OT but relevant - movie theatre high def digital

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

New Your Times blog/article.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/d6a6mj

Two points:

- the Sony unit (and TI DLP units) costs more than a film projector (and
probaby will become obsolete in under a decade, whereas film projectors can
easily last 20-50 years)
- the resolution is lower than the resolution of 35mm film

This does not sound like a good investment for theatre owners.

--
Scott Norwood: ,
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?

Scott Norwood wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:
New Your Times blog/article.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/d6a6mj

Two points:

- the Sony unit (and TI DLP units) costs more than a film projector (and
probaby will become obsolete in under a decade, whereas film projectors can
easily last 20-50 years)

Since the TI units have been in installations over the last few years
(and continue) it would seem that some theatres see the advantage.

- the resolution is lower than the resolution of 35mm film

This does not sound like a good investment for theatre owners.

Theatres in prime locations spend continuously on improvements whether
it is the sound system, projectors, seating, decor, etc to keep the
place appealing. You may have noticed in the article that there are
places charging $20 a head for premium service.

35mm film projected in theatres is lower resolution than SLR 35mm in the
first place since it is typically anamporphic. Since the movie is all
about movement, resolution counts for less. Further, most movies are
filmed at EI 250 - 500 or so resulting in more grain. And for that
matter the print in the theater is usually about 3rd or more copies away
from the original. 4k x 2k pixels when you're seated in a theatre is
quite a bit finer than your eyes resolving power as well.

As to distribution costs (no prints to make), repeatability (no more
splicing, scratches, blotches, fading), etc. it is much easier to deal
with than film reels.

Whether it's a good investment or not is up to Sony to show.

Not that I care that much. With my 1080p plasma, blu-ray and 5.1/6.1
sound, I don't go to many movies anymore - though I do enjoy it when I do.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Scott Norwood wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:
New Your Times blog/article.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/d6a6mj

Two points:

- the Sony unit (and TI DLP units) costs more than a film projector (and
probaby will become obsolete in under a decade, whereas film projectors
can
easily last 20-50 years)

Since the TI units have been in installations over the last few years (and
continue) it would seem that some theatres see the advantage.

- the resolution is lower than the resolution of 35mm film

This does not sound like a good investment for theatre owners.

Theatres in prime locations spend continuously on improvements whether it
is the sound system, projectors, seating, decor, etc to keep the place
appealing. You may have noticed in the article that there are places
charging $20 a head for premium service.

35mm film projected in theatres is lower resolution than SLR 35mm in the
first place since it is typically anamporphic. Since the movie is all
about movement, resolution counts for less. Further, most movies are
filmed at EI 250 - 500 or so resulting in more grain. And for that matter
the print in the theater is usually about 3rd or more copies away from the
original. 4k x 2k pixels when you're seated in a theatre is quite a bit
finer than your eyes resolving power as well.

As to distribution costs (no prints to make), repeatability (no more
splicing, scratches, blotches, fading), etc. it is much easier to deal
with than film reels.

Whether it's a good investment or not is up to Sony to show.

Not that I care that much. With my 1080p plasma, blu-ray and 5.1/6.1
sound, I don't go to many movies anymore - though I do enjoy it when I do.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

also ad into the mix the film studios resolve to completely phase out film
distribution within the next couple of years and its the theatres that DON'T
change to digital that will be suffering.
At a recent conference on the Gold Coast in Australia, the head of Disney (I
forget his name) and several other studio heads were on stage, shoulder to
shoulder stating to everyone there that they will not be producing 35mm film
prints by the end of 2010.
Piracy was the major reason stated (though we all know this is a furphy) but
the cost of production was the second one, and when it cost around $3000 per
print of an average length movie, and you will need anywhere up to 300
prints for Australia alone, then ad transport cost (paid for by the Cinema)
and you see that it is expensive.
A digital print can be sent out on a HDD for a fraction of the cost, and
some locations are installing Satellite equipment so the movie can be
downloaded that way.

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

Scott Norwood wrote:
- the resolution is lower than the resolution of 35mm film

Really?
"If you shoot at 4K, but want a “film look”, then you finish at 2K and
add some grain. It’s easy. It looks like film. However, if you finish
and screen at 4K. the result is like shooting in 65mm, like the old
epics used to do"

That's from an expert in the industry who has actually done the comparison.

