Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: TheForce.net Demands Immediate Digital Cinema Conversion

This is topic TheForce.net Demands Immediate Digital Cinema Conversion in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=000524

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-17-2002, 02:11 PM:

I found this editorial by Chris Knight of TheForce.net, one of the Star Wars fan sites:

http://www.theforce.net/jedicouncil/editorials/

Mr. Knight wrote the editorial after seeing eight minutes of "Attack of the Clones" clips projected digitally by producer Rick McCallum at the Lucasfilm sponsored "Celebration II" in Indianapolis, May 3-5.

Star Wars fans are being urged to begin a letter-writing campaign to distributors and exhibitors, demanding that theatres install Digital Cinema systems.

Here's the background in the "Hollywood Reporter" - "Lucas declares cyber war":

Hollywood Reporter Article May 15

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

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 05-17-2002, 02:36 PM:

I love how everybody's suddenly an expert on film, or as he calls it, "celluloid"!

I don't claim to be an expert, but I certainly know enough to realize that many of his statements are wrong. Particularly the bit about the original source for Star Wars being a short time away from being "lost forever". He shouldn't believe everything he reads on IMDb trivia.

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 05-17-2002, 03:07 PM:

The sad part (as if these people aren't sad enough), is the power of persuasion that Georgey boy has. He's rapidly becoming the Bill Gates of Hollywood.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-17-2002, 03:26 PM:

I have no problem with DLP proponents. I am sure that they genuinely believe that it looks better than 35mm film and it would make sense that they would want to see their preferred format become more widely available. DLP over film is a legitimate preference.

I do, however, have a problem with the half-truths and downright incorrect information that many of these proponents use in order to justify their claims of DLP superiority. It should be sufficient to say something like "I prefer DLP"; inaccurate comments about film (like "film becomes scratched after opening weekend") serve only to discredit their arguments.

Although I personally prefer the look of film to that of the current generation of DLP systems, I do have quite a bit of respect for the engineering work that has gone into the development of DLP and I have no need or desire to make false claims about the technology in order to justify my preference; I suspect that most others who prefer film feel the say way.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-17-2002, 06:30 PM:

I agree about the half-truths. Ummmm.... let's see, 1.3 million micro-mirrors for red, 1.3 million for green, and for blue........oh, that's over 3.9 million MOVING MECHANICAL PARTS that DO go bad. And when they do, they show up on the screen as permanent off-color or black or white "specs" (pixels) that are typically very much larger than intermittent film "spots".

I can deal with the pixel resolution, but what *really* bothers me about DLP are those f*cking hinge "dots" in the center of every pixel! GOD! I hate those!

And of course the lamps never fail in the "video" projectors like they do in those crummy 35mm film projectors. (Actually they fail more often and have less of a life-span and are very much more expensive than the standard "bare" xenon lamp.)

About digital format sources being more stable than 35mm film.... Ummmm pass me that 5.25" floppy, I need to view a file. What's that you say....????? Put it where???

>>> Phil

Posted by Bill Hallsworth (Member # 1240) on 05-17-2002, 11:51 PM:

Wow, I knew that DLP had lots of small mirrors, but not 3.9 million of them!

By the way, since when was it cheaper to run a 7000 watt bulb rather than a 3000 watt? How much longer did you say that 7k bulb lasted?

Maybe the author of that article should come watch our copy of Beautiful Mind. We've been running it for God knows how long, and it is in mint condition (except of course for " the bold green scratch from opening weekend ").

Why can't anyone write a decent article comparing film to digital? Where do these people come up with these things? Maybe they just make them up or somehting.

Bill

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-17-2002, 11:58 PM:

"Why can't anyone write a decent article comparing film to digital?"

Probably because nobody in the general public is interested. The crap that mass-market media writes about this topic has to appeal to a broad audience, therefore technical details are left out since that might turn people off. Emphasize the hype, minimize those pesky boring facts.

For film handlers and other technical-types, the information is available from other sources such as Kodak's web site.

Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 05-18-2002, 01:28 AM:

All i can say is, that i am deeply saddened by their tactics.
It's alway's the greedy few that phug it up for the masses!

Posted by Kevin Baglow (Member # 721) on 05-18-2002, 01:50 AM:

One of the big three TV networks in australia made a story of "NO DIGITAL CINEMAS available in Aus to show EP II... as it was intended. "Film Breaks digital doesen't" said the news reader. And "its the like the change from vinal to CD"
The quality certinly seems as big step backwards on our 50ft curved screen. The tv newsreaders said Lucas saved US$2.5 million in film costs by useing video cassetes instead of film in the cameras. It sure looks like it.

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 05-18-2002, 03:55 AM:

Personally I've no problems with digital, but like a lot of people on here I do have a problem with the mis-information being given to the relatively ignorant public. Perhaps someone should suggest to these people that maybe they'd like to sponsor their local cinema to install a DLP or two?? I bet they'd soon change their tune!

On the digital format thing. I'm astounded that CD is still with us after what, 20 years? In the scheme of things it's a pretty archaic format now, and just beacuse everybody has a player had never stopped the industry from making something obsolete and replacing it before. Maybe it's becuse the CD format continues to develop in things like DVD.

