Digital film projection, the death of cinema

Technocentral

So sad to see the demise of 35mm projection, this is purely for monetary reasons, nothing can beat the organic and real look and feel of celluloid projection, just because somethings new doesn't mean its better (who really prefers kindles and sony readers over real books?) plus the awful sound of the projector is really distracting, I seen a serious man in the Screen, the noise of the projector drowned some of the dialogue out, plus its not the nice whirr of 35mm its a horrible air conditioning sound. Digital projection has its place but it will be a sad day for real film lovers when the last Irish screen goes digital.

charlie_says

They will get better.

ScumLord

This is the digital age you'll just have to get used to it.

krudler

Technocentral wrote: »

So sad to see the demise of 35mm projection, this is purely for monetary reasons, nothing can beat the organic and real look and feel of celluloid projection, just because somethings new doesn't mean its better (who really prefers kindles and sony readers over real books?) plus the awful sound of the projector is really distracting, I seen a serious man in the Screen, the noise of the projector drowned some of the dialogue out, plus its not the nice whirr of 35mm its a horrible air conditioning sound. Digital projection has its place but it will be a sad day for real film lovers when the last Irish screen goes digital.

Of course, why spend thousands replicating prints when you can do it on a digital format for probably a third of the cost?

Technocentral

ScumLord wrote: »

This is the digital age you'll just have to get used to it.

Its the age of xfactor as well but that doesn't mean its a good thing, is it wrong to lament the loss of something as brilliant as 35mm? I can't imagine them remaking Cinema Paradiso with a bloke switching on a pc, there is no inherent romance in computers.

Dont be at yourself

More to do with the Screen being a **** cinema than the projector, I say.

spadder

All projectors are noisey, it's the sound proofing in the booth thats lacking.

krudler

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

More to do with the Screen being a **** cinema than the projector, I say.

This, I've seen digitally projected movies and couldnt hear a sound from the projector

That_Guy

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

More to do with the Screen being a **** cinema than the projector, I say.

Should've gone to Cineworld.

Technocentral

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

More to do with the Screen being a **** cinema than the projector, I say.

Not true, seen avatar in Savoy and the projector was just as loud and distracting

That_Guy

Technocentral wrote: »

Not true, seen avatar in Savoy and the projector was just as loud and distracting

I've honestly never heard any distracting sounds from the projector in the Savoy/Cineworld/my local cinema/UCI.

Technocentral

That_Guy wrote: »

I've honestly never heard any distracting sounds from the projector in the Savoy/Cineworld/my local cinema/UCI.

Anyway my main point is the image itself, I suppose with films like Avatar which are just glorified video games where people are superfluous it makes sense. But for me cinema is about much more than CGI its an art form.

krudler

Technocentral wrote: »

Not true, seen avatar in Savoy and the projector was just as loud and distracting

Sit further away from the booth window then?

madrab

Yeah cant say ive ever heard a projector above a movie before, and in this current age you are using the internet and a computer rather than writing into a magazine with pen and paper..times change

PLIIM

Technocentral wrote: »

Not true, seen avatar in Savoy and the projector was just as loud and distracting

I saw i there too. Sitting at the back. I heard no projector.
Its your Imagination.

Technocentral

madrab wrote: »

Yeah cant say ive ever heard a projector above a movie before, and in this current age you are using the internet and a computer rather than writing into a magazine with pen and paper..times change

I like technology, have a blu ray player, big screen plasma, macbook, ipod touch, all I'm saying is that not everything is made better by technology. I work as a video editor, digital video is way better than analogue 15 years ago but when it comes to film 35mm will never be topped. Also directors Steven Spielberg, Oliver Stone, Christopher Nolan, M. Night Shyamalan, and Paul Thomas Anderson amongst others have said they will continue acquisition with 35mm, of course they can't make cinemas project 35 even though they'd like to.

OK-Cancel-Apply

I've never noticed the sound of the projector. What I have noticed though is an incredible picture that doesn't jump or wear out over time! Digital projection saves time and money - instead of shipping reels upon reels to every major cinema, they can simply download it. Though I think they are sent out on hard disk drives.

Seriously, you'd need to be super human to notice anything wrong with a 4096p picture at any size!

The only thing suffering these days is the quality of the material. We need better films.

Technocentral

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I've never noticed the sound of the projector. What I have noticed though is an incredible picture that doesn't jump or wear out over time! Digital projection saves time and money - instead of shipping reels upon reels to every major cinema, they can simply download it. Though I think they are sent out on hard disk drives.

Seriously, you'd need to be super human to notice anything wrong with a 4096p picture at any size!

The only thing suffering these days is the quality of the material. We need better films.

Agree with you that films nowadays are pis poor, most are remakes and ****e sequels, I suppose I was making a romantic/aesthetic point about film that most people don't care about. Btw, most cinemas are only projecting 2k, but I don't want to get into a discussion on digital!

mikhail

Wow, another luddite who hates digital because the old way was (vaguely, inexplicably) better and thinks computers are 'unromantic'.

Here's my take on it, in a slipshod piece I call, "Cinema, the death of storytelling"

So sad to see the demise of storytelling, this is purely for monetary reasons, nothing can beat the organic and real sound and feel of a seanchaí telling a story around a fire, just because somethings new doesn't mean its better (who really prefers books over the oral tradition?) plus the awful sound of the projector is really distracting, I seen The Jazz Singer in the pictures, the noise of the projector drowned some of the dialogue out, plus its not the nice crackle of fire its a horrible whirr of 35mm celuloid. Cinema has its place but it will be a sad day for real story lovers when the last Irish seanchaí dies.

I tell you what, granddad: when I'm an old man, there will be people who talk wistfully of mobile phones and laptops, petrol cars and albums. They don't make 'em like they used to.

Technocentral

Long live film you geeks!

Flamed Diving

Technocentral wrote: »

who really prefers kindles and sony readers over real books?

I do. Do you prefer having a band following you around, playing one of the 3,000 songs you had them memorise, too?

Luddite...

Kipperhell

The worst place for sound from the projector is Omni in Santry. Even though it is the closet cinema to me I avoid it for that reason alone.

As for the death of scratched film on a screen I am not bothered. Romance of items comes with age so interfaces will soon be seen to have this romance. As they are making so much of a movie on computer I don't see why it makes sense to then put it on a lower grade medium.

OK-Cancel-Apply

To hear the projector through the glass, it would have to be making an almost deafening amount of noise next to the projectionist. I think you people are hearing the air-con unit or something!

Raging Bob

Technocentral wrote: »

Agree with you that films nowadays are pis poor, most are remakes and ****e sequels, I suppose I was making a romantic/aesthetic point about film that most people don't care about. Btw, most cinemas are only projecting 2k, but I don't want to get into a discussion on digital!

Um, there's numerous quality films out there. If anything, they're better than years ago.

cgarrad

Anyone who thinks 35mm is better than the new 4K2K projectors is either stupid or has a really warped view of reality.

Watch something in the new Swan cinema in Rathmines and embrace the future you luddites!

jeffreylebowski

To be honest, I get a bit nostalgic about 35mm myself, but I do like how digital film opens up possibilities to lower-budget filmmakers.

Overall, I'm ambivalent towards it as I am to a lot of technological advances: my knee-jerk reaction of rejecting the new, and my interest in the possibilities of the new.

rjb80

Technocentral wrote: »

Its the age of xfactor as well but that doesn't mean its a good thing, is it wrong to lament the loss of something as brilliant as 35mm? I can't imagine them remaking Cinema Paradiso with a bloke switching on a pc, there is no inherent romance in computers.

After reading one of your last posts I think I've come up with the cause and solution to your problem: fix.

Kipperhell

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

To hear the projector through the glass, it would have to be making an almost deafening amount of noise next to the projectionist. I think you people are hearing the air-con unit or something!

Unless they turn it on exactly when the film starts and have it placed right by the projection glass I don't see how it is anything put the projector. Go to Omni and watch a movie in one of their smaller cinemas and you will hear it.

the_syco

krudler wrote: »

Of course, why spend thousands replicating prints when you can do it on a digital format for probably a third of the cost?

Added to that, it's easier to insert a number into digital format. Doing this, will allow you to find out where the movies on the internet are coming from, by loking at the time for the code, to clamp down on the CAMers and TSers.

Technocentral wrote: »

But for me cinema is about much more than CGI its an art form.

Then you will love digital. It'll open cinemas to independent film makers: they won't need to spend so much on distribution of the reels.

Technocentral

Seen The Road last night in the Screen, whilst the film is great the image wasn't , there wasn't much black detail (a problem inherent in digital video) and overall it had a artificial look to it, bring back 35mm!!

the_syco said: "Then you will love digital. It'll open cinemas to independent film makers: they won't need to spend so much on distribution of the reels."

Thats not necessarily true, its distributors and cinema chains who ultimately decide what is shown, there are loads of indie flicks that wernt picked up that had plenty of prints.

cgarrad said: "Anyone who thinks 35mm is better than the new 4K2K projectors is either stupid or has a really warped view of reality.

Watch something in the new Swan cinema in Rathmines and embrace the future you luddites!"

35mm has a resolution of about 6k, so before you start calling people stupid do some research. What annoys me are idiots who believe that everything with the word digital in it is good and everything without it is bad.


Raging bob said: "Um, there's numerous quality films out there. If anything, they're better than years ago."

What a ridiculous statement, whilst there are great films from all eras there is a real dumbing down of popular culture in general including cinema, studios don't take risks anymore with original material its all spiderman 3, xman 4, or crap tv remakes like transformers, charlies angels, the a team and get smart or whatever, compare this to the films from Hollywood released in the 40's - 70's . Its a great time for music now but cinema has been pretty crap, where are the new Scorsese's, Kubricks, Coppolas, Altmans, Woody Allens, Cohen Brothers, Hitchcocks, Hustons and spike Lee's?

Sleazus

Technocentral wrote: »

Raging bob said: "Um, there's numerous quality films out there. If anything, they're better than years ago."

What a ridiculous statement, whilst there are great films from all eras there is a real dumbing down of popular culture in general including cinema, studios don't take risks anymore with original material its all spiderman 3, xman 4, or crap tv remakes like transformers, charlies angels, the a team and get smart or whatever, compare this to the films from Hollywood released in the 40's - 70's . Its a great time for music now but cinema has been pretty crap, where are the new Scorsese's, Kubricks, Coppolas, Altmans, Woody Allens, Cohen Brothers, Hitchcocks, Hustons and spike Lee's?

Oh, you mean the Nolans, the Webbs, the Daniels, the Hillcoats, the Coppolas (Sofia), the Jones, the Blomkamps, the Pixars?

Look, this is nonsense. Nobody ever thinks that they are living in the best time of anything even vaguely subjective. I'd loosely agree that cinema isn't quite as strong this decade as it was during the 1990s or the 1970s, but it is stronger than the 1980s.

Yes, you can name some aspects of popular culture from the past decade which are less than solid, but you can apply it to just about any decade. Just because we remember The Godfather as the embodiment cinema during the seventies, doesn't excuse the tonnes of exploitationist crap and the birth of the low budget slasher film that occurred during that decade. Twenty years from now, very few people will remember Get Smart, Transformers, The A-Team or Charlie's Angels. They'll remember The Dark Knight, Fight Club, Wall-E,There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men, among others.

And our kids will be complaining about how crap holo-cinema is compared to the old '2D's.

Flamed Diving

It's all subjective, ain't it? Much like his statement saying that music now is great. I can recall about 4 new bands that I liked in the past decade. I called the 00s "The Lost Decade" for music. But it's my opinion.

johnny_ultimate

Technocentral wrote: »

What a ridiculous statement, whilst there are great films from all eras there is a real dumbing down of popular culture in general including cinema, studios don't take risks anymore with original material its all spiderman 3, xman 4, or crap tv remakes like transformers, charlies angels, the a team and get smart or whatever, compare this to the films from Hollywood released in the 40's - 70's . Its a great time for music now but cinema has been pretty crap, where are the new Scorsese's, Kubricks, Coppolas, Altmans, Woody Allens, Cohen Brothers, Hitchcocks, Hustons and spike Lee's?

This is a pretty ludicrous thread in general, but this comment in particular seems like you're just twisting the truth to suit your own very specific ideology. We have generic crap now, there as just as much generic crap in the fabled '40's - 70's'. We just don't remember them, or see them anymore because they were, well, crap. Consider it pop cultural rose-tinted glasses on a massive scale.

Sleazus listed some of the wonderful directors out there in the restrictive Hollywood system, there are hundreds more (and we haven't even got into foreign cinema yet - Haneke, Park, Miyasaki, Kitano, Meadows, Juenet and countless others have their own very individual and specific voice in the cluttered world of cinema). No-one is denying that the mid 1900s were a wonderful time for cinema. And I'm sure plenty of people do share a nostalgia for 35mm (in my view, I don't like non-restored older films being broadcast in digital, but I think digital protection lends a visual sharpness to contemporary films, and even some stuff like Eraserhead and 2001 I've seen remastered in the cinema). Yes, some of it does come down to opinion, but to say cinema as a whole is crap these days is a very limited point of view. Cinema advances all the time, I for one enjoy advancing with it.

Sleazus

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Yes, some of it does come down to opinion, but to say cinema as a whole is crap these days is a very limited point of view. Cinema advances all the time, I for one enjoy advancing with it.

Amen on that.

It's fun to look back over decades past and see only the highlights, but I think it's fascinating to live through an era of cinema and just see pretty much everything occurring as it happens - there's only ever one now, and we are stuck in it, so you might as well enjoy it while it happens, taking the good with the bad, rather than moping over days that most of us are too young to actually remember.

MooseJam

that'd be a bit like argueing over what the Mona Lisa is painted on, who knows who cares, art doesn't come down to it's medium.

Gerty

I wonder if they're is ever a possible opinion without holes to be picked in an argument on this subject.

Shryke

Once a flick is of a watchable quality I don't mind. I'm glad there are films to watch in the first place. The specific medium they're delivered in doesn't bother me in the slightest. This seems to be simple nostalgia for things going by. Digital technology will improve with time, though I don't have a problem with it now.

Tusky

The Death of cinema ? :rolleyes:

kippy

Ah sccthop........
talk about an over reaction.
Was/is CGI the death of cinema also? Its all technology.

Technocentral

kippy wrote: »

Ah sccthop........
talk about an over reaction.
Was/is CGI the death of cinema also? Its all technology.

Yes,its turning films into video games, used sparingly and intelligently it isn't, but its overkill in most films, people and story are just a backdrop to computer effects, take Avatar, its an event movie but its closer to a video game than a film like The Road for example, which has CGi but its the backdrop not the focus.

Duggy747

Death of cinema? Calm down there, buddy.

Would you go back and listen to your music on cassette?

Would you go back and watch a film on VHS?

Would you prefer to watch a cinema movie in reel or digital format?

I love the old 35mm film but in terms of quality and progression digital is the obvious solution.

Technocentral

Duggy747 wrote: »

Death of cinema? Calm down there, buddy.

Would you go back and listen to your music on cassette?

Would you go back and watch a film on VHS?

Would you prefer to watch a cinema movie in reel or digital format?

I love the old 35mm film but in terms of quality and progression digital is the obvious solution.

Hi mate,

Your getting it all wrong, if technology makes things better I'm all for it, to address your questions:

1. Cassettes were rubbish quality, never heard anyone advocating them, I listen to a lot of vinyl which is fantastic quality

2. VHS was ****e, DVD is considerably better, bluray is very good

3. I'd prefer to watch a film by 35mm projection.

You say digital is the obvious solution, who said their was a problem? I work in video production, make electronic music using software and midi controller and have a lot of tech savy friends, we all hated VHS, cassettes etc, but never once did anyone say after a visit to the cinema, "35MM is great, but when are they replacing it with a video projector?" In the same way that guitarists would rather play a Gibson Les Paul original than an inferior Les Paul copy, I'd rather the quality, resolution, dynamic range, black detail and organic nature etc of film than a big video picture, I have that at home, thats why I enjoyed going to the Cinema, to see something different than you can see at home . I don't know what music your into but why don't all guitarists use the MOOG guitar, which can mimic any brand of guitars style? Or all drummers use roland Vdrums which are digital? Because everything isn't just about using the latest technology if what you have is the best, thats why.

jaykhunter

I'm a HD whore so I can't stand how films in the cinema look inferior in quality/resolution to watching it at home. I hate 'cigarette burns', pops etc associated with film reel. I can't wait to go digital and watch something that isn't blurry.

I have no nostalgia for lower quality machines (like VHS, records etc) but I do miss their robustness and longevity (I have tapes that are 20 years old and work great, however some CDs get scratched/lost within a few years)

Do we need better quality? We don't need any of it. But there are a lot of people who appreciate better technology.

kippy

Technocentral wrote: »

Yes,its turning films into video games, used sparingly and intelligently it isn't, but its overkill in most films, people and story are just a backdrop to computer effects, take Avatar, its an event movie but its closer to a video game than a film like The Road for example, which has CGi but its the backdrop not the focus.

And whats the issue what that. It's obviously popular an while popularity may not equal quality it entertains a hell of a lot of people. If you dont like it dont frequent those types of movies, but dont knock those that do.

Technocentral

jaykhunter wrote: »

I'm a HD whore so I can't stand how films in the cinema look inferior in quality/resolution to watching it at home. I hate 'cigarette burns', pops etc associated with film reel. I can't wait to go digital and watch something that isn't blurry.

I have no nostalgia for lower quality machines (like VHS, records etc) but I do miss their robustness and longevity (I have tapes that are 20 years old and work great, however some CDs get scratched/lost within a few years)

Do we need better quality? We don't need any of it. But there are a lot of people who appreciate better technology.

The only thing I don't agree with you about is the term "better technology" its not better, its newer and cheaper, the two things are'nt necessarily the same thing.

Technocentral

kippy wrote: »

And whats the issue what that. It's obviously popular an while popularity may not equal quality it entertains a hell of a lot of people. If you dont like it dont frequent those types of movies, but dont knock those that do.

The problem I have is that its harder for original, intelligent films to get made and more so distributed when cinemas only put on CGI mainstream films.

sprinkles

The move to digital will only enhance the cinema experience, for one very simple reason. It's cheaper. That means either the movie gets a wider release than was possible on film as there wouldn't have been enough money to produce enough prints or the money that is saved can be spent by the studio in other ways.

The move to digital media, while it's always going to have the purists up in arms, will eventually prove it's worth. Screens and projectors are getting far better and to be honest I can't say I have ever walked into a cinema and immediately could tell that it's a digital copy or not - unless it's film and the projectionist has the wrong ratio or is sloppy at the change overs... which are in part solved by going digital.

It's not the death of cinema. It is however probably the slow death of the skilled projectionist, gone the way of the cooper or the blacksmith, lamentable but none the less a necessary casualty of human advancement - (although I'd warrant that has been happening for many a year, as they are replaced with spotty teenagers from the popcorn counter)

Oh and finally, the noise of the projector should not be heard at all - to add that as part of the complaint against digital projectors is laughable. If you love the medium so much perhaps you should try a decent cinema next time.

kippy

Technocentral wrote: »

The problem I have is that its harder for original, intelligent films to get made and more so distributed when cinemas only put on CGI mainstream films.

And what about the tecnology that is called the internet, that allows any digial media to be transmitted to the easier than ever, opening up cheap and easy distribution methods for niche film?
Harder for "Original, Intelligent" films? Not every cinema offering is going to be a $500 million special effects laden blockbuster. Cinemas have up to 12 screens nowadays, more than ever before, there's plenty space for the "intelligent films".

Technocentral

kippy wrote: »

And what about the tecnology that is called the internet, that allows any digial media to be transmitted to the easier than ever, opening up cheap and easy distribution methods for niche film?
Harder for "Original, Intelligent" films? Not every cinema offering is going to be a $500 million special effects laden blockbuster. Cinemas have up to 12 screens nowadays, more than ever before, there's plenty space for the "intelligent films".

I still miss the oul 35 mili. film.

e_e

Technocentral wrote: »

The problem I have is that its harder for original, intelligent films to get made and more so distributed when cinemas only put on CGI mainstream films.

Yeah because The Tree of Life, A Separation, Uncle Boonmee, Four Lions, Poetry, Cave of Forgotten Dreams, 13 Assassins, Senna, Enter the Void, Cold Fish, Black Swan, I Saw The Devil, The Illusionist, Submarine and Animal Kingdom are totally proof that cinema is dead. :rolleyes:

bnt

There are two sides to the Digital debate: the cinematography and the projection. On the cinematography side I was convinced by films like Michael Mann's Collateral, Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, or (more recently) The Social Network and Black Swan. As for projection, I've seen more then sufficient digitally-projected films at the IFI to know that it's more than good enough and only going to get better. OP is trashing the whole technology because he's seen it done badly.