Petition to support 35mm movie projection

[Nelson]

I've never seen digital projection in a theater before. All the cinemas nearby (even the big 20-screen one or whatever it is) are 100% film, and I hope they stay that way! Honestly, I really can't see our smaller cinemas switching due to the high cost. It was a big deal just switching from carbon arc to xenon! I'm not too worried at the moment. Still, I will gladly sign the petition.

At work, I manage a 486-seat auditorium. We occasionally show movies for school classes, but sadly, all we have is a DLP projector and a DVD player. Looks horrible, but its good enough to entertain school kids. I'd love it if we could actually get a real projector be able to project movies the right way!

 

[wiltw]

The other night there was a segment on KTVU about movie theaters faced with the $75k cost to convert each screen's equipment to digital projectors, that new releases will be distributed in digital format rather than cans of 35mm projection prints. In the SF Bay area, a number of small theaters are saying they cannot possibly afford the investment to convert all their equipment to digital.

Yuck, digital movies. You can't even project digital still images with the same resolution as the captured image in the camera, at best you have a poor 1920x1080 projection vs. capture at 5184x3456 (Canon 7D) or 5616x3744 (1DsIII), for example.

Initial Digital Cinema installations were 2K installations, with a resolution of 2048 pixels by 1080 pixels (HDTV's are 1920x1080 or 1280x720).
Sony was the first to introduce 4K systems, which display 4096 pixels by 2160 pixels, and other manufacturers have followed. 4096 pixels across a 100' wide screen?! 40 pixels per foot, 3.6 pixels per inch.

Gimme film projection!!!

 

[munz6869]

A local multiplex (Hoyts Chadstone), recently threw all their 35mm projection gear away in a skip, and the three main local film distributors in Australia have advised they will be phasing out prints (and destroying them) within 18 months! Terrible news for small independent cinemas...

Marc!

 

[clayne]

This is all for control and commercial reasons as well. Nothing to do with quality. It's money game$ as usual.

 

[Nelson]

Maybe we should all start writing to the management of our local film cinemas, expressing our support for the continued use of film projection.

 

[ambaker]

Maybe we should all start writing to the management of our local film cinemas, expressing our support for the continued use of film projection.

I don't think that will matter much. The movement is being driven by the studios, not the Cinemas. They save money on film and shipping. By killing film, they win. If the would offer the choice between the two, it could work differently. Without going digital, the theater owner will soon have nothing to show. Even if you wanted to show older films, they are subject to license by the studios, and even if you owned the prints, film wears and scratches. Without fresh copies, you soon would have nothing to display. Convincing the average film goer of the superiority of film, and have them willing to pay for film projection, like they do 3D, is about the best chance... if that.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

 

[Louis Nargi]

I was 10,172

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...My second call was to an 8-screen theater, slightly further away, that's part of a different chain. Its manager responded that projection was 100% film. I thanked her, then asked that she let the owners know this answer was a good one and the reason I'd be going to their establishment rather than the competition's. She sounded pleased and committed to pass my input along.

Almost 11 months later we just returned from viewing "Lincoln" at the same theater. By coincidence, I sat next to the manager's father-in-law and discussed my film/digital projection preferences. He said that some of the screens had now gone completely digital, but the room we were in was still using film for features. I repeated my sentiment for film (and promised to watch DVDs at home rather than patronize a theater that went all digital) in the hope that he'd pass it along to his son-in-law.

The film was wonderful. However, I can't help but wonder if it's the last motion picture I'll ever see properly projected in a theater.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Almost 11 months later we just returned from viewing "Lincoln"...

I check the provenance of every motion picture I consider seeing. If it's not originally photographed (sorry, "shooting" involves only weapons) on film, I won't go see it. As a discriminating member of the viewing public, that's just the way it is. I was thrilled to discover that I can still go see "Lincoln."

Sadly, as a result of this self-serving-only move away from film we don't go to the movies very often at all anymore. (And for the love of God, I'd rather be tortured than see a 3-D movie photographed using any technology.)

Not coincidently, I'm also on the verge of canceling a 35+ year-old subscription to Sports Illustrated because I can no longer tolerate the abysmal drop in photographic quality. I've tried for a loooong time to make peace with it. But so help me, if I have to look at one more over-sharpened, over-saturated, cherry-picked, PS-manipulated digital image with a fake film rebate, I'm going to go insane. At this point only the writing is keeping me from dropping them.

Ken

 

[StoneNYC]

It's closed...


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Yes, it is closed. But signing the original petition wasn't the point of the two new posts...

Ken

 

[StoneNYC]

I check the provenance of every motion picture I consider seeing. If it's not originally photographed (sorry, "shooting" involves only weapons) on film, I won't go see it. As a discriminating member of the viewing public, that's just the way it is. I was thrilled to discover that I can still go see "Lincoln."

Sadly, as a result of this self-serving-only move away from film we don't go to the movies very often at all anymore. (And for the love of God, I'd rather be tortured than see a 3-D movie photographed using any technology.)

Not coincidently, I'm also on the verge of canceling a 35+ year-old subscription to Sports Illustrated because I can no longer tolerate the abysmal drop in photographic quality. I've tried for a loooong time to make peace with it. But so help me, if I have to look at one more over-sharpened, over-saturated, cherry-picked, PS-manipulated digital image with a fake film rebate, I'm going to go insane. At this point only the writing is keeping me from dropping them.

Ken

So you said the provenance of the movie being film... But what about digital projections of said film? Seems a silly thing if the actual end isn't also film.

And in fact, I'm fairly sure the original film is digitalized anyway in order to edit it, then turned film again after... Seems kind of silly to be so particular when it's all digitalized anyway.

And have you actually ever seen a 3D movie (new 3D not old red/blue 3D)? You should at least try something before you put it down.

What if the 3D movie was filmed on film? Wouldn't that make it ok to watch in your world?


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[munz6869]

I didn't really like the 3D print I saw of 'Dial M for Murder' in the 1990's either! That was screened using 50's-era 3D film technology - not red/blue, but polarised, like today, and whilst fascinating, it wasn't really relaxing to watch at all, and thus detracted from the narrative. The same is true (for me!) with today's technology.

Marc!

 

[Sal Santamaura]

So you said the provenance of the movie being film... But what about digital projections of said film? Seems a silly thing if the actual end isn't also film...

Lincoln was originated on Kodak film, as is Spielberg's preference. Sadly, other theaters in my area are digitally projecting it. I lucked out that the particular room in the theater we attended yesterday is still using film.

...I'm fairly sure the original film is digitalized anyway in order to edit it, then turned film again after... Seems kind of silly to be so particular when it's all digitalized anyway...

Some of Lincoln's scenes were digitally edited. However, there's a huge difference between the quality of such non-real-time, extreme resolution, high dynamic range work and the low-res, restricted dynamic range digital projection systems being foisted on theaters today, effectively locking in crap technology for a long, long time due to high installation cost.

It's a pity distributors have coerced exhibitors into this. I guess, in the US at least, it is simply one more example of the public's complete lack of interest in (or ability to discern) quality.

 

[georg16nik]

...

Some of Lincoln's scenes were digitally edited.....

100% digital intermediate.

 

[georg16nik]

..
And in fact, I'm fairly sure the original film is digitalized anyway in order to edit it, then turned film again after... Seems kind of silly to be so particular when it's all digitalized anyway.
...

Yes, sad but true... and just shows how great capture media the negative film is, since after all those digi gimmicks You can still tell the difference what the source media was.

 

[StoneNYC]

Yes, sad but true... and just shows how great capture media the negative film is, since after all those digi gimmicks You can still tell the difference what the source media was.

I haven't quite payed attention to it before but I'll try to look and see, honestly I haven't noticed a difference but haven't been looking either...


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Just wondering if those who would refuse to view a digitally projected movie would also refuse to let a doctor make a digital xray in an emergency situation.

 

[georg16nik]

Stone,
try Woody's Midnight in Paris or To Rome with Love as 35mm and as D-cinema if available around You.

Georg

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Just wondering if those who would refuse to view a digitally projected movie would also refuse to let a doctor make a digital xray in an emergency situation.

The digital x-rays made by my dentist are not made for artistic or entertainment purposes. At least I wouldn't pay for them as art or entertainment. But then, YMMV I suppose...

Ken

 

[arealitystudios]

I recently saw Lincoln in the theater at a local smaller venue that just barely transitioned to digital. I was probably one of the few people who paid attention but the picture quality was noticeably diminished. For those who have seen this film, there are multiple scenes in dimly lit rooms and under the digital projection the dark areas fall to black very drastically. It was almost like watching a laptop screen from an off angle.

It bummed me out.

Between this, the large crowds, the bad food, and the 40 minutes worth of trailers I must endure for movies I have no interest in I have very little reason to go to the theater anymore. Heck, I only have to wait a month or two now before the film is available through netflix or my local library. I used to love the theater experience but it feels like movie theaters are going out of their way at this point to make the whole thing miserable.

And don't even get me started on 3-D. I have only seen two films in 3-D and in both cases the picture was so dim I had to strain to see what I was looking at. Add to this the fact that 3-D makes me feel ill after about 20 minutes and you won't see me shelling out extra for a 3-D movie anytime in the near future.

Film studios have been complaining for a couple years now that box office revenues are falling. As far as I'm concerned they are only hurting themselves in the long run in their attempts to shave costs and increase revenue with "features" nobody really wants.

 

[theoria]

I don't look at the "Mona Lisa" to notice what canvas it is on or what paint was used. If I wanted to do that, I expect I would never get to see the art.

Imagine Mona Lisa "painted" using a computer and a graphics tablet. My bets are that it would look very differently, closer to kitsch than masterpiece.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Dim screens have been a problem for years, apart from the issue of digital projection. Movie theaters have been known to use lower wattage bulbs in 35mm projectors to save money.

 

[MattKing]

I have no problem with using digital intermediate editing techniques and equipment. They are really powerful and flexible tools that enhance the quality of editing, while still maintaining extremely high resolution. And then when the editing process is finished, they are also perfectly capable of being used to create very high quality release prints on film, which can then be projected optically with very high quality.

These editing tools are a particularly good example of where a marriage between film and digital can enhance film, and together enhance viewing enjoyment.

Unlike the situation with digital capture or digital projection, the tools involve almost no compromise in image quality.

While they may encourage the incorporation of computer generated special effects, they don't necessitate them.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Just wondering if those who would refuse to view a digitally projected movie would also refuse to let a doctor make a digital xray in an emergency situation.

That's a red herring. Totally unrelated to the subject here.

If I want to see a feature film, there's no point going to a theater that projects it using current, inferior digital technology. I can watch it at home on my 1080p lcd television with much better image quality. Had the theaters waited another, who knows, 3-5 years, so large screen projection technology might catch up, then perhaps my attitude would be different. They didn't and it isn't.