of DLP projection technology can produce pictures "as sharp and rich as the best film print" is wholly untrue. Even the relatively low-quality high-volume release prints which the majority of the public sees during the course of a film's release have more than double the resolution of DLP, even considering high-speed release printing and other factors that tend to result in sub-optimal prints. Additionally, all of the DLP playback systems currently in use in commercial theatres rely on so-called "lossy" compression techniques which take away even more of the original information that existed on the film negative, and which results in odd-looking digital "artifacts."

Just as importantly, however, technology has existed for quite some time to produce release prints for theatrical exhibition of much higher quality than those which are ordinarily seen. For example Technicolor's dye-transfer printing process, recently re-introduced after nearly thirty years, produces exceptionally sharp prints and has
the ability to produce highly saturated colors which no video system (or even standard Eastmancolor print stock) can match. Also, properly made 70mm prints are exceptionally sharp, even whem made from 35mm source material, and are necessary for large screens in order to achieve industry-standard screen-brightness levels.

While 70mm prints require special projection equipment, there are hundreds of 70mm-equipped cinemas in the United States alone (I maintain a web site which lists over 300). Sadly, it has been years since the last wide 70mm release (Titanic was printed in 70mm, but only distributed to ten theatres). If producers and distributors cared about image quality, they would take an active interest in ensuring that 70mm and/or dye-transfer prints were made of their films and made available to theatres for exhibition.

Next, the assertion that motion-picture film inherently shows visible degredation after its first screening is, also, false. While film print can be damaged by untrained or uncaring operators, the problem is one of the operator, not of the medium. In the right hands and with equipment and minimal maintenance, a given film print can literally last for hundreds or thousands of shows without visible deterioration. I have worked as a projectionist and can say from experience that proper film care is not difficult; it simply requires an operator who cares enough to handle the medium properly.

If we were to put DLP systems into the hands of the same people who regularly misthread film projectors and smear popcorn grease on the port glass, why should we expect it to fare any better? Actually, the results would probably be worse, as digital formats tend to either work or not work, while film equipment (which in many theatres is 30-50 years old) will continue to run for years with minimal maintenance using standard hand tools. Other problems with theatrical presentation such as dim pictures, dirty screens, and bad sound, are maintenance or design issues which will remain as long as customers continue to pay high prices for mediocre presentation quality, causing theatre owners to care little about improving their operations.

With regard to the issue of digital exhibition making it easier for low-budget films to find an audience, I strongly disagree. A one-off 35mm print of a standard-length feature film from 35mm camera negative can be made for about $2000. A 35mm blowup from 16mm negative can cost about $20,000. While this is not cheap, scanning a negative or intermediate element and mastering for DLP exhibition can cost in excess of $100,000, at one of the few facilities in the world which are equipped to do it. Furthermore, most of the exhibition venues for art-house and low-budget films are operated on shoestring budgets. These are the venues which are most likely to suffer if DLP projection becomes widespread, as they are unlikely to be able to afford the significant capital investment required.

Finally, the article fails to mention the problem of equipment obsolescence. Even if a worldwide storage and distribution standard for digital cinema is developed, technology will continue to move forward and upgrades will be required. A typical top-of-the-line film projection system can be had brand-new for less than $30,000 and will last for decades (I am not including the cost of sound equipment, as this remains essentially the same for digital projection). It can be "upgraded" to the latest standards of image quality by threading a new print made on the latest film stock (which Kodak, Fuji, and others continue to improve). What are the chances that a DLP projector manufactured in 2002 will be usable in five years? Ten years? Thirty years? If the record of the computer industry is anything to go by, the answer is "not likely."

Let me emphasize here that I am not some anti-digital zealot who is trying to push an agenda. I work as a network administrator and am always eager to learn about new technologies and make use of them when they provide tangible benefits. I do believe that digital cinema will happen at some point in my lifetime (at least for smaller screens at typical multiplexes) and I even believe that the quality really will eventually exceed that of the best 35mm prints and that it will even be economically justifiable at some point. That time has not come yet, however, and the industry would be shortchanging filmgoers if it were to rush headlong into a conversion to a medium which is clearly "not there yet."

I will ask this of the author of the article: Watch a 70mm print of the restored Lawrence of Arabia. Watch the nitrate dye-transfer Technicolor print of the 1943 version of Phantom of the Opera which is stored at UCLA. Watch one of the recent reissue prints of Rear Window. All of these films were made with equipment and film stock which is inferior to that which is available today. Then watch Ocean's Eleven in DLP. Then decide whether DLP is the improvement in image quality that the original article makes it out to be.
 

A 70mm 5-perf print had 60,310 runs at 30fps at 2500 watts
Another 70mm print had 29,111 runs at 30fps at 2500 watts
Another 70mm print had 28,468 runs at 30fps at 4000 watts
Another 70mm print had 26,317 runs at 30fps at 4200 watts

The six 35mm print samples supplied for evaluation had between 15,474 and 36,494 runs before being retired.

Admittedly, these prints were projected using carefully maintained "loop cabinet" projection systems, with properly conditioned projection rooms and on-line film cleaning. But they do show that with "Film Done Right", quality prints can be shown tens of thousands of times, entertaining millions of people during their lifetime.

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

Mr. Thottam and Time Editorial Staff:

There is probably little I can add to the stinging (and well-deserved) criticism you've no-doubt already received regarding the inaccuracies in the article "The Death Of Film". The article is biased and factually inaccurate in so many ways as to boggle the mind, not to mention that it actually advocates diminishing the filmgoing experience for paying customers. Truly one of the most asinine, [digital projection] industry-serving, cheerleading puff pieces ever printed in an alleged "news" magazine.

At the very least you could have spoken to someone who knows something about "Film Done Right" to get an opposing viewpoint. I suggest you have Mr. Thottam contact Mr. John Pytlak of Eastman Kodak for a rebuttal and for some FACTUAL information about the current state of film vs. digital. Mr. Pytlak can be reached at:

[john's email addy]

PS: John, hope that's OK. Not that I expect they will actually make an effort to get the facts.

But frankly, I think the technically knowledgeable people in the theatres and in the audience are the ones who truly know the real story, and can "tell it like it is".

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

Unfortunately, I haven't read this article, yet, but I plan to. Many of the magazines and newspapers out there today have turned into nothing but lowly tabloids, reporting only part of the story. I think you'll agree that this is totally unacceptable, and gives both Time and 35MM projection a bad rep.

I'll definitely be sending a letter and an email.

Bill H.
 

Tao, I did see "Star Wars" in 1977 and it did have Dolby Noise Reduction...I may have gotten the specific type incorrect? I'll go back and take a peek at my Dolby Press Release Packet, which gives a timeline of info.

Your welcome, John P. I was hoping that by using your name and acomplishments, I would "raise eyebrows" and draw some more attention to F.T.

I posted this story in the "who are you thread", but just to repeat a little...I was in Jr. High School when the battle erupted between I.A.T.S.E. and theatre owners. It was well covered by both major local newspapers as well as by the local ABC, NBC and CBS affiliates. At that time, I was hoping to become a projectionist as a career, but saw it flush down the drain before my eyes! In fact, the career guidance consulors in both Jr. High and High School had information about the trade of "Motion Picture Projectionist)...anyone remember S.R.A.?

Also, in that same article that I quoted the Century Theatre exec., the president of the local I.A.T.S.E. made accurate predictions of what was going to happen to the quality of cinema presentation with non qualified personnel running the booth.
 

--------------
This article upset me.

Today's Hollywood is driven by corporate greed. Cost cutting measures are being put in place at a breakneck speed in order to squeeze more content out in less time. These same cost cutting measures directly affect on-screen quality.

Here's an example: Spider-man broke records opening weekend because theaters were deluged in over 3500 prints. In order to get these thousands of miles of film into the theaters, production labs have to run duplication printers at speeds in excess of 10,000 feet per minute! This is the standard way release prints are made. Is it any wonder that the image we see in the theater bobs and weaves all over the screen? Is it any wonder the prints we see are grainy and under-exposed?

Is it any wonder that we see dirt and scratches all over the print given the fact that the equipment and film materials are handled by the same people that pop your popcorn and rip your tickets? At one time, being a projectionist was a coveted union job that was only obtainable after rigorous apprenticeship, and state mandated licensing exams. Heck, back then there was no such thing as a multiplex. Now you have to factor in that these same concessionists have to handle not one but up to 30 of these machines on top of selling tickets.

Your article states that film is highly perishable. Perishable? There are prints of movies that are over 100 years old that look better than current new prints. Technicolor Imbibition printing techniques and Kodachrome reversal film stocks will keep faithful color images lasting decades. Conversely, I have videotape that is a mere 20 years old that has oxide flaking off the base and is not playable that was stored in the same location as rolls of Kodachrome from 1940 that looks like it was shot yesterday.

Do you remember seeing films in the 1950's and 1960's? Do you remember how sharp, colorful and clean the presentation was? Back in those times, each print (of only several hundred) that was presented in a theater was struck off of the original camera negative. These prints were then carefully road showed around the country being handled only by trained professional projectionists at each stop) The prints you and I see today in a theater are sometimes up to 6 generations away from the original negative. I once saw a modern show print (called an EK) print of the David Fincher movie 'Seven' It looked as if I was watching reality right before my eyes. There was not a single scratch or speck of dirt or any detectible film grain for that matter. This was because the print was a one off of the original negative at normal speeds in a carefully calibrated printer. The terrible images that you see are more so due to the haste in getting the media out into theaters.

Regardless, the resolving power of a 35mm mass produced film print is still greater in resolution than DLP. There are still nuances in a projected film frame that current digital systems cannot reproduce. Resolution measurement dictates it, (4000X5000 vs. 1280X1024 pixels). Not to mention that motion picture film doesn't suffer from the 'lossy' mpeg compression artifacts (jagged edges and flickering squares).

The saddest truth is that due to the declining quality of both story as well as presentation of movies, the general public is used to the poor presentations that most are subject to. Switching to digital isn't really going to draw any more people as your article states. It's just too bad that society is so attention span impaired that they don't know what it was like to wait for months for the newest Technicolor release starring Cary Grant to make it to their local theater for upwards of a 6 month run. It's all now, now, now, me, me me for 12 weeks and then out to the local Blockbuster Video. The lab industry is doing it's best to push the release printing speeds to keep up with this kind of demand, as is Hollywood doing it's best to shoot an entire production in as little time as possible in order to get it's little pet projects filled with product placements out into the theaters. Film isn't dead. Film died in the '70's when road shows union projectionists and real artists died.

I don't care that DLP will someday be replacing the motion picture projector in the local cinemas. DLP technology is well suited for the kind of trash that is out in the megaplexes these days. I only hope that I will still be able to use my Bolex and my Eyemo camera and shoot my art on film. I only hope that in 50 years, people will still have the opportunity to go to a well maintained original movie palace and watch the original prints of the great classics presented on the same equipment that was used when the movies were king, the talent was gifted and a night at the theater was a memorable event.
 

Looking at, say, the past 20 years of film exhibition and the relative demise of "professional movie projectionist" as a career, concurrent with the widespread adoption of automation in the booth, do you think that technical presentation quality overall has declined? Stayed about the same? Improved? I'm referring to the quality of the image on the screen: Brightness, scratched & dirty prints, etc. (Not talking about showmanship issues such as slide shows, advertising, or curtains.)

It seems to me like presentation quality has improved overall. But maybe I've just been lucky to have good theaters near me all this time. Going back 20 years or so, I can remember seeing many prints that were scratched to hell or very dirty, even during a 1st-run. Another thing is that it used to not be unusual for a show to be interrupted due to a major problem in the booth such as the film breaking or something. I see a lot of movies, and I can't recall the last time a show had to be cancelled or interrupted due to a mechanical problem or film breakage. (Actually, I do remember the last time: It was a 70mm print of "The Last Emperor", film broke or got stuck during a preview of "Three Men and a Baby" and we watched the image burn.) Scratched prints also seem to be a rarity now.

The other thing I want to mention is that it seems like, overall, print quality is greatly improved compared to, say, 20 years ago. I know from lurking here that there are problems with defective prints, but as a general rule, do you guys think print quality is worse, the same, or better?

I honestly think that (in general, and in my experience anyway), movies look and sound better than ever. But like I said, maybe I've just been lucky.

Release prints may be made at printing speeds greater than 1,000 feet per minute, but nowhere near 10,000 feet per minute.

As good as it looks, KODACHROME is not a viable film for release prints. It is a high contrast reversal film with a very complex process unsuited to high speed processing.

Most images (except optical effects) are Original Negative --> Master Positive --> Duplicate Negative --> Release Print. Six generations would be very uncommon.

I don't know of any lone projectionist having to handle 30 screens. (Would be interesting to poll Film-Tech people to find out who handles the most screens at once).

Most experts agree that a scan of at least 4000 x 3000 pixels is necessary to capture the information on a full-frame 35mm negative.

I really believe that release prints made today generally have much BETTER quality than those of years ago (cleaner, sharper, less grainy, better color, less contrast buildup, etc.). High speed printing and processing do not necessarily compromise quality. Much as everyone would like a direct print from the original camera negative, duplicate negatives are necessary to reduce the risk to the original negative. Prints from duplicate negatives "done right" can match the quality of direct prints.

"Film Done Right" does not need hyperbole --- release print quality today can stand on its own, and doesn't need to resort to extraordinary or impractical procedures.

The best theatres, that have "Film Done Right", definitely exceed the picture and sound presentation quality of the past.

The worst theatres will find a way to ruin a presentation every time, and fix complaints by ignoring them and handing out passes.

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

How are you sure the author is a "Mr."? A name like that offers no clue!
 

Thanks for the clarifications.

A few after thoughts though -

-I really wasn't trying to suggest Kodachrome be used for release prints. It was more of an example of film longevity and color archival usefulness.

-I pulled the 6 generation dupe comment out of an article from American Cinematographer I read several years back. Yes, it was talking about optical effects (prior to widespread CGI)

-Sure, most 30 screen houses have several projectionists. What if one calls in sick? Union operators had relief operators and someone was supposed to be on call at all times. (AFAIK)

-Release prints - I kind of stand my ground on this one. Every film I go see at the local cinema (where film is done as best as can be in my area) I constantly find myself comparing the image quality to that of 'classic' films of the 60's and 70's I honesly see more graininess and muddiness in today's release prints than prints made 25 years ago that still have good color (while not taking IB into consideration) What I have yet to prove is whether or not modern camera stock is grainier or release prints are grainier. I should have clarified that earlier in my letter.

Regardless, Hollywood is trying to kill film and they will probably succeed. Film will continue to live on forever in those like us who know how valuable of a tool it truly is and is capable of. It's a real bummer but it's the way things are going.
 

Jyoti Thottam

Not that it matters, but I sent them an apology and correction.

Regarding image quality and whether things today are better, the same, or worse compared to 20+ years ago, I probably should have addressed the question to several distinct areas:

Quality of new prints as they come from the labs.

Theater staff and the amount of damage they cause by improper print handling.

Condition of the mechanical equipment projecting the prints, including light output and other factors affecting image quality.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
 

In any case, the marque of the theatre where it ran had 70mm Dolby blazooned all over it!
 

The 35mm Dolby prints were stereo optical, and these used Dolby A as well.
 

I have not heard back yet from our "friends" at Time regarding my letter.
 

Large format theatres are opening ESPN's "Ultimate-X" this month. (I enjoyed this film about Extreme Sports, BTW).

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

Here's my letter to Time:

Attention: JYOTI THOTTAM


I recently read the article in your magazine on Digital Cinema. I had to check the cover several times to ensure it was actually Time and not a supermarket "Enquirer" style magazine.

As a senior technical manager with one of the worlds largest cinema exhibition companies I can assure you that the time when E-cinema installations outnumber 35mm film installations is in a galaxy far, far away.

Current 35mm projection technology is the best available for quality big screen images bar none, especially when done right. When E-cinema is higher quality, same cost installation, common standard, pirate resistant AND offers all of this at no extra cost to the cinema patron it will happen, not before.


