Also, I don't see why he "conceded" that digital cinema will make it easier for independent filmmakers to get into theaters. If the systems that get installed are closed, network-only boxes, like the systems Technicolor introduced last year, it will have the opposite effect. Digital being a boon to indies is not in any way guaranteed.

Who will pay for this?

So you have $10000.00 install cost plus higher returns plus the added cost of more security, more managers & more soundproofing.

I can see we are going to be making money hand over fist.

DVD has a standard, and a new blue laser standard coming this year, BUT... how many manufacturers of DVD players are there? Anyone can produce a DVD and sell it, rent it.. whatever...

ALSO...

We have a standard of film presentation... 24 fps... BUT... how many manufacturers of projectors do we have?? Many... If you can afford to make the print, advertise it, you can show it...

ALSO...

Not all digital projection systems are alike... I have been poking around.. there are, as I have found now, more than a dozen manufacturers of theater quality digital projection systems. NOt all are based on the same technology, and as an open economy as we have allows for extreme competition in technology, the systems will not conform to any said technology for many years to come.

WHEN a specified format technology comes along, rules will also come with it!!! Much like CD players, DVD players, VHS players, they will have to be able to accept ANY properly formatted source material.

THIS means that access by independant films will be great, and the studios stranglehold on the industry will start to wain.... slowly but for sure.

Dave
 

How many people outside of our industry know that our film is made of a rather strong and obstinent polyester base? Try to explain that to the common man, or a theater owner (not you ian or ky), and he thinks you are talking about his plaid shirt with the liqour stain on it.

Dave
 

Why will digital be a benefit to the independents? Because they can finally afford to make a good movie with a small amount of money. So, why would Roger Ebert be opposed to digital cinema? It will allow smaller, more diverse storytellers to present their work. It will stop Hollywood pencil-pushers from controling "art" and why wouldn't Ebert be completely elated about that?

A few years ago there was a movie called In the Company of Men which got a lot of praise from critics (and maybe Ebert was among them). It was shot on film but a cinematographer I know called the film's technical quality "an insult" to his profession. So... how can critics like Roger Ebert praise "film done wrong" by the independents and automatically proclaim digital as a bad thing? "Digital Done Right" is a great thing... and depending on the project it can be the correct format to choose.

The Maxivision idea will never fly in mainstream theatres... and Hollywood heavyweights will never film anything that way, period. It's hard to believe Ebert is still talking about it. Ebert also has some crazy idea that electronic images create a hypnotic effect on the audience and film images do not (...something to do with flicker rates). So, in these ShoWest accounts, it seems he wants Hollywood to do scientific studies about this.

Ebert believes that the only way to get quality projection is to revive the days of the full-time, fully-unionized projectionist industry. Again, he's dreaming. He should keep encouraging theatres to give us top-quality film presentations, but his insistence on union control only encourages the big exhibitors not to listen. The big exhibitors can't see a crisis so they're not really itching to invite the unions back into their multiplexes when they can get by with teenagers.

Meanwhile, this "sky is falling" attitude towards digital isn't necessary. The Hollywood infrastructure is slow to change. I predict that by the time Roger Ebert retires we'll still see 80% of movies shot on film and we'll still see 75% of theatres showing film... and I'm probably wrong. The digital numbers will probably be even lower than I think.

Digital for independents is, IMHO, a double-edged sword. It certainly reduces the cost of distribution and has the potential to increase flexibility. But there is the problem Aaron pointed out, namely the big players trying to squeeze independents out right from the start, and also the issue of equipment.

Many independent theatres are using projection and sound equipment which is decades old but which is still reliable and relatively cheap to maintain. With digital they'd have to make a big capital investment up front, and keep upgrading their kit regularly. With film, improvements in image quality are delivered through the film itself. Today's print stock looks sharper and less grainy than the stuff being used 10 years ago, yet no equipment upgrade is required to project it.

With digital you'd have to spend far more money on equipment upgrades. If you look at broadcast video 10 years ago we were using UMatic and 1" 'C' format, whilst S-VHS decks cost four figures. A signal played from one of these sources through a 1992 video projector would look pretty bad compared to a mid-range DVD player and even quite a cheap LCD projector today. With digital cinema you'd have to go on upgrading all the time, and the exhibitor would have to pay.

This isn't going to affect the big chains so much because they'll just set aside $X million every five years for new kit, figuring that they'll get this back in the form of lower staff and shipping costs. But will the independents be able to absorb these costs?

Second, from a purely economic point of view, film is cheaper for small runs. A 35mm print can be made for $1-2k in small runs. Even a 16mm blowup can be made for $10-20k. Scanning a negative or intermediate element for DLP projection, however, costs $100-150k. The cost of scanning will make self-distribution of limited interest titles even more impossible than it already is.

will do nothing for the independent producer and will do much to strengthen the power of the major distributors, at least as far as I can tell...
 

Because if they don't, exhibitors won't agree to put the equipment in. This is oversimplistic and possibly untrue, but it's where the incentive would come from if it actually does happen.

--jhawk

It's the same principle as when I point out that my car has run out of petrol [gasoline], even though the actual substance I'm talking about is Diesel fuel.

I must check my Chambers' dictionary when I get home to see if both meanings are there...
 

1. a tough flammable thermoplastic composed of essentially of cellulose nitrate and camphor.

2. a motion-picture film

Webster's Thrid New International Dictionary also has a second
entry for the word:

1. of or relating to the motion pictures

I'm not saying the word is technically correct anymore, but due to usage, it is accepted as having the definition associated with movie film.

By the way, the article mentioned at the top does address things that bother me at the movies: too many cell phones, trailers giving away too much, etc. AMEN!

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

Ironically, the main theory behind Anschutz Companies taking over UA, Regal and Edwards is to have those 3 chains lead the transition to digital cinema.
 

