[gwbas1c]

> Why not scan film in instead of.. projecting it on a wall and filming that to archive?

It's a different experience: When viewing film, the picture flickers and shakes. Film grain is substantially different than pixels.

As much as I enjoy modern digital formats, it's important to appreciate the goal of preserving viewing film.

[DidYaWipe]

He asked why a projector is relevant for archiving, not viewing.

The only answer I can imagine is for viewing newly-discovered film to determine its content and condition, in order to decide whether it's worth scanning.

[sublinear]

If it's to be archived it's going to end up encoded as pixels.

I think the question was more about the capture of fine detail. A scanner will digitize much more image detail than any capture of the projector output. Although, reading the article it seems an emphasis was placed on color accuracy. I'm not sure if a scanner is necessarily as good at that.

[cameron_b]

There are some scanners good at that but not at the scope of a 2 hour film.

The other factor is that a projector is the first part of allowing others to view films, and getting the light source nailed down could open the doors to making new prints of those films - a different path to archiving.

[kmoser]

If you're archiving motion picture film, there are no pixels, only film stock. The archive process may include digitizing, but even then you still have to deal with the original film media, which is the primary task of a film archivist.

[nebula8804]

When you play it back, you don't get the same look of a physical medium rapidly moving through a mechanical machine. You just don't.

[gwbas1c]

> If it's to be archived it's going to end up encoded as pixels.

You're missing the point. In this case, the point is literally preserving the experience of viewing actual film: IE, preserving the original viewing experience that the film was shown in.

It's kind of the same think as listening to a vinyl record from the 1960s, even though the digitally remastered 24/96khz flac is technically more accurate to what actually happened in the studio. IE, if I want to know how my parents enjoyed the Beatles, I pull out a vinyl record, even though the various digital remasters, including the recent 24/96 versions, are "more accurate" to what's on the master tapes.

[charcircuit]

>the picture flickers and shakes

This can be emulated with a post processing effect.

>Film grain is substantially different than pixels.

The grain can be recorded at a high enough resolution that the human eye will be unable to tell the difference when it's being projected.

[gwbas1c]

I personally find virtual film effects distracting.

Personally, I've seen old silent films projected from original filmstock, in a theater that considers itself a museum. It's different enough from a scan that I wouldn't want someone to try to "emulate" film for me. Otherwise, I might as well just find the film on bluray or streaming and watch it at home, with all the cleanup and pretty soundtracks that come with home releases.

That being said: Very old film is flammable and can only be projected in flameproof projection rooms. (If you've ever seen a "safety film only" sign, this is why.) Due to the fire risk, scanning the film might be the only practical option.