Welcome to BigScreenBiz.com

Entertainment Equipment of LA/Toronto/and Bethesda, MD www.entequip.com publishes a quarterly newsletter and Jim Lavorto CEO leads off with a opion/anylasis of digital projections future where he concludes that cost, world wide application, safety, and ease of maint. work collectively doom digital porojection except in specialized uses. He asks in closing: "who wants to pull the plug?" Has this debate become a moot point? Has digital lost? Does it have a wide release future?

---

Mike Hurley
www.bigscreenbiz.com

Here's some opinions on "The Future of Cinema" from leaders of the movie industry:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/notes/march2000/

IMHO, "Film Done Right" is hard to beat.

---

John P. Pytlak
Senior Technical Specialist
EI Worldwide Technical Services
Research Labs, Building 69
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Telephone: 716-477-5325
Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Yes, pull the plug on VIDEO in cinemas!

Is it just me, or does the digital video idea sound like too much, too soon? Granted, there are so many problems with film itself, yet I think that many in an audience would appreciate knowing that the film is being shown by an expert projectionist and not simply by some hack pressing PLAY on a player. Am I an old-fashioned fossil or do others feel the same way? There is almost a romantic feel to film being threaded through a projector.

We are a society built on progress. But I feel that in some cases in our racing to build a better mouse trap we stumble and should take a step back and look. Better is not always best. This how I feel about the whole digital idea. Film is to movies as skin is to your body. I say keep it the way it is. Some day it may change. But now I don't feel is the time.

I don't feel that digital cinema is a better mouse trap. Lets see the same standards for motion pictures have worked for 80+ years. The same projector that my dad operated in the 1950's are the same today (ok digtal sound etc.) but still the parts are the same.
So keep it simple keep it film

I just ran “Dancer in the Dark,” which is a digital video blown up to a 35mm cinemascope print. Quite a stretch. But, because of the subject matter of the film, the graininess and hand-held camera work added to the intimacy of the film. It struck me that if I could project digital, this film would not have to have been transferred over to 35mm for me to exhibit it. There might be a whole pool of product out there available from lesser known film makers who would be freed from the constraints of shooting in film. But, one of the things I think that keeps a lot of the stuff that’s out there from being worse than it already is, is the fact that they need to justify that high budget. So, shooting in digital might turn into a whole mess of really bad movies instead of the availability of good ones. The fact remains, the medium isn’t really the problem. It’s the people using the medium. Bad writing and shoddy camera work will always transcend any medium. “The Celebration” was shot in DV via the Dogma 95 Manifesto and was a very engaging movie. But, you could never compare it to a 70mm print of “Lawrence of Arabia.” The fact is, they are two completely different products, but they do no cancel each other out. They can coexist. In my far from humble opinion, digital and film will coexist. We might have to bring in new technology to play digital, but it won’t take over film. So there.

Damn, I was going to have this long winded explination about digital cinema and how it can coexist with film but Avalon beat me to it.

Yea! What he said.

It's NOT digital vs. film. It's business vs. SHOW BUSINESS.

IMHO, if the business case for digital cinema forces more on-screen ads to pay for it, or trades quality for convenience, or is only affordable for the "big guys", it's the wrong thing to do. The 1280 x 1024 pixel displays of today's "state-of-the-art" digital projection systems are less than most laptop computer screens. To paraphrase a recent advertising slogan: "See the movie, not the pixels".

"Film Done Right" is hard to beat. "Film Done Wrong" is a poor excuse to abandon a proven technology that can deliver superior images.

---

John P. Pytlak
Senior Technical Specialist
EI Worldwide Technical Services
Research Labs, Building 69
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Telephone: 716-477-5325
Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

This Sunday's New York Times has a big spiel on "digital" cinema with heavy quoting from Spielberg. If there was ever proof needed that hundreds of millions of dollars can skew perspective this is it. Firstly I think there's two major distinctions: digital film making and digital projection are two completely different arguments and I think making films digitally will become the rule and will probably be cost effective if not already. For a beginning film maker film cost is the #1 expense. Projection, however, is another world. Let's see they're closing 7-15,000 screens of the 38,000 in the USA because of reality catching up with mass insanity. It leaves roughly 7500 sites in the USA. To digit those screens would cost 3.7 billion dollars conservatively speaking not to mention support with service and repairs, etc. (I can hear Dr. Evil now). And what about the WORLD? I've been in little theatres all over this planet: are they too going to convert? I'll believe it when I see it. So they'll have to keep making prints of real film..... which if you have a choice of hard working, well running, almost paid for projection equipment that is already BETTER than digital, will even further argue for not going digital. I realize guys like Spielberg live in a fantasy world and I guess this just proves it.

---

Mike Hurley
www.bigscreenbiz.com

I will beleive it when i see it as well. The Big boys who are already going down the tubes are not going to have the cash or credit to convert and I certainly do not have it.So I am with Mike here its not going to happen any time soon.

Mike:

I believe it was George Lucas, NOT Steven Spielberg, who the NY Times article quoted for his pro-digital stance.

Kodak's "Cinema Notes" recently published the views of many industry leaders on the Future of Cinema:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/notes/march2000/

Mr. Spielberg said: "Arts stimulate something inside of us. I'm going to direct all my films on film until they close the last lab down."

Mr. Spielberg uses digital technology extensively to expand the creative palette of his films. But it appears his heart is with film for both origination and presentation.

---

John P. Pytlak
Senior Technical Specialist
EI Worldwide Technical Services
Research Labs, Building 69
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Telephone: 716-477-5325
Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Details! Details! I read the entire 1 1/2 page article "after" I posted and it's true, it's true. George Lucas was the oft quoted visionary and I transfer all my commentary onto his back! I loved the article for it's depth of industry stupidity. FI "Theatre owners will be able to use theatres on slow nights to show pay per view, live events, etc." Oh I can see that/ no problem: Hi Buena Vista, this is Mike at The Colonial. We've got a couple of slow nights so we're going to prempt 102 Dalmatians to show the WWF Smackdown. ...

Or Ben Stiller in the article complaing how lesser known films could be shown more easily. To who? When people don't know about a great film they don't come to see it.

---

Mike Hurley
www.bigscreenbiz.com

For all those of us who are happy with the way things are, rest easy.The technologies are inproving but are not for commercial release yet. Also, the state of the industry has deterred its progress. So it looks like we don't have to worry for some time to come.

dr: We should never "rest easy" in efforts to improve the film-going experience and "Do Film Right". Even if Digital Cinema is delayed until the quality improves and the costs come way down, poor presentation will drive many to their "home theatres". With a few thousand dollars for a good monitor, DVD player and sound system, the presentation quality from a DVD or satellite is very good on a home screen.

The real risk to the theatre business is that the same technology being developed for Digital Cinema (e.g., DLP projectors) will soon find its way into the home "media room" from companies like Panasonic, Hitachi and Sony.

---

John P. Pytlak
Senior Technical Specialist
EI Worldwide Technical Services
Research Labs, Building 69
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Telephone: 716-477-5325
Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it