Film prints in theaters

[Steedeel]

I think in a world where kids are watching movies on a 4 inch phone, that is the least of our worries.

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I think in a world where kids are watching movies on a 4 inch phone, that is the least of our worries.

Why do kids watching movies on a phone worry you?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

Why do kids watching movies on a phone worry you?

This our future movie watchers. Do you seriously think the best way to enjoy movies is on a 4 or 5 inch screen? TV sales are plummeting. All the investment seems to be going towards tablets and smartphones. I even read that flexible smartwatches could soon have video watching capability (2 inch screen)
All this dictates how the slightly older generation access their media. It always has a knock on effect, just look at mp3 and the way younger people listen to music. It's a crapfest and movies are heading the same way. Screens will eventually get that small, older people won't be able to get any enjoyment from tv series or films.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by WillBrandon

Honestly, the thread sounds really grim but isn't it the same story like about paper newspapers/electronic newspapers?

no, not the same. One is consumer (I choose to buy the paper magazine/news paper) while the other is business (the theatre chooses to what to buy). The simple reality is that it is dying because it makes more economic sense for studios and theatres to go digital, the projectors are cheaper, they need less maintenance....

Now maybe if people knew what was used and they had a preference and they would go out of their way to go to cinemas that have film presentations, maybe it would be similar to paper but let's face it, that is not the reality.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

This our future movie watchers. Do you seriously think the best way to enjoy movies is on a 4 or 5 inch screen? TV sales are plummeting. All the investment seems to be going towards tablets and smartphones. I even read that flexible smartwatches could soon have video watching capability (2 inch screen)
All this dictates how the slightly older generation access their media. It always has a knock on effect, just look at mp3 and the way younger people listen to music. It's a crapfest and movies are heading the same way. Screens will eventually get that small, older people won't be able to get any enjoyment from tv series or films.

I disagree, CD has been around for over 30 years, before that we had tapes/8track and portable/car players "killing off" records. The "young people" have been moving away from records for a very long time but records still exist for the people that like them (and there is a small resurgence) and they will continue existing for a very long time. So as long as there are a few people that want something it does not matter what the young or the majority want


Yes there is iTunes, but CD is still by far the king in the world and in the US where digital is higher it is nearly an evenly split even after a decade.

I also think the idea is a bit ludicrous. Let me put it this way, I have my ipod and earphones when I need to go out and portability is an issue, but when I am at home and I want mood music I use CDs and speakers. The two are not exclusive. Do you think the teen today lying on his bed alone watching a film on his tablet will use that same tablet when he wants to watch something with a handful of his friends? or how about later on with his family? The tablet is a personal device and completely impractical to watch things with friends or family on.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I disagree, CD has been around for over 30 years, before that we had tapes/8track and portable/car players "killing off" records. The "young people" have been moving away from records for a very long time but records still exist for the people that like them (and there is a small resurgence) and they will continue existing for a very long time. So as long as there are a few people that want something it does not matter what the young or the majority want


Yes there is iTunes, but CD is still by far the king in the world and in the US where digital is higher it is nearly an evenly split even after a decade.

I also think the idea is a bit ludicrous. Let me put it this way, I have my ipod and earphones when I need to go out and portability is an issue, but when I am at home and I want mood music I use CDs and speakers. The two are not exclusive. Do you think the teen today lying on his bed alone watching a film on his tablet will use that same tablet when he wants to watch something with a handful of his friends? or how about later on with his family? The tablet is a personal device and completely impractical to watch things with friends or family on.

Kids don't watch things with their family anyway. They are doing their own thing. The more personal these devices get the worse it will be for the likes of us who love our entertainment big. Already tablets growth is slowing apparently, smartwatches will have tiny screens and that means most younger people will probably be watching their films and tv either on a 4 inch screen or a 1.5-2.5 mini screen. Pc sales are looking in trouble and laptop sales are struggling. Basically, home cinema fans are left at the mercy of tv sales picking up again. If they don't, we are screwed surely? I fear for the future of home entertainment.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Kids don't watch things with their family anyway. They are doing their own thing.

