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??
Once a bunch of theaters start to buy them the price will come down and there are some pretty good benefits to doing so. One, it makes it cheaper so movie studios can do more effects and maybe even hire a few decent actors. Two, it looks sweet. I saw SW: AOTC on both formats and I could see the difference. Imagine how slick the Matix would look in this format as well...
I drove about 50 miles just to see Star Wars
in a digital theater. It was worth it!
Wouldn't the cost start to come down as more theaters go digital?
The big advatage of Digital is being freed from having only a set number of titles you can run. Digitial takes up no space, doesn't wear out (media, not projectors) and you can run any title at any time. Quality isn't the big reason, flexibility is.
-E2
The evil monkey commands you to dance.
There are no real benefits to the theater to have a digital screen. People still come to see a movie, regardless of what kind of projector is. If the studios really want to have digital projects become standard then they need to help by sharing some of the savings of using digital, help the theaters buy the projectors and then lower the price to run a film.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
those that want (??) to pay 15-20 dollars for a film that is all flash, and no substance, and
those that want to see a movie that is made on film because it's cheaper, and doesn't require mammoth amounts of special effects
I'll take the cheaper option, foreign films and quality shows anyday...
"Will Digital Cinema Wipe-Out Today's Movie Theaters?"
No.
I suspect that one of these choices is incorrect. Correct.
The changeover will happen sooner than you think. My guess is 2-5 years. The issue is 'control'. Maybe disguised as features at first. The movie studios want to control distribution because it can yield better profits.
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.
This has been hashed out before on Slashdot (Here). The main competitor seems to be MaxiVision which has been heralded by Roger Ebert. Has some great features: twice the framerate and no huge expenditures. Downsides: requires more film. I don't think anybody is currently making films for this puppy, unfortunately. I was lucky enough to see a sample at their HQ in San Luis Obispo, CA and it is VERY impressive. Having seen AotC on digital I would say they are pretty comparable. I think digital will win out in the end. It seems to have the backing of the big boys...
I think he makes a valid point, but I don't think we'll every actually see the effect he's talking about. There is potential for abuse here, but I think that any abuse that might happen will be outpaced by technology, and I'm sure eventually, that is, by the time this stuff goes mainstream, the equipment will be much much cheaper. In fact, I believe there is potential, over a long enough period of time, to be cheaper than 35mm.
One need only look at the track record of digital technology to answer this question.
Microfiche gave in to digital archives, vinyl has been replaced by CDs for all but the nuttiest audiophiles, even books are more and more moving to an e-book format.
For the moment, however, we're stuck with analog. I saw a digital projection of ATOC in New York, and it was a disappointment. The colors were off, blurry pixels were visible in many of the scenes, fast action shots were marred by compression artifacts, and there were too few scenes with Jar-Jar Binks. The digital sound was great, which should come as no surprise, as it's been great for the last half decade.
Fortunately, we can always count on Moore's Law. Even as I type here at my dumb terminal, digital projection technology is being improved at a rate that analog tech can't touch. I'd hold out for the moment, but in a few years digital projection should be much better and more affordable than the "old school" systems currently in place.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Maybe having "Hollywood" only support digital theatres would be a good thing, at least for the small-time movie producer.
Most of the movies I've seen recently that have been really enjoyable and thought provoking have been independant films. It would be great if they would get wider theatre exposure.
Of course, another alternative is simply some cheaper form of digital projection. Since consumer grade digital cameras are getting quite good in quality, and programs like Final Cut Pro allow you to edit in your living room, we could easily see the "Desktop Video" revolution acutally start to happen.
Digital is all well and good for the production end...
It's good for the "consumer" too, you seem to have missed this point. I saw Monsters, Inc. twice; first on normal reel, and then on digital. I really noticed the difference. This might be just because it was a computer animated film, but that genre seems to be growing at the moment.
I want digital screens, as a viewer. Obviously I'd rather not have to pay more to be able to get it, but copyright and licensing issues don't really apply to me as a movie-goer (since I happily will pay-per-view if I get a seat in a theatre), and so I don't really care about what DRM gets applied there. The ticket price is all that matters to me.
or are we going to end up a straight-to-video world?
:)
GOD i hope not... if these people are gonna hype a movie like crazy, and make me just ITCH to see it I shure as hell BETTER get to see it on a screen bigger than 27 inches and with sound that is crystal clear, and makes the room shudder... without pissing off the neighbors.
I think there is something to be said for the 'theatre experience' Its just not the same to watch a movie on video/dvd! I'll gladly shell out 10 bucks to see a movie in a theatre, it keeps me from having to spend tens of thousands of $$ for my home equipment
If the movie industry wanted to reign in the theatres with digital tech, then I could see the immediate cost increase being passed onto the consumer...image 10-15$ movie tickets! Or perhaps a time based system where opening night costs much more to see than perhaps a couple weeks out.
Here's to hoping that digital cinema will be put on hold until it's better, and that Lucas will never be allowed to write love scenes again.
I'd bet theater owners has similar complaints about the new technology associated with "talkies," but they seem to have made out OK.
Someday a Slashdot ID of 177180 will mean something.
Okay maybe I'm an idiot, but hasn't there been only one major release that you could even play?
Best Windows Freeware
One of the big reasons studios want all digital theaters is that the distribution costs will plummit. Think about how heavy reels of film are and now think about how many of these reels are being shipped all over the world. It would be MUCH cheaper for studios to distribute digitally, by having each theater download the film to be shown.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Like any new technology, it will likely drop in price over time, along with the price to replace parts. Perhaps it would be wise to wait and see what other theatres do, perhaps you are correct and the cost of these new systems will put some theatres out of business, thats when you should buy their semi used projectors from them. If it's not all that bad and digital projection becomes the defacto standard for movie giants, the price to purchase one may have dropped so you might win out in that sense too.
Analog sound is usually better when done right, Vinyl sounds alot better than cds. After seeing Episode 2 i have to say that the digital cameras still has some steps to go before reaching the quality of current movie systems (i forget the name). Especially in dark scenes the digital technology falls through. It gets kind of pixelated or grainy. The same can be said about 100Hz tvs.
There isn't much like the scent of a fresh harddisk
There's a brewing controversy in "hollywood" about who should pay for digital equipment in theaters. Theater owners say it's too expensive, and there's no guarantee that the format of digital cinema that's being projected today will still behere, even 10-15 years from now (compared to 35mm).
Film distributors say, the equipment is expensive, sure, but you only have to buy one copy of the film, and you can show it on several screens at once, and move it from screen to screen easier that you can currently.
i tend to be with the theater owners on the issue if save for the Hoyts and other conglomerates... but i think the days of the independent theaters is going, if not already gone.
I think that once a standard gets hammered out (if ever) that a large chunk of the cost will be absorbed by the distributors, since it will be tons cheaper to distribute digital films (got a DSL connection?)
Then again, i've yet to see a digitally projected film (aside from finger shadow puppets..oops wrong digital), so i have no idea where i fall in the whole analog vs. digital debate.
There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
DLP projectors are truly awsome. I have a small version for my home theater system and it is MANY times better than my previous CRT projector. CRT's need yearly maintanence to keep them in proper adjustment... not to mention the lamps are very expensive and start dropping intensity after just a few weeks. So, I LOVE my new projector. *BUT* For a real theater I couldn't imagine going to digital image. 35mm film offers amazing resolution. True quality is lost in making the thousands of copies that have to be sent all over the place (and weigh a ton). If I were able to have a 35mm in my home (and actually get newer movies for it) I would get one in a heart beat. but as we all know... Hollywood is all about controlling distrobution with an iron fist.... so I wouldn't be suprised to see more and more of a "forced" migration to digital media by the MPAA.
But there was a company that was souping up analog film beyond belief.
Basically, they added extra machinery to stabilize the film as it was wound through the projector, make sure the light was adjusted properly and colors were correct, etc. Can't remember if they upped the framerate, or not.
Think it might have been Ebert reviewing it? Anyway, the guy said it was *at least* on par with the best digital projection, and this was the prototype. Not to mention incredibly price competitive (think chopping the legs out from underneath digital) both on projector equipment, and film distribution (uses tried and true plstic film).
So, no, the future isn't necessarily digital. Then again, how many times have we seen a superior product die because someone influential pushes the inferior product (Lucas, in this case) ?
I'm not sure about the conversion process, but I believe that pretty much any 35mm film can be shown on digital. I know our local Cinemark in Plano, TX, has two DLP screens, which they use full times to show most major movies.
Watch the Teaser Trailer for "The Lightning Thief" Her
Because even though digital projectors and copy protected, digital only movies sounds good from an IP standpoint, when local theatres can't afford it and movies aren't available in middle america the studios will fall back on optical film. It's not good business to alienate the market just because you want to support your own halftruths about content theft...at the end of the day, it's receipts and not soundbites that feed the industry.
Besides, look at the excuse Lucas made for why Ep 2's opening day was so soft..."not enough theatres had digital." Do you think your "Dude, Where's My Car" producers of the world want to reduce their opening draw (of which they keep the lion's share) any more by setting two dates: one for digital, one for optical?
After all, not everybody supports THX or even Dolby. I saw Jay & Silent Bob for $4 at a stereo only theatre in Colorado. I saw the re release of Star Wars in Schenectady on a makeshift projector with a marshall stack. Both theatres were packed with people, and nobody complained about the quality.
Digital film is an expensive solution to a nonexistant problem. Colour me a bright shade of unimpressed (use Pantone, please).
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Once the technology is there, the studios will be pushing digital content heavily. Digital content will also make deployment to TV and DVD easier once the film has left the theater (if theaters are even still in use in twenty years).
I have to agree. I have been very disappointed with the viewing experience of the last few movies I went to see -- I couldn't help thinking how much better it would look and sound at home in my living room.
This was especially true when I went to see Spider-man, the sound quality was poor and there were numerous problems with the film, from dust and hair to a particularly nasty green line running down the screen for most of the movie.
I was about ready to give up on going to the movies, and just wait for stuff to come out on DVD.
The only downside would be dodging spoilers for months.
Then I saw Star Wars ep2 in a digital theatre.
What a difference! The image was crisp, I could see an amazing level of detail - and the sound was great, too! Granted, it was probably more carefully tuned for Star Wars than it would be for other movies, but digital picture gave me a reason to go to the movies again.
I mean, if I'm going to spend eight or nine bucks, it better look and sound better than the average home theatre setup...
Just think of books - does it really matter what sort paper the book is printed on? Of course, it may matter at extremes - books on toilet paper probably wouldn't be readable and books on fancy paper can be really beatiful. But ultimately the contents is what's important.
Would "Blaire Witch Project" be any more effective on a digital screen?
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Most people don't realize that saturation distribution (3,000+ screens) of a film costs more than $10 million dollars just to print and move the film.
Digital distribution, by optical disc, hard drive, or even better satellite would cost pennies on the dollar to distribute versus film prints.
It's going to be challenging for both theaters and studios to simultaneously adopt digital technology. The profit motive is there (and let's face it -- the movie business is a BUSINESS), but the movie busiess has ALWAYS been behind the times with technology. It may take decades if ever for digital projection to catch on.
HOPEFULLY it will start as a grassroots effort like independant theaters like this UC Davis thing. "NO CONTENT" is misleading -- most student and many independant productions these days are shot on DV cameras. Digitally projecting such projects would allow big exposure for students that wouldn't need to expensively transfer their videos to film.
If you can swing it, get both 35mm and digital. Get some private industry to write some grants for ya.
I have a feeling those digital projector parts are going to cost me big.
The cost of digital may start out high, but it will rapidly decrease. Why?
First of all, you're not using nearly so many moving parts. A digital projector is either going to read from a larg capacity hdd or some sort of laser media rather than a large, prone to failure, reel-to-reel system.
For those who haven't been inside a theatre projection room in the last little bit, these 'reels' are actually complex turntable systems that cost thousands to maintain.
Also, as LCD projectors become more and more common, the bulbs and other projection equipment are coming down in price. You can already set up a reasonable home digital projection system for under $5000. Scale that up, and you'll see that as more and more of digital projection equipment becomes commodity hardware, prices will plummet.
There is one caveat to this. Hollywood may see this as a bad thing since it lowers the bar for theatre ownership and therefore, control of theatre revenue. They may leverage their influence against hardware manufacturers or buy legislation that makes it prohibitive to buy the equipment, even if the prices would normally fall.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
If it's fair to judge from a single digital cinema screening (at Paul Allen's Seattle "Cinerama" theatre), then digital cinema still needs to cook a bit more. I thought the dark scenes lost tremendous detail, worse even than a home DLP (digital) system. I wonder whether the DLP chips in theatres is a generation or so behind the best of breed chips available in home theatres now.
Also, I suspect the digital video throughput is limited as well since there seemed to be a large variance in detail and resolution in general. The best scenes (few) were perhaps better than film, but the worst or common scenese seemed (imho) worse than film, especially high motion scenes.
Even though the movie wasn't so good (better than episode 1 but still weak dialogue and character development; good special effects though), I look forward to seeing SW: Return of the Clones on a film screen. Lucas suggests the digital experience is better since the celluloid is transfer from digital, but I suspect the transfer was not done off a DLP image, so the detail in dark scenes may very well transfer and show up better than the digital 'original' medium.
-=-
So, presumably digital *will* replace celluloid, but I wouldn't expect today's technology to do so. Unless you have to have digital, I'd stick with celluloid until the digital is genuinely and all-around better than celluloid.
= Joe =
You won't need a projectionist anymore - at least not one trained beyond pushing a few buttons.
There goes that job description.
Time to market is a good reason: Shoot, edit, project. Not Shoot, edit, print, distribute, project (simplified, I know.)
Exact knowledge of what is playing at what time in which market. No more sneaking in an extra showing and keeping the profits for yourself (this has mostly died out except for rural markets due to constant checking.)
No more throwing a print on a Telecine during the overnight, or off the workprint, to make a copy for Internet distribution before the film hits market.
Do you know what it costs to have the prints made for a major release? There's nothing more some studio execs would like to see than Technicolor vanish from the corner of the Uni lot.
The cost of Digital Projection systems will start to go down as demand grows, and technology improves. In a few years it will be affordable to smaller theatres, though still fairly expensive.
The advantages could be worth it. Digital allows people with huge budgets like George Lucas to make an incredible looking movie, and get a constant quality rather than the decay of a film print being shown 6 times a day. It also allows smaller productions to save cost, thus allowing many Independent filmmakers to complete a movie that they couldn't possibly afford to do on film. (see Tortilla Soup)
Here is the link you were looking for (list of films available in DLP).
"As if they didn't have a monopoly already: it costs us between $500-$1000 (or half of our profits, whichever is more) for each night we show a movie!"
Cost of a typical movie-ticket for a first-run show: $8.00
Cost of a bucket of popcorn, a drink, and a box of candy: $12.00
Cost to make a whiner STFU and quit bitching about how little his theater makes: PRICELESS
Do the math, Eisnstein. $500 per night? $500.00 / 20.00 = Your theater needs to put just 25 people PER DAY to pay for the cost! Thats PER DAY, not per showing! A typical movie theater shows the same movie about 5 times a night. That means, in any theater, the money made off of just 5 people out of the entire theater is enough to pay the evil, satan-worshipping, tyrannical monopolistic Hollywood studio for the rights to show that film. Shut up.
Coincedentally, the camera pays for itself for every 7,000 people who walk in the door. 7000 * 20 = 140,000. To get that many people through the door in most theaters would take about three days, tops. So quit yer bitching, clean the fucking floor once in a while, and use your toes if you run out of fingers to count on. Jesus.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
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?
From the last movy I saw in Digital Cinema (Star Wars Episode II), I'd have to say it can still use improvement. The image quality is indeed good when the image is moving, but you can still see the pixels too much, for example in the titles and sub-titles. Those still show in a horrendous way the resolution limitation.
Fortunately this is less noticable during regular movie play, but it is still there and could be a problem during certain movie showings
the projectors are just too high $$ for theatre's to use. My dad's a vp for one of the leading Theatre Exhibitioners, and I've discussed it with him a few times. It just doesn't make sense now.
Even if you were to, as a theatre, buy say 3 of those projectors (theatres now a day have 1 if any) you can only play digital movies in those 3. And you're not going to buy a 140k dollar projector and put it in your small houses are you? No..you're going to put it in your big one. But then your making your big theatres digital exclusive (when you hvae a digital film out).
Maybe in 10 years once the cost of projectors goes down, then we'll start to see more of them. I know boweing (sp??) is working on making a line of projectors, shipping out nearly 150 of them this year....so hopefully that kind of tech advacement will help.
Brian
Please. If I bought anything that cost $140k I'd expect a very serious warranty, maintenance, 24x7x356 support and a 4 hour response. (OK, 4 hours isn't much help of the projector croaks in the first 10 minutes)
And I'd expect to make that cost back plus over the three-year write down period. (Also the length of a warranty)
Tim
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.
The DLP projectors that they use in a theater have a resolution of 1280x1024, and that's progressivly scanned of course. So, you get approxmiately 1.3 megapixels out of it. For comparison, a 35mm print has around 4 megapixels of resolution, and a 35mm negative can have around 20 million megapixels of effective resolution. See why I don't like digital?
Theatres could set up a system to easily sell ad space in the theatres before movies, like the slide system they have going now. Only with a digital projector, with a high speed connection, it would all be automated. You could specify which movie, what times, how often, etc.
Opening up the market to small and local businesses could lead to a great deal more income.
"America, I smoke marijuana every chance I get."
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...
``...if Hollywood suddenly got the "bright" idea to limit 35mm reel distribution within the next few years?''
Why they'll blame the resulting drop in movie theatre attendance on piracy over the Internet, of course. We all know that Hollywood is right about all things. Geez, to hear Jack Valenti talk, the most important export that the U.S. of A. has is the output of the Hollywood moviemaking conglomerates. So if they say it's because of piracy then it must be so and not, NOT, because of their reducing the quantity of their product.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
That might be because they also have a 35mm projector set up in those theaters? Just a though.. cause I know they do this at the the digital theater by me (farmingdale, NY). They had to show AOTC on 35mm because the projector was broken apparently..
You crazy man? You piss off supahfly!
There are huge advantages for digital in some areas, and disadvantages in others. When was the last time you had to recharge your 35mm slr?
Similarly, digital theatres will definitely have a place, but I doubt the medium will replace film for a long, long while. I could see it happening in certain areas such as surround theatres, or possibly even audience-influenced theatres -- can you imagine how cool it would be if the audience could say whodunnit and the PI in the movie could react to it? (Hmm... kind of like playing Dragon's Lair)
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.
I honestly don't see the big fuss here, converting a digital film to play on a 35mm projector can't be that hard, thus if hollywood would want to "impose" the use of digital projectors instead of the standard ones, wouldn't they have to support it financially in one way or another?
Let's face it, digital film is the future, it will come sooner or later, and above all, it will get cheaper. Not realizing this would be like comparing old magnetic tapes vs CDs.
Filming a movie digitally from the start is also a huge revolution for independent filmers and newbie filmartists: producing a movie will be immensely less expensive and editing a movie won't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars anymore; you could edit your film with great quality using your home computer. I know for a fact that people that make documentaries simply love this.
Don't stare blindly at the cost of the equipment or the replace equipment should anything break, because we all know how much the first CD player cost, or the first DVD player, or the first DVD recorder, or the first digital camera... I could go on and on, but I think you get my point.
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.
Though I have no doubt that prices for replacement parts will be inflated in the beginning, Digital Projectors should have fewer moving parts than a normal 35 MM projector. It seems to me that they'd be more longer lasting.
Personally, I wish the MPAA would spend more time making movies fun than tring to optimize scre... i mean profits.
"Derp de derp."
The great thing about digital projection (from the studio and consumer point of view) is that the picture is the same resolution as HDTV (One tape to master both theatrical release and HiDef DVD release). While that is great for an easy conversion to video, it presents a problem for theaters. The resolution is too low. The mechanical part of the projector is a tiny little chip that has thousands of tiny mirrors (one for each pixel) that flop around and reflect a mixture of three colored lights that then get thrown up on the screen. as soon as one of these mirrors goes out, so does a pixel. In terms of practical application, the only time the image really suffers is when still text is displayed. It feels jagged and edgy. The DLP handles motion beautifully and you will never see another scratch or 'cigarette burn'. The color is beautiful and when the projector bulb is on high, very bright) the downside is that not too many films distribute that way. While it may be good to stay on the early side of that curve, it might be better to wait it out to maximize the value of the money you spend on the device. Digital projection also hails the end of the age of the projector. He or she becomes necessary only to (in the full scheme) download the title via satellite, load it and run occasional maintenance. While this termination may inevitable, it is still a bit sad, methinks...
I've seen a lot of people say "The digital quality is better!" Sorry, folks, it just ain't so. For the same reason your fancy digital camera doesn't have the same resolution as your SLR film camera - film has a finer grain than CCD's and provides a better image.
The studios want to "go digital" because it gives them more control, not because it gives them better quality. If they were really after quality, they'd have stuck with 70mm film rather than shifting back to the cheaper 35mm format.
Cinemas are already on a thin edge. The reason food's so bloody expensive is because they have to give such a huge cut of the box office take to the studios. Adding the cost of digital equipment to the mix will mean higher ticket prices than we are already paying. Considering the abysimal quality of most movies oozing out of Hollywood, it's already too much. Who really want to pay even more just to amortize the cost of Hollywood exercising more control?
Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
The high price of the projecters is in part due to low volume. SW:AOC is only being shown in digital in 19 or 21 theaters in the US. If there were more digital ready theaters, I'm sure this number would be larger.
As for quality, the two movies I've seen in digital were stunning. But my wife used to work at the UCLA Film & Television Archive and they are sticking to film for preservation - not digital. The primary reason is the introduction of artifacts when moving to digital from film.
To an outsider (like me) it's hard to say if this is resistance to change or reality. (For all you young 'uns out there, many of the first CDs were very tinny and audiophiles wouldn't touch 'em.) However, I feel with greater adoption in the creation and presentation of digital media, the quality will improve and the price will come down. Combine that with reduced distribution charges (to the studios) and digital in most theaters will be a reality. The only question is the adtoption rate at the local cineplex.
When I went and saw Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in the theater, about halfway thru the audio cut out and the radio came on. Shit happens I guess, but the same stuff can happen in a conventional theater.
Really, just saving money and adding flexibility. Scanning film is tremendously expensive, so if you are adding digital effects and you start and end digital, you're saving a bundle. Digital cameras are less expensive to run and require less accessories and folks to do so. Film prints cost between 3 to 5 grand each to make, and if you're opening on 2500 screens, you'll need well over a thousand of them.
The last bit interests me the most because it would give a leader-loss for production companies to sponsor digital projector installations. Sadly, things are too chaotic in that industry to do so.
I'll be curious to see what power rises to bring digital to theaters. Unfortunately-- because of the nature of the beast--when they do arrive they will need a very slick and encompassing business plan ala Blockbuster or Starbucks.
they'll go digital. Eventually, the cost of film will drop to damn near zero and the digital transmission costs will have been raised because of all the alleged one-eyed gentlement who don't really exist. (The piracy argument is as much of a crock as it was back when the neo-Luddites objected to the player piano.)
Then the theatres all go tits up.
The issue, believe it or not, is real-estate. Theatres eat up a lot of urban real-estate and that can be put to better use by developers (I wonder how much Jack Valenti is being paid off by the real-estate developers?)
The film industry will eventually collapse and then we're all supposed to sit at home watching reruns on friggin' huge home theatre (but not HD-TV since that doesn't simply use existing infrastructure and the crap they want to re-run doesn't warrant the expense.)
Jack Valenti will have won and you'll pay for every packet coming to your house, whether you watch it or not.
The death of creativity and the maximization of reuse.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Article Backing into Digital Cinema.
Some clips:
- " The simple fact is that the killer application for electronic cinema is advertising."
- "As low-cost electronic projectors land firmly in place for advertising, other types of content will gravitate to the theatre. Typically called alternative content, this could include independent films, Broadway plays, sporting events, pop concerts, or interactive games designed for cinema."
- "Rather than charge into digital cinema head-on while trying to figure out the business plan, it's far more likely that exhibitors will back into digital cinema by first implementing all other forms of electronically projected entertainment."
I believe the man behind this article has a good point, it's not that bad for the Cinemas, it will open a lot of new possibilities as well.
Here it is...
"Since the movie was being projected on film on another McClurg screen...I slipped upstairs, watched a scene on film and then hurried downstairs to compare the same scene on video. The difference was dramatic: more detail, more depth, more clarity.
Readers familiar with my preference for film over video projection systems will wonder if I have switched parties. Not at all. It's to be expected that "Episode II" would look better on digital, because it was entirely filmed on digital. Therefore, the digitally projected version is generation one, and the film version is one generation further from the source. Lucas is right as far as a computer-aided special-effects movie like "Episode II" goes, but may be wrong for the vast majority of movies that depict the real world on celluloid.
[...]
My feeling is that movies shot on digital video look better projected on video, and that movies shot on film look better projected on film."
...as much. You've got to realize that the digital projectors don't have moving parts, and therefore, aren't going to be as prone to breakage. You'll have to replace the bulb now and again, just like any other projector, but not any motors or gears or wheels or any of that rot.
Don't worry about the thing breaking...just make sure you've got a warranty and a service contract.
what would happen if Hollywood suddenly got the "bright" idea to limit 35mm reel distribution within the next few years?
/., it'll probably happen much sooner.
Well, now that it's posted on
Doh!
"Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
Monopoly, maybe, but as the reader stated "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!" I for one would love to have a business where I have 50% net profit, not to mention the 900=% markup on the concession items to boot.
HD is 16:9 and normal TV is 4:3.
Yea, digital is desparately expensive...now.
Two years ago, HDTVs were desparately expensive.
Five years ago, DVDs were desparately expensive.
Seventeen years ago, CDs were desparately expensive.
Last I checked, CD's are mainstream, DVD's have begun to pull ahead, and HDTV has come down 50% in price. All digital devices have gone the same route. They start extremely expensive, but as people get lured into the "quality" of digital, demand goes up, supply goes up, and cost goes down.
Now, to answer the question, I wouldn't buy into digital right now. There's a lot to be worked out. But I believe that you will eventually have to lay down the sword and move into digital.
Realize though, that there will ALWAYS be a market for Analog. Don't believe me? Question: Why do record companies still produce LPs? Because they sound better...no, wait. Correction: they sound more real. Just like there was a bit of a surprise with the Slashdot article
about Vacuum tubes on motherboards. Though people thought that they wanted "clearer" sound, "crisper" pictures, and the "digital experience," there is a small growth of people now saying that it doesn't sound "real."
Bottom line: consumers will never be able to make up their minds.
This doesn't make sense. They are constantly building newer, larger theaters where I live. Last time I checked construction involved costs.
And what does this have to do w/dot coms?
You sir are an idiot.
.
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?
They can't simply phase out 35mm movies if Movie Theaters don't buy digital projectors to show their movies. If they try to force the issue it will definitely affect their bottom line and we all know no one is stupid enough to cut their own air supply.
It seems theaters are refusing to buy those digital cameras and rightly so. They definitely have the upper hand.
I would liken this situation to that of DVDs and VHS. The base for VHS is just too big of a base to simply abandon. DVDs are becoming more affordable and people are buying them like hotcake now. Same thing will happen when digital projectors become inexpensive.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
Right now, the prices for digital systems are stratospheric, but the advantages could, in theory, more than make up for the cost. You can use it to hold telecasts: bring lectures in from Oxford, live bigscreen showings of away games for the University's football team. The cost of renting movies drops through the floor as the cost of distribution approaches nil.
The problem is, there are no clear standards yet, and a whole lot of competing ones: Boeing, Technicolor, Sony, DLP, etc. You choose one option, there is =zero= guarantee it will use the digital projection standards for distribution and format that the rest of the industry winds up settling on. Then you have a $150,000 betamax VCR, and the professional equivalent to the dwindling "BETA" section at the local Video Store. No Oxford lectures. No away games. Not even Spiderman II.
I'd give the industry a few years to decide which way it wants to jump, or, barring that, a stone-solid contract from whichever vendor you go with that they will provide you with an upgrade to the equipment to make it compatible with dominant standard in case you pick a looser. Of course, if a proprietary standard is settled upon, you're screwed anyway.
SoupIsGood Food
- SMPTE DC28 Technology Committee for Digital Cinema
- European Digital Cinema Forum (EDCF)
I found the Sarlacc pit scene to be a more believable scene than most of EP2. The lighting is dramatic and real, particularly on the inside shots. The scene was set well, and the action roamed around the set... and in the end, it blew up good. :-)
I'm a little sad to see that era pass. I'm not sure that it should.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
I think digital is the way of the future but it still has a ways to go. Likely, half of the amazement at the "quality" of digital is from seeing a film without any dirt, grime or other artifacts that go with reels of film.
As others pointed out, the resolution ain't much better than a desktop PC... and it's being projected onto a *huge* screen. I saw Ep 2 from the back of the theatre and I could spot pixelation in text *very* easily. The jagged lines was kind of annoying.
Theatre owners simply can't afford to buy projectors that'll be obsolete in a couple years. The industry is fairly screwed at the moment.
It'll probably take 10 years or so for digital to overtake film projectors, once a high-quality format is agreed upon. But the current tech? No way.
Movie theaters are the retailers for the movie studios' product. The studios won't make a movie unless they know they can sell it to the theaters.
In fact, studios generally *pre-sell* their product to the theaters. They go around to theater owners showing them pre-production clips and asking them to front a share of the production costs. If the studio can't raise enough cash from the theaters, they don't make the movie.
If theaters don't want to deal with digital projection, all they have to do is add a rider saying they will only invest in a movie if they get the finished product on film.
Regardless, I saw AOTC in both analog and DLP modes (at the same theatre on different days) and I definitely saw the difference in DLP, and thought the DLP came out much better, so even if it is just at 1280x1024 it's turning out really well in the theatre (which is really all that matters, I would presume).
Okay, first off, a lot of the ticket sales go straight to the movie distributor, NOT to the cinema owner. I've heard it said that the first two months (or maybe 2 weeks? not sure) of SW2 ticket sales has to go to Lucasfilm. Yikes. Okay, so this means that the cinema makes most of it's money from concession sales, NOT from ticket sales. Keep in mind the original poster here said profit, not gross. There are expenses to all the concessions, employee costs (salary & benefits, etc.), other costs such as cleaning costs, etc, plus costs for the building structure and upkeep, etc, insurance, blah blah blah.
The math isn't nearly as simple as you like to make out, and cinemas don't make nearly as much as you're thinking.
Keep in mind that a DLP allows you to show live events so there may also be more revenue opportunities if you get creative. I would imagine that content distributors would be interested in experimenting with sporting event or concert broadcasts and a college campus might be the ideal way to start.
And to those DLP naysayers, anyone who has seen a movie on the big screen in the Mann's Chinese would probably argue that digital cinema is ready to go. I recently had the pleasure of seeing a movie there and it looked awesome.
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)
This scenario has already been playing out with HDTV - I distinctly remember SIGGRAPH '90 in Texas when Virtual Reality and HDTV were the "kewl new things" that would change life as we know it.
Twelve years later virtual reality has hardly changed at all since then apart from better poly counts, and HDTV has stalled in North America. Essentially the cost for networks to upgrade is phenomonal. They *will* do it eventually(although it remains to be seen if it will take so long that a cheaper/better technology will come out first!), but it takes much time and money. This will be echoed in the digi-projection market too, I think.
DT
Why would you call yourself a Yank? I always had the impression that that was a somewhat derogatory term.
As my father lik@(munch munch)...
Come on man.. there were what, 19 digital theaters in the whole country listed when Episode 2 came out? Don't blow $140k of the college's money. That money came from tuition and tax payers. Wait until digital theaters are common enough for this to be practical. By then the price will probably be lower too.
One of the many things I hate. thingsihate.org
George Lucus originally said AotC would only go to digital equiped houses, but only 19 were ready for the digital copy (I saw it at the one here in Orlando). I guess the thought of threating them with not having Star Wars unless they were digital, did not make all 3500 theatres go spend the 140k for the equipment.
Unless more than 70% of the houses go digital, 35mm will remain.
The studios could buy the projectors for the movies houses so they can get the control they seem to covet.
The more you tighten your grip, the more Divx ripoffs shall slip through your fingers.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
I suspect the problem of getting repairs will be less than the problem of getting the equipment in the first place. I'm sure there will be leases, and repairs will come as part of the lease procedure; then there will be service contracts, and when a significant number of theaters no longer have service contracts, the technology will have matured enough that spare parts won't cost a bloody fortune.
Like all technology, the price of digital projectors will go down. In a couple years, repairing your analog projector may cost more than repairing your digital, just like it costs more to fix a reel-to-reel audio machine than it does to fix (or buy a new) digital audio editing station.
Macintosh humor! MacComedy.com
You're right, it is cool to see these things on the big screen. And that's the problem with digital projectors - they deliver far lower quality that 35mm. They aren't aimed at the (few) remaining big screens, they're aimed at the barely-bigger-than-a-home-projector multiplexes.
Which will hurt cinemas, because the bottom end (home theatre) is coming up, and the top end (theatres) will keep coming down (don't believe me - how many theatres in your area can do 70mm any more? Any? How many genuinely big screens are there?).
At that point, you'll see an acceleration of the current trend, with theatres tanking as people opt to watch at home.
Right now, distribution is the single biggest cost in film. Making prints isn't cheap nor is Fedex, which is how most films arew shipped to theatres. Also, most theatres now splice film reels (and previews) into one big pancake which gets run as a single film. When the film has to be shipped back, it has to be disassembled and put back onto its original reels. This operation is very labor intensive. Costs notwithstanding, probably the main reason that the studios want this form of distribution is control. The digital films most certainly will be encrypted, and this allows them to shut off the performance to any location (or locations) for any reason they choose.
I work for a company that uses TI's DMD technology for things other than projectors (3D displays, actually).
The DMD's used in a small office projector (about $4000), such as the one's made by inFocus, are the same as those used in the large venue projectors that cost upwards of 100 thousand dollars.
What is the difference then? Well, the large projector's typically have 3 DMDs (one for red, green and blue) while the small projectors only use one plus a spinning color wheel.
Also, don't forget the cost of the optics. In small quantities optical components are very expensive but way come down when they get to be commodity items. The complex prism assembly (made by Minolta) that TI uses in large venue projectors uses some fancy color splitting prisms and high quality lenses all in precise alignment which is required to get the images from each DMD color to line up correctly. These parts should get cheaper now that TI is getting out of the business of selling complete projector "engines" (electronics, optics and DMD).
What about the light source? Well, you can get very cheap (a few hundred dollars) high-pressure
mecury vapor bulbs from sylvania/OSRAM (check out their web site). At only 150 watts they are more than bright enough for an office setup. For a large venue projector you'll need something bigger, of course, but still relatively cheap.
What is left is the electronics - and while TI currently charges a high premium for their custom DLP electronics they are getting out of the business of manufacturing complete engines (just the DMDs from now on), which means companies like Christy and Barco will take over the electronics and optics. This means more competition and lower prices.
I can tell you that while a large venue projector using a lightning or thunder engine costs over 100k, the engine itself was probably sold by TI to Christy or Barco for less than 25k, and that these days they only cost a couple thousand. The actual cost of the parts is even less. Movie-size large venue projectors probably will always be in the tens of thousands, but that is only because they can be, not because there is some part that necessitates this cost.
Amen!
Digital is to low res for me. ATOC in ditigal looks like a super 8 home moive... just the grains are square.
Remember STAR WARS, now called "A NEW HOPE" - was shot in 70mm -- to me about with about 64 times the res of ATOC.
Boy, "A NEW HOPE" is a great name. Maybe some one needs to to bring back that old great tech.
Roger Ebert at first thought "Attack of the Clones" looked better in digital.
He's since gotten some feedback from movie goers that that isn't necessarily the case. Some complain about obvious pixelation and artifacts in the low resolution of the digital AOTC.
After seeing how lousy digital cable and digital satellite TV can be when they skimp on the bandwith, I'll remain a skeptic.
Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
if Hollywood suddenly got the "bright" idea to limit 35mm reel distribution within the next few years?
They would, I don't know, make less money. Yeesh. Like they would go a route that makes less money.
"This Porche is so much more expensive, and all it's parts are expensive, and I don't know if I want to get one..." So DONT. And if you don't want to show the indie films that will still be around on 35mm, change industries. You have a choice on how you spend, or don't spend, your money.
You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco
If you want to understand movie finance cold, check out My Indecision is Final (random zshops merchant selected); it's a first-class book and, as the FT says, an absolutely gripping business story.
Pity it's out of print, but at least you can find a copy easily enough.
D
How much does a theater-quality 35mm projection rig cost, from scratch? How much did a 70mm rig cost back in the day? How much did digital surround or SDDS or THX or whatever cost?
Everything has an upgrade cycle, not just computers. Wait until new theaters are built that start out with digital projectors, or a theater is allowed to build up cash for a few years and invest in one.
As I remember, prints are ghastly expensive, and they're only supposed to last for 12-odd viewings. So it's astronomically expensive to do anything on film.
Independents are actually going to be a lot better off when this shakes out, since distribution is so much cheaper. Consider the cost of distributing a physical book compared to that of publishing on the web.
D
"Besides, with AOTC making over 100 billion in its first weekend, and they still had shitty actors, I doubt you will see better effects or acting."
Actually, they just had shitty performances. Check out Hayden Christensen in "Life as a House" or Ewan in just about anything except "Black Hawk Down" or "Eye of the Beholder".
-- derby
All films shot at 24fps will still only be 24fps when projected digitally. If you upconvert it to 60fps, you can wind up with funny motion errors from running certain frames more often than other frames (you get this on TV with 3:2 pulldown problems). Additionally, if you looked at how Star Wars was shot digitally, it was shot at 24fps just like any other movie. Just because you possibly can have movies at 60fps doesn't mean they will. Why shoot things at 60fps when you're going to either more than double your film costs or have something that has to be downsampled for everyone else?
[Circumventing the infrared copy protection is] what IR filters are for.
Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
Watch Hollywood pull some Congressional strings and get a ban on owning an IR filter without a license.
Will I retire or break 10K?
http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/18/0318digitaldistri bution.html
From my work with TI's DLP division, I would have to personally reccomend the Barco. I am not an employee, but was contracted to do work for DLP through my last employer.
Any idea when we'll be using HDTV cameras? I'd love to be able to afford something like the Sony camcorder that was used for AOTC, but if memory serves it's a $130,000 proposition.
Once they get to $10k or so, I'd really love to own one. I love my XL1, but it really needs more pixels and less dependence on that wretched NTSC standard.
D
In which format is a digital movie distributed (both compression wise and actual media used)?
Why would you call yourself a Yank? I always had the impression that that was a somewhat derogatory term.
Likewise, why would Slashdot call itself "News for Nerds"? I always had the impression that "nerd" and "geek" were somewhat derogatory terms.
Will I retire or break 10K?
There are now two major competing DLP technologies, one from Texas Instruments (Digital Micromirror Devices, DMD) and another from Digital Solutions (Grating Light Valves, GLV). Other companies, notably Philips Research, are working on their own solutions.
:-)
I personally prefer the Digital Solutions (DS)approach because it's much cheaper and, if mass-produced, promises to bring super high-res projection TV to the masses for less than the price of a VCR. Sony has reportedly licensed GLV from DS, a sign that exciting things are in the works. I wouldn't mind a super hi-res rear projection adaptation as a replacement for my heavy and bulky monitor. I hope Sony is listening.
Here is a good explanation of the technology,
Imagine you have a new release scheduled for two screens and it quickly bombs. You have more flexiability to reschedule (perhaps giving 2 other films that were sharing another screen each their own screen, or even to juggle one print of whatever's hot between two screens). On a "fed from the studio" digital world, you play what they feed you.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
This debate can be cut down to one item. Who will pay for the projectors?
There are generally two types of cinema operators....the small family owned cinema, usually one screen still trying to hold onto a family trait.....or the large multi-screen complexes.
When it comes to digital projectors the single screen cinemas cannot afford to purchase them. The margins are just too tight. Regardless of who you are (most of the time) a film distributor will want 50% - 70% (depending on film) of your ticket sales in the first week decreasing by 10% every week you show the film (that's why they push the popcorn so much).
The cinema business is also reliant on what the film producers make....how many films did you see last year? Or consider films that were "worth" seeing. Not many I bet. The current outlook is good (Spidey, StarWars, Matrix, Terminator, etc), but the future is a time of uncertainty.
Once screen means you can't subsidise a bad film...imagine if you were a small operator and booked something like Waterworld because you believed the hype and thought it would do well. You don't have any other screen to take the flack. You cant switch films as there are only a finite number of copies and they are all rented out for the first 2 weeks and how many people go to see a good film after it has been out 2 weeks.
So if the distributors pay for the system then small operators will survive. I don't even think a middle way will work as the profits are just too tight. The straw that breaks the camels back...probably.
Personally I like the single screen cinemas and will continue to go as long as they are around.
I wrote:
There are now two major competing DLP technologies, one from Texas Instruments (Digital Micromirror Devices, DMD) and another from Digital Solutions (Grating Light Valves, GLV).
Replace 'Digital Solutions' above with Silicon Light Machines.
Hmm.. DVD - licensing fee to anyone who wants to make their own commercial DVD. Digital projecter - licensing fee to anyone who wants to project content on it.
IBM - you can't make stuff for the IBM PC 'cos its ours.
Compaq - Screw you, we have made the 'Open IBM PC' now anyone can do what they like (Ok, so it wasn't quite like that but you get the idea)
Some Company - Look, we have designed a new multimedia storage format, anyone can use it for free. Also we make projectors for free content too.. now the MPAA is screwed.
MPAA - aah, but your [some company] formats don't include the federal DRM system, sue them Hollings.
Hollings - Die [some company], my 133t capitalist powers will crush you with bribes and insider sabotage!!!
Some company - Oh no you won't 'cos we're off-shore BAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AAA.
Hollings - Damn!! BUSH, attack!!!!
Bush (G.W) - PH34R my 133t P0w3rZ, i will nuke you [some company]
Some company - Go go super rangers (note super-rangers is not a registered trade mark), attack the evil!!!
Super Rangers (non TM/R) - The SR's fight back with their... large sums of money: "Bribe BUSH!!! Bribe Hollings!!!, you will accept our bribes and not attack!!!"
But wait! here comes Lucas - Now I, Lucas of Earth will destroy free speech forever. Ms. Portman, remove your clothing.
Ms. Portman - I shall crush you [some company]. With my large amounts of make-up and large... um.. no longer will you allow amature film-makers to get recognition, only rich studios will be able to afford the licensing fees to make movies. And thats just aswell since George signed me up for another 12 star-wars films... all with Jar Jar binks!!!
Some Company - OMG!!! ahhh ahh ah aggggghh.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Horizontal resolution is limited by how fast the signal can change states, is measured in "lines" where a "line" is the combination of a black vertical bar next to a white vertical bar, is the normal specification for video performance and is directly related to signal bandwidth.
So each line is two pixels, one black, the other white.
VHS, for instance, is only good for 150 lines or less. That means that a signal recorded or played back from a VHS machine can only change states 150 times per scan line.
Wrong. That means it can change states 300 times a second (black to white to black again).
The effective resolution of that picture would be 150x500 (25 lines for vertical blanking).
Actually, vblank is closer to 45 lines, giving you about a 320x480 picture at 60 fps, or 320x240 at 30 fps. Some of the later PSX games (such as Square's Ehrgeiz fighting game) run at that resolution (320x480i).
Will I retire or break 10K?
Implementing digital projection really only benefits the studios, as it is their distribution costs they wish to reduce. However, if you believe for one second that they will subsequently lower their royalty / right-to-exhibit rates as a result, you're crazy. (Case in point: CD manufacturing cost drop to nothing while CD retail prices continue to climb). The theaters know that they would have to bear the upgrade cost and have no real financial incentive to do so. They know the studios will bilk them the first chance they get. Further, once a theater is digital, you can ONLY show digital films there, and it would usually occupy your largest screen, monopolizing it for the trickle of digital films currently available.
I propose that the studios finance the theater modernization, that way they can make money on the finance charges, then save on their distribution costs. Of course, this would require complicated negotiations between the industries, probably with set rates for royalties, etc, so the theaters don't get screwed immediately.
The idea that the entertainment industry will drop 35mm film in favor of digital in the next few years is preposterous. There is a HUGE union and lobby whose sole purpose is to ensure that the companies that produce all the film reels sent to the theaters, stay in business. These companies are extremely influential, there are only a couple, and they ammount to probably the single largest cost in producing a blockbuster movie.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
You had a very good point bringing up AOTC.
George Lucas has been the one in the past to push people into accepting new technologies. It's not that he has a vested interest (maybe he does). It's because his movies, no matter if they are Star Wars or not, have been just "cooler" technology-wise.
The reason that THX, Dolby Digital and the rest exploded is because they are cool.
Now if they can only make the sound in the theater sound good and surrounding and not just LOUD
No doubt the prices could come down as more items are sold. I remember seeing DVD ads for over a grand but you can pick one up for less than $50 at CompUSA (even plays MP3's too).
Get your Unix fortune now!
Link (on page 3): "Sure, a digital shot is steady. It doesn't have to ride through the gate of a
projector. And, sure, it's as clean as the OR in a major hospital. That's exactly what's
wrong with it. Film has a molecular structure called grain; even a still of just a flower in a
vase has life because of the grain, because of the molecules in the film. Especially if you
sit in the first five rows of any movie theater, you know what I'm talking about. The
screen is alive. The screen is always alive with chaos and excitement, and that will
certainly be gone when we convert to a digital camera and a digital projector. I was one
of the first people to use digital technology to enhance my films, but I'm going to be the
last person to use digital technology to shoot my movies."
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
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.
I saw Star Wars Episode 2 at the Cinerama digital theatre here in Seattle. There was definitely something off...it was the sound, by about .5 seconds from the picture. I might as well have been watching a divx movie. But I also agree, there's something about the scratches, dust, and cigarette burns (thank you Fight Club) of 35mm. If I want digital, I'll wait for the DVD.
"and they're only supposed to last for 12-odd viewings."
My local theatres play a film 8 times a day. I don't think they swap prints every day.
only 24fps!? only 1024x768?!
Forget that. I'm waiting for Star Wars - The Broadway Play. I'll be limited only by my own eyes and ears!
Seriously though, don't go see the latest blockbuster movie. It probably sucks. You're probably already going to the nearest city to see it on the bigscreen: you'd be better off going to the city and catching a show. They're not trying to push $10/oz. soda on you, no advertisements, you're supporting the arts and the artists, not the MPAA, and you'll probably see better entertainment.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
In my opinion, going digital is a good thing for quality reasons.
Analog technology yields random picture noise, both in theaters and on DVDs mastered from an analog source. Just compare a DVD mastered from a movie shot with a digital camera (such as Livvakterna and SW2; and I'm sure a host of others) to those mastered from analog sources. The difference is huge.
Another sideeffect of "noiseless" video is that it compressed much better. Just think of how much you could fit on a HD-DVD in the future if movies were all-digital and they used MPEG-4 on the DVD (although I'm sure they'll stick to MPEG-2 - nevermind being futureproof).
And in theaters - am I really the only one who is annoyed at the artifacts that are continually visible due to particals on te film?
/ Peter Schuller
--
peter.schuller@infidyne.com
http://www.scode.org
I've seen AOTC twice on film, and tomorrow I believe I am going to see it with DLP.
Anyway, am I correct in assuming The Big L filmed this in 1280x1024? Assuming that is right, and also assuming that 1280x1024 would look terrible on screen, then shouldn't the transference to film look pretty crappy too? Even worse maybe than digitally projected? Maybe not. Maybe the transferance had a natural "filtering" effect on the film, smoothing it out a bit (ha ha).
Well, it didn't. I paid pretty close attention to quality the second time I saw it, just out of curiosity. In between my two viewings of starwars I saw "Insomnia", filmed traditionally. I wasn't able to tell a big difference, subjectivly, between starwars and any other movie I've seen.
