Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Digital Cinema Not Quite There Yet

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the movies-in-bits-and-bytes dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A Reuters article explains how, in some ways, the digital future of movie theatres isn't quite here yet. Despite the push for new technology in the projection booth, theaters have been slow to adopt the new and expensive gear." From the article: " Many in the movie industry hope digital cinema will help revive theater attendance, which fell 9 percent in 2005 in the United States. The studios stand to save about $1 billion a year in print distribution costs because they will be shipping digital movies via computer hard drives, satellite and broadband cable, versus old celluloid canisters. But digital deployment is expensive at about $100,000 per screen, and while the studios agreed to foot most of the bill, current equipment does not meet all the technology standards set by the industry."

5 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. Movie Attendance by NitsujTPU · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Many in the movie industry hope digital cinema will help revive theater attendance, which fell 9 percent in 2005 in the United States.

    My guess is that releasing movies that don't suck would increase movie attendance.

    1. Re:Movie Attendance by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah to amplify your point. I was going to take my family out to the movies this past saturday. so we opened up rottentomatoes and the local theatre web pages and started looking. the ONLY movie currently playing that has any decent rating is "8 below" a sappy drippy disney kid movie. Everything else had a rating of "horribly sucky" on rottentomatoes. Granted they typically pan everything but after going to wathc the trailers, reading other reviews, etc.. we decided to do something else.

      We go to fewer and fewer movies over the past 12 months because almost everything they have been putting out are simply polished turds. As an indie film maker I have seen movies shot and editied on a crappy VHS camcorder for less than $1500.00US that are more entertaining and higher quality than many of the multi million dollar movie that has overpaid bad acting, seem like the script was being written as they were shooting, and now features the trademark "shakey cam" that must mean that hollywood can no longer afford tripods.

      MPAA is dying faster than the RIAA. Movies have more indie talent than all of hollywood and many of the best actors are now starting to star in indie films. (Seeing Robin Williams in a really low budget film that he helped finance is a sign of the times.)

      The only problem is that indie films are typically direct to DVD. Most theatres will not show indie films and none of the filmmakers have the money to get their film overhyped and marketed on all the networks.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  2. Good lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Many in the movie industry hope digital cinema will help revive theater attendance, which fell 9 percent in 2005 in the United States.

    I stopped going to movies because I was sick of paying the price of a DVD, just to be forced to watch commercials for deodorant and lectures about how I'm an evil baby-killing sealsucker for downloading movies (which is something I don't do).

    Now I'm supposed to go back and start going to movies again just because they've tossed in some newfangled, flashy, questionable technology?

    Sometimes I wonder whether the people who work for MPAA style companies are stupid, or whether they simply are from some alternate universe where logic actually works that way.

  3. Affordability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe if movies became affordable for the middle class family again and weren't absolutely fucking horrible and didn't include 20 minutes of advertising at the start. Maybe, just maybe... people would start going again.

  4. Problems by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Digital picture quality isn't as good as they like to think. The resolution to match 35mm film is something like 3000-4000 pixels. 70mm film is twice that (going higher isn't neccesary since the eye has a limited resolution). Upgrading will involve replacing the most expensive component.

    Cinemas like equipment that's built to last. Some cinemas are using projectors that are 30+ years old and still working perfectly. New equipment such as multi channel digital sound processors are just bolted on. You can't bolt a digital projector onto one of these. The technology is fundamentally different.

    People are not going to go to the movies just because they have digital projectors. They don't care! It doesn't make a difference how the popcorn was delivered, or whether the electricity comes from nuclear power or coal either. They want to see a movie. This is the problem. Hollywood is too obsessed with technology (not just cameras but digital sets as well). Give us a decent story. Use the technology to tell the story.