Slashdot Mirror
Brazil Takes Lead in All-Digital Cinema Projection
securitas writes "The CS Monitor's Andrew Downie reports that Brazil plans to open in May the world's largest digital movie theater network. About 100 theaters will use Sao Paulo-based Rain Networks' KinoCast digital theater DRM software. Rain based its system on Windows Media 9 software with MPEG-4 video compression. 'The MPEG-4 software can squeeze a feature film onto a file of just five gigabytes, 15 times smaller than the MPEG-2 technology presently used' at one-third the $150,000 cost. It takes 20 minutes to distribute a 90-minute film over a VPN and the system avoids the costs associated with transporting physical copies to areas largely inaccessible by road - it can cost up to $750,000 for 500 copies of a Matrix-type blockbuster to be distributed. Interestingly, in the affluent USA the fight between the 35,000 theater owners and Hollywood is about who will pay for cinemas to switch to digital projection. In December 2003 the Guardian published a story with more financial and technical details of the KinoCast digital cinema system."
It takes 20 minutes to distribute a 90-minute film over a VPN and the system avoids the costs associated with transporting physical copies to areas largely inaccessible by road
I have a feeling that if some area is inaccessible by road, it's not likely to have DSL or fiber running to it either. So they'd still have to bring the hard-disks (or whatever media) by hand.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I remember when I first heard that movies are filmed at a very slow 24fps. Compared to tv which changes the display at 60fps, the 24fps is very slow. However it is a result of the high resolution as well as the movement of the actors (as opposed to multiple still-lifes) which makes the movie indistinguishable from normal movement.
Now take digital with its ability to blit high resolution graphics at very high framerates compared to traditional film. As good as these systems are, the loss in resolution due to compression is a killer. Though we may have all been agog at the CG used in the Star Wars prequels as well as the LoTR trilogy, much of the compression artifacts were still clearly visible. I don't think digital is ready for widespread usage yet. MHO, of course.
In Brazil, it fascinates me that there are movie theaters where there are no roads.
I have been pwned because my
that they choose to base this kind of project om Windows Media Player, since most poeple still look at linux, with for example mplayer, as untested and possibly unreliable technology. Although a system running linux/mplayer would probably be better, people still hang on to what is familiar to them.
Episode III, not coming to any theaters near you anytime soon. How many will just go to see it even if they know it's bad when they can't even drop down to their local theater? Nobody will inconvinience themselves for a movie who's draw is mainly "I just want to see how the thingends already". Of course maybe it won't be bad, but what are the odds of that?
More than mere navel gazing.
yeah we can have, frame dropouts, compression artifacts, media controled by DRM propritory formats.
who will pay for cinemas to switch to digital projection
Hmm...ultimately the customers will.
I have one thing only to say to the people who complain about "piracy" {the industry's preferred dysphemism for "independent distribution"}.
Look at the ready availability of photocopiers, scanners, printers and the like. And look what's on offer at your local W.H.Smith, or Waterstones, or any independent local newsagent, or remainder store.
Now ask yourself "why don't newspapers, magazines and books have a piracy problem, with all these copiers and so forth out there?"
Whatever the Printed Word industry has done to protect itself from "piracy", the music and movie industries have to do the same thing to protect themselves from the same threat.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
At 2 million people it can hardly be called a small city.
(8-DCS)
Why is it that everyone always insists upon using approximations? Even with the highest quality mpeg encoder, the approximations that mpeg 4 employs will be visible on the big screen at that bit rate. Of course you could use a small enough resolution that the bitrate wouldn't produce artifacts, but that would not come near the effective resolution of the analog media that this is replacing.
Approximation has it's place, but at this bit rate quality anywhere near 35mm prints is nye impossible. Approximation techniques such as mpeg also allow for irresponsible use. Using these techniques content producers must spend large amounts of time on quality assurance, making sure that each portion of the content receive at least the bitrate required. For a glaring example of improper usage of approximation, find the original DVD release of "The Wizard of OZ". The one in the plastic keep case, not the remastered one in the cardboard snap case. That release was just awful. There was gibbs effect (those little squares) everywhere during the sepia tones portion (as opposed to the technicolor portion) of the film.
In this case, there is absolutely no reason to use this much approximation. In fact, in this case it would negligable in cost to cut out all approximation. This does not mean the movie can not be compressed or encrypted, just that it shouldn't be approximated. If the approximation step were removed, the quality assurance work that goes with it would also be removed and possibly save more money than the additional one time costs of extra storage for the theaters. It would take longer to feed the data to the theaters, but I don't beleive theaters are changing films so often that they would come anywhere near saturating their distribution VPN even 50% of the time.
Right, we trade scratched prints to squealing and chirping sound and smudged, blocky, pixelated video...
One of the most important laws of technology is that It's Never Perfect. =)
Maybe if the chains hired back some real projectionists who can put on a good show without scratching the print to ratshit after 3 passes you would have your wish. Expert film handlers and a good 35mm print (or dare I suggest it -- 70mm) will beat the optical quality of ANY digital projection system currently in use or likely to come down the pike in the next decade.
If you ever get the opportunity to do so, carefully examine a 35mm print and a digital release of the same title. Look for the "swirling snow" digital artifacts in any light-coloured scenes (like snow or sandscapes); blocky shadows; colour that just doesn't look "right."
It's still possible to put together a booth of older equipment that will put on a beautiful show for about $15,000 or less -- I've seen it done for under $8,000. No THX for that money, but good optical stereo, a nice, bright image and solid, mechanically-reliable hardware. Just add in a relatively-cheap DTS player and you're off to the races.
Now consider that just a single Digital projector will cost, conservatively, $150,000. That's without the B-chain sound hardware (amps, wiring, speakers, etc). Out of a $10 ticket price, the exhibitor MAY see $1 to $1.50 per ticket if they're lucky. Most couldn't increase the concession prices any higher without having a full-time loan officer on site, so that's not much of an option either.
The problem is that Digital is still very much the buzzword-du-jour. It's still not ready for prime-time, but idiot movie-goers are prepared to sit through a vastly inferior presentation (unless a 35mm projectionbaboon screws up) just to say "I saw it in Digital. Duh."
Cheers, Peter, W2IRT
Why would the private sector invest in solving poverty? That's not profitable. This is not a government initiative.
If the movie industry is going digital is because there is money to be made somewhere along the lines, not because they are trying to do a good deed.
By the way, it works the same here in America, bud.
...that Brazil also leads with 100% electronic voting.
Sometimes less money leads to more simple and viable solutions. US should take a look on what is going on below equator and maybe save lot's of money using solutions already tested. Just't becouse it was done here it doesn't mean it's not worth a look.
Read The Fine Article:
The majors are resistant to MPeg4 because since it is cheaper, uses smaller files and is easier to manipulate, the risk of piracy is seen as greater. For the time being, KinoCast machines will only be able to project independent and Brazilian movies, where there is less fear of piracy.
The actual film itself isn't what you would call cheap (makes up more of the cost than you would think, and it only lasts for so long(scratches, dust, etc)). Actually getting it there and the infrastructure to support that (accountants to ensure you get paid for providing the print, etc) also factor into the price.