Now you’re talking! The world needs more people like you TheaterBuff1. If you see something you don’t like you change it. Too many people sit by and complain but do nothing. I feel you will do well.
I know this is an old thread but I would still like to put in my two cents. There are many points that were brought up here that need a response. First, there were theatres that never saw sound and simply closed because they couldn’t compete with talkies. Now, I don’t believe that D cinema would cause a similar demise of venues for the same reasons. Just like in the past we fail to see the real force behind what makes things happen. When RCA and Western Electric started making sound heads they didn’t sell them to theatres rather they leased them and if the theatre stopped paying they would come out and pull their photocell in those days. Small theatres could retrofit to sound it those days just like they can to D cinema now. Indeed, TheaterBuff1 if we were all Tesla-esque visionaries who didn’t care about profit things would be different. We have to look at the motivations of those with lots of power. There is a reason Simplex – IPC offset the setscrew holes on their sprockets; it was so the projectionists couldn’t flip them if the teeth got cut over time. Instead of flipping the old sprockets they were forced to buy new ones. Ask yourself why studios want to promote and finance something that cost ten times as much as an existing technology. Now I worked in Hollywood as an IATSE technician and I got a good feel for how things work and how long memories are. I have some old union projectionist friends and they remember when a projectionist could stop running a movie if it didn’t have an IATSE seal in the credits. I currently install D cinema and until recently film. The studios are going to be in full control of all programming with D cinema. So much for all those possibilities you were referring to. As for multiplexes being on the way out, it may happen because studios will get to choose what auditorium a movie plays in and lock out larger auditoriums. The problem is TheaterBuff1 you are not the one calling the shots. Industry runs on profits and profits are calculated by people who are obsessed with control. Accountants are not dreamers.
Next, I heard mention of film being transferred to digital intermediate before the release prints hit the theatres. This is very true. It is hard to make comparisons between film and digital and I advise against it since they are distinctly different visual techniques. With that said, 35mm camera negative is roughly equivalent to a 7k digital image. By the time we get an interpositive and eventually a release print that 7k image gets cut down to a 5k or 6k image but that’s only if it is printed at a place like fotokem. If it gets printed at Technicolor or Deluxe you can kiss that 5k goodbye with their high-speed printers. Most release prints are printed at Technicolor or Deluxe so we can predict a 3k release print image. Now we take that 7k image and transfer it to a 2k digital intermediate for editing convenience right off the bat. That 2k image will lose a lot of grain going through those high-speed printers. Before we get to the side-by-side there is one more technical wrinkle. D cinema projectors have a native chip resolution of 1.90:1, which is close to flat 1.85:1. A flat movie is using nearly the full 2k capability of the D cinema projector whereas a flat image on a 35mm print is using exactly half the film grain available on the frame so a flat film image is now at 1k but more likely 700 or 800. So the question is, do they use a flat or scope movie for the side-by-side? Scope would cut native resolution on the TI chip by about half while film would benefit. If it were me running the test I would maximize my products resolution and I’m guessing the side by side was not conducted by a film advocate. Don’t be too quick to dismiss the quality or versatility of film and don’t be too quick to sing the praises of D cinema because both are technologies that are very capable and awe inspiring but both have limitations in how they will inevitably be implemented.
That’s all I’m saying Jon, to each his own. Lets give film a chance. Film may have never been appropriate for multiplexes but that doesn’t mean it should go away. I always thought film seemed out of place in a multiplex because it is too graceful of a format and was never intended to be draped across rollers back and forth or laid on it’s side. I still feel like a single projector with a platter looks like an amputee without a projector 2. D-cinema suits the multiplex era much better both for practicality and that sterile, robotic terminal feel that defines most multiplexes.
I have read all the above posts and I have to make a comment. We can be on here all day arguing pixels, film grain, product and practicality to gain an inch for film or digital but I think there is something that has been missed. You can’t say that you wish all the old ways could be back in the same breath as you say it’s probably gone forever. I’m just not buying it. I am reading between the lines and I say it reads, “Thank God film is dead!” I know a little bit about film projection and I know a little bit about human nature too. People rarely make decisions based on logic and practicality although; it always seems to be dragged in to support an emotional issue. We all do it. I am emotional about film and I look for logical reasons it should stay. All the logic in the world can’t make film stay around. In fact the only thing that can make film stay is an emotional response from audiences. Digital is just a buzzword and audiences think its better because they don’t know what it is. What is killing film is that audiences don’t get to feel the print between their fingers and hear the gentle purr of the projector. I’ve found that when I talk to people who know nothing about film or theatres, they get really excited about film. Then again there’s not much I can say about D cinema that’s any more exiting than a Circuit City salesman can tell you about a home theatre set-up. I’ve run film and installed film projectors. I’ve run digital cinema and installed digital cinema. D cinema servers are just computers with network addresses, digital projectors are overblown computer monitors and as far as I can see nothing about that seems to be interesting to the average person. I think film is an important medium for creativity like paint on canvas. Film is not just a technology it is an art.
I work for a company that installs and services theatre equipment and the demad for all film projectors has unfortunately slowed. If you find the right person and you have an original base and lamphouse I think somewhere in the $600.00 range would be a fair price. Some might think you are rediculous for asking that price though and people can shy away from Italian projectors because the parts are harder to get than for something domestic.
Joe
Now you’re talking! The world needs more people like you TheaterBuff1. If you see something you don’t like you change it. Too many people sit by and complain but do nothing. I feel you will do well.
I know this is an old thread but I would still like to put in my two cents. There are many points that were brought up here that need a response. First, there were theatres that never saw sound and simply closed because they couldn’t compete with talkies. Now, I don’t believe that D cinema would cause a similar demise of venues for the same reasons. Just like in the past we fail to see the real force behind what makes things happen. When RCA and Western Electric started making sound heads they didn’t sell them to theatres rather they leased them and if the theatre stopped paying they would come out and pull their photocell in those days. Small theatres could retrofit to sound it those days just like they can to D cinema now. Indeed, TheaterBuff1 if we were all Tesla-esque visionaries who didn’t care about profit things would be different. We have to look at the motivations of those with lots of power. There is a reason Simplex – IPC offset the setscrew holes on their sprockets; it was so the projectionists couldn’t flip them if the teeth got cut over time. Instead of flipping the old sprockets they were forced to buy new ones. Ask yourself why studios want to promote and finance something that cost ten times as much as an existing technology. Now I worked in Hollywood as an IATSE technician and I got a good feel for how things work and how long memories are. I have some old union projectionist friends and they remember when a projectionist could stop running a movie if it didn’t have an IATSE seal in the credits. I currently install D cinema and until recently film. The studios are going to be in full control of all programming with D cinema. So much for all those possibilities you were referring to. As for multiplexes being on the way out, it may happen because studios will get to choose what auditorium a movie plays in and lock out larger auditoriums. The problem is TheaterBuff1 you are not the one calling the shots. Industry runs on profits and profits are calculated by people who are obsessed with control. Accountants are not dreamers.
Next, I heard mention of film being transferred to digital intermediate before the release prints hit the theatres. This is very true. It is hard to make comparisons between film and digital and I advise against it since they are distinctly different visual techniques. With that said, 35mm camera negative is roughly equivalent to a 7k digital image. By the time we get an interpositive and eventually a release print that 7k image gets cut down to a 5k or 6k image but that’s only if it is printed at a place like fotokem. If it gets printed at Technicolor or Deluxe you can kiss that 5k goodbye with their high-speed printers. Most release prints are printed at Technicolor or Deluxe so we can predict a 3k release print image. Now we take that 7k image and transfer it to a 2k digital intermediate for editing convenience right off the bat. That 2k image will lose a lot of grain going through those high-speed printers. Before we get to the side-by-side there is one more technical wrinkle. D cinema projectors have a native chip resolution of 1.90:1, which is close to flat 1.85:1. A flat movie is using nearly the full 2k capability of the D cinema projector whereas a flat image on a 35mm print is using exactly half the film grain available on the frame so a flat film image is now at 1k but more likely 700 or 800. So the question is, do they use a flat or scope movie for the side-by-side? Scope would cut native resolution on the TI chip by about half while film would benefit. If it were me running the test I would maximize my products resolution and I’m guessing the side by side was not conducted by a film advocate. Don’t be too quick to dismiss the quality or versatility of film and don’t be too quick to sing the praises of D cinema because both are technologies that are very capable and awe inspiring but both have limitations in how they will inevitably be implemented.
That’s all I’m saying Jon, to each his own. Lets give film a chance. Film may have never been appropriate for multiplexes but that doesn’t mean it should go away. I always thought film seemed out of place in a multiplex because it is too graceful of a format and was never intended to be draped across rollers back and forth or laid on it’s side. I still feel like a single projector with a platter looks like an amputee without a projector 2. D-cinema suits the multiplex era much better both for practicality and that sterile, robotic terminal feel that defines most multiplexes.
l
I have read all the above posts and I have to make a comment. We can be on here all day arguing pixels, film grain, product and practicality to gain an inch for film or digital but I think there is something that has been missed. You can’t say that you wish all the old ways could be back in the same breath as you say it’s probably gone forever. I’m just not buying it. I am reading between the lines and I say it reads, “Thank God film is dead!” I know a little bit about film projection and I know a little bit about human nature too. People rarely make decisions based on logic and practicality although; it always seems to be dragged in to support an emotional issue. We all do it. I am emotional about film and I look for logical reasons it should stay. All the logic in the world can’t make film stay around. In fact the only thing that can make film stay is an emotional response from audiences. Digital is just a buzzword and audiences think its better because they don’t know what it is. What is killing film is that audiences don’t get to feel the print between their fingers and hear the gentle purr of the projector. I’ve found that when I talk to people who know nothing about film or theatres, they get really excited about film. Then again there’s not much I can say about D cinema that’s any more exiting than a Circuit City salesman can tell you about a home theatre set-up. I’ve run film and installed film projectors. I’ve run digital cinema and installed digital cinema. D cinema servers are just computers with network addresses, digital projectors are overblown computer monitors and as far as I can see nothing about that seems to be interesting to the average person. I think film is an important medium for creativity like paint on canvas. Film is not just a technology it is an art.
l
Do you ever run across any t-25 Ballantyne tube amps? It seems like they were all scrapped in the 80s. I sure would be happy if you could help me.
Joe
Do you have VIP bases for those ‘Bal’s? I am looking for the old t-25 amplifiers that used to mount inside them.
Joe
I work for a company that installs and services theatre equipment and the demad for all film projectors has unfortunately slowed. If you find the right person and you have an original base and lamphouse I think somewhere in the $600.00 range would be a fair price. Some might think you are rediculous for asking that price though and people can shy away from Italian projectors because the parts are harder to get than for something domestic.
Joe