Ebert on the Future of Digital [Archive] - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

Dalton Boettcher

07-30-2009, 12:16 PM

I don't know how many people here read Roger Ebert's blog, but I found one of his recent posts an interesting read. He's been known to be very anti-digital and pro-film, especially when it comes to distribution and projection. He makes some interesting points and comments in this entry, however. The blog mainly deals with the future of movie-going and watching, from both a distribution and viewing perspective.

Here's a couple quotes I found interesting:

The answer is digital distribution, and this is a good time for me to declare a cease-fire in my long war against digital projection. For years I said it was not as good as light through celluloid, and for years I was correct. I still believe that in principle. But digital projection has become very good indeed, to the point that most people aren't aware if they're watching it. In fact, the other day a 35mm print wasn't delivered to a Chicago screening room, and we watched a DVD screener of the same film, on the same screen, and it looked just fine. Much more to the point, 35mm prints are expensive to manufacture and ship, and if you want to open in 100 theaters on the same day you need 100 prints. A digital version can be distributed by internet or disc at a fraction of the cost, and that represents the future of the kinds of films we're looking for.
and
By the way. I'll let you in on a professional secret. All of those 12 films got rated either three and a half stars or four stars from me. And I viewed every one on a DVD screener.That last one highlights a point we forget all to often: tell a good story and the technical aspects won't seem as important. Anyway, here's the link to the full blog/article (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/07/the_light_in_the_tunnel.html)

Nektonic

07-30-2009, 12:50 PM

Nice find. I loved Eberts rant on Transformers 2 and Hollywood excess.

Just reading the quotes above, I'd have to say that overall I agree with him. Film is glorious, but it is expensive. I don't think every theater should be digital only, but if they can alleviate the burden that having to have so many film prints per film creates, then that might be a good change for the industry.

One thing I've thought might be an interesting way to get more films out there is to have smaller theaters. Not the size of the exterior building, but the size of each screen and the room it is in. If the screen was smaller and the screening room not as big, then there can be more films shown. For big releases like Harry Potter, just have it play on more screens. If the actual room each screen is housed in is smaller, there is no need for such large screens due to the audience not having to sit as far away.

Instead of an AMC 30, how about an AMC 60?

Wouldn't it be great if you could reserve a 30 seat theater for a party and invite 30 people you want to show up? Smaller screens would allow this, while also allowing more independent and obscure films to get a chance to be seen.

Digital distribution would also allow older films to be rereleased to theaters. I would love to be able to go watch Aliens or Network or Lawrence of Arabia in the theater. Not having to do film prints could make this a possibility. Also, how about instead of remaking all these old films, why not just rerelease the original and make new never before seen films to go alongside some classics?

Also, I would love to have the option to buy a Blu-ray or DVD of a film as I'm walking out of the theater. When are we more jazzed up about a great film? When we are walking out of the theater after having just seen it. Three to four months later, and many times people are not as excited and will just rent it instead.

Batutta

07-30-2009, 01:23 PM

Rick Meyer

07-30-2009, 03:01 PM

This is a good article. A very interesting read. I really have a lot of respect for Roger Ebert. I don't always agree with him but I almost always do. In fact, before I put a flick in my Blockbuster Online queue, I always check out his review first.

Wouldn't it be great if you could reserve a 30 seat theater for a party and invite 30 people you want to show up?

That would be a great idea. Especially if the theater served somewhat edible dinner food. In fact, that'd probably one of the only ways they would do it and not lose money. If you guaranteed you'd be dining there. But, great idea.

Rick

Mike Harvey

07-30-2009, 03:26 PM

That would be a great idea. Especially if the theater served somewhat edible dinner food. In fact, that'd probably one of the only ways they would do it and not lose money. If you guaranteed you'd be dining there. But, great idea.

Rick

There are a pair of theaters out here called The Big Picture or something like that that are single screen and maybe 45 people that you can reserve for group showings. The don't have food though. They do have bar, and will deliver drinks to your seat. It's awesome...:beer:

Sad Max

07-30-2009, 03:32 PM

Los Angeles (and probably most other major cities) is lousy with small, 20-50-seat screening theaters, many of which are much more comfy and luxurious than pretty much any commercial-sized theater...

