It was somewhat informative overall, and Al Barton of Sony, one of the presenters, noted the importance of recognizing the presentation of movies as an art form, and not just a simple setup-and-go operation. This statement was actually aimed toward the audience, who were mostly professional AV systems installers/integrators. Setting up projectors for a boardroom or large venue is based on a substantially different philosphy than presenting films, where the aim for the former seems to be skewed toward brightness and producing crisp graphics, rather than on the reproduction of images that are as faithful as possible to the artistic vision.

Barton also noted the "new" skills that would be required of a digital cinema projectionist, such as the ability to administer systems remotely, computer operations knowledge, the ability to diagnose/exchange computer hardware components, etc. At another panel discussion, one prominent d-cinema player said that the transition to digital might be more "healthy" for film handlers, since they won't have to file aperture plates (in reference to a projectionist who had developed Corpal Tunnel Syndrome as a result).

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

I once heard it said that humans have reached a point in their existence where things they can develop might be easier to use, but not exactly better for them. I think digital cinema exemplifies that to the maximum degree.

o Striking prints
o Shipping prints
o Warehousing prints
o Inspection and repair of prints (ha ha)
o Disposing of prints

It seems to me, therefore, that the distributors have the strongest interest in promoting digital cinema.

The next question is, who should pay for the projectors, or more accurately, who should own the projectors?

Which brings us to one of the driving forces in the entertainment industry: digital piracy paranoia.

If the theatres own and maintain the projectors, then how long will it be before someone, either a theatre employee or projector serviceman, either for profit or fun, figures out how to extract the digital datastreams from the projectors. It isn't hard to imagine a scenario where a movie appears as a stunning, digitally-sourced pirate DVD even before the release date!

I believe that, if the industry accepts digital cinema, it will require that the projectors be sealed, tamper-proof units. Once the projectors are sealed, whomever owns the projectors acquires a unique position of power:

1) They can program the projectors to only allow a movie to be screened after a certain date.
2) They can program the projectors to keep accurate, tamper-proof logs showing exactly what movies were projected at what times.
3) They can program the projectors to insert a different anti-piracy identifier each time the movie is shown.
4) They can program the projectors to erase the movies from their hard drives at the end of the exhibition period.
5) They can dial into a central computer periodically, and provide an accurate, tamper-proof account of what movies were exhibited at what times. A well-designed system could even provide such information as how many hours were on the bulb, and even report the bulb brightness and current draw.

In fact, once the distributors figure out just how much more control they can have if they own the projectors, don't be surprised if they offer digital projectors to theatres essentially for free, just to rid themselves of the cost of manufacturing, inventorying, shipping, and disposing of prints, AND to gain all of the measures of control I've just enumerated.

So where will that leave 35mm? In the same position as 70mm now. The only thing that makes 35mm even remotely economical is the economy of scale -- the large print runs. Eliminate the large print runs, and suddenly 35mm release prints are going to become very, very expensive to produce. Distributors are not going to want to strike any 35mm prints at all. They're expensive, they have to ship them, they occasionally "fall off the truck", they have to keep track of them, they can't really control them once they're in the theatres. Once digital cinema takes hold, look for more and more films to be distributed (and advertised!) as "Digital-only"

So where does digital cinema leave the projectionist? Simple. It practically obsoletes the entire profession, just like automatic elevators obsoleted the once-thriving profession of elevator operators.

And once it happens, the entire 35mm film manufacturing / distributing / inventory / chain is going to be shut down. New theatres won't have film projectors. As digital projectors improve, older digital projectors will work their way down the chain to second-run houses, displacing 35mm projectors. In short, it will become economically impossible to turn back.

The points about film and projection being part of the artistic vision of a filmmaker are well taken, but whose to say that future filmmakers will even be able to afford to shoot on film? If you eliminate the release runs, then the film manufacturers are going to be manufacturing a lot less film. The result will be to drive up the cost of not only release stock, but camera stock as well. Consider a young filmmaker, or film student, who is faced with the choice between shooting their movie on 35mm film, which will cost tens of thousands of dollars, or shooting their movie on a digital camera, which is going to be much, much cheaper. If the filmmaker knows that the end result of his or her efforts is going to be exhibited on 35mm, then he or she has an incentive to shoot on 35mm. If the same filmmaker knows that there isn't a chance in hell of ever having a 35mm print run struck or exhibited, because all the theatres have digital projectors, then that filmmaker has an incentive to shoot digital -- not only because it's cheaper, but because that's the only way that the public is going to see their work anyhow.

etc etc etc

 |  IP: Logged

The exhibitors put up too many screens. The distributors responded so that movies could be on two or three or five screens all at once... and they were suddenly making more than 3,000 prints for even a moderately popular film. And, today, patrons wouldn't accept a film like Raiders of the Lost Ark remaining on the same screen for months at a time.

My greatest concern, however, and this sort of fits into John's post about control, is what happens if the distribs end up footing the bill for the projectors and therefore take it upon themselves to decide which cimemas live or die based upon the ability to generate grosses. In other words, will there come a time when bean counters in an office somewhere say, "Big city Multiplex A is very productive, we'll give them digital projectors. The Tinytown Twin does okay but digital projectors are too expensive so we'll be better off not outfitting them for digital." If it eventually comes to that point and product is no longer released on film that can be played on the 35mm projectors of those not chosen, think of how many jobs and small businesses will be lost. Unless the cost of digital projectors comes down to where even the little guys can afford them, and I doubt they'll come down anywhere near what a 35mm set-up costs, distribution could wield tremendous power over which theaters survive and which must close.

Another scenerio comes to mind that even the big boys may not like to think about. Imagine if the bean counters start deciding which of the large cinema locations have to close or which get to survive, based upon whom they award digital projectors to. Imagine them saying, "Gee, the XYZ Cinemas 24 in Anytown USA does well but XYZ will have to shut down their new 16 screener across town because it doesn't do quite as well as we'd like. Mediocre grosses, no digital projectors!"
Or even worse, "XYZ's Cinema 24 hasn't been doing as well since PDQ Theatres built that new 30 plex across the street. I guess we'll equip the PDQ 30 for digital and XYZ will have to close."

These scenerios may seem far-fetched but think about the possibilities if exhibitors can't afford to switch to digital projection on their own and have to hope for help from distribution. A number of small town movie theatre owners have already told me that they think they'll be ignored when the digital projectors are passed out. These are INDOOR operators. Now consider the plight of the many still operating drive-in theatres who would be closed because the technology, to date, won't handle large outdoor screens.

Personally, I've seen digital projectors (DLP's) and it looks totally acceptable. No, it can't light a 60ft wide screen at 16fL, but few theaters are that large, and (judging from other posts here) most of those are under-lit anyway. And, like practically everything with electronics, the price will drop. While $120,000 for the projector alone is today's price, manufacturing in large quanities could significantly reduce the price, as low as $50,000 in 5-7 years. Same thing with storage... my first hard drive was $250 for 250meg (in 1984.) Now, I see 100gig for $200. Many people hated transistor amplifers when they were introduced; I remember one knowledgeable industry leader insisting that for higher-power requirements like theaters, tube amplifers would never be replaced. Now, you'd be crazy to equip an standard 18-plex with tubes.

Also, I would'nt be surprised if the Dept. of Justice got involved with distribution, if distributors tried to control the theaters.

The industry is studio/distributor driven. Just like polyester film stock, they will get what they want. And even traditionally "film" companies (Kodak, Technicolor) are investing in the technology, because they know they will eventually be "out" if they don't. It won't happen right away, or even in 5 years, but until the right combination of events occurs (like reduced manufacturing costs and high ticket prices, advertisers want to get into the theaters, etc.)

I'd like to suggest to Brad that another forum section be created, just for digital projection issues. Not for digital projection "sucks"-type comments, but for, "That Christie Roadmaster DLP had the weirdist set-up procedure...."

quote:

---

Also, I would'nt be surprised if the Dept. of Justice got involved with distribution, if distributors tried to control the theaters.

---

I would be surprised. The US government & investors have been very welcoming of media monopolies for the last decade or so, & the public doesn't seem to care.