Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Digital cinema may not be ready to roll

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Digital cinema may not be ready to roll (Page 4)

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 03-23-2006 09:50 AM

I once saw a BSOD on one of those little 7" LCDs which are drop down from the luggage rack bulkhead in an airliner to show you the safety video. The video was half way through telling you what to do if the plane crashes into the sea, when up came the BSOD.

I hope to goodness that none of the really critical systems (like the automatic pilot and navigation systems, for example), are run under Windows!

Stephen: RIFE is the Regional Investment Fund for England - a pot of Lottery money which is distributed by FCUK.

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 03-23-2006 09:58 AM

quote:
Here are the specifications for the Kodak CineServer for feature presentation:

Are the various systems compatible? i.e. if one cinema installs the Kodak system and another the Dolby system for example, can the same files be delivered to, and used by both?

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 03-23-2006 10:32 AM

quote: Stephen Furley
Are the various systems compatible? i.e. if one cinema installs the Kodak system and another the Dolby system for example, can the same files be delivered to, and used by both?

Both the DCI and proposed SMPTE DC28 specifications call for "interoperability", and a move to a single file structure for the Digital Cinema Distribution Master DCDM. The Kodak CineServer, which includes KODAK Color Science, plays MXF-packaged, JPEG2000-compressed digital movies at up to 250 Mbits/sec, per DCI specifications. The CineServer has been used with a variety of projectors -- e.g., even though Kodak has partnered with Barco, a Christie projector was used for the screening of "Walk the Line" at ShowEast using the Kodak CineServer.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=115911&p=irol-newsArticle_Print&ID=722984&highlight=

quote:
LOS ANGELES & BRUSSELS, Belgium, Jun 22, 2005 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Eastman Kodak Company and Barco announced today they have formed a strategic alliance to more effectively serve the worldwide digital cinema market with a full menu of products, systems, and services, including installation and support.

Kodak has a legacy of innovation in entertainment imaging and is the world's leading independent supplier of digital cinema systems for pre-show use; Barco is a worldwide leader in high-quality, high-resolution digital cinema projection systems and is one of only three licensees of Texas Instruments DLP Cinema(TM) Technology.

The new alliance has two purposes: It enables each company to sell - and to provide support for - complete integrated digital cinema solutions. The solutions will combine systems and services from each company, optimized for image quality and reliability. The alliance also will allow Kodak and Barco to collaborate on innovative and differentiated solutions for the future.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/digital/index.jhtml

quote:
For feature presentations, we've introduced the Kodak CineServer, often used in conjunction with Barco DLP100 2K projectors. The Kodak CineServer is an easy-to-use networked solution designed and developed with Kodak's depth of image science and decades of market experience in the motion picture industry. The Kodak CineServer is also available as a single screen product for emerging markets and screening rooms.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 03-23-2006 05:05 PM

quote:
I hope to goodness that none of the really critical systems (like the automatic pilot and navigation systems, for example), are run under Windows!

I'm sure that those are either proprietary OS or Unix based. Either way, they have to be redundant and in order to get certified to fly the failure rate has to be something rediculously low (1 x 10^-9 is ringing a bell). If planes were flying on Windows, there would probably be several crashes a day.

| IP: Logged

Dominic Case
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 131
From: Sydney NSW Australia
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 03-23-2006 05:17 PM

quote: Carl Martin
i refuse to buy into the impossibility of a small number of prints actually finding their way around the countryside.

It's not the physical problem, it's the commercial one, for the distributors. With the number of films coming out these days, and the number of competing attractions for our leisure dollar, films need promoting. And it's not a matter of running local advertising in the local newspaper these days - campaigns are national if not international. If the film shows up in a country town two months after it's been promoted on TV and talked about on the internet (let alone downloaded off the internet!) the local cinema owner is going to have problems getting an audience. And small-budget films (here at any rate) simply don't get enough prints made to cover the countryside simultaneously.

Understand that I am not talking about Hollywood studio films here, nor am I talking about US demographics, film distribution economics, or population distribution.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-23-2006 06:13 PM

quote: Dominic Case
And it's not a matter of running local advertising in the local newspaper these days - campaigns are national if not international.

That's for sure. AFAIC, our local advertising's main purpose is to let the people know what we're showing. They've already made up their mind if they want to see it or not before the movie comes out, thanks to the media and the trailers we've shown. Word of mouth finishes the job, for better or worse.

| IP: Logged

Bernard Tonks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 619
From: Cranleigh, Surrey, England
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-24-2006 06:06 AM

The Arts Centre in my village has been showing DVDs supplied by Filmbank for over four years now replacing 16mm. Also mobile operators I know have no choice but to screen DVDs because 16mm prints are no longer available. One of them has however changed to portable 35mm.

I had a very interesting visit last week to a large multiplex cinema, to see a Barco DLP projector with a Dolby Digital Cinema server working, installed for showing Disney’s “Chicken Little 3D”. They are also having an UKFC Christie DLP being installed shortly along with many other cinemas listed.

Here is the first UKFC purely digital DLP single screen cinema now open in Kent. It will be interesting to see how successful this will be in a small country town, showing four different films daily. I thought that £7.50 admission was a bit steep though.

http://www.kinocinemas.co.uk/home.htm

There is also a DLP/ DVD cinema in Gloucestershire recently reopened previously 35mm.

http://www.wottoneph.co.uk/

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 03-24-2006 07:13 PM

Great links Bernard -

The advent of the purely digital cinema - wow!

Terrific builds / rebuilds as well - very interesting.

Note though in the case of the former cinema:

"Kino's digital content will be supplied by the world's first digital networks the UKFC's DSN [digital screen network] and Brazil's Rain Network, both offering exciting and diverse programming"

What if they want to show anything else? Are they constrained to just this programming?

Also re. the latter:

"It will be showing films from DVD and S-VHS sources, using modern high-resolution digital projection. Since new releases will not be immediately available, the Electric Picture House will concentrate on providing a mix of films. Ultimately, we hope to introduce ultra-high resolution digital projection so that we can offer new releases in our programme. This will be subject to negotiations with the Distributors."

A pity, since DVD and S-VHS sources were never designed for large-screen projection.

It makes one wonder...would variety of programming be a problem in these digital-only cinema models? Also, here's the dilemma for these community cinemas - you get away from the bygone age of 16mm reduction prints, but the DVD-type replacement has its own quality issues.

[Same issue in Ireland BTW - many film societies went to DVD [Frown]

...but then at the same time, and sad to relate, nearly all the ones that went to 35mm did so using the cheapest and worst installations possible [Eek!]

]

| IP: Logged

Bernard Tonks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 619
From: Cranleigh, Surrey, England
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-25-2006 06:51 AM

quote: Brian Guckian
"Kino's digital content will be supplied by the world's first digital networks the UKFC's DSN [digital screen network] and Brazil's Rain Network, both offering exciting and diverse programming"

What if they want to show anything else? Are they constrained to just this programming?

I would like to think NOT if I was an exhibitor with a UKFC installation. Some cinemas will be screening live World Cup Football, but that was done four years ago so is nothing new.

quote: Brian Guckian
Also re. the latter:

"It will be showing films from DVD and S-VHS sources, using modern high-resolution digital projection. Since new releases will not be immediately available, the Electric Picture House will concentrate on providing a mix of films. Ultimately, we hope to introduce ultra-high resolution digital projection so that we can offer new releases in our programme. This will be subject to negotiations with the Distributors."

A pity, since DVD and S-VHS sources were never designed for large-screen projection.

No doubt they would have to upgrade their equipment to 2k for new releases.

quote: Brian Guckian
Same issue in Ireland BTW - many film societies went to DVD ...but then at the same time, and sad to relate, nearly all the ones that went to 35mm did so using the cheapest and worst installations possible.

Sad, the renters should check these places out and refuse product until proper standards are made.

| IP: Logged

Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 03-27-2006 03:25 AM

quote: Dominic Case
It's not the physical problem, it's the commercial one, for the distributors. With the number of films coming out these days, and the number of competing attractions for our leisure dollar, films need promoting. And it's not a matter of running local advertising in the local newspaper these days - campaigns are national if not international. If the film shows up in a country town two months after it's been promoted on TV and talked about on the internet (let alone downloaded off the internet!) the local cinema owner is going to have problems getting an audience. And small-budget films (here at any rate) simply don't get enough prints made to cover the countryside simultaneously.

Understand that I am not talking about Hollywood studio films here, nor am I talking about US demographics, film distribution economics, or population distribution.

but isn't it the films that don't have huge national campaigns that we need to worry about? many films have to get by on local (often theater-specific) publicity and possibly trailers. that is, if anyone is willing to show them at all. that is where access is an issue and i don't see digital transfers being helpful, aesthetically or economically (unless they are video works to begin with).

surely this program was not conceived just to increase "access" to films that are blockbusters or at least are backed by hefty marketing?

or is my thinking, despite your admonition, colored by how things "work" in this country?

| IP: Logged

Dominic Case
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 131
From: Sydney NSW Australia
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 03-27-2006 10:07 PM

quote: Carl Martin
but isn't it the films that don't have huge national campaigns that we need to worry about?

Well, there's a lot of space between "huge national campaigns" and "relying on local or theatre-specific advertising".

