20th Century Fox to cease distribution of 35mm prints...

A hundred plus years was a pretty good run, given how quickly new technologies turn over. With digitally-served theatrical releases running $400 now versus $1500++ for 35mm prints, the writing is on the wall. 3D was the catalyst for the change to digital projection and the end of film distribution is the nail in the coffin.​
 
I met a little girl the other day who had never heard of film before. She had no idea what it was. It's a sad thought, and an even sadder one that I'll probably never get to shoot a proper production on one.
 
Grug said:
I met a little girl the other day who had never heard of film before. She had no idea what it was. It's a sad thought, and an even sadder one that I'll probably never get to shoot a proper production on one.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean you still can't shoot on one, it's just the distribution that is sunsetting film as a format. But then again, that may work in the US, I suspect it will be longer in all foreign markets to remove film and considering foreign brings in more than 50% of boxoffice...

Michael
 
What he said, as long as people like Spielberg are in the business there will be a demand for motion picture film. If the cost of broadcasting films digitally is that much cheaper, which it is, it's just a normal and reasonable step for the industry to broadcast their films digitally. It also eliminates something like untrained or ignorant staff who damages films, I've seen it often enough when I was working in a theatre many years ago.
But there is definitely some magic in 35mm film projection which is admittedly being lost in digital projection. Every good thing has an end, just a matter of time. Better things are to come though, also just a matter of time, my two cents :)
 
Grug said:
I met a little girl the other day who had never heard of film before. She had no idea what it was. It's a sad thought, and an even sadder one that I'll probably never get to shoot a proper production on one.
Click to expand...

I bet she also never heard of Panavision, Arriflex, Technicolor, Fujifilm, Zeiss or Warner Brothers. Who cares? It's not about the public recognizing the brand names of production or post production. It's about delivering a meaningful experience to the audience. Whether you deliver that on film or digital should be of no importance to the audience.
 
The public doesn't really understand how deeply exhibitors dug in their heels over going digital. NATO was firmly set against the move for a long time and it was finally Avatar that catalyzed the move. RealD is one of the most common systems in play and it is one of the least efficient, from a delivered lumens standpoint. Therefore, although it is based on a single projector, the theater owners must upfit their screens to a 2 - 2.5 gain silver fabric (if they aren't already utilizing one) for better reflectivity of the darker polarized images. That's an expensive upfit when you have one or a few screens and staggering in a multiplex.

Digital delivery all but guarantees the quality of the exhibition if the theater is otherwise kept to DCI specifications. I'll miss film projection about as much as the reel change dots that used to accompany projection before platters came into being.
 
I don't mind pointing out that when you see a movie projected from a DCP, every screening looks just as good as the 1st time it was shown in that theater. There's no buildup of dirt or scratches. When you see a film print, every screening causes wear on the print, and after a few dozen screenings, you can see a lot of dirt & scratches.

This is going to effect a lot of smaller theaters that haven't yet changed over to digital. It will either force them to buy new projectors (& screens if they want to show 3D) or it will drive some of them out of business when they can't get prints of the next big event film.

BTW, I was at a panel discussion at my favorite art house this morning (http://www.filmforum.org/) where the programmers were asked about digital vs. film. They all agreed that it's not a question of digital vs. film, it's about what the best copy of each particular film is. Some films are only available to them digitally, or they may have a choice between a bad print and a good DCP, or a bad DCP and a good print. They want choose the best copy of a film that they can get, regardless of the format.
 
arniepix said:
I don't mind pointing out that when you see a movie projected from a DCP, every screening looks just as good as the 1st time it was shown in that theater. There's no buildup of dirt or scratches. When you see a film print, every screening causes wear on the print, and after a few dozen screenings, you can see a lot of dirt & scratches.

This is going to effect a lot of smaller theaters that haven't yet changed over to digital. It will either force them to buy new projectors (& screens if they want to show 3D) or it will drive some of them out of business when they can't get prints of the next big event film.

BTW, I was at a panel discussion at my favorite art house this morning (http://www.filmforum.org/) where the programmers were asked about digital vs. film. They all agreed that it's not a question of digital vs. film, it's about what the best copy of each particular film is. Some films are only available to them digitally, or they may have a choice between a bad print and a good DCP, or a bad DCP and a good print. They want choose the best copy of a film that they can get, regardless of the format.
Click to expand...

It is quite an interesting point. Most of the 'arthouse' cinemas down here (the one's that build most of their screenings around showing older, much loved, films) are only able to acquire most of their films on Blu-ray these days. Which means that digital projection is essential for showing these older films.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top