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...
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.
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'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.
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)
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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!
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.
Keep in mind that something like Monsters Inc is going to be transferred from a digital work to film, as with any completely CG movie or movies that were shot completely digitally (Episode 2, Jason X). Movies shot on traditional film would have to be converted to digital from the film masters. Dunno what that would do for the quality but I bet it would result in less of a difference when comparing reel v. digital (though not completely, since you can get all kinds of scratches on the reel film), and it is an argument for filmmakers to switch to digital.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
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?
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?
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
As noted current technology is both too price and still too low in quality to outpace standard 35mm film. There is a lot of mindshare built around how to make film look good on celluloid. Tossing it all out just for the alluring gloss of digital projection is stupid.
However there is a legitimate and embraced usage of digital film making. The small time indy film makers have seen the costs of making films go *way down* by using digital cameras and a simple computer(think iMac) in post production.
So the question in my mind isn't whether or not Digital film making is worth while. It is. It is whether or not projecting it in a theater is worth it, which currently it isn't.
And lastly, why does anyone want to believe Lucas on this cinema technology? This is the guy that questions the wisdom of Scorsese on constructing sets that recreate 1850 New York(I believe the movie he was refering to was Gangs of New York). Lucas would rather see it all digitized except the actors. I'll take Scorsese's attention to detail than Lucas' SFX team anyday.
A few months ago I attended a SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) meeting held at Pixar. The meeting was held in their screening room. The screening room is equipped with both a traditional 35MM film projector anda DLP projector with a resolution of 1280x1024.
For the first part of the demonstration they showed a clip from Monsters Inc. split screen, with the left half the digital projector and the right half the film projector.
It became immediately apparent the advantages of the DLP projector over the film projector.
With the side-by-side showing, the jitter of the film became immediately visible. The detail of the DLP image was better. Also, the DLP is capable of much better contrast than film.
Now the film that was shown was of higher quality than that shown in the theaters, and the projector was also better than that in most theaters (and is also better maintained).
This isn't to say that there were no DLP artifacts. There were some, but they were not very noticable compared to the artifacts that usually appear in film. The film shown had no dirt or scratches, but in the typical theater this is not the case.
Unlike film, there's nothing to wear out in the media.
As far as the projector lasting a long time, the only real problem I hear of is that the light bulb must be periodically replaced (which cost around $100). The DLP should last a long time.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
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."
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
The idea that Digital Is Superior to analog technologies has been badly overblown, and ultimately I think people will realize this with film (comparing 70mm to digital's piddling resolution should do the trick). Digital's advantage comes from it being reliable, flexible, and (relatively) insanely simple to create, edit, copy, and distribute.
Celluloid film copies are fragile and expensive to make, and contribute to high cost at the theater. To save money, they are designed to be used over time - a print will be shipped around between theaters - which is why we have staggered releases worldwide, which is why we have DVD region codes, which is why we have limited numbers of screens to show on, which is why we have many people in one theater when a smaller theater could work as well or better. And so forth.
Point is, the money saved on distribution alone could allow higher profit margins to BOTH studios and theaters. Factoring in other factors (such as how movies make most of their money in the first weekend, but the number of screens is limited by prints made), it could be a lot more. The big caveat is that a cheap distribution process could help independent films way more than the major studios, thus posing a threat to their control over the industry.
P.S. There was a MEMS article a few days ago which directly relates to this topic. Digital projectors could be much cheaper and higher resolution than they are.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
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
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?
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
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,
I take it you'll never buy a house.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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."
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.
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 |
Sounds like the dweebs didn't calibrate the dolby properly. The cinema setups have the ability to delay each sound channel by a specific amount so that the time it takes the sound to travel to various parts of the theatre is accounted for.
The other delay introduced in a 35 mm setup is that the sound pickup is a variable distance from the shutter. The soundtrack is 1.5 seconds away from the picture on the film but there is always an adjustment available (which you need since the adjustment in the dolby only allows a positive delay so you need the sound from the film to be slightly ahead of the picture so you can slow it in the dolby)
So if the sound pickup was off when they set up the dolby the dolby will have a compensating delay. Then when you stick the digital input in the picture and sound are precisely synchronized and the compensation in the dolby is way off.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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.
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"
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.
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'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.
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.
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 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.
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}}
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.
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)
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