WELCOME to the Messageboard for the Boston Science Fiction Film Festival and Marathon!!
The BIG 50th Anniversary Marathon in February! FIRST FILM has been announced - the classic THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL. Chime in on your ideas and thoughts.
SF MARATHON INFO LINKS
SF/49 Official Information Page Click here
SUGGESTIONS FOR SF/50 POST here
>List of ALL Films that have played the Marathon. Click below
Click here for The History Of The Marathon/Festival

The Next Marathon will be held Presidents' Day Weekend 2025 at the Somerville Theater.
It will be preceded by the Boston Science Fiction Film Festival. For ticket info: www.Bostonsci-fi.com


  Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
   
  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegister  
 
 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 
Twilight (for 35mm film) (Read 117745 times)
Reply #90 - Mar 12th, 2013 at 2:45pm

L.A. Connection   Offline
YaBB Administrator
SF Rocks

Gender: male
Posts: 1796
*****
 
I've been a part of a discussion of whether even DVDS will exist for much longer, let alone 35mm.

The short answer is "for a while." As record companies have found out, digital downloads aren't as profitable as physical media. Last year was the first time in several years that profits went up. There will always be some form of a "Collector's Market" out there, however small it may become (i.e. Lps).

The larger question about digital streaming, downloads, VOD and the "cloud" is whether movies released exclusively digitally can really be considered "real movies" at all. Since the silent era there have always been orphan films without lasting ownership that have fallen through the cracks. If those orphans didn't find their way to Videotape or TV broadcasts in some way, most became "lost films." In the 80s there was a whole generation of 'Straight to Video' (DTV) productions. Again, if those DTV films didn't get "preserved" on DVD (or TV broadcasts), many only exist in dusty VHS collections or your local Goodwill bins.

Now, we have a situation where some of these so-called "Movies" only exist digitally. They will likely never be broadcast on Cable or Local TV (VOD doesn't count for the purpose of this discussion) - and forget about Theatrical showings. There won't be a DVD/Blu Ray. It's great for a DIY filmmaker to have some outlet online for his work to be seen via streaming or download; But, ten years from now, will those films really still EXIST? Many of the websites that the DIY filmmakers have set up will either no longer exist or become forgotten and/or abandoned like those millions of MySpace accounts. Will mega-sites like Amazon still offer streaming or downloads for a film that has "sold" 1 or 2 streams in the past 5 years? No cable outlet will broadcast such an under-the-radar title. Without a physical DVD or Theatrical showings, how many major publications or websites will have reviewed these films? Sure, an obscure website or blog (if it's still functioning) may have mentioned the movie, but, who will notice?? Of course, there will be the one exception that someone will point out of a superior movie that is remembered, but, what of the hundreds and thousands of others??

Of course, these movies will still "exist" in some form or another on a quantum level, so one could theoretically track it down on a torrent site or in some future cloud database - but, 10 years from now, how will anybody even know about the movie to track it down? Does a movie really exist if nobody knows about it? And, there are already MAJOR questions about file formats, digital storage and compatibility issues. Will a tiny movie on an obscure digital format from 18 years earlier still be playable on future computers?

These are some of the philosophical questions that the new non-physical media world poses. As I noted, it's great for DIY movie-makers to have some outlet to show their work. But, if they are shown only in the most ephemeral of ways, are they really "Movies" in the way we have known them for the past 100+ years?
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #91 - Mar 12th, 2013 at 3:04pm

Jon   Offline
Junior Member
MA

Gender: male
Posts: 76
**
 
They used to say this kind of thing about what we now know as e-books....
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #92 - Mar 13th, 2013 at 5:57pm

da_Bunnyman   Offline
God Member
SF Rocks
Peabody, MA

Gender: male
Posts: 769
*****
 
A minor point but film going all digital takes away the meaning of one of my favorite songs, "Celluloid Heroes" by The Kinks.

Forgive my sentimental side again.

"I wish my life was a nonstop Hollywood movie show.
A fantasy world of celluloid villains and heroes.
Because celluloid heroes never feel any pain.
And celluloid heroes never really die."
 

I can't complain but sometimes I still do. Life's been good to me so far.
IP Logged
 
Reply #93 - Jul 21st, 2013 at 2:08pm

L.A. Connection   Offline
YaBB Administrator
SF Rocks

Gender: male
Posts: 1796
*****
 
A brilliant Letter to the Editor!  Wink

(note: the director of GHASTLY LOVE also has a letter on the same page - WHY didn't it show in 35mm at the Marathon???)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-ca-0721-feedback-20130721,0,...

I couldn't disagree more strongly with Steven Zeitchik ["All in Black and White," July 14] when he writes, "Because most movies are now shot digitally, modern black and white does have a different look than it did in the 20th century, offering sharper and more vivid contrasts."

The issue with the current state of digitally shot and projected (particularly the latter) movies is that they simply cannot achieve true deep black — nor can they accurately depict shadow detail. For those who can't see this for themselves, I have come up with a very simple test that one can do on the next trip to a movie theater: Look at the movie screen. Almost all theaters have either black cloth or painted black walls as a "frame" around the screen. While watching a digitally shot and projected movie, look at an object in the image that is black. Now, have your eyes drift over to the black "frame" around the screen. You will see that you never see the same level of true black in the movie as the "frame" around the movie. Never.

It's great that moviemakers want to experiment with black and white in current releases. It's just too bad they are more "gray and grayer" than black and white.


 
IP Logged
 
Reply #94 - Jul 21st, 2013 at 6:59pm

kirok   Offline
God Member

Posts: 692
*****
 
time to get a less black frame.





release the cracken
 

PANTS UP. DON'T LOOT.
IP Logged
 
Reply #95 - Jul 21st, 2013 at 10:58pm

L.A. Connection   Offline
YaBB Administrator
SF Rocks

Gender: male
Posts: 1796
*****
 
kirok wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 6:59pm:
time to get a less black frame.








release the cracken

Grin

That's a good one! But, hidden in what, I presume, is your joke is the fact that the industry has perpetrated this scam in order to save money on film prints. Period. It has NEVER been about giving the audience a better experience.

If my 'test' starts making the rounds and folks start to realize how much they are being scammed, then Kirok's idea may actually happen!
« Last Edit: Jul 22nd, 2013 at 1:42pm by L.A. Connection »  
IP Logged
 
Reply #96 - Nov 9th, 2013 at 1:03pm

L.A. Connection   Offline
YaBB Administrator
SF Rocks

Gender: male
Posts: 1796
*****
 
Pretty sad. Abandoned, but, perfectly usable, Film Projectors not sold to others or put in a museum - but, sold for scrap metal.

Really sad.  Cry

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/christchurch-life/9380887/Cinema-bites-digital-...

"One of the decommissioned 35mm projectors has been bought by a private buyer, but the other seven will "end up as scrap", Butler said."
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #97 - Nov 9th, 2013 at 10:15pm

David the Projectionist   Offline
Senior Member
The Living Dinosaur at
the Somerville Theatre

Gender: male
Posts: 328
****
 
     Pictured is a butchered late model Norelco, manufactured -- I'm guessing -- in 1961 or 62, which means it's been working reliably for longer than any digital projector ever has or ever will.  The door, the mag soundhead, the reel shafts, the upper feed sprocket, the motor controls, have all been removed.  The optical head has been IR modified.  Theres also some strangely constructed lens turret: must be something some machinist made for them; never seen anything quite that stupid before.
     The article contains what we all have to admit are now the standard lies about digital.  It's actually wearying, but it just goes to show that old lies never die, they just get recycled (just listen to anyone on the political right: same arguments they were making in the nineties, and eighties, and seventies, and fifties, and forties, and thirties....).
     Wonder what those lying twerps at that NZ cinema will say when their server freezes, their light engine tanks, their encryption key fails, their software has compatibility issues -- or any of the other myriad of problems Ive been wrestling with ever since these gigantic piles of garbage were installed -- & they have to give out more refunds in a month than they did for the previous several years.  Do you suppose theyll write an article about that?
     The question was rhetorical.   Tongue
 

I have seen the future, and it is sucky digital....
IP Logged
 
Reply #98 - Nov 9th, 2013 at 10:57pm

L.A. Connection   Offline
YaBB Administrator
SF Rocks

Gender: male
Posts: 1796
*****
 
Whenever someone gives me one of those lines about how Digital is better than film projection, I challenge them with my Black Test: http://sf.theboard.net/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1318602045/93#93

So far, NOBODY has come back to me to say that I'm wrong and that Digital can match the black level of film. NOBODY. They'll hem and haw, make excuses and change the subject, but, they can't prove me wrong.