David Kilderry

 

Has anyone mentioned Lucas' interview in Time a week or two prior to the issue discussed in this thread? I read it on a flight from Reno to SF. The gist of George's comments seemed to be that shooting in digital frees him up as an artist to do things he cannot do with models or other traditional tools. He no longer has a lot of physical or practical shooting constraints to deal with.

I don't recall him mentioning how heavy reliance on CGI always ends up looking "fake" on the screen though. He really seems to have a disconnect between what made the early Star Wars films great, and all these new toys that prove sometimes "more is less".

There was one good thing in that article: A complete timeline & character development info for all 6 movies that tied everything together nicely.

I have to try and find it, but I read a newsarticle somewhere (I think in one of our local papers) that spoke about the public reconsidering just how good the wide-spread dependance of computers is, and whether the "old-fashioned" ways of doing thigs are better.

Steve, any chance of forwarding my letter to R. Ebert? How?

Notice Ebert's review of "Clones" and D-cinema--thanks Roger

The reporter obviously talked to quite a few people. They talked to film makers and technical people. That's pretty good because frankly KRON4 is noted for sensational jounalism.
 

But you'd be preaching to the choir.
 

To summarize, he found the digital presentation sharper.

quote:

---

Digital projection is the only way to see the film as he intended, without degradation from transferring the images to film, Lucas says.

---

It seems unlikely to me that a DLP system, throwing up a decompressed (lossy) image in real time, is going to produce a better image then a positive print made from an original negative off a film recorder.

The film recorder:

(1) works from an uncompressed, non-lossy data file, eliminating compression artifacts.
(2) can "upres" the image to 4K resolution
(3) can use time-intensive smoothing and interpolation algorithms on the resulting higher-resolution image to reduce pixelization
(4) adds two generations of pixel-hiding film grain -- the negative and the release print.

The digital projector:

(1) Works from a compressed, lossy data file.
(2) Is limited to 1280 x 1024.
(3) Is limited to real-time smoothing algorithms and pixel overlap to conceal the low-resolution digital source.
(4) Contributes no pixel-hiding grain.

Those are the factors that immediately come to mind.

As the saying goes, "you can't get blood out of a stone". You can add edge effects to an image to make it appear sharper at certain distances, but if the detail is not captured in the original image, it no longer is there. The HDCAM digital recording format is limited to 1440 horizontal pixels luminance (Y) and 480 pixels chroma (C):
http://www.digitaltelevision.com/publish/dtvbook/ch3.shtml
Digital Recording Format Comparison

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

quote:

---

As the saying goes, "you can't get blood out of a stone". You can add edge effects to an image to make it appear sharper at certain distances, but if the detail is not captured in the original image, it no longer is there.

---

I stole the word "upres" from an article on film recorders and film scanners.

I'm fully aware that you can't really increase resolution. My point was exactly as you said -- the film scanner allows you to perform smoothing and pixel concealment operations that can't be duplicated by a projector.

quote:

---

The HDCAM digital recording format is limited to 1440 horizontal pixels luminance (Y) and 480 pixels chroma (C)

---

What's shocking to me is how low the resolution is of the recording format. Well, I'll probably be seeing the movie in the next few days, and you can bet I'll be paying attention to the image quality. Maybe it isn't an issue.

Four Ep2 shows. Three of them had sound-related problems directly related to sound-on-film technology. One of the 3 prints is dirty after only 3 days. If this is typical of what happens in average theaters, no wonder George wants to get digital rolled out now. Film-Techers represent such a small percentage of booth personnel, the situation is probably hopeless. I know I've said before that "film looks and sounds better than ever" but maybe I should have worded it to say "film can look and sound better than ever, but it depends mostly on luck".

Another observation: I mentioned F-T to the manager of one of the local theaters (I won't say which one but if you read my posts you know it has to be either Cinemark or Regal). He/she said F-T is a typical internet site where technical wannabe losers hang out and nobody here really knows anything. Also that industry people hold film-techers in low regard and pay no attention to the site or anything said here.

Is this depressing or what?

quote:

---

David said:
film can look and sound better than ever, but it depends mostly on luck

---

What does luck have anything to do with anything?

Also, the manager's comments about Film-Tech was just his/her opinion, and that person obviously does not speak for the entire industry. What is sad is that manager's approach to his/her job. Nothing more.
 

Steven Gorsky
 

That manager's comments are not particularly depressing. I've certainly run into managers before who didn't know anything technical about film, but none so eager to make it so obvious.
 

• SDDS dropouts, probably due to flawed prints. Steve Guttag and Brad noted this on their prints, a couple others have mentioned it too.
  
• The above theater switches from SDDS to DTS, but apparently forgets to change a cue on the print, and shows then run in SR.
  
• Sound drops out of DTS in the middle of a show, and the booth is unaware until a customer complains.
  
• 15 or so public shows and the print is full of black specks, and one part looks like a track of dirt was laid down the middle of the print.

None of the above would be likely to happen with DLP. No sound-on-film printing defects. No cues to screw around with on the print. No outboard disc playback units to freeze up (I bet they rebooted the DTS player to fix that problem). And of course no dirty prints or need to even consider Film-Guard (Brad, do you have some replacement product in the works to take its place?)

We all know that cinema chains are not going to spend more money on booth training or Film-Guard, or enforce stricter procedures to make personnel pay more attention to what's going on. Not gonna happen. That means it comes down to how much the individual employee cares. Some of them do, but evidently not nearly enough of them.

Therefore George must be right. Quit wasting energy fighting a losing battle over film presentation quality. Embrace the new technology. If digital cuts the chances of presentation problems in half as compared to film, maybe it's worth a little loss of image quality. Who cares, nobody in the general public can tell the difference anyway, so might as well take the easy road.

------------------
Jan Hackett
Theater Operations Manager
Extreme Screen Dynatheater
NM Museum of Natural History Foundation
 

"None of the above would be likely to happen with DLP. No sound-on-film printing defects. No cues to screw around with on the print. No outboard disc playback units to freeze up (I bet they rebooted the DTS player to fix that problem). And of course no dirty prints or need to even consider Film-Guard (Brad, do you have some replacement product in the works to take its place?)"

IMHO, you trade these known (and very fixable) problems for a new set of problems. See the postings on Digital Cinema "hiccups". Also, those things common to both film and digital cinema would not likely change in their problems. From the postings here on Film-Tech, it does seem that ATOC had a higher percentage of printing problems than normal.

"We all know that cinema chains are not going to spend more money on booth training or Film-Guard, or enforce stricter procedures to make personnel pay more attention to what's going on. Not gonna happen. That means it comes down to how much the individual employee cares. Some of them do, but evidently not nearly enough of them."

Why would these factors be any better with Digital Cinema?

"Therefore George must be right. Quit wasting energy fighting a losing battle over film presentation quality. Embrace the new technology. If digital cuts the chances of presentation problems in half as compared to film, maybe it's worth a little loss of image quality. Who cares, nobody in the general public can tell the difference anyway, so might as well take the easy road."

IMHO, the "easy road" to fixing the problems you cite is "Film Done Right".

If I don't change the oil in my automobile and the engine seizes, I have only myself to blame. Buying a new car every few months is an expensive and foolish solution to negligence. And it's likely I'd neglect the batteries if I bought an electric ("digital") car, that doesn't match the performance of today's internal combustion ("film") car. Extending the analogy, hybrid or electric automobiles have advantages, but it will take years before they match the performance of today's cars and dominate the market --- and they still need to be maintained and have a competent driver at the wheel.

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

I know you already corrected that in a later post, but as you no doubt know by now it's skill, caring, regular online film cleaning and properly maintained equipment that is the solution to the ongoing problem of poor presentations.

As for that manager, just ignore him. That guy is just showing off how easily he is brainwashed from his corporate office. (Remember kiddies, a manager who can think for himself is a bad thing.) It's such old news. I've heard the same thing over and over from managers across the country working for that chain and it comes from a personal beef one guy has with me regarding my continual strive for perfection with presentations. This was over 10 years ago from that guy who is now working in the purchasing department who seems to be going out of his way to convince all of their managers that anyone who participates in Film-Tech is a lowlife, wannabe moron who has no business in the industry. (That's paraphrasing it nicely.) Yeah, ok whatever. Thankfully I don't have anything to do with that chain anymore. In the meantime, maybe they will buy up all the DLPs that TI can make.

If I were working the booth for an Ep2 show, I would be obsessive about babysitting those systems to make sure everything is right. I know some of you are doing that too and you should be applauded. [I'm applauding you right now. ] But what about the other 95% of the Ep2 shows? How many of them have some problem that's related to finicky film and lack of personal attention to details in the booth? George's wacky little space movie tests the limits of image and sound quality (even in film), and too many theaters are probably failing the test ("failing the test" probably also applies to labs).

It baffles me why theaters don't have hard and fast rules for booth personnel about paying attention to what's going on. How the hell can you run a booth like that? Even with minimal staffing, they should be able to figure out better ways to keep on top of technical problems. And why doesn't booth equipment include audible alarms for when something isn't right? I mean, if the sound is flipping in and out of digital, or if there are excessive block errors, or if the show completely drops out to analog, why can't an audible alarm go off or something? Why is the equipment designed to require constant babysitting? And if you're too cheap to use film cleaners & Film-Guard on all movies (understandable if the print is going away within a couple weeks), why not at least mandate the use of a film cleaning system for big "Event" movies like Ep2? Why is that so hard to figure out?

Instead we get: Start the show, check to see if there's picture and sound, and go back to selling popcorn and tickets. Walk away and forget it. Yep, that's how to run a booth. Again I know this is not news to anyone here.

DLP will have its share of problems, and a DLP problem seems more likely to be a show-stopper, literally. But it also seems like the sheer number of things that can go wrong will be greatly reduced. Just think of all the small details that have to be done right with film but which don't factor in with digital.

I'll bet you LucasFilm is collecting comments from web sites such as Film-Tech to build up their arsenal of compelling reasons why theaters need to switch to DLP.

Brad, you know what I meant about that mgr's comments so glad you didn't take anything personally.

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
 

Man I can't remember how often I've played a movie in SDDS and wanted instead to play it in DTS but forgot to switch the cues! In fact, I NEVER switched the cues. But DTS worked just fine anyway. Why's that? Well because DTS runs itself. I've never seen a theater that actually had to cue into DTS although I'm sure that at least a couple probably exist.

While I'm on the subject, my policy is for the projectionist to get up off of their butt and walk the booth once every 15-20 minutes and check every screen for lights down, sound format, proper fader setting (we have 2 faders, one for trailers and one for feature), focus, framing and smooth film operation. While 99.9999999999999% of the time the walk turns out to be essentially useless, every once in awhile there is something that is caught.

The projectionist on duty is also to walk the auditoriums and spend 1-2 minutes in each room watching and listening to the presentation as the customers experience it. This is to be done once all projectors are on screen for the first round of the shift. I agree with Tal that whoever is designing these recent multiplexes is putting zero effort into a well designed booth. Some of the things I see are just ridiculous. Stairs everywhere, narrow doors and hallways, multiple booths, platforms for the console/platter that Ian Price himself could not fit around and so forth. The best example I can think of is the Cinemark Tinseltown 20 in Plano, TX. This is hands down the WORST booth design of all time (that I have seen). It takes the projectionist a good 2 minutes moving pretty darned fast to get from one end (say #8) to the other end (#13) and there are several flights of stairs that must be navigated. The projectionists there say frequently it is quicker to go downstairs and cross through the lobby than it is to stay in the booth to get from machine to machine. Adding to the horrid design is there are no status panels in the building, nor projector alarms! Cinemark's continual cutting of corners by running the AC at 80 degrees doesn't help matters much either (Hey, the customers don't go into the booth, why waste the electricity?) I feel very sorry for anyone who has to run that place.

At one of the single screen indoor houses I worked at, the owner originally had a "rule" that the projectionist had to stay in the tiny projection room (Standard Simplex and Peerless Magnarcs). I convinced him that as long as I did a good job inspecting the print to avoid the risk of film breaks, seeing and hearing the presentation as the audience did was the best way to assure quality. He became a "believer" as we never had a film break, and presentation quality improved dramatically as I was able to catch and fix the tiny problems you couldn't see or hear from the booth.

