4 ms·

Ex-VFX guy here again. I feel like I have to comment on these threads because I'm thrilled to see 35mm film die.[1] The DRM sucks but.... > There are instan

by trimbo 14y ago

Ex-VFX guy here again. I feel like I have to comment on these threads because I'm thrilled to see 35mm film die.[1] The DRM sucks but.... > There are instances in the US already where some studios are refusing to freight 35mm film prints to cinemas. Yeah, because it's crazy expensive. It costs ~$1500 to strike and ship a 35mm print[2]. Also, did you know that prints are delivered by some specialized delivery company? They're not just shipped around by FedEx. I can't remember the name of the company right now. This incident sucks for them but I feel like this move to digital is great for the environment and a better moviegoing experience. I love the rock-solid picture with awesome contrast, and not to mention the lack of nasty chemical process in order to create it. [1] - My original comment on "RIP Movie Camera": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3114120 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3114120 [2] - http://www.laweekly.com/2012-04-12/film-tv/35-mm-film-digital-Hollywood/ http://www.laweekly.com/2012-04-12/film-tv/35-mm-film-digita...

wahnfrieden 14y ago
You don't think there's a place for it in smaller / specialized venues for some time? It makes sense for mainstream Hollywood not to bother with it anymore, but I for one would appreciate to be able to see Bela Tarr on 35mm or Antonioni on 70mm again. I know many of these older prints are passed around too rather than struck per showing.
- trimbo 14y ago
  This is interesting, my interpretation of what they were saying was for _new_ prints. But in the case of old prints, I see your point. Long term, I hope this is self-correcting. People still like vinyl, and although you can't find a Tower Records anywhere on earth, you can find vinyl shops that are still doing really well. The same could end up being true for film-projecting theaters. My bias for digital probably clouds my judgment now so I have a question: would you be interested to see these on film if you could see a cleaned up, perfect, version on a 4K+ digital projector? What about the film version appeals to you?
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    A good, clean, new 35mm print is very clearly distinguishable from from a 4k projection. Even casually you can see the difference. Not to mention how a good 70mm print looks. Or that a large percentage of screens aren't 4k but 2k. 4k is ok for me for most current releases. The difference is there, but I don't care too much. 2k is distracting. But I cry at the idea of a rep house screening of 2001 even in 4k. Pay for that and you're being robbed.
    - trimbo 14y ago
      > A good, clean, new 35mm print is very clearly distinguishable from from a 4k projection. Even casually you can see the difference What difference are you referring to? If you're talking about clarity/pixels, the source format is as important as the projection. Academy and super 35 waste a lot of space on the frame. Super 35, which was really common for big time movies a few years ago because you could use spherical lenses, actually requires an intermediate step making it anamorphic for projection... which makes it less clear on the print. The only 35mm source format I would argue provides higher resolution on 35mm than a 4K projector is going to be anamorphic (aka Panavision or 'Scope). It requires no intermediate step before projection. It looks like Nolan is shooting Dark Knight Rises anamorphic and 70mm for the IMAX stuff. Other than resolution, the blacklevels of film are higher and there's weave on film. Plus, unless you only go to high end theaters that take projection seriously, your typical projector jockey at the local AMC can barely get the movie in focus. I once saw Saving Private Ryan projected with no matte. So every time an effects shot came on, the top and the bottom were cropped. Non effects shots had full frame. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte) Anyway, given what we've seen with digital photography, I'd expect the technology here to advance pretty fast.
      - waterlesscloud 14y ago
        Raw resolution isn't so much the issue as the overall feel of the image. Color is probably the biggest advantage of film over digital. But yes, you're right that the capture method is the biggest influence. And since digital is becoming the default choice even on mainstream projects, 35mm projection would eventually seem sort of silly anyway. Even Malick is shooting Alexa now! Plus there's all the 2k DI stuff that's been out there, muddying the waters even more. Nolan is one of the few with both a strong preference and the financial clout to hold on to high quality film capture, but I suspect a couple of projects down the road even he will have to give in.
kleiba 14y ago
Do you think that if movie theaters didn't have to use an expensive delivery service, the movie going experience would get any better?
- trimbo 14y ago
  Not sure I understand the question. Do you mean if the cost for delivering prints was substantially lower... what would happen?
cdcarter 14y ago
I work for a group of venues that recently opened a film screening room that can handle almost all digital formats, 16mm, and 35mm prints. And we in fact ship our prints almost exclusively by FedEx. I had to take a canister to the local shop on a dolly just the other day. Though, they are super expensive to ship. Maybe it's a regional thing, the delivery? Here in Mass you need to be a licensed projectionist due to the flammability.
- trimbo 14y ago
  > And we in fact ship our prints almost exclusively by FedEx. I had to take a canister to the local shop on a dolly just the other day Huh. Go figure. Maybe things have changed. The only reference I've been able to find is on this page: http://business.highbeam.com/industry-reports/personal/services-allied-to-motion-picture-distribution http://business.highbeam.com/industry-reports/personal/servi... Film delivery services, also known as film carriers, were usually classified under the transportation services industry, in particular SIC 4213: Trucking Except Local, but belonged under both classifications because of their unique services. Film carriers were specialized transportation companies serving the needs of motion picture theaters by delivering and picking up rented theatrical films. Film was transported between the cinemas and the national network of film exchanges, or film depots, or directly between theaters, based on their booking schedules. Metal canisters of 16mm or 35mm film were delivered to the theaters, usually on a weekly basis. Unlike other delivery services, film carriers had keys to the theaters they supplied so they could drop off and pick up film when the theater was closed. Most delivery was done by truck or van because of the heavy weight of the film canisters, which made them impractical for air freight, except in rush circumstances. Film carriers served only theaters, since other organizations that screened films tended to use the more easily transportable videotape format, or else had only occasional film needs, which could be handled by any non-specialized delivery service. There were fewer than 40 major film delivery companies throughout the country that served nearly the entire theater market. Most served up to a couple hundred theaters, some covering a region comprising several states. There were also a commensurate number of smaller film carriers that exclusively served single theater chains of around 15 to 20 theaters. Films generally weigh about 62 pounds, and are often accompanied by large cardboard stand-up displays and other promotional items theaters place in lobbies.
speleding 14y ago
The issues mentioned in the blog sound very fixable. How hard could it be to allow a few minutes of unconstrained grace period from the beginning of the movie? That would take care of ensuring the projector works properly. It should also be straightforward to offer functionality that verifies if the digital key is valid before the show starts. I would not be surprised if those options already exist and they simply did not know how to use it.
- Thlom 14y ago
  It is possible to look at each feature on the screen server if it has an associated key and also when and for how long it unlocks.

by trimbo 14y ago

wahnfrieden 14y ago

You don't think there's a place for it in smaller / specialized venues for some time? It makes sense for mainstream Hollywood not to bother with it anymore, but I for one would appreciate to be able to see Bela Tarr on 35mm or Antonioni on 70mm again. I know many of these older prints are passed around too rather than struck per showing.

trimbo 14y ago
This is interesting, my interpretation of what they were saying was for _new_ prints. But in the case of old prints, I see your point. Long term, I hope this is self-correcting. People still like vinyl, and although you can't find a Tower Records anywhere on earth, you can find vinyl shops that are still doing really well. The same could end up being true for film-projecting theaters. My bias for digital probably clouds my judgment now so I have a question: would you be interested to see these on film if you could see a cleaned up, perfect, version on a 4K+ digital projector? What about the film version appeals to you?
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  A good, clean, new 35mm print is very clearly distinguishable from from a 4k projection. Even casually you can see the difference. Not to mention how a good 70mm print looks. Or that a large percentage of screens aren't 4k but 2k. 4k is ok for me for most current releases. The difference is there, but I don't care too much. 2k is distracting. But I cry at the idea of a rep house screening of 2001 even in 4k. Pay for that and you're being robbed.
  - trimbo 14y ago
    > A good, clean, new 35mm print is very clearly distinguishable from from a 4k projection. Even casually you can see the difference What difference are you referring to? If you're talking about clarity/pixels, the source format is as important as the projection. Academy and super 35 waste a lot of space on the frame. Super 35, which was really common for big time movies a few years ago because you could use spherical lenses, actually requires an intermediate step making it anamorphic for projection... which makes it less clear on the print. The only 35mm source format I would argue provides higher resolution on 35mm than a 4K projector is going to be anamorphic (aka Panavision or 'Scope). It requires no intermediate step before projection. It looks like Nolan is shooting Dark Knight Rises anamorphic and 70mm for the IMAX stuff. Other than resolution, the blacklevels of film are higher and there's weave on film. Plus, unless you only go to high end theaters that take projection seriously, your typical projector jockey at the local AMC can barely get the movie in focus. I once saw Saving Private Ryan projected with no matte. So every time an effects shot came on, the top and the bottom were cropped. Non effects shots had full frame. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte) Anyway, given what we've seen with digital photography, I'd expect the technology here to advance pretty fast.
    - waterlesscloud 14y ago
      Raw resolution isn't so much the issue as the overall feel of the image. Color is probably the biggest advantage of film over digital. But yes, you're right that the capture method is the biggest influence. And since digital is becoming the default choice even on mainstream projects, 35mm projection would eventually seem sort of silly anyway. Even Malick is shooting Alexa now! Plus there's all the 2k DI stuff that's been out there, muddying the waters even more. Nolan is one of the few with both a strong preference and the financial clout to hold on to high quality film capture, but I suspect a couple of projects down the road even he will have to give in.

kleiba 14y ago

Do you think that if movie theaters didn't have to use an expensive delivery service, the movie going experience would get any better?

trimbo 14y ago
Not sure I understand the question. Do you mean if the cost for delivering prints was substantially lower... what would happen?

cdcarter 14y ago

I work for a group of venues that recently opened a film screening room that can handle almost all digital formats, 16mm, and 35mm prints. And we in fact ship our prints almost exclusively by FedEx. I had to take a canister to the local shop on a dolly just the other day. Though, they are super expensive to ship. Maybe it's a regional thing, the delivery? Here in Mass you need to be a licensed projectionist due to the flammability.

trimbo 14y ago
> And we in fact ship our prints almost exclusively by FedEx. I had to take a canister to the local shop on a dolly just the other day Huh. Go figure. Maybe things have changed. The only reference I've been able to find is on this page: http://business.highbeam.com/industry-reports/personal/services-allied-to-motion-picture-distribution http://business.highbeam.com/industry-reports/personal/servi... Film delivery services, also known as film carriers, were usually classified under the transportation services industry, in particular SIC 4213: Trucking Except Local, but belonged under both classifications because of their unique services. Film carriers were specialized transportation companies serving the needs of motion picture theaters by delivering and picking up rented theatrical films. Film was transported between the cinemas and the national network of film exchanges, or film depots, or directly between theaters, based on their booking schedules. Metal canisters of 16mm or 35mm film were delivered to the theaters, usually on a weekly basis. Unlike other delivery services, film carriers had keys to the theaters they supplied so they could drop off and pick up film when the theater was closed. Most delivery was done by truck or van because of the heavy weight of the film canisters, which made them impractical for air freight, except in rush circumstances. Film carriers served only theaters, since other organizations that screened films tended to use the more easily transportable videotape format, or else had only occasional film needs, which could be handled by any non-specialized delivery service. There were fewer than 40 major film delivery companies throughout the country that served nearly the entire theater market. Most served up to a couple hundred theaters, some covering a region comprising several states. There were also a commensurate number of smaller film carriers that exclusively served single theater chains of around 15 to 20 theaters. Films generally weigh about 62 pounds, and are often accompanied by large cardboard stand-up displays and other promotional items theaters place in lobbies.

speleding 14y ago

The issues mentioned in the blog sound very fixable. How hard could it be to allow a few minutes of unconstrained grace period from the beginning of the movie? That would take care of ensuring the projector works properly. It should also be straightforward to offer functionality that verifies if the digital key is valid before the show starts. I would not be surprised if those options already exist and they simply did not know how to use it.

Thlom 14y ago
It is possible to look at each feature on the screen server if it has an associated key and also when and for how long it unlocks.