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."

Comments

Yes but

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

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.

Re:Yes but

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Sat?

Re:Yes but

[Yokaze]

EM-waves travel quite good trough the air.
Satellites, or point-to-point radio-systems come to mind.

24fps vs. blocky video

[ObviousGuy]

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.

Episode III NOT coming to any theaters near you

[emily_the_dragonet]

Hollywood has made halting forays into digital cinema - George Lucas says that he will show the next Star Wars installment, due out next year, in theaters only with digital capability. But the cost of converting theaters to digital and concerns over piracy has the US movie industry moving in slow motion

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?

The experience in India.

[The Cydonian]

I remember reading a similar thing for India's rural cinemas as well:-

No longer do you need to transport 50 kg of film reels in canisters.Instead, the movie will be stored in a high-capacity disc drive about double the size of a cigarette pack which will be couriered to the hall where the film can be downloaded to the server. Also, it'll be a digitally encrypted signal with an access password. This, to keep the pirates at bay. While a conventional print costs Rs 60,000-80,000, digital images come at only about 10 per cent of the expense, at Rs 3,000-8,000 for a disc.

The weight of the stuff they're carrying obviously matters here.

Who will pay in US?

[mirio]

who will pay for cinemas to switch to digital projection

Hmm...ultimately the customers will.

piracy

[ajs318]

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.

Re:piracy

[binaryDigit]

Now ask yourself "why don't newspapers, magazines and books have a piracy problem, with all these copiers and so forth out there?"

Several reasons:

- Just how long would it take you to photocopy Harry Potter and how good of a copy could you make without destroying the book in the process.

- If you were to take the time to scan it, who would want to bother to print it out since the cost of the paper/toner would probably end up being more than the original book.

- Paper products have a long history and people are accustomed to their "interface" (i.e. I can take it on the bus or in the bathroom or in bed, I can fold it up, throw it in my bag, and I'm only out $5.95 (.50cents for a paper) if I lose it).

- With video and audio, EXACT reproductions can be made with a single mouse click.

- The nature in which their distributed lends themselves to easy reproduction (DRM efforts not withstanding).

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.

You can't compare the two. Different mediums that came at different times. Just like 30 years ago, film piracy was no big deal. Before cassette tapes, audio piracy wasn't a big deal. Had ebooks taken off, then the "printed" people would be stressing out about piracy as well. Just so happens the preferred distribution media is just some damn inconvenient to reproduce.

Re:Bout time

[W2IRT]

Its nice to go to the Cinema and have amazing sound, now we can watch the films and not have scratchy, popping, projected images!

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."