quote:

---

Gauntlet Features - The end of the reel

Examining the digitalization of film

Story by: Ryan Pike, Entertainment Editor and Jordyn Marcellus, E&P Editor
Story date: Thursday, March 27, 2008

Film is the magic medium. It's an art form limited only by the creator's imagination. It's a fusion of painting, photography, theatre, music and writing. Film can bring delight to children and melancholy to adults. Ever since the earliest Lumiere films scared audiences with the first moving images of a train looming into the screen, the idea of making films for a living has been the premiere aspiration for millions of starry-eyed creative types the world over.

With our culture's digitalization, film has been rapidly upgrading and becoming more and more based on the computer. From Tron's primitive graphics, to the fully computer-generated Jar Jar Binks in the Star Wars prequel trilogy, there has been tremendous growth in the way film is made over 20 years. Through that time, there's been a single constant: when the movie ships to theatres for projection, it's printed on 35mm film.

"Thirty-five millimetre has been the commercial industry standard since 1914," says University of Calgary associate professor of film studies Charles Tepperman. "What that means is that, if you want to watch something, you need to watch it on 35mm. You don't expect that a format like that will be stable forever-most people tend to agree that digital projection and filmmaking will eventually replace 35mm."

The changing of the guard has begun in Calgary as multiplexes like the Sunridge Spectrum and Scotiabank Chinook are gearing up for the wave of the future: digital projection. Digital projection is the logical continuation of the movement to digital video and high definition video formats. With the Big Mouse in Hollywood handling the big push for digital projection, it's no surprise that it is being brought from the cutting edge to the mainstream.

"Disney-in their infinite wisdom-released Hannah Montana 3D and it was a monstrous success reaching $30 million on opening weekend with just a handful of screens," explains Leonard Binning, president of the Motion Picture Theatre Association of Alberta. "Unfortunately, it did not play anywhere where there was not 3D [digital projection], so they really pushed and forced for it. It's not that every one of Cineplex's theatres are making every one of their screens digital. [Cineplex is] moving to it, as is the industry."

Although Disney is fiercely lobbying for the movement to digital projection for the implementation of 3D filmmaking, it won't be a sudden changeover to the new format, according to Binning.

"Honestly, we're probably three-to-five years away from total conversion," says Binning. "It's a huge, huge undertaking, but if we want to talk about quality, it's fantastic. Especially the three-dimensional stuff-that could redefine how people go to the movies again."

Binning argues that the one fundamental problem of modern cinema houses-the unprepared 15-year-old projectionist-can cause previously gorgeous film prints to become muddled, scratched-up messes after its second showing. Digital projection's greatest strength, then, is a crystal-clear image quality every time, regardless of who's in the booth.

"The upside to digital projection is perfect presentation every time," explains Binning.

"Whether you see No Country for Old Men on opening night or six months later, it's going to be crystal clear, as good-possibly better-than 35mm. Right now there are detractors that say digital's not as good. That was largely true until about a year ago. Digital is now every bit as good and, if you move into the 4k system, it's probably better than 35mm."

If people believe 3D filmmaking and consistently perfect image quality would help change the viewing experience entirely, as Binning argues, there's still one issue: what about theatres whose finances wouldn't allow them to show a film in 3D? Places like the Uptown and the Plaza in Calgary, which are independently owned and operated, may not be able to compete with the juggernaut theatres whose finances allow them to recoup the expensive costs of converting to digital.

"You could probably outfit a traditional projector booth for $50,000�$60,000 if you're a good shopper," says Binning. "[For digital projection] you're looking at probably a minimum of $100,000 per booth-and that's if you aren't replacing the [cinema's] screen. The cost is almost double. Costs are much higher, not just the up-front cost, but the maintenance. The replacement bulbs for the projectors are rumoured to be about double. Upkeep is rumoured to be almost double. If you were spending a couple thousand a year in [general] maintenance, that's probably going to be $4,000�$5,000 a year."

These higher costs will help to drain the already-shallow coffers of small or independent theatres. NUTV executive director Michelle Wong drives the point home by discussing a classic Calgary arthouse cinema: Kensington's Plaza Theatre.

"Looking at the Plaza, for them to upgrade to digital equipment that's going to take a huge pipeline of information off an FTP site and then projecting it, that's where the real challenge is going to be," notes Wong. "Where are they going to get the money to improve their equipment to basically broadcast productions?"

While people may not necessarily spend their time thinking about theatres like the Plaza, Tepperman shares an interesting anecdote that relates back to our own university-with troubling implications for theatres.

