Quote Originally Posted by TexasLangGenius View Post

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?"
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".

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.