PDA

View Full Version : Movie Studios want to abandon film.



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

JerryWo
04-19-2012, 09:51 AM
Well, if Sam Bayer is lucky, the Library of Congress will save his precious films by digitizing them. See:
http://www.loc.gov/avconservation/packard/

Our local public radio station, WAMU, had a nice little program dealing with the Packard Campus. Here's the link:
http://wamu.org/programs/metro_connection/12/04/06/library_of_congress_preserves_a_treasure_trove_und erground

Jerry
Warrenton, VA

Steve Smith
04-19-2012, 09:59 AM
I've no idea if that's what any particular studio is doing.

But now, I do: http://www.moviehole.net/201149968leash-talks-to-james-cameron-about-titanic-3d


Steve.

Brian C. Miller
04-19-2012, 10:49 AM
We, as a subset of society, are worried about this switch from film to digital, mostly for the simple fact that movie film production largely dictates still film production, and we don't wish to see it vanish. If Kodak did not make Vision movie stock, could they continue making just still film?

Once upon a time, some studio reps came to Kodak and asked for a tweak to the emulsion. Kodak said, "get stuffed, you're 5% of our business." Now the movie industry is 95% percent of Kodak's business, and Kodak only has one coating machine running less than 40hrs per week.

Kodak prices have increased 15%.

What would a loss of 95% of their business do to them?

A: Kodak film goes away, forever.
B: Kodak raises its prices 10x to make ends meet.

Which is more likely? The answer is A, because answer B just means A will happen because nobody will pay $50 for a 35mm roll of Tri-X.

Mainecoonmaniac
04-19-2012, 11:17 AM
I've seen one movie in 3D, and frankly will not pursue it again, as it looked awful to me.

Same here. I saw Hugo in 3D and the look was awful. It looked cold. Otherwise, the movie in 2D probably looked better without those cheap glasses. The production just looked luscious. Just think. A multi-million dollar production seen through $3 glasses? Cinematographers are artist and have been able to create a feeling of 3D without the use of technology. Renaissance painters have been able to create depth through perspective, values and color for a long time. I still like the look of movies shot on film stock projected with prints. I do have to say that with the development of digital cinema, a lot of small film makers are able to produce movies without buying film stock and the expensive processing involved. But for big time movie producers, there's no excuse other than making more money. Will movies shot on film will be only limited to fine art like still photography? :confused:

georg16nik
04-19-2012, 11:52 AM
Heads up from The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences


Inside the Booth: A Journey through Projection (http://www.oscars.org/events-exhibitions/events/2012/03/insidethebooth.html)
4/19 @ 7:30 p.m. - At the Linwood Dunn Theater, Academy chief projectionist Marshall Gitlitz and silent film historian/projectionist Joe Rinaudo explore the craft and art of projection in Hollywood's golden age, with clips and demonstrations

"Tech Art 2: The Projection Story" (http://www.oscars.org/events-exhibitions/exhibitions/2012/03/techart2.html)
Now through 5/6 - In the foyer of the Linwood Dunn Theater, an exhibition celebrating the craft of motion picture projection with over 30 photographs by Vince Gonzales and a display of projectors and equipment.

DREW WILEY
04-19-2012, 01:40 PM
Matt - what certain companies do with their name-brand gas here is called Zone pricing. They might
sell the same gas to independents cheaper, but to their branded dealers they set pricing policy within certain geographic zones. So at the same time they force the fanchisees into taking on major
reinvestment with new tanks, new store, etc. - all financed by the oil corp itself. Then they raise
the distr cost of gas to all their outlets in that specific zone, so that they effectively lose money on
it if they try to compete with even the independents. This has gone on for decades. Shell Oil is the
biggest culprit. Not an ideal analogy, but I can easily visalize how the movie thing could have a similar outcome. But I personally have very little interest in the endless digital zip-zap stuff anyway.
I'd rather see the real pro quality lighting and color skills of days of yore. If it's good acting,
we'll just rent a DVD.

marylandphoto
04-22-2012, 04:53 PM
Even movies originally shot on 35mm haven't looked consistently good in awhile, thanks to the "digital intermediate" techniques which are usually used to negative effect and take some of the soul out of the analog image. Best looking films were generally late 70s-mid 80s IMO.

ROL
04-23-2012, 08:00 PM
Heads up from The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

I've seen many films at the Linwood Dunn. It is a great venue with many full size poster (repros?) in the halls, and a great educational outreach program, which I believe is open to anyone. I would encourage anyone interested in film or film making, who resides or will be visiting LA, to take advantage of their programs.

Alan Klein
04-23-2012, 09:05 PM
Problem with many theaters is they lower the arc light so the display looks dark not in the bright colors the film was photographed and printed in and provided to the theaters. Sometimes I've complained to management at the theater, usually to no avail. MY guess is 3/4's of the patrons don't even realize they're watching in an inferior mode.

Mainecoonmaniac
04-24-2012, 10:55 AM
I didn't know that. Does that make the print last longer or just to save electricity?

Mainecoonmaniac
04-24-2012, 05:19 PM
Take a look at one the first color movies by Kodak.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=J_RTnd3Smy8

Alan Klein
04-24-2012, 10:21 PM
Lowering the intensity of the arc saves money.

Mainecoonmaniac
04-24-2012, 11:21 PM
Ah. Watering down the booze.

Alan Klein
04-25-2012, 08:48 PM
Ah, yes. Don't know which is worse.

Craig Swensson
05-06-2012, 12:42 AM
Another article from Germany here.

http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,15918239,00.html

ctsundevil
05-06-2012, 10:48 PM
I talked to a theater owner last week who just returned from CinemaCon in Las Vegas. He said that Paramount told the theater owners that they would like to stop producing release prints this year. The theater owners were none too happy about it - they don't want to be forced into buying new projection equipment that might be obsolete in a few years. He said they are going to discuss it further and vote on a collective response to the studio.
We'll see what happens. Maybe they can resist the push from the studios.

Arctic amateur
05-28-2012, 07:11 AM
When I was a student, I was in the university film club for a couple of years running the projector. I would've welcomed digital projection then. I got to see maybe one-half of the movie I projected, and the rest of the time I had my back turned, splicing the next roll or cutting and packing the previous one. Also, two hours' worth of film is bloody heavy.

Nor do I miss scratches, glue specs and other wear-and-tear artifacts that signalled the end of a reel, long before the burn marks appeared. All they did was distract from the movie and take me out of the fantasy on the screen in front of me. Do those things have charm? Perhaps, but I don't want charm overlaid on the screen when Bruce Willis is blowing up things.

polyglot
05-28-2012, 08:54 AM
If there is digital projection, there is no projectionist to see the film for free. Movies are queued up centrally and all projectors controlled from a single PC.

Steve Smith
05-28-2012, 10:01 AM
Yes but the person who used to be the projectionist is probably now the person who presses the go key on the computer.


Steve.

wildbill
05-28-2012, 10:19 AM
I talked to a theater owner last week who just returned from CinemaCon in Las Vegas. He said that Paramount told the theater owners that they would like to stop producing release prints this year. The theater owners were none too happy about it - they don't want to be forced into buying new projection equipment that might be obsolete in a few years. He said they are going to discuss it further and vote on a collective response to the studio.
We'll see what happens. Maybe they can resist the push from the studios.

"might", I like that.


kinda like it "might" get hot this summer.