Digital cinema gets a little closer
A while back, Sylvain from Quebec wrote in to ask, “Will digital ever replace film?” My response (“yes, eventually”) drew a fair amount of discussion and disagreement, particularly in terms of distribution, with some readers trumpeting film-based technologies such as Maxivision.
An article on CNET today does a nice job explaining how the studios are working to pick a standard for digital video distribution, with the hopes of saving themselves $800 million a year:
A technology consortium called the Digital Cinemas Initiatives (DCI), created by the major Hollywood studios in early 2002, is finally nearing completion on a set of technical recommendations that is intended to rally the industry around a single technological standard [...] based on the JPEG 2000 video format.
I think it’s encouraging that they chose the relatively open JPEG 2000 standard, rather than Microsoft’s Windows Media 9.
Articles
August 31st, 2004 at 11:11 am
Digital projectors are fine. When they stop shooting on 35mm, then I’ll mourn.
September 1st, 2004 at 9:17 am
If Collateral was any indication, digital just took a giant leap forward. And if that’s the future of the digital aesthetic, then that’s fine by me.
September 2nd, 2004 at 11:05 am
Film is dead. Viva la Digital!
April 4th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
In a world where faster is synonymous with better and the word digital has crept into nearly every aspect of our lives, from clocks, to cameras, to music etc. Digital cinemas may seem like the next step in a very natural evolution.
I could not disagree more. Faster is not better, digital will never be superior to film. You might say, “what about cheaper?” It is cheaper, or it will be very shortly. Cheaper is great, but cheap has never been a sign of quality.
Shooting a film on HD video, can only hope to be nearly as good as film. Why would you strive for second places? I know many of you have been tricked by your own image. “I take digital pictures all the time, they look great”. Look closer, blow that picture up. Can you see the grain?
“What about Star wars and Collateral?” I am glad you brought that up(I knew you would). I think the most tangible argument for the digital/film debate can be seen in the “Star Wars Episode 3″ trailer.
In this trailer older footage from the original movie is intercut with newer digital footage. It’s a perfect juxtaposition of old and new. As you watch this trailer, look at Alec Guiness. Look at the detail in his face, look at the grain structure and the contrast. Do you see how crisp and clean it looks?
When you compare this image, shot nearly 30 years ago, to the rest of the trailer the result is shocking. The digital footage looks cartoon like in comparison.
As for distribution, it is easy to argue that brand new, out of the box, digital projectors, are far superior to those old film projectors. Really? I was a projectionist, I worked in a few places. I threaded projectors that were older then my father! Those monsterous machines are running to this very moment!
Film projectors have been delivering the goods for over a century. They are sturdy and reliable. What about these digiatl projectors? They might be ok now, how about in 5 years? What about 15? or 25? Come on, we live in disposable times. Do you have any electronics that are older then 8 years? If you get more then 12 years out of a tv you are lucky. Who is going to be left holding the bag?
More importantly, image quality. You know how good projected film looks, you’ve seen it countless times. Here’s a dirty secret about digital projection. The bigger the screen, the uglier the image!
If you are sitting in a 20 seat closet theatre you might not notice. Go into the 300 seater, on the big screen(the type that if you sit in the first 4 rows you actually have to turn your head back and forth to see everything). Amber waves of grain grain grain!
Not having to pay for movie prints and having films beamed to the theaters sounds like a good idea, fast and cheap. What if it’s snowing or raining at that theater? The signal either A. won’t get through or B. Look like crap. What happened to efficiency? I guess it walked off with quality.
People just won’t go to the movies during those winter months in Ohio, or the Dakotas, or the other 20 other cold weather states. Of course when the weather is great the first thing people think of is, “Screw the beach, let’s go to the movies”(ok, it think that, but I’m a freak).
Piracy, the scarist word in the entertainment industry. Right now the record industry is sitting in its corner yelling, “You gatta cut me Mick”. Film certainly doesn’t want to get into the napster ring, but it’s coming.
Faster processors, bigger hard drives, cable modems, P2P networks multiplying like Japanese horror remakes. The planets are coming into alignment. The movie industry is in trouble and it knows it.
Here come digital projectors, a pirates dream come true. Now they are beaming movie down. Park next to the theater with a dish. All the movies are in a hard drive in the projection booth? When I was a projectionist I made 6 dollars an hour. Two guys show up and put 600 dollars in my hand an ask me to take a walk. Maybe I decide I need some exercise.
They can encrypt the files all they want. For every guy that makes a lock 100 guys try to find ways to pick it. Now the pirates have perfect quality files( far better then video taping the screen like they do now) to spread all over the world!
The studios want these projectors for two reasons, both driven by the bottom line. Do away with costly prints and kill struggling movies. If a movie doesn’t bolt out of the box, kill it. The sleeper hit, the surpise pic that comes out of nowhere, those films are over. If it doesn’t kill on Friday, pull it for Saturday. Gut the industry.
So, please, tell me. Why is digital better?
April 4th, 2005 at 7:03 pm
David:
In terms of resolution, grain, or any other “filmic quality,” you’ll get no argument from me. Film looks more like film, and probably always will, no matter how much technology advances. And there are other distinct advantages, such as archivability, that others have pointed out.