Rick Meyer

07-30-2009, 05:25 PM

grinner

07-30-2009, 06:33 PM

Mike Harvey

07-30-2009, 06:38 PM

YIKES! I'd be there every weekend.

Nice clean theater, comfy seats, no annoying teeny boppers (21 and over only), you can tell them when to deliver the drinks ahead of time... It was the only way I was able to make it through Borat.

Sad Max

07-30-2009, 06:53 PM

Ebert will have to make a movie that is badass before I value his viewpoint on badass movieisms.

You know, my attitude towards Ebert used to be as one of the perpetrators of 'Beyond the Valley of the Dolls' he has no business at all critiquing the work of others - and I am generally dismissive of critics of any sort (those who can't do...)

...but that said, Ebert's work speaks for itself, as an art, film and social critic and commentator. Fine, he's never directed or produced a blockbuster, he probably couldn't draft a set and I question whether he can read a light meter...but so what? What he has to say stands up, whether he's got production chops, or not (remember the bad practice of poisoning the well...?)

And I have to admit that, taken on its own terms, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls is not exactly a bad movie, after all.

Captain Pierce

07-30-2009, 06:56 PM

I hate to be disrespectful but that being something that is earned, I'll be dadgummed if I can find a movie he ever made.
That said, his opinion or critique has never meant anything to me.
I had a creative director I worked for once who lacked creativity and direction because he had no hands on experience. I use to have to make him scram so I could do work. Same thing here.
Ebert will have to make a movie that is badass before I value his viewpoint on badass movieisms.

Grinner, if Ebert claimed to be a film maker, then you might have a point. But he doesn't. (Well, unless you count writing "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" for Russ Meyer sometime back in the Stone Age. :D ) Ebert is a film critic. It's his job to watch movies and write down his opinion. If you don't like him, or agree with his opinion, that's fine, I'm not saying you have to. Just don't hate on him because he's not something he's not even supposed to be.

For the record, I probably agree with Ebert more often than I don't; but I still have a little issue with him for convincing me to see "Spiderman 2." :)

ProfessorU

07-30-2009, 07:08 PM

The thing is, technology improves exponentially. The tipping point will soon arrive when digital is superior to film in every aspect, and then it will quickly be far superior. I'm betting in less than a decade, maybe less than five. And then the issue will be moot. Nobody will shoot on film for any reason other than nostalgia.

First, Ebert is talking about film distribution, not origination.

Second, that kind of thinking is as ill-informed as the video-bashers of the last decade. Film will continue to have practical applications as well as aesthetic ones. IMAX will likely be around for a long time, for example. For some projects, shooting super 16 is still the cheapest origination format, especially in situations where you need wide exposure latitude or flexibility in ISO sensitivity. Film has also had almost 100 years to perfect nuances like skin tone rendition, something that will likely take video more than 10 years to catch up. Plus film has a long history of scientific applications, and you can't just change stocks to IR, UV, or X-Ray on your F23. Of course, the trend will be toward more use of digital cinema cameras, but 100% is a very high number.

Batutta

07-30-2009, 07:26 PM

First, Ebert is talking about film distribution, not origination.

Second, that kind of thinking is as ill-informed as the video-bashers of the last decade. Film will continue to have practical applications as well as aesthetic ones. IMAX will likely be around for a long time, for example. For some projects, shooting super 16 is still the cheapest origination format, especially in situations where you need wide exposure latitude or flexibility in ISO sensitivity. Film has also had almost 100 years to perfect nuances like skin tone rendition, something that will likely take video more than 10 years to catch up. Plus film has a long history of scientific applications, and you can't just change stocks to IR, UV, or X-Ray on your F23. Of course, the trend will be toward more use of digital cinema cameras, but 100% is a very high number.

Yes, film has had 100 years, but digital cinema in a very short period of time has nearly caught up to something that to the casual observer is indistinguishable from film. Technology progresses on an exponential curve, not a linear one, so you can't compare the rate of progress of film with that of digital cinema. I'm not a cheerleader for either camp. I just forsee that at the rate things are going digital cameras will soon be able to reproduce and then surpass all the nuances of film origination. Wider latitude and color reproduction and ISO sensitivity and all that jazz. It's not a question of if, but when.

Nektonic

07-30-2009, 07:30 PM

There are a pair of theaters out here called The Big Picture or something like that that are single screen and maybe 45 people that you can reserve for group showings. The don't have food though. They do have bar, and will deliver drinks to your seat. It's awesome...:beer:

Los Angeles (and probably most other major cities) is lousy with small, 20-50-seat screening theaters, many of which are much more comfy and luxurious than pretty much any commercial-sized theater...

That's what I'm talking about. The movie theater scene needs to be shoken up a bit. Give us options beyond sitting in a massive dark room with a bunch of disrespectful twittering Twilight tweens. Give us more concession choices beyond soda, popcorn, Dots, Milk Duds, Junior Mints, Good and Plenty, unappetizing hot dogs, and microwave pretzels.

Smaller. A little more upscale. Serve good but not exorbitantly priced food and beverages that actually constitute some sort of a meal, and not a bunch of salt and butter. What the hell, sell nice cigars. Everyone can puff away and watch the movie like they're a mogul at a dailies screening.

Show some short films before the main feature instead of Pepsi commercials. Didn't they show short films way back in the day? I would love to see some great short films. It would be another way for up and coming filmmakers to get their work seen.

I just forsee that at the rate things are going digital cameras will soon be able to reproduce and then surpass all the nuances of film origination. Wider latitude and color reproduction and ISO sensitivity and all that jazz. It's not a question of if, but when.

Add to that easier shooting in 3D, more cameras can be used on set, smaller cameras (Scarlet anyone?), and eventually higher-than-35mm celluloid resolution once the sensors get there. How about a bio-cam? It would basically be a lab grown human eye that is connected to a digital recording device. The human eye should surpass pretty much any lens and sensor system out there now and in the future. Or, tap into the optic nerve. There would be no cameras anymore. At least not one you hold in your hand or mount on a tripod. We'd have human cameras and total breakdown of the fourth wall.

I believe that over the next 100 years, cinema, if that is what it is called by then, will change so drastically that it will be completely indistinguishable from what we have now. Just think what the early pioneers of film would think if they saw Transformers 2 or The Matrix.

grinner

07-30-2009, 08:05 PM

Grinner, if Ebert claimed to be a film maker, then you might have a point. But he doesn't.

That is my very point. Anyone can critique but it take the unemplyed to do it professionally.

Sad Max

07-30-2009, 09:13 PM

That is my very point. Anyone can critique but it take the unemplyed to do it professionally.

Since they're doing it professionally it follows that they are in fact employed, at doing it.

I don't think I want to involve dinner in the theater experience itself. Before, fine, after, great, but it sounds like a distraction. I'm pretty sure that if I had a meal in front of me during anything really engrossing, I wouldn't end up eating it.

MattinSTL

07-30-2009, 11:38 PM

Making a great movie doesn't assure one's ability to analyze and communicate their opinion about what makes a movie good or bad... and more importantly, it doesn't ensure that opinion will be interesting to millions of people.

I don't always agree with Ebert, but I usually enjoy his analysis... and find it thought provoking... which is way more then I can say for most movies... including many popular flicks.

Intelligent writing is a skill unto itself... and if a person consistently displays high intellect through logical points... all while holding my interest through creative storytelling, I have no problem with their suitability to analyze the very same thing that I'm analyzing as well.

On the other topic... I saw UP in digital... and it was stunning.

Dalton Boettcher

07-31-2009, 08:11 AM

I don't always agree with Ebert, but I usually enjoy his analysis... and find it thought provoking... which is way more then I can say for most movies... including many popular flicks.

Intelligent writing is a skill unto itself... and if a person consistently displays high intellect through logical points... all while holding my interest through creative storytelling, I have no problem with their suitability to analyze the very same thing that I'm analyzing as well.
I agree. I don't always see what he sees, but almost always enjoy reading his critiques. They get the wheels turning and make you think. And in the end, it's just one man's opinion. Not worth getting worked up over.

Now as for the smaller and more upscale theater idea, I love it! After building a small home theater system and watching well transferred blu-rays, I have a hard time shelling out $10 a ticket and $3 for bottle of water, only to find myself distracted and removed from the film with all the cellphones lighting up. (Why do people pay to go to a movie if they don't have the attention span to actually watch it?) Anyway, that's a whole nother topic.

KyleProhaska

07-31-2009, 08:29 AM

Digital projection is great. The first time I saw something projected that way was when I saw Star Trek and it was nice and clean, no scratches or anything like that (obviously).

It's funny he mentioned the DVD and nobody noticing. Most film prints by the time they hit the theater anyways are like 720p in resolution...so 853x480 (16x9 DVD) isn't far off.

Rick Meyer

07-31-2009, 09:19 AM

Speaking of the evolving nature of film distribution....from film to digital projection, etc. I'm wondering where that is headed?

It seems that the studios would like even more control over their distribution rights than they already have. Its like not paying your light bill and having the electric company shut you off. The studios could presumably flick a switch and shut down a theater if money was owed. But on the flip, it would be so much easier to have a wider distribution for smaller productions.

Not only that, but the more theaters that convert to digital projection they better the odds that movie theaters will evolve from just cineplexes to huge LIVE EVENT showings, from boxing matches to the SUPER BOWL to pretty much whatever they'd want to air for the sake of airing it. It would give them more opportunities to make $.

Ryan Patrick O'Hara

07-31-2009, 09:33 AM

The thing is, technology improves exponentially. The tipping point will soon arrive when digital is superior to film in every aspect, and then it will quickly be far superior. I'm betting in less than a decade, maybe less than five. And then the issue will be moot. Nobody will shoot on film for any reason other than nostalgia.

Although Digital will take over, it can never be the SAME. Since film is an art which has almost always been ruled by business, film is dead... but even when digital emulates and then exceeds film in resolution and etc... it will never be the same. There is a difference, and I'm not necessarily saying it's 'better'. Even if an audience can't tell... it is different. If you think differently, take the blue pill. :)

Digital projection is great. The first time I saw something projected that way was when I saw Star Trek and it was nice and clean, no scratches or anything like that (obviously).

It's funny he mentioned the DVD and nobody noticing. Most film prints by the time they hit the theater anyways are like 720p in resolution...so 853x480 (16x9 DVD) isn't far off.

Isn't far off? 1280 X 720 is over 2x greater then 16:9 SD... by about half a million pixels! I'd say that's a good amount off. If you are watching letterboxed SD you are talking ridiculous amounts.

But I don't mind him doing so. He is a critic of story, plot, and technical fundamentals. If he can't tell it's a good movie regardless of resolution, he shouldn't be a critic. Good for him and us, that's not the story.

Batutta

07-31-2009, 09:55 AM

... it will never be the same. There is a difference, and I'm not necessarily saying it's 'better'. Even if an audience can't tell... it is different.

But who says it has to be different. It's only different now because of the limits of the technology. I'm sure one day the look and feel of film will be perfectly reproduced by a digital camera. Of course by then, digital cameras might be able to do things no film camera ever could and people might not even find that desirable.

Sad Max

07-31-2009, 10:01 AM

Cranky

07-31-2009, 10:42 AM

Ebert will have to make a movie that is badass before I value his viewpoint on badass movieisms.
Do you have to be a car designer to critique new car styling? Do I have to be a vacuum cleaner designer to critique usage of screws where clips would work better? Do I have to be a mechanical engineer to point out to a problem with a dishwasher?

One person cannot work in EVERY field, but he can have either enough knowledge about the field, or he can be a mere consumer. Ebert is a consumer of movies, he does not really care how hard or easy was it to shoot one, he gets a final product and he either likes it or not. I personally don't care how many man-years it took Honda to design and built the current TL or Pilot. These are dog ugly cars, period. IMHO, of course. I don't press you to subscribe to my opinion just like Ebert does not press you to subscribe to his opinion.

Ryan Patrick O'Hara

07-31-2009, 11:16 AM

Film grain-type plug ins and post-processing will only continue to improve, along with everything else.

Making a fully digital product that is visually indistinguishable from originated-on-film doesn't really sound like any kind of leap, at all.

Hahaha, it's not the SAME. Physics. It may be indistinguishable to the consciousness but it's not the same. I guess I'm being picky and downright literal to the point of prickishness, but it's true. There is something about true film that will never be right... and will digital ever emulate film totally? Probably not. Not because it can't get 99.9% there, but by the time that happens we will be used to more video look and feel, therefore a nill point. When color came out, many perfered b&w... soon enough you get used to the new, and the old seems 'out of place'.

But as far as being different. No matter how much you digitally manipulate digital it can't be the same:

Origination & Projection:
Photochemical, organic, 'circular', a-symetric : digital, pixels, square, grid

Projecton:
Light passing THROUGH film. (photochemical) : Light origination from Digital Projector

Film shutter physically blocks 1/2 light: Digital, not sure.... what is it? I miss that 'flicker' :)

Yes, this is exact, a little too nit picky... and i'm an asshole.... but I rarely make absolute statements such as "never be the same" if I don't mean it literally.

Long live film in it's 0.01% that will never be matched! Subconciously you'd agree, you just don't know it. :)

Sad Max

07-31-2009, 11:23 AM

*shrug* at the point where the viewer can't perceive *any* difference, for all conceivable practical purposes there *is* no difference. Visually indistinguishable is the standard I mentioned; all of the actual differences in physics etc are irrelevant when the end products cannot be told apart by the viewer.

*edit* in fact the technical differences you cite aren't particularly compelling, either. I'll pick them apart, if you want.

Deepfocus88

07-31-2009, 02:04 PM

disrespectful twittering Twilight tweens.

Bravo. :beer:

Batutta

07-31-2009, 02:39 PM

Long live film in it's 0.01% that will never be matched! Subconciously you'd agree, you just don't know it. :)

Bollocks!...When it comes down to it, at the quantum level, everything is digital, discrete little packets of information. Film is sampling that information at a certain rate. Digital will soon be able to sample that reality at an equal and then higher level...Then the robot overlords will take over.

Sad Max

07-31-2009, 02:42 PM

Well...there's a lot more to it than sampling rate. But film's other disctinctive idiosyncracies could certainly be simulated, given the right tools.

Batutta

07-31-2009, 02:50 PM

Yeah, I know...I just wanted to say bollocks for some reason...Must be the Queen's new influence on my life.

Captain Pierce

07-31-2009, 04:03 PM

I don't always agree with Ebert, but I usually enjoy his analysis... and find it thought provoking... which is way more then I can say for most movies... including many popular flicks.

Well said. :)

Rick Meyer

07-31-2009, 04:16 PM

Show some short films before the main feature instead of Pepsi commercials. Didn't they show short films way back in the day? I would love to see some great short films. It would be another way for up and coming filmmakers to get their work seen.

Heck yeah! Now that's what I'm talking about. An award winning short film or two. Hell, give me a Bugs Bunny marathon. But, "F" the commercials. Pardon my language but they REALLY piss me off. I'm spending $25 bucks for two tickets to a flick, another $20 bucks for a popcorn and a couple of drinks and you're gonna have the audacity to bombard me with commercials?! I'm paying you for entertainment SANS the commercials. If I wanted commercials I would just stay home. You freaking kidding me? That's balls.

Or as Batutta would say, Bollocks.

Ryan Patrick O'Hara

07-31-2009, 04:37 PM

Film grain-type plug ins and post-processing will only continue to improve, along with everything else.

Making a fully digital product that is visually indistinguishable from originated-on-film doesn't really sound like any kind of leap, at all.

I knew you would call me out. And that's why I love you Sadmax... seriously... I love you. hahahahaha!

Perceived isn't the same as .... the same. And I'm not fighting film making digitally. I just kinda wish I was a top earning DP during the transition of both. I want to shoot film more then anything... it's what I was taught and what I have studied.

Ryan Patrick O'Hara

07-31-2009, 04:41 PM

And you can say bollocks if you want. I've been shooting a doc in England for two months... it's actually part of my language now. That and bloke, takin' the piss, wicked, mental, mullered, minger, slapepr, fanny, etc.... fun times.

Sad Max

07-31-2009, 04:42 PM

Perceived isn't the same as .... the same.

If there is no recognizable difference in viewing a filmed versus a digital image - none at all - then what is the point of endlessly bringing up the imaginary difference for the viewer?

Jason Ramsey

07-31-2009, 04:48 PM

Your audience is nothing but critics pretty much. So, I would hope you care what they think even though most of them probably never made a film. You may do it for the love, passion, art, or whatever... but without an audience...

I don't really agree (in general) that you must be a competent filmmaker in order to intelligently discuss one and/or have valid input.

Nor, does being a great filmmaker mean that you can teach and/or discuss the craft in a way that the masses can relate to or understand, etc, etc...

jpastuch

07-31-2009, 05:04 PM

On the subject of Ebert and criticism:

Critics do not have to do the things they are critical of for a living, but it helps to have some knowledge/hands-on experience. Real criticism is tough and takes a long time...the stuff Ebert does is more like an opinion column. Someone like Jon Rosembaum or Ray Carney is more of a real film critic- questioning things, exploring how the film maker and films work, writing pages and pages about one type of aesthetic. Ebert is more "yay or nay" in his reviews. His film commentaries and his great bllog offer more in the way of criticism.

And as far as his opinion, I more often disagree than agree with him, but when he likes a movie I find great, he usually gets it spot on. I find him too generous a lot of the time, but I'll give him points for never being afraid to say what he thinks and genuinely loving film and film history.

On the subject of video vs. film:

Can't say much about the technology, but Tarkovsky once said he believed the future of cinema will be when it becomes as common and easy to use as a pen or typewriter, freeing it from cumberson technical machinery and high expenses. He was, as usual, correct in his prediction- the easier and cheaper it is to make cinema on digital equipment, the better is for talented people. It will free us up both in time and cost- and we can be much more independent in our visions. Hell, I think it's already begun to happen with cameras like the DVX.

Not that film still doesn't have great merits (and I'd still like to learn how to use it some time in the future as part of a film history education, so to speak). But I disagree with purists who believe digital images are not "cinema". Even if it's simply a bunch of 1's and 0's, it's still a communication, a way to speak, an artform. It's still light and sound hitting your eyes and ears, a realization of a dream.

Nektonic

07-31-2009, 06:27 PM

disrespectful twittering Twilight tweens.

Bravo. :beer:

Maybe there's a movie in there? Twittering Twilight Tweens? Hmmm..... MonsterFest anyone?

Sad Max

07-31-2009, 06:28 PM

Teen Twits at Twilight?

No, that sounds more like a naughty softcore cable movie...

Nektonic

07-31-2009, 06:29 PM

Teen Twits at Twilight?

No, that sounds more like a naughty softcore cable movie...

That's it, maybe the monster is the sleazy tween porno producer?

Batutta

07-31-2009, 08:15 PM

By the way Ryan...I think you have the most Irish sounding name that is phoenetically possible.

texvanwinkle

07-31-2009, 08:47 PM

I hate to be disrespectful but that being something that is earned, I'll be dadgummed if I can find a movie he ever made.
That said, his opinion or critique has never meant anything to me.
I had a creative director I worked for once who lacked creativity and direction because he had no hands on experience. I use to have to make him scram so I could do work. Same thing here.
Ebert will have to make a movie that is badass before I value his viewpoint on badass movieisms.

Yeah, it's like that guy Aristotle. Sure, he wrote the Poetics, in which he defined and described the elements of narrative, tragedy, and drama that have stood for two millennia, and been demonstrated in the greatest works of Western literature. But where are all *his* amazing stories? Hack.

Barry_Green

08-01-2009, 11:21 AM

Exactly. Where is it written that a great critic has to also be a great filmmaker? Or that a great coach would have to have been a great player? Coaching, and playing, are two totally different skillsets. Great players don't make great coaches any more than lousy players do.

Robert McKee is pretty much hailed as the best teacher of screenwriting and story development (and, having read dozens of books and attended many seminars, I'd pretty much agree that he's currently the best out there.) What's he written that's sold? A TV show 17 years ago called "Abraham" and some episodes of "Mrs. Columbo" 32 years ago.

So?

Read his book. Attend his seminar. He's the best. He and his seminar were even featured in the Oscar-winning film "Adaptation".

Being a great teacher doesn't mean you have to have a long and storied resume in the field you teach about.

And being a well-known and influential critic (and, frankly, is there any critic as far-reaching and quoted as Ebert?) doesn't demand that you have a long resume of films behind your name, any more than being a great baseball or basketball announcer means you have to have been a star player. Does anyone really think Chick Hearn or Harry Caray were great players? Does anyone care?