Lack of Digital Screens for Attack of the Clones

spt writes: "CNN Entertainment has an article describing Lucas Arts' disappointment at the lack of digital screens available for Attack of the Clones. When the Phantom Menace was released, they were hoping that, by May 2002, there would be 2000 digital screens. That estimate dropped to 'several hundred', but the reality is that now there are only 20 digital screen in the U.S. Who has been lucky enough to see a digitally produced film in one of these 20? Is there enough of a benefit to think that more screens will be converted to digital projection?"

Comments

Digital?

[killa-b(a was taken)]

i dont understand what this digital screen is, but when it comes down to it unless its a full lcd there will always been a dac somewhere, i mean let face it in the theater, the biggest problem is the loss of quality whehn the light hits the air, full of dust, and popcorn. perhaps im wrong, any ideas?

The advantage

[MiTEG]

What is the advantage to watching a movie on a digital screen when obviously at some point it was converted from analog? Was the whole movie shot with digital film? I think that would be overwhelmingly expensive. If this is the case, I would think that the analog presentations would be higher quality because they wouldn't have to go through the analog -> digital conversion (kinda like the superiority of LP's over CD's).

Re:The advantage

[trumpetplayer]

Well, CDs actually degrade more than LPs (for example they are significantly affected by normal daylight), and they last several times less. Obviously, the big advantage is the possibility of making exact copies of the original information each 5 years if you like.

The interesting point is that, due to the much more dynamic range and cutoff freq of the LP, if you take care over your LPs, their playing quality after 50 years of playing it will still be much better than with a CD. So you could always obtain a CD from a LP over the years and still get the highest quality a CD can give (providing you have the neccessary, expensive hardware to do the copy).

I think this observation could apply to many if not all the storage systems which are comparable: Photo CD vs film, DVD vs film, etc, although my experience is only for audio.

What's the advantage?

[-tji]

I know there are advantages for the film producer in doing all digital. Editing, and special effects are easier in an all digital medium.

Digital may also (theoretically) solve distribution problems, allowing them to download the films to the theaters, rather than shipping the physical films around.

But, what is the benefit to the theater or the viewer?

I believe that Lucas is doing Star Wars in 1080p24 (1080 lines, progressive scanned at 24 frames per second). A good 35mm film will offer much better resolution than that.

Wouldn't a better option for quality be 70mm, like Imax uses. Or, even cranking up the frame rate.. how about a 60fps film. The motion blur at 24fps is horrible.

Re:What's the advantage?

[ChrisCampbell47]

This is the wild-and-wooly early days of digital projection. We will no doubt go through several rounds of standards changes and upgrades. I haven't seen 1920x1200 on a big screen--maybe it's really gorgous--but it is hard for me to imagine that this level of quality will still be in use 20 years from now.

I have three numbers for you, my friend:

• 44.1 kHz
• 16 bit
• 12 cm

All part of the CD digital audio standard defined in March 1980, 22 years ago. Audiophiles have been cringing ever since.

I'm just pointing out that standards often become very well entrenched and do not evolve. So whatever technology the market gathers around this year may define what we have to look at for many years (if not decades) to come.

Re:What's the advantage?

[ChrisCampbell47]

And that's where SACD comes into play

Along with 3 or 4 other attempts to extend the capabilities of the CD audio format, none of which have succeeded, or ever will, because the old 1980 standard is perceived as Good Enough for 99% of the population.

Not Surprising...

[Waffle Iron]

...Considering that most major theater chains are currently in or on the verge of bankrupcy. It's not the time to be out buying super-expensive new projectors, especially when they just got done on a huge overbuilding spree.

Anyway, this situation will be a money-making bonanza for Lucas. They can re-release the film to theaters after a few years, this time in "full digital glory" and with 3 more minutes of previously cut scenes. All of the usual geeks will show up and shell their money out once again (OTOH, if it sucks as much as episode 1, maybe not).

Re:20 theaters?

[spongman]

it's easily the best theatre (in terms of audio/visual quality) that I've been to. well worth checking out if you get the chance.

i happen to like front-row center on the upper level.

When it happens, remember you saw this one coming.

[blair1q]

As soon as digital theaters get big, home digital theaters using the same technology will get big, and pirated perfect digital movie-theater resolution copies of these flicks will be pressed and distributed like Thin Mints.

--Blair

There's something to be said for *grain*

[Artifice_Eternity]

It's part of the analog richness of film.

I will always love the random scattering of those silver molecules, dancing over the image flickering in the darkness.

It's like the warmth that comes from a vinyl record, as opposed to the cold clarity of a CD.

