------------------
Mike
Drive-In Records
www.driveinrecords.com
 

At least for me it was not because I loved CD's as soon as they were introduced. In fact I was one of the first audiofiles to buy the very first CD player Sony introduced. This was when a store like Tower Record's entire CD inventory was able to fit in one small cardboard box. Yes, it used to irritate me too when one of my friend who turned into an audiopile snob kept insisting that CD sound was very cold and not warm like the sound from a LP. When I was told this, I smiled and said to my friend "You are full of s----" and that was the end of the discussion and I have been enjoying my CDs ever since. It is different with digital cinema. Although I have not yet seen digital cinema , I have heard and read enough reports by key theatre technicians say that it is good but film image is still much better. However, I did get to watch the film version of "EP2" and I did not like it because the picture quality was very flat and the color was pale. Because "EP1" was shot on film, it looked great in the theatre and the DVD was fantastic because the images was taken from the digital transfer from the original film source. I have even found the quality of the images I had shot on film and digitally scanned better than the ones I had shot directly with a digital camera.

-Claude

There are relatively few similarties to film here, because much of the appeal of vinyl is in the physical medium; with film, relatively few people purchase or even see or handle the physical item.

At this time, digital cinema is purely a cost-driven issue. If anyone cared about quality, we would be seeing 70mm prints on many screens and that isn't happening now.

I will instead point out that the Vinyl to CD change is purely a sound issue, and doesn't truly compare to the film vs. digital argument for the simple reason that it is visual, not audio.

As most are aware, film sound has gone digital, and in most cases, we get the film sound on a CD (DTS, thats all I have worked with, not sure of other formats, sorry).

Unlike the CD, where there is one sound format, with digital film sound, we have three current digital formats. They are DTS, DOLBY, and SDDS (by the way I heard a great mix for the movie SIGNS in SDDS two days ago).

There are even extention formats such as EX, for extended surround sound as well.

So as for the vinyl to cd comparison, the film industry has already gone through that phase, with the change to digital sound. Some theaters even have all three formats installed, for various reasons.

Dave
 

The CD was an audible improvement over what most people had. By 1988, better CD players were getting cheap enough for the general public to easily afford.

The film to digital transition is happening in a totally different way. Instead of starting with a resolution that is able to capture everything available on typical film, it's starting with a much lower resolution. If digital cinema had started with a resolution of 4000 by 3000 or better with a sufficient color bit depth, then we could say that the transition from film to digital was like the transition to CDs for audio.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site

Although digital projectors will still need some maintainance, there will be no need for projectionists as we know it (not even the machine monkeys most multiplexes use today). No need to lace up, ad ads, no late nights breaking the film down, etc etc.

From the distributors point of view the control they will have will probably make todays attempted enforcement seem mild. They will probably take steps to ensure that the films are only shown at the agreed times in the agreed screens. No staff screenings, no unofficial moving a film to make way for a better selling film etc etc.

Add to this the potential to use the apparatus for live 'pay-per-view' events and the ability to insert individual security marks during screenings and probably a host of other possibities and I belive you will see Digital Projection becoming the norm.

Of course either deals will have to be struck or prices drop significantly before we see mass conversion over to digital, but I think it is only a matter of time before running regular film will become as specialised running 70mm or magnetic sound.

As far as quality is concerned, I believe this is not the top priority for the industry. I am sure they are gauging peoples reactions to the few places with Digital Projection and as long as the majority (not the purists) have no problems with it then they will continue pushing to get cinemas converted when viable. In the long term quality will improve I am sure, and exhibitors will take great pains to publicise the fact (as they have done when the put the latest sound system), but sadly most people don't really notice if a film is playing in full 8.1 SDDS or in mono, they simply like the fact that the believe that they are getting something better. After all the public don't seem to mind that most places no longer have curtain or masking, or nice lighting effects, all they are interested in is seeing the latest movie, with the minimum distraction at the cheapest price.

At the end of the day money will win. Sad...but true.

------------------
Martin Dean

martinidean@charter.net
 

I think there are similarities between the issues of vinyl LPs vs. CDs, and film vs. DLP. As Evans said, for the masses, CD was an improvement. But there was always a hard-core audiophile crowd who hated the "sound" of CDs, and some of them probably still do. Is film any different? When talking about film, if we're referring to the AVERAGE (or worse) theater, where film is not done right most of the time, DLP is probably an improvement. Those theaters and their customers are the "masses". DLP will probably be an improvement for them, even with all its current deficiencies. The relatively few who appreciate "Film Done Right", including exhibitors and knowledgeable moviegoers, know that the deficiencies of the current DLP system make it impossible for DLP to beat the quality of film. But just as with digital audio recording and playback, digital "film" will improve, and it's basically a done-deal. The only issue is what will the baseline quality level be (OK, and the cost). Nevertheless, there will always be people who prefer the look of film over digital, partly due to the personal attention and care it requires to do film right. This is not really much different from people who still prefer vinyl LPs.

I include myself in the film-lovers group because the whole "physical" aspect of creating & projecting films is fascinating to me, and when a movie REALLY looks and sounds good on the screen, not only am I entertained, but I sincerely appreciate all the hard work and attention to detail that goes into every step of the process of getting an image up on the screen. Digital will take a lot of that "personal factor" out I fear. But I accept digital as a done-deal.

 

But that is a faulty assumption. The reason the prices of CD player came down was because the public which quickly became enamored of the quality and ease of use of the CDs drove the market. They bought CD players and the CDs at the entry market price, high as it was. The penetration of this digital system was quick and exponential. That is what brought the price down; manufactures were able to continue R&D by the ever increasing sales at the initially high prices. Yes, the prices were high, but people bought the units anyway. The reason prices were able to come down and make CD dominate the marketplace to the death of the LP was because of the mass market. If only 100 or 1000 people bought the first CDs, the prices would have remained at $1000 per unit (I paid $900 for my first Teac CD player and I thought I had gotten a great deal).

There is no corresponding analogy for DLP -- the consumer market is involved only periferally. The end-users of DLP, the exhibitors, are NOT buying this technology. Technicolor's original plan to install 1000 "free" DLPs to seed the market has gone nowhere. There are less than 200 DLP units in place four years after the first one was used to show STARWARS Ep 1. Those numbers simply are not the numbers needed to reach the critical mass that allows manufacturers to bring down the prices; DLP may not become viable for many years to come and even then, it may have to coexist with 35mm indefinitely, given these economics. Distribution is also well aware that in order for it to continue reaping the ever growing profits from the theatre markets outside the US, 35mm film will have to continue for decades.

And then there is distribution of the movie datastream, which is where DLP purports to be the great money-saver -- no more prints. So far, anyone who is savvy about digital distribution knows that it never comes free. Even today, the theatres that have DLP have to wait for some very high paid technicians to come with the hard discs containing the digital datastream to install them into the server. This doesn't come cheap. And it probably isn't any cheaper than a guy in a truck delivering a print. This idea that eliminating 35mm print distribution is the same as eliminating the cost of distribution is either naive or purposely omissive to make DLP look better than it really is. As it is, they still have not worked out any standards for how the digital stream gets from the transfer house to the DLP in the theatre. DVDs are a possibility but so far, you would need stacks of them to deliver the amounts of data needed for near-film quality images. Satellite transmission seems to be a viable transmission line, but satellite time certainly isn't free -- just ask the TV networks who have to pay big bucks, and they are using bandwidths which are much smaller than what will be needed for quality, uncompressed or at least low compression motion picture data. Then there are the uplinks stations and downlink receivers, neither of which come free or without yearly maintenance and service tweak costs.

Theatre owners are much to smart not to recognize that by switching to a technology that is proprietary, they become locked into whatever prices the owner of that technology wants to set for parts, upgrades, maintenance, and most especially, service. Mr. Exhibitor knows he won't be able to go to any local cinema service company and ask for an emergency service visit at the prices that he now pays for that service in 35mm. Network server troubleshooting and repairs for the same per hour cost that he can get a service tech to replace an intermittent? -- not in this lifetime.

No, there is no comparison between the move from analog LPs to digital CDs and that of DLP and 35mm film. The former was driven by the economics of the mass market where millions of units were purchased at the higher prices which enabled manufactures to bring prices down. DLP is not driven by anything. The end user doesn't want it because it gives him no advantage over what he already has (with CD, the perception of the buyer was that it is MUCH superior to LP technology). Then there is the distributor, yes, he would like to eliminate print costs but he's not the one needing to lay out the cost per screen of the DLPs. And as yet, there is so guarantee that DLP will cost him less to distribute the datastream than it does to distribute 35mm prints.

The real problem is that this hugely expensive new technology doesn't deliver anything better to the consumer, either in reality or in perception, that is not already delivered by the existing film technology and the infrastructure already paid for and already in place.

Asking theatre owners to spend $150,000 (initially -- the yearly operational costs may be much higher) for a piece of new technology in order to get ALMOST as good a picture and sound as he already has in his theatres is a very, VERY hard sell. This kind of untenable situation never existed when CDs went to market.

