Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Common misconceptions about the benefits of digital.

This is topic Common misconceptions about the benefits of 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=000780

Posted by Eric Robinson (Member # 2966) on 04-05-2011, 01:34 PM:

The consumer market is lead to believe that digital projection is beneficial because it is superior to film. Marketing leads the consumer to believe things that may not necessarily be totally true by omitting some important information. What misconceptions do you think people have about digital projection?

My contribution would be how 4K will look so much better than 2K, when in fact some films are still being shot with a 2K camera. The consumer thinks they are watching 4K because no one mentioned that the original content was filmed in 2K.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-05-2011, 01:44 PM:

In my mind the average consumer or movie goer is not being mislead when it comes to the technology being used. I am talking about people who know nothing about how theatres work in presenting the movies. So long as the sound works and the picture is in focus that is all they care about. The people who do care have already found this site and are participating or watching in the wings.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-05-2011, 02:24 PM:

Source resolution is one thing. Pixel raster visibility is another. Yes, 2k DCPs do look better on 4k systems than on 2k systems. Maybe not so clearly visible on the back seats.

By the time 4k installations are more prominent, we will have more 4k DCPs anyway. 4k DI is just taking up pace.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-digitalcinema/resource.latest.bbsccms-assets-mkt-digicinema-latest-4kmovierele aseslisting.shtml#2011

-Carsten

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 04-05-2011, 08:28 PM:

I am with aspects of both Eric and Darryl's points.

As Darryl states, so long as people here sound and can see the picture, the quantitatively couldn't tell you what they were watching.

As with Eric, digital doesn't help with anything beyond slightly cheaper shipping. The only one who "wins" is the studio. Hell, the upper limit on 35mm used by consumers is about 26MP. Consider that motion picture film has even better resolving power. And 4K DLP is what, 9MP? Let's assume that all the film handling results in 50% degradation (and we're assuming an all film path, so no scanning), 13MP is still about 50% better.

And, digital does nothing to solve the often poorly kept auditoriums, including ripped masking, ripped or torn screens, etc.

I don't have a problem with digital, but it's not inherently "better" than 35mm. It's only better is some aspect that is determined by the consumer, in this case theatre management. E.g, "can I get rid of all but two of my projectionists", "I no longer need to include a cartage lift in our designs", etc.

-David

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 04-05-2011, 09:41 PM:

quote: Darryl Spicer
So long as the sound works and the picture is in focus that is all they care about.

So long as the sound works RESONABLY WELL and the picture is NOT TOO BADLY OUT OF FOCUS is all they care about.

There, fixed it for you [evil]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-06-2011, 10:53 AM:

There's no need for people to know what they're watching. That's part of the mystique of the Big Screen. There's this huge picture and sound being shown in the dark and nobody knows exactly how it gets there.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 04-06-2011, 01:50 PM:

Many people do not care, especially casual moviegoers.

However, people who get into just about any hobby with any depth like to know what they're getting beforehand.

As long as the picture quality and sound quality are good, my dad would be fine with it. It only takes one problem to have that illusion come crashing down, and then he's going to be pissed when the sound cuts out, or the picture's out of focus.

I, on the other hand, will get more appreciation from going to the movie if I know more about what's going on. I'll travel hundreds of miles for a 70mm presentation, and I'll drive past a half dozen theaters to go to the one with the best projection setup that delivers great results. If a theater is showing something with a 4K projection system and a sound system that'll rattle your innards when called for, I want to know about it.

As this all relates to Digital Projection Systems, though, even my dad will notice the steadiness of Digital Projection over the jump and weave of typical film presentations.

Most members of the moviegoing public are not going to be able to differentiate the finer points of how a 2K movie is going to look like on a 4K projection system vs. a 4K movie, etc.

Those in charge of making decisions about the equipment that goes into their theaters should care about such issues, though.

Just like I may not know how a gourmet chef makes his entrees so incredible, I rely on him knowing how to do so to deliver excellent results that I can appreciate.

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 04-06-2011, 05:00 PM:

The folks who buy the tickets are not the customers for digital system sales.
You sell the cinema owners. Salesmen and marketing people are born liars. The basic benefits they sell are 3D, no projectionist needed, and lower maintenance cost. Plus the VPF if they can get it.
3D, ok but it can still be done on film.
No operator, basically true but you will still need someone who can deal with problems.
Lower TCO, yet to be proven. Lamps in these projectors are not getting to their warranty hours and once the projector warranty expires replacement parts are very very expensive.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 04-30-2011, 07:51 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
There's no need for people to know what they're watching. That's part of the mystique of the Big Screen. There's this huge picture and sound being shown in the dark and nobody knows exactly how it gets there.

Wow . . . ever thought about running for Congress, Mike?

Posted by Chase Pickett (Member # 5975) on 04-30-2011, 08:57 PM:

quote: Dave Macaulay
The folks who buy the tickets are not the customers for digital system sales. You sell the cinema owners.

Yes but I'd say the quickest way to get a cinema owner to buy your equipment is to influence those that bring him/her business. Marketing people, however much they lie, are still very clever.

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 05-01-2011, 03:50 PM:

I have to agree that in most cases, the consumer doesn't know or care whether something is in "digital." As long as the picture and sound is passable enough for them not to be distracted, they are generally happy. (Of course don't confuse that as an argument against good presentation. I do my best every day to give the best show possible.)

However, the marketing of big "premium" screens are a different animal... stuff like IMAX, RPX, etc seems to have permeated quite well into something that many average people seek out, if it's available in their area. But again, the vast majority really doesn't care what method is used to get the image on the screen. The marketing of "digital" really is mostly focused on theatre owners, therefore I don't believe these misconceptions are very common for most consumers, because it's not a thought they have in the first place.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-03-2011, 05:32 AM:

Now the consumer is gaga about the fact that they can happily watch movies on i-effin-pads. How discerning can they be?

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 05-04-2011, 10:35 AM:

While it's understandable to pull out the righteous indignation card when hearing about someone wanting to watch a movie on an iPad or other portable device, I think such an attitude doesn't give the consumer enough credit (in fact, it demeans them, which is a dangerous attitude to have when one is in the business of making money off consumers).

While some movies must really be seen in the right environment to be fully appreciated, it doesn't mean that that's the only way that those movies should be seen. Many movies don't justify the effort of being seen in the right environment (see: list of movies by Adam Sandler), but that's a whole issue all by itself.

Will a movie like Lawrence of Arabia have the same impact on a small screen? Of course not.

But many movies translate just fine to a smaller screen, and the fact that they can be watched on these smaller screens increases the amount of enjoyment that can be had by owning them.

I just watched Unstoppable in an environment which took advantage of the atmosphere of the movie. The tension was more palpable because I was in an isolated environment, and the train wrecks and screeching wheels added to the impact because I had a sound system that reinforced it. This is a movie I enjoyed, but probably wouldn't ever watch on a portable device because a large part of the impact of the movie would be lost.

However, take another recent release, such as Little Fockers. I haven't seen the movie, so I can't say for sure, but most comedies actually translate pretty well to the small screen. I borrowed a friend's iPad over the weekend, and he had Pixar's Up and Monsters, Inc. on it for his kids. I watched some of Monsters Inc. to see how the iPad was for watching movies, and I actually enjoyed it.

Would it have been better in my home theater? Sure, but there are situations where that more ideal viewing environment isn't available or preferable.

Viewing movies on a portable device shouldn't ever replace the more ideal experiences, and I don't think they will. If anything, the fact that people can watch movies in less than ideal environments underscores the importance of theaters making the experience they deliver the best that it possibly can be.

The more distance there is between those two experiences, the better for everyone involved. The consumer will want to go to the theater to enjoy it the first time in the best possible environment, and if they like the movie, they'll buy it and watch it at home and have it to transfer to their portable device if they want to take it with them.

I don't see how anybody loses in that scenario.