On the Macamp site you can download a plugin which allows you to use Macamp to grab any audio from within Mac OS 8 or 9, including 'forbidden' RealAudio streams and the like.
I used to use Streambox Ripper for the same purpose on Windows. I believe Real shut that program down.
Something I don't think anyone has mentioned: I have read somewhere that the cost of striking prints and distributing them is a vanishingly small percentage of the total cost of making/promoting a typical movie. (This would seem to be contradicted by some of the $$$ figures people are tossing around here.)
But for non-Hollywood productions with small budgets, I can see the advantages of this kind of distribution system.
It just seems that at this time, digital projection is not ready for prime time, in terms of quality.
Will theatre owners have to 'upgrade' their projector's hardware every couple of years? Is this a scam to download some costs from movie studios/distributors down to the exhibitors?
A quote from Ebert's article "Projections on future of digital":
"A bombshell research report just released by Credit Suisse/First Boston supports Maxivision as preferable to digital projection, which is "not ready for prime time." The most unexpected finding of the report is that digital projection would not be cheaper than the current system of distributing prints, but, because of the financing costs, would be more expensive. Other bullet points: Maxivision has dramatically better picture quality; its cost is around $10,000 a booth, as opposed to $100,000 to $150,000 for digital; it is backward compatible and can project all films ever made; and the current Texas Instruments digital standard uses an inferior standard. The report praises the Kodak digital standard as superior, but criticizes Kodak for not supporting Maxivision--which, because it uses film, dovetails with Kodak's dominance of the celluloid market. Since the much-heralded digital rollout of "Star Wars Episode II" was a non-event, it's unlikely that exhibitors are prepared to make an enormous investment in digital projectors. If they want something new, affordable and dramatically better, Maxivision is the obvious choice."
Here's another quote from an earlier Answer Man article:
"Daniel Switkin of Palo Alto, Calif., writes: 'I saw AOTC in digital. Although the image was completely flicker- and defect-free, and the sound was perfect, the resolution was dreadful. Pixels were clearly visible, and everything from subtitles to small details were much worse than film. Some digging on www.dlp.com reveals that the current digital projectors use a pathetic 1280x1024 resolution--the same as most 17 inch desktop LCD monitors! This is despite the fact that the Sony camera used to shoot the movie digitally operates at 1920x1080 resolution. How can we the audience tell the industry that these five-year-old digital projectors they're now just installing aren't good enough?'"
1280x1024!!!?? What the heck?
Ebert makes a very good case against digital projection, at least as it exists today. He posits convincingly that the fascination with converting the industry to a digital projection format is fueled by uninformed executives who have been trained to salivate at the word 'digital.' The Answer Man column archive is here.
Screw 'T3' - which has no involvement from James Cameron, and has no reason to exist except as a blatant cash grab, and to revive Arnie's career - the Two Towers teaser will also be playing in front of Men In Black II.
When/if an asteroid collision happens, the conspiracy mongers will say that the 'official story' about an asteroid was just a gov't manufactured cover-up for a terrorist incident.
Here's the original article from Coming Soon that Harry Knowles referred to. The Sci-Fi site should have credited Coming Soon instead of Knowles, since Knowles added nothing, just cited the article.
Slashdot Mirror
On the Macamp site you can download a plugin which allows you to use Macamp to grab any audio from within Mac OS 8 or 9, including 'forbidden' RealAudio streams and the like.
I used to use Streambox Ripper for the same purpose on Windows. I believe Real shut that program down.
Something I don't think anyone has mentioned: I have read somewhere that the cost of striking prints and distributing them is a vanishingly small percentage of the total cost of making/promoting a typical movie. (This would seem to be contradicted by some of the $$$ figures people are tossing around here.)
But for non-Hollywood productions with small budgets, I can see the advantages of this kind of distribution system.
It just seems that at this time, digital projection is not ready for prime time, in terms of quality.
Will theatre owners have to 'upgrade' their projector's hardware every couple of years? Is this a scam to download some costs from movie studios/distributors down to the exhibitors?
A quote from Ebert's article "Projections on future of digital":
"A bombshell research report just released by Credit Suisse/First Boston supports Maxivision as preferable to digital projection, which is "not ready for prime time." The most unexpected finding of the report is that digital projection would not be cheaper than the current system of distributing prints, but, because of the financing costs, would be more expensive. Other bullet points: Maxivision has dramatically better picture quality; its cost is around $10,000 a booth, as opposed to $100,000 to $150,000 for digital; it is backward compatible and can project all films ever made; and the current Texas Instruments digital standard uses an inferior standard. The report praises the Kodak digital standard as superior, but criticizes Kodak for not supporting Maxivision--which, because it uses film, dovetails with Kodak's dominance of the celluloid market. Since the much-heralded digital rollout of "Star Wars Episode II" was a non-event, it's unlikely that exhibitors are prepared to make an enormous investment in digital projectors. If they want something new, affordable and dramatically better, Maxivision is the obvious choice."
The report itself may be found here (it's a PDF).
Here's another quote from an earlier Answer Man article:
"Daniel Switkin of Palo Alto, Calif., writes: 'I saw AOTC in digital. Although the image was completely flicker- and defect-free, and the sound was perfect, the resolution was dreadful. Pixels were clearly visible, and everything from subtitles to small details were much worse than film. Some digging on www.dlp.com reveals that the current digital projectors use a pathetic 1280x1024 resolution--the same as most 17 inch desktop LCD monitors! This is despite the fact that the Sony camera used to shoot the movie digitally operates at 1920x1080 resolution. How can we the audience tell the industry that these five-year-old digital projectors they're now just installing aren't good enough?'"
1280x1024!!!?? What the heck?
Ebert makes a very good case against digital projection, at least as it exists today. He posits convincingly that the fascination with converting the industry to a digital projection format is fueled by uninformed executives who have been trained to salivate at the word 'digital.' The Answer Man column archive is here.
Screw 'T3' - which has no involvement from James Cameron, and has no reason to exist except as a blatant cash grab, and to revive Arnie's career - the Two Towers teaser will also be playing in front of Men In Black II.
When/if an asteroid collision happens, the conspiracy mongers will say that the 'official story' about an asteroid was just a gov't manufactured cover-up for a terrorist incident.
Just wait!
Here's the original article from Coming Soon that Harry Knowles referred to. The Sci-Fi site should have credited Coming Soon instead of Knowles, since Knowles added nothing, just cited the article.