"Here on campus, we had to mothball the old 35mm projectors last summer because they were too expensive to maintain," says Tepperman. "[But], places like the Plaza have a commitment to showing old 35mm film and old films that are on the classic stock."

For years, Canadian filmmakers have struggled to get their films played in the big multiplex theatres. With digital projection, Wong suggests that the movement to digital will not only hurt the smaller theatres, but also the independent filmmakers whose movies are shown there.

"Where is Canadian cinema shown but in independent Canadian cinemas?" asks Wong. "The impact is more in exhibition down the line than in production. I don't know whether independent filmmakers will feel the negative impact as much as exhibitors would. If they can't do the upgrade and if their productions can't compete quality-wise with mainstream cinema, then maybe they won't have as many audiences as mainstream theatres."

Digital filmmaking also creates a huge disparity between what theatres can play. All-digital theatres may have an additional problem presenting classic films in their original format.

"One of the things that film exhibition as a standardized practice has insured is that even if an independent film isn't being distributed through mainstream avenues it would still be on the right format to be shown in a theatre," says Tepperman. "Could old films like Lawrence of Arabia still be shown in [all-digital] theatres, even though you can only get film prints of it?"

As well, increased maintenance costs will likely further inflate ticket prices. From the days of $5 matinees, to the age of $12 tickets, theatres are charging audiences an arm and a leg for the opportunity to see a flick. If it costs so much more for theatres to switch to this new format, what does that mean for the average consumer?

"Costs go up and I'm hoping that we don't pass all of that on to the moviegoer," Binning says. "What I'm hoping we'll see is perhaps-through the offering of a greater variety of product, the knowledge that the presentation is always going to be perfect, the 3D and novelty factor-attendance will start to increase again. Attendance at movie theatres has been fairly flat and maybe even slightly declining for a number of reasons. I think this is looked to as saviour in putting more bums in the seats."

Despite all the economics, filmmaking is at its core an art. When it comes to filmmakers' aesthetic choices, there's always a worry about the way the film looks. As a visual medium, light and colour are vital components to film. DV and HD video filmmaking technologies-the precursor to digital projection, which have been around for years-have specific disadvantages, explains Alberta Media Arts Alliance Society vice president Melody Jacobson.

"There are qualities that you'll see when you're watching film that get flattened out when you see them digitally," says Jacobson. "That's why watching films on film[stock] is so special. The quality of the light and the depth of the image on film is different than on digital-for example, colours will often look more natural on film."

Wong further elaborates on the technical aspects of Jacobson's argument.

"We're taking about range and latitude of colour," she explains. "When you take a picture with film stock, you're going to get a high-resolution picture with black-blacks and white-whites. In regard to colour, you're going to get a broad latitude, but with digital video, the latitude may be half as much."

While digital has its advantages, Jacobson notes that film has a much closer biological analogue than digital video formats.

"Film is more natural to the way that we see and our eyes," says Jacobson. "Digital [video] oftentimes makes what the audience is watching look hyper-realistic. Our brains process images like film and that makes it easier to get pulled into the story and screen than when it's a digitally shot film. With digital, it always feels like there's something between, you, the viewer, and the image on screen."

Beyond the natural look of film, digital reproductions actually contain less information than their film original and shooting digital originally to avoid conversion is an expensive option, Wong adds.

"Converting the film into HD or a digital file, it only contains a portion of that information in the filmstrip," she explains. "When you're shooting in digital and they're talking about 1080i-which is the upper realm of its resolution-to function in a total HD realm is quite expensive because you're talking about terabytes of data as opposed to the ease of buying 400 feet of 16mm or 1000 feet of 35mm."

At the end of the day, audiences will determine if digital projection supplants the old stalwart of 35mm or is relegated to novelty pictures like the old Smell-o-Vision films of the 1950s.

"There are some test markets in the [U.S.] where there are two competing theatres across the street from each other in the same market where one has digital and one doesn't have digital," says Binning. "Three-to-six months, there's a blip in attendance. Thereafter, the dust settles and the numbers settle out again. It's not like people go, 'wow, I'm going to digital, it saved the world.' At the end of the day, Hollywood still has to put out a good product. Even if it looks good on the screen, if it's crap, people are not going."

-end of story-

-image follows-

---

quote:

---

Right now there are detractors that say digital's not as good. That was largely true until about a year ago.

---

quote:

---

"Whether you see No Country for Old Men on opening night or six months later, it's going to be crystal clear, as good-possibly better-than 35mm. Right now there are detractors that say digital's not as good. That was largely true until about a year ago. Digital is now every bit as good and, if you move into the 4k system, it's probably better than 35mm."

---

quote:

---

"Disney-in their infinite wisdom-released Hannah Montana 3D and it was a monstrous success reaching $30 million on opening weekend with just a handful of screens,"

---

quote:

---

"You could probably outfit a traditional projector booth for $50,000�$60,000 if you're a good shopper," says Binning. "[For digital projection] you're looking at probably a minimum of $100,000 per booth-and that's if you aren't replacing the [cinema's] screen. The cost is almost double. Costs are much higher, not just the up-front cost, but the maintenance. The replacement bulbs for the projectors are rumoured to be about double. Upkeep is rumoured to be almost double. If you were spending a couple thousand a year in [general] maintenance, that's probably going to be $4,000�$5,000 a year."

---

quote: Darryl Spicer

---

it did a lot of business in that first week but dropped like a turkey in the remaining weeks. At $15 dollars a pop

---

quote:

---

"Here on campus, we had to mothball the old 35mm projectors last summer because they were too expensive to maintain," says Tepperman.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Well that's partly because it was heavily advertised as a two-week-only deal. I still am mystified why they didn't do some 2-D prints of that thing and do a quickie engagement in regular theatres. We still have people asking about why we didn't play it.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

Clearly he (or his writers) have never been to a QUALITY theater.

---

Really! Where????? Not in this neck of the woods!
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-12-2008, 12:39 AM:
 
Hey, its not my fault Utahians don't know what they are doing. (You know Mark, you could give them some training so they don't suck. )
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-12-2008, 09:40 AM:
 

quote: Chris Slycord

---

I saw them selling it on DVD so clearly they don't care that much about it being 3D.

---

quote: Ron Funderburg

---

In most businesses you strive to keep turn over low to avoid the problems of breaking in new staff.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

I saw something on IMDB about the Blu-ray version of the Hannah Montana thing being in 3-D and having 4 pairs of 3-D glasses packed in the box with it. So much for 3-D being something you "can't get at home."

---

quote:

---

Disney's home video division said Wednesday that it will include 3-D glasses with each Blu-ray disc of Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour, but it gave few details about the first 3-D release in the high-definition format. Although it said that four pairs of glasses would be included in the package, it did not indicate what sort of glasses these would be. (Some writers have suggested that they would resemble the primitive red/green glasses of the '50s that many folks complained gave them headaches.) Neither was there any indication whether the glasses would add to the wholesale price of the disks or how much it would cost to buy additional pairs.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

I can't begin to tell you how many training sessions I have conducted only to find a completely new crew on my next visit a couple of months later. The problem is the pay scale not the lack of training.

Mark

---

quote:

---

Although TI never reveals sales figures for its digital light processor chips, public disclosures show the size of the problem. DLP revenue fell 21 percent from the third quarter of 2006 to the third quarter of 2007.

The entire decline stems from a single limitation of the 21-year-old invention: DLP is a projection technology, requiring space between chips and screens, so it won't work in the wafer-thin TVs that most Americans want.

---

The rest of article can be found here: http://www.contentagenda.com/articleXml/LN744464425.html?industryid=45197

There are others but the over 20% decline in DLP sales for the last calander year are pretty uniform. I've seen some articles that predict (admittedly speculation) that DLP sales will be down another 40% this year.

You are sticking your head in the sand to not even notice the ramifications of such a sales decline in a division. If Kodak saw those sort of sales drops in Motion Picture film sales, everyone would be using the "writing on the wall" expressions.

The fact that DLP is perceived as a cutting edge technology is what seems to have people hung up on the concept that it might have run its course. Also the fact that no other display technology (digital) seems to have what it has to offer at this time for some industries.

I don't know where you get your information from, Mark but it is certainly suspect as you probably are talking to people (if you are talking at all) that, just maybe, have a vested interest in the longevity of DLP...which is why you CAN'T trust TI for accurate information (nor those that have a financial stake at its success, like projector manufacturers) since they HAVE to put the BEST SPIN on the situation or just close up shop and admit defeat and lose sales immediately.

A quick search on my brother, Karl, would also give you some idea on the insights I might be able to gather on this sort of subject matter. But go ahead, spout your ingnorance.

Ron got this one right...the consumer market is what is driving DLP and that is the marking that is shrinking fast...not cinema, which is growing (at a near immeasurable rate). The only part of the consumer market that DLP is hanging onto is the over 50" to 60" groups. However...lesser cost (and argueably lesser quality) technologies like LCD keep taking market share away.

So what are you going to do IF DLP dies? Tell your customers to go back to those red readers you promoted (that you are now tell them to rip out...that was a great 5 or 10 year investment...that saved how much of the planet?)...oh wait, that is the anticipated life span of DCinema equipment you are promoting...hmmmm and the film projectors you like seem to need to need an upgrade kit every 5-10 years. Perhaps you just have accepted rebuying things every 5-10 years. At least you are consistant, I guess
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 04-12-2008, 07:54 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Chances are the "3D" on the Blu-ray version will just be the old anaglyphic type with red and cyan lenses. It won't be full color 3D like you can get in certain movie theaters.

---

quote:

---

You should check out the SENSIO 3-D site to see what's coming.

Sensio is a full-color 3-D system for home theaters. If it catches on, that's one advantage tYou should check out the SENSIO 3-D site to see what's coming.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

My personal opinion is that the digital solution will not take the form of projection but more of the form of a screen that is its own light source like OLED. If

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Full color 3D for home theater is NOT happening anytime soon at all. I have seen a lot, but nothing to suggest that full color 3D is on the horizon at all for home theater.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

the studios are too deep into DLP

---

quote: Ron Curran

---

If it is to be lasers, can’t we have holograms?

---

And a jet pack!
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-15-2008, 08:10 AM:
 
Kreosene will be at least $42.00 a gallon by then Martin!
 

---

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-15-2008, 12:48 PM:
 
One jet liner cause far more damage than one theater. What bout the 1,000 of flights they make a day? Are environmentally concerns slowing air travel?
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-15-2008, 01:24 PM:
 
what about everytime they launch the space shuttle.
 

---

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-15-2008, 01:48 PM:
 
The space program has always striven to have a positive impact on the environment. The bi-product of the main engines is water vapor or more exactly steam. The primary fuel of the two external solid rocket engines is aluminum I'm sure their is some negative impact from this but it must be negligible as people are within a mile of the shuttle when it takes off.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-15-2008, 02:48 PM:
 

quote: Ron Funderburg

---

I'm sure their is some negative impact from this but it must be negligible as people are within a mile of the shuttle when it takes off.

---

Yah, and they were sure that the impact of the fallout from the A-Bomb testing on those soldiers who they placed a mile away from the test site would be negligible too. The heavy-duty sunglasses that they gave them were very helpful.
 

---

Posted by Michael Moore (Member # 3867) on 05-18-2008, 07:47 PM:
 
People do not like change. I for one, really don't care about digital, however if it turns out to be the take over that people say it will be then so be it. We can't change what will happen. I mean I love film, and will take 35 mm over digital any day. I still think film will be around a lot longer then most predict. I think it will be well into the next 20 years common place. However After that I think it will fade slowly.

This is all just my opinion, I have nothing to back it up, but hey look at LP's (I love my LP's!) they are still around and some companies still make and support them... Look at Vacuum tubes, most Guitarist prefer them over component. For my upright Bass I use an old Altec tube PA driving an old 15" Altec woofer, people I know envy my setup.

Over the years there have been mainstays. LPs IMO are mainstays, and CD’s are mainstays, but look at 8-tracks, cassettes, VHS, BetaMAX, MD, DAT... (Well VHS, was on a roll for a while but DVD took over). Some of these listed are still used, but to a much lesser extent.

I think Digital will take over as the new medium or most used format, and 35 mm will be around as a mainstay for years and years, and maybe 70 mm will still be around just a little.

I don't think the LP is going away, why would 35 mm!

Michael Moore
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-19-2008, 07:55 AM:
 

quote:

---

I don't think the LP is going away, why would 35 mm!

---

The LP has gone away except for small numbers being made in certain places today. It is actually fairly easy to set up and operate an LP mastering center and a few presses. 35mm will do the same thing because it costs a ton of money to operate the labs to process it once required numbers of prints drops off the labs will cease pringint/processing operations, its dam expensive to run a lab of any decent size!. Once Digital reaches a certain saturation point very few film prints will be struck, mainly only for locations that can produce good return because the per print price will become astronomical. Stop and think Michael... some of the larger lab entities are already branching out into digital prints and distribution, etc. They see what is comming too. Another thing that may have an impact on 35mm is the price of oil.

Mark
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-19-2008, 09:22 AM:
 
The comparison of vinyl records and 35mm film is a bit of a stretch. Records have always been a mass-market consumer good. There are enough collectors and vinyl junkies left to sustain it as a niche market, even with the price of new records at $15 and up (mostly up). Which, if you compare to CD, isn't really all that high.

What is the market for 35mm film? Theaters. It's not a consumer-driven good. There are (basically) no collectors of movies, since (ahem) 35mm prints are not for sale and freely available. The supply of old prints is very tightly controlled. No free market forces. When 35mm becomes a niche market, as it will, why would distributors spend $6000 or more to produce a print? Could a handful of theaters reject digital and hold out with film forever while paying substantially higher rental fees to cover the cost of prints? Doubtful, unless they're being operated by a deep-pockets film lover who is not in the business to make money.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-19-2008, 03:41 PM:
 
Alternative viewpont: film will be around forever in some form. It is possible to buy standard 8mm, super-8mm, and 9.5mm camera film today, despite zero support from camera manufacturers for the last decade or so. Photography did not replace painting and I do not expect electronic imaging to replace film. It is possible to manufacture film, film cameras, and film projectors on a small scale with relatively simple technology. If Kodak and Fuji go away tomorrow, there will be someone making film stock in his basement somewhere. It may not be "mainstream," but it will exist.

Also consider that, for limited releases and reissues, a handful of prints even at $6k each is cheaper than the $100k (or thereabouts) cost of scanning an interpositive and producing a digital master. (Does anyone know if this cost has come down lately or is expected to do so in the future?)

As for the mainstream side of the industry, consider that only one major chain (Carmike) has made a serious commitment to at this point. AccessIT is in tough financial shape and probably won't turn out to be a viable business over the long term. DCIP has done nothing substantive to date (and it's led by the guy who ran Loews into the ground, which doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their success). The US economy is not yet in a recession, but the possibility seems likely. All indications are that the US screen count will go down in the next few years, possibly significantly, as gas prices rise and alternative forms of entertainment proliferate. All of these factors may combine to delay the widespread adoption of for several more years, at least.

I don't know the situation outside the US, but I suspect that the 35mm infrastructure will be even more difficult to replace. (Maybe someone else can comment here.)

I don't doubt that film will go away eventually as a mainstream exhibition format, but I don't see it happening in the 2-5 years that people keep predicting. I would tend to guess that we have at least another decade of film as a mainstream format and quite possibly longer.

Unfortunately, I would also expect that the quality of release prints will generally decline as quality improves, eventually negating any quality advantage that 35mm now has.

Having said that, if 3D and/or "alternative content" really take off and prove to have long-term staying power (both unknowns), I could see a faster move to .
 

---

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 05-19-2008, 04:28 PM:
 
I've heard a forcast that film distribution has 10-15 years left "mainstream".

I think actual release print quality may get better - i.e. lower volume, more expensive production **may** lead to increased quality since the labs won't be under a tight schedule to produce thousands of prints.

quote: Scott Norwood

---

Also consider that, for limited releases and reissues, a handful of prints even at $6k each is cheaper than the $100k (or thereabouts) cost of scanning an interpositive and producing a digital master. (Does anyone know if this cost has come down lately or is expected to do so in the future?)

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

(and it's led by the guy who ran Loews into the ground, which doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their success).

---

quote: David Zylstra

---

Alternate content is not proving as viable as originally touted - a significant source is restricted (i.e. sporting events). I did hear that Landmark has done some live 3D Maverick games, but what will the attendance be like when every theatre in town is showing games at the same time?

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

I think everybody knew this would be the case and that the alternate content thing was just marketing BS from the people pushing digital cinema.

---

Lyle, You must be living in a cave! In fact the opera broadcasts that are run in many cities do sell out buisness with some sell outs in cities you'd never think anyone would attend! They are also now in the process of expanding the broadcasts and adding new locations, content. D-Cinema is but a few years old... film didn't offer much when it was the same age and comparatively D-Cinema is offering far more after just a few short years than film ever did. The best part about D-Cinema is that its guaranteed to keep people like you living in the cave .

Mark
 

---

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 05-20-2008, 08:31 AM:
 
The live operas had a good first year splash - I hear this year attendance is dropping; still well attended, but not as good as last year (according to a friend of mine who manages a location that did the Met last year and this year)

Currently the operas from the Met are limited to a few sites in each market - what happens if we double the number of locations showing them in each market? Personally I think the current attendance will just get spread thinner. A few other companies are putting out recorded operas (we have 3 sources for them) that are doing OK business - attendance is growing but still barely equal to our slowest films.

I think the alternate content we need is live sporting events, access to some TV content (i.e. final American Idol episode), gaming and live operas/ballets/stage plays; but again - what happens when every theatre in town is showing the same alternate content?

With digital cinema there will be easier access for young, indie filmmakers to exhibit their content - i.e. i they usually go straight to DVD why not premier the latest movie on the big screen before the DVD release? (we've done some of these with great success)
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-20-2008, 10:39 AM:
 

quote:

---

Lyle, You must be living in a cave! In fact the opera broadcasts that are run in many cities do sell out buisness with some sell outs in cities you'd never think anyone would attend!

---