35mm battle to be HD

[MovieStuff]

"Pretty soon all these film cans will be gone as soon as the studios strike a deal with the theaters on how they are going to handle the digital projection."

The New York Times did a big article on this in 2003 ,what is holding it up is the studios want some control over the digital projection and the theaters want most of the control.

I've been watching this pretty closely and the theater owners really have the upper hand and can leverage this to their benefit. The current method for distibution of a theatrical movie is numbingly expensive because prints are costly and time consuming to to make, they wear out, they're heavy to ship, the time it takes to ship are "dead days" in the theater, as far as the distributors are concerned or, rather, they make no money during ship time, etc. Distribution companies want theater owners to share the costs of conversion to digital but the theater associations are saying "When hell freezes over" because they know that the film industry spends a fortune on the printing and physical distribution of film prints so they're standing pretty firm about this, especially knowing that the digital industry is in a constant state of flux, technically.

So the whole idea of digital projection isn't as much about the projection as it is the distribution aspect for the movers and shakers in Hollywood. The ultimate dream is to have satelite downloads of the digital movies, and that's really where the the hang up is because, without the uplink/downlink in place, the array of drives necessary to run a movie would more complicated to deliver and install than just shipping cans of 35mm prints. Most of the theater owners polled want the change to digital because it would mean they could run programs that have nothing to do with Hollywood, like boxing events or concerts. So currently it's a control issue about content and who pays for the display equipment. The theater owners have already seen technology change over and over in the 50s and they don't want to go though that again. Plus, they know they have the distributors over a barrel so they'll just wait them out, fairly confident that the benefits to the distributors will far outweigh the costs of installation. While I don't really prefer digital projection, this could open up distribution for smaller films more easily.

Roger

[mattias]

exactly. what i meant by the theaters not wanting it is that they don't want to pay for it. the equipment they have now is more than good enough for them and they don't pay for the prints. once the projector is installed it's of course a really good thing for them. not only does it mean less work and the ability to show music and sports, they can also get titles sooner even if they're not the biggest venue the biggest city. this seems to be the major selling point for digital cinema in sweden, which has a low population and many small towns that often don't get the hollywood films until up to a year after they've opened in stockholm and gothenburg.

/matt

[downix]

I have to say, most people that shoot digital do not shoot it "for the look", they shoot it due to marketing hype. "It's cheaper" "It's faster" "Kodak is bankrupt" (I actually had someone swear up and down yesterday that Kodak was being sold to Nikon, and that noone made film cameras anymore, and that all movies are shot Digitally) Only a few bold artists, like Mann, shoot digitally for the look. If people honestly did shoot digital for the look and feel of it, then why has "make your DV/HD look like film" software been selling like mad?

I'm going head-to-head with a friend of mine that sank a fortune into a new DVX100AP with my Super8 *and* my 16mm to see how well that software works too, so we will see how things go. I'll post pictures when we're done.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

the equipment they have now is more than good enough for them and they don't pay for the prints.

Really? We have a small cinema outside Uppsala that rents their prints, 1000:- SEK for a weekend, it is a small cinema and the price for renting prints is huge. 8O

I don´t know how it is in the "normal" cinemas, but I thought that they had to pay for the prints too.

Going digital would be great for distribution, just download the films!

[MovieStuff]

Previously, downix had posted:

I'll stick to the format I can trust the most to deliver the look I desire the most.

I replied:

As do people working with digital every day of the week.

I have to say, most people that shoot digital do not shoot it "for the look", they shoot it due to marketing hype.

I don't think it's total hype. I have seen many a commercial and music video shot 24P HD that looked for all the world like film. I tend to think of digital as another emulsion, not a different medium. Handled correctly, it can deliver a desired look and, most importantly, the people shooting it regularly know what to expect. It's really only people that shoot film regularly that are disatisfied with the look of digital. People that shoot video want a film look without the hassle so they'll accept the look that 24p gives them, even if it doesn't match a specific emulsion. Only film shooters are looking for a specific emulsion and, frankly, achieving that goal usually satisfies their egos more than it makes a difference to the viewing audience.

Therefore, what you refer to as "hype" would be accurate product description for the intended market, which is video shooters. I really don't think that the 24P HD manufacturers are trying to sell film shooters on the notion that digital is better than film. Instead they are wisely selling video shooters on the idea that they, too, can get a "film look" without the hassle knowing that audiences will accept a veneer of film without the underlying substance of film. In fact, the audience sets the lowest acceptable standard for everything including stories, writing, acting, directing, image quality, sound quality, etc. So, in the end, it isn't about a qualitative difference between film and digital but, rather, a qualitative similarity that is measurable by audience acceptance.

Roger

[mattias]

the equipment they have now is more than good enough for them and they don't pay for the prints.

Really? We have a small cinema outside Uppsala that rents their prints, 1000:- SEK for a weekend

that's for the screening right, not the print itself. they'd have to pay that even if they're going to show it digitally. maybe slightly less if the distributor's costs are lower, sure, but you still won't be able to screen films for free just because you have a digital projector. and even if that was the case, how many weekends do you think it would take before the projector is payed for, and do you think the projector is still in working condition then?

/matt

[marc]

I think people want to think digital is better because they want to think that technology is always improving society and our way of life

Off topic and a look at the big picture with respect to that statement, it is technology that is turning this world into an ever expanding cesspool!

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

but you still won't be able to screen films for free just because you have a digital projector.

Of course not. But I thought of the price as a rent for the reel, with the screening rights included. I guess it is the other way, you pay for the screening rights with the price for the reel included

Anyway it should be cheaper when it is digital, no need for shipping the reels, no need for making of the reels and so on.

[mattias]

Anyway it should be cheaper when it is digital, no need for shipping the reels, no need for making of the reels and so on.

well, that's the distributor's saving, which is exactly why theaters want them to pay for the projector upgrades. i don't think maybe 500 sek each weekend is enough incitement for your local theater to feel that it's a great idea to buy a 200,000 kronor projector, which is what the cheapest ones suitable for theater projection cost, or the 1,000,000 kronor projector needed for "35mm quality"?

/matt

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

You are right. But I think just the shipping of a reel/reels comes up to almost 500:- so the savings must be bigger. But if it is the distributors that save $$$ it should be deducted from the screening price or something.

In the long run I think that both the distributors and the cinemas will save money if switching to digital, but the price for a ticket ain´t gonna be cheaper, the audience will pay for the investments. As always

[mattias]

the audience will pay for the investments. As always :(

yeah, like when they doubled the price for an album when they went from lp to cd, even though they were cheaper both to make and ship. anyway i don't think this is a question of who will pay in the end, but who will put up the money to begin with. a movie is a huge investment for the distributor, while "all" the theater pays is a small fee and maybe a cut from the sales. much simpler economy than having to pay off a projector every month even if the current films all bomb.

/matt

[synthnut]

Hia,
There are still numerous problems surrounding the whole area of digital cinema.
The ideal of "downloading" films is still tricky as the HUGE amount of data required for a 35mm quality feature is still not that easily handled. You will need a fibre to make this a viable option really. If you only want DVD type quality, then no problem! The amount of drive space is enormous and of course open to easy duplication unless coded beyond belief.
Drop a hard drive and its bye bye data time, drop a print and its ouch, my foot, but on with the show...
OK, scratched prints are crap and this is films visable drawback apart from the inherant distribution costs,
Large screen cinema requires serious projectors and whilst the technology is "getting there" what is available is very expensive. Now, 35mm projectors are very expensive, but they last for a LONG time. Many theatres use projectors older than the projectionists and they still trundle on like the day they were bought, with no more than a bit of oil and the odd adjustment now and then. They are mechanical and very easily serviced. I have even had to fix a broken sound-head caught on a torrn sprocket in an inpromptu intermission: A dab of super glue and hey presto, back up and running and only 0.5dB down in gain. Now show me a digital projector that will last more than 5 years and that can be fixed by a passing techy! Cinemeccanicas Victoria 8 was sold in 1961 and is still in production, let alone original models still in use.
The idea that digital is more economical is often utter bullsh*t. The costs are different, but look at the bigger picture, and in many cases savings made in one area will be offset by the constant need to replace "obsolete" equipment etc

Barcos top line D-Cine Premiere DP100 is a serious bit of kit that will set you back a few quid and has the following spec:

Native Resolution
- 2048 x 1080 per Red, Green and Blue channel.
Equivalent to 6.6 million pixels. (not so great when you think about it really)

Color Processing
- Bit depth: 45 bit (15 bit per color)
- Color Shades: 35 trillion (blah blah blah)
- Color Gamut: 40% better than HDTV (equivalent to film)

Show a digitally originated movie with one of these and its bright and crisp (and as lifeless and sterile looking as a very sterile sterile thing) and just makes some (quite loud) fan noise.

Oh, plus you need a media server and a pile of hard drives too.

Or, I could by a 30 year old 35mm Cinemeccanica or Kinoton and use the change to buy a house, safe in the knowledge that I can fix it my self!

The "revolution" is about keeping the money go round working, not that this is wrong, it's just lots of people will get sold on things for the wrong reasons.
Anyone out there had experiences with phone companies offering all sorts of good reasons for you to move off that tarif from way back saying how you will save money? Did you? I bet not, they don't want you to save money, they want you to spend more off course. It's just business as usual...
If you make something last too long, how do you sell more?

Now, time to fire up that Gaumont...

Keep showing the "reel" stuff!


Ben ;-)

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Drop a hard drive and its bye bye data time,

No, not if you have a disk-array that can rebuild the data from the broken harddrive. It would be insane not to have one, hell I have three myself!

[mathis]

... unless coded beyond belief.

Which will again increase data size beyond belief.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Lets hope that they wont even try to protect them from copying, it is pretty pointless because someone will crack the code anyway and then it will be as easy to copy as a DVD, the protection on DVD´s is pretty pointless today.