Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Between Film And A Hard Drive

Area Theaters Face Looming Format Change; Upgrades As Much As $70K

February 9, 2013

The future of cinema is here, it’s called digital film, and it could put community theaters which cannot afford to make a costly upgrade out of business....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(13)

rodrickson

Feb-09-13 5:34 AM

Hollywood is not some monolith enterprise. Some filmmakers will always prefer to shoot in 35mm film.

Ben Affleck chose 35mm because it presented a graininess that he thought was appropriate for a setting in the early 1980s

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CharlesK

Feb-09-13 9:13 AM

I'm surprised that the transition has taken this long to happen.

rodrickson - the graininess can be electronically added with special effects.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Jazzie

Feb-09-13 9:26 AM

CharlesK it shows you know nothing about the film industry. There's a major difference between visual effects and special effects. Roger Rabbit is a prime example

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rodrickson

Feb-09-13 9:58 AM

Of course you can add digital filter effects nowadays.

But there have always been mechanical ways to achieve various effects due to the choice of film, camera etc.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EchoDeus

Feb-09-13 2:57 PM

CharlesK, you're speaking to staunch conservatives here. These people won't change their underpants if they don't have to.

Even if they attend the theater every day of the week, they will oppose every attempt to improve the theater. They have an illogical fear of anything that threatens their comfortable familiarity.

Even if it's just a movie projector. Disagree away.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Jazzie

Feb-09-13 4:47 PM

Echo, I am a liberal, so anything you say about me is wrong anyways, and even though these digital projectors are mondo expensive, they also can be beneficial, as I stated before.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Jazzie

Feb-09-13 4:54 PM

To the moron who disagreed with me on my first post to CharlesK: I think I'd know the diff between special effects - gunshots, squibbs, typically things done DURING filming as compared to VISUAL EFFECTS - stuff that's added AFTER filming, like adding in ink and painted characters like Roger Rabbit or digital ones like Jar Jar Binks, or enhancing a explosion to look worse than it was.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EchoDeus

Feb-09-13 4:59 PM

@ Jazzie

Sorry, I must have misread your comment. I thought you were telling CharlesK they know nothing about the film industry, and that Roger Rabbit was an example of the difference between VFX and SFX.

I see now how I was confused. If I just rearrange the letters… you're right! I can piece together "mondo expensive but beneficial". Thanks for clearing that up!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Jazzie

Feb-09-13 5:20 PM

CK'S statement: "The greaininess can be electronically added with special effects." Digitally added, yes. Special effect, no.

Roger Rabbit: Visual cartoon character added AFTER filming, special effects that occurred during filming: Real life inanimate objects being moved about to make us believe cartoons could exist with humans, like guns moving about.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Jazzie

Feb-09-13 5:26 PM

Yep. Expensive but very beneficial. We go up to the Amherst theater to catch the NY Met every once in awhile...imagine being able to get live concerts streamed onto the big screen. Pretty awesome I would think.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rodrickson

Feb-09-13 8:18 PM

I am not really disagreeing with anyone. But I will say that 35 mm still has its place as far as movie production. it would be a shame if its techniques were extinguished because nobody thought it was worth keep a film projector in a movie house.

Tarantino and Rodriguez's Gringhouse is loaded with added textures and warping to give it a grainy, "exploitation" feel. But it still has an unmistakable digital darkroom "sheen" to it.

Then there are directors like J.J. Abrams who have embraced his predecessors --Spielberg et al.-- and includes signature lens flares and other effects that are done while filming. This sort of process does not have to be added later, although it can be.

I like digital media. I just don't want to see it eclipse standard film entirely.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Jazzie

Feb-10-13 8:02 AM

Don't get me wrong either..I'd prefer to use old 8MM cameras, whether they're the video tape kind or the older Super 8 celluloid type. I don't like the feel of the ones you have to use an SD card to..every time it comes to the end of a single shot it stops for a brief moment, or you have to edit it on a computer. I can't do the old school type of effects like I use to, like popping things in and out. Such an ashame

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Rosebud

Feb-10-13 10:26 AM

If it is so expensive & more heathers go out of bossiness, how does that benefit Hollywood ?? No one to watch the movies because there is no place to watch them, no income for the Studios..DAH !!!!!!!!!!!!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 13 of 13 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web