Slashdot Mirror
Will Digital Cinema Wipe-Out Today's Movie Theaters?
Phantoman asks: "I work for the Campus Cinema at University of California Davis and we are looking into getting a Christie or Barco DLP system for Digital Cinema projection. Now if this is the wave of the future I ask you all to compare 35mm to Digital. The price tag on a digital setup is roughly $140,000. Without content. 35mm isn't all that cheap, but if my old Century 35mm projectors break I can get replacement parts for usually less than $100-300. If something goes wrong with the DMD (digital micromirror device) I have a feeling those digital projector parts are going to cost me big. Are the movie theater chains going to get stuck with big costs down the road because Hollywood producers want to save money and have tighter control over distribution? As if they didn't a monopoly already: it costs us between $500-1000 (or half of our profits, whichever is more) for each night we show a movie!" At those prices it doesn't sound like digital theaters will overtake 35mm theaters anytime soon, but what would happen if Hollywood suddenly got the "bright" idea to limit 35mm reel distribution within the next few years?
"Digital is all well and good for the production end, but is anyone going to be able to foot the cost for digital on the presentation end or are we going to end up a straight-to-video world? Also, If anyone wants to help donate to a nonprofit for our digital system, email me. We were the second school to have 35mm, I would like to be the first to have digital."
I might be the odd one out, but I actually prefer watching movies on 35mm. Maybe it's similar to some peoples' preference to recordings on vinyl as opposed to tape or CD. There's just something about digital that seems, well, off. I don't know if it's something like an almost imperceptible but consistent digital artifact in the encoding that my subconcious is picking up on or what. Maybe my mind just prefers imperfections.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
If the studios limited 35mm runs they would hurt their own bottom line.
The theaters have a lot of pull and they know it. There is a lot of pressure on films to make big bucks (as the initial investment is nothing to laugh at)
It seems to me (an outsider admittedly) that this is a pretty symbiotic relationship where neither side can squeeze too hard w/out hurting themselves in the long run.
But if I had to pick a stronger side I would say it is the theaters (big chains mostly AMC, Harkins, etc.) have an edge. That is where the revenue is actually generated on the outset.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
i'm waiting till they hide a subliminal watermark in the digial version (maybe able to be done with 35mm .. that will only be seen when a movie is cammed..
.. next time someone watches a camed movie it says busted right across the middle of the screen in big letters..
ie human eye can't see it but when a camcorder records it and plays it back it covers the screen.. just imagine
the question is can they pull that off??
I've seen two movies with digital projectors. One was in Paramus, NJ several years ago, and the picture was absolutely perfect. The other was in Framingham, MA last month, and the picture was poor. You could see the pixels in some scenes, and it was obvious in the closing credits. The image just didn't feel as sharp as I would have expected.
Apparently the newer and cheaper digital projectors use a resolution slightly lower than that of HDTV (I'm sure someone will post the resolution). That's just not good enough.
So stick with film until the digital resolution is good enough that you won't have people complaining. I, for one, will not be going to a digital theater again anytime soon.
The price on the digitial projection equipment will not stay high forever.
Besides I suspect that your current equipment cost nearly the equivalent in today's dollars when it was new. Or at least the early 35mm sound projection equipment did.
Also, considering the cost savings in avoiding film prints alone, it seems pretty likely the movie distributors are going to push this technology pretty hard. Hopefully they will offer some kind of incentive to getting the equipment into the theatres.
Jack William Bell
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
The chains don't have the money or the drive to make the switch. They vastly overbuilt stadium seating mega-multiplexes and they are not going to rework those theaters for an extraordinarily niche segment.
People might be inclined to make an effort and pay more for IMAX, but there is no such instinct towards digital cinema (Wow! Approaching the quality of film, if you don't look too hard. Here's my extra $1.)
And if the studios cut back on the number of film reels they ship and say they'll only send them digital? Well, they'd be self-destructive to do it before there was a critical mass of digital cinema theaters nationwide, and there won't be for quite awhile.
Consumers (rightly) don't perceive digital cinema as benefiting them, so they aren't driving it. Stadium seating did benefit them, which is why they'll pay extra and so many were built. As it turns out, too many, but that's because everyone was rushing forward in the boom times ignoring business cycles and such.
Love him or hate him, he is a famous voice in the movie review business. Here he says "Digital images contain less information than 35mm film images, and the more you test their limits, the more you see that."
I have read (in another of his reviews that I can't find now) that movies that are "filmed" (vs. digitally recorded) look better on film, where as digitally recorded movies look better on digital projectors (duh). He also stated that film seems more suited for real life (vs. digital recording) where as digital projection is better for digitally created works (much of Clones, Monsters Inc., etc.).
Wish I could find that commentary...
As noted current technology is both too price and still too low in quality to outpace standard 35mm film. There is a lot of mindshare built around how to make film look good on celluloid. Tossing it all out just for the alluring gloss of digital projection is stupid.
However there is a legitimate and embraced usage of digital film making. The small time indy film makers have seen the costs of making films go *way down* by using digital cameras and a simple computer(think iMac) in post production.
So the question in my mind isn't whether or not Digital film making is worth while. It is. It is whether or not projecting it in a theater is worth it, which currently it isn't.
And lastly, why does anyone want to believe Lucas on this cinema technology? This is the guy that questions the wisdom of Scorsese on constructing sets that recreate 1850 New York(I believe the movie he was refering to was Gangs of New York). Lucas would rather see it all digitized except the actors. I'll take Scorsese's attention to detail than Lucas' SFX team anyday.
A few months ago I attended a SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) meeting held at Pixar. The meeting was held in their screening room. The screening room is equipped with both a traditional 35MM film projector anda DLP projector with a resolution of 1280x1024.
For the first part of the demonstration they showed a clip from Monsters Inc. split screen, with the left half the digital projector and the right half the film projector.
It became immediately apparent the advantages of the DLP projector over the film projector.
With the side-by-side showing, the jitter of the film became immediately visible. The detail of the DLP image was better. Also, the DLP is capable of much better contrast than film.
Now the film that was shown was of higher quality than that shown in the theaters, and the projector was also better than that in most theaters (and is also better maintained).
This isn't to say that there were no DLP artifacts. There were some, but they were not very noticable compared to the artifacts that usually appear in film. The film shown had no dirt or scratches, but in the typical theater this is not the case.
Unlike film, there's nothing to wear out in the media.
As far as the projector lasting a long time, the only real problem I hear of is that the light bulb must be periodically replaced (which cost around $100). The DLP should last a long time.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
somehow I don't see e-books ever replacing books. Sure I could be wrong, but as a personal preference, I would much rather pick up a physical book and read it in bed or on the couch. Sure, I could print it out, but rather than buy a high quality printer for e-book printing, I'd rather just go out to the store and buy a book
1000 years ago you might have said:
somehow I don't see printed books ever replacing scrolls. Sure I could be wrong, but as a personal preference, I would much rather pick up a piece of parchment and read it in church or at the royal court. Sure, I could get two copies, but rather than buy another printed book, I'd rather just go to my desk and copy another scroll by hand
2000 years before that you might have said:
somehow I don't see parchment ever replacing stone tablets. Sure I could be wrong, but as a personal preference, I would much rather pick up a stone tablet and read it in my mud house or on the acropolis. Sure, I could write it out, but rather than buy high quality sheepskin and a quill for parchment copying, I'd rather just go out to the quarry and mine another slab of limestone
8000 years before that you might have said:
somehow I don't see stone tablets ever replacing oral history. Sure I could be wrong, but as a personal preference, I would much rather meet a talented bard and listen to a tale around the fire or on a journey. Sure, I could carve it out, but rather than learn to read and write and buy a high quality piece of stone and a sharp implement for carving it, I'd rather just go out to the bar and meet a strange traveller with strange stories of faraway lands
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
The most prone-to-failure bit on any projector is the bulb. You need a REALLY high output bulb to make a visible image on a large screen. That is not going to change from film to digital, and is not likely to get much cheaper.
The reels are not really that complex. The film path through the camera (and sound reading equipment) is where the complecity comes in. It's quite facinating, really. For those reading this message, you should see if you can take a tour of the projection booth at your local theatre.
I was a projectionist for about three years. The projectors we used were over 20 years old. Aside from a few $2.00 micro switches (on the platters) dying, and a couple of roller bearings seizing (film path guides), and the obvious Xenon buld needing replacement there where zero projection failures. They paid the "head prjectionist" (who was responsible for prjector maintainance) less than $30,000 per year. And that included working 25 hours a week running the projectors.
YMMV. I do feel that digital's maintainance costs will be lower... At this time, it's the early adoption period of new technology. Think about digital projectors as being the new GeForce 4 XP (whatever the new one is) video card of the Theatre business. The early adopters will pay out the nose to be the first kids on the block with the cool toys.
What? What does theatre ownership have to do with controlling revenue? They Hollywood moguls control revenue by controlling distribution. It has nothing to do with theatre ownership. If you can pay, you can play.
George Lucus originally said AotC would only go to digital equiped houses, but only 19 were ready for the digital copy (I saw it at the one here in Orlando). I guess the thought of threating them with not having Star Wars unless they were digital, did not make all 3500 theatres go spend the 140k for the equipment.
Unless more than 70% of the houses go digital, 35mm will remain.
The studios could buy the projectors for the movies houses so they can get the control they seem to covet.
I'm not a theater owner, but I know and am related to some people who are (i.e., take this with the standard grain of salt). The reluctance to adopt digital technology, at least in its initial stages, seems to be beyond just the buy-in cost.
There seems to be an overall concern of initially purchasing expensive technology that quickly becomes dated and then being forced to maintain pace with the current standard to stay in the game. With traditional film projectors, the cost of materials can be so low because film is an old technology it's therefore cheaper to use (not to mention the simplicity of its mechanics).
Another issue is a specific theater's control over the showing of a particular movie. The utopian situation is one in which a theater can choose to play any movie at any time, but it seems that, at least initially, movies would be streamed at a specific time, stripping theaters of their control over showtimes.
Again, that's second-hand information, so I can't guarantee the accuracy of these claims (remember that grain of salt?). Along with the concept of streaming, a theater would have to provide a means of forming a connection with the provider, which, whether via satellite or ground, would probably be quite costly.
So we've identified that an LCD light bulb may *become* cheap to replace, but we're not considering the autonomy of the theaters, the price to maintain the equipment or the new method of delivery.
Just my moderately uninformed opinion on the subject...
Uh, not really, unless you count your computer monitor pixels three times because it handles three different planes (red, green, and blue).
What using three DLP devices gets them is a brighter image, which allows them to project onto a huge screen. Consumer DLP projectors use a wheel with red, green, and blue filters on it. The DLP device will rapidly switch to the correct channel when the corresponding filter is in the light path. That is why there is a "whirring" sound when you are operating a DLP projector (well, there's also the fan sound).
Everyone likes the AOTC digital version better because Lucas made the film transfer from the DLP instead of from the original HDTV 1900 pixel wide source. If he had used the higher resolution source, the film version would have looked better. And he didn't want that, since he's trying to promote his interests in digital cinema.
My other first post is car post.
Prints are not designed to last around 12 screenings. Prints tend to be scratched to oblivion and filthy because theaters (for the most part) cannot afford to pay for properly trained operators to handle the film and keep the equipment clean.
Back decades ago, there were few prints that were roadshowed around the country for upwards of a year or more. At each stop, they were handled by trained professionals and looked as good as the day they were struck. A few years ago, a theater in SF ran "The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the desert 5 times a day for 10 months in 35mm on a 50 year old simplex. My cousin was head projectionist over there. He screened the print for me near the end of the run and it looked brand new. It was the same print on the same projector for 10 months.
Everyone who goes to their local cinema and sees scratched prints with bad bobbing and weaving and poor focus and sound needs to complain to management immediatly! There is NO excuse for poor condition prints.
It's actually more secure than a DVD-ROM, since most people aren't going to be able to just plug a RAID array into their computer and the data isn't compressed nearly as much as on DVD, so a 2.5 hour feature film weighs in around 30 GB or thereabout.
I had no intention of implying that one movie is delivered on one DVD. Quite the contrary. The movie comes on a stack of DVD-ROMs. The operator loads them one at a time, following the prompts on the AMS console. The data gets copied from the DVD-ROMs to the internal drive array on the AMS, where it's staged for presentation.
I've never seen a system in a commercial theater that depends on operators swapping out hard drive canisters. Drives are just too fragile. It's better to leave them where they are and copy the data onto them via removable media or transmission medium.
As for security, the data is encrypted the same way no matter how it's delivered. You can copy that data off the DVDs, if you really want to, but it will be useless to you.