Cinema History Around the World
 Contact Cinematour ·· Help & Hints ·· About Cinematour
Cinematour Forum

my profile | my password | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Cinematour Forum   » Cinema Yak   » Film or Digital...

Author Topic: Film or Digital...
Kevin Cook
New Member

Posts: 1
From: Hartford City, IN
Registered: Sep 2011

 - posted October 03, 2011 12:50 PM      Profile for Kevin Cook   Email Kevin Cook         Edit/Delete Post 
what do you think is better quality to go to the theater to see
either format is not without fault I bring this up because I went to a local AMC theater to see the new christian film Courageous and the print looked pretty decent however when the projector started it played 3 trailers then the projector stopped, lights came on in the theater, screen retracts to it's starting position (due to film shot in the Scope format)2 mins go by and lights dim and film resumes playing having no problems for the rest of the showing. I did inform the manager about the situation and he said that the film had jumped a track. I have also seen problems with the digital format problems including lamps going out, 3D presentations not projecting in 3D at certain points of a movie, or the digital projector not starting when they are set by automated cues from a computer. Digital looks good and most of the time there is no problems however film should not be completly wiped away because if film is taken care of like it should be you should hardly tell that you are watching a film print I have seen films that I almost forgot that I was watching a film and I have seen brand new film prints that look like someone took something sharp to them all over the screen

tell me what you think what you think is better

 |  IP: Logged

Bob Allen

Posts: 79
From: Toledo, OR
Registered: May 2003

 - posted October 04, 2011 09:58 AM      Profile for Bob Allen   Email Bob Allen         Edit/Delete Post 
A good film presentation is comparable to a digital presentation and the viewing public will not know the difference. It is the studios pushing digital to save money on print costs supported by today's techies who believe anything technically created in the last decade is superior to anything that previously existed.

 |  IP: Logged

Dave Felthous

Posts: 186
From: Seattle, WA
Registered: Jun 2003

 - posted October 07, 2011 10:21 AM      Profile for Dave Felthous   Email Dave Felthous         Edit/Delete Post 
I prefer digital. No reel-change marks or scratches.

 |  IP: Logged

Christopher Crouch

Posts: 292
From: Anaheim, CA
Registered: Feb 2006

 - posted October 08, 2011 04:31 AM      Profile for Christopher Crouch   Email Christopher Crouch         Edit/Delete Post 
It’s much easier to present a uniform level of quality with digital. Yes, film presentation can be outstanding, but there are a lot of “ifs” involved in pulling that off (if you have a good print, if you have a skilled projectionist/tech, etc.). In the big picture, digital reduces the number of variables involved in creating a quality presentation.

Having said that, I do feel something is often lost with digital. The presentation is sharp, fluid, and flawless, but there almost seems to be a generic quality to the experience; the human factor, mistakes and all, is lacking. Then again, I’m also the kind of guy that misses buying his music at stores/ holding tangible copies and finds digital downloading of music a lackluster experience.

 |  IP: Logged

Danny Baldwin

Posts: 130
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Aug 2009

 - posted October 19, 2011 01:01 PM      Profile for Danny Baldwin   Author's Homepage   Email Danny Baldwin         Edit/Delete Post 
I have seen just as many, if not more, improperly presented digital presentations as of late... poor light levels due to Sony twin lenses on 2D shows, inaccurate color reproduction due to MasterImage 3D polarizers left on, incorrect aspect ratios set, etc etc.

I like shutter (you're watching a film, not a video!) and reel changes (how else can I tell how long I have left in a bad movie?), as do most purists, I think... But where some purists are starting to go towards digital is the alleged declining print quality. I wasn't educated enough to notice print quality before around 2005, so I can't really comment on whether they're idealizing "the way things were." I do think they are overstating the current problem, though.

 |  IP: Logged

Edward Havens
New Member

Posts: 50
From: Walnut Creek, CA
Registered: Oct 2009

 - posted October 22, 2011 10:33 AM      Profile for Edward Havens   Email Edward Havens         Edit/Delete Post 
Digital is better, or so this person who projected 16, 35 and 70mm from 1986 until moving to an all-digital house in 2010 believes.

 |  IP: Logged

All times are Central  
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

© 1995-2013 Vision Entertainment Services. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation