Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,975   Posts: 1,523,639   Online: 1098
      
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 100
  1. #31
    ambaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Nelson View Post
    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

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    196
    I was 10,172

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    ...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.

  4. #34
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,091
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    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
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    —Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  5. #35
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,036
    Images
    223

    Petition to support 35mm movie projection

    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
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  6. #36
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,091
    Images
    48
    Yes, it is closed. But signing the original petition wasn't the point of the two new posts...

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    —Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  7. #37
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,036
    Images
    223

    Petition to support 35mm movie projection

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    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
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  8. #38
    munz6869's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia!
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,034
    Images
    51
    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!
    Marc Morel
    photographie argentique!
    ------------
    http://mrmarcmorel.wordpress.com/

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,061
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    ...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.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    650
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    ...

    Some of Lincoln's scenes were digitally edited.....
    100% digital intermediate.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin