Digital Projection one step closer?

[AnimWatch]

http://www.animwatch.com/images/Blog/DigitalProjector.jpg
NPR has a report (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047637) on the advent of digital projection. After almost a decade of hype and promises, theatres may finally be switching to the new, clearer and cheaper format. It's welcome news for independent filmmakers because the price of final film prints can really put a hole in a budget. When theatres are capable of digital projection, there's no print, only digital media to deliver on a hard drive, greatly decreasing the cost. DSL-equipped theatres can even download entire films, making films almost free to distribute.

The reason the format hasn't spread as quickly as anticipated is a disagreement on who should pay for the upgrade from the old analog technology to digital. Theatre owners think studios should pay, as they stand to save hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars sending out prints. Studios, of course, think theatre owners should do it.

But the disagreement may be coming to an end as the two camps are arriving at a cost-sharing compromise. This is very encouraging news... another bar to entry in the indie film market is lowering.

[bishoplynx]

That's exciting to hear. and maybe theaters will take chances on selecting more art house type of flicks. Maybe. Since the artist may have a better chance of affording the opportunity to distribute thier film to a theater digitally.
Art House, Independent etc.

It would be fun to see mainstream theaters try to at least offer that.

[Zensho!]

There was a couple threads a whiles back that we talked about and speculated on distribution. Film is great and all, and it should definitely still be used somewhat, if not for just archival purposes.

But the digital offers SOOOOOO many advantages, it's a shame it's taken the suits from both sides so long to bring it forth.

Personally, I think the studios should pick up the tab for most of it since they stand to benefit the most, AND that THEY weren't the ones who were really financially hurt by the decline in theater attendance (more than made up by boom in DVD sales).

But what's REALLY cool is that perhaps local artists will have an easier time putting together a local film festival or even just a one time showing of their film with really cheap tickets or something. Sure, the theater owners would still have to be extra cool and all, but thankfully it won't cost you 10 grand just to get it on the celluloid.

Zensho

[Slartibartfast]

Digital projectors were (are) crazy expensive, and many theaters just didn't want to take the leap until it was advantageous for everyone...I remember going to my first digital theater in Tribeca NYC--the "independent" theater owned by Robert Deniro--he has several theaters that are digitally hooked-up in the Tribeca location.

With HD cameras being sold like crazy, this should really allow a lot easier access to quality projection and post-post-production.

[AnimWatch]

The pre-movie stuff at my local theatre looks like it's projected from a digital projector, but the resolution is horrible. It's like watching TV really, really big. (Like "The 20wenty" and so on...)

Is *that* what they're talking about when they talk about digital projecting? Or is it higher res than that?

Why does that pre-movie stuff look so pixellated? Is it another kind of technology, or low res going in?

[TeviH]

I don't fully understand why its so difficult for theaters to adopt digital projectors. The pre-movie stuff at most of the theaters I go to all seem to be digital, and anybody knows you can buy a project for your own home theater system for only a couple thousand dollars... I guess the expense is higher-rez, brighter, more accurate colors, etc. Dunno.

Anybody here know what the big deal is?

[lmartell]

Ah! So unlike other threads I've posted in, this one I actually know something about!!! Yay! My day job involves a lot of HD online work and we do a lot of D-Cinema stuff as well as a few of the Regal Twenty's you mentioned. The Twenty's are all done in 720p so it's not full 2k, although it's still pretty good. Most of the pixelation is actually because of the cheaper projectors they're using. They're basically the same as what you'd put in a home theatre, but when you blow it up that large, you can see that the pixels aren't smoothed, and also it's not nearly as bright.

Digital Cinemas usually use Christie 2K projectors which are in the $200,000 range, and they don't last nearly as long as film projectors. Plus, you also have to have a digital backend, usually a server that feeds all the digital projectors in the multiplex.

There's some more detailed stuff here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, true digital projection (like at Deniros Tribeca theaters) is much much higher than standard projections resolution. It's like watching HD television on the movie-screen. Crystal clear. And yes, they are crazy expensive to setup, but we will all be switching sooner or later (decade or so).

[AnimWatch]

Ah! So unlike other threads I've posted in, this one I actually know something about!!! Yay! My day job involves a lot of HD online work...
Thank you. I was hoping someone actually knew what all the shouting was about. The NPR report gives an example of how the journalist saw Million Dollar Baby twice - once on standard film, and once on the digital projector. In the film version, he saw a gym that looked beat up and just about ready to collapse in financial ruin. In the digital version, he saw a spic and span set that had been dressed down to look like a beat up gym.

He was actually giving a crit that the clearer technology changed the experience of the film, and in this case to the worse. But I thought there was NO WAY you could see that kind of difference given my experience with The 20wenty et al.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[lmartell]

Yeah, that makes sense. News reporters have been complaining of a similar phenomena regarding their wrinkles. Plus a film print you see in the theatre is usually a 4th generation copy because of the whole interpositive/negative process they use to make all the prints.

[Zensho!]

Yeah, that makes sense. News reporters have been complaining of a similar phenomena regarding their wrinkles.

Not to mention porn stars!

But seriously, can't filmmakers do something about that added clarity? Like... just run a "film grain" filter over the whole thing?

Or perhaps invest in better set designers :)
If they shoot in HD, they'll have some extra money to spend.

But I can see where the reporter was coming from, and it is a valid point... but digital is so much more... LIBERATING to work with, or so I would imagine compared to film. I'm looking forward to what's to come.

[Slartibartfast]

I think Hollywood and celebrities need to get over their insecurities, and be happy with their "residual-self-image" :) -- ok maybe not residual, but self-image nonetheless. Everyone is so caught up in looking perfect, it's destroying so many possible masterpieces out there. Not everyone is beautiful, and in that...there is beauty. Nature. Natural. That's real beauty.

All this coming from a pretty-boy actor like myself. lol. I hate how things are when it comes to self-image, beauty and box office draw.