The new Format

[John V]

Film is now running hence the backlash against RED by some people. Film is an art and as such it can be intrepreted many different ways. One of the ways is by a business plan called disruptive business. RED is one such disruptive company and idea. I hope RED changes the industry and allows more forms of expression to be played across the nation that would have otherwise gone unnoticed.

[David Battistella]

Film is now running hence the backlash against RED by some people. Film is an art and as such it can be intrepreted many different ways. One of the ways is by a business plan called disruptive business. RED is one such disruptive company and idea. I hope RED changes the industry and allows more forms of expression to be played across the nation that would have otherwise gone unnoticed.

Red will put high end tools into the hands of more people but do not forget that the true power in the motion picture industry rests in a tightly controlled distribution network.

If they want a lot of people to have the chance to see your film then they have the power to do that (and bring along everything else in the machine).

RED may have a great influence on acquisition, but that is just how the image is captured.

David

[John V]

Oh I know that for sure. In the end it comes down to the content which is now getting easier to get out there. Hence RED developing 4k projectors and monitors.

[David Battistella]

Oh I know that for sure. In the end it comes down to the content which is now getting easier to get out there. Hence RED developing 4k projectors and monitors.

But even that does not ensure that RED is going to change the way Hollywood distributes major motion pictures 2K projectors have barely cracked into the fray.

David

[John V]

I believe or should I say hope that the price point at which RED will sell projectors will be much lower than current projectors which I think can run into the low $200,000's. And yes theatres need to get on the ball and adapt.

[David Battistella]

I believe or should I say hope that the price point at which RED will sell projectors will be much lower than current projectors which I think can run into the low $200,000's. And yes theatres need to get on the ball and adapt.

It's not projector cost. It's bulb life. A film projector can project many more motion pictures before needing to replace a relatively inexpensive bulb. Film prints are tough, and when they are done being played back in the USA they get shipped all over the world(to places without satellite downlinks and multiplexes) to be played some more, passed around and to make a few more bucks (and every dollar counts).

A digital projectors major disadvantage is bulb life and replacement cost.

It's about bottom lines and always has been.

David

[justyn]

It's about the cost of conversion and not a good time for exhibitors with many loosing out to home theaters.. and also to the cost of going to see a movie to begin with.

A bro works for Christy and he's on assignment converting 2500 screens nationwide to digital 4k. The cost is in the conversion.. but it's ultimately so much cheapr for the distributor and they are pushing.. but the exhibitors aren't too happy with the expense.

I personally can't wait for the day of film projection to be gone. I'll never forget the horror I faced the 2nd time I saw my film print screened and there was a huge gash down the center and hairs and bugs.. and yikes..

The one good thing is tthat the fat cat hollywood types had that mandate established to have only 4k originated films in their new "digital Hollywood". well thanks to Red that can happy and it is a game of the studios vs. the artists.

[John V]

How much does one reel for a film actually cost? How much is a new film projector for a theatre? The Reels are expensive. The Projectors about the same. Film after being projected just a couple of times tends to get burn marks and scratches. With digital projection you get the same experience each and everytime.

[donatello b]

from what i recall plus just looking at Christy site - they do not make/list a 4k cinema projector .. they only list 2k DLP 's projectors ( unless i missed something on the site) .... last i remember Texas instruments stated they were not going to make a 4k DLP ...

http://www.christiedigital.co.uk/markets/digitalCinema/index.asp


Christy's does have a projector called The Christie Mirage S+4K but it is not 4k - yes they call it 4k But look at the spec's - perhaps it's similar to those that call the HVX 2k res ????

http://www.christiedigital.co.uk/products/mirageS4K/mirageS4KSpecifications.asp

[Michael Brennan]

........ Hence RED developing 4k projectors and monitors.

What is the source of your statement?



Mike Brennan

[Andrew Benz]

What is the source of your statement?



Mike Brennan

Hi Mike,

NAB 2007, Gibby, hdforindies and Gibby once again... :) official and unofficial, I believe. I hope that helps.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

I really wish that Christie hadn't put out such a terrible product into every Regal cinema because now whenever I think "Christie Digital Projector" I think "total crap, pixels big as baseballs." I'm sure they make some really good projectors but they soiled their name with the bad ones :( Shame.

[Michael Brennan]

I believe or should I say hope that the price point at which RED will sell projectors will be much lower than current projectors which I think can run into the low $200,000's. And yes theatres need to get on the ball and adapt.

Abel cine has the list price of the 2Kw version good for up to 40ft screen at US $98k without server.



Mike Brennan

[Michael Brennan]

Hi Mike,

NAB 2007, Gibby, hdforindies and Gibby once again... :) official and unofficial, I believe. I hope that helps.

OK, I wondered if I had missed an official RED announcement.


Mike Brennan

[dino g]

currently, the cost to outfit a theatre to be DCI compliant with motion jpeg playback, 2k projection, drm....is about 75k, they do not pay list.

the christies projector referred to earlier has a designation of 4k which refers to the lumens of the bulb. not the resolution. the only 4k projector is made by sony and it is only 4096 x 2160, less than red.

[explosive]

Film is now running hence the backlash against RED by some people. Film is an art and as such it can be intrepreted many different ways. One of the ways is by a business plan called disruptive business. RED is one such disruptive company and idea. I hope RED changes the industry and allows more forms of expression to be played across the nation that would have otherwise gone unnoticed.

When KODAK announces that they are officially re-gearing their business plan away from film to digital, you know something BIG is afoot.

The change would have happened whether Red were around or not. It was inevitable. There are already 8K prototype chips out there waiting. Thankfully Red is helping make this a more popular revolution rather than a silent, creeping one.

Essentially, Red is a figurative boot up the bum, the initial jolt which gets that stubborn piece of furniture moving slowly.

For a long time, 20 years in fact, people have been saying video will change the face of film making. We will see fat 15 year olds from Kansas making works of art with their sony betacam. Yes Coppola made that statement in the mid 80s i believe.

But this video revolution never came to the industry other than a few "happy accidents".

The advent of Red-like technology is both an advance in quality AND cost effectiveness. Something video never had.

This is why HD will win where video failed.

Film will never die. But it will eventually become an overlooked minority.

[HD Hildebrand]

It's not projector cost. It's bulb life. A film projector can project many more motion pictures before needing to replace a relatively inexpensive bulb. Film prints are tough, and when they are done being played back in the USA they get shipped all over the world(to places without satellite downlinks and multiplexes) to be played some more, passed around and to make a few more bucks (and every dollar counts).

A digital projectors major disadvantage is bulb life and replacement cost.

It's about bottom lines and always has been.

David


Yes, but prints costs around $20-$30k when transfered from digital (US/Canada). And when you go IMAX we're talking big-big bucks for prints.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Print costs are astronomical. When I was researching the whole digital revolution for the two books I wrote (Anticipation and Revenge, both about the Star Wars prequels), the savings for everyone involved by switching to digital projection are enormous over the course of a ten-year period, for instance. Obviously the big issue has been the initial costs, because really the studios are the ones saving the money if they can just give theaters a hard drive with the movie on it, or as has been discussed beam it down by satellite, or transfer via fiber optic lines. Whatever the case, they save money. So the theaters didn't think they should have to pay for everything just so the studios can save money and moviegoers can see better quality images (after 2, 3, 4 weeks, etc., that is, when film prints begin to degrade inevitably). Thus the Digital Cinema Initiative and its attempt to form an alliance towards the end of equipping theaters with digital projection at a more rapid rate.

Still, there are a lot of benefits for theaters. I imagine a future where if a blockbuster opens on 4 screens and it's really bombing, by Sunday morning the theater will be able to cut back to 2 screens and immediately use those two to play another movie that was a surprising success and only had one screen, for instance. Something like that will help the theaters, too, even though it's more of a minor thing, it's still pretty neat. Just the ability to mold supply to meet demand would be a nice advancement.

[M Most]

Print costs are astronomical.

No, not really. When done in bulk - as most feature releases are - the costs of manufacturing prints are pretty reasonable (about $1200 per print, sometimes less depending on how wide the release is). Quite reasonable when you consider that one print will yield at least 4 screenings per day based on "average" running time, for at least 3 weeks. That's 84 screenings - far more than enough to justify the cost. What is expensive is shipping, cases, reels, and the like that go along with them. And the fact that they cannot be re-used, as can magnetic media such as a hard drive. The current film distribution system is quite sufficient for allowing very profitable runs of feature releases. If you don't believe this, check the numbers. Not everything has to cost pennies to be profitable.


Still, there are a lot of benefits for theaters. I imagine a future where if a blockbuster opens on 4 screens and it's really bombing, by Sunday morning the theater will be able to cut back to 2 screens and immediately use those two to play another movie that was a surprising success and only had one screen, for instance. Something like that will help the theaters, too, even though it's more of a minor thing, it's still pretty neat. Just the ability to mold supply to meet demand would be a nice advancement.

Again, not really. It is not the theater's perogative as to how many screens it can show a feature on, and the DCI's distribution format (the Digital Cinema Package) has security features that allow a specific package to only be playable on a specific server. Each server has a specific certification that is included in a key sent separately from the drive with the DCP on it by the distributor. This key will unlock the package only on that specific server, for a specific length of time. The package cannot randomly be moved from one to another. Now, if the multiplex is set up so that any server can feed any theater, that changes the situation somewhat, because the key is tied to the server, not to the auditorium.

[M Most]

Yes, but prints costs around $20-$30k when transfered from digital (US/Canada). And when you go IMAX we're talking big-big bucks for prints.

That's a one time cost to manufacture a negative. Release prints, on average, cost about $1200-$1500, less if it's a very large print order.

[Darren Orange]

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.

[sbaechler]

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

[Dominic Jones]

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.
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!...

[M Most]

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.


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.

[Sam Druckerman]

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.

[Zach Nelson]

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.

[Dominic Jones]

When considering the cost factor, we need to remember that digital technology gets better and cheaper Every few months......
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.

[Zach Nelson]

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.

[Thomas Mathai]

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.

[Allan Stallard]

Here is an interesting article concerning Mark Cuban and Red. Remember he co-owns Landmark Theatres.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0092/t.6046.html

[Curran Giddens]

Here is an interesting article concerning Mark Cuban and Red. Remember he co-owns Landmark Theatres.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0092/t.6046.html

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2406

[Florian Stadler]

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.