Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The "I hate digital" rant thread

This is topic The "I hate digital" rant thread in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000628

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 08-13-2010, 07:19 PM:

Please place all "I hate digital" comments here so you don't have to comment every time someone has a problem with their digital projection equipment.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-14-2010, 04:46 AM:

i hate digital.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 08-14-2010, 08:31 AM:

I hate digital because it causes people to think that making movies, pictures and multimedia is easy, it doesn't take any real work to do it and that any idiot can do it.

Then they try it and fuck it all up. I have to come in and clean up their mess and it looks like it's all my fault.

Digital projectors need to be fitted with some kind of difficult-looking controls. It should be a series of complicated buttons and knobs that have to be adjusted just the right way or else the system won't work.

That way, most people will keep their cotton-picking hands off and those who don't can be punished for tinkering.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-14-2010, 09:13 AM:

Yea! Back To Vinyl!

This is the right forum for this, isn't it? [Wink]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-14-2010, 02:28 PM:

MArtin.... You're close... just think Vitaphone instead!

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-14-2010, 02:44 PM:

It degrades the job down from "film handler" to "button or touch screen" pusher...

..but at least, you don't hear the repetitive 24FPS film chatter when you'r in a room with 8 machines going all at once..0

-Monte

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 08-14-2010, 04:25 PM:

It has forced me to wake up from my 20+ years of being in film coma to make me ask "what will happen to this place after I am gone?" . . .

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 08-14-2010, 06:08 PM:

Digital is just a fad. 0 = nothing, 1 = very close to nothing.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 08-14-2010, 07:48 PM:

quote: Matt Fields
Please place all "I hate digital" comments here so you don't have to comment every time someone has a problem with their digital projection equipment.

Screw that, I'm still gonna comment on the stupidity of D-Crapema in any and all applicable threads. [Big Grin]

And yes I hate digital. [bs]

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 08-14-2010, 09:18 PM:

Well, it was worth a shot! [Wink]

Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 08-14-2010, 09:40 PM:

The nail in the coffin will be the first big studio picture distributed solely on a digital format.

I don't hate digital cinema but I do hate 3-D, which I pray is nothing more than a fad.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-15-2010, 01:21 AM:

well, the new "restoration" of metropolis is only being distributed digitally, on blu-ray apparently. i hear reports of artifacting and freeze-frames galore.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 08-15-2010, 02:11 AM:

I cannot say I hate digital because I like to embrace all possibilities the Digital offers that film cannot and vice versa. I find film installations more challenging than Digital and I always believe that film rules. But we cannot close our eyes to the emerging technology. We find Digital threating to our profession.

In a summary.... digital is good but not as good as film YET.

Demetris

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 08-15-2010, 02:45 AM:

The difference is that the introduction of sound early last century, and CinemaScope in the middle, involved massive investments that paid off. They made a massive difference to the cinema experience.

The punters are not plonking down dollars to see a movie because it is shot and/or projected digitally. They buy The Concept. That can be a great story, a special event or Avatar 3D. Sometimes The Pitch can be The Concept … Arnold and Danny - Twins. Poitier - Guess Who's Coming To Dinner.

D-cinema is about saving money for film studios/distributors, so it is inevitable. The challenge for exhibitors is to design methods of saving or making money from such a large investment.

I am not sure about the alternative content route; after all, if distributors are footing part of the conversion bill, they will want their product unspooling through the projector as often as possible.

There will be space savings in new builds because there will be no need for a platter, rewind bench or print storage. There will also be staff savings; this is where single screen operators will win. The multis are already operating on minimum staff - that is why they exist. Our experience with e-cinema shows us that we can operate with the tech guy on the door. He has to be in the booth at start time for a film show (OK, he doesn't HAVE to be but we insist on it). So he can do double duty and have contact with the paying customers.

There is also the possibility of flexible programming. Holding on to a film print for subsequent limited screenings can be lucrative. We have done this with independent films; validated with an e-mail to the distributor, with advantages to both parties. Whether the majors would trust us with such a proposition is debatable.

The bottom line is that home cinema is capable of better image and sound than the prints or files will deliver to our audience. So cinemas should be showing 70mm Vision Premiere prints. The cost of converting to that model is about half of converting to d-cinema. This is not going to happen.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-15-2010, 10:34 AM:

quote: Jason Metcalfe
The nail in the coffin will be the first big studio picture distributed solely on a digital format.

And a studio would do this because....? Every screen, no matter the format MAKES THEM MONEY. When they open their tentpole titles hoping to make that 50, 60, 70 million in a single weekend, that takes every screen they can get their product onto. You make money by making your product available to as many of the buying public as possible, be it movies or baked beans. You don't make money by saying, "Oh, am not going to put my baked beans in that super market because I don't like the shelves they use. You FIGHT to put your product on as many shelves as possible.

Until the cost of making and distributing prints is more than the potential for earned income by that print, the studios will still sell their product using film as well as hard drives. And please remember, the rest of the world is also part of the equation -- in poorer countries with worse economies (are there ANY countries nowadays with economies that are worse than ours?), they may be needing film prints for quite some time out.

And I admit, everyone seems to have his own pet take on the life of film vs digital, but it's all based on alchemy -- saying that film will last for the next 50 years or that it will be gone sooner rather than later, is all pure speculation and one guy's guess is as facetious as the next.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 08-15-2010, 11:58 AM:

I hate digital. I hate it's crystal clear images that look as good during its two hundredth show as it did the first, without any dirt on the print or strange jumps because of a repaired break. I hate it's crystal clear sound, without any hissing and popping. I hate that I no longer have to carry poorly designed 70lb cans and boxes up several flights of stairs, and spend an hour building up and tearing down each print. I hate that my digital projectors allow me to perfectly set my projector's light output to 16fL, giving my customers the best presentation possible, regardless of who is working in the booth. I hate sitting in my theatre watching a movie and not hearing the projector. I hate that I no longer have to have several lenses and aperture plates for each projector, and hope the projectionist doesn't forget to change everything over switching between Anamorphic widescreen and Academy standard. Or maybe this movie was meant to be 1.66:1. Do we even have a 1.66:1 lens and aperture plate? Maybe in that cabinet over there. Well, that's where the lenses and aperture plates are supposed to go. Oh crap... are we out of zebra tape?

Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 08-15-2010, 12:06 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
You don't make money by saying, "Oh, am not going to put my baked beans in that super market because I don't like the shelves they use. You FIGHT to put your product on as many shelves as possible.

Then why won't they pay VPF's? Why did they discontinue support of 1.3k? They didn't like the shelves then. When will they be discontinuing 2k in favor of 4k. When has Hollywood ever done anything that makes sense?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-15-2010, 12:29 PM:

Believe me, I am not defending the many irrational decisions made by Hollywood. On the other hand, going to your points -- when they discontinued 1.3k, they were abandoning a format that never actually replaced film. I would venture to guess (and I am sure others here have a more accurate handle on this than I do) that practically ALL the original wave of 1.3K installs were digital projectors put into the same booths with the 35mm projectors. It was almost at an experimental level. For an exhibitor going back to film until the DCI specs were established for 2K wouldn't have been a big deal, plus the number of those digital installs were something like under 1000. Technicolor had a "seed" plan where they were paying for a bunch of these installs; it's questionable if any exhibitors ever actually paid for those very few 1.3K units. The number of screens lost would have been negligable, if any.

Where did you hear that 4K will not play on 2K projectors or that the studios will stop supplying 2K versions of 4K product should 4K become a domninant format?

That being said, sure, there is a litany of stupid decisions that studios make that anyone can tell you. I have personally had more than one studio say that a film was "out of service" even I knew they had plenty of prints while I was telling them I had a market for a particular title and I could turn over a hefty overage if I could play it, yet their answer was "No."

So, yes, you are right -- studio honchos do smoke a lot of crack in the back rooms, but when there are thousands of film based screens still left across the country and maybe tens of thousands in the foreign markets, they are not going to stop making film prints just yet.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 08-15-2010, 12:31 PM:

I hate DCinema! [Mad]

The last 20 years of theater staff who have hated film as they were forced to handle it along with their other duties at the ever dumber and dumbed down projection booths where film is [bs]

upon are now so smug in their DCrapema plexes and they really believe that cd is perfect sound forever [Frown]

If a D cinema experience could actually exceed a 70mm one then i might not be filled with such vile hate the likes of making Darth Vader nervous and the Emperor crapema his digital pants!
I know this is not the fault of theater staff but the trends thrown at them yet don't worry cause i have plenty of hatred to go around to studio heads who want this premature digital world!

At home this digital stuff is my hobby and works in my favor!I can now duplicate on a small scale the film experience with loss less audio and 1080 DLP projection but i still prefer my 16mm and 35mm setups!
Can you imagine if i offered to sell 35mm equipment at a huge discount if you would offer proof of destroying your 4k Sony SXRD? Would i look like a douche with an agenda and more money than brains?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-15-2010, 12:32 PM:

Edward, I don't think you are comparing a quality booth to digital. The big tipoffs were your mentioning that you could hear your old 35mm projector in the auditorium, bad quality sound from film, film breaks and film wear from lack of proper film cleaning and handling procedures...and the use of zebra tape.

You are not making a fair comparison. Film doesn't stand a chance against that sort of poor film quality.

That being said, for the lesser quality operations out there (of which there are an amazing number), digital is definitely a huge improvement. For the true quality designed booths with professional operators, not so much.

Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 08-15-2010, 01:12 PM:

quote:
And a studio would do this because....?

Until the cost of making and distributing prints is more than the potential for earned income by that print, the studios will still sell their product using film as well as hard drives.

You answered your own question here and also made an argument for supply-side economics however the end of film will be due to demand and not the studios desire to supply.

In order to make my previous post more clear and despite how it may make me feel, there will be a point at which the majority of first-run theaters are completely digital and the demand for film prints from smaller theaters is so low that it becomes cost ineffective to continue to produce celluloid prints.

You may wish to believe that this is some indeterminate point in the future but I would argue that this reality is less than ten or fifteen years away. Think about where we were ten years ago with digital cinema and how prevalent is has become since then, with the technology readily available, theaters hurting from declining attendance and companies already trashing their 35mm projector lines (Christie), it is only a matter of time.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-15-2010, 01:43 PM:

OK we are going around in circles here. Yes, it's only a matter of time, but what that time-frame is is pure speculation and for anyone to suggest they know how many years this will take is folly. To say it is only a matter of time is speculation, but then to also say you know it to be 10 to 15 years without basis of fact is just a guess and as meaningless as anyone else's guess.

All the factors that influence this matter are complex and many totally unknowable, like the economy, where it is in any given quarter, the effect of other avenues of distribution such as streaming like Netflix and Amazon and totally unforseen things like Redbox and whatelse the landscape will look like in 1 year or 5, let alone 10.

You do realize that many people who speculated with all manner of confidence that the 1.3K roll-out would replace film in 3 to 5 years were as sure as you. And they were dead wrong. Did they have even a clue that not only won't that level of technology become dominant, but that those projectors which many swore up and down would be the downfall of film, would, in very short order, become giant door stops.

Rule of thumb: even the most knoweldgeable insiders can't predict how this will play out in terms of time frame. And given that you still talk about first run theatres as if they only exist in the USA and are not considering the full global scope of film distribution or the effects of the global economy tells me that your predictions, while they are as good as anyone else's random guesses, are a more than a little suspect and can be taken with that proverbial grain of salt.

Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 08-15-2010, 02:39 PM:

Ten to fifteen years was just a guess, sure, no one can predict the future, of course, but no one can stop it either just by disbelief.

The difference between 1.3K and now is that before it was all talk, while now we are seeing huge growth along with the talk.

Major theater chains are ditching their film projectors, all-digital chains are sprouting up across the country, manufacturers have scaled back their 35mm projector production lines, but I don't know what I'm talking about and no one knows what will happen so there.

I want to make clear that I do not prefer digital projection to film in most cases. I think that for first-run, big hollywood movies, it makes sense to switch to digital projection however I can't see our art-house 5-plex going all digital any time soon.

Also, a little elitist/xenophobic with your assessment of the foreign devils and their ancient film technology, eh? One of the first places I ever saw a digitally projected film was in China in 2006, as far as I know digital projection is growing at a comparable rate in these countries (though I believe Europe does still lag behind).

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-15-2010, 05:22 PM:

I remember someone posting here from Thailand that works in a digital booth, but I'm not going to assume this means that a lot of similar booths have done the same. Same thing applies to the notion of seeing a digital movie in China in 2006. It doesn't indicate that the whole country is taking to digital any more than me hearing about a theater that pulled its digital equipment here in the US to go back to 35mm means that lots of people are doing it.

Posted by David Stone (Member # 4846) on 08-16-2010, 03:05 AM:

Hi everyone,

I run a single screen theater and find myself coverted.

Everything about digital is better than 35mm. We are completely automated with the Doremi, 2000ZX, and the CP750 talking to each other and after striking the xenon @ 10.00am it is not necessary to enter the bio-box to 11pm to turn the breakers off.

We have screened 95% in digitsl since November 2009 and have not lost one session or even looked like losing a session.

Pristine picture quality, no scratches, joins, pops in sound 200 runs later the movie looks the same.

The savings on wages alone is very significant, far out weighs the increased operating cost. Revenue and net income are way up on pre digital.

Film distributors are also very accomodating with more films first release passing through the doors.

Definitely thumbs up on digital cinema for us.

As a manager/booker/projectionist/cleaner..Mr everything it is the way to go.

Cheers,

David

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 08-17-2010, 08:09 AM:

quote: Jason Metcalfe
there will be a point at which the majority of first-run theaters are completely digital and the demand for film prints from smaller theaters is so low that it becomes cost ineffective to continue to produce celluloid prints

That's not necessarily the case. Lower print volumes also mean lower total cost to the studios for those print runs. This pertains today for example with 70mm - the cost per print is higher, but the total number of prints made is very small.

quote: David Stone
Pristine picture quality, no scratches, joins, pops in sound 200 runs later the movie looks the same.

But that can be achieved with film, as has been pointed out ad infinitum. The puzzling thing is why so many (but certainly not all) proponents of [dlp]

seem compelled to sell it using specious anti-film and other negative arguments [Confused]

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 08-17-2010, 08:36 AM:

I think the argument for digital is not that it does things that film is not capable of (dirt and scratch free, for instance). The argument for digital is that with digital these things are done easily.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-17-2010, 08:44 AM:

quote: Brian Guckian
Lower print volumes also mean lower total cost to the studios for those print runs.

Which, in a sane world, would mean high quality prints.

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 08-17-2010, 11:02 AM:

You can't go backwards, Martin. In the REAL world, which unfortunately doesn't mirror the happy endings of Hollywood blockbusters, the situation you describe is a diseconomy of scale situation, where the labs have already invested in high-volume equipment which simply can't handle the low volume as well.

With the sharp decline that eventually is going to happen, you are not going to see labs junk their high-volume low-efficiency processors and go BACK to low-volume high-efficiency machines. The writing is on the wall now, and when the volume dips below 50% utilization per week or whatever the magic number is on chemistry, they are going to close up shop.

If anything the prices are going to go UP on prints, as labs and competition go out of business and it becomes more and more a niche market.

DuArt, a major NYC negative lab has announced they are processing their final roll this month.

Whoever is left standing can command more and more of a premium price.

EDIT: I do agree with you on one thing, Martin: The quality of prints should go up. Of course if you know you are getting laid off at the end of the year, or that your chosen career path is doomed, it is hard to do good work and stay sober, hypothetically, I mean [Razz]

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 08-17-2010, 11:05 AM:

You can't go backwards, Martin. In the REAL world, which unfortunately doesn't mirror the happy endings of Hollywood blockbusters, the situation you describe is a diseconomy of scale situation, where the labs have already invested in high-volume equipment which simply can't handle the low volume as well.

With the sharp decline that eventually is going to happen, you are not going to see labs junk their high-volume low-efficiency processors and go BACK to low-volume high-efficiency machines. The writing is on the wall now, and when the volume dips below 50% utilization per week or whatever the magic number is on chemistry, they are going to close up shop.

If anything the prices are going to go UP on prints, as labs and competition go out of business and it becomes more and more a niche market.

DuArt, a major NYC negative lab has announced they are processing their final roll this month.

Whoever is left standing can command more and more of a premium price.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-17-2010, 11:12 AM:

Jonathan: Well, as I said, a "sane" world [Wink]

That said, I do live in the niche market. We're an arthouse. And though I don't have empirical evidence, it certainly seems to me the smaller the distributor, the nicer looking the print.

On another thread we discussed how gorgeous the prints of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo were (Joe's dislike of the star notwithstanding). Music Box is practically a micro-distributor, so I suspect they put lots of time into quality control. Sony Picture Classics, one of the biggest of the art distribs, usually have fairly dull looking prints (though MicMacs looked good).

Maybe we will have handcrafted prints to go along with hand crafted beer while the rest of the world is watching digital and drinking Bud. One can hope.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-17-2010, 11:23 AM:

Echoing Matt's thought -- theatres that run sloppy and ill-maintained booths with dirty, scratched film images on the screen, letting bulbs burn long after their useful lives to save a few pennies will be putting a digital projector in that same booth without fixing those same poor operating conditions and worse, without fixing that grindhouse mind-set and thinking it will solve everything. But sorry to say, a new digital projector won't change that core problem. And yes, digital will look all shinney and brand new because it's just out of the box, but just give it a few years after being stuck in a dirty operation where the mentality is to let it just "run itself" and see how well it fairs in a few years or the first time it needs a service call in a place where management wouldn't do service calls when film was the format because a film technician "cost too much." Wait till that same exhibitor sees what a certificed digital technician's service call bill will be and see how long that digital projector goes unserviced and ill-maintained.

You saw dirty, scratched, dull pictures with film? It wasn't the film's fault. It's only a matter of time before all the things that can go wrong with digital technology when it is not properly maintained and RESPECTED will plague that same grindhouse booth.

BTW, "grindhouse" doesn't necessarily mean only second run theatres -- grindhouse is a state-of-mind and there are plenty of first run places that have that outlook on their booth operations. Make no mistake about it -- plop a digital projector in that kind of dirty booth and it be just as abused will fair no better than when film was abused there; that exhibitor will wind up with the same kind of crap presentation for the patrons he was giving them when he was running film projectors.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-17-2010, 12:06 PM:

Question: do service technicians charge the same rate for work on film equipment and digital equipment? I would have assumed that they did, but Frank's post now has me wondering.

As for me, I have not personally worked with anything newer than the 1.3k [dlp]

systems, but I have about twelve years' worth of experience with 35mm (with some 16mm and 70mm thrown in for good measure) and will weigh in here, anyway:

Advantages:

For theatres that practice "film done wrong," digital projection (meaning DCI-level equipment) will be an improvement. Since digital equipment either works or doesn't, it will force exhibitors to perform necessary maintenance or risk losing shows (rather than, say, scratching a print). The port glass and lenses will probably still be dirty, however, and speaker diaphragms will probably still be blown. Still, the installation of the new equipment will essentially force these theatres to have a technician go through the entire projection and sound system and fix issues that should have been fixed years ago. Many theatres are also getting new screens, due to the current 3D fad. At least in the short term, all of this is a net gain.

For theatres that show "alternative content," digital projection can potentially increase revenue. Personally, I do not believe that "alternative content" will be a big winner for most theatres over the long term, but that doesn't mean that smart exhibitors cannot make money with it now.

Major film distributors will likely win over the long term, due to the reduction of print manufacturing and storage costs. "Filmmakers" (really videomakers, unless they shot their material on film) who prefer to have their work screened digitally will win as more venues are equipped with DCI projection equipment.

With extra tracks to play with, there may be some interesting developments in cinema sound systems in the future. If this comes to fruition, sound designers and mixers (and, likely, audiences) will win as well.

Disadvantages:

The big losers here are obviously small mom-and-pop theatre operations, which will not likely be able to afford to convert, or whose theatres may have physical limitations which would be cost-prohibitive to fix in order to install new equipment. Many theatres will close if/when 35mm prints become unavailable, and many communities may be left without a cinema.

Non-theatrical venues (and, by that, I include theatres which occasionally program films, but which mostly fill their schedules with other events) will lose out, too. Except for a few wealthy "non-profits," few will be able to justify the conversion, and may drop film programming entirely (or, almost as bad, switch to SD or HD video). In many such venues, film programming exists because the equipment is already installed and paid for. Once this is no longer the case, the programming will likely go away.

Over the long term, exhibitors in general will likely lose. There is no economy of scale for this equipment (total worldwide market of 100k units with an estimated lifespan of ten years). A ten-year replacement cycle will cost more than film equipment ever did, even if it saves some on labor. It will no longer be possible to buy equipment that will last for fifty years. Furthermore, maintenance issues and equipment failures are more likely to require an expensive engineer, rather than someone on the theatre staff, to resolve.

Venues which currently have top-quality film equipment and operators will also lose out. We all know that, under the right circumstances, 35mm film prints will provide a better image than 2K (and probably 4K) digital systems. This is to say nothing of 70mm, for which some infrastructure still exists, and which could provide demonstrably better image and sound quality than any digital system is likely to offer in the forseeable future. A film system can also be more flexible, allowing for such things as frame rates other than 24fps and better support for aspect ratios narrower than 1.85. Furthermore, 16mm, 35mm, and 70mm film capability will be needed for repertory screenings for many years (decades) to come, requiring many venues to install two projection systems (film and DLP). The wholesale push towards an all-digital exhibition system will eventually lead to increased print costs, and will also stifle the potential for improvements in film stock and lab techniques.

Smaller film distributors and independent filmmakers will lose, at least in the short term, due to the need to provide material in both film and DCI format, or risk losing bookings. Filmmakers who desire to have their work presented on film may also lose if they are forced to distribute to DCI-only houses.

Over the long term, film archivists will probably lose. Once film elements are no longer produced for new films, someone will need to store, back up, and transcode digital files every few years. I can legitimately take a roll of film negative, put it on the shelf for fifty years, and expect to take it off the shelf and make a print of it then. Digital storage, by contrast, requires ongoing maintenance. This will not be cheap and, at some point, it may not be done, leading to increased costs and greater potential for loss of material. On the other hand, when digital storage is maintained and format conversions can be made without loss, this may be an improvement over film. Maybe this should be listed as a wait-and-see item.

The average film-goer may win or lose, depending upon the current quality of his local theatres and his preferences for 3D or 2D exhibition and film vs. digital image quality (yes, they look different, and each has its proponents).

For me personally, I happen to like film and the physical/mechanical nature of it. I like the flexibility of the medium, and the way in which it has been adapted to various widescreen processes, different sound formats, and such. I like the idea of being able to find a fifty-year-old reel of film and project it immediately. I like the idea that film is a self-documenting format, requiring only a light source and a lens to recover the images. And I like the fact that the quality continues to improve, with better emulsions and both mechanical and electronic projection equipment.

I also feel strongly that films that were originally photographed and intended to be exhibited on film (which is to say, pretty much anything made before the latter half of this decade, and many current films) should be exhibited that way. Proper repertory exhibition will (or should) require film for forever. Just as seeing a photograph of the Mona Lisa is not the same thing as seeing the actual painting, watching a digital scan of a film element is not the same thing as watching an actual print, preferably from the original release, of that same material. Every film fan should have the experience of seeing an original nitrate print of a favorite film. I would hate to see the time come when this is no longer possible.

I realize that digital exhibition has a number of advantages, as well as a different and distinct look. If film and digital exhibition could survive side-by-side (as is the case now), I would be very happy. My fear, however, is that, in a decade or so, it will be both difficult and expensive to have film prints made and exhibited, and every new print will immediately become an "archive print," available only to a handful of museums (musea?) and screening rooms. Therefore, I hate digital to the extent that it is likely to lead to the demise of film as a mainstream exhibition format.

Finally, I hate the idea that we are moving backwards, at least at the very high end of exhibition. In the 1950s, the very best theatres had Cinerama and Todd-AO. Only Imax (real, 15/70 Imax) is an improvement over these formats, and even that seems likely to meet its demise at some point in the future. Shouldn't movies now look and sound better than they did in the 1950s? If so, then why aren't we using 70mm now while we wait for 12k DLP?

Posted by Glen Rich (Member # 1150) on 08-17-2010, 10:35 PM:

Not so much if, but when. The group I work for informed us 12
months ago that they would be expanding into Digital over 5 years, and that we, (Projectionists), should start looking for new careers. Very diplomatic young managerial type...

Only thing holding it back is equipment cost and installation, so 7-8 years is looking more likely.

Very promising outlook, to be replaced by a computer literate kid who can change out a hardrive, and with minimal instruction from the departing projectionist the xenons too.
Way to tubby to go back into the Army, (but not too old going by the letters they keep sending me). Looks like early retirement and travelling...

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 08-20-2010, 12:16 AM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Question: do service technicians charge the same rate for work on film equipment and digital equipment?

Answer: No. Digital techs are in the range of $125-150 per hour and up in the L.A. area, whereas film technicians are (and have been for quite some time) in the %50-75 per hour range.

D-Crapema requires a lot of training and you need to go to the specialized schools for each brand of projector (and I would imagine server, but the servers are pretty limited on what breaks or can be repaired I'd guess). Most of those schools cost money, and that cost will get passed on to the end user.

quote: Frank Angel
<snip> ....theatres that run sloppy and ill-maintained booths with dirty, scratched film images on the screen, letting bulbs burn long after their useful lives to save a few pennies will be putting a digital projector in that same booth without fixing those same poor operating conditions and worse, without fixing that grindhouse mind-set and thinking it will solve everything. But sorry to say, a new digital projector won't change that core problem. And yes, digital will look all shinney and brand new because it's just out of the box, but just give it a few years after being stuck in a dirty operation where the mentality is to let it just "run itself" and see how well it fairs in a few years or the first time it needs a service call in a place where management wouldn't do service calls when film was the format because a film technician "cost too much." Wait till that same exhibitor sees what a certificed digital technician's service call bill will be and see how long that digital projector goes unserviced and ill-maintained.

A BIG "amen" to that!! That is why I get down on people who dare to post on here that D-Crapema is gonna end their maintenance expenditures. And I just serviced a big multi where thay have learned the hard way that their [dlp]

in the big house is eating xenons at a rate that is appalling. (6k lamp with 500hr useful life) Do the math folks.. with 5 shows a day, average 2 hours per show and you're gonna get just over 1.5 months of life out of a 500hr bulb!! Most film xenons can easily exceed their warranty life (and without risking an expensive color wheel or light engine) by a factor of 2 times or more. Plus they are a lot cheaper.

quote: Scott Norwood
<snip>The port glass and lenses will probably still be dirty, however, and speaker diaphragms will probably still be blown.

Exactly. And I have seen this firsthand already.

quote: Scott Norwood
<snip>Still, the installation of the new equipment will essentially force these theatres to have a technician go through the entire projection and sound system and fix issues that should have been fixed years ago.

Not always true. Again I have seen firsthand conversions done yet the problems of blown speakers, poor room acoustics, badly done "B" chains, etc. having been left behind. The mentality is/was that they spent all that money on the projector they cannot afford to fix the other things broken. Sad but true.

quote: Scott Norwood
Only Imax (real, 15/70 Imax) is an improvement over these formats, and even that seems likely to meet its demise at some point in the future.

Already dead according to one source I spoke with. There will supposedly be no more new 15/70 installs and the existing ones are to be phased out. I know of one venue (was there just last week) where the 15/70 gear is idle and there are four (!) IMAX prints just gathering dust. Evidently IMAX cares so little for film that they won't even request those prints back. (2 of them have been there since last Xmas!!)

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 08-28-2010, 03:42 PM:

quote: Glen Rich
Not so much if, but when. The group I work for informed us 12 months ago that they would be expanding into Digital over 5 years, and that we, (Projectionists), should start looking for new careers. Very diplomatic young managerial type...

I start electrician's school August 30 at 5:30 pm . . .