Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Digital Cinema
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times recently had an interesting article on the future of digital cinema. The article talks mainly about the Digital Cinema Initiatives consortium (formed last year by a group of seven major studios) and its work towards establishing a set of standards for theatrical digital projection. DigitalCinemaMag also had an article back in February about the consortium's efforts which included a few more technical details."
"Some say a film print is equivalent to 5,000 lines of resolution, but by the time it's been shown a lot, its effective resolution may be no more than 800 lines," Mr. Darrow said.
With today's projectors around 1,300 lines, it seems there's a long ways to go before picture quality or cost make this a viable option for most theaters. As a moviegoer, I really don't care whether the projection is digital or film - picture and sound quality are what's important.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I'm totally stoked about the possibilities of Digital Cinema, but my one big gripe is that there is no discussion of going to a higher framerate.
Keep in mind that a higher framerate equates into larger files and more processing required which then equates into higher costs. You have to transfer a larger file, have more space to hold it, and have more processing oomph at the theatres to decode it. Hopefully whatever standard they come up with allows them to have variable framerates (as you would expect them to have variable resolutions and compression ratios, ala DVD). So Mr. Lucas can release his stuff at 60fps at 8192x2048 using lossless compression while some indie can do theirs at 24fps at 720x480.
Absolutely yes without question.
Which is to say, it probly won't have any effect on the major studios, since the vast majority of their expenses aren't related to film. George Lucas might have saved a million bucks when he shot Attack of the Clones digitally, but at that point who cares?
However, digital processes open up a vast new potential for low-budget films. It will soon be possible to shoot a million dollar film for $100,000, a $100,000 film for $10,000, and a $10,000 for $1,000, with no loss in picture quality whatsoever. It is difficult to overstate the impact this will have. I might go so far as to say it will impact film in the same way that the printing press impacted the novel.
Theft isn't the main issue.
The main issue is striking thousands of prints and shipping them all around the US/World. That costs a LOT OF $$$$$. They will save a TON of cash when we just send a fibre feed of the feature. Plus we all know that a digital version doesn't get scratched by an $8 idiot in the projector room.
Meatplow
Once digital projection is a reality, all sorts of new possibilities in filmmaking open up...
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
I think the aim is to increase the visual quality of the film so that the viewer can no longer tell that he is watching a movie.
Think about it, the object of a movie is to present you with an alternate reality for it's duration. Now, if the user is distracted by visual errors/color noise/etc, then he/she cannot totally immerse themselves into the movie; the errors are constant reminders that what the user is watching is not real.
I think the goal of improving the visual quality of movies is so that people will not notice it at all. Its the same idea in web design - a good web design is one that nobody notices. This is because you want to present information to the user. In the end, the design is just wrapping. Its the same idea in this case, just with movies.
If the movie-makers can accomplish this goal, then the user can watch the movie and concentrate fully on the events being portrayed. So indirectly, by increasing the visual quality of the movie, then you indirectly increase the quality of the movie. But if the acting stinks, then no amount of visual tricks will make the movie any better. I wish hollywood would realize this.
Thats my two cents.