David the Projectionist wrote on Nov 9th, 2013 at 10:15pm:
...
     The article contains what we all have to admit are now the standard lies about digital.  It's actually wearying, but it just goes to show that old lies never die, they just get recycled (just listen to anyone on the political right: same arguments they were making in the nineties, and eighties, and seventies, and fifties, and forties, and thirties....).
     Wonder what those lying twerps at that NZ cinema will say when their server freezes, their light engine tanks, their encryption key fails, their software has compatibility issues -- or any of the other myriad of problems Ive been wrestling with ever since these gigantic piles of garbage were installed -- & they have to give out more refunds in a month than they did for the previous several years.  Do you suppose theyll write an article about that?
     The question was rhetorical.   Tongue

« Last Edit: Nov 10th, 2013 at 3:07am by L.A. Connection »  
IP Logged
 
Reply #99 - Dec 11th, 2013 at 4:57pm

David the Projectionist   Offline
Senior Member
The Living Dinosaur at
the Somerville Theatre

Gender: male
Posts: 328
****
 
     At long, long last, my sarcasm finally fails me:

    
 

I have seen the future, and it is sucky digital....
IP Logged
 
Reply #100 - Dec 11th, 2013 at 6:30pm

L.A. Connection   Offline
YaBB Administrator
SF Rocks

Gender: male
Posts: 1796
*****
 
Yup. And, it absolutely sucks that I live in a city where it's nearly impossible to see a 1st run film in 35mm.

Damn, I hate digital projection the more and more I see it. And, it's an absolute DISGRACE that FRANCIS HA & NEBRASKA are being called "black & white" movies when they were shot in color digial and projected on digital. The "black" is fu#&ing GRAY!
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #101 - Jan 18th, 2014 at 6:43pm

L.A. Connection   Offline
YaBB Administrator
SF Rocks

Gender: male
Posts: 1796
*****
 
They finally did it! They blew it up! Damn you, damn you all to HELL! Paramount Pictures is the first studio to formally announce that they will no longer strike ANY 35mm film prints to U.S. theaters. So, some 1,000 movie theaters without digital will NO LONGER be able to show ANY new Paramount movie. But, because some foreign countries haven't largely converted they will still strike some prints - so, it's ok to send a 35mm film print to Bolivia, but, not Boise? WTF?! Oh, and until the technology improves, you will NEVER see True Black on screen for any all Digital release (not to mention crappy shadow detail). The key line in the article: " the cost of delivering a single print, to less than $100 from as much $2,000." Don't let any studio flack (or tech head) try and convince you the move to digital is about artistic quality - it's ALL about the ca$h.


http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-paramount-digital-...
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #102 - Jan 18th, 2014 at 9:30pm

Jay Seaver   Offline
Senior Member
Somerville, MA

Gender: male
Posts: 255
****
 
Has any studio flack ever claimed it's about "artistic quality"?  The closest I've ever heard to that is that digital looks as good after being run a few hundred times as opening night; otherwise, they've been pretty up front about it being about cash.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #103 - Jan 18th, 2014 at 9:52pm

L.A. Connection   Offline
YaBB Administrator
SF Rocks

Gender: male
Posts: 1796
*****
 
Oh, there are TONS of articles and posts out there from folks who talk about "perfect images", "rock steady frames", "no scratches" and the like. And, have you visited many theater websites when they convert over to digital?

You'd think they just re-invented cinema....


Jay Seaver wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 9:30pm:
Has any studio flack ever claimed it's about "artistic quality"?  The closest I've ever heard to that is that digital looks as good after being run a few hundred times as opening night; otherwise, they've been pretty up front about it being about cash.

 
IP Logged
 
Reply #104 - Jan 19th, 2014 at 12:57am

David the Projectionist   Offline
Senior Member
The Living Dinosaur at
the Somerville Theatre

Gender: male
Posts: 328
****
 
Jay Seaver wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 9:30pm:
Has any studio flack ever claimed it's about "artistic quality"?  The closest I've ever heard to that is that digital looks as good after being run a few hundred times as opening night; otherwise, they've been pretty up front about it being about cash.


     As usual, Jay, you know nothing technically.  That is a lie they like to tell.  They also lie about the quality being as good as film.  Heres a quote from the article:

"Digital cinema provides great benefit to our patrons, in the quality of the presentation, in the flexibility of programming, in 3D, in alternative content, and in so many other ways."

     Allow me to be the first to call bull s h i t on that.
 

I have seen the future, and it is sucky digital....
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9