|
Author
|
Topic: Great report on increasing use of film
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Hourigan
Master Film Handler
Posts: 301
From: Colorado U.S.A.
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted May 20, 2016 06:32 PM
Sorry Raleigh, but the economics are just not there anymore for the wide-scale production, distribution and projection of film prints in cinemas as it was in the past. We have to remember it's a business.
While I love film, I'm glad to see cinemas put more effort and money into making the theatre-going experience much more enjoyable, including plush recliners, food delivered to your seat, and much larger screens. I actually enjoy going to the movies now! It's certainly much better than the ratty, and downright gross, theater experience -- including sticky floors, beat-up film prints, etc. -- of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. And the picture quality today, even with my "film eyes," is absolutely stunning.
I, for one, wouldn't want to go back to the way things were -- actually, I find I go to the movies now much more than I did even five years ago.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raleigh M. Christopher
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 130
From: New York, NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2016
|
posted May 20, 2016 11:43 PM
I don't like what's out there. I don't like digital. I don't like these desperate things theater chains are doing to replicate your living room, because cinema attendance has fallen so drastically. I also don't like Hollywood Industrial product.'Transformers 109 and Hulk vs. Antman ad nauseeum. And LIMEAX. And 3D slapped on everthing. Mainstream commercial cinema screens are smaller, today, not bigger. And they have no curtains, or some even proper masking. Just show it letterbox, like a big screen TV! Luckily, I live in NYC where I have options. Like MOMI, FilmLinc, Film Forum, BAM Cinematek, Anthology Film Archives and the beautiful new Metrograph. NYC is a big cinephile town.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lindsay Morris
Film Handler
Posts: 87
From: Darlington, WA, Australia
Registered: Jul 2013
|
posted May 21, 2016 04:26 AM
You certainly will not see a general swing back to using film in commercial cinemas because as others have pointed out they are running a business.
The digital conversion costs per screen are NOT cheap & whilst first run cinemas got a good deal from the Studios to encourage them to convert in the form of almost a subsidy per first release the smaller sub run sites were on their own.
I have just sold & retired from my outdoor cinema having had to make the agonizing decision to either demolish the site or demolish my bank account.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I chose the latter & was VERY glad that I did as the best part regarding digital, from a sub run perspective, is that almost as soon as a movie was released I was able to book it to screen within 4 weeks of it opening & KNOW for sure that I WOULD get a copy to run. NEVER could that be done with film as the prints had to stay at whatever venue was running it.
Whereas with digital the hard drives once ingested at the various venues went back to the depot so the film bookers knew with absolute certainty that Cinema X COULD have Movie X on the date that they wanted it.
Made programming a breeze & thus able to display posters & run the trailers which brought more bums on seats..loved it.
Also was so much easier to put together a program which is virtually drag & drop to build a playlist which allowed automated functions such as fine tuning of sound levels for EVERY clip, control of lighting,lens format changes anywhere you liked.
Thus once a play list is assembled & saved one only had to drop that into a schedule & providing the projector/server were turned on the system started & stopped screenings whenever you told it to do so.
Plus FAR Better image on screen, focus is spot on every time, NO dirt or scratches, NO blips in the sound at each reel change due to hacked about starts & ends of the reels & so on.
Made my job so much easier & made the business far more viable.
What I bought came equipped with Dolby 3D & that looked stunning in an outdoor venue & all in all after many years of running 35mm gear I will take digital every time.
Personally I really cannot see that much of a difference between film & digital if it is setup accurately with correct colour rendering which is a mix of Red, Blue & Green light so CAN be way out and look like crap.
As the system IS computer based the usual Computer foibles CAN & DO creep in. I had a corrupted screen advert file once that made me cancel a weekends sessions & was a fair bugger to find.
It crashed the server so hard that one had to reboot from cold TWICE to clear out the system to get it stable & reliable.
But gear is getting far better & even solid state HDD are becoming quite common & load way faster than the older types.
Although when major things go wrong it is NOT as easy to fix as 35mm gear was as any competent operator could do almost anything on the machines to get a show back onto the sheet.
Digital NOT so easy at all. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
From a business standpoint I cannot see any cinema going back to film unless for special events but now there are very few 35mm plants left as most have been junked.
But for home cinema use I still love film be it S8, 16 or 35mm.
--------------------
Lindsay
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raleigh M. Christopher
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 130
From: New York, NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2016
|
posted May 21, 2016 06:39 AM
quote:
Plus FAR Better image on screen, focus is spot on every time, NO dirt or scratches, NO blips in the sound at each reel change due to hacked about starts & ends of the reels & so on
See, I have a totally different point of view on this. I would rather watch a real film with a scratch line down one side for dirt or blips then that palsticky "perfection" of digital. Now, mind you, my taste in Cinema is NOT Hollywood. My taste runs to foreign, avant-garde, experimental, independent, and classic cinema. This is why I'm lucky to have the plethora of options I have in New York where these types of films are shown on a regular basis, and on real film. Metrograph shows eveything on film. They're equipped for DCP, but it's used only when nessecary.
A classic old film, projected on film, that's nearly pristine is great, to be sure. I saw a 35mm print of Brian DePalma's "Carrie" recently that looked AMAZING. It might as well have been opening weekend 1976. It was that pristine overall. But watching an old film complete with snaps, crackles, pops, some dirt or scratches here or there, cue dots, what have you, does not distract from my enjoyment whatsoever. It's all part of it. Like a sculpture or painting that's survived wars, and thefts, or has a chunk missing etc. That's all part of the history and uniqueness of the work. A perfect copy, that can be digitally reproduced into 1000 perfect copies, has no soul.
See Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in The Age of Mechanical Reproduction"
http://ada.evergreen.edu/~arunc/texts/frankfurt/benjamin/benjamin.pdf
(Edited for spelling and typos)
[ May 22, 2016, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Raleigh M. Christopher ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Groves
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 508
From: Southend on Sea, Essex, UK
Registered: Feb 2015
|
posted May 21, 2016 07:54 AM
It sounds to me, Raleigh, that you're comparing personal preference with Cinema business. That's absolutely fine and you should go on enjoying what you enjoy, but sadly the modern day cinema audience knows nothing of film versus digital and as long as they get what they paid for they'll come away happy. I've been a film man all my life but the quality of digital is amazing. The problem is I've lived long enough to watch films in dedicated cinemas which were usually full with people who, generally, were well behaved, didn't look at mobiles, and didn't want their dinner while the film was running. Showmanship was the order of the day with curtains, footlights, music and the magic of the night. We didn't have loads of scratched films and it didn't cost the earth to go three times a week. Todays Cinema experience is different and the modern audience doesn't know how different. I shall carry on running my projectors and remembering the days long gone while, at the same time, enjoying the occasional digital fodder that appeals to the older audience.
--------------------
Dave
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raleigh M. Christopher
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 130
From: New York, NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2016
|
posted May 21, 2016 08:38 AM
You're right, it is my preference. I hate the look of digital video, and don't get why some people think it looks so "great". To me it looks horrible. Plastic.
But my question is, if it's so great and the masses are fine with it, and love sofas and dinner in the cinema, then why has cinema attendance tanked to the degree it has? I can tell you why. Not only is there no more creativity or originality in the world of cinema "business" (Hollywood and it's foreign counterparts), but you'e not gettimg anything you can't get at home, that's why.
Also things like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/movies/in-x-men-apocalyp se-and-captain-america-superheroes-versus-movie-stars.html
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Hourigan
Master Film Handler
Posts: 301
From: Colorado U.S.A.
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted May 21, 2016 10:58 AM
I guess I just don't understand the vitriol, Raleigh. In my 45-plus years in the hobby, I never thought I'd be achieving such stunning images and sound as I do now in my home cinema. Recently I've screened The Revenant, In The Heart Of The Sea, and The Hateful 8, among others, with a print and sound quality that I would never be able to achieve with Super 8. And believe me, with my critical and professional eye, the resulting picture and sound quality far surpasses and doesn't resemble a television viewing experience. In fact, I waited all these years (decades) to spend money to build a home cinema once I thought the picture and sound quality merited it, and today it does.
After all these years, it's been an absolute pleasure to enjoy the shared experience of actually watching the movie with family and friends, rather than be in the back constantly fiddling with the film projector. This doesn't mean I don't enjoy my Super 8 films, I do, but let's face it, the titles that are (legitimately) available on Super 8 are the same ones that have been in circulation for 30, 40, 50 years. Being in the hobby for over 40 years, I'm absolutely thrilled to have access to and be able to screen the whole host of recently released movies and arcane older films that today's technology affords. It has increased my enjoyment in the hobby ten-fold, and the same audiences who attended my earlier Super 8 screenings are now even more enthusiastic to come to my home cinema for movie nights. Isn't that's what it's all about anyway, sharing the fun of screening movies with others?
