Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Industry News' started by Sirius Glass, Jan 17, 2014.
Probably not the end of non-motion picture film, but certainly the end of my patronizing any theaters. What's the point? There's a nice TV in my home.
When the silent film died they said to lovers of the silent, "the parade has gone by."
Time to stock up on film, I guess.
Maybe someone like Simon would be better prepared to answer on what they (industry) see as the market now.
Since Simon's company has been providing all the big studios tons of B&W film??
I agree. I miss cigar burns and all those other warm imperfections.
I will miss (not) all those authentic scratches, dirt, lousy operator (usually the candy bar boy these days) flexible programs (do you know how long it takes to make up and break down a feature for platter projection?) and projector weave. And I thought I was the inflexible grey beard.
Just like still photography, it's going to be an art medium. Theaters that have film projectors will be like art galleries Where only people purposefully see out celluloid.
As a closing gesture before a cosmetic and technological remodel, our local historical opera house showed Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm, the last showing of film in our town. The film was in near-perfect shape and was quite the film spectacle, I was glad I went. I shot Tri-x of the projectionist loading it up.
There are so many reasons to shoot black and white film, having it be a bit more separate from the MP industry is a really good one, especially in Ilford's case...
Aaah, now, that brings back memories. As a callow youth I could have gone to the theaters on the main street and seen Betty Grable dance and sing and watched Clark Gable push dames around, all for 25 cebts. But I always preferred to go to a crummy theater on a side street and spend a dime and watch Saturday Morning Serials, Republic Westerns and the Bowrey Boys. Somewhere along the line the film always broke and they would never give refunds. The floors were sticky, the smell not so good and the help snippy. But I had to know if the bad guys got away with the plans to the Norden Bombsight. And those John Wayne films were not to be missed. He produced many of the Republic westerns himself. Those were magical days my friends.
Sad, I'm surprised Marti was ok with that, but I guess he's progressive...
I wandered through one of the larger city cinemas here in Melbourne that closed before Christmas (for a future apartment tower, kept open until they would have HAD to go digital) the other day - in a rare instance of sanity, the property manager had contacted other theatre folk so they could raid the 6-cinema multiplex for spare parts (rather than EVERYTHING going into a skip, as is usual practice). A friend managed to salvage a (not too thrashed) Cinnemeccanica Vic 8 for parts for his theatre (which has two), and I got a very nice cinema amp, and probably one of the last 35mm trailers we'll ever see...
I'd like to also point out that this is print film. It doesn't necessarily mean that all Paramount movies will no longer use film for the OCN.
Have the major movie studios even been relevant for the last 5-10 years anyway? They're talking about "Anchorman 2" for christ sakes.
I haven't watched a first run American film in a theater in over 10 years, so I can't say I'll notice anything different. As long as non American films will still be shot on film I can watch stuff on the DVD at home. How anyone can watch a full digital movie is beyond me, or look at a digital photograph for that matter. It just looks so bad!
No scratches, no jitter, no distracting dirt on the film, no eye-searing flicker…I agree, it's horrible!
Industry, I didnt say Ilford.
Given the really small number of film manufacturers around, I would be very surprised if they aren't aware of what the others are thinking/forecasting?
Simon would hardly speak about other companies.
There are only two manufacturers of colour release print films left: Agfa and Kodak.
Even costly restored versions of ímportant historic movies will no longer be released on film again.
Some cinemas will keep on projecting film copies out of the remaining stock.
It seems easy to blame the production companies for this development. But the creative people (directors and directors of photography) themselves were not eager to engage with film when approached out of the photochemical industry lately.
The smaller a studio the less likely they would invest in release prints.
Once a cinema has installed a digital projector it makes no sense keeping the means to project film unless they are used to show a lot of old movies not yet digitized.
Or having an audience eager to see movies on film.
It still takes a trained person, and to pay for that person, to project film. With projecting digital files you can save on that.
Our local art house just pulled out the projector last week. They have been unable to get many of the films they wanted to show this entire past year as they were never issued on film.
To me, a digital picture looks "surreal & plasticky"....totally cold with zero atmosphere. A print from a film negative somehow looks more "real"and has atmosphere....possibly not as technically "perfect" as the best of digital these days.
But then, when was real life ever perfect?
??? Just what is it you think you're watching on the DVD? :confused:
I prefer those imperfections over pixelation, combing, and whatnot. Both have viewing "artifacts," and I feel film does better in general, despite the artifacts. Perhaps because it's what I grew up with, or perhaps because I feel a switch to "new" technology should not mean re-embracing problems similar to what had been largely surmounted in the old medium. For example, listening to satellite radio in my mothers minivan is not unlike listening to AM when driving under bridges, trees, or around large buildings.
Another example is the local news stations doing quick interviews on-location. The "trained" digital camera operators consistently show that anyone can do their job. Contrast changes if the interviewee simply turns their head a bit, making the whole scene constantly change like some bad avant-garde attempt. With a film camera, even if the exposure is bad, at least it's consistently bad, without inducing seizures. I feel analog video-tape is better in this respect.
That said, I've seen very few movies at the theatre in the past 10 years, and watched very few of them when they made it to DVD or TV. I would say I watch fewer movies than my parents and grandparents did at a similar age. Movies have not been overshadowed by DVD/blueray, video games, or the WWW in my case. Movies no longer appeal as a quality entertainment experience for me. Hollywood no longer puts much effort into something I feel is worth my time. It cannot even do yet another version of some literary classic without focusing on effects and forgoing the original storyline except for character names.
Assuming that change always signifies progress is a ubiquitous error.
I am helping a non-profit movie theater here 80 miles South east of Paris (France). I am currently a projectionnist for this movie theater, and my job is online Producer for movies and Tv shows.
The digital print has changed our lives. The quality is now perfect. Nobody want to go back to film print.
But as a Producer, I always make an positive film print of all our productions. It's the only secure backup in film industry.