Talk:Projectionist

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Nitrocellulose#Replacement filmstocks|superseded]] The anchor (#Replacement filmstocks) has been deleted by other users before.
[[Nitrocellulose#Replacement filmstocks|superseded by cellulose triacetate]] The anchor (#Replacement filmstocks) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Getting started

Need some sources to expand this, any help would be appreciated. Quadzilla99 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon

This doesn't have too much Jargon. I'm a projectionist, and I understand everything fine. For anyone who isn't a projectionist and has no intention of becoming one, this is NONE of their business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.119.127 (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well excuse me, but I can imagine someone wanting to learn about a projectionist's job despite not wanting to be one. Do you have to be involved professionally with a particular topic before you look it up in an encyclopedia? 87.206.156.143 (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totaly agree with the above comment, there is not too much jargon here. If anyone who has an interest in projection they should already have a good idea of some of the technical terms. If not google is always on hand to explain things further. Although i say this as a projectionist also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.100.207 (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an ex part time projectionist I too can understand the article. However the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform a wide range of readers so it could do with some work on it. As for budding projectionists reading it: As I understand it, although I have not been in a 'box' for nearly 30 years, today's projectionists are paid the same as or less than McDonald's workers. Also with digital cinema just around the corner, the future prospects for the job are not good. I doubt if anyone would have any interest in it these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.35.72 (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article has now had several rewrites and the jargon comments no longer apply. The original article was very short and contained a considerable amount of jargon mainly applicable to the modern projection box.--OldProjectionist (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Issues?

Seems to me like there are some serious NPOV issues with this article. Particularly the last part is written from an elitist standpoint, pointing out all of the flaws of digital cinema, while minimizing the disadvantages inherent in using film. 75.13.44.113 (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections to this article

I don't see how I "minimized" flaws with film projection: Dust, scratches, inferior master files from digital intermediates at only 2.25MP/frame, and unskilled operators running rampant throughout the industry. Is it really "elitist" to consider film work skilled labor?

As for digital, I challenge you to refute any factoid or figure I've quoted. I've cited a very extensive technical article. The BEST proof, though, would be to watch a pristine 35mm print of a film like "Inception" or "The Dark Knight" and compare it for quality color, dynamic range, and resolution with a digitally-imaged movie played on the best 2K or 4K projector. I know of a few 4K Sony projectors out there that can outresolve all but the best 35mm film prints. Yet the theatres are putting in only 2K projectors, or 4K projectors that only have 2K 3D lensesISOGuru (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digital v. Photochemical debate

I note that the 'digital vs. photochemical' paragraph has been restored to my rewrite. I would argue that this both exhibits a POV (i.e. it suggests that film prints offer a higher subjective quality of image than digital projection systems) and is irrelevant to this entry, which is specifically about the job of the projectionist. In other words, it is about the role of the human being and how this has been changed by the technology he or she works with, not that technology itself. I'm also worried about the assertion in the article at 2k digital projection is the industry norm, when 4k systems are increasingly being installed (though admittedly a lot of 2k legacy systems remain and are likely to for a significant time to come). I'd suggest that this material, rewritten in terms of covering the debate between the respective merits of film vs. digital rather than taking one side of it, be integrated into the release print entry - because this is specifically about the actual technology by which movies are communicated to theatres and presented in them - rather than this one, which should be concentrating on the role of the individual in that process. LDGE (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was I that restored the material. I don't object to your cleaning up improving the article. God knows I would if I had the time. Problem is simple deleting, omitting pertinent material from the original, disorganized as it may have been.

As for being objective, I freely admit to being in the film camp. However, I have/had cited facts that show that film is capable of producing a wider gamut of colors, and a higher resolution. My writing was saying that the conversion resulted in a loss of quality for viewers. It is not just from my admittedly biased perspective as a projectionist watching my hours disappear. ISOGuru (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Projectionist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130221201727/http://www.caboosebooks.net/node/38 to http://www.caboosebooks.net/node/38

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What happened in 1953?

There needs to be some explanation of why this date ends one era and starts another. deisenbe (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs an overhaul

Reads like someone's sentimental essay on days gone by, with a bit of labor activism thrown in. E Eng 13:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but only a projectionist COULD write this. I'll soon add another paragraph to the dot list- re analysis and fixing of faults that occur DURING a presentation. This used to happen about 3 times a year when I worked in this field. Pawprintoz (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]