My point is that huge national campaigns go together with large print orders, and every cinema in the major cities and many of those in smaller regional areas will be showing the "big" films in the same week. You can't miss them - the advertising is so pervasive - but also, it is very efficient.

Films that don't have a reasonable marketing effort are simply going to struggle to get the box office they might deserve. And that marketing effort is most efficient if you can promote the film everywhere at the same time. And that is only going make sense if you can screen it everywhere at the same time.

It's not the blockbusters that are running on at least one screen in every cinema in town that I'm thinking of - but it's the smaller films that might run to 20 or 30 prints nationally, and would not expect the same size of audience, but because of that simply never get out to the small country towns because they have to wait too long for a print, it's worn out when it arrives, and the freight on the print is likely to be enough to make it uneconomic.

That's the Australian argument - not sure what the rationale is for the UK Film Council project.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 03-28-2006 01:13 AM

That's precisely the argument being used by FCUK, the only difference being that in our scenario we're talking about replacing a 1-5 print release rather than 20-30. However, I believe that it is flawed on two counts.

Firstly, a national marketing campaign is a less important factor in attracting audiences in the case of 'arthouse' or minority interest titles (FCUK's preferred adjective is 'specialised'). We would often get these titles up to a year off release in the last theatre I worked at before leaving for the archive; and as long as the venue itself marketed them properly, they still did well. Point taken about knackered prints, as this was a serious problem. It was (and still is) made worse by the fact that the sort of venue which tends to show foreign-language or rerelease titles is exactly the sort of place which has a very limited technical budget, and is therefore likely to use old equipment, poorly maintained and operated by a comparatively low-skilled projectionist.

But I still maintain that the Digital Screen Network in the form that the scheme was launched is not a cost-effective answer. Firstly, the hardware was procured when d-cinema was still effectively an experiment, long before Moore's Law and economies of scale started to significantly reduce the unit price of projectors and servers. Secondly, the risk exists that this hardware will become obsolete in a very short timescale compared to that of 35mm equipment. Thirdly, d-cinema will only deliver the picture quality benefits proclaimed loudly and often by FCUK (i.e. no dirt and scratches) if a true HD transfer is made. The cost of that is at least the equivalent of 3-4 average 35mm prints, and can be a lot more if a new intermediate element needs to be struck for the transfer.

And finally, I believe that a substantial upgrade in both the availability and technical quality of 'specialised' titles for exhibition could have been achieved by investing, say, 10-20% of the DSN total in a thorough overhaul (and where necessary, upgrade) of existing 35mm installations in arthouse and rep venues, some projectionist training courses and a scheme for subsidising larger print runs of selected titles.

As it is, a large proportion of this scheme's budget appears to have been spent installing DLP projectors in mainstream theatres, many of which are being used primarily to show mainstream product. In short, taxpayers' and/or lottery players' money has been spent subsidising Hollywood who, having sat back while the public sector does the costly R & D, are likely to now move in with cheaper and more efficient systems. This really should have happened the other way round.

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 03-28-2006 07:37 PM

Just focussing in on this part of your post Leo:

quote: Leo Enticknap
And finally, I believe that a substantial upgrade in both the availability and technical quality of 'specialised' titles for exhibition could have been achieved by investing, say, 10-20% of the DSN total in a thorough overhaul (and where necessary, upgrade) of existing 35mm installations in arthouse and rep venues, some projectionist training courses and a scheme for subsidising larger print runs of selected titles.

Amen to that! That is one of the most sensible things I have heard for a long time. It's heartbreaking to see easily-remedied (for a very small amount of money) 35mm film handling and projection problems continuing, whilst money is spent by arts organisations even on conferences on d-cinema!

And - the likes of City Screen in the UK proved beyond doubt that you can have arthouse cinemas and high presentation standards and equipment specification. It's all in the passion and commitment to getting it right - and it never has to cost huge sums of money either!

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 03-29-2006 02:04 AM

A big problem seems to be "breakout" pix rather than the true specialised product. The latter are usually handled by specialised distribs who send them to the right locations over a few months. The breakout pix are sent to sit in unsympathetic locales till the Dolby Digital track doesn't work any more, while the cinemas that could do well with them have to wait forever.

| IP: Logged

Dan Suomi
Film Handler

Posts: 53
From: Aurora/Oswego, IL
Registered: Jul 2004

posted 03-29-2006 02:56 PM

I was told today that our digital projector we just got for the Chicken Little roll out can't handle JPEG format, it can only handle MPEG format and now we have to get a converter chip or something to be able to run JPEG. I just think it's so funny that after all this hubbub about digital they can't even make films that are all in the same format. Next they will tell us that we need to buy another converter to play JPEG 3D. So much for the cost savings that were promised with that initial digital rollout. I just as much stay with film thank you very much.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.