The 35mm Battle Continues: 'Let's petition Ford to reopen the Model T production line'

10 Comments

• | Reply

• Bernie Rayner | February 7, 2012 1:19 AMReply

  Suggesting we reopen the Ford Model T production LINE when talking about Digital Cinema is totally invalid . Today's cars basically have all the same ingredients of the model T - 4 tyres , gearbox , engine , fual tanl , brakes , radiator , etc - sure they have been refined and improved When it comes to 35 mm , the indutry is throwing it out totally and replacing it with a totally new system - not an improved system on the original

• Nicolas | January 11, 2012 3:34 AMReply

  About the indie cinema future. I start a PhD on digital cinema, this research ins funded by ISF ( www.isf.cc) an association of several indie theaters in France. The goal is to propose a digital cinama solution, in conformance with DCI, who fits for indie theaters and distributor needs. More details on the topic here : http://www.isf.cc/isf/public/resume_Nicolas.pdf or here http://www.isf.cc/index.php?post/2011/11/28/Towards-digital-era-in-art-house-film-theaters We decide to start this work because we think, that an open digital alterantive is a serious matter to preserve indie cinema

• Julia Marchese | November 28, 2011 2:41 PMReply

  My petition is not simply about nostalgia. I am not saying we should not move forward with technology, but simply requesting that we not destroy the past.

• neville | November 23, 2011 6:55 PMReply

  love 35mm . but the fact is digital is taking over . but we still need to keep projectionists . to keep a eye on it all. even to take the hand prints off the porthole after the kids club shows ww.proscreens.net

• Akif Ergulec | November 21, 2011 3:59 AMReply

  Installing digital projectors in movie theaters and taking away the unique look of 35mm film is like replacing Mona Lisa painting in Louvre with a digital frame. Have fun?

• Leslie Provatas | November 21, 2011 12:42 AMReply

  35 mm is like a great paint brush and it is one that lasts forever. Why not use it? One can paint with light on it like nothing else. Have we forgotten the role of the "lighting cameraman." Or woman, as the case may be. Film is unique. It is beautiful and it is a way of creating unique images. Open your eyes and heart and remember how much beauty it has begotten and will continue to create.

• Andy | November 20, 2011 5:08 PMReply

  The thing that is really disappointing is that the distributors attempt to deny audiences a chance to see existing 35mm prints of classic films shows an utter disregard to the craft and medium of film. They are dictating the culture of indifference to the delivery of the film product. I've seen a 70mm print of 2001 A Space Odyssey at The Astor in Melbourne Australia (the only place that can project this stunning format down there) and was immersed in the experience, yet when I enquired as to a friends experience of 2001, he found it 'boring' and was distracted. Why? He was watching it on a laptop with nothing but the tiny laptop speakers. It is more expensive to convert a film to DCP than it is to continue the exhibition of 35mm prints. When movies moved from VHS to DVD we saw massive amounts of titles disappear for good, and with DVD to Blu Ray turfing thousands more movies from memory, we run the risk of losing so many classics. Why should a perfectly good print of an obscure cult classic be left to rot when there is an audience for it. Leaving fans with bootlegged torrents as the only alternative is like removing paintings from galler walls because you can see them on your iPad. There is still demand and will always be demand for the print medium. Most of those studios run things based on their flimsy market research tactics (the same people releasing countless remakes to dismal box office returns over and over again like its a good idea), so film fans need to be vocal and loud. Will we let the American Cinemateque, The New Beverly, The Astor Melbourne die due to studio short sightedness? Imagine a world where the only chance to see a movie is multiplex crud amongst the masses that openly talk and text throughout, or the isolated solitary experience a home, as Apple and Netflix continue to ensure your entertainment experience is one of solitude and image compression. Film and digital can coexist but films are an artwork and studios run by book keepers show utter contempt for the artwork and should be ashamed.

• jean vigo | November 20, 2011 5:00 PMReply

  Let's be clearer about this: this is a debate about whether to "project" on film NOT to "shoot" on film. The choice to shoot on film is becoming that now - a choice, an option. And it is still a strong one for aesthetic reasons. Many advances have come from taking the OCN's journey to a projection format. And I agree, these digital conversions (DIs, etc) can faithfully represent the "look and feel" of the choice of a 35mm/16mm shooting format well. Shooting on film should not be sent to a time capsule; it's look and resolution is still unique and, let's not forget, is THE standard to which all digital formats and cameras are constantly researching to match.

• Ron Merk | November 20, 2011 3:01 PMReply

  One more thing I will miss....the sound of the projector running in the projection room. It just brings back many memories of the thousands of films I have seen since going to the movies the first time as a kid.

• Ron Merk | November 20, 2011 2:59 PMReply

  There are a great number of points on which I agree. But 35mm is history, and by that I don't mean it's finished like the Model T. I mean it's where we must migrate our digital and video images for long-term preservation. It is HISTORY, the history of a specific film. As a projection medium, it's always been the standard, and at the same time it was costly (about $1500-2000 for one release print), hard work to handle (heavy, expensive to ship, clumsy to thread into a projector, and easily scratched and damaged). So, I agree that moving 35mm films to digital projection is a smart move, both to reduce costs and to preserve the images from that original negative in a way that film prints cannot do. Having said that, the digital version may not look the same in each venue. Have you ever watched a DVD or video on two different monitors? They NEVER look the same, and unless you have a totally tweaked monitory, you don't even know what colors you have on your video or digital master. So, that's an issue that theaters will have to address. Considering they often hire mostly untrained minimum wage workers who have difficulty just focusing the picture (the lens only turns left or right, and yet they struggle to focus a film when you complain), I'm very concerned about what I call "color integrity" in the digital projection world. another problem is that we are moving from an easily repaired mechanical system of projection, to an electronic one. Unless you have an expert to fix electronics, you have no show until one shows up. The other difference between 35mm and digital projection is cost. Theaters are struggling to stay afloat, and this is a big issue, especially for independent theaters. I've seen films transferred to digital projection that look better than the originals. Many old Technicolor prints were often grainy, but transfer one to digital, and they look like the Technicolor that we all seem to remember, but which may never have actually existed in 35mm. I've also "brought back" color that was lost in materials by transferring them to digital formats and working with the separate color records. The only print I had of one film had gone totally red, but with digital color correction, I brought it back to the original color balance. The information was still there, in the film, it's "history" still intact. Digital project will, in fact, allow many films to be seen for which there are no longer any viable 35mm prints. So, I see this move to digital projection as a good thing, for the most part. As for film, I think the rumor of its demise is just that, a rumor. Unless Kodak and Fuji decide to get out of the film manufacturing business entirely, I think we'll film with us for a long time. And by the way, if you've never opened a can of motion picture rawstock, or a print when it comes from the lab, and just taken in the aroma which is unique and very sweet, you have never completely experienced "film." So, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Film and digital media can work side by side, without conflict, and in fact, helping one another.