Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

The new Format

Well some people have plans...

Well some people have plans...

My company includes RED in its business plan, and has included it now for nearly 10 months. I will tell you that its always fun building a business about what will be rather then what is. Even better is seeing the what will be, become a reailty. I think alot of people are planing alot based upon the RED, so changing how things work will certainly be its effect. Hell, it already has started, as its being used on certain films now. In One maybe Two years RED/S35mm will be all thats left.
 
The main issue why the digital revolution takes so long in theatres is that the theatre owner would have to pay himself for the projector. A digital projector is 100'000$ and might be obsolete in just a few years. A 35mm projector is around 15'000$ and works for more than 50 years.
The cost of the prints are paid by the studios. So they would be the big winners of the digitalization at cinemas. They and the content protection companies.

Simon
 
sbaechler said:
A digital projector is 100'000$ and might be obsolete in just a few years. A 35mm projector is around 15'000$ and works for more than 50 years.
Click to expand...
I think this is really the crux of the issue from the theater's point of view - welcome to Moore's Law...

Equipment costs are going to sky-rocket for cinemas, against a background of fading revenue - I think it's going to be tough going in that part of the industry, and I also think you're going to get a lot of people complaining in 5-10 years time (just as you do now about the woeful state of most 35mm projection) that the projection equipment is lagging a long way behind the acquisition equipment, in terms of image quality and resolution.

It doesn't seem to me that digital projection is going to be the magic bullet that many think it will be (for financial rather than technical reasons) - but here's hoping I'm wrong!...
 
sbaechler said:
The main issue why the digital revolution takes so long in theatres is that the theatre owner would have to pay himself for the projector. A digital projector is 100'000$ and might be obsolete in just a few years. A 35mm projector is around 15'000$ and works for more than 50 years.
The cost of the prints are paid by the studios. So they would be the big winners of the digitalization at cinemas. They and the content protection companies.
Click to expand...

This is basically true. However, there are some rather creative solutions in place to make the economics work. The primary one is an arrangement between the studios and some of the digital cinema conversion suppliers, such as Technicolor and Christie, to somewhat subsidize the cost of the conversions by paying what is known as a "virtual print fee." This is a fee paid to Technicolor that is based on the number of screenings for each DCP that is sent out to theaters they have equipped for digital projection. Technicolor, in effect, gives the projection equipment to the theater owner (the theater pays for installation and maintenance, but not the equipment itself), and the studios pay Technicolor based on usage to offset the cost of the equipment. Since the contracts for this are long term (I've heard 10 years, could be different), the digital cinema supplier is basically carrying the paper for much of that time, but with an assurance that the debt is being paid. They also get a return on their investment via the installation and maintenance contracts. It's a pretty good arrangement, certainly more sensible than expecting theater owners to pony up the $120K or so it would cost if they financed it themselves.
 
When considering the cost factor, we need to remember that digital technology gets better and cheaper Every few months......

And that combined with volume sales will end this debate and film projection sooner than we thought.

The Red 4k projector will probably deliver the same price to performance shock wave that the Red One has. I hope.
 
You know where this is going right? If the Red 4K projector was $17,500 imagine the paradigm shift. Imagine Red being the go-to solution provider for both production and exhibition.

The RedOne has made production "reasonable". Now if they could do the same for exhibition, suddenly there aren't so many barriers to entry in the all-digital chain.
 
Sam Druckerman said:
When considering the cost factor, we need to remember that digital technology gets better and cheaper Every few months......
Click to expand...
Yes - but although in the short term that's advantageous to theaters, in the long term the fact that it keeps getting relentlessly and exponentially better and better is a burden, as equipment needs to be replaced so often to stay at the cutting edge, as mentioned earlier - so it's a double-edged sword, and in the long term will prove significantly more expensive at the theater's end of the bargain than 35mm has been...

As for subsidies from distributors toward installation costs for cinemas, that certainly does make things easier and the future brighter for digital projection, however one has to wonder once again about the long-term viability of that scheme - I doubt that distributors will want to keep (partially) financing upgrades of projection equipment for entire cinema chains.

It will be interesting to see what happens. Maybe projector prices will fall to the point where even the highest-end units are not prohibitively expensive, but I think that's probably unlikely given the film industry's (quite correct, imo) preference for the best that money can buy, almost regardless of cost.
 
The real question is, what happens when a 4K projector is $5,000 and you can stream new releases for $20 directly to your home theater? ... the slow death of the theatrical releases... I'd bet by 2010 it's a reality.

So what are theater owners and film distributors going to do to keep our butts in the seats? Better stories, sure, but if only it were that easy. Honestly I don't think distributors are going to fight the digital revolution, it certainly didn't work out for music distributors, they found a way to work with the system instead of against it. The real losers here are the theater owners, and then us (assuming you buy into the "shared theater experience").

I buy into it, but it's hit or miss. My wife and I saw The Simpsons movie. We were the only ones. I left thinking the movie was awful, which may be true but maybe I would've liked it more had there been more than just us sitting there.

I love digital and I love a good theater experience. I also don't care if studios can't turn a profit because people aren't going to the theaters as much, and instead the $20/digital release pay-per-view model is less profitable to them. I really don't care because every market has its up and down cycles. Just because a studio can double their money on a $200M production doesn't mean they should count on it and it should be "common place". Maybe they should be happy to earn $20M from a $10M production that is all digital instead of the current trend of spending $70M+ and the film only grosses $30M. I mean seriously .. the salaries of actors and athletes is rediculous.
 
2010 is only 3 years away. They still haven't shut off NTSC yet, and already you're predicting 4k in consumer homes.

We barely hit the tipping point for HD in home. Consumers are fickle, they don't just jump into new technology easily even if it's better. This has been proven in the past.

If you make that bet, you'd lose.

It's fine to not to care if studios make money or not, but the business aspect of filmmaking is a different game.

Name talent is one of the advertising draws studios use to get people to theaters. As long as the talent can deliver, they get paid very well. Sure there are more than a few bombs by some high paid talent, but as long as that's not all they do, they'll get the big checks.

If you think studios find it important to have name talent now, wait til there is a 10x increase of content.

How do you plow through all the crap to find the good stuff. Even if it isn' hard to find the good stuff, it'll be hard to want to pay much for it, especially if something else just as good is cheaper or free.

Thats why the trend is to adapt material that has some sort of recognizability. You won't see the end of remakes, sequels or adaptations anytime soon.

I do think from the business standpoint, future filmmakers will have a harder time being the next big mogul. As content increases, it gets cheaper. There'll just be so much out there, that no one wants to pay for it all.

I do see the Long Tail theory going into full effects, so filmmakers can make a living off of a niche, depending on how well they build their following.

Though for the foreseeable future, I see more 2k/4k slasher movies, Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino/Guy Richie/Kevin Smith clones, moody indies, and the occasional spark of brilliance.

By the way, the Simpsons Movie made over $178 million, so you weren't the only ones who saw it, just maybe that day.
 
Supposed Revolution

Supposed Revolution

In all the excitement we must not forget that good movies are based on good writing and good performances, emotion, not resolution. Saving 100K on film origination is a small blimp in the big picture of even a low to medium budget independent movie. It will enable a few very talented people to originate great content with less money but also a lot of crap will be produced that should never see 4K... I embrace a new tool to capture what hopefully is a good story enabled through great performances, but the tool is not changing the task.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top