Petition to support 35mm movie projection

falotico · Dec 28, 2012

My recollection is that the index of refraction for the nitrate film base is closer to the index of refraction of gelatin than is the acetate base. If you ever get a chance to see an original nitrate print projected--and you probably never will--you might notice warmer tones than with acetate. This applies to both B & W and color. There is a cult of nitrate worshipers in Hollywood. It was rumored--I have no idea if it was true--that when Spielberg's beach house burnt down years ago it was because he was storing nitrate prints in it.

Many Technicolor dye-transfer prints were done on acetate base beginning in the 1950's, as were "The Godfather" films I and II. I will stand by my support for the superiority of dye-transfer prints over chromogenic prints. I assume many of the EK professionals have seen Technicolor Dye Transfer releases. Is GEH licensed to project nitrate? I would love to hear from the experts.

Cinema is a great art. Just like painting it is better to see the original than to see a copy. Nitrate prints, however, are becoming more rare than Rembrandt prints.

Prof_Pixel · Dec 28, 2012

falotico said:
Is GEH licensed to project nitrate? I would love to hear from the experts.

I AFAIK the GEH can still show nitrate stock. BTY, they are remodeling the Dryden Theatre - new seats and curtains AND a digital projection system. http://www.eastmanhouse.org/takeaseat/about.php

From: Dead Link Removed The Museum’s Dryden Theatre is one of three archival theaters in the United States equipped to exhibit nitrate film.

falotico · Dec 28, 2012

A guy I met from UCLA Archives told me that they might be showing fewer nitrate prints in the future because they moved the cinema to the Armand Hammer Museum in Westwood, CA. Although the new cinema has a license to project nitrate film prints, the whole building complex contains a great number of valuable pieces of art. The curators do not want to incur the greater risk of fire that projecting nitrate would entail--there is too great a chance that some valuable artwork would go up in smoke. People are nostalgic for the days when they showed these films on the UCLA campus; then the only danger was setting a few students on fire.

StoneNYC · Dec 28, 2012

Prof_Pixel said:
I AFAIK the GEH can still show nitrate stock. BTY, they are remodeling the Dryden Theatre - new seats and curtains AND a digital projection system. http://www.eastmanhouse.org/takeaseat/about.php

From: Dead Link Removed The Museum’s Dryden Theatre is one of three archival theaters in the United States equipped to exhibit nitrate film.

So when I visit You and PE can we catch a cinema too? Can I pay a Dime for it like in the old days? LOL

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Nelson · Dec 28, 2012

I just saw The Hobbit last night in a local cinema that is very soon upgrading to digital. Thankfully they hadn't "upgraded" yet. However, since they haven't posted this week's schedule yet, it is possible that they are upgrading to digital as we speak. They were going to upgrade sometime this month. I may have seen the last film that they will ever show on --gasp-- FILM at the Charlevoix Cinema!

The only problem that I noticed is that motion seemed really rough and distracting. Fast moving scenes were almost unwatchable. What's up with that? Could it have anything to do with the movie being recorded at 48fps but was only projected at 24fps? Would they just drop every other frame when making the print or would they have blended the frames somehow?

silverhalides · Dec 29, 2012

Technicolor did revive dye transfer prints in the '90s.

Technicolor did revive the dye transfer process in the nineties. If you saw "Apocalypse Now, Redux" you saw what will probably remain the last wide release IB print. These prints were much more expensive to produce (think of it: pin-registered film processing), and the upper management pulled the plug after a couple of years. Watch for Apocalypse Now Redux at your local revival house or repertory theatre. These "revived" prints were made with a new set of more permanent dyes, so the prints will be around for a long time, looking just as spectacular as when they were released. I think I will ask the Pacific Cinematheque, here in Vancouver, to get ahold of a print. There are some reds that you've never seen on a theater screen unless you've seen an IB print.

falotico · Dec 30, 2012

Many thanks to silverhalides for the note on "Apocalypse Now, Redux" which was released in IB prints. Some prints of "The Wizard of Oz" and "Toy Story II" were also in IB. They are about ten years old now, but might still be floating around if they are not nabbed up by collectors.

So far movies shot on film and shown on digital projectors look better to my eye than those shot on digital cameras. This is because the smears of moving objects look more natural when captured on film. Digital cameras rely on a scanning function and the top part of the frame is scanned before the bottom. As a consequence an object moving screen left to screen right will be bent, its lower portion moved further to the right than the upper portion. This happened in Johnny Depp's "Public Enemies"--which looked terrible, despite the good acting. The film-makers tried to compensate by shooting a lot of low light scenes which are impossible to capture on film.

Digital projectors present a reasonably good image. The frame never shakes and all the specks of dust and splices are edited out. But since the number of pixals is fixed digital cannot present as rich an image as film. I once saw a print of "Out of the Past" with Robert Mitchum, cinematographer James Wong Howe, that was shot on "grainless" b & w film. We may never see digital approach that resolution.

Digital projectors are additive color processes; color films are subtractive. Counterbalancing the two processes provides a satisfying image; but we are used to seeing that when a color film is shown on color TV. Digital projectors are limited by the hue of their color filters, and some of these filters are a little weak. I doubt if they will ever come close to what Technicolor achieved with dyes on nitrate film stock.

EASmithV · Jan 16, 2013

Digital projection always looks jerky and crap to me, much prefer actual film stock. Why go to all the effort to have a compromised final product...

Sirius Glass · Jan 16, 2013

I went to sign the petition and could not find a place to fill out and sign. I tried another browser and had the same problem.

Ross Chambers · Jan 18, 2013

falotico said:
Digital projectors are limited by the hue of their color filters, and some of these filters are a little weak. I doubt if they will ever come close to what Technicolor achieved with dyes on nitrate film stock.

That's interesting. There was, infamously to some, a director of my acquaintance who would go to the projection box and hold filters in front of the lens in an attempt to achieve hues more to his liking than what the grader (or timer to you Yanks) had achieved. Some directors never let go of a film.

I went to see "Hitchcock" yesterday and Mr H. took up a post for a while in the box at the first screening, I was waiting for him to do the same! But it didn't happen, maybe because the film was monochrome.

StoneNYC · Jan 18, 2013

Ross Chambers said:
That's interesting. There was, infamously to some, a director of my acquaintance who would go to the projection box and hold filters in front of the lens in an attempt to achieve hues more to his liking than what the grader (or timer to you Yanks) had achieved. Some directors never let go of a film.

I went to see "Hitchcock" yesterday and Mr H. took up a post for a while in the box at the first screening, I was waiting for him to do the same! But it didn't happen, maybe because the film was monochrome.

Mr H?

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

lxdude · Jan 18, 2013

StoneNYC said:
Mr H?

~Stone

Well, "Alfred" would have been a little too familiar.

StoneNYC · Jan 18, 2013

lxdude said:
Well, "Alfred" would have been a little too familiar.

I thought you meant that but the real Mr H died in the 80's so I was confused and only just realized you must have meant in the movie the actor was at his first screening. I thought you were saying you went to the screening of the movie and in the theater box you saw Mr. H appear... Haha a ghost perhaps? Lol can ghost filters change light waves? Does ghost Magenta really exist? Hehe... :munch:

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

falotico · Jan 18, 2013

Hitchcock released "Vertigo" in a 70 mm dye-transfer Technicolor print. It is unlikely that they will ever show one of these DT prints again in our lifetimes, but if they do it would be a rare treat.

Ektagraphic · Jan 18, 2013

All of the theaters in my area went digital. Now, I just won't go to the movies. I'd rather buy a DVD, supporting a home format in a physical form...Consumer film distribution was never really on film itself anyways

Ross Chambers · Jan 19, 2013

StoneNYC said:
I thought you meant that but the real Mr H died in the 80's so I was confused and only just realized you must have meant in the movie the actor was at his first screening. I thought you were saying you went to the screening of the movie and in the theater box you saw Mr. H appear... Haha a ghost perhaps? Lol can ghost filters change light waves? Does ghost Magenta really exist? Hehe... :munch:

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

My apologies, not very well written. Although he was famous for putting himself in unobtrusive background positions. Peter Jackson has done the same in one pic to my knowledge.

"Hitchcock" (the film) is interesting but apparently not very accurate, needs must if you're constructing drama, I guess. The period cutting room is spot on though, no German flatbeds in those days but machines for MEN: Moviolas! (I'm joking folks, the famous editor Verna Fields must have been a whizz on the machine of champs.)

Ken Nadvornick · Jan 19, 2013

Ektagraphic said:
All of the theaters in my area went digital. Now, I just won't go to the movies.

Same here. The last local movie I went to see looked like crap. And I had to pay through the nose for the privilege. No more.

You know, I have access to a beautiful Remington portable typewriter. A 1930s pedigree, I believe. Belonged to my grandmother. It still looks and shines like brand new in its original travel case. Maybe I should drive it down to Portland and let Blue Moon have a go at it.

Then use a (real) keyboard to type a (real) letter on (real) paper using (real) ink, and mail it from a (real) post office to the local theater manager and complain. And CC the head of the theater company—using (real) carbon paper—while I'm at it.

Think they'd be deep enough to get the symbolism??

Ken

StoneNYC · Jan 19, 2013

Ken Nadvornick said:
Same here. The last local movie I went to see looked like crap. And I had to pay through the nose for the privilege. No more.

You know, I have access to a beautiful Remington portable typewriter. A 1930s pedigree, I believe. Belonged to my grandmother. It still looks and shines like brand new in its original travel case. Maybe I should drive it down to Portland and let Blue Moon have a go at it.

Then use a (real) keyboard to type a (real) letter on (real) paper using (real) ink, and mail it from a (real) post office to the local theater manager and complain. And CC the head of the theater company—using (real) carbon paper—while I'm at it.

Think they'd be deep enough to get the symbolism??

Ken

My mother used to type transcriptions for the courts when I was a child and I would help collate the pieces and play with the carbon copped after they were used, fun to draw on the back and get a "negative" of carbon hehe, it's a shock I still have trouble reading a negative since I was making them by hand as a child lol

We had a typewriter for "corrections" but a fancy IMB AT and line printer for the carbon sheets since it actually had a pressure head (I think micro pins to form letter shapes) for printing. The typewriter was fun, it was a sphere/ball head with the letters all surrounding the sphere, I was fascinated at how fast the ball would spin/rotate, and press as I typed. Sad they don't make the ink ribbons for those old machines anymore. I still have the computer, the printer, but the typewriter was replaced by a plastic electronic smith corona... Wish I still had the old typewriter...

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Chan Tran · Jan 19, 2013

I haven't gone to a movie theater in more than 10 years and in the over 20 years span I've been to the movies like 3 times. So there is no difference to me how movies are made or presented in the theater. I watch a lot of movies via DVD, Bluray or on TV and there is no advantage for 35mm film there. So why I shoot 35mm film in my still camera and love to still have film to use them, I can't say I want to support 35mm film in movies.

StoneNYC · Jan 19, 2013

Chan Tran said:
I haven't gone to a movie theater in more than 10 years and in the over 20 years span I've been to the movies like 3 times. So there is no difference to me how movies are made or presented in the theater. I watch a lot of movies via DVD, Bluray or on TV and there is no advantage for 35mm film there. So why I shoot 35mm film in my still camera and love to still have film to use them, I can't say I want to support 35mm film in movies.

Lets put it this way, if movies stop using 35mm film, there won't be any made, they are the only real income source left that keeps any 35mm financially feasible... That's why you should support it...

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Nelson · Apr 18, 2014

Thought I'd revive this thread to discuss what has changed in the last year and what changes are still coming for 35mm movie projection. Many of my area cinemas have already switched to digital projection. Actually I thought that by now, all cinemas had to switch; didn't realize that film prints were still being distributed. However, I went to a cinema a little further away last night (because that is where I picked up my date) and saw Captain America -- on film! So at least one area cinema still projects film. Do we know what the timeline is for the major studios to switch to digital?

By the way, I was very impressed with the picture quality last night. Forgot how much I prefer film projection over my local cinema's digital projections. This cinema only shows each movie once per day, so the print wasn't as worn out as the prints I've seen in some of the bigger cinemas that treat their films rather poorly and show each movie several times a day for a month straight.

Mainecoonmaniac · Apr 18, 2014

Can't get this with digital.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEFugVbzsSo

snapguy · Apr 18, 2014

A note

First -- a minor note. UCLA students spontaneously combust on their own.
Second -- I'm a analog guy but let us face it-- the parade's gone by.
Third -- If you want to float a petition to bring back Silent Films I will sign it.

eclarke · Apr 18, 2014

The only way to influence film production is to buy 3 or 4 MILLION FEET of film

Xmas · Apr 18, 2014

snapguy said:
First -- a minor note. UCLA students spontaneously combust on their own.
Second -- I'm a analog guy but let us face it-- the parade's gone by.
Third -- If you want to float a petition to bring back Silent Films I will sign it.

Liked that thanks.

I can recall when cinemas were next door to each other on shopping streets in medium sized towns.
And 800m apart in suburbia, one 200m from front door.

Cine film volume peaked 1960-1970 cause cinemas started to turn back into stores and print film was the large volume part the camera negative small fraction?
They printed a lot of film for general release and the smaller towns got to see a worn print a few months later, cept for news reels.

Last cine show I went to was Alien circa 80?

Ilford stopped cine cam negative in 2002?

Nostalgia is too painful.

Petition to support 35mm movie projection

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency