When will there be medium format digital cinema?

[compuwar]

Numbers summary

You want to increase the operational costs to the theaters by ~900% and the production costs to the studios by ~100%- and if we take the tack that 40% of the movies make it possible for the other 60% to be made, if you can't provide a way to increase revenues by a larger factor than they're currently happening, I don't see how you get there without a serious drop in equipment prices, storage prices and bandwidth. Even if you're dropping ~$5M off the distribution costs by going digital, I don't see how you affect the success numbers by more than 1-2%.

 

[cube]

You want to increase production costs, but go into fewer theaters adn you cna't raise ticket prices to make up the difference-

The question was if we were going to see medium-format cinema, given that the sensor cost shouldn't be an issue. An Epic 645 will cost about $45000.

I don't want to go into fewer theaters. I don't want the theaters to get stuck in expensive obsolete technology that doesn't draw viewers.

 

[compuwar]

The question was if we were going to see medium-format cinema, given that the sensor cost shouldn't be an issue. An Epic 645 will cost about $45000.

I don't want to go into fewer theaters. I don't want the theaters to get stuck in expensive obsolete technology that doesn't draw viewers.

But you *have* to go into fewer theaters- the current theater economy simply *can't* pay for the capital to convert to even 2k Digital across the board. How many cameras are there in production studios now? Let's say there are 500- you want to start with the studios adding $23M of camera equipment, then adding close to that in pre- and post-production storage, backup and distribution- and then you're doubling the cost of production in terms of time, storage, effects for each film. That's the easy part...

Now, you add in about $150,000 per screen, per theater- so a 16-screen multiplex that's still all-film gets to spend $16.4M in capital, and their expenses go up by let's say $1.7M a year in maintenance and atrophy. There are ~39,233 screen in the US 7-8000 of those are 3D- that leaves us with ~31000 screens. There are less than 10,000 digital screens- so let's say that leaves us with 21,000 screens. To upgrade them all, we're looking at ~$380 Billion- even if you didn't calculate the depreciation based on the 10 year replacement cycle you're looking at more than $344 Billion dollars. That's if you just go to 2k- if you want to go back and convert the 2k screens up, then the numbers for everything go up even more.

Those are quick Google numbers, but I'd bet they're within 10-15% either way.

Show me how you get math that works with what you want- because I'm not seeing it. I don't see the market drivers, and I sure as heck don't see the monetary argument for it. As far as I can tell, you've latched onto a technology you like and tried to want it really hard- but show me some reasoning if you want to convince me, or better yet, show me the numbers that make it work- because if I'm a studio exec and I look at those numbers, I'm going to continue to produce film prints for a long time to come- even if I can get good ROIs to 5% of the market digitally.

I used to do technical due diligence for a media conglomerate. At this point, if I were at say Sony or Fox, I'd be saying "get digital into the big markets to reduce our distribution costs, produce analog prints for the rest, and revisit it in ten years when the numbers are more on our side."

If you have better numbers, please share them.

Paul

 

[cube]

Yes, I think a 2K projector is justified today only if it's paid by reduced distribution costs in a FEW years.

I am not sure if one of the current 4K projectors is really better or equal besides resolution compared to the 2K DLPs.

 

[FX120]

It's taken years for digital cinema to even become commonplace in major Hollywood films, and even still there are many still shot on plane jane 35mm film stock.

What makes you think there will suddenly be a big push for higher resolution digital cinema? I think you should be asking when more directors will be convinced to go digital at shooting.

 

[cube]

Well, the 9K Epic 645 is slated to be available in 2010-2011, and 35mm film can be scanned at 8K.

8K TV could arrive as soon as 2017. Some 4K TV sets already exist.

Maybe the correct question would have been "When will there be 8K projectors at the theaters?".

 

[leighonigar]

Cripes. Can anyone see the difference between 4k and 8k TV sets at a distance from which you can see the entire screen simultaneously?

 

[cube]

I think the idea for 8K TV to be popular are roll-up screens stuck on the wall.

 

[cube]

Haha. Super Hi Vision: 22.2 channel audio

 

[FX120]

Well, the 9K Epic 645 is slated to be available in 2010-2011, and 35mm film can be scanned at 8K.

8K TV could arrive as soon as 2017. Some 4K TV sets already exist.

Maybe the correct question would have been "When will there be 8K projectors at the theaters?".

Just because the technology exists doesn't mean that it will see market penetration immediately.

Why don't you understand this?

Digital cinematography has been around for well over a decade now and it is only now just seeing any sort of real acceptance, and the changeover is expected to take another ten years.

Will it come someday? Probably. In the next 10 years? Doubtful.

 

[cube]

Digital cinema has been around for well over a decade now and it is only now just seeing any sort of real acceptance, and the changeover is expected to take another ten years.

Why should it be accepted to change for just a very expensive 2K projector?
Why should it be accepted when 35mm film can be scanned at 8K?

 

[FX120]

Why should it be accepted to change for just a very expensive 2K projector?
Why should it be accepted when 35mm film can be scanned at 8K?

Because as Paul tried to