From: Adam Hyman (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Oct 27 2005 - 16:05:17 PDT
The problem is that you need to pay for that initial film print BEFORE they
make it. I don't think (and I could be wrong) that there are many places
making prints for filmmakers (experimental or not) based on potential future
revenue from the video release.
What will happen more and more is what has happened with recent Warner's
restorations like SINGIN' IN THE RAIN. All the restoration is done
digitally. When it gets projected, they use digital video projection. That
master is used for the DVD. THE DVD sells lots, and maybe they get around
to striking a 35mm or 16mm print for venues without video projection.
Maybe.
If they do strike a preservation print, then it SHOULDN'T be distributed,
IMHO. A preservation print is just that, to be preserved, clean. As soon
as it gets shipped, it starts getting damaged. (Projectionists always have
final cut!). The issue is getting people to strike distribution prints as
well. And that involves $$$$$$$$$$$$$$. And sometimes (according to
rumor), the institutions that have the restored negative won't make
additional prints.
Basically (and whether we like it or not), it is becoming less commercially
viable for prints to be struck when companies see satisfactory distribution
through DVD. This will only increase as more theatres across the country
add higher quality digital video projection.
Best regards,
Adam
On 10/27/05 3:39 PM, "john porter" <email suppressed> wrote:
> So, a film print is made for public screenings, which
> advertise the video release, which in turn pays for
> the restoration AND film print.
>
> But Michelle said
> "Scandalous that a film print is not available!
> To undertake a restoration and strike a preservation
> print for DVD release, and then not make release
> prints available for screening/rental on film, is an
> enormous frustration.
> Not available in their original format.
> Out of curiosity, has this happened with any other
> films recently?"
>
> And I ask again, doesn't it happen nowadays w/ MOST
> films, old & new?
> John Porter, Toronto, Canada
>
> --- Sam Wells <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>>> Doesn't it happen nowadays w/ MOST films, old &
>> new?
>>> It's a business, and video copies are cheaper than
>> film copies.
>>
>> Well the best strategy to pursue is to try and use
>> the video (TV,
>> cable, DVD) release to pay for preserving the film
>> elements, where you
>> would naturally want to make IP's/IN's etc. Since
>> you can transfer
>> from an IP then film printing costs need not be
>> exorbitant.
>>
>> I think most of the theatrical print revivals we are
>> seeing now are in
>> a sense advertisements for the DVD release, but also
>> the dividend.
>>
>> Also someone needs to get that 3/4" stuff to
>> Digi-beta at least, ASAP.
>>
>> -Sam
>>
>>
>>
> __________________________________________________________________
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
>> <email suppressed>.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.