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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » I'm curious to know why many on Film-Tech seem to be so negative on digital cinema (Page 1)

This topic comprises 18 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  16  17  18

Author Topic: I'm curious to know why many on Film-Tech seem to be so negative on digital cinema Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 07-25-2008 02:28 PM                        I've seen a number of posts mocking digital cinema and the industry conversion and I'm just curious to know why. I realize that d cinema isn't perfect. There is still plenty of room for equipment failure and we don't really know how well the distribution channels will perform when they are delivering many thousands of hard drives every week. But as a manager and projectionist, I can help looking forward to the more hands-off aspect of digital cinema. I like the fact that I won't have to train kids to properly thread film and rely on them to get it right every time. I like the fact that the 200th showing should look just as good as the first showing. I like the fact that there should be greater flexibility in scheduling auditoriums. Plus I'm excited about the prospects of alternative content that just isn't possible/practical with 35mm. I'm wondering if the negativity comes from losing the hands-on aspects of movie presentation or if it's more from the (perceived) limitations of digital cinema. The one thing I do know is I saw a digital presentation of Cars at ShoWest 2006 and it was by far the most amazing presentation I have ever seen. And yes, I am aware that a studio presentation at theatre convention is not an accurate litmus test for the real world in a megaplex.  |  IP: Logged Charles Greenlee Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 801 From: Savannah, Ga, U.S. Registered: Jun 2006 posted 07-25-2008 02:50 PM                        Because, this is FILM-tech, not Hard-drive-and-digital-projector-tech. :-p Don't mind me, I'm just being silly. :-D  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 07-25-2008 02:58 PM                        Maybe you're being silly, but I can't help wondering if that's exactly the reason.  |  IP: Logged Aaron Mehocic Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 804 From: New Castle, PA, USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-25-2008 04:07 PM                     Let me first preface my remarks with the statement that I have never seen a DLP image, which may also be available in 35mm film, projected onto a screen. Now with that being said . . . It is my opinion that many pro-film members of Film-Tech see the dawning of the digital projection age as an end of an era, which, unquestionably, was cinema's golden age. Many respect the history, showmanship, and ambiance of film and those who have worked with film before them. Moreover, they see it as the only true medium in which the progenitors of this form of entertainment envisioned their final product for public consumption. The pro-film people here agree that this is the way it has been done for over 100 years and if it works just as good - if not better - now than it did then, why not stick with it. In short, if it ain't broke don't fix it. The only corallery in all of this is training the right people to handle the film. The pro-digital elements on Film-Tech also respects what has been written above, but they believe for this form of entertainment to survive in the future, it must look like it belongs in the future. Dirty machines using oil or grease pulling a scratched piece of polyester along sprockets and rollers is not very 21st Century. They too realize the golden age of the cinema is no longer and today's customer wants options a standard whatever-plex can't always provide. For this group it can be as real as Ben Franklin's old statement: "join or die". My advice in answering that question is to identify who are the pro-film and pro-digital proponents and opponents here on Film-Tech and examine what they say. In my opinion, Brad Miller is probably the most vocal pro-film member here, while Mark Gulbrandsen is the most vocal pro-digital. The digital role out will encounter its fair share of problems. For one, the down turn in the economy probably put a slowdown on the big wave everybody thought was coming. Furthermore, as many techs I've talked with over the last year have commented, nothing in digital is standardized. Meaning: That soundhead I still use from 1939 still works - and works well. I doubt seriously if the Christie DLP unit manufactured this year will still be in use in 2077. Yet, with consumers demanding more choices and the entertainment market saturated with so many choices film could become irrelevant and a quaint antique from the 20th Century faster than we think. Only time will tell.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-25-2008 04:35 PM                     Jusin, I feel that 90% of it is because people don't know anything about it(but they may think they do) and that makes them scared. Many exhibitors had the same attitude about new fangled film processes... like Cinemascope and Stereo Sound. Soon they learned that if they were to stay in buisness they had to have it. The same will soon hold true for digital as film is phased out. Personally, I will be glad to see film go away, its long overdue. Mark  |  IP: Logged Jesse Skeen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1517 From: Sacramento, CA Registered: Aug 2000 posted 07-25-2008 06:09 PM                     If I still worked as a projectionist I'd be negative on digital just because it would reduce or eliminate my job. I think that's fair enough. From a customer standpoint, seeing how badly a large percentage of theater personnel handle film, as well as the crappy quality of some film prints that even the best projectionist can't fix (particularly all the anti-piracy measures), I'd welcome digital if it solved all of those problems. The problem is, it doesn't, at least not at the moment. My biggest issue with DLP is the screen-door effect- the first DLP movie I saw had an obvious grid effect on the screen, especially noticeable with black objects against a white background. This is the sort of thing most people don't seem to notice, but it really looks bad. I was told this was an older DLP setup and the newer ones don't have this problem, but I'll believe it when I see it. The only other DLP show I've seen since then was animated and in 3-D so it was harder to look at it too closely, but the 2-D live-action trailers still had a video-like effect to them. If I want to watch video, I can do that at home. If they can get DLP to equal film done right, more power to them, but if they can't get it absolutely PERFECT I'll see it as a step backwards.  |  IP: Logged Cameron Glendinning Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 845 From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia Registered: Dec 2005 posted 07-25-2008 06:20 PM                     My opinion on 2k digital cinema is pretty simple, Its expensive, and does the job no better than well presented 35mm. 3d excluded. Digital presentation is the future and personally I think that it wont be too much longer until the standard of digital presentation will be vastly better than avalable today. With home standard now having a 2,000,000 million pixel resolution through blu ray disc, 1080p with its grid 1920x 1080 compared with 2k D cinemas 2 000 000 plus pixels 2040 x 1080 grid. At the same time cinema design has changed, most new cinemas feature huge screens that rarely allow the audience to get 2 screen hights away. Personally I think that the best 35mm image is viewed from between 2-5 screen hights away from the screen. Therefore only the back few rows and the minority of seats have a truely great image! Now many cinemas do not have 35mm done right and the switch to 2k digital for these cinemas should be done immediately. How long will it take for people to realise that there new high definition tv is better than their local cinema?. This is the first time in the history of cinema that the home product comes close to matching the quality of cinema image. This is genuine compitition unseen before! Last time cinema was slightly similar in the 50's cinemas were forced to compete by introducing wide screens and multichannel sound. Cinemas who currently do film properly, use filmguard etc probably will get the best bang for your dollar by waiting for the developing digital technology to improve with a higher resolution. I look forward to the day that I can go to my local monster screen multiplex and see a movie with a standard of image that exceeds todays 35mm, sitting closer to the screen and enjoying the more immersive feel that the higher resolution will allow! Anyone remembering 70mm knows that better than 35mm isn't new. [ 07-26-2008, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Cameron Glendinning ]  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-25-2008 07:46 PM                     The reason if if done properly film is still better presentation and cost far less to install and maintain Many theatres will just have to close as the cost of installation upkeep and operational costs are just not profitable in digital yet were in 35mm  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 07-25-2008 08:24 PM                        Gordon is right! I have advised my customers to "keep their money in their pocket" until digital evolves a bit more; but then be ready to go when "assurances of non-obsolescense" are verifiably available. I would assume that an insurance policy would be taken out. Until then 35mm film RULES! Louis  |  IP: Logged Geoff Jones Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 579 From: Broomfield, CO, USA Registered: Feb 2006 posted 07-25-2008 08:43 PM                        My thoughts as a movie-goer: I don't like digital because the picture quality of the current tech isn't as good as film done right. The digitally projected movies I've watched looked bad to me. Contrast was poor. Jagged edges were visible. (I will grant that the image was rock-solid, but I saw Back to the Future in 35mm on Wednesday, and it was also rock-solid.) 4k seems like it will get close to the quality of 35mm, from what I've read, but it has big problems too. Screen size is important to me. I want my dinosaurs to be life-size. I want to duck with starships fly over. With the 4k projectors only rated to 40' screens, that just won't cut it. Also, my experience has shown me that most cinemas do a terrible job of accurately advertising their equipment. I have zero confidence in being able to figure out which theatres (much less which individual auditoriums) will be projecting 4k instead of 2k. Finally, I worry about the financial risk of this transition. Will all those theatres that have paid tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars on 2k gear be able to afford to upgrade to 4k? To 8k? Will they be stuck with crappier-than-film 2k projectors for the forseeable future? The whole thing seems so pointless to me. The cost of properly operating and maintaining 35mm equipment is a tiny fraction of the cost of a new digital projector. All it would take is a theatre that gives a damn. (And they are out there, and they do a fantastic job.) And there are SO many problems at most theatres that digital doesn't begin to fix. Marks (or thrown food) on the screen. Talking patrons. Constant width masking. Improper volume. Annoying pre-show commericals and slides. I just don't get it. The main purpose of digital projection seems to be to sell expensive new hardware (which is exactly how the electronics industry maintains its growth) and eliminate print costs. That's my perpsective, anyway. I hope it answers your question. Geoff  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 07-25-2008 11:13 PM                     quote: Justin Hamaker I've seen a number of posts mocking digital cinema and the industry conversion and I'm just curious to know why. Here's my long answer. Some long-time F-T members (such as myself) have had a belly full of spin and outright bullshit from various proponents of "digital cinema" since the gear first started arriving in theaters in 1999. Some of the negative attitudes here are also a reaction against blind worship so many have been doing toward that "digital" buzzword. The first generation of DLP product was mere 1280 X 1024 pixel based hardware running video content with uneven standards of data compression. Despite that, certain high profile people with vested interests in the technology proclaimed "digital" to be better than film. Since then, all the costly 1280 X 1024 based systems have already been retired after just a handful of years. Just about anyplace showing movies in "digital" is projecting them in 2K using JPEG2000 files encoded to better and more consistent quality standards. The new systems are better. But they still cost a lot more money than a good film projector and won't have nearly as long a useful lifespan as a properly maintained film projector. The upshot is lots of theaters are just leasing the equipment rather than buying it outright. Factor in the other issue that we've been seeing the movie industry take steps backward in quality standards over the past few decades. It's been nearly 40 years since the use of 65mm/70mm all but disappeared. After 1970 all but a few releases with 70mm prints were just blowups from 35mm. A 70mm Dolby SR mag print can provide better audio quality than a lossy digital track (not to mention throw a more steady, brighter image and work far better on giant screens) but it cost a lot more. After 1993 that 70mm blow up era was done -despite new stadium seated theaters with huge screens showing up in the late 1990s just begging for brighter 70mm projection. The 1280 X 1024 D-cinema thing seemed to be a continuation of this stepping backwards trend. We're seeing the same potentially destructive trend taking place in IMAX theaters. Native IMAX photographed features have been overshadowed by mere "DMR" movie blow-ups from 35mm and HDTV resolution video. And now IMAX wants to replace ultra high resolution 15-perf 70mm projection systems with pairs of 2K digital projectors. They're counting on the "IMAX Digital" term being enough. And it might be enough for standard feature films. The DMR process wouldn't be necessary anymore. But at that point even IMAX itself would have a hard time justifying its existence anymore. Digital intermediate has all but replaced the "analog" color timing process in Hollywood feature films. DI has a lot of precise advantages over the old chemical and color filter methods. Unfortunately most digital intermediates are still produced in 2K resolution, a level that doesn't capture all the detail in the original negative. It's also a quality bottleneck that works against film done right. If all the 35mm release prints were sourced from something produced in 2K digital intermediate then there's little if any way for a great 35mm projection setup to outdo a proper 2K digital projection rig. The same problems have been going on in how movies are photographed. Again, there's more "digital" worship happening with lots of broad claims of "digital" being better than film. Shooting on video is a lot more convenient. But it does not yield a better quality image than something photographed well on 35mm. Hopefully some of these attitudes against film photography are being reversed now that at least a few more Hollywood productions are having their digital intermediate work processed at 4K quality levels rather than just the defacto 2K standard. Digital projection has been a big improvement in a lot of average multiplex movie theaters where film done right has been practiced very rarely. I think if the folks "selling" everyone on "digital" had been more on the level about its advantages and disadvantages from the beginning they would have caught a lot less flak from fans of film. Instead, the "digital" proponents declared film as being unnecessary. I'm impressed most by the conveniences digital cinema provides. If you're running a 12:01am show of some new summer epic you can load the movie on every digital projector without the need for extra prints or interlocking. You don't have to move prints around from one platter to another. Shows can be built up quickly. Trailers and other spots can be shuffled around with just a few clicks. You can even have the shows timed to start up automatically. I still worry about the arguably narrow differences between 2K digital cinema and home formats like Blu-ray. As Blu-ray and 1080p HDTVs sell in greater numbers it could also translate to more people staying at home to watch their movies. In forums like Blu-ray.com there's no shortage of people making claims that their home system is better than even theaters with digital projection. Such claims are ignorant of the technological advantages 2K JPEG2000 movies have over Blu-ray. These folks are just looking at the raw pixel counts instead of the other more subtle factors. In the end it still equals certain potential customers staying at home. That's the last thing any of us want, whether we're a purist film fan or fan of "digital." My opinion is that any true movie fan at least makes some effort to see a few movies in commercial theaters. If we have no commercial movie theaters then we have no feature movie industry at all. TV will have completely taken over the market.  |  IP: Logged Mike Olpin Chop Chop! Posts: 1852 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jan 2002 posted 07-25-2008 11:14 PM                     I feel fortunate to be involved in the industry at a time where I have the opportunity to learn and master both.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-26-2008 09:27 AM                     quote: Mike Olpin I feel fortunate to be involved in the industry at a time where I have the opportunity to learn and master both. Right on Mike! Some of us will grow in more directions than the rest will.  |  IP: Logged Greg Anderson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 766 From: Ogden Valley, Utah Registered: Nov 1999 posted 07-26-2008 10:58 AM                        It's probably not good for the credibility of this forum that it's derisively called "Straight to Video." You can make fun of Digital Cinema but it's here to stay and it will replace film. Certainly, the ability to present film-done-right is an art form and it's quickly being lost. Just as current-day cinematographers can't do 65mm as well as the ones who were doing it 40 years ago, the masters of film handling are increasingly rare. If you want to stay in the business, you'd better know how to do digital. Any further technological breakthroughs in 35mm film will be very subtle. (It's too bad we don't have John Pytlak here to slap my hands but...) All of the research and development efforts are in the digital technology. All of the disadvantages of Digital Cinema will be fully addressed and very soon. Long live the artists of Film Handling. But out here where they are so rare, the best, most consistent presentations are digital.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-26-2008 12:16 PM                     For multi-purpose venues like the one I work at, digital video is a good thing. Video is also good for material which changes frequently. But I work hard to make good shows for people who pay good money to see them. I resent it when people try to tell me that video is "just as good" when it is not. The truth is that people who push video are only doing it because they think they can get rid of the expense of labor and personnel management. I think video system can be used in theaters to expand business into areas where it was not possible before. Concerts broadcast by satellite and teleconferencing are two things that come to mind. We have begun running trailers on the video projector in my theater but still running the feature on film. I think that is a good blending of the two technologies for the better of all. I still can't help feeling that the main reason people push the "video only" idea is because they are over optimistic about its capabilities and because they are ultimately lazy.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 18 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  16  17  18

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.