But that is the point. Kids will be kids but every kid will eventually (if everything goes well) grow up. This is nothing new. When I was a kid I would rather listen in my room a tape on my Walkman over a record on the record player in the home stereo and at some point I realized I could use the old Commodore 64 monitor + old beta player to have a TV in my room and so I used to watch that instead of the bigger TV in the family room/den but now I would not make that same decision. when we were kids, one day at my grandparents place, we found my uncles old portable record player (for those that are a bit too young they used to build record players with speaker in a wooden box with a handle) that he bought so that he can listen to his records in his room instead of the much nicer and better system my grand parents had in the living room, but as a kid when we used to go to my uncles place he now had a nice system in his living room. At a certain age range kids will always (unless they are with friends) choose a personal device over a family device, it is a normal part of growing up where the kid wants to feel independent, that he can go out and put his mark on the world. Eventually he grows out of it.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

But that is the point. Kids will be kids but every kid will eventually (if everything goes well) grow up. This is nothing new. When I was a kid I would rather listen in my room a tape on my Walkman over a record on the record player in the home stereo and at some point I realized I could use the old Commodore 64 monitor + old beta player to have a TV in my room and so I used to watch that instead of the bigger TV in the family room/den but now I would not make that same decision. when we were kids, one day at my grandparents place, we found my uncles old portable record player (for those that are a bit too young they used to build record players with speaker in a wooden box with a handle) that he bought so that he can listen to his records in his room instead of the much nicer and better system my grand parents had in the living room, but as a kid when we used to go to my uncles place he now had a nice system in his living room. At a certain age range kids will always (unless they are with friends) choose a personal device over a family device, it is a normal part of growing up where the kid wants to feel independent, that he can go out and put his mark on the world. Eventually he grows out of it.

But this is the first generation that are growing up with small screens. I mean, what if smartwatches do cannibalise smartphones and tablets. We could have a whole generation of youngsters watching on a 1.5-2 inch screen.

[Tok]

Steedeel are you just trying to get members riled up?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Tok

Steedeel are you just trying to get members riled up?

No, 100 percent genuine concerns. They honestly are.

[ZoetMB]

I think the only hope is that after experiencing movies and TV shows on the personal, really small screens, at some point the big screen will seem miraculous again and they'll be a new trend by young people of attending movies in theaters. And maybe they'll even start dating again instead of just hooking up.

I have to give theaters some credit - at least they're trying to make at least some movie experiences special again. I don't agree that they're all really beneficial, but the ETX, RPX, IMAX (even LieMax) large screen experience, combined with 11.1 or object oriented sound systems like Dolby Atmos will get many people off of their personal media devices.

At first I thought it was all just a ripoff - why should a decent movie experience cost more money - they all should be good experiences, but then I remembered back to the 1950s and 60s roadshows and those also charged more - a lot more. The theaters were fancier and people dressed better, but today's special theaters are today's "low rent" equivalent. And back in the day of the roadshows, almost all of the big 70mm and Cinerama houses were in the downtowns of large cities. Today's special theaters are everywhere.

Digital does have its advantages - in the film days, theaters outside of the big cities got used prints and they usually looked like crap and frequently had segments missing.

And even though most theaters are no longer equipped to play film anyway, it now appears that the majors have shifted the sunset date for film prints in the U.S. from December, 2013 to mid-2014.

-----

I was in the single-screen Ziegfeld in NYC the other day to see "Captain Phillips". I noticed they had digital projectors in two positions. Strangely, the movie played off the same digital projector as the ads, but the trailers played off a different digital projector, which was in the center position where the film projector used to be. I couldn't see into the booth well enough to see if the film projector is still there or not, but even though they played "The Master" in 70mm not that long ago, it's possible the film projector is gone.

The theatre's operation has been taken over by BowTie from Clearview (Clearview still owns the theatre, although their other remaining NYC properties have been sold to BowTie). I wonder whether BowTie pulled out the film projector.

[MrsMiniver]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I think the only hope is that after experiencing movies and TV shows on the personal, really small screens, at some point the big screen will seem miraculous again and they'll be a new trend by young people of attending movies in theaters. And maybe they'll even start dating again instead of just hooking up.

I have to give theaters some credit - at least they're trying to make at least some movie experiences special again. I don't agree that they're all really beneficial, but the ETX, RPX, IMAX (even LieMax) large screen experience, combined with 11.1 or object oriented sound systems like Dolby Atmos will get many people off of their personal media devices.

At first I thought it was all just a ripoff - why should a decent movie experience cost more money - they all should be good experiences, but then I remembered back to the 1950s and 60s roadshows and those also charged more - a lot more. The theaters were fancier and people dressed better, but today's special theaters are today's "low rent" equivalent. And back in the day of the roadshows, almost all of the big 70mm and Cinerama houses were in the downtowns of large cities. Today's special theaters are everywhere.

Digital does have its advantages - in the film days, theaters outside of the big cities got used prints and they usually looked like crap and frequently had segments missing.

And even though most theaters are no longer equipped to play film anyway, it now appears that the majors have shifted the sunset date for film prints in the U.S. from December, 2013 to mid-2014.

-----

I was in the single-screen Ziegfeld in NYC the other day to see "Captain Phillips". I noticed they had digital projectors in two positions. Strangely, the movie played off the same digital projector as the ads, but the trailers played off a different digital projector, which was in the center position where the film projector used to be. I couldn't see into the booth well enough to see if the film projector is still there or not, but even though they played "The Master" in 70mm not that long ago, it's possible the film projector is gone.

The theatre's operation has been taken over by BowTie from Clearview (Clearview still owns the theatre, although their other remaining NYC properties have been sold to BowTie). I wonder whether BowTie pulled out the film projector.

Very well said, I kind of like IMAX even though they have gone the liemax route. Not so much of a fan of the RPX ETX type clones. I do agree there are a lot of small screens that are boring.

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

But this is the first generation that are growing up with small screens. I mean, what if smartwatches do cannibalise smartphones and tablets. We could have a whole generation of youngsters watching on a 1.5-2 inch screen.

Oh no, not this again!

I grew up with small screens! 13 inch tube tv in my bedroom, and a 20 inch tube tv in the family room was the best we had man!

I think part of what you are observing is possibly economics and space. Kids are living with their parents longer (oy... I hate admitting it, but I'm 33 years old and living with mine as we save up a down payment on a home). They push off big purchases till later in life (cars included). But in the end I won't underestimate the lure of a 50 inch flat panel and a PS4 to any teenager once they are out and have the means to acquire it.

Also of note, we are also probably observing a decline in television sales as we finally reached market saturation with HD televisions having replaced most of analog tube counterparts. I don't think we will ever see tv's sell like they did a few years ago when flat panel prices dropped and people rushed out to finally kick all the tube sets out of the house.

[Dragun]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

Also of note, we are also probably observing a decline in television sales as we finally reached market saturation with HD televisions having replaced most of analog tube counterparts. I don't think we will ever see tv's sell like they did a few years ago when flat panel prices dropped and people rushed out to finally kick all the tube sets out of the house.

My family's HDTV is 6 or 7 years old and it still works great. Unless it craps out on me out of nowhere, I won't buy a replacement anytime soon. Even before the HD era, we replaced our main TV about every 10 years.

I think the smartphone/tablet method of watching TV and movies is primarily for when people are traveling. I can't imagine that tons of people are watching movies on their iPads at home.

When theatrical projection went mostly digital, that was the beginning of the end for film, since large-volume release prints were huge part of the celluloid business. There are plenty of filmmakers who want to shoot on film, and do, but I don't think that's enough to support the production of film in the long run.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Dragun

My family's HDTV is 6 or 7 years old and it still works great. Unless it craps out on me out of nowhere, I won't buy a replacement anytime soon. Even before the HD era, we replaced our main TV about every 10 years.

I think the smartphone/tablet method of watching TV and movies is primarily for when people are traveling. I can't imagine that tons of people are watching movies on their iPads at home.

When theatrical projection went mostly digital, that was the beginning of the end for film, since large-volume release prints were huge part of the celluloid business. There are plenty of filmmakers who want to shoot on film, and do, but I don't think that's enough to support the production of film in the long run.

Somewhat surprisingly, although Kodak is down to just 10 emulsions for 35mm still film, they still have kept almost all of their emulsions for movie film. Obviously, this could change at any time, and I don't know how they're doing it because they've stated many times in the past that as soon as demand drops low enough that they can't make consistent batches, they will drop the emulsion.

Kodak never really made money in negative films - all the money was in prints and with few film prints being made, they can't be making much selling negative, intermediate, print and production films.

Kodak still film is now "owned" by Kodak Alaris. I'm not sure who "owns" the motion picture film.

I count:
35mm motion picture camera negative film: 4 color, 1 b&w and 1 b&w reversal.
Intermediates: 4 color films, 2 b&w
Print films: 2 color, 2 b&w
Sound films: 2
Title films: 1
Archive films: 3

Meanwhile, the U.S. studios have shifted their sunset date for 35mm film prints from the end of 2013 to mid-2014. This is somewhat moot because all the major chains are mostly all-digital at this point, but still interesting.

[Steedeel]

It seems the race to the bottom has even hit cinema. It is tragic that we are losing film to digital prints.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It seems the race to the bottom has even hit cinema. It is tragic that we are losing film to digital prints.

It's not completely tragic. It's tragic for the best prints and the best cinemas. Under perfect conditions, film was fantastic. The problem is that most people didn't get to see film that way. They saw scratched prints with missing frames and bad splices. Even if they managed to get to a theatre where a film was playing with a mag track, there was a good chance that some idiot had already exposed the reel to a magnetic field and erased all the high frequencies or else the house had worn-out mag heads or didn't adjust the azimuth when each new print came in.

Once digital sound came along, the "average" experience improved for most filmgoers, although it might have still been inferior to the best 70mm analog sound presentations.

I would contend that while digital presentation certainly has many disadvantages, the average filmgoer is getting a far better experience. As just one small anecdotal example, I was in a theatre in Cape Cod over the summer and the digital presentation was quite good. Back in the film days, they would have gotten a passed-along print that was likely to have been damaged and they probably would have used an ancient film projector that couldn't generate enough light.

When "The Master" played in 70mm last year, I rushed to see it and I was shocked that the print had dirt from end to end. I thought to myself, "if this is how they're going to present film, then I don't want to see it anymore anyway." I suspect someone dropped the platter. This was probably because most theaters don't have trained personnel anymore in the projection booth who know how to handle film and in most cities, the union operators have long been thrown out.

You no longer have to be in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco or Chicago to get a first-run quality presentation (or in your case, London) and no matter where you live, you're generally able to see a movie in a theatre on the same day it opens in the big cities, with the exception of some art films that have a slow rollout schedule.

So IMO, it's not all bad news, even if I still really miss seeing those 70mm 6-track mag Dolby presentations, especially when they added extra sound equipment to the theatre, like for "Close Encounters…" and "Apocalypse Now".

Having said that, there is one thing that bothers me about digital projection and that is that you don't get a true black.

I saw Gravity in IMAX (double-projector digital) and I have to admit, the presentation was superb, although in 3D, as usual, it was too dim. But laser lamps are coming and this should finally solve the intolerably dim 3D issue.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

It's not completely tragic. It's tragic for the best prints and the best cinemas. Under perfect conditions, film was fantastic. The problem is that most people didn't get to see film that way. They saw scratched prints with missing frames and bad splices. Even if they managed to get to a theatre where a film was playing with a mag track, there was a good chance that some idiot had already exposed the reel to a magnetic field and erased all the high frequencies or else the house had worn-out mag heads or didn't adjust the azimuth when each new print came in.

Once digital sound came along, the "average" experience improved for most filmgoers, although it might have still been inferior to the best 70mm analog sound presentations.

I would contend that while digital presentation certainly has many disadvantages, the average filmgoer is getting a far better experience. As just one small anecdotal example, I was in a theatre in Cape Cod over the summer and the digital presentation was quite good. Back in the film days, they would have gotten a passed-along print that was likely to have been damaged and they probably would have used an ancient film projector that couldn't generate enough light.

When "The Master" played in 70mm last year, I rushed to see it and I was shocked that the print had dirt from end to end. I thought to myself, "if this is how they're going to present film, then I don't want to see it anymore anyway." I suspect someone dropped the platter. This was probably because most theaters don't have trained personnel anymore in the projection booth who know how to handle film and in most cities, the union operators have long been thrown out.

You no longer have to be in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco or Chicago to get a first-run quality presentation (or in your case, London) and no matter where you live, you're generally able to see a movie in a theatre on the same day it opens in the big cities, with the exception of some art films that have a slow rollout schedule.

So IMO, it's not all bad news, even if I still really miss seeing those 70mm 6-track mag Dolby presentations, especially when they added extra sound equipment to the theatre, like for "Close Encounters…" and "Apocalypse Now".

Having said that, there is one thing that bothers me about digital projection and that is that you don't get a true black.

I saw Gravity in IMAX (double-projector digital) and I have to admit, the presentation was superb, although in 3D, as usual, it was too dim. But laser lamps are coming and this should finally solve the intolerably dim 3D issue.

Maybe it is a nostalgia thing. However, I recall in my youth and pre-teen years, the picture seemed to have a texture to it that is missing now.

[MrsMiniver]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I saw Gravity in IMAX (double-projector digital) and I have to admit, the presentation was superb, although in 3D, as usual, it was too dim.

I watched Gravity in IMAX double projector digital. I did not think the picture was too dim at all, it was much better than regular digital. I think regular digital has a hard time filling up a very large screen but the digital IMAX looks better.

I will admit to something, I watched a true IMAX documentary a week and half earlier in film, when I saw the digital presentation of Gravity a week and half later, I now know why they call it LieMax. The real IMAX was better. Also the sound was much better as well and we were comparing the surround speakers and the true IMAX were larger units. I also heard that the speakers behind the screen are different as well.

But overall I am supporting of IMAX film or digital.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Maybe it is a nostalgia thing. However, I recall in my youth and pre-teen years, the picture seemed to have a texture to it that is missing now.

The texture you're referring to is grain. If the movie was shot on film, although digitally presented, there's no reason why it can't still have grain, although sometimes they use noise reduction excessively.

If the movie was shot digitally, there won't be grain, but there can still be digital noise, which looks something like grain, but is not quite the same and IMO, not as pleasing.

In traditional filmmaking, sometimes grain was a creative choice by the selective use of film stocks and sometimes it was just what was technically attainable at the time and if the director/cinematographer had a choice, there would have been less grain.

Super 35 and film systems like it, being a 2-perf system, had grain the size of golf balls regardless of the stock used because the negative was essentially blown up twice: once vertically, to make it 4-perf and equivalent to anamorphic Panavision and then again, as usual, horizontally in projection.

I understood why low budget films used it, but it always disturbed me when well budgeted films used it. But many cinematographers preferred it because of the lens choices available vs. Panavision.

And when filmmakers shot in 65mm, for 70mm presentation, they did so to reduce grain (and also because in presentation, you could get more light behind the larger 70mm frame). So filmmakers didn't necessarily see grain as a benefit.

Originally Posted by MrsMiniver

I watched Gravity in IMAX double projector digital. I did not think the picture was too dim at all, it was much better than regular digital. I think regular digital has a hard time filling up a very large screen but the digital IMAX looks better.

I will admit to something, I watched a true IMAX documentary a week and half earlier in film, when I saw the digital presentation of Gravity a week and half later, I now know why they call it LieMax. The real IMAX was better. Also the sound was much better as well and we were comparing the surround speakers and the true IMAX were larger units. I also heard that the speakers behind the screen are different as well.

But overall I am supporting of IMAX film or digital.

I actually thought I was going to see Gravity in 70mm IMAX. The theatre I went to was equipped for it (or had been). But it played, as I wrote, in double-projector IMAX. I looked up at the booth from the auditorium to see whether the 70mm IMAX projector was still there, but I couldn't tell for sure since the booth was dark. But I think it's inevitable that 70mm IMAX is going to disappear. It will probably last a bit longer in museum IMAX theaters, because they keep recycling the same IMAX films and because they don't have the budgets to upgrade (downgrade?), but once Kodak stops making 70mm film or stops making movie print emulsions, it's going to be gone.