Cinema DVD Projection In Norway - ItÃ‚Â´s here :-(

Post by **S8 Booster** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 3:17 am

Sad note

Read a film critics review on a new [DV] cinema film release today about a [DV] film shot in 3 days and edited in 9 :?: :twisted: dunno.

The journalist told that the film was obviously lacking from "no" planning and that many things were solved "on the fly".

Link to about the film - unfortutalety in Norwegian only:
http://www.oa.no/Kultur/article714704.ece

Said to be the worldÃ‚Â´s first commercial cinema DVD only distribution supplied to 80 theaters in norway.
Easier with a DVD by mail than 30 kilos of film? So it is going forward then?

Also - this modern DV trend was fulfilled by DVD projection. Again the critics comments: Closeups worked fairly OK but panoramic stuff looked (more) like shit.

This cinema theater is the supposedly the most modern in Northern Europe and has 5 or 6 separate theaters ranging from small to quite big within one building using a central projector room.

Di not know if they can project DVDs in all theaters but I guess so.

So, image quality deterioation will not halt the trend of detronizing FILM

oubt: :?:

Future is now :?: :?:

R

Post by **MovieMaker** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 8:46 am

Qicker, cheaper and faster maybe.

But IÃ‚Â´ve recently seen "28 days later", shot completely with a Canon XL1 and the P+S Filmtechnik adapter (to use 35mm optics) and on DVD it looks not so bad. But in the theatre it couldnÃ‚Â´t reach the quality of a 35mm projection. Especially when doing wide shots.

People in the theatre actually thought there was something wrong with the projector.

MovieMaker

Post by **jumar** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 9:29 am

I was thinking about DVD projection today. If, in the future, they could get the data rate high enough so that the film was completely uncompressed, and stored on several discs, like a film is on several reels, the quality could be comparable. Then, if the projectors advance so that the colour is deep and rich, the colour could be comparable.

At that point, you'd have a delivery medium that is very cheap, and everyone wins. It would be considerably cheaper than the delievery to current digital theatres in North America, as well, and theoretically I could make a film and make the prints myself.

Prints are so expensive, so I don't see this as a sad note at all. They're not going to show Laurence of Arabia in that DVD theatre... it'll likely be more independent stuff.

Not that I'm coming up with anything new here, but digital delivery, when fully implemented, will be better than film in almost every way. Besides the costs involved (in insurance, shipping, and the prints themselves), you are guaranteed a crystal clear viewing every time... no dust, scratches or deterioration with repeat viewings.

Post by **David M. Leugers** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 3:48 pm

Jumar said:

Not that I'm coming up with anything new here, but digital delivery, when fully implemented, will be better than film in almost every way. Besides the costs involved (in insurance, shipping, and the prints themselves), you are guaranteed a crystal clear viewing every time... no dust, scratches or deterioration with repeat viewings.

I have said this before, my experience has been that in the theatres near me the state of projection of film is absolutely tremendous. I have not seen a flaw in years. Pristine picture and sound. It is easily obtained with state of the art 35mm projectors. 50 year old projectors fitted with the latest sound processors do the same. For all the buzz on digital projection, the digital screens near me went back to film projection. Because the customers preferred it. Once it is all digital, I will no longer attend, not out of loyalty to film but it will provide no difference in experience than I can get at home. The huge digital picture causes eye discomfort to me. My question is: if it is not truely "better", then if they do it only to save cost, why should I support it? I thought I was the customer and not the distributor.

David M. Leugers

Post by **jumar** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 8:05 pm

David M. Leugers wrote:My question is: if it is not truely "better", then if they do it only to save cost, why should I support it? I thought I was the customer and not the distributor.

I agree, for now. My argument was for the future of digital projection. We're not there yet.

When the projection system is "perfect", or up to the standards of a current film theatre, it will be better for everyone, because the studio, the distributor, the cinema, and the user will all feel the cost savings (in theory). To say that it is no different from what you get at home is untrue unless you have a 30 foot screen at home.

I love watching films on DVD at home. They look great. There's a big psychological difference for me though... at home if I get distracted for a second (which is easier to do), I can push pause and go away for a minute. The fact that you can't do this in a theatre makes for a more authentic story listening experience.

For the record, I chose to see Star Wars II on in a film theatre, when a new digital theatre was very close to where I live.

Post by **mattias** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 9:14 pm

David M. Leugers wrote:My question is: if it is not truely "better", then if they do it only to save cost, why should I support it?

because it could potentially keep many small theaters alive, it makes it easier for smaller distributors which can bring more "narrow" films to a larger audience, and it could speed up the time it takes for films to reach remote places. i'm from a small town so i know about the only theater showing art house films closing down, only getting the hollywood blockbusters, and having to wait up to a year for most of them.

/matt

Post by **mattias** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 9:46 pm

by the way, i'm not just speculating. this has already happened here in sweden. mainly for testing purposes by a small cinema chain, but it does work. people from kiruna to avesta have been enjoying their first world premieres and independent films for more than a year now, and the audience actually seems to show up. very cool in my opinion.

/matt

Post by **David M. Leugers** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:16 pm

Mattias:

You still didn't answer why I should support it. 8)

Seriously, if the improvements to home theatres keep pace then
you can easily make a home cinema which would indeed give you
the approximate viewing experience without the costs of going to
a theatre. For now, I am glad to pay to see a 35mm film on the
big screen, something I can not easily duplicate at home. I still wonder
what some director and producer with balls could do with the new film
stocks and shoot for 70mm prints. With Technicolor prints and Dolby six channel stereo sound, I think it would be a mind blower. If a Julia Roberts or other high priced actor would only take a small cut in their salary it would easily be viable. Just dreaming....

David M. Leugers

Post by **mattias** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 3:48 am

David M. Leugers wrote:You still didn't answer why I should support it. [...] For now, I am glad to pay to see a 35mm film on the
big screen, something I can not easily duplicate at home. I still wonder
what some director and producer with balls could do with the new film
stocks and shoot for 70mm prints.

way to many i's in that post for my taste. i just don't think cinema should be something reserved for the educated urban middle class. as a filmmaker you should be concerned about how hard it is to get your work out there instead of being afraid of not getting an optimal product for yourself as a consumer -- in my humble opinion of course.

/matt

Post by **Scotness** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:30 am

I agree with both of you - it will mean smaller independant productions can get to the audience more - which is a great thing -- but also I agree a big film shot on 70mm with today's grainless stocks would be awesome and no video at all could match that!

But the two are essentially mutually exclusive and can and will exist together -- but back in our little Super 8 world - with most people editing on their computer DVD projection is a good thing - I'm now organising the premiere of In My Image (which will be towards the end of September) and it will be screend off a DVD in a small cinema - which for a Super 8 feature running at 90 odd minutes with sound is a bit tricky with projectors (of course it can be done - but it would all have to be edited and optically printed on Super 8 too for the projection stock)

So I dont' mind the DVD projections - but love the film ones too

Scot

Post by **istvan** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 11:22 am

ok, so I read an interview with the director of "Girl Fight", and on the film vs. video issue she said she had just learned of alpha (film projection) and beta (tv/digital projection) lightwaves, the former being processed by the active part of your brain, the latter the passive... I find it very tempting to believe in, but on the other hand it does reimnd me a bit too much of my new-age ex-girlfriend.

Anyone got any idea? Heard of it before?

Istvan

Post by **mattias** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 1:24 pm

istvan wrote:ok, so I read an interview with the director of "Girl Fight", and on the film vs. video issue she said she had just learned of alpha (film projection) and beta (tv/digital projection) lightwaves [...] Anyone got any idea? Heard of it before?

yeah, i've heard it and it could be true in a way i guess. i'm not sure if it's really this pseudo scientific explanation that's the truth (i.e. i'm pretty sure it's not), but there's certainly a big difference in how we react to watching television vs. projection. however, video projection is exactly the same thing as film projection from the viewpoint of optics and lightwaves, so it's not really relevant in this case anyway... :-)

/matt