This is topic Film era fades to black 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=000902
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 09-24-2011, 12:01 PM:
Next week, Odeon becomes Victoria's first older theatre to go 100 per cent digital
Christine Aust laughs as she unwittingly quotes the title of a 1974 horror flick to describe how temperamental film can be.
"It's alive!" she says. "Anyone who's worked with film will know how crazy it can be. If you drop film, it spirals and it flips."
As head projectionist at the Odeon, Aust, 24, has had plenty of adventures with celluloid, but not for much longer. By next Friday, film will be a thing of the past at Cineplex Entertainment's venerable downtown cinema.
It will be the end of an era as the Odeon, which opened in 1949, becomes Victoria's first long-running movie theatre to go 100 per cent digital.
Many filmgoers have long taken the romance of moviegoing for granted - flickering images illuminating a darkened theatre, the sounds of celluloid rolling over sprockets audible from the projection booth, dwarfed by soundtracks that seem to grow louder each year. While those memories will fade, they'll never be forgotten.
The upside is what the sleek digital cinema projectors from Canadian-owned Christie Digital Systems and Doremi Cinema's playback servers - being uncrated next week by Kevin Eagle and his technical crew from Cinematronix - promise to provide a stable presentation with sharper high-definition images that don't fade or scratch over time.
"The 1,000th time we run the show, the quality's the same as the first time - perfect," says Odeon manager Pierre Gauthier, a 50year film-exhibition veteran who isn't as sentimental about film's passing as you'd expect.
"It's been nothing but a source of aggravation."
Gauthier says he won't miss having to delay shows because of 35mm film projector malfunctions, lugging heavy film canisters around, sending staff to the bus station or airport to pick up prints, or having to "build" films by splicing several reels together and loading them onto patiotable-sized platters.
"With wear and tear, bad things can happen," he said. "Some prints would flake, someone would put the leader on wrong so the feature presentation [intro] would show upside-down, or you'd get prints that came in backwards or weren't rewound properly. Sometimes you'd get two cans with reels 1 and 2 twice, instead of 3 and 4."
As for those clunky, heavyweight old film projectors, they've effectively been rendered useless and will likely gather dust in booths nationwide - at least for now, he said.
"All those reels, splicers and rewind tables? Null and void."
The digital changeover sparked memories for Pentte Lamberg, a retired projectionist for Odeon and Famous Players.
He recalled running two projectors side-by-side, manually changing reels when visual cues appeared on screen.
"If one machine was broken you could fix it fast while the other one was running and nobody would know," laughed Lamberg, recalling the days when a spare film would be stored in case of an unresolvable breakdown.
The solitary life of the movie projectionist "stays with you," he said.
"I still have nightmares about films breaking and something gone wrong with the lamphouse," he added.
"Films would come late and you can't get it ready, [or] there were missed splices you can see on screen. You'd worry about a lot."
While automated equipment replaced many functions traditionally handled by veterans like Lamberg, digital simplifies the process further. Releases now come via satellite and in high-capacity digital drives, with the projectionist downloading data onto computer server-like projectors programmed to beam movies into the theatre.
Security, not surprisingly, is a top priority.
"There are more encryption codes than there are stars in the known universe," quips Eagle.
As beloved as 35mm film is, digital conversion is a sign of the times, Cineplex communications director Kyle Moffatt said.
"By the end of 2012, our entire circuit will be digital," he said, referring to the chain's formation of the Canadian Digital Cinema Partnership with competitor Empire Theatres Ltd.
"The studios are moving away from film prints as well for similar reasons like cost savings and storage."
As evidenced by crowdpleasers like The Met Live in HD, digital also allows for programming flexibility and gives theatre managers the option of switching a popular movie "on the fly" to a larger house.
"Years from now, kids won't even realize films used to come on giant platforms that look like kitchen tables," he laughed.
Aust, who began working as a projectionist at the Lux in Banff in 2005, has mixed feelings.
"It makes me sad because I like splicing and putting together movies," she said.
"The good thing is there will be a lot less waste. There's a lot of film that really needs to be recycled."
She also notes that while mechanical film breakdowns could once be fixed by projectionists, digital's a different beast. If the new system breaks down, it requires a call to technical support, or a new device.
Aust, who comes in each Thursday to ensure new movies are built-up, says she's often reminded why this changeover was inevitable - like when she had a print issue building up the Ryan Gosling film Drive.
She said it's ironic she didn't make "any real mistakes" until then - two weeks before film becomes obsolete at the Odeon.
"The film jumped off the roller and that stretched the film a bit, but I was there and lucky enough to be able to catch it."
It's the physical process of "throwing film around" she'll miss most.
"It will be a lot quieter at the station where I do all my downloading," she said.
"The job's going from standing up and moving cans and reels around to sitting down. I'm not going to get as much of a workout."
http://www.timescolonist.com/entertainment/move-guide/Film+fades+black/5447388/story.html
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 09-24-2011, 01:25 PM:
quote:
"The 1,000th time we run the show, the quality's the same as the first time - perfect," says Odeon manager Pierre Gauthier, a 50year film-exhibition veteran who isn't as sentimental about film's passing as you'd expect.
"It's been nothing but a source of aggravation."
Gauthier says he won't miss having to delay shows because of 35mm film projector malfunctions, lugging heavy film canisters around, sending staff to the bus station or airport to pick up prints, or having to "build" films by splicing several reels together and loading them onto patiotable-sized platters.
"With wear and tear, bad things can happen," he said. "Some prints would flake, someone would put the leader on wrong so the feature presentation [intro] would show upside-down, or you'd get prints that came in backwards or weren't rewound properly. Sometimes you'd get two cans with reels 1 and 2 twice, instead of 3 and 4."
Yeah just wait until this joker sees that digital isn't perfect either......
Server freezes/crashes...
Bad hard drives.....
KDM's not arriving on time....
Potential long restart times from power glitches(mitigated by proper application of UPS installation of course)
And the kicker...
The incredible increase in relamping costs, since I would imagine this is not some tiny-screened multi we're talking about here.
Digital can be very good, in some aspects better than film, but the mindset of management will never change and they still say and do the stupidest things. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
As for his complaints about film in that last paragraph I quoted, most of them would never happen with COMPETENT projectionists in the booth. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Mike Rivest (Member # 5500) on 09-24-2011, 01:30 PM:
Since the end of September, Cinema Banque Scotia in downtown Montreal has gone all digital. No articles in the 6 daily newspapers we have here.
Also Quartier Latin 17, Brossard 16, Colossus 18 and Colisee 12 are all digital.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-24-2011, 02:01 PM:
All boardroom decisions made here...
..and TMS hangups..
They prob got a wonderful VPF deal to do all of that conversion.
..and, watch the red ink flow - the St.Laurence will be redder than the Nile...
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-24-2011, 03:03 PM:
This is what I HATE about these big mouth, small brain fools who piss on film with the same lame, laughable, nonsensical crap that they have been spouting from the Book of Digital for 10 years:
(Film) provides a stable presentation with sharper high-definition images that don't fade or scratch over time....The 1,000th time we run the show, the quality's the same as the first time - perfect" (I guess "stable" is the new, it-doesn't-shake-and-jitter-like-film mantra) Like this guy ever ran a film print 1,000 times. With distribution patterns they way they have been for the last two decades, he is lucky if he has had to run film prints for more than a month. If he couldn't keep his film prints dirt and scratch free, even his longest engagements, then he doesn't deserve to be running a theatre.
Gauthier says he won't miss having to delay shows because of 35mm film projector malfunctions, So how many shows does this guy loose shows because his projectors are not maintained? And he thinks with digital there will never be lost shows? He's an idiot. And not only can't he keep his prints from getting dirty and scratched, but he's too lazy and/or incompetent to maintain a fairly simple mechanical projector compared to the complexity of a digital projector that's replacing it. Again, why is he in the business if he won't maintain the equipment (film OR digital) to keep from loosing shows?
And he hates "...lugging heavy film canisters around, like he ever lugs film cans around. No doubt he makes his underlings do that as well as every other menial job in the house.
....sending staff to the bus station or airport to pick up prints,....and he doesn't think the same shipping issues that can cause him to have to go to the airport to get an errant print shipment will somehow magically disappear because it is a Dprint and not a 35mm print? He's dumber than he sounds.
or having to "build" films by splicing several reels together and loading them onto patiotable-sized platters. Ah, THAT'S the horror of running film, eh? And only if he didn't have to go through the hassle of making popcorn! What a pleasure if he could run his theatre without needing to do ANY work.
Some think digital will solve all their problems; I think they might be wearing some rose-colored 3D glasses when they think a technology will solve all their everyday problems, but fine; I get it. I have no problem with anyone who sees the advantages of digital, real or imagined, but why oh so they insist on pissing on the medium that for a century has made people love the movies? Do they think that somehow trashing film will make digital sound better? THAT I don't get.
The millions upon millions that loved all those AFT Top 100 Films who were edified and entertained and moved by them -- they saw them and experienced them ON FILM. And no one ever said, "Nah, I couldn't enjoy GONE WITH THE WIND because I saw dirt and scratches on it and it was FADED and it had jitter.
RESPECT the history and the heritage that is film....not to mention the fact that it is how you make your effin living, dude. Denigrating it only makes you sound like a fool.
Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 09-24-2011, 03:48 PM:
Personally I couldn't enjoy Gone With The Wind because it's just plain horrible... ass-numbingly long with wooden acting, gaudy technicolor costumes, and winceworthy historical inaccuracies. There is a good fire but that only lasts a few minutes of the 3 hours.
I'm sure there are horse dung collectors, pretzel twisters, telephone operators, icecutters... former workers at any number of other obsoleted jobs who look to the past with rose colored glasses.
Everything this article says is true: your fantasy world where intelligent skilled craftspeople toil lovingly at perfectly maintained machines in a cleanroom booth, whistling as they don white gloves to build up a platter for the ten thousandth time is just that, FANTASY. I've worked with very intelligent projectionists; as a rule they were doing it while working on a degree: the solitude and free time up in the booth was perfect for doing their studying.
Today's film projectionist has a deadening grind of boring rote work. Modern film projectors don't need enough maintenance to justify having a skilled operator, and there's not enough interesting work to keep such a person satisfied. The popcorn machine is probably more complicated to operate than the film projector, yet people here denigrate the modern booth usher as a "popcorn popper".
Get over yourself. It sucks to have your profession relegated to the dustbin of history, but you're hardly the first. In ten years or less film will be forgotten but theatres will probably still be busy selling popcorn.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-24-2011, 04:16 PM:
quote: Dave Macaulay
but theatres will probably still be busy selling popcorn.
..since it's the only thing that they can make a profit and stay alive since the theatres are actually in the restaurant business: producing and selling a concession item.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 09-24-2011, 04:17 PM:
Frank, I have three points of contention with you.
The first is that I have never had a projector go down due to a maintenance issue. Yes, I have lost shows due to projectionist error - meaning brain wraps, thrown prints, and similar issues. But when I've had projectors go down it's always been the result of a failing part such as a diode or projector motor - and in one instance an intermittent which seized up (and no the oil was never neglected).
I believe the point here is that when a projector does go go down, for whatever reason, it is very easy to move the movie to a different auditorium to avoid losing a show. Of course he probably doesn't understand the reality of a bad hard drive or other issue which can take a digital projector off-line - especially if there is no one on staff qualified to fix the issue.
The second point - at least for the average movie goer - is they are not concerned about the "charm" of a 35mm presentation. They are concerned about the content of the movie far more than the quality of the presentation.
