by Gord Harris
Soon digital cinema will coexist with 35mm film projection in commercial theaters. Some digital advocates seem eager to proclaim that “film is dead,” or if not dead at least somewhat quaint, low-tech, and old-fashioned, and about to be replaced by cool, new “digital age” technology. Indeed, the hype surrounding digital cinema means you can barely pick up a trade magazine without reading about how it will revolutionize the industry. But where exactly does digital cinema fit in the LF industry, and when exactly will it come to an LF theater near you?
Well, to paraphrase Mark Twain, “Rumors of the death of film have been greatly exaggerated.” I believe that film will remain the main medium for LF capture and exhibition for quite a few years to come. I’ll explain some of the reasons why this is so, without even touching on the significant differences in information content among 15/70, 8/70, and 35mm, which we all know about.
A voice of calm, cool reason was raised in an important paper called “The Business of Digital Cinema—the Exhibitor’s Perspective” presented at the November 2001 conference of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers by John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theater Owners. NATO is the world’s largest trade group for cinema operators.
Fithian reviewed some of the technical and business issues that must be addressed before a mainstream rollout of digital cinema can occur. While he is speaking of conventional theatrical exhibition, most of the issues identified apply directly to LF as well.
The first big issue is technical standards for d-cinema. NATO has been burned in the past by multiple digital sound standards, and Fithian says theater owners “need open, uniform standards that promote worldwide compatibility and interoperability, as well as competition.” They do not want to have to purchase multiple systems or duplicate components for theaters, as they did for digital sound. (Many 35mm films today are released with as many as four incompatible soundtrack systems: Dolby Digital, Dolby SR optical, DTS timecode, and Sony SDDS). But theaters also don’t want monopoly pricing in equipment manufacturing or in digital product delivery. The sad reality is that setting standards is a very difficult, slow process, in this case beset by aggressive competition amongst international standards bodies, world trade blocks, and corporate competitors fiercely striving to become the de facto winner in a multibillion-dollar industry. As with HDTV, don’t expect the dust to settle on this one for years to come.
Fithian points out that a new 35mm film projection system that will last for decades costs about $30,000. Current digital cinema systems, which he says might be obsolete within two years, cost several hundred thousand dollars. The most optimistic estimates go as low as $100,000. Economies of scale that have lowered the prices of cell phones and computers—produced in their hundreds of millions—simply won’t go as far with a total world market of 120,000 movie screens. (The situation would be even worse in the case of LF, with an optimistic world market of 1,000.) The rapid rate of progress in electronics is a double-edged sword—because something better is always just around the corner, it becomes much more scary to finance big ticket systems. Most of the economic benefits of d-cinema will go the big studios, who might save more than $800 million annually in distribution costs, according to Fithian, by reducing production and shipping expenses for prints that today cost $1,500 to $3,000 each. Few exhibitors, who are still hurting from the commercial slowdown and bankruptcies, will have the money or motivation to pay for d-cinema hardware.
Fithian reminds us that in the current system, once the distributors ship the films out, the exhibitors control the show, assembling the elements and determining screen times. In a digital world, all this control could go to the studios, who might want to enforce exactly when, where, and how often a film was shown. In his words, “Theater owners do not want to be reduced to little more than brick and mortar businesses who build new complexes which the studios then operate remotely.” Neither will LF theaters, I suspect.
Despite George Lucas and his Star Wars – Phantom Menace HD cinematography and digital release venues, the jury is still out in 35mm circles as to the quality of the experience. From the back seats in the theater, yes, it looks pretty good, and some commentators claim it is as good as film. But even exhibitors who have degraded their presentations by replacing skilled projectionists with popcorn kids want digital cinema to be clearly better than film or they will have little incentive to begin the transition. For LF presentation, the shortcomings in resolution seen up close in our wide-angle cinemas are painfully obvious in digital tests. Digital simply isn’t even close to being as good as 15/70 or 8/70 film. Question the motives of anyone who says otherwise: ask them why they are telling you this. Are they really after a better quality experience for audiences, or are they just out to empty your pockets? In LF film, quality does count, and film delivers. Digital doesn’t, yet.
Despite assurances of bulletproof encryption, the prospect of perfect copies of digital movies being made by pirates is still scary to exhibitors and studios alike. And it is a genuine concern, because if a single digital copy gets tapped in transmission or exhibition, the threat of rapid virus-like replication in less-than-reputable hands is real. This is much less of a concern for the LF world, presumably, because of the sheer quantity of data that would be involved in copying even a single film.
Exhibitors like Famous Players are already experimenting with showing live WWF wrestling on video screens in their digital theaters. Fithian points out that digital cinema would make it easier to show musical concerts, sporting events, fine arts, business, religious, and educational programs, creating new revenue streams. Many LF theaters have video projectors for PowerPoint presentations or video playback. But until these rival the quality of motion picture film, the biggest business income is likely to remain LF film shows for the theater.
While Fithian believes digital cinema might actually make it easier for small operators to show “first run” print quality, I think the reality is that there are many places in the world, such as poorer countries, where low-cost 35mm film projectors will continue to run. The lack of a digital transmission infrastructure may be an obstacle to truly international digital release, for conventional and LF.
In Fithian’s words, “Digital cinema should not be implemented as a private deal between select parties trying to seek quick advantage over their competitors. Instead, digital cinema should be implemented pursuant to an industry-wide plan.” Unfortunately, as Marty Shindler’s GSTA study showed, large gaps remain between LF filmmakers and exhibitors, as well as between equipment manufacturers divided on numbers of perfs. This exacerbates fears of “unproven, costly technology that quickly becomes obsolete, or for which upgrades will prove difficult.”
Fithian does not believe that U.S. antitrust laws will prevent comprehensive digital cinema planning, as long as the thrust is “pro-consumer and pro-competition.” But monopolistic thinking and strong patents by any one party will meet fierce resistance from those fighting for their own digital cinema standards. It is my view that lawsuits will become all too common among companies who unilaterally attempt to set standards. Instead of digital Star Wars, get ready for Standards Wars…
While Fithian ends his paper on an optimistic note by saying the problems will eventually be worked out, he acknowledges that the issues involved with digital cinema are serious. I agree. While the technologist in me is enthusiastic about digital cinema, I also understand the technical and aesthetic strengths of our amazing film medium, which is just as high-tech in its chemistry and emulsion technologies as digital is in electronics.
I believe that film and digital will continue to coexist and intertwine in production, post, and exhibition as they do today, in the conventional and LF worlds. But when you hear people proclaim the inherent superiority of all things digital and the imminent death of film, I remind you to ask yourself, “Why are they saying this?” And don’t worry about your LF film theater or film itself disappearing any time soon!
Gord Harris runs go-R&D Consulting, which provides innovative solutions for LF production, education, and entertainment, with effective consulting, research, and development. Visit www.go-rd.com or email gord@go-rd.com.
Originally published in LF Examiner June 2002 - Vol.5 No. 8. Used by permission. © Cinergetics, LLC, Columbia, MD, USA www.cinergetics.com
Please click here to read more articles.
|
home | principles | projects | pictures | papers | people | practice | paraphernalia | printed summary
|