Digital showings for Indy 4?

[Gustav]

The operation and maintenance that comes with being a projectionist is much more automated and less tedious than it was 30 years ago but to say that it's gotten so easy that the popcorn guy can do it is disingenuous. I know a couple of projectionists and their job isn't exactly a cakewalk. There's still a lot of skill and attention to detail required and it still remains one of the most thankless jobs in the film industry. Nobody thinks about the projectionist until something goes wrong with the movie. Digital projectors are obviously much easier to operate but the projectionist now has to acquire different skills so they know what to do when the thing breaks down. But going back to the experienced projectionist, it really doesn't matter how skilled and careful you are with a projector, film will always deteriorate. Every time you run it through a projector, it loses quality and then there's the issue just time itself that ravages the print. The appeal of digital projectors is that the picture quality will be stay the same after playing the movie a thousand times. So you can see why many theaters are switching to digital, it's just a more cost effective way for them to stay in business.

I hope you don't think I meant the popcorn guy should be the projectionist; if you do then you missed my point completely.

But it actually has gotten so easy that pretty much anybody could start a movie. They literally just have to push a button. I know. I've done it. Granted that doesn't include making sure the lights go on and off when they're supposed to and the sound isn't too loud or quiet. To repair a projector they always bring in a professional. At the theater I used to work at, they're having the projectionists also be the janitors since they almost never have anything to do anymore and they plan on not needing projectionists at all in the near future.

There is a lot of skill and attention to detail needed when using a 35mm projector and working with film, not so much with a digital projector. That's more cost efficient, but cost efficiency doesn't come without a price if you catch my meaning.

Look at it this way, McDonald's sells bacon, egg and cheese biscuits. They find out about this crazy cheese imitation that is cost efficient as hell so they start using that instead of real cheese. Then they hear about some stuff that looks, feels and tastes kind of like egg, so they start using that because that's cost efficient as hell also. Then they figure out a way to make some sort of pulpy substance molded into a disc seem like an actual sausage patty using 89% non-sausage material and because it's cost efficient, they start using that. The best thing about all the fake food is it will never go bad. The biscuit is real biscuit, but see what you sacrifice for cost efficiency?

 

[seasider]

Well I just got an e-mail from someone at DLP who says that this movie is planned for a wide digital release. So it looks like moviegoers will have a choice on which format they'll see the movie in.

 

[seasider]

Look at it this way, McDonald's sells bacon, egg and cheese biscuits. They find out about this crazy cheese imitation that is cost efficient as hell so they start using that instead of real cheese. Then they hear about some stuff that looks, feels and tastes kind of like egg, so they start using that because that's cost efficient as hell also. Then they figure out a way to make some sort of pulpy substance molded into a disc seem like an actual sausage patty using 89% non-sausage material and because it's cost efficient, they start using that. The best thing about all the fake food is it will never go bad. The biscuit is real biscuit, but see what you sacrifice for cost efficiency?

I see your point but I don't think the artificial McDonalds food analogy is fair when describing the rise of digital projectors. It's not the movie that is being sacrificed but the method which it is being delivered onto a screen that has changed. The cheese, eggs and sausage is still the same, it's just being cooked on a new kind of stove.

 

[martinland]

I see your point but I don't think the artificial McDonalds food analogy is fair when describing the rise of digital projectors. It's not the movie that is being sacrificed but the method which it is being delivered onto a screen that has changed. The cheese, eggs and sausage is still the same, it's just being cooked on a new kind of stove.

Hmm, this is the old problem with this discussion:
Everybody is mixing distribution and origination at will.
Think about it: If only distribution would be digital and it would equal film (which it doesn't do right now), then they could shoot on film and it would look _exactly_ as intended in _every_ movie theater. Wow. That would be an improvement.

But...

..., and here the food analogy comes into play:

Filmmakers (pun intended) have started making _no films_ at all. Look at Mr. Lucas. His newest achievements don't look like film, do they?

 

[seasider]

Your proposal would make things easier on the business but I wouldn't exactly call it an improvement. It's a boring reality if you ask me. Like it or not, the digital medium has given moviegoers something they didn't have before-choice. A person can now go to a movie and have as many as 3 different ways of seeing the thing: 35mm, digital, IMAX and sometimes you can even throw the option of 3D into the menu. It may not always be the way the filmmaker intended, but theater chains and studios tried to appease every movie director, they'd be out of business. Perhaps someday, all movies be just shown digitally but I think they will be always be "films" because it's what is on the screen that matters not how it was recorded or displayed.

 

[Barty]

I see your point but I don't think the artificial McDonalds food analogy is fair when describing the rise of digital projectors. It's not the movie that is being sacrificed but the method which it is being delivered onto a screen that has changed. The cheese, eggs and sausage is still the same, it's just being cooked on a new kind of stove.

Exactly. Digital is higher resolution than film, the print will never get damaged, and it reduces film costs by nearly 1800%. I love film, I love threading projectors and running a booth, but Digital is the wave of the future, and a no brainier on the business side of things.

 

[Gustav]

Digital movies are not cooked on a stove at all, they're microwaved.

By the way, digital is not a better resolution than film. Technically, film has no resolution. The best thing digital has going for it is its cost efficiency which is why "digital is awesome" is being seared into consumers' brains. The benefit of it never deteriorating falls under the category of cost efficiency since you can make more prints of a film if the originals start to deteriorate (which takes a long time if they are handled properly). Meanwhile a digital movie could have glitches (like big multicolored squares popping up all over the screen or that garbled robotic sound) on it's first showing and may never be fixed but people choose to overlook these flaws because they're told a hundred times a day in some way or another, subliminally or not, that digital is awesome.

 

[Barty]

Digital movies are not cooked on a stove at all, they're microwaved.

By the way, digital is not a better resolution than film. Technically, film has no resolution.

True, but a 4k Digital Projector has the highest possible resolution that your eye can see. The image quality can certainly be classified as "better" than 35mm.

The best thing digital has going for it is its cost efficiency which is why "digital is awesome" is being seared into consumers' brains. The benefit of it never deteriorating falls under the category of cost efficiency since you can make more prints of a film if the originals start to deteriorate (which takes a long time if they are handled properly).

It also falls under guest service, since you will no longer have a bad image, an out of focus image, bad sound, etc.

But cost efficiency is huge. An 1800% reduction in film purchasing costs is a lot of money that will now go back into the theatre's, providing better seating, auditoriums, and more technical innovations. This increased cash flow could help make going to the cinema a true experience again.

Meanwhile a digital movie could have glitches (like big multicolored squares popping up all over the screen or that garbled robotic sound) on it's first showing and may never be fixed but people choose to overlook these flaws because they're told a hundred times a day in some way or another, subliminally or not, that digital is awesome.

Film has it's flaws too. And digital is a new technology, so glitches are expected, but will be reduced over time. That's what there is extensive testing of different digital equipment. People are just accepting it because they are told too, but because they can see the benefits of digital.

 

[loganbush]

I just saw digital for the first time yesterday. Its amazing. I want to see every movie on it from now on.

 

[Barty]

Just got an email to my theatre from Showest, and Spielberg relented, and is now allowing Indy to be in digital.

 

[indyfan105]

Indiana Jones 4 in Digital on the big screen!

I just got confirmation that indy 4 will be shown in digital.. I guess there was rumor going around that speilberg only wanted to release on film.

here is the link with the info. I thought some people might be interested in this news.

Jacob
http://movies.ign.com/articles/858/858858p1.html
http://www.cinemawest.com/pta.html

 

[Laserschwert]

I think it was only said, that Spielberg wanted to SHOOT on film...