Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
When will there be medium format digital cinema?
- Thread starter cube
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Doesn't matter- unless you're going to try to deal with downsampling content producers aren't going to produce multiple formats and they're not going to ditch all the cameras they own today in the next 5 years. Plus newer projectors are going to cost more than models that are already in production- you have yet to make an economic case for what you seem to have convinced yourself of. While it's certainly possible something could come along to make it attractive, I don't see it as probable or likely. I don't think there's room for ticket prices to go up much more and not tip the business into the red- so what's the draw?
Paul
[And that's assuming the vast majority of theaters will survive.]
Once again, why? From the content producer through to the retail theater what does the cost of going to 8k do for them that going to 4k doesn't? If laser isn't cheaper, and people aren't complaining about 4k, what's the reason for spending the extra capital? How does it increase revenue? Because until you can answer that, I don't see how you can expect it to happen.
^ this
Not everyone is in the tech race, upgrading solely for the sake of upgrading ;p
The industry has to convince people to go to the theater.
People will have 4K at home soon, so the majority of digital theaters, which are 2K, will be pressured to upgrade.
I go to the theater because the screen is big and movies come out there before I can watch them at home. The sound's also better, and it's a nice social occasion.
What's 4k going to do for me at my house? 1080p seems plenty sharp on my 52" lcd. Admittedly my eyes aren't the best, but even with perfect vision I think 4k would be more resolution than our eye can see on a typical home-sized screen.
I'd rather theaters focused on getting digital projectors into each of their theaters instead of upgrading some of them to 8k. Out of my local cinemas only 2 have any digital projectors, and that's for only 2 out of their 16 or 20 screens.
Why's this in the digital photography forum anyway?
You have yet to make an economic argument for this so-called pressure. Theaters are businesses, they run on numbers- those numbers have to be grounded somewhere in the real world. Please make the ROI case in a logical way that means something to the theater-going public "our number is bigger" isn't going to cut it unless we are in a situation where people are dissatisfied with the resolution of theaters. I've never heard anyone complain, so if you can show evidence of that, it'd help your case.
This is the exact market. I fail to see how more resolution helps any of the above.
Paul
Of course now one goes to the cinema mainly for the big screen.
But if the resolution is lower than at home, people will stop to think.
Before, people only had SD screens at home, and 2K (analog) at the theater.
With so many movies now just shot digitally in 2K, I guess quite a few people will do a double take "well, I have Blu Ray and a big Full HD TV".
This is more so for the vast majority of non-blockbuster movies.
But if the resolution is lower than at home, people will stop to think.
Before, people only had SD screens at home, and 2K (analog) at the theater.
With so many movies now just shot digitally in 2K, I guess quite a few people will do a double take "well, I have Blu Ray and a big Full HD TV".
This is more so for the vast majority of non-blockbuster movies.
No, they won't. The average movie-goer is going for the social experience and the big screen. Even 2k analog is "good enough" for the experience.
But even then the resolution wasn't the draw.
I'm sorry, but your business logic is fatally flawed here. For the vast majority of non-blockbuster movies, if I've invested $5000 to watch movies at home, matching or even beating my home resolution isn't going to drive me to a theater any more than a first date is going to come to the house.
Movies on demand at home kill pretty-much all the non-social theater goers over time. No amount of theater upgrades will be able to compete with the price/convenience. Half the social stuff can go to the home- the theater isn't going to compete with kids sleep-overs or anything else.
$150,000 per screen for 2k digital with more than 100% of that cost in maintenance over 10 years vs $50,000 per screen with routine maintenance costs for 30+ years if you're still doing analog projection- that's what 900% more? Once again, show me the money. Make the ROI case for spending even more than that- make a case for more than N% of "I bought a 54" TV" folks going back to a cinema where resolution is the driving factor. It may be that the obsolescence drives 8k in 10 years- but only if (a) downsampling works (you don't kill the cash cow in a cash-heavy business.) and (b) that's all the manufacturers are offering equipment-wise. In that case resolution still won't be the driving factor.
In fact, the main thing that's really keeping the theater industry alive is the exclusivity of new releases. If they lose that to video on demand, then it's a big question if the social draw will be enough to keep most, if any of them afloat.
Again- you have to have a compelling reason to upgrade resolution because your storage and distribution costs can up to double if you double it. Take a 6MP DSLR and a 12MP DSLR, take some pictures and print them at 8x10- what's the draw of 12MP? If 6MP is good enough for 8x10, it's good enough- that's the reality you're facing. 4k is good enough- frankly if you go too high, you start to make films more expensive to produce because you have to "fool" reality a bit more. You're not cropping, and you're not upsizing theater screens- so what's the advantage? A marginally better picture? Movies are about the story- the picture just has to be good enough.
Paul
The big debate here is more likely over the spelling of 'theatre'. Theater is positively vomacious!
I go to theaters for social movie watching with friends, or because I have free passes- HD won't change any of that at all. Locally, most movie goers at the local cinema that I have the most insight into are kids- they're not going to suddenly decide that hanging out at home with the parents is ok because the theater only has 2k or 4k def movies. SD TV is "good enough." If the USG hadn't pushed US broadcasters to HD, we'd probably still see HD wallowing. I'm pretty sure that the US is still the lion's share of theater revenues.
"SD sucks" isn't a business case, nor an ROI model though- you haven't proven your case in the least.
Don't cinemas get the films first? Isn't this the point? And cinemas are kind of exciting in a way that your living room isn't.
Once again, please back up your assertion. Theaters in 2009 had new profit levels, and 99% of the content was a big screen with 2D content. In fact, the better movies were mostly 2D. While there's currently a premium for 3D, that won't last with 3D home theater on the horizon, and you have to factor in 3D production costs, plus thus far, 3D only works really well in animation (likely because of the production costs.)
You keep making assertions without providing a business rationale. Revenues weren't up simply because of 2 or 3 3D features.
You're also forgetting that theaters are NOT the content producers. 99% of the content is 2D, theaters won't want to change that because changing that is *expensive* and you only put capital projects in when you have a good ROI model. You've yet to come up with a multi-year ROI rationale that isn't "SD sucks" and "Digital penetration is low." At least one of those two is *because* of the ROI model.
Paul
Ok, but isn't cinematography closer to video than to still photography? I don't really care one way or the other, but I think you'd get more responses in the video forum. I only read the digital photography forum and rarely look in the video forum and I'm sure many do just the opposite.
But 1080P doesn't, yet people still watch movies in the theaters.
Your whole argument is based on the assumption that consumers will have 2k or 4k tvs in their homes. I don't see that happening, at least any time soon. Look at how long it took for people to upgrade to HD sets, and that was a huge quality jump from SD. Even that giant jump in quality wasn't incentive enough until flat panel tvs became affordable. What incentive are people going to have to upgrade to 2k or 4k sets? It's slightly clearer than 1080P?
So, lets hypothetically say that within the next few years I get a 4k tv, that equals, or even exceeds the picture quality of my local theaters. Even then I'm still going to go the theater as long as they get the movies first. Does that make economic sense? Maybe not, but it's definitely the case for me, and for most of my friends as well.
One last thing: Let's say the theaters do follow your lead and start buying really expensive projectors so as not to fall behind the home cinema experience. Where do you think the money for those is going to come from? It's going to result in higher ticket prices, and my guess is that the cost of the ticket has a much greater affect on theater revenue than the quality of the projection.
I doubt a 3DTV will provide a good 3D experience, because of the small screen. I expect good 3D movies to continue to draw masses to the theaters.
Avatar is a good 3D movie because of the subtle effect. It worked well also in live scenes. It seemed to me to herald a new era in moviemaking.
There is a very good article in the lastest issue of PhotoPro. The title of the article is "Full frame takes over the world?".
It is a pretty good read.
It is a pretty good read.
I think 3D TV will do fairly well. But I also think the future is in VR-like 3D glasses, all the effect, none of the size- you should be able to do production on a parity price scale and you have the advantage that everyone in the family needs a pair. I certainly wouldn't put tens of millions, let alone hundreds of millions into 3D without seeing a good lay of the land for smaller projectors and glasses. One to three screens, sure- it's going to demand a price premium, draw people in and all that- you'll ROI that over 3-4 years in most cases.
With live subjects you can't do it well without higher production costs and the economics of movie-making don't really support it on a large scale yet.
While the production houses might want to get rid of actors to increase their profits, I don't think we're near the "most movies should be complete CGI" stage yet.
You're still not following the money. Let's look at IMAX:
A typical IMAX film's production costs fall somewhere in the range of $3 million to $8 million for a 2-D feature, and $8 million to $15 million for 3-D, with 3-D films involving CG running at the high end of the scale.
Here's another thing that I touched on earlier:
The screen size and clarity mean that every frame of an IMAX film must be perfect. "In 35 millimeter, you can use lots of cheats in visual effects -- things like rain and darkness," says Michael Lewis. "In IMAX you see everything, and everything is photo-real. There are 100+ IMAX screens in museums, so things must be as accurate as possible. With a dinosaur, you have to worry about things like nostril slant and tooth decay. When placing a dinosaur on the ground, the eye instantly knows if something is not perfect."
You might want to look at the source material for the two above paragraphs:
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/imax3.htm
The generally accepted rule of thumb has been that 75% of Hollywood movies lose money. That's pre-DVD I think, but even if you take it to 60% once again you're not taking the money into account. You want to increase production costs, but go into fewer theaters adn you cna't raise ticket prices to make up the difference- once again, please show me the ROI. "Good 3D movies" may indeed "draw the masses," but so far we're averaging about one "good 3D movie" a year, maybe two- that's not a revenue sustaining model for operations, let alone the sort of capital investment you keep claiming is necessary.
Paul
The original question, will MF camera video take over was more valid than the discussion that's evolved- convergence is a fact, and video folks aren't likely to be as cognizant of the issues involved with bringing MF cameras to the video world.