Do we really need "SR"?

Do we really need to split the surrounds?

What's wrong with the academy curve?

These are questions that were asked in this industry every time a new way of doing things came into being.

Digital film exhibition, obviously, has its faults. It's new and it probably will look totally different should it ever come to pass as the accepted way of doing things.

Why not give it a shot and see what it could become?

The way I see it, it will still require skilled operators to maintain performance. There will still be xenon lamps to oil *grin*, plates to cut, and sound systems to balance.

If one were to use this web sight as a measure, the only thing missing would be the "Technicolor Element".

No more broken reels (although I'm sure that TES would get into the modem business!)

Call me crazy here, but maybe they could ship them on individual floppies so that we could still do change-overs?

(This comment was Brad's fault! He never expressly said NOT to drink the Film Guard).

Anyway... I'm kinda curious as to what the digital guys could come up with provided that the film guys held their nuts to the fire. Apply the same quality standards to digital and hold them to it.

Hey, if it doesn't work, call it Beta Max!

Russ

 |  IP: Logged

Today, film is still a much more cost-effective way of distributing and presenting movies. When "done right", today's film presentation quality is superior to digital cinema presentation for most key attributes.

I personally share Scott's concern that the "cheapest" rather than the "best" may be guiding the decision making process among some producers, distributors, and exhibitors. The same cost-cutting that hurts film presentation quality today will degrade digital cinema in the future.

 |  IP: Logged

I agree with Scott and JP; Digital is being pushed as cheaper rather than better. The motion-picture industry has a long history (since the break-up) of "cheap" before "better." Mag striping, 70mm, higher frame rates are examples of superior 30-40 year-old technology not done today. DTS 70mm is a newer example. I also include IB release printing, because I'm sure they are only doing it because it's cheaper in large runs. At least that's one process where "cheaper" results in "better."

The cost for theatres to convert was a new lens (shorter focal length for greater magnification) and a new aperture plate. There was also a "cost" in reduced light efficiency and greater magnification of grain from the much smaller image area.

 |  IP: Logged

And the cost of changing the masking, which depending on what was there, could cost much more than the lenses.

"There was also a "cost" in reduced light efficiency and greater magnification of grain from the much smaller image area."

Few new theatres today are equipped to show classic 1.37:1 films properly (e.g., the dye transfer prints of "The Wizard of Oz" a few years ago, or restorations of films from the 30's and 40's).