This is topic DVD vs The CINEMA in forum The Afterlife 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=12;t=000077
Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 12-15-2001, 08:34 PM:
In New Zealand we are having a battle between the Parallel importing of DVDs and the Cinema Industry (film Distributors and Cinema Chains)there has been a Law in NZ that you are able to import from any country a supply of goods other than the one who might hold the licence for that in this country, so there have been some right Royal battles on court when this happens ,so this has come to a head when a High Court ruled that the film Distributors had the sole right to decide who could rent their films, so all Zone 1 DVDs have to come off the shelves until the release date of the Zone 4.
This is good if the films were released at the same time as in the US but this is not so and the film distributors in NZ have had a strangle hold on films in NZ since year dot. and have been able to drip feed films to release when it suited them and only to those cinemas that they wanted to, Now they are changing the Law so that there will be no parallel importing of DVDs full stop (apart for private importing)this returns the cinemas to the only place for the public to view New films (as the Video stores were kicking their butts with the Zone 1s)with the release of the X Box coming soon this is not going to slow down the hunger for what is available over the Net, being a cinema owner forced out because they would give to a Plex before a single screen (we had to wait 6mths for "Forrest Gump")I have a foot in each side , this will be good for second run Cinemas as they will be able to screen before the video release (as Now the zone 1 are some times screening before the cinema Release)and whos fault is that ,the prints that are coming to NZ are refurbished prints and these after they have done their runs in other countries and they say they only have enough for certain locations , on the DVD side ,I have a good set up at home that costs me and my family or friends $5:00 to watch the latest DVD in comfort and better presentation than some cinemas, what are your thoughts on this .
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-16-2001, 02:28 AM:
Okay, since I've heard it twice this week ...What the heck is an X box?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-16-2001, 02:29 AM:
XBox is the new slow-loading video game system from MicroSoft. It uses DVDs and all that to store game data on. The specs are pretty impressive, but the thing is nearly the size of a VCR.Available now for $300.
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 12-16-2001, 06:30 AM:
yeah i was woundering what an x box was as well.
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-16-2001, 08:51 PM:
The whole purpose of region coding on DVDs was to help enforce the regional release schedules of studios and film distributors. I'm surprised that NZ retailers were allowed by the distributors to sell non-region 4 DVDs at all.So you have a situation where people can see an R1 DVD of a film that hasn't had a NZ theatrical run yet. I can see where the theatre owners would be upset. But are the kind of people who buy R1 DVDs the kind of people that would go to a cinema? Probably not. They've probably set up fairly elaborate home theatres for themselves and are reasonably satified with the presentation quality that they get. Most of them feel that they can get a better technical presentation in their house than they do at the local cinema. Whether that's true or not, why do such people think that way? What does that say about the state of local cinema presentation?
Obviously there are great differences both technical and aesthetic between an at-home presentation and a theatrical one. These people, for whatever reason (and there are lots of reasons these days), have decided that they prefer the at-home variety. So, what's a theatre owner to do?
Of course DVD region coding was bound to fail. It hasn't and never will stop people from buying multi-region DVD playback capability, nor does it stop people from buying non-local region DVDs from overseas outlets. The distributors and the theatre owners have to hope that people who go to such lengths are a minority of the film-going public. Again, what's a theatre owner to do?
The distributor's halting of the retail sale of R1 DVDs in NZ is a first step, though it will be easily circumvented by a hopefully (to the distributors) small minority of viewers via overseas mailorder. Some other things the studios, distributors, and theatre owners could do:
- Shorten up or eliminate the delays in the theatrical releases of new films in NZ (or anywhere else for that matter).
- In the cinema, provide viewing conditions that anyone would recognize as superior to that which can be had in even the best home theatre. This goes well beyond merely "doing film right" though that by itself would be a big improvement in many cinemas. It means providing a clean, comfortable and safe film viewing environment, including control of distracting audience behaviors.
Of course that means spending money and lots of it, on facilities, supplies, maintenance, and most importantly staff, both quantity and quality. Unfortunately, spending money seems to be an anathema amongst theatre owners world wide. I can understand that attitude to some extent when it comes from owners of small theatre operations; the big exhibitors have no excuse here, at least IMNSHO.
OK, I've shot my mouth off for the day... 
Paul
Back in 'Vegas for a bit
Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 12-17-2001, 12:23 AM:
To be honest the presentation has come a long way in NZ over the last decade , we have BIG screens with Dolby Digital , Armchair seating with arms that raise so you can cuddle up to (what ever)and with Plexs close to the suburbs and an estimated 1 million cost per screen , those renting in the Westfield Shopping Centres pay 100,000 per screen per year and thats just for 4 walls and nothing else , so I too would be up wall if the local Video shop was renting a release before I was able to screen it, but the law allowed then to and they took advantage of this , the biggest market is for Mutli zone DVD Players and these are marketed by retailers and with the arrival of PS2 and XBOX the market is huge for DVD and Zone 1 is the top of the List with NTSC and more features that Zone 4 PAL. also you are able to select from thousands of titles as opposed to 500 Zone 4,Home theatre is pushed all the way with WIDE Screen TVs and surround sound (you can buy a whole system ready to go quite cheap) for some people to pay $11 & $8 for a child can get quite expensive to take the family out to the movies , but as you say it will only be a small number that will carry on buying over the Net. and avoiding the cinema , for myself I still support the cinema but only selecting those cinemas who show they care about their presentation and their customers , I may have to travel past my local Plex , but I know I will be satisfied.
Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 12-17-2001, 10:13 AM:
quote:
Zone 1 is the top of the List with NTSC and more features that Zone 4 PAL
I take it you were referring mostly to the features and only mentioning the format as a sidenote. PAL is a superior format to NTSC, to about the same extent as Beta to VHS. NTSC ... "Never Twice the Same Color."
------------------
Tao Yue
MIT '04: Course VI-2, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Projectionist, MIT Lecture Series Committee
Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 12-17-2001, 03:56 PM:
Yes it was just the format as a side note ,Zone 1 seems to have more features ,wide or full screen and anamorphic (spellcheck) extra scenes ,optional endings etc. usually zone 4 is "modified to fit your screen" (yuk)and only coming releases not good if you have a Wide Screen TV or anamorphic Projector.
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-17-2001, 04:13 PM:
Like I say, now that the NZ distributors have bought themselves a little manoeuvering room by slowing down the import of R1 DVDs, they and the studios need to address their slowness in bringing new North American theatrical releases to NZ. I think that would satisfy most of the people who are now deserting the cinemas for home theatre.On the DVD front the NZ distributors are shooting themselves in the foot again by not offering the same "extras" as often included on R1 discs. The stuff is already authored--all that needs to be done is re-encode it to 625x50i (video source) or 625x50p (film source). The most often quoted reason I've heard for not including extras in non-R1 discs is the added cost, though once in a while there are rights issues. Again, by not wanting to spend the money, it looks like the distributors are their own worst enemies. I believe fully-featured R4 discs would again satisfy most customers and therefore blunt much of the demand for R1 discs and multi-region players. The increased vertical resolution of 625x50 i or p as noted by Tao Yue is already an added incentive.
Of course the studios could take a lession from Jackie Chan and Hong Kong and code their DVD releases for all regions... Nah, never happen. Time for me to wake up now.
Cheers!
Paul
NTSC-- Never The Same Color or NTSC2 -- Never The Same Color Twice
PAL -- Problems Are Lurking
SECAM -- "Not compatible with anything else in the world because we are French."
Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 12-18-2001, 01:11 AM:
Cost maybe the factor as Zone 4 Discs cost $35 and a Zone 1 from $60 up , but people don't seem to mind the difference because most are set up for Wide Screen presentation , while the 4s seem to think people will like Pan & Scan (Yuk).
Posted by James Keel (Member # 835) on 12-29-2001, 01:55 AM:
I live in an apartment, and with my modest Dolby/DTS 5.1 setup and 35inch TV, I am, sad to say, skipping the theater and just waiting for the DVD. Only event movies like Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter have got me out of the house for a flick. 3 years ago I was in a theater at LEAST once a week.But here in Dallas, they tore down our best theater. And the two "best" UA's are on the downslide. And newer theaters than that are just horrible, no THX, no GIANT screens. I saw LOTR in an AMC that is a little more than one year old, and the center channel sounded like it was coming through a grammaphone. Sad sad....
JK
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-29-2001, 03:08 AM:
I know that they tore down the mighty Northpark, and that is sad. But which are the two "best" UA's and why do they seem to be on the downslide? How did they used to be good and what seems to have happened to make them not as good as they used to be?
Posted by Arthur Allen (Member # 969) on 01-02-2002, 08:22 PM:
An added benefit of NTSC is a frame rate more closely resembling 24fps, rather than speeded up 25fps.
Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 01-03-2002, 08:24 AM:
Arthur, am I misunderstanding you? NTSC Video rate is 29.97... frames per second, making it somewhat of a pain to think about video to film (or film to video) transfers for production and editing purposes. The PAL standard is 25 fps, and where the PAL video standard is employed (at least in Europe)film also runs at 25 fps. The 25fps makes more logistical sense to me.
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 01-03-2002, 09:29 AM:
quote:
Arthur, am I misunderstanding you? NTSC Video rate is 29.97... frames per second, making it somewhat of a pain to think about video to film (or film to video) transfers for production and editing purposes. The PAL standard is 25 fps, and where the PAL video standard is employed (at least in Europe)film also runs at 25 fps. The 25fps makes more logistical sense to me.
3:2 pulldown is used for NTSC 60 fields per second. Put the first frame on the first 3 fields, the second frame on the next 2 fields, the third on the next three, the fourth on the next 2, and so on. It works out to 24 fps. 60 / 2.5 = 24 .
------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site
Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 01-03-2002, 10:45 AM:
I should have been more specific. Things get most confusing when you are working in different media on the sa,e project. For example, a film I was assisting on was shot on 16mm, and was intended to be released on 16mm. The picture was edited on a flatbed, but the sound was edited digitally on a computer, thus bringing timecode into the picture. The sound was edited to a beta transfer of the edited workprint. I can't remember exactly how it worked, as the different timecodes still confuse me, but I think we had to use 29.97 dropframe timecode so that the sound would sync perfectly with the 24fps print. If the film was shot at 25 fps, and we had the option of using 25fps video, everything would have been much simpler. That is one of the reasons why many producers shooting DV for film prefer to use PAL format production equipment. It simplifies a good deal of post-production logistics.