|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: Durability of film vs digital equipment
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 01-07-2013 03:48 PM
Hello, I need some help, I have basic 35mm knowledge and I am in a good argument with somebody in regards to 35mm vs digital cinema. I hope I have posted in the right forum, I am new around here.
Basically, I have stated that a well done 35mm set up will last longer, and turn out to be more efficient than a digital set up. With basic maintenance, 35mm parts could last decades before needing replacement.
Can someone give me a basic idea of how long a brand new, well done, high quality 35mm set up will last "all things considered" versus a brand new digital set up "all things considered"?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/1171i.jpg)
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 01-07-2013 04:42 PM
Film or digital: Maintenance is a cost of doing business. No getting around that.
Yes, a digital projector requires maintenance but that's the projector that will give you a return on the investment because it will actually get used to show the movies that sell the tickets. So, who cares?
Meanwhile, your new film projector remains a virgin forever, requiring ZERO maintenance because it is never used. So, technically, you could win this argument but it would be a hollow victory because there is no wisdom or value in this option. Realistically speaking.
Even if you're a repertory cinema, you'll likely arrive at that point where you wish for a digital projector due to (a) more and more titles are digital-only; (b) many available film prints are worn out and you'll wish you could show a DCP or Bluray; (c) the good archival prints become off-limits, as film becomes a rarity. Even if you're committed to the notion of running film "whenever possible," you'll still need digital for those times when film is not a viable option.
So, you see, it's really less a question of the longevity of the actual equipment per se, and more about technological obsolescence:
Film is dead. You'll have to face this fact sooner or later.
But digital isn't exactly sitting pretty. It's still an evolving technology. The equipment may last but, if the formats keep evolving, that gear will need upgrades from time to time. That's the kind of cost I'd be more concerned about. Not maintenance.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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.
|