8mm Forum: Letter to the Editor

This is topic Letter to the Editor in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000606

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on June 14, 2007, 07:28 PM:

Yesterday, 'The Orlando Sentinel' had a huge front page article on the forthcoming conversion of Orlando's Cinema's to digital projection. It was a well written and informative article, complete with diagrams of DLP projectors, expounding the many advantages of digital over film. I felt some counterbalance was necessary so I wrote the following letter to the Sentinel, which hopefully they will print. Overstated? Perhaps, but a little controversy makes people think............

Letter to the Editor June 13 2007

Dear Editor,

I read with great interest Roger Moore’s excellent article on the conversion of Orlando’s cinemas to digital video. Unfortunately, the article was not objective enough in terms of what this technological revolution means to the cinema audience. Clearly, digital projection is a huge cost cutting benefit to the movie studios who will eliminate the expense of mass producing 35mm prints for worldwide distribution. And the theater owners will presumably be able to eliminate a few projectionists, and automate all their film presentation on multiple screens. All well and good.
Except for the minor problem of picture quality. The scientific fact is that digital video projection is not even close to achieving the stunning definition of 70mm and 35mm motion picture film, there are just not enough pixels to go around! And the texture and richness of 35mm color film is in a class by itself. In other words, with digital, the audience is going to get an inferior picture experience, which may not matter at all to the typical teenage crowd that the studios and theater owners pander to, but will not be acceptable to many people like myself who expect something really special when they go the cinema. The fact is that the magic of the movies is intimately connected to that big roll of film being jerked thru the projector at 24 frames per second. There is a unique film look and feel which no digital system can replicate.
If the theaters are all going digital then there is really no reason to go to the movies anymore. You may as well wait till it comes out on DVD and watch it at home on your TV. But this is really just one more nail in the coffin of cinemas, who have totally lost the art of showmanship and presentation. Remember how the movie palaces used to look, with beautifully decorated prosceniums, walls and carpeting, and how they rolled back those plush red velvet curtains to the opening fanfare of 20th Century Fox Cinemascope films like 'The Robe". Those were the days!
Now they are asking us to sit inside a cold black tomb to watch movies on a big TV!
No thank you.

Paul Adsett

Orlando

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on June 15, 2007, 05:49 AM:

Spot on Mr. Adsett!

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on June 15, 2007, 04:54 PM:

Brilliant...well done. That really sums it up well.

I had never thought of it as a big TV before but yes that's spot on. For the price of a couple of tickets you might as well wait for the DVD to come out and then watch it on your own VP and screen.

Once people realise this they will stop going to the cinema and the numbers will drop and cinemas will close [Frown]

Its taken the industry a long time to get the cinema going publics figures back up and now they are going to undo all that hard work.

Paul, that item you wrote even made me stop and think....nice one.

Kev.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 15, 2007, 07:47 PM:

I agree as well, Paul, something that I stated with a lot less elloquency in my little post on the main forum, (of scope and men ...)

It's hard enough to get me out of house to go to a cinema now,
(mostly objections to the rotten manners and demeanor of the average ill mannered film-goer), but I wouldn't even concieve
going to a big TV screen!

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on June 15, 2007, 08:19 PM:

It's really true about the showmanship factor: you have half an hour of advertisements on slides intermingled with the same screen games repeated 80 times over followed by some really gouged up daysets (I'd be ashamed to show them on my own screen) then the trailers come at a volume level worthy of the flight deck of the average aircraft carrier and then if you can still stand it the feature finally comes.

The decor would make a barn seem fancy, the floor is sticky, the staff is sloppy looking and lazy and the price is steep!

-No wonder they don't call 'em "Regal" anymore!

Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on June 15, 2007, 09:51 PM:

Right on, Paul!!

I must ask though.

When you signed the letter, did you include your tag line that you use here in the forum? "Best of both worlds, super 8, & 9.5 projection." (Did you edit out the VP like I just did?)

[Big Grin]

Posted by Robert Wales (Member # 502) on June 15, 2007, 11:15 PM:

At the risk of being run out of town like the Frankenstein monster, may I point out a few things in the interest of a balanced discussion ?

People go to see content, not technology. The differences between film and digital are just not that dramatic that it will affect even 1% of the audience's decision if the content they want to see is playing in their local cinema. Digital can duplicate the film grain structure if the original program is shot on film, and the digital master will closer reflect the color balance and timing of the cinematography than a 3rd generation release print made from a copy of the original negative duplicated on high-speed printers turning out hundreds of prints an hour. Every copy of the digital master will look exactly like the first, unlike film.
Because most 35mm prints today are sourced from negatives which are copies of copies, the resolution lost with each generation removed means the so-called difference between the two formats is not nearly as great as you state.
The age of the single screen movie palace is over and if the cinema is to survive it must change with the times or face extinction. Between outrageous film rentals, operational costs and the extraordinarily fast playoff of today's films a complex must offer new content virtually every week in order to keep traffic flow at a level that allows at least a break-even level. Home video, piracy and the internet are only a few of the new challenges that will permanently prevent the age of the year-long runs of films to ever happen again, unlike the roadshow runs of the past. Virtually every time a stadium-seating multiplex is built anywhere in North America the public votes with their dollars and these complexes kill off the old-style cinemas within a ten-mile radius, no matter how lovely, how ornate or how good the films are at the older locations. Speak to anyone in the industry and they will verify this.
And finally, with the studios releasing two or three wide releases every week on print runs of 2500 to 3000 prints for each title, has anyone ever considered the huge waste of resources used to manufacture these prints and the chemicals used when 75 % of these prints will be off-screen after 4 or 5 weeks, never to be used again ?

Posted by Dan Lail (Member # 18) on June 16, 2007, 01:44 AM:

Robert, what content?

You mean a real Picasso has the same effect as a color copier spiting out the same Picasso? [Eek!]

Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on June 16, 2007, 10:10 AM:

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Remember my joke a few months back about mixing a Shihitzu with a Bull Dog?

DVD at home is OK but when I kick back to watch a movie it has got to be film or it's not the same. Wait. Here's a thought. Isn't that why it's called a "motion picture?"

CG

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 16, 2007, 10:13 AM:

Robert needs a "Good Thrashing" (as John Cleese would say)

("Faulty Towers" for uninitiated, he beats his car, aw c'mon you guys!)

A need for forum members to be realistic about things is just talking nonsense! If we were realistic (and financially sound)
we would have given up film years ago. Digital, while sharper in most regards, and more "color perfect", does not have the same effect, even on friends who come over to watch an occasional feature with me. TV is TV. Film is an experience in
itself.

For me, honestly, my experience is spoiled by the people around me in the theater. Though I'm not going to go on and on about the downfall of society in general, the degrading of societal norms and manners can be seen in every public place, including the movie theater. It can be narrowed down to respect for others and having a care for the concerns of others, a more self-less mentality.

While you will always have a few that will talk during a movie theater experience, people are brought up with so little respect for others that we have a generation today that thinks of no one but themselves. Therefore, the concerns of others are thrown aside. If I say "shhh" in a movie theater, I'M looked at as the bad guy, (and then there's the overwhelming desire to beat the living (@#%$!) out of those wretched brats
AND the assinine parents who won't lift a finger to stop thier brats bad behavior publicly!! ARGGGH!

All of which completely takes my mind off of the lovely flickering image that I thought I went to the movie theater to enjoy.

I don't mind the ear deafening trailers and such. The onlt time I truly thought the sound was too high was in the Bruce Willis film "Armegeddon", which was a little too high.

I wonder if they do this too drown out them there brats!!

Posted by Robert Wales (Member # 502) on June 16, 2007, 10:54 AM:

Dan, you are and I are not as far apart on this issue as you would think. My point is that the release prints you see in theatres are so far removed from the quality generated by the original film that it is in many ways equal to a photocopy of an original work of art.

Anyone who has seen a 'show print'( which the studios would make from the original or first-generation negative for a very limited number of high-profile theatres in the most important markets ) versus a general-release print made from a duplicate negative would understand the huge quality difference that could be observed by the naked eye if they were compared side-by-side. You can see the difference clearly and I would argue that it is far greater than the differences between a mass-produced 35mm print vs it's digital counterpart. One perfectly tuned digital master taken from the original negative would mean than every theatregoer in every market running digital would see the same level of quality that was previously only available in the best theatres in the biggest cities.

You simply cannot make a large number of 35mm prints from original negative material without the risk of serious wear or damage on your precious original. Each duplicate negative produced takes you one step away from the quality of the original, and there are many duplicate negatives produced to accomodate the printing requirements of various markets around the world.

I still want to see film shot on film but I have no problem with digital projection when you account for the many advantages which to my eyes outweigh the disadvantages.

And speaking of John Cleese..... I was looking at the supplementary materials on the new HD-DVD of 'The Meaning of Life' last night and especially enjoyed the short section on the 'restoration' of the original film, which featured a straight-faced interview with James Katz ( who worked on the 'Lawrence of Arabia' restoration ) followed by Terry Jones putting pieces of the print into a washing machine to clean up the original materials !

Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on June 16, 2007, 12:44 PM:

For me, all the theaters here in this area are not digital projection. For years, Hoyt's cinemas dominated the local market. They came in with the big bucks to take over the former Interstate Theaters. They bought them out, closed the single screen main street movies houses, and stayed with the local multiplexes. It wasn't until recently that Hoyt's pulled out, and Regal moved into the area. Regal spent alot of money upgrading most screens to digital. The few screens that aren't digital (sound) are atleast Dolby Stereo. So in one sense, the theaters here are much better than they used to be 10 years ago. We probably only have less than 10 original mono houses on Cape Cod.

Last November I recall going to the movies when I saw Beerfest. And not until last week did I go again when I saw Surf's Up. The movie was OK. But I was not in the mood to go that night.

Strange thing is, I can't figure this out. When I go to the movies locally, I can't stop thinking on how sloppy the presentation is. Like a person who loves to cook at home and the one night they go out to eat all they do is critque the way the carrots are overcooked, maybe should have been stir fried instead of steamed, and so on. Then there's the messages of turning off the cell phones and pagers. regal bombards us with this message several times. And why are there 6 to 8 blasting trailers. When I worked, we had 3 trailers and then the feature, period.

Point is, I much prefer running super 8 at home. I seem to enjoy doing things my own way so much more and the satisfaction of it I simply can't describe. With over 160 features in my library, I have so much to choose. I mean at this rate I watch super 8 once every 6 weeks when I finally fit it into my schedule. The older films I choose are always great to watch. And time flies. I have both versions of Fantasia in full length, haven't seen them since 2005, yet it seems like only last week I did watch them.

I rarely go to the movies in public anymore. So here's my question, do I miss the work in theaters - would I enjoy the big movie theaters more had I not retired from it? Would I go more on my nights off if I could get in for free? Or am I sick of the trash they are throwing at us?

I really do not know about the big theaters.

But I simply adore it at home.

CG

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 16, 2007, 01:58 PM:

Hey, I have that DVD of Monty Python as well, (and I'll never tire of the multi-million dollar machine that goes "ping"!), I love Terry Gilliam totally loosing it on the editing machine!

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on June 17, 2007, 09:44 AM:

Well, they printed my letter on the Editorial page today - they even gave it the honor of its own highlighted box ,complete with movie marquee clip art!
It will be interesting to see what they will print as a reader response letter, which I'm sure they will get.

Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on June 17, 2007, 10:25 AM:

Here's Paul's letter via Orlando Sentinel webpage:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/letters/orl-letbox17_807jun17,0,3579510.story?coll=orl-opin-letters-headlines

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 17, 2007, 02:53 PM:

Great Job Paul.

You do all of us film enthusiasts an honor. Though it may not make all that much of a difference to the mainstream public, it was a wonderful "hurrah" for us film-lovers, and that's for sure!

OSI

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on June 17, 2007, 03:27 PM:

Thanks Osi. The main problem I have with digital cinema is the way it is being presented to the public, namely as an improvement in picture quality, which it clearly is not. I know I am preaching to the choir here on this forum, but hopefully my letter will get some of the general public casting a more critical eye towards the digital cinema hype.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on June 17, 2007, 09:11 PM:

Paul
Well done on your article hope you get feed back from readers as to there thoughts. I have just completed two flat out 16hr days running 35mm over this weekend and will share, what I think an amusing story. Early on Sunday morning just prior to screening "Bridge To Terabithia" a very good film by the way, I invited a family if they wanted to have a quick look around, anyway as they did so they mentioned that they thought it was all Digital video projection these days, and were fascinated by the 35mm projectors, I once again gave the kids strips of film "those boxes of old trls are getting smaller" [Roll Eyes]

and got them to start the projector for "Bridge" they thought doing this was great, anyway the point to the story is that one of so called benefit's [Roll Eyes]

that is stated for the push to video, is that it will increase interest for people to return to the cinema, and yet the very thing they want to get rid of is also what people find so interesting. There has already been complaints in the paper of a cinema running a film festival using video, one person wrote to the paper stating that he may as well stayed at home and watched the TV he had expected a "Film" festival to be just that, Film!. The hard sell is already in place and in time video projection will become the norm, the people who have invested a lot of money in this stuff will make sure of that, and at present are pushing there product hard, they dont understand the "Magic of the Movies" never will, and I doubt they really care, cinema's will go digital and many will go under, people like me will be history, but before that happens I will have given away heaps of film for the kids to remember of what it was once like. [Wink]

Graham.

PS
Paul, I will quickly mention that we ran a fully booked out cinema last night of "Pirates" on our large screen for the Scouts, they have a big event here at the moment, and if the response from the parents in anything to go by, not only did they enjoy the movie but thought picture and sound was really good, not bad for an almost 40yr old projector and a 20yr sound system incidentally the power amps we use for each of the Digital channels are capable of 750watts each [Eek!]

"we dont run them at that" good quality sound though [Wink]

anyway they have made another booking for next weekend so I guess there aint anything wrong with 35mm. [Smile]

Posted by Joerg Polzfusz (Member # 602) on June 18, 2007, 04:34 AM:

Hi,

I wonder if it would have made sense to state some facts like this:
* 35mm film is equivalent to an 8k resolution (under best conditions), whereas digital projection will be done at a 2k resolution in most cases
* Even at 4k the digital projection would use a lossy compression, hence the picture will be inferior even to a 35mm-print made from a (normally uncompressed) 4k video source
* There's still a slight colour-shift due to a digital projector (black will turn into dark gray, ...), not to mention that normal film holds more colours than the current digital projectors can show
* ...

Jörg

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on June 18, 2007, 01:37 PM:

Paul,

Very articulate and well written.
Thank you for pushing forward
to write this very interesting treatment.

All I can say is for anyone to watch the
RKO Paul Henreid and Maureen O' Hara
in 1945's The Spanish Main.
Wow is her hair so vibrant, and all of those
shadowy scenes in the dungeons are full of
atmosphere.
I am convinced that Walt Disney used this set direction
when he conceived The attraction at his Parks:
The Pirates of the Caribbean, for it's
almost identical to each other.

In my collection I have a 16mm IB Tech Print of
the first 3 strip technicolor short
La Cucaracha, and let me tell you about
color and texture that leaps off the screen.
It is so vibrant, that you notice the threads
of the fabric in the costumes.

I also have an 16mm IB Tech print of Pal Joey.
There is a scene where Sinatra is wearing this
uniform and you can see the wool texture in the fabric.

It's simply amazing!

When Lucas released
Star Wars Episode 2 Attack of the Clones,
I went to see it with digital projection
and mentioned to my cousin:
"ah yes, is it not great to go to
the theatre and watch a video."
[Big Grin]

Robert made an interesting point regarding
printing from neg to neg may result in
a loss of picture quality.
I do believe that with great lab work this
would not be distinguishable to us.

With that, Lucas stated that he lost quality
control with image retention in special
effects when using the traditional
19th century photographic methods.

But just read the posts written here
about collectors testimonies regarding
prints of Master and Commander and
Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Which is difficult to imagine
that it is all on 8mm stock.

My favorite pastime is going to the
theatre and watching a film in a multiplex
that has been hacked up from a huge
palace that has resulted in a small
concrete block at the end of a black
tunnel.
[Razz]

I guess it all sums up to one conclusion:
Entertainment is dead.
Dead as in: D.E.A.D.

D.O.A.
Dead on Arrival.
Not even can Digital, Resurrect the cinema.

Entertainment does not exist anymore.

The stories rot.

The actors can't emote.

Look at George Clooney - He walks through
a movie like a walk in the park.
- Very Dull - Just another "B" rated
matinee idol and there are many more in
his very low league.
His Batman portrayal in 1997's
Batman and Robin could not even
be salvaged by using the IB Tech process.

Julia Roberts ?
Richard Gere ?
Stars? PLEASE, don't get me started!

Years ago, stars had personalities,and
movies had entertainment.
The early Bond films had action,
but they also would take you away to
a far off locale that allowed the viewer
to feel exotic and sophisticated.

Also let's not think that all of the films
made during the '70's were great either.
But that's another discussion.

M.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 18, 2007, 07:03 PM:

I agree with you Micheal to a great extent. There are a few films that come out that are worth the seeing them. As a rule, you can take or leave them.

I see an example in the three new Star Wars films (episodes 123)
While they aren't chopped liver, most of what drives people to see em is the mystique of the first three classic films.

While not all film of the 70's are brilliant, there was a lot more of the re-visioning of many genres. Also, a number of the remakes were far more sucessful. (The 39 Steps is an example)
Even what was called bad in the 70's and early 80's almost looks brilliant compared to todays films.

Splash and special effects have only carried films so far. in some ways, the lousy special effects of many a 50's sci-fi film made the actors work harder to make the film work. The actors
are so overwhelmed in the modern films that one wonders why they bother to show up in the first place.