The main reason at least here in the states.. is that it would be a violation of many federal statutes, not limited to rico, and also including the decades old agreement probiting studios and distributors from controlling what can play. If the studios want to go digital, they will have to accept that independants will get a piece of the playing time, and at the operators discretion..

dave
 

Celluloid [registered trade mark], sel-u-loid, n (with cap in US) a thermoplastic, made from nitrocellulose, camphor and alcohol which is elastic, very strong and often transparent or translucent (often shortened to cel or cell); a sheet of this material; cinematographic film generally; the world of film and cinema.
 

Anschutz may talk like they are going to drive UA, Regal and Edwards into leading the industry on converting to DLP, but I think all of their talk is just that: talk. And if they actually go through with it, the expense of those systems and their rapid depreciation rate of obsolescence will bring ruin upon those theater circuits.

Finally, it is fundamentally just plain stupid for any exhibitor to embrace a "digital projection" standard that is no better at all than a 1080i HDTV broadcast. That's very very shaky, especially when the DLP systems are costing as much as 100 times more than a HDTV I can pick up at Sears for $2,000.
 

yet, JVC is said to introduce in 2002 4000x2000 DILA projectors..... fill factor is 95%+ ( pixels less visible than DLP). when I see a tweaked home theater DILA can reach 1300:1 REAL contrast ratio...

Also the new PANASONIC 9600 3DLP is stunning too.

One guy who is sad is Lucas : the qty of digital projection theaters in the US is much lower than thought...... his EP II will have to be transfered on film..... will it look good, since it's digitally shot ?........
 

I still disagree about d-cinema benefitting indies. The ones who pay to install it are the ones who get to decide how it goes. And if that ends up being the studios and distributors, they will see to it that they end up with more control, not less. Exhibitors can complain all they want, but unless they are the ones who are actually laying down the money, they will have no say.

I also wouldn't put too much faith in the federal government to prevent anti-trust violations. There is no way any politician will risk angering the media giants these days. They will willingly look the other way if studios and distributors start grabbing more control over theatrical exhibition.

I hope I'm wrong, but I just can't imagine for a second that these big businesses will simply sit back and allow independents to gain a foothold.

------------------
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
 

Also anyone selling DLP should be very careful about scoffing at home systems. The same DLP chips being put in cinema digital projectors are being used in flat panel monitors and even computer projection systems. I guarantee you that JVC will be directing any digital projection hardware they develop to the home and computer market as well. They would not be able to amortize the development cost realisitically at all if they had to stick exclusively with commercial cinemas. And that is the marketing rub against digital projection. Commercial theaters will have NO exclusivity on that level of technology. Disappointingly, just about every digital projection system put through serious development either uses the 1080i HDTV format (processed down to 24p) as a source or it goes through an even lower quality drop in sharpess (the 1280 X 1024 standard of TI's DLP).
 

Theatres have essentially 4 things to sell: Biggest picture, highest resolution, the shared viewing experience, and first run. I'm leaving sound off the list because the best home systems can probably equal or exceed all but the very best theatre systems.

Locking into an E-cinema standard that is no better (and possibly worse) than one can obtain at home is throwing away an important selling point.

When people can see the same picture on their home theatre setups and have it be identical to the theatre picture (and the the big screen advantage is partly made up by simply sitting closer--% of one's field of view etc.) then even more will choose to do so. Day & date pay-per-view experiments bombed in the past but theatre owners won't be laughing when there is a large enough universe of HD home theatres to feed. A monopoly on first run? Don't count on it. First run follow whatever business model brings the largest and fastest return

So what would that leave us? The communal viewing experience? Many of us treasure that but a huge percentage equate it with inconvenience, sticky floors, overpriced concessions and will bail at first opportunity. That only leaves teenagers who need to get out of the house.

This is not an argument against digital projection. It's an argument in favor of an Ultra Definition system for E-cinema. Something akin to 70mm projection. Theatre owners are entirely right to sit back and do nothing for the time being. Let the experiments continue but it would be a mistake to pour big bucks into the systems that are currently out there.
 

The rules would prohibit any studio from doing so, but not distributors, and as we have so little of them, I do not see ANY operator agreeing to lock themselves out of other pictures.

I do not believe that this will even become an issue anyway. By the time the quality becomes true and correct, the systems will be so far down in price that every operator will be able to afford them.

I also think that theater days are not limited. Home theaters do provide a wonderful viewing experience, and that gives me pause. The way for operators to stay viable is to utilize and exploit the communal experience, wether it be short performances or shows in place of previews, comedians, or contests and giveaways. You will not get that kind of fun sitting in front of a very sterile and potentially cancer causing lazer system

Dave
 

I don't have much of any problem with digital audio recording these days since bit rates and sample rates are so high in professional studios. They exceed what the best analog recording technology can do. But when it comes to actually playing rock music, I gladly defer to my trusty analog electric guitars and vacuum tube driven stack. It just sounds better. Transistors and DSP chips still can't quite create the same kind of natural sound a tube amp will provide.

35mm and 70mm film are analog technologies that still work great. And they are better than any form of digital right now.

The problem with the word "digital" is that too many morons out there equate "digital" with being "perfect". They do not realize there are good and bad forms of digital. They do not realize that certain digital formats are far inferior to certain analog counterparts. This digital=perfect crap has to stop already. I think that marketing phenomenon is allowing the digital projection sales people and fanboys to be lazy and not forcing them to develop an actual superior product.
 

So in order to save space and compresion for movies what is exactly missing that may be seen with normal projected film.
 

Kodak believes in "Digital Done Right" and is developing "superior products" with a systems approach:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/digital/reality.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/digital/system.shtml

------------------
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