Community Run Forums for Starship SF - Twilight (for 35mm film)

WELCOME to the Messageboard for the Boston Science Fiction Film Festival and Marathon!! What was shown in 2024: THE MATRIX in 35mm! ONE MILLION YEARS BC in 35mm! LAPSIS, READY PLAYER ONE in 70mm! DREDD, MAD MAX, PREDESTINATION, TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN (aka INVASION), UPGRADE, ATTACK OF THE CRAB MONSTERS, DEEP BLUE SEA in 35mm! and BLAST FROM THE PAST. Plus! A bonus surprise! And, of course, Duck Dodgers! More to come SF MARATHON INFO LINKS SF/49 Official Information Page Click here Reactions to 2024's SF/49 lineup? 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

Community Run Forums for Starship SF › Passenger Information › Boarding Deck - Forward Section › Twilight (for 35mm film)

(Moderators: Dave, YaBB Administrator, L.A. Connection)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9

Send Topic

Print

Twilight (for 35mm film) (Read 113005 times)

Reply #75 - Mar 24^th, 2012 at 10:34am

Joe Neff Offline
Junior Member

Posts: 59

I'm also surprised that the author didn't point out the inherent flaws of the Lawrence of Arabia comparison, which would be thrown out of any court in the land. Talk about rigging the game.

I saw Sony's new 35mm print of Five Easy Pieces last year, and it looked just fine to me. One of the article commenters points out the dangers of color boosting in cases like this, which is definitely a fear of mine as well.

On the plus side, I saw a 4K screening of Taxi Driver last year. I've also seen it on 35mm several times, but for long stretches of this viewing I was able to forget that I was watching a digital copy. Now, there are certain qualities of that film (the often muted color palate, the grittiness of Chapman's cinematography) that make it easier to mask possible signs of digitization, but it still looked damn good.

As at least a part time programmer, my greatest fear (visual quality aside) of this digital switch remains the high potential for an abandonment of democratic representation of all films in the studio catalogs. One of the reasons that cities like Los Angeles have been experiencing a golden age of repertory cinema is due to the availability (through studios, but also through private collectors) of often rare and obscure film titles on 35mm. There might be a bright future ahead for beautiful digital restorations of tried and true titles like Strangelove, Gone With the Wind, etc., but I have a hard time believing that the studio bean counters are going to keep their archives stocked with the lower level titles that gave them their breadth and depth for so many years.

Warners has made a big deal out of their movement away from 35mm and their concurrent digital scanning of their entire catalog. But does that mean that someday soon a rep house will be able to book a 4K screening of Wolfen? Or are they going to be subjected to playing the DVD? I have to believe that the aforementioned bean counters (inspired by the bottom line-driven corporations that control every studio) have already decided that it's not profitable enough to maintain that quality in their archives, especially for titles that might only see several screenings a year. And so we move one step closer to many smaller titles falling through the cracks, at least in terms of being presented in their best possible forms. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if part of the reason for this is the studios already predicting the death of theatrical exhibition in the next 10-15 years. After all, if theaters aren't going to be around, why maintain theatrical archives?

IP Logged

Reply #76 - Apr 12^th, 2012 at 9:15pm

IamJacksUserID Offline
YaBB Newbies
Ohio marathoner
Gilbert, AZ

Gender:
Posts: 8

Good, if lengthy, article on this subject posted today in LAWeekly:

http://www.laweekly.com/2012-04-12/film-tv/35-mm-film-digital-Hollywood/

Maybe if some big time successful directors seriously get behind this, something can be done.

Bread makes you fat?!?

IP Logged

Reply #77 - Jun 9^th, 2012 at 5:26pm

L.A. Connection Offline
YaBB Administrator
SF Rocks

Gender:
Posts: 1775

Today, Christopher Nolan again reiterated that Film is still better than digital, both in the filming AND in the projection. Perhaps, folks can dismiss a lowly film technician like myself (although Film & TV productions is my everyday work job).

But, take it from Nolan - Film is still superior. Period.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dark-knight-rises-chris-nolan-digital-3355...

http://ca.movies.yahoo.com/news/christo ... 18988.html

IP Logged

Reply #78 - Nov 27^th, 2012 at 12:11am

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

Gender:
Posts: 328

Heres the latest, exactly as Ive been warning about (& screaming & yelling & shouting about) to no avail. Read it & weep:

http://m.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/11/with-35mm-film-dead-will-...

I have seen the future, and it is sucky digital....

IP Logged

Reply #79 - Nov 28^th, 2012 at 3:29am

L.A. Connection Offline
YaBB Administrator
SF Rocks

Gender:
Posts: 1775

Ah, but, we have a nice stockpile of DVDs ready to be shown.

Cue, the DVD projector, Dave.

Dave?

IP Logged

Reply #80 - Nov 28^th, 2012 at 6:32am

kirok Offline
God Member

Posts: 692

isn't digital media far better for the preservation of movies?

PANTS UP. DON'T LOOT.

IP Logged

Reply #81 - Nov 28^th, 2012 at 10:02am

R_F_Fineman Offline
God Member
Boston

Gender:
Posts: 688

Quote:

The Atlantic Article:
"2001: A Space Odyssey, on the other hand, was a DCP presentation of the 2K scan: not exactly a Blu-ray, but the master used to make the Blu-ray...Is that all there is to project 2001 with these days? That's sad."

Quote:

Kirok:
isn't digital media far better for the preservation of movies?

The answer it seems is "yes" and "nooooooooo!" It's sort of like preserving ceiling of the Sistine Chapel on microfiche. Yes, it's a stable medium but no, it doesen't look at all as Michelangelo intended.

Given that, according to the Atlantic article, even Martin Scorsese can't score a print of his own film from the 90's; what does the future hold for LA and Garen's best efforts to find thirteen or so movies in 35mm for the Marathon?

I fear the bullet must be bitten. Dave: If DVD must be shown what are the options as far as er, uh, "projection" quality and what can the Somerville provide?

21st Century Man

IP Logged

Reply #82 - Nov 28^th, 2012 at 11:23am

kirok Offline
God Member

Posts: 692

how about over-sampling for high resolution and using reed soloman encoding for long term preservation. a special one of a kind previewer could be constructed. it would have 10 billion pixels and be on a 10 foot by 16 foot flat panel. that's about 500 pixels per inch. the image generated by the previewer could be filmed onto celluloid frame by frame.

PANTS UP. DON'T LOOT.

IP Logged

Reply #83 - Nov 28^th, 2012 at 2:15pm

L.A. Connection Offline
YaBB Administrator
SF Rocks

Gender:
Posts: 1775

David K can fill in the tech details, but, to those who think "Digital" is some magical elixar that will "save" movies (for the Marathon and other revival locations) there is one important thing that must be kept in mind:

"DIGITAL PROJECTION" does NOT necessarily mean that you are showing a proper digital "print" of a movie (DCP).

Only brand new films are released in digital print form - a DCP: DIGITAL CINEMA PACKAGE. A few major restorations over the past few years like TAXI DRIVER, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA etc. have also had DCP's made. But, that 1987 cult film you loved? Faaaaaaaaaaaaat chance that will ever have a DCP made of it. The studio will send you a plain old simple DVD/Blu Ray you can buy online for $6. And, even a new film can often be shown with a plain old DVD or Blu Ray, particularly art-house and indie films. And, DVD/Blu Ray was meant to be seen on a 50 inch TV at home - not a 50 FOOT screen.

It's also time that theaters start CLEARLY advertising when they are showing DVDS and charging $10 for the privilige of seeing a projection of a movie you can BUY/Download outright for that price or less and keep forever.

One of the great ripoffs going on right now are the Fathom Events screenings like the recent FRANKENSTEIN Halloween special. What they don't tell you is that it's basically an HD TV broadcast that is beamed to local theaters. So, you were paying $10 to see a Turner Classic Movies episode you can see for Free in your home. Un-Fathomable!!!

« Last Edit: Nov 28^th, 2012 at 3:49pm by L.A. Connection »

IP Logged

Reply #84 - Nov 28^th, 2012 at 7:51pm

Joe Neff Offline
Junior Member

Posts: 59

As most of you know, I co-organize the annual Ohio SHOCK AROUND THE CLOCK 24-Hour Horror Marathon, so a fair amount of my time over the last few years has been spent wrangling prints and researching archives (studio or otherwise.) We've been pretty firm in our belief in showing 35mm prints, so I can assuredly say that the situation for repertory film screenings is both as bleak as the article paints, while also being somewhat interesting and intermittently vibrant.

Yes, the selection of 35mm prints being made available has dwindled, especially if the venue only has a platter system (or film projectors at all.) And, as L.A. stated, even DCP is no guarantee of salvation for some of these titles. We're at an interesting middle ground in which it's unclear which films will receive high quality DCP restorations. On one hand, those classic repertory titles will, indeed, live on in the new format. But yeah, more obscure cult films are likely to have a hard time popping up again. But there's some hope: a friend at Criterion (which handles 20th Century Fox's catalog), told me this summer that Fox is restoring PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE on 2K DCP.

And this bring to me to what's not necessarily bad: the individual studios themselves. Unfortunately, a once stalwart group like Warner Bros. (whose repertory division used to be top notch) has essentially stopped loaning prints to all but the most esteemed venues (although, to be fair, this seems more of an edict from the corporate suits than of the rep. division itself.) Fox has a good selection of restored prints in their archive, but to show one, the venue must often have a major member of the cast or crew on hand...and have a dual projector system (more on that in a minute.)

But then there's Universal, Park Circus (who handles the catalog of MGM and others) and Sony Classics, all of which who have shown a commitment to continuing with film and all of which who are very easy to deal with. The catch, of course, is that theaters with a dual projector system have much greater access to film prints than other venues.

And the collector/private market is still a very viable source. I belong to an online programmer's forum that has been a fantastic source for prints. For every studio that slowly turns off the spigot on film, there's an American Genre Film Archive (the Alamo Drafthouse's film archive) or an Exhumed Films (the Philly collective that's run obscure horror and exploitation titles for almost two decades) that keeps film alive. And that's not counting individual collector's with somewhat smaller, yet still valuable personal archives. Again, a dual projector system makes accessing these prints easier (the AGFA only loans to two projector venues), but the lesser known prints are still out there.

This year's Ohio Horror Marathon featured the following titles:

POSSESSION
AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON
PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE
WEREWOLVES ON WHEELS
SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES
VIDEODROME
ABOMINABLE DR. PHIBES
THE DEVILS
KILL LIST
DEAD ALIVE
WHITE ZOMBIE
THE LAST CIRCUS

With the exception of THE DEVILS (a notoriously hard title to book on film, which we had to show from a digital source), all of these titles were on film. POSSESSION was the the result of the good guys at Bleeding Light Film Group, who undertook a restoration of the film with a full intention of producing a brand, spanking new print. And aside from a merely okay print of WEREWOLVES ON WHEELS, the rest of the titles were gorgeous. A few were new prints.

The bad news is that 90% of theaters continue to be shut out of screening some of these films. But dual projector houses (like the Somerville) still have access to many titles...for now.

IP Logged

Reply #85 - Nov 29^th, 2012 at 1:08am

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

Gender:
Posts: 328

   I will try to respond to all of these, but it may take me some time. Lets begin with a couple of points that need to be strongly stressed:
   1. DCI compliant content derived from film sources does not have the same look, sound, or feel as an original film print. So all this hoopla about how it's "just the same" is a pile of sh!t. No digital transfer Ive ever seen (and Ive now been forced to see lots) looks anything like, say, an IB Tech print. Black & white transfers fare even worse. A majority of the people watching these train wrecks (many of whom are in a position to comment in the media about them) have no idea what theyre seeing, and, frankly, have their heads up their asses.
   2. The current "standard" for these transfers is 2K. To put this in its proper perspective, be aware that a flat 1.85 print is about 10K. A scope print is about 15-18K. You are, therefore, watching a substantially degraded image. The sound isnt much better.
   At some point next year, I'll be giving a lecture to local film professors, teachers, reviewers, etc, that will show up this digital garbage once & for all. No one will think it's as good as film by the time I get through!

I have seen the future, and it is sucky digital....

IP Logged

Reply #86 - Nov 29^th, 2012 at 1:09am

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

Gender:
Posts: 328

L.A. Connection wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 3:29am:

Ah, but, we have a nice stockpile of DVDs ready to be shown.
Cue, the DVD projector, Dave.
Dave?

I hope youre joking, because if it ever comes to this, you can get yourself another boy.

I have seen the future, and it is sucky digital....

IP Logged

Reply #87 - Nov 29^th, 2012 at 1:23am

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

Gender:
Posts: 328

kirok wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 6:32am:

isn't digital media far better for the preservation of movies?

   Well, Bernie, you know as little technically as you do about politics, which warms my heart. I'll make it a point to insult Sarah Palin this coming Thon as well!
   In answer to your question, a resounding NO. As an archival medium, film beats the pants off any digital storage system yet devised. We have prints & negatives in existence from the 1890s, whereas things shot or stored in digital last year are now unreadable or corrupt.
   The AMPAS just released a two-part report on the dangers of trying to archive digital: they predict (correctly) that almost everything will be lost in one way or another, due to software changes, data corruption, HDD failures, migration problems, compatibility issues, &c &c &c. The upshot is that we'll live long enough to see it happen, which I assure you I will greatly enjoy!
   The problem lies in digital itself: as there are no "standards," and as formats & software are changing daily, and as digital storage is kept in what as know as a "low volume" format, what can & will happen is that those formats will become unreadable. Or if one datum is defective during a transfer, that takes the entire file down with it.
   Film, on the other hand, being an analogue format, at least gives you something to work with, even though it may have become damaged. You can print something off a damaged negative: you cant even access a lost file. You can project a heavily scratched & spliced print. You cant even open some video formats anymore.
   But dont worry: we're assured that it's superior. Oh, and trickle down economics work, too. And billionaires are job creators. And the world was made in seven days. And Elvis is still alive.

I have seen the future, and it is sucky digital....

IP Logged

Reply #88 - Nov 29^th, 2012 at 1:37am

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

Gender:
Posts: 328

R_F_Fineman wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 10:02am:

"2001: A Space Odyssey, on the other hand, was a DCP presentation of the 2K scan: not exactly a Blu-ray, but the master used to make the Blu-ray...Is that all there is to project 2001 with these days? That's sad."

   There are both 70 & 35 prints of 2001 available: it's getting your hands on them thats the problem.
   And, again, to put things in perspective: 2001 was shot on 65mm. The original prints were struck right off the camera negative. Thats about 35K. It will be a loooooooooooong time before digital can equal that!
   So, 2K vs 35K. Just how much picture information do you reckon youre losing there?
   Just because youre seeing a representation of the frame & the cut, doesnt mean youve seen the movie. It's the difference between seeing 2001 on a Cinerama screen & your Iphone. Think thats the same thing? It aint!

Quote:

Given that, according to the Atlantic article, even Martin Scorsese can't score a print of his own film from the 90's

I wish all the ill in the world on that fast-talking twerp: he hasnt said a single thing about preserving film projection since this debacle began. Cant get a print of his lousy movie? Cry me a river.
BTW, he owns a massive collection thats housed at the Eastman House. The idea that he doesnt own a print of his own movie is laughable.

Quote:

what does the future hold for LA and Garen's best efforts to find thirteen or so movies in 35mm for the Marathon?

Lots of prints are still available. For now.

Quote:

Dave: If DVD must be shown what are the options as far as er, uh, "projection" quality and what can the Somerville provide?

The DP is now working in House 1. We can run Blu-Rays & DVDs, no problem. With a little tweaking, you can get something acceptable, but "acceptable" is as far as it goes. Comparing it to a print is a sick joke.

I have seen the future, and it is sucky digital....

IP Logged

Reply #89 - Nov 29^th, 2012 at 1:56am

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

Gender:
Posts: 328

L.A. Connection wrote on Nov 28^th, 2012 at 2:15pm:

David K can fill in the tech details, but, to those who think "Digital" is some magical elixar that will "save" movies (for the Marathon and other revival locations) there is one important thing that must be kept in mind:

"DIGITAL PROJECTION" does NOT necessarily mean that you are showing a proper digital "print" of a movie (DCP).

   Oy.
   Well, there is a difference between a Blu-Ray & a DCP: the DCP has slightly more information, and will look better on-screen. BUT:
   "Proper" is a tricky word to use. If the transfer is lousy (and the article & my own experience make it clear that thats the norm), then it will make no difference which format you see it in.
   If the colour is off, if the sound is remixed horribly, and so forth, it will be like that in every version, because they usually make ONE transfer. It's not like a print: you get a bad print, you ask for another, maybe thats better. One of the disadvantages of digital (which is hailed as one of its advantages) is that all copies from the source or master are identical. And if the master is bad, all the copies from it will be identically so.

Quote:

A few major restorations over the past few years like TAXI DRIVER, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA etc. have also had DCP's made.

Lawrence was a 4K transfer. 4K vs 35K. Want to guess how much that sucks?

Quote:

But, that 1987 cult film you loved? Faaaaaaaaaaaaat chance that will ever have a DCP made of it.

Yup.

Quote:

The studio will send you a plain old simple DVD/Blu Ray you can buy online for $6.

And charge you $250 plus a percentage to show it!

Quote:

One of the great ripoffs going on right now are the Fathom Events screenings like the recent FRANKENSTEIN Halloween special. What they don't tell you is that it's basically an HD TV broadcast that is beamed to local theaters. So, you were paying $10 to see a Turner Classic Movies episode you can see for Free in your home. Un-Fathomable!!!

In the immortal words of PT Barnum: "Theres one born every minute!"

I have seen the future, and it is sucky digital....

IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9

Send Topic

Print

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Top of this page

Community Run Forums for Starship SF » Powered by YaBB 2.5 AE!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2010. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge