Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Welcome!


This is the blog that is used to support IS301 at Nevada State College. On this page I will be posting stories of general interest regarding the technology industry. These posts can cover anything related to the industry, from new techniques used in creating special effects for movies to the Target/Neiman Marcus security breach to implantable circuitry that can help the blind see. I am also happy to accept submissions from students on topics they feel are of interest and would like to see as a post, and begin discussion on that topic. I have left up the posts from previous semesters so you can get an idea of the kind of posts you'll see and how the blog works.

The commenting should be completely open, and not requiring a Google account. If you run into trouble let me know, and I will also need to know if you are commenting using a pseudonym (which is fine, as long as I know and can give appropriate credit). On t other hand, if an abundance of spam comments appear, I will have to mandate people register. Hopefully we can avoid that.

So without further ado, here is the first tech-related post of the semester. It may not seem very tech-related at first, but as we will see later in the session, it very much is. It turns out that Anchorman 2, a movie I'm embarrassed to admit mad me chuckle, is Paramount Picture's last movie to be filmed on 35mm film as they move over to all-digital. Other studios still use 35mm, but not for long.

One summer I worked in a movie theater where 35mm film was hand-threaded.
It's the end of an era. Film gives images a realistic, soft quality that digital doesn't provide, but I understand the need for the transition as the supporting infrastructure for film fades away and digital is so much easier to use.

Oh, there's this too, which I'm happy to hear. We'll be talking about this phenomenon too!

5 comments:

  1. I as well think that this is very unfortunate news for the film industry, but understand that we are in a digital age and film makers want to make movies that WOW everyone with the quality of the film, and I think digital is the way to go in order to accomplish that. The first thing that came to my mind when starting out the article was that it was probably the film studios way of trying to save money any way that they could. It turns out the article goes right into that aspect saying that it costs merely $100 for a studio to make a film on digital rather than spending upward of $2000 for them to use film print.

    As far as the second article about people switching over to streaming websites such as Netflix or Amazon Prime, I think it is a smart thing in some cases. If you are tight on money and don't really care to watch television shows everyday, this is the right move for you. Why pay $50 for basic television channels when you can pay $8 a month to stream the entire library of Netflix? The only downfall about Netflix, in my opinion, is that they seem to be losing a lot of different movies and televisions shows that last couple of months and it's hard to find something that you haven't already watched and have interest in.

    - Shane Booth

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is officially the transition of the film industry to a new era. When I think of going to the movies I can picture the movie projector on the back end rotating along. I also can see the difference in quality between the a movie I watch at the movie theater and one on Blu-ray. Of course quality of the movie is clearer. Even though we are all use to 35mm movies, the quality of the digital movies cannot be compared. It was just a matter of time. No it isn't the same, but soon we will be comparing digital movies to the next new type of movies.

    I am not surprised to hear that so many people are switching to streaming video. I subscribe to Netflix because they have cool documentaries such as "The Universe" that I can stream from anywhere, anytime. I work long hours and do not have set times to watch TV, so when I do have a time I can watch from my pc when I'm traveling or from my TV at home. Streaming websites is more affordable then paying for TV channels that you can only access at home. I think the new way of watching movies, whether in a theater or on your pc, has come a long way in quality, affordability, and convenience.

    Thanks,
    Natalia Brooks

    ReplyDelete
  3. While the initial costs to get the digital projection systems to theaters will be a hit, this sounds like the digital films will be more cost effective for all in the long run. Not only will this be more cost effective, it will create a better viewing experience for consumers. I try to watch old films with my daughter and she shows no interest in watching them; the picture quality, the effects. Everything is simply outdated compared to what her four year old self is used to.

    All businesses need to be willing to adapt and overcome as technology advances. It's doesnt take long for the latest and greatest thing to take over, technology or not. Many devices have transformed to digital; cameras, video cameras, printers, music, gaming systems. I supposed it should not be a surprise that movies are the next big thing to go digital. Although, I am surprised at the cost comparison of $100 and $2,000!

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is an exciting time to be producing movies. If the digital copy produces a clearer picture and is cheaper to produce, I think this is a win win. The only concern I do have is for the 8 percent of theater owners who have not, for one reason or another, been able to afford the $70,000 digital system. If you own a small theater in a rural part of the county, the cost of the new system might put you out of business.

    It makes sense that people are switching to streaming video and ditching cable services. Not only is the cost significantly cheaper, but people love to “binge watch” their shows and streaming is a great format to do that. However, I believe that streaming has a long way to go before I will give up my DirecTV. I still want to watch the first episode of my series the night that it airs. Also, I have several friends who only have streaming video in their homes due to the cost of cable services and when they come to visit, they spend the better part of their time on my couch glued to my television.
    - Shannon Vozar

    ReplyDelete
  5. This was a very interesting post. I believe that this has potential positive outcomes in the long run. It can be much more cost effective and allow consumers to experience a much better quality film. The only major downfall is the upfront costs to having the new and improved system installed in the theaters. This is when there are potential negative outcomes, especially to small business owners. I know for a fact that if this is the future way to films that small towns will most likely not be able to sustain these new systems because of the lack of available funding. This could potentially lead these small business out of business real quick. So while there are many perks to this new development it does come with some significant downfalls. I enjoyed reading this post along with the rest of the comments made by fellow classmates.

    -Ashley Brown

    ReplyDelete