Why Digital Projection Isn't all that Common

[danny bartle]

Hi all,

 

Do you think one of the reasons (of course not the only) digital projection hasn't really taken off yet is due to copyright issues?

 

You would think making high quality pirate copies of digital projection movies, whether it be on hard drive, flash memory, etc would be much easier for the fraudsters to accomplish if its in a digital format with much better results for them, rather than shooting with a video camera from the back of the cinema.

 

Your thoughts?...

[Nate Downes]

That is one of the reasons. But the biggest reason is $$$. It is not in the movie houses best interest to purchase digital projection systems. They would be locked into a serious upgrade-crunch, having to replace very expensive equipment every 2 years, while currently they still run projectors built in the 1920's. In addition, these new projectors require more maintenance than the old workhorses they currently run. Also they require more highly trained personnell to handle, further increasing operating costs. For the movie houses, there is few economical reason to switch, hence why they haven't. All of the benefit rests with the production companies, not with the movie houses.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I think the money the producers today pay for every print (roughly $2000-3000 per print) should go towards the exhibitor as some kind of "technical fee" or something. At least half that sum, so they create an incitament for the cinema not only to switch, but to keep his stuff up to par. It's not fair that the exhibitor should take all that cost whilst the producers just pocket all the money they save not doing prints.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Mr. Frisch is right in that the business model has to change significantly for digital projection to make sense. The total cost of bringing reasonable-looking images to screen is considerably lower with digital projection; given the cost of prints, the equipment, even at hundreds of thousands, would amortise quickly. So even in the short term there's money to be saved, but it's a "someone else's budget" problem.

 

The issue is that the distributors pay for the prints, whereas the cinemas pay for the projection equipment. So, with digital projection, the distributors save money, but they're not the people paying for the equipment - the cinemas see no saving for their outlay. Perhaps a return to the studio-owned projection facilities would help, but I tremble to think what that would do to programming.

 

And I think that the idea that digital projection requires more highly trained staff is ludicrous. Worst possible case scenario is to plug in a disk array - more probably a tape - and press play. And I think we all know what film entials - tangling an uncooperative, slithery thread of plastic around innumerable rollers. Lacing up projectors is a thankless task which even after five years doing it fairly regularly I find myself rechecking obsessively - loop too small and the film breaks, loop too large and the sound's out of sync. Horrendous. And prints regularly break.

 

Phil

[Dominic Case]

The total cost of bringing reasonable-looking images to screen is considerably lower with digital projection; given the cost of prints, the equipment, even at hundreds of thousands, would amortise quickly.

People who have done exactly that calculation find that the digital projection solution is actually more expensive still. The calculation includes the write-off time for digital versus film projectors (rapid obselescence of digital equipment is a universal factor, and also a necessary one for manufacturers to keep in business), as well as the cost of the capital needed to fit out the theatres. And cost of spares etc. The (dubious) economic benefits of digital distribution are only fully realised when all cinemas are digital on all screens (how does a theatre move a film from cinema 1 to cinema 8 when the audiences drop in number) - and that won't be for a very long time, however quickly it starts.

 

Given around 30,000 screens in the US alone, at - say - $200,000 per screen to switch over (don't forget it's not just the cost of a projector, but the server and distribution system as well), that's a bill of $6 billion. Worldwide, 3 or 4 times that. Spread over 5 years, that's much more than the cost of making prints on the current model.

 

Working the other way, Kodak once calculated that an average print ran for 5 weeks. That means it takes 10 prints a year to keep a single screen busy. Let's say a print is US$1,500 (their figure, which I know to be closer than Adam Frisch's estimate, which is a "guess" put out by the digital prophets to bolster their argument), then it takes $15,000 a year to supply prints for one cinema screen. Invest $200,000 now to avoid that cost, and you've paid it back in - let's see - about 15 years. Not very attractive, especially as the machine will be obsolete in half that time. Most investors wold try to find somewhere better to put their money.

[danny bartle]

thanks for the replies...

 

so copyright isn't really much of an issue then? would the projectors or computers the movies are stored on have possibly a digital cable output or have the ability to be pirated? (i'm not talking shooting video from the back of the cinema either..)

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I'll only make two further observations: I know of a certain London-based company that makes a 2K uncompressed playback device that costs a mere fraction of $200k.

 

Decent projectors are still expensive.

 

Phil

[John Sprung]

Back in 1997, I put together a deal for the restoration of the Warner Grand in San Pedro. We scored a pair of AA-2 Norelcos and a bunch of other stuff for $10k.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Matt Pacini]

"... And I think that the idea that digital projection requires more highly trained staff is ludicrous. Worst possible case scenario is to plug in a disk array - more probably a tape - and press play. "

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I couldn't agree less.

Sure, as long as everything works and never screws up, you're right.

But the moment anything goes wrong (and it will), then that theater is empty for the next three weeks until a tech can be sent out to fix your equipment.

 

Picture it:

The movie is playing, then all of a sudden, all goes dead.

The kid running the projection setup runs over, and stares at this big black box with wires hanging out of it.

What's he gonna do, rip it open and start hacking code to figure out what's wrong?

 

This is just another reason theaters aren't going to switch; they'd be at the mercy of the distributors sending "digital projection IT guys" out to keep their stuff running, and they would almost certainly be paying for it with service contracts, and no reimbursement for the empty seats when the stuff breaks down.

 

Matt Pacini

[Adam Frisch FSF]

People who have done exactly that calculation find that the digital projection solution is actually more expensive still. The calculation includes the write-off time for digital versus film projectors  (rapid obselescence of digital equipment is a universal factor, and also a necessary one for manufacturers to keep in business), as well as the cost of the capital needed to fit out the theatres. And cost of spares etc. The (dubious) economic benefits of digital distribution are only fully realised when all cinemas are digital on all screens (how does a theatre move a film from cinema 1 to cinema 8 when the audiences drop in number)  - and that won't be for a very long time, however quickly it starts.

 

Given around 30,000 screens in the US alone, at - say - $200,000 per screen to switch over (don't forget it's not just the cost of a projector, but the server and distribution system as well), that's a bill of $6 billion. Worldwide, 3 or  4 times that. Spread over 5 years, that's much more than the cost of making prints on the current model.

 

Working the other way, Kodak once calculated that an average print ran for 5 weeks. That means it takes 10 prints a year to keep a single screen busy. Let's say a print is US$1,500 (their figure, which I know to be closer than Adam Frisch's estimate, which is a "guess" put out by the digital prophets to bolster their argument), then it takes $15,000 a year to supply prints for one cinema screen. Invest $200,000 now to avoid that cost, and you've paid it back in - let's see - about 15 years. Not very attractive, especially as the machine will be obsolete in half that time. Most investors wold try to find somewhere better to put their money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is a problem with digital and it's rapid obsoleteness. Moore's 18 month law and all that. But if you factor in the fact that no print stays completely scratch-free for 5 weeks then one could argue that the longer a film runs, the less I should have to pay. The whole exhibition thing is kinda weird to begin with - you pay as much for a film that's scratched and runs on a miniscule screen in some horrible mall multiplex as you do on the huge premiere screen. This is a serious problem since it drives away customers.

 

To be honest with you - I see the market for DVD growing even more. I know many people who prefer to watch it in the privacy of their home for roughly the same price, without the screaming teenage gang and sticky popcorn smell up your nose. If exhibitors and filmproducers don't get onboard soon, there won't be any cinemas left to show film in.

[Rik Andino]

To be honest with you - I see the market for DVD growing even more. I know many people who prefer to watch it in the privacy of their home for roughly the same price, without the screaming teenage gang and sticky popcorn smell up your nose. If exhibitors and filmproducers don't get onboard soon, there won't be any cinemas left to show film in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nothing replaces the thrill of watching a movie on the big screen

I'd tell the teens to "Shuddaup!"

(or just go when they're not able to go, school hours or late nights)

Bring a nose plug or just go only when your sinuses are f**k :D

And damn the expense ($10 f**cking bucks! :o ) and just enjoy the show.

 

 

Nothing will ever take the excitment of watching something projected 25' in the air

It was amazing a 100 years ago---it's still amazing today.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> $10

 

Bwah! The equivalent of 14 to see a film where I live, off-peak, and half as much again in central London.

 

Phil

[Rob Belics]

If exhibitors and filmproducers don't get onboard soon, there won't be any cinemas left to show film in.

Yeah. This whole TV thing will obsolete theat....wait a minute. Where have I heard this before?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> What's he gonna do, rip it open and start hacking code to figure out what's wrong?

 

No - just like a traditional projectionist doesn't have a machine shop in the back room. From that perspective this equipment tends to be a lot more user-fixable because you're either reinstalling software or replacing off the shelf computer parts.

 

Phil

[Dominic Case]

would the projectors or computers the movies are stored on have possibly a digital cable output or have the ability to be pirated?

No.

 

The data remains encrypted until it is IN the projector itself, with no output connection of any sort.

 

Proposals for security include the ability to allow the data to be decrypted only on a nominated projector (identifiable by a unique key) during a nominated range of dates.

 

Of course this makes it difficult for the theatre to switch to a different cinema if audiences fall away - and gives the distributor much more control. So distributors' fear of piracy AND exhibitors' fear of the distributors' anti-piracy measures are both inhibiting factors.

 

Prospects for the archivists and and film historians fo the future seem dim. Imagine it's 2045, and you discover a disk of a long-lost Superman 6 from 2008, encrypted to play only on a rusty old box that's now landfill.

[Matt Pacini]

"...From that perspective this equipment tends to be a lot more user-fixable because you're either reinstalling software or replacing off the shelf computer parts.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not on the same day, you're not.

Most problems that happen to a film being projected, are splices coming undone, stuff like that. Problems with the print that are fairly quickly fixed.

How many times have you been watching a film, it stopped, and everyone had to go home?

Never. They always manage to get it back up in a few minutes.

 

If a digital system goes down, that pimple-faced kid is just going to stand there staring at the black box. There won't be any equivalent action to splicing a film print back together, everyone will have to leave, and even if I'm wrong, this is certainly what the theater owners think about the situation.

They will have no control, and they'll be told every 3-5 years: "Hey, that last system is crap, you have to upgrade again", and they know it.

 

Plus, as I keep saying, theaters fill completely up right now.

It's the MOVIES that are drawing the customers in. There's no reason to do anything different to get warm butts in your seats if you own a theater, so there's simply no reason whatsoever to spend an extra 100K per screen every few years.

 

It would make infinitely more economic sense to a theater owner, if someone would come up with a popcorn machine that made more popcorn faster or something, because that would actually make them more money.

So let's start talking about digital popcorn machines.

Now THAT will get theater owners excited!

 

 

 

Matt Pacini

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Hi all,

 

Do you think one of the reasons (of course not the only) digital projection hasn't really taken off yet is due to copyright issues?

 

Your thoughts?...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Copyright issues? Well, in a sense. Most of the current proposals seem to be in the form of a "black box" projector where the only way to get a movie into it is by an encrypted satellite download into its Hard Drive. What cinema owner is going to want to pay for that privelege?

 

In any event, at present there are no really practical large-screen projectors available with even HDTV (1920 x 1080) resolution! ("Practical" meaning affordable, reliable and user-friendly). Large-screen HD Projectors do exist, but they are either ludicrously expensive or have a very limited lifespan.

 

To compete with film projection a practical projector would

A Cost the same or less than a film projector

B Have at least "4K" resolution but

C Accept standard video inputs (HD, SD and computer) and

D The movie software would come on some sort of removable optical disk.

 

It's also worth remembering that there are already HD DVD's in the pipeline (Blu-Ray et al) and these will have the same resolution that the likes of George Lucas think people will pay to see in movie theatres! So if anything, releasing in film format is probably more of a piracy deterrent than anything else!

 

So while I'm not saying this will never happen, it isn't going to be happening tomorrow or the next day!

[danny bartle]

thank you for everyone's input.... I didn't really want to start a film vs digital thread, more just wanted to know if the movies could be copied...

 

Dominic, you stated that the movies could not be copied, is the system totally safe? i mean could someone remove the hard drive or memory (whatever the movie is stored on) & put it in a PC or similar then copy it? DVD's have copy protection & macrovision but most kids can easily copy them on their PC's at home. Is the copy protection with digital projection better?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Don't mean to step on Mr. Case's question, but:

 

> Is the copy protection with digital projection better?

 

There isn't a widely-agreed standard, but you can more or less guarantee it won't be. This is typically due to one of several problems:

 

- Playback-capable devices must be available for sale, and thus vulnerable to reverse-engineering.

 

- Corporations have a history of attempting to rely on security through obscurity ("You can't copy it because we won't tell you how it works") which leads them to shun peer review, the process of publication of a cryptology system for comments by experts in the field. This notoriously wasn't done for the hopelessly inadequate CSS system used to encrypt DVDs, which was widely derided when details of its operation were rapidly reverse-engineered and published.

 

- The technical muscle of the corporations, while possibly considerable, pales in comparison to that of the people who break these systems for fun, especially over a matter of years. The man who broke CSS didn't do so because he wanted to copy DVDs, he did it because it was a hobby and a challenge (and it was one in the eye for Valenti, a sentiment with which I can readily identify).

 

From a technical standpoint, stealing movies from an electronic cinema server probably isn't worth it anyway; irrespective of what barriers they choose to put in the way, there's the issue that it's huge (a 2 terabyte RAID is considered adequate for a 2K movie) and not really formatted or graded for transfer to the typical distribution media preferred by pirates, although you wouldn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure those issues out. Much easier to rip off a preview DVD.

 

Phil

[John Pytlak RIP]

Sure, as long as everything works and never screws up, you're right.

But the moment anything goes wrong (and it will), then that theater is empty for the next three weeks until a tech can be sent out to fix your equipment.

 

Picture it:

The movie is playing, then all of a sudden, all goes dead.

The kid running the projection setup runs over, and stares at this big black box with wires hanging out of it.

What's he gonna do, rip it open and start hacking code to figure out what's wrong?

 

 

Matt Pacini

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That exact scenario happened to me about two years ago. I went to see a digital cinema presentaton of "Ice Age" at the AMC Empire 25 theatres in NYC. As soon as they started up the digitally projected trailers, the image would posterize, then freeze and then go black -- and repeat this cycle every 10 seconds or so. I called it "digital hiccups". They finally stopped the show, brought up the lights, and said they would have to show the backup FILM print. B)

 

I later found out that the "Miranda Box" interface had failed, and it took about a week for the theatre to get it replaced.

 

I still have issues with the pixel visibilty on the older 1280 x 1024 pixel DLP-Cinema projectors (I normally prefer to sit a close 2 image heights from the screen), and still notice the lack of real sharpness, milky blacks, crushed tone scale, and contouring, especially if the transfer was not optimized.

 

A few weeks ago, I saw a Digital Cinema presentation of "Oceans 12" at the Loews E-Walk in NYC, and although the show itself didn't fail, it did still fail my expectations of really good image quality.

[John Pytlak RIP]

thank you for everyone's input.... I didn't really want to start a film vs digital thread, more just wanted to know if the movies could be copied...

 

Dominic, you stated that the movies could not be copied, is the system totally safe? i mean could someone remove the hard drive or memory (whatever the movie is stored on) & put it in a PC or similar then copy it? DVD's have copy protection & macrovision but most kids can easily copy them on their PC's at home. Is the copy protection with digital projection better?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Last week, a clandestine website (student at Tampere Polytechnic University in Finland?) posted about a hundred pirated digital frame-grabs and selected action sequences from "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith". The ultimate "spoiler" for a movie two months from release. :(

[danny bartle]

wow... the "joys" of the internet & digital technology... does anyone know how they obtained the stills?

[Mike Brennan]

Me thinks $200k is way over the top for a good intallation.

 

Sony prices announced at HPA for their 4k projector with range of inputs including HDSDI.

 

 

SRX R110 10k $93k

SRX R105 5K $63k

SRX R??? 20k TBA

 

(Not sure if prices includes a lens probably not)

 

Mike Brennan

[Mike Brennan]

In any event, at present there are no really practical large-screen projectors available with even HDTV (1920 x 1080) resolution! ("Practical" meaning affordable, reliable and user-friendly). Large-screen HD Projectors do exist, but they are either ludicrously expensive or  have a very limited lifespan.

 

To compete with film projection a practical projector would

A Cost the same or less than a film projector

B Have at least "4K" resolution but

C Accept standard video inputs (HD, SD and computer) and

D The movie software would come on some sort of removable optical disk.

 

It's also worth remembering that there are already HD DVD's in the pipeline (Blu-Ray et al) and these will have the same resolution that the likes of George Lucas think people will pay to see in movie theatres! So if anything, releasing in film format is probably more of a piracy deterrent than anything else!

 

So while I'm not saying this will never happen, it isn't going to be happening tomorrow or the next day!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Sony 4K is available from March 31st (so they say).

HDSDI in SD in ect is standard on most HD projectors over $15k

I do not agree that to be practical it has to be same price as a film projector as a digital projector is more versatile, it can show live pictures and is a data projector ect.

 

Electronic distribution in African countries is seen as a way to control piracy that occurs when 100s of prints are put on trucks a week before release.

 

Mike Brennan

[Guest Kai.w]

Last week, a clandestine website (student at Tampere Polytechnic University in Finland?) posted about a hundred pirated digital frame-grabs and selected action sequences from "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith".  The ultimate "spoiler" for a movie two months from release.  :(

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

From what I understood it was more a collection of PR and behind the scenes material, taken from various "official" sources... If true it would more show the massive amount of hype that's been created about the movies on purpose. Quite possible but still a bit surprising that he managed to create a 80 pictures "storyboard" of it... it did in any case look quite "collected"...

So, I do admit I read slashdot once in a while... ;-)

 

-k