Posted by David Rowley (Member # 1202) on 05-18-2002, 04:01 AM:

quote:
1. Total fidelity for the viewer

Definately a half-truth. Film doesn't have to degrade with each showing, but let's face it folks, it frequently does. We've all been to a showing at some time where somebody badly mishandled the film. The public doesn't know that the film has been mishandled, they just think that film gets worse and worse as it ages. This is something that digital can eliminate. This is also something that a decent amount of training can eliminate.

quote:
2. Cost-effectiveness for theater owners

I would be interested in seeing a long term study comparing the cost of maintaining traditional projection equipment versus that of DLP. I'm not sure how frequently a mirror will fail on a DMD, but according to the Texas Instruments web site, each micro mirror has a lifetime of 1.7 trillion cycles, or 95 years. I'm sure we will see some DLP projectors with dead pixels, but I wonder how long it will take before they start to fail.

quote:
3. Growth of digital production will reinvigorate the art

Yup, just like camcorders did for TV. We get things like "Real TV", "America's Funniest Home Videos", and slew of other "invigorating" television shows.

Ok, seriously though. This is a valid point. I wouldn't doubt that there are a few good movie makers out there who couldn't afford to shoot film, but can afford to shoot DV.

quote:
4. Perfect storage for future generations

This information actually comes from the special edition VHS re-release of the original Star Wars. They mention in a 10 minute special at the start of the tape about how the original film was degrading, and if they didn't restore it now, it would be too late. As for the digital media degrading, it really is a moot point, since every copy made of a digital movie will be identical. As the media ages, you simply make a new copy, and throw out the old one.

While every point he makes has some validity, he ignores some of the more important ones against digital, the biggest being resolution. After seeing Star Wars in DLP today, I am absolutely convinced that the resolution in current digital movie making is far too low. From the original shoot, to the display on the screen. Sorry, but 2.6 DPI just doesn't do it for me!

Posted by Dennis Atkinson (Member # 345) on 05-18-2002, 09:30 AM:

The original SW was degraded because George did not take care of it, plain and simple.
I have seen Star Wars in Technicolor and it blew away the Eastmancolor prints. As with the IB Tech vs. Eastman in the 70's, somebody in Hollywood says "I like the look it gives the movie".
Translation = it's a lot cheaper and easier to deal with. Sounds just like the digtal vs. film argument today.
I can't wait to see the digital experience after the 7k bulb is replaced with a 5k or lower "to save money".

Dennis

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 05-19-2002, 04:36 PM:

I dropped this moron a note and suggest that he learn more about film before he says there is a better alternative. The answer I got back was
"I saw it working at C2. Environmental factors aside, it IS a far superior format."

To which I wrote back a lengthy letter explaining a few things about resolution, moving parts, watts of light etc. and asking exactly what he meant by "superior". That was last night and I haven't heard back.
I expect to get an answer like... "superior because I say so"

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

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 05-19-2002, 08:48 PM:

Phil,

I want you to know that I have two of these special micro chip's with mirrors which I was told, in 1998, they had four million individually programmed mirrors......and here I am four years later and so far I havn't even counted half of them. I'm only at 1,467,534 . I will let you know when I reach 4 million...if I am still living.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-20-2002, 01:07 AM:

Luv Ya, Bob!

>>> Phil

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-20-2002, 04:02 AM:

Pete - sorry if I'm going off-topic here, but the reason CDs are still with us is precisely the same reason VHS is still with us: there is a critical mass of hardware and software out in the field.

Both are technically obsolete formats, but they've lasted so long because they gained market saturation. Most households in the developed world contain a CD player and VHS VCR, together with several hundred media for each. In order for this situation to change, either the economies of scale have to change, or the new format has to be backwards-compatible (e.g. DVD players being able to play CDs), or both.

It took a decade from the launch of audio CDs to vinyl LPs disappearing from the mainstream market. I guess that, as DVD technology becomes more widespread and recordable machines become affordable, new audio-only recordings will gradually start to be issued on a DVD format which uses the extra data capacity to encode more channels of sound and/or higher sampling rates/frequency responses in each one.

When DVD-R discs come down to a similar price (per megabyte of storage) to CD-Rs, then assuming no long-term storage issues come out of the woodwork, I'll certainly start using them and probably stop using CDs.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 05-20-2002, 07:31 AM:

CD's are still with us because the more modern alternatives are not preceived as a significant improvement to the general public. When CD's came out, everyone could hear how much better they sounded, regardless of the grade of stereo equipment they were using.

DVD audio offers more than 2 channel sound, but that has never been a big issue for the public, other than the home theatre enthusisasts. The down side is the draconian copy protection that the public has clearly rejected.

MiniDisc offer record capability, but that is really an add on in the general public's mind, and regular CDR recorders are now cheap.

MP3 and related solid state formats, again, offer add-on versitilty in that the units are small and portable, but don't sound any better than CD's (at best).

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 05-20-2002, 11:02 AM:

quote:
On the day that The Fellowship Of The Ring came out, a friend wrote me about how Aragorn couldn't be seen watching the hobbits from his dark corner: the theater owner had turned down the juice going to the projector bulb to save a few measly bucks! Such finagling - by thermodynamics or thuggery - won’t happen on a digital system: the movie you see ten weeks from now will be the same movie, in every detail, as is the movie you see tomorrow.

This point certainly is not valid. What makes him think the theater owner won't do the same thing with the 7k bulb running in the DLP's lamphouse? The projector head may be totally different, but the lamphouse technology is exactly the same. And as someone mentioned above, the lamps are even more expensive and don't last as long.

I'm not against digital. I think it can peacefully coexist with film. But like everyone else, I am against what these people are doing. They are using half truths and sometimes false statements to try to justify that digital is better.

quote:
With that done, we can focus on bigger game: convincing the major studios and theatrical chains that digital projection is in their best interest.

It may be in the sudios' best interests because it elminates the production and shipping costs ascociated with film. But since the studio pays for all that, tell me, exactly how is it in the theaters' best interests?? The average customer probablly doesn't care. And as Adam Wilbert pointed out, some customers can't tell the difference. (See the thread Customers "Can't believe its not... DLP" in Yak.)

Yes, I do feel another letter-writing campaign coming on....

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

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 05-20-2002, 04:31 PM:

...and who cares if the movie is "not the same" 10 weeks or more after opening? Where are these 10-week holdovers? Not many around here. I wanted to see the Rookie about 3 weeks after release, your standard, pretty well received film, an it was already gone. The people had seen it and it's gone. The rare films that do hang on for 13 weeks let's say, or 1/4 of a year are few. Let 'em have their DLP, so they can run WWF at the theatre and watch Fellowship of the Ring or whatever it was at home in DLP on a 10 foot screen years after release, that's really what this is about, isn't it?

Now, before you jump on me, I want to say that if I do run film commercially in the future, I WILL pay attention, use cleaning devices and keep things in good order. I saw the prototype to my drive-in booth yesterday at the IMAX booth at Canadian Museum of Civiliztion in Hull Quebec (Ottawa). You can't see the projector, but the platter is housed in a carpeted sealed clean room with various controls and monitors that make it look like an evil lair. Two platter set-up, the film winds off one, disappears 20 feet in the air, and back down again. The other show stands by on the other decks. It's apparent that these films must be rewound as the platter winds off the outside and is taken up on a solid core. Fascinating. As much as we fret about film done wrong, I find that alot of people don't notice the flaws I will as a result of hanging around on this forum. I don't think most films have enough legs to need to be preserved very long (AGAIN - NO REASON NOT TO PRESERVE THEM). I think this fact will delay DLP as much as anything. I just don't know enough people who really care if a film is DTS, SR, SDDS or whatever. A well-lit screen with a good clear sound is all most people want. The theatres in my part of the world seem to give it to them.

PS- the "prototype" means that I'd like to have a glass-walled booth so people really can see the magic of film, how it works, and for you technical types, how clean things are...

Posted by Tom Fermanian (Member # 1094) on 05-20-2002, 07:36 PM:

First of all, in Quebec anyway, a majority of theatres are NOT playing SW EP.2 on account of unreasonable demands by georgie and his group,We can't afford to play his picture in 35, do you think we can afford to change over to digital because "movie supreme grand poohbah Georgie Lucas" and his bunch say so? No way! NATO is studying along with the majors on a business plan etc. so we do notall rush blindly into this! If Georgie want's digital presentation so much: Let Him furnish the equipment at his expense!, Let Him give theatres a better break on terms! Let him peddle more plastic SW stuff and with those profits equip our theatres!The future of digital cinema to my thinking Does not belong to Georgie & his henchmen! he is just another cog in this machine and unless he put's up $$, let him wait like everybody else until we find a system that will be generaly accepted by all factions in the industry without bankrupting anyone!

(Am Not against progress! digital will one day be there ,for now , film will do just fine if we all care enough!)

------------------

Posted by Craig Hanham (Member # 1010) on 05-20-2002, 08:10 PM:

"Films are scratched and no good after opening weekend"

BOLLOX, BOLLOX, BOLLOX.
If my 50 year old Westrex projectors, still running 2000' changeover can run a green Bollywood print without scratching, when operated by me, a twice-a-month projector jockey (I know this after running the same 3 1/2 hourprint 3 times in one day) then so can everyone else in a main run cinema!!!
So bloody there.

Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 05-20-2002, 10:29 PM:

TOOO Bloody Right Mate !!!!!!!

------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-21-2002, 10:10 AM:

WH...WH...WHAT? Did I read that correctly???

George only saved 2.5 million by shooting it on video? SURELY Star Wars, his little baby for now over 25 years deserves to look as good as it possibly can! SHOOT ON FILM, DAMMIT!

Geez...I can't believe that's all he saved. I thought it must have been in the tens of millions to degrade the quality this much. For goodness sake...$2.5 million???

He carries that much in his wallet!

There's no hope for us all...

I'm going to bed.

...and while you're at it George...for goodness sake, let someone else direct the next one. Give old Stevie a go. Or perhaps Baz Luhrman.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage". - Indiana Jones.