Irish cinema goes digital?

KdjaCL

On radio most cinemas in ireland going to digital projection, why?
No digital source for the movies yet.

Or is there?



kdjac

Goodshape

It'll be good for smaller independatant films that can't afford to get film prints made. It will also meen cinemas can hold onto their own digital 'prints' for as long as they want - no need to ship them off to the next cinemea.

A 'good thing' I think.

KdjaCL

Mentioned satellite downloads but think they got over excited an meant internet downlaods, check Spin 103.8 (me shudders) every hour for the news snippet.


kdjac

radiospan

I read somewhere that digital projections can't be recorded with video cameras?

But wouldn't supplying every cinema with a perfect digital copy of every film (presumably just an ordinary file on a hard drive) lead to even more piracy? And much better quality piracy at that?

ixoy

plazzTT wrote:

But wouldn't supplying every cinema with a perfect digital copy of every film (presumably just an ordinary file on a hard drive) lead to even more piracy? And much better quality piracy at that?

Possibly but I'd assume that it'd also be easier to imprint a sort-of watermark on each individual film and thus, if a copy of a film was found, it'd be easier to backtrack it to the cinema it was originally stolen from.

davej

Apparently we are the first country in the world to go entirely digital !

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4365875.stm

Also a story on slashdot..

davej

FuzzyZoeller

For info on the software envolved see
http://www.avicatech.com/

For info on the projection technology see http://www.dlp.com/dlp_cinema/default.asp

Can only be a good thing. Can't as yet see any info on the timescale of the changeover.

Playboy

Digital cinema is eventually going to lead to super cineamas where more than just movies will be shown. Events like the world cup and the super bowl will be shown in cinemas beamed directly in by sattelite.

mycroft

FuzzyZoeller wrote:

For info on the software envolved see
http://www.avicatech.com/

For info on the projection technology see http://www.dlp.com/dlp_cinema/default.asp

Can only be a good thing. Can't as yet see any info on the timescale of the changeover.

Not necessarily for starts a digital image is not as good as a traditional film image.

It's not you an can argue till the cows come home, but a 4k scan of a film frame is not as good.

Secondly the time frame. Many low budget and indy films won't have a budget to provide a digital print at first so it could mean a few years while we wait for the technology to become more prevailent, meanwhile we could miss out on years of quality low budget/indy films.

Also back catalogues etc, will need to be transfered.

It's delaying the inevidentable and a nail in the coffee of traditional films shot on film.

CURSE YOU LUCAS!!!!!!!

remoteboy

Not convinced by the quality myself. Saw National Treasure screened through a digital projection system and felt nauseous by the time it was over. It was like watching a big plasma screen - visual artefacts aplenty and mild strobing in places.

Also was half an hour late starting - maybe the projector crashed

Mossy Monk

a good thing if it means new releases can be released at the same time nationwide instead of one cinema having to wait a couple of weeks

impr0v

I wonder if we, the cinema-going sheep, will see the benefit of the lower distribution costs?

I've stopped wondering.

KdjaCL

If all new movies use the new camera system , wont there be a digital source right from the outset.

And oh yes just like Steam cuts out the middle men and we get games cheaper from Valve , we will see lower prices :rolleyes:


Tbh DVD player hooked up to a projector would do the job

kdjac

Quinnsey

KdjaC wrote:

Tbh DVD player hooked up to a projector would do the job

If you've ever seen a DVD projected onto a cinema size screen you would probably think otherwise.

I'm very dissapointed about this, sterlized digital is no replacement for warm traditional film. I really don't see the point in going to the cinema to see a projected video.

What I can't understand is why they are replacing ALL the cinemas? Don't the owners have any say in this? I wonder if at least the IFI will stick to good old film.

Goodshape

This article [bbc] about digital cinema in the UK has more information, including a note on picture quality...

Each film is about 100 gigabytes and has been compressed from an original one terabyte-size file.

Fiona Deans, associate director of AADC, said the compression was visually lossless so no picture degradation will occur.

"It can cost up to £1,500 to make a copy of a print for specialist films. "In the digital world you can make prints for considerably less than that.

And how much is a 100GB harddrive these days? About €50 maybe?

mycroft

Goodshape wrote:

This article [bbc] about digital cinema in the UK has more information, including a note on picture quality...



And how much is a 100GB harddrive these days? About €50 maybe?

It's all compartive, theres an artisty to digital film, it's like hanging a really good digital copy of a monet and annoucing it's exactly like the original.

If you're really interested I'll tug out some links to explain the complexity of how film reacts to light to the bland uniform way pixels scan colour.

I just finished a film which was shot on HD and I would say it goes toe to toe with cheap n cheerful 16mm. But the projection of a digitial video signal is nothing compared to a really magnificent print.

Yeah yeah yeah it can at times be comparable, but look at the cinematography of something like lawerence or house of flying daggers, or apocaplyse now, and it doesn't do justice

BlitzKrieg

i've worked with both digital and traditional film. And while yes there are visual differences between the two i feel the biggest change is in the filmmaking process itself.


Making a traditional film is very complex it requires a greater understanding of not only the equipment but also what *you* the filmmaker wants in every piece of the film. You wouldnt believe the stress and hardship that would go into making a 3 minute short film, everything had to be perfect first time. Then the editing is an amazing process, the feeling one gets when you can actually hold a piece of your work and physically join it to another piece...amazing. It becomes a craft, it alone can show that film can be an artform because the amount of effort put into the piece reflects in the finished piece.


Digital filming is great because its conveniant, but it can be too conveniant, you can throw away shots and shoot again and again, you loose the dedication and commitment that is required for traditional because if it doesnt look right you can shoot it again at no major cost. Then the editing is so very distant and secure. Its conveniant and effective. But it all feels like the economic solution to a craft. It can encourage lazy filmmaking.

Now that doesnt mean that i think digital filmmaking is evil and we should stick to traditional 32 and 16 mm...digital allows for people who do have the dedication already within them to create their work cheaply. But every filmmaker should spend time working in traditional film just so they can understand and feel the craft alot better.

Thorbar

If I had any photoshop skills I'd make a shot of a cinema with the blue screen of death on it.

I suppose this is a good thing if we're going to be able to see sports events and the like but I don't like the idea of a drop in picture quality. Will this mean that movies will run for longer and come out sooner over here?

Captain Trips

KdjaC wrote:

No digital source for the movies yet. Or is there?
kdjac

Bittorrent, mate.

the_syco

If it takes a 3 pass to put a 4GB movie into 700MB's, how many passes will it take to put a 100GB film into a 700MB file? Good picture quality, but it'd take a while.
As for the watermarking... I've seen a few groups who have claimed to take out the watermarking, or just dub it over.

mycroft

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Digital filming is great because its conveniant, but it can be too conveniant, you can throw away shots and shoot again and again, you loose the dedication and commitment that is required for traditional because if it doesnt look right you can shoot it again at no major cost. Then the editing is so very distant and secure. Its conveniant and effective. But it all feels like the economic solution to a craft. It can encourage lazy filmmaking.

Now that doesnt mean that i think digital filmmaking is evil and we should stick to traditional 32 and 16 mm...digital allows for people who do have the dedication already within them to create their work cheaply. But every filmmaker should spend time working in traditional film just so they can understand and feel the craft alot better.

I started on a documentary recently, all digital, filmakers were newbies, the lack of discpline in the cutting room was insane, honestly i just wanted to walk the earth seizing mini dv cameras and copies of premier, and tell the world

"You'll get this back, when you respect it properly"

This democratizing of the film making process, will lead to a dilution of skills, and lack of respect for old skills, the assumption of ease means it'll be easy to do.