Petition to support 35mm movie projection

[silverhalides]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Mr H?


~Stone

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

[StoneNYC]

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...


~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]

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]

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