Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Digital Cinema's Costs Divide the Film World

   
Author Topic: Digital Cinema's Costs Divide the Film World
John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 01-06-2004 12:06 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yet another article about Digital Cinema:

http://www.nytimes.com/financialtimes/business/FT1073280792387.html

quote:

Digital Cinema's Costs Divide the Film World
By ALAN CANE, FT.com

Published: January 6, 2004

Captain Incredible is in trouble. The call to save the world has come but his wife has just served supper and he can't fasten his costume over his spreading paunch. Well, to see how the eponymous superhero resolves his local difficulties you'll just have to catch The Incredibles later this year. It's a computer animated movie from Pixar, the Californian studio which pioneered the genre with Toy Story. And to see it at its best, you'll have to go to a digital cinema (D-cinema). If you can find one, that is.

The Incredibles is expected to prove the latest in a string of hits including Monsters Inc., Shrek and Finding Nemo through which computer animation has entered Hollywood's mainstream. But if digital animation has found its seat in the dress circle, D-cinema, where images are stored as bits on the hard disk of a computer rather than 35mm film, and screened using special projectors, is still negotiating the price of admission.

"We're still looking for that breakthrough, for the installation of thousands of screens," Bill Kinder, head of post-production for Pixar, told a recent conference at the National Film Theatre. Indeed, the film world has been waiting for that breakthrough for a decade or more as distributors and exhibitors bicker over costs and quality.

To many, especially the big Hollywood studios, D-cinema is a solution looking for a problem. They argue that the quality of digitally projected images is inferior to those from 35mm film unless prohibitively expensive equipment is used. The cinema-going public, after all, does not care how a film is projected as long as it looks good. "Can we say to the customer 'You're getting something better'?" John Wilkinson of the UK Cinema Exhibitors' Association questioned. "We might spend a lot of money for no advantage."

There are, as a consequence, only a handful of cinemas equipped to project digital images. Patrick von Sychowski, senior analyst with Screen Digest which co-sponsored the NFT conference, calculates there are about 175 D-cinema screens in 154 sites world-wide, or about 0.1 per cent of the global total of 150,000 screens.

The UK is planning to add significantly to that total through a UK Film Council initiative which will see millions of pounds of lottery cash spent on establishing 250 digital screens in 150 cinemas across the country.

The scale of this initiative can be gauged in relation to von Sychowski's estimate that there are 23 digital screens in the whole of Europe at present. In the US earlier this year, Landmark Theatres, a specialist in screening independently made films, announced that in conjunction with Microsoft, it would equip all 177 screens in its 53 theatres for digital screenings. (Why Microsoft? Because it is pushing its Media Series 9 technology for everything from mobile phones to cinemas.) Currently the US has 84 digital screens.

A number of questions demand to be answered. Is D-cinema of equivalent quality to 35mm film? Who will benefit from its introduction? And what reasons are there for believing D-cinema would improve film-going for the public?

The quality question is complex. D-cinema enthusiasts argue that digital projection can be superior to 35mm. Images are sharper, colours are brighter and more intense and digital images do not suffer from the flaws, scratches and dirt that affect film prints after a few showings.

There is some evidence that, subjected to both, audiences prefer the digital experience to film. But a lot depends on projection. A 35mm print from a big studio has a resolution equivalent to 4,000 lines (4K) and these studios argue they will accept nothing less if quality is to be maintained.

Digital projectors today provide a resolution of about 1,300 lines and the first 2,000 line systems are becoming available. 4K projectors do not exist except as experiments and are unlikely to become commercially viable for years. Nevertheless, as the NFT audience saw, Finding Nemo screened using a 1.3K projector is still visually stunning. And in a recent move which may help to break the logjam, the Digital Cinema Initiative, a group of big studios including Fox, Universal and Sony Pictures, indicated they would be prepared to accept 2K projection of movies scanned into digital format at 4K.

Fine: except that a 2k digital projector costs $150,000 or more against $50,000 for a conventional projector and lasts only one third as long. This is the heart of the matter. Exhibitors are faced with the huge expense of moving to digital projection, but have no guarantee their investment will be repaid in larger customer numbers or in being able to charge premium prices.

Creators and distributors, on the other hand, anticipate huge savings. D-cinema can be distributed by satellite, over the internet or as disks through the post without the need to make and distribute prints at £1000 and more a time. The savings have been calculated at some $800m annually across the industry. So until the two sides can come to an agreement over how the cost burden should be spread, it is unlikely there will be any change in the status quo.

In the end, it is likely that distributors will have to help to finance the conversion. Still to be resolved are issues of technical standards - digital movies are compressed and a choice of compression standards are available - and security. The movie business does not want to experience the digital piracy which is afflicting the music industry.

"Hollywood", meaning the big studios, is only part of the equation. The UK Film Council's initiative has not been taken with them in mind. Steve Perrin, the council's deputy head of distribution and exhibition says the plan is to "widen the choice of film available to audiences and so allow the whole market to expand". A big problem for independent and specialist filmmakers is the sheer cost of making prints for distribution. Distributing content digitally is a way of slashing that cost as long as quality can be maintained. So it comes as no surprise that the running in D-cinema is being made by specialist filmmakers in the UK, in Holland, in Brazil and elsewhere.

Perrin says: "We have to be able to say to somebody like Pedro Almodovar 'If you're film is seen in the UK in a digital format, we can guarantee that it will be seen in the best possible light'."

But the council is taking an inclusive approach: "We have to balance the needs of Almodovar against those of a local Birmingham filmmaker," Perrin maintains. If the big studios don't get their act together quickly, they could find digital cinema has gone ahead without them.

Help! Call Captain Incredible.

alan.cane@ft.com



 |  IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-06-2004 12:47 PM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This is a pretty poorly researched article. Most notably, they mention the Landmark deal (made "last year" and not "this year"), which is dead at this point.

No mention at all of 70mm, Imax, etc.

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 01-06-2004 03:36 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Aside from the Landmark error, I thought the article seemed fairly balanced. At least it made some mention about the quality minded folks who think 35mm is superior.

What I have not seen from any of these D-cinema articles is the potential marketing fallout that will absolutely come from comparisons to home theater. If D-cinema aspires to no better standard than 1/2 HDTV quality (DLP) or something roughly equivalent to 1080HD (D/ILA) then it will put theaters who convert into a big disadvantage. The home theater equipment salesmen will use those digital numbers to show how items like "D-Theater" D-VHS tapes on a HD monitor equal the best D-cinema quality.

The commercial movie going experience has to stay superior to that of home theater. At least for now 35mm is able to manage that. Current D-cinema projection systems do not.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-06-2004 06:54 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I didn't like the part about DC projectors lasting "one third" as long as film projectors. I used to work at a drive in where the projectors were at least 50 years old. I can't imagine any DC machine going more than 5 or 6 years before being outmoded (or at least unrepairable).

 |  IP: Logged

Aaron Sisemore
Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day!

Posts: 3061
From: Rockwall TX USA
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 01-06-2004 07:16 PM      Profile for Aaron Sisemore   Email Aaron Sisemore   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
and the article implies that Pixar made 'Shrek'. [Roll Eyes]

-Aaron

 |  IP: Logged

Dominic Espinosa
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1172
From: California, U.S.A.
Registered: Jan 2004


 - posted 01-06-2004 07:25 PM      Profile for Dominic Espinosa   Email Dominic Espinosa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Not to mention malfunctions.
Who's going to pay to have a technician fix the goddamn thing when it breaks ever couple of weeks?
Sure you still need techs, but even the biggest fuck-tard in my booth was able to get the show on the screen when something went wrong, do they honestly expect every operator to understand the system on these things? It's just not viable!
Next they'll be wanting everyone to film in digital and never convert to 35mm...It's reinventing the wheel for no reason.
Down with DC! Okay, I'll stop now...

 |  IP: Logged

Dan Lyons
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 698
From: Seal Beach, CA
Registered: Sep 2002


 - posted 01-08-2004 02:37 AM      Profile for Dan Lyons   Email Dan Lyons   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Images are sharper, colours are brighter and more intense
Until they can go up against an IBtech print and look the same, they should shut up about that. [Big Grin]

quote:
against $50,000 for a conventional projector
Wow, I must rich! I've got a projector and a parts machine here at my house!

Danny

 |  IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000


 - posted 01-08-2004 02:47 AM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
At least the Film Council's sheer stupidity is starting to be 'outed'. They whine about the cost of 35mm prints but yet with a fraction of the money they're spending on digital projectors they could vastly increase the quantity and range of prints in circulation.

They also whine about the fact that 35mm prints get scratched and dirty. I admit this is a problem in arthouse venues: a lot of them struggle with very little money, so they use old and poorly maintained equipment, often operated by someone who has 101 other jobs to do as well. Furthermore with arthouse titles you get a small number of prints intensively playing a large number of short bookings. But yet with a relatively small investment in maintenance, equipment upgrades and a slightly bigger print inventory, you could vastly increase the technical quality of what goes on the screen for a tiny fraction of the cost of these d-projectors, which are likely to be obsolete in a couple of years (if not sooner).

quote:
Finding Nemo screened using a 1.3K projector is still visually stunning.
Oh what a surprise, they used a cartoon to show the thing off. The same stunt was pulled in London a couple of years ago for the release of Toy Story 2. All the technically illiterate journalists wrote about how lovely it looked. Then The Perfect Storm was shown on the same machine and I'm told it looked so shite that customers actually complained and they had to revert to 35mm.

 |  IP: Logged

Thomas Procyk
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1842
From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 01-08-2004 10:20 AM      Profile for Thomas Procyk   Email Thomas Procyk   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Anyone know what resolution Finding Nemo was created in? It was also a flat movie. I saw it in both DLP and Film and saw no real difference except that the DLP was brighter. But you can get bright pictures from film with no problem too, and the 35mm presentation was surely not as bright as it could have been.

I also saw Brother Bear in DLP and film. IMHO the film presentation looked more "painted" and "artistic" while the DLP show looked very "flat" and "antiseptic." When the scene came where he changed into a bear, and it turns scope and the colors become more vivid, to me, the color on film looked much better.

=TMP=

 |  IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 01-08-2004 11:43 AM      Profile for Manny Knowles   Email Manny Knowles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I didn't think it was fair to evaluate "Nemo" in dC without also giving consideration to 35mm by way of a proper screening.

And what size screens are they using for dC these days?

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)  
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.