The movement to Digital film and fully digital theaters has been inevitable. Being digital is easier, cheaper (ultimatly) and more efficent for ditributing since it can be done over satellite or the internet.
However, as good of an idea as it is… the transition to digital will not be a cheap one up front. The good folks over at M&C put it this way:
However, the deal — which it took the industry three years to work out — fails to address who will pay for the digital equipment all theaters would have to substitute for their projection systems.
Industry analysts estimate digital projectors will cost about $75,000 each, plus theaters will need equipment capable of receiving the films delivered by Internet or satellite. Theaters want the studios to pay for the transition to digital, while the studios say the theaters should pay
This will be sticky, and honestly I don’t have an opinion yet one way or the other who should be footing the bill for the swich to digital. An argument could be made either way. What are your thoughts?
let’s look back. when color was invented, how did the black and white theatres do it then?
They didn’t have to do much of anything, since the film projector is a marvelously simple device – you give the same projector that the theater bought in 1930 color or higher-resolution film, and the picture is in color or less grainy. The big change was sound, but that was an upgrade to their systems, not a completely new device. Same with Panavision: You just got a new lens.
If the studios want digital projection, they’d better be ready to pay for it, because there’s very little incentive for theaters to “upgrade” (a term I use loosely, since I’ve yet to see digital projection that looks as good as 35mm). Many theaters use fifty-year-old projectors with an attachment or two for stereo/digital sound, and it works just fine, and looks even better as film stocks improve at no cost to the theater. And from what I gather, those fifty-year-old film projectors are far more reliable than the still rather flaky digital systems
Why should they shell out $75k per screen when they’re not getting a significant upgrade? Especially if the studios pay to ship the prints. The only way I can see digital being worth the money to the studios in the near future is if it saves them money that way.
*sigh*, if the movie theaters shell out for the new projectors, we can probably expect a hike in tickets and concessions. i already watch less movies as it is because ticket prices are getting ridiculous. the cost of 2 tickets = the cost of a dvd. and no hassles.
1) Theater owners of course have to pay…but ulitmately, that means we’ll be the ones paying.
2) Digital projection rocks. We have one screen in all of the Minneapolis area that is digital (that I’m aware of), and I love it.
3) How many jobs will be lost when all the data is now transferred via sattelite or internet? No couriers, no postage, no projectionist, etc.
-www.moviepatron.com
this should be obvious. it should be the theatres.
this is how i see it. theatres operate on their own, and are usually essentially their own businesses, right? if i’m wrong THERE, this point would be moot.
anyway, the thing i keep thinking is, if the studios had to pay for all of the theatre’s 75,000 buck equipment, they’d probably go out of business. think of how many theatres are out there…
then there’s the messy situation of “which studios pay and how much do each of them fork in?”
no , this problem , however unfortunate for the theatre managers and chains of (my country ) America, at least, should have to pay for their own stuff….
a temporary fix for this thing would be for the studios to make films in both digital codex and film codex…. then blend it out and make it all digital over a decade or so.
let’s look back. when color was invented, how did the black and white theatres do it then?
If the studios want digital that bad then they should pay for it. Otherwise drop the issue and let theatre owners do it at their own convienence(sp?)