my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Wrong-headed logic concerning digital projection

Author Topic: Wrong-headed logic concerning digital projection John T. Hendrickson, Jr Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 889 From: Freehold, NJ, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-27-2003 04:35 PM                     At one time or another, all of us have had to scream for a replacement reel, or in a worst case senario, a replacement print, be it a lab error or an example of film done wrong by a pervious exhibitor. I recently heard a comment by someone in the industry (who shall go unnamed) who said: "Oh, you shouldn't bother the distributors about damaged or improperly printed prints and reels. That just makes their case for going to digital projection." Well, this old bull saw red!! I replied that if that is their justification for pushing digital, then we are all in trouble. Granted, this is one of many arguments used to push digital. So... do you mean to tell me that we should all screw our patrons with rotten presentation so the studios will not push the digital argument? Excuse me, but I further replied to this wrong-headed logic that if the studios think they are going to get a trouble-free presentation simply because they are converting to digital, they are sadly mistaken. Is it really about the presentation folks, or is it just about the $$$$$$. Rant over. Your comments??  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-27-2003 04:42 PM                     the bottom line is the bottom line but the bottom can be reached very quickly with a bad presentation  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-27-2003 05:01 PM                     I always demand replacement reels, even if the fault was on our end. While it is my belief that someone somewhere in distribution is indeed keeping a mental tally of these kinds of things with every intention of (re)mounting the case for dCinema, I do not see this as any reason to hide (or ignore) the fact that a reel needs to be replaced. Rest assured, there will be defective DVD-ROM's, too. Defective DVDs will then fuel the need to move on to the next phase -- distribution via satellite transmission.  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 12-27-2003 06:45 PM                    Until a huge Thunderstorm passes thru as you are trying to download the big next harry potter adventure. Causing data coruption in the sat signal. It really has nothing to do with film damage. It is all in the cost savings of not having to print all those reels. Hollywood distributors could really care less about print quality. If they did they would demand that all reels were inspected closely and replaced if needed before sending them to other theaters. That is what scares me and why I will not accept DCinema in it's curent stages because I fear that they will want to standardize everything at levels that are just not acceptable to the paying customers in reguards to picture quality. We all must do our part in making sure that we maintain our films and request replacement reels if they are deffective or damaged even if it requires the wallet to be pulled out to pay for the reel.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-28-2003 02:35 AM                     I don't think the dCinema standard will be locked down to where it is today. Not for long, anyway. Like all digital technology, there will be upgrades. The designers will see to that -- it's their meal ticket. When the industry moved from silent to sound, didn't theatres have to upgrade? When 70mm, CinemaScope, 3D and the 1.85 ratio were introduced, didn't changes have to be made? Isn't digital audio becoming something of a "must have" item? What about all those red LED's as a result of cyan tracks? There has always been retooling. Similarly, I think that the dCinema standard will continue to evolve. We'd have to upgrade, just like we've always done. A resolution bump would be akin to what happend in the past when 35mm theatres opted to upgrade in order to accomodate 70mm. BTW I don't recall the phenomenon of "rain fade" affecting the old C-Band dishes so not *all* satellite technology is adversely affected by thunderstorms. I think "rain fade" came in with the little DSS dishes. Back to those dCinema upgrades. I think we could look forward to significant (but optional) resolution bumps biannually. Thing is, they'd have to make today's releases with that in mind. I said it in that other thread and I'll repeat it here: Production should stick to using film until the digital capture technology can match or exceed that. Yeah, yeah...I know...I can already hear some of you "believers" ready to chime in... But there's always 65mm... What am I going to do with you's !?  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 12-28-2003 04:36 AM                        I'm with Manny on this. We don't hesitate to order replacement reels when we find something we don't like. Last year, I ordered two for a single print of LOTR. They were supplied overnight without question. As others have said elsewhere on this board, the huge number of prints that the labs have to turn out in short order is bound to create a few bad reels, and I guess I can accept that... to a point, so long as individual issues can be addressed quickly. I have no problem ordering replacements, nor do I see any correlation between this issue and digital in any way. I think we should have every expectation that the quality of the reels we receive are as high as possible. Accordingly, I remain barely tolerant of studio splices. Having fully converted to digital sound only helps a little, as I now have utmost sympathy for anyone playing these prints in analog. The fact that these splices have an aggravating habit of landing in the middle of the frame doesn't help any, either! ... and you do NOT want to get me started on those damned non-Kodak cap codes!  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-28-2003 12:15 PM                     quote: I don't think the dCinema standard will be locked down to where it is today. Not for long, anyway. Like all digital technology, there will be upgrades. Unfortunately, the "upgrades" for video-based projection systems will not keep pace with developments on home consumer electronics. And any levels of superiority achieved in commercial projection systems will be rapidly deployed in the home. Widespread installation of video-based projectors in commercial theaters will actually help decrease ticket sales thanks to no technological edge over the home. Just look at the situation now. With a good HD home setup and D-VHS machine you can watch HDTV 1080i videotapes with better image sharpness than any DLP show. Not to mention, companies like Fox are now introducing D-Theater titles with DD tracks encoded at 576kb/s to 640kb/s and DTS tracks at 1509kb/s, all well above the theatrical standards that don't even match the bitrates used on DVD. The numbers game is a big thing in marketing all things digital. The commercial video systems just don't have the numbers to keep an edge above the home at all. That's the biggest argument for sticking with film until some video system comes along that is both better than the best 35mm shows and impossible to use in a home theater setup. [ 12-28-2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-28-2003 12:45 PM                        Manny said: quote: When 70mm, CinemaScope, 3D and the 1.85 ratio were introduced, didn't changes have to be made? Yes indeed, but the big difference in these technological "leaps" is that they benefited BOTH exhibition and the studios, mainly in that they each caught the imagination of the public....they offered something tangible that the public saw as desirable, and the bottom line of that was that they lured more butts into more seats. Both halves of the industry reaped the monetary rewards of increased box office. On the other hand, the "upgrade" from a film-based technology to a video-based technology offers nothing new to the public (yeah, yeah, all that hype about a steadier picture -- as if the public won't go to the theatres because film isn;t steady enough for them). Fact is, that until Deee-Cinema can present some spectacular, immediately apparent improvement over what the public gets now from what film offers in picture and sound, digital will never move ahead to usurp film's dominance. The public will only demand digital because they see it as a MUCH better format. And just slapping the word "digital" on the marquee will never be enough to draw them into the theatre if when they go in, they see and hear nothing more that what they have always seen and heard. So if you take the pubic out of the equation (thus negating the exhibitor's reason to buy into it) then digital technology becomes a purely internal economic move within the industry -- who gains, who looses. If the savings that digital affords the distributor in print and shipping costs were somehow passed on to the exhibitor and the added cost of yearly maintenance plus the electrical consumption costs (it takes a 7000w xenon into a digital nano-mirror module to light a 40ft screen while it only takes a 2000w xenon through a film frame to light the same size screen) were somehow SHARED with the distributor, then MAYBE there might be a chance for this technology to penetrate the market in a significant way, regardless of its impact (or not) on the public. Comparisons to technology conversions to things like silent to sound, B&W to color, 1.37:1 to Cinerama or Todd-AO or CinemaScope, mono to surround stereo, are all pretty much meaningless because digital offers nothing that dramatic or that compelling for the public, so it's only the economics of it that will drive the change; without a new economic model, the move to digital will remain as it has so far....totally stagnant.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-28-2003 01:03 PM                     I'm short on time so all I will say for now is that I enjoyed reading your response. I will have to read it again when I have more than just this little moment. I look forward to reading other interesting posts when I return from this...family event...  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 12-28-2003 02:42 PM                    this...family event... Oh God...there are more of him out there!  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.