Slashdot Mirror


Windows Media 9 in Digital Theaters

SpamJunkie writes "Feel like watching new releases in 7.1 surround sound with full digital video? It's coming, not with MPEG 4 but with Windows Media 9. Microsoft announced it is bringing Windows Media 9 to 177 screens in Landmark Theaters."

38 of 597 comments (clear)

  1. blue screen? by net_bh · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wow.....blue screens that huge will be awesome to look at!!!!

    --
    There is no patch for stupidity

    Visit my blog

    1. Re:blue screen? by Gleng · · Score: 5, Funny

      This movie has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down

      If the problem persists please contact the theatre manager

      --
      "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
  2. One more thing... by Geekenstein · · Score: 5, Funny

    Due to DRM restrictions, your eyes must be gouged out after the showing for reprocessing. That is all.

    -Staff

    1. Re:One more thing... by johneee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the other hand, I can see how the DRM restrictions would be the number one reason why this is the format the distributors are looking at...

      I mean, with film, it'd be pretty cost prohibitive and difficult to smuggle out thousands of feet of film to get a screen quality transfer done to export to the middle east to run on hundreds of screens over there.

      On the other hand, if it's in MPEG4, you just bring in a firewire hard drive, copy the movie over, and not only can you send it off to wherever to run on actual movie screens with no money going to the distributors and movie makers, but you have a perfect quality thing to do black market mass duplicated DVD's with the same quality as the ones the studios will eventually release in six months within days of the movie coming to the theatre - not to mention real nice DIVX versions on Kazzaa.

      Yeah, they'd never go for it. Without DRM, you will never get digital movies on any large scale. Won't happen.

      --
      - ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?
  3. Great quote... by shroudedmoon · · Score: 5, Funny

    The newly outfitted theaters will be able to screen films encoded digitally in Windows Media 9 Series, which enables high-resolution,theater-quality experiences with up to 7.1 channel surround sound. The network rollout is expected to be completed by the end of this year.

    Umm... shouldn't it go without saying that it's theatre quality if they're rolling it out?

  4. WM9 Is a good codec by 1337_h4x0r · · Score: 4, Informative

    WM9 is a good mpeg-4 implementation. It has slightly better results than Divx 5 or X-vid from what I've seen (with the same file size). If they start doing High Definition transfers of movies and showing them digitally in the theaters, thats a great thing. I don't understand why you'd need a super-advanced codec to do it other than publicity, though. Mpeg-2 works for High Definition just as well, the file sizes are about 30% larger though.

    1. Re:WM9 Is a good codec by Versa · · Score: 3, Informative

      30% larger is vastly incorrect. I have an HDTV card and its about 9 gigs per hour with mpeg2. Compressing with wme9 gets it down to around 700 megs/hr with only a slight quality loss, around 1200 megs/hr for no appreciable loss.

      I've played around with encoding HDTV to Xvid also and the consensus on all the hdtv forums is that Xvid is slightly inferior to wme9 in terms of quality and file size. Although the benfit with Xvid is you can use AC3 sound instead of microsoft's proprietary surround sound codec.

  5. Woo. by grub · · Score: 4, Funny


    I wonder if people will notice the subliminal "OBEY", "CONSUME" and "REPRODUCE" messages from MS..

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Woo. by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Truly, "They Live" would be such a fitting movie to show.

      If it was an GPL'd codec, I'd suggest the Communist subversion speech form Dr. Strangelove.

  6. Movie goers don't care... by suman28 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They don't care what tech is actually playing the movie. They just care about the movie. So, I am not sure what MS is trying to accomplish? Besides, now they will be competing with industry gaints that have been supplying to the theaters for decades.

    1. Re:Movie goers don't care... by Hard_Code · · Score: 4, Interesting

      MS is trying to grab the theater so that when on-demand online movie broadcasting (I forget if there is a more specific term...the theaters will just not have to keep the data, it will be pumped to them on demand) comes to theaters, they are all in place to charge fees and licenses and have lock-in.

      Hey, isn't it ironic how hollywood sponsored DRM could cut their own throats?

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  7. Piracy? by Student_Tech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It doesn't mention this but woulnd't this make the stuff easier to pirate? Just copy the movie off the hard drive, reencode to desired format, distribute.

    1. Re:Piracy? by UpLateDrinkingCoffee · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm sure Windows Media 9 has all sorts of DRM protections build in... This is their foot in the door, movie studios want to use it for distrubuting in digital because they dont have to worry about the files getting propagated all over the internet. After their used to that, it won't be long before this is the only format you can get your DVD's in...

    2. Re:Piracy? by deanpole · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Do the theatre operators realize that this strong DRM will cause the movies not to play when they loose network connectivity even though the movie is stored locally on hard disc?

  8. Re:Let's give a collective... by binaryDigit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    WTF is right, but WTF are you talking about. Looking good? The big thing here is the infrastructure that this all represents. Being able to distribute and display completely digitally at a somewhat reasonable price is the news here. I guess MS should not attempt to move into any new markets or find new uses for their technology?

  9. WM9 *is* MPEG-4 by 1337_h4x0r · · Score: 5, Informative

    WM9 is an implementation of MPEG-4, it's just a proprietary one. It uses the same I-frame and compressed p-frame concepts as mpeg-4. DIVX is another well-known implementation. Also X-Vid.

  10. Independent film distribution by Lechter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This could be a great boon to the independent film "industry!" As they mention in the article, the costs of getting your movie out to distributers would be much much lower...no more copying and mailing huge film reels to each theater (but no more spliced-in single frames of porn either :-( ). Of course, this would only be the case if the encoding software were similarly inexpensive, and with MS cuddling up to Hollywood for DRM, I don't see this happening.

    Perhaps, this will provide the impetus to upgrade to digital projection equipment on which someone will implement an open codec...

    --
    credo quia absurdum
  11. Re:Let's give a collective... by Ooblek · · Score: 5, Informative
    So you are under the assumption that the crappy, poorly compressed captures that float around the internet are what would be projected? Just an FYI - digital video doesn't have to be compressed so that it will only look good at 640x480 resolution.

    I guess you also never watched a DVD? That video is compressed with a lossy compression scheme, yet it still looks good. Why? Variable compression. Someone just didn't pop a tape into a tape player, hit play, then click the record button on a computer. There are actually people that go through and master these things over a period of weeks or months to make the video stream as small as possible while trying to make it as quality as possible. There are also all sorts of measurement and analysis tools applied to it along the way to remove scratches from the film transfer, and to make multiple streams of audio (for foreign languages, commentary tracks, and I've even seen some DVDs that not only support the AC3 digital surround, but will have a Dolby Prologic encoded stream.)

  12. New business model for Theaters - not just movies by fetta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The exciting aspect of digital video in movie theaters (regardless of whether the underlying technology is MS or not) is the flexibility that becomes available.

    With digital projection, why not rent out a movie theater for a super bowl party? maybe we'll start seeing Monday night independent film festivals in suburban theaters? In theory, digital projection could open up all kinds of new possibilities for the theater industry.

    --
    ** The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employers - past, present, or future**
  13. Other potential hazards... by gilesjuk · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. Screensaver kicks in
    2. Projectionist plays an MP3 and it blasts out of the speaker.
    3. Projectionist forgets to turn off Windows desktop sounds

    and so on...... :)

    1. Re:Other potential hazards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Am I missing something? How are these unique to Windows? Last time I checked both Linux and OS X have screen savers, play MP3's, and have desktop sounds.

    2. Re:Other potential hazards... by FreeQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Neither Linux or OSX tries to port a built-in media player full of bugs and artifacts to the movie theater screen .

    3. Re:Other potential hazards... by ParnBR · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can already see the projectionist bumping into the mouse and the Media Player controls popping up in the movie screen! I hate that Media Player gimmick...

      --
      My neighbor's .sig is better than mine.
    4. Re:Other potential hazards... by rifter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would imagine that most Linux servers set up to stream video do not have such things. If they did, then someone should get a boot to the head. On Windows, however, even servers are designed to work like desktop systems, and there is no option to do otherwise.

