Film prints in theaters

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by vveksuvarna

I really hope we see a underground/cult/grassroots movements for film. Chris Nolan has already been pushing his friends, but we haven't seen many film productions pop up since.

Like others have mentioned, I too am hoping that 70mm picks up as a novelty format. If 4k/3D/Atmos can be marketed as a premium experience, so can 70mm.

You're dreaming. Not going to happen. Film is disappearing. Outside of Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, most theatres don't even have a 35mm film projector in the booth any more. In the U.S., film prints will pretty much be gone by the end of this year; internationally by the end of 2014. In the last 28 years, only five films have been shot in 65mm (aside from IMAX): Far and Away in 1992, Baraka in 1993, Hamlet in 1996 and Samsara and The Master in 2012 (and Samsara was never actually released in 70mm).

As noted in an earlier post, Fuji has sold their remaining film stock to a third party. Kodak still makes film, including 65mm origination and 70mm print film, but they're in bankruptcy. It's only a matter of time before they discontinue most film manufacturing.

However there are companies working on a 70mm-sized sensor for digital cameras. However, there's a question as to whether or not that will improve perceived quality once down-rezed to playback in the Cinema, even at 4K.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

You're dreaming. Not going to happen. Film is disappearing. Outside of Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, most theatres don't even have a 35mm film projector in the booth any more. In the U.S., film prints will pretty much be gone by the end of this year; internationally by the end of 2014. In the last 28 years, only five films have been shot in 65mm (aside from IMAX): Far and Away in 1992, Baraka in 1993, Hamlet in 1996 and Samsara and The Master in 2012 (and Samsara was never actually released in 70mm).

As noted in an earlier post, Fuji has sold their remaining film stock to a third party. Kodak still makes film, including 65mm origination and 70mm print film, but they're in bankruptcy. It's only a matter of time before they discontinue most film manufacturing.

However there are companies working on a 70mm-sized sensor for digital cameras. However, there's a question as to whether or not that will improve perceived quality once down-rezed to playback in the Cinema, even at 4K.

You make some valid comments and for the most part, they do make sense. However, I would not rule out film not ever returning. The studios including IMAX who distributes the IMAX content know full well that there is a demand for 70mm IMAX content. The is one of the reasons why many of the older IMAX venues went to a digital/film switchover system to preserve the ability to run 15/70.

The theatres that installed 70mm for The Master were grossing close to $250,000 per theatre during the run, this was with a premium added to the price of the ticket. Cineplex Odeon added 70mm to one of their digital only theatres for about $10,000....they used equipment and used the non stadium seating theatre within the stadium seating complex.

The Dark Knight Rises had even stronger grosses in 70mm IMAX.

So there is a demand for it, and if there is a way to make money doing it, then I see no reason for the studios not to want to do it.

The next big thing will be the 48fps Avatar 2 which will achieve what Peter Jackson tried and that is large upgrades for existing cinema owners, this will be the next big thing. People should be aware that 48fps is not 4K and is actually 2K with the Hobbit actually being less than 1080p.

After that, if someone has a huge hit on the horizon and wants theatres to install 70mm or 35mm, the cinemas will do it.

[blonde_devil]

the digital thing is a studio push - if theatres resisted, the studios would back down but you are in a bind. big theatre companies will work with the studio and convert leaving smaller, independant ones to fight for themselves. either you convert or you close out. but when you think about it, it isn't really that different than the audio formats. where can you buy a tape anymore? it is the next step. I think eventually film in a theatre will become more of a novelty like records are now - you will see them but it will be special screenings of new transfers of old movies.

as for actually filming movies on film, that isn't going to die anytime soon. watched Keanu Reeves movies about it and there are a lot of directors who still want to use film and when your last name is Nolan, what studio is going to say no? they just need to be careful with it and create some standards. look at all the movie formats that have come and gone over the years because someone developed it but it never because a viable standard and now it can't be used. they just need to make sure that in 20 years they can pull up that movie and actually watch it. I guess it isn't as bad as cgi where each company did thier own thing so chances are we won't see an issue like with Toy Story 3 where all the characters had to be created from scratch again because the old files were no longer compatible but who would have thought back then that something like that would happen anyways.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I don't think the theatre in the OP has anything to worry about right now, but they will after the end of the year. And by the way to the OP: NATO and Cinedigm via the "Cinema Buying Group" does have a program for small theaters. They've helped more than 3000 community and local theaters with funding, conversion, installation and operations. The theatre should contact NATO for details. (That's the National Association of Theater Owners, not the North Atlantic Treaty Organization).

lol, I missed that ^.
b.t.w., although not revealed on their site, NATO is in the midst of constructing a new website on which it desires to post pics of theater technology such as sound systems, projectors, servers and what not, so if you happen to have any and would like to contribute (without compensation) then send ‘em in.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

the digital thing is a studio push - if theatres resisted, the studios would back down but you are in a bind. big theatre companies will work with the studio and convert leaving smaller, independant ones to fight for themselves. either you convert or you close out. but when you think about it, it isn't really that different than the audio formats. where can you buy a tape anymore? it is the next step. I think eventually film in a theatre will become more of a novelty like records are now - you will see them but it will be special screenings of new transfers of old movies.

I think film still has a very good chance at being a premium priced 70mm offering.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...then send ‘em in.

^ Attention: Brigitte

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

As of the end of February, 2013, over 33,000 of the U.S.'s 40,000 screens have been converted to digital. Almost 14,000 of those are 3D capable. Over 2800 screens in Canada have been converted of which over 1100 are 3D capable...

Since this is an international forum , let’s not forget some of our Euro reader friends…
http://www.mediasalles.it/meet/OX0Pr...oneDGT2013.pdf

[Penton-Man]

Another Kodak moment….http://motion.kodak.com/motion/About...13/Jun03_1.htm

[Flatnate]

I see that another privately owned local theater near me is scrambling with fundraisers to make the digital conversion. I'm curious if the pace of the digital conversion didn't catch some of these private guys (especially ones new to the industry) off guard? I believe this particular group bought this theater two or three years ago, and I always figured the cost of the conversion was the reason the last owner got out (they had put already put a lot of money into the remodel). So they have my sympathies when I see all the "Save our theater" fundraising stuff; but its like "man didn't you guys see this coming two years ago, did it really bite you in the butt that quickly?!".

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

And 48fps, 50fps and 60fps are all included in the standards amendment proposal coming up for vote at the SMPTE....

^ SMPTE has nearly completed the new spec for ‘high’ frame rates, which include -

2D 2K @50fps (250 Mb/sec)
2D 2K @60fps (250 Mb/sec)
3D 2K @48fps (500 Mb/sec)
3D 2K @50fps (500 Mb/sec)
3D 2K @60 fps (500 Mb/sec)

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

I see that another privately owned local theater near me is scrambling with fundraisers to make the digital conversion. I'm curious if the pace of the digital conversion didn't catch some of these private guys (especially ones new to the industry) off guard? I believe this particular group bought this theater two or three years ago, and I always figured the cost of the conversion was the reason the last owner got out (they had put already put a lot of money into the remodel). So they have my sympathies when I see all the "Save our theater" fundraising stuff; but its like "man didn't you guys see this coming two years ago, did it really bite you in the butt that quickly?!".

I went to see Back To The Future here a few months ago- http://www.landmarktheatres.com/Mark...k_frameset.htm

And i immediately new they were using the blu-ray version. The screen was small and it looked like crap. What did i go there for? I could of stayed home and watched it. I went there to see a film print. I didn't know that theater made the switch already. This digital BS and blu-ray is no replacement for prints. I felt like leaving and getting my money back but i sat through it. What a disastrous presentation. F this digital change. Really.

I thought studios would at least transfer their prints to digital copies so theaters could still play them????????????????

Quality never prevails in this world.

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by saprano

I went to see Back To The Future here a few months ago- http://www.landmarktheatres.com/Mark...k_frameset.htm

And i immediately new they were using the blu-ray version. The screen was small and it looked like crap. What did i go there for? I could of stayed home and watched it. I went there to see a film print. I didn't know that theater made the switch already. This digital BS and blu-ray is no replacement for prints. I felt like leaving and getting my money back but i sat through it. What a disastrous presentation. F this digital change. Really.

I thought studios would at least transfer their prints to digital copies so theaters could still play them????????????????

Quality never prevails in this world.

Ahh man, not good. Landmark occasionally does some cool older films near me as well. Wrath of Khan, Aliens, they all ran in the last few weeks. I had seriously thought about heading to a showing of one, assuming it would be an older film print or at least a an actual DCP file shown digitally. I once read that Blu-Ray can hold its own against a 2k DCP file shown on a 2k digital cinema projector but from what your saying it sounds like it must fall apart over a certain size.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

What did i go there for?...

Go here...
“All movies in glorious 35mm or 'equally glorious' DCP.
Absolutely no DVDs, no Blu-rays, no kidding!”

scroll to the top to read the advertisement saying so -http://www.filmforum.org/movies/more..._jr#nowplaying

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by saprano

I went to see Back To The Future here a few months ago- http://www.landmarktheatres.com/Mark...k_frameset.htm

And i immediately new they were using the blu-ray version. The screen was small and it looked like crap. What did i go there for? I could of stayed home and watched it. I went there to see a film print. I didn't know that theater made the switch already. This digital BS and blu-ray is no replacement for prints. I felt like leaving and getting my money back but i sat through it. What a disastrous presentation. F this digital change. Really.

I thought studios would at least transfer their prints to digital copies so theaters could still play them????????????????

Quality never prevails in this world.

I feel the same. Sad times.

[Penton-Man]

^ You probably don’t realize how bad it is, for this practice (not changing the XL-S front plate [i.e. *the 3D lens*] to the single Sony lens for 4K projection, even when the theatre is supplied with a 4K DCP is not just exclusive to the U.S. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ss#post7546009

but also applicable to the U.K.

[Penton-Man]

Another one bites the dust…http://www.chicagotribune.com/videog...cture-film-lab

[saprano]

You seem amused.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

Ahh man, not good. Landmark occasionally does some cool older films near me as well. Wrath of Khan, Aliens, they all ran in the last few weeks. I had seriously thought about heading to a showing of one, assuming it would be an older film print or at least a an actual DCP file shown digitally. I once read that Blu-Ray can hold its own against a 2k DCP file shown on a 2k digital cinema projector but from what your saying it sounds like it must fall apart over a certain size.

The transfer that Universal did for BTTF is a piece of garbage so maby that's one of the reasons. But still, i don't think a BD can compare to a film print projected on a 40' screen. And the screen they showed the movie on was no where near that. Anything bigger it would of looked even worse.

It looks like they still show 35mm cause if you scroll down to "Sunshine at Midnight" it says they're showing Super Mario Bros in 35mm. Why they didn't show BTTF in that i have no idea.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

You seem amused.

You mean in regards to the Chicago Tribune link? On the contrary, I personally think it’s rather sad but, that’s *progress*……..with business men and women, esp. those in the motion picture business. The only amusement I get out it is seeing company men salaried from the studios having to make presentations at places like the Film Forum to self-promote, reassure and even apologize to skeptical cinephiles as to the inevitability of the purely digital Cinema age. Which I grant you all began with a mission towards cost-cutting (thusly making more $$) rather than making higher quality motion pictures as the priority from the get-go.

I think where you and I don’t see eye-to-eye is I believe that despite themselves (the executives) and their purely profit-driven motives (similar to the 1st generation 4K TV movement now underway) eventually, the engineers and scientists will enable digital acquisition and exhibition to become as good as, and probably even superior to, celluloid. Just as I’m hopeful that 4K at home will evolve into something to justify the marketing hype (over HD) for all consumers by way of future enhancements as I described last March –

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...The technological merits of current 4K displays completely aside, for the time being, I see the adoption of 4K tv in the home being largely dependent upon how robustly it is marketed (like 1080p was to 720p displays) and phased in by the consumer electronics industry and the 4K media providers. Now, what will provide a big impetus or push for mainstream usage, or ubiquity, will be when Joe6Pack can clearly notice dramatic advantage of 4K displays (of any size) from well beyond a 2PH viewing distance. That should come when increased color bit depth, HDR and HFR are added to the 4K recipe. We’ve already discussed the former (color) on previous pages here.

As to the middle factor, that’s quite a complex subject which I would have to postpone discussing for another day when I have much more time. Suffice to say that HDR is on the far horizon but, is of great significance since current displays come nowhere near to that of approaching the dynamic range of the human visual system, so HDR will not be on the order of a marginal change, but rather, a marked, almost revolutionary change to improvement of the viewing experience…..once the scientists/engineers can get it *to work*. But they are working on it, esp. those from Dolby… http://conferences.smpte.org/content.../1.17.abstract
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2077451.2077484

As for the last factor (HFR), or essentially increasing the temporal resolution, the industry already has the capable cameras. And producing 4K HFR capable displays won’t be a huge hurdle, more like the next small obstacle; however, the big hole is the distribution chain between the camera and the display....

Or, as this engineer noted just last week “Something beyond HD might have no interlace, more resolution, finer pixels and these are all great. But what else is there? It has to deliver a new viewing experience. It has to be something consumers want to have" - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/beh...es-need-572491

P.S. Since Chris says in that ^ article “when we need, at the very least 50fps, for sports and arguably higher”, one thing not mentioned is that of a potential deficiency in your favorite ITU-R Recommendation….namely BT.2020. I’m referring to the fact that there is no multiple of 50Hz in the frame frequency parameters of ITU-R B.T.2020.

[Canada]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

^ SMPTE has nearly completed the new spec for ‘high’ frame rates, which include -

2D 2K @50fps (250 Mb/sec)
2D 2K @60fps (250 Mb/sec)
3D 2K @48fps (500 Mb/sec)
3D 2K @50fps (500 Mb/sec)
3D 2K @60 fps (500 Mb/sec)

I would love to see how big memory wise hard drives would have to get before people who shot movies for the IMAX would consider using them.