Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: TheForce.net Demands Immediate Digital Cinema Conversion

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » TheForce.net Demands Immediate Digital Cinema Conversion (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: TheForce.net Demands Immediate Digital Cinema Conversion

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 05-17-2002 02:11 PM

I found this editorial by Chris Knight of TheForce.net, one of the Star Wars fan sites:

http://www.theforce.net/jedicouncil/editorials/

Mr. Knight wrote the editorial after seeing eight minutes of "Attack of the Clones" clips projected digitally by producer Rick McCallum at the Lucasfilm sponsored "Celebration II" in Indianapolis, May 3-5.

Star Wars fans are being urged to begin a letter-writing campaign to distributors and exhibitors, demanding that theatres install Digital Cinema systems.

Here's the background in the "Hollywood Reporter" - "Lucas declares cyber war":

Hollywood Reporter Article May 15

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

Aaron Haney
Master Film Handler

Posts: 265
From: Cupertino, CA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 05-17-2002 02:36 PM

I love how everybody's suddenly an expert on film, or as he calls it, "celluloid"!

I don't claim to be an expert, but I certainly know enough to realize that many of his statements are wrong. Particularly the bit about the original source for Star Wars being a short time away from being "lost forever". He shouldn't believe everything he reads on IMDb trivia.

| IP: Logged

Pete Naples
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1565
From: Dunfermline, Scotland
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 05-17-2002 03:07 PM

The sad part (as if these people aren't sad enough), is the power of persuasion that Georgey boy has. He's rapidly becoming the Bill Gates of Hollywood.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-17-2002 03:26 PM

I have no problem with DLP proponents. I am sure that they genuinely believe that it looks better than 35mm film and it would make sense that they would want to see their preferred format become more widely available. DLP over film is a legitimate preference.

I do, however, have a problem with the half-truths and downright incorrect information that many of these proponents use in order to justify their claims of DLP superiority. It should be sufficient to say something like "I prefer DLP"; inaccurate comments about film (like "film becomes scratched after opening weekend") serve only to discredit their arguments.

Although I personally prefer the look of film to that of the current generation of DLP systems, I do have quite a bit of respect for the engineering work that has gone into the development of DLP and I have no need or desire to make false claims about the technology in order to justify my preference; I suspect that most others who prefer film feel the say way.

| IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 05-17-2002 06:30 PM

I agree about the half-truths. Ummmm.... let's see, 1.3 million micro-mirrors for red, 1.3 million for green, and for blue........oh, that's over 3.9 million MOVING MECHANICAL PARTS that DO go bad. And when they do, they show up on the screen as permanent off-color or black or white "specs" (pixels) that are typically very much larger than intermittent film "spots".

I can deal with the pixel resolution, but what *really* bothers me about DLP are those f*cking hinge "dots" in the center of every pixel! GOD! I hate those!

And of course the lamps never fail in the "video" projectors like they do in those crummy 35mm film projectors. (Actually they fail more often and have less of a life-span and are very much more expensive than the standard "bare" xenon lamp.)

About digital format sources being more stable than 35mm film.... Ummmm pass me that 5.25" floppy, I need to view a file. What's that you say....????? Put it where???

>>> Phil

| IP: Logged

Bill Hallsworth
Film Handler

Posts: 34
From: Loganville, GA, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 05-17-2002 11:51 PM

Wow, I knew that DLP had lots of small mirrors, but not 3.9 million of them!

By the way, since when was it cheaper to run a 7000 watt bulb rather than a 3000 watt? How much longer did you say that 7k bulb lasted?

Maybe the author of that article should come watch our copy of Beautiful Mind. We've been running it for God knows how long, and it is in mint condition (except of course for " the bold green scratch from opening weekend ").

Why can't anyone write a decent article comparing film to digital? Where do these people come up with these things? Maybe they just make them up or somehting.

Bill

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 05-17-2002 11:58 PM

"Why can't anyone write a decent article comparing film to digital?"

Probably because nobody in the general public is interested. The crap that mass-market media writes about this topic has to appeal to a broad audience, therefore technical details are left out since that might turn people off. Emphasize the hype, minimize those pesky boring facts.

