ODEMAX in the fall?

[mark haflich]

Well guys I am sort of an expert in the HT market and in high end audio and video having owned a very successful high end HT/AV store that lasted 28 years with annual sales over $3 million and until recently was the national sales manager for a large internet HT store. And IMNSHO the high end market will not support a Redray at $1750 albeit it being reportedly a very high quality and well built product. Expensive Bluray players after the initial year of format introduction sales were miniscule. Oppo essentially captured the high end Bluray player high end market with several products under $1000 and most at about $500. One high end manufacturer put an Oppo into a better box and sold it for $3500. Several high end customers originally ordered a Redray at $1350 but cancelled because of no content being available that they felt worth while. It could be a success in that market if Odemax could actually deliver content they wanted to watch. Without big studio content, the Redray simply can not make any substantial penetration into the consumer market and even then the cost of a consumer version probably needs to reach at least under $1K. Don't tell me, a consumer player offering 95% of the quality of a Redray could not be built in China using high quality parts for under $1000 factory direct. Its all about economies of scale. I would proffer that what is special and unique is Red's codec if you will. From posts here it is ground breaking. Let Red license it and make a zillion bucks.

 

[Sergio Perez]

Wels guys I am sort of an expert in the HT market and in high end audio and video having owned a very successful high end HT/AV store that lasted 28 years with annual sales over $3 million and until recently was the national sales manager for a large internet HT store. And IMNSHO the high end market will not support a Redray at $1750 albeit it being reportedly a very high quality and well built product. Expensive Bluray players after the initial year of format introduction sales were miniscule. Oppo essentially captured the high end Bluray player high end market with several products under $1000 and most at about $500. One high end manufacturer put an Oppo into a better box and sold it for $3500. Several high end customers originally ordered a Redray at $1350 but cancelled because of no content being available that they felt worth while. It could be a success in that market if Odemax could actually deliver content they wanted to watch. Without big studio content, the Redray simply can not make any substantial penetration into the consumer market and even then the cost of a consumer version probably needs to reach at least under $1K. Don't tell me, a consumer player offering 95% of the quality of a Redray could not be built in China using high quality parts for under $1000 factory direct. Its all about economies of scale. I would proffer that what is special and unique is Red's codec if you will. From posts here it is ground breaking. Let Red license it and make a zillion bucks.

What you say is true, Mark, but I see it more as a platform that promotes the "Niche". The potential in this is to have alternate programing and not to compete with the Mainstream Blu-Ray, Hollywood market. I imagine Redray to be a platform for an alternative Audiovisual experience: Odemax implemented in small Cinemas, in Cinema Cafés, in Film Clubs. Nowadays, lots of Bars play films, may it be as mere part of background entertainment or really as film showings. Odemax could bring Film Festivals to different parts of the world to different Cinemas. I imagine, for example, a Sundance Odemax Special available for public display through Odemax. Thematic festivals like Horror Festivals, Sci Fi festivals, etc. Its alternative programming, no doubt. But "alternative" is not necessarily bad- we are still talking about Millions of viewers worldwide.

I think the potential of Odemax and redray is not for a mainstream penetration, like a regular DVD consumer player, but as a unique platform to distribute content that would otherwise "fade" or not get a chance through the Hollywood studio system. And can be a platform for, above all, QUALITY content, not necessarily content that provides the maximum number of hits, like most of the big youtube or other online video services videos. There's great potential here. I would love to be able to submit my work to a sort of "Redray" Odemax Festival.

I hope they keep working on this. Like I said, I ordered this and would love to share unique programming for the Channel. Mostly indie stuff but with (in my point of view, of course) quality.

 

[mark haflich]

Very well said.

 

[Alex Kiritz]

What you say is true, Mark, but I see it more as a platform that promotes the "Niche". The potential in this is to have alternate programing and not to compete with the Mainstream Blu-Ray, Hollywood market. I imagine Redray to be a platform for an alternative Audiovisual experience: Odemax implemented in small Cinemas, in Cinema Cafés, in Film Clubs. Nowadays, lots of Bars play films, may it be as mere part of background entertainment or really as film showings. Odemax could bring Film Festivals to different parts of the world to different Cinemas. I imagine, for example, a Sundance Odemax Special available for public display through Odemax. Thematic festivals like Horror Festivals, Sci Fi festivals, etc. Its alternative programming, no doubt. But "alternative" is not necessarily bad- we are still talking about Millions of viewers worldwide.

I think the potential of Odemax and redray is not for a mainstream penetration, like a regular DVD consumer player, but as a unique platform to distribute content that would otherwise "fade" or not get a chance through the Hollywood studio system. And can be a platform for, above all, QUALITY content, not necessarily content that provides the maximum number of hits, like most of the big youtube or other online video services videos. There's great potential here. I would love to be able to submit my work to a sort of "Redray" Odemax Festival.

I hope they keep working on this. Like I said, I ordered this and would love to share unique programming for the Channel. Mostly indie stuff but with (in my point of view, of course) quality.

I think that's silly. The best thing Odemax can do to promote the "niche" is to stream 4K into every home and allow viewers to scan through independent films placed on the same footing as big budget ones. Sure your content won't fade if Odemax doesn't reach mainstream penetration, but only because it will barely see the light of day.

I think the original plan was to have Odemax/Redray be the movie theater standard and convince home users to buy a $1350 player to watch movies at movie theater quality. Now the chance for that is diminishing. It seems almost necessary now to do option B which is to get Odemax into homes and convince the big producers of content to put their content on Odemax through market share.

I don't think Red is just in this for the people who post on reduser.

 

[mark haflich]

Alex. The movie theater goer has no clue about how the content he/she is watching got there. Some percentage know because of signage etc that the projectpr is digital and the content digitally stored. Most wouldn't know if it were 2K or 4K or even care. Who made the server hooked up to or part of the projector, huh? They wouldn't even know a server was involved unless the theater bought drinks to your seat. And the content distributor?

 

[Björn Benckert]

Alex. The movie theater goer has no clue about how the content he/she is watching got there. Some percentage know because of signage etc that the projectpr is digital and the content digitally stored. Most wouldn't know if it were 2K or 4K or even care. Who made the server hooked up to or part of the projector, huh? They wouldn't even know a server was involved unless the theater bought drinks to your seat. And the content distributor?

I think there is actually a quite large crowd that do care about quality, just look at piratebay.org where people share / download films (illegally of course) but still the Blue ray version of the films there are much more thought after than the same film as a "DVD rip" but I doubt that people on the streets will pay over a 1000 USD for just a move player playing big files. They all know the new Xbox and sony playstations will be out before christmas and, atleast I think, they are more likely to wait and get such unit instead.

The guys that do care about this kind of tech probably all ready have a hacked Xbox at home with an extra large drive filled with a few hundred hacked games... I would not be in shock if the new X box also gets hacked in less than a few months after it's launched. And when that's done I think that will be the tech peoples choice for player. If they even get a player at all.

Personally I wait for the H.245 stuff will come and let high quality 4k content play straight of my laptop or workstation onto a UHD screen. As I throw away my DVD player a long time ago and did not care to pick up a blue ray as I think this player unit thing kind of belong to the past. But thats maybe only me.

 

[Alex Kiritz]

Alex. The movie theater goer has no clue about how the content he/she is watching got there. Some percentage know because of signage etc that the projectpr is digital and the content digitally stored. Most wouldn't know if it were 2K or 4K or even care. Who made the server hooked up to or part of the projector, huh? They wouldn't even know a server was involved unless the theater bought drinks to your seat. And the content distributor?

We are in agreement. That's why Sony has the upper hand having already installed tons of 4K in cinemas. The fight for 4K in the home is still up for grabs.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

We are in agreement. That's why Sony has the upper hand having already installed tons of 4K in cinemas. The fight for 4K in the home is still up for grabs.

Microsoft and Sony are at the forefront of the 4K/UHD home battle with the XBOX One and PS4. Lesser devices that will deliver UHD content will come later at lower price points, but for this year, all the 4K playback devices are $600 and up. RED could accomplish something big here if they were to market REDRAY appropriately. But they are going to miss the window if ODEMAX doesn't open up soon with some real content. However, I don't think RED is going after the mainstream market. They're targeting the high-end niche market where we currently have various expensive media servers and other hardware that Joe Consumer doesn't even know exists. I look at what people have spent on systems from Kaleidescape and similar and it becomes quite depressing.

Once H.265 hardware based players hit the market next year -- Devices like Roku4, the new AppleTV, new 4K capable boxes from Google and Boxee... It's going to break loose. REDRAY could make a huge in-road into mainstream territory with REDRAY. But in order to do so, they will have to price it at $250 and have it backed by 4K from Netflix, Amazon, Vudu, Hulu, etc.. On top of that, ODEMAX will have to put up something at least as good as what Amazon and iTunes are doing for pay to play rentals and purchases. From what I've seen of ODEMAX, they definitely have the service and the concept looking good. But what we need to see is the content.

 

[mark haflich]

Does anybody have any idea what the Odemax film or content ratings mean. Quality and Maturity/ Are they talking technical quality or the artistic quality. Does Odemax on its site now which I still don't think achieves product delivery to HT consumers, does not indicate the resolution that will be delivered. And for what size screen is the Red community (any and all that sleep with their red cameras at night, OK OK any and all that shoot with a Red camera., OK OK who own or rent a Red camera and someday may shoot a movie) attempting to produce content for. To me, from reading, the vast majority of content or would be 4K content producers, are grading editing etc on 50 inch 4K displays. One poster here lauds how great his stiff looks on a 5o inch display. How much fun he is having shooting in 4 or 5K and playing back through his Redray onto a 50 inch 4K panel. Another evidently on a severe budget has saved his pennies to buy a 39 inch 4K monitor so he can shoot a 4K film for a film festival. Everybody wants to do what everybody else is doing, please please tell me, help me and to its credit the red community shares. But the quality standards becomes what the lemmings to the sea mass adopt. Its hard enough to produce high quality 2K output from small screen monitors. Buy obviously at 2K it can be done to produce decent large screen 2K content though I suspect of the stuff produced by the more successful commercial content providers and do have much editing etc done on screens at least 6 ft wide. the minimum needed I think to fully resolve 4K and what has been done to the raw footage. Footage? I am showing my age. But 4K needs a 10 ft wide screen. And what is the Red community doing? I guess producing 4K, really needed 34K Right?, for cell phone and computer sized screens and maybe for Joe consumer with a 50 inch 4K display. But most of the Red community is not producing content for large screens, at least content that will look good and professional after all processing is completed. The dream. compete with the big boys in getting your picture delivered to the BIG screen. But the Big boys many which shoot with Red cameras too, use large screens to finish their product before release. Comments?

 

[Phil Holland]

Comments?

I'll jump in Mark, mostly because I have a unique perspective on this as I work on big things and small things. I've also been inside the bowels of these machine observing signs, molding patches, and plugging leaks along the way.

4K.

Simple things. For me, personally and professionally, 2K was always a compromise specifically if you worked with Super 35mm film. That is both a technical and subjective truth. 1080p was birthed from a pool of compromise. At the time it was a giant leap. However, the way the vast majority of people experience content these days isn't even really wonderful 1080p. We have disc based media, broadcast, and internet content all being viewed in ways that vary wildly in quality.

For content producers of all types this should be a concern. And for those also working in the trenches it has been.

It's 2013. Now it's time to set a few things right.

4K now becoming a global standard is a good thing. It's finally going to provide that "window into a world" effect that so many of us truly desire from not only the capture experience, but more importantly the viewing experience. We here have great technology in our hands that creates wonderful 4K imagery. Now is the time to bring that wonderful imagery to the viewing while maintaining that visual quality. As a digital imaging specialist and as a story teller this is very important to me and it should be to others.

Is it the end all and be all of what makes something look good and super professional? No. However, it is a good step into allowing the viewers to see what the storytellers saw.

Watered down coffee sucks. Let's give them the good stuff.

Screen Size.

The way I like to look at it and based on the research I've done over the years comes down to (oddly) printing technology. Often these days a fine art print and/or art books are made with prints at 300dpi and occasionally 400dpi. And super rarely 600dpi. Viewing distance comes into play here obviously, but the goal is to "not see the dots". Let's transfer that logic to ppi and see how that's played out. Technology has moved fast and we displays with a very fine pixel pitch where we can't see individual pixels.

Now the fun. I believe somewhere in the 300-450ppi is a lovely sweet spot for most displays. Luckily so do most LCD manufacturers. Which is why we have phones with tiny amazing screens. Now if you can imagine that some phones today have 1080p screens. I'll use the Galaxy S4 as an example with it's 441ppi and 5.0" diagonal screen. With grotesque studies conducted on *gasp* humans, specific humans with 20/20 vision even, at standard usage and operating distances of 10.5" inches and further those who can see that clearly can't see individual pixels clearly at all. And that is where the digital display ends and the digital window begins.

Now that's a 1080p screen, which are these days landing in the 4-5" diagonal range, multiply that by 4 to achieve the 4K resolution and you start getting an idea of just how small 4K displays can be while providing that window effect. And I do think one day we'll be hitting a 600-ish ppi count which could make those screens even smaller, although likely a smidge overkill for the common two eyed human.

This likely could be defined by the Mori's "Uncanny Valley" hypothesis except applied to visual perception.

That said, when I was 3 years old I sat alarming close to a television watching I Love Lucy to turn off the world around me and be submerged into a monochromatic world of wacky calamity while others would later in the evening sit 12 feet away from that same television and enjoy some other programming. Oddly this logic applies to the published white papers on projection screen size and display resolution where not everybody in the same theater has the same viewing experience.

Which is why when I go to theater this is a specific seat that I'm after based on the screen size and viewing distance. And when I'm in that seat and if the story can trick me out of my reality I'm occasionally teleported to a world of wonderment where for an hour and half or so I'm no longer sitting in a dark room but on an amazing adventure in another world that I've never seen or been to before.

To answer your ODEMAX questions. There is a rating for maturity based on content. There will likely be some text about where content falls probably similar to the MPAA guidelines. Additionally there is a star based system for viewer to rate the content they have viewed.

 

[Elsie N]

Does anybody have any idea what the Odemax film or content ratings mean. Quality and Maturity/ Are they talking technical quality or the artistic quality.

Does Odemax on its site now which I still don't think achieves product delivery to HT consumers, does not indicate the resolution that will be delivered. And for what size screen is the Red community (any and all that sleep with their red cameras at night, OK OK any and all that shoot with a Red camera., OK OK who own or rent a Red camera and someday may shoot a movie) attempting to produce content for.

To me, from reading, the vast majority of content or would be 4K content producers, are grading editing etc on 50 inch 4K displays. One poster here lauds how great his stiff looks on a 5o inch display. How much fun he is having shooting in 4 or 5K and playing back through his Redray onto a 50 inch 4K panel. Another evidently on a severe budget has saved his pennies to buy a 39 inch 4K monitor so he can shoot a 4K film for a film festival. Everybody wants to do what everybody else is doing, please please tell me, help me and to its credit the red community shares. But the quality standards becomes what the lemmings to the sea mass adopt.

Its hard enough to produce high quality 2K output from small screen monitors. Buy obviously at 2K it can be done to produce decent large screen 2K content though I suspect of the stuff produced by the more successful commercial content providers and do have much editing etc done on screens at least 6 ft wide. the minimum needed I think to fully resolve 4K and what has been done to the raw footage. Footage? I am showing my age. But 4K needs a 10 ft wide screen.

And what is the Red community doing? I guess producing 4K, really needed 34K Right?, for cell phone and computer sized screens and maybe for Joe consumer with a 50 inch 4K display. But most of the Red community is not producing content for large screens, at least content that will look good and professional after all processing is completed. The dream. compete with the big boys in getting your picture delivered to the BIG screen. But the Big boys many which shoot with Red cameras too, use large screens to finish their product before release. Comments?

Hi Mark, don't really have anything to say regarding your comments because quite frankly, I didn't understand your point from your (sometimes) condescending ramblings. But I thought I would put some white space in your post so others can have a better opportunity to parse your post. Try and have a nice day. '-)

 

[mark haflich]

I'll jump in Mark, mostly because I have a unique perspective on this as I work on big things and small things. I've also been inside the bowels of these machine observing signs, molding patches, and plugging leaks along the way.

4K.

Simple things. For me, personally and professionally, 2K was always a compromise specifically if you worked with Super 35mm film. That is both a technical and subjective truth. 1080p was birthed from a pool of compromise. At the time it was a giant leap. However, the way the vast majority of people experience content these days isn't even really wonderful 1080p. We have disc based media, broadcast, and internet content all being viewed in ways that vary wildly in quality.

For content producers of all types this should be a concern. And for those also working in the trenches it has been.

It's 2013. Now it's time to set a few things right.