IMHO, the projectionist should not be distracted by duties unrelated to projection. But "walking the floor" to critically look and listen in each auditorium, and to overhear what the audience is saying about presentation quality in the lobby is time well spent, and an important part of the job.

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

at the theatre where I was previously employeed, it was "policy" for all 20 auditoriums to be walked once each shift (twice per day).

As part of walking each screen, we had a daily log on which everying was observed/recorded. This log included shadows/overshoots, sound quality, screen illumination, dirt/scratches and anything else.

This log also served as a decent way to keep track of any projectionist who was "slacking" on the job.

In this 20 screen theatre, two projectionists were on duty at all times. Projectionists and floor staff all had radios, so there was communication at all times.

Furthermore, each projector was to be checked at least 3 times per show.

When I was employed at this theatre, I was older than my co-workers (including the g.m.) I also come from a no-nonsense background with a lot of mechanical experience.

I did make myself a little unpopular because, even though I was the "low man on the totem-pole", so to speak, I made it known that I disapproved of "slackers" of which there were some in the booth.

I was accused of being too picky and a little harsh...did not play good politics and could have been more p.c. After all, what kind of quality employee is a major chain going to get when they are not willing to pay much more than minimum wage?
 

We MUST have pictures of that theater. Can you get some we can post on the Film-Tech picture page?

Will-

I don't know what Century usually pays, but I hear it's between $6 and $7 per hour for booth employees. The Century out here offered me $7.50 per hour as a starting wage. I refused because it was the lowest wage in the state. I do like the theaters they build, though.

EDIT: Oops. It looks like my extreme sarcasm was taken at face value. The very point of my post was that the way that digital projection is being touted in the popular media is that of a cure-all requiring zero supervision and maintenance. The post I was responding to, namely a sound problem, is EXACTLY the kind of thing that will not change with digital or analog projection. In fact, my greatest fear is that such problems will actually get worse because of the 'perfect/maintanence free' mindset that gets sold with digital. I was kind of hoping that anyone who has read any of my past posts would have known that I couldn't possibly have been serious. My bad!

------------------
'How about a movie? They're showing them in theatres now! I hear it's like watching a video with a bunch of strangers and a sticky floor.' - Xander Harris, from 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'.

What would DLP do that would make bad digital (or analog for that matter) sound a thing of the past?!? If a sound system is not properly aligned it wouldnt matter whether you fed a mono film track, mag or the audio track from the DLP server thru it its still gonna sound like crap.

-Aaron

Really? Look at it this way. There are currently, what, 63 DLP venues for AOTC? I'm willing to bet that all of them are getting top notch technical support and being closely monitored. Will the same conditions exist when there are 1,000 screens? 5,000 screens? I'll bet not! You will simply have what John Pytlak has referred to previously: "Digital Done Wrong".
 

Storage should be interesting then too, because if BlueRAY gets off the ground there will be a non-harddrive way of displaying the movie (get a few BlueRAY disks in an array and run with it). I don't understand why Sat/Fiber distribution is so damn important with movie distribution, you can always FedEX a few DVDs and then you have a more economical medium than HDD-RAID.

Plus, unless you run RAID 0 or 10 (where there is always 2 copies of all the data) if one of the Hard Drives goes out your entire multiplex goes out until you pop in a fresh hard drive and let the array reconstruct the data using parity on the other disks (which takes quite a bit of time).
 

------------------
Film-Guard directions:
1.) Lather
2.) Rinse
3.) Repeat
***Do Not Ingest***
Brent
 

Oops. It looks like my extreme sarcasm was taken at face value. The very point of my post was that the way that digital projection is being touted in the popular media is that of a cure-all requiring zero supervision and maintenance. The post I was responding to, namely a sound problem, is EXACTLY the kind of thing that will not change with digital or analog projection. In fact, my greatest fear is that such problems will actually get worse because of the 'perfect/maintanence free' mindset that gets sold with digital. I was kind of hoping that anyone who has read any of my past posts would have known that I couldn't possibly have been serious. My bad!

The short version: Of course I was joking!

------------------
'How about a movie? They're showing them in theatres now! I hear it's like watching a video with a bunch of strangers and a sticky floor.' - Xander Harris, from 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'.