Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Repertory Titles In Digital

This is topic Repertory Titles In Digital in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=000270

Posted by Chase Taylor (Member # 778) on 11-10-2008, 10:57 AM:

Does any know if you can book Repertory Titles in Digital. The one I'm looking for is "Polar Express". WB Classics is saying they can't book it in digital just 35MM.

Chase

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-10-2008, 11:33 AM:

This seems very odd given that POLAR EXPRESS was released digitally. I can understand if you were asking for a title that never was transfered to digital, then sure they wouldn't accomodate. It costs the studios, depending on the length of the feature and assuming they have viable a viable internegative, between $2,000 and $5,000 for a 35mm print (that was a figure I heard a few years ago so it might even cost more today). But it cost's much more to make a digital print from existing elements. Any studio will weigh what it costs to make a "print" (either film or video) against the potential for return, i.e. profit, and that will determine if they will go through the expense of supplying an exhibitor with either format.

Chances are, if they are not willing to spend the money to strike a 35mm print because there are not enough art houses that will book it, then it is almost certain that they will not go the even more expensive route of mastering a digital print.

At least for now, the number of art theatres that are equipped with digital are few, which means that the digital print has even less of an earning potential than a 35mm release print, makine the chances of them accomodating a request for a digital print even less likely. An arthouse would probably have a better chance of getting the license for playing a Blu-Ray version than the studio shipping them a hard-drive of a classic title.

But like I said, POLAR EXPRESS was a digital release so if WB won't let you play it in digital, then you'll have to chalk it up to just another one of those Alice in Wonderland decisions that are part of our delightful industry. What's the objection to playing it in 35mm?

Posted by Chase Taylor (Member # 778) on 11-10-2008, 12:36 PM:

The 35MM prints have probably been run 4,000 times by a 16 year old with no experience, I know a digital print will look great. I hope someone knows what to do, there has got to be a way?

Chase

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-10-2008, 12:45 PM:

If the movie was released to theaters previously then the effort to make a digital "print" is fairly inexpensive, as the files only need to be transferred to a hard drive and a key created.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-10-2008, 12:47 PM:

The again, the question is...where does the studio store the digital files and how big a pain is it to transfer those files to a shipable disc? On the other hand, they have 35mm prints struck for worldwide distribution...it is a mere matter of pulling one and sending it out. It already exists. This is not the case for a digital version...they don't keep hard drives with pre-existing titles on them store away...perhaps they should.

Steve

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-10-2008, 01:55 PM:

Portable hard discs for D-cinema purposes are used repeatedly to store different movies, so there's not going to be lots of hard discs just laying around with one movie on them tucked away in some facility somewhere.

It would make sense for movie distributors to keep back up copies of movies in JPEG2000 d-cinema format so they don't have to go back to the original uncompressed digital intermediate masters to re-encode a new JPEG2000 dub. I have no idea if they're doing that already or not. Any recent movie is going to have a lot of archival digital data for various uses, including HD and SD home video uses.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-10-2008, 02:30 PM:

Was Polar Express released for 2K DLP or 1.3K? If the latter, maybe there isn't enough demand to justify going back to the original scan and re-encoding it for 2K.

Posted by Chase Taylor (Member # 778) on 11-10-2008, 02:40 PM:

2004 2K

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-10-2008, 04:17 PM:

Variety had an article a year or so ago reporting that digital masters were showing signs of degradation after less than 9 months. It may just be that the studios made no plans (we know they are so foresighted) for rep releases of digital.

Or they are just lazy or lying;>

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 11-11-2008, 02:35 PM:

Anyone run the digital "print" of "Adventures of Robin Hood"? I am wondering how it looked. They debuted it at Arclight Cinerama Dome in September of 2003.

They really should digitize the old classic 3-D films of the 50s. I know there was a thread about it a while back but they REALLY ought to do that. "House of Wax" in 3-D would likely be a nice moneymaker considering how inexpensive it would be to distribute.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 11-11-2008, 03:01 PM:

Actually it would cost more than it would be worth just to digitally render it over to 3-D.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-11-2008, 03:26 PM:

For what it is worth, I saw House of Wax in interlock 3D last week at the Michigan Theatre in Ann Arbor. Looked fantastic. Only a little dirt and flawlessly presented.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 11-11-2008, 03:46 PM:

quote: Darryl Spicer
Actually it would cost more than it would be worth just to digitally render it over to 3-D.

What needs to be rendered? It's already in 3-D.

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 11-12-2008, 05:37 PM:

THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD looks beautiful, either in digital or film printed from the digital file. The improved registration of the Technicolor negatives brings out a sharpness that could never before be seen due to printing limitations.

Posted by Fred Tucker (Member # 4482) on 11-12-2008, 06:53 PM:

Lets not forget that there was also a digital Polar Express 3D released in IMAX, last year.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 11-12-2008, 11:42 PM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
For what it is worth, I saw House of Wax in interlock 3D last week at the Michigan Theatre in Ann Arbor. Looked fantastic. Only a little dirt and flawlessly presented.

I must have missed that one on their schedule. I absolutely love the Michigan. That flawless presentation is them on a bad day. On a good day, their presentation melts your face off. If everyone presented 35mm like they do, there would be riots in the streets when people switched to digital.