Unfortunately, I see some people on this and other boards who seem to have needlessly overly stressed themselves about format solely for the sake of format, to the point of being pedantic. I'd say let it go and enjoy it all -- there's never been a better time to be in the movie screening hobby!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tom Spielman
Master Film Handler
Posts: 339
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Registered: Apr 2016
|
posted May 21, 2016 12:56 PM
There's no doubt digital has been boon to both content creators and consumers. It levels the playing field. You don't need to have a huge equipment budget for capturing and editing. As a consumer, you have an enormous library of titles to choose from, anytime, anywhere. Whether you like modern fare, the classics, indies, or what some kids have put together and distributed on youtube.
However, as with many technology shifts, something is lost too. Going to a movie is not the same experience as it was 15 years ago and 15 years ago it was not the same experience it was 30, 45, 60, or 90 years ago. There's is no doubt though that part of what I appreciate about film has to do with nostalgia rather it being "better".
I shot my first 8mm film back in college the mid 80's. I used my father's wind-up camera. I barely knew what I was doing and the results are what you might expect. It was throwback technology even then. Ironically, digital technology can fix some of those mistakes I made (to a certain degree) way back then.
That was 30 years ago and I'm again looking at shooting some 8mm (super 8 this time). There's a particular reason for that choice and it's because the subjects were captured on 8mm as kids. But I appreciate that other people want to use film for other reasons and I might in the future as well. For that reason I hope it becomes a more viable medium, even if it won't be the dominant one.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raleigh M. Christopher
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 130
From: New York, NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2016
|
posted May 22, 2016 09:02 AM
quote:
I guess I just don't understand the vitriol, Raleigh. In my 45-plus years in the hobby, I never thought I'd be achieving such stunning images and sound as I do now in my home cinema. Recently I've screened The Revenant, In The Heart Of The Sea, and The Hateful 8, among others...
There is definitely a misunderstanding here. My thoughts have nothing to do home exhibition. I haven't said anything about home exhibition. I don't have an issue with Blu-ray discs or DVD's. I had a LaserDisc player in high school, and DVD's and Blu-ray discs are the children and grandchildren of LaserDisc. I loved LaserDisc then, and Blu-ray is it's progeny.
I am talkimg about public exhibition in a cinema setting, as well as production. That is where I have the problem. Nor are my thoughts on the matter about "format for the sake of format". Not by a long shot. I have strong philosophical opinions about film, hence my reference to the Walter Benjamin essay in just one respect.
quote:
There's no doubt digital has been boon to both content creators and consumers. It levels the playing field. You don't need to have a huge equipment budget for capturing and editing. As a consumer, you have an enormous library of titles to choose from, anytime, anywhere. Whether you like modern fare, the classics, indies, or what some kids have put together and distributed on youtube.
I have no issues with Netflix, or renting movies through the iTunes store via my AppleTV.
In terms of "leveling the playing field" I feel that is an overrated argumemt in favor of digital video, for many reasons. Because of digital video and iMovie and FCP and the like, every Tom, Dick, Harry and their Dog now thinks they are the new undiscovered star director. What it has done is just increased the amount of junk being made. It is also a very lazy form of creation, that encourages very bad habits, and in the long run has a detrimental effect on creativity. It's actually this "democratization" that has fed mediocrity. A kid in college was posting in a discussion once saying how he "wanted to be a director" and that if it wasn't for digital video, he couldn't do anything because "film production was too expensive" and he couldn't afford it. I had little sympathy. I basically told him to suck it up and stop crying. Harsh? Maybe. But what did Spielberg, Abrams, and Lucas (the last of which I no longer have any respect for) do? Born long before digital video and NLE in the home on a desktop or laptop existed, how did they succeed? They really wanted it. They found ways. They had to be resourceful, and disciplined. They worked within restraints. They found a way. Everyone deserves access to art, but no one has a right to make a living from it. Art is a luxury. You want to make art? That's great. Noble even. But you don't have the guarantee or right of it being easy. Get a real job, and make your art in your spare time. Budget your money and spend your discretionary income on the supplies you will need. Apply for a grant. If you have a unique voice, or just have something to say, and you become established enough that you can sustain yourself through your art, great! But no one guaratees you that as a a right or that it should or will be easy.
There's been in recent time, an ever growing circle jerk going on over digital video. And with each new "K" format iteration, the participants just cum harder and harder. It's ridiculous. In fact, I'd argue that it's these digital video obsessives, who believe all previous technology is inherently inferior, and all new inherenently superior - and therefore should obviate the "old" - are the ones who argue format or platform for the sake of format or platform.
Digital should be a helper. It should not be a scorched earth, wholesale replacement - such is the extreme that many ignorant and uninformed advocate. Nor is it really the "perfection" they naively believe it to be, over the "imperfect" analog they diminish.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
