quote:

---

But my war is over, my side lost, and it's important to consider this in the real world.

---

quote: David M. Leugers

---

It is like my mind knows I am watching a big TV show

---

I would think your mind would know it's not TV by the fact that there's no "bugs" in the bottom corners of the screen, or no commercials interrupting the show, or the fact that the picture is 50 feet wide, etc.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-03-2011, 08:06 PM:
 

quote: Jesse Skeen

---

but I did see the screen door effect on two of them

---

quote:

---

I would think your mind would know it's not TV by the fact that there's no "bugs" in the bottom corners of the screen, or no commercials interrupting the show, or the fact that the picture is 50 feet wide, etc. [Smile]

---

Yeah and who are these strangers, and this is not my room, and that is not my beautiful wife, this not my wonderful life... letting the days go by....same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-03-2011, 09:59 PM:
 
Na na na, Monty -- CRT three gun technology did NOT suffer from screen door effect; that was purely the LCD technology that us that nasty video artifax. The old three tube systems may have had a number of anomolies that would let you know you weren't watching film, but screen-door effect wasn't one of them.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-03-2011, 10:44 PM:
 
that's what it was, Frank .. that LCD stuff .. forgot about them..thx for the correction.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-04-2011, 11:45 PM:
 
I am glad Ebert finally admitted thast film is done. He also did the correct thing by stating that 70mm is no longer "viable" according to the studios. He also mentions watching movies online which is very telling.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 11-05-2011, 12:52 AM:
 

quote: Tom Petrov

---

I am glad Ebert finally admitted thast film is done. He also did the correct thing by stating that 70mm is no longer "viable" according to the studios. He also mentions watching movies online which is very telling.

---

quote: Robert E. Allen

---

Now Tom, why does that make you feel better? Is it a "score one for my generation" thing? Remember, there are still thousands of theatres around the world running film.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

(but not better)

---

quote: Sam D. Chavez

---

As I said, clueless.

His health issues are common knowledge and it is a tribute to him and technology he can work at all.

I would suggest you do some reading.

---

I suggest you do some reading and stop discriminating about his disability which has no affect whatsoever on whether he watches a movie at home, the theatre or wherever.

This is what he said

I watch as many movies on TV as most people

He cannot speak. How that have any affect on watching a movie?
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 11-05-2011, 10:38 AM:
 
Here is what Mr. Ebert said about 70mm, exactly:

We've shown a lot of restored 70mm prints at Ebertfest, and they look breathtaking. But 70mm is no longer a viable format. (When any industry says a format is "no longer viable", that means "it may be better, but it costs too much.")

A difficulty with assertions like this is that for many years, the industry - and audiences - had no difficulty paying for the far more expensive IMAX DMR format. Often, "Not viable" means "Not interested"
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-05-2011, 10:45 AM:
 
Tom, wake up and show some respect. Don't post on this thread again.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-05-2011, 11:12 AM:
 
I don't think Ebert's health necessarily had much to do with the current stance. Sure, him saying that he sees movies on his TV as much as anyone else might make it seem like he's primarily watching them at home due to his health, but remember that he still likely watches more movies in theaters than the average person, given his career.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-05-2011, 12:51 PM:
 
For new, regular Hollywood feature movies, there isn't much point to projecting them on film since the original finished product is typically a 2K resolution set of files on hard discs. Digital projection is going to show that digital file more faithfully than a 35mm high speed release print dub of the file.

If the movie is shot on film and post produced in an entirely film-in/film-out process then it would be better to see it projected on film. Few if any feature films use the old school method anymore. Maybe Ebert has become all too aware of this.

I posted a couple comments in Ebert's blog entry, bringing up a pet peeve of mine: videographers calling themselves "filmmakers" and their footage "digital film." It's a bunch of pretentious bullshit. Like I said in Ebert's blog, if they're going to kill off film no one making movies should be allowed to use the term "film" to describe what they're doing. They're shooting video. Not film.
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-05-2011, 01:03 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

Tom, wake up and show some respect. Don't post on this thread again.

---

Thank you for saying that Brad, you saved me the rant. Perhaps Mr. Petrov should get a little vacation from our luxury resort.

I have also conceded defeat in this conversion....I may be crossing over to the dark side soon as well.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-05-2011, 01:49 PM:
 
And it's also no longer "footage" either if you're shooting on digital...
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-05-2011, 04:13 PM:
 
Why do we measure the width in mm but the length in feet?
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-05-2011, 04:48 PM:
 
Sounds like an Andy Rooney kind of question.
 

---

Posted by Doug Willming (Member # 728) on 11-05-2011, 07:52 PM:
 
I myself I have not read a post from Tom Petrov that adds anything of value or enlightenment and would prefer he be blocked from this forum.
 

---

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-05-2011, 10:09 PM:
 
Without defending the merits of his posts on other topics, I have to get Tom's back on this one. Sam made a point about Ebert's health affecting his judgment about the issue of film, and Tom called him on it.

Had Sam actually read the article, he would have noted that Ebert has actually been one of the supporters of film and he was basically acknowledging the reality of the marketplace.

In this case, Tom was not out of line.
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-05-2011, 10:19 PM:
 
Edit.

I see Justin posted as I was writing. As I feared, my comments were not well understood and this is on me.

I was trying to comment with some sarcasm to Tom's comment about Roger Ebert seeing most of his movies on line these days and this struck me as clueless as of course Mr. Ebert's life has changed due to his health issues but certainly not his judgement or style.

Please read on.

In reviewing my previous posts on this thread it occurs to me that my comment about Karma, Tom and the low rent facility could be read as directed at Roger Ebert due my poor sentence construction.

I have been in Ebert's company many times over the years at the Telluride Film Festival and have nothing but admiration for his work and how he carries on. He does love his work and his own story is quite compelling.

I apologize for any impression I may have left to the contrary.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-06-2011, 12:03 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

For new, regular Hollywood feature movies, there isn't much point to projecting them on film since the original finished product is typically a 2K resolution set of files on hard discs. Digital projection is going to show that digital file more faithfully than a 35mm high speed release print dub of the file.

If the movie is shot on film and post produced in an entirely film-in/film-out process then it would be better to see it projected on film. Few if any feature films use the old school method anymore.

---

I think Christopher Nolan is, but don't quote me on that.

I agree though: a 2K DI isn't really going to look much better on film if it's 2K in and out. Honestly though, I just want to see the movie whichever way a given director sees as "proper". That's why I was pissed at James Cameron for not deciding on a single aspect ratio for Avatar. I even have a little beef with Christopher Nolan on the Dark Knight over the same issue, but forgive him because he chose to shoot on IMAX.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 11-06-2011, 06:02 AM:
 
Whilst agreeing re. the poor 2K standard for theatrical presentation, at least film projection from a 2K source provides a different viewing experience over video and avoids / remediates problems with the latter that are often expressed (flatness, continuous image display, lack of emotional engagement, viewing fatigue).
 

---

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 11-06-2011, 07:50 PM:
 
This is very sad to hear, I myself do agree that film will likely live on in some small way for many, many years to come. Given the low cost to obtain reasonably good 35mm equipment Im sure that some die hard might put on in their own home and occasionally watch a good old celluloid print just for the nostalgia. Plus Im sure many countries like the US have extensive 35/70mm prints that will be kept indefinably and one can only hope that will be shown every so often...
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-08-2011, 01:46 PM:
 
Why am I not surprised that Justin thinks Tom is right?

Sam, the intent of your post was clear to everyone, no need to apologize.

Jake, you are spot on. I am keeping one projector setup for my own use, and who knows, it may end up being pressed into emergency service when some local venue gets caught with its 35mm (or digital) pants down on a critical show.

UC Irvine will be keeping its two 35mm facilities operational well into the future, or at least until I'm dead.
 

---

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-08-2011, 02:10 PM:
 
Tony, thanks you for the personally disparaging comment. Nothing like going negative on a person for expressing their opinion. However, if you read my comment again you will see that I was not supporting Tom for his views on the death of film but rather for his comments calling out Sam for suggesting Ebert's health has affected his opinion on the issue.

After re-reading Sam's comment, I can see this isn't what he meant, but his wording makes it easy to mis-interpret.

For what it's worth, I have never intended to indicate I think film should completely go away in all instances. My stance has always been that film is not the best option for the average multiplex, for a variety of reasons, now that there is a viable alternative. While digital does present a host of new issues to the industry, I firmly believe the average presentation at the average multiplex will be better and more consistent than with film.
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-08-2011, 02:53 PM:
 
Thanks Justin,

I knew after re-reading my own post that it could be taken another way, and there was also the post that got locked down that mentioned bringing attention to someone's health being as being low down.

It's not like this is the first time my mouth got me into trouble.

The part of one of Tom's posts that made my blood boil was Tom's comment, wildly paraphrased "so he can't talk, what's the issue"
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-08-2011, 03:57 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

Tom, wake up and show some respect. Don't post on this thread again.

---

Or even better, go away permanently.

Tom has shown time and time again he is not capable of showing respect to anyone.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-08-2011, 04:10 PM:
 
I, myself agree with that digital has to be in this new era of the industry.

Granted, the lot of us here know how to run film correctly and properly, but unfortunately, the typical managers and employees working in the cinema don't have the clue what is "proper" and "correct" on handling film presentations.

For these people, film handling is a definite pain in the neck to handle - it actually overwhelms them..and with the pay they get, they see what the dollar value that goes with the job..making them say: "why should I care?"

..and now, they are crying on how to make the job simpler.

Now, you got a server and projector. Injest the content in the server, build the playlist (takes 5 min) and save it, hit "Play" and walk away...pretty easy to get the job done (and some are doing LMS injests and autostarts to really make the job simple).

Guess who wins now: the owners and managers since they got the other half of the business down to a simple form and no worries on mechanical/electronic breakdowns - they definitely don't miss film.

It's what they really need .. and want, to stay in business.
 

---

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 11-08-2011, 10:33 PM:
 
Projection has been simplified, yes, but the other challenges of running the multi-screen monstrosities stand out more now that my attention has been diverted toward them.
Roger Ebert is a very good writer. He may get some of the facts wrong now and then, but he has the knack of stringing sentences together which is lacking in modern times.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-09-2011, 02:56 PM:
 

quote: James Westbrook

---

Roger Ebert is a very good writer. He may get some of the facts wrong now and then, but he has the knack of stringing sentences together which is lacking in modern times.

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Granted, the lot of us here know how to run film correctly and properly, but unfortunately, the typical managers and employees working in the cinema don't have the clue what is "proper" and "correct" on handling film presentations.

---