    5. Re:Other potential hazards... by shepd · · Score: 5, Funny

      >WMP is much less buggy than most linux players such as XMMS or Xine.

      Yes, because WMP can actually figure out how long a VBR MP3 is.

      Oh wait, it can't. Darn. Maybe next decade!

      Movie theater owner: How long is that movie?
      Projectionist: WMP says it is 30 minutes long.
      Movie theater owner: Really? That's great.

      Next day, big sign outside: Now playing every hour "Lawrence of Arabia"!

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  14. Variety.com Article by Mr.+Fusion · · Score: 3, Informative
    Variety (free trial subscription) also has an article from yesterday as well, focusing less on the technical aspects and more generally on the widespread outfitting itself.

    And for those who hate trial subscriptions, here's the full text:

    • Posted: Wed., Apr. 2, 2003, 8:56pm PT
    • Landmark going digital

      All auditoriums nationwide to be outfitted with d-cinema

      By CARL DIORIO

      Arthouse giant Landmark Theaters will today announce plans to outfit its entire 177-screen circuit for digital cinema and a related effort to deal directly with filmmakers lacking distribution for their low-budget digital video features.

      The d-cinema initiative involves a joint venture with Microsoft and L.A.-based Digital Cinema Solutions. Terms weren't available, but it's believed the unique three-way relationship will shave Landmark's costs to a fraction of the usual $100,000-plus per screen to install most d-cinema systems.

      All auditoriums in Landmark's 53 theaters, located in 20 markets nationwide, will be outfitted with d-cinema playback systems based on Microsoft's Windows Media 9 Series. DCS will select digital projectors from a variety of manufacturers.

      The Windows Media systems are substantially less expensive than other systems, because they essentially represent off-the-shelf technology, officials said. The playback systems will be married to relatively inexpensive digital projectors, because the smaller size of its screens requires less illumination to project an image of acceptable resolution.

      Landmark chief Paul Richardson said he doesn't expect a lot of immediate interest from specialty distribs in converting their primary releases for digital distribution. But he believes they may be more inclined to acquire niche pics shot in digital video than previously.

      "There's a whole bunch of product that doesn't get picked up at the film festivals because people don't believe it's worth the cost to invest the money to make a master print, which can cost $50,0000-$60,000," Richardson said. "But for $6,000-$8,000, you can encode the film for digital (to) play our circuit, and I think some distributors will be interested in doing that."

      Landmark and its joint venture partners will also ante up the encoding costs for some number of pics, he said. "We're not going to bid on films against the guys in the business," the Landmark CEO said, noting he won't be personally prowling any film markets.

      "The films we're going to package are maybe a year old and haven't gotten picked up yet," he explained. "Those people are in contact with us all the time."

      In the past, Landmark's steered such filmmakers to various indie distribs but now will deal with them more directly in some instances. Richardson said he's not sure how many such pics the joint venture partners themselves will distribute, nor have they identified a likely first release to run through the digital circuit.

      "We're starting out on an adventure here, and we really don't have a road map," he acknowledged. "We have a huge opportunity, but we're just not exactly sure where that opportunity is going to evidence itself."

      Landmark aims to outfit all of its screens for digital projection by December. "We're starting on the smaller auditoriums first, because that's where these pictures will play," Richardson said.

      Landmark and Microsoft previously collaborated on a small number of digital installations in connection with the BMW Films digital shorts series. For that series, which features BMW autos in several digitally produced action shorts, DCS installed d-cinema systems in a couple dozen theaters, including several Landmark sites.

      Landmark also used Microsoft-outfitted auditoriums to exhib Artisan's recent music docu "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" in nine locations.

  15. Re:please excuse us while we reboot the theater... by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Funny

    "And just as Captain Picard ordered self destruct, the movie paused. A gray box appeared on the screen with the words 'A Windows Media Update is now available, would you like to download it now?"

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  16. Argh. by MikeFM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dunno about you but if I go to a movie and it crashes I'm gonna demand my money back at the least. I'd be really pissed if the movie locked up and even more so if I got a blue screen or similar error messages. It's bad enough at airport terminals and on POS devices.

    One more way for Microsoft to lock up artist works in their own file formats. How long before studios decide to release Windows only DVD's rather than bother reencoding the movies?

    Why was this needed? Couldn't studios have just mastered the movies to DVD and either mailed them to theatures or allowed the theature to download the movie if they had the bandwidth? Damn it costs about $2 to burn and mail a DVD. They couldn't afford that? Then the theature could use a fairly standard DVD player hooked to their projector and audio system. If the movie won't fit on DVD then split it over several discs and allow the theature to rip the DVD to a harddrive and playback.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    1. Re:Argh. by tuffy · · Score: 5, Interesting
      It does not matter that M$ doesn't own a market, the minute they set their eyes on one, the current market leader (weither (sp?) it is a company or an {open} technology) is toast. Think about the state of the OA software market 10+ years ago, web browsers 5 years ago, server market, etc. M$ has the will and the means to conquer any market they want to own. Remember that.

      Bullshit. Really. Apache is still beating IIS in market share and always has. The PS2 is still clobbering the X-Box. The PalmOS is still demolishing the PocketPC. WebTV has been toast for some time. Heck, the only places Microsoft *have* been successful are Windows (due to a desktop monopoly), Explorer (due to leveraging the previous monopoly to squash Netscape) and Office (due mostly to locked-in data formats). Outside of the narrowly-defined desktop realm, Microsoft is one vast litany of failures.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

  17. It's embedded in Microsoft's corporate culture by Infonaut · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The corporate culture at Microsoft is such that they see themselves as the underdog. Really. Everything I've read and everything I've heard from anyone who works there indicates that the company has a very strong sense of "us against the world."

    Also, this is a company that is driven by conquests. They conquered the desktop. What now? You have to expand in order to keep your stock moving upward. It's never enough to stay big; you need to be bigger.

    So as with Sidewalk, MSN, XBox, et. al., Microsoft is attacking Google and moving into the moviehouse business because to their way of thinking there is no other option.

    For those of you who scoff at these latest attempts, remember that these guys have tremendously deep pockets. They can afford to pour money down a profitless hole for years, knowing that eventually they'll figure out how to market the product. Notice I said "market the product."

    The best product doesn't always win. Microsoft's continued dominance is proof of that. Laugh at them all you want, but they're dangerous in almost any arena.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  18. Monopoly aids branding by Logic+Bomb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think this a great example of MS using its monopoly leverage to extend its brand (sorry for the buzzwords). They've implemented technology which probably has no real relation to what people do on their home computers -- i.e. it uses special software and hardware -- but are including it under the Windows Media brand to further entrech it in the tech-ignorant public's minds. Unless the theaters are able to go out and buy an off-the-shelf Dell, hook it up to their projection systems and use this content, MS has no business pretending this is just another great use for the same software people already have at home.

  19. Re:who's gonna pay to watch a BSOD ? by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How often does the tape get chewed up in a modern projector. I go to the movies every other week, and in the past four years there have been two movies stopped due to projector failure. This isn't the ISS, people won't die if the projector needs to take a 5 minute break. And honestly, Windows XP does run very reliably and stably for the first two hours, and clearing a theartre takes a lot longer than rebooting XP (Windows 98, no. XP...).

    Windows has been running for years in many display kiosks around town and info-screens at the airport. You know it's Windows, because NT will pop up every now and then with a bluish happy little screen. But these things are left on all of the time, all day. If all a machine had to do was boot, display a WM9 file, and reboot, XP should be fine.

    Honestly, I'd expect fewer people will be dissappointed with the projection than with the content when the next digitally-projected Star Wars comes out.

  20. Re:Ha Ha, jackhole... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Microsoft is actually giving a leg up to the little guy in this case.

    Microsoft today: "Hey kid! Over here. Try this stuff. The first hit is free!"

    Slashdot posting 5 years from now: "I run a small studio. I'm not happy about the new Microsoft media licensing either, especially the royalty-per-view terms. But we've invested so much in Microsoft software, equipment and training that we just can't afford to switch. We've decided to suck up and pay. Plus, with the exclusive deal Microsoft has with all the theater chains, we just can't use any other format. It's industry standard. I wish there was another viable solution, but this is the only game in town."

  21. Good for indie films by bcombee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Landmark is a chain of mostly "art-house" theaters that show a pretty eclectic fare. I think this is a really great announcement, because it means a much lower distribution cost for a lot of films that otherwise would go without screenings. This will lead to more choices at their theaters, since you won't have the huge costs of dealing with film spools and prints. Films that currently only play a week or two because the print has to go to the next city can have longer runs, and its easier to play repertoire films due to no shipping costs.

    I'm looking forward to see how this works at Austin's Dobie Theater. At South by Southwest 2002 and 2003, lots of the festival films were screened using digital projection, and I thought it worked pretty well, with the biggest problem being the limited resolution of the DV source.

  22. Re:Unconditional Microsoft Hate? by pmz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    how it's a monopoly (which, it isn't)

    Actually, it is. I'm going to be putting together a computer for my sister soon. I'll give you two guesses to tell me what operating systems she can choose from, and I'll give you one guess as to which operating system is the only one she really can choose. Here's a hint: she doesn't have the money for a Mac. I'd also give you a guess about her word processor, but it isn't worth it.

    I don't have to fuck about for hours installing this and that, having the right hardware...

    I say the same things about Solaris and Mac OS X relative to Windows.

    The movie goer does not care how the movie is projected, how it gets to the cinema, or whatever.

    I'd bet there will be a two-minute preview hammering into the minds of the audience how great WM9-based movies are. I'd also not be suprised if there are borderline-subliminal messages in that preview to gain even better penetration.

  23. Re:Ha Ha, jackhole... by Gulik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Slashdot posting 5 years from now: "I run a small studio. I'm not happy about the new Microsoft media licensing either, especially the royalty-per-view terms. But we've invested so much in Microsoft software, equipment and training that we just can't afford to switch. We've decided to suck up and pay. Plus, with the exclusive deal Microsoft has with all the theater chains, we just can't use any other format. It's industry standard. I wish there was another viable solution, but this is the only game in town."

    Gads, but I wish I had a mod point handy. This is precisely the problem, and I can't understand why it keeps being dismissed as ``Microsoft bashing.'' (Usually by people who have a Score:3 post who, at some point lament ``I'm sure I'll be modded to Hell for saying this, but...'')

    The progression is obvious and has been seen a number of times already: Microsoft behaves in a seemingly generous manner (in this case, setting up low-cost digital projection systems so smaller film producers have a shot at distribution; previously, it was giving away a web browser), gets a whole lot of people using one of their proprietary formats, manages to lock out other formats thereby, and then starts jacking up licensing fees once they're the only game in town.

    ``And you fall for it every single time.''
    --Angelus

  24. WMV9 is NOT MPEG-4 by benwaggoner · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, WMV9 isn't a MPEG-4 codec. Earlier versions were based on draft MPEG-4 standards, but they forked quite a while ago.

    Also, the difference is a lot bigger than 30%. It's more like 100% more for MPEG-2, with the gap increasing as data rates get lower.

  25. From the field: hard part is projector, not codec by benwaggoner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm actually in the process of designing a digital cinema system along these lines, so here's a few comments

    Everyone is focusing on the codec being the quality limitation, but that's not true. In fact, the projector is the biggest deal. There are plenty of modern codecs that can give you visually lossless quality if you throw enough bits at them. The issue with codecs is getting compression efficiency up so that transmission and storage is cheaper, and keeping decode complexity down so you don't need to have expensive hardware in the projector. The WM9 system is pretty much a high end (but not the highest end) Dell workstation, strapped to a cart with XLR audio out, a control pad, and a big data projector on the top. All off the shelf parts, which makes implementation cheap, and upgrading the computer very cheap. But those are nice things to have, but not strictly required for digital projection.

    But we could do the same thing with MPEG-4, or other formats. WM9 has a more mature DRM solution and some other advantages, but it is absolutely possible to use another format.

    The big limit is in having a projector that is bright enough to fill the room, with a dark black, and high resolution. Moore's law gives us improvements in compression faster than we get improvements in projection, so the big photon cannon will be the true limit on quality for a while.