Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Kodak and Digital Projection

This is topic Kodak and Digital Projection in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000732

Posted by Lance C. McFetridge (Member # 95) on 03-09-2000, 01:32 PM:

Interesting article in the Rochester, New York "Democrat and Chronicle" newspaper outlining a plan for Kodak "to beat the digital revolution in movies by joining it"?
http://www.rochesterbusinessnews.com/
the article is dated 3/9/2000
and just when Brad fixed the shedding problem they had with film guard.......

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 03-09-2000, 03:07 PM:

I am all for a digital shoot and projection system IF AND ONLY IF they can reproduce 19 million pixels per frame with each of those pixels capable of more than 1 billion color, shade and light combinations.

SORRY BUT NO CHANCE IN HELL WILL THAT HAPPEN IN MY LIFETIME. And I will never die so it will never happen ever ever ever. Sound is analog, images are analog, and conversion to digital would be the equivalent of having your eyes replaced with laser scanners. Just isn't the same thing. Film will have the advantage in true color and light reproduction for then next 50 plus years at least. I think our resident Kodak man can attest to that can't you?

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 03-09-2000, 04:00 PM:

Here,Here

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-09-2000, 04:19 PM:

Technology moves a lot faster than you think.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-09-2000, 08:39 PM:

Check out the official press release at:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressCenter/pressCenter.shtml

Kodak's business is not only film. It is not only digital. It is PICTURES. Right now, I firmly believe that film is the best way to put high quality images on a large theatre screen. It is certainly the most cost-effective way.

A typical brand new release print costs about 1200 to 1500 dollars (US). If the picture is shown five times a day for two months, that is about 300 runs, which works out to only 4 or 5 dollars per show. Shipping costs may add a few dollars more.

No one has set a price for all of the equipment needed for digital cinema, or the infrastructure needed to support it. Sending 40 or so gigabytes of compressed data over a satellite or fiber optic line is not free, and neither is the mastering, authoring and duplication costs for optical disks. Today, the costs to amortize and operate a digital cinema system would certainly be greater than the cost of providing film prints and maintaining existing film equipment.

Digital cinema will happen. Kodak technology will help make it much better than it is today, perhaps even better than film. But I believe it will co-exist with film for years, and not completely replace film for decades.

BTW, I am not on Kodak's large digital cinema team. My job is to help make film presentation as good as it can be, to "set the bar higher for digital", and make the other guys work even harder .

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-10-2000, 06:11 AM:

Judging from your input to this forum John, they're going to need to grow some mighty long legs to get over that bar.

I know it's been said before, but it is so nice to have someone from a major company with so much to do with what it is we do so interested in contributing so often.

Thanks to you and to Brad.

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 03-10-2000, 08:15 AM:

Who will pay for the DLP projectors? i can think of many small theaters who just dont have that kind of money for a DLP projector.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 03-10-2000, 08:50 AM:

I have heard that one way the DLP projectors could be paid for is with commercials

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 03-10-2000, 09:00 AM:

Gee, just like television! Why not stay at home and watch TV for free?

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 03-10-2000, 07:43 PM:

I hate, hate, HATE commercials. Over Christmas we had over five and half minutes of commercials on every screen (except Disney flicks of course). Do you have any idea how many pissed off customers that adds up to? The number of commercials has decreased since, but I have a feeling that is due to advertisers not wanting to waste money during this 'dead time' rather than the bigwigs realizing they were going overboard.

Posted by Nicholas McRobert (Member # 205) on 03-11-2000, 10:27 AM:

Five and a half minutes? Our maximum is 13 and a half (averages about 8 or 9)......and then trailers after that! But people here are just used to it, and as the ads all run together in one reel at the very beginning of the programme, it gives our floor staff more time to seat people. We very rarely hear complaints about advertising.

I have heard several company people say that they are not keen on the whole digital cinema idea, purely on the basis that with satellite links and all, the distributors will have the power to "interrupt" and run film programmes as they please....possibly meaning that this will just turn the whole cinema experience into a farce of the "big-screen commercial TV" kind. Most people will probably end up investing in DVD players and not bother leaving the house if this happens.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-12-2000, 01:52 PM:

Isn't the most common idea that theatres will "rent" the digital systems? That seems like about the only way a fast conversion could happen.

I still have my doubts, though. At the one digital seminar I've attended, the rep said that the charge for rental would be affordable enough that every exhibitor, large and small, could take part. I forget the exact rental percentage formula used, but it worked out that my single screen theatre would be paying about $5000 per year in equipment rental. That would be no problem, but I just cannot imagine any company wanting to put $100-grand worth of equipment in a place that's only going to return $5000 per year to them. That doesn't make economic sense does it? Or am I just missing something?

------------------
Mike Blakesley
www.goforsyth.com/roxy

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 03-12-2000, 06:48 PM:

With satellite transmission (as well as all forms of radio communications), what happens during periods of heavy sunspot activity when communications go wacky. Go into the auditorium on a busy Saturday night and tell the crowd, "sorry folks no movie tonight on account of sunspots" or "sorry the server's down".
And don't forget about planned obsolescence and frequent upgrades. Who's gonna pay for that?

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 03-14-2000, 02:11 AM:

quote:
I hate, hate, HATE commercials

News Bulletin!

"DALLAS PATRONS OBJECT TO ADVERTISING SLIDES"

"Dallas movie fans are starting a petition which they will send to the managers of several theatres which go strong on displaying advertisements on the screen between reels. The petition is for the benefit of several moving picture shows as well as vaudeville houses.

"Fans say that they have no objection to learning through screen advertisements what is coming to the playhouse during the next week but they object to having to twiddle their thumbs while stale and musty slides advertising Old Doc Saphead's Hair Tonic and other similar delicacies are flashed before them day after day, week after week ad infinitum. They have decided it is a waste of time and will patronize advertisement-free shows unless it is discontinued.

"The matter has been taken up by the dramatic critics of local newspapters, who are unanimously opposed to overdoing this kind of advertising.

"Moving Picture World", 9/13/1919
p. 1611

Good luck to you, Dallasites!
Let us know how it turns out!

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-14-2000, 09:25 PM:

Quote:
----------------------------------------------
"I have heard several company people say that they are not keen on the whole digital cinema idea, purely on the basis that with satellite links and all, the distributors will have the power to 'interrupt' and run film programmes as they please...."
----------------------------------------------

I agree with that 100%! I think there are two things going on here: 1) Control of the movies, showtimes and advertising. 2) They just plain old don't want to PAY people to process film and operate projectors. (They just want to keep ALL the money!)

They don't make MOVIES in Hollywood anymore, they make DEALS!

They are just using the "DIGITAL" buzzword to get people to want it!

Posted by John Eickhof (Member # 323) on 03-15-2000, 06:12 PM:

To add to Mikes comments...it has also been mentioned that the delivery cost of electronic imaging to the theatre will be approx. the cost of two admission tickets PER SHOW...now take the average theatre with three showings a night and average ticket price of $4 the daily cost is $24.00 times
365 is a total of $8,760.00 SHIPPING (delivery) COST!(per screen!) My theatre averaged a cost for TWO screens shipping the old fashioned way cost about $3,500.00 per year (Before technicolor!) Now its about $1,800.00 per year! At the premise that the distributors will not LOWER film rental costs...Why should I pay over 8 times what I am now paying for shipping? In fact, I cant afford to!