Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Digital Projection on NPR

This is topic Digital Projection on NPR in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=005006

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 03-21-2007, 09:30 PM:

Digital Projection on NPR's All Things Considered

quote:
All Things Considered, March 21, 2007 · For a while now, movie studios have been touting digital projectors that will drastically improve the look of movies on the big screen. They would also save studios millions of dollars, as bulky reels of film pass into oblivion.

But the change requires exhibitors to invest in the new technology, as well. That leaves an important question open to dispute: Who should pay for the upgrades — studios or theaters?

For at least seven years, film studios and theaters have been hyping digital projectors and the crisp, clear picture quality they will bring to movie screens.

Yet the vast majority of the nation's cinemas are still using old analog projectors. Despite the economic and visual advantages of digital projection, out of the nation's more than 38,000 movie screens, only around 2,200 have digital projectors.

After years of dispute about payment, theater owners and studios finally found a business plan.

For several years, the studios will pay a fee on each digital copy they make to defray the theaters' costs of installing digital projectors. But while studios and theater owners have been squabbling over details, some say audiences have been missing out.

At most movie theaters, viewers didn't see the Star Wars films as George Lucas envisioned them. With film prints, quality degrades with each copy and every showing.

Rick McCallum produced the last three Star Wars movies.

"I traveled to 60 cities across America," McCallum says. "I went to small towns, I went to big towns. I went to where ever the films were playing. And I was so dismayed, I was so appalled. I couldn't believe how truly bad it was."

McCallum worries that by the time digital projectors are installed in most theaters, audience will be smaller, as people opt to see movies on their home entertainment systems and plasma TVs.

I am a letter-writing fiend these days; I submitted this in response:

quote:
Your story on digital projection in movie theatres propagated several myths about film presentation, and I think some of the conclusions drawn are incorrect.

Rick McCallum's claim that a film degrades every time is is shown in a theatre is ridiculous. In a properly operated theatre, a film print can last through thousands of showings without any wear. He IS correct that most theatres across the country don't operate their equipment properly, but changing the equipment will not change that.

Digital projectors are in their infancy, technologically speaking. Every few years, their technology will become obsolete as picture quality improves, yet theatres will not be able to afford to replace them. Film, on the other hand, is capable of delivering a much higher resolution on tried and true machinery.

The sad truth is that switching to digital projection will not fix most of the problems that are driving moviegoers away from cinemas. Digital projection will not reverse the trend of smaller and smaller screens. Digital projection will make it easier for theatres to show commercials, not harder. If it's mathmatically possible, digital projection will decrease the frequency that theatres are monitored for sound and picture problems because of the lack of professional projectionists on staff. And most importantly, digital projection it will not do a thing to prevent other moviegoers from talking disruptively to one another or their cell phones.

Most those problems could easily be solved for a tiny fraction of the cost of digital projection, if only theatres would make the effort.

Digtal projection may save the studios money in the short term, but it is not in the best interest of movie-goers or movie theatres. With more and more movie-goers staying home where they can get a better presentation, and theatre chains absorbing the costs of expensive new digital projectors, I worry that in the near future, the movie theatre may become a thing of the past.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 03-22-2007, 10:03 PM:

quote:
Rick McCallum's claim that a film degrades every time is is shown in a theatre is ridiculous. In a properly operated theatre, a film print can last through thousands of showings without any wear.

No he is correct, you seem to be the one who is being ridiculous.
Film like records wears each time it is run. Please name 3 examples of a print running thousands of time with no dust or blemishes!

I can name only one, an IMAX print of Antartica, that had been run over 3, 000 times and had absolutely no wear. That print had been scotchguarded, a very rare process not used with normal prints. At Imax, I found visible wear on all other prints within 300 runs.

Having spoken to Rick McCallum about this issue before, I understand what he is on about, and perhaps you are missing the point. Digital is mint from day one and consistant forever. Filmmakers have been published being critical about inconsistant standards of cinemas since the 1970s. Some chains being far too dark ect.

Candy bar projectionists have lowered the standard dramatically! Not that there was ever a consistant standard! Many cinemas have never had a decent image or professional sound at there screens ever! Cinema owners are to blame, not the film makers, not the customers, not digital.

Brads Film Guard is a product that can make film last indefinitely, not only are the prints keeped in mint condition, but the wet gate look, improves the colors! in a similar way to how the film is transfered to digital for that medium. What percentage of the worlds screens use this product that kodak will not endorse?

Film is degraded throughout its production, from the neg, to the interneg, and at each generation until its release print. With film grain being 5 microns, this translates to aprox 3,300 lines of resolution for 35mm academy frame, so wide screen and super 35 mm would be close to 2k resolution. When scanned in of the original negative there is no generation loss throughout the post production chain.

Film certainly has its advantages, but mostly in production not neceserally in the final release.

I think its fair to say that filmakers would like people to see the films exactly as they made them, this is simply not the case for a long time now . I can not blame them for thinking digital will create a new much more consistant standard. Just disapointed that most cinemas did not think about the future as they chose to run there film equipment and there reputation into the ground. Afterall there really isnt any advantage of digital over film if film is done right, filmguard, scotchguard is used ect. Its just such a shame film is done wrong far more often than being done right.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-23-2007, 05:48 AM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
I can name only one, an IMAX print of Antartica, that had been run over 3, 000 times and had absolutely no wear.

But I bet that side by side comparison with a new print would reveal quite a bit of fading. Thats ALOT of runs on a 15/70 print and I know of only one other in that ballpark and that was the original print of Zion Canyon which made 4000 passes. At 2000 passes it was sent to the film rejuvinator and came back still looking great. Then at about 3000 passes the color started to head south and by 4000 it looked pretty bad. I believe that Gord's Imax sent their print of Zion Canyon down there and that is the one still running today. The original print is still around but has been cut up and is used for testing 15/70 projectors.

Mark

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 03-23-2007, 09:40 AM:

We used to get 2800 - 3000 passes on an 35mm anamorphic print before retiring the print due to color fade at a museum exhibit that ran 6 years. Pressurized projection room and film cabinet, stainless steel anti-static roller and film air sqeege prior to entering the projector which was fitted with a set of prototype VKF film sprockets. The projector was manually cleaned every 12 hours plus the film roll had a section of film cleaning laboratory leader.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-23-2007, 10:46 AM:

quote:
No he is correct, you seem to be the one who is being ridiculous. Film like records wears each time it is run. Please name 3 examples of a print running thousands of time with no dust or blemishes!

Cameron, please specifically point out the "blemishes" you see on a film presentation after one run through a properly aligned film projector. I defy you to successfully find anything wrong with the print. Platter scratches, reflector burns and even the dust you mention comes from "film done wrong" setups.

Rick McCallum's view is indeed ridiculous. That's because he wrongfully implies or flat out characterizes a film print getting noticeably damaged with every run. It's almost as ridiculous as his claims years ago that a 1280 X 1024 pixel DLP image had more detail than 35mm film. His comments have a lot of self interest-driven spin associated with them.

In any "film done right" setup, you're not going to see any noticeable problems at all. Color fading on the print will be about it -provided if the 35mm print is able to stay at the movie theater for several months and have many hundreds of runs through the film projector. Most movies in the average multiplex theater play for maybe 4-6 weeks, if even that. I've seen some hit movies come and go with only 3 weeks of play. They don't build up the kind of mileage movie prints did in the past, certainly not even anything on the order of Titanic.

The people who promote digital projection need to get off this "digital has better quality than film" kick because it's just bullshit.

What digital projection has over film prints is greater flexibility and potentially faster/easier use. You can show lots of different content. You don't have to worry so much about movie length and what will fit on a platter, or what will fit on a DTS CD-ROM disc. You can easily re-start the movie from the beginning. You don't have to spend a bunch of time building and tearing down prints. You don't have to carry film prints from one projection platter to another (or install a wild platter system like the Studio Movie Grill theaters have).

There's a lot of nice things about "digital," but it isn't better than film. Movies still look far superior when shot on film. Film projection can yield more image detail, so long as the film image being supplied wasn't bottlenecked with a low-rez 2K digital intermediate step.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-23-2007, 12:12 PM:

quote:
Please name 3 examples of a print running thousands of time with no dust or blemishes!

This comment (in its various forms) is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard about film, and I hear it all the time from all sorts of people. I was out of the industry during the Titanic run, but I can personally say that I ran a print of Disney's Beauty and the Beast for over six months (five shows a day * 30 days a month * six months = 900 shows), and in the early days, it was interlocked, and it left our theater in practically mint condition. This was of course before the days of Film-Guard.

With Film-Guard, we've taken horribly dirty prints that were obviously run by someone who didn't know how to keep film clean, and rejuvenated those prints to like new condition. Greek Wedding was an excellent example of that. When we received it, the film looked like it was un-earthed at a construction site. But it left our theater sparklingly clean and in excellent condition.

quote: Cameron Glendinning
I can not blame them for thinking digital will create a new much more consistant standard.

It will do that, but it will also lower the standard, which is pretty sad. How about doing something to RAISE the standard experience to something that can not be duplicated very easily in the home? How is installing what amounts to basically HDTV in the theaters going to bring people away from the HDTVs they have at home? I ask that because the people with HDTV in their homes are the ones that aren't coming anymore.

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Film certainly has its advantages, but mostly in production not neceserally in the final release.

Digital can not duplicate the contrast that's possible on 35mm release prints.

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Some chains being far too dark ect.

Maybe I missed how digital projectors are going to fix that. Can you explain for me?

I think the biggest problem with digital projection is already starting to manifest itself. The folks who were the early adopters of the 1.3K projectors (at approx $200K a pop) are now realizing that they're running an obsolete format. The folks who waited until the 2K projectors came down in price and then started putting them in are on the verge of running an obsolete format, even as they're installing them. As we learned in this thread, there's now a new type of chip that improves on the contrast that's possible with the existing 2K projectors. And, as we know, 4K units are also on the horizon.

I'm not sure how digital projection helps anyone except the studios. And I also have no idea why the theater owners think this is all a good idea. And if they're thinking that the shoddy strobing crappy 3D offered by RealD is the answer, they are going to be surprised when 3D shows up in the home. It won't take much to modify a home theater digital projector and a blue laser DVD player to produce the same 3D in the home. Some think it will never happen. I think it's right around the corner. Especially if 3D digital movies become the norm in theaters. When that technology does appear in the home, then where will the theaters be? All of the 35mm stuff will be gone. And theaters will be left with substandard crap that can't get any better unless it's removed and replaced with a better resolution projector and server.

I guess we'll see who's right in a couple of years. As an employee, it doesn't really matter to me. When I'm not a film guy, I'm a computer guy. So I could function fine in either environment. As a movie goer, I'd rather see film when I pay to see a movie in a theater.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-23-2007, 01:07 PM:

I have examples of ESTAR base prints run at theme parks that have tens of thousands of runs before being retired for slight fading. Same stock and processing as is used for theatre prints.

On-line cleaning easily removes any dirt/dust accumulation. Prints get scratched only when they are mishandled.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-23-2007, 01:12 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
I ask that because the people with HDTV in their homes are the ones that aren't coming anymore.

Some studies show that people with fancy home theatres actually go to movies more often than other people, because they love to see brand new movies. This is one reason it's important to protect the video window.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-23-2007, 01:47 PM:

quote:
The folks who waited until the 2K projectors came down in price and then started putting them in are on the verge of running an obsolete format, even as they're installing them. As we learned in this thread, there's now a new type of chip that improves on the contrast that's possible with the existing 2K projectors. And, as we know, 4K units are also on the horizon.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Hollywood to generate most of its content in native 4K format. The vast majority of all Hollywood releases have its CGI and Digital Intermediate work done at 2K levels, not 4K. Blowing 2K content up to 4K yields absolutely no benefit at all.

The 2K versus 4K thing has some similarities to 4-perf 35mm versus larger formats like VistaVision and 5-perf 70mm. Hollywood has a very long history of choosing something that is merely "good enough" over another format with significantly higher levels of quality.

Anytime someone pushes 4K on a studio project, noting the computer hardware more than powerful enough to do the job, I guarantee a producer or bean counter somewhere will follow with, "with that more powerful hardware how much faster and cheaper can we get 2K done?" And then the movie is just done in 2K, same as damned usual.

Because of that problem, I believe most 2K based projectors are going to be pretty safe investments for quite some time. The only piece of hardware that may have to be changed out more frequently will be the media server, due to improved hard discs, faster networking and ever changing security standards.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
And I also have no idea why the theater owners think this is all a good idea. And if they're thinking that the shoddy strobing crappy 3D offered by RealD is the answer, they are going to be surprised when 3D shows up in the home. It won't take much to modify a home theater digital projector and a blue laser DVD player to produce the same 3D in the home. Some think it will never happen. I think it's right around the corner.

I'm certainly one of those people who don't think 3D in the home is going to be happening anytime soon. You have all the technical hurdles with getting 3D content to work on normal back-lighted television sets. And then you have an even more critical problem in that home TV screens are very small in comparison to a movie theater screen. The vast majority are even tiny in ratio and proportion compared to their viewing environment compared to that of a commercial movie theater screen. In short, 3D will not have anywhere near as immersive an effect as it does in a commercial movie theater.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Some studies show that people with fancy home theatres actually go to movies more often than other people, because they love to see brand new movies. This is one reason it's important to protect the video window.

I think there's a good amount of truth to that. The greater balance of people who stay home to watch movies are those watching their budgets. Unfortunately, there's a lot more people with modest incomes than rich people.

Advances in HDTV technology do pose a real threat to movie theater business in the younger demographic set. Video gaming and other Internet-based activity is already costing the commercial movie theater business significantly. The changes that are due to come with much faster Internet, much improved computer technology and convergence in HDTV will have a lot more people spending a lot more time at home. Teens and young adults will lead the trends on that.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 03-23-2007, 08:47 PM:

quote:
Cameron, please specifically point out the "blemishes" you see on a film presentation after one run through a properly aligned film projector. I defy you to successfully find anything wrong with the print. Platter scratches, reflector burns and even the dust you mention comes from "film done wrong" setup

Firstly my comments are generally aimed at the fact that film is done wrong in far too many places. I am personally very lucky to work for a company that takes on screen sound and picture very seriously. Its a guest in our house approach from what is a very large family buisness. As I look at companies that I once worked for, I see that the once professional role as projectionst is no more and standards are non existant, This does indeed make me sad. Cinema is all about the experience. That is were the money is.

To answer your question, the wear is the stuff I clean out of the projector after each run. Its a simple concept that all analoge mediums suffer from, It all adds up over time. As a person who worked in reportory cinema for many years, before that market died, I can tell you that I ran many prints that looked very worn or were damaged and they were not necesarly old.

quote:
Film certainly has its advantages, but mostly in production not neceserally in the final release.

Digital can not duplicate the contrast that's possible on 35mm release prints.

quote: Cameron Glendinning Some chains being far too dark ect.

Maybe I missed how digital projectors are going to fix that. Can you explain for me?

Mark, 1/ How many candy bar operators clean their ports and lenses twice weekly? Just because film has potential for greater contrast does not mean that majority of the audience actually sees it.

2/ A fresh start

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Disney's Beauty and the Beast for over six months (five shows a day * 30 days a month * six months = 900 shows), and in the early days, it was interlocked, and it left our theater in practically mint condition.

The word practically, if it was in digital it would have left your theatre in exactly the same condition.

Do you think that that happened at all the cinemas that ran that film? Lets try to look at the bigger picture, Opinions in this forum are coming from professional projectionists, in cinemas that take pride in what they are doing, In this situation film is the best option. Not all companies are like this. I can name two chains of cinema in my area who have such bad presentation on so many levels that Digital would be a huge step forward for there suffering audience.

quote:
I can not blame them for thinking digital will create a new much more consistant standard.

It will do that, but it will also lower the standard, which is pretty sad. How about doing something to RAISE the standard experience to something that can not be duplicated very easily in the home?

Totally agree raising the standards is what I would like to see, Ive been accused of being a showscan fanboy simply for sugesting that film could be sped up to a higher frame rate. The return of 70mm would get me pretty excited but alas I do not think it will happen.

My issue is with some cinema owners and upper management who have degraded the cinema experience, not only with poor staffing and equipment, but terrible venues. I'm assuming over the next few years as HD takes hold, quality will finally take on a market force roll, many poor quality cinemas will close simply because the more discerning audience will have a better experience at home! Quality venues with professional staff I suspect will give people a reason to leave the home.

I agree that in principle that we should wait until digital exceeds the standards of 35mm before moving over. For cinemas that take a professional stance with 35mm, they will be able to wait and I'm sure could save perhaps hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars on obsolete digital projectors. But the others have put themselves in a place were they should switch today! so that they can have a future.

As for Rick McCallum, lets not shoot the messenger, he does have a valid point to make of this inconsistant industry as a whole.

[ 03-23-2007, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Cameron Glendinning ]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-23-2007, 10:21 PM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Firstly my comments are generally aimed at the fact that film is done wrong in far too many places.

And that's the worst problem about the "digital versus film" argument. The people promoting "digital" always compare their product against "film done wrong" and never up against "film done right." If "digital" is truly so much better, why not compare it against film run in its best light? Normally when different products are compared against each other, both are compared at their best levels to gain the more accurate, telling result.

quote: Cameron Glendinning
To answer your question, the wear is the stuff I clean out of the projector after each run. Its a simple concept that all analoge mediums suffer from, It all adds up over time.

Are you using film cleaners or Film Guard? You shouldn't be getting much of anything building up in the projector at all if you're using either. Definitely not if you're using both.

quote: Cameron Glendinning
As for Rick McCallum, lets not shoot the messenger, he does have a valid point to make of this inconsistant industry as a whole.

He's not the "messenger." He's more like a salesman for digital projection technology. Guys like him, George Lucas and a few others in the movie business also have vested interests in the success of digital cinema. There's a lot of money to be made, particularly in how it filters over into the home theater and computer end of consumer electronics. Naturally, the politics and spin come along for the ride.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-23-2007, 10:58 PM:

This whole talk about the effects of 3000+ passes is beyond the scope of the average operation.

A chain house is going to run a print, on average, maybe 5 times a day over maybe 3 or 4 weeks. That's more like 140 passes before the print goes to (maybe) a couple of sub-run houses for another 7-28 passes... or so. Even extended runs with today's wide releases aren't going to put an AVERAGE print under the stress we used to put on an acetate film, back not too many years ago.

If the average print gets maybe 200 shows, and the booth operation is reasonably professional, then there's no excuse for the print not going back in near-mint condition. That an extreme case CAN hold up over thousands of runs just reinforces what film is capable of, handled properly.

For those of us who do use Film Guard, the result is an added bonus that I now wouldn't do without.

I put on a fine show with my aged, old film machines, and my reputation is just fine, thank you very much.

For me, the issues surrounding digital are nearly all about money, reliability and longevity of the technology. You can talk about the price of milk and cookies going up all you want, but we're not talking about a few bucks worth of food. Digital is damned expensive. Go buy a theatre, live within its economy for a couple of years, then see how glib you are about whether we're screwing the customer by not mortgaging our lives for this stuff.

[ 03-24-2007, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Jack Ondracek ]

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 03-24-2007, 12:38 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Are you using film cleaners or Film Guard? You shouldn't be getting much of anything building up in the projector at all if you're using either. Definitely not if you're using both.

This cinema is equiped with Kodak approved PTRs, I personally find that they simply move the speckles around and no match for filmguard which I use to use at the rep cinema before it closed. umm which brings me back to how many cinemas worldwide use film guard?

Jack I enjoyed your common sense post, Is your cinema in the photos section?

As for filmmakers who have horror stories about cinemas, Rick McCallum is not alone, pretty much all Directors, Sound mixers and Directors of Photography that I have meet seem to have a few nightmare stories.

Personally having shot a 35mm cinema ad campain for one of australias largest beer makers a few years ago, I have first hand experience having seen this with my own eyes and ears. What I saw and heard at the lab was fantastic, what I experienced at the different cinemas it played at, was usually not nearly as good. There are however several cinemas that were very good [thumbsup]

although in the minority.

Filmmakers simply want people to enjoy their films, but when it plays in a mono screen, If the picture is dark. If the print as dirty, scratched, or miss framed, its simply not the same film they made! If it had happened to you, you would understand exactly what Rick is on about.

George Lucus at least tried to do something about the piss poor sound qualities of cinemas that he noticed on his Star Wars release. So different an experience to the mixing suite he employed Thomas Holeman to come up with an answer.

I too sat in the very same mixing suite 14 years later when it was sold to Australias colorfilm lab. I was on school work experience and had already worked in 3 cinemas as part time jobs. It was obvious to me that I had never heard any cinema ever sound so good, I could not believe that cinemas were not taking advantage of this experience. I was told by the sound mixers that THX would save the day. Eight years later, when it was clear that THX was only ever going to be installed in one screen in Sydney ever! That I would try to do something about it with the help of a friend who had a lifetime of experience in film audio. I am still in debt today because cinemas owners generally just dont care even to their own detrament!

quote: Bobby Henderson
And that's the worst problem about the "digital versus film" argument. The people promoting "digital" always compare their product against "film done wrong" and never up against "film done right.

I think with over 30 years of film being done wrong more than right, I can see why filmmakers have given up. Films are now made in computers, not on flatbeds. Digital is a natural next step.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Maybe I missed how digital projectors are going to fix that. Can you explain for me?

umm Digital will never be scratched, dirty, projected out of frame, wear out and consistant even light output. Cinema maintainance of the bio box would be cleaning the ports and lens only. umm sounds better to me than ex mcdonalds staff working with 35mm.

The problem is cinema owners not 35mm by nature.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-24-2007, 01:01 AM:

There is one issue that I have seen that is a problem. Convergence of the chips. This problem concerns me because it looks worse and more distracting than a scratch in the picture. It just looks terrible, Green in letters and anything white like gray hairs and peoples faces on the edges. The image also looks jittery on fast motion scenes that I don't notice on 35mm stuff.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-24-2007, 01:54 AM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
As for filmmakers who have horror stories about cinemas, Rick McCallum is not alone, pretty much all Directors, Sound mixers and Directors of Photography that I have meet seem to have a few nightmare stories.

That argument still doesn't wash. Just because some or even most projectionists are projecting film carelessly by no means proves digital projection is definitely better than film. It's not an indictment of the entire film projection process on the whole. Instead, it's a shaky argument loaded with spin.

quote: Cameron Glendinning
George Lucus at least tried to do something about the piss poor sound qualities of cinemas that he noticed on his Star Wars release. So different an experience to the mixing suite he employed Thomas Holeman to come up with an answer.

And look at what's happened with that.

Despite the original intentions of the THX program and the arrival of digital sound playback formats in 1990-93 much of the commercial movie theater industry has sub-par quality sound, due largely to lack of maintenance and poor auditorium design. It's not enough for the audio track on the film print or in the Doremi server to be "digital." There's more to audio playback than that.

That's also what has me ultimately worried about digital projection. There's even more elements in the booth that have to be maintained in digital projection than film. You have what amounts to an enterprise-class networking situation installed in the theater booth. Lots of things in that chain of equipment can break. On top of that, the digital projector still has a lamphouse that can burn out just as fast as any film projection lamp.

Right now, Christie and AccessIT are pretty aggressive at contacting every theater installation, making routine visits, checking lamp life and all sorts of other stuff. I don't think they mess with the audio end of things however. Nevertheless they seem to be doing more on the system maintenance end than the average theater chain would do otherwise with regular film projection. What happens if times get tough? How are these digital projection systems going to look when the lamp is well past its normal lifespan? What's going to happen when a critical piece of equipment goes down and has the screen dark?

quote: Cameron Glendinning
think with over 30 years of film being done wrong more than right, I can see why filmmakers have given up. Films are now made in computers, not on flatbeds. Digital is a natural next step.

Not true. Most movies are still shot on film. That's because the very best video cameras still pale in comparison to 35mm movie camera systems, even average ones. They don't capture as much detail and don't control color as well either. Fundamentally, they don't record anything similar to the "film look," and that appearance of "film" has to be added in post production through lots of digital processing or the clumsy method of copying the video to a film strip. Film cameras are still going to be involved in producing movies for quite some time to come.

What happens after the movie is shot is another subject. Some retain the film-based work flow from film camera to film projector. A growing number are scanned and colorized using a 2K resolution digital intermediate. Once the movie goes into that image resolution bottleneck you might as well show it on a 2K digital projection system. Any other native image detail the movie formerly had is now lost, all thanks to "good enough" standards on production and lack of desire on the part of studios to raise the quality bar anytime soon. Sony seems to be the only one embracing the 4K standard at all, but that seems in part from self interest to promote its own 4K digital projection system.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-24-2007, 02:24 AM:

Cameron why do you make a point to say that FilmGuard is not Kodak approved but PTR rollers are? Screw Kodak. They make great film stocks, but don't look to what they approve and what they don't as a guideline for what should be done to keep prints looking good. They are film stock gods, not projection booth gods. It sounds like you know that, though. I'm no salesman, but I don't think a Kodak endorsement would result in a huge boom in sales for FilmGuard. You'd still have to get around the people who are in charge of purchasing who think "We've never used this stuff before and everything looks fine to me and I don't want to spend more money because I am a great manager and I like to keep my spending low".

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-24-2007, 11:27 AM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Is your cinema in the photos section?

No, but our web site is in my profile.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 03-24-2007, 02:22 PM:

If a theatre wont spend money to change Xenon lamps regularly in thier 35mm machines why do you think they will spend the money to change them in thier DLP machines more often?

If a theatre doesnt clean thier lenses and port windows regularly now why do you think they will do it when they install DLP?

If a theatre has poor sound now, underpowered amplifiers and innapropriate loud speakers do you think they will replace them all for DLP?

A theatre that has a bad on screen presentation with 35mm film will have bad on screen presentation with DLP. If people want a better experience and a better higher reslution image why dont they install all 70mm machines and print all releases in 70mm? That would provide a better image, and better resolutiond. Unfortunately the same issues noted above would still be there. The only way to fix this industry is to spend money on proper repair and maintenance, and hire qualified caring staff to operate the equipment.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 03-24-2007, 02:40 PM:

Sean is right. This is the blind spot of most "film vs digital" discussions, and for a good reason: Why should theatres/chains that do not care about presentation quality and maintenance of equipment behave different when it comes to digital?

I am afraid that it might in fact become worse: If an underpaid projectionist creates damage, it will remain unless the show has to be cancelled. A film print can be replaced, a worn print will be gone in a few weeks, the next movie is a new print. A new chip will cost thousands of dollars to replace, even if prices come down a bit.

The element that carries the picture is replaced every time a new movie arrives. With digital, I will not be surprised to see "fried" chips with discolourings and other defects - why should people who cannot detect a flickering xenon bulb or adjust lamphouse settings be alarmed when the cooling system does not work properly any more.

Some people will say the equipment can be made foolproof. I never saw a piece of foolproof equipment because fools (especially underpaid fools) are so inventive. So instead of seeing platter scratches one week and a new print the next week, I will see the same faults until the whole thing breaks down and no tickets can be sold.

Despite all complaints about presentation problems, I must say that during the last ten years I had to complain less and less about dirt and scratches in standard multiplex theatres around here, I suppose because most new booths are air conditioned and kept clean (compared with most old style booths). Print quality is what brings 35mm presentations down (lack of sharpness and steadiness), not dirt & scratches.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-24-2007, 04:51 PM:

When it comes to DLP chips, the biggest threat to them is dead pixels. If you get a dead pixel, it's going to be an obvious black dot on the screen, or one of the three primary colors (red, green or blue) stuck in the "on" position.

On film projection, there's a number of variables involved. Print quality is one. IMHO, the adoption of 2K digital intermediate methods on the part of many film productions has degraded 35mm print quality down from its best possible levels. The image quality can be only so good when it merely has 2048 X 858 or 1998 X 1080 pixels of native detail from which to work.

The make of film projector and the kind of lenses used is another highly critical factor. Cheap lenses aren't going to throw a very good image onto the screen. A cheap projector isn't going to control image steadiness and fight problems like picketing and sideweave nearly as well as a good quality projector.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-24-2007, 06:36 PM:

Cameron sez

quote: Cameron Glendinning
umm Digital will never be scratched, dirty, projected out of frame, wear out and consistant even light output. Cinema maintainance of the bio box would be cleaning the ports and lens only. umm sounds better to me than ex mcdonalds staff working with 35mm.

Umm, if ex Mcdonalds staff did all that to 35mm, then how do you expect them to graduate to A+ level with digital? If they treat their film setup like shit, chances are they'll do the same with digital, and while there'll be no scratches or dirt, there could be other problems.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-24-2007, 07:52 PM:

That's right, xenons will NEVER get dim in digital projectors. They will be consistent at all times every time no matter what.

Cameron... ah never mind.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-24-2007, 08:04 PM:

Don't most digital installations come with a maintenance agreement that would replace a worn-out bulb? That seems like a no brainer to insist on.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-24-2007, 08:51 PM:

Christie and AccessIT have such a maintenance agreement on their Carmike installations.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 03-25-2007, 08:58 AM:

I wonder if some many nice looking business & service models will be available after enough people have trashed their 35mm equipment. As soon as theatres have no alternative any more and distributors have reached their goal of saving money on prints & shipping, they need no way to encourage theatres any more, and the actual cost of keeping the show running will become visible.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-25-2007, 01:13 PM:

In Carmike's case many of their theaters don't have the 35mm equipment "trashed." The old projectors and consoles are typically left up in the booth. It's at least physically possible for theaters to get converted back to film projection (where the film projection was not left intact). Why Carmike hasn't tried to sell a lot of the old, unused equipment, I don't know. It would certainly seem like they could get some decent money for all those DTS and Dolby Digital processors they're no longer using.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-25-2007, 07:10 PM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Mark, 1/ How many candy bar operators clean their ports and lenses twice weekly? Just because film has potential for greater contrast does not mean that majority of the audience actually sees it.

Sooo... they will be cleaned more often with digital projectors? The ones that do clean their ports and lenses on a regular basis will actually LOSE contrast on their presentations. The ones who don't... will also lose contrast, just not as much.

quote: Cameron Glendinning
The word practically, if it was in digital it would have left your theatre in exactly the same condition.

Not to quibble, but if it was digital it wouldn't have left our theater at all. It would have been deleted. And I said "practically" because it left with splices on the heads and tails. Other than that, it was in the same pristine shape it was in when we received it.

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Do you think that that happened at all the cinemas that ran that film?

It absolutely did not. But this idea that it's ok to lower *MY* presentation and make *MY* audiences' experience a little bit worse just because the retards down the street don't know how to put on a good show is somewhat offensive to me.

Maybe what Hollywood should have done is stop sending movies to theaters with sub-par presentations. Or maybe they should have just threatened to. Maybe that would have fixed everything.

I wonder... would it have been cheaper to install brand new 35mm projectors in every theater in the country? That would have temporarily solved the bad presentation problem the same way that the brand new digital projectors are going to temporarily solve it. But then at least those of us that care, but don't always have the backing of our corporate bean counters, would have gotten a presentation upgrade instead of a downgrade.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-26-2007, 08:37 AM:

I know on the Barco projectors it is possible to have constant light output throughout the life of the lamp. It can constantly make adjustments to the lamp current (and keep it within its range) to ensure that once set, it will keep it there.

This could be done with film projectors though it would be somewhat harder.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-26-2007, 11:56 AM:

Yes, but what happens when the service life of the lamp is effectively over? As things are, many theatres routinely run their lamps to double or even triple the manufacturer's recommended hours, rotating the bulb and adjusting the current to get every last hour out of them. In some of the less reputable venues I could mention, the thing has to either (i) blow up, or (ii) be flickering like a demented candle before they're willing to replace it. Presumably the computer controlled adjustment systems in the lamphouses of digital projectors incorporate an hour counter, and after its burnt the guaranteed hours (or some set interval programmed into the firmware), will simply refuse to strike and generate a fault code until the lamp is replaced. Even if this is overridden then presumably no further adjustments will be made, as the software won't be programmed with how to nurse a lamp through an extra few hundred hours.

So will this mean that the transition to digital will result in better illumination in the average theatre, or will operators find ways of circumventing automatic lamp adjustment systems and carry on running their bulbs into the ground as before?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-26-2007, 03:45 PM:

The service contracts usually include routine lamp replacement, and I think it works to prevent any management from trying to use a lamp well past its recommended life span.

Regardless of whether a movie theater has digital or film projection, a greater level of quality control is definitely needed, more than what I think most theater chains have been providing for the past several years or so. Some of that greater attention on maintenance is happening with digital projection installations due to the nature of the service contracts on that complicated, expensive equipment.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 03-26-2007, 08:12 PM:

quote: Mike Heenan
Umm, if ex Mcdonalds staff did all that to 35mm, then how do you expect them to graduate to A+ level with digital?

Personally in the far future, I see the bio box as being staff free, the computer in the managers office will control the signage and the servers upstairs, maintainence will be outsourced and the ports will never be cleaned! (perhaps I should reinvent windscreen wipers as an automated daily multiplex port cleaner system)
Thankfully I see this change taking many many years but ultimatly unemployment for me.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Regardless of whether a movie theater has digital or film projection, a greater level of quality control is definitely needed, more than what I think most theater chains have been providing for the past several years or so

absolutely, Mark J Marshall has some great examples of the standards that film should and can be! please keep up the good work

quote: Joe Redifer
Cameron why do you make a point to say that FilmGuard is not Kodak approved but PTR rollers are? Screw Kodak.

I only make the point because I think its inane. I think Filmguard gives film a definite advantage over digital. It should be Kodaks best friend.

I do have a bottle of filmguard in the box. I find that I only use it on the ads though as they generally have the most wear and tear, my current situation is a little unusual. I work in a large old twin (arthouse), we on average only have a print for a few weeks before they are moved on to smaller screens in the area. The chain I work for takes film very seriously, great gear, great prints (or they are sent back) experienced staff (3 of us have over 20 years experience each), some say we are an example of film done right.
Dispite the downturn in business the company is investing in the future by refurbishing its venues, by adding bars, cafes and a new look to create a more fine dinning style of experience.

My personal view on Rick McCallum was based on a 45 minute conversation with him in my projection room whist I was running c/o's. He was very complementry of the standards that that cinema had, both in picture and sound, and simply lamented that not all cinemas were of the same standard. If I hadn't meet him I would probably shared your views.

Now I have only ever been to one cinema in the US. It was in 1994 at a 16 plex in New Jersy somewhere near to Margate where I was staying. I was shocked at how bad the experience was, dark image and muffled mono sound in a dirty auditorium. For me, not a great first impression and we all know that you, no mater what industry, never get a second chance to make a great first impression. I wish I had found myself at Jack Ondracek's Drive in, now that would be a cool first impression.

The big difference between now and 1994 thanks to both DVD and HD is that people probably will not blame the movie anymore but finally the venue!

quote: Bobby
Despite the original intentions of the THX program and the arrival of digital sound playback formats in 1990-93 much of the commercial movie theater industry has sub-par quality sound, due largely to a lack of maintenance and poor auditorium design

I do not disagree with you about what THX means today, But historically it did create a shift in both audience expectations and a marked improvement or focus for cinemas to achieve, which I do believe created an overall improvement from before it was established.

[ 03-26-2007, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Cameron Glendinning ]