|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: why is the "digital transition period" being handled so badly?
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 10-12-2011 12:04 PM
The subject line pretty much says it: why are the "film" distributors botching this transition so badly? (Or are they?)
Specifically, this is what seems to be going wrong with the transition from 35mm to D-cinema:
- for the most part, the distribution and exhibition industry seems to be operating under the assumption that 35mm film prints of new releases will not be available at some point in the forseeable future, yet not one distributor has set a firm, believable, realistic deadline for the end of 35mm print availability, nor has anyone (to my knowledge) told exhibitors that they must install D-cinema equipment in order to have continued access to new titles
- as far as I know the only actual dates that have been mentioned (and which, sadly, people keep quoting as "fact") come from NATO, which is not actually in the business of distributing motion pictures
- NATO supposedly exists to represent the interests of theatre owners, yet is not fighting this or at least pushing for better transparency from distributors; why?
- because of the above, the communication between distributors and exhibitors about this issue has been just horrible; contrast this with the cyan-dye track issue (another example of replacing something that worked well with something that was demonstrably inferior in the name of shifting costs from distributors to exhibitors): exhibitors had about six or seven years in which to spend the $1-2k per screen that was needed to install LED readers to play cyan tracks...now, there is an implied threat (with no real information) that exhibitors who do not spend $60-70k per screen to install D-cinema equipment will be unable to play new titles within a few years
- the VPF deals that seem to exist (to my knowledge) are not transparent and may treat exhibitors unequally, even if the exhibitors are in the same class (e.g. mainstream first-run cinemas in top markets); they tend to come with some rather nasty conditions and are often covered by non-disclosure agreements (generally not a good sign); this will require that exhibitors somehow increase their revenue (or reduce costs) to cover these upcoming costs, yet there seems to be no indiciation of how or why this can happen
- there are many categories of exhibitors for whom no viable VPF deal exists
- there is no provision for VPFs for the second round of D-cinema equipment after the first becomes obsolete; that cost will likely be covered entirely by the exhibitors (those who don't close their doors before then, anyway)
- the two largest US exhibitors (AMC and Regal) have signed deals with Sony, the purveyor of what seems to be (from reading here and elsewhere) the most generally disliked equipment in the industry (I have no personal experience with their D-cinema products)
- at least some of the equipment that is currently in the marketplace and which is being sold and installed for D-cinema is not fully DCI-compliant
- the technology that is being pushed by manufacturers is still in its early stages and is still lacking in many areas
My take on the current situation is that the industry has created a giant mess for itself, which only promises to get worse in the forseeable future. The whole push for exhibitors to install new equipment seems to be based on implied threats, with no real details and limited credibility. For those who agree with this opinion, why has this happened? Why haven't distributors done a better job of keeping exhibitors informed of their plans and made more of an attempt to work together to achieve a goal which, for the most part, offers few benefits to exhibitors. For those who disagree with me, what am I missing?
I should point out here that these observations come from the point of view of a third-party observer. My involvement in the exhibition industry at this point is extremely limited outside of film festivals and special events. I have no financial interest in or close involvement with any of this (regardless of the outcome), but I do like film (actual, physical film) and hope that it is able to survive in so me form for many years to come, at least for screenings of older titles and for filmmakers who want their work exhibited by mechanical and photochemical means rather than electronic means.
I am not so delusional as to suggest that this industry will never or should never embrace the interesting possibilities offered by electronic transmission and digital projection, but I do think that the transition has been premature and poorly handled. I work with computers every day in my "real job" (not in the cinema industry) and know quite well what benefits and challenges this transition will bring to the industry. I will be the first to say that I find the technology interesting, but I also believe quite strongly that it has a long way to go before it becomes a mainstream product.
Edit: Why is it so hard to find anyone who has informed opinions on this issue, but who has no financial stake in it? I'm sure that the dealers and technicians love the extra sales and installation work that this has brought in (expecially compared to something that lasts 25-50 years with little attention), and I know that projectionists hate it (because it reduces the number of available jobs) and theatre owners generally aren't thrilled about it (due to the cost), but there are few objective opinions about this transition that I have seen (here or elsewhere). Theatre managers probably come the closest, though.
[ 10-12-2011, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Scott Norwood ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 10-12-2011 01:20 PM
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Now, I'm curious on this statement for I've heard it before: what would be the difference between the "real job" and the cinema industry? Both occupations can earn the employee an income, both occupations CAN be fun, esp when it's a career based occupation and not just a "McJob", et.al. ..
I did not intend this to be disparaging in any way. I know plenty of people who make their living in the exhibition industry, and I have the highest respect for them. There are some very good people in this business and I am happy to know some of them personally.
I was simply trying to imply that the majority of my income is derived from a different occupation. I very much enjoy my full-time job, and I consider movie stuff to be a hobby of mine. I find it very satisfying to help make movies look and sound as good as they possibly can, but that is not what keeps my lights on and puts food on my table.
quote: Justin Hamaker
I disagree about the equipment not yet being mature enough to replace film. While the long term reliability of series 2 projectors may not be known, the picture quality is superior to 35mm in the average location. I know some FT detractors will swear otherwise, but I'm going by my own eyes and the comments I've received from customers.
I will not argue with your opinion (especially with some of the crappy prints from 2K DIs that we see all too often now), but my emphasis here is more on the operational and business issues, anyway. At the very least, I suspect that few would say that ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif) is more reliable and/or less expensive than 35mm from the point of view of the exhibitor.
One additional point that I failed to make earlier: it will be interesting if the distributors end up getting bitten by their own creation. If they continue to provide prints for some time, they will be paying a) a higher cost per print as print volume declines, b) VPFs to many of the venues which screen a DCP, and c) the additional expense to create the DCP and issue keys. It is entirely conceivable that, at least in the short-term future, this mixed-inventory situation may be more expensive for distributors than if they had stuck with 35mm film exclusively (with the associated reduced print costs due to higher volume).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 10-12-2011 07:07 PM
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
how is the digital conversion going so badly
It is going badly because many exhibitors are spending or considering spending significant amounts of cash to install new equipment based upon an implied threat. As more exhibitors do this, a feedback loop is created whereupon the reduction in film-based exhibition creates paranoia and fear and encourages other theatre owners to spend money to install equipment. In this process, some exhibitors are receiving large subsidies (VPFs) for the new equipment, while others are financing the equipment themselves (either by choice or by necessity). And none of the new equipment (with the possible exception of 3D) is likely to increase ticket sales one bit.
This could have all been solved if film distributors (err..."content providers") had communicated their intentions for the future clearly and openly. As far as I know, they have not done this.
As for the failings of the technology and the current state of operations, I will list a few that come to mind:
Documentation - manuals for pretty much any film projector ever made can be found on this site in the "manuals" section. Look there now and see exactly how many D-cinema manuals are there and contrast that with the number of various types of equipment that are available. The Dolby server (which I believe is otherwise a decent product) has an installation manual which is nearly useless and NO OPERATIONS MANUAL. This is crazy. What is everyone trying to hide? Manufacturers should be bugging Brad to post all of their manuals here (or at least make them available freely and without registration on their own web sites), but they are not doing this.
DCI compliance issues - This came up in another thread--some servers will not play a valid DCP with no soundtrack. The Sony 4K projector is not DCI compliant when showing 2D material with the 3D lens installed, yet distributors are not refusing to supply their content for it. If distributors are going to insist on DCI compliance, then they should refuse to supply content to non-DCI-compliant installations (including the many series-1 installations which have not been upgraded). That is not happening.
Key delivery - As far as I can tell, this requires the intervention of the server manufacturer and some third party which has the master key for a particular DCP. What happens if/when the manufacturer decides to stop supporting a particular model of server and/or goes out of business?
Stupid design issues - D-cinema gave manufacturers a chance to actually improve certain presentation issues, but it is still possible to show a flat DCP in scope, or vice-versa. Why is this even possible?
Secrecy - There is a ridiculous amount of "security through obscurity" with the D-cinema infrastructure. If I buy a server, I expect to be able to find out how it works, how to fix it when it breaks, and get all of the necessary root passwords. Equipment manufacturers seem to not be providing this information. The general attitude seems to be that everything is fine and that lowly users should not be troubled with the details. Too many procedures require a technician with the magical key sequences and passwords. The same applies to the nondisclosure clauses in many of the VPN deals. Why is everyone so afraid? This is unacceptable.
DCP format itself - This has way too many limitations that will prevent its adoption for many markets until or unless it is extended. It says nothing about aspect ratios other than 1.85 and 2.39, its approach to cinemascope is a bad joke, and there is no support for frame rates other than 24 or 48 (no, I will not bring MXF/interop into this discussion, as it is not the standard). The specification itself says nothing about how the actual distribution media need to be formatted (filesystem, file structure) and the naming convention is not standardized (there is an incomplete "recommendation," but no actual standard. Again, this was a chance to actually improve some aspects of presentation, and, again, this has not happened.
Should I continue?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic