Guest J Jukuzami Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 Read and repeat after me: This is the 21st century. Soon celluloid will soon not be used for lower end indie film production. Then take a deep breath and repeat after me: This is The Cinematography Forum. It is for motion picture camera professionals and students. Now take an Aspirin and repeat after me: Electronic cinema is part of motion picture, just as celluloud is, and its growing exponentionally, replacing film, not augmenting it. Now, after you come back from a shrink, repeat after me: This is HD Forum. What am I doing here, badmouthing HD and pushing celluloid for everything. After you leave the nut house several months later, if you were filming there, or whatever, maybe after having a few shock treatments, open your eyes and see it the way it is. It is different than it was in the 19th century. The Birtac and the Kammatograph cameras are gone. So is the 15, 17.5, and 21 mm film. And there are $22K 1080/24p 3-chip cameras, with HD lenses, and there are $4K HD cameras with 35 mm lens, and there is Prospect HD and RAID hard drives and there are theaters with digital projection. And it is so much cheaper and more convenient to use than the celluloid stuff that is clutterig eBay. All the old brain DPs got it by now, warming their hands over a fire next to the soup kitchen. They got it, but too late. But there was one DP with a Pathe Baby camera who did not get it, ran through the streets screaming that he can't find his 9.5 mm film. Some time later on his way to have a lobotomy done, he fell from the streacher, hit his head and a bolt of lightning struck his brain. He saw the light. He went on to make his hand made digital cinema camera and he added not one crank to it to vary the speed; he added two. One for overcranking. One for undercranking. Once a week he had a presentation, on his camera development, at the old time DP soup kitchen. They always said wow, what a genius, two cranks; the Kinatta had only one. One of the guys then pulled his Kinetta from his smelly paper bag, started cranking the thing and they all said wow, what a genius invention, a crank instead of a knob. They all loved the Kinetta but hated the Japanese stuff with knobs instead of cranks and with 3 chips onstead of 1. Then the nonlobotimized DP pulled his Pathe Baby and they all took turns in cranking that baby, talking about the good old 2004, before the low end high quality HD started to pour in. Wake up and smell the digital age!, was a slogan one of them uttered and they all started yelling. Give me celluloid!. One of them rolled a joint into the last inch of film, that fell from the Pathe Baby. He lit it up. It burned his nose and lips and they all said wow! It is true; it does burn. Tape can't do that. Wow! Tape is inferior! Long live celluloid! :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 Guess what: 9.5mm is still made. So is DR8mm. I should know, I shoot the stuff (not 9.5. . .yet). I know a lot of people like myself who love film and plan to continue to use it. We know it's harder than video. Guess what? We don't care. Yeah shooting filim isn't easy, But it sure as hell looks better. If my local theatres go digital, I'm not going to fork over $8 (and they'll probably raise prices if they get digi-projectors) to see a damn movie with 1/2 the quality of a film print. I'll wait until the tape comes out if that's what happens. Oh, another thing: while idiots like you are sending millions and millions of dollars over to Japan and Taiwan where all of your poop is made, I'm spending my money on American made film and the Eastman Kodak company. Take care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Belics Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 Tim, It seems Jukuzami's sole purpose here is to be a rabble rouser and, personally, I'm getting offended, or at least irritated. Not due to his opinions as much as his postings without a purpose. There was no call for this topic and it seems his only purpose is to do these sorts of things. Some of us believe he is also Ultra Def. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted May 26, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted May 26, 2004 He finally admitted to being "Ultra Definition" earlier this morning, in another thread: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...?showtopic=1159 I have posted under this name and under Ultra Definition. My girlfriend was playing with the account. She was trying to upgrade it. Ultra Definiton then quit working. I was gone for a while because of a production. FWIW, "Celluloid" is a trademark of the Celluloid Manufacturing Company (John Wesley Hyatt) for a brand of cellulose nitrate plastic. Cellulose nitrate film base has not been used for Kodak motion picture film in over 50 years, and has never been used for small gauge (16mm and 8mm) Kodak movie films: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Celluloid So anyone who thinks film is still made of "Celluloid" is not very well informed. Oh, BTW, Kodak is a leader in Digital and Hybrid Imaging too, as well as in film. B) http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDe...ighlights.shtml http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...1.18.18.3&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/global/en/digital/ccd/sensorsMain.jhtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/display/index.jhtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Steelberg ASC Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 Ok, well maybe J Jukuzami should let us all know when we can go see his digital film he is self projecting in a Landmark theater in order to get distribution and have prints made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 What would be really amazing would be for this guy to stop and actually notice that some of use have in fact actually shot in the current state of HD and continue to do so. It has its place as do other technologies. The $22,000 3-chip HD camera he mentions does not yet exist at this time. Perhaps it will soon. I assume the Kinetta attack (I think it was an attack, not really clear in his ramblings) was aimed at me, since I am a fan of the approach this concept takes. Yes, me, Mr. Film according to him, is interested in this HD technology. But then again Kinetta is not paying this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest J Jukuzami Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 No attack against you Mitch. Just wanted to show other options. I am sure that the Kinetta has its place and it may be successful. I think that the attack may be by Sony against Kinetta and others with their $22K camera. had presented the Russian Arc digitally in some markets, or at least thay said that they were going to. So why could you not show another picture that way? Their digital projection is not aimed at studio productios but at the lower to medium range indie ones. And we are talking about 170 screens in major markets. Add 250 planned screens in Great Britain, which I think will be installed within 12 months. Does anyone need more hints that optical prints will no longer be necessary on most digital indie productions? <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Belics Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 So they are approaching one percent of the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted May 27, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted May 27, 2004 And we are talking about 170 screens in major markets. Add 250 planned screens in Great Britain, which I think will be installed within 12 months. Does anyone need more hints that optical prints will no longer be necessary on most digital indie productions? <_< Clearly you're right. 420 screens worldwide should make optical prints obsolete any day now. I guess we should all throw away our Russian hand crank cameras now, huh? Darn it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted May 27, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted May 27, 2004 When I was at ShoWest in March, the cost of a 2K DLP-Cinema projector with enough light for a large theatre screen was still over $100,000 US, not including the server, networking, and data delivery. A brand new 35mm film print costs a distributor about $350 per week to put in a theatre for a typical first run of a month. How do you finance that digital projection system for less than $350 a week? What is its useful life compared to a much less expensive film projection system? Who pays for it all? Who controls it all? The "business case" issues are the most difficult issues being faced, much more so than the technical specifications for digital cinema. But all the technical issues have not been decided or standardized yet either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 The only problem I have with film prints is that they are obviously projected by idiots like J Jukazami that don't lube the film, don't bother getting off their lazy asses and cleaning the projector, and project the film with such powerful light that it burns it (oh yeah, they don't know how to FOCUS the projector either). . . Digital is necessary if you are one of those dip-shits. By the way, any chance you'll be doing a theatre tour in Ohio anytime soon John? There are some pretty sorry theatres here in Cleveland that could benefit from a lecture or ten from you :D Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted May 27, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted May 27, 2004 Tune those projectionists into Film-Tech (Film Handlers Forum): http://www.film-tech.com The motto is "Film Done Right". B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 If you think the kid selling popcorn messes up film projection, you should see what would happen when he tried to tackle digital projection. When my old TV antenna wasn't properly aimed I would get a snowy picture. If I had a satelite dish slightly out of alignment I would have a blank screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Belics Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Funny you should mention that Mitch. I was reading a post by a guy that runs a film festival in KC. He was writing about getting digital movies on his screens and making sure the camera source is properly set up. He was moaning about all the problems they have getting digital projectors to work right and all the fiddling he has to do. Number one complaint was an incompetent operator. Heh. but....but...I thought these projectors would solve all that!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredrik Backar FSF Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 I thought the ol ultradefenition had stopped posting here? But hey; what´s the world without a strong opposition to fight with :D His little anecdotes are hard to understand at best... As long as I know that I won´t be using the digital realm for any near future and that even a 4k DI doesn´t compare much to a true print, I´ll go on reading ultras´ posts with a friendly smile and hope he won´t be wrong forever. For his own sake that is B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Rodriguez Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Actually according to those who saw a new showing out in California of the StEM, one version off an answer print direct from the negative and the other version digitally projected (4K DI), the digital projection "won" out. Now of course getting digital projection as good and cost effective as that used to do these comparsions is not an easy feat, and that's why I see film projection being the norm for some time to come. But the days of the best of film projection beating out the best of digital projection I think are over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 John, amen about Kodak being into digital technologies as well. I sell at least 5 6490's a week at my day job, can't keep them on the shelf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Actually according to those who saw a new showing out in California of the StEM, one version off an answer print direct from the negative and the other version digitally projected (4K DI), the digital projection "won" out. Now of course getting digital projection as good and cost effective as that used to do these comparsions is not an easy feat, and that's why I see film projection being the norm for some time to come. But the days of the best of film projection beating out the best of digital projection I think are over. You assume that film will stay put while Digital sorts these issues out. Have you looked at the newest film technologies arriving, such as MaxiVision48? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredrik Backar FSF Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Having seen that too I must say the only thing different was higher con and sharpness..... not better to me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 My god, I can't belive this. Ultra Definition again with his recycled posts. I'm sorry to say,but those posts of his seem very neourotic. And those "tales from the future" are getting boring. We are all formiliar with you point of view UD, there is no need for writting everything again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now