|
|
Author
|
Topic: NPR drive-in piece
|
|
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/1466.jpg)
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 05-31-2013 06:16 AM
quote: Mike Blakesley I like to think we had a darn good film image here, but I still think the digital picture is better.
Yah... I have to say I've been pulled over to the "dark side" on this one.
5 years ago (or so), I bought into all the grumbling (much of it here), that film was in all ways superior to digital and could never be surpassed by DLP.
Today's DLP may not match film, and if you're looking for that then perhaps you'll never be satisfied. However, considering the elements that I think matter to the average viewer, steady picture, sharp, consistent image and evenly-lit screen, digital is proving to be a suitable substitute. Now that digital is commonplace, the product has become what customers use to compare their experience from one place to another... for better or worse.
(disclaimer)... Brad, and a few of his calibre, were accustomed to getting performance from film that the common folk never did. This opinion is not aimed at his group.
The playing field is no longer level, and likely can never be for film in the future. I do believe that print quality is nothing near what it used to be, but I can't do anything about that. We've been forced to drink the kool-aid, and I, for one, feel myself fortunate that the result at my business is perceptually better than what I had before the change. I was certainly prepared for much less than I got.
The drive-in environment is extreme. To even shoot at what the indoors did with film, we needed the brightest lamps and best lenses. Past that, we needed the most stable projectors, because jitter that might show up in millimeters on an indoor screen was inches or feet on our drive-in ones. Every single flaw was magnified, due to the size of picture we had to paint. Even then, we frequently failed at screen brightness, as you could only push so much energy through a 35mm frame, and we had no access to the gain screens that are commonplace elsewhere. To get an extra fraction of a fL, many of us traded off a bit of ghosting and shaved shutter blades beyond anything an indoor would ever consider.
Considering that relatively few of us paid that kind of obsessive attention to projection detail, the installaton of today's digital is a dramatic advantage.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/26c.jpg)
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 05-31-2013 08:31 PM
quote: Jim Cassedy shortening movie trailers from 2.5 to 2min each
This is part of a set of new "marketing guidelines" being proposed by NATO. It includes some good suggestions, and one really stupid one: The "requirement" that every piece of promotional material should have the release date on it.
This is idiotic for the industry. It just feeds the frenzy of the opening weekend "must see it now," and once the date is passed, it makes a movie seem like "expired goods."
I think multiplexes are missing out on some business by only promoting movies that haven't been released yet. Whatever happened to cross-promotion? Sometimes we play two different movies, and I almost always play the trailer for the early show with the late one.
I don't mind "Coming this summer," or words to that effect but I think they should leave the date OFF the posters and other stuff, and make a small sticky snipe available to add if desired.
For trailers, they already make a gazillion versions anyway with miniscule changes from one to the next, so why not have an "undated" version for use in places that play movies off the break, AND to make the movie not seem "stale" if the trailer is played after the release date has passed.
I can see why the studios would put the date on everything, however misguided; but why in the world is NATO wanting to require that? I wrote to David Binet at NATO last week asking about this, and have had no reply.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|