I saw the following article posted on the Cinema Treasures website and thought it would make for some interesting reading. It had run in ASHARQ ALAWAT, the leading Arabic International Daily.
While we often express the fact that we find it difficult to believe that the American studios will include the small independents in the change to digital projection, or at least include us in the payment for such, I couldn't help but wonder if what is about to happen in India couldn't be accomplished here as well.
******************************************
["Digital revolution set to sweep India's Bollywood"
29/10/2005
BANGALORE (Reuters) - Digital cinema is about to take off in India, home of the world's most prolific film industry, but not without some twists and turns worthy of a "Bollywood" melodrama.
In the United States, a digital roll-out has stalled while Hollywood studios and theater owners fight over who pays for top-quality computer-based projection systems that cost $80,000 to $100,000 per screen.
But in the Mumbai-based film industry known as Bollywood, entrepreneurs are willing to settle for a bit less quality at one-third the cost. They use cheap digital cinema in remote towns to cash in on blockbusters -- and in the process, beat back video pirates, too.
"Piracy can be completely prevented when the entire industry goes digital," said Senthil Kumar of RealImage Media Technologies, a start-up in Chennai (Madras) that makes digital video players.
But as with mobile phones, India opts for value over top quality, a strategy that makes sense in an industry where only one in 12 movies has made a solid profit since 2001.
Industry officials say low-cost digital cinema, called "E-Cinema" in contrast to the top-quality "D-Cinema," is just what Bollywood needs. Though less than 2 percent of the country's 13,000 cinemas are digital, 2006 should see some big roll-outs in India.
"E-Cinema is what is going to be appropriate for countries like India," Kumar says.
India, led by Bollywood, produces about 1,000 films a year and Kumar calls the industry "pure Las Vegas" because producers often gamble on a single blockbuster to make up for several flops. But transporting celluloid prints to remote towns costs more and gives video pirates enough time to mint cheap copies, cutting into profits.
And that is where start up companies like RealImage come in.
Amit Khanna, chairman of Reliance Entertainment, an arm of India's biggest private group, Reliance, said digital cinema could help the industry make quick profits.
"The idea is saturation release. There is too much content chasing too many eyeballs," Khanna said.
While it takes around 70,000 rupees to make a celluloid print, RealImage rents out digital copies to cinema owners at less than 400 rupees.
Using inexpensive digital copies, a theater can run a movie for four weeks at less than 10 percent of the cost of a print, taking the edge off cinematic flops.
RealImage, which takes an upfront security deposit, but no equipment rentals from cinema owners, is now serving 40 screens in its home state of Tamil Nadu, and there are plans for 100 more across India by December, Kumar said.
Mumbai-based UFO Moviez, a service provider, uses satellites to download movies and last month ordered 500 projectors from U.S.-based Digital Projection International.
UFO now serves 50 cinemas and plans to reach 500 screens by March, a company official said.
Chennai-based Pyramid Saimira Theater Ltd., which uses RealImage players, is also looking to satellites. The company, which has management contracts with cinema owners, is running cheap digital movies in 28 cinemas in Tamil Nadu, and plans to have 100 by the end of November.
UFO said on its Web site that digital systems can track every playback and set an audit trail to check pirates.
Multiplex owner Adlabs Films Ltd. (ADLF.BO) got into digital early with a 100-strong E-Cinema chain, but it did not do well because its single-microchip players offered lower quality. Kumar said the scene has now changed because new E-Cinema players use three microchips made by Texas Instruments Inc. (NYSE:TXN - news) that give Bollywood a better trade-off between cost and quality.
But there are still doubters.
"I don't want to be a mover or shaker in this," Shravan Shroff, managing director of multiplex owner and distributor Shringar Cinemas Ltd. (SHRC.BO), which runs 22 screens.
"I would be a fence-sitter till someone else does it. I can always go and buy the technology later." ]
**************************************
I have seen some of these E-Cinema systems here in the states projected onto screens up to 30 feet wide with results that appear to me to be equal if not better then 35mm. These systems cost under $10,000, and while probably could not be used satisfactory on larger screens, would be quite sufficient for smaller theatres, especially sub-run houses.
It is an unfortunate reality that the public expects the quality of sub-runs to be less then first runs, yet in some areas patronize those theatres well. Not every one cares that the presentation be absolutely perfect, as long as the theatre has done the best that it can with the print that it has received. A few scratches or dirt blotches are tolerated. Those of us that are sub-run, and try our very best to present "film done right" have had to live with the fact that we almost never get a new print. The public that patronizes our theatres are willing to wait to save a substantial amount of money, and in order to do so will accept slightly less.
For us this new cheaper system could very well even be an improvement as all scratches and dirt will be gone, traded off for possibly a slightly visible pixalation if you're sitting down front. However, I didn't see such when I viewed this system. Actually, the $10,000 system that was used in my theatre looked better on my 30 foot screen then the $150,000 system did on the AMC Empire's 60 foot screen on 42nd Street in New York City exhibiting Star Wars.
So anyway, my thought is why not have different priced systems available for exhibitors to choose from, especially for those that may be forced to pay for them themselves. Then let the public decide which they prefer to patronize.
My bet is that most of the public wouldn't know the difference, or at least wouldn't care.
[This message has been edited by RoxyVaudeville (edited November 08, 2005).]
Forums 
