Slashdot Mirror


Irish Cinema Set to Go Digital First

LocalisationDude writes "The BBC is reporting that Ireland will be the first country in the world to have their traditional 35mm film projectors replaced with digital projectors. An American company is installing digital projectors in 500 cinemas to replace the traditional film projectors. Cinemas using the technology will be able to download the latest releases to a computer server via satellite at a lower cost."

206 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. Piracy boom? by cypher_soundz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Am i the only one who thinks that piracy quality will increase now?

    1. Re:Piracy boom? by Saven+Marek · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Cinemas using the technology will be able to download the
      > latest releases

      I'm thinking now there'll be 500 notices served on irish cinemas by the RIAA for movie downloading!

    2. Re:Piracy boom? by m50d · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes you are. Anyone with access to the booth was able to make near-enough perfect rips anyway. The average person can't tell the difference between 35mm and digital projection. And camcorder-between-the-seats is not going to be any better just because the projection is digital. Piracy might get easier, but the quality won't be any better.

      --
      I am trolling
    3. Re:Piracy boom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "The average person can't tell the difference between 35mm and digital projection."

      You, my good sir, are wrong. Have you ever been to a movie that have been shown for several weeks? You may notice an ocasional 'pop' or scratch in the film, which is due to wear. The average movie goer does notice that. However, with digital there is no physical film to degrade. Thus, every time the movie is played in its original, blemish free form.

    4. Re:Piracy boom? by justforaday · · Score: 5, Informative

      The average person can't tell the difference between 35mm and digital projection.

      You certainly can! For starters, the image doesn't have any scratches or floaters on it. It also doesn't jitter around or flicker like film. Oh, and the colors tend to be considerably brighter. The downside is that when the screen goes totally black, it's actually a very dark grey (more of an illuminated black).

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    5. Re:Piracy boom? by jfanning · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen a digital projection?

      I saw Attack of the Clones in digital and the difference between digital and normal 35mm project was astounding. The picture was rock solid and crystal clear, compared to a normal film that jumps around with all sorts of scratches and dust stuck to it.

    6. Re:Piracy boom? by thundercatslair · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's the MPAA!! Get your tyrancial companys right!

    7. Re:Piracy boom? by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

      I would not be surprised at all if soon, very soon, you will see digital quality flicks on bit torrent downloadables even before they hit the cinemas.

      But we'll have to find those torrent sites. Few left and when new ones become more public knowledge they get shut down!

    8. Re:Piracy boom? by MPHellwig · · Score: 1

      and that is because black is the absents of light and thus no light at all?

    9. Re:Piracy boom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Contrast is lower, resolution is lower and video colors are still ugly (well maybe you like em), compression artifacts, staircasing and stuck pixels. And yes I have seen all those in cinemas. Don't get me wrong I believe digital is the future of cinema, but I'd rather have people wait a few years so that what you get in the cinema will actually be better than what we have now. A nice new 35 mm copy of a well shot movie projected by a good operator will look great in todays cinemas.

      And of course then there's always the people who say downloading a movie (or buying a dvd) will get you the same experience as a cinema ...

    10. Re:Piracy boom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      My local theater got Digital Projectors for Episode 2 and has stayed digital ever since. Wouldn't that make Ireland NOT the first country?

      But anyway, I got there late and had to sit very close to the screeen and... I could see pixels! I could only see them on things with a lot of contrast, like subtitles, but they were hard to ignore from where I was. Subsequent visits to the theater, sitting at a reasonable distance from the screen, they were not noticable.

    11. Re:Piracy boom? by neoform · · Score: 3, Interesting

      35mm film also has a very dark grey, you can always tell when the projector is on with a black image.

      The main advantages to Digital vs. 35mm is are:
      -Impossible to scratch the image
      -Sound quality is WAY better (8.1 digital)
      -No Flickering (the shutter runs at 24fps which is low enough to notice)
      -The image is completely stable, when watching credits the words scroll up VERY smoothly. (to see image stability, walk right up to the screen while it's running and you'll see just how much the image really is moving around, even on very high quality 35mm projectors)
      -No more projectionist needed to thread the projector (damnit, i'm out of a job!) :-P

      The only downside i've seen it that i've found is that if you look real hard at some text on screen you can actually see pixels.. but considering how much sharper the image is, who cares.

      I've had the honnor of being the first person in Quebec (back in november) to start a Digitial Projector. Yay.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    12. Re:Piracy boom? by crunch_crumble · · Score: 2, Insightful
      For starters, the image doesn't have any scratches or floaters on it. It also doesn't jitter around or flicker like film. Oh, and the colors tend to be considerably brighter.

      Film doesn't flicker - it has been projected in cinemas at 24 frames per second for over 70 years. It this was a problem for film-goers, I think it would have been noticed by now. Problems like scratches are due to poor handling on the part of projectionists. Dim and muddy-looking pictures are usually because cinema operators don't use the correct illumination from their projection bulbs (turning the illumination down makes the bulb last longer - advantageous for the cinema owner, but not for the viewers watching the film).

      Film handled correctly can easily provide bright, sharp, colourful and stable images. Yes, film eventually begins to degrade after being run X number of times through a projector, but you can easily keep a print in pristine condition for a few weeks at least (more than enough for most film releases). Too few cinemas seem to care about presentation quality unfortunately.

      My concern is that digital film resolution still seems to be a moving target. An improvement in film stock doesn't require new projection equipment. But what happens when digital resolution increases? That would require an upgrade of the digital projection equipment to take advantage of the improvement, and that's going to be costly.

      The introduction of digital cinema will be good thing if it breaks the distribution stranglehold that keeps so many international and independent films off cinema screens.

    13. Re:Piracy boom? by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      piracy will actually be harder as it will be far easier to digitally watermark the movies so that each theater will have their own unique markers with the projector being used to actually insert extra watermarks for determining the exact date and time of the screening...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    14. Re:Piracy boom? by steeef · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, and don't forget the cigarette burns/reel change markers. Thanks to Fight Club, I notice them all the time.

      Wonder if they'll keep the recent addition of those damn red dot patterns to "thwart" pirates...

    15. Re:Piracy boom? by sheol · · Score: 1

      Piracy might become easier, but it'll also be much easier to crack down on it. I don't believe for a minute that there won't be some sort of watermarking to uniquely identify each copy of the movie that's distributed to individual theatres. The content providers wouldn't allow digital distribution without something protecting them. It's almost certain some sort of watermarking will be used to enable tracking down "pirates".

    16. Re:Piracy boom? by AddressException · · Score: 1

      That's the MPAA!! Get your tyrancial companys right!

      Think about what the second A stands for... oh, and learn how to spell!

    17. Re:Piracy boom? by FireballFreddy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmm... maybe they could build that into the digital ones. Flip a few bits at random each time it is played, so people who wait until 4 weeks after the movie comes out can get that warm-fuzzy popping and twitching-hair-on-the-screen effect.

      --
      SQUEAK, the Death of Rats explained.
    18. Re:Piracy boom? by forkazoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the "average person," certainly can't. I can. I deal with video compression a lot, so any artifacting is very obvious to me. But, most people will look at any motion picture and not notice any problems. Most don't notice the brown dots designed to screw with pirates, or the cigarette burns, or the random motion of the frame when projected.

      You see, you and I are what are called "enthusiasts." We care. We can see it. My dad just wants to watch the presentation, and wouldn't notice anything but the most horrible projection, unless it was a side-by-side comparison.

      My dad thinks he is getting HiDef Satellite right now because he has an HD capable TV. He thinks it looks very good, and bragged to his friends. I don't have the heart to tell him you have to pay extra for the HD channels. I don't have the heart to teach him to spot the horrible MPEG artifacts around every crisp edge. He thinks he has great quality, and it looks good to him, and ho doesn't have to pay extra for the HD channels he wouldn't really notice...

    19. Re:Piracy boom? by AmunRa · · Score: 2, Informative

      Note: although there are only 24 physical frames every sec, the shutter actually runs at twice this speed (i.e. each frame is displayed twice), so the shutter speed is 48fps. A shutter speed of only 24 fps, projecting on such a large arc of vision would look terrible!

      --
      " To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research. "
    20. Re:Piracy boom? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And of course then there's always the people who say downloading a movie (or buying a dvd) will get you the same experience as a cinema ...

      I don't know... the last time I bought a DVD and sat down to watch it with my GF we weren't charged $8.50 for the popcorn that I nuked or $3.50 for the soda's that I poured. I also don't recall the child behind my couch that kicked me every five minutes, the screaming baby a few seats away, or the guy on his cell phone talking about his herpes diagnosis.

      Granted, there are some movies I'd like to see on the big screen (Episode Three?) but the cinema experience is not all that it's cracked up to be.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    21. Re:Piracy boom? by Oyvino · · Score: 1

      The downside is that when the screen goes totally black, it's actually a very dark grey (more of an illuminated black).

      ...witch is the exact same problem that 35mm prints have. Getting good blacks in a projection is difficult, boh with traditional film and with digital projection. But with digital projection technology like micromirrors[Wikipedia], I doubt that a X generation projection film print is significally better.

    22. Re:Piracy boom? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I hate to tell you this, but the people with "access to the booth," are 16 year old kids. Theoretically, sure.. they can make near-perfect copies. But in reality, there are managers and a distinct lack of specialized equipment for transfering the film to digital.

    23. Re:Piracy boom? by timeOday · · Score: 1
      The only downside i've seen it that i've found is that if you look real hard at some text on screen you can actually see pixels.
      But projected films have very noticeable grain. And you don't need to look hard to see it, either. I will be interested to see whether the pixelization is better or worse than today's grain.
    24. Re:Piracy boom? by Apotsy · · Score: 2, Informative
      -Sound quality is WAY better (8.1 digital)

      That is not specific to digital cinema, and there is no reason why 35mm cannot meet or beat anything any other system comes up with. DTS has succcessfully separated the sound and picture in 35mm (as well as 16mm and 70mm) presentations. Their latest processor, the XD10, has support for 10 channels.

