Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Digital Projection

This is topic 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=007363

Posted by Jamie Glossop (Member # 2180) on 07-30-2005, 05:55 AM:

Hey all, I dont know if this is the right place to post this,

But i came across this webpage http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4724335.stm

The cost of distributing each film will be cut by 75% because studios can send their films to cinemas by satellite, fibre optic cable or disc, instead of truck.

I think that whould make it easier for the projectionist, I like the old way with a 35mm film, Makes it more work and more enjoyable,

What do you people think of it?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-30-2005, 07:13 AM:

Not much.

Posted by Jamie Glossop (Member # 2180) on 07-30-2005, 07:16 AM:

I didnt see that thread, Thanks for posting the linl [Smile]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-30-2005, 11:15 AM:

You probably want to do a search of this forum. This is a very hot topic that's been discussed extensively.

Bringing the movie that you see in a theatre from inception to the local multiplex screen is a very elaborate process encompassing many different segments of the industry, indeed many different industries, including production, distribution, marketing and exhibition. Each have multiple segments and subindustries within them that are involved in this extremely complicated process, and each have their own economic models to deal with. To pick one single element of the many-link chain and think that it can be changed without affecting all the others, many not at all in a positive way, is simplistic. You will find many members of this forum have pointed out here, that it is a downright foolish assumption.

For example, the issue of money being saved in transporting 35mm film has never EVER been an economic bottle-neck. Practically speaking, it has never been a cost that has stopped even the smallest independent film from being produced and distributed. In the overall budget of a feature film, catering meals cost more than it costs for making and shipping prints. Sure it is always nice to save money, but in terms of real costs, distribution of prints is pennies on the dollar.

And anyone who thinks that eliminating print distribution will make image distribution free, is a fool. Distributing video is never free, especially if the goal is matching the quality of the image that is possible when it's distributed on film. Creating hi-resolution video images from the original source isn't free, in fact it is VERY expensive. Distribution video isn't free; bandwidth, satellite transmission none is free; maintaining the video distribution system and its display hardware isn't free, and in the end may actually cost more than it cost to make and distribute film prints. Retrofitting entire segments of an entire industry doesn't come free. And when something isn't free, the singular issue becomes who's going to pay for it....a very serious matter that has to be answered FIRST before getting to the last stage of off-the-top-of-one's head idea of "gee, you could save money if you didn't have to make prints."

Search this forum to find a LOT more on the subject, especially on image quality or lack thereof of video vs. film.