Re:There's something to be said for *grain*

[zzyzx]

Among traders of live music, there's a similar debate about soundboards vs audience tapes. Audiences are said to be warmer and boards are sterile. Personally, when I listen to a cd, all I want to hear is music. When I watch a movie, all I want to see is the movie. I think the warmth argument is mainly associations. People who grew up on vinyl, associate clicks and pops with hearing music. People who grew up on film, associate "random scattering of those silver molecules" with movies. If you don't have those associations, the whole thing seems silly.

Re:Biggest Loss: Internegatives - Release Prints

[PhotoGuy]

And yes, the projections they use are LCD or DLP, so the projections are digital.

I know most graphic designers will turf a sexy, pixel-perfect (alignment-wise) LCD display, for a clunky, blury (to me) CRT, because there's more depth to the colour, blacker blacks than LCD can provide, and so on. It seems well established that LCD can't provide the contrast and colour range that CRT's can.

Does this mean that LCD/DLP projectors would suffer from same of the colour and contrast problems as well? Or do the theatre-quality digital projectors blow away commercial LCD's when it comes to these issues???

-me

Re:Why should exhibitors pay to upgrade to digital

[chill]

There is one notable exception: scratches.

I've been to midnight-showing, opening night of some movies and see scratches on the film.

The one DLP film I saw (Emperor's New Groove @ AMC Buena Vista in LBV, FL) was flawless.

Here is a list of all the theaters.

[red_gnom]

Texas Instruments Digital Light Processing

My experience

[Tim McNerney]

I've seen probably seven or eight films in digital. Toy Story 2, Dinosaur, Perfect Storm, Monster's Inc. being a few. I've seen a couple in both digital and on 35mm. Here is what I found.

I prefer the digital, especially for animated films. The color saturation is much better, the picture is rock solid as compared to film (you don't really notice the shaking on a normal film until you see the digital equivalent, though when you see bleeding during credits, this is one example) and a pristine copy from the first day to the last are the biggest things I preferred.

Animation is really best able to take advantage of the format (especially cgi). It allows these films to avoid filmstock throughout their entire lifecycle. Plus, it tends to have very little noise in it which makes it a better candidate for compression and less artifact prone (though I don't remember any egregious problems with any of the live action films I've seen).

There are still problems. There are noticeable digital artifacts. Movement can look bad. But it is still early on in the life of these techniques.

I believe that the projecters use are 3 chip DLP's with a resolution of 1280x1024. It really is amazing how good a picture they can produce.

You're exactly right, it's like a big TV

[kfg]

And that's the problem.

My brother was projectionist at a local theater. This isn't just any theater, but a 1920's era Vaudville house that's been totally restored and brought up to spec with the latest movie technology.

He invited me to sit in the booth with him one day shortly after the restored theater had gone "online." It was a good, old fashioned movie show. Double feature with a short and a cartoon. The cartoon was the Bugs Bunny about the penguin from Hoboken.

My jaw dropped when it came on. For 20 years I'd only seen Warner Bros. cartoons on TV. I'd forgotten what they really looked like in their native enviroment.

Was it scratched, gritty, with specs of dirt? You bet your ass it was, but. . .

The colors. My God, this was NOTHING like what you can see on TV! The richness, the subtle shadings, the pure ART of the thing floored me.

Only seeing them on TV for 20 years made me forget what they were supposed to look like.

I'll live with the scratches and dirt specs until digital can make Bugs look the way Bugs is supposed to look.

When I go to the theater I don't want to see a big TV. I want to see FILM, light shining directly through a tinted medium.

At the moment, nothing else even comes close.

KFG

Digital Cinema is a Disruptive Technology

[epepke]

History has shown that disruptive technologies (GUI, small disk drives, flash cards, etc.) have followed this path:

1. They are developed by large corporations, are initially less cost-effective, but have certain peculiar advantages
2. The large companies have absolutely no clue how to market them, and they rot
3. They are taken up by smaller companies and find success in niche markets
4. Gradually, the technology improves to the point where is is better and cheaper than the old technologies
5. Large companies suddenly notice them again, and they become standard

Digital film is a classical example of a disruptive technology at stage 2. It won't take off until it is adopted in niche markets.

I suggest for the niche market something I thought of a few years ago for HDTV: small "art" film houses, the ones that now aren't above using projection of standard video at a pinch, who make most of their money from selling beer and espresso, and have small but dedicated clientele. Set up a distribution system where a small theatre can lease such a system and download films. Offer a variety of older films in digital form (possibly scanned from prints but ideally from interpositives). This would provide a nice, steady stream of revenue for older films that were not blockbusters but which will always have a steady market amongst the people who go for this sort of thing.

It is probably too small a market for the studios to notice, so some small entity is going to have to negotiate with studios to provide this service.

As this happens, companies will be able to work to improve the technology, eventually getting it to the point where most of the (currently legitimate) objections will not apply.

edge out the competition...

[WinPimp2K]

Bah humbug! (Bear with me while I pull numbers out of thin air and further pretend you are a theater operator)

More specifically, the new digital projector will cost upwards of 100 grand. Your theater seats 300 people, and you generally sell 1000 tickets per day. (five showings at 200 people per - you are doing good!) And you aren't going to be able to sell off the old projector - not everything is available digitally, and when it is all digital who the heck will buy your old film projector for anything near what it actually costs?

Now, pretend that you will actually get 5% more people coming for the "improved digital" experience. Well, that is an additional 50 people per day. But your box office basically goes to the distributor/studio (400.00 extra per day,but not to the theater). So you get 5 bucks per person on the concession stand - or an extra 250 bucks per day. Gee that would almost pay for the upgrade in a year -if you can count on that five bucks per extra person at the concession stand. On the other hand, the studio gets an extra 400 bucks per day from the box office (over a hundred grand per year), but it actually saves them a few thousand in the costs of actual films that they do not have to make and distrbute.

Oh, but wait - you don't have just one screen, you a new stadium seating multiplex with 2 dozen screens. And you are still paying off the debt you took on constructing that to get ahead of the competition, plus you are hurting because of the long term leases on the mall multiplexes you cannibalized when you put up the new stadium seating facility.

And having learned some hard lessons from the stadium seating construcion glut, you know that if you do upgrade to digital and start seeing slightly better numbers, well, then your competitors (who lost that extra 50 tickets per day per screen) are going to be forced into upgrading aswell - if they can afford to. If they can't afford to, they will take other steps to remain competitive - maybe cutting their ticket prices. You can pretty much be guaranteed that you won't see those extra customers long enough to recover your investment in a new projector.

But wait, we aren't even talking about a single multiplex! You are actually part of a national chain, and theses decisions are made at a regional level (the manager at McDonalds does not decide what gos on his menu either). So rather than a decision involving a dozen screens, and a couple of million bucks, we are talking hundreds of screens and real money. All so we won't disappoint George Lucas - the prima donna snob whose ideas of "fair play" kept us from running Episode 1 on most of our screens for the first few days to milk maximum revenue, and then cut back to handle just the die hard fans who put down "Jedi" as their religion on census forms.

No, theater operators actually have a strong financial DIS-incentive to "go digital". Their demands that the studios subbsidize it make a heck of a lot of sense - the studios will see all the major cost savings on the digital distribution over physical media, but there won't be any overall change in the actual numbers of tickets sold or buckets of popcorn purchased - hence no advantage for the theater.

Don't forget this critical point.

[bigdreamer]

This whole discussion reminds me of a quote everyone forgets:

"Technology, no matter how dazzling, hold an audience for longer than five minutes without a captivating story."

Steve Jobs
Pixar's 1996 Report

People can wonder about how come some movie technology doesn't seem to make it, why do some movie studios with special effects have been sold. They have all forgotten this essential truth.

Until people see that the movie's ability to captivate is more important than the technology used in the movie (or to display to movie, for that matter) we will have more discussions like this. But as I write, there's over 400 posts to this discussion alone. I expect this point to be lost in the uproar.

But Wait! There's More!

[cryptochrome]

Everyone here is right. The current resolution and color space of digital is insufficient - but it can be improved with new/better technology. Those digital projectors are expensive - but those prints are even more expensive.

What really matters is that distribution of digital films could be an IMMENSE improvement over the existing network. There would be no limits on where, or when, or how many screens a film could be shown. Everyone could show a hot film on opening night. Theaters could adjust the number of screens they're showing their films on at will. Staggered worldwide release of films due to limited prints would be a thing of the past (the sole reason for the evil DVD region coding). Older films could be re-shown at will, without worrying about coordination. Instead of renting a copy of a film at a set price, theaters could pay based on seats sold/available, eliminating discrimination between large and small venues - indeed, leading to a trend towards theaters with more, but smaller screens for increased flexibility, and greater intimacy when desired - including private, on-demand screenings. Who needs a home theater when you can have the real thing?

In short, going to the movies could be a lot more fun for the fans, and more efficient for the theaters and studios.

Hell yeah, we should go digital. And the studios should be paying for it. They stand to benefit in a big way.