Big changes at your local Bijou

[markfp]

It's no secret that the motion picture industry is in the middle of a major changeover from 35mm film to digital projection. This has to be the biggest technology change since sound was introduced in the 1920's. Like sound, it will affect how every single theater operates and those that don't convert will be forced to close. Fist fights have started when film buffs get into heated discussions over the pros and cons of digital projection, but I'm not going there and will leave the fisticuffs to others.

However, here is a fascinating article, from The Syracuse New Times, about a small theater that just made the conversion. It's interesting, informative and hopefully will answer a lot of questions folks have. The theater is the Manlius Cinema an independent, 200 seat, art theater in the Syracuse, New York suburb of Manlius. It's a story that is being repeated in communities, not only in this country, but around the world.

http://www.syracusenewtimes.com/newyork ... anger.html

[markfp]

Thank you for the link, Mark. This is a huge revolution. At this year's TCM festival, Eddie Muller argued that digital is not necessarily a great medium for preserving films. When 35mm is shown, there will be fewer experienced projectionists, which was a problem at this year's festival.

You are so right. Projectionists are a dying bread. Even before digital, automation thinned the ranks. Even in cities where booths were unionized, theaters found ways to get rid of the "professional" operator and either have the manager run the films or trained some high school aged usher to thread the projector and what button to push. I've been a projectionist for almost 45 years and I could walk into any booth and was pretty certain of getting a show on the screen. I'm not bragging. Every operator could.That's how things were in those days. Today it's so different.

I'm part of a group which has run a major classic film festival the last 32 years and we're lucky that there are three of us who are 35mm qualified. Still, we are starting to get a little older and there just doesn't seem to be any younger folks interested in learning how to do it.

And we're starting to see more archives making their rarest films only available on a digital format instead of 16mm or 35mm film. No doubt it's something that's TCM's Festival has had to deal with too. At this year's show, our entire Saturday night schedule (that's "prime time" for us) had to be shown digitally. No way around it, if we wanted to show those extremely rare films, that was the only way to do it.

We're certainly doing all we can to continue to show film, but for festivals and theaters that show classics it's certainly something for us to worry about.

[Sue Sue Applegate]

I am certainly not very knowledgeable about the technical aspects of this revolution, but it does worry me that such a change will alter the quality of actual 35mm and 16mm screenings.

I saw the screening of Auntie Mame at the TCMFF this year, and loved every moment of its brilliant palettes of color.
How will the digital projection change such an experience for everyone? Any comments would be appreciated.

[markfp]

I am certainly not very knowledgeable about the technical aspects of this revolution, but it does worry me that such a change will alter the quality of actual 35mm and 16mm screenings.

Well, that's the big question. The first time I saw a digital film was in 2008 and in my opinion it was terrible. Since then I've avoided digital like the plague. However, since around here it's almost impossible to see anything but digital, I decided that if I ever wanted to see first-run films again, I'd better get use to it. Obviously, things have changed since my first bad experience. I saw HUGO in 3-D and I was floored by how great it looked. Since then I've seen others and all of them were positive experiences.

I'm trying to be open-minded about this. From a life-long film buff perspective I'm incensed that 35mm film will go away. but as a paying customer I'm pleased with what I've seen so far. I've also read that unlike in the past the film industry is demanding very strict technical standards for each location in regards to things like screen brightness and picture sharpness. We've all been to theaters where, because of cost cutting by owners, the picture was dark and soft. Hopefully that won't happen with digital.

What does worry me are classic showings in film societies and repertory theaters. Cutting these venues off just doesn't seem right. Just how many of them will be able to invest seventy grand in the new technology is another big question. How many will survive is something that nobody knows yet. To a certain degree, I can understand the studios not wanting to go to the expense of making new prints, but I definitely think that existing prints should certainly should be kept in circulation.

While the many of us here have real concerns and some will never be happy, I think, if the quality is good, that the average person will soon forget that they aren't watching film and probably won't even care.

[Mr. Arkadin]

While the many of us here have real concerns and some will never be happy, I think, if the quality is good, that the average person will soon forget that they aren't watching film and probably won't even care.

That problem is not just in the film industry, but everywhere in digital media. I'm a big believer in analog tape and my primary recording device was an old 3M 79 16 track 2 inch machine with Dolby SR, but people really don't listen to records or even CD's anymore--they listen to ipods or stream music from their computer, where the sampling rate is abysmal and the sound is degraded to such a degree that the concept of analog vs. digital is irrelevant. If you're going to put audio through the equivalent of a bullhorn, does the original format really matter? The sad thing is most people have accepted this lower standard for the trade off of storage capacity and freedom of access. Convenience will always trump quality and your average viewer/listener will not even realize the difference unless it's presented to them as a side by side contrast.

[Uncle Stevie]

i am a blood relative of the beginning. My Grandfather was one of the first projectionist at the Capitol Theater in New York City. He would bring me there as a young boy to watch him work threading projectors and work the spotlights for the stage shows. It was thrilling for me. I got to recognize the warning signals for changing reels and I even got to rewind film and watch splicing.

That aside, I am sensitive to 35MM vs Digital. I first noticed it on TV when comparing older movies with live TV shows. There is a difference in the coloring and definition. The biggest difference I noticed is digital outdoor scenes compared to digital indoor. Light perception in dark scenes is very different.

Also major problems with audio. The old films made sure a whisper was loud and clear. In today's movies, digital or not, a whisper is just a whisper and I cannot hear much of what is said. I remain a 35MM film fan and truly appreciate the artistry put into the old movies. Today's films are for shock and surprise. Subtle movies are hardly made any more. An old Western movie with gunfire was less violent than a frat party at college in today's world.

I will savor my collection of 600 movies and enjoy watching art.

[RedRiver]

I think, if the quality is good, that the average person will soon forget that they aren't watching film and probably won't even care.

That's pretty much where I fall. The Digital Revolution was where I lost touch with technology. I still don't understand the big TV upgrade! It all changes so fast nowadays. I've stopped trying to keep up. If the results are good, I'll be satisfied. If not...

[CineMaven]

A shame 35mm film is becoming a relic of the past. Yeah...pix may be larger sharper...but we're missing something I'm afraid. Sad.