Article in Time Out.
Admittedly it's easy to be critical, but I'm really not sure about the inelegant job title "technical services technician". Or the hours. Or the prospects. The quoted pay seems pretty optimistic too ...
Article in Time Out.
Admittedly it's easy to be critical, but I'm really not sure about the inelegant job title "technical services technician". Or the hours. Or the prospects. The quoted pay seems pretty optimistic too ...
Article on local radio station 96.4 Eagle's website with accompanying OFU footage.
Against all the odds, Kodak - which went bankrupt as recently as 2012 - has announced that it's "reviving" Super-8 cameras and film. Kodak's got a press release from CES 16 and here's the Super-8 Revival product page. They've also lined up a load of top Hollywood directors to sing the praises of this "analogue renaissance".
It appears that the camera will have built-in audio recording to SD card. When you send off your reel of exposed film for processing, Kodak will return it to you in digital form with the soundtrack synchronised.
Returning to the Guardian article in the first link, commenters seem reasonably split over whether this is a good idea or whether it is simply pandering to hipsters. At issue: can you do something with analogue film that you simply cannot do with digital? Years ago, I'd have thought this was a brilliant idea - shooting on OFU's 8mm and 16mm cameras brought an implicit level of professionalism that mucking about with a camcorder could never have achieved. But the convenience, cost and quality of digital makes me doubt this. Should we not be spending our creative efforts on the actual creative process, rather than simply selecting a tool for the sake of nostalgia?
Gizmodo republishes some photographs of projection booths in the final days of film. There are a few nice comments from former projectionists below the article.
The photographer is Joseph Holmes.
Today I finally saw inside the Management School lecture theatre. Remember the one? The theatre that the university offered to OFU in place of LT-G but which was turned down, without consultation, by USSU on our behalf? Yes, that one.
It's nice. I think we'd have been very lucky to have it and we'd have been happy there.
It's spacious and comfortable. It has three digital projectors although not mounted in a way that would lend itself to a hacked, twenty-first century facsimile of a Cinerama screen.
The two side projectors are ceiling-mounted with their own retractable screens. The central Christie projector lives inside a small booth. It projects straight onto the front wall of the theatre. The image size is limited by six grills in the wall which are presumably for front centre and stereo sound. The theatre is generously equipped with surround speakers. There is also a small theatre-style lighting rig.
In all, I'm quite impressed. There would be issues for the busiest film showings with patrons sitting in the front wings but we had the same problem of sight lines in LT-G; it's designed as a lecture theatre primarily, after all.
Article in The Atlantic Cities. Somewhat inevitably, small-town cinemas in the US are struggling with the costs of switching to digital. Nothing here we couldn't have guessed / foreseen, unfortunately, although some of the survival strategies (crowd-funding under the banner "Go Digital or Go Dark"; pooled resources between independent operators) are novel.