But here’s the best reason filmmakers are using digital cameras: they allow you to do things you simply can’t do with film. I’m not talking about special effects. I’m talking about the opportunities that arise when a camera costs almost nothing and “film” (that is, tape or hard drive space) is almost free. You can make entirely different kinds of movies, like Timecode or Dancer in the Dark. And for an aspiring filmmaker, your question of, “Why would you strive for second place?” can be answered, “Because it’s the difference between making a movie and paying for one day’s worth of film processing.”
The advent of the internet allowed for many crappy blogs. But I don’t see anyone protesting that everything should be printed on paper.
Your background is in exhibition, and it’s true that projectors have stood the test of time. Yes, film breaks, but it’s pretty sturdy once you load it on to those massive platters. But it sucks when you have to move that massive platter from one house to another. Or resplice the trailers. And God help you if the manager wants to add a midnight show for a sold-out movie.
Digital distribution/exhibition isn’t just about saving Warner Bros. money. It allows greater flexibility up and down the food chain.
You say that studios want to use the switch to digital to do away with struggling movies, sleepers and surprise hits. Ask any film buyer: the decision to keep a given movie on a screen isn’t dictated by prints or pixels, but performance. In fact, the sleeper has a better chance in a digital age, because the cost of adding screens is zero. The studio can take a gamble on expanding a movie that isn’t costing thousands of dollars for every new print they have to make.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think digital is the One Great Solution. But I think it’s going to be a big part of the next decade of cinema, and to simply point out its shortcoming vis-a-vis film is shortsighted.
April 4th, 2005 at 8:36 pm
John:
I agree with much of what you are saying and I am glad we have some common ground on the aesthetics of the medium. I think its wonderful that HD has giving many people an opportunity that they might otherwise have not gotten and it’s great to see films like “Open Water” garner acclaim and success.
Much of what I said was out of fear. I truly am afraid that quality will be slowly sold out for cost. I do not believe in digital projection, not in its look, not in its quality. I am concerned that twenty years from now I will go to the movies and sit down in front of a big TV.
I love movies, I always have. I think going into the #1 theater and sitting with 300 other people to watch a horror makes it that much scarier, a comedy that much funnier. If I ever sell a screenplay that gets made, I can guarantee you that I would watch my movie 100 times just to listen to the audience. Not out of vanity, but enjoyment.
I feel like this is all fading away. New movie houses don’t seat as many in one theater, they rather have 20 little ones then a few large ones with large screens. That bothers me.
Theatrical to DVD release times are shrinking. People are being socialized to “wait for it on dvd”. Attendance is slowly dropping as home theaters improve and people grow more and more antisocial. When a movie comes out on DVD three months after its release I get concerned. Maybe one day the theaters will close? That scares me.
I view digital cinema as a step towards that end. I feel like people won’t notice that they are slowly getting glorified television, that corporations are prostituting away the magic that is film.
I know this is gloomy, honestly I am usually a pretty positive person. I just would hate to make it to my dream, my goal, only to find that it has been sold away for the bottom line of a few corporations that never cared about film in the first place.
April 5th, 2005 at 9:11 am
Open Water is another good example I hadn’t thought of.
I understand your fear about movie theatres becoming big TV sets. A lot of the experience of going to the movies is the “going” part: the social aspect of venturing out to the theater, getting your tickets, finding your seats, and sitting there with a hundred strangers as the lights dim. I just don’t see that going away, no matter what happens with technology or DVD release windows.
Music lovers still go to see concerts, even though the sound on a CD is better. People are paying for the experience, and it’s the responsibility of filmmakers and exhibitors to keep that experience as good as possible.
April 5th, 2005 at 10:33 am
Your right about the filmmakers and exhibitors being responsible, but you can’t stop a trend. Even Charlie Chaplin had start making “talkies.”
I don’t see film truly “going away,” but I can see it going the way of theater. Up until the beginning of the last century theater was it(I guess boxing too). People went to the theater in big numbers. Then movies show up, theater declines. It doesn’t die and it is quite good (I live in NY), but it will never be what it was.
TV comes along and film is shaking in its boots. We get color and cinemascope and bigger screens and better sound. Film does what it needs to survive and over a few decades, film is lulled into a false sense of security.
Cable, DVD, and flat screen plasma screens television waiting patiently for that HD signal to arrive are right outside film’s door. Is digital cinema really the answer?
Why not Maxivision 48? They have developed a system that modifies current film projectors to play at 48 frames per second instead of 24. I haven’t seen it but some have described the look as “reverse 3-d”.
Or, just plain 3d. James Cameron’s ambition to bring quality 3d, without glasses, to regular movie theaters might be what the industry needs.
In either case, you have something new and fresh. Something you can market, renew public interest. Film needs to stand out. I don’t think digital cinema accomplishes that.
Here is how I see Digital Cinema playing out:
Three people, eating popcorn, waiting for their movie to start.
Lights dim movie comes on.
The novelty is gone in one sitting.
3D Cinema:
Woman speaks to a group of women:
Lines so long they look like thet should end at an ark! Tickets selling like tickle me elmo’s on christmas! Gone With the Wind Attendance numbers!
Maybe I am exaggerating and my paranoia is well documented. I just see the trend that the film industry seems to be heading and I don’t like it.