|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Digital Projection on NPR
|
Geoff Jones
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 579
From: Broomfield, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 03-21-2007 09:30 PM
Digital Projection on NPR's All Things Considered
quote:
All Things Considered, March 21, 2007 · For a while now, movie studios have been touting digital projectors that will drastically improve the look of movies on the big screen. They would also save studios millions of dollars, as bulky reels of film pass into oblivion.
But the change requires exhibitors to invest in the new technology, as well. That leaves an important question open to dispute: Who should pay for the upgrades — studios or theaters?
For at least seven years, film studios and theaters have been hyping digital projectors and the crisp, clear picture quality they will bring to movie screens.
Yet the vast majority of the nation's cinemas are still using old analog projectors. Despite the economic and visual advantages of digital projection, out of the nation's more than 38,000 movie screens, only around 2,200 have digital projectors.
After years of dispute about payment, theater owners and studios finally found a business plan.
For several years, the studios will pay a fee on each digital copy they make to defray the theaters' costs of installing digital projectors. But while studios and theater owners have been squabbling over details, some say audiences have been missing out.
At most movie theaters, viewers didn't see the Star Wars films as George Lucas envisioned them. With film prints, quality degrades with each copy and every showing.
Rick McCallum produced the last three Star Wars movies.
"I traveled to 60 cities across America," McCallum says. "I went to small towns, I went to big towns. I went to where ever the films were playing. And I was so dismayed, I was so appalled. I couldn't believe how truly bad it was."
McCallum worries that by the time digital projectors are installed in most theaters, audience will be smaller, as people opt to see movies on their home entertainment systems and plasma TVs.
![[thumbsdown]](graemlins/thumbsdown.gif)
I am a letter-writing fiend these days; I submitted this in response:
quote:
Your story on digital projection in movie theatres propagated several myths about film presentation, and I think some of the conclusions drawn are incorrect.
Rick McCallum's claim that a film degrades every time is is shown in a theatre is ridiculous. In a properly operated theatre, a film print can last through thousands of showings without any wear. He IS correct that most theatres across the country don't operate their equipment properly, but changing the equipment will not change that.
Digital projectors are in their infancy, technologically speaking. Every few years, their technology will become obsolete as picture quality improves, yet theatres will not be able to afford to replace them. Film, on the other hand, is capable of delivering a much higher resolution on tried and true machinery.
The sad truth is that switching to digital projection will not fix most of the problems that are driving moviegoers away from cinemas. Digital projection will not reverse the trend of smaller and smaller screens. Digital projection will make it easier for theatres to show commercials, not harder. If it's mathmatically possible, digital projection will decrease the frequency that theatres are monitored for sound and picture problems because of the lack of professional projectionists on staff. And most importantly, digital projection it will not do a thing to prevent other moviegoers from talking disruptively to one another or their cell phones.
Most those problems could easily be solved for a tiny fraction of the cost of digital projection, if only theatres would make the effort.
Digtal projection may save the studios money in the short term, but it is not in the best interest of movie-goers or movie theatres. With more and more movie-goers staying home where they can get a better presentation, and theatre chains absorbing the costs of expensive new digital projectors, I worry that in the near future, the movie theatre may become a thing of the past.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 03-22-2007 10:03 PM
quote:
Rick McCallum's claim that a film degrades every time is is shown in a theatre is ridiculous. In a properly operated theatre, a film print can last through thousands of showings without any wear.
No he is correct, you seem to be the one who is being ridiculous.
Film like records wears each time it is run. Please name 3 examples of a print running thousands of time with no dust or blemishes!
I can name only one, an IMAX print of Antartica, that had been run over 3, 000 times and had absolutely no wear. That print had been scotchguarded, a very rare process not used with normal prints. At Imax, I found visible wear on all other prints within 300 runs.
Having spoken to Rick McCallum about this issue before, I understand what he is on about, and perhaps you are missing the point. Digital is mint from day one and consistant forever. Filmmakers have been published being critical about inconsistant standards of cinemas since the 1970s. Some chains being far too dark ect.
Candy bar projectionists have lowered the standard dramatically! Not that there was ever a consistant standard! Many cinemas have never had a decent image or professional sound at there screens ever! Cinema owners are to blame, not the film makers, not the customers, not digital.
Brads Film Guard is a product that can make film last indefinitely, not only are the prints keeped in mint condition, but the wet gate look, improves the colors! in a similar way to how the film is transfered to digital for that medium. What percentage of the worlds screens use this product that kodak will not endorse?
Film is degraded throughout its production, from the neg, to the interneg, and at each generation until its release print. With film grain being 5 microns, this translates to aprox 3,300 lines of resolution for 35mm academy frame, so wide screen and super 35 mm would be close to 2k resolution. When scanned in of the original negative there is no generation loss throughout the post production chain.
Film certainly has its advantages, but mostly in production not neceserally in the final release.
I think its fair to say that filmakers would like people to see the films exactly as they made them, this is simply not the case for a long time now . I can not blame them for thinking digital will create a new much more consistant standard. Just disapointed that most cinemas did not think about the future as they chose to run there film equipment and there reputation into the ground. Afterall there really isnt any advantage of digital over film if film is done right, filmguard, scotchguard is used ect. Its just such a shame film is done wrong far more often than being done right.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-23-2007 10:46 AM
quote:
No he is correct, you seem to be the one who is being ridiculous. Film like records wears each time it is run. Please name 3 examples of a print running thousands of time with no dust or blemishes!
Cameron, please specifically point out the "blemishes" you see on a film presentation after one run through a properly aligned film projector. I defy you to successfully find anything wrong with the print. Platter scratches, reflector burns and even the dust you mention comes from "film done wrong" setups.
Rick McCallum's view is indeed ridiculous. That's because he wrongfully implies or flat out characterizes a film print getting noticeably damaged with every run. It's almost as ridiculous as his claims years ago that a 1280 X 1024 pixel DLP image had more detail than 35mm film. His comments have a lot of self interest-driven spin associated with them.
In any "film done right" setup, you're not going to see any noticeable problems at all. Color fading on the print will be about it -provided if the 35mm print is able to stay at the movie theater for several months and have many hundreds of runs through the film projector. Most movies in the average multiplex theater play for maybe 4-6 weeks, if even that. I've seen some hit movies come and go with only 3 weeks of play. They don't build up the kind of mileage movie prints did in the past, certainly not even anything on the order of Titanic.
The people who promote digital projection need to get off this "digital has better quality than film" kick because it's just bullshit.
What digital projection has over film prints is greater flexibility and potentially faster/easier use. You can show lots of different content. You don't have to worry so much about movie length and what will fit on a platter, or what will fit on a DTS CD-ROM disc. You can easily re-start the movie from the beginning. You don't have to spend a bunch of time building and tearing down prints. You don't have to carry film prints from one projection platter to another (or install a wild platter system like the Studio Movie Grill theaters have).
There's a lot of nice things about "digital," but it isn't better than film. Movies still look far superior when shot on film. Film projection can yield more image detail, so long as the film image being supplied wasn't bottlenecked with a low-rez 2K digital intermediate step.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark J. Marshall
Film God
Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 03-23-2007 12:12 PM
quote:
Please name 3 examples of a print running thousands of time with no dust or blemishes!
This comment (in its various forms) is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard about film, and I hear it all the time from all sorts of people. I was out of the industry during the Titanic run, but I can personally say that I ran a print of Disney's Beauty and the Beast for over six months (five shows a day * 30 days a month * six months = 900 shows), and in the early days, it was interlocked, and it left our theater in practically mint condition. This was of course before the days of Film-Guard.
With Film-Guard, we've taken horribly dirty prints that were obviously run by someone who didn't know how to keep film clean, and rejuvenated those prints to like new condition. Greek Wedding was an excellent example of that. When we received it, the film looked like it was un-earthed at a construction site. But it left our theater sparklingly clean and in excellent condition.
quote: Cameron Glendinning
I can not blame them for thinking digital will create a new much more consistant standard.
It will do that, but it will also lower the standard, which is pretty sad. How about doing something to RAISE the standard experience to something that can not be duplicated very easily in the home? How is installing what amounts to basically HDTV in the theaters going to bring people away from the HDTVs they have at home? I ask that because the people with HDTV in their homes are the ones that aren't coming anymore.
quote: Cameron Glendinning
Film certainly has its advantages, but mostly in production not neceserally in the final release.
Digital can not duplicate the contrast that's possible on 35mm release prints.
quote: Cameron Glendinning
Some chains being far too dark ect.
Maybe I missed how digital projectors are going to fix that. Can you explain for me?
I think the biggest problem with digital projection is already starting to manifest itself. The folks who were the early adopters of the 1.3K projectors (at approx $200K a pop) are now realizing that they're running an obsolete format. The folks who waited until the 2K projectors came down in price and then started putting them in are on the verge of running an obsolete format, even as they're installing them. As we learned in this thread, there's now a new type of chip that improves on the contrast that's possible with the existing 2K projectors. And, as we know, 4K units are also on the horizon.
I'm not sure how digital projection helps anyone except the studios. And I also have no idea why the theater owners think this is all a good idea. And if they're thinking that the shoddy strobing crappy 3D offered by RealD is the answer, they are going to be surprised when 3D shows up in the home. It won't take much to modify a home theater digital projector and a blue laser DVD player to produce the same 3D in the home. Some think it will never happen. I think it's right around the corner. Especially if 3D digital movies become the norm in theaters. When that technology does appear in the home, then where will the theaters be? All of the 35mm stuff will be gone. And theaters will be left with substandard crap that can't get any better unless it's removed and replaced with a better resolution projector and server.
I guess we'll see who's right in a couple of years. As an employee, it doesn't really matter to me. When I'm not a film guy, I'm a computer guy. So I could function fine in either environment. As a movie goer, I'd rather see film when I pay to see a movie in a theater.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-23-2007 01:47 PM
quote:
The folks who waited until the 2K projectors came down in price and then started putting them in are on the verge of running an obsolete format, even as they're installing them. As we learned in this thread, there's now a new type of chip that improves on the contrast that's possible with the existing 2K projectors. And, as we know, 4K units are also on the horizon.
Don't hold your breath waiting for Hollywood to generate most of its content in native 4K format. The vast majority of all Hollywood releases have its CGI and Digital Intermediate work done at 2K levels, not 4K. Blowing 2K content up to 4K yields absolutely no benefit at all.
The 2K versus 4K thing has some similarities to 4-perf 35mm versus larger formats like VistaVision and 5-perf 70mm. Hollywood has a very long history of choosing something that is merely "good enough" over another format with significantly higher levels of quality.
Anytime someone pushes 4K on a studio project, noting the computer hardware more than powerful enough to do the job, I guarantee a producer or bean counter somewhere will follow with, "with that more powerful hardware how much faster and cheaper can we get 2K done?" And then the movie is just done in 2K, same as damned usual.
Because of that problem, I believe most 2K based projectors are going to be pretty safe investments for quite some time. The only piece of hardware that may have to be changed out more frequently will be the media server, due to improved hard discs, faster networking and ever changing security standards.
quote: Mark J. Marshall
And I also have no idea why the theater owners think this is all a good idea. And if they're thinking that the shoddy strobing crappy 3D offered by RealD is the answer, they are going to be surprised when 3D shows up in the home. It won't take much to modify a home theater digital projector and a blue laser DVD player to produce the same 3D in the home. Some think it will never happen. I think it's right around the corner.
I'm certainly one of those people who don't think 3D in the home is going to be happening anytime soon. You have all the technical hurdles with getting 3D content to work on normal back-lighted television sets. And then you have an even more critical problem in that home TV screens are very small in comparison to a movie theater screen. The vast majority are even tiny in ratio and proportion compared to their viewing environment compared to that of a commercial movie theater screen. In short, 3D will not have anywhere near as immersive an effect as it does in a commercial movie theater.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Some studies show that people with fancy home theatres actually go to movies more often than other people, because they love to see brand new movies. This is one reason it's important to protect the video window.
I think there's a good amount of truth to that. The greater balance of people who stay home to watch movies are those watching their budgets. Unfortunately, there's a lot more people with modest incomes than rich people.
Advances in HDTV technology do pose a real threat to movie theater business in the younger demographic set. Video gaming and other Internet-based activity is already costing the commercial movie theater business significantly. The changes that are due to come with much faster Internet, much improved computer technology and convergence in HDTV will have a lot more people spending a lot more time at home. Teens and young adults will lead the trends on that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 03-23-2007 08:47 PM
quote:
Cameron, please specifically point out the "blemishes" you see on a film presentation after one run through a properly aligned film projector. I defy you to successfully find anything wrong with the print. Platter scratches, reflector burns and even the dust you mention comes from "film done wrong" setup
Firstly my comments are generally aimed at the fact that film is done wrong in far too many places. I am personally very lucky to work for a company that takes on screen sound and picture very seriously. Its a guest in our house approach from what is a very large family buisness. As I look at companies that I once worked for, I see that the once professional role as projectionst is no more and standards are non existant, This does indeed make me sad. Cinema is all about the experience. That is were the money is.
To answer your question, the wear is the stuff I clean out of the projector after each run. Its a simple concept that all analoge mediums suffer from, It all adds up over time. As a person who worked in reportory cinema for many years, before that market died, I can tell you that I ran many prints that looked very worn or were damaged and they were not necesarly old.
quote:
Film certainly has its advantages, but mostly in production not neceserally in the final release.
Digital can not duplicate the contrast that's possible on 35mm release prints.
quote: Cameron Glendinning Some chains being far too dark ect.
Maybe I missed how digital projectors are going to fix that. Can you explain for me?
Mark, 1/ How many candy bar operators clean their ports and lenses twice weekly? Just because film has potential for greater contrast does not mean that majority of the audience actually sees it.
2/ A fresh start
quote: Mark J. Marshall
Disney's Beauty and the Beast for over six months (five shows a day * 30 days a month * six months = 900 shows), and in the early days, it was interlocked, and it left our theater in practically mint condition.
The word practically, if it was in digital it would have left your theatre in exactly the same condition.
Do you think that that happened at all the cinemas that ran that film? Lets try to look at the bigger picture, Opinions in this forum are coming from professional projectionists, in cinemas that take pride in what they are doing, In this situation film is the best option. Not all companies are like this. I can name two chains of cinema in my area who have such bad presentation on so many levels that Digital would be a huge step forward for there suffering audience.
quote:
I can not blame them for thinking digital will create a new much more consistant standard.
It will do that, but it will also lower the standard, which is pretty sad. How about doing something to RAISE the standard experience to something that can not be duplicated very easily in the home?
Totally agree raising the standards is what I would like to see, Ive been accused of being a showscan fanboy simply for sugesting that film could be sped up to a higher frame rate. The return of 70mm would get me pretty excited but alas I do not think it will happen.
My issue is with some cinema owners and upper management who have degraded the cinema experience, not only with poor staffing and equipment, but terrible venues. I'm assuming over the next few years as HD takes hold, quality will finally take on a market force roll, many poor quality cinemas will close simply because the more discerning audience will have a better experience at home! Quality venues with professional staff I suspect will give people a reason to leave the home.
I agree that in principle that we should wait until digital exceeds the standards of 35mm before moving over. For cinemas that take a professional stance with 35mm, they will be able to wait and I'm sure could save perhaps hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars on obsolete digital projectors. But the others have put themselves in a place were they should switch today! so that they can have a future.
As for Rick McCallum, lets not shoot the messenger, he does have a valid point to make of this inconsistant industry as a whole.
[ 03-23-2007, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Cameron Glendinning ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-23-2007 10:21 PM
quote: Cameron Glendinning
Firstly my comments are generally aimed at the fact that film is done wrong in far too many places.
And that's the worst problem about the "digital versus film" argument. The people promoting "digital" always compare their product against "film done wrong" and never up against "film done right." If "digital" is truly so much better, why not compare it against film run in its best light? Normally when different products are compared against each other, both are compared at their best levels to gain the more accurate, telling result.
quote: Cameron Glendinning
To answer your question, the wear is the stuff I clean out of the projector after each run. Its a simple concept that all analoge mediums suffer from, It all adds up over time.
Are you using film cleaners or Film Guard? You shouldn't be getting much of anything building up in the projector at all if you're using either. Definitely not if you're using both.
quote: Cameron Glendinning
As for Rick McCallum, lets not shoot the messenger, he does have a valid point to make of this inconsistant industry as a whole.
He's not the "messenger." He's more like a salesman for digital projection technology. Guys like him, George Lucas and a few others in the movie business also have vested interests in the success of digital cinema. There's a lot of money to be made, particularly in how it filters over into the home theater and computer end of consumer electronics. Naturally, the politics and spin come along for the ride.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 03-23-2007 10:58 PM
This whole talk about the effects of 3000+ passes is beyond the scope of the average operation.
A chain house is going to run a print, on average, maybe 5 times a day over maybe 3 or 4 weeks. That's more like 140 passes before the print goes to (maybe) a couple of sub-run houses for another 7-28 passes... or so. Even extended runs with today's wide releases aren't going to put an AVERAGE print under the stress we used to put on an acetate film, back not too many years ago.
If the average print gets maybe 200 shows, and the booth operation is reasonably professional, then there's no excuse for the print not going back in near-mint condition. That an extreme case CAN hold up over thousands of runs just reinforces what film is capable of, handled properly.
For those of us who do use Film Guard, the result is an added bonus that I now wouldn't do without.
I put on a fine show with my aged, old film machines, and my reputation is just fine, thank you very much.
For me, the issues surrounding digital are nearly all about money, reliability and longevity of the technology. You can talk about the price of milk and cookies going up all you want, but we're not talking about a few bucks worth of food. Digital is damned expensive. Go buy a theatre, live within its economy for a couple of years, then see how glib you are about whether we're screwing the customer by not mortgaging our lives for this stuff.
[ 03-24-2007, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Jack Ondracek ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 03-24-2007 12:38 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Are you using film cleaners or Film Guard? You shouldn't be getting much of anything building up in the projector at all if you're using either. Definitely not if you're using both.
This cinema is equiped with Kodak approved PTRs, I personally find that they simply move the speckles around and no match for filmguard which I use to use at the rep cinema before it closed. umm which brings me back to how many cinemas worldwide use film guard?
Jack I enjoyed your common sense post, Is your cinema in the photos section?
As for filmmakers who have horror stories about cinemas, Rick McCallum is not alone, pretty much all Directors, Sound mixers and Directors of Photography that I have meet seem to have a few nightmare stories.
Personally having shot a 35mm cinema ad campain for one of australias largest beer makers a few years ago, I have first hand experience having seen this with my own eyes and ears. What I saw and heard at the lab was fantastic, what I experienced at the different cinemas it played at, was usually not nearly as good. There are however several cinemas that were very good ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif) although in the minority.
Filmmakers simply want people to enjoy their films, but when it plays in a mono screen, If the picture is dark. If the print as dirty, scratched, or miss framed, its simply not the same film they made! If it had happened to you, you would understand exactly what Rick is on about.
George Lucus at least tried to do something about the piss poor sound qualities of cinemas that he noticed on his Star Wars release. So different an experience to the mixing suite he employed Thomas Holeman to come up with an answer.
I too sat in the very same mixing suite 14 years later when it was sold to Australias colorfilm lab. I was on school work experience and had already worked in 3 cinemas as part time jobs. It was obvious to me that I had never heard any cinema ever sound so good, I could not believe that cinemas were not taking advantage of this experience. I was told by the sound mixers that THX would save the day. Eight years later, when it was clear that THX was only ever going to be installed in one screen in Sydney ever! That I would try to do something about it with the help of a friend who had a lifetime of experience in film audio. I am still in debt today because cinemas owners generally just dont care even to their own detrament!
quote: Bobby Henderson
And that's the worst problem about the "digital versus film" argument. The people promoting "digital" always compare their product against "film done wrong" and never up against "film done right.
I think with over 30 years of film being done wrong more than right, I can see why filmmakers have given up. Films are now made in computers, not on flatbeds. Digital is a natural next step.
quote: Mark J. Marshall
Maybe I missed how digital projectors are going to fix that. Can you explain for me?
umm Digital will never be scratched, dirty, projected out of frame, wear out and consistant even light output. Cinema maintainance of the bio box would be cleaning the ports and lens only. umm sounds better to me than ex mcdonalds staff working with 35mm.
The problem is cinema owners not 35mm by nature.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-24-2007 01:54 AM
quote: Cameron Glendinning
As for filmmakers who have horror stories about cinemas, Rick McCallum is not alone, pretty much all Directors, Sound mixers and Directors of Photography that I have meet seem to have a few nightmare stories.
That argument still doesn't wash. Just because some or even most projectionists are projecting film carelessly by no means proves digital projection is definitely better than film. It's not an indictment of the entire film projection process on the whole. Instead, it's a shaky argument loaded with spin.
quote: Cameron Glendinning
George Lucus at least tried to do something about the piss poor sound qualities of cinemas that he noticed on his Star Wars release. So different an experience to the mixing suite he employed Thomas Holeman to come up with an answer.
And look at what's happened with that.
Despite the original intentions of the THX program and the arrival of digital sound playback formats in 1990-93 much of the commercial movie theater industry has sub-par quality sound, due largely to lack of maintenance and poor auditorium design. It's not enough for the audio track on the film print or in the Doremi server to be "digital." There's more to audio playback than that.
That's also what has me ultimately worried about digital projection. There's even more elements in the booth that have to be maintained in digital projection than film. You have what amounts to an enterprise-class networking situation installed in the theater booth. Lots of things in that chain of equipment can break. On top of that, the digital projector still has a lamphouse that can burn out just as fast as any film projection lamp.
Right now, Christie and AccessIT are pretty aggressive at contacting every theater installation, making routine visits, checking lamp life and all sorts of other stuff. I don't think they mess with the audio end of things however. Nevertheless they seem to be doing more on the system maintenance end than the average theater chain would do otherwise with regular film projection. What happens if times get tough? How are these digital projection systems going to look when the lamp is well past its normal lifespan? What's going to happen when a critical piece of equipment goes down and has the screen dark?
quote: Cameron Glendinning
think with over 30 years of film being done wrong more than right, I can see why filmmakers have given up. Films are now made in computers, not on flatbeds. Digital is a natural next step.
Not true. Most movies are still shot on film. That's because the very best video cameras still pale in comparison to 35mm movie camera systems, even average ones. They don't capture as much detail and don't control color as well either. Fundamentally, they don't record anything similar to the "film look," and that appearance of "film" has to be added in post production through lots of digital processing or the clumsy method of copying the video to a film strip. Film cameras are still going to be involved in producing movies for quite some time to come.
What happens after the movie is shot is another subject. Some retain the film-based work flow from film camera to film projector. A growing number are scanned and colorized using a 2K resolution digital intermediate. Once the movie goes into that image resolution bottleneck you might as well show it on a 2K digital projection system. Any other native image detail the movie formerly had is now lost, all thanks to "good enough" standards on production and lack of desire on the part of studios to raise the quality bar anytime soon. Sony seems to be the only one embracing the 4K standard at all, but that seems in part from self interest to promote its own 4K digital projection system.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic