quote: Ian Price

---

the dwindling supply of good projectionists will be able to command a premium again.

---

quote:

---

Electronic Cinema What Did YOU See?

Everyone seems to be talking about electronic cinema. After the ShoWest demonstrations comparing two prototype electronic cinema projectors with a conventionally projected film print, many felt that electronically projected images were finally approaching the quality of 35mm film projection.

Sure, the film images seemed to have better color reproduction and flesh tones-and a bit more fine detail and sharpness. And there were questions regarding the cost and complexity of the digital equipment in the theatre-and the level of expertise required maintaining and operating it. But, ShoWest was a technical demonstration and so, to be fair, let's consider electronic projection and film projection from a technical point of view...

So what did you see? I saw that electronic projection has come a long way in the last 10 years. I saw electronically projected images that were bright and sharp on moderately sized screens. But I also saw lots of work before we have an electronic projection SYSTEM that can compare technically - and in so many
other ways - to what we have with a film projection SYSTEM today.

---

Pretty accurate in my prediction.

Seven years later, the Digital Cinema standards are finally coming into place, the original 1280 X 1024 pixel projectors are considered obsolete, almost a thousand 2K Digital Cinema installations are in place, 4K is finally being beta tested in theatres, and Kodak is one of the major "players" in Digital Cinema.

Yet, Digital Cinema is only on about 1 percent of theatre screens worldwide. Film is still a very cost-effective method of distributing feature films, with a "business case" and proven track record that's hard to beat. 2005 was a record year for Kodak motion-picture film, with well over 10 BILLION feet of film sold worldwide.

As Mark Twain once wrote: "Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated".
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-15-2006, 01:28 PM:
 
Most movie productions will be film-based for the foreseeable future. Some strides have been made, but all video cameras currently max out at mere HDTV resolution. That's a terrible limit. Video production affords a great deal of speed and flexibility. But it currently represents a step backward in terms of image quality.

Until video cameras of 4K or higher resolution can be developed, I don't think they can pose a credible threat to traditional 35mm film cameras for major studio productions. While some directors are enamored of the flexibility in videotaping a movie in HDTV resolution or even as low as NTSC 480p, I think most other filmmakers are going to still demand the higher quality imagery from shooting on film.

As to how long film will last in theaters, I don't know. I don't see any video-based projection system being able to replace formats like IMAX, 8/70 or even 5/70 anytime soon.

35mm projection in smaller commercial theaters is threatened. It looks like 2K DLP projectors are going to replace at least 25% of 35mm projectors in the United States within the next 2-3 years. A full third might be replaced by 2010. I'm hoping 4K projectors can be rolled out en-masse during this time. I would prefer the bulk of video conversions to happen at higher resolutions. Unlike the 1.2K DLP systems which are either being shut down or replaced, those 2K systems may hang around quite a long time before they're replaced with any 4K or better systems.
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 06-15-2006, 01:39 PM:
 
Two 35mm projector manufacturers have introduced or will introduce new belt drive projectors this year...they are confident there are at least 5 to 7 years of new projector sales plus an equal amount of time for buyers to recoup the investment. DCI is not a world wide standard with countries like Brazil, India and others using parallel systems tailored their market needs. Competition and growth are generally a good deal if you keep on top of the possibilites
 

---

Posted by Warren Smyth (Member # 1838) on 06-15-2006, 08:02 PM:
 

quote:

---

Film will be around untill I'm dead

---

I remember film editors in the television industry saying that 25 years ago. Some of those who used this claim as a reason to avoid retraining in video tape were redundant within two years.

While I don't share Ian's confidence on the future use of film in theatres, I think he is correct in his advice for projection staff to retrain. It's the only way I survived.

If we consider the rapid demise of 16mm film once mobile video cameras and VCRs came available, it is clear that change can occur quickly once the economic conditions are favourable. The driving force is often the ecomomy of scale which cranks up the quality and lowers the price.

The greatest scale however, is not going to come from multiplexes but from the consumer home market. Perhaps rather than asking how long will film last? we should be asking for how long will theatres have the technical advantage over home entertainment. irrespective of the medium used.

I know what Singing in the Rain and King Kong looks and sounds like in my theatrette at home from just a DVD. They are pretty damned good. What is Phantom of the Opera going to look like on HD DVD? - even better.

The question is, if one looks at the total package - no ads, an intermission at will, no popcorn smell, no parking hassels, no annoying patrons nearby, a picture that is not magnified beyond it's resolution capability, available exras on the disk, to name just some advatages, can the multiplex compete?

I know that the result at home is not as good as I presented to audiences when I screened Lawrence of Arabia and Chitty Chitty Ban Bang in 70mm but that was a long long time ago. The "bang" has long left the minds of audiences and the current young crop wouldn't know what 70mm film is. Many think movies come from a disk anyway. In short, the industry is responcible for the reduction in standards over the years and very soon, may not be able to compete with home entertainment.

In the fifties it was easy with wide screen systems swamping the impact of small black and white TV set. Today the competition is a far bigger monster. Don't worry about the life of film, there are much larger concerns.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-15-2006, 09:06 PM:
 
I tell you, in the last couple of months I've had a chill go down me regarding DCinema...it seems like the fools ary TRYING to put up roadblocks to the "movement."

While the 1.3K systems were pre-DCI it is absolute stupidity not to support them (with source material) so long as there is someone that wants to display the movie that way. They are not "run out of the door" horrible and it sends a very horrible message that if you invest in this technology, one can randomly just say, "no we don't want to supply you with that resolution anymore." We are not talking about trying to support some obsolete mechanical part...just the image files at a LOWER resolution. There is simply no reason for this any more than there would be a reason to say if you didn't buy your lenses in the last 10-years, we are not going to supply you with 35mm film prints.

But wait the subilties don't stop there. Now some studios (well soon to be all) are not going to offer their movies in anything but JPEG2000 format...so all of those systems that were put in for Chicken Little and such are going to have to be ripped out and replaced/updated. Why? This business of having to always have the latest is just plain stupid. It is not like the equipment is going to put out an inferior show this year than last year.

Technology is going to march on...there is no reason one needs to ALWAYS have the latest. People already don't have the answers as to how all of this is going to be paid for and here they are demanding that once you pay...you MUST pay again. It is like a $20K-$100K a year subsciption (depending on what is declared too old fashioned to be acceptable). Somebody is paying for all of this and it is truely wasted money even if it is not the exhibitor.

Who is driving this train?

6-months ago, I would have said that 50% of the US theatres would be digital in 5-years...now, I'm not so certain. Sombody should be hiring lawyers to put an end to this "your equipment isn't good enough" attitude, DCI or no. We never had that with film and there is a very wide range of projectors, optics and sound systems out there.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-15-2006, 09:26 PM:
 
I've been reading all youze guys posts and I'm going to give the short answer: Digital cinema will hit "saturation" in no less than ten years. Film will reach obsolecence in no less than twenty. 70mm and "special" formats will probably last a lot longer than that. Much of the infrastructure, in terms of film manufacture and processing, will be switched over to making 70mm film.

I used to work in a TV store, way back in 1992. Customers used to ask me, "When is digital TV coming?" I used to tell them "Ten to fifteen years. Maybe more." Well, it's almost fifteen years later and digital TV STILL hasn't reached saturation!

So, my estimates for film are probably going to end up falling short as well.
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 06-16-2006, 12:23 AM:
 
Nicely put ,My guess is <7 years. Did you know that the first test of a video projector in a cinema was done in New York in 1929? I kid you not! Personally I'm tired digital vs 35mm comparisons, digital cinema is going to have to be vastly better than 35mm to recapture the audience and to draw the audience back to cinemas
In the 50s, it was Color, Wide Screen, 6 track sound that made cinema relevent in the B&W tv era. Interactive Computer Games, Large plasmas screens, 5.1 sound and the introduction of HD & blue ray means that the cinema offers no real advantage over watching it at home. You can simply see it first.
Film can be vastly better by simply speeding it up, 60 fps is the ideal for the human eye. Digital technology really should not be limited to 24fps, perhaps a variable rate 24-60fps digital projector would be a dramatic step in the right direction.
Over the last 7 years digital projectors have dramatically improved, and I'm sure within 7 years will be getting to a stage where they are better than the film technology of today. Who knows 60fps digital technology may make 70mm look old hat ,I hope someone gives it a try. I also wish that the cinema image of the future is better than the best of today, not simply a digital projector designed to be more of the same.
Sound wise a move away from bass refex boxes would also be a great first step! 4 way active technology has been an ideal since the 1950s and now is getting affordable!
 

---

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 06-16-2006, 07:35 AM:
 
quoted
"Interactive Computer Games, Large plasmas screens, 5.1 sound and the introduction of HD & blue ray means that the cinema offers no real advantage over watching it at home. You can simply see it first."

Well I know a lot of people who still have a 20 inch TV and 30$ DVD player... I think a 30 ft screen and a 500 Watt digital surround system is still more then the average house hold. Plus its kind of a rip off to watch movies at home. $2000.00 for your HD-TV, $1200.00 for a good 5.1 system...then you have to rent DVD's at up to $5.00 a pop..

I'd rather pay $6.00 and go to the Movies..But I guess a lot of people wouldn't.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 06-16-2006, 08:40 AM:
 
The problem Paul is that people who still have a 20 inch TV and 30$ DVD player are people who do not care about 30' screens and 500 Watt sound systems. These are the people who long ago stopped being regular theatre goers, and going digital is not going to change that.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 06-16-2006, 02:06 PM:
 

quote: Paul Gordon

---

I'd rather pay $6.00 and go to the Movies..But I guess a lot of people wouldn't.

---

Well, looks like prices are up to $9.75 here!
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-16-2006, 05:02 PM:
 
There's a long-established precedent of consumer entertainment technology stimulating the development of theatre exhibition technology, not killing it. Part of the reason the talkies came along was the growth of domestic audio technology in the mid '20s - radio, telephones and recorded music. Television provided part of the impetus for the rollout of widescreen (which wasn't there when the first round of research and development for widescreen happened in the late '20s). Dolby SVA in the theatre happened partly because by the end of the '70s, Joe Public had stereo in his home and expected it in the theatre, too. Multiplexes happened as a response to the domestic VCR - for the first time, consumers had 'on demand' choice at home, and therefore expected that flexibility when they went to the theatre, hence the shift from a small number of auditoria with thousands of seats to large numbers of auditoria with 100-200 seats, plus the technology which made that cost-effective (i.e. xenon lamps, platters and automation). Logically, therefore, the consumer rollout of HD digital video should mean that theatre projection follows in its wake.
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 06-16-2006, 10:01 PM:
 
In Sydney Australia, average ticket price A$15 Adult,
You can buy a new DVD from $10, latest release DVD aprox $25

Aust$1 = aprox 75 US cents

The point that I'm trying to make regarding 60 frames a sec, is about making cinema a much more dramatic experience, something so much better than today and hopefully better than 70mm ever was, well except showscan which was 70mm at 60 frames.
I would love to see a cinema screen so sharp and clear it was like looking out of a window. I have no doubt that 4k resolution at 60 frames a sec whether on film or digital would provide a standard that would be totally awsome & far better than avalable at home.
 

---

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 06-16-2006, 11:12 PM:
 
Hi Cameron, the average ticket price in Australia is a lot less than $15, unless you want to sit through 20 minutes of ads in a multi.

However, your point is still valid. Most Film-Techers have already stated that the entire movie-going experience MUST improve or it will be extinct.

Technology is just one aspect. Quality 35mm Scope with DTS, presented well can be an awsome but rare experience. Except for those monster 80 foot screens. The circuits that order those screens should also be ordering 70mm prints.

We have seen impressive digi demonstrations but in the real exhibition world it won't make a scrap of diferrence unless the whole theatrical experience is something people want to leave their comfy couches for.

It's all been said here before.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-16-2006, 11:31 PM:
 
When video-based projection is put into an equation of wide-spread industry use, I can actually see a practical possibility of 70mm growing to become the dominant gauge of motion picture film.

Sounds wacky, right? Consider the likelihood 35mm projectors in most standard size commercial theaters are going to be removed completely and replaced with video projectors. Film projectors will eventually only reside in the largest of movie theaters. The largest movie theaters have pushed screen sizes well beyond the capacity for 35mm projection to show an acceptably bright image.

I would not be too surprised at all if we have a situation 10 years from now where 95% of all movie theaters have only video projectors. And then the ones running film projectors will just feature 5/70, 8/70 and 15/70 formats.
 

---

Posted by Warren Smyth (Member # 1838) on 06-17-2006, 09:48 AM:
 
Let me state that I sincerely wish that I could agree with those of you who believe that film and the current method of exhibiting motion pictures via theatre auditoriums, will continue. I would love to be proved wrong, but I know how easy it is to be influenced by the heart rather than the head.

I have experienced the pleasure of seeing and screening the very finest motion picture entertainment in picture palaces like, and including the civic Auckland that appears in the latter portion of King Kong. This was when projectionists were not only paid for their technical knowledge, but for their creativity of presentation as well. An age when we would work all night repairing a curtain just to avoid an audience seeing a naked screen on the following performance, a sight which is now the norm in muliplexes.

That was a long time ago when theatres had besides technical, a theatrical edge over home entertainment. Sadly this second advantage was killed off by the desire to maximise profit. The current audiences who wouldn't know what a waterfall curtain, overture or entr'act is, therefore cannot see anything special in multiplex entertainment. The only perceived margin of difference now between theatre and home entertainment is technical standards, convenience and price. Audiences have been conditioned away from maybe the only asset unique to the theatre, which can never be totally replicated in the home.

Those who think high wattage sound systems and large screens provide advantages which you cannot get at home, let me say, that you don't need 500 watts feeding into a surround channel at home unless you want to suffer hearing loss. It's the quality of the audio that matters, and home systems are getting very good now. On the subject of large screens ,the 11 foot screen in my home theatrette appears larger than the 60 foot screen at our local civic theatre, that is, if you are seated in the circle that King Kong jumps up on to and partly demolishes. You see, it's just a question of scale. If you want a big picture you can sit as close as you like to the screen. It's resolution that counts and that is getting better in the home all the time. Also, appropriate home theatre surroundings can easily surpass that of the local multiplex.

quote:

---

There is a long-established precedent of consumer entertainment technology stimulating the development of theatre exhibition technology - not killing it.

---

This may have happened with sound, but let's look at the improvement that has been made to the projected image over the last fifty years.

If you are fortunate to be able to see an original Technicolor Vista Vision print of the 1950's and compare it with a current film in 1 to 1.85 aspect ratio, you will find it very difficult to see any improvement over fifty years. Take a 70mm print shot on 65mm negative and compare it with the very best available today, then ask yourself, "What technical improvement has the industry provided for the patron for fifty years of development?" Sure, film emulsions have improved, providing finer grain for faster speed. It is however, of little consequence to the theatre customer if large amounts of light no longer has to be pumped into the sets during filming. Sure CGI has revolutionised special effects but it's now becoming apparent that films cannot rely on special effects alone.

Compare this lack of image improvement with home entertainment. In the 50s television was in black and white, the screens were small and the resolution was lower than that of 8mm film. After fifty years, we now have a high definition DVD format with another one about to be released for the home. The consumer market has not stimulated image improvement in theatres at all. While the exhibition industry sat on it's hands, the domestic industry progressed recently at an alarming rate. Will this drive the exhibitors into developing higher technical standards to re-establish a high technical margin between their entertainment and that of the home? - I don't think so.

The reason is, that in the past, improvements were driven at the production end because the studios and theatre interests were aligned. This is no longer so. The film companies can make money from films straight into the home via other delivery systems, some of which have yet to be developed. They have demonstrated a desire to get their investment back on films as fast as possible. The multiplex gave them this, but they may prefer even quicker methods in future, particularly if they think they can avoid the pirates.

Another reason is that the theatres are joining the same technology form as exists in the home - digital. As I stated, the domestic arm of this will have the advantage of a greater economy of scale which drives up standards and lowers cost. The home theatre systems in terms of resolution will be snapping at the heels of theatre equipment developers as they attempt to catch up. This means that exhibitors will be on a technilogical and financial treadmill and may be forced in the cost of the product, to finance research and development that the domestic market ultimately benefits from. To add further insult, systems will be redundant in just a few years and require constant upgrades just to sort out bugs. It's known in the computer industry as the "bleeding" edge. There will probably be major compatibility issues with new software, something that is already hitting the domestic market with HDDVD and Blue Ray but on a small scale, compared to what exhibitors may face.

The constant cost of maintaining a high technical margin between theatres and home entertainment to attract patrons will be extremely high. For many exhibitors, too high, and for how long? When home entertainment can one day provide the resolution of 70mm film, the margin probably won't matter anyway. Who knows when that will be, but if you consider the accelerated rate of improvement in home digital projector and DVD technology in the last three years, it's bound to be sooner than you think. Welcome to the race.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-17-2006, 12:57 PM:
 
I disagree with it being much of a race at all. Film-based cinematography and film-based projection will indeed endure in a number of areas.

I've said the limit of HDTV resolution has a sort of tyranny. It is unavoidable. There are NO video cameras made anywhere that surpass 1080 HD standards. The only normal way to get above it is by shooting on film. There currently is not nearly enough demand to push video recording technology above the limit of 1080p.

Several things must happen to push video recording standards beyond 1080p. Computer monitors of much higher native resolution must see far greater use -and they must be able to double as full blown television sets. Video game consoles must be able to support those greater resolutions. And then new kinds of optical video discs must be able to do the same. It will take putting that basic infrastructure into place before companies like Sony, Panasonic and others will bother at all developing video cameras that record at levels above 1080p.

Digital projector designs are largely stuck near HDTV levels because much of the technology going into those systems is also tailored to serving the far larger consumer electronics market -which can be no better than 1080p. There's little need to develop 4K, 6K or 8K imagers when only a tiny number of the extremely expensive parts can be sold. Video projection cannot truly challenge the full quality of 35mm while that problem continues to exist. Forget about video even being able to challenge standards like IMAX.

Lamp strength in video projectors is an even more basic problem. Christie's new 2K DLP model comes only in models with 4000 watt and 6000 watt lamps. That's certainly good enough for a lot of normal sized commercial theaters. But those lamp sizes are insufficient for the giant sized screens we're seeing installed in a new breed of multiplex theaters. A 70' or 80' wide screen needs something like a 10K, 12K or even 15K watt lamp. You get that only with various 70mm film projectors.

Digital still camera technology might be an alternative for pushing standards further in the near term. Newer D-SLR cameras are boasting ever higher pixel counts, less and less lag and much smoother tonal control. As they continue to improve they'll open up new possibilities for video application.
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 06-17-2006, 01:25 PM:
 
Dalsa 4K origin cameras have been available for rental in Los Angeles over a year and two more companies are showing prototypes for early next year delivery I love film but we are working on two projects for next year (1)35mm (1)HDTV based on the merits of each situation.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-17-2006, 07:08 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

it seems like the fools ary TRYING to put up roadblocks to the "movement."

---

quote: Ron Curran

---

Hi Cameron, the average ticket price in Australia is a lot less than $15, unless you want to sit through 20 minutes of ads in a multi.

---

Just to add...
Well people in the suburbs and Cities don't have much of a choice, if they want to go a cinema they have to go to a Multi/Megaplex. We've just lost another single screen Cinema here in Melbourne, with only one left which is second run. The tickets here range from $13-15.
I noticed in the paper on Saturday that Hoyts (worst company of all the multi's ) and Village (who are not much better)
have started a new advertising campaign:

"See it BIGGER
See it BETTER
See it FIRST
Only at the MOVIES!

Pfffftt, bleh. With the kind of staff, presentation and let's face it, quality many (but not all) 35mm prints I should give the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) a call
and make a claim of false advertising (in particular to
the "Better" claim.

From ACCC website ACCC :

quote:

---

Staff and representatives must take care not to mislead or deceive. It doesn’t matter whether the misrepresentation is deliberate or accidental. What does matter is the impression that is left in the mind of the customer .

The Act tells business that it must not mislead or deceive, or take actions that are likely to mislead or deceive. It also specifically outlaws particular types of false or misleading representations, such as false or misleading claims about a product’s value, price, quality, place of origin or impact on the environment.

---

Heh-heh as if. (I think I need to get out more often)

In recent times The Village Cinemas at the Jam Factory were advertising Digital Screenings of "Chicken Little: 3-D" and that Narnia film (whatver that was called) as "The Future of Cinema". Well if that's the case then we're all doomed
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-23-2006, 02:45 PM:
 
My way of thinking is not how many years does film have left but how many years does this system of exhibition have left irregardless of what is being projected and by what method....

The whole multiplex thing is really getting stale(irregardless of the system used to project) and exhibitors really need to get their fingers out of their butts and get busy building something new, exciting, and different! Its not going to matter if the image is of Imax quality in every cinema... Multiplex Theaters in general really suck!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 06-23-2006, 02:58 PM:
 
Time to roll out the Uni-plex concept
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-23-2006, 04:48 PM:
 

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Multiplex Theaters in general really suck

---