Is film obsolete as a medium? "Theatres go digital or die"

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

The Phila Inqr reported that movie theatres have to convert from 35mm
film projectors to digital. For small independent and community non-
profit theatres this is a tough expensive burden to meet.

Part of the problem is that digital media is always involving and
theatres are afraid of rapid obsolescence of very expensive equipment
($100,000 per screen).

full article at:
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/technology/20130113_Digital_or_Die.html


Does this mean that Hollywood will no longer use traditional film to
either record movies or distribute them? Will everything be done on
video now?


The Kodak website on motion picture film suggests film is still very
important. Kodak still makes a full line of 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, and 65mm
in color negative, color reversal, b&w negative, and b&w reversal. Is
this all gonna go away? (I'm surprised they still make 8 mm film, I'd
figure that particular size was long obsolete).
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/index.htm

[Ubiquitous]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>The Phila Inqr reported that movie theatres have to convert from 35mm
>film projectors to digital. For small independent and community non-
>profit theatres this is a tough expensive burden to meet.
>
>Part of the problem is that digital media is always involving and
>theatres are afraid of rapid obsolescence of very expensive equipment
>($100,000 per screen).

And you posted this off-topic article here because?

[Remysun]

On Jan 16, 11:10 am, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> The Phila Inqr reported that movie theatres have to convert from 35mm
> film projectors to digital.  For small independent and community non-
> profit theatres this is a tough expensive burden to meet.
>
> Part of the problem is that digital media is always involving and
> theatres are afraid of rapid obsolescence of very expensive equipment
> ($100,000 per screen).
>

> full article at:http://www.philly.com/philly/business/technology/20130113_Digital_or_...

>
> Does this mean that Hollywood will no longer use traditional film to
> either record movies or distribute them?  Will everything be done on
> video now?
>
> The Kodak website on motion picture film suggests film is still very
> important.  Kodak still makes a full line of 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, and 65mm
> in color negative, color reversal, b&w negative, and b&w reversal.  Is
> this all gonna go away?  (I'm surprised they still make 8 mm film, I'd
> figure that particular size was long obsolete).http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/index.htm

The small film might go away, but larger sizes will still be used on
many Hollywood production at least until the old guard passes away.
But let's say that there's a Moore's Law corollary in respect to
digital definition. A better print can always be made due to grain
enlargement, whereas a digital production will be limited by what it's
been shot at.

[Adam H. Kerman]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>The Phila Inqr reported that movie theatres have to convert from 35mm
>film projectors to digital.

From what I'd read, the conversion deadline was end of 2012, because
distributors of major Hollywood movies refused to print film for exhibition
during 2013. I assume movies from non-majors may still be printed to film.

This was all about saving money for distributors and nothing to do with
improving the experience for movie ticket purchasers. I'm sure the
distributors refused to lower rental costs to the exhibitor to reflect
their distribution cost savings.

>Does this mean that Hollywood will no longer use traditional film to
>either record movies or distribute them? Will everything be done on
>video now?

Dude! This has nothing to do with choosing to use film or video during
production. It's strictly about distribution.

You do know that major movies haven't been edited on film since the 1970's,
right? It's converted to video (when digital became available, converted
to digital), edited, then converted back to film for exhibition. There
hasn't been a cutting-room floor of the editing bay littered with scenes
that won't make it into the final cut in a long time.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 16, 12:12 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> You do know that major movies haven't been edited on film since the 1970's,
> right? It's converted to video (when digital became available, converted
> to digital), edited, then converted back to film for exhibition. There
> hasn't been a cutting-room floor of the editing bay littered with scenes
> that won't make it into the final cut in a long time.

Yes, editing is done electronically, and it makes special effects all
the much easier.

But what about the intial capture of the production? Have we reached
the point where electronics (camera and recording) can capture the the
image with the same quality as film? Given the cost of raw film,
processing, and printing, I would figure that electronics would have
taken over, especially since editing is already done electronically.
Indeed, all-electronic would save the conversion steps from film to
electronic and then back to film.

As mentioned, what surprises me is that there's still a market for 8
mm and 16 mm films from Kodak--I'd figure those smaller formats
would've gone video long ago. Indeed, Kodak advertises various types
of 16 mm film (two perf and three perf).

From the book "Film School", it appears that entry-level film students
use video, but advanced work is done on real film (16 mm).

[Michael Black]

I think the main issue is distribution.

They have to duplicate all those reels of film, and ship them out to all
those theatres. It wasn't that many decades ago that we didn't see Big
Launches, a movie would open in a few major locations, then appear
elsewhere later. Now, every theatre mostly has to have the latest
release, and the cost can add up.

Going digital, I suspect the cost of distribution goes down, though I
don't know what's distributed (DVD, flash drive, satellite distributin?),
since you don't have to ship multiple heavy reels of film all over the
place (and they don't have to be delivered locally, or picked up by the
theatre). Something like DVD, the instructions may be to destroy the DVDs
after the showing, saving the cost of sending it back to the distributor
or whoever. That makes sense, though I suspect there is worry that they'd
land in the wrong hands, so perhaps there's soemthing built in to
deactivate the movie.

The Big Theatre Chains are going digital, becuase that's what the studios
want. The issue is the independent, that may not be able to get film but
can't afford the new equipment. Some are closing, indeed I've seen recent
articles about how that has killed off a lot of the remaining drive in
theatres. A lot of the independents aren't even shwoing recent films, so
the films they want are on film, though I don't know if the studios are
dumping the film completely.

Michael

[Michael Black]

That makes sense, the same way digital cameras are far better for
beginners.

The "film" costs nothing, and doesn't need developing. So they can
instantly see what theyv'e done, and learn from that, rather than having
to wait. They can take endless footage without spending money on the
"film", so they can practice as much as they like, or try all kinds of
things.

So long as they have to work with film, then of course later levels would
include film, so they can learn to use it, which is separate from learning
to make movies.

Michael

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 16, 1:35 pm, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> Going digital, I suspect the cost of distribution goes down, though I
> don't know what's distributed (DVD, flash drive, satellite distributin?),
> since you don't have to ship multiple heavy reels of film all over the
> place (and they don't have to be delivered locally, or picked up by the
> theatre).  Something like DVD, the instructions may be to destroy the DVDs
> after the showing, saving the cost of sending it back to the distributor
> or whoever.  That makes sense, though I suspect there is worry that they'd
> land in the wrong hands, so perhaps there's soemthing built in to
> deactivate the movie.

There was an article about this some years ago when they were
developing digital projectors capable of adequate quality for a
theatre. Digital distribution was supposed to be much cheaper than
physically shipping heavy reels of film (and a box of a 35mm feature
film is bulky and heavy). I think they were gonna use satellite
distribution. Another factor was protection against illegal copying--
apparently while a film was in the hands of a theatre it could get
'borrowed' and copied to bootleg consumer video tapes and DVDs.

From the above article I got the impression that chain theatres have
already switched over to digital; it's just the independent and
community theatres that don't have the money ($100k) that are facing a
challenge.

FWIW, in my area there are far fewer theatres, indeed, almost all of
the older theatres, including those built in the 1970s, have closed.
The ones open today are relatively new and have many screens per
building.

Drive-ins are almost gone, but that happened quite some time ago,
mostly due to the cost of land. (Though in much of the US they were
also only a seasonal operation). A drive-in took up quite a bit of
land space and as suburban development reached out, the land became
more valuable for development than as a theatre. All the drive-ins in
my area were long ago converted to shopping centers.

[Tony Calguire]

Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote in
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org:

>
> The Big Theatre Chains are going digital, becuase that's what the
> studios want. The issue is the independent, that may not be able to
> get film but can't afford the new equipment. Some are closing, indeed
> I've seen recent articles about how that has killed off a lot of the
> remaining drive in theatres. A lot of the independents aren't even
> shwoing recent films, so the films they want are on film, though I
> don't know if the studios are dumping the film completely.
>

There was a news story here a couple months ago, about a small discount
theater that has taken up a collection for a new digital projector...

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/11/23/discount-theaters-fundraiser-
hopes-to-net-new-projectors/

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 16, 1:45 pm, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> > From the book "Film School", it appears that entry-level film students
> > use video, but advanced work is done on real film (16 mm).
> That makes sense, the same way digital cameras are far better for
> beginners.
> The "film" costs nothing, and doesn't need developing.  So they can
> instantly see what theyv'e done, and learn from that, rather than having
> to wait.  They can take endless footage without spending money on the
> "film", so they can practice as much as they like, or try all kinds of
> things.

How much does a school-grade 16 mm camera cost? I can't help but
wonder that they're more expensive than a good quality video camera.
Also, as you said, film and processing aren't cheap.

For my still-camera work, film and developing ran about $15 for 24
shots.

Kodak makes a nice self service kiosk for making digial prints. Basic
edits are easy. Unfortunately, the kisoks only take electronic media
or a scan of another print. I wish they could scan negatives and
slides, so I could edit and reprint my old stuf.
f.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <kd6ulr$u0o$1...@dont-email.me>,

There was a story on NPR Morning Edition a couple of days ago about a
local theatre that was going out of business. So some townspeople bought
it and converted it to a subscription model instead of purchasing
tickets at the box office. They said that this brought in enough money
for them to be able to purchase the new digital projectors they needed.

http://www.thebusinessjournal.com/news/sports-and-entertainment/4430-movi
e-subscription-plan-saves-oakhurst-theater

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[Remysun]

On Jan 16, 1:55 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> Drive-ins are almost gone, but that happened quite some time ago,
> mostly due to the cost of land.  (Though in much of the US they were
> also only a seasonal operation).  A drive-in took up quite a bit of
> land space and as suburban development reached out, the land became
> more valuable for development than as a theatre.  All the drive-ins in
> my area were long ago converted to shopping centers.

Drive-ins have actually made a comeback. The Pontiac Silverdome was
converted into a drive-in, and screens have been set up at Compuware
Ice Arena in Plymouth, MI. Sound is carried over FM radio, and any
empty parking lot can be used.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,

Well, the "film" costs nothing only if you don't keep it.

>
> So long as they have to work with film, then of course later levels would
> include film, so they can learn to use it, which is separate from learning
> to make movies.
>
> Michael

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[anim8rFSK]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

You're talking hundreds of gigs, if not terabytes of information. DVD
and flash won't handle it. You're either shipping hard drives or doing
big file transfers.

> since you don't have to ship multiple heavy reels of film all over the
> place (and they don't have to be delivered locally, or picked up by the
> theatre). Something like DVD, the instructions may be to destroy the DVDs
> after the showing, saving the cost of sending it back to the distributor
> or whoever. That makes sense, though I suspect there is worry that they'd
> land in the wrong hands, so perhaps there's soemthing built in to
> deactivate the movie.
>
> The Big Theatre Chains are going digital, becuase that's what the studios
> want. The issue is the independent, that may not be able to get film but
> can't afford the new equipment. Some are closing, indeed I've seen recent
> articles about how that has killed off a lot of the remaining drive in
> theatres. A lot of the independents aren't even shwoing recent films, so
> the films they want are on film, though I don't know if the studios are
> dumping the film completely.
>
> Michael

[Adam H. Kerman]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>But what about the intial capture of the production? Have we reached
>the point where electronics (camera and recording) can capture the the
>image with the same quality as film?

No.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

>I think the main issue is distribution.

>They have to duplicate all those reels of film, and ship them out to all
>those theatres.

We all feel for them.

>It wasn't that many decades ago that we didn't see Big Launches, a movie
>would open in a few major locations, then appear elsewhere later. Now,
>every theatre mostly has to have the latest release, and the cost can
>add up.

It depends on their marketing strategy, not on the cost of
distribution. Zero Dark Thirty opened small, adding more screens weeks
later. That was intentional.

>Going digital, I suspect the cost of distribution goes down, though I
>don't know what's distributed (DVD, flash drive, satellite distributin?),

As far as I know, it's satellite, although I can't believe every movie
theater installed a satellite downlink station.

>since you don't have to ship multiple heavy reels of film all over the
>place (and they don't have to be delivered locally, or picked up by the
>theatre).

You let us know if the distributor shares those savings with the exhibitor,
will you?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <anim8rfsk-23330...@news.easynews.com>,

anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
> > Going digital, I suspect the cost of distribution goes down, though I
> > don't know what's distributed (DVD, flash drive, satellite distributin?),
>
> You're talking hundreds of gigs, if not terabytes of information. DVD
> and flash won't handle it. You're either shipping hard drives or doing
> big file transfers.

Wikipedia says that a feature-length movie fits on a 300 MB hard drive,
and implies that this is how they're typically distributed. But 300 MB
can also be transmitted over the Internet in a few minutes, so I suspect
that will become the method of choice in time.

[RichA]

On Jan 16, 1:45 pm, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

The argument could be made that because there is no cost involved,
people tend to be lazy and sloppy with picture-taking. People using
camera phones prove that every single day.

[anim8rFSK]

In article
<abfac9b1-2a30-4e05...@z8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,

Our drive ins are still there, intact, just unused for years, so there's
something other at work than land values.

[Adam H. Kerman]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>How much does a school-grade 16 mm camera cost?

There are plenty of used ones for sale.

[trotsky]

On 1/16/13 11:10 AM, <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote>:

Troll alert.

[Michael Black]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, anim8rFSK wrote:

>> The "film" costs nothing, and doesn't need developing. So they can
>> instantly see what theyv'e done, and learn from that, rather than having
>> to wait. They can take endless footage without spending money on the
>> "film", so they can practice as much as they like, or try all kinds of
>> things.
>
> Well, the "film" costs nothing only if you don't keep it.

You can transfer it to a computer.

But my point was that if you are starting, most of what you take is junk,
so far better to have a reusable medium. People worry about making
mistakes, or spending money, so having cameras where you tell the students
to take every kind of picure and just throw it away almost immediately
changes the concept.

Look at fashion photographers (well all I know is from movies and tv).
They take endless photos, just to get the right one. They get paid a lot,
so they can afford all that film (and the processing). The beginner tries
to take a really good shot, rather than shotgunning, and thus may have
lesser results. Once most of the shots are throaways without penalty,
then you can learn by making mistakes.

I used to ahve a 35mm viewfinder and after a few years, I pretty much
stopped taking pictures. I never spent much time on it to get good,
there'd be spurts of picture taking followed by long lulls, and often I
might want one picture but too cheap so I wait for the roll to finish,
that could be months later.

When I got a digital camera about 2005, I started carrying it around
pretty much all the time. I take pictures of clouds because they somehow
attract me. I take many more pictures, because the camera is with me, and
I can extract the good ones as soon as I get home. I take pictures of
things I wouldn't have, because the "film" costs me nothing, so I may end
up with more varied photos as a result.

Michael

[Michael Black]

That figure doesn't sound right. A DVD is something like 4.7GB, B;u-rays
more. Unless you meant GB instead of MB, the figure has to be quite a bit
larger.

Michael

[Professor Bubba]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> > In article <anim8rfsk-23330...@news.easynews.com>,
> > anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> >> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Going digital, I suspect the cost of distribution goes down, though I
> >>> don't know what's distributed (DVD, flash drive, satellite distributin?),
> >>
> >> You're talking hundreds of gigs, if not terabytes of information. DVD
> >> and flash won't handle it. You're either shipping hard drives or doing
> >> big file transfers.
> >
> > Wikipedia says that a feature-length movie fits on a 300 MB hard drive,
> > and implies that this is how they're typically distributed. But 300 MB
> > can also be transmitted over the Internet in a few minutes, so I suspect
> > that will become the method of choice in time.
> >
> That figure doesn't sound right. A DVD is something like 4.7GB, B;u-rays
> more. Unless you meant GB instead of MB, the figure has to be quite a bit
> larger.
>
> Michael

It's 300 GB, and that's what Wikipedia said.

[moviePig]

On Jan 16, 1:14 pm, "trotsky" <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> On 1/16/13 11:10 AM, <hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote>:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Phila Inqr reported that movie theatres have to convert from 35mm
> > film projectors to digital.  For small independent and community non-
> > profit theatres this is a tough expensive burden to meet.
>
> > Part of the problem is that digital media is always involving and
> > theatres are afraid of rapid obsolescence of very expensive equipment
> > ($100,000 per screen).
>
> > full article at:

> >http://www.philly.com/philly/business/technology/20130113_Digital_or_...

>
> > Does this mean that Hollywood will no longer use traditional film to
> > either record movies or distribute them?  Will everything be done on
> > video now?
>
> > The Kodak website on motion picture film suggests film is still very
> > important.  Kodak still makes a full line of 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, and 65mm
> > in color negative, color reversal, b&w negative, and b&w reversal.  Is
> > this all gonna go away?  (I'm surprised they still make 8 mm film, I'd
> > figure that particular size was long obsolete).
> >http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/index.htm
>
> Troll alert.

How is this trolling?

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[anim8rFSK]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> > In article <anim8rfsk-23330...@news.easynews.com>,
> > anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> >> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Going digital, I suspect the cost of distribution goes down, though I
> >>> don't know what's distributed (DVD, flash drive, satellite distributin?),
> >>
> >> You're talking hundreds of gigs, if not terabytes of information. DVD
> >> and flash won't handle it. You're either shipping hard drives or doing
> >> big file transfers.
> >
> > Wikipedia says that a feature-length movie fits on a 300 MB hard drive,
> > and implies that this is how they're typically distributed. But 300 MB
> > can also be transmitted over the Internet in a few minutes, so I suspect
> > that will become the method of choice in time.
> >
> That figure doesn't sound right. A DVD is something like 4.7GB, B;u-rays
> more. Unless you meant GB instead of MB, the figure has to be quite a bit
> larger.
>
> Michael

Yes. It's 300 gigabytes, not megabytes. But there are longer movies
and higher res movies and IMAX movies ...

[anim8rFSK]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, anim8rFSK wrote:
>
> >> The "film" costs nothing, and doesn't need developing. So they can
> >> instantly see what theyv'e done, and learn from that, rather than having
> >> to wait. They can take endless footage without spending money on the
> >> "film", so they can practice as much as they like, or try all kinds of
> >> things.
> >
> > Well, the "film" costs nothing only if you don't keep it.
>
> You can transfer it to a computer.

And right there it costs you something.

>
> But my point was that if you are starting, most of what you take is junk,
> so far better to have a reusable medium. People worry about making
> mistakes, or spending money, so having cameras where you tell the students
> to take every kind of picure and just throw it away almost immediately
> changes the concept.
>
> Look at fashion photographers (well all I know is from movies and tv).
> They take endless photos, just to get the right one. They get paid a lot,
> so they can afford all that film (and the processing). The beginner tries
> to take a really good shot, rather than shotgunning, and thus may have
> lesser results. Once most of the shots are throaways without penalty,
> then you can learn by making mistakes.
>
> I used to ahve a 35mm viewfinder and after a few years, I pretty much
> stopped taking pictures. I never spent much time on it to get good,
> there'd be spurts of picture taking followed by long lulls, and often I
> might want one picture but too cheap so I wait for the roll to finish,
> that could be months later.
>
> When I got a digital camera about 2005, I started carrying it around
> pretty much all the time. I take pictures of clouds because they somehow
> attract me. I take many more pictures, because the camera is with me, and
> I can extract the good ones as soon as I get home. I take pictures of
> things I wouldn't have, because the "film" costs me nothing, so I may end
> up with more varied photos as a result.

Yeah, I take hundreds of pictures at any event now and weed 'em out
later.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <1ddb6401-2de3-4895...@bx10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Well, the usage of the word "involving" doesn't inspire confidence..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[Barry Margolin]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> > In article <anim8rfsk-23330...@news.easynews.com>,
> > anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> >> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Going digital, I suspect the cost of distribution goes down, though I
> >>> don't know what's distributed (DVD, flash drive, satellite distributin?),
> >>
> >> You're talking hundreds of gigs, if not terabytes of information. DVD
> >> and flash won't handle it. You're either shipping hard drives or doing
> >> big file transfers.
> >
> > Wikipedia says that a feature-length movie fits on a 300 MB hard drive,
> > and implies that this is how they're typically distributed. But 300 MB
> > can also be transmitted over the Internet in a few minutes, so I suspect
> > that will become the method of choice in time.
> >
> That figure doesn't sound right. A DVD is something like 4.7GB, B;u-rays
> more. Unless you meant GB instead of MB, the figure has to be quite a bit
> larger.

Yeah, GB not MB. I'm old, I can actually remember when 300 MB was a lot
of storage.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <anim8rfsk-A9C22...@news.easynews.com>,

anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Barry Margolin wrote:
> >
> > > In article <anim8rfsk-23330...@news.easynews.com>,
> > > anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> > >> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Going digital, I suspect the cost of distribution goes down, though I
> > >>> don't know what's distributed (DVD, flash drive, satellite
> > >>> distributin?),
> > >>
> > >> You're talking hundreds of gigs, if not terabytes of information. DVD
> > >> and flash won't handle it. You're either shipping hard drives or doing
> > >> big file transfers.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia says that a feature-length movie fits on a 300 MB hard drive,
> > > and implies that this is how they're typically distributed. But 300 MB
> > > can also be transmitted over the Internet in a few minutes, so I suspect
> > > that will become the method of choice in time.
> > >
> > That figure doesn't sound right. A DVD is something like 4.7GB, B;u-rays
> > more. Unless you meant GB instead of MB, the figure has to be quite a bit
> > larger.
> >
> > Michael
>
> Yes. It's 300 gigabytes, not megabytes. But there are longer movies
> and higher res movies and IMAX movies ...

So they'll use bigger disks for those movies, not a problem.

Last week a company showed a new 1 TB flash drive at CES. It's $1,300,
so it's not ready for consumers yet, but it's fine for something like
this where they can send them back to the distributor for reuse.

[Professor Bubba]

In article <barmar-E65245....@news.eternal-september.org>,

Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Barry Margolin wrote:
> >
> > > In article <anim8rfsk-23330...@news.easynews.com>,
> > > anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> > >> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Going digital, I suspect the cost of distribution goes down, though I
> > >>> don't know what's distributed (DVD, flash drive, satellite
> > >>> distributin?),
> > >>
> > >> You're talking hundreds of gigs, if not terabytes of information. DVD
> > >> and flash won't handle it. You're either shipping hard drives or doing
> > >> big file transfers.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia says that a feature-length movie fits on a 300 MB hard drive,
> > > and implies that this is how they're typically distributed. But 300 MB
> > > can also be transmitted over the Internet in a few minutes, so I suspect
> > > that will become the method of choice in time.
> > >
> > That figure doesn't sound right. A DVD is something like 4.7GB, B;u-rays
> > more. Unless you meant GB instead of MB, the figure has to be quite a bit
> > larger.
>
> Yeah, GB not MB. I'm old, I can actually remember when 300 MB was a lot
> of storage.

I can remember paying $1600 for 20 MB of storage in 1986, and I thought
it was a bargain. I just saw a 4 TB drive at the Costco for about
$200.

[trotsky]

Somebody has been forging posts.

[Steve Bartman]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 06:47:02 -0500, Professor Bubba
<bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:


>I can remember paying $1600 for 20 MB of storage in 1986, and I thought
>it was a bargain. I just saw a 4 TB drive at the Costco for about
>$200.

My first PC had a 20 MB option for $1200. I never had more than 5 MB
on it in its life.

I remember when Windows got multi-tasking saying to somebody "Why
would you ever need to do more than one thing at a time?"

Steve

[Professor Bubba]

In article <vptff85krjl1c1p5e...@4ax.com>, Steve Bartman

Oh, yeah. On my side of the universe, it was MultiFinder. I never did
more than one thing at a time on the Mac, so I never used it until
several years after its debut. I never did quite trust MultiFinder.

[moviePig]

I'm lost. The headline question seems to me to have a clear answer,
but not a universally obvious one. So, if I'm missing an issue-
related trolling aspect here, somebody please clue me in.

[trotsky]

"Troll alert" was a forged post by someone pretending to be me.
Similarly, someone had written "Nigger alert" in another thread. The
topic itself isn't an issue.

[moviePig]

I'm found.

[trotsky]

That's what makes you different from calvin.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 16, 2:17 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> As far as I know, it's satellite, although I can't believe every movie
> theater installed a satellite downlink station.

Gas stations and chain restaurants have satellite dishes on top, so I
could see a movie theatre having one. For the $100,000 price per
screen it doesn't seem unreasonable.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 16, 9:00 pm, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:


> But my point was that if you are starting, most of what you take is junk,
> so far better to have a reusable medium.  People worry about making
> mistakes, or spending money, so having cameras where you tell the students
> to take every kind of picure and just throw it away almost immediately
> changes the concept.

In photography classes, they used to tell students that film is cheap
and not be afraid to use it. For b&w work, 35mm film was pretty
cheap, especially if you buy the film in bulk and process it
yourself. People would make a contact sheet from the negative and
then select off the images they'd want to print. Color slides were
more expensive, but still people would select off the ones they
wanted.

I believe film/processing for a motion picture or tv show ends up
costing very serious money. They have to use professional grade film
and keep careful control over it. That includes shooting from a
single source batch to maintain color consistency. The cameras go
through a roll very quickly.

> Look at fashion photographers (well all I know is from movies and tv).
> They take endless photos, just to get the right one.  They get paid a lot,
> so they can afford all that film (and the processing).  The beginner tries
> to take a really good shot, rather than shotgunning, and thus may have
> lesser results.  Once most of the shots are throaways without penalty,
> then  you can learn by making mistakes.

I always wondered about the effectiveness of motor drives and
"shotgun" shooting. I guess press and fashion photographers are
hoping to capture the exact desirable facial expression of their
subject which could be fleeting. (My digital camera as a "motor
drive". I tried it but don't see any advantage to it, indeed, I find
it a distraction.)

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 17, 1:15 am, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Yeah, GB not MB.  I'm old, I can actually remember when 300 MB was a lot
> of storage.

A System/360 mainframe with the popular 2314 disk drive had 145 MB
available. That was enough to serve many businesses.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Why would a satellite dish have a price per screen? That makes no sense.

Uh, gas stations and restaurants are uplinking data. Movie theaters aren't.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Is gms...@email.com your personal email address you have actual permission
to use? Then file an abuse complaint.

[calvin]

Looking at the profile for the poster using
your name at the top of this thread, there
is a display of all of that trotsky's posts for
several years, and they are yours.

[WrongWayWade]

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 2:17 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>> As far as I know, it's satellite, although I can't believe every
>>> movie theater installed a satellite downlink station.
>
>> Gas stations and chain restaurants have satellite dishes on top, so I
>> could see a movie theatre having one. For the $100,000 price per
>> screen it doesn't seem unreasonable.
>
> Why would a satellite dish have a price per screen? That makes no
> sense.

The projectors in each theatre are the main cost. I have no idea, but it
wouldn't surpise me if the actually ship the movies on sets of blu-ray
discs.

My AMC has gone completely to digital projection. I don't even know if they
could show an independent film on actual film anymore.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <kd96up$opi$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >On Jan 16, 2:17 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >>As far as I know, it's satellite, although I can't believe every movie
> >>theater installed a satellite downlink station.
>
> >Gas stations and chain restaurants have satellite dishes on top, so I
> >could see a movie theatre having one. For the $100,000 price per
> >screen it doesn't seem unreasonable.
>
> Why would a satellite dish have a price per screen? That makes no sense.

I think he meant that if they're spending $100K per screen for the new
projectors, they should be able to justify buying a satellite dish to
supply the content to them.

>
> Uh, gas stations and restaurants are uplinking data. Movie theaters aren't.

Or they're for satellite TV.

I think the Internet will be a better solution if they want electronic
distribution instead of shipping hard disks. Satellite dishes are a
legacy of companies that used private networks before broadband Internet
became widely available.

[moviePig]

> Is gmsi...@email.com your personal email address you have actual permission

> to use? Then file an abuse complaint.

Indeed, that's disturbing. I'd like to know if such a complaint has
any chance of effectiveness, and meanwhile how trivial it is for any
random asshole to spoof to this degree...

[Adam H. Kerman]

Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>>>Gas stations and chain restaurants have satellite dishes on top, so I
>>>could see a movie theatre having one. For the $100,000 price per
>>>screen it doesn't seem unreasonable.

>>Uh, gas stations and restaurants are uplinking data. Movie theaters aren't.

>Or they're for satellite TV.

At a gas station? Give me a break.

[Adam H. Kerman]

moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>On Jan 17, 10:59=A0am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>> trotsky =A0<gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> >On 1/16/13 11:19 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> >> On Jan 16, 1:14 pm, "trotsky" <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> >>> On 1/16/13 11:10 AM, <hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote>:
>>

>> >>>> The Phila Inqr reported that movie theatres have to convert from 35m=
>m
>> >>>> film projectors to digital. =A0For small independent and community n=

>on-
>> >>>> profit theatres this is a tough expensive burden to meet.
>>
>> >>>> Part of the problem is that digital media is always involving and

>> >>>> theatres are afraid of rapid obsolescence of very expensive equipmen=

>t
>> >>>> ($100,000 per screen).
>>
>> >>>> full article at:

>> >>>>http://www.philly.com/philly/business/technology/20130113_Digital_or_=

>...
>>
>> >>>> Does this mean that Hollywood will no longer use traditional film to

>> >>>> either record movies or distribute them? =A0Will everything be done =

>on
>> >>>> video now?
>>
>> >>>> The Kodak website on motion picture film suggests film is still very

>> >>>> important. =A0Kodak still makes a full line of 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, and =
>65mm
>> >>>> in color negative, color reversal, b&w negative, and b&w reversal. =
>=A0Is
>> >>>> this all gonna go away? =A0(I'm surprised they still make 8 mm film,=

> I'd
>> >>>> figure that particular size was long obsolete).
>> >>>>http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/index.htm
>>
>> >>> Troll alert.
>>
>> >> How is this trolling?
>>
>> >Somebody has been forging posts.
>>

>> Is gmsi...@email.com your personal email address you have actual permissi=

>on
>> to use? Then file an abuse complaint.
>
>Indeed, that's disturbing. I'd like to know if such a complaint has
>any chance of effectiveness, and meanwhile how trivial it is for any
>random asshole to spoof to this degree...

Anybody can spoof, which isn't abuse.

Forgery means putting someone's actual email address on From. I dunno
if trots is actually associated with email.com and has a mailbox there.

Anybody can put any email address on From, unless there's some attempt
at authentication.

[Bill Steele]

> On 1/16/13 11:10 AM, <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote>:

>
> > The Phila Inqr reported that movie theatres have to convert from 35mm
> > film projectors to digital. For small independent and community non-

> > profit theatres this is a tough expensive burden to meet.
> >
> > Part of the problem is that digital media is always involving and

> > theatres are afraid of rapid obsolescence of very expensive equipment
> > ($100,000 per screen).

You can buy a 4K projector for $25,000, and that will come down once we
get past the early adopters and content becomes available.

The next question is, If everyone can view theater quality at home, will
it still make sense to have theaters? The audience is part of the show,
but I've gone to movies where thee were only four people in the theater.


> >
> > full article at:
> > http://www.philly.com/philly/business/technology/20130113_Digital_or_Die.htm
> > l

> >
> >
> > Does this mean that Hollywood will no longer use traditional film to

> > either record movies or distribute them? Will everything be done on

> > video now?
> >
> > The Kodak website on motion picture film suggests film is still very

> > important. Kodak still makes a full line of 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, and 65mm
> > in color negative, color reversal, b&w negative, and b&w reversal. Is
> > this all gonna go away? (I'm surprised they still make 8 mm film, I'd

[trotsky]

How will that help?

[Michael Black]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Professor Bubba wrote:

>> Yeah, GB not MB. I'm old, I can actually remember when 300 MB was a lot
>> of storage.
>
>
> I can remember paying $1600 for 20 MB of storage in 1986, and I thought
> it was a bargain. I just saw a 4 TB drive at the Costco for about
> $200.
>

I can't remember doing that, because it was way too expensive. I didn't
get my first hard drive till late 1993, and that was a Christmas gift.

Michael

[trotsky]

Wrong.

[Michael Black]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Professor Bubba wrote:

Of course, with limited memory there was limits on what you could leave
open. It was less about "doing things at the same time" as doing things
in parallel, copying from one document to another.

Remember, before "multitasking" came in for your computers (I had it on my
Radio Shack COlor Computer in 1984, with Microware OS-9), there were add
ons to allow the needed functionality. So there were all thsoe TSRs in
the MSDOS world, and those desk accessories in the Mac world, which
certianly beat having to close up the main program and launch a word
processor in order to write a few notes, then save the file from the word
processor, relaunch the original program, reload its file and continue on.
That really is where multitasking takes off, not having to have so many
interruptions.

Pringing was also useful, back when printers had small buffers. It slowed
the main task down, but you didn't have to wait for the document to print
before you could do something else. A single page was nothing, but a long
document meant the computer was out of action.

Michael.

[moviePig]

On Jan 17, 12:12 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

Here's what I quickly Googled:

http://www.jahitchcock.com/cyberstalked/detect.html

Not an especially convenient authentication (nor 100% reliable,
apparently), but easy/close enough for government work...

[moviePig]

Fyi, I appear to be seeing the same thing as Calvin...

[Michael Black]

I suspect the difference is Adamis thinking of some 'ground station" when
likely it s more like "satellite tv".

Back in 1993 I used a BBS that got Usenet (and maybe fidonet?) from a
satellite. That worked since the "feed" was just a matter of receiving
it, while the relatively few outgoing messages could be handled by phone.
Initially it seemed odd, but it makes sense.

The movie theatres don't need a live feed so they can grab the latest
movie at some appropriate time or perhaps it's piggybacked on some other
signal.

For that matter, movie theatres have taken to live events on screen, which
probably is an indicator of how ready they are for satellite feed.

The consilidation of movie theatres into much denser multiplexes, as you
mentioned in a previous post, likely helps the process. If you spread a
satellite receiver over 22 theatres, the cost isn't so great. If you had
to do that to all the 2 or 3 screen theatres that used to exist, there'd
be a lot of duplication.

Michael

[moviePig]

On Jan 17, 1:01 pm, Bill Steele <w...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> > On 1/16/13 11:10 AM, <hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote>:

>
> > > The Phila Inqr reported that movie theatres have to convert from 35mm
> > > film projectors to digital.  For small independent and community non-
> > > profit theatres this is a tough expensive burden to meet.
>
> > > Part of the problem is that digital media is always involving and
> > > theatres are afraid of rapid obsolescence of very expensive equipment
> > > ($100,000 per screen).
>
> You can buy a 4K projector for $25,000, and that will come down once we
> get past the early adopters and content becomes available.
>
> The next question is, If everyone can view theater quality at home, will
> it still make sense to have theaters? The audience is part of the show,
> but I've gone to movies where thee were only four people in the theater.

> ...

Historically, there's always been a quality-gap between the big screen
and the small one ...and, theoretically, it could continue ad inf.
But eventually -- and maybe pretty soon -- that gap may sit entirely
within a difference-range imperceptible to us...

[Michael Black]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>

>> Look at fashion photographers (well all I know is from movies and tv).
>> They take endless photos, just to get the right one.  They get paid a lot,
>> so they can afford all that film (and the processing).  The beginner tries
>> to take a really good shot, rather than shotgunning, and thus may have
>> lesser results.  Once most of the shots are throaways without penalty,
>> then  you can learn by making mistakes.
>


> I always wondered about the effectiveness of motor drives and
> "shotgun" shooting. I guess press and fashion photographers are
> hoping to capture the exact desirable facial expression of their
> subject which could be fleeting. (My digital camera as a "motor
> drive". I tried it but don't see any advantage to it, indeed, I find
> it a distraction.)
>

I'm not really talking so much about taking a lot of rapid pictures hoping
to get a good one, the fashion angle was just an example. But if I see
something and then decide "it's not worth getting out the camera and it
will be weeks before I see the results" it's hardly part of a learning
process. if I see some neat cloud formation, get the camera out and take
a picture, I can immediately see if there's value in that picture, and
take another one or keep the current one, or reject the whole thing.

On the other hand, press is different from fashion. The latter is staged,
though the gestures may be improv. But for press, especially if you're
trying to get just the right shot, you can't know until later what is
best, and if you took only one, you might not have a good picture to use.

But one option on my digital camera is "bracketing" so for every photo I
take, it will automatically make some adjustments and take multiple
photos. I've not played with it, and I gather it's just an automation of
something photographers tended to do in the past.

Micahel

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 17, 1:01 pm, Bill Steele <w...@cornell.edu> wrote:

> The next question is, If everyone can view theater quality at home, will
> it still make sense to have theaters? The audience is part of the show,
> but I've gone to movies where thee were only four people in the theater.

Well, theatres still tend to have movies available before they come
out on other media. That gives them some desirability. I suspect the
studios and distributors will work hard to maintain that control.

Another factor is that people want to get out of the house. Seeing a
film in a theatre is "going out", often including a meal in a
restaurant. It's part of a dating experience.

But I think a big factor will be how expensive movie theatre tickets
will get and if the public will stand for high prices. IMHO, they're
kind of maxed out.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

>Back in 1993 I used a BBS that got Usenet (and maybe fidonet?) from a
>satellite. That worked since the "feed" was just a matter of receiving
>it, while the relatively few outgoing messages could be handled by phone.
>Initially it seemed odd, but it makes sense.

The service is still available. It's exremely expensive.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Paolo will do something about his user. No, there's nothing to be done
about the forged article itself.

If it's not your personal email address, you haven't been forged.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 17, 2:04 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:

> Historically, there's always been a quality-gap between the big screen
> and the small one ...and, theoretically, it could continue ad inf.
> But eventually -- and maybe pretty soon -- that gap may sit entirely
> within a difference-range imperceptible to us...

I think the quality gap between a high-end home system and a theatre
has become very narrow. Even lesser home systems have excellent
quality. We're not watching stuff on our Philco 19" b&w TV set.

The remaining difference will be that many homes, especially
apartments and town houses, simply don't have the physical space to
put up a large screen or can make good use of high-end sound. A
theatre still has that "larger than life" screen.

But you're right in that this is an issue movie distributors and
theatres will have keep in mind.


Note there is flip side of this issue. Some theatres have trouble
with audience behavior--serious noise, rudeness, even fights--so that
some theatres aren't as attractive to attend as they once was. I'm
not sure I want to visit a threatre that has to have a police car
regularly stationed there during weekend nights.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 17, 2:05 pm, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> I'm not really talking so much about taking a lot of rapid pictures hoping
> to get a good one, the fashion angle was just an example.  But if I see
> something and then decide "it's not worth getting out the camera and it
> will be weeks before I see the results" it's hardly part of a learning
> process.  if I see some neat cloud formation, get the camera out and take
> a picture, I can immediately see if there's value in that picture, and
> take another one or keep the current one, or reject the whole thing.

It's hard to judge image quality using the in-camera screen because
it's so small and limited in quality. It's usually better to wait
until the pictures are uploaded to your computer to judge their
quality before deletion.

> But one option on my digital camera is "bracketing" so for every photo I
> take, it will automatically make some adjustments and take multiple
> photos.  I've not played with it, and I gather it's just an automation of
> something photographers tended to do in the past.

Automatic bracketing--taking multiple photos of different exposures of
one scene--is an excellent feature. Digital imaging does not seem to
have the kind of exposure latitude that film had, so bracketing is
extra important. It can be done manually or semi-automatically with
the EV +- adjustment, but it's cumbersome.

(Returning to movies, I understand the motion picture film has very
narrow exposure latitude, the book "Film School" suggests that even a
half-stop variation produces very noticeable image changes. One book
I read described two measures, the still film "f/ stop" and one for
film, the "t/ stop".)

[anim8rFSK]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,

You might check it out. Mine brackets the past (really) - since the
camera is buffering anyway, it grabs the center shot at the time you
push the button, and a couple from BEFORE you pushed the button, and a
couple after ...

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <d1256b89-ab25-4dc7...@ho8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

It just seems to me that eventually some sort of wearable screen
and headphones will be better than the big screen. I mean, why
wouldn't it be? You can't do any better than the resolution of
your eyes.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <2fa30790-97df-4c2c...@f19g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

It seems to be pretty common to have off duty officers running theater
security now around here even in venues I consider pretty trouble free.

[Michael Black]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, anim8rFSK wrote:

>> But one option on my digital camera is "bracketing" so for every photo I
>> take, it will automatically make some adjustments and take multiple
>> photos. I've not played with it, and I gather it's just an automation of
>> something photographers tended to do in the past.
>>
>

> You might check it out. Mine brackets the past (really) - since the
> camera is buffering anyway, it grabs the center shot at the time you
> push the button, and a couple from BEFORE you pushed the button, and a
> couple after ...
>

It's not reluctance, it's just getting around to it.

This was my second digital camera, the first was a handme down with about
2.5MP, this second had more features and I got about 4 years ago.

It came with no manual other than a few getting started instructions, had
to print the manual out from the cdrom. Then I misplaced that for a
couple of years, didn't feel like wasting the time to print another.

So I did find the manual, and one of these days I'll read it properly and
spend more time with the controls.

I can remember how to get the date stamped on the actual picture, useful
for things where I want to show what state they were in at specific times,
but I looked it up and then have used it a few times.

Michael

[Michael Black]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:

>>
>> Note there is flip side of this issue. Some theatres have trouble
>> with audience behavior--serious noise, rudeness, even fights--so that
>> some theatres aren't as attractive to attend as they once was. I'm
>> not sure I want to visit a threatre that has to have a police car
>> regularly stationed there during weekend nights.
>>
>>
>>
>
> It seems to be pretty common to have off duty officers running theater
> security now around here even in venues I consider pretty trouble free.

But do they twist the ear of the guy making loud comments on the film?

I thought security at movie theatres was to stop the importation of food
from elsewhere, and to prevent people from making copies of the film (at
one theatre chain here some years back, one blogger compained about having
to check their digital camera at the door)

I haven't been to a movie since 2001 (the first Tomb Raider film, I won a
pass). I just lost interest when they opened the two large multiplexes
downtown and closed all the 2 or 3 screen theatres. It just got too big.
It also hurt that they closed the older theatre that they'd been using to
play second run films, in the nineties I saw a lot of new releases that
way by waiting a couple of months for the film to show up there. It was
actually run by one of the big theatre chains.

By now, I've gotten out of the habit, the ticket prices are even higher,
it's just something out of my mind these days. I don't even read movie
reviews much.

Michael

[moviePig]

In message <fe6ca055-6f47-496d...@hf3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>

No. GOogle won't even do anything about the spammer scum.

>and meanwhile how trivial it is for any random asshole to spoof to this
>degree...

Really easy.

--

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 17, 7:00 pm, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> I can remember how to get the date stamped on the actual picture, useful
> for things where I want to show what state they were in at specific times,
> but I looked it up and then have used it a few times.

Date stamps can be a useful feature. Note that you should verify the
camera's date/time since they can drift.

One nice thing about digital cameras is that they include features
that used to be expensive options on film cameras (like a date/time
stamp back, motor drive, etc)

Returning to film, has professional 35 mm cameras changed over the
years?

[moviePig]

On Jan 17, 6:44 pm, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
> In article <d1256b89-ab25-4dc7-a84e-cb430916c...@ho8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

That's indeed the lurker, I think. Two tiny 2160p OLED screens in
surround headgear just might -- popcorn aside -- surpass the best
theater presentation.

[BTR1701]

In article
<0924684a-0a09-4c36...@y8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

What happened is that shitsky issued one of his typical knee-jerk
moronic 'alerts', but when he saw that the post was actually relevant
and everyone else was taking the discussion seriously, he realized that
his initial 'alert' made him look as stupid as he actually is, so now
he's trying to play it off as some kind of hoax.

[calvin]

On Jan 17, 10:52 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:

That's what I think too. But apparently, according to
others, it is possible to forge in someone's real e-mail
address, giving trotsky deniability, whether plausible
or not.

[BTR1701]

In article
<7fa5e3f7-83d4-4c64...@b11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

There's absolutely nothing plausible whatsoever about shitsky.

[Ubiquitous]

"Trotsky" has a long history of lieing and feigning stupidity when he
loses a debate, something that happens with alarming frequency.

Expect one of his sock puppets to weigh in on this soon.

--
"As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of
the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of
liberty and almost any deprivation."

[CaptainNull]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:47:13 -0800, moviePig wrote:

>Here's what I quickly Googled:
>
> http://www.jahitchcock.com/cyberstalked/detect.html

"One of the ways used to harass people on the internet is to forge their
email address on a posting that is intentionally inflammatory."

That pretty much describes all of his posts! ROFL!

[Barb May]

BTR1701 writes:
> There's absolutely nothing plausible whatsoever about shitsky.

Wrong.

--
Barb

[trotsky]

Can you be more specific?

[trotsky]

It's definitely my address, and has been for about 12 years. I have no
idea who or what Paolo is, though.

[trotsky]

On 1/17/13 9:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <0924684a-0a09-4c36...@y8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 17, 1:23 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/17/13 10:02 AM, calvin wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Troll alert.
>>>
>>>>>> How is this trolling?
>>>
>>>>> Somebody has been forging posts.
>>>
>>>> Looking at the profile for the poster using
>>>> your name at the top of this thread, there
>>>> is a display of all of that trotsky's posts for
>>>> several years, and they are yours.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> Fyi, I appear to be seeing the same thing as Calvin...
>
>
> What happened is that shitsky issued one of his typical knee-jerk
> moronic 'alerts',

Here's what I found out: when I looked at the full headers and saw the
message IDs, one had my ISP attached to it, and the other had this:

@speranza.aioe.org>

A further google search produced this:

NNTP-Posting-Host: .speranza.aioe.org (mini-me wannabe)
5 posts by 1 author in alt.support.hemorrhoids
12/23/10

"user.speranza.aioe.org"
a "free" anonymous remailer used by welfare cheating
trailer park trash who post to Usenet using others nicks

"CUL8R" <joeb...@mindspring.net> wrote in message
news:ierua5$d5$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 12/21/2010 10:09 PM, mr du...@harvarduniversity.edu wrote:
>> Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways.
> 1850 Frederic Bastiat


So clearly this was done by someone with a history with these kinds of
things. Here's what's really interesting, though: when I upgraded
Thunderbird a few months ago the idiots at Mozilla switched positons of
the "Reply" and "Followup" buttons so I kept on sending people e-mails
instead of newsgroup posts. It turns out, Thanny, that atr...@mac.com
isn't your e-mail address, and the real owner is very pissed about it.
(The other alternative is that it is your e-mail address, but I doubt
even you would be that stupid.) So, my conclusion is that you have a
long history of this kind of abuse. Hopefully somebody reading this
will take you to task and get you kicked off your ISP.

[trotsky]

On 1/17/13 10:40 PM, calvin wrote:
> On Jan 17, 10:52 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>> moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 17, 1:23 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/17/13 10:02 AM, calvin wrote:
>>>>> Looking at the profile for the poster using
>>>>> your name at the top of this thread, there
>>>>> is a display of all of that trotsky's posts for
>>>>> several years, and they are yours.
>>>> Wrong.
>>> Fyi, I appear to be seeing the same thing as Calvin...
>>
>> What happened is that shitsky issued one of his typical knee-jerk
>> moronic 'alerts', but when he saw that the post was actually relevant
>> and everyone else was taking the discussion seriously, he realized that
>> his initial 'alert' made him look as stupid as he actually is, so now
>> he's trying to play it off as some kind of hoax.
>
> That's what I think too.

Who told you to do that? This stuff is way over your head, calvin.

[trotsky]

...said the anonyshit who is running interference in light of his long
history with Usenet forgeries.

[moviePig]

Just that 'profile' does return your actual posting history (...which,
it now seems, is tied to nothing more substantial than the unprotected
reply-to address). E.g., recall that the fake 'Irish Mike' failed
that trivial test.

[trotsky]

I think I've covered this in detail in my reply to "BTR1701"--perhaps
that will shed some light on the subject.

[moviePig]

Yeah, I saw that. I was noting only that Calvin's report, as far as
either of us had then looked, wasn't nuts.

[calvin]

Proving that your 'troll alert' post was really from you, or not,
is beyond my current knowledge, but I am familiar with how
people behave around here. Your lame attempt to blame
William: "And, unfortunately, sir william is one of the most
likely candidates of being the forger", casts more doubt on
you. For all my issues with William, I know that he does not
do stuff like that, and the idea of him stooping to impersonate
your antics is a hoot.

[moviePig]

I think it was Derek Janssen.

[calvin]

I think you really think it was trotsky.

[Adam H. Kerman]

That would be the News administrator of AIOE with whom you refuse to file
that abuse report.

[Adam H. Kerman]

trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:

>Here's what I found out: when I looked at the full headers and saw the
>message IDs, one had my ISP attached to it, and the other had this:

>@speranza.aioe.org>

>A further google search produced this:

>NNTP-Posting-Host: .speranza.aioe.org (mini-me wannabe)
>5 posts by 1 author in alt.support.hemorrhoids
>12/23/10

> "user.speranza.aioe.org"
> a "free" anonymous remailer used by welfare cheating
> trailer park trash who post to Usenet using others nicks

AIOE isn't a remailer, douchebag.

[BTR1701]

In article <kdbkts$226$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

"Barb May" <bar...@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:

> BTR1701 writes:

> > There's absolutely nothing plausible whatsoever about shitsky.
>
> Wrong.

Says the 'woman' who just commented over the last several weeks about
how her eyes have been opened to shitsky's dishonesty and hypocrisy.

[BTR1701]

In article <XKudne-6OcwixmTN...@mchsi.com>,

trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:

> So clearly this was done by someone with a history with these kinds of
> things.

Yeah, you.

[Adam H. Kerman]

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>"Barb May" <bar...@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:
>>BTR1701 writes:

>>>There's absolutely nothing plausible whatsoever about shitsky.

>>Wrong.

>Says the 'woman' who just commented over the last several weeks about
>how her eyes have been opened to shitsky's dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Dude: You got seamused.

[moviePig]

If I "really" thought it was Trotsky, I'd have quickly abandoned this
discussion altogether ...but, part your fog of wishes and you'll see
it demonstrably wasn't. Moreover, for that matter, nobody "around
here" -- i.e., people with a substantial reasonably articulate posting
history -- has an ego small enough to let them do anonymous "stuff
like that".

[calvin]

I must have missed the part that showed it wasn't trotsky.
To my present knowledge it is unprovable either way.
As for my 'fog of wishes', the silly 'troll alert' post is so
common from trotsky that it wasn't worth a second's
thought until he denied posting it. Why did he deny
posting it? Because it was you who challenged the post.

[trotsky]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile.

[trotsky]

What's the email address?

[trotsky]

I've never heard of it. If you have some information, share it. If
you're phishing to be called an asshole, I've already told you that you
will have to do better than coming off as a limp dick to do that.

[trotsky]

Ducking out of the gist of the post, then? Could you sound more guilty?