|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Author
|
Topic: Film, Vinyl, Digital
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/30f.jpg)
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-20-2002 05:17 AM
There are many reasons why people collect records, most of which have nothing to do with sound quality. For example, the cover art and inserts on a 12" disk are much better and more fun than the wimpy little booklet that comes with a CD. Vinyl is usually quite cheap on the used market, and many recordings are unavailable in other formats. The sound quality issue is very subjective and some recordings sound better on one format than another (probably due to the quality of the mastering job more than the quality inherent in either medium). Some of the MFSL LPs that they were making in the late '90s are quite awesome and I would happily put them up against the best-sounding CDs ever made when played on decent equipment (high quality turntable, tonearm, cartridge, and preamp). Many common pressings (especially those made for record clubs) are crap, though.There are relatively few similarties to film here, because much of the appeal of vinyl is in the physical medium; with film, relatively few people purchase or even see or handle the physical item. At this time, digital cinema is purely a cost-driven issue. If anyone cared about quality, we would be seeing 70mm prints on many screens and that isn't happening now.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/299c.jpg)
Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 08-20-2002 09:50 AM
I can see the similarity of the argument. However similar, there is a stark difference, for the many reasons already stated above.I will instead point out that the Vinyl to CD change is purely a sound issue, and doesn't truly compare to the film vs. digital argument for the simple reason that it is visual, not audio. As most are aware, film sound has gone digital, and in most cases, we get the film sound on a CD (DTS, thats all I have worked with, not sure of other formats, sorry). Unlike the CD, where there is one sound format, with digital film sound, we have three current digital formats. They are DTS, DOLBY, and SDDS (by the way I heard a great mix for the movie SIGNS in SDDS two days ago). There are even extention formats such as EX, for extended surround sound as well. So as for the vinyl to cd comparison, the film industry has already gone through that phase, with the change to digital sound. Some theaters even have all three formats installed, for various reasons. Dave
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evans A Criswell
Phenomenal Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/381.jpg)
Posts: 1579
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 08-20-2002 10:24 AM
The main problem with the comparison is the vinyl to CD change offered most people a great improvement in sound. While it may be true that a very good turntable and a mint-condition vinyl record may sound better in ways than some CDs, for the record players and records that most people had, CD was a great improvement. Occasionally, I get some records out and play them, and am surprised that everyone used to think nothing of the pops, crackles, rumble noise, feedback from the environment (ever walk too heavily or jump and make your needle skip?), and limited stereo separation. After all, the medium had great high-end frequency response that could not be totally captured on even the best cassettes, which often had a dull, lifeless sound to them.The CD was an audible improvement over what most people had. By 1988, better CD players were getting cheap enough for the general public to easily afford. The film to digital transition is happening in a totally different way. Instead of starting with a resolution that is able to capture everything available on typical film, it's starting with a much lower resolution. If digital cinema had started with a resolution of 4000 by 3000 or better with a sufficient color bit depth, then we could say that the transition from film to digital was like the transition to CDs for audio. ------------------ Evans A Criswell Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Schaffer
"Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?"
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/1204d.jpg)
Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 08-20-2002 10:53 AM
There is one strange contradiction in the standard lp vs. cd argument: on the one hand, people say a cd sounds too bright or cold. On the other hand they tell you that digital audio is bad because the frequency response is cut off beyond 20kHz. While there is absolutely no proof that people can hear or somehow sense frequencies that high or even higher, the reason cds sound brighter than lps is because the response is theoretically flat to 20kHz - if your playback equipment would be able to reproduce the signal without further distortion. On the lp, the higher frequency bands are much more distorted (on the inside of the lp, useable response only goes up to 8kHz due to the slow speed of the groove wall). If the lp has any frequencies in the ultrasonic region, they are so distorted they have no relation to the original signal. Lps sound softer or a little more "unfocused" exactly because the lp system is in effect low-pass filtering the audio information at around 14kHz at its best (on the outside of the record). I understand that lps are nice collectors` objects, and it is fun to listen to older recordings on the original equipment to recreate the original experience. I love to watch old films for exactly the same reason. When I watch a movie with magnetic soundtrack and the hiss comes on just before the start of the show, I am teleported back to my youth when this signaled the start of the show for me. Scott is right, a lot depends on mastering. In the early cd days, there were many cds for which the original lp master had been transferred directly. Of course they sounded horrible. Still, as a medium for storage and replay of audio signals, the cd is vastly superior to the lp. It is interesting to note that from the very beginning of the digital audio era, classical musicians have been among those who welcomed digital recording and reproduction the most. Mike, I think that those who want to push digital projection would like to make it look like the lp/cd transition but the naked truth is that all digital movie presentations I have seen are definitely inferior to what current projection technologies can achieve. Michael
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin Dean
Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/1416.jpg)
Posts: 11
From: Duluth, MN, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 08-20-2002 12:11 PM
Sadly I believe the final decision of digital cinema over traditional film is down to the operation cocerns for the exhibitors and distribution control for the distributors.Although digital projectors will still need some maintainance, there will be no need for projectionists as we know it (not even the machine monkeys most multiplexes use today). No need to lace up, ad ads, no late nights breaking the film down, etc etc. From the distributors point of view the control they will have will probably make todays attempted enforcement seem mild. They will probably take steps to ensure that the films are only shown at the agreed times in the agreed screens. No staff screenings, no unofficial moving a film to make way for a better selling film etc etc. Add to this the potential to use the apparatus for live 'pay-per-view' events and the ability to insert individual security marks during screenings and probably a host of other possibities and I belive you will see Digital Projection becoming the norm. Of course either deals will have to be struck or prices drop significantly before we see mass conversion over to digital, but I think it is only a matter of time before running regular film will become as specialised running 70mm or magnetic sound. As far as quality is concerned, I believe this is not the top priority for the industry. I am sure they are gauging peoples reactions to the few places with Digital Projection and as long as the majority (not the purists) have no problems with it then they will continue pushing to get cinemas converted when viable. In the long term quality will improve I am sure, and exhibitors will take great pains to publicise the fact (as they have done when the put the latest sound system), but sadly most people don't really notice if a film is playing in full 8.1 SDDS or in mono, they simply like the fact that the believe that they are getting something better. After all the public don't seem to mind that most places no longer have curtain or masking, or nice lighting effects, all they are interested in is seeing the latest movie, with the minimum distraction at the cheapest price. At the end of the day money will win. Sad...but true. ------------------ Martin Dean martinidean@charter.net
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Stambaugh
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/1102d.jpg)
Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 08-20-2002 12:31 PM
Claude, I have to respectfully disagree with you on that first Sony CD player, the Model CDP-101. It really was a piece of sonic crap. For one thing, it used analog brick-wall filtering, which was later shown to cause great harm to the integrity of the output signal. CD players and recordings have come a LONG way since then.I think there are similarities between the issues of vinyl LPs vs. CDs, and film vs. DLP. As Evans said, for the masses, CD was an improvement. But there was always a hard-core audiophile crowd who hated the "sound" of CDs, and some of them probably still do. Is film any different? When talking about film, if we're referring to the AVERAGE (or worse) theater, where film is not done right most of the time, DLP is probably an improvement. Those theaters and their customers are the "masses". DLP will probably be an improvement for them, even with all its current deficiencies. The relatively few who appreciate "Film Done Right", including exhibitors and knowledgeable moviegoers, know that the deficiencies of the current DLP system make it impossible for DLP to beat the quality of film. But just as with digital audio recording and playback, digital "film" will improve, and it's basically a done-deal. The only issue is what will the baseline quality level be (OK, and the cost). Nevertheless, there will always be people who prefer the look of film over digital, partly due to the personal attention and care it requires to do film right. This is not really much different from people who still prefer vinyl LPs. I include myself in the film-lovers group because the whole "physical" aspect of creating & projecting films is fascinating to me, and when a movie REALLY looks and sounds good on the screen, not only am I entertained, but I sincerely appreciate all the hard work and attention to detail that goes into every step of the process of getting an image up on the screen. Digital will take a lot of that "personal factor" out I fear. But I accept digital as a done-deal. ![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/smile.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/248b.jpg)
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-20-2002 01:39 PM
There is a major flaw in the argument that the change-over from LP to CD is analogous to 35mm film to DLP. And that flaw is the economic model. It is obvious that the economic model for DLP is unworkable as it exists today with the price of equipment totally out of the realm of exhibitors, many of which are already in Chapter 11. The analogy is made that the prices will come down just like the prices of CD players came down. But that is a faulty assumption. The reason the prices of CD player came down was because the public which quickly became enamored of the quality and ease of use of the CDs drove the market. They bought CD players and the CDs at the entry market price, high as it was. The penetration of this digital system was quick and exponential. That is what brought the price down; manufactures were able to continue R&D by the ever increasing sales at the initially high prices. Yes, the prices were high, but people bought the units anyway. The reason prices were able to come down and make CD dominate the marketplace to the death of the LP was because of the mass market. If only 100 or 1000 people bought the first CDs, the prices would have remained at $1000 per unit (I paid $900 for my first Teac CD player and I thought I had gotten a great deal). There is no corresponding analogy for DLP -- the consumer market is involved only periferally. The end-users of DLP, the exhibitors, are NOT buying this technology. Technicolor's original plan to install 1000 "free" DLPs to seed the market has gone nowhere. There are less than 200 DLP units in place four years after the first one was used to show STARWARS Ep 1. Those numbers simply are not the numbers needed to reach the critical mass that allows manufacturers to bring down the prices; DLP may not become viable for many years to come and even then, it may have to coexist with 35mm indefinitely, given these economics. Distribution is also well aware that in order for it to continue reaping the ever growing profits from the theatre markets outside the US, 35mm film will have to continue for decades. And then there is distribution of the movie datastream, which is where DLP purports to be the great money-saver -- no more prints. So far, anyone who is savvy about digital distribution knows that it never comes free. Even today, the theatres that have DLP have to wait for some very high paid technicians to come with the hard discs containing the digital datastream to install them into the server. This doesn't come cheap. And it probably isn't any cheaper than a guy in a truck delivering a print. This idea that eliminating 35mm print distribution is the same as eliminating the cost of distribution is either naive or purposely omissive to make DLP look better than it really is. As it is, they still have not worked out any standards for how the digital stream gets from the transfer house to the DLP in the theatre. DVDs are a possibility but so far, you would need stacks of them to deliver the amounts of data needed for near-film quality images. Satellite transmission seems to be a viable transmission line, but satellite time certainly isn't free -- just ask the TV networks who have to pay big bucks, and they are using bandwidths which are much smaller than what will be needed for quality, uncompressed or at least low compression motion picture data. Then there are the uplinks stations and downlink receivers, neither of which come free or without yearly maintenance and service tweak costs. Theatre owners are much to smart not to recognize that by switching to a technology that is proprietary, they become locked into whatever prices the owner of that technology wants to set for parts, upgrades, maintenance, and most especially, service. Mr. Exhibitor knows he won't be able to go to any local cinema service company and ask for an emergency service visit at the prices that he now pays for that service in 35mm. Network server troubleshooting and repairs for the same per hour cost that he can get a service tech to replace an intermittent? -- not in this lifetime. No, there is no comparison between the move from analog LPs to digital CDs and that of DLP and 35mm film. The former was driven by the economics of the mass market where millions of units were purchased at the higher prices which enabled manufactures to bring prices down. DLP is not driven by anything. The end user doesn't want it because it gives him no advantage over what he already has (with CD, the perception of the buyer was that it is MUCH superior to LP technology). Then there is the distributor, yes, he would like to eliminate print costs but he's not the one needing to lay out the cost per screen of the DLPs. And as yet, there is so guarantee that DLP will cost him less to distribute the datastream than it does to distribute 35mm prints. The real problem is that this hugely expensive new technology doesn't deliver anything better to the consumer, either in reality or in perception, that is not already delivered by the existing film technology and the infrastructure already paid for and already in place. Asking theatre owners to spend $150,000 (initially -- the yearly operational costs may be much higher) for a piece of new technology in order to get ALMOST as good a picture and sound as he already has in his theatres is a very, VERY hard sell. This kind of untenable situation never existed when CDs went to market. However there is one example that does match the astronomically over-priced DLP technology with respect to analog LPs. Just before CDs hit the market there was a company that designed a LP playback unit that read the groves with 6 laser beams without any mechanical contact with the record surface. Theoretically this technology would revolutionize the way LPs were played; it would eliminate all the distortion and the wear associated with needle-in-groove mechanical playback. Sounds like a great idea, eh? And one that might have kept the LP technology alive. Only trouble was, the thing cost $15,000. It is still being manufactured and the price is now a bit lower, but not by much. Prices CAN'T come down unless huge numbers of units are purchased at the initial high market price. For the Laser LP player, this never happened. I think THIS is much closer to the DLP vs film analogy. You have a technology that is so expensive that it has no chance of substantially coming down. And when you play an LP with the laser system, you are still hearing an LP -- nothing spectacularly better than what you had....much like DLP -- you get nothing spectacularly better than what film technology already gives you. Unless something radically changes in either the quality of what DLP can deliver, say IMAX quality and size images, or the economic model changes, DLP is not inevitable nor is the demise of 35mm film. Frank
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/1171i.jpg)
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 08-20-2002 02:49 PM
I'm willing to bet that we would see wider adoption right now if the cost of a new digital system came down (a lot) and the availability of "digital-only" movies started to rise.I seriously doubt if image quality is the REAL reason why the format is stagnating right now. The sad fact is that images from today's digital systems would probably be an improvement over what's being offered in most cinemas today. I'm not saying that digital is in fact better. I'm saying that a lot of cinemas aren't fulfilling the promise of 35mm film.
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/331cap.gif)
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 08-20-2002 03:49 PM
Manny wrote: "I'm not saying that digital is in fact better. I'm saying that a lot of cinemas aren't fulfilling the promise of 35mm film."Digital Cinema today: "Better than Film Done Wrong." ![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif) IMHO, "Digital Done Right" is NOT a "gimme", and will be subject to the same cost-cutting pressures that hurt film presentation today. ------------------ John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243 e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thomas Procyk
Phenomenal Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/1170e.jpg)
Posts: 1842
From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 08-20-2002 04:45 PM
Actually, the initial sales of CDs and CD players were very poor because the price was too high. Here is an interesting essay about the "market-driven" success of the Compact Disc:SHINY, ALUMINUM, PLASTIC, AND DIGITAL by Negativland Reproduction of this essay is strongly encouraged. So, why is that new "Oasis" CD so expensive? In the early eighties, sales of vinyl, cassettes, turntables and cassette players were "flat". This means that sales were stable, not rising or falling. For the makers of all this hardware and software, that wasn't quite good enough. They needed a new angle. A new way to sell music and the stuff you play it on. Luckily, someone at the Phillips Corporation (owner of PolyGram Music and Island Records and one of the worlds top defense contractors) had the bright idea that it would be good for their stockholders and investors if they could get the music consuming public excited about buying music again by introducing a new format and a new machine to play it on (i.e. how can you convince that aging baby boomer to buy yet another copy of DEJA VU by Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young when they already have one?) Thus was born THE COMPACT DISC in all it's shiny, aluminum, plastic and digital glory. It's maximum playing time, about 75 minutes, was chosen because the president of the company wanted something that could play his favorite piece of music, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, all the way through without stopping. Well, compact discs weren't as successful as they had hoped. For one thing, their price was too high. The higher price was blamed both on the fact that they were mostly being made in Japan and that they had a high defect rate, with approximately one out of every three discs being tossed out before even leaving the CD factory. Early on, the economics of this led to an industry wide decision to continue paying recording artists a royalty rate based on the sale price of vinyl instead of the higher sale price of compact discs. And nobody was buying those new CD players either, because they were just too darned expensive. But then, in the spring of 1989, something wonderful happened for the music industry. Everything changed! Almost overnight, CD's were everywhere! Suddenly they were a huge success and suddenly it became almost impossible to get anything on vinyl at all.. This change must have occurred because it was what the consumer wanted.....right? We live in a market-driven economy and the market was demanding more compact discs.....right? Wrong. What actually happened was this - a flexible return policy had always existed between record stores and the seven major distributors, i.e. stores could "buy" something from a distributor, and if it didn't sell, they could return it. This allowed stores to take more chances on new releases or on things they were not so familiar with, because if it didn't sell, they could always send it back. Well, in the spring of 1989 all seven major label distributors announced that they would no longer accept "returns" on vinyl and they also began deleting much of the vinyl versions of their back catalog. These actions literally forced record stores to stop carrying vinyl. They could not afford the financial risk of carrying those releases that were on vinyl because if they didn't sell they would be stuck with them. Very quickly almost all record stores had to convert to CD's. The net effect of this was that the consumer no longer had a choice because the choice had been made for us. High priced compact discs were being shoved down our throats, whether we knew it or liked it or not. As we mentioned earlier, record labels were paying artists a royalty rate on sales of CD's based upon the $8.98 or $9.98 list price of vinyl (or achieved the same end result by using contractual tricks like "packaging deductions"). As CD's took over and the majors all acquired their own domestic CD pressing plants and the defect rate dropped to almost zero, the cost of manufacturing compact discs dropped dramatically as well. One would have expected the price of CD's to also drop and for the profits to now be split evenly and fairly with the musicians who were making all the music. This, of course, never happened. CD prices have continued to rise to a now unbelievable $16.98 list price (soon to be $17.98!) while manufacturing costs have now dropped to less than it costs to manufacture a $9.98 vinyl release. A CD, with its plastic jewel box, printed booklet and tray card now costs a major label about 80 cents each to make (or less) and a small independent label between $1.50 and $2.50. Meaning that CD's should now cost the consumer less than their original prices over a decade ago, not more. But the music business got consumers used to the idea of paying the higher price and the labels got used to the idea of their higher profit margin, and record labels continue to this day to pay almost all artists a royalty rate as if they're selling CD's for the list price of vinyl. That extra 4 or 5 or 6 bucks goes right into the pockets of the record labels. It is not shared with musicians. And of course, we all had to go out and buy a CD player (which had mysteriously dropped to a more reasonable price) if we wanted to hear any of the music on this "popular" new format. So, all in all, it's no wonder that the record industry and stereo manufacturers loved the compact disc. In fact the following year (when our economy was in a recession) the music industry had its biggest profits, ever! If any of this bothers you as much as it does us, then you might be wondering why you've never heard about any of this or why no anti-trust action was ever taken against major labels and distributors. The answer to this is quite simple. Most of the reporting on the inner workings of the record business comes from the music press and the music press is almost totally reliant on the advertising dollars and good will of the business that they're writing about. So, in the interest of not wanting to "rock the boat" or anger the folks who essentially bankroll their publishing ventures, this story would, and will continue to remain, unreported. And with the coming "popularity" of DVD, the music industry looks like it is ready to try the same tricks all over again. --------- And the link: http://www.negativland.com/minidis.html Perhaps the distributors will try some sort of trickery to force theaters to convert to DLP, which would only save them money. Unless of course more and more exhibitors refuse people like Mr. Lucas's product, especially now sice they've learned their lesson... twice... =TMP=
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/299c.jpg)
Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 08-20-2002 05:15 PM
If all the theater owners had to do was put in a $10 thousand dollar projector and buy dvd's to play, they would do it in a heart beat. Imagine programming the start times and thats all you have to do, hell you can do that from a central location, and never worry about it. Why have a projection staff?When you come down to it, IMHO only about 5 percent of the audience even notices the clarity of film to digital. Economics keep film in the booth right now. It is a matter of a few short years before someone starts selling inexpensive systems and owners start deciding to cut costs. Here is hoping that film wins. Dave
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|