Ebert stands up for film

[Steven Budden]

Karl,

 

Is there a source for this film lube or a good film lube in general that comes recommended?

 

Steven

[Jaan Shenberger]

i've seen DLP-projected movies at two different theaters here in sf, including film-shot, all cgi (pixar), and hd-shot (mr. lucas' follies).

 

it does not look like a giant lcd screen. lcd projectors look like giant lcd monitors. DLP imagery has seemlessly blended edges between the pixels.

 

it's not as sharp/high res as film projection, though it's close enough that no normal consumer would be able to tell or complain.

 

the color rendition is sometimes a little off (especially highly saturated middle-value blues, which pop off the screen), though this is more the fault of the facility that prepped it for digital projection format. i'd even describe some of the color rendition as surpassing film, though this is a very unscientific proclaimaition.

 

the image luminance is consistent (no hot spot / edge falloff), unlike 95% of projected film images.

 

in theory, film prints probably can remain dirt & scratch-free, but the reality is that 16 year olds earning $7.50 an hour have other things to worry about, which is why i see dirt & scratches all the time, especially around the reel changes.

 

once things settle into place, the only real drawback for the viewer will be resolution.

 

if a film is film-originated, i try to avoid the DLP theater, but vice versa for pixar movies.

[Landon D. Parks]

Hey, I only make $6.50 an hour!!! I must say though, they have not let me snip snip any of the films yet! Although I have (more times than I can count) loaded film, cleaned projectors, carried film reels to the projection floor :blink:, looked in on the projectors from time to time, etc... Standard Cinema Employee stuff!

 

They need to pay me $7.50 an hour!

Edited August 23, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[John Pytlak RIP]

looked in on the projectors from time to time, etc... Standard Cinema Employee stuff!

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A good projectionist frequently checks the quality of picture and sound, not just "time to time".

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Don't get me wrong - a new print in a good cinema is still second to none. I'm not attacking the image quality, just the mess of dealing with film prints - the handling, the shipping where they get lost, the arrival when you realise the DTS-discs are gone and so on and so forth..

 

And all things taken into account, isn't it just better to be done with this archaic, labour intensive, environmentally unfriendly and mistake inducing way of showing film? You'd be lucky if 1 out of 10 film projections were perfect.

 

Next time you go to the cinema, just take a look at the image standstill during the title sequence. Or count how many times the sound glitches and switches between Dolby Digital/DTS or analog during a feature with 6 reels...

[John Pytlak RIP]

And all things taken into account, isn't it just better to be done with this archaic, labour intensive, environmentally unfriendly and mistake inducing way of showing film? You'd be lucky if 1 out of 10 film projections were perfect.

 

Next time you go to the cinema, just take a look at the image standstill during the title sequence. Or count how many times the sound glitches and switches between Dolby Digital/DTS or analog during a feature with 6 reels...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

When it comes to attending better theatres, I'm batting much better than 100 (1 out of 10). If digital sound is defaulting to analog near the reel splices, the theatre has very poor splicing technique.

 

AFAIK, Digital Cinema currently requires transferring over 40 Gigs of data to a server, and having someone representing the distributor personally visit the theatre to "unlock" the encryption -- rather "labor intensive" I would think. And environmental concerns are the "dirty little secret" of the electronics industry (lead, cadmium, etchants, etc. are not "environmentally friendly").

[Nate Downes]

Maybe the issue here is not what you're thinking in the end. It's not that film is bad, it's that the theatre owners are trying to turn minimum-wage soda-jerks into projection technicians?

[Max Jacoby]

are you speaking from personal experience?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes. I have seen films that were shot on film projected digitally on a 2K DLP projector. The picture looks very flat and lifeless, like on LCD screens.

[Tenolian Bell]

Projecting film is just a wildly stupid idea. Not to mention environmentally unfriendly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually replace film with petroleum.

 

Fueling internal combustion engines with petroleum is a wildly stupid idea. Not to mention environmentally unfriendly.

[Filip Plesha]

Yes. I have seen films that were shot on film projected digitally on a 2K DLP projector. The picture looks very flat and lifeless, like on LCD screens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It will probably be much better by the time digital cinema starts being a serious alternative to film projection.

Right now it is just a plan, we have a standard, a ghost standard that is, a whole bunch of living-room projectors that are supose to fill a big cinemascope screen and lots of improvisations such as HD recorders, computer disks etc.

 

But I'm not vorried so much about the quality (that is easy to solve), as much as I'll miss the "personality" of a film print. I find that a print has a different look from a digital video transfer. The transfer looks smooth and clean, while the print looks rougher and edgier. Transfers look like some hybrid between electronic and film technology (and that is what they are) and a print looks like raw photography.

I'll miss that. When I watch a feature shot on film, there is nothing more natural to me than to see it in a print, because that is how negative films were always been viewed: on a print. While watching video transfers, It really doesn't feel like I'm watching a piece of film, it's all too smoothened out somehow, lost its definition.

 

It's like when I'm watching photographs. Scans on monitors are nice, but I have to see a print or a slide, then it's "real" enough for me.

[Alessandro Machi]

One more intersting tidbit of information.  I have heard that there is a new film lubricant out there that has been developed that, when tested, prevents scratches form occuring for several THOUSAND projections assuming again a properly cleaned and maintained projector.

 

~Karl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That's not hard to believe. An actual film frame is only on display for a moment in time, and the actual time from spool to spool isn't that great (unless it's traveling between different projection rooms)

[Dominic Case]

Projecting film is just a wildly stupid idea.

On the contrary, it solves many of the challenges of motion picture imaging in an astonishingly simple way. It's the old argument that begins "suppose they had invented video first, and someone came along with film . . . ." but it applies just as well to digital projection.

 

:) replay device several times cheaper than current digital projection

:) life of replay device several times longer than current digital projection

:) no transfer or processing of data required, so no problems with data rate

:) images stored in ready-to-view analogue form, no conversion required

:) storage medium and format good for 100 years

:) any damage causes only slight loss of quality, not complete non-resolution as with digital

:) random grain structure of image maximises image resolution (similar to dithering but far more effective)

B) and so on . . .

 

It's true that digital distribution and exhibition do solve some other challenges in better ways than film, and eventually we may well see the digital solution prevail: but to describe film projection as "a wildly stupid idea" is just . . . well . . . wildly stupid.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I seem to rub you the wrong way, Dominic - this isn't the first time you've had a shot at me. That's fine - you can't be liked by everyone. But there is a difference between calling a technical medium stupid rather than a person, don't you agree?

[Marty Hamrick]

A good projectionist frequently checks the quality of picture and sound, not just "time to time".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

That's the rub there,John.Here in my neck of the woods,they did away with all the union projectionists when automated platter systems came out.The same guy or gal that serves you popcorn and tears your ticket is the same person that laces up and turns on the machine.He can't watch the film as after he turns it on he has to go pop popcorn and tear tickets.

[John Pytlak RIP]

That's the rub there,John.Here in my neck of the woods,they did away with all the union projectionists when automated platter systems came out.The same guy or gal that serves you popcorn and tears your ticket is the same person that laces up and turns on the machine.He can't watch the film as after he turns it on he has to go pop popcorn and tear tickets.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Trouble is, that same lack of skilled and dedicated people in the booth will adversely affect Digital Cinema as well. One of my least enjoyable Digital Cinema presentations was in a Florida theatre, where the lens and port glass were so dirty that they "killed" the contrast. Both film and digital projectors have xenon lamps, mirrors, and optics that need attention. Both have sophisticated electronic gear (servers, digital sound systems) that needs proper setup and maintenance.

[Nate Downes]

Indeed John. I saw a DLP projection of Sin City, a movie that probably should have done well on digital projection. Instead, there was a glitch, an optical glitch. A random set of jagged lines were appearing throughout the projection. Being a little familiar with DLP systems, it was a flaw in the decompression algs, resulting in a visible artifact with a predictable pattern. Wanna know the root cause?

 

The soda fountain kid had installed a new program on the central server.

[Matt Pacini]

"...      I pretty sure we're seeing the death knoll for film projection...."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Really?

Based on the fact that virtually every theater in the world is using FILM PROJECTORS????

 

There are lots of problems with digital projection, the largest being that it doesn't look very good, and it's MORE EXPENSIVE, not less expensive, than film projectors.

I've never in my life heard anyone complain about film scratches, etc., other than in these forum discussions of digital projection vs film projection.

It's like you people are just reciting the stuff you hear from industry marketing hype.

And I agree with Ebert; the first projectors were being touted as being "as good as film" and now we know that's laughable - they were crap.

 

And any discussion of "when there's only one format" is really funny.

Look how many different video "standard" formats there are, not to mention different film formats.

There's never going to be one projection format, and there's never going to be one shooting format, because there are always different manufacturers trying to be the "best format", and they all declare their product "the new standard"... until someone else comes up with a better "standard".

 

Believe me, we'll still be having this argument ten years from now, just like we were having it ten years ago.

 

MP

[Alessandro Machi]

I seem to rub you the wrong way, Dominic - this isn't the first time you've had a shot at me. That's fine - you can't be liked by everyone. But there is a difference between calling a technical medium stupid rather than a person, don't you agree?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, the technical medium can't directly respond.

[Filip Plesha]

Really?

Based on the fact that virtually every theater in the world is using FILM PROJECTORS????

 

There are lots of problems with digital projection, the largest being that it doesn't look very good, and it's MORE EXPENSIVE, not less expensive, than film projectors.

I've never in my life heard anyone complain about film scratches, etc., other than in these forum discussions of digital projection vs film projection.

It's like you people are just reciting the stuff you hear from industry marketing hype.

And I agree with Ebert; the first projectors were being touted as being "as good as film" and now we know that's laughable - they were crap.

 

And any discussion of "when there's only one format" is really funny.

Look how many different video "standard" formats there are, not to mention different film formats.

There's never going to be one projection format, and there's never going to be one shooting format, because there are always different manufacturers trying to be the "best format", and they all declare their product "the new standard"... until someone else comes up with a better "standard".

 

Believe me, we'll still be having this argument ten years from now, just like we were having it ten years ago.

 

MP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

yea, right now we are back in the era of 50's, where each studio had his own unique format with a corny name like super-ultra-parmaount-rama-circus, and stuff like that, all those experiments failed, in 20 years, there will be a graveyard of all kinds of electronic cinema standards that future people never heard of, but we "the future" right now.

 

There is just one difference from 50's. In 50's eachof these new standards was supose to give a better picture than standard cinema (and it did, sound too). Now it's not about getting a better picture, it's about going cheaper with minimum loss in quality as possible.

[Michel Hafner]

Yes. I have seen films that were shot on film projected digitally on a 2K DLP projector. The picture looks very flat and lifeless, like on LCD screens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you referring to the contrast?

Yes, current cinema DLPs are around 2000:1 On-Off Contrast which is not enough to rival the best prints. But the black level of your average print is nothing to get excited about as well, and neither is the contrast of the projection in the cinema even if the print were top notch. Cheap optics, dirty glass, exit signs shining on the screen, projection booth lights on etc. are very common. No cinema, digital or analogue, even remotely has the contrast I have at home with a CRT projector.

DLP will advance to higher contrast levels. This September you can buy 3 chip DLP at 720p with 6500:1 On-Off CR for your home cinema. That leaves most prints in the dust. Better theater 1080p models will get there too.

Concerning Ebert's Maxivision, well, the only realistic 48 Hz system is digital. 2K 48 fps is in the standard. And what you see at home will not be as good as in the cinema. Home is <= 1080p 4:2:0 and < 50 Mbit/s in the foreseable future. Cinema is >= 2K and soon 4:4:4 and upto 250 Mbit/s.

[K Borowski]

Karl,

 

Is there a source for this film lube or a good film lube in general that comes recommended?

 

Steven

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry I missed your post. I don't know the name of this lubricant. I've only heard about it from my friend second-hand. He is a credible source though, as he told me a secret to dramatically prolonging them by coating them with a thin layer of Prestone Silicone Lubricant, easily found in many automotive stores. This lubricant is supposed to prevent scratches for nearly 400 projections, which is far more than I will ever project any of my home movies. I also plan to use it for all of the prints I will be making on 16mm in the future. I find it laughable that theatres can't simply apply a thin coating of this to every release print they get. Hell, they could even lube the film right as it is leaving the platter en route to the projector. It is a very simple matter of spraying the stuff onto a soft cotton cloth, letting the filim run through it, and changing spots on the cloth every so often to keep the dirt that accumulates on the cloth from scratching the film.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

[David Mullen ASC]

Lubricated 35mm prints could make it difficult for projectionists to build a platter using tape splices from the 2000' projection reels that get shipped to them.

[K Borowski]

Wouldn't lubricating the film after it has been assembled solve that problem? I'm not sure why tape would be a problem. I use presstapes for splicing all of the time and the lubricant has no affect on them.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Film "Lubricants" containing mineral oil may actually leach the oil-soluble dyes out of a film, especially if there is any abrasion of the protective top clear emulsion layer. If you wipe the oil from the film and it is magenta colored, that's the magenta dye coming from the print!

 

Oils and silicones can also cause mottle or blotchiness, and may hold any dirt particles that get on the film. Oil can also make a film sticky or too slippery, causing winding problems.

 

SMPTE Recommended Practice RP151 specifies the proper lube for 35mm prints, which is an edgewax of paraffin or carnauba wax applied by the lab after processing.

 

Many projectionists use a proprietary film treatment known as FilmGuard. Kodak normally does not evaluate proprietary film treatments, and so cannot make a recommendation:

 

http://www.film-tech.com (use "Products" button for FilmGuard).

[Christian Appelt]

I have been using FilmGuard for 16mm loop projections at a film museum, and it very effectively prevents static, cleans the film and fills in smaller base scratches so they become invisible. Although it is not a permanent coating like lacquering the film, it improves presentation quality and I recommend it.

 

There must have been great differences between the different old protection lacquering processes. Film collectors from the US seem to avoid coated prints as they are more likeley to catch Vinegar Syndrome or to warp over time, but from my experience with older prints here in Europe, there was not problem with that.

 

Covaral used to be a good product for coating film, often applied with machines by Robert Rigby Ltd., but it has been discontinued for good reasons (environmental). Last year the last lab here in Germany specializing in rejuvenating and coating film closed down because no distributor used their services any more - why protect a print that will be discarded in a few weeks anyway?

 

The really sad thing is that many vintage prints in private collections and public archives cannot be rejuvenated any more. Many old prints had no damages but slight base scratches and cinch marks which usually disappeared completely, leaving a clear image.

Film archives really missed the train by not using more rejuvenation, I know an excellent 35mm Technicolor print of THE RED SHOES that could have been restored for less than US $200 - but now the scratches will remeain forever, and no restored version can really duplicate the dye transfer look.

 

Sorry, I got carried away somehow... :rolleyes:

Edited August 27, 2005 by Christian Appelt