Digital Film Distribution System Coming

aniyo~ writes with word of a collaboration of movie studios with distribution companies to come up with a system for rapid digital distribution of movie masters. Universal Pictures, Warner Bros., and a company called Digital Cinema Implementation Partners are working on technology that will allow much more responsive film distribution based on local needs. DCIP is wholly owned by the Regal, AMC, and Cinemark theater chains, which among them run 14,000 screens in North America. The new system would be available to those and other interested theater operators. About 2,200 U.S. theater screens currently show digital films, and today these are, by and large, delivered on hard drives.

Comments

Digital = More Piracy?

[bronzey214]

With the advance of digital video being shown at movie theaters, does that mean that piracy of said movies will be better and more frequent?

That is... would the quality be raised, i.e. the actual movie being copied vs. someone recording the screen? It would be a lot easier to borrow one of the HDDs, copy it, and return it rather than coming in w/ a tripod to record it.

Something to think about...

Re:Digital = More Piracy?

[TubeSteak]

It would be a lot easier to borrow one of the HDDs, copy it, and return it rather than coming in w/ a tripod to record it.

Which is why they're working on a broadband setup to quickly send around encrypted movies for the digital projectors. It says so in TFA.

What I'm interested in was this line:
That kind of rapid delivery, Reid said, would allow theater operators the flexibility to economically market niche films that could be shown for just a day or two to a targeted audience.

Are they saying that cutting out the production of film reels is going to lower costs for the movie theaters (they won't have to spend tens of thousands on reels)? Why do I suspect that no savings will be passed along to the ticket buying public?

I am sorry...

[lordvalrole]

but come on....do a little better than that. Theaters are a thing of the past. Tell me why the hell am I going to pay a crap load of money for a shitty experience? A lot of times most movie theaters are run by teenagers who barely have any respect for anyone and can care less about your experience. You pay a lot for a washed out picture with a bunch of people around you that can't turn off their cell phones or they bring their kids in. I can watch a movie on a big screen or my 24" monitor at home or a friends house that has much better picture and I can drink beer. It is all about comfort and quality, and theaters just lack both. Paying $10-15 just for an hour and a half experience is not worth it. MPAA and studios....move on, please. Get in the 21st century. Thanks, bye.

Re:I am sorry...

[RexRhino]

Movie theaters are good for:

1. Dates.
2. Teenagers who want to get out of the house.
3. People who want to get together and watch a movie with a bunch of friends, and don't have a $3000+ entertainment system and a living room that seats 20+ people comfortably.
4. New movies that aren't on DVD yet.
5. Art films and foriegn films that aren't available on DVD.
6. Imax.

Re:24 fps...

[Dutch Gun]

While it's fine and dandy that the film industry is making use of modern technology, I'm wondering if any "bold" filmmaker will ever part from the 24 fps standard.

I can only wonder what a 60 fps film would look like, but I do know that I've had my fill of backwards spinning wagon wheels and nausea inducing camera pans. People can readily (although subconsciously) distinguish between "shot on film" and "shot on video" - it's the frame rate that is the biggest giveaway (24 vs 30). They'll probably initially feel like there's something "wrong" with a 60fps image. Having grown up watching movies and television, both with well established conventions, I suspect many will be quite resistant to anything that pushes these conventions aside too quickly.

Probably the best way is to start with the Pixar-type films for kids and then move on up with that generation...