|  IP: Logged

Also, I don't see why he "conceded" that digital cinema will make it easier for independent filmmakers to get into theaters. If the systems that get installed are closed, network-only boxes, like the systems Technicolor introduced last year, it will have the opposite effect. Digital being a boon to indies is not in any way guaranteed.

Who will pay for this?

So you have $10000.00 install cost plus higher returns plus the added cost of more security, more managers & more soundproofing.

I can see we are going to be making money hand over fist.

DVD has a standard, and a new blue laser standard coming this year, BUT... how many manufacturers of DVD players are there? Anyone can produce a DVD and sell it, rent it.. whatever...

ALSO...

We have a standard of film presentation... 24 fps... BUT... how many manufacturers of projectors do we have?? Many... If you can afford to make the print, advertise it, you can show it...

ALSO...

Not all digital projection systems are alike... I have been poking around.. there are, as I have found now, more than a dozen manufacturers of theater quality digital projection systems. NOt all are based on the same technology, and as an open economy as we have allows for extreme competition in technology, the systems will not conform to any said technology for many years to come.

WHEN a specified format technology comes along, rules will also come with it!!! Much like CD players, DVD players, VHS players, they will have to be able to accept ANY properly formatted source material.

THIS means that access by independant films will be great, and the studios stranglehold on the industry will start to wain.... slowly but for sure.

How many people outside of our industry know that our film is made of a rather strong and obstinent polyester base? Try to explain that to the common man, or a theater owner (not you ian or ky), and he thinks you are talking about his plaid shirt with the liqour stain on it.

Why will digital be a benefit to the independents? Because they can finally afford to make a good movie with a small amount of money. So, why would Roger Ebert be opposed to digital cinema? It will allow smaller, more diverse storytellers to present their work. It will stop Hollywood pencil-pushers from controling "art" and why wouldn't Ebert be completely elated about that?

A few years ago there was a movie called In the Company of Men which got a lot of praise from critics (and maybe Ebert was among them). It was shot on film but a cinematographer I know called the film's technical quality "an insult" to his profession. So... how can critics like Roger Ebert praise "film done wrong" by the independents and automatically proclaim digital as a bad thing? "Digital Done Right" is a great thing... and depending on the project it can be the correct format to choose.

The Maxivision idea will never fly in mainstream theatres... and Hollywood heavyweights will never film anything that way, period. It's hard to believe Ebert is still talking about it. Ebert also has some crazy idea that electronic images create a hypnotic effect on the audience and film images do not (...something to do with flicker rates). So, in these ShoWest accounts, it seems he wants Hollywood to do scientific studies about this.

Ebert believes that the only way to get quality projection is to revive the days of the full-time, fully-unionized projectionist industry. Again, he's dreaming. He should keep encouraging theatres to give us top-quality film presentations, but his insistence on union control only encourages the big exhibitors not to listen. The big exhibitors can't see a crisis so they're not really itching to invite the unions back into their multiplexes when they can get by with teenagers.

Meanwhile, this "sky is falling" attitude towards digital isn't necessary. The Hollywood infrastructure is slow to change. I predict that by the time Roger Ebert retires we'll still see 80% of movies shot on film and we'll still see 75% of theatres showing film... and I'm probably wrong. The digital numbers will probably be even lower than I think.

Digital for independents is, IMHO, a double-edged sword. It certainly reduces the cost of distribution and has the potential to increase flexibility. But there is the problem Aaron pointed out, namely the big players trying to squeeze independents out right from the start, and also the issue of equipment.

Many independent theatres are using projection and sound equipment which is decades old but which is still reliable and relatively cheap to maintain. With digital they'd have to make a big capital investment up front, and keep upgrading their kit regularly. With film, improvements in image quality are delivered through the film itself. Today's print stock looks sharper and less grainy than the stuff being used 10 years ago, yet no equipment upgrade is required to project it.

With digital you'd have to spend far more money on equipment upgrades. If you look at broadcast video 10 years ago we were using UMatic and 1" 'C' format, whilst S-VHS decks cost four figures. A signal played from one of these sources through a 1992 video projector would look pretty bad compared to a mid-range DVD player and even quite a cheap LCD projector today. With digital cinema you'd have to go on upgrading all the time, and the exhibitor would have to pay.

This isn't going to affect the big chains so much because they'll just set aside $X million every five years for new kit, figuring that they'll get this back in the form of lower staff and shipping costs. But will the independents be able to absorb these costs?

Second, from a purely economic point of view, film is cheaper for small runs. A 35mm print can be made for $1-2k in small runs. Even a 16mm blowup can be made for $10-20k. Scanning a negative or intermediate element for DLP projection, however, costs $100-150k. The cost of scanning will make self-distribution of limited interest titles even more impossible than it already is.

Because if they don't, exhibitors won't agree to put the equipment in. This is oversimplistic and possibly untrue, but it's where the incentive would come from if it actually does happen.

--jhawk

 |  IP: Logged

It's the same principle as when I point out that my car has run out of petrol [gasoline], even though the actual substance I'm talking about is Diesel fuel.

1. a tough flammable thermoplastic composed of essentially of cellulose nitrate and camphor.

2. a motion-picture film

Webster's Thrid New International Dictionary also has a second
entry for the word:

1. of or relating to the motion pictures

I'm not saying the word is technically correct anymore, but due to usage, it is accepted as having the definition associated with movie film.

By the way, the article mentioned at the top does address things that bother me at the movies: too many cell phones, trailers giving away too much, etc. AMEN!

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged