film on shaky ground....

Post by **Evan Kubota** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:37 pm

"Hold onto your seats....just wait until you can see a different version of the same movie depending on what time a theater plays it"

You know that sometimes this already happens, right? Some early cuts of Lord of the Rings were rumored to have scenes that weren't in later versions. Studios have been known send out replacement prints because the first ones were incorrect or different from the final edit...

Kieslowski intentionally planned to make slightly different edits of "Double Life of Veronique" for each theater in Paris, emphasizing the subjective experience, but it was dismissed as too expensive.

Post by **FILM-THURSO** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 2:13 am

When Film-Thurso launched a campaign to bring cinema back to our town in 1984 (and we were ultimately successful in 1987 and 2000) the cinema industry had lost a stagerring 95% of it's customers due to, of all things, central heating in the home with video sticking the knife in. Yet today cinema is thriving and advancing into new ways to continue the big screen experience.
Yes, ultimately digital will take over the mainstream but in whatever form, the projected image will survive. It was said that video would kill cinema but yet it has failed and is in viewing terms, one of the least popular audio visual entertainment forms.
Satalite TV was also going to kill cinema yet more and more people in the UK at least are turning off and heading for a night out on the town, whether for a meal, going down the pub, off to the 'pictures' or a bogie at the nightclub or all of these. It has to be noted that the very industry video tried to kill is the one it most wants to be and in such will never succeed in wiping out movies.
The bottom line is that even if it exists only in the smallest quantities film is extremly unlikely to die out all together no matter who is using it or what it is used for.

Post by **MovieStuff** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 2:31 am

Tom Ballard wrote: For the sake of discussion, let's say the signal was going to be broadcast from a satellite. Someone's going to have to put up billions of $$$ to get that process off the ground.

The cost for digital uplink and down link is very cheap. The satelites are already in place and the "airtime" (for lack of a better term) is rented on regular basis. It is already so reasonable that recording studios use them all the time instead of flying recording artists across the country. Even as far back as 1992, I was witness to several local recording sessions in Houston where there was a regional radio ad that needed to be produced right away and the voice talent was in Canada somewhere, fishing or something. Anyway, the ad agency contacted a recording studio up there and one in Houston. A small van came out to both locations and set up temporary dishes pointed at the sky. The talent recorded in a booth in Canada while the client listened to a crystal clear reception in a recording studio in Houston.

Tom Ballard wrote: The studios are in no position to do it, considering all the bad films they're releasing and their lack of profits, so I doubt they're financially capable.

Actually, because print costs simply can not be recouped (not to mention the distribution issues involved) the distributors are the ones that will end up benefiting the most and the theater owners are just waiting them out. So distributors are in the best position to shoulder the installation. Many theater owners are also interested in digital transmission because it means that they no longer would have to show only Hollywood films. The theaters could be venues for pay-per-view sporting events or concerts, etc. But because theater owners know that the distributors would save boo-koos of money, the theaters aren't coughing up any bucks for the transition. I don't blame them, really.

Roger

Post by **tlatosmd** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 3:12 am

Tom Ballard wrote:35mm, on the other hand, is the standard by which we measure the visual motion picture medium [...]. At some point, video will look like 35mm and 'films' will be shot in video and the signal broadcast to theaters from a satellite.

Once again, eventually, digital will someday have the film look and when it gets to that point, I have no doubt the studios will be shooting digital. At that point, 35mm film, for certain, will go the way of Super 8 K40.

I agree, no digital image at the moment can beat what chemical media is able to give at the moment, especially 35mm and up. After all, chemical motion pictures have about 100 years behind them, photography even about 180 years in both technical and aesthetical design, while digital photography is still in its cradle. With that much more experience for chemical media, I have no doubt and look forward to that digital photography in the long run will end up with the same classical looks. I don't use the term classical here in the meanings 'old' or 'vintage' but as in 'eternally valid'.

You might say there are new emulsions by the day. However, they all have distinctive differences in looks from what digital media look like today, which are in resolution, frames instead of fields, color range, contrast range, latency, and many more.

As for those satellites, gee, television comes to theaters. :roll:

YouTube · Post by **wahiba** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 9:43 am

As my two local flea pits are down for the government digital money I am quite looking forward to see what we get.

As for pixellation. When we first had digital reception it was often noticeable on very dark scenes. I have not noticed it lately so I assume they digital original is getting better. Still get break up, but not so often and it either a fault on that channel, or the weather. Digital does not seem to like an English damp summer drizzle.

Post by **MovieStuff** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:47 pm

wahiba wrote: As for pixellation. When we first had digital reception it was often noticeable on very dark scenes. I have not noticed it lately so I assume they digital original is getting better. Still get break up, but not so often and it either a fault on that channel, or the weather. Digital does not seem to like an English damp summer drizzle.

The problem is the cable and satelite companies like to throw the word "digital" around as if it implies a level of pristine crispness in the picture that you won't get in analog reception. While the potential for a wonderfully clean picture is there, what they don't tell you is that they use a huge amount of compression to try and cram as many digital channels as they can into your incoming signal. Thus, even though it is "digital", it isn't always so wonderful and usually not as nice to look at as the older, analog signal that we all go used to in the early days of cable. The original digital tape they are broadcasting is no doubt perfectly fine but, by the time it reaches your set, the artifacts are plentiful. We have digital reception with a few channels also in HD and the artifacting and blockiness ranges from perfectly fine to tolerable to just unwatchable. This is especially true when there are fades or dissolves from one scene to another or when there is rapid action or cutting in action films. Not surprisingly, older movies often look fine on digital because they tend to take things at a slower, more measured pace. I find that interesting, actually.

Roger

Post by **drsanchez** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 6:44 pm

Shion wrote:
I think the mindscape of the way distant future is going to be really freaky with all of its variations....

This one time, in college, I took some mushrooms and actually experienced the freaky distant (and near!) future and you're right, the mindscape (with all its variations) is not only freaky, it makes me giggle like a schoolgirl. Aaaaah, to feel like a schoolgirl again.

Post by **David M. Leugers** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 7:07 pm

Wow, I must live in some kind of fabulous, fantastical, unbelieveable freaking area for movie theatres. Or rather so many of you live were motion pictures are handled and projected by morons using equipment no film collector would ever use even in his home theatre, let alone in a professional setting with paying customers... And as if switching to digital projection will eliminate human errors.

In virtually all the theatres I patronize, and it runs the gamut from multi-plex to single screen revival / art houses, the projection is always top notch with no problems with focus, sound, continuity, film damage, etc.

Now the real issue seems to be the continuing "dumbing down" of our societies. We assume some nose picker of today can't do the professional job that was done 75 years ago by the union projectionists of the time, and we need technology to come forward and save us from this. I have said it before and I will keep saying it, when theatres switch to digital, there will be no reason to go to the theatres to see a movie. I will literally get the same experience at home on a high spec digital projection setup. Maybe that would be a good thing come to think of it... my last visit to the local theatre had an audience with at least three sub-one year olds and many preschool age kids doing what they do... at least is was the latest Star Wars which I was underwhelmed by the extremely flat image and lack of contrast range.

Why do we as customers must settle for less? Film or forget it for me.

David M. Leugers

Post by **FILM-THURSO** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:10 pm

There is one reason beyond all else why people go to movie theatres to see movies. It has nothing to do with whatever technology is used to show the film.
Humans are communal animals and we loved to share events as a group and that is why the cinema are still the most popular form of audio visual entertainment.

Post by **ccortez** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:39 pm

FILM-THURSO wrote:There is one reason beyond all else why people go to movie theatres to see movies. It has nothing to do with whatever technology is used to show the film.
Humans are communal animals and we loved to share events as a group and that is why the cinema are still the most popular form of audio visual entertainment.

correct IMO