Film in cinemas

[Jon O'Brien]

Is film projection of new releases happening hardly at all now (effectively not at all) because it's the status-quo decreed from on high by the industry big guns/bosses who want to corner the market/technology? Or does it come down to simple economics, eg. some limited distribution by film print of new releases just isn't economic? I hear rumours that many projectors still exist and didn't end up in landfill. Maybe the truth is that no one really knows the answer. My question is a sincere one and I'd really like to know. Film at the cinema is a good experience and frankly people need to see it more.

[Stuart Brereton]

Film projection has been scarce for many years now. It's purely an economic decision on the part of the studios; creating a DCP copy of a movie is much cheaper than striking thousands of film prints for distribution.

[Tyler Purcell]

Yep, purely economic.

 

There are lots of film projectors in theaters still... It's just, they are not sitting in place to be used in most cases.

[Jon O'Brien]

An interesting thing though that laser projection still too expensive for most businesses (I've never seen it, as far as I know). More than five years (more like eight years) the new tech has been in place in cinemas and still not a match for what we had, at least in the opinion of some pretty big voices in show biz, like Nolan. I write this in concern for cinema. If TV continues to look better than cinema it's a sure thing that the cinema will fade away more. I don't know .... maybe I just need to find a better cinema than the local one. It really does look pretty poor.

Edited October 28, 2018 by Jon O'Brien

[Stuart Brereton]

More than five years (more like eight years) the new tech has been in place in cinemas and still not a match for what we had, at least in the opinion of some pretty big voices in show biz, like Nolan.

The changeover to digital projection was driven by economics, not by technology. The studios wanted exhibit movies on DCP, and save themselves millions of dollars on making prints. The theaters were perfectly happy with film prints, as the technology was tried and tested, and more importantly, paid for. It was a mixture of carrot and stick from the studios to make them change to digital, and had very little to do with whether it was an improvement.

 

Obviously, digital projection has it's faults, but film projection could be pretty awful too. Dirt, scratches, gate weave, and focus could all be issues, particularly with old prints and poorly maintained projectors.

[Tyler Purcell]

Economically, theaters are doomed. The advent of digital cinema, has forced the prices of tickets to increase exponentially. It's also why you see larger profits then ever.

The problem with digital technology is that it's ever evolving. Until now, film projectors from the 50's could work fine with digital audio updates. Now servers, cabling, projectors, basically the entire system has to be updated every few years. Heck, if you talk to projectionists about it, they're constantly dealing with issues that are unsolvable. Projectors that go down, tech support from the studio's on DCP's that don't unlock. Sure, theaters no longer have to pay for a full-time projectionist, but at the same time they're paying MUCH MORE for DCP licenses then they were during the film days. They set the price to anything they want and if the theaters can't afford it, they will go out of business. This is why you see theatrical profits up year by year, it's because they've kept raising the prices for content. Plus, you can't run the same film on multiple screens, so theaters no matter what have to pay more than they would have during the film days. The distributors love digital because they get more money for less work. No print cost, no expensive shipping, no recycling after, nothing. Films can literally be uploaded via satellite if need be (tho most are shipped on drives) and cost to the distributors even less. However, with film there was little to no cost in operating outside of labor. Plus, in the 6 years I lived in Boston going to the cinema on my own, the ticket prices never changed. Heck, when I first moved here, the ticket prices were flat until around the push for digital in 2013/2014 and they've gone up ever since.

So my thought is... where is the precipice? Where does the price have to be before people stop going to the cinema? I think we're a year away from that number personally. Arclight just raised their prices to $17/ticket. Friday night? Theater was empty, I mean literally we were the only people in the lobby when we got there. Walked right up to the counter at 7:30 to get tickets for an 8:00 screening of a new movie and there were maybe 30 people in the cinema. They had one person at the ticket booth and 3 people at concessions on a FRIDAY NIGHT, in Sherman Oaks California, normally one of the businest theaters I've ever been to. Yes it's the summer, yes it's not a big weekend for movies, but really? We tried to get tickets to First Man at the Chinese theater, $25/each for a 2D screening of a normal movie. This isn't a California thing either, I go to other cities shooting my documentary and always check things like cinema prices, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, the prices are nearly the same, $12 - $16 normal.

This leads me to believe cinema is dying, in part thanks to technology. We can now watch 4k media at home, so why bother going to a 2k cinema? We can now stream any content on demand a few weeks after the film is gone from cinemas, so why bother dealing with lines and such? With companies like Netflix/Amazon and HBO/Cinemax making stellar content for home viewing, why even care about theatrical content. The industry did it to itself sadly and it's harder than ever to produce theatrically bound product. Now it's a war about money and the studio's are losing fast.

[Bob Speziale]

Lot's of media industries have died in the past and are still dying. Vinyl to CD's and now CD's to MP3's or streaming. Video rental stores like Blockbuster. I haven't been to a movie theater in the past 20 years, I see enough movies on Netflix and cable. (We watched The Post on HBO last night and enjoyed it.) My wife and daughter recently saw A Star is Born in the theater and there was a good size crowd. I don't think theater prices are out of line compared to other things (the cost of dinner at a nice restaurant, concert tickets, medical costs for sure). Whether theaters will stay in business is up for debate at present. They have stayed in business until now. It's possible technology will decrease the costs and improve the quality of theater digital projectors and servers in the future the way it has with consumer televisions and other consumer electronics. In terms of quality, unless you have something to compare it to you are satisfied with what you have. Everyone was satisfied with SD television and VCR tapes for years until HD TV and HD cable came along.

Edited October 28, 2018 by Bob Speziale

[Jon O'Brien]

I've read a few times that the best, latest cinema laser projection of movies shot on film looks basically indistinguishable from a projected film print. Is this so? That's great if it is. Also, hopefully the occasional 70mm print will save the reputation of 'big movies' as a cinema going experience.

[Randy J Tomlinson]

I also miss the Times when i walked into a Blockbuster store. I LOVED the VHS Tapes.

[Ravi Kiran]

I'd be surprised if theaters went out of business. Even if you have a 4KTV and a surround sound at home, you still don't have a TV or sound system like a movie theater. And you might not want to wait to see the latest Marvel film streaming or on Blu-Ray. And there's a social experience to leaving the house and seeing a movie, even if you're not talking with other people in the audience. I think even people who aren't in the film industry or aren't film buffs get something out of the theater experience. But maybe I'm out of touch and people fine watching movies on their TVs and iPads :unsure:

 

I love going to the movies. It's a chance to leave the house and transport myself into another world for a few hours. I don't always want to wait to see something at home. But I'm speaking as a single person who doesn't have a family to consider when spending money and time. Going to the theater with a family can be expensive and inconvenient.

Edited October 29, 2018 by Ravi Kiran

[Tyler Purcell]

Lot's of media industries have died in the past and are still dying. Vinyl to CD's and now CD's to MP3's or streaming. Video rental stores like Blockbuster.

Vinyl has been having a huge come back because people are starting to get the purpose of owning something unique.

 

Video rental stores are pretty much gone, but they went out of business mostly due to web streaming, rather than the media itself. If internet streaming hadn't caught on so fast, the media itself wouldn't have been what held them back.

 

I haven't been to a movie theater in the past 20 years,

Which is amazing... here you are on a cinematography forum and aren't seeing content where it's designed to be seen. I mean I'm pretty anti digital cinema, but seeing your peers work on the big screen is important, even if I don't care for the technology used.

[Jon O'Brien]

In the last few years of cinema going I've only seen mediocre projection. 35mm prints were sometimes slightly fuzzy (70mm took care of that) but they weren't thin and lackluster, they were rich and cool looking. More arty, and that's a good thing - even if it's not an arty film. Only 250 prints per big release movie would see enough real film projected in a lot of countries (eg. by quota) to lift the credibility of cinema which is currently looking like its being subsumed into the tv world, and losing its 'big' identity and mojo. There could be a quota per country where there's enough demand. Or really fix up digital projection - it doesn't matter either way. It needs to look richer and fatter. The sound is fine. I'm aware of the technical terms but I chose to use these words.

[Simon Wyss]

Something that I don’t understand is why the film industry didn’t defend itself against the computer attack. Was it already dead? I mean step prints could have been made instead of continuous ones, precision duplicates in the first place. A fresh initiative could have been started to install snow-white screens instead of the often slightly muted ones. A clearing out was possible of cinemas that have come down from cathedrals of light in the twenties to forlorn kiosks in the nineties, often cluttered up with dusty plastic ficuses, popcorn cart, carton stands, the ugliest of furniture, and glaring ceiling lights. The cinema has let iself go like a drunkard.

 

If not in the theatrical frame, film should have been brought before children by school teachers. Didn’t we always love that the classroom was darkened and the buzzing projector took us on a time travel? The films could never be old enough for me, all the deeper I indulged in the flickering pictures. Film is the time machine. Television, video, computers, the internet, and transmitters are much more the very instant, right now. Fugacious.

 

Elegant cinema, films for grown-ups, where was it? How I wish I had lived an opening of The Women (Cukor) in 1939! Do you know it? It’s a black-and-white movie a Technicolor section is mounted in. Beautiful! When you sit between the projectors and the splice runs through one of them, a shiver runs over your spine. It was nitrate film then. You had plain Petzval-type lenses on the projectors. A curtain before the screen. The cinema gave the patrons something and the spectators gave something back, it went beyond the exchange film for seat. Cinema was a mutual affair. Now everyone is alone with their electronic magic mirror in the hand. What chance did we projectionists have? We were there, many nights until early mornings. In the end, the projectors were scrapped. Odysseus returned late.

[Michael LaVoie]

Obviously, digital projection has it's faults, but film projection could be pretty awful too. Dirt, scratches, gate weave, and focus could all be issues, particularly with old prints and poorly maintained projectors.

Not to mention the lack of proper staff to actually run film projectors. Film projection isn't rocket science by any stretch but you do need responsible people who have some amount of pride in their work and the paygrade for that type of individual is definitely more than any cinema chain is willing to cough up.

[Jon O'Brien]

In 'Eraserhead' a cooked chicken is impressive for being "as big as your fist!" Yes, all hail digital cinema projection the wonder of our age. To count one's blessings, maybe the way to see it is that it economically saved the movie business. I will continue to seek out real film showings.

[Peter Welander]

If you want to see an enjoyable picture of a struggling cinema trying to make it, check out The Smallest Show on Earth from 1957. (It's available on Filmstruck, so enjoy it there while you can.) Peter Sellers as the projectionist trying to cope with ancient machinery, Margaret Rutherford as the box office lady who accepts a plucked chicken in exchange for tickets, etc. Great understated British comedy.

 

BTW, has there been any discussion on this forum regarding the demise of Filmstruck? Sad news indeed.

[Jon O'Brien]

Where are the passionate discussions regarding digital vs film projection that used to occur here in the past? Are you all working too hard now, or have you said all that can be said? Or have the Men in Black visited you and told you to tone it down? Or is it that we are all getting too long in the tooth now and who really cares about cinema projection problems anymore?

 

On a more practical note (if someone wishes to rise from the grave to comment), how does home digital projection of film originated movies look - is the contrast better. Cinematography.com has gotten rather quiet lately - like the surface of a fish pond in the corner of someone's quiet backyard.

[Phil Rhodes]

I think most people have realised several things about the film-versus-digital debate that make it (even) less interesting as time goes by:

 

- The technical argument is more or less lost. Modern digital cinema tech is clearly more than adequate for excellent work, and often, even generally, exceeds film in easily-measurable ways.

 

- The economic argument is also long since lost, as if it ever wasn't. It has been claimed that somehow it's possible to make digital acquisition more expensive than photochemical, but this was always a desperate stretch.

 

- Every possible interpretational and artistic argument from either point of view has been explored a thousand times. Often, the conclusion has been to recognise the differences, but also to recognise the fact that the huge convenience and cost savings have an equally-huge impact on other areas of the production.

 

In the end it's much more useful to spend time discussing how to get the results we're after from any production technology. Digital is no longer so bad that it requires special measures to compensate.

 

P

[Robin R Probyn]

I so loved the horse and cart.. living creatures and the smell of life.. the clip clop of the hooves.. stopping by the blacksmiths for a beer during re shoeing.. then these pesky automobiles came along..who are the people preferring these machines.. actually what was wrong with the square wheel either !.. and they call it progress .. bah humbug !

[Phil Rhodes]

I so loved the horse and cart.. living creatures and the smell of life.. the clip clop of the hooves.. stopping by the blacksmiths for a beer during re shoeing.. then these pesky automobiles came along..who are the people preferring these machines.. actually what was wrong with the square wheel either !.. and they call it progress .. bah humbug !

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

OP...no expert, but just not practical any longer.

 

[Bob Speziale]

I run into the same discussions on film vs. digital on my photography forum, and when CD's came out the discussions about the difference between analog vinyl and digital CD's were frequent at the time. As someone who has shot fim and digital stills and movies, played vinyl and CD's, and watched the Rolling Stones in person, on IMAX, and on cable TV, my conclusion is they are different, but the difference is not important.

 

It's the content of the song, the picture, the movie or the performance that counts, not the delivery medium. I fell in love with the Beatles' music while listening to them for the first time on a transistor radio with a 1-1/2 speaker against my ear at a bus stop every afternoon on my way home from my first job. Years later I listened to the remastered Yellow Submarine CD on a big stereo system in my living room and could distinctly hear every individual instrument. But it's the songs not the delivery medium that counts. I enjoy re-watching movies on cable through my HD TV with small built in speakers as much as I did in movie theaters.

 

These days my vinyl records gather dust on the shelf, my big stereo is only used to play CD's at dinner parties. I watch my movies on cable, hear my music on youtube through small PC speakers, or on the music channel on cable TV, or my wife's portable CD player. I shoot digital still pics and digital video and edit them on my PC while my film cameras are stored away. Fact is my brain is so hungry for a good photo, a good movie or a good song, it will enjoy it on any medium.

[Jon O'Brien]

Just found this. Cinemas are probably going to have to be fitted out with this first if they're to survive. And that's a good thing as nothing quite motivates as the prospect of going out of business. It's interesting the video says things like "you see what you see when you walk out your front door." I think for fiction movies you don't really want that. But that's a subjective point, open to personal taste. But if Dolby Vision can create a natural film look for images shot on celluloid then that will be the best of both worlds, real film look with the advantages of digital.

 

https://www.news.com.au/technology/home-entertainment/tv/dolby-vision-and-dolby-atmos-are-going-to-change-to-way-we-watch-television-forever/news-story/658851bf653b638227c4690aa99d39ac

Edited November 5, 2018 by Jon O'Brien

[Dom Jaeger]

Jon, that's a promotional article masquerading as news on a Murdoch-owned website. It has about as much veracity as any ad you might watch about the latest TV set or razor blade or 4WD or diet breakthrough that will change your life.. Note that the only people interviewed are people working for the company itself. It's also about home theatre - pixel screens not projection - so not even really relating to cinemas.

 

Sorry to be blunt..

[Tyler Purcell]

These days my vinyl records gather dust on the shelf, my big stereo is only used to play CD's at dinner parties. I watch my movies on cable, hear my music on youtube through small PC speakers, or on the music channel on cable TV, or my wife's portable CD player. I shoot digital still pics and digital video and edit them on my PC while my film cameras are stored away. Fact is my brain is so hungry for a good photo, a good movie or a good song, it will enjoy it on any medium.

One could say this is the same for most people. Records in the attic, CD's collecting dust, stereo systems gone silent for the most part and content being heard and viewed on a "device", most of the time portable.

 

I agree, the vast amount of content I absorb is with my laptop and iPhone. It sounds horrifying to say with a pretty decent home theater at my fingertips, but reality is as a filmmaker I just don't have the time to always watch content at home. Even if I do, it disturbs everyone in the house for me to do so, which means the only times I can truly watch something is on rare special occasions. It's been this way most of my life tho, so I treasure those special moments where I can wind up the stereo for music or home theater for beautiful visual presentations. I feel this is the same with most people, we really don't care anymore how things are presented for general use. However, spinnin records and watching film is something I do cherish when I get the opportunity to do it.

 

So why film?!?! It's a very simple concept; the theater should be someplace special, outside of a dark room. In my opinion, it should be shot and presented in a way that's entirely different then that of content available at home. It should be an experience, not just another "movie". This concept is not so hard to understand as the film industry struggled adversity at the advent of Television and again when color television and cable made their way to the home. Now we're at a precipice where theatrical is dying again, even though the profits are up thanks to inflated ticket prices. Eventually the studio's will start out-pricing themselves and seeing as the chinese pretty much own most of the national cinema chains, it's going to be an interesting fall out.