If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Stuff.co.nz)   Christchurch, NZ is down to one traditional movie theater that projects 35mm prints, as the rest of the city has gone digital. "Nobody wants them. They are a thing of the past. It's a shame really because it is good equipment"   (stuff.co.nz) divider line 27
    More: Obvious, Christchurch, movie theaters, digital projectors, movie projectors, Hollywood Cinema  
•       •       •

553 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 09 Nov 2013 at 8:23 AM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



27 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-09 08:37:50 AM
Can you see imaginary details on 35mm film like you can "hear" on vinyl?
 
2013-11-09 08:40:04 AM
And like CDs, digital prints will last a thousand years...
 
2013-11-09 08:42:55 AM
The major movie distributors are stopping distribution of print film and all of the theaters are being forced to upgrade. Seems like an important detail that the article omitted.
 
2013-11-09 08:53:26 AM

GoldSpider: Can you see imaginary details on 35mm film like you can "hear" on vinyl?



35mm looks warmer. And cosy. Digital looks cold. And ghey.
 
2013-11-09 08:54:08 AM

Bslim: And like CDs, digital prints will last a thousand years...


And like vinyl discs, 35mm film is indestructible.
 
2013-11-09 08:56:40 AM
I remember some film critic, it may have even been Ebert, complaining that digital projection didn't look "natural" because it lacked grain.
 
2013-11-09 08:58:49 AM
i went to film school and now make TV commercials. i've shot 35mm many times. i love the format. i'm a luddite. i love, love, LOVE well-made (especially swiss or german) mechanical equipment... BUT...

digital projection is where it's at. i won't go see a movie now unless it's digital. if i'm spending $50 to go see a movie with the wife, i don't want scratches and reel change marks. i want crisp, clean viewing. for modern films, at least.
 
2013-11-09 09:04:09 AM

GoldSpider: Can you see imaginary details on 35mm film like you can "hear" on vinyl?


Are sampling rates infinite?
 
2013-11-09 09:08:02 AM
Cue the "It's good because it's old" idiots
 
ecl
2013-11-09 09:17:32 AM
I liked the AA and textures better with opengl.  And the original Pentium processor is where they should have stopped making new processors.  Duke1 was a sidescrolling masterpiece they mangled into a game where you fight f*cking sprites.  Why do things have to change? ::sob::
 
2013-11-09 09:32:57 AM
Well, you could remain the only theatre in NZ that can project 35mm prints and become a niche theatre that has to spend a few thousand dollars per film just to get it there, or you can upgrade.
 
2013-11-09 09:56:06 AM
they're just preparing for when they finally get the Matrix sequels.
 
2013-11-09 10:34:42 AM
And I bet they sell buggy whips at the concession stand.
 
2013-11-09 10:37:02 AM
I was happy with those shadow puppets we use to make by the fire light in the caves.

Kids these days are just spoiled.
 
2013-11-09 10:38:01 AM
I ran a 35mm projection booth at a theater for years, it was great, I really miss it. There's something about the way the digital film looks that just isn't the same, it's like the difference between CDs and Vinyl records.
 
ecl
2013-11-09 10:43:57 AM

spman: I ran a 35mm projection booth at a theater for years, it was great, I really miss it. There's something about the way the digital film looks that just isn't the same, it's like the difference between CDs and Vinyl records.


I refuse to get rid of my VHS player.  Laserdisc lacks the authenticity.  Also,  8track > Cassette.  I never switched and I see no reason to now.
 
2013-11-09 11:09:40 AM

GoldSpider: Can you see imaginary details on 35mm film like you can "hear" on vinyl?


Look at the difference between an analog signal and a digital one. Science is with the hipsters on that one.
 
2013-11-09 11:12:49 AM

ecl: I refuse to get rid of my VHS player


you joke, but I recall a lot of people adamant about this when DVD was starting to become a thing. "My Tv sucks, so why bother?" My Tv at the time was over a decade old and even i could tell the difference in audio and picture quality between DVD and VHS. (I was never really impressed with LaserDisc, though; probably due to the cost and having to flip the disc to continue the movie.)
 
2013-11-09 11:16:42 AM

ecl: spman: I ran a 35mm projection booth at a theater for years, it was great, I really miss it. There's something about the way the digital film looks that just isn't the same, it's like the difference between CDs and Vinyl records.

I refuse to get rid of my VHS player.  Laserdisc lacks the authenticity.  Also,  8track > Cassette.  I never switched and I see no reason to now.


Not to white-knight the "change is bad" crowd... but there's a big difference between 333×480 VHS resolution and theoretically-infinite film resolution. Nobody ever pretended VHS was a superior transfer compared to LD or DVD. Hell, most knowledgeable people knew VHS wasn't even superior to Betamax.
 
2013-11-09 12:08:02 PM
No Fight Club references?

Disappoint.
 
2013-11-09 12:12:44 PM

wildcardjack: Well, you could remain the only theatre in NZ that can project 35mm prints and become a niche theatre that has to spend a few thousand dollars per film just to get it there, or you can upgrade.




Lost in the discussion is the fact each 35mm print costs $1k-$2k.
 
2013-11-09 12:50:34 PM

Bslim: And like CDs, digital prints will last a thousand years...


They will if people still care about them during those thousand years. Once it's digital it can be mirrored onto as many locations as you want, converted into new formats, and migrated onto new generations of storage devices.
 
2013-11-09 03:00:10 PM
Completely oblivious to distribution costs.  Each theatre cost about $2500 to get a set of actual film, guarded against pre-release.  Digital projection just requires bandwidth. Expensive to change, but cheaper to maintain.
 
2013-11-09 03:27:45 PM

HempHead: wildcardjack: Well, you could remain the only theatre in NZ that can project 35mm prints and become a niche theatre that has to spend a few thousand dollars per film just to get it there, or you can upgrade.

Lost in the discussion is the fact each 35mm print costs $1k-$2k.



Film is a great medium for archive but it degrades with use, is expensive to make good quality copies and difficult to store. Digital is great for the last mile (from distributor to cinema) and you can guarantee that the first showing is going to be the same as the 1000th showing. Thanks to digital you can get world wide release of a film in tens of thousands of screens for a small cost where before lots of places had to put up with 2nd or 3rd hand prints that were past their best because of the mind boggling cost of film prints.

What matters more is not that cinemas are going digital is that the projectionist is being phased out. Instead of a dedicated person making sure everything starts on time, is in focus and the lamp isn't on its last leg you get a floor worker pressing a button then having to clean out another screen.


/yes it's the end of narrative cinema
//hello jason Isaacs
 
2013-11-09 04:01:22 PM
The theaters that are really being hurt by this are the repertory and revival houses. Most old films, including many recognized classics, are not available in Digital Cinema Packages. New archival prints are no longer being struck, and consequently many archives and distributors are refusing to rent their remaining prints, lest they deteriorate even faster.
 
2013-11-09 04:45:45 PM

MFAWG: GoldSpider: Can you see imaginary details on 35mm film like you can "hear" on vinyl?

Are sampling rates infinite?


Is the information content infinite?

clkeagle: and theoretically-infinite film resolution


Nonsense.

clkeagle: Nobody ever pretended VHS was a superior transfer compared to LD or DVD. Hell, most knowledgeable people knew VHS wasn't even superior to Betamax.


VHS kept improving eventually culminating in:

images.tapeonline.com

www.wiesefilm.de

Plain old SVHS resulted in DVD quality, with the added bonus of more flexible playback. Weird things like playing the video backwards at variable rates while the sound played forward.

DVHS was awesome.
 
2013-11-09 05:27:14 PM

Norfolking Chance: HempHead: wildcardjack: Well, you could remain the only theatre in NZ that can project 35mm prints and become a niche theatre that has to spend a few thousand dollars per film just to get it there, or you can upgrade.

Lost in the discussion is the fact each 35mm print costs $1k-$2k.


Film is a great medium for archive but it degrades with use, is expensive to make good quality copies and difficult to store. Digital is great for the last mile (from distributor to cinema) and you can guarantee that the first showing is going to be the same as the 1000th showing. Thanks to digital you can get world wide release of a film in tens of thousands of screens for a small cost where before lots of places had to put up with 2nd or 3rd hand prints that were past their best because of the mind boggling cost of film prints.

What matters more is not that cinemas are going digital is that the projectionist is being phased out. Instead of a dedicated person making sure everything starts on time, is in focus and the lamp isn't on its last leg you get a floor worker pressing a button then having to clean out another screen.


/yes it's the end of narrative cinema
//hello jason Isaacs




New theaters being built now no longer even have a mezzanine.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report