The only difference I noticed was that the colors of starwars seemed more vibrant, more reds and blues than I normally am used to seeing (that, and one purple lightsaber).
I'll try to post a follow up to this tomorrow once I've seen a digital projection of the flick.
It looks like digital film distribution, Hollywood can start exercising the same kind of tight-fisted control that M$$$ is now attempting with 'doze XP. Once the format and distribution logistics are worked out, and it (either by mandate or market demand) becomes fairly standard, it's only a short step from there that has the studios monitoring the machines that show the films.
, they're aimed at the barely-bigger-than-a-home-projector multiplexes.
.) as ones you can buy from consumer electronics shops now . . . . :(
:) (bill gates may suck but Paul Allen kicks ass. :) :) :) )
Some of the newer multiplexes have screens that are about the same size (if not the same size. . .
I only go to the Cinerama now days, Thank You Paul Allen.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Digital projection has a bunch of problems. Most non-digitally filmed movies get converted at the wrong gamma setting. The results are a dull washed-out picture. The resolution sucks as well.
There are better and cheaper technologies available that are being swept aside by the digital hype.
Roger Ebert commented a while back on a projector that removed almost all of the "jitter" found in projectors. He said the results were incredible. Too bad it is being ignored by the press and moviemakers.
I will have to find out more about it and post it here.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
The gating issue is really are the capital costs to theaters, who are on thin ice, with many approaching bankruptcy as it is. Theatrical projectors aren't likely to get all that much cheaper over time. Consumer/conference room DLPs will have problems taking the heat from a lamphouse that is bright enough to deliver reasonable foot candles to a 30' screen.
The current resolution sucks. You'd want at least 1680x1024 (well, really 1820x1024 for 16:9) native resolution on the display mechanism, and they haven't started to make anything like that yet. Until the world adopts HDTV 16:9 format for home display of TV and computers, there won't be the demand/market to develop the panels, and then harden (cool) them for theatrical use.
If we are lucky, the economics drivers of the conversion will be delayed until there are higher resolution panels available. If not, we will have SXGA resolution at the plex, and may lose a lot of business.
It is a true fact that good 35mm projection can look better than DP; but DP is likely to hold up better and tolerate popcorn cooker operators.
The film contingent has this argument regularly in rec.arts.movies.tech
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
I dont think so. To costly for inital setup. not to mention you lose something. Records (when properly cared for) sound far better than a CD.
sure it may last longer but most stuff made these days is crap anyways. i think it would be better as a preservation system than viewing system.
HA!!! That's IT? That's watching a DVD at full-screen on a 17" monitor! What a fsckn joke!!!!
I don't know why George Lucas is so damn gung-ho about digital...it hardly sounds like a big improvement technologically. I'm sure for commercial reasons it's better (no more need for couriers to send around the big 35MM film cans, no more 35MM prints that cost Kilobucks a pop) but technically that's pretty damn lame.
You could take a $5,000 XGA computer projector and get that kind of resolution. To quote Johnny Rotten, "Ever get the feeling you're being swindled?"
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
I'm pretty sure that the greed the studios and distributors have displayed in the last couple of years (or for ever really) will hold back the adoption of digital projection. After all since a movie print costs a 6 figure price it should be possible to lower the price for showing a film if the cinemas only need a DLT tape and not an expesive set of filmreels that will wear out pretty fast, but in the end it will just be the same price at lower cost to the ditributors/studio.
And so cinemas wont have any incetive to swallow the initial cost of upgrading to a digital projector.
--Ulrich
On no accounts allow a Vogon to read poetry at you
Do not think you can come remotely close to it with your DVD setup..
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
I think it is quite obvious that sooner or later old fasion cinema projection will be sidelined by more digital products. We see this everywhere, radio, television, satalite. What's suprising is that it has taken so long for digital projection to make its move within the cinemas.
Projectors a capable of that - it could have been shown in CGA..
SPEC's for a typical projector - try to beat it at home for $5K..
Contrast (sequential) 1350:1 (full white/full black)
ANSI 460:1
Brightness uniformity Within 90% displaying full white screen
Pixels 1280 x 1024 per Red, Green and Blue
channels; equivalent to 3.9 million pixels
Digital MicroMirror Device S-XGA DLP Cinema (Black Chip) DMD
Cooling 3 chip liquid cooling system and heat exchanger
Color Processing Bit Depth 45 bit (3X 15-bit resolution)
Number of colors 4.4 trillion
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
NOT! Many camcorders are DESIGNED to pickup IR. The SONY Handicam series (color) can view in total darkness with it's built in IR lights and if you record someone using their IR remote, you can easily see the bright flashing of the IR LED in the replay.
I think there's a bit of confusion between Digital Cinema and Digital Video (DV). The latter is a low-resolution (just slightly better than VHS, from what I've seen) format popular for low-budget independent films. You can buy a cheap DV camera at Circuit City. The digital cameras Lucas used for Episode II were, as I recall, custom built by Sony. That being said, the resolution must have been a lot higher than 1280x1024 to have looked so good on the huge screen where I saw ATOC. The superior picture quality made the CG sets look fake.
I also recall reading that Lucas tried to force theaters to upgrade to digital projection for ATOC the same way he forced them to upgrade to THX to show Episode I, but very few theaters agreed.
And you really think that the studios would pass that savings on to the theaters? Not likely!
You wont notice the difference between 35mm and digital unless you are told - and this is the reality.
No, it's the reality for YOU.
When I saw Star Wars, I could see every single pixel. Everything looked smoothed out. And there were noticable jaggies, stairstepping, and compression artefacts.
(The big problem here is that the CCD arrays are just that - arrays. Add some randomness to pixel locations, and it might actually be quite good).
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
I'll hand it to Lucas, ATOC looked a lot better than I thought. I even didn't notice that it was digital. But there was no part in the movie where I said "Damn, that's some *beautiful* photography." There is a crapload of different film stocks, all of which react to light in a different way. Because of this, digital simply can't replace chemical, it can only approximate and mimic it. Watch "Three Kings." There was some really amazing photography in that that they created through the use of a unique (custom made, IIRC) film stock. The movie would've been a lot less visually pleasing had it been filmed on digital.
I expect that studios will switch to digital and CG for pictures that are fluff and all about the benjamins (next SNL spinoff movie, etc...), but any director (and/or director of photography) who really wants to make art will continue to use film for a long, long time.
c-hack.com |
If they set up a system to allow small and local businesses to advertise at the theatre.
Many theatres already do this. It's called a slide projector!
like the slide system they have going now.
I see that you already know that. So where is
a great deal more income
going to come from with a digital projector? Dave's Tire Repair only has so much money to spend on advertising, whether it's a slide or a moving picture.
Incidentally, many exhibition contracts specifically prohibit the showing of advertising other than static slides before the main feature with the exception of trailers for forthcoming movies. (I own a theatre, in case you're wondering how I know this.)
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
I've seen AOTC in digital, and I could definitely see pixelation. The easiest place to see it is whenever there are subtitles.
woxy.com - Bam! The Future of Rock and Roll
I saw AoTC at the Cinerama in downtown Seattle last Friday. The Cinerama is set up to do 70mm and it's damned impressive when they do (LoTR was
completely awesome). Yet I was unimpressed with AoTC, there were digital artifacts scattered throughout the film which I assume are caused by the TI DLP system used for projecting the movie.
If digital can make it easier to distribute films great, but not if the quality is going to suck.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
-
The resolution is lousy. 1280x1024 is typical.
Wait for another doubling.
-
The projectors cost way too much. That will change.
-
A big battle over who controls the distribution chain is underway. The studios would like a system where the projectors are essentially remote-controlled from the studios. The exhibitors would like a system where they get a disk and play it as many times as they want. The sides are a long way apart right now.
-
The frame rate is too low. The big advantage of video projection is that you can crank up the frame rate without mechanical problems. 24FPS film is way too slow for a generation used to 60FPS games. Movies really should be mastered at something like 72FPS, but it beats the hell out of mechanical cameras and projectors to run them at that speed. IMAX is 60FPS; it can be done, and it looks great. IMAX also uses 20,000 feet of 70mm film per hour, which is why it's not done much. Digital doesn't have that problem.
-
Compression still sucks. Compression artifacts look awful on the big screen. So current technology is to use very little compression and ship a truckload of preloaded hard drives to the theater. Or, have a sucky DVD-quality compressed image.
The most promising direction is a higher frame rate. That provides additional value to the viewer and to the exhibitor, but fits current theater auditoriums. Action films will look much more real with a higher frame rate. Pans will look right. But the camera doesn't get bigger. Everybody in the chain just needs more storage, which isn't a big problem.You have basoically put your finger on the central point. The benefits of Digital projection fall mainly to the distributor, but the costs fall mainly to the theatre. Given their own, first use, 35mm "celluloid" print, ther will be little difference to th theatre between a digital and a 35mm print. - except that they have to shell out big bucks to pay for the digital projection equipment.
The studio, by contrast, ahs a problem. How may prints, at approximately $6000 each, to they make? If you want to open in 2000 screens in the US (forget international for the moment) thet $12M for prints alone - not trivial even in the budget of a megamoveie. Digilally - $5000 of satellite time for a multicast to every cinema in the US (that has bought the $200,000 worth of kit to do the job).
Expect (or see - it is already happening) an arm-wrestl3e between the distributors and the thatres. Victory for the studiois is inevitable - the onluy question is the timescale. My bet - 3 to 5 years. In 5 years time, 355mm will be standby equipment only, with digital (techie details irelevant) the main distibution medium.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
going to come from with a digital projector? Dave's Tire Repair only has so much money to spend on advertising, whether it's a slide or a moving picture.
Incidentally, many exhibition contracts specifically prohibit the showing of advertising other than static slides before the main feature with the exception of trailers for forthcoming movies. (I own a theatre, in case you're wondering how I know this.)
My main point is that the advertising could be completely automated and targeted. Can Dave's Tire Repair specify exactly what film/hour he can advertise at with the slide system? As far as i can tell, you really can't target your audience with the current systems because you'd have so much overhead having some guy running around all the theatres and making sure that all the different slide projectors have the proper spools and stuff.
What i propose is a central database for the theatre that stores all ads on its' hard drive (and it can be still pictures, moving, whatever) As an advertiser i could request that my little ad gets played during the seating time of Amelie and Y tu Mama Tambien. I don't want to advertise to the people in Sum of All Fears 'cause they're just the wrong audience.
Can those contracts stop you from playing ads during seating time?
I posted this because I wanted to promote a band this way. I thought it'd be perfect for a local band to promote themselves in local theatres before a film. It'd be great because you can advertise your band directly to the people that are most likely going to like their music, and the audience is contained. Not that that really has much to do with digital projectors as it has to do with central databasing and distribution, but you get the idea.
"America, I smoke marijuana every chance I get."
And you really think that the studios would pass that savings on to the theaters? Not likely!
Digital doesn't degrade, so theatres won't have the same quality problems (all new problems insead).
Independent directors will have it really easy just as soon as good digital cameras are affordable - you can get a 700GB IDE raid array for $10k, and it's likely to be sufficient (alone or in a pair) for editing.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Instead of upgrading the technology, why don't the movie producers make a movie worth the money to watch? It seems that most of the recent movies are just sequels or crappy action movies made from Mad-Lib scripts.
Oh no! The _Noun_ is _verb_ing the _Noun_! Back up, this could turn _adjective_!
I think he was referring to the business style of AMC and other movie theaters and how it is similar to that of the failed dot coms. With income of -$121.9 million on $1,340 million in sales, they aren't exactly close to making a profit. Read up the rest of the info on this company and you'll realize you'd have to be crazy to invest in this company. The inflated price will eventually drop.
The future isn't what it used to be.
Can Dave's Tire Repair specify exactly what film/hour he can advertise at with the slide system?
Sure, why not?As far as i can tell, you really can't target your audience with the current systems
I don't see what the problem is here.As an advertiser i could request that my little ad gets played during the seating time of Amelie and Y tu Mama Tambien. I don't want to advertise to the people in Sum of All Fears 'cause they're just the wrong audience.
So? This can easily be done now. Really!Can those contracts stop you from playing ads during seating time?
Yes.
I thought it'd be perfect for a local band to promote themselves in local theatres before a film. It'd be great because you can advertise your band directly to the people that are most likely going to like their music, and the audience is contained.
So talk to your local theatre and see what they say. You can have a 35mm trailer made for you (check your local yellow pages) and off you go.
You still don't need digital projectors for this. And even if you have a digital projector you will still incur a production cost when you go to make your trailer even if the end result is to be shown digitally.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
After seeing EP2 at a digital theater, I came away impressed with the quality but not enough to warrant all the money the theater has to spend on equipment.
But then I got to thinking about how digital projection is really inevitable - more and more the source will be digital, and distribution really is a lot easier on everyone.
Then I started thinking about how digital source for film could change theaters themselves. Since you can have infinite copies of the film, how about having hundreds of theater "pods" in a cineplex instead of giant theaters like we do now?
Because the spaces are a lot smaller, both the projector and sound system would be a lot cheaper. I think even assuming a "pod" size of five, you would still be able to recoup the cost of the speakers and projector, as well as pay for bulbs over the life of the projector. You could also sell ranges of pods, some with better sound/video than others.
But, would people go somewhere for an experience that was so close to a home theater experience? I think they might for new movies not released into the home environment for some time. However, it would also increase the likleyhood of early piracy hurting movie attendance.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
i have one on my monitor, and it's a bitch. does anybody know if the dlp projectors develop stuck pixels? that'd be up there in annoyance with a hole in the screen.
Incidentally, about the cost of maintaining the current equipment -- expect that to increase should digital projection become commonplace.
Vacuum tubes got more expensive after the (guitar) amplifier world went solid state. Phonograph needles got more expensive after the world went compact disc. When demand falls, first price falls, then supply falls, and competition decreases as suppliers get out of the business. And then prices go up as the final supplier services a niche market.
As for Hollywood, I think they would love digital, as long as the digital prints don't walk out the door! To distribute a film, you have to make prints and deliver those prints on time to the movie houses. Distributors have to make a guess at how well a film is going to open. Spiderman opened at x number of screens in its first week and sold many of them out. Would more screens have resulted in more revenues in the crucial first week? While there may not be much digital can do in this case (though what about flex scheduling the Saturday and Sunday screens based on Friday demand), a more interesting case is in secondary markets for the sleeper hit. That Metropolitan Theatres in Santa Barbara, CA, may be able to book the sleeper hit into the Goleta Cinema in week 2 or 3 of release, instead of week 5 or 6 as they wait for additional prints to be struck.
I think you misunderstand how studios and distributors make money. Exhibitors rent the film and pay the distributor a percentage of the attendence. For the first few weeks of release, that amount is the lion's share of ticket revenues. The theatre during those weeks makes money off popcorn and preview advertising. So a hit movie pays off with more popcorn sold. In effect, about the time the typical movie has played to 90% of its audience, the exhibitor begins to keep most of the ticket revenue. As for there being more theatres -- more theatres mean more rentals, so if digital lowers the cost to be an exhibitor, it's one more point for distributing digitally.
One cause of hesitation for digital, among distributors, is the worry that for the booking run, while the bits reside at the theatre, someone can steal the bits and burn high-quality bootleg DVDs. Another reason for distributors to stay with film may be that digital projection has not been embraced by exhibitors, probably because there is no noticeable demand from the audience, and no one has shown the exhibitors how they can make more money for the cost of upgrading.
I've got an aincent 8mm camera that films IR as white. Great fun :)
:) FeX also used it was a black and white filter when filming for singing in the rain.
Our stations minidv camera has an IR mode, which is useful for filming in the dark
Conversly I dont think our big jvc (gx3 3ccd camera) picks up IR light - I'm pretty sure theres a filter on the lens. Cant remember the name of the lens though.
Why would theaters want to spend the money to go to a digital distribution system? The only thing that is going to cause them to do it is if most of their competition is doing it (see "seating, stadium") It's very very expensive and the time to return on the investment isn't clear at all.
Another nice thing about 35mm is that you can string it between projectors for a double showing.
http://www.englishfirst.org
The Sony camera Lucas used for AoTC was a badass Sony HDTV camera filming at about 1920x1080p. The best HDTV displays you can find anywhere are 1080i so you get the finaly vertical resolution from two interlaced fields. The 1080p he filmed in is much more expensive to use, hence the 13,000$ or some such price tag on that camera. For the DLP projection he had to downsample the resolution to 1280x1024. IIRC the film was made from the HD master rather than the downsampled DLP version.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
If DLP was such a threat, then why are there only going to be 35 dlp cinima's by the end of the year? DLP is to 35mm as dvd is to vhs. Having worked in the movie house business for a while I can say the the method of distribution and media it is on is only part of it. There are many theatres outside of the big cities that barely survive. Most theatre make didly on the movie itself. Depending on the movie about 70-80% of the ticket price goes back to the producer/distributor/ect. Most of the profit theatres make is from concession sales.
Now I have a biased opinion as I work for Texas Instruments, but based on the technology alone dlp will eventually lead the way, but as with all technology it will eventually become cheaper. As Star Wars episode 2 proved just because you endorse it and invest in furthing the technology doesnt mean adoptation. Without a change in percentages to more equitable means or an investment by hollywood it will be a while before it has an impact. IMHO DLP is worth the investment for the movie goer. the real advancements are in the filming process. The old 35mm cameras have some inheriant limitations that the digital versions are able to get around due to a different medium, size, wieght, ect. Editing, effects, and so on all benifit.
As with all things what matters most is the artistic application of the technology.
Roger Ebert has interesting things to say about it: MaxiVision48 vs. digital
The big disadvantge of digital cinema would be possible controls on the titles you are *allowed* to run.
/. post be without boundless pessimism? :)
Several years back, a local shopping mall was demanding that tennants used cash registers provided by mall management that send turnover data back to mall management so they could surcharge rent based on how well the business was doing. (they backflipped after several key tennants refused to rent under such terms)
With a $140,000 piece of digital infrastructure, you could expect considerable interest in controlling what films that projector will run and when it will run them.
"I'm sorry, there will be a 15.2% surcharge for screening Milo and Otis because a new computr game is promoting interest in that title and our subsidiary cinema plans on screening that title as well."
Or,
"I'm sorry, you cannot screen that Star Wars fan release because it has not been digitally authorised by George Lucas"
OK, I am speculating, and I can see a lot of good ways to implement this sort of pay-per-screening billing, but what would a
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
I think it will eventually catch on and replace film, from an industrial and economic stand. It will be cheaper/easier/faster to distribute movies in digital form (and control access, showings via digital keys, etc.). The costs will be amortized over time like any expensive equipment like super computer CPUs or medical MRI/Laser equipment. Of course, it may not happen for 10 years (or more).
I think there will always be pockets of classic film theaters, but they will not survive the populus. Look at the huge technology margin Beta had over VHS, and who won? The technology with the marketing powers behind it.
I think when the studios and theaters find how they can show many more movies in a theater because they pay for the movie on a 'per view' instead of 'per reel' basis, we will see a larger variety of films showing in theaters (maybe online voting and discussion forums to decide which film to show next week at your local theater?) Most people would care about the color and texture of film vs. digital, but they will certainly enjoy the benefits and features of how fast selections pass through their local cinemas. Greater selections mean more viewings which mean more dollars for the box office.
I wonder if theater timeslots will be like on-demand PPV channels, so a movie complex will have several theaters that are constantly changing their shows each week. They would need a close relationship with the recurring viewers, who would interact with the selection and viewing process. Imagine a local theater that had a different movie classic/favorite each week, would you go? One week Casablanca, next week is Afrian Queen, or Star Wars Episode IV, etc. Especially if they sell tickets on subsciption per month or advance tickets, they'll have their money up front.
Of course, then they'll build a Starbucks (char-bucks) in the lobby of the theater and invite the viewers to participate in dynamic discussions on their favorite films (to selects next weeks features) while enjoying a $4 coffee and being studied as part of a focus group...
Suncoast Linux - Sarasota, FL
I went to see AotC at the Woodfield digital theather in Illinois. (By Chicago)
Pluses: Screen looked good, bright and IN FOCUS. None of those "Deacaying film" spots either.
Minus: Objects with high contrast, like white letters against a starfield, made the pixelation visible. I've found that only the computer geeks noticed it though.
I like digital better than film, but you can get this quality at home with a good DVD/HDTV setup.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Well, actually it's the end of the reel. Although, if it's a really good movie...
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Thats about how I felt watching Episode 2 in digital.
The quality is amazing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
I thought it'd be perfect for a local band to promote themselves in local theatres before a film. It'd be great because you can advertise your band directly to the people that are most likely going to like their music, and the audience is contained.
Something occurred to me tonight (while I was playing my movie, in fact). Theatres generally play music to fill in the time between shows. And you want to promote a band.
Why not approach a theatre and ask them if they will play your band's music. You might be able to strike a deal to get a slide or a sign or something up to the effect that, "Music provided by Johnny and the Hornblowers. To book Johnny for your wedding or bar mitzvah, call 555-1212 and ask for Mike".
There. Didn't need a digital projector for that either...
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Movies theaters were designed so that you can go there with a girl you don't know very much, and kiss her one hour later if the film is romantic.
:
So, home theaters can't be valid substitutes for real theaters. Looking a romantic film at home with a girl you just met is
1) more difficult. "let's go to my room" sounds like a trap. "let's go to the cinema" sounds more uninterested.
2) less fruitiful. A romantic scene has more impact on an huge screen, with plenty of speakers that emphasizes the power of beautiful slow violins.
Plus: in real theaters you can always get beer, ice and popcorn.
{{.sig}}
Interesting...
At my local theater in Denmark all the "coming soon" posters of movies that have already been released in USA (Spiderman, for example) always have "#1 in USA" or "stor success i USA" (Big success in USA), or something to that effect plastered on them somewhere.
I live near Cincinnati, which has seen two brand spanking new theaters within the past six months. Both have full stadium seating and all the newest features of a theater, BUT neither one has a digital projector.
For digital to take over, newer theaters would start having the projectors standard. Looks like it'll be a looong time...
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
You mean the public that constantly crinkles wrappers, kicks the back of my seat, and decides right in the middle of LOTR that the entire family of five needs bathroom breaks apced about five minutes apart?
Oh. Enjoy them, I'll be sitting in my "theater pod" with all my friends and no distractions. I thought people went to movies to go see it with friends rather than the public? Do you go to movies alone all the time?
Remember, with my idea you still get just a large of a viewing area - I would make the screen large enough to simulate being in an IMAX theater about midway up the center, which you can get in a smaller space for a lot less.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It leaves Digital for dead
Here's Roger Ebert blurb on Maxivision
Here's a PDF on it
Maxivision PDF link
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?
Let me get this straight. On one side, we have content providers (TV/Cable) that want to stick to an old model which is invalidated by new tachnology (PVRs like TivO and ReplayTV) and that's bad.
On this side, we have content providers (Hollywood) that want to move to a new model which offers them some advantages providing content (digital projection), and that's also bad?
How can you have it both ways?
Assuming you live in USA, you live in a capitalist society. Let the chips fall where they may. If enough cinemas will not convert, then Hollywood will stay 35mm for the most part. If they will, then cinemas that aren't willing to keep up will be deligated to running films from those who aren't in digital, probably lots of indy films. Which IMHO isn't a bad thing.
Plus look at SW:AotC. They released in both formats. I heard a lot of people who specifically went to see it digital - so the cinemas that upgraded got additional revenue. Those that didn't still could play the movie, and had lots of people go.
Why is that a bad thing?
=Blue(23)
LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
It seems to me that digital will be more a a circus freak show type attraction. People will want to see movies like Star Wars Episode 2 and Spiderman on an all digital platform, and they can do that. There's no need to see Undercover Brother in full digital glory. I'm betting that within 10 years, most large theatres will have 1 or 2 digital projectors, and leave the rest at 35 mm. The one caveat to this is that people shell out big bucks to see special effects. I definitely made a long trek to see Star Wars at a digital theatre. Eventually, when the technology becomes cheaper, theatres will probably have more and more digital projectors. But for the immediate future, it'll be one to a theatre. . . I think.
--What, you ain't know about them country fried sessions?
The way it has been explained to me, and which I fully agree with, is that with any of the recent forms of digital encoding, one of the biggest ways of saving space is to take a zone of the picture that is say, bluish-grey, like the sky, and then instead of including that same color over and over again each sample, a line of code is simply put in that tells the player:
1: be bluish grey here
2: hold that color for x seconds
The problem with this is that very subtle changes in light/color are lost, making backgrounds etc. look plastic-y and unnaturally constant. Film in whichever form, captures the actual color every time, ensuring the expression of every little nuance no matter how small.
Now, you might think that noone would every notice some tiny tiny difference in blue, and admittedly, if you showed them such a scene, I doubt anyone could say "that cloud isn't changing enough!" But the processing parts of the human brain tell their humans an amazing amount of information that doesn't register consciously, and it leads to that same feeling of "somethings off, it looks wierd, but I don't know why..."
Common sense is what tells us that the world is flat
Not to mention unfriendly to Murphy's Law & Occam's Razor.
Look, I work in this business (everything from dvcam, High Def, 2k, and 35mm). I love them all (though dvcam is my favorite child), however as film scanning technology improves I am amazed at the information you can pull out of a frame of 35mm.
Which brings me to my point. Technology changes way too rapidly for digital projection to make great economic sense. A mechanical film projector has a working life of decades, (and can be easily serviced)-- does anyone really expect that same kind of longevity of a digital system?
I work in digital post production, and the hardware and software I use changes fast. I can't retrieve elements from some jobs I did 10 years ago without very serious help. And let's not talk about standards -- (how many HD & DV standards??)
After finnishing digitally, rather than archive a film to magnetic or glass media I recomend 35mm. (the progressive digital formats make this very easy)
Film is emulsion on a hardy base that only requires light to decode it. This is why we can still enjoy Harold Lloyd, Carole Lombard and Boris Karlov.
As an independent filmaker, with 35mm you absorb the cost of your prints and you can walk your work to any venue. In a digital world, an indy will always be in a possition of having to match his or her media to the playback system... and as time goes by I'm sure there'll be plenty of em.
And after 20 years, how can an indy do a retrospective?
Your question is whether projection is worth while to an Indie.
Mine is, if an independent film maker chooses to attempt projected distribution, what hurdles will they have to jump through to get their material compliant with whatever systems the major distributors will eventually support in the theaters.(maybe propietary?) -- and 10 yrs down the line, will their media still be projectable?
The sad fact is that any 35mm print will play on any 35mm projector. (In my city you can rent a projection room for under $100/hr) And a print is relatively hardy. (yeah, the down side are the scratches, but what happens when your disk gets scratched?)
With Lucas, just follow the money. He has to give a cut to Fox because he has to have his film distributed. In an all-digital world, Lucasfilm can deliver films directly to the theaters, thereby cutting out the distributor. More money for Lucas.
In this particular case, he's probably right - Fox doesn't add much value to his process.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I saw AOTC first on film and then digital,
and i must say, i expected to not be able to tell the difference, but the digital was decidedly worse.
everything was incredibly pixelated (there wasn't a clean line in the film) and any time the camera panned the whole image would start jumping.
(makes me suspect that the lack of camera movement in the movie wasn't necessarily because lucas is a terrible director.)
i felt the color was washed out, and the cgi grainy, but that might just be my own aesthetic opinion.
at one point the sound actually started skipping! as did the image a couple of times, though not quite so blatantly.
"The direction controls are the same in Nethack as they are in vi." "Yeah, I hardly ever die in vi anymore."
ANH was 35mm, the 60mm version was a blowup from the 35mm film
Remember, its called GNU/Linux, but pronounced "Linux".
Well, I've just seen it digitally. For the most part I couldn't tell a difference, which I think is a good thing.
I was pretty far back in the theatre, so maybe that helped... If I looked very carefully I could see pixelation on the subtitles. Nowhere else did I see pixelation.
Some of the dark scenes were too dark is the other thing I noticed. And I don't mean thematically.
Overall I thought it was a fine substitute for analog starwars. It'd be interesting to see how a traditional non-special effect laden film would look filmed on digital cameras and viewed both digitally and on film stock.
wrong lens for the throw distance,
improper soft focusing,
UNtuned equipment (straight out of the box),
improper screen,
or poor setup (video signal cabling that is laying on top of a gigantor surge protector/powercords).
DLP is in many ways a vastly superior display technology, but as with any paradigm shift in a large industry proper and correct adoption and implementation will take a while.
.sig wanted: Must be concise, funny, and display my cleverness.
You are right,... I've only been to the theaters in my city (well, one in Myrtle Beach but that wasn't bad).
Every single one (many owned by a national chain) suck...
Get your Unix fortune now!
Still at D2. Not sure who else you know. Doug Roble is the only other long-term person still in the software dept.
Actaul was 70 mm. Blowing up 35 is dumb. Kust like blowing up digital to 35.
:=)
No point in blowing up... just makes the film grainy... see ATOC