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
Bill Graham wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote
Alan Browne wrote:
Father Guido Sarducci wrote:
Alan Browne said:

Consistently placing an apostrophe in the possessive "its" is major
ignorance, or carelessness, or possibly arrogance.
There are just a handful of posters who do that.

I think they get mixed up between "its" the personal pronoun, and the
contraction for "it is"......This is an easy mistake to make. (I do it
all the time)

And what better motivation to learn than the threat of public humiliation
;-)

Consistently getting "B's" instead of "A's" on most of my college English
papers should have been a better motivation, but alas.....

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Bill Graham wrote:

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote:
Father Guido Sarducci wrote:
In message , Alan
Browne said:

Consistently placing an apostrophe in the possessive "its" is major
ignorance, or carelessness, or possibly arrogance.
There are just a handful of posters who do that.

I think they get mixed up between "its" the personal pronoun, and the
contraction for "it is"......This is an easy mistake to make. (I do it
all the time)

It's easy to cu When you write "it's", sound it out for the contraction
it is. (sometimes it's "it has".)
You don't need to say it out loud, unless you read that way.... :-).

Naaa.....These days, I depend on the spell checker programmers....Pretty
soon they will write the coding that can tell the difference. Until then, I
will just have to put up with the public ridicule.....

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
semoi wrote:
The movie business as it has been constituted since its beginning is
doomed.
With the penetration of HD screens in the home market and the reshaping
of the financial landscapes the math does not favor stressed consumers
paying $10 a ticket and insane prices for concessions when a high def
version of the same media, viewable at home, is available shortly later
for a fraction of the price.
Do the math: even now it is cheaper to buy a Bluray disc then two
movieplex tickets . . .

cheaper *than* two tickets [not *then*]

I love mistakes in grammar and spelling, particularly when they are on
advertisements someone paid for.

In Los Angeles, there's a store that has a huge sign in front "STATIONARY
STORE".

I guess they were having trouble with it showing up every day, so they
concreted it down.

I'm starting a photo collection of mistakes and odd signs.

You can send them to Jay Leno, too.....

"Atheist Chaplain" wrote in message
...
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Scott Norwood wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:
New Your Times blog/article.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/d6a6mj

Two points:

- the Sony unit (and TI DLP units) costs more than a film projector (and
probaby will become obsolete in under a decade, whereas film
projectors can
easily last 20-50 years)

Since the TI units have been in installations over the last few years
(and continue) it would seem that some theatres see the advantage.

- the resolution is lower than the resolution of 35mm film

This does not sound like a good investment for theatre owners.

Theatres in prime locations spend continuously on improvements whether it
is the sound system, projectors, seating, decor, etc to keep the place
appealing. You may have noticed in the article that there are places
charging $20 a head for premium service.

35mm film projected in theatres is lower resolution than SLR 35mm in the
first place since it is typically anamporphic. Since the movie is all
about movement, resolution counts for less. Further, most movies are
filmed at EI 250 - 500 or so resulting in more grain. And for that
matter the print in the theater is usually about 3rd or more copies away
from the original. 4k x 2k pixels when you're seated in a theatre is
quite a bit finer than your eyes resolving power as well.

As to distribution costs (no prints to make), repeatability (no more
splicing, scratches, blotches, fading), etc. it is much easier to deal
with than film reels.

Whether it's a good investment or not is up to Sony to show.

Not that I care that much. With my 1080p plasma, blu-ray and 5.1/6.1
sound, I don't go to many movies anymore - though I do enjoy it when I
do.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

also ad into the mix the film studios resolve to completely phase out film
distribution within the next couple of years and its the theatres that
DON'T change to digital that will be suffering.
At a recent conference on the Gold Coast in Australia, the head of Disney
(I forget his name) and several other studio heads were on stage, shoulder
to shoulder stating to everyone there that they will not be producing 35mm
film prints by the end of 2010.
Piracy was the major reason stated (though we all know this is a furphy)
but the cost of production was the second one, and when it cost around
$3000 per print of an average length movie, and you will need anywhere up
to 300 prints for Australia alone, then ad transport cost (paid for by the
Cinema) and you see that it is expensive.
A digital print can be sent out on a HDD for a fraction of the cost, and
some locations are installing Satellite equipment so the movie can be
downloaded that way.

You can't beat the group experience though.....I remember seeing a movie
that was so bad some guy stood up during the final credits and shouted,
"This was the worst movie I have ever seen!"....and the audience gave him a
standing ovation....:^)

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Atheist Chaplain" wrote in message
...
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Scott Norwood wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:
New Your Times blog/article.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/d6a6mj

Two points:

- the Sony unit (and TI DLP units) costs more than a film projector
(and
probaby will become obsolete in under a decade, whereas film
projectors can
easily last 20-50 years)

Since the TI units have been in installations over the last few years
(and continue) it would seem that some theatres see the advantage.

- the resolution is lower than the resolution of 35mm film

This does not sound like a good investment for theatre owners.

Theatres in prime locations spend continuously on improvements whether
it is the sound system, projectors, seating, decor, etc to keep the
place appealing. You may have noticed in the article that there are
places charging $20 a head for premium service.

35mm film projected in theatres is lower resolution than SLR 35mm in the
first place since it is typically anamporphic. Since the movie is all
about movement, resolution counts for less. Further, most movies are
filmed at EI 250 - 500 or so resulting in more grain. And for that
matter the print in the theater is usually about 3rd or more copies away
from the original. 4k x 2k pixels when you're seated in a theatre is
quite a bit finer than your eyes resolving power as well.

As to distribution costs (no prints to make), repeatability (no more
splicing, scratches, blotches, fading), etc. it is much easier to deal
with than film reels.

Whether it's a good investment or not is up to Sony to show.

Not that I care that much. With my 1080p plasma, blu-ray and 5.1/6.1
sound, I don't go to many movies anymore - though I do enjoy it when I
do.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

also ad into the mix the film studios resolve to completely phase out
film distribution within the next couple of years and its the theatres
that DON'T change to digital that will be suffering.
At a recent conference on the Gold Coast in Australia, the head of Disney
(I forget his name) and several other studio heads were on stage,
shoulder to shoulder stating to everyone there that they will not be
producing 35mm film prints by the end of 2010.
Piracy was the major reason stated (though we all know this is a furphy)
but the cost of production was the second one, and when it cost around
$3000 per print of an average length movie, and you will need anywhere up
to 300 prints for Australia alone, then ad transport cost (paid for by
the Cinema) and you see that it is expensive.
A digital print can be sent out on a HDD for a fraction of the cost, and
some locations are installing Satellite equipment so the movie can be
downloaded that way.

You can't beat the group experience though.....I remember seeing a movie
that was so bad some guy stood up during the final credits and shouted,
"This was the worst movie I have ever seen!"....and the audience gave him
a standing ovation....:^)

I have been that man in the past ;-)

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

Since the TI units have been in installations over the last few years
(and continue) it would seem that some theatres see the advantage.

The only real advantage is 3D capability. Features could be released in
3D on 35mm film, but that has not happened with the current 3D fad.

Theatres in prime locations spend continuously on improvements whether
it is the sound system, projectors, seating, decor, etc to keep the
place appealing. You may have noticed in the article that there are
places charging $20 a head for premium service.

The other items that you mention were all improvements.

35mm film projected in theatres is lower resolution than SLR 35mm in the
first place since it is typically anamporphic.

Anamorphic has nothing to do with it. A frame of 35mm motion-picture film
is four perforations tall with a soundtrack on one edge--less than half
the size of a 35mm still frame. Of course the resolution is lower.

As to distribution costs (no prints to make), repeatability (no more
splicing, scratches, blotches, fading), etc. it is much easier to deal
with than film reels.

Exhibitors don't care about distribution costs unless it saves them
money. Scratches and film damage are the result of poor film handling,
not the medium. Fading takes decades with modern print stocks and is
not an issue for the typical release print.

Not that I care that much. With my 1080p plasma, blu-ray and 5.1/6.1
sound, I don't go to many movies anymore - though I do enjoy it when I do.

It's your loss, I guess.

--
Scott Norwood: ,
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?