Celluloid Junkie - Latest Comments

Re: Report: Movie Theatre Popcorn Makes You Fat (Surprise!)

cjflynn — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:25:36 -0000

Oh sure. Use Science to spoil the wholesome corn, the concentrated energy of the sun dried raisin.

But do they measure the calories burned by the anxiety of seeing a years worth of carefully plotted Harry Potter promotions, or the energy spent in getting the kids in the car or driving through traffic and wending one's way through the parking garage? And isn't the worry over 20% interest on the credit card for the tickets and food worth a few hundred calories of monthly quivering?

And how does the CSPI suggest that the costs of running the refrigeration machines for my ice cream cone get paid for? At $3.50, it seems almost subsidized.

Kidding aside, while shrinking release windows does threaten some good part of the exhibitor's business, even without the license for gouging the public for the cost of sugar water, they are still holding a great resource, the grand public gathering space.

There will still be the big movies, but there will also be good return when focusing on micro-audiences. Most of alternative content mechanisms are still in the fledgling stage, but each has shown promise. There were great numbers of school kids who came to see March of the Penguins during normally off-hours, there have been successful sports and concerts, and no comment about digital is complete without mentioning 3D - however inappropriate. Plus, there's still arena style games to be exploited, and local sourced materials in lieu of over-homogenized snacks served with homogenized super-movies.

And, there's no reason that the cinemas can't be selling the Blu Ray releases...they just won't be getting an 800% mark-up like they get with the carbonated and popped stuff.

Re: Daily Cinema Roundup -Thursday 8 May - “the best industry you could want to be in”

digital signage — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:51:12 -0000

Q1 2008 net revenues increased 9.8% to $14.2 million compared to Q1 2007 net revenues of $12.9 million.In 2008 RECESSION market there is increase sales.

Re: UK largest cinema picks vendors for 3D, thumbs nose at third party integrators

wicker_bench — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:57:58 -0000

I wanna find more info about this, anybody could?

Re: UK largest cinema picks vendors for 3D, thumbs nose at third party integrators

paul smith — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:32:01 -0000

i work at a cineworld multiplex and can confirm the increased price of 3d films is for the cost of 3d glasses.

Re: Cinema News Roundup - 29 May 2009 - Indian theme day

abcdefgsimong — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:08:09 -0000

Adlabs is not being honest they have deceived and blackmailed and bought people in the Netherlands. Thye have been sewed now and their bank accounts are blocked they are showing films but not earning money as they need to pay parties in the Netherlands.

The Netherlands haven't got more then 150.000 people from the mentioned groups he is mentioning 700.000 on a population of 16 million he is misleading his stockholders!!

Re: Technicolor Goes 3D With Film Based System

cjflynn — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:28:05 -0000

Very funny anon.

When it starts to get personal, I'd typically walk away, but eyescrossed seems to want to learn, and the internet's memory shouldn't be left with your last remarks as the only truth.

IIn 34 years of dealing with digital equipment, I've learned that primarily, "Engineering is the art of compromise," and associated with that, "There are few absolutes." Digital Cinema in general, and 3D in particular, are no different.

Black levels have improved greatly with the 3 big changes of the "black chip." But, at best, blacks in dcinema are "film-like." They are, at best, described as "matching the typical blacks on a projected film print." (Pg 140-Glenn Kennel; Color and Mastering for Digital Cinema) But, you'll notice that all the statements are hedged - digital projection is not correctly described as having deeper blacks than film.

To your query: One considers the brightness of 3D and not 2D, because we are discussing, "What is considered good enough for current 3D presentations."

I am not writing to point out faults in 2D digital projection, which has certainly passed 'good enough', or 3D digital projection, which, in controlled cases has reached 'good enough'. Presuming that you know and recognize the constraints which limit single-projector digital 3D exclusively to smaller rooms, then you will also recognize my points.

This particular transitional era is marked by good enough. Color science and human visual acuity are allowed to be manipulated in order to get a viable system into exhibitors hands. For example, your statements about color depth and gamut both contain hedge words to make them true, but the statements themselves are not absolutes or even true without them.

Again, my point is that one shouldn't be so strident about a system that one hasn't seen, in an era of 'good enough', when it might be good enough. To say that the over/under system 'needlessly' reduces brightness is like saying that other systems needlessly put in color wheels or light modulation systems (which reduces light by much more than 50%). They all need these compromises to make the system work. Some need 2.3 gain silver screens, yet another compromise. You are willing to look the other way for these, while not allowing any compromise for a film-based system.

Sure, gate weave and bob can be a problem, but not if the systems are set up properly. The same can be said about digital 3D, which is why Disney, for example, puts great effort to make certain that exhibitors set up the systems properly. And since left and right eyes are both derived from the same frame, they will be locked, or at least consistently placed, even if there is some film stretch. That symmetry is inherent to the system.

I'm sorry if it is not obvious how too few screens and the inability to show multiple simultaneous competing movies creates problems for producers and studios. I can't explain it any better than the execs who are practically pleading whenever they talk about 3D, in print or in public forums, to not let the moment pass.

Perhaps John Lowry's new system will satisfy all and shift the discussion. Did you see that demonstration?

"In summary, lrn2motionpicturebusinessandtechnology before you rant and snark."

Cute. I'll do my best. Good luck to us all.

Re: Technicolor Goes 3D With Film Based System

AnonEMoose — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:22:40 -0000

"What is lrn2motionpicturebusinessandtechnology?"
Cj was using xml tags for his snark and rant. It's a form of netslang often used on boards and forums. I reponded with a different form of netslang.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=...

Re: Technicolor Goes 3D With Film Based System

eyescrossed — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:41:08 -0000

Yup, pretty much everything AnonEMoose said. Great post. Keep up the informative, technical discussion. Just one question. What is lrn2motionpicturebusinessandtechnology?

Re: Technicolor Goes 3D With Film Based System

AnonEMoose — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:25:10 -0000

@cj
Your whole first paragraph is filled with specious commentary.
First you compare the brightness of 3D digital against the brightness of 2D film projection. Why not 2D in both projection formats where they are equal and in fact digital projection has deeper blacks?
Second you suggest digital is inferior in "aspect ratio". How exactly can one have better aspect ratio, huh?
Third, you claim film has better color depth when in fact the P3 standard has a broader color gamut in large areas of the visible spectrum and luminance range.
Factually, there are many reasons why the Technicolor system is inferior. It's an over under slit lens system requiring two apertures, needlessly reducing brightness.
Gate bob and weave are known to create eyestrain in 3D presentations.
Film damage has substantially worse effect in 3D presentations since the damage occurs assymetrically in each eye.
The gamut of film is smaller, particularly in saturated colors. Since 3D features are shot digitally or CG rendered and mastered for digital presentation the creative intent of the image is inferior when recorded to film.
The technicolor system is much worse than half resolution of the standard film frame for 1.85 formats since they pillar-box left/right and use even less of the negative for any aspect ratio other the 2.40.

Your last paragraph makes no sense at all since you didn't outline how a limited number of screens hurts the industry but arguments against this method of exhibition clearly delineate the damage and the possible fallout.

In summary, lrn2motionpicturebusinessandtechnology before you rant and snark.

Re: Technicolor Goes 3D With Film Based System

cjflynn — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:57:05 -0000

Oh my. There continues to be a misguided understanding of just how super fantastic wonderful digital 3D really is. It must have improved so much since I last checked that it must have surpassed 2D in brightness and aspect ratio and color depth while paying back the additional purchase and licensing costs every time a movie plays. We should be mocking any exhibitor who doesn't have 3 systems already, plus one for spare outdoor exhibition use.

In case no one has noticed, the studios seem quite content to bring movies to cinemas who only have gate weave-y, potentially scratchey film projectors.
</snark>

Factually, there is no reason that a projector with a good bulb showing a well saturated film print with this method will not out shine a digital 3D presentation in several ways.

The studios need more screens to compete in the marketplace. Even if this does some damage to the industry, which I don't agree with, I'd posit that it hurts the industry more if the studios can't release more than one movie at a time for limited 3D runs because there are only so many screens available.

</rant>

Re: Technicolor Goes 3D With Film Based System

AnonEMoose — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:28:57 -0000

clydeD's post from the Technicolor website reflects the pure marketing BS in spades.
I'll agree film is still the better image capturing media in most cases but for exhibition it is definitely no longer the best and this is especially true for stereoscopic exhibitions.
Tech is taking the chance of confusing the market with inferior technology. I hope they're only ones who get burned.

Re: Technicolor Goes 3D With Film Based System

jimhuskey — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:50:49 -0000

Will the studios be willing to release 3D content on 35mm? Will this poorer quality image (i.e. with gate weave, scratches, half frame media, and all the other technical challenges of 35mm) and exhibition possibly hurt the reputation of 3D and slow the ongoing industry conversion to digital? Which studios are commenting or making commitments to releasing 3D content in 35mm? Which is more important to Hollywood, selling 3D content now or compelling exhibitors to convert to digital? Any educated opinions or concrete answers will be appreciated.

Re: Technicolor Goes 3D With Film Based System

clydeD — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:50:49 -0000

This is from the Technicolor website... "The exceptional image quality will leave you awestruck. For those who love the richness and saturation that film provides, the Technicolor 3D system can surpass current expectations. Look closely at the gradients, the brightness, the flesh tones of the human form. For a film-loving society that is hungry for an escape from the everyday, there’s no question that this technology is the start of something really engaging."...

I just wanted to know.. which 3D film is really being or going to be shot with a Film camera these days? So isn't it that the movie will be shot Digital (possibly soon in 4k res), then it will be "halved" for above below format, then it will be "printed" from Digital to Film stock...

So actually source will be a Digital sensor, and final out will be on Film Stock.. at half the resolution when accommodating for above/below format. How then will the above paragraph by Technicolor hold true?

Re: Technicolor Goes 3D With Film Based System

fransp — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 06:23:19 -0000

If cinema owner need to change the screen , lens and must sing contract with Real D , and resolution will be half of the existing in 35mm where the adventage is?.

Re: Technicolor Goes 3D With Film Based System

cjflynn — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:50:25 -0000

Hmmm...seems as if there are as many bad analogies as there are misconceptions about compliant digital v 3D digital v the potential of film quality.

I haven't seen this technology, but my guess is that it could have some compelling advantages over digital 3D, especially given the compromised nature of digital 3D, and especially if using great film.

Re: Technicolor Goes 3D With Film Based System

jamiegau — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:51:09 -0000

Just to be clear.
Digital is defiantly, in general, a much better picture then film. (A film print is based on a digital print, so by nature it has to be better.)
Technicolour is now reducing the quality on screen by slightly over half again, then putting it in a projector in which the picture will jump and shake around..
3D is all about getting the eyes to believe an illusion to work best with as many people as can be. We need to make the image is believable as possible.. (Ie no film gate weave)

This is BAD for 3D as a medium.

But then again quality is not everything, as we can see by what the younger generation choose to watch and listen to these days.

This may be good for Cinemas, it's hard to tell right now.

In any case, will probably be good for RealD or MasterImage, as the silver screens can only go that way when they do go digital.

James

Re: Technicolor Goes 3D With Film Based System

johncameron — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:41:39 -0000

Let us know when/where we can buy this system. I know the local theatre will be insterested as they don't have the money to go digital and 35mm is much better anyway.

Re: Cinema News Roundup - 29 May 2009 - Indian theme day

Guest — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:18:22 -0000

Nice one. I have stumbled and twittered this for my friends. Others no doubt will like it like I did.

Re: The Dutch Go Digital With Arts Alliance

Guest — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:32:28 -0000

Interesting post. I have made a twitter post about this. Hope others find it as interesting as I did.

Re: DCIP Closer To D-Cinema Funding

anonymous — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:16:39 -0000

Yes, this may be nothing but spin but it may be all that is needed.

Reading the intent, and how long till the US reaches critical mass with digital cinema, makes we wonder what will happen to the VPF in the rest of the world once they have?

J

Re: Daily Cinema Roundup - Monday 11 May - “I have been in this business since 1972, and I have never seen such a bad time.”

richardaroberts776 — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:43:38 -0000

But the last few years have seen big increases in ridership for Amtrak, begging the question: is Amtrak finally on its way to self-sufficiency? With a much more efficient method for transporting passengers than aviation, does passenger amtrak promotion code rail get a boost from the coming legislation on climate change?

Re: JVC Turns Heads With 3D Conversion Technology

clydeD — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:18:37 -0000

Read this document I made after seeing two recent converted films.
these observations were made in one sitting at the Cinema, without the ability to pause the film.
http://realvision.ae/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=29

or here:
http://www.slideshare.net/clydd/2dto3dconverted...
Regards.

Re: Ethiopia’s First Multiplex Theatre Opens

builder1 — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:06:44 -0000

test

Re: Twitter’s Instant Reviews Has Hollywood Worried

leodavinci — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 13:05:23 -0000

If the studios want to focus their marketing to people who have the attention span of gnats (social media being for people who have no lives coupled with separation anxiety issues), then more power to them.

And good luck.

They're gonna need it.

Re: Summer B.O. Blame Game Has Already Started

Sharad — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:32:14 -0000

Ha, I'm not sure if Ed Asner is a box office draw to current demographics, and even Daniel to a certain extent... the box office "star" concept is not and never has been a key ingredient for many top films (remember Star Wars and Jaws and even now, Juno?) . The box office star is an easy way out to market the film and to fill magazine covers for promo tie ins from a (non imaginative) business minded viewpoint. But a star has never been necessary for a big cultural hit!