julian_craster

Will chemical photographic film on reels go the way of 35mm photographic still
photography and become obsolete?.......... and how soon?
5 years? 10 years? 50 years?
Will fading reels of film ever be replaced in a chemical format ?
Is this inevitable ? desireable ?


From the Los Angeles Times
Showing at theaters: urgency of digital shift

By Josh Friedman
Times Staff Writer
Published April 9, 2007


The revolution in moviegoing will be digital, theater owner Bill Campbell
knows.

But Campbell, who runs independent theaters in Sheridan, Wyo., and Miles
City, Mont., isn't ready to take up such an expensive cause just yet.

"I'm still using film projectors that were built in the 1950s and I can fix
them myself," Campbell said. "What if your digital server goes down? Dark
screens are death to the theater industry."

For moviegoers, Hollywood's shift to digital cinema will mean clearer
pictures, more 3-D offerings, movie houses that can easily add to the number
of theaters showing popular films and event programs such as sports and
concerts.

For theater owners, it means lower costs because prints will be eliminated.
It also creates a new marketing hook to get people into the seats.

With incentives like that, the movie industry's transformation from prints
to digital projectors logically should take place sooner, not later. But for
nearly a decade it has been hampered by the high cost to convert and
disputes over how studios and exhibitors will foot the bill.

Finally, however, digital cinema is slowly gaining traction despite holdouts
such as Campbell. About 4,000 of the world's roughly 150,000 screens are
digitally equipped compared with 1,700 a year ago, according to Texas
Instruments Inc., which licenses the leading digital cinema technology.

By year-end the chip company expects the count to reach 7,000, with the
majority of those conversions in the U.S., which has about 38,000 screens
overall.

After moving at a snail's pace, the transition has taken on a new urgency as
theater owners compete with increasingly sophisticated home entertainment
systems and other diversions such as video games and the Internet. Digital
cinema was front and center at the recent ShoWest industry conference for
exhibitors in Las Vegas, with much of the discussion about the $100,000 cost
per screen.

If the switch takes an exceptionally long time, "I believe there will not be
a cinema business here anymore," said Drew Kaza, an executive vice president
at British theater chain Odeon Cinemas Ltd., addressing attendees at the
conference. "We've got to get real about this."

But digital boosters say the industry is finally getting serious about the
conversion.

"There is typically a love-hate relationship between studios and exhibitors,
but this time they're working together to make sure it happens," said Shea
Wallon, vice president of the sports and entertainment group at GE
Commercial Finance, a backer of digital cinema.

GE Commercial last year provided a $217-million credit line for Christie
Digital Systems Inc. and Access Integrated Technologies Inc., which are
rapidly installing their projectors and servers in theaters.

Hollywood and theater owners see huge potential benefits.

Studios eventually could save a total of $1 billion a year in distribution
costs. Producing and shipping 35-millimeter films costs roughly $1,200 per
print, but sending digital files or satellite transmissions can slash that
expense by 90%, according to industry estimates.

For now the savings are theoretical as studios make a long-term bet on the
benefits of digital. They are subsidizing the installation of digital
systems at U.S. theater chains by paying "virtual print fees" to the
manufacturers, and they still must make thousands of film prints.

Cheaper distribution could enable smaller films to be screened more widely,
said John Fithian, president of the National Assn. of Theatre Owners. The
high cost of distribution is a major impediment to independent films, he
said.

Helping give the conversion a boost is the resurgence of 3-D films, which
today are shown predominantly in digitally equipped theaters. In its opening
weekend, Walt Disney Co.'s animated "Meet the Robinsons" grossed an average
of $12,200 per theater at the almost 600 digital theaters showing it in
3-D - more than double the average gross at regular theaters. Some theaters
were able to hike ticket prices 20%.

Directors Robert Zemeckis and James Cameron are making big-budget 3-D
movies. DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc. said its whole slate would be shot in
that format starting in 2009.

Beyond 3-D, programming flexibility is one of the biggest appeals of
digitally equipped theaters. Alternative entertainment such as sporting
events could be shown during the day or on nights when moviegoing is light.

Cineplex Entertainment, Canada's largest theater chain, has been screening
"WrestleMania" matches for several years. Recently it added hockey games,
rock concerts and simulcasts of New York's Metropolitan Opera.

The opera has been shown on as many as four multiplex screens at a time to
accommodate matinee crowds, said spokeswoman Pat Marshall, adding that it
brings in a new demographic.

Ultimately, theater owners see their multiplexes thriving as broadly defined
entertainment destinations.

"The world is getting so competitive," said Michael Whalen, president of
Muvico Theaters, which is installing Sony Electronics' "4K" digital system
at its new Chicago multiplex. He said cinemas needed to improve the
moviegoing experience amid competition from better home-entertainment
systems and shorter time spans between a film's theatrical release and its
DVD debut.

Whalen dreams of packed houses for events such as NBA games or the Super
Bowl in 3-D.

Technological issues remain formidable, however.

For now, loading or moving a digital movie can take hours because of the
massive file size, said Michael Karagosian, a consultant to the theater
industry. A 35-millimeter film print, by contrast, can be moved in 15
minutes. In addition, converting older, smaller systems to digital remains a
problem.

Ultimately, the hope is that a multiplex will be able to move a surprise hit
to its biggest auditorium, or demote a flop to the smallest, almost
instantly with just a few keyboard strokes.

Studios gush about how crisp and pristine a digital movie remains even after
hundreds of screenings, but not every filmmaker is sold on its superiority.

Paramount Pictures has released digital versions of almost every movie since
last summer's "Mission: Impossible III," said Mark Christiansen, vice
president of operations at the studio.

But when it screened Clint Eastwood's World War II drama "Flags of Our
Fathers" digitally before last fall's release, the director and his team
balked.

"They just didn't think it gave the same visceral feeling," Christiansen
said. "We're always going to listen to the filmmakers."

Despite the uncertainties, manufacturers and theater owners expect the
digital deployment to accelerate further in 2008 and 2009. The majority of
the world's screens will be digital within five years, Texas Instruments
predicts.

"The good news is, the momentum is there," theater industry consultant
Karagosian said. "Five years ago, I couldn't say that."

Steve Crook

Note that it's all the companies involved in digital that say that digital will replace analogue

Steve

orpheum

I have just come back from a tour of cinemas in Leicestershire.In 2 independant cinemas that we visited digital projectors were installed.So if they are in independant cinemas then the likelihood is that they will make a cleen sweep of cinemas within the not too distant future.By the way anyone interested in cinemas should become a member of the Cinema Theatres Association

ChristineCB

A lot of IF's and COULD's in there.

I'm glad we live in The Perfect World so all those If's and Could's always come true, eh?

Steve Crook

But none of them mentioned if digital actually gives a better picture :

Sure, it's easier to distribute and get multiple copies out to lots of different cinemas, and it's easier to shoot and edit with no messy reels of film to deal with. But is it any better (or worse) than analogue?

Don't just assume that digital is better. By the act of digitising they are limiting the amount of information they record. OK, so 35mm or any analogue film is also a mild form of digitising because it slices reality into frames which it then projects at a rate where the brain can put it back together.

But in any one 35mm frame, the resolution of the image is determined by the grain of the film, and is pretty fine. With digital film, they can control the number of pixels in each frame. And they can make quite a saving in storage by reducing this number, so it could be tempting to do so. But that could well have an effect on the image as we see it.

Steve

penfold

The installation of digital equipment in indie cinemas has been heavily subsidised by the manufacturers....artificially trying to build the 'Momentum' they boast of in their press releases. I don't have a problem with Digi projection for mainstream movies - most are photographed digitally anyway - but it simply can't replace film for archiving purposes for - at a rough guess - fifty years...there will be a market for celluloid film, albeit a niche one, for some time to come.

Bit of a Bay Window, what??

julian_craster

But surely, chemical photographic film negatives stored in vaults for 50 years will fade, with reduced B/W contrast and less vibrant colour, as the years of being stored in the vaults go by ?

In the future, when it is noticed that this is happening I cannot imagine the cost-concious archive manager commissioning another photographic print at well over £1, 000 a go....

The natural thing to to do would be to tranfer the negative to a Blue Ray/HD format at the highest possible bit rate, and allow the phortographic print to naturally deteriorate until it is of no use (or sell it to film collectors....) .


And - if costly storage space it at a premium, the temptation would be be to do this sooner rather than later, don't you think?

penfold

If a colour film fades, it can be restored; if the film shrinks, it can be copied and reprinted, if necessary, by hand, a frame at a time. If a digital copy (BluRay, hard drive, whatever digital medium) goes wonky, you've lost it. Gone. Unrecoverable.
Your scenario of an archivist commissioning another further print - after digital restoration, one asssumes - is precisely what is happening in film archives and company vaults as we speak. £1,000 a go works out quite cheaply spread over 50 years....and until we know what the true lifespan of digital archiving media is, this will remain to be the case.

Bit of a Bay Window, what??

alan gowdy

In television there is already a (downwards) pressure on maintenance of image quality. There are many instances of economies forcing digital compression to be used at several different stages in the production process to the detriment of the final transmitted image. This is quite separate from the additional compression used at the end of the chain to save bandwidth. I sometimes think it's a wonder that it's viewable at all.

Incidentally, does anyone know the 'pixel equivalent' of a fine grain 35 mm frame?

julian_craster

<<If a colour film fades, it can be restored; if the film shrinks, it can be copied and reprinted, if necessary, by hand, a frame at a time. If a digital copy (BluRay, hard drive, whatever digital medium) goes wonky, you've lost it. Gone. Unrecoverable.
Your scenario of an archivist commissioning another further print - after digital restoration, one asssumes - is precisely what is happening in film archives and company vaults as we speak. £1,000 a go works out quite cheaply spread over 50 years....and until we know what the true lifespan of digital archiving media is, this will remain to be the case.>>


I think this is probably the case with a few classics such as THE THIRD MAN
or A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, which generate enough public interest for them to be booked by specialist cinemas.

But.......

What about the 7,000 plus British sound features which do not fall into the 'classic' category ? (and are deemed to have little commercial value as photographic prints -
Domestic viewing on TV or DVD does not need such prints)...

The cost of making new photographic prints can surely only be justified on financial grounds if they can earn some revenue in cinema bookings.....

And....What happens when 99% of UK cinemas are 'digital only' and photographic prints can no longer be screened ?

Interesting questions....

orpheum

In one of the cinemas i visited with a digital projector,a westar projector that had been recently taken out of the projection box was displayed in the foyer.The projectionist said that it was only a matter of time that the one remaining film projector in the box was removed.In the other cinema i asked the cinema owner which in his view gave th best image and he was most emphatic that it was digital.eApparently the film is loaded onto a hard drive which is then fitted on to the projector.In many instances it has the exact number of shows programmed so that the exhibitor cannot add further shows of his own accord.Well i suppose thats progress.

Brett Sinclair

Once the digital film is made and secured onto several hard drives at the studios, digital media copies can be made at a cost of ...oh...lets say £10 to be on the generous side...as opposed to that figure of £1,000.

I certainly don't want to be the fly in the ointment, but digital will cut the expense for film production and projection (for simplicity) and distribution. Imagine, day one of your finished film, on general release at cinemas the world over, and in a few months you have the HDDVDs (or new digital media, BlueRay etc) released...which you have already had made up at the same time of general release. It cuts out a whole process of converting film to digital for home sales. Further to this, you will no doubt be able to achieve a lossless digital film in years to come so archiving will just involve copying from disk to disk or drive to drive. I'm not advocating this, but I can see why studios will be/are interested.

Thinking about it further, so many of the modern releases already use enormous amounts of digital processes in terms of CG and Chroma Key anyway.

There's no need to kneel, I'm a very democratic sort of lord.

julian_craster

As for which has medium has the better definition (35mm film or HD/Blue Ray Digital), there have been several articles in the news about the problem of an actor's cosmetic make up for HD Digital.

The make up needs to be of a far higher standard for this than for 35mm film work
to cover skin blemishes, blackheads etc.

This suggests that digital provides greater clarity and definition. So much so that mere human actors and actresses will no longer be adequate - only CGI images
will have the flawless features that are required !

Brett Sinclair

God forbid...however, I'm pretty sure that even though HD can offer higher resolution and clarity, it will not necessarily be used. One of the joys of digital being the ease of altering all manner of aspects in post production.

There's no need to kneel, I'm a very democratic sort of lord.

Steve Crook

But just because it will be easier to make and distribute films, that doesn't say anything about the quality. Just look at YouTube
We'll be flooded with media studies student films and home movies.

Just look at what the punk revolution did to music. That was meant to make it easier for everyone to produce their own music, but didn't do anything about quality. One or two good bands still manage to get their work heard, but the vast majority of what is produced and released is fairly mindless pap

Steve