For film handlers and other technical-types, the information is available from other sources such as Kodak's web site.

| IP: Logged

Brad Haven
Master Film Handler

Posts: 300
From: fremantle, West Australia
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 05-18-2002 01:28 AM

All i can say is, that i am deeply saddened by their tactics.
It's alway's the greedy few that phug it up for the masses!

| IP: Logged

Kevin Baglow
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 135
From: Yeppoon Qld, Australia
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 05-18-2002 01:50 AM

One of the big three TV networks in australia made a story of "NO DIGITAL CINEMAS available in Aus to show EP II... as it was intended. "Film Breaks digital doesen't" said the news reader. And "its the like the change from vinal to CD"
The quality certinly seems as big step backwards on our 50ft curved screen. The tv newsreaders said Lucas saved US$2.5 million in film costs by useing video cassetes instead of film in the cameras. It sure looks like it.

| IP: Logged

Pete Naples
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1565
From: Dunfermline, Scotland
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 05-18-2002 03:55 AM

Personally I've no problems with digital, but like a lot of people on here I do have a problem with the mis-information being given to the relatively ignorant public. Perhaps someone should suggest to these people that maybe they'd like to sponsor their local cinema to install a DLP or two?? I bet they'd soon change their tune!

On the digital format thing. I'm astounded that CD is still with us after what, 20 years? In the scheme of things it's a pretty archaic format now, and just beacuse everybody has a player had never stopped the industry from making something obsolete and replacing it before. Maybe it's becuse the CD format continues to develop in things like DVD.

| IP: Logged

David Rowley
Film Handler

Posts: 14
From: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 05-18-2002 04:01 AM

quote:
1. Total fidelity for the viewer

Definately a half-truth. Film doesn't have to degrade with each showing, but let's face it folks, it frequently does. We've all been to a showing at some time where somebody badly mishandled the film. The public doesn't know that the film has been mishandled, they just think that film gets worse and worse as it ages. This is something that digital can eliminate. This is also something that a decent amount of training can eliminate.

quote:
2. Cost-effectiveness for theater owners

I would be interested in seeing a long term study comparing the cost of maintaining traditional projection equipment versus that of DLP. I'm not sure how frequently a mirror will fail on a DMD, but according to the Texas Instruments web site, each micro mirror has a lifetime of 1.7 trillion cycles, or 95 years. I'm sure we will see some DLP projectors with dead pixels, but I wonder how long it will take before they start to fail.

quote:
3. Growth of digital production will reinvigorate the art

Yup, just like camcorders did for TV. We get things like "Real TV", "America's Funniest Home Videos", and slew of other "invigorating" television shows.

Ok, seriously though. This is a valid point. I wouldn't doubt that there are a few good movie makers out there who couldn't afford to shoot film, but can afford to shoot DV.

quote:
4. Perfect storage for future generations

This information actually comes from the special edition VHS re-release of the original Star Wars. They mention in a 10 minute special at the start of the tape about how the original film was degrading, and if they didn't restore it now, it would be too late. As for the digital media degrading, it really is a moot point, since every copy made of a digital movie will be identical. As the media ages, you simply make a new copy, and throw out the old one.

While every point he makes has some validity, he ignores some of the more important ones against digital, the biggest being resolution. After seeing Star Wars in DLP today, I am absolutely convinced that the resolution in current digital movie making is far too low. From the original shoot, to the display on the screen. Sorry, but 2.6 DPI just doesn't do it for me!

| IP: Logged

Dennis Atkinson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 129
From: Birch Run Michigan
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 05-18-2002 09:30 AM

The original SW was degraded because George did not take care of it, plain and simple.
I have seen Star Wars in Technicolor and it blew away the Eastmancolor prints. As with the IB Tech vs. Eastman in the 70's, somebody in Hollywood says "I like the look it gives the movie".
Translation = it's a lot cheaper and easier to deal with. Sounds just like the digtal vs. film argument today.
I can't wait to see the digital experience after the 7k bulb is replaced with a 5k or lower "to save money".

Dennis

| IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-19-2002 04:36 PM

I dropped this moron a note and suggest that he learn more about film before he says there is a better alternative. The answer I got back was
"I saw it working at C2. Environmental factors aside, it IS a far superior format."

To which I wrote back a lengthy letter explaining a few things about resolution, moving parts, watts of light etc. and asking exactly what he meant by "superior". That was last night and I haven't heard back.
I expect to get an answer like... "superior because I say so"

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/

| IP: Logged

Bob Maar
(Maar stands for Maartini)

Posts: 28608
From: New York City & Newport, RI
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 05-19-2002 08:48 PM

Phil,

I want you to know that I have two of these special micro chip's with mirrors which I was told, in 1998, they had four million individually programmed mirrors......and here I am four years later and so far I havn't even counted half of them. I'm only at 1,467,534 . I will let you know when I reach 4 million...if I am still living.

| IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 05-20-2002 01:07 AM

Luv Ya, Bob!

>>> Phil

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.