4K now becoming a global standard is a good thing. It's finally going to provide that "window into a world" effect that so many of us truly desire from not only the capture experience, but more importantly the viewing experience. We here have great technology in our hands that creates wonderful 4K imagery. Now is the time to bring that wonderful imagery to the viewing while maintaining that visual quality. As a digital imaging specialist and as a story teller this is very important to me and it should be to others.

Is it the end all and be all of what makes something look good and super professional? No. However, it is a good step into allowing the viewers to see what the storytellers saw.

Watered down coffee sucks. Let's give them the good stuff.

Screen Size.

The way I like to look at it and based on the research I've done over the years comes down to (oddly) printing technology. Often these days a fine art print and/or art books are made with prints at 300dpi and occasionally 400dpi. And super rarely 600dpi. Viewing distance comes into play here obviously, but the goal is to "not see the dots". Let's transfer that logic to ppi and see how that's played out. Technology has moved fast and we displays with a very fine pixel pitch where we can't see individual pixels.

Now the fun. I believe somewhere in the 300-450ppi is a lovely sweet spot for most displays. Luckily so do most LCD manufacturers. Which is why we have phones with tiny amazing screens. Now if you can imagine that some phones today have 1080p screens. I'll use the Galaxy S4 as an example with it's 441ppi and 5.0" diagonal screen. With grotesque studies conducted on *gasp* humans, specific humans with 20/20 vision even, at standard usage and operating distances of 10.5" inches and further those who can see that clearly can't see individual pixels clearly at all. And that is where the digital display ends and the digital window begins.

Now that's a 1080p screen, which are these days landing in the 4-5" diagonal range, multiply that by 4 to achieve the 4K resolution and you start getting an idea of just how small 4K displays can be while providing that window effect. And I do think one day we'll be hitting a 600-ish ppi count which could make those screens even smaller, although likely a smidge overkill for the common two eyed human.

This likely could be defined by the Mori's "Uncanny Valley" hypothesis except applied to visual perception.

That said, when I was 3 years old I sat alarming close to a television watching I Love Lucy to turn off the world around me and be submerged into a monochromatic world of wacky calamity while others would later in the evening sit 12 feet away from that same television and enjoy some other programming. Oddly this logic applies to the published white papers on projection screen size and display resolution where not everybody in the same theater has the same viewing experience.

Which is why when I go to theater this is a specific seat that I'm after based on the screen size and viewing distance. And when I'm in that seat and if the story can trick me out of my reality I'm occasionally teleported to a world of wonderment where for an hour and half or so I'm no longer sitting in a dark room but on an amazing adventure in another world that I've never seen or been to before.

To answer your ODEMAX questions. There is a rating for maturity based on content. There will likely be some text about where content falls probably similar to the MPAA guidelines. Additionally there is a star based system for viewer to rate the content they have viewed.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Writing something like your post takes considerable time and thought. As a still photographer I think I understand a bit about sensor resolution and the size ones pictures are blown up to. Certainly for large screen venues there is a need for even higher display resolutions than 4K for close seated individuals. I also understand that for archival purposes high resolution is the best. Also using my Sony 1000ES 4K on my Stewart Studeotech Snomatt Screen (gain 1.0) in a black pit theater sitting at 12.5 ft with less than 20/20 eyes I know exactly what the window effect is. however, for me it didn't arrive with 4K until I switched from a 1.3 screen to the Snomatt 100. All my 4K viewing has been upscaled 1080p, 720p. and 1080i. What I am questioning is how might I expect 4K source material to give me a better picture. Obviously there will be certain scaling artifacts eliminated depending on the actual source resolution and content. but my real concern with the state of 4K production now is how will the quality of todays production look on a really big screen from let's say near upfront seating. How can the Red community produce for large screens using let's call them 50 inch D postage stamp size monitors. I know stuff shot with reasonable skill on a Red 4K camera will look good on a 50 inch monitor and I know that will be the case after compression and playback through the Redray. But what happens when that material is blown up for a 10 ft wide screen (minimum size). according to material published by Joe Kane, filmmakers were rather shocked how the quality of their work deteriorated when viewed on a large screen vs a small one, not that such quality couldn't be improved by remastering etc 4K content on a large projection screen monitor set up. OK Let me ask you a very specific question. Can large screen 4K shot content be displayed at 4K with a high quality result when coded, master yada yada on a 50 inch or less monitor.
.

 

[Elsie N]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Writing something like your post takes considerable time and thought. As a still photographer I think I understand a bit about sensor resolution and the size ones pictures are blown up to. Certainly for large screen venues there is a need for even higher display resolutions than 4K for close seated individuals. I also understand that for archival purposes high resolution is the best. Also using my Sony 1000ES 4K on my Stewart Studeotech Snomatt Screen (gain 1.0) in a black pit theater sitting at 12.5 ft with less than 20/20 eyes I know exactly what the window effect is. however, for me it didn't arrive with 4K until I switched from a 1.3 screen to the Snomatt 100. All my 4K viewing has been upscaled 1080p, 720p. and 1080i. What I am questioning is how might I expect 4K source material to give me a better picture. Obviously there will be certain scaling artifacts eliminated depending on the actual source resolution and content. but my real concern with the state of 4K production now is how will the quality of todays production look on a really big screen from let's say near upfront seating. How can the Red community produce for large screens using let's call them 50 inch D postage stamp size monitors. I know stuff shot with reasonable skill on a Red 4K camera will look good on a 50 inch monitor and I know that will be the case after compression and playback through the Redray. But what happens when that material is blown up for a 10 ft wide screen (minimum size). according to material published by Joe Kane, filmmakers were rather shocked how the quality of their work deteriorated when viewed on a large screen vs a small one, not that such quality couldn't be improved by remastering etc 4K content on a large projection screen monitor set up. OK Let me ask you a very specific question. Can large screen 4K shot content be displayed at 4K with a high quality result when coded, master yada yada on a 50 inch or less monitor.
.

Now that makes sense. Coulda' used some white space in the post though. '-)

 

[mark haflich]

Elsie. How the hell do I do it. On my other frequented forums I hit the enter key to make paragraphs and white space, though that is the first time I have ever heard that term used that way.

 

[Elsie N]

Elsie. How the hell do I do I?t. On my other frequented forums I hit the enter key to make paragraphs and white space, though that is the first time I have ever heard that term used that way.

I had this same problem with REDUSER once before. Can't really remember how I solved it but I think I went into my settings and changed something. I'll play around a little and if something comes to mind I'll post it.

 

[mark haflich]

Thank you.

 

[Elsie N]

Elsie. How the hell do I do I?t. On my other frequented forums I hit the enter key to make paragraphs and white space, though that is the first time I have ever heard that term used that way.

I had this same problem with REDUSER once before. Can't really remember how I solved it but I think I went into my settings and changed something. I'll play around a little and if something comes to mind I'll post it.

O.K., I think I've got it. Go to where you sign in and choose "Settings" then "My settings" then scroll all the way down to "miscellaneous options" after clicking on "general settings". Scroll down to the bottom and there should be options for you to choose how you want your postings to act. Mine uses the WYSIWYG choice.

I'm running Firefox... different browsers may react differently.

 

[Lliam Worthington]

I just wrote the below post on another site in response to an article about Tim Roth on VOD and the future of distribution.

(Link if anyone's interested http://nofilmschool.com/2013/07/tim-roth-on-vod/)

In regards to your questions on what people are thinking Mark, and the discussion points raised by Sergio, as a small independent film maker, it summarises my own hopes of how Odemax may work. Baring in mind that for me, 4K (or 6k down sampled soon) is simply the most worthy film equivalent for the new digital age - and not and end at all unto itself. Just a means.

--------------------

(Article refers to the difficulty of getting theatrical distribution and debates it's worth )

Theatrical distribution does legitimise features. But the difficulty of gaining distribution is also coupled with the difficulty of getting a distributor that truly understands how to best serve and market a film and has the means and will to do so. My own hope is that digital distribution, through ventures like Odemax etc, will allow a new breed of “digital cinema complex” to form that can be fluent and responsive to it’s customers wants and less encumbered by keeping the bigger distributors happy and able to be diverse and dynamic in their programming.

What I mean is something like this…

Subscribe to your local cinema. They send out lists of upcoming titles in your preferred genre, and you basically “like” what you would like to see, and when numbers reach house nut or what have you, they screen. There would be no need to take a big risk on choosing this tiny indy over that mega blockbuster for this up coming week of programming. Or needing to be cutting this disaster or that as soon as humanly possible. The focus no longer on “did it open?” No more tragic outcries of pain from Indie film makers, of... if I could just get distribution... how well it could have done if it was just properly marketed.... it was opened too wide, it was opened too small, it was pulled too soon... all it really needed was a chance to build up a little word of mouth. Cinema owners would not have to fear dire repercussions or trying to explain to Universal why they just pulled their 300 million dollar giant robot punch on for a film about a boy and his dead horse that some fifteen year old shot for $70 with a friends new Gh32.

Cinema programming could be fluent, directly connected, and directly relevant to it’s audience. People would likely even start campaigning to try and get a screening going of X film that they desperately wanted to see – sending links to their friends etc… Hobbiest groups and organisations could get that screening they would so love. Film makers could have an incentive beyond just passion to make it for them. It’d be an open playing field. The studios would undoubtedly still lead and produce their tent pole films, but also in saving some money on their stupendous P&A budgets having forfeited the need to get their films to open at all costs, could perhaps even feel able and inclined to support a few more risky and interesting projects.

I think it’s the future. At least I certainly hope it is. Otherwise, I think it will just be an online version of what it is now… In majority, clever people with money, telling people what they like, so they can continue making money.

--------------------

 

[M Most]

Subscribe to your local cinema. They send out lists of upcoming titles in your preferred genre, and you basically “like” what you would like to see, and when numbers reach house nut or what have you, they screen. [/COLOR]There would be no need to take a big risk on choosing this tiny indy over that mega blockbuster for this up coming week of programming. Or needing to be cutting this disaster or that as soon as humanly possible. The focus no longer on “did it open?” No more tragic outcries of pain from Indie film makers, of... if I could just get distribution... how well it could have done if it was just properly marketed.... it was opened too wide, it was opened too small, it was pulled too soon... all it really needed was a chance to build up a little word of mouth. Cinema owners would not have to fear dire repercussions or trying to explain to Universal why they just pulled their 300 million dollar giant robot punch on for a film about a boy and his dead horse that some fifteen year old shot for $70 with a friends new Gh32.

Isn't that model already used? I think it's called YouTube...

I think you're severely overlooking the fact that this is a business. It's not an artistic free for all, and it's not a public service. Most people aren't terribly interested in seeing little stories with no name actors, they're interested in seeing their favorite movie stars in situations that couldn't possibly happen in their own lives. Escapism is what cinema is about just as much as it's about art and education. But most of all, what it's about is making money - for the studio, the distributor, the filmmakers, the actors, the financial backers, and, yes, the theaters. All of those entities are making their living and/or growing their business based on the success of their product. Democracy is not what this is all about. Commerce is what it's about. Lose sight of that and you lose sight of the real, capitalist world we in the West happen to live in. Advertising is a necessary part of that because if you want to make money, you need to convince enough of the buying public to choose your product over that of the competition. Simple lines in a brochure, a web site, or Yelp don't do that. You have to force them to be aware of the existence of your product. Calmly giving the public lists of things they can choose from only works if the list is absurdly long and you have a very smart search function to narrow down the choices to something an individual might be interested in. And you have a method of delivery that ensures complete convenience with regard to where and when the material is viewed. That model is also already in use. It's called Netflix. And it's successful because unlike what you're suggesting, anyone can watch anything anywhere on any device and the software helps them find something based on choices they've already made.

Getting people to go out to a theater and pay to see a 2 hour movie is not likely to happen under your scenario. If you give them choices, they also want convenience. That's why Netflix works. If you take away the convenience, they need to be convinced to get up, go out, and spend money on something they think they will enjoy. That's what theatrical exhibition is based on.

 

[Corey_O]

Mark here's my 2cents,

I was able to attend the first annual red film festival last winter, Dec 3rd & 4th in LA and the one question I asked every film maker was "is this the first time you have viewed your movie in 4K?" I think 99% replied yes.

I wasn't surprised because 4k displays were just coming out and unless you had a large budget or friends in post you didn't have access to expensive DI suites.

The films all looked great on the big screen. The film makers were very pleased with the quality and even had kind of the deer in headlights awe about having just witness a theatre full of people watch a movie which they created.

Red is leading this posse into the home by blazing this trail which will lead film makers from Epic to Redray to Redlaser. This is exciting! It's a new frontier!

I've seen the Redray display 4k content on a large screen at RSH and it was very impressive. They also played 2k upscaled and it looked great.

Blazing trails is exciting and sometimes frustrating. This is not just technology its new technology shit happens.