      -No Flickering (the shutter runs at 24fps which is low enough to notice)

      There aren't many, if any, theaters running single bladed shutters. A double-bladed shutter giving a refresh rate 48Hz is the norm. And, depending on what kind of shutter you have, the shutter is usually open a larger percentage of the time than it is closed, reducing flicker. If you really want, you can always get a triple-bladed shutter for a nice 72Hz refresh rate, but then you have to watch your light output.

      if you look real hard at some text on screen you can actually see pixels.. but considering how much sharper the image is, who cares

      I do. I don't go to the theater to look at visible pixels. I can get that at home. Fortunately, 4K resolution (which is enough to make the pixels invisbly small at normal viewing distance) seems to be the direction things are headed these days. Sony was demoing 4K equipment at ShoWest this year. And with digital intermediates starting to be done at 4K the source material is there.

      The biggest area where video projection still falls behind film is dynamic range. Side-by-side comparsions make this abundantly clear. While projector manufacturers are sturggling to eek out a little bit more on their contrast ratios, print stocks like Kodak's 2393 (aka "Vision Premiere", used most recently for prints of "The Incredibles") can deliver 10,000:1 contrast. Yes, really. The max density is so high it's not just dark grey, it's really, truly, black. Video systems have a lot of work cut out to catch up to that.

    25. Re:Piracy boom? by baker_tony · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I agree with most of what you've said about average people not knowing, but I'm pretty sure he would notice a HD picture even with no comparison. I was wandering past a store in America one of the last times I was over and saw a decent quality HD TV showing a football match and it knocked my socks off. Like looking through a window.

    26. Re:Piracy boom? by m50d · · Score: 1

      Yep. But to get the digital one you have to be in the booth, in which case you could already get a near-enough-perfect copy anyway. Odds are it's going to be divxed down to 700mb for distribution anyway, so above a certain point it doesn't matter how good the copy you get is.

      --
      I am trolling
    27. Re:Piracy boom? by m50d · · Score: 1

      Yes, I notice it. And then I mention it to my family and they say they didn't. Some people can tell, and probably many slashdotters, but the average moviegoer really doesn't care. I remember someone posting here about how when they went to see IIRC Gladiator at an IMAX cinema the person next to them raved about how much better the picture quality was. Except it wasn't any better, it was just a 35mm film on an imax screen, because there is no imax version of Gladiator.

      --
      I am trolling
    28. Re:Piracy boom? by m50d · · Score: 1

      Yes I have. And it's perfectly possible to see an improvement like that when it's not there if you're looking for it. The only difference I notice compared to the good local cinema (at the other one you can see scratches) is the hole in the top right that they used to use to know when to change reels or something, and my family don't even see that.

      --
      I am trolling
    29. Re:Piracy boom? by m50d · · Score: 1

      I can, and you can, but the average person can't. Try a double-blind test with some non-technical people. Really, they don't notice.

      --
      I am trolling
    30. Re:Piracy boom? by Ryosen · · Score: 1

      Tell that to Jon Johansen.

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    31. Re:Piracy boom? by Ryosen · · Score: 1

      What nauseates me more than the pops and scratches are the copyright traces...those red lines and dots that pop up all over the place.

      I think it was the last Harry Potter. The marks were so noticeable and distracting that I couldn't concentrate on the film itself.

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    32. Re:Piracy boom? by Ryosen · · Score: 1

      Man, I *have* to come over to your house!

      After shelling out $20 for the DVD, the popcorn set me back $3, after buring the first batch. Blew $2 on the soda after the damned cat knocked over the bottle, 30 minutes to mop the floor, $10 for a new mop and a bottle of mop-n-slop, another 45 minutes bathing the cat, 20 minutes spent after the bath trying to get the bleeding to stop, my freakin' kid wouldn't stop climbing all over me to get to the popcorn, then went into a sugar-induced hyperactivity fit from all of the sugar in the soda which only served to piss off a very wet cat who was happily content rubbing herself against the couch in a vain attempt to dry off, and having to deal with a phone call from my father who was thrilled to have passed his first prostate exam and all of this just to labor through yet another rousing viewing of the Secret Neighborhood of the Ya-Ya Magnolias that my wife made me sit through. Again.

      Yeah, watching the movie at home is so much better. =)

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    33. Re:Piracy boom? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      My local theater got Digital Projectors for Episode 2 and has stayed digital ever since. Wouldn't that make Ireland NOT the first country?

      If your local theater was the only cinema in the country, sure.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  2. In other news... by Zebra_X · · Score: 4, Funny

    Irish cinema operator busted for distribution of l33t 0-day filmz!

    1. Re:In other news... by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 3, Funny

      Cinema operator? Naah, think bigger.

      Digital system + trojan + bittorrent = "Irish cinema -projector- busted for distribution of 133t 0-day filmz!"

  3. Input by bcmm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Will these be able to take normal digital video input?

    Could they play DVDs, for example?

    Or Quake...

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    1. Re:Input by mcknation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would imagine so...however "normal" dvds probably would not have the resolution required to look "normal" on a movie screen.

      mck

    2. Re:Input by snillfisk · · Score: 1

      Many movie theaters in norway already have this as an available service. Pay $100 an hour, bring your home console etc and play for a day. While the movies themselves are shown on regular old school projectors, the ads (movies, still images) are distributed in digital form and shown on regular, high quality digital projectors. This goes for most modern cinemas, at least. :)

      --
      mats
      One man's ceiling is another man's floor.
    3. Re:Input by ThJ · · Score: 2, Funny

      609 kroner timen? Er du rusk?

    4. Re:Input by susa-no-o · · Score: 1

      Why is this funny? Can some Norwegian translate this for me? In fact, I would say I'm fairly surprised that there are enough Norwegians on Slashdot to get this joke. Or is there something I'm missing?

    5. Re:Input by Blapto · · Score: 1

      609 kroner (currency) per hour? Are you (rusk)?
      I have no idea what rusk means, it's a norwegian folk band though...

    6. Re:Input by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      I think we can guess "mad" or "drunk" :)

    7. Re:Input by Lobo93 · · Score: 1

      "Rusk" is a shorter version of "riv ruskende gal", which would roughly translate as "stark raving mad" - in other words, the quintessential behaviour of most scandinavians, give or take a battle axe/beer or two...

      --
      "The only clear view is from atop the mountain of our dead selves." - Peter Carroll
    8. Re:Input by easter1916 · · Score: 1

      Every Nordic person I've ever met has been "riv ruskende gal", it's true...! From my sister-in-law the Finn to that Danish bloke Paul who I got drunk with at the bar of a hotel in Haarlem with one Christmas. The whole lot of yiz! Bonkers!

    9. Re:Input by neoform · · Score: 1

      yes you can, at our AMC theater (in montreal) for our xmas party we hooked up an xbox to the back of the projector (can take just about any video feed you can throw at it, has about 40 connectors on the back) and played from inside the theater..

      the image was real big, but it was pretty blurry on screen.

      just so everyone knows, a 2 hour digital movie is about 80gigs (heavily encrypted). Just for the movie the play a projector 'pulse' has to be there. a Pulse being an ongoing connection between the projector and the server.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
  4. Why is it taking this long? by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can't understand why it's taking so long to move from regular projection to digital projection. I'm hoping someone with more experience here can fill us in on what's going on.

    Are they waiting on standards or a big change in the industry? Are they waiting on a new file format, DRM, or aspect ratio? Is the distribution network missing? Where is the bottleneck in getting this rolled out in more places?

    I would hazard a guess that they could make an LCD attachment for existing projectors that would allow digital projection to take place at a cheaper rate, kinda like the transparent LCD screens you can get for regular overhead projectors. This being the case, is the distribution network the problem?

    The amount of money that would be saved in distribution and replication costs, as well as having the ability to show more films at more times, would surely overcome the cost of upgrades. Or is it all down to being wary of change?

    1. Re:Why is it taking this long? by johnhennessy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm guessing that the projector technology is probably only now getting cost effective.

      If you look at most consumer grade projectors, they usually support 1024x768, or if you go for really expensive ones, maybe the next size up. I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that its currently considered at production level to edit films at 4K pixels (not sure if thats horizontal or vertical, but guessing 4K pixels vertically) so as you can see a consumer projector (which can normall costs thousands to begin with) just wouldn't cut it.

      As the technology moves to LTPS (low temperature poly-silicon) - which it has already is the Asian market, the resolution will go up.

      Just think of it practically: if I pixel is 0.5mm x 0.5mm on the projector, how big is that pixel going to be on the "big screen".

      --
      [ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
    2. Re:Why is it taking this long? by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 5, Funny

      The major hurdle is that there are about 35,000 cinema projectors in the country that need to be converted to digital at about $100,000 a shot. Add in the cost of the satellites, storage, retrofit for data, etc. and the average multiplex is looking at an investment of well over $1,000,000. Sure, the investment will pay back in ease of distribution and whatnot, but where does the million come from? The studios sure aren't going to pay for it - the razor-thin margins they give back to the theaters are why popcorn costs $28 a pound. And theater owners know that Joe Public won't stand for a ticket price hike when most people wouldn't notice or appreciate the jump in quality.

      Basically it's a case of which comes first - the chicken or the egg? Or the cart before the horse. Except the chicken is a $100,000 digital projector and the horse is a $28 bucket of popcorn.

      And somehow the egg is Orrin Hatch.

    3. Re:Why is it taking this long? by canavan · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's horizontal. 4k is 4k x 2k pixels. However, the 'smaller' digital cinema projectors use relsolutions as low as 1280x1024 with anamorpic lenses to stretch the whole image over the 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 screen.

      Over here in europe, even that is much better than the average copy of conventional film, since the focus is adjusted just once and stays essentially perfect, and you can't scratch a digital movie, or neglect to service the projector so bad that the image is vibrating as if the projector was run by a two stroke engine.

    4. Re:Why is it taking this long? by RadioAct1ve · · Score: 1

      The reason why this has been taking so long is that you need MAJOR storage, I am talking BIG, on the terabyte level. You have to understand that you cant just take a DVD and pop it into a video projector and put it on a 70 foot screen, it would look like crap and it would look pixalated and dim. You need much higher resolutions. So the storage requirements are big, plus they are bringing it down by satelite which means they need to find a way to encrypt the video which I doubt the encryption is any good, so the next generation of piracy is going to be downloading the high resolution streams from satalites and then decrypting those extreme high res videos. I really can not see how digital cinema is better than film. A well trained projectionist can make film look good. Film is an art and a lot of projectionists dont treat it this way, I should know, I use to be one and took a lot of pride in my job. We shal see how this turns out, from what I understand the resolution of the typical DCinema setup is still less then the what "would be" resolution of film. DCinema still has a long way to go, but I dont think its there yet.