Comedy is in the toilet

Sci-fi has drifted back to 30's quality of believeability

Westerns are full of pretty boys that look like they climbed out of a salon onto the Ponderosa

John Wayne could crap better action stars than what we have today,

(Except for Bruce Willis and Harrison Ford and of course steely
eyed Clint Eastwood.)

I mean hey, Clint Eastwood could be 100 years old, in a wheelchair, waving his 45 pistol about and grunting ...

"I need someone to change my Diapers ... and none of that huggies shit!"

AND HE'D STILL BE TOUGH AS NAILS!!

Posted by Lars Pettersson (Member # 762) on June 19, 2007, 01:00 PM:

Paul, I agree with you 100%
Some good points were also made about digital technology, but I take a slightly different view:
Digital has brought a great deal of good to movie post production, todays digital master materials allow labs to put out large number of 35mm prints that look better than if they had been Nth generation traditional dupes, but the point here is the end result should be 35mm PRINTS, not digital VP. [Mad]

Also, I feel an important aspect about all these fields where traditional photographic technology is now taking heavy FLAK, is "if you don´t use it, you lose it." Yes, I can arrange a pleasant screening of a classic film at home, and chances are the presentation in some respects will be better than what you´re offered at the multiplex, but if we all stay away from the cinemas, it´ll only speed up the demise of "cinema as we once knew it."
So go to the cinema, shoot some super-8-film, shoot slides and traditional stills film. No company will kill a profitable business, if we buy and use their products, they will produce them. [Smile]

Cheers,
Lars

Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on June 19, 2007, 07:58 PM:

How come some of these replies to Paul's letter ARE NOT published in the Orlando Sentinel? [Big Grin]

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on June 20, 2007, 08:51 AM:

No replies in the Sentinel yet Chip. But I expect the next few days will see a response letter.

Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on June 20, 2007, 09:47 AM:

What I meant was, some of the replies here in this very forum should be printed in the paper....they are sooooooooooo good!!!!! Especially Micheal's comments about Hollywood being D.O.A.....and George Clooney.....LOL but honestly so true to the point!!!!!!!!!

Chip

Posted by Frank Picaro (Member # 811) on June 20, 2007, 06:09 PM:

Michael,
Years ago stars had TALENT. Now they have looks and sex-appeal, but little else. How can they call what they do acting???!!!! [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Lars Pettersson (Member # 762) on June 21, 2007, 12:08 AM:

Absolutely right, Frank!
Also, some stars of the past were of a caliber such that that kind of actor doesn´t necessarily appear once every generation. Who would be today´s equivalent of Cary Grant? Steve McQueen?Cheers,
Lars

Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on June 21, 2007, 08:26 AM:

Hollywood is tired and needs retirement. That would be interesting. There'd be two homes. One for the real actors who haven't keeled over, and the other retirement home for the fakers. Now, it's so bad your down to watching for pictures of celebrities with "baby bumps" at the supermarket checkout lines. Hmmmmmmmm is that the problem with Mr. G.C?

CG [Big Grin]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 21, 2007, 10:07 AM:

I think part of the argument concerning actors of the past and present is that they didn't just had faces, they had a certian warmth AS WELL AS a voice to match. When you listened to them on the radio, (in the past, of course) you could never confuse Jimmy Stewart with Peter Lorre, or Boris karloff with Katherine Hepburn!

There was far more than just the face. If you look at the biggest names of the past, except in a few instances, the greatest actors and actresses weren't the prettiest face.

Humphrey Bogart, not pretty. John Wayne, definitely not pretty but damned real, (so real, we equate much of the rugged west with John Wayne). Peter Lorre, creepier than any Freddy Kruger. Jimmy Stewart, tall and lanky, and everyday man. Henry
Fonda, another everyday man. Burt Lancaster, tough brute, (as well as the multi-talented Cagney)

and stars of the "mid Hollywood" (those not of classic thrirties Hollywood, but still classic) Lee Marvin, gruff tough, takes no shit! (and a hell of a drunk!) Walter mathau
, great rumpled actor!

and Clint eastwood .... well, just don't piss him off!!

I think the ONLY pretty boy modern actor I actually enjoy, is, of all people, Jhonny Depp, simply for the fact that he doesn't play the pretty boy, but the bizzarre. he won my respect when he played "Edward Scissorhands".

Perhaps that why I like the Bruce Willis's and Harrison Ford's. They really aren't the pretty boys.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2