How will Digital Projection Systems Replace 35mm P

[Alex]

If you want to become a billionaire (or go bankrupt, not quite sure)....everytime a 35mm projector is "scrapped" in favor of a digital projection system....see if you can obtain the 35mm projector and store it before it is turned into scrap.

If every theatre owner could keep their existing 35mm projection systems in safe storage, it would protect them from the invasion of the digi-heads.

If the theatre owners end up being coerced by the digi-heads into "upgrading or buying new digital projection systems every few years, or else", they could re-install their 35mm projectors as a form of protest...

Once those 35mm projectors are taken out...the theatre owners have lost any leverage they had.

Here is an excerpt from an article in "Digital Cinema" written by Debra Kaufman...with quotes from Glenn Kennel, digital cinema program manager for Kodak...

"We believe that you need to project at least 2K resolution to create natural looking images that don't block up or have jagged edges." States Kennel, who adds that "2K resolution is just the beginning."

The next generation projector will feature a higher performance illumination system that is currently being designed, he reports. (notice how they are already talking about the "next-generation" projectors before the current generation projectors have even been installed!)

Kodak is also designing higher performance projection optics. The system will also accomodate Kodak watermarking and camcorder-defeat techniques, for which Kodak has just filed for a patent.

"The digital equipment must cost $75,000 or less, that's what we think the market will bear". (based on a 5 year amortization)

So, there is the secret sauce, every five years, the system is pulled out, and a new one is put in.

Attack of the Digi-heads, in full Hi-Def...coming to a screen near you.

It's going to be a real shame when part if not most of motion-picture marketing is ...."YOU'VE GOT TO SEE MOVIES THE WAY THEY WERE MEANT TO BE SEEN, IN DIGIVISION!"

It's going to be about the digital projection system, and less about the movie.

I don't mind the sound marketing we get, SDDS, THX, Dolby, etc...sound is half the movie, but once the digital projectors are installed, people will be going to movies based on what "projection system" is in place.

Yech!

Sure a bad movie is a bad movie no matter what...but the marketing and installation costs of digital projection will force passing the costs onto the movie-goer via the hyping of the projectors in advertising ad-nauseum.

It just seems like one more gimmick to take away from the content of the movie.

-Alex

------------------


------------------

[MovieStuff]

Or, it could be a real boon to the independent producer that hasn't a ghost of a chance getting a 35mm theatrical deal due the the high cost of print duplication.

I am NOT trying to start a fight here. But I find it ironic that you promote the idea of transferring an image to video and then to 35mm film (which will end up looking like a second generation video projected image), but poo-poo the idea of first generation digital projection from a high resolution digital transmission.

Makes no sense to me, Alex. Why do you think one will be worse than the other?

Roger

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited August 20, 2001).]

[Alex]

Although D-1 is in fact video, it is out of the price reach in many aspects.

Even if one can afford the transfer to D-1, having access to a player would probably be as cost prohibitive as the transfer, and then finding a Non Linear Editing platform could be difficult if not currently impossible.

35mm - D-1 - 35mm.....that is done for effects, I'm not saying it is the only way...but it is one way.

However, digital files that in essence are not "video" do make the most sense.

Although the storage capacity and time required to transfer single frame could prove a huge amount for a whole feature...especially for an unedited movie where all footage shot is to be transferred for editing...

....whoops, if the files can't be edited, then the original film must be cut...and unfortunately scratched in the process.

Even if a high resolution viable digital editing platform is not currently available, it doesn't mean one won't be in the next 2-3 years.

-Alex



[This message has been edited by Alex (edited August 20, 2001).]

[MovieStuff]

Previously, Alex wrote:

"Even if a high resolution viable digital editing platform is not currently available, it doesn't mean one won't be in the next 2-3 years."

Hmmmm. Let's see, you'll buy into the idea that a high resolution edit platform viable for super 8 users might be available in the next 2-3 years, but you don't buy into the idea that digital distribution and projection will be viable, even though the systems have been built and tested successfully?

Again, I still don't understand such selective reasoning. If the image is going to be digitized to begin with, why would a second generation 35mm print from a digitized file be preferrable to a first generation image off the same digitized file?

If both are being displayed at 24fps with the projection system using progressive scan technology (which they do) then it would seem to me the original digital file would be preferable to a second generation image via 35mm film. And since the digital file can be transmitted electronically, distribution costs would be cheaper, thereby benefiting the independent film maker. Why insist on introducing the element of 35mm into the equation when it only degrades the image and increases the costs?

Am I missing something here?

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff/html

[Alex]

I'm showing empathy for the plight of the theatre owners.

As I have stated before, they will go the way of the mom & pop video rental stores.

Even though many national theatre chains already exist, the independents and smaller local chains are still in existence.

One of the biggest acts of economic terrorism going on this country right now is the east coast corporate headquarters mentality of simply faxing a "memo" to the midwest or west coast divisions of their company with a simple demand,....reduce spending by 10% or you're fired....

...or increase revenue by 10% or your fired.

It's being done more and more.

In the cable business, the memo from an East Coast corporate headquarters goes something like this to the west coast office, "increase your local commercial ad sales by 8% or you're fired..."

It's real simple to make job threatening decisions when your employees are half-way across the country.

Once we're all digitized, expect this level of economic terrorism conducted via fax or e-mail to be increased dramatically.

I'm not against the concept or potential quality of digital projection and technology, I'm against the "execution" of it by "corporate bean counters".

Yech!

-Alex


------------------


[This message has been edited by Alex (edited August 20, 2001).]

[Alex]

One more sickening thought to consider.

Once we are "digitized"...you don't believe the signal will be only one way do you?

Check this out...in an effort to prevent pirating, all digital broadcasts will be "interactive" to ensure no one is trying to "steal" the signal, the projectors will return back a feed of the live theatre audience!

My question is, do you want Hollywood types analyzing audience reactions to their movies, as the movie plays?

Once digital is in place....count on big brother watching you as you watch the beautiful digital screen.

-Alex

------------------

[MovieStuff]

I give up. Again, the context of the discussion is changed. I agree about everything you've written regarding the "corporate mentality". However, I was sort of hoping there would be an answer hidden in there somewhere in answer to my original question about 35mm vs digital projection.

Oh well.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff/html

[Alex]

We are not an island...why be "for" a technology if it cannot be implemented correctly.

Some day all cars may fly...but do you really want millions of cars flying around?

My motive is to stick with what is currently working....(35mm projection)...

...because the digi stuff will be like letting the genie out of the bottle...with no one there to be the guardian of fairness about the use of the digital genie.

If we all have access to high quality digital editing, the 35mm print concept has validity in a non-digital or low number of digital projection systems as currently stands.

It is possible that it may be easier to get a 35mm print made in the next year or two, than stand in line hoping to get your film digitally projected.

When digital first comes out...it will be showed off with the highest budgets and hoopla imagineable.

So us independent filmmakers will have to wait our turn in line while the initial investiments are amortized via ultra budget extravaganzas.

We may have a shorter wait making a 35mm print from digital files than waiting in the digital line to show our film digitally.

-Alex


------------------

[MovieStuff]

Whatever.

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff/html

[Alex]

Whatever?

That's exactly why Super-8 died the first time....8mm video and VHS came on the scene...and it was "Whatever", "why shoot Super-8 when I can get a 2-hour tape for
$ 12.00" (back then VHS tape was more expensive)

Even though we now know both film and video should have thrived, the marketing of video killed super-8mm rather than enhance.

Now, just as digital editing hits, the editing quality standards will also be improving, and a world perfectly made for super-8 will once again be thrown asunder by all the talk of digital projection.

But there will be a window of opportunity for the Super-8 filmmaker to shoot certain types of projects that make the most sense in Super-8, and edit on a high res digital format, then output to 35mm becasue there will be more opportunities to show the film theatrically in 35mm as digital screenings are reserved for the Spielbergs and Lucases of the world, and some filmmakers flee to wait in the digital line.

This is conjecture on my part.

-Alex

------------------