I read the PDF file of the Academy's archiving report that was posted earlier, and my experience at work to date with digital archiving pretty well agrees with what the Academy's were. That concerns me.
It's purely a business decision. It's great for Hollywood, but bad for theaters. Just think, no need to make prints of movies. Also, this reduces piracy because this prevents prints from being digitized on the sly. With digital films, it's sent via satellite. All this requires expensive infrastructure paid for by theater owners. I'm sure there will be expensive software and hardware upgrades too. I can watch movies digitally at home, why pay $15 to go to a theater?
I am not sure the digital revolution will make piracy harder. If music history is a lesson, it will make it easier.
When the original is analogue any analogue copy will introduce a degradation in quality. Once you have a digital copy (either of an analogue original, or of a digital original) each copy is identical to the original, a pirate paradise.
With videotape I could record an Opera broadcast on TV and see it, but the video and audio quality were not the same as the original TV show.
Now I can record an Opera broadcast on digital TV on a digital medium and see it at exactly the same quality as before. I can also make as many copies as I want without degradation. It really is a very near DVD convenience at no cost. I expect this new technology will deeply affect DVD sales in the long run.
It's probably a child play to record "on the fly" the cinema theatre satellite transmission. Even if it is encrypted somehow during transmission it must be decrypted before projecting the image on the screen. That image sent to the projector is a digital unencrypted film and can be recorded presumably without many difficulties.
In my opinion, the transition to digital will certainly make the preservation of "secrecy" about a new release easier but, in the long run, will heavily damage the "long tail" of cinema revenues (especially DVDs, and possibly even TV broadcasts).
Movies producers might go back to film so that they can postpone the piracy risk to the DVD release phase.
So true about piracy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all encryption for DVD has already been cracked. I think if it's sent through the air, this might make it easier to pirate. I think it's unfair making the theaters shoulder all the cost of the digital conversion. Maybe movie houses should take a stand and not convert and see what happens? The old movie projectors are still good after decades of use. I don't know how long the digital projection systems will last. There's always planned obsolescence where theaters are forced to upgrade to stay in business.
Another bummer...production and manufacture ended last year for new, film-based movie cameras.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Yeah, I know, right? It all seems doom and gloom, but at least Bolex still makes 16mm cameras! I can't wait to get mine repaired!
Originally Posted by Marc B.
I like how the so-called "experts" commenting at the bottom of that page say they like the visual quality and archival properties of film, but no-one just can't be bothered with the cost!
"Oh, yeah. Film is great and all, but who likes to pay for stuff?"
Well, I have a little system where I save part of my salary for shooting and processing film each month. If a lowly graduate student can find ways of saving money, so can the cheapskate movie studios. I'm not anti-digital, but one will have to pay for the cost of making a picture in either film and processing or buying expensive digital cameras, projectors and software. Choose your poison!
Digital's good for beginners on a budget and can open up possibilities that analog can't (I've made some wild abstract photos with my digital camera that required post processing), but overall, I love analog.
I pay a premium for quality, and I also plan to keep the analog flame burning by learning as much as I can about analog photography.
"Illegitimi digitali non carborundum!"
Typical digital zombies say: "Adapt or die!" "The world is changing, change with it!" "Analog is old and nasty! EEEEEEEWWWWWW!" "Why should I pay money for getting my pictures when I can have everything NOW?" "Why shoot manual when you can have the camera do everything automatically?"
Primary 35mm camera - Pentax K1000
Secondary 35mm camera - Mamiya/Sekor 1000 DTL - M42 Mount
Medium Format: Mamiya RB67
What the experts were saying is that there is a cost in the transition to digital. Capital requirements will be partially shifted from production to projection. Archiving will be made more expensive because, with digital, archiving is much more of a "running cost".
Originally Posted by TexasLangGenius
Producers are basically trying to "shift" the costs to cinemas. In the long run, if this process continues IMO this could bring to more producers and less cinema firms, as the production side will become less capital-intensive and the projection side will become more capital-intensive.
That can be good for creativity. Imagine how easily a cartoon could be produced by a team of a few persons, without the need to find a producer with heavy shoulders financially speaking and willing to risk money on the project.
On the other hand, under this hypothesis the cinema as a family business is going to disappear. We can expect the need for large capital requirements and need of scale economies to shape the industry in favour of large "chains" of cinemas, or even an industry integration: cinema theatres owned by film producers, or in fact film producers owned by cinema theatre owners as the latter would be the big guys.
I wouldn't bet on the fast dying of traditional cinema though. Digital at the moment can only offer a certain, not large, resolution. That can be good for TV sets. If you drive and pay for a cinema seat, you can't easily be satisfied with "high resolution" digital screens. Further progress is probably needed before digital can really compete. Maybe we will have a double industry, with film projections thriving side to side with digital projections.
The only "win" scenario I see is independent producers shooting film for art houses. It's the major studio that want the theaters to transition to digital. But somehow I doubt that it would be enough to, say, prop up Kodak.
"I love film like I love my wife and I'll never cheat on either of them"
Director, cinematographer, madman. Sam Bayer is a lot of things. One thing he's not, is a fan of shooting digital. This is your opportunity to hear Sam explain in his own words why he chooses to shoot film every time.
Read more: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Produ...#ixzz1sJLnQiUF
It seems that owning a movie theater is a capital intensive enterprise. These cost will be passed on to movie goers which definitely means ticket prices will go up. Currently, movie tickets are too expensive for me and I wait for the release on Netflix. I'm not going to assume that other movie goers are like me. Will tickets get so expensive because of this technology that movie house will go extinct because it's unaffordable for an average cat like me? If I'm going to pay more for something, I'd expected added value which digital cinema does not deliver.