    5. Re:Why is it taking this long? by SsShane · · Score: 1

      Plus a lightbulb for the damn things are $500 last time I checked, and hard to get.

    6. Re:Why is it taking this long? by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      the razor-thin margins they give back to the theaters are why popcorn costs $28 a pound

      Popped or unpopped?

      Weight of popcorn.

    7. Re:Why is it taking this long? by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1
      I can't understand why it's taking so long to move from regular projection to digital projection. I'm hoping someone with more experience here can fill us in on what's going on.
      Forgive me if someone already posted this, but I don't see it in any of the comments modded up... I'm guessing a major hurdle (in the US anyway) is going to be whole support structure surrounding film theaters. There is a whole industry dedicated to producing the parts and consumables in film reels, and the labor that goes into duplicating the films, distributing them, collecting them, and destroying them so they don't get into the black market.

      These jobs, like almost every job in Hollywood, are unionized. It's a major hurdle to jump, because the union is going to fight to preserve the status quo, and if industry pressure dictates that change must happen, that labor force is going to have to be re-trained at someone else's expense. You can bet it won't be at the union's expense. In light of this, the $100,000 projectors aren't likely to be the major hurdle in adoption, unless the movie theaters are being pushed to foot the bill.

      If we look at it this way, the cost savings in distribution is a problem, not an advantage. Well, it's an advantage to the consumer, but the industry couldn't care less about those people.
      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    8. Re:Why is it taking this long? by gregory · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget an important aspect to that $100,000 projector: who's going to pay for it?

      The theator owners don't want to absorb the cost because the benefit they receive is somewhat minimal. The production/distribution companies received the greatest benefit do due reduced costs and increased efficiencies (anyone wanna guess how much a print of a movie costs to make and ship? Guess who pays for this?)

      --
      A smarter way to sell your home: LeapHomes.

    9. Re:Why is it taking this long? by gregory · · Score: 1

      Forgot to add the following infomrative link from a Forbes article to the parent post:

      http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/18/0318digitaldist ri bution.html

      A relevant quote from the article:

      Film distribution is a huge and largely unseen component of the movie business. Currently, copies of movies are distributed in huge film cans by companies like Technicolor, a unit of Thomson Multimedia (nyse: TMS - news - people), or shipped around the country by studios using FedEx (nyse: FDX - news - people) or UPS (nyse: UPS - news - people). Technicolor processes about 3 billion feet of film each year and also oversees the process of shipping hundreds, if not thousands, of copies of a feature.

      Producing, distributing and managing the huge inventory of print costs for an average feature film cost $3.7 million last year, according to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), accounting for about 12% of film marketing costs. With 482 films released last year, managing film prints was a $1.8 billion industry in the U.S. alone.

      By converting to digital, the MPAA estimates it can cut that figure by 25%, or about $600,000 per feature, which for a big studio releasing 20 features a year could add up to $12 million in savings per year on U.S. releases



      --
      A smarter way to sell your home: LeapHomes.

    10. Re:Why is it taking this long? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Just think of it practically: if I pixel is 0.5mm x 0.5mm on the projector, how big is that pixel going to be on the "big screen".
      This is one situation where the big three tube projectors walk all over the LCD projectors - you can change resolution, aspect ratio, width etc and have soft edged dots instead of rectangular "brixels". The question is, are these things made anymore? I've seen a relatively low end one do a width of 1920 pixels, and then change to a 640x480 mode, and both looked crisp.

      On the other hand, a movie I saw projected by LCD in a cinema looked like it was made up of bricks.

    11. Re:Why is it taking this long? by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Since the studios pay for duplication and distribution, going to digital won't save the theaters any money. And since the theaters buy their own projectors, they would also have to eat the cost of the new equipment.

      Another thing to remember is that the current costs of distribution ($1,500-2,000 per print in bulk) keeps films made by smaller, independent studios out of the mainstream. This helps the larger studios maintain their dominance in the market. Read this Wired story for more details.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    12. Re:Why is it taking this long? by Dion · · Score: 1

      Yes CRT projectors are being made, mainly by Barco and VDC (makers of the Marquee line) and yes, they are still the best.

      You can get a CRT PJ that will blow away every bulb PJ ever made for 3k USD.

      The only problem with CRTs is that they generally weigh 50-100 kg and they take up a lot of room, so you really want to ceiling mount it and you want to do it well.

      --
      -- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
    13. Re:Why is it taking this long? by thePjunisher · · Score: 1

      It's better because prints are surprisingly expensive. Why exactly do you think there are DVD regions?

  5. Satellite Hacking? by n0dalus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Cinemas using the technology will be able to download the latest releases to a computer server via satellite at a lower cost.

    Will this mean that we will start to see screeners with higher quality than DvD's? I'm sure it won't take much money to convince a middle-manager to release some of that sweet sweet digital content.
    And best of all, the movie would have to be downloaded possibly days before it's actually played.

  6. Cinemas using the technology will be able ..... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 3, Funny

    to just download the torrent :)

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    1. Re:Cinemas using the technology will be able ..... by Red+Pointy+Tail · · Score: 1

      Actually, why not? Legit ones of course. BitTorrent will be perfect for distributors to transmit new films to all cinemas without clogging up their main servers.

    2. Re:Cinemas using the technology will be able ..... by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      It is probably less of a security concern to use satellite, since it is beyond most people's means to pirate a satellite signal, whereas sneaking into official torrents of movies would be far easier.

  7. Consider security... by irritus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can you imagine how terrible this could go if they don't use adequate security? Someone could conceivably hack the source and replace a film with a horrific piece of fanfiction. Movies will now have a chance of not only being terrible, but not even the terrible movie you paid to see in the first place.

    1. Re:Consider security... by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, imagine if that mediocre fanfic Star Wars movie that was recently on slashdot got substituted for Episode III... My god, that is a wonderful idea! I'll get started right away. Thanks for the suggestion.

    2. Re:Consider security... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      hack the source and replace a film with a horrific piece of fanfiction

      Isn't that normally an improvement over the original?

      Somebody should remake Gigli and actually make it a good movie.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:Consider security... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      That would be too obvious. The best thing to do would be to take the original film and insert a few frames of pornography here and there, and see anyone notices.

  8. Finally Ireland is ahead with something by Celt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This makes me laugh...Ireland is behind several european countries when it comes to ADSL rollout with regards to cost and speed and yet we're going to have sat links so cinemas can get movies?

    Is this there way of trying to stop piracy over the net? :)

    --
    "WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
    1. Re:Finally Ireland is ahead with something by filmmaker · · Score: 1

      I think the adoption of digital projection is due to the fact that Irish movie fans are the most ardent in Europe.

    2. Re:Finally Ireland is ahead with something by dk01 · · Score: 1

      You would think that internet cam recordings, vcd's etc will start to dissapear. This reminds me of how hdtv has changed the way tv shows appear online. The majority of tv rips from 5 years ago are extremely poor in quality and relatively large in size. Does the movie industry really have support for this? It seems to me that they would be completely against any kind of system that put their movies in digital form. It really just takes out one step for the release groups and such. An interesting idea would be if they could eliminate the people who work in the projection room. That is if some large cinema company (UGC in Europe) could run all movie showings from one central command.

    3. Re:Finally Ireland is ahead with something by zoney_ie · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, we are third last in the EU25 for broadband access according to the most recent EU survey (by this stage we are probably last!).

      Only 70% or so of lines connected to a broadband-enabled exchange are suitably good quality (i.e. not faulty/broken) to allow a connection. The enabled exchanges only cover the cities and major towns. So contrary to Eircon's outright *lies* to the people and government (they've pretty much successfully brainwashed people that only techies are aware there's a problem) there is a pitiful amount of broadband coverage.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    4. Re:Finally Ireland is ahead with something by Finuvir · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I think the adoption of digital projection is due to the fact that Irish movie fans are the most ardent in Europe.

      Second highest cinema attendance in Europe according to the article.

      --
      Why is anything anything?
    5. Re:Finally Ireland is ahead with something by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      I wonder who has the highest attendance?

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    6. Re:Finally Ireland is ahead with something by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Don't know about Eire, but Northern Ireland has 100% broadband coverage, making it ahead of the rest of the UK.

    7. Re:Finally Ireland is ahead with something by Finuvir · · Score: 1
      I wonder who has the highest attendance?

      Anoying, isn't it? I don't think any European countries are particularly known for their cinema attendence. France seems to produce a lot of films; maybe it's them. Or perhaps it's somewhere with a particularly young population (Ireland has one of the youngest populations in the world I believe, which may contribute to its high rate of cinema-going). That rules out Germany.

      --
      Why is anything anything?
    8. Re:Finally Ireland is ahead with something by Celt · · Score: 1

      If your interested in finding out more info about ADSL in Ireland its worth checking out http://www.irelandoffline.com

      While you can now get 2MB ADSL in Ireland for under 50 (euro) a month, Eircom (Irelands largest ISP) has a 4GB and 8GB cap per month on there home products and out of all of there Business DSL product there's only one that has no cap.

      Another big factor is the fact that most people pay 30 euro a month for line rental which is pretty expensive tbh.

      --
      "WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
    9. Re:Finally Ireland is ahead with something by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      Ireland was already ahead...

      They had the Corrs...

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    10. Re:Finally Ireland is ahead with something by gulio · · Score: 1

      Next coward to make anonymous anti-irish or anti-ireland comments will be flamed to within an inch of life.

  9. Makes Sense by johnhennessy · · Score: 1

    From a cost perspective this was probably only a matter of time, regardless of the country.

    I hope the cinemas and the studios also take this opportunity (since distributing films worldwide will now be alot easier, and cheaper!) to start releasing films at the same time rather than their current practice (well, mostly) of delaying releases in different countries.

    As an afterthought - where do I get me one of those projectors, a 4K film projector would be pretty nice for the living room!

    --
    [ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
    1. Re:Makes Sense by takev · · Score: 1

      Get a modern CRT projector for at home, it is less bright, but the quality will be much better than these digital cinemas.

      And yes, these CRTs will resolve 4K lines easily, your problem would be getting the content and getting a player that can play this content.

      For a couple of thousand euros/dollars you will be able to get a second hand CRT projector that would resolve 2K lines, such as the Sony G90.

    2. Re:Makes Sense by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      It certainly must be good from a cost perspective. Limerick city in Ireland only has one cinema (read monopoly) so we have ticket prices of about €8 (~$10.50) as opposed to the national average of about €5.60 (~$7)

      Think the ticket prices will go down? Yeah RIGHT!

      Bunch of blood-sucking money-grabbing capitalists.

      I hope they get infested with rats and the building condemned. Like the previous cinema did.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
  10. The real goal by WormholeFiend · · Score: 4, Funny

    was to stop projectionists from emulating Tyler Durden's insertion of pr0n frames into family movies.

  11. Belgium has had this for a while.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Granted not in all movie theaters, but the mayor cinema group has been showing digital movies for more than a year now.
    Check out the 'Hoe werkt digital cinema..' link on the following page:
    http://www.kinepolis.be/index.cfm?PageID=2043

    1. Re:Belgium has had this for a while.. by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

      in english: http://www.kinepolis.be/index.cfm?ThemeID=605

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
  12. SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by G4from128k · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I fear that this trend will lead to the use of image compression for movies. I find the MPEG compression artifacts in most digital video (e.g., TiVo, DVDs, and digital cable) to be obnoxious -- digital quality is often an oxymoron due to aggressive compression.

    Digital video may avoid analog noise and be capable of perfect copies, but if the sender uses too high a compression ratio (and you know they will to save on bandwidth and storage) then the image is permanently corrupted. And if film makers switch to digital video that does not use loss-less compression during filming, then all is lost.

    I can only hope that falling prices for bandwidth and storage will let companies ease off the compression ratio sometime in the future.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by game+kid · · Score: 1

      I've already seen compression artifacts in cable TV channels. I watched VH1 and MTV2 (analog cable I believe, but I guess they're converted from digital) and VH1 has some small bits of JPEGish fuzziness, while I noticed MTV2 had some speed problems once (it kept getting blocky and odd-colored during one video, and going black, looking far worse than the former). Digital video for the US sounds cool, but I hope it won't be low-quality video like that.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    2. Re:SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by johnhennessy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Totally agree.

      The bandwidth and size of these films are probably not trivial - so if someone was even thinking of ripping the sat streams you'd better take a few things into consideration:

      PAL is 720x576 (normal TV size in Europe). If you were to take an hour of video from a DV tape (even with a high end DV camera) you'll get 20GB worth of data. And this is at crappy TV resolution. Cinemas will need resolutions much much higher than this (I hope anyway).

      Before I get blown away with people screaming about compression - DV is slightly compressed, but its intended to be be as closs to uncompressed quality as possible. The quality of the end result (if encoding multiple times) is always going to be directly related to the quality of the original footage.

      This really gives the cinemas two options - (1)lots of storage (I'm thinking at least 1 or 2 TB here) - which when you think about it, isn't that expensive and (2) major compression.

      It will all come down in the end to marketing - do the cinemas think they'll get away with a lower grade product (i.e. crappy quality) - I don't know.

      --
      [ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
    3. Re:SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually you may not have noticed this but most cinemas are hell bent on providing the best quality sound and picture they can so as to attract more people to go to the cinema. After all the invesment in theatres they are not going to shoot themselves in the head with low quality quality video.

      Bandwidth and storage are not going to be an issue for these systems.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    4. Re:SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by micolous · · Score: 1

      I agree that MPEG looks ugly, especially for the filesize. Why on earth DVD had to be MPEG is beyond me.

      Though one thing fixes it all: lossless compression. Zero data loss, though the data takes up a lot more room than with a lossy compression. Though most likely the digital cinema will use some horrible MPEG Windows Media DRM.

      --
      SSdtIGFzIGJvcmVkIGFzIHlvdSBhcmUK
    5. Re:SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by Meumeu · · Score: 1

      I've heard about this in english class, the movies are about 100GB... That should be a pretty good quality.

    6. Re:SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Yes, I was hoping that blu-ray would solve all this. Imagine if we get a storage medium that is actually capable of storing a full length move in a lossless format. Would they ever do this? It would be really nice. What would also be nice is if the next medium came in a MiniDisc like form-factor, so there'd be less to worry about when it comes to scratching the disc, and having it not play properly. I'll admit that those old cartridge based CD-ROMs were a little klunky, but when the software that came on them cost $500 and at the time there was no way of backing it up, a little klunkyness went a long way.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    7. Re:SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 1

      What does the size of the file have to do with anything? A VHS tape holds 100GB of data. Is that the quality I can expect?

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    8. Re:SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, I have seen one digitally projected "film" (can we even call them that anymore?) and I will never see one again. It was HORRIBLE. There I was in a friggin movie theater and I could see individual pixels even more clearly than I do when watching some crappy divx-encoded file at home.

      --
      This space available.
    9. Re:SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by Vroem · · Score: 1

      MPEG compression artifacts are nothing compared to analog film artifacts.

      I don't want to see analog movies any more after the biggest cinemas in our country started with digital projectors. I was blown away the first time I went to see The Matrix Revolutions in digital (but only by the quality.) The image was considerably sharper and more colorfull than analog cinema. But the most striking for me was the perfectly steady image without any scratches or 'inkdrops'.

    10. Re:SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      It will all come down in the end to marketing - do the cinemas think they'll get away with a lower grade product (i.e. crappy quality) - I don't know.

      Thats the beauty of switching all of the theaters in the country (nearly) at once. Whichever choice they make, the consumer is stuck with.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    11. Re:SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by syates21 · · Score: 1

      Actually DV is not intended to be any "closer" to the original than MPEG necessarily. The main difference in optimization is that the DV format is optimized for editing, whereas the MPEG formats tend to be a pain in the butt as editing formats. For a similar level of compression from raw, uncompressed video, you will probably find fairly similar quality levels between MPEG-2 and DV.

      Most of the time people notice MPEG-2 looking "worse" because they are starting from a DV source like a camcorder and then re-encoding to MPEG to burn to DVD. Of course the re-encoded video is going to lose some quality. This is just like making an MP3 file from a compressed WMA file or vice versa.

    12. Re:SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by Meumeu · · Score: 1

      Assuming it's a 2 hour movie, that's about 120Mbits/s, it's more than enough for high definition.

    13. Re:SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by tji · · Score: 1

      You have a point for the bandwidth constrained mediums, like satellite tv, cable tv, and even broadcast digital TV.

      But, most recently encoded DVDs do a pretty good job, and the artifacts are at a minimum. The bandwidth available per pixel on a DVD is much higher than any of those other mediums.

      But, the bandwidth for theater projection is much higher. The article didn't have any details.. but if it's like the systems they are using elsewhere for digital projection, each film takes terabytes of storage, and they are not using MPEG for compression. They have a pretty high standard for quality.

      The only thing I have found questionable is the resolution.. the recent star wars films have used something on the order of 1080P, which is great for home theater use, but filling a 100' screen, those pixels get pretty big.

    14. Re:SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by cgenman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, I have seen one digitally projected "film" (can we even call them that anymore?) and I will never see one again. It was HORRIBLE.

      Yeah, and I hear Episode 3 isn't much better.

    15. Re:SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      DLP uses compression and looks amazing. Compression doesnt always equal crap. I saw Ep2 in a DLP theater and was blown away at the sharpness and brightness of the picture. I saw the movie previously on film and in comparision it was dark, grainy, and a lot of the CGI looked worse on film.

    16. Re:SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by no+haters · · Score: 1

      Then it sounds like you were watching it on a really crappy projector. The movie theater around the corner from my apartment has a digital projector in one of its theaters, and its absolutely fantastic. The image is crisp, unmarked, and *NOT* pixelated. At some theaters, they have garbage advertisements digitally projected at the beginning, and THOSE are crap quality, looking like a VCD blown up onto a movie screen, but the actual films on the new digital projectors are amazing.

    17. Re:SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by dwolshin · · Score: 1

      I work with video all day long. Hopefully they won't have to compress the video at all - even if they do it should be with WMV or MPEG-4 and the artifacts aren't nearly as bad.... Even with artifacts I think it's a worthy trade for a full 30 frames/second. When my job first taught me how to spot artifacts and digital video B/S, TV/Movies at home started to look terriable. I decided to go see a movie and I was excited because it was going to be 100% artifact free. What I had forgot was that Film is only 25 frames a second !! All I could see for the first 15 mins was this terrible flicker :( Same deal with PAL TV (50Hz). I hear that some people notice the flicker worse than others, but it honestly drives me insane. Bottom line: I'd much rather have a full 60Hz with light compression artifacts than film at 50Hz.

    18. Re:SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by obi · · Score: 1

      Our local cinema has one theatre with digital, and I've seen a number of movies on it already.

      Let me tell you - the picture quality is absolutely atrocious! I'm sure the resolution is much better than DVD's, but on such a huge screen you need ALOT more. You see the atrocious aliasing the best with text.

      It's a damn shame - I'm usually all for these kinds of technology, but not at the expense of so much quality. I haven't noticed compression artifacts, however.

      One advantage is that it opens the theatre up for non-movie content, like live events etc (I wouldn't mind playing doom 3 on such a screen :) )

    19. Re:SIGH: Another reason not to go to the cinema by iowannaski · · Score: 1

      DLP doesn't use compression anymore than cathode ray tubes are uncompressed. It's a display technology.

      --
      i forget
  13. Why aren't WE doing this? by game+kid · · Score: 1

    What are theaters and the MPAA waiting for? If they're afraid of people outside of the theater/MPAA circle downloading the movies, they can just build their own download network and assign a few trusted people to do that specific job? Or do they all already use digital that I haven't heard of?* If they can spend $200 million on movies, why can't they do this and save their own budgets and the theaters'?

    *I do know that IMAX uses digital sound, but it still uses film. The theaters I've been in, last I checked, definitely still use analog and it shows. Is it a matter of spreading the word?

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    1. Re:Why aren't WE doing this? by michrech · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the rest of the world (although I'm sure the reasons I think they hold off are the same pretty much everywhere), but I think it all comes down to the $bottom line$.

      If you have read the news lately, all you will see are companies making sacrifices in quality (think the HP Deskjet 3000 series printers) for short term gains.

      Theater owners already complain that they don't make any money on the movie tickets as it is. This is supposedly why the popcorn/soda/candy is so expensive. It is simply a matter of money that they don't upgrade. I think it goes under the "Why upgrade to digital at the enormous cost when people seem perfectly happy to see scratched copies of the movies?" Sure, down the road, it could save the movie theaters some money in distribution costs, but that is too long term a thought for seemingly 99% of the businesses in operation today.

      As for the sound in theaters -- Even though they still use 'film', the audio in many theaters (especially the ones that boast Sony DTS or THX) is actually digital. The signal is encoded onto the normal film inbetween the holes that the projector uses to advance the film through itself. Somewhere attatched to the projector is a little reader that reads in the signal and sends it to the sound processor. Ahh, the things you learn while watching Discovery/TLC instead of Fox/UPN/*BC.. :)

      --
      bork bork bork!
    2. Re:Why aren't WE doing this? by isecore · · Score: 1

      I do know that IMAX uses digital sound, but it still uses film. The theaters I've been in, last I checked, definitely still use analog and it shows. Is it a matter of spreading the word?

      No, it's a matter of size actually. IMAX is a ridiculously large format (70+ mm) and finding a media to hold that much information is as far as I know not a viable option as technology stands today.

      --
      I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
    3. Re:Why aren't WE doing this? by L.Bob.Rife · · Score: 1

      It doesn't save the theaters any money in distribution costs. Those costs are paid by the studios. The studio pay for film labs to create the films at $2k a pop or so, which is the major cost, compared to $100 for shipping which the theaters pay.

      But, do you think the studios will offer any better terms to the theater owners to induce them to use these digital projectors which would save them at least $100k (minus satellite costs) a year per theater? Of course not. And will they offer any better booking rates which reflect the decrease in price? Of course not. They expect the theater owners to pay for everything, and the studios to get the major cost savings from it, and thats why you don't see more digital houses.

      BTW, DTS uses a specially encoded CD that syncs up with the film track. The other digital sound formats, and an Analog one too, are encoded on the film.

  14. Re:Money by fiddlesticks · · Score: 1

    >IANAP

    I am not a Projector?

  15. Re:Yea but... by Timesprout · · Score: 1

    Ah be gosh an be gorrah wha tis it yar trin ta saa thar?

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  16. Older films by caitsith01 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What will the situation be with older films? Many excellent movies are not available in a digitised form, and we may be at the mercy of the film studios as to when, if ever, they are re-released in a format that these projectors can play.

    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:Older films by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      How often do older films get shown in Cinemas? Very very infrequently, usually only as part of a special event or some such, and you can bet that these projectors have an analog in anyway, or theres a analog to digital convertor that sits between the projector and the storage unit enabling you to use analog sources.

    2. Re:Older films by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      ...you can bet that these projectors have an analog in anyway, or theres a analog to digital convertor that sits between the projector and the storage unit enabling you to use analog sources.

      Uh, this will help them play film, how? It's not like movies are distributed to theaters on VHS.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Older films by dvdeug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What will the situation be with older films? Many excellent movies are not available in a digitised form, and we may be at the mercy of the film studios as to when, if ever, they are re-released in a format that these projectors can play.

      Honestly, I don't think I've ever been to a movie theater that wasn't showing the latest movies. I'm sure Rocky Horror Picture Show and Gone with the Wind and the few other old films that movie theaters actually play will turn up in digital formats.

      For the old movie theater, or person with a private theater, no one is destroying the old projectors. I suspect you'll be able to get cheap new replacement parts for five or ten years, and cheap old or expensive new parts for the rest of the century; film isn't going to disappear in an instant.

  17. I thought Brazil was first by kiekerjan · · Score: 2, Informative

    See this Slashdot story.

  18. Yes, but does it have a higher refresh rate? by corsec67 · · Score: 1

    If this is a LCD projector, that would be pretty cool, because I can't go to a normal theater. 72 hz in a dark room isn't quite enough, so if they want my dollar, they will need to make it faster.

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
  19. A marketing fantasy by standards · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The BBC is reporting that Ireland will be the first country in the world to have their traditional 35mm film projectors replaced with digital projectors.

    Since there are many more than 500 35mm projectors in Ireland, it seems a bit of a fantasy to imply that the entire country will have digital-only screens.

    My question of interest is... what are the economics of giving away 500 projectors? Are the 500 projectors "gifts", or are they leased or under loan? Is the goal to reduce the costs, or reduce the damage to the film, prevent piracy somehow, or what?

    1. Re:A marketing fantasy by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's like the Gilette idea: Give away the projectors, charge for the bulbs!

    2. Re:A marketing fantasy by Xoro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since there are many more than 500 35mm projectors in Ireland,

      Are you sure there are "many more than 500" movie screens in Ireland?

      I couldn't find the exact number, but saw one estimate that said Canada has about 3,000 screens. Since Canada has a population of 30 million people and Ireland a population of < 4 million, ~500 screens seems about right.

      --
      Kill, Tux, kill!
    3. Re:A marketing fantasy by winski · · Score: 1

      There are just over 120 cinema's in Ireland - and most of them have only 1 or 2 screens. 500 is a pretty accurate number to convert EVERY screen (even the mobile cinema's!) in the country. I doubt the projector's are gift's though. I'd imagine the Irish Film Board made a deal with all the studio's in Ireland and them negiotated such a large contract at a good discount. The projectors may be subsidised, but not by very much. It's not legal for a government institution to put money into the private sector like that - just think back to the airline crisis and EU rulings then.

      --
      Shameless self-publicity is all we have!ebyrne.net
    4. Re:A marketing fantasy by Finuvir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm surprised there are as many as 500. I live in a town of < 20,000 people and one cinema (with one screen). If there was one screen for every 20,000 people in a country of ~4m there'd be only 200 screens. Okay, so there are smaller towns than mine with cinemas in them, and being quite close to Dublin we have access to all of the mulitplexes too which probably limits the business opportunities of the local. 500 screens is certainly of the right order.

      --
      Why is anything anything?
    5. Re:A marketing fantasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Are you sure there are "many more than 500" movie screens in Ireland?

      Remember, this is both Ireland AND Northern Ireland. According to a reference here, there are 708 public theatres... and undoubtably a significant percentage have more than one screen. And that number doesn't include non-commercial theatres or equipment!!!

    6. Re:A marketing fantasy by mike.newton · · Score: 1

      Actually, they said 500 cinemas, not 500 projectors. It must have been a giveaway, if they're saying that every single cinema in the country (and the North too) is switching over. I imagine it wouldn't be too much of a problem for a big company like UCI, but there are lots of independent cinemas that couldn't afford it unless they were being given away.

  20. good Vs. bad by Havenwar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, on one hand my first thought is "great, this is a great move and I hopw the entire world follows so we can watch digital movies at any theatre".

    But it is quickly followed up by the thought that "But seriously... My entertainment system is already digital. Why go elsewhere?"

    Sure, a 30 foot screen is bigger than a 32", but hey, size is not everything. And I can always get a projector. By then, teh advantages of move theatres has kind agone bye bye... I have usually seen everything by the time it reaches the screen here in sweden anyways. (Sometimes up to a year after the american release)

    So sure.. digital theatres are good... but only because it is cheaper to distrbute movies for th ecompanies. This way they might cut the prizes, distribute worldwide quicker, and possibly even start to gain some ground on the pirating market. But still... Just buy me a popcornmachine and I'd rather stay home - with friends.

    Nah, I cant decide. What do you think.. good step or bad step, or just a completely useless step?

    1. Re:good Vs. bad by un1xl0ser · · Score: 1

      I think that it is a good step. I'm hoping that it could possibly mean more independant film, lesser known films can be distributed to bigger theatres.

      I'm not sure what the production costs are to get a digital film onto analog medium, but I'm assuming that it is not cheap. If, somehow, smaller independant threatres could implement this technology, maybe this step could be skipped.

      How proprietary is the standard they used for encoding and decoding?

      --
      v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
    2. Re:good Vs. bad by Havenwar · · Score: 1

      Well, according to what I have heard earlier in this development the cost of digital distribution is pretty much forgettable when it compares to the analog medium. Each copy of the analog film is horribly expensive, as in fourfigure dollar amounts, while the digital medium is the prize of a dvd disc or some bandwidth.

      Of course it is horribly expensive to install digital projectors, but this is a cost that is covered by gained profits in a very short period of time, considering the high costs of analog film media. But still, it is a cost. Many theaters can not cover such an expense by temselves. But if they could...

      oh the movies they could show - anything anytime comes to mind. The prizedrop means they could air old movies without losing money.

      But but... I still cant figure out if this is good or bad. I mean, I can still watch the old ones at home, for a fraction of the cost. Is movietheatres even something we should invest in at this point in time? Would it not be better to spend the money on cheap digital distribution directly to the clients computers and home entertainmentnt systems?

    3. Re:good Vs. bad by Havenwar · · Score: 1

      Hey join the club. I also question what is insightful about my comment. However - there is little I can do about this unfortunatly, other than smile at all the karma. Perhaps people just relate well to the eternal struggle between good and bad...

      I have noted slashdot moderation is much a thing about being at the right place at the right time and insulting the right people, and conversely, not the wrong people.

    4. Re:good Vs. bad by Havenwar · · Score: 1

      You pay the cost and I'm happy to put up a 30 foot widescreen - I do have the barnwall to fit it. Or a projector more likely, but same same.

      I would however suggest that you bring a proffesional masseuse - in a hoem environment that large of a screen would entitle way to much twist of the neck, since I do not have the room for properly distanced seats in that locale.

      And size is not everything - it is just one of the factors. It can be compensated by any measure of others. Of course this goes regardless of what subject we would be discussing.

    5. Re:good Vs. bad by Havenwar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The theatres stay in business by sending bigshot movies as soon as they can, and small time movies up to a year late. e.g. Bad Santa, that was so late it was postponed to wait for the next christmas, which meant downloaders watched the directors cut Badder Santa while moviegoers watched an inferior version for twice the price and more...

      The largest movies are however sent within a few weeks to a few months of the US release... some are starting to do a worldwide one day release as started by the LOTR series, and this is a way good thing. Well, for the movie theatres, that is.

      But this is all severely of topi, of course, except for the part that digital projectors would allow for earlier worldwide screenings.

  21. Is it really easier by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    Is it really easier to transfer what must be a massive digital file over some network to each individual movie house then to just fedex them the film reels? Wouldn't people get annoyed that they don't get to watch the movie on opening night because some there was network problems. Isn't 35mm better than digital anyway? Everytime I watch a football game on TV, I'm amazed at how much worse it looks then when they just used to do it in analog.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  22. Film Virus by CmdrWaco · · Score: 1

    At least with traditional film projectors, there couldn't be any viruses.
    I can't wait to hear about the first film virus.

    --
    Vote devolution! http://www.devolution.co.uk
  23. 500? by DanBrusca · · Score: 1

    Seriously though, do they even *have* 500 cinemas in Ireland?

    1. Re:500? by easter1916 · · Score: 1

      Of course not. They put that in there to bother you. Devious Irish.

    2. Re:500? by gulio · · Score: 1

      There are about 150 CINEMAS in Ireland. The number of screens (obviously) ranges from 1 or 2 per CINEMA in small town theatres, to 17 screens in the larger ones (Like the UGC Dublin as noted above).

      Pick a weighted average and do the math ~= 500.

      [ A seemingly well educated Texan once asked me "do you have motorcycles in Ireland?" That people struggle with the notion that we have also have cinemas however still surprises me. ]

  24. The American Company is . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Avica . . . .

    An American company, Avica, is installing digital projectors in cinemas to replace the traditional 35mm film projectors.

    http://www.itv.com/news/world_262393.html

  25. There'll be riots, you know. by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 4, Funny


    "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far aw -

    STREAMING...

    1. Re:There'll be riots, you know. by isny · · Score: 1

      That would be "buffering..."
      Please leave your geek card at the door.

  26. Re:via satellite by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

    Your comment really shows quite a bit of confusion - BitTorrent and satellite links are two entirely different things really, and use of one does not mean the other cannot be used, as they operate on different levels in the network stack.

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  27. ETA in the USA... by T-Bear · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm going to respond to a few things here. Sorry if someone mentioned something on one of these points, I couldn't bring myself to read every one of the 45 posts.

    Firstly, yes the projectors can take AVI inputs. DVI too probably, now a days. A few companies in the States have a few projectors scattered around, and I worked as a projectionist at one of them for a time, a few projectionists were fired for outputting a DVD player to the projector after hours and using it to watch Top Gun.

    Secondly, the reason we haven't seen it wide spread in the States and probably won't for a bit yet is simply Cost. Cost to produce the movies in a digital format by the distributors, and cost to the theatres to purchase all those digitgal projectors. They are *not* cheap. For your local 24 mega-plex to replace it's 24 multi-thousand dollar projectors with a digital projector would be *well* more than the profit that theatre sees (if the theatre even manages to post a profit).

    With rising costs put on the theatres by the distributors, and lowering numbers of patrons *in* the theatres, the profit margins and simple ability to make money to invest in new technology for the theatres is drastically being reduced. So until the time that *that* situation reverses itself (which I don't imagine we'll ever see) or until the digital projectors become much cheaper, we'll just have to wait.

    --
    Brian
  28. Re:Yea but... by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 1

    This film is great -> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111112/ But, I had to watch it a couple of times to understand everything.
    Still, it's not as bad as listening to the Scotts!!

  29. will that mean.. by Exter-C · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Idealy to cut costs further the cinemas could just stream the movies from the one location each time the movies are being shown. Especially with the growth in cheap fibre across europe especially.

    The over all cost savings will be more significant than just the film cases. Ive been in cinemas on several occasions where the film has screwed up and we have had to get a refund from the cinema.. Taking that out out or reducing it seriously would be a great bonus for the cinemas.

    1. Re:will that mean.. by Swedentom · · Score: 2, Funny

      "cinemas could just stream the movies"

      ... BUFFERING ...
      ;-)

      --
      Sig Nature
    2. Re:will that mean.. by mike.newton · · Score: 1

      When you're talking about broadband access, Ireland != Europe, as someone else commented above.

  30. Will this make being a distributor easier? by Katravax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As this expands and more theaters go digital, will it break the stranglehold that the big distributors have now, or will legal tricks just assure it's the same as before? There are lots of great films out there that get almost no screens because they don't fit the distributors' views of what goes in their catalogs or what will earn them payback for printing and shipping.

    As I understand it, not being in the theater business, theaters are pretty much at the mercy of distributors right now because smaller studios just can't afford the cost of wide distribution. Will digital distribution truly lower the cost and give theaters a wider palette of films to choose from? I suspect the big distrubutors will defeat that possibility with legal tricks, but I'm hoping otherwise.

  31. Satellite is multicast by tepples · · Score: 1

    BitTorrent and satellite links are two entirely different things really, and use of one does not mean the other cannot be used, as they operate on different levels in the network stack.

    BitTorrent needs a decent upstream throughput. How good is the upstream throughput of a satellite link? Besides, had ISPs properly implemented multicast, there wouldn't be as much of a need for BitTorrent as we know it, and satellite's layer 1 is inherently multicast.

  32. HDTV resolution vs. film resolution by tepples · · Score: 1

    Isn't 35mm better than digital anyway?

    Movie film is threaded vertically through the projector. It is claimed that the 24mm width of a 35mm film frame (not counting the area around sprocket holes that's used to hold Dolby Digital AC3 sound data) has the equivalent of about 2000 pixels. Therefore, the 1920x1080 resolution of consumer HDTV should be enough to replicate 35mm film, provided that the lossy data compression uses enough bits so as not to make everything a blocky mess.

  33. I think for digital projection to be successful... by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    ...They need a major national movie theater chain to start committing to the technology.

    If a company as big a Century Theatres were to announce they were willing to convert some of their complexes they own to include digital projectors and/or open new digital-projector only complexes, that would finally convince people that digital projection is worth the investment.

    Having seen digital projection, the amazingly vibrant colors, consistent sharpness and lack of scratches on-screen makes for a breathtaking viewing experience. Small wonder why sales of rear-projection TV's using DLP, LCD and HD-ILA elements are rising rapidly. =)

  34. digital distribution cuts costs? by whowho · · Score: 1
    Does that mean that cinema ticket prices will be cheaper too?

    Not that I really object to paying ridiculous prices for crap.

    /tries to think of a good movie that was a satisfaction to pay for.

  35. Anyone smell a Monopoly? by flowerp · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one to think that making the whole Irish theater industry totally dependent on one American movie distributor is actually a BAD thing?

    We shall see how this will impact availability of smaller and artsy non mainstream movie productions.

    Also, initially this technology may be advertised as being more "low cost" than the traditional way of creating physical copies. However, once the system is established it may well be that price fixing is applied so that the cost benefits may become null and void (or even turned into a financial burden).

    The new technology is likely bound by patents and licensing agreements, so there is no alternative distribution channel - and no alternative source for movies. Brave new world.

    --
    --- Eat my sig.
  36. Re:Pirating made easy by tepples · · Score: 1

    Pick a secret key called "movie key". Assign a distinct secret key called "player key" to each projection setup (Improvement 1). Encrypt the movie with the movie key and broadcast the encrypted signal over airwaves. Then encrypt the movie key with each player's key and then send the encrypted movie keys under separate cover (e.g. FedEx) to the cinemas (Improvement 2).

    Improvement 1 over DVD Video CSS: Unique key for each individual player, not for each manufacturer. Less possibility of break once break everywhere.

    Improvement 2 over DVD Video CSS: Title key sent under separate cover, not on the same medium as the data, so pirates without a license wouldn't be able to decode a random signal.

  37. They need a transportable media format. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    I think one of the biggest problems with digital projection is the fact there is no standard for the digital storage media for theater-quality digital projectors.

    Interestingly enough, the development of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray optical disc technology could solve that problem. Imagine scaling up a Blu-Ray disc to something about 300 mm (12") wide (about the same size as a Laserdisc); the result could be storage capacity approaching the one terabyte range, which (using standard MPEG-2 compression) could store probably at least two-hour movie at beyond 1080p resolution, including multiple subtitling tracks and multiple audio soundtracks! Even if the disc has to be held in a plastic caddy the whole package would weigh under two kilograms (4.4 pounds), which means far cheaper shipment costs compared to 35 pounds per 20-minute reel of 35 mm film!

    1. Re:They need a transportable media format. by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a FedEx package with a 400GB hard drive.

    2. Re:They need a transportable media format. by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      35 pounds per 20-minute reel of 35 mm film!

      Pardon me?

      Movies generally occupy between five and eight reels, and the whole thing (including the cases) weighs between 40 to 100 pounds. This varies depending on whether the actual reels are made of plastic or metal, and the construction of the cases (most are metal, some - Fox - are plastic, but there is a large variation in the weight of various metal cans.)

      There is no way that single reel of film weighs anywhere near 35 pounds.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  38. Reduce Fires? by saskboy · · Score: 1

    Will this reduce projector room fires?
    I know my family went to a film in Toronto, and at some point in their movie, the frame stuck, then a spot started to grow on the picture. My Mom realized what was happening, and left the theatre to find some staff, and after explaining longer than she should have had to, got one of them to go put out the fire.
    The theatre gave them a pass to see another film.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    1. Re:Reduce Fires? by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      Will this reduce projector room fires?

      Safety film (basically any film manufactured since the early 1960's) shouldn't catch fire. Melt, yes. Burn, no.

      Nitrate-based film used to be extremely hazardous. That's why old theatres have asbestos-and-steel lined projection rooms with fire shutters. Newer acetate- (and, now, polyester-)based film won't burn.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  39. Re:False! by belg4mit · · Score: 1

    NO The article says *all* Irish systems wil be replaced. All is more than you're Finland's "most".

    --
    Were that I say, pancakes?
  40. Re:I think for digital projection to be successful by T-Bear · · Score: 1

    Century's not big enough.

    The Syufy's have done a good job with their theatre so far, and being privatly owned by the Syufy's main company, they certainly have a certain amount of cash and assets. But they're just not big enough. You'd need a more major contendor, a Regal or Lowes or AMC.

    And really you'd almost want it to be a public company, which I believe Lowes is the only one left? At least at that level. Problem is Lowes is having significant cash flow problems right now.

    --
    Brian
  41. Digital crispness by magarity · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who thinks video that's digital all the way from capture to display has too high a degree of artificially crispness to it? I really don't like the digital look on digitally broadcast sports, for example. It isn't realistic. Are the frame rates lower?

    1. Re:Digital crispness by Noork · · Score: 1

      I've watched several didgital films in the Belgian Kinepolis theatres over the last year or so (a.o. The Incredibles, Constantine) and I must say it is a giant leap forward in preserving the original movie quality onto the big screen. I for one am a huge fan ! Of course, digital quality doesn't make a good movie :)

  42. Mark Cuban's Landmark theaters are doing this now by rwyoder · · Score: 1

    The April issue of Wired has a feature article about it. Or you can google for assorted articles.

  43. Re:Yea but... by maidhc · · Score: 1

    Was someone watching Darby O'Gill and the little people again? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052722/

  44. Re:I think for digital projection to be successful by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    Century's not big enough.

    They may not have the size of Lowes or AMC, but the Syufy's have already made major commitments to have high-quality theatre complexes--most of the new ones built in the last seven years now sport full THX certification on every screen, which certainly means at least I'll have decent sound quality during the movie! :-)

    The Syufy's should in a bold move announce that some of the screens at their complexes will be converted to digital projection, and may announce that some of their future complexes will go all-digital, too. That type of move signals that digital projection is going mainstream, especially in the western USA where Century Theatre complexes are all the rage.

  45. Digital Revolution by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    Well, "piracy" isn't something I believe in much either way. Personally, I'm hoping that this will hasten the transition to a viable digital distribution model (ie, all kinds of public information being freely redistributable to all citizens, with REASONABLE production fees paid for through taxes).

  46. "Fake" Cinemas? DRM in these new digital cinemas? by CarpetShark · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm, I wonder if we'll see a growth of cinemas that actually pirate themselves, swapping or buying cheap digital copies rather than shelling out for the original stuff? Who would know, after all?

    Anyone know if these new cinemas include a DRM system that would prevent this?

  47. Re:Pirating made easy by melonman · · Score: 1

    We're not talking about TV-type satellite broadcasts here. Security is one of the alleged benefits of satellite broadband. It goes straight from the ISP to the customers, and you usually have a lot of dedicated hardware on both ends of the connection that make strong encryption easy enough to implement. I would have thought that just demultiplexing out the signal you want would take a fair bit of work. The weakest link would be between the film studio and the uplink, but my guess is that they'll put a 5m dish in the film studio parking lot.

    --
    Virtually serving coffee
  48. Re:I think for digital projection to be successful by T-Bear · · Score: 1

    Still too expensive. Some of their screens, sure. I know AMC's done that at a few, as has Lowes and maybe Regal. But it's still too expensive. And even if it weren't, you still have the problem of the film distributors not making the films in the approrpriate digital format.

    So in order to keep thier screens full of a strong variety of movies, they'll have to have "analogue" projectors as well on a majority of those screens.

    As far as THX, having your theatres THX certified doesn't say anything about their commitment to digital and audio/visual excellence. SDDS is just as good as THX, and cheaper. Cheaper because THX requires *huge* hoops and hurdles to go through in order to be "THX certified". You have to pay for the technology, pay for the certification, pay pay pay. And then the only movies that show the true "high quality" THX is capable of, are movies designed to use the enhancing capability of THX.

    When Star Wars, Episode I came out many people might remember all the restrictions Lucas put on the films. For those of you who keep track of the Theatre Industry you'll also remember that these restrictions were the "straw that broke the camel's back" causing nearly every Theatre Exhibitor to file bankrupcy.

    Origianlly one of the restrictions was that you had to THX certify every theatre you played it in. There's a reason that restriction was removed well before the movie actually released.

    --
    Brian
  49. GOD DAMN LUCK OF THE IRISH by DJ_Tricks · · Score: 1

    lucky irish bastards, i wish i could have gotten my bloody irish citzenship

    --
    "to be like god we make our own dolls to play with, but what does that make us, but dolls for god to play with?" Ikari,
    1. Re:GOD DAMN LUCK OF THE IRISH by easter1916 · · Score: 1

      If this is your main motivation for applying for citizenship I'm not surprised the Department of Justice refused you!

  50. I want streaming into my home... by RexRhino · · Score: 1

    OK, so I already have streaming video into my home through my cable box, but the problem is there is only about 2000 movies to choose from, and it is only the stuff they get the rights to cheap.

    It is nice that the theaters are going to digital distribution, but most theaters have maybe 10, maybe 15 screens? Other than maybe a slightly better picture, my movie viewing experience won't be different. It is not like they are now going to be showing a bunch of obscure and hard to find movies.

    I want to be able to stream any movie ever made to my TV. I want the digital technology to increase my range of choices, not just let me see a movie that looks a little nicer.

  51. Read the new Wired magazine (Apr. '05) by aquarian · · Score: 1

    Apparently it's not on the web yet, but the new Wired magazine has an interesting article on digital cinema, and how Mark Cuban (Landmark) is the first American cinema owner to go all digital.

    The big holdup is there's little incentive for theater owners to spend $150k per screen. Some are holding out for studios to pay for the equipment, to ensure distribution of their digital product. After all, it's the studios, not the theater owners, who stand to benefit from this, because of greatly reduced distribution costs (no actual film).

  52. Denver mostly digital by peter303 · · Score: 1

    More then 50% of the commercial theatres have been digital for several years. That it is because it the hometown of Regal theatre. Colorado oil mogul Phil Anshultz bought up several bankrupt movie chains and to form Regal. Competing chains have gone digital in Denver too.

  53. Re:False! by Arivia · · Score: 1

    Finland beats Ireland..well, because it's Finland. Show me an Irishman who's a better guitar god then Alexi Laiho(audio samples required), and you might change my mind.

    --
    The role of the writer is not to say what we can all say, but what we are unable to say. -Anais Nin
  54. No big deal by Xabraxas · · Score: 1

    Old news to me. I have a DLP theater down the street from me. It's one of the joys of living in a city.

    --
    Time makes more converts than reason
  55. Re:False! by vigour · · Score: 1

    Two words for you:
    Rory
    Gallagher
    A master of blues, rock, & folk, his guitar playing skills were astounding, check out live versions of Tattoo'd Lady, Cradle Rock, As The Crow Flies, (Can be found on Irish Tour), Moonchild, Bad Penny (on Stagestruck), and I have a scarily good bootleg of Tatoo'd Lady.

    Other Irish guitar legends include Gary Moore, The Edge (technically better guitarists out there, but a legend in his own right), Phil Lynnot (Bass Guitar, but you never specified what type), Johnny Fean from The Horslips (but I doubt anyone outside Ireland knows/knew about them), Christy Moore -> a giant of the folk scene for about 30/40 years now, he is an impeccable showman with a powerful presence.

    Plenty more, but since they most likely won't be known outside Ireland, no point mentioning them.

    As an aside Mitch Mitchell (Jimi Hendrix's Drummer) was Irish (Irish parents, but born in Middlesex, England), and of course those Gallagher brothers are 2nd generation Irish from England aswell.

  56. Digital cinemas in Denmark by Maskedman · · Score: 1

    I actually attended the first digital movie shown in Denmark, it was I, Robot. It was really impressive razor sharp image quality.

  57. Re:"Fake" Cinemas? DRM in these new digital cinema by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

    Hmm, I wonder if we'll see a growth of cinemas that actually pirate themselves, swapping or buying cheap digital copies rather than shelling out for the original stuff? Who would know, after all?

    The movie distributors, perhaps? "Hi, I see you're advertising that your theatre is showing Robots, but we're the exclusive distributor in Ireland and we don't have any record of you purchasing it. The police will be shutting down your establishment in 3... 2... 1..."

    Anyone know if these new cinemas include a DRM system that would prevent this?

    They do.

  58. BSOD by harryman100 · · Score: 1

    So how long until you're watching a film and a BSOD appears? Or clippy pops up:

    "you appear to be watching an adult movie, would you like an irritating paper clip to jump about the screen and obscure all the good bits?"

    --
    .sigs are for losers
  59. good news for good films by zmollusc · · Score: 1

    Since you don't need to put a real reel in a projector for every showing, a suddenly popular film (like if you sell all the seats out and there are still people queueing) can be quickly put on in a vacant (ok, less popular) screen of the multiplex. Good for customers and independant film-makers who can 'scale up' to a major release if they have a hit.

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  60. or... by AndreyF · · Score: 1

    "It's his sled. Rosebud is the name of his sled. There, I just saved you 2 boobless hours."

  61. Lemme guess... by Mawbid · · Score: 1
    Yup.

    Here you go.

    Once again, Iceland takes the extreme per capita value. I think we may have the most per capita extremes per capita of any country! ;-)

    --
    Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
    1. Re:Lemme guess... by gnix · · Score: 1

      Shame Iceland isn't in the EU.

      From the same page, Spain is one place higher than Ireland, and the highest placed EU member state.

  62. Mpeg4 by Oil_Tan · · Score: 1

    Mpeg4 container, Mpeg4 codec.

  63. Re:"Fake" Cinemas? DRM in these new digital cinema by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

    I heard a story once about a guy who owned both an indoor theatre and a drive-in in the same area. He got one print and played it in his indoor theatre; the drive-in movie started an hour or two later so after the first half of the movie in the indoor theatre was over, he rushed that half quickly across town to the drive-in, then rushed the last half over after the film was completed at the indoor theatre.

    --
    If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  64. You're probably right by Katravax · · Score: 1

    I hadn't even thought of that. That sounds more like what would happen. It's not enough that these guys make tons of money, they have to be control freaks on top of it.

  65. New problem by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Now "Focus!" will be replaced by "Turn off Fast Find backgrounder!"

    Sigh

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  66. Re:Yea but... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


    Got that right!

    Should have heard Andrea Corr on the Richard and Judy show in England get irritated when they quoted some idiot journalist who reported she had trouble with the accent in "The Boys and Girl From County Clare" movie (currently in release).

    Then they COMPOUNDED the stupidity by doing a skit in which their English researchers imitated various stupid concepts of Irish phrases - including the obligatory "Lucy Charms" reference.

    They only escaped being lynched by Andrea by admitting the concept was thought up by one of their staff - who actually was Irish.

    The Corrs have been very clear about the fact that there is a "new Ireland" and they don't want to be saddled with the old stereotypes any more.

    OTOH, they also admit they don't mind drinking a bit...if it gets a laugh, anyway.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  67. The Bigger Picture/ The Bigger Market by Sw0rdfiche · · Score: 1

    While this will all but eliminate the distributors from the motion picture industry, the bigger picture (sorry) might also cut out movie theatres entirely. The number of home theatres increases each year. How long will it take the Neanderthals in the industry to realize that they can sell their product directly to the customer, cutting out all the overhead and middlefolk? That might include DVD production as well.

    Some people like to go to movie theatres. I don't think they will die any time soon. But people are getting used to purchasing product directly via cable. There is a lot of money sitting on the table if the industry can get past themselves to get to it.

  68. Re:Yea but... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    Check out the currently-in-release (actually next week, I believe, for most of the US) "The Boys and Girl From County Clare", with Colm Meany, Bernard Hill, and Andrea Corr. A comedy/drama about two estranged brothers competing with each other in a traditional Irish music competition - with an underlying love story involving Andrea and Shaun Evans (now her real-life boyfriend) and family secrets.

    Lots of trad Irish music - not that much comedy. Good character actors - and new-comer Andrea got a "Best Actress in a Comedy" award from the HBO Comedy Film Festival.

    Getting mostly good reviews.

    They're promoting Andrea heavily for the film, even over the old-timers Meany and Hill, her being a rock star and all. But everybody agrees she did a good job.

    Here's the Web site.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  69. Format? WMV? by cgenman · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know what format they are using? There was a Slashdot article a few months back about Microsoft's push for WMV as the default projection standard for theaters. Is this the beginning of that standard? If anyone has the funding and long-term self interest to give away 500 ludicrously expensive cameras to jump-start an endeavor, it's Microsoft.

  70. Quality? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Sure, flicker and artifacts will be reduced, but will the quality really improve? Is the resolution of digital really good enough for the cinema? Analog is conducive to projection because, well, it's not digital. I realize film has grains that are vaguely like pixels, but it's much more natural. If the tradeoff is pixelation and compression artifacts, is it really worth it? The article has little to no technical detail, so I'm just going on my experience of watching DVDs on (non-HD) projectors. Even at something like 8 feet across, the pixelation was very noticable and distracting.. for me at least.

  71. MaxiVision by mesterha · · Score: 1

    Is digital currently the way to go? I know Roger Ebert is not a big fan of digital. He prefers a system called MaxiVision I know this is an old artical, but has digital film solved these problems, especially when compared to MaxiVision.

    Of course, I don't think the movie industry is really interested in quality. They want the conveniences of digital. Again referring to Ebert, he thinks the films of 40 years ago had better standards than today. How often do they shoot 70mm films today?

    --

    Chris Mesterharm
    1. Re:MaxiVision by TheSync · · Score: 1

      The 2K resolution (2048 X 1536) 3-chip digital cinema projectors do a great job. I've seen "The Incredibles" on a Christie projector, and it looked great!

      We also saw some live action test material as well. I can say that at the 2K level with the newest DLP systems, it looks great. Colorimetry and contrast (including dark detail) are there, about as good as a release print - with no scratches.

  72. I've played smash brothers in a digital theatre... by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 1

    A friend works at a local cinema... One day we brought the GameCube over, after most of the movies were done showing. He hooked up the GC to the projector and theatre audio, and we sat down in the theatre with wireless controllers and played the best game of Super Smash Brothers Melee ever.

  73. You pays your money... by gidds · · Score: 1
    As with several other digital technologies, it's at worst a matter of different artefacts. Sure, there's the possibility of encoding artefacts: blocking, ringing, &c. But you lose dust, scratches, hairs, and that ghastly jitter.

    And anyway, as others have said, cinemas that pride themselves on picture quality are likely to make sure that encoding artefacts are kept to a bare minimum.

    Personally, I'm less worried about that than about the limited resolution, especially temporal resolution. Look at film today when the camera pans at anything other than a crawl: everything goes blurry and you lose all sense of detail and depth. A decent refresh rate will make up for a lot of encoding artefacts IMO.

    My other worry is colour. LCDs aren't known for their good colour balance or accuracy, which is why I gather most folk in the publishing industry are sticking with CRTs for the time being...

    --

    Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

  74. Small Indian Towns Have This Already by rahuja · · Score: 1

    Ireland might very well be the first nation to convert *all* its theaters to digital. However, digital projection has, quite surprisingly, been in use for almost a year and half in some small town theaters in India. The reason? These small cinemas would have to wait at the end of the queue and get a "film" copy months after the nationwide release. And of course, the copy is used, and often poor quality. It costs much less to have an electronic copy distributed from Mumbai (India's Hollywood - or, Bollywood, as they call it), stored on hard-disks, and then projected using a digital projector. And of course, this means releases reach smalltowns faster and quality is as good as a new print.

  75. Bitrate by tepples · · Score: 1

    Every single "digital" television service I have seen (one over cable, one over phone/dsl, and a couple satellite ones) look blocky and horrible, even at standard television resolution.

    And that's where the "enough bits" come in. Digital cable and satellite TV tend to overcompress the video signal so that they can fit more commercials and more home shopping channels through their downstreams. Digital cinema, on the other hand, can use a lot more bits per second because there just aren't as many feature films shown in a year as there are TV shows.

  76. umm what? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    I've noticed that most movies I've been to within the last few years (in the US) have obvious pixellation. I just assumed this was because it was via a digital projector rather than a film projector. How can this atricle claim therefore that Ireland are first with the technology?

  77. Because it's expensive and it sucks by Apotsy · · Score: 1

    Video projection is very expensive ($100k per screen, as opposed to about $30k for 35mm), and lagging behind 35mm and especially 70mm in terms of quality. Contrast is not as good no matter what you use, and resolution is still lagging behind, although the latest demos are showing promise. It's getting better, but still has a ways to go.

    Reliability is another factor. At ShoWest this year, there were numerous glitches during demos of digital systems. And this is during a trade show with lots of people around to help keep things running smoothly. Just imagine what it will be like in the field.

    And, there is still a deadlock when it comes to who is going to pay for it. Theater owners don't want to pay for it, because they are not the ones who will reap the financial reward. Distributors and studios are the ones who will get to save all the money, but they are balking at the idea of actually making the investment. Financing still has to get hammered out.

    Really, the delay is a good thing. The first demos of Star Wars in 1999 were done using 1280x1024 DLP systems. It was pretty lousy, really. Imagine if theaters had standardized on that! Right now people with decent home theater equipment can watch 1920x1080 material off satellite, cable, or D-VHS (and within a few months, HD-DVD will be added to that list). If theaters are going to attract audiences, they need to offer more than what people can get in their homes, not less.

  78. Nothing new by wimg · · Score: 1

    Nothing new as far as I'm concerned. The Belgian Kinepolis group has been offering digital cinema for quite some time now. The results are quite impressive... never seen such a great quality ! More info on the Kinepolis website

  79. 10000:1 CR? by Dion · · Score: 1

    Bah, I get 15000:1 out of my old PJ and 30000:1 out of the new one.

    Now that's truly black:)

    It's just a matter of using a CRT projector in stead of those nasty little lightvalve devices.

    --
    -- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
  80. First? by dcs · · Score: 1

    Will they replace ALL their projectors, or will they follow the path of other countries, such as Brazil, in having digital projectors available in some places and analog ones elsewhere?

    --
    (8-DCS)
  81. Other possible advantage by guybrush876 · · Score: 1

    Besides the distribution cost advantage, and the not so consensus picture quality advantage. Digital projectors may have an impact on the way film are schedule. With low costs of distribution and storing a cinema could play different movies in the same week, or in the same day adjusting the movie preferences to their target audience. For example Saturday night would have more screens with blockbuster, Sunday afternoon more kid movies, and during the week more alternative adult movies. This could be a solution to the problem of some movies having very low screen counts and only being there fore one week or two. Also highly expected movies could have debuts with a high screen some everybody could see. In my opinion this is a great possible advantage that could change moviegoer's habits.

  82. Digital Projectors help the Indie Film Maker by POPE+Mad+Mitch · · Score: 1

    There is an already existing plan to give digital projectors to 250 cinemas throughout the UK.

    This is being funded by the Arts Council, on the principle that it lowers the cost barrier for entry to smaller independant film makers, as reels of 35mm film are quite expensive to duplicate.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4297865.stm

  83. Re:Yea but... by hereticmessiah · · Score: 1

    As an Irishman, I want to slap you senseless.

    --
    I don't like trolls and mod against me if you like, but I'd prefer if you'd reply.
  84. Re:I think for digital projection to be successful by AeroIllini · · Score: 1

    Having seen digital projection, the amazingly vibrant colors, consistent sharpness and lack of scratches on-screen makes for a breathtaking viewing experience. Small wonder why sales of rear-projection TV's using DLP, LCD and HD-ILA elements are rising rapidly. =)

    Too bad every digital projection of a movie I've ever seen has been total crap.

    There are several multiplexes in the area where I live that are quite proud of their digital theaters... even to the point of advertising the fact that the movie is digital on the ticket stub. However, in every case, even though the color was quite nice, I was incredibly distracted throughout the movie with the digital artifacts present in the picture. Scenes with camera motion over complex patterns (such as panning past a complex wallpaper, or following a ship past a distant shore full of colorful buildings) always had some glittering and color motion. I was also able, quite clearly, to see individual pixels on subtitles and other abrubt color lines.

    My point is not that digital projection sucks; only that the current digital projection sucks. Digital is an infinitely extensible medium, in that all one has to do is increase the resolution of the frame: the crispness of the picture will increase and artifacts, including visible anti-aliasing, will disappear.

    By their nature, projected movies would need to have much higher resolution than digital televisions, simply because the screen is bigger, and artifacts are multiplied. In all the movies I've seen projected digitally, I estimated that the horizontal resolution (based on the individual pixels I was seeing in the subtitles) was no more than 1280. That's unacceptable in my opinion, especially if you are advertising the movie as higher quality than 35mm. Even HDTV is 1920x1080 (2 million pixels per frame), and the HDTV spec is not nearly as crisp as plain old 35mm film, which, in a totally invalid apples-to-oranges comparison with digital, approaches something like 20 million pixels per frame.

    Any problems 35mm might have with fading, scratches, or sharpness can be attributed solely to the projectionist. If the focus is off, or the lamp is not bright enough, or the reel is not properly taken care of, which are all extremely common problems in a standard multiplex theater where the projection booth is run by an underpaid teenager, the 35mm film will look pretty bad. But a properly run projecter using 35mm, running side-by-side with the digital equivalent, will win the fight hands-down. Currently.

    Now, if the digital projector makers could guarantee that the picture would be a 4K resolution scan (4096 horizontal resolution) and would stay 4K throughout the entire process of capture through projection, then I think digital would look better than 35mm. The sheer rate of dataflow from a satellite makes such a projector economically infeasable however, and is likely many years out. Until then, theater owners will be happy to foist sub-par digital projections on us.

    --
    For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.