|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Digital cinema may not be ready to roll
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 03-18-2006 04:22 AM
quote: Scott Norwood
No, it's not. DVD is a really crappy presentation format.
I think Pete was being ironic, trying to point out that UK taxpayers appear to be in the process of blowing £150k per screen for a few hundred theatres, putting in kit which, in reality, is being used to do a job which could be done equally well with hardware costing £15-20k.
quote: Scott Norwood
Every disk is authored differently and things that should be simple (like turning on subtitles) work differently on every disk (some require using menus, some require hitting the "subtitle" button on the remote, some disks just don't play at all due to region coding or poor authoring, etc., etc.). Also, unskippablele content and on-screen displays from the players are no fun, either.
If you do have to project DVDs on a big screen, the biggest variable I've found is the bitrate at which the stream is encoded rather than any of the user interface authoring aspects. If you compare a disc which has a two hour, 16:9 colour feature crammed onto one single-layer disc with an 80-minute b/w Academy feature on a double-layer disc, on which the bitrate never goes below 7.5, the difference is like the difference between Super 8 and 35mm.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pete Naples
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1565
From: Dunfermline, Scotland
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 03-18-2006 11:07 AM
Leo that was precisely my point, evidently made too subtly!
Scott, any DVD that I've seen used for exhibition here is not the standard release you can buy at Asda (Walmart), they don't have all the crap that retial DVDs have. There is a distributor here in the UK called Filmbank who specialise in theatrical DVD, really intended for film clubs, schools etc, sometimes they end up being run in cinemas. If you can't get a print.....
Leo, have you seen anything from these upscaling DVD players? I've seen one of them on screen via an Arts Alliance DLP (it's a Christie) and the result was not bad, the shadows and highlights are mush, but that's the nature of the beast. Was on a giant screen too, and I was pleasantly surprised.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dominic Case
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 131
From: Sydney NSW Australia
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 03-23-2006 12:53 AM
quote:
I think Pete was being ironic, trying to point out that UK taxpayers appear to be in the process of blowing ?150k per screen for a few hundred theatres, putting in kit which, in reality, is being used to do a job which could be done equally well with hardware costing ?15-20k.
Well it's not strictly the UK taxpayers, Leo, as (if I understand it correctly), the UKFC project is funded by National Lottery money. (not that lottery tickets aren't bought by taxpayers, but it's not tax money).
But I agree that there are many applications for digital projection where the full DCI spec 2K installations with bullet-proof encryption are over-the-top.
If Hollywood is trying to manage a substitution process, to show mainstream studio pictures in a new process, then it has to be sure that digital projection in mainstream venues is as good or better than it is in 35mm, and as secure. (I'm not entering into an argument about whether they achieved that with DCI).
BUT, if the object is to bring films to audiences that can't see those films any other way, probably in smaller venues, then the issues and criteria can be very different,and so can the costs.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 03-23-2006 02:34 AM
quote: Dominic Case
Well it's not strictly the UK taxpayers, Leo, as (if I understand it correctly), the UKFC project is funded by National Lottery money. (not that lottery tickets aren't bought by taxpayers, but it's not tax money).
There seems to be some confusion about that. The last time I looked, the Lottery is not mentioned anywhere on the DCN pages on FCUK's website (the acronym sounds better that way, doesn't it?); and given that whenever we've received Lottery money for a project, it's been a contractual condition that we plaster their logo over everything - even the bog roll, it seems - that's a bit surprising. But I've now had several people remark that this project was funded by RIFE Lottery money. So what the actual score is I really don't know - and being cynical, I suspect that FCUK probably doesn't want us to know.
quote:
BUT, if the object is to bring films to audiences that can't see those films any other way, probably in smaller venues, then the issues and criteria can be very different, and so can the costs.
Granted, but I still don't think that the either the technologically most appropriate or best value for money solution is to get 2k DLP projectors and use them to show either bogstandard DVDs or SD Digibeta transfers which have been up-res-ed to an HD format, which is what seems to be happening with a significant number of non-mainstream releases. The actual effect of this scheme so far seems to be subsidising the distribution of Hollywood blockbusters.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-23-2006 04:54 AM
quote: Dominic Case
BUT, if the object is to bring films to audiences that can't see those films any other way, probably in smaller venues, then the issues and criteria can be very different,and so can the costs.
good intentions and all, i suppose, but once something gets done half-assed, it all too often stays half-assed and noone puts any effort towards a proper solution. i, for one, want to see my films fully-assed. i refuse to buy into the impossibility of a small number of prints actually finding their way around the countryside. the lost art of good film-handling could certainly be rediscovered if anyone in a position of authority cared enough to go that route.
if showing poor video versions of films counts as access, then far better access could be provided by broadcasting them to television sets or renting them out at video stores. in fact, hasn't that been going on for years? i'm sure a national broadcast or the production of whatever number of videocassettes is much less cost and hassle than outfitting a bunch of outpost cinemas with expensive "kit", maintaining it, and doing whatever mastering is necessary to get the "films" into the right format to be shown. and everybody already has a tv (or "access" to one).
the only thing being accomplished here is the further diminution of the odds of an actual film print ever reaching a cinema out in the boonies.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 03-23-2006 05:03 AM
quote: Leo Enticknap
There seems to be some confusion about that. The last time I looked, the Lottery is not mentioned anywhere on the DCN pages on FCUK's website (the acronym sounds better that way, doesn't it?); and given that whenever we've received Lottery money for a project, it's been a contractual condition that we plaster their logo over everything - even the bog roll, it seems - that's a bit surprising. But I've now had several people remark that this project was funded by RIFE Lottery money. So what the actual score is I really don't know - and being cynical, I suspect that FCUK probably doesn't want us to know.
I'm sure you're correct about the last bit; I'm sure they don't want us to know lots of things about this scheme, beyond the fact that they're putting lots of shiny new equipment into cnemas.
What's RIFE by the way?
quote: Leo Enticknap
Granted, but I still don't think that the either the technologically most appropriate or best value for money solution is to get 2k DLP projectors and use them to show either bogstandard DVDs or SD Digibeta transfers which have been up-res-ed to an HD format, which is what seems to be happening with a significant number of non-mainstream releases. The actual effect of this scheme so far seems to be subsidising the distribution of Hollywood blockbusters.
Well, it's certainly not the best value for money solution; I don't think anybody could dispute that. I would doubt that even Digi-Beta is going to find its way into most cinemas, the equipment is too expensive. If video is going to be used then it is more likely to come from DVD, DV of some sort of hard disk based system I think. A case could be made for doing this for material that is not available on film, or was produced on video, and it could be done at vastly lower cost than the UKFC scheme.
Sadly, so far this seems to be turning out the way I thought it would. Of course, in some years time maybe more films of the type intended will be available in digital form, and this will become the normal way of screening them. However, I think we can be pretty sure that the digital projection equipment available then will be both better and cheaper than that available now. I've seen seen serious predictions that the life of the current projectors may be only five years; if that proves to be the case then I think many of the UKFC scheme ones will see little use during much of their life. What's the betting that by that time parts for these 'ancient' machines will be unavailable, or prohibitivly expensive? For the foreseeable future going digital only will not be an option for the sort of cinemas intended to benefit from this scheme; there's no way that all of the films that they want to show are going to be transferred overnight, I would say that several decades is a more realistic estimate, so for many years cinemas are going to have to pay to maintain both film and digital equipment; more expense. Should the production of digital transfers be partly financed by reducing or eliminating the production of film prints for new releases? Where does that leave cinemas not lucky enough to be selected to receive equipment from this scheme? If the production of film prints were to cease within the next few years the effect would be to close most British independent cinemas not looked after by the UKFC; there is simply no way that most of them could afford to buy it themselves. Still lots of questions, and very few answers. I still want to see published a list of screenings made using this equipment which could not have taken place without it, and the numbers of people who attended those screenings. I would not include screenings from DVD, or other standard definition video sources, because these could be done using much cheaper equipment. I do not expect any such list to be published, but without it the success of this scheme cannot be judged. Leo, like you I am also cynical; I suspect that is exactly how the UKFC want it to be.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Konen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 981
From: Frisco, TX. (North of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-23-2006 09:25 AM
quote: Paul Van Dusen
What i'm waiting for is opening night of the Matrix 37, your halfway into the show, and then, all of the sudden.....BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH! I really hate to say it, but i'm gonna laugh my ass off.
Ummm, I guess you don't have any knowledge of how the playback systems work. You will never see a BSOD as Windows is not involved in the playback. It is used for user interface, monitoring, and platter building. The player is a separate piece of hardware that does the decoding of the input data stream.
Also, not all systems use Windows. I have no experience with the others, but Dolby is based on Unix.
Now the NCM pre-show is possible because they 64bit-XP and Windows Media Player to handle the Movie Tunes and "First Look". Haven't seen that happen yet either.
Finally, It's not DVD quality. Each frame is individually scanned and presented, just as in film. You should see it before forming an opinion. I've had a system in use for 6 years and have a customer base that comes from miles around to see it specifically on DLP.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Paul Van Dusen
Film Handler
Posts: 82
From: Roanoke, VA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 03-23-2006 09:36 AM
quote: Paul Konen
Ummm, I guess you don't have any knowledge of how the playback systems work. You will never see a BSOD as Windows is not involved in the playback. It is used for user interface, monitoring, and platter building. The player is a separate piece of hardware that does the decoding of the input data stream.
Also, not all systems use Windows. I have no experience with the others, but Dolby is based on Unix.
Now the NCM pre-show is possible because they 64bit-XP and Windows Media Player to handle the Movie Tunes and "First Look". Haven't seen that happen yet either.
Finally, It's not DVD quality. Each frame is individually scanned and presented, just as in film. You should see it before forming an opinion. I've had a system in use for 6 years and have a customer base that comes from miles around to see it specifically on DLP.
Ok, the bkue screen of death was more of a bit of sarcasm. I assumed if it used anything it would be a unix based system as they are much more stable than any windows system that has ever been created. While i understand that as you've been running the system for 6 years and i haven't, you know more than i do. My information is mostly based on the little bit of info our DM told us, but he didn't go too into detail because the carmike discount houses, like ours, won't be getting d-cinema. It just seems like more of a headache than it's worth.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic