Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | my password | register | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » MI:3 170 Digital Cinema Screens DCDM by Kodak (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Author Topic: MI:3 170 Digital Cinema Screens DCDM by Kodak
John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 05-09-2006 09:38 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Kodak Provides Digital Cinema Support for MI:3

quote:
May 8, 2006

Paramount Picked Kodak To Handle Digital Preparation And Distribution For ‘Mission: Impossible III’

Paramount and Kodak partner to release on the greatest number of screens ever showing digital cinema feature presentation

HOLLYWOOD, May 8 -- Add one more superlative to Paramount’s ‘Mission: Impossible: III’: it is the largest digital release ever, playing on more than 170 digital cinema screens throughout North America. And all digital preparation and distribution to those screens was handled by Kodak Digital Cinema.

Paramount set high standards for the digital release of ‘Mission: Impossible: III.’ The studio insisted it only be shown in theatres with 2K cinema grade projectors and DCI-level security and they chose Kodak – a company with a legacy in the movie business -- to handle everything.

“We told Kodak we expected the highest quality presentation delivered with complete security, seamlessly and painlessly,” says Jim Tharp, Paramount’s President of Distribution. “We worked closely with them to make that a reality.”

“We’re proud that Kodak has been selected to prepare and deliver this movie – and to handle a project of this magnitude for Paramount,” says Bob Mayson, general manager, Digital Motion Imaging, Eastman Kodak Company. “We have a long history of serving them with film and now we’re pleased to be one of their critical partners in digital.”

The movie is playing on more than a third of all digitally equipped screens in North America. This was the largest digital release in Paramount’s history and one of the largest releases ever in the industry’s history.

“We have great confidence in this franchise,” Tharp says. “We knew the movie had everything going for it – a great cast led by the world’s reigning superstar, Tom Cruise; incredible effects, and a huge fan base. As the weekend box office proved, this is a movie audiences wanted to see and we gave them a choice of seeing it on film or in digital.”

‘Mission: Impossible III’ is eight reels long, with soundtracks in multiple languages. In its digital release, it needed to be encoded in two different compression formats, packaged for four different server brands, and distributed via hard drive and satellite. The movie was encrypted to prevent piracy, so a unique pair of ‘keys’ – software codes – for each screen had to be created and sent separately.

“It’s a complex undertaking,” Mayson says, “but one Kodak is particularly well equipped to handle; we’re experienced in the entire process, from digital master to the cinema screen.”

Beginning in April, Paramount began delivering the digital masters to Kodak’s Laser Pacific facility in Hollywood. Kodak technicians compressed and encrypted each reel and packaged them to play on the different screens. Kodak and Paramount collaborated on final quality control.

“Paramount has high standards and so do we,” Mayson says. “At Kodak, our goal is to make digital distribution look simple, so audiences can sit back and enjoy a spectacular new edition of ‘Mission: Impossible’, delivered and displayed the way the filmmaker intended.”





 |  IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5116
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 05-09-2006 05:24 PM      Profile for Frank Angel   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Angel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Paramount set high standards for the digital release of ‘Mission: Impossible: III.’ The studio insisted it only be shown in theatres with 2K cinema grade projectors
Wow....blow me over and kick me down....that's really SUPER high standards; imagine....2K!! Good thing Paramount wasn't setting similar high standards for the film release -- they might have demanded nothing less that 16mm prints!

quote:
and DCI-level security
Well, I hate to break it to the ole Paramount execs, but this is already OUT ON THE STREET, which would lead me to bet it is somewhere on the internet as well. They better go back to the drawing board on that DCI-level security....heh heh

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10540
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 05-09-2006 07:38 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think the data security steps are necessary in D-Cinema installations, but they'll do nothing to stop things like pirated DVDs. Again, it's similar to CAP code: security being applied after a crime has already happened. It's like putting a bulletproof vest on someone who already got shot in the chest. If Hollywood really wants to get serious on the security thing, they have to apply security steps far earlier in the movie making process.

 |  IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999


 - posted 05-10-2006 08:51 AM      Profile for John Walsh   Email John Walsh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think the idea is many of the problems of digital distribution are being resolved. Major players are working together to get digital going. It's true that 2K projection isn't that good, but while everyone waits for the price to go down, the distribution, servicing, and training issues (at the theater) are being worked out.

It's a small announcement/press release, but so was the first time Dolby was used for motion picture sound, or the first use of a xenon bulb in projection.

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 05-10-2006 09:42 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Frank:

I don't know of any 4K installations playing this picture. The point is that Paramount does not want it shown using the old 1280 X 1024 pixel systems.

If there are pirated copies on the street, I doubt they came directly from an encrypted file loaded onto a theatre server. More likely from an unencrypted file, or a camcorder copy.

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Konen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 981
From: Frisco, TX. (North of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 05-10-2006 10:13 AM      Profile for Paul Konen   Email Paul Konen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
John, I believe an even better statement is that no distributor allows a 1K projector to be used. Even though they were happy with it for about the last 6 years or so. This kind of edict (sp?) has burned the early adopters of d-cinema because now they have a nice looking boat anchor.

Haven't seen a 2K signal down converted to 1K projection to know why the distibutors are saying that.

 |  IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 7867
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 05-10-2006 10:25 AM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If they care so much about quality, then why aren't there any 70mm (or IMAX DMR) prints? And why didn't they shoot it in 65mm or VV?

I suppose that it is all well and good that we are progressing toward a common standard for [dlp] projection and that the production and distribution issues are being sorted out, but it still seems sort of anticlimactic to go through all these years of "progress" and still end up with something that is "almost as good as" the standard for the last hundred years, and which is demonstrably worse than what was being done fifty years ago. ("But it doesn't have scratches!")

Meanwhile, Blu-Ray/HD-DVD is becoming a reality and inexpensive DLP projectors for home use keep getting cheaper and better. One wonders how long it will be before the pirated copies have _more_ resolution and color information than the versions being shown in theatres. [Roll Eyes]

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 05-10-2006 11:08 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The Digital Cinema standards being developed by the SMPTE DC28 Digital Cinema Technology committee are based on industry consensus. Higher quality film formats are already standardized and readily available for those distributors that want to use them. Choice is available, and one does not exclude the other. Kodak tries to provide the best of both worlds.

 |  IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3040
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 05-10-2006 11:46 AM      Profile for Stephen Furley   Email Stephen Furley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: John Pytlak
The point is that Paramount does not want it shown using the old 1280 X 1024 pixel systems.

So, where does that leave a cinema that bought a, very expensive, state of the art, digital projection system just a few years ago? Where will it leave them in just a few years time, if they buy a state of the art 2k system today?

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 05-10-2006 11:58 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The 1280 X 1024 pixel systems were often part of a "beta testing" program, often heavily subsidized, and were not standardized by SMPTE. Now that SMPTE Digital Cinema Standards are coming into place, the basic format is not likely to change.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 11749
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 05-10-2006 12:46 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hmmm...I have three Barco DP50s under my care...they were not subsidized by the industry at all. They were "state-of-the-art" when the facility was installed and run HD every day. Why should they be excluded? Is the industry going to subsidize an upgrade?

Where was it stated that these earlier systems were "beta" tests? Did ISCO know that their 1.5 and 1.9 anamorphic lenses were going to be used just in Beta test markets?

Is this really the foot that DCinema wants to start on? That is.."thanks for helping to get the ball rolling, but screw you for being an early adopter."

In 5-10-year when 2K is passe, is the industry going to take a "we haven't done 2K in years...get with the program" attitude then? Someone had to pay for all of these systems at the tune of over $100K each by the time they were fully functional.

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 05-10-2006 03:03 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Unfortunately, you take that risk when you install a system before standards are established.

Kodak has always advocated 2K or better systems, along with most cinematographers. Kodak supports the SMPTE Digital Cinema standards being written:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about/dcServer.jhtml

quote:
The Kodak CineServer is designed to evolve, as DCI specifications are turned into industry standards."Until SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) publishes the standards and independent agencies can provide certification, no company can claim full compliance," Moore said. "But, as all that happens - and it will - we will make the upgrades necessary to make the CineServer compliant. We support high standards; we've always done that with film and we intend to do that in the digital environment."



 |  IP: Logged

Oliver Pasch
Film Handler

Posts: 52
From: Europe
Registered: Jun 2002


 - posted 05-10-2006 03:10 PM      Profile for Oliver Pasch     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
In its digital release, it needed to be encoded in two different compression formats, packaged for four different server brands, and distributed via hard drive and satellite.
...just for the records: so much about standards and interoperability when it comes to digital cinema in May 2006.

Question: in Europe and even in Germany, MI:3 is also distributed on / for XDC-/EVS-Servers and their platform. Has this DCDM been prepared by KODAK as well? Or is this a different DCDM (with probably a different quality? Just to point this out: i'm not saying or assuming better or worse!). What to expect for the future, when one fine day there will be a SMPTE-standard and full-JPEG2000-interoperability, probably even a standard for the format of the hard-discs: one DCDM for the whole world? Prepared by whom? And where on this planet?

Everybody's talking about saving money with the digital-roll-out...this all sounds pretty expensive to me.

Oliver

 |  IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3172
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002


 - posted 05-10-2006 03:28 PM      Profile for Mark J. Marshall     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Anyone who installs anything DLP or computer related thinking it will be a standard for more than five or ten years isn't familiar with the computer industry at all.

It's mind boggling to sit back and watch an industry try to set itself up for a colossal implosion.

 |  IP: Logged

Patrick de Groot
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 161
From: Sprang-Capelle, Netherlands
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 05-10-2006 03:37 PM      Profile for Patrick de Groot   Email Patrick de Groot   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think a DC projector should be modular in design. The light output section (xenon bulb, mirrors, alignment...)is standard as are many other parts of the machine itself. However, things that are most likely part of technological enhancements like the image producing parts (DLP) should be easy to exchange with other types or even modules from other brands. So the interface should become a standard on itself. This is the only way to keep things economical practical...

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2018 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.