35mm film is awesome

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by cramped_misfit90

Oh jacki
What took you so long...

The title of the thread is “35mm film is awesome”, so as a pragmatic poster with limited time, I was trying to prioritize my contributions to the Blu-ray technology and Future Technology forum.

Sorry.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by garyrc

...In one instance I had to accompany a manager (who was about 20, admittedly untrained, and working the candy counter) to the booth and show him how to turn it up.

I hope this isn’t going to turn into one of those classic….*it was far better in the old days* threads. I mean, seriously, if so, I’d prefer you to continue to send PM’s answering five year old queries, like you did on the next to the last page.

For, that was truly classic.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by garyrc

...I assume the projectors can be adjusted to low brightness to save the lamp, just as with home projectors.

One can operate Xenon lamps in the range of 75–100% of the power setting (i.e. 75-80% of max power is the minimum operating regime for Xenon lamps). So, in order to “save the lamp” one would want to setup around 80% and then as the lamp ages, increase the power in order to maintain the bulb brightness. Even with such a conscientious cost-saving measure, one only gets about 900-2000 hrs. out of the typical lamp because that’s when stable light output usually deteriorates.

What is the general cost of a lamp for a popular 4K projector in use? Oh, about $1800.

[RyanPom]

16 mm film is pretty great.

[42041]

Originally Posted by garyrc

With digital, I'd expect they would all look the same, except for projection brightness. I assume the projectors can be adjusted to low brightness to save the lamp, just as with home projectors. Stardust (2007), projected in digital, was so dim that it was hard to tell if it was sharp -- but I've seen the same thing happen with film.

With either film or digital, another source of variance is whether something in the booth -- like focus -- needs to be adjusted after the initial set up by a trained individual. Twice the audio has been unnaturally soft -- probably due to a person in charge turning it down to way below reference, perhaps due to an audience complaint. In one instance I had to accompany a manager (who was about 20, admittedly untrained, and working the candy counter) to the booth and show him how to turn it up.

You might have had the misfortune of running into one of those Sony projectors with the 3d lens left on for a 2D screening. Those are almost unwatchably dim and I've run into quite a few theaters that have them installed with that issue.
I've seen digital projection differ quite a bit in contrast and brightness, and of course some theaters don't have theirs focused well. One of the Cinemarks nearby has wonderful 4K projectors, with brightness and clarity that recalls 70mm. Some theaters have obviously low-end projectors that look more like home theater. Still, overall I've experienced a more consistently solid picture quality from digital cinema than 35mm run by apathetic popcorn jockeys. Less stuff to muck up I guess. And the uncompressed PCM surround is also a nice upgrade over dolby/DTS, though the audio quality of the theater speakers tends to be less than stellar anyway.
While I still think 35mm film is an excellent capture medium, for wide-release exhibition, I don't miss it much (though it can look beautiful when projected well from a nice print).

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by RyanPom

16 mm film is pretty great.

70 mm is even cooler.

Why don't we have 140 mm film by now?

[RyanPom]

Originally Posted by frogmort

70 mm is even cooler.

Why don't we have 140 mm film by now?

Maybe that replaces Digital in the future?

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by RyanPom

Maybe that replaces Digital in the future?

I was actually just kidding, but in my research, I found this a very interesting read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/70_mm_film

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by frogmort

70 mm is even cooler.
Why don't we have 140 mm film by now?

The frog croaks in the Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology Forum!

How many transport platters would that occupy and who the heck is going to lift all that celluloid upstairs....certainly not the guy tending the popcorn machine. 3D 15/70 is bad enough.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I was actually just kidding...

Damn, you had me going.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The frog croaks in the Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology Forum!

How many transport platters would that occupy and who the heck is going to lift all that celluloid upstairs....certainly not the guy tending the popcorn machine. 3D 15/70 is bad enough.

Hell yeah. Recently, I was watching a documentary of Under the Sea 3D, and they said how challenging it was for them to fit the camera into a underwater rig to withstand the sea pressure. And that the dual 65mm strips only allowed them to filmed 3 minutes worth of footage before they had to haul the rig back up to load in another reel. Crazy!

[cornbread_1788]

Well digital is made for documentaries, well at least in my mind, so you can capture tons of footage on a small budget. When I see a digital film for the most part, it looks soo cheap even though the film itself can cost over $100 million. Rock of Ages, as an example, cost $75 million to make, but it looks so cheap and artificial and there was a ton of smearing and digital noise throughout the film. I know its based off a play and everything, but it lacked the realism and grunge I wanted with this film. If it was shot on Super 35 with the chunky grain it would have made me enjoyed the film more (That and not have Diego & Hough cast in the film....UGH!) and gave it edge that a film about rock & roll should have. Instead, it felt like I was watching a candy commercial with a ton of pop sensibilities, which would be fine if it wasn't a film about ROCK!!!!! Adam Shankman be shamed!

[Poya]

Originally Posted by cornbread_1788

Well digital is made for documentaries, well at least in my mind, so you can capture tons of footage on a small budget. When I see a digital film for the most part, it looks soo cheap even though the film itself can cost over $100 million. Rock of Ages, as an example, cost $75 million to make, but it looks so cheap and artificial and there was a ton of smearing and digital noise throughout the film. I know its based off a play and everything, but it lacked the realism and grunge I wanted with this film. If it was shot on Super 35 with the chunky grain it would have made me enjoyed the film more (That and not have Diego & Hough cast in the film....UGH!) and gave it edge that a film about rock & roll should have. Instead, it felt like I was watching a candy commercial with a ton of pop sensibilities, which would be fine if it wasn't a film about ROCK!!!!! Adam Shankman be shamed!

That film wasn't about rock; it was about hair metal, which is pop pretending to be rock. That film was so bad, I stopped watching Breaking Bad after watching it. Cranston should be ashamed of himself.

[cornbread_1788]

Originally Posted by Poya

That film wasn't about rock; it was about hair metal, which is pop pretending to be rock. That film was so bad, I stopped watching Breaking Bad after watching it. Cranston should be ashamed of himself.

Hair Metal is still rock and Cranston was in worse things.

[blonde_devil]

as with anything, it depends on how it is used. 35mm can be great but if you don't know how to use it properly, then the film itself is useless. remember, a fool with a tool is still a fool! used properly, 16mm can produce some amazing results as well.

[cornbread_1788]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

as with anything, it depends on how it is used. 35mm can be great but if you don't know how to use it properly, then the film itself is useless. remember, a fool with a tool is still a fool! used properly, 16mm can produce some amazing results as well.

Look at Halloween II or The Evil Dead for starters... both look great!