However there is one example that does match the astronomically over-priced DLP technology with respect to analog LPs. Just before CDs hit the market there was a company that designed a LP playback unit that read the groves with 6 laser beams without any mechanical contact with the record surface. Theoretically this technology would revolutionize the way LPs were played; it would eliminate all the distortion and the wear associated with needle-in-groove mechanical playback. Sounds like a great idea, eh? And one that might have kept the LP technology alive. Only trouble was, the thing cost $15,000. It is still being manufactured and the price is now a bit lower, but not by much. Prices CAN'T come down unless huge numbers of units are purchased at the initial high market price. For the Laser LP player, this never happened. I think THIS is much closer to the DLP vs film analogy. You have a technology that is so expensive that it has no chance of substantially coming down. And when you play an LP with the laser system, you are still hearing an LP -- nothing spectacularly better than what you had....much like DLP -- you get nothing spectacularly better than what film technology already gives you.

Unless something radically changes in either the quality of what DLP can deliver, say IMAX quality and size images, or the economic model changes, DLP is not inevitable nor is the demise of 35mm film.

Frank
 

I seriously doubt if image quality is the REAL reason why the format is stagnating right now. The sad fact is that images from today's digital systems would probably be an improvement over what's being offered in most cinemas today.

I'm not saying that digital is in fact better. I'm saying that a lot of cinemas aren't fulfilling the promise of 35mm film.

Digital Cinema today: "Better than Film Done Wrong."

IMHO, "Digital Done Right" is NOT a "gimme", and will be subject to the same cost-cutting pressures that hurt film presentation today.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

SHINY, ALUMINUM, PLASTIC, AND DIGITAL
by Negativland

Reproduction of this essay is strongly encouraged.

So, why is that new "Oasis" CD so expensive?

In the early eighties, sales of vinyl, cassettes, turntables and cassette players were "flat". This means that sales were stable, not rising or falling. For the makers of all this hardware and software, that wasn't quite good enough. They needed a new angle. A new way to sell music and the stuff you play it on. Luckily, someone at the Phillips Corporation (owner of PolyGram Music and Island Records and one of the worlds top defense contractors) had the bright idea that it would be good for their stockholders and investors if they could get the music consuming public excited about buying music again by introducing a new format and a new machine to play it on (i.e. how can you convince that aging baby boomer to buy yet another copy of DEJA VU by Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young when they already have one?)

Thus was born THE COMPACT DISC in all it's shiny, aluminum, plastic and digital glory. It's maximum playing time, about 75 minutes, was chosen because the president of the company wanted something that could play his favorite piece of music, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, all the way through without stopping.

Well, compact discs weren't as successful as they had hoped. For one thing, their price was too high. The higher price was blamed both on the fact that they were mostly being made in Japan and that they had a high defect rate, with approximately one out of every three discs being tossed out before even leaving the CD factory. Early on, the economics of this led to an industry wide decision to continue paying recording artists a royalty rate based on the sale price of vinyl instead of the higher sale price of compact discs. And nobody was buying those new CD players either, because they were just too darned expensive.

But then, in the spring of 1989, something wonderful happened for the music industry. Everything changed! Almost overnight, CD's were everywhere! Suddenly they were a huge success and suddenly it became almost impossible to get anything on vinyl at all..

This change must have occurred because it was what the consumer wanted.....right? We live in a market-driven economy and the market was demanding more compact discs.....right?

Wrong. What actually happened was this - a flexible return policy had always existed between record stores and the seven major distributors, i.e. stores could "buy" something from a distributor, and if it didn't sell, they could return it. This allowed stores to take more chances on new releases or on things they were not so familiar with, because if it didn't sell, they could always send it back. Well, in the spring of 1989 all seven major label distributors announced that they would no longer accept "returns" on vinyl and they also began deleting much of the vinyl versions of their back catalog. These actions literally forced record stores to stop carrying vinyl. They could not afford the financial risk of carrying those releases that were on vinyl because if they didn't sell they would be stuck with them. Very quickly almost all record stores had to convert to CD's. The net effect of this was that the consumer no longer had a choice because the choice had been made for us. High priced compact discs were being shoved down our throats, whether we knew it or liked it or not.

As we mentioned earlier, record labels were paying artists a royalty rate on sales of CD's based upon the $8.98 or $9.98 list price of vinyl (or achieved the same end result by using contractual tricks like "packaging deductions"). As CD's took over and the majors all acquired their own domestic CD pressing plants and the defect rate dropped to almost zero, the cost of manufacturing compact discs dropped dramatically as well. One would have expected the price of CD's to also drop and for the profits to now be split evenly and fairly with the musicians who were making all the music.

This, of course, never happened. CD prices have continued to rise to a now unbelievable $16.98 list price (soon to be $17.98!) while manufacturing costs have now dropped to less than it costs to manufacture a $9.98 vinyl release. A CD, with its plastic jewel box, printed booklet and tray card now costs a major label about 80 cents each to make (or less) and a small independent label between $1.50 and $2.50. Meaning that CD's should now cost the consumer less than their original prices over a decade ago, not more. But the music business got consumers used to the idea of paying the higher price and the labels got used to the idea of their higher profit margin, and record labels continue to this day to pay almost all artists a royalty rate as if they're selling CD's for the list price of vinyl. That extra 4 or 5 or 6 bucks goes right into the pockets of the record labels. It is not shared with musicians. And of course, we all had to go out and buy a CD player (which had mysteriously dropped to a more reasonable price) if we wanted to hear any of the music on this "popular" new format. So, all in all, it's no wonder that the record industry and stereo manufacturers loved the compact disc. In fact the following year (when our economy was in a recession) the music industry had its biggest profits, ever!

If any of this bothers you as much as it does us, then you might be wondering why you've never heard about any of this or why no anti-trust action was ever taken against major labels and distributors. The answer to this is quite simple. Most of the reporting on the inner workings of the record business comes from the music press and the music press is almost totally reliant on the advertising dollars and good will of the business that they're writing about. So, in the interest of not wanting to "rock the boat" or anger the folks who essentially bankroll their publishing ventures, this story would, and will continue to remain, unreported. And with the coming "popularity" of DVD, the music industry looks like it is ready to try the same tricks all over again.

---------
And the link: http://www.negativland.com/minidis.html

Perhaps the distributors will try some sort of trickery to force theaters to convert to DLP, which would only save them money. Unless of course more and more exhibitors refuse people like Mr. Lucas's product, especially now sice they've learned their lesson... twice...

=TMP=
 

When you come down to it, IMHO only about 5 percent of the audience even notices the clarity of film to digital.

Economics keep film in the booth right now. It is a matter of a few short years before someone starts selling inexpensive systems and owners start deciding to cut costs.

Here is hoping that film wins.

Dave
 

Why pay the money to make film prints when there are next to no theaters to show it? Most porn is "direct to video" --made for TV only viewing (where everyone can sneak a peak at that raunchy stuff without risking being seen in public walking into a porn palace with the raincoat crowd).

With porn being a TV-only medium, the use between film and videotape becomes a simple balance of visual style versus budget. It is a lot cheaper to shoot some hardcore crap on a 3CCD MiniDV camera than go rent a bunch of film gear.

I'm not sure about the numbers, but I think the last figure I saw claimed North America had about 30,000 commercial movie theater screens. That is a large, installed market with enough influence to keep directors and cinematographers shooting on film.

Then look at regular broadcast television. Most TV series are shot on film rather than videotaped (particularly the serious dramas and action oriented series). The vast majority of large national TV ad campaigns have their commericals filmed rather than taped. Why? Film just looks better. It doesn't have that dry, pasty 6 o'clock news / soap opera / infomercial look to it.

To address the vinyl LP versus CD analogy about digital videotape versus film, there is a big difference in the analogy. While quality differences between LP and CD are argumentative (I think CD definitely sounds better, but LPs had much better artwork), there is no argument that digital videotape just doesn't capture anywhere near as good a quality image as 35mm film. Video isn't nearly as sharp and it does not have the color character of film either. And over-hyped digital projection systems like DLP carry bareful half the detail of a standard 1080i HDTV image, and far less detail than film.

When digital video systems can up their resolution and improve color handling to a degree to match 35mm film at its best possibilities, then video can rightfully kick film out of commercial theaters. Right now, digital just doesn't meet that challenge. All those R&D guys just have to keep working on it.
 

Well, not to be a jerk, but if everyone who's supposed to be following these procedures treats the process as a joke, then who's fault is it if their presentation isn't as good as it could be? I mean, at some point the individuals have to take some responsibility for this stuff and treat it seriously instead of a corporate joke. Or maybe I'm just naive.

[Disclaimer: The above observation comes from someone who's never worked in a booth. ]

I didn't mind the paperwork and the corporate statements. I took them seriously and I thought they were a good thing; and there were a few others at that location who believed in the AMC Vision and Mission Statement. Unfortunately, I think we were in the minority. Our cinema was an 8-plex and I think they keep it open because it is a good training theatre for managers. We saw them come in green and leave as "experts." The point is that we weren't one of the gigaplexes where everyone is a number. We were small enough where the employees were very much a family...and we knew quite a number of our patrons, too.

Having actually been there, I wouldn't blame the employees for regarding policies as "corporate jokes" because the management is allowed to override those well-intentioned policies. I was there and I saw it day in/day out.

It's a sad statement when an operation runs most smoothly when the manager isn't around.

They sure did chase that APSH*...are they still doing that?

~Manny (the only one you need.)

*APSH = "Attendance Per Staff Hour." Theoretically, an AMC Theatre is most efficient when there is 1 staff hour for every 19 guests. Something like that.

While I will agree that there is a perception in the marketplace that audio CDs are too expensive, the economic fact is that they are cheaper than vinyl was, if you calculate inflation.

I also don't buy your argument that the only reason audio CDs sold was because of the change in return policies on vinyl. I think that it is much more likely that when the record companies knew that vinyl wasn't selling anymore, they declared the vinyl versions out-of-print, which automatically made them non-returnable after a particular time period, usually several months.

Also, it is unrealistic to calculate that the price of CDs should be cheaper than vinyl solely because of manufacturing costs. Artist's advances and marketing costs have skyrocketed since the introduction of CDs. The need to produce million dollar videos for MTV has also played a large role in increasing costs.

Around 1964, a typical pop mono LP listed for $3.99 and a pop stereo LP listed for $4.99 and was generally sold at discount for $3.66. When the industry moved to single inventory in 1965, album prices moved to $4.99/$3.66. Based on the inflation rate, CDs should now list for about $27.15 and sell for about $19.91 to be equivalent to the 1965 price of vinyl. At J&R in New York, new releases generally sell for $12 to $14 and midline CDs sell for $7-$11. Personally, I think that being able to buy Dylan's double-LP Blonde on Blonde or Miles Davis' Kind of Blue for $7 on CD is an amazing value. (That's not to say that the record companies aren't repulsive for lots of other reasons.)

Concerning digital cinema, while this might be heresy on this Board, I have to admit that while I was prepared to really hate it, in the few instances that I've seen it, I was surprisingly impressed. It definitely looked better in terms of image steadiness and screen brightness than most neighborhood theatres in my area.

Unfortunately, most moviegoers don't have the slightest inkling what makes for good presentation and unless the film stops, they don't complain. I have stormed out of theatres complaining about screen channels missing, no audio in the surrounds, hum, incredible distortion, the digital processor doing some really strange things, dimness, and out-of-focus images. I have always been alone.

I have been in NYC theatres where the audience has booed when the Dolby, DTS or SDDS trailers played and it wasn't because the trailer wasn't their format of choice. From the audience perspective, it was silly and not relevant. And the average moviegoer has no idea whether a film is playing in 1.85 or 2.39. I saw Metropolis today and I would hope the audience noticed that it looked different than modern film dimensions, since it played in 1.33 (or maybe 1.37), but who knows?

As DLP technology moves more into the consumer market for computer presentation, costs will drop. And I think eventually, when the distributors see economic advantages to digital projection, they will have to co-fund the conversion. I don't think it's going to happen tomorrow. But I think almost any theatre that went into digital sound within the first three years of introduction will have digital presentation within ten years (although probably still not exclusively.)
 

Many of AMC's polices are well intentioned, but, as I said above, they are undermined by the company's overall lack of concern for presentation quality (or at least their unwillingness to provide the environment necessary for quality presentation).
 

I do lurk at various DVD forums a lot and could not fail to notice the nice things kids say about digital cinema. Several had said that it's about time Hollywood had come out with a system that "blows film away". Are they sincere or were they brainwashed by Uncle Georgie when he fed them a lot of BS about how superior digital cinema is compared to film when he gave them a second "BS" dose of "STAR WARS spiked with digital videoagraphy. To these kids, Georgie boy could not do anything wrong eccept Jar Jar Binks. How sad!

-Claude

But the current systems are a joke, and I am not the only person who thinks so. I work at a rather prominent Silicon Valley company, and heard comments from some of my coworkers who saw Star Wars Episode II in DLP. You would think a bunch of tech-savvy engineers would be very hip on digital cinema, but after they actually saw it, they were stunned to find that it looked scarcely better than an average conference room LCD projector -- visible pixels and poor contrast!

If there were a digital cinema system available with 4K resolution, a 10,000:1 contrast range, and a color gamut as good or better than a dye-transfer print, I would say that would be fine. I would miss film, but I could live with it. Today's systems do not even come close to that ideal, and that's why I complain.

I know digital will replace film someday, but I don't want it to be before it's ready.
 

Something else: AMC certainly provided all of the tools you could want. From a purely mechanical standpoint, everything worked and was well maintained. There was nothing lacking from an equipment standpoint. I will always admit that.

Too bad the equipment alone was not enough to guarantee good presentation.

This was where I started to feel that maybe unions weren't as evil as I once thought they were. The idea of letting "anyone" run the booth was nuts.

-Claude

Although there is much co-mingling of production/distribution and exhibition with today's media giants, AFAIK, Sony no longer has a stake in US Exhibition. There are some current links between telcoms, internet providers, distribution, exhibition, etc. For example Disney/ABC, AOL/Time Warner, Anschultz/Regal, etc.

Some links:
http://www.anschutzinvestments.com/group/group.html
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr2002/nf20020429_6456.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2000/nf2000098_069.htm
http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/20-3/dmlp.html

Here's a link to "tongue in cheek" humor that is closer to reality than you may think:
http://www.flash.net/~pieper/features/pieper5.html

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Thanks for that VERY funny piece. The thing that makes it so hysterical is that as you read it, you can almost believe it is true!

Frank
 

If all those theatres were owned and operated by the studios, this wouldn't even be a debate -- they would figure the bottom line and simply reinvest in digtal projection because it will save them money (or so everyone seems to keep saying). Unfortunately for TI and Huges, they don't own the theatres. The exhibitors who do will not save money by reinvesting but instead loose megabucks worth of the obsoleted 35mm hardware that they already own. It's an economic model that simply makes no sense and it will not work unless it is radically changed, but has anyone heard ANY discussion from the studios that THEY would invest in D-C? Has George Lucas told exhibitors that, hey, buy a DLP for my next 3 SW Episodes the percentage for your DLP screens will open at 30/70 instead of 90/10 and scale down from there with the 35mm screens getting the usual straight 90/10?. They all clammor about how much they want D-C, but no one is stepping up to the plate to absorb the cost. To think exhibition will do this out of the generosity of its heart for a technology that is not backward compatible and does not protect their existing hardware investment is, well, as ludicrous as it sounds and even a high school kid taking Economics 101 can see it is an unworkable model.

This debate has nothing to do with the quality of the digtal image -- we who are concerned about presentation have debated that long and fierce, but as Disney's Phil Barlow said, digital, even at this stage is "good enough" for him. So forget about whether it looks as good as film or not -- that's not what has stopped this technology in its tracks; it is the economics -- as they say, follow the money trail.

Frank
 

Yesterday, August 20, Front Page: Vivendi seeks to unload its Universal unit

...And Today, August 21: Cable chief makes plans for Universal

You'd think Dreamworks would be the first to jump on it...
=TMP=

Well a recent article in Boxoffice belies this. The article interviewed several smaller independent exhibitors, myself included. One of the topics was film terms. All of the exhibitors agreed that we would play more films on the break if the play time wasn't so extensive (4 or more weeks minimum for popular films). That's just too long for a small town, especially one with a single screen. We can go two weeks, or three with a blockbuster, but that's it. We only have 5,000 people to draw from, and half of those live 35 miles away.

The studio's explanation is that they want to maintain screen count during the critical first weeks, which is why they insist on those long playtimes.

My argument (which didn't make the article) is that there are several other small theaters within 150 miles of here that would be more than happy to use the film in week 2, 3, and 4 if we were only allowed to circuit. It's easy to get film to another town overnight. The screen count would stay the same. Their reaction is no, they want the same screen locked in for 4 weeks minimum. So we've passed on dozens of films.

So if that kind of criteria holds, the studios will still want those long deals and the smaller guys will still be stuck where we are now...4 or 5 weeks down the line. So there's another debunked digital selling point.
 

The movie industry is already stinking rotten for its product having a very short shelf life. With what they are saying in promoting DLP is essentially a film will just hit a bunch of screens at once and then quickly be gone (in even faster fashion than "Spiderman" or "Episode II"). It all sounds to me like the distributors are regarding theaters as nothing more than a quick pay-per-view venue shortly before the film hits DVD and pay-cable. Just what in the hell are they trying to do anyway?

If they want to force DLP on exhibitors so they can do the theatrical release in extremely fast and temporary fashion, I would have even more reason to just invest in a D-Theater DVHS HDTV deck and watch the movie on a widescreen TV. Hell, I would get a better picture there than I would in DLP! On top of that, if what they seem to intend in their marketing model holds true, I'd have a DVHS or HD-DVD of the film before all the marketing ink was completely dry on the movie theater one sheets!

Josh

=TMP=
NOTE: The woman in the photo montage on that page summarizes what exhibitors will go through in relation to DLP: 1. The technology is so bad it's funny. 2. Oh my gosh! It actually caught on!?! 3. So sad that film is dead to an inferior format.

As I've said before, "Film Done Right" ALREADY offers MUCH better quality than can be achieved in home digital theatres, and IMHO, "Digital Done Right" in theatres must do the same.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

That was an excellent link to a story that sums up how full of the RIAA really is in their rant that 70 million downloaders are criminals. The major labels' monopolistic control of the music industry, radio and concert sales and the bland nature of pop music today is why sales are decreasing --it is not over downloads. There's nothing decent to download.

The quality of movies is kind of slumping as well. Forecasts say this will be a record year on sales numbers (due in part to spidey and EP II sales). But really, Hollywood is just cranking out the same tired and needs to put out some fresh new things to get more people back into theaters a lot more often. Right now, you have a situation of many film fans just waiting a long time between would-be blockbusters for the next "Matrix," "Lord of the Rings" or "Star Wars" installment. The industry cannot survive on once in a while block busters alone. This is a basic thing which must be addressed well before doing other crap like replacing film projectors with lower quality video projectors.
 

Josh
 

=TMP=
 

Bottom line...cds are more economical and versitile.

If you are looking for "audiophile" quality, then vinyl is definately the way to go!

The most expensive audiophile sound systems on today's market are tube systems. And today's new vinyl prints are spotless! I have some new vinyl...and you should see just how spotless the printing/striking is!

Differences between tubes and transistors is even vs odd harmonic distortion.

The best way to see the difference yourself is to visit a a high-end audio store. Listen to a Sinatra (ie) vinyl recording through a excellent tube amp and then listen to it via cd/transistor. The Tube/Vinyl set up gives a warmth and ambivience that is definately missing on cd/transistor!

 

Film can and will be scratched in many theatres as long as the industry tolerates all the things that lead to such scratching, so perhaps they see digital as more idiot-proof. Also even if people have turntables, not many have them at work or in a car...

Is it cost or quality driving the entry of digital? Right now many people say digital can't measure up(haven't seen it myself yet). So it must be cost, with perhaps the eventual goal of quality exceeding film? Or maybe just cost with the eventual goal of landing somwhere in the ballpark so customers don't notice the difference? The ears that can tell the difference in vinyl aren't the same ears buying the majority of the releases on cd.
Anyway my opinion is you have two camps, the technical side driving the quality of digital and the money side driving the flexibility and cost savings of digital. Then you have the film guys saying neither side is currently near the finish line. But the question is, will they get there? And will one get there before the other, and the format goes wide because of the financial aspects before the quality aspects surpass film? And finally, if the quality flexibility and financial benefits all surpass film, will there still be people out there who have trouble accepting digital over film?

------------------
Mike
Drive-In Records
www.driveinrecords.com
 

You said; "Seems like the "film-techs" are more attached to film as a format, for quality reasons but also pre-nostalgia, kinda like vinyl junkies saw the writing on the wall but didn't want to let go, and were eventually forced to by the industry who switched for cost reasons."

You will find that us "film-techs" are not holding on to a vintage technology for nostalgia reasons. If you are thinking that you have seen some really great DVD's, and wonder why we are so attached to film, I wonder if you realize where that DVD came from? Film is a superior medium, by far and away. A standard 35mm film frame holds in comparison about 19 million parts to a high end digital frame holding about 2 million parts. Now you tell me, are we holding on or are you just not getting the picture???

You said; "Film can and will be scratched in many theatres as long as the industry tolerates all the things that lead to such scratching, so perhaps they see digital as more idiot-proof."

Sure it will be scratched. But digital technology is far from idiot proof. In fact, they need more attention then film projectors do. And from costlier technicians. It is not a plug it in and forget about it solution. The industry will tolerate anything as long as it makes money. If we all switch to digital, and those all have problems, they will tolerate that as well. If you don't want to see a scratched movie, then learn what theaters in your area DONT scratch them, and go there instead.

You said; "Is it cost or quality driving the entry of digital? Right now many people say digital can't measure up(haven't seen it myself yet). So it must be cost, with perhaps the eventual goal of quality exceeding film? Or maybe just cost with the eventual goal of landing somwhere in the ballpark so customers don't notice the difference?"

It is cost. The problem is cost will not really come that far down. You will not see millions of units flooding store shelves, as only 36 thousand screens exist in the USA. With multiple manufacturers, you will not get much in the way of supply and demand. Cost will remain prohibitive, and with digital formats constantly changing and trying to improve, what theater has the time to keep changing out equipment, and the money to do it? Film projectors have 50 plus years to them and all use the same superior format.

You said; "And finally, if the quality flexibility and financial benefits all surpass film, will there still be people out there who have trouble accepting digital over film?"

Hey, I will be the first one to rush out if the quality surpasses film, and the cost makes it worth it. When that happens, most of us will change. However, that is so far off it is fantasy dream world right now. By the time digital gets to 19 million parts, film will be to 25 million parts. We are talking 20 to 50 years from now, and even then, film may still not get surpassed. Once again, we are talking compatibility. There is one standard 35mm projection format, and many manufacturers of that equipment, all adhering to that format.

With Cd's, it took years before they settled on a format. It took years to settle on a DVD format. Those are consumer end products. Projection systemst are not. Cost and quality are paramount. It will take 50 years before a real comparison can be reached, and even then, it may not surpass.

Film is here to stay, at least in my lifetime. And I plan to live forever.

Dave

Dave, I do agree with you on much of what you said. The general tone of discussions I've read on film tech seems like a lot of people have serious problems with digital technology as it is and doubts about where it is heading in the near future. Perhaps they will embrace it when it is "ready". I do wonder how many people are rooting for it's success though.

Two friends of mine went seperately to Detroit to see Episode 2 in digital. One, who knows basically nothing about projection loved it and said it looked great. Another, who has run projection for over 20 years got there to find the equipment was not working and shows were cancelled. So there you go.

I should probably say where I stand on it. I'd hate to see film replaced as a format. If it were replaced by a format that is higher quality, easier to operate/more idiot-proof, easier to deliver and cheaper, I think this would be a big consolation and even something to embrace, but embracing it wouldn't make me feel better about film disappearing. I feel the same way about vinyl, I didn't like to see it go, and I do my part to make sure it's still available on my own releases whenever I can afford it. But having said that I buy a lot of discs, way more than vinyl, because of the convenience of being able to play them at work or in the car, or just end to end without flipping sides. CD does have many advantages over vinyl, just as I imagine digital may eventually have advantages over film.

One thing though, you say film is here to stay, and in some ways I agree, but I also see digital becoming more dominant or even THE dominant format in both of our lifetimes. And who knows, maybe we'll be around long enough to see both cds and digital replaced by the next big thing.

Oh one more thing, I realize I tended to generalize in my previous posts about other people's opinions, and I probably shouldn't do that.

------------------
Mike
Drive-In Records
www.driveinrecords.com
 

Computers are tricky. They require too much electrical stimulation to operate properly. Film is a lot more easy, just a bunch of chemicals. And if you shake film, drop it, whatever, it doesn't have its hard drive erased.

If it worked, I would embrace it. I think most people here would. But it definately does not do what the manufacturer promises. True, most consumers don't notice the difference. They are not trained to. So cost becomes the major issue. And since this is not a consumer product, the cost will not dramatically decrease anytime soon. Studio TV production video cameras routinely cost 50 grand and above, no matter what. they are not consumer end, so the price does not go down, as there will be no mass production to drive the price down.

So film is definately here to stay. The only way that digital projection could win out is if someone provided the projectors free of charge, in lieu of a few minutes of commmercials at the start of the show. But consider the cost. with total conversion costing about 150 thousand per screen, and 36 thousand screens, you are talking about a $5.4 billion dollar switch out. The industry only takes in about 8 to 9 billion per year. Sometimes we get lucky and pull about 11 billion. Even if the prices were cut by three, thats still more than the amount of profit made in a two year period. This industry is a very low profit margin industry, especially at the theater level, where the equipment change would have to take place.

Banks would not finance this change, because the cost savings on booth personel would not be realized, as expensive techs would have to be hired and trained. Hey, I am all for it, I would have a real high paying job. So would all these people. But the cost shows a no go on the idea.

It would have to be cheap as hell, and only have to be done once. Thats the problem, theaters don't want to install anything that is costly, hard to repair, and has a lifespan of three years or less, before it no longer works or is outdated. Machinery always outlasts technology.

So thats where I stand at least. I think you have a pretty good grasp on the problem, and make a pretty good point on technology vs. nostalgia. The people here do hold on pretty tight to film, but they do have very good reason.

Dave
 

I'm in that camp as well. We may disagree on whether digital will enter the theatres in any significant way but I think we agree that everyone in the technical side should be vigilant and expect a better presentation if it does. Right now film is better so we all hang on to it, for very good reason.

------------------
Mike
Drive-In Records
www.driveinrecords.com