The third point involves the delivery of content and KDM issues. In most cases drives will be received much earlier than with film - especially when you open a movie off the break. While it's possible to have a bad drive (I had one for The Help), there should be plenty of time to get a new drive as long as you're ingesting your movie early. And if they can't ship you a new drive in time, they will usually arrange for you to pick one up at a nearby theatre.
When keys don't work, it usually only takes a phone call and a couple minutes to get replacement keys. Yeah, it's a pain when the key isn't valid until just before the midnight premiere, but that is still less of a worry than when a film can is locked until 12 hours before a premiere.
It's fine to "respect" the history of film projection, but that doesn't mean you have to be sorry to see it go.
Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 09-24-2011, 05:26 PM:
"..since it's the only thing that they can make a profit and stay alive since the theatres are actually in the restaurant business: producing and selling a concession item"
I think you're starting to understand the business!
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-24-2011, 05:50 PM:
..and prob why the cinema owners never liked us booth personnel since "we are not in a field of production-to make money for them"
Thus, out went unions (and organized labor) and in came floor staff employees to do our job. But, they couldn't do the job all that well, thus in comes digital, library servers, automated KDM delivey and the like: to have the ideal, cost savings, operation.
-Monte
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-24-2011, 10:37 PM:
quote: Dave Macaulay was the last to post
.since it's the only thing that they can make a profit and stay alive
Could we all just please stop using that story once and for all? On average we get to keep around half or more of the ticket money we bring in, and so do all other theatre owners. We would be out of business without the concession stand, it's true, but if the income from the films disappeared, we would be out of business then too.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-25-2011, 12:38 AM:
Sorry on that, Mike, for some of us gets the needed "per-cap" figures driven in us like that's the only thing is keeping the business alive.
We're never told on the boxoffice side of the spectrum on that income...
-Monte
Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 09-25-2011, 12:59 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Could we all just please stop using that story once and for all? On average we get to keep around half or more of the ticket money we bring in, and so do all other theatre owners. We would be out of business without the concession stand, it's true, but if the income from the films disappeared, we would be out of business then too.
Mike,
Thank you for that post. I too get tired of that false line. Sad that many operators do not correct it as it allows them to charge more for concession items to let it slide.
For most theaters, they will make the same dollar amount on each person who walks through their doors from the ticket sale as well as the concession sale. We need both.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-25-2011, 02:51 AM:
I want to ask a question in this topic thread on 'film era fades to black' since it's apparent that the 'fade to black' also means another thing:
For I'm getting the impression, esp with some techs and installers, that they are glad that film is going away.
Why so? What caused this sudden change when they begin to work with film from the get-go?
Thx-Monte
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 09-25-2011, 05:45 AM:
Monte, can I flip it around on you: why shouldn't someone be excited to see film go away - even if it's what they started with?
To a certain extent it's the same question that has come up in every industry when they had to change from the way things have always been to the way things will be in the future. Why should the secretary have been happy for the computer when the typewriter is what she had always known. Why should the grocery clerk be happy for a scanner when the manual register is what he's always used.
Maybe my opinion on the subject doesn't matter much because my experience on the technician side of film is limited. But I can tell you digital simplifies my life.
Yes, I am a general manager and it makes it easier on me not having to deal with film. I don't have to deal with the late nights breaking down a hot pick-up or early mornings building up a late delivery. I don't have to deal with the increasingly difficult task of finding competent people to train and trust to handle film in my theatre. I don't have to deal the frustration of one mistake marring my presentation for the entire run. Those are the easy and obvious issues with going digital.
For me, the bigger picture is I understand digital systems better than film. Replacing a bad hard drive or circuit board is something I understand better than fine tuning all the moving parts of the projector and platters. Furthermore, being able to tweak my presentation with my laptop is much simpler.
I have been working with digital for a little over a year now and I have personally installed 8 NEC/GDC systems, including set-up, configuration, and screen presentation (but not the electrical or sound). I am far from an expert, but I am learning more everyday.
I always felt a sense of pride when I fixed a problem on any of the 35mm machines or when I my build-ups looked good on screen. I always strived for 100% right 100% of the time. But I feel the same sense of pride when it's right with the digital systems. For me it's more about the picture on the screen than how it got there, and digital just makes it easier.
Posted by William F Green (Member # 3192) on 09-25-2011, 07:52 AM:
Do you know what - there are too many who don't see the whole picture. UNLESS you are the person paying for the new booth equipment AND understand the consequences/benefits of conversion then it's all just opinion.
Too many tech guys and gals, promote the virtues of digital without considering the cost/benefits and also the downsides.
There are benefits to digital but it's got nothing whatsoever to do with quality of presentation as presented in that lame article at the start of this thread - thought we had seen the last of that type of stupid press release.
It is to do with long-term overall costs and industry politics, nothing else. If quality were the deciding factor then all movies would be run in 70mm but they're not. So let's not kid ourselves that this is about 'quality'.
The only reason there is a large-scale change-over to digital is the VPF deals that allow theatres to make the switch less painfully. Without that incentive it would take decades to see the end of film.
Independent operators such as us are making the switch because we have no choice - soon 35mm supply is likely to dry-up and so to continue in business we have to make a switch so that we have a supply of movies into the future.
Is it better? No, not really. Is it worse? No not really, it's just a new and different way of doing things which is some ways is better and some ways worse.
We have also never lost a show due to a specifically 35mm related problem. The only show we ever lost was down to electrical problems (blown fuses etc) which apply equally to any technology.
Also another important point is that our 35mm machine is now around 30 years old and still functioning exactly as intended. The series 1 digital we have just bought is referred to as 'old' although it's was only manufactured in 2007!
Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 09-25-2011, 10:07 AM:
I guess by now the thread starter got what he wanted, both the BS article he quoted and the thread title have been chosen well. ![[thumbsdown]](graemlins/thumbsdown.gif)
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 09-25-2011, 11:12 AM:
Going back to a comment made earlier in the thread... if the gentleman quoted in the article is a 50 year exhibition veteran, I'm fairly certain he has run a print 1,000+ times at least once in his career. I didn't get started until 1986 and I've run a print 1,000+ times (good old "Crocodile" Dundee).
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-25-2011, 11:47 AM:
Thx, Justin for your comment - it does make sense where digital is making work easier on your end.
..my longest duration was a six month stint with "Star Wars" in a single screen house with a changeover booth in 1977!
..in the middle of the run, I had to get another print, for the original began to literally fall apart-the acetate base on two reels was decaying causing cracks along the sprocketholes.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-25-2011, 12:16 PM:
quote: William F Green
Is it better? No, not really.
I would have to argue that. Given the quality of lab work these days (from what's being posted here), I think the digital picture looks better than our film picture would if we were still running film.
Also: No cue marks (sure WE all love'em, but to the audience they could be a distraction), no noticeable "CAP codes" on the picture, and all other behind-the-scenes advantages like ease-of-use, flexibility, time savings, etc. Nope, can't say that I miss film much at all.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 09-25-2011, 01:01 PM:
I really don't miss film either.
Digital is a lot less work. Make-up consists of starting the file copy into the server, walking away and coming back in an hour or so to spend ten minutes making up the playlist. Done. Tear-down? 30 seconds hitting delete after the last show is over. I'm not rushing to get it done in time to haul the cans to the bus depot before they close, plus my freight bill is a quarter of what it used to be.
My movie never jumps out of frame in the middle of the show because the yahoo that had it before me put an out-of-frame splice in the middle of a reel, there are never any lovely green scratch lines down the picture, I'm not trying to guess which reel is reel three because the head doesn't match the start (is it because the last guy took six feet off of the start of this reel, or is this head attached to the wrong reel?)
Setting up Seven took me literally all day. It was cut out of frame in several places, bent and folded in others, and if you can think of a problem that print had it. I resorted to putting it on on the platter one reel at a time while running my fingers along the film and checking everything that "felt funny", then playing it and marking the bad spots with trailer spools as they came through, then going back over it to do my fixes, removing that reel from the platter and doing again. For every reel. Then doing my actual build-up of the movie, QC screening it and finding two out-of-frames that I had still missed. That movie was so black that finding a frame mark was a challenge all on its own, too.
I used to spend about 20 minutes per day cleaning my projector and platter, getting crud off of the rollers, wiping up stray oil, cleaning the aperture, etc. Now all I have to do is boot up the machine and turn on the auditorium lights.
I used to "start work" about a half-hour before opening time, getting the projector cleaned up and threaded up, putting the float cash in the drawers and making popcorn. Now I start about ten minutes before opening time.
My picture and sound are far better than they ever were with film, too. That's partly because I put in a whole new sound system when I switched to digital, of course, but my picture is brighter and steadier than anything I could ever get out of film, too.
The public doesn't notice the picture quality, unfortunately, but I do.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 09-25-2011, 01:11 PM:
The people who don't miss film much at all are usually managers who had projection forced on them when it was decided that a dedicated projectionist was a waste of money.
I don't blame their delight but it's always a slap in the face to me being a true film guy.
I want digital also,just not this level of digital.
Digital projection which eclipses todays standards is what excites me! I am a film guy who wants to see the movie experience go to a much higher level and if digital is what will make that happen than I'm on board for that but to see film scuttled for a basic reproduction of what film already does is very very annoying! Yes I know digital has strengths over film but we all know that film could exceed all of it if it were treated fairly.
Posted by David Mann (Member # 4917) on 09-25-2011, 03:26 PM:
WEELLLL,
We will see how tickled pink the pro-digital people are when they start receiving the bills for the lamps that don't last as long, and are higher priced. I'd much rather have to deal with replacing a $1,000 movement than a $27,000 light engine.
I'm just sayin'.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-25-2011, 06:56 PM:
Dave, I see you have missed the point of my post ENTIRELY. Number one, I am not romanticizing film at all. I was not comparing film with digital or the merits of either. I happen to be an advocate of installing digital now in two venues where I work and I certainly understand that digital is at a point in its evolution were it is good enough that it is well becoming the way today's movies are released in the majority of commercial theatres, period. That's a given. Nowhere do I contest this or even suggest it is a bad idea.
The point of that post, if you take the time to read it thoroughly, is that what I hate about the debate that swirled around digital when it was first launched and seems to continue unabated, this article being a prime example, is how the praisse of digital always needs to painted film as being some sort of technological villain, a way of watching movies that ruined the moviegoing experience what with all those dirty, scratched faded and jumping images, and if you listened to these people who mouthed this BS, film made movies nothing but some garbage medium that consisted of grindhouse level, marred and inferior presentation, unworthy of the filmmaker's vision. They repeat the same nonsense, it seems to me, as a way of praising the virtues of digital. It is unnecessary because digital can stand on its on and needs none of that negative foolishness.
What really makes the hair on the back of my head stand up (which is the only place I have hair, btw) is that those foolish babblings about how bad film is, is basically saying that film, the medium by which billions of people all over the world have been entertained and inspired and edified for a century -- in other words, the compilation of our entire movie heritage which were ALL experienced on FILM -- that somehow film itself DETRACTED from the experience rather that enabled it. And IMHO, that is pure crap.
And such proclamations seem to me to be singularly disrespectful of the medium that gave us our great movie legacy, our American artform -- those thousands upon thousands of great motion picture. There is no need for it -- digital is doing just fine without denigrating film.
As for GWTW, I can go back and find more than one occasion on these boards when I too have said that personally, I never liked GWTW. I think it is not much more than a very long soap opera, painfully over-acted and at times even silly, just brilliantly marketed. I think at one point I said I only like the open, the moments before the intermission and The End title because of that great score. But again, you miss my main, obvious point -- I used GWTW only because it is iconic -- I could have used any number of great FILMS that were born on film, were shown on film and most importantly, were loved by millions who experienced them on FILM; GWTW summed all that up nicely.
So I am sorry you didn't get what I was trying to say. It certainly is not a post comparing film to digital at all. You would be right if you said you can find posts of mind where I did say digital was a big mistake, but only if you looked at much older posts; nearly a decade ago when digital was first hoisted on the industry as the end of all our presentation problems when it was 1K and 1.3K and DCI wasn't even a thought yet, back then the few digital 1.3Ks I saw looked like a turd on a stick and to me, sure I said it was crap. It seemed like people who should have known better back then were lauding it as some kind of godsend to fix film, AND they were using the same modus operandi, i.e., pissing on film and the faults that mostly a bottle of Film Guard and real projectionists could easily correct rather than a $120,000 investment in an demonstrably inferior digital technology. And back then, the digevangelists seem to be purposely ignoring the faults that were clearly visible to anyone with eyes. So can you find me ranting against digital conversions at THAT TIME, yes you can, as did others here too. But that was then and this is now.
Again, reread my post; I am not making ANY comparisons about digital vs projection, or whether it as boring or not for projectionists running film in commercial booths -- all I was saying was, STOP PISSING ON FILM HISTORY whenever anyone talks about a damn digital box installation.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-25-2011, 08:36 PM:
quote: David Mann
..than a $27,000 light engine.
..something we don't worry about when we do the required bulb changes before the bulb warranty listing.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-25-2011, 11:05 PM:
$27,000 light engine, eh? Who is YOUR dealer that is jacking the price sky high?
Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 09-26-2011, 12:00 AM:
Frank.
I agree whole heartedly with your previous posts, and I thank you for putting your perspective into words that explain how I envisage the current state of play.
No matter how hard those 'digevangelists' bleat, film done right can still blow the digital projected image out of the water.
It just frustrates me no end that it was the adoption of the Digital Intermediate that started the rot re: image quality, and I long for the entire film-based process to be photochemically based. I recently screened a 1 light from the original 35mm camera negative and the image snapped off the screen like you wouldn't believe!
Yours was a great read and again, many thanks.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 09-26-2011, 01:00 AM:
Ian, do you realize how disingenuous you are being? You are belittling the people who prefer as "digevangelists" while sanctifying the virtues of film. But you are talking about the average film presentation in the average multiplex, you're talking about an almost ideal situation using a pristine print.
I'll grant that your example may well blow away a digital presentation. I haven't seen it, so I have no personal perspective. But I do know that the average digital presentations I have seen are far superior to the average film presentation.
Even in a booth staffed by first rate projectionists using well maintained equipment, I would argue that they would struggle to have the consistent quality of presentation seen from an average digital projector. While the first rate projectionist may be able to have everything just right on his screens, he still can't account for the lack of consistent quality in the average mass produced 35mm print, to say nothing of what might have been done to the print at another theatre before he received it.
I embrace digital projection because of what it means for the average presentation at the average theatre, which is where the vast majority of moviegoers see movies. I make no commentary on whether the optimal film presentation is better than the optimal digital presentation, or vice versa.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-26-2011, 02:49 AM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
of what it means for the average presentation at the average theatre, which is where the vast majority of moviegoers see movies
...definitely were it's heading to... We on the operating end see things on the screen differently than what the average moviegoer sees, yet they hold the trump card.
Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 09-26-2011, 04:38 AM:
Justin.
I judge any presentation format by this criteria...
1) It MUST be reliable.
It has been my gross misfortune that ever since our location ( a single screen Arthouse weekend screener) had switched to digital presentation- nudging 2 1/2 years now - we have had to cancel 5 shows due to server drive failure, incompatibility file type used by the distributor's drive, replacement drives being blank, ingestion refusal and corrupted drives.
In my total 32 years in the projection industry, I have had to cancel ONE (1) screening using 35mm film based projection and this was due to a severely damaged and irrepairable print. Shows have been delayed, but only one was cancelled.
Not good enough.
2) It must be economical to run.
In all aspects bar electrical power consumption, the digital system we use fails. Spare parts for our Panasonic projector are horrendously expensive when compared to the Cinemeccanica Vic 8 we have on site. This does not take into account the obsolescence that will inevitably attack our digital equipment, and in particular our location's financial bottom line when replacement time comes (again).
Not good enough.
3) The system should be easily repairable should a fault occur.
'Nuff said.
Now, when the digital chain is operating correctly, it does indeed throw a fine performance - but when compared to 35mm using my above criteria then I am sorry but digital blows chunks.
Granted, these examples are solely my own and others here may have better experiences, but I really don't care how 'You Beaut' the latest bit of Digi-Kit is, if it increases the chance that I have to get up and apologise to my audience that the show can't go ahead due to equipment problems then that piece of equipment has NO PLACE in a location where paying audiences make the effort to come out and be entertained.
Pracie.
Upgrading means to improve reliability, cost effectiveness and quality of presentation and as far as I am concerned, digital is sorely lacking in all three criteria.
Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 09-26-2011, 08:21 AM:
I think I did read it, Frank.
The basic theme is that you get to spout your opinions and nobody else should have that right.
Nothing I wrote denigrates film. I like film , I've spent 40 years working with it. I liked hand twisted pretzels too, and being able to talk to a real live telephone operator was pretty sweet as well.
The cinema experience is not about what gets the show on the screen.
You brought up the AFI top 100 movies. That is 100% about the films, not at all about their projection. I can take a cabriolet ride through central park, I can search out an arc-lighted nitrate screening of The General... but a cab is faster (and usually smells better) and the movie experience is essentially the same on a big screen TV.
I agree that the marketing BS is pretty thick on digital projection. I caution owners to be realistic in their expectations.
The article was written by a reporter who apparently spoke to various Cineplex employees and the head of their service company. Obviously they all have to be positive about the conversion. Regardless, nothing quoted is a lie.
In the USA and Canada, movies on actual film is on life support and fading fast. Share your "old-timer" reminiscences but please do not presume to tell use what we dare say here. Brad does that already.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 09-26-2011, 09:31 AM:
Dave and Frank both write very well and vividly about their perspectives.
I feel like I was the person Dave writes about; paying my way through school while being able to study. But I ended up staying and making a career in this industry and it's an exciting one.
Dave sounds resigned to "progress", as in get over it and move on, while Frank writes about honoring what got us here with a lot of heart and perhaps a little bitterness.
What I dislike is that digital cinema will inevitably result in not one technically oriented employee in the typical multiplex and they still need one "adult" in the complex who knows what to do when things go bad.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-26-2011, 10:55 AM:
quote: Sam D. Chavez
still need one "adult" in the complex who knows what to do when things go bad.
Agree. But, are the big box cinema companies willing to justify a good wage for that one, on-site "adult"? We just don't know yet.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 09-26-2011, 04:16 PM:
quote:
The millions upon millions that loved all those AFT Top 100 Films -- they saw them and experienced them ON FILM.
RESPECT the history and the heritage that is film...
I would love to agree with some of what you are saying, but I just can't. I don't miss film at all (I was a projectionist for more than 10 years), its all great and all that people saw movies on film back in the day but the new gen don't care. The studios are re-releasing some classics and I have noticed its all digital.
Cineplex has reported record profits and you can't say that about the union/bankrupt days of the 80s.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-26-2011, 04:36 PM:
quote: David Mann
We will see how tickled pink the pro-digital people are when they start receiving the bills for the lamps that don't last as long, and are higher priced. I'd much rather have to deal with replacing a $1,000 movement than a $27,000 light engine.
I'm just sayin'.
Well, for starters there are 2400 warranty hour 2kw lamps made by at least two different manufacturers. That equates to .3541 per hour for operation plus electricity. Electric consumption typically goes down with digital because all the power supplies are switchers. Operation has been pretty economical considering the new technology. As cinema lamps fade from sales books and D-Cinema becomes the most sold then prices may drop even further.
On the light engine thing... I don't know of one that costs that much... perhaps a 4K light engine does. With NEC the light engines are field servicable meaning that a failed formatter board can be changed in the field, I assume this is possible with Christie... I've never had to do it on either. No light engine is generally tossed unless the prism is damaged. They are remanufactured if a DMD Chip fails and the light engines are put into Repair-Exchange programs for use in field service. So far in the brief history of D-Cineam I've had to change 4 light engines.... out of over a hundred machines installed. All were replaced due to stuck pixels... all were covered in warranty... even though one CP-2000 projector was manufactured in Oct. 2005!
On film fading out. Good riddens! I'm tired of changing oil and cleaning oil filters in projectors, seeing film wraps and other film related nightmares. I've put up with it for over 30 years. 2-K digital accomplishes what filum can only strive to do, 4-K accomplishes even more...
Mark
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-26-2011, 05:09 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I'm tired of changing oil and cleaning oil filters in projectors, seeing film wraps and other film related nightmares...
..and fully agree: It's fun to work with digital-to learn and work with something new .... just hope that I can keep my job, or might have to plan on something else.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-27-2011, 07:42 PM:
quote: Ian Parfrey
ever since our location ( a single screen Arthouse weekend screener) had switched to digital presentation- nudging 2 1/2 years now - we have had to cancel 5 shows due to server drive failure, incompatibility file type used by the distributor's drive, replacement drives being blank, ingestion refusal and corrupted drives.
That must be an exaggeration, or else you have the worst luck in history, or maybe really really bad equipment. We've had our system for 15 months and we have not lost one show yet, have never had a drive fail to ingest, always received keys on time, etc.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 09-27-2011, 07:51 PM:
Mike, I have to acknowledge that we have had some issues in a very short space of time. While we have never lost a show on our first two digital screens, we did have some bad luck on our final three screens.
First we had the OS drive fail on one of our three newest screens the third day it was up. Because it went down on a Saturday, we were dark until Tuesday - fortunately we were playing Idiot Brother and One Day a few weeks off the break so I was able to drop half the shows of each and had very little issues with dissatisfied customers.
Secondly, and also on our new installs, we had a bad hard drive for The Help. Unfortunately we discovered this after taking down our last 35mm house - by which time the print was already gone anyways. Fortunately we discovered it with enough time to have a drive sent over from our sister theatre and we didn't miss a show - just ~20 minutes late on the first digital showing.
Both of these issues happened within three days.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-27-2011, 08:38 PM:
Justin,
The first three weeks are typically when problems will show up if they are going to. The old saying goes that if you make it past three weeks you'll make it to 30 years... but probably not with any D-Cinema gear. There IS no excuse by your dealer for letting you go that long without a replacement OS hard drive being delivered and installed. So I certainly blame that one on them. It takes all of 10 min. to replace the drive and just another 15 min. to load the OS back onto it... if you have your server mounted on a pair of 40 dollar rack rails. You can actually do it yourself if need be. You could have gotten a hard drive from Wal-Mart... quite literally and load the OS onto it your self from a USB drive. The OS is available on the GDC FTP Site, you just need the password for that software in order to load it, that is available from Tech Support. GDC will also remote in and do the repair for you although you'd have to physically replace the drive your self. So do you now have a spare OS hard drive in your booth so you are able to save an important weekend if it happens again? A 30 buck hard drive can already be loaded with the OS and you can be back on the screen in no time flat just by doing a restore from the config files you've saved for each server. Ditto for the RAID drives. Do you keep a spare 1 TB or 1.5 tb or what ever size your's are in the booth? Do you have all the config files for your servers and all of your projectors kept in the booth in a secure place so they don't get lost and can be easily accessed by the technically inclined...you can store all of your server and projector configs on an an 8 buck USB stick from Wal-Mart.
Overall, it pays to be prepared to deal with these aspects (from the beginning) rather than being bitten in the rear by them... And shame on your dealer!!!
Mark
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 09-27-2011, 08:49 PM:
Mark
I actually did the trouble shooting to discover it was a bad OS drive. When I called GDC, I asked if it was possible to get an off the shelf drive and write an image to the drive. They told me no because the server serial # had to be hard coded onto the drive. Perhaps I didn't probe far enough or they didn't understand my computer skills. Regardless, I could have taken care of putting the OS on the drive. And yes, I did pull the bad drive and put in the replacement.
Given what you're saying now, I will definitely look into having a spare OS drive on the shelf. We have talked about having a spare set of RAID drives, but we haven't moved forward with this yet.
Can you link me to the rack rails you're talking about so I can kick those up the line. I did have to pull the server out of the rack in order to change the drive and that was a major inconvenience.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-29-2011, 12:24 AM:
I have been through the issue in depth with GDC. The OS drives can not be magically re-created in the field like Mark says. When they die (an honest statement because ALL drives WILL fail and there is not even a RAID1 level of protection on the GDC), you are down.
Yes Mark, down. Dark screen. No movie. Go home.
An off-the-shelf drive from Wal-Mart can ONLY be used in the content raid if it came down to it, but that is of no use when the OS is dead.
GDC probably hated the several page and hour-long discussion I had with their design techs this last spring going over their server design, but good things come to those who listen to logic and reason, as it looks like they are now looking into a RAID1 system for the OS, which would be the smartest thing they could possibly do.
For those who don't follow me on this, most hard drives these days have an average lifespan of 3 years. Taking that in mind, you now have a ballpark ETA of the death sentence issued. So give-or-take a little bit, every GDC server WILL DIE about every 3 years and if Mr.Murphy has anything to do with it, it will take down a weekend of shows.
There is no excuse for that design (and the silly 3 drive content raid). I look forward to seeing their new server offering in the future. If they listened, it will be great.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 09-29-2011, 01:50 AM:
I was in touch with GDC today and they can send an OS drive to keep on the shelf and then remote in to set the certificate. It's not as good as being able to do it myself, but it's better than being down over the weekend.
Brad, I do agree that the lack of a RAID for the OS drive is a critical oversight. I don't know about the reliability of a 3 disk array for the content, but as long as you don't lose more than one disk at a time, it shouldn't be an issue.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-29-2011, 03:10 AM:
I take it, in this discussion above, that GDC doesn't have their OS in a flash section in their units where it releases the drives as storage drives in a RAID configuration, but one drive holds the OS?
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 09-29-2011, 04:09 AM:
There's a 3 drive RAID and a separate drive for the o/s.
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 09-29-2011, 05:05 AM:
Question is, can you make a simple image copy of the final OS drive to keep it as a backup on the shelf.
- Carsten
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-29-2011, 06:21 AM:
What Brad said. (in principle; I know nothing of GDC servers)
Also, having an extra disk to keep on the shelf (even if possible) does _not_ help if the OS disk fails during a show. Admittedly, this is unlikely (disks tend to fail at power-up), but it would kill the show if it happened.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 09-29-2011, 08:00 AM:
Going digital
Homer's historic theater makes high-tech switch
After 55 years, thousands of miles of 35mm film and a projector that faithfully clicked out images at the rate of 24 frames per second, last Friday at 6 p.m. with the first showing of "The Help," the Homer Theatre joined 15,000 other North American movie theaters in a technological revolution that's changing the industry.
Homer's single-screen theater went digital.
Last Monday, to commemorate the end of an era, the theater passed out strips of movie film. From Tuesday to Thursday the theater shut down as a crew from Encore Technical pulled out the old 1980s era Ballantine-Strong film projector and installed an NEC NC200C digital projector. Workers put up a new silver screen — yes, it's actually silver — and Encore technicians Scott Eales and Jason Blackmon made the final adjustments. Thursday afternoon the theater did a test run, including 3-D trailers.
Compared to film, digital movies look sharp and bright, with no scratches and breaks. "Better than 35 mm" was the standard digital had to meet to get acceptance in the industry, said Homer Theatre owner Jamie Sutton.
And in 3-D? Wearing special glasses, watching 3-D can be like a roller-coaster ride. Fasten your seat belts, pilgrims. A trailer for next summer's Spiderman movie, for example, shows Spidey climbing skyscrapers and then swinging down into vast urban canyons, the ground rushing up. Urp.
Being able to show 3-D movies is one of the reasons the Homer Theatre converted to digital. Other reasons include:
• Being able to show any form of digital entertainment, including "Live from the Met" operas and special television broadcasts.
"Going digital opens up so many more opportunities," said theater programming manager Colleen Carroll.
• Getting movies sooner;
• Lower shipping costs. A 35mm film is seven or eight reels that weighs about 50 pounds and costs studios $2,000 a print. At the test run last Thursday, operations manager Robin Daugherty held up a digital "print" that is about the size of an old VHS tape and costs about $100.
"They're just shipping up a hard drive in a cigar box," Sutton said.
The 465-gigabyte hard drive comes encrypted, with a special electronic key sent to theaters to play it. About 35 digital prints can be downloaded on the theater's server.
But the biggest reason to go digital is technological change. By 2014, major studios will no longer ship 35mm to exhibitors, Sutton said.
Sutton made the decision to convert last spring after attending a National Association of Theater Owners meeting.
"It became apparent that digital had arrived, and the technologies that had been somewhat experimental had settled in and there was an industry standard on which you could rely," he said.
Including the cost of a new screen necessary for 3-D, Sutton invested $113,000 in converting to digital. Major studios want theaters to convert to digital. To help exhibitors finance the conversion, theaters that convert get paid a VPF, or virtual print fee. Studios and filmmakers that produce digital prints pay the VPF that goes back to theaters. Sutton said he'll get about $200 a week, paid quarterly. Some financing comes through third-party vendors that process the VPF. Sutton financed the Homer Theatre's conversion through a bank loan.
The chance to see new releases sooner helped push Sutton to make the conversion. Some Homer residents don't mind waiting, Sutton said.
"I resist that notion," he said. "In the extent that Homer seeks to engage in that national cultural dialogue, it would be better if we could show the stuff currently. That's my deal. That's the ambition."
One change Homer Theatre customers also will see is Preflix, a 15-minute show before the movie starts. Made up of national movie content, it includes spaces that could be used for local advertising, including nonprofit spots. Movie trailers follow, either trailers attached to that night's film or "Trail Mix," a selection of upcoming films.
The advertising is an experiment, Sutton said.
"We're going to try that out for six months and see if it works," he said.
Businesses can learn about the new advertising program and the digital conversion when the Homer Theatre holds the October Homer Chamber of Commerce mixer from 5 to 7 p.m. Oct. 20. The theater offers free popcorn and soda, a presentation about digital cinema and a 3-D film showing.
The Homer premiere of 3-D — at least with the latest technology — is 8 p.m. Friday, with the showing of Werner Herzog's film about ancient paintings in a cave in France, "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" for the Eighth Annual Documentary Film Festival (see story, page X). There's an irony to that, Sutton said.
"We are using mankind's most modern and advanced technological art form to show a movie about mankind's oldest art from, this 32,000-year-old drawings in these caves in France," Sutton said. "It's kind of a fascinating juxtaposition, and kind of a fun way to introduce 3-D."
Theatres converts
Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 09-30-2011, 01:08 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
That must be an exaggeration, or else you have the worst luck in history, or maybe really really bad equipment.
Mike.
I have no want or reason or time to exaggerate.
Bad luck? Maybe.
Really really bad equipment? I wouldn't call the Atlab eC2 server or the Panasonic PT-DZ6710 U/UL bad equipment.
Isolated occurrences? No. Calls to other locations using other equipment have related very similar issues as mine.
So my point, in relation to Frank's earlier post about others spruiking the benefits of digital over film based systems, is that digital is NOT the panacea to all exhibitions ills and is indeed bringing forth it's own, more severe issues when things go 'tits-up'.
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 09-30-2011, 02:14 AM:
Well at least it is only a personal experience with equipment type not really considered pro-grade DCI cinema. If DCI gear would be as unstable as your's in general, we would long be back to 35mm.
- Carsten
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-30-2011, 02:29 AM:
Please note this is the D-cinema forum, not the "E-cinema" forum. Anything not capable of playing DCPs is an unfair comparison.
Still though, one would think the E-cinema equipment would be more reliable due to not having the security bs to deal with. I am convinced the biggest issue with reliability in D-cinema is all of that security the studios require to be built into the systems.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-30-2011, 09:39 AM:
Re: The Homer...
I've installed equipment in theaters just like The Homer many many times. It has always improved the picture and sound and many of the patrons have immediately noticed and made positive comments. Digital no doubt will once and for all eliminate improper film handling and lousy projection standards that existed in many small town theaters. I am seeing less and less interest in small theaters wanting to install 3-D and one location even wants to sell it's 3-D gear. Overall I believe digital will help the small exhibitor as it offers an entire new realm that never before existed through the projector's dvi inputs. Most of my customers have already put the dvi inputs to good use. I will add that every single location I have installed in has said good riddens to film or if they've kept the film projector have never used it again. Every theater owner has also agreed that digital has made their life easier.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 09-30-2011, 10:34 AM:
I'm not really sure if this comment helps the topic on hand, but I find it really amazing that the Landmark chain hasn't made much of decision to go all digital, at all. Their cash-cow location - Bethesda, Maryland has never done the conversion and it seems like they really don't plan on it. E Street has a Sony 4K unit, but again, it's a largely film based theater.
The Avalon theater here in DC is also largely 35mm. a few movies have been shown digitally (Metropolis, The Best and the Brightest, select films during FilmFest DC. to name a few), although not through a dedicated DLP/LCoS system.
You can also count on the AFI/Silver to present films in 35mm form, even though they have DLP units on all three screens, if a film is released in film form, you can be pretty much assured that at the Silver - you'll see it in 35mm (although on the few rare occassions, if they can't obtain a 35mm print they've been known to project DVD's and blurays)
even though AMC converted the Uptown theater, they are completely failing in not booking alternate programming, let alone properly projecting a 1.85 film - AMC in other words can be best described in how they are dealing with the Uptown: "epic fail"
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 09-30-2011, 10:37 AM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Overall I believe digital will help the small exhibitor as it offers an entire new realm that never before existed through the projector's dvi inputs.
This is one of the areas we're excited about. We're talking about starting a classic film series as well as other possibilities using DVD content. We're also excited by the alternative content possibilities. While digital projection may not do much to improve our regular business, we see real growth opportunities from alternative content which was not realistic with film.
Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 09-30-2011, 04:55 PM:
quote: Frank Angel
RESPECT the history and the heritage that is film....not to mention the fact that it is how you make your effin living, dude. Denigrating it only makes you sound like a fool.
Frank, your post exposes very accurately and passionately what many of us think. I went to one of the first digital screenings in London some years ago with great interest and no preconceptions, it was Toy Story 2. When I left the cinema I could not believe that someone had dared to put such a mediocre presentation, I even asked one of the ushers if they had put a smaller screen for the digital presentation. They had not, but it was a huge let down.
Lately on, I saw Robin Hood (the Errol Flynn version) in digital and it felt like watching a film in a pub, basically just sophisticated video.
I have seen film done very, very, very well and I could not believe all those people praising digital (during its early years), which to me looked mediocre at best. This was compounded by the fact that films like The Painted Veil were shown in the wrong aspect ratio when projected digitally.
Then it came all the lies about 3-D, saying that 3-D would save the industry of film exhibition because it was unique to cinemas. What a lot of BS I thought and I am not even in the industry, I am just a paying member of the audience. It was then when I thought, how can anyone trust these people to produce a good film presentation with the amount of rubbish they say? They haven’t got a clue. Although I like stereoscopic films, it seems that they are making the same mistakes over again and 3-D is going away again. In London films like Captain America and Final Destination 5 only mention 3-D in very, very small print. If 3-D goes, many cinemas will be left with silver screens that are not ideal for flat presentations.
As yourself, it infuriates me the amount of lies that are said about film to justify digital. It is like all those people who write (and get paid) to say things like 3-D before digital was only anaglyphic. I mean, in any other businesses someone spreading so much ignorance would be shut down.
And finally, someone who denigrates film so much can never be good for cinema exhibition. Someone who denigrates film in the way many digital people do is a complete ignorant and ignorant people hardly ever do good things for business.
I think I am not wrong if I say that nowadays, and due to limitations in human vision, it would be possible to create both digitally and with film images that go above the human eyes' resolution. And so, theoretically we could have perfect images with analogue and digital. Obviously, digital is cheaper and easier to handle.
The very first digital projection I have enjoyed is Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and what do you know? It was scanned at 4K. I did not know that when I saw the digital projection, I have just found out later. At 4K, I believe, film grain is preserved better and it shows. Yet digital, to my eyes, does not do dark blacks very well, it reminds me of the problems early LCD monitors had. When there are scenes with what should be a dark pitch black or when there are scenes where shadow and light play an important role, it looks a bit washed out. The greatness of black and white film stock is lost, but film is crap, right? I am told that this is due to inherent limitations in current DLP projectors and that with the arrival of laser projection this will be solved, I hope so.
Moreover, for many of us projected film is an experience we treasure and not because of stupid nostalgia but because we have rightly enjoyed it over the years and losing it is a shame. Who on earth enjoys losing a gratifying experience? I understand a projectionist not missing having to do the extra work to put a cinema presentation, but as a member of the audience I will miss that. I am fully aware that I am part of a very small minority.
For a projectionist, I understand that the analogy of a typewriter and a word processor is correct when talking about film and digital, but for the viewer this does not apply. If film is done correctly, the difference between projected film and projected video would be more akin to the difference between oil on canvas and watercolour, different textures.
As we have mentioned before in other posts, the other problem is that the common denominator these days has become the just OK presentation. I understand cinemas in small populations celebrating digital after years of showing battered prints. But in big cities, after what we have had, with 70mm and big cinemas and pristine prints, why should we settle with DLP 2K? I mean, why on earth should we pay to see a projection of a DVD? I never return to cinemas that have dared to show a DVD without publicising it. If they want to cheat on their customers, good luck. More and more often you hear horrifying stories of cinemas showing DVDs. Recently in Barcelona they have shown ET on DVD and in some screens they even got the audio and the subtitles wrong and had to change them whilst the DVD was being projected.
Shame on those who unfairly portray film history, many of them should know better. As to digital cinema, it will probably look very good in the future, but 4K DI is needed and laser projection. The mediocrity of 2K DI and 2K projection, whilst a big deal in small populations, ads nothing to the cinema experience in the big cities in the world.
As to cinema history, it is a shame that classic titles cannot be enjoyed, at least, in some specialised museums, in the medium they were historically shown. I need to get my dose of film projected several times per year and luckily I can still do it, I do not know how many of you can leave without it.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-30-2011, 05:41 PM:
I see something in all of this beginning to approach like a high school debate with two teams, each representing: Purists and Realists.
Who's gonna get their point across?
Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 09-30-2011, 06:20 PM:
quote: Monte L Fullmer
I see something in all of this beginning to approach like a high school debate with two teams, each representing: Purists and Realists.
I am certainly a purist but I have the upmost respect for the realists who need to adapt to a changing industry. I just regret the lies about film exhibition and, as a consumer, the fact that 2K projection from 2K DI is far from impressive.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 09-30-2011, 06:40 PM:
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
the fact that 2K projection from 2K DI is far from impressive.
The average 2K presentation in the average theatre today is far superior to the average 35mm presentation. As I've said over and over, I'm not talking about digital vs 35mm in the ideal settings, I'm talking about digital vs 35mm in the average multiplex. And even then, I have a hard time seeing a 35mm presentation surpassing the digital presentation. You could argue it's just as good, but I can't see it being better.
Using digital from the time of Toy Story 2 (1999) as a barometer for today's digital is completely unfair. I saw Star Wars Episode 1 at the Metreon in San Francisco in digital at around the same time and was largely unimpressed. But the picture from the average 2D presentation is bright, sharp, and completely free of any noticeable pixelation.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 09-30-2011, 07:14 PM:
I think the digital presentations at average multiplexes is getting worse than average film presentation! Focus is being taken for granted more than ever since it is less critical with the sharp dlp pixel grid.Many of the digital installations are being rushed and are not set up optimally.Without dedicated booth staff windows are getting too dusty.This is what I see when I go to a digital show.
I am constantly comparing the same film as projected digital vs film and the film is winning.Digital is steadier and blander.
This is with film setups that kick ass for the most part.
If you are not seeing this than I wonder what level of film projection you are comparing it too?
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-30-2011, 07:54 PM:
Picture quality aside, the economics of ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif)
don't work for exhibitors. The hardware is twice the price of a 35mm setup and lasts for 5-10 years instead of 25-50. Maintenance and upgrade issues are still largely unknowns.
As a result, I would be amazed if the total US screen count in 2025 is even half of what it is today.
I find the technology sort of interesting from an IT perspective (as that is my day job), and large-scale video projection does offer some interesting possibilities for non-cinema purposes, but the reality is that it really is not ready for prime time in 2011 and, even when quality and reliability improve, will require exhibitors to spend more to get less. From an economic perspective, it is a loser.
The fact that the "average" DLP presentation is perceived to be superior to the "average" 35mm show says more about crappy 35mm projection (and print quality) than it does about DLP.
When/if we get to the point where movies no longer exist on film, the long-term/archival issue scares me as well.
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 09-30-2011, 10:10 PM:
Frank, Ramon, Victor and Scott's last posts hit the nail on the head.
Digital has some advantages, including alternate content and consistent quality over several runs, but the lack of resolution, screen-door effect, black level resolution, and the "planned obsolescence" of the equipment and loss of archival consistency/stability is very worrisome.
And yes, theatres that were at the end of the distribution chain seeing worn-out prints definitely benefit from digital.
But ANYONE who says the current 2k digital is better than a PROPERLY made and projected 35mm print has some serious eyesight problems.
Digital also helps those who couldn't do film right, BUT those are the same exhibs who will end up doing Digital WRONG by their same lack of care.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-30-2011, 11:05 PM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
And even then, I have a hard time seeing a 35mm presentation surpassing the digital presentation. You could argue it's just as good, but I can't see it being better.
I agree with this one. We opened up that "What's Your Number" in 35mm today and really wished I had the digital on this one since the film, is in flat, I really had to tune in the bulb to get the best light output for this flat feature to look good on a 42 foot screen...talk about serious light loss and image quality on a screen this big with a flat feature. Now, film scope features can almost give a digital presentation a good run if the lab work was done correctly...
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Digital also helps those who couldn't do film right
You know there is a good out for all of this to settle down, and that is: To attack this whole problem at the beginning .. and that is, at the film makers themselves.
Have studios and indies shoot their movie stories on 65mm, high grain negative film using the best Panavision and ARRIFLEX cameras available, use dolly trucks and tracks (forget about any form of hand held devices, as steadycams and such), THEN produce 2 and 4k digital releases from the 65mm printing negatives. For sound has already been taken care of: 5.1 stereo surround in the majority of the venues.
..might see a rebirth of 70mm presentations...in digital, 4K form
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-01-2011, 12:02 AM:
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Digital also helps those who couldn't do film right
Yea, like the labs and the studios... Even if everyone DID film right it would still look like crap except for the once in a blue moon exceptional print from Disney. I can remember the day when a lousy print was not the norm and it was usually replaced. Today get a lousy print and have it replaced with another lousy print.
Mark
Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 10-01-2011, 05:01 AM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
The average 2K presentation in the average theatre today is far superior to the average 35mm presentation. As I've said over and over, I'm not talking about digital vs 35mm in the ideal settings, I'm talking about digital vs 35mm in the average multiplex. And even then, I have a hard time seeing a 35mm presentation surpassing the digital presentation. You could argue it's just as good, but I can't see it being better.
I am not saying that nowadays the 35mm presentation is better to the 2K digital, although the 35mm prints I have seen from 4K DI (restorations) look (to my eyes) better than 2K presentations. What I am complaining about is that the industry has not improved presentation and has settled with a just OK presentation. As I said, maybe in smaller populations presentation has improved but not in big cities.
quote: Justin Hamaker
Using digital from the time of Toy Story 2 (1999) as a barometer for today's digital is completely unfair. I saw Star Wars Episode 1 at the Metreon in San Francisco in digital at around the same time and was largely unimpressed. But the picture from the average 2D presentation is bright, sharp, and completely free of any noticeable pixelation.
I am not doing this Justin. As you can see from my post, I start by relating my first contact with digital but I say that the last film I have seen in 2K DLP, which had a 4K DI, was a good experience.
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Have studios and indies shoot their movie stories on 65mm, high grain negative film using the best Panavision and ARRIFLEX cameras available, use dolly trucks and tracks (forget about any form of hand held devices, as steadycams and such), THEN produce 2 and 4k digital releases from the 65mm printing negatives. For sound has already been taken care of: 5.1 stereo surround in the majority of the venues.
..might see a rebirth of 70mm presentations...in digital, 4K form
Absolutely, or maybe systems like DMX Cinema in 4K and with laser projection.
Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 10-01-2011, 08:37 AM:
This is just.a rerun of the same debate that's run its course in a dozen other threads. And, in the end, there will still never be a revival of the 65/70mm format. In the end, the future of film has no momentum. In the end, some of you are just setting yourselves up for increased bitterness. It's not good for your health.
Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 10-01-2011, 11:26 AM:
Yep, like Greg says, this somewhat emotional subject is being flogged to death in this thread, and others. While we are all here "feudin' and fussin'", you might want to check what's happening in the real world, which is that (as I have commented in another thread), like it or not, Kodak is teetering on the brink of extinction. Yesterday (Fri., Sep. 30), the financial news pages brought the report that Eastman Kodak Co. had retained the services of a law firm well known for handling bankruptcy cases... And their stock was in the area of 75 CENTS per share (if you're interested in investing right now in a company with no future...!)
There's a detailed report on the Reuters web site, including a salient photo at the start of the article, showing some people walking past a Kodak office building in the middle of a snowstorm. Get it? Cold and stormy is their future. The Reuters article can be seen here: <http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/30/us-kodak-idUSTRE78T4DC20110930>
Sadly, color film of the quality that we've been accustomed to seeing and handling is exceptionally difficult to manufacture, esp. to the degree of precision, stability and reliability they've achieved. I've taken a "behind the scenes" tour inside their plant, and seen something of what's involved. Film is a fine example of one of the achievements of the industrial revolution. There may be a successor company to come in and pick up the pieces, but no one can afford a massive manufacturing infrastructure for a product that simply isn't selling. Translation: film, if available, will be lower quality, and more expensive, and lab work, if available, will be more expensive.
Deal with it.
We can lament the passing of film, and go see movies on film in museums and such, but for the general mass market anymore -- get ready to watch your movies via some electronic process. And, as for complaints that d-projection doesn't have the same contrast characteristics as film, well, just wait a bit. Other illumination and/or projection systems will come out, and things will just get better. After all, it took the movies decades to come up with full color systems, it wasn't done overnight. And, BTW, how long did it take for the movies to learn to "talk"? Again, not overnight.
Finally, if you're curious about that manufacturing process that creates "film", there was an extensively-illustrated article in a publication called "Film and Digital Times", done about a year ago. I saw it posted elsewhere on F-T (and now don't remember the original poster -- sorry!), but the author was able to take dozens of photos that I could not do when I took my tour at Kodak a few years ago. Probably Kodak is now seeing the handwriting on the wall, and wanted people to appreciate some of their legacy of precision. You can download a nice PDF of it here: <http://www.fdtimes.com/news/kodak/a-cinematographers-tour-of-kodak/>.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-01-2011, 11:49 AM:
quote: Greg Anderson
In the end, the future of film has no momentum. In the end, some of you are just setting yourselves up for increased bitterness. It's not good for your health.
Totally agree. Myself, I've been enjoying the transition-working with something that has a future and, on the technical side, learning something new...and even complicated.
Occupationwise: that's another story .... still a cloudy area.
-Monte
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-01-2011, 12:52 PM:
The biggest problem with the whole "film versus digital" thing is the original source file. Just about all movies made today are produced using a digital intermediate process and it is typically rendered in 2K resolution.
The only way 35mm is going to have an advantage over digital is if the post production is handled in a complete film in-film out process, and probably a full 4-perf format like anamorphic 'scope (eliminating the optical conversions typical of so many Super35 movies). The process must be handled very well to limit generational loss as you go from camera negative to the color timed product ready for print making. With the way labs are running things there's little point anymore.
Hardware issues are another matter. Nearly all computer-based gear just isn't made to last. Absolutely none of it will have the life span of a good quality analog 35mm film projector. At least every 7-10 years theaters will have to look at replacing a lot of digital projection equipment, servers and various pieces of networking gear. That might be a good thing for customers since it could mean eventually upgrades to native 4K for all d-cinema theaters and maybe higher standards than that. Unfortunately all that gear costs quite a bit of money. Not every theater has loads of that to spare.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-01-2011, 12:57 PM:
So we should all just give up and accept that the format of the future will cost more and provide lower resolution, inferior color and greyscale, and unknown long-term archival stability?
Isn't there some value to at least raising these issues while we still can?
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-01-2011, 01:49 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Unfortunately all that gear costs quite a bit of money.
We'll then be seeing the major rivers flow red with ink signed for these expenses....
quote: Scott Norwood
Isn't there some value to at least raising these issues while we still can?
Sadly, the results of this digital event looks like decisions that were made in the boardroom.
It's a "suit" world out there now. Good luck in trying to prove them otherwise.
It's a numbers game now.
-Monte
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-01-2011, 02:40 PM:
What's making matters worse is the general public sees little quality difference between a d-cinema presentation and the various formats used for watching movies at home. The narrowing window can make it easier for some to choose watching at home.
Blu-ray has native resolution at nearly 2K and if anyone cares it can do 3D. More than a few movies have their CGI, color grading and effects compositing rendered at 1920 pixels across and then blown up to 2048 for 2K output. So the difference between 1080p and 2K is often nil. Color depth and compression ratio are the major differences. But then who cares about that when lots of people are happy to stream movies in "HD" from Netflix or iTunes at far worse quality levels.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-01-2011, 03:43 PM:
Also remember, even the biggest screen at home is tiny compared to even the littlest screens in a theatre...thus the same or similar resolution is going to look better at home. The compression artifacts are similarly easier to hide at home.
Then again, I see folks here post about how DVD images look good in theatres or ever brush away the notion that leaving their Sony 3D lenses in doesn't look bad (858 pixels high, max).
Lets face it, "in the end" folks seem to clamor for mediocrity. Or should I say...just accept mediocrity.
Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 10-01-2011, 04:49 PM:
"...just accept mediocrity"
That about sums it up. A rallying cry for the 21st century?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-01-2011, 07:31 PM:
quote: Scott Norwood
Picture quality aside, the economics of don't work for exhibitors. The hardware is twice the price of a 35mm setup and lasts for 5-10 years instead of 25-50. Maintenance and upgrade issues are still largely unknowns.
Well, I already service a few CP-2000's from 2005 that still run perfectly. In light of that lets move the figure out to 15 to 20 for digital. Infinite for film gear...
To all you that think digital is inferior... stay home and watch your dvd's on your flat screen tv's. Digital has gone a long way to cleaning up what was a dirty act put on by film!! The unscrouplous operators that are showing lousy digital probably are the ones that ruined the last scratched 35mm print you got.
Mark
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-01-2011, 08:26 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
The unscrouplous operators that are showing lousy digital probably are the ones that ruined the last scratched 35mm print you got.
(Now, have to train these operators how to build playlists correctly..lol)
When I saw "CARS" at ShoWest in the Paris Theatre back in 2006 in digital (and my first digital experience), I knew right then this is were the cinemas are definitely going to head to.....a crisp, clear and sharp picture that was presented there.
When the general release of "CARS" came out that summer and saw the 35mm of it, it was an immediate night and day comparison on the quality of presentation that digital had in store to offer to the public.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 10-01-2011, 08:59 PM:
To be fair,digital animation is sharp right off the bat and Disney almost seemed to make Cars look bad on film purposely. Others have looked great on film.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-01-2011, 09:50 PM:
Are you speaking of Cars 1 or Cars 2 looking bad on film?
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 10-01-2011, 10:20 PM:
Monte: I think we've had this discussion before, but I also saw that presentation of Cars and came out with the same impression.
I am trying to wrap my head around the crux of the opposition to digital. I've read the comments here, and I'm having a difficult time understanding how it comes down to anything other than preference - assuming the economics allow for conversion.
There seem to be those who enjoy the "art" of presenting film and have a negative view of digital because it takes away from this. I can appreciate this, but digital does present opportunities - maybe even new opportunities - to do many of the same things. But I won't dwell on this because I have never felt this way about film.
There are those who seem to prefer the "character" of a film presentation. Whether it's the flicker or the slightly grainy quality of the images. I think this is a matter of preference and I prefer the crisp image from digital.
Many have talked about the image quality of 70mm vs 4K digital vs 2K digital. I don't have any personal experience with 70mm or 4K digital, but I have a difficult time imagining a sharper image than the well lit 2K image. I have actually spent time looking at my screens - not watching the movie, but looking at the image. All I see is a crisp and clean picture. I see no evidence of pixelation or noise. I see absolutely nothing on the screen which suggests I am seeing less than a first rate presentation. My first experience with a digital presentation in 1999 was a completely different story.
Some have gone on about the cost of digital equipment vs 35mm equipment. I acknowledge this is valid, yet the price of digital equipment has been falling rapidly. The cost of converting one auditorium is already significantly less than it was just 2 years ago. I'm sure there will be a floor to the prices, but I don't know that we've reached it yet.
Some talk about the longevity of digital equipment. I admit this is a concern. However, parts can be replaced as they wear out/break down. Film equipment is not immune from having to repair or replace parts. And some film projector parts are just as critical as digital projector parts. One of the issues to avoid missing shows is having parts available, just like it is with film.
Some have even gone to great length to talk about how a digital failure can lead to lost shows. Obviously this is a concern, but how many of us can honestly say we have never lost a show due to a bad diode or other failed part. And when a major part failed on a weekend, it was just as likely to keep the show down as a digital failure until the part could be shipped.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to maintaining the digital equipment is having someone qualified to service the equipment. Perhaps because I have a fair amount of experience with both film equipment and computers, I'm finding this transition to be relatively simple. I understand the basic concepts of screen presentation from working with film and I am quickly learning how to apply those to digital.
Lastly are the concerns of a digital presentation which degrades over time due to the lack of projector/booth upkeep. This is a personnel issue which is not any different than with film equipment. Theatres still have to emphasis the importance of maintenance. Those who don't maintain their digital presentation were probably just as likely to not maintain their film presentation. You could argue this issue might be amplified by digital eliminating dedicated projection staff, but many of the simple maintenance issues can be delegated to floor staff with just a little training - things like cleaning windows, vacuuming vents, wiping away dust, and so forth.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-01-2011, 11:33 PM:
(Yes Justin, we may have had that discussion before..my apologies)
I'm gonna make a small comment: I believe that the hurt all began when the old carbon arc, changeover booths were modified for single machine/film transport operation.
..and now, digital is taking this over. It has to happen - it's a new generation of operation now.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 10-02-2011, 12:04 AM:
Sorry Brad,I was posting from my phone and didn't catch 2006 Cars presentation.I thought Monte was talking about Cars 2.
I thought Cars 2 looked much worse than Cars but I also hardly ran Cars 2.
I ran Cars at a very well set up venue but the sequel at a lesser venue and the print of Cars 2 was soft.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-02-2011, 03:42 AM:
And Disney moved from the Technicolor lab to Deluxe recently. At least here in the US, Cars 2 prints were made at Deluxe...and Deluxe has never been as good as Technicolor.
Of course Technicolor has now stopped making prints...so all that is left is the inferior lab. ![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-02-2011, 12:53 PM:
I remember in the late 80's that Disney used Metrocolor there for a while ..."Honey, I Shrunk the Kids" was on Metro stock ...
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-03-2011, 10:12 AM:
Metrocolor was a lab not a maker of film stock
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-04-2011, 12:09 PM:
All I do is read this stuff and shake my head. In North America and much of South America film is a dead issue any more... period. Proper presentation of any format all boils down to correct maintainance over the long haul. Those on VPF programs are required to carry maintainance contracts with people that are certified by the factories involved under the VPF contract to work on that equipment. I have found that the larger the servicing entity involvd the worse the quality of service is going to be. So stick with certified techs and dealers that have not grown so large they can't wear their own shoes any longer.
Mark
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 10-15-2011, 07:05 AM:
ARRI, Panavision, Aaton stop making film cameras:
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/film-fading-to-black
- Carsten
Posted by William F Green (Member # 3192) on 10-28-2011, 11:58 AM:
Great article, thanks Carsten.
Posted by Jock Blakley (Member # 6552) on 10-29-2011, 07:47 PM:
There is a press release by Panavision that I've lost the link to where they point out that there's a distinction between stopping the manufacture of film cameras and stopping the support and upkeep of their current cameras (ie they're not doing that).
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-29-2011, 08:18 PM:
Right, that would be crazy if they did that.
Even Microsoft supports their products years after they stop making them.
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 10-30-2011, 03:25 AM:
Artical that Carsten linked to (for archival purposes)
While the debate has raged over whether or not film is dead, ARRI, Panavision and Aaton have quietly ceased production of film cameras within the last year to focus exclusively on design and manufacture of digital cameras. That's right: someone, somewhere in the world is now holding the last film camera ever to roll off the line.
Bill Russell, ARRI's VP of Camera Products.
"The demand for film cameras on a global basis has all but disappeared," says ARRI VP of Cameras, Bill Russell, who notes that the company has only built film cameras on demand since 2009. "There are still some markets--not in the U.S.--where film cameras are still sold, but those numbers are far fewer than they used to be. If you talk to the people in camera rentals, the amount of film camera utilization in the overall schedule is probably between 30 to 40 percent."
At New York City rental house AbelCine, Director of Business Development/Strategic Relationships Moe Shore says the company rents mostly digital cameras at this point. "Film isn't dead, but it's becoming less of a choice," he says. "It's a number of factors all moving in one direction, an inexorable march of digital progress that may be driven more by cell phones and consumer cameras than the motion picture industry."
Aaton founder Jean-Pierre Beauviala notes why. "Almost nobody is buying new film cameras. Why buy a new one when there are so many used cameras around the world?" he says. "We wouldn't survive in the film industry if we were not designing a digital camera."
Aaton founder Jean-Pierre Beauviala
Beauviala believes that that stereoscopic 3D has "accelerated the demise of film." He says, "It's a nightmare to synchronize two film cameras." Three years ago, Aaton introduced a new 35mm film camera, Penelope, but sold only 50 to 60 of them. As a result, Beauviala turned to creating a digital Penelope, which will be on the market by NAB 2012. "It's a 4K camera and very, very quiet," he tells us. "We tried to give a digital camera the same ease of handling as the film camera."
EFILM® DI Color Timing Suite
(Photo: Deluxe®)
Deluxe® High Speed Positive Film Developers
(Photo: Deluxe®)
Deluxe® Telecine Suite
(Photo: Michael Colavito)
Deluxe® Digital Media Operations
(Photo: Deluxe®)
Deluxe® Film Processing Laboratory
(Photo: Michael Colavito)
Panavision is also hard at work on a new digital camera, says Phil Radin, Executive VP, Worldwide Marketing, who notes that Panavision built its last 35mm Millennium XL camera in the winter of 2009, although the company continues an "active program of upgrading and retrofitting of our 35mm camera fleet on a ongoing basis."
"I would have to say that the pulse [of film] was weakened and it's an appropriate time," Radin remarks. "We are not making film cameras." He notes that the creative industry is reveling in the choices available. "I believe people in the industry love the idea of having all these various formats available to them," he says. "We have shows shooting with RED Epics, ARRI Alexas, Panavision Genesis and even the older Sony F-900 cameras. We also have shows shooting 35mm and a combination of 35mm and 65mm. It's a potpourri of imaging tools now available that have never existed before, and an exciting time for cinematographers who like the idea of having a lot of tools at their disposal to create different tools and looks."
Do camera manufacturers believe film will disappear? "Eventually it will," says ARRI's Russell. "In two or three years, it could be 85 percent digital and 15 percent film. But the date of the complete disappearance of film? No one knows."
From Radin's point of view, the question of when film will die, "Can only be answered by Kodak and Fuji. Film will be around as long as Kodak and Fuji believe they can make money at it," he says.
FILM PRINTS GO UP IN SMOKE
Neither Kodak nor Fuji have made noises about the end of film stock manufacture, but there are plenty of signs that making film stock has become ever less profitable. The need for film release prints has plummeted in the last year and, in an unprecedented move, Deluxe Entertainment Services Group and Technicolor--both of which have been in the film business for nearly 100 years--essentially divvied up the dwindling business of film printing and distribution.
Couched in legalese of mutual "subcontracting" deals, the bottom line is that Deluxe will now handle all of Technicolor's 35mm bulk release print distribution business in North America. Technicolor, meanwhile, will handle Deluxe's 35mm print distribution business in the U.S. and Deluxe's 35mm/16mm color negative processing business in London, as well as film printing in Thailand. In the wake of these agreements, Technicolor shut its North Hollywood and Montreal film labs and moved its 65mm/70mm print business to its Glendale, California, facility; and Deluxe ended its 35mm/16mm negative processing service at two facilities in the U.K.
"It's a stunning development," says International Cinematographer Guild President Steven Poster, ASC. "We've been waiting for it as far back as 2001. I think we've reached a kind of tipping point on the acquisition side and, now, there's a tipping point on the exhibition side."
"From the lab side, obviously film as a distribution medium is changing from the physical print world to file-based delivery and Digital Cinema," says Deluxe Digital Media Executive VP/General Manager Gray Ainsworth. "The big factories are absolutely in decline. Part of the planning for this has been significant investments and acquisitions to bolster the non-photochemical lab part of our business. We're developing ourselves to be content stewards, from the beginning with on-set solutions all the way downstream to distribution and archiving." Deluxe did exactly that with the 2010 purchase of the Ascent Media post production conglomerate.
Technicolor has also been busy expanding into other areas of the motion picture/TV business, with the purchase of Hollywood post house LaserPacific and a franchise licensing agreement with PostWorks New York. Technicolor also acquired Cinedigm Digital Cinema Corp., expanding their North America footprint in Digital Cinema connectivity to 90 percent. "We have been planning our transition from film to digital, which is why you see our increased investments and clear growth in visual effects and animation, and 2D-to-3D conversion," says Technicolor's Ouri. "We know one day film won't be around. We continue to invest meaningfully in digital and R&D."
Laurence J. Thorpe, Canon Senior Director Imaging Technologies & Communications Group Professional Engineering & Solutions Division I
DIGITAL: AN "OVERNIGHT SUCCESS"
Although recent events--the end of film camera manufacturing and the swan dive of the film distribution business--makes it appear that digital is an overnight success, nothing could be further from the truth. Digital first arrived with the advent of computer-based editing systems more than 20 years ago, and industry people immediately began talking about the death of film. "The first time I heard film was dead was in 1972 at a TV station with videotape," says Poster, ASC. "He said, give it a year or two."
Videotape did overtake film in the TV station, but, in the early 1990s, with the first stirrings of High Definition video, the "film is dead" mantra arose again. Laurence Thorpe, who was involved in the early days of HD cameras at Sony, recalls the drumbeat. "In the 1990s, there were a lot of folks saying that digital has come a long way and seems to be unstoppable," he says.
The portion of the film ecosystem that has managed the most complete transition to digital is post-production. According to Technicolor Chief Marketing Officer
Technicolor Chief Marketing Officer Ahmad Ouri
Ouri, over 90 percent of films are finished with digital intermediates.
But the path to digital domination has also taken place in a world of Hollywood politics and economics. A near-strike by Screen Actors Guild actors, the Japanese tsunami and dramatic changes in the business of theater exhibition have all contributed to the ebbing fortunes of film. Under pressure, any weakness or break in the disciplines that form the art and science of film--from film schools to film laboratories--could spell the final demise of a medium that has endured and thrived for over 100 years.
THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT?
Until 2008, the bulk of TV productions and all feature films took place under SAG jurisdiction, which covers actors in filmed productions. In the months leading up to the Screen Actor Guild's 2008 contract negotiations with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, SAG leadership balked on several elements, including the new media provisions of the proposed contract. Negotiations stalemated. Not so with AFTRA, the union that covers actors in videotaped (including HD) productions, which inked its own separate agreement with AMPTP.
"When producers realized they could go with AFTRA contracts, but they now had to record digitally, they switched almost overnight," recalls Poster. Whereas, in previous seasons, 90 percent of the TV pilots were filmed, and under SAG jurisdiction, in one fell swoop the 2009 pilot season went digital video, capturing 90 percent of the pilots. In a single season, the use of film in primetime TV nearly completely vanished, never to return.
The Japanese tsunami on March 11, 2011, further pushed TV production into the digital realm. Up until then, TV productions were largely mastered to Sony's high-resolution HD SR tape, but the sole plant that made the tape, located in the northern city of Sendai, was heavily damaged and ceased operation for several months. With only two weeks worth of tape still available, TV producers scrambled to come up with a workaround, leading at least some of them to switch to a tapeless delivery, another step into the future of an all-digital ecosystem.
Panavision Panaflex (Millennium XL) on the set of Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Paramount Pictures and Lucasfilm, Ltd.
The third, and perhaps most devastating blow to film, comes from the increased penetration of Digital Cinema. According to Patrick Corcoran, National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) Director of Media & Research/California Operations Chief, at the end of July 2011, "We passed the 50 percent mark in terms of digital screens in the U.S. We've been adding screens at a fast clip this year, 700 to 750 a month," he says.
He notes that the turning point was the creation of the virtual print fee, which allows NATO members to recoup the investment they have to make to upgrade to digital cinema. (Studios, meanwhile, save $1 billion a year for the costs of making and shipping release prints.)
To take advantage of the virtual print fee, theater owners will have to transition screens to digital by the beginning of 2013. "Sometime, in 2013, all the screens will be digital," says Corcoran. "As the number of digital screens increase, it won't make economic sense for the studios to make and ship film prints. It'll be absolutely necessary to switch to Digital Cinema to survive."
Two icons of film technology, the Technicolor facilities in Hollywood, and below, the Kodak Tower in Rochester, New York.
The Kodak Tower was built in 1914, Rochester, New York.
REINVENTING THE FILM LAB
Eastman Kodak - Chris Johnson,
Director of New Business Development,
Entertainment Imaging
Can the continued production of film stock survive the twin disappearance of film acquisition and distribution? Veteran industry executive Rob Hummel, currently president of Group 47, recalls when, as head of production operations, he was negotiating the Kodak deal for DreamWorks Studios. "At the time, the Kodak representative told me that motion pictures was 6 percent of their worldwide capacity and 7 percent of their revenues," he recalls. "The rest was snapshots. In 2008 motion pictures was 92 percent of their business and the actual volume hasn't grown. The other business has just disappeared."
Eastman Kodak, Chris Johnson, Director of New Business Development, Entertainment Imaging, counters that "I don't see a time when Kodak stops making film stock," noting the year-on-year growth in 65mm film and popularity of Super 8mm. "We still make billions of linear feet of film," he says. "Over the horizon as far as we can see, we'll be making billions of feet of film."
Yet, as Johnson's title indicates, Kodak is hedging its bets by looking for new areas of growth. One focus is on digital asset management via leveraging its Pro-Tek Vaults for digital, says Johnson, and another is investigating "asset protection film," a less expensive film medium that provides a 50 to 100 year longevity at a lower price point that B&W separation film.
Kodak has also developed a laser-based 3D digital cinema projector. "Our system will give much brighter 3D images because we're using lasers for the light source," says Johnson. "And the costs of long-term ownership is much less expensive because the lasers last longer than the light sources for other projectors."
STORING FOR THE FUTURE
Gray Ainsworth, Executive Vice President and General Manager of Deluxe's Digital Media Services in Los Angeles
As more than 1 million feet of un-transferred nitrate film worldwide demonstrates, archiving doesn't get top billing in Hollywood. Although the value of archived material is unarguable, positioned at the end of the life cycle of a production, archivists have unfortunately had a relatively weak voice in the discussion over transitioning from film to digital.
Since the "film is dead" debate began, archivists fought to keep elements on film, the only medium that has proven to last well over 100 years. "Most responsible archivists in the industry still believe today that, if you can at all do it, you should still stick it on celluloid and put it in a cold, dry place, because the last 100 years has been the story of nitrate and celluloid," says Deluxe's Ainsworth.
He jokes that if the world's best physicists brought a gizmo to an archivist that they said would hold film for 100 years, the archivist would say, "Fine, come back in 99 years." "With the plethora of digital files, formats and technologies--some of which still exist and some of which don't--we're running into problems with digital files made only five years ago," he adds.
Alex Ferrari. By The Enigma Factory
(Egon Stephan Jr.) [Public domain],
via Wikimedia Commons.
At Sony Pictures Entertainment, Grover Crisp, Executive VP of Asset Management, Film Restoration and Digital Mastering, notes that "Although it's a new environment and everyone is feeling their way through, what's important is to not throw out the traditional sensibilities of what preservation is and means.
"We still make B&W separations on our productions, now directly from the data," he says. "That's been going on for decades and has not stopped. Eventually it will be all digital, somewhere down the road, but following a strict conservation approach certainly makes sense."
Crisp pushes for a dual, hybrid approach. "You need to make sure you're preserving your data as data and your film as film," he says. "And since there's a crossover, you need to do both." LTO tape, currently the digital storage medium of choice, is backwards compatible only two generations, which means that careful migration is a fact of life--for now at least--in a digital age. "The danger of losing media is especially high for documentaries and indie productions," says Crisp.
Mary Pickford on the beach about 1916
with film movie camera.
Hummel and his partners at Group 47, meanwhile, believe they have the solution. His company bought the patents for a digital archival medium developed by Kodak: Digital Optical Tape System (DOTS). "It's a metal alloy system that requires no more storage than a book on a shelf," says Hummel, who reports that Carnegie Mellon University did accelerated life testing to 97 years.
THE DEATH OF FILM REDUX
"Though reports of its imminent death have been exaggerated, more industry observers than before accept the end of film. "In 100 years, yes," says AbelCine's Shore. "In ten years, I think we'll still have film cameras. So somewhere between 10 and 100 years."
Film camera manufacturers have walked a tightrope, ceasing unprofitable manufacture of film cameras at the same time that they continue to serve the film market by making cameras on demand and upgrading existing ones. But they--as well as film labs and film stock manufacturers--clearly see the future as digital and are acting accordingly.
Will film die? Seen in one way, it never will: our cinematic history exists on celluloid and as long as there are viable film cameras and film, someone will be shooting it. Seen another way, film is already dead...what we see today is the after-life of a medium that has become increasingly marginalized in production and distribution of films and TV. Just as the last film camera was sold without headlines or fireworks, the end of film as a significant production and distribution medium will, one day soon, arrive, without fanfare.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-25-2011, 06:17 PM:
Justin...I apologize for my late response...I've been VERY busy lately and saw your post(s) and wanted to respond but to do so in a thoughtful way and not a knee-jerk fashion. First off, I believe that you say what you actually think and are not trying to just pick a fight or instigate a problem but some of what you have claimed is just plain factually wrong and no longer subject to mere opinion.
quote: Justin Hamaker
I am trying to wrap my head around the crux of the opposition to digital. I've read the comments here, and I'm having a difficult time understanding how it comes down to anything other than preference - assuming the economics allow for conversion.
While preference definitely weighs in for some there are some definitely technical differences both theoretical but, more importantly measurable that add into one's preference.
quote: Justin Hamaker
There are those who seem to prefer the "character" of a film presentation. Whether it's the flicker or the slightly grainy quality of the images. I think this is a matter of preference and I prefer the crisp image from digital.
I don't doubt that some prefer grains to pixels and, not doubt pixels to grains though I see ZERO benefits to pixels other than duplication. The problems of pixels are many...pixels don't play well with other grid or regularly spaced items like picket fences, or perforations in screens. Heck most here have even noticed the credit scrolls fail in digital...anytime one has to cross a perfectly even row of pixels there is a period where there is zero information. The granular nature of film doesn't suffer from these sorts of things. The grains are random in nature and are updated 24 times a second and each time can be in completely different places.
quote: Justin Hamaker
Many have talked about the image quality of 70mm vs 4K digital vs 2K digital. I don't have any personal experience with 70mm or 4K digital, but I have a difficult time imagining a sharper image than the well lit 2K image.
Quick response: Your imagination sucks!
More detailed response: You confuse sharpness with resolution and information. That is, you have 2048 x 1080 pixels and they can be reasonably focused from corner to corner (though rarely as perfectly as some may think). It is this lack of resolution that makes it easier to focus on what is there. Thus you have crisp pixels. Unfortunately, you don't have enough pixels to represent as much information. In fact, you have 1/4 the amount of information that 35mm 1.85 can hold. If you were to defocus a 35mm frame so that it only had say 48 lines/mm you would have the detail (not sharpness) of the 2K image today. There is no need to defocus though...the 2K DI does that for you!
With just 2K of pixels, much of the detail is literally thrown away. However, what is left is indeed crisp...to a fault. Low-res digital has a real hard time with depth. Everything looks hyper-flat on the screen.
quote: Justin Hamaker
The cost of converting one auditorium is already significantly less than it was just 2 years ago. I'm sure there will be a floor to the prices, but I don't know that we've reached it yet.
For the bulk of the cost...most have been very consistent since 2010...there have been a few price-wars on servers and "specials" but by and large, the price since January 2010 is pretty much what it is now. There is no hint that it is going down. I have had one projectors manufacturer state that they believe the cost will actually rise once the bulk of the conversion is over. The economy of scale will be done and the industry will have to settle back into its 1000-3000 screens/year (due to new builds and attrition). So how well do you think the projector manufactures will be doing with such small numbers? There are but three DLP imagers in a single projector...with a rosy 3000 unit/year build...how do you think TI will be doing with just 9000 chips annually? And that is presuming that Sony does its thing and pulls out.
I suppose a scary senario about a decade from now would be if all of these series II projectors start dropping from age at once (kinda like light bulbs that were all put in at the same time) that there could be a rush again.
Unless there are other market forces in place...the cost of DCinema is certain to rise in the future, particularly for Cinema specific equipment. The computer industry can certainly help us keep our costs down on that department (servers and such).
quote: Justin Hamaker
Some talk about the longevity of digital equipment. I admit this is a concern. However, parts can be replaced as they wear out/break down. Film equipment is not immune from having to repair or replace parts. And some film projector parts are just as critical as digital projector parts. One of the issues to avoid missing shows is having parts available, just like it is with film.
Film projector parts can often be multi-sourced (Strong, Wolk, LaVezzi and even made by one self or via a competent machine shop. With DCinema parts...PCBs are not going to be home-brewed or aftermarket made. You are beholden to the OEM...e.g. TI or Sony. However, they are even beholden to some other chip manufacturers. Anyone that has been in the silicon business has experienced chips that suddenly become no longer available. So an integral part on a PCB could require a complete redesign of a PCB to work with currently available parts or even having to design the needed chip themselves...this could be a huge undertaking, particularly for aged equipment. The solution will likely be to replace that expensive piece with a new and more expensive piece. While this can happen with film equipment, not even in your wildest dreams are you going to get 50+ years of life out of digital equipment like we have with film.
quote: Justin Hamaker
Some have even gone to great length to talk about how a digital failure can lead to lost shows. Obviously this is a concern, but how many of us can honestly say we have never lost a show due to a bad diode or other failed part. And when a major part failed on a weekend, it was just as likely to keep the show down as a digital failure until the part could be shipped.
A bad example on your part. Yes, diodes can fail in film cinema...and they can readily be replaced to, on site. More often then not, the same day...even on weekends. I, like many techs, carry a spare set with me because they are relatively cheap and work in many brands of rectifiers...I carry 85A and 150A...which covers about 95% of all high reactance rectifiers out there. What other "critical" film parts are needed? Intermittents? We like most every other service company have Century and Simplex intermittents on hand (Simplex and Century cover about 90% of the projectors we serviced). Likewise for most any other major part in Simplex, Century, Christie. And all of those parts combined don't add up to the cost of most of the modules in a DCinema machine. More importantly, an investment in stars/cams, gears are ones that are not going to go bad on the shelf and there was a reasonable expectation that those parts would be used for years to come. The Simplex and Century parts go back what? 50 years? 60 years? Maybe even 75 years on some?
What service company is going to stock much in the way of DCinema parts? I will say, it is much more likely now that most series II projectors have some common items amongst them all (at least within a brand). But if you stocked up on a series 1 module...how long would that part sit on the shelf now before you got a return on investment?
The realities are DCinema projectors, if they go down in non-opportune times (Friday evening on a Holiday) could be down for days! I don't ever having a film projector down for 24-hours unless it was at the customer's request (didn't want to pay O.T. rates or RX pricing).
Now a big plus for DCinema is my ability to service from afar. I do not necessarily need to be on-site to finish a repair. I can have a relatively inexperienced booth person change a board and I can reload that information. I can also diagnose problems better without having to depend on a booth person to try and describe the "thing" that they think is broken. The equipment does a pretty good job of logging its irregularities for more accurately diagnosing problems.
Your comments about Film and Digital degrading are absolutely true in that if one does not keep their equipment up...regardless of which medium, the quality of the show will suffer.
Stay tuned...I do plan to "attack" your BluRay claims in another thread.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-25-2011, 08:38 PM:
Steve, I appreciate that you have a far superior technical knowledge to myself. I'm not even going to try to engage you in a discussion about technical details because I know my knowledge is not up to yours. However, I have been working with film for nearly 15 years. I know how to fix the majority of common problems that come up on a 35mm projector - including troubleshooting/replacing diodes, replacing intermittents, replacing projector motors, and more.
When I refer to a part that might have to be ordered, I'm talking about something like a projector motor, power supply, bulb contacts, and other parts. I have had all of these parts fail on a weekend and keep us down until parts could be shipped.
Typically when I've had a diode fail, it only cost the current show - and maybe the one after depending on the situation. Of course that was because we had diodes on hand and I knew how to change them. No different than if you have a hard drive or some other part fail. The only difference is knowing what parts to keep on the shelf and having the training to fix things.
The point I keep making, and will continue to make, is that digital provides a better and more consistent presentation for the average multiplex. I'm not going to try and argue the technical specifics of film vs digital presentation because I don't have the knowledge to do so. But my personal observations, as well as those of others I have talked to from other locations, is that the 2K digital picture is better than the 35mm picture in the real world.
For what it's worth, when you and others point out the various on-screen differences between film and digital, I do look at my screens to see if I can see those same issues. I just don't see the things you're talking about. I do admit I can see the standard white on black credit scroll isn't quite as smooth with digital, but I have yet to see any noticeable issue with the picture.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-25-2011, 09:50 PM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
I have talked to from other locations, is that the 2K digital picture is better than the 35mm picture in the real world.
Here's a simple test with this for some that still have "hybrid" operations of both film and digital and with a screen size of over 35ft wide: is to sit dead middle about two rows from the face of the screen, where your seating distance is shorter than the width of the screen and watch both versions of the same movie.
..and come to a choice to give an answer: which has the sharper picture, digital or 35mm?
This is where SONY plunged forward with their 4K units so the patron sitting close like that can't tell the difference between the two projected images. Now, DLP has caught up with this resolution war - just to give the same results of presentation to those ones sitting close to the ones sitting far back.
Sure, the pict looks great with 2K digital since we are either standing in the back of the house, upstairs looking out the port window, or sitting in the back third of the auditorium.
But, are these examples fair enough to proclaim that digital is better presentation wise? Don't need to answer this one since it's a personal experience and surroundings can give incorrect answers.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-26-2011, 12:15 AM:
"Film era fades to black"....while DCinema can only fade up from grey!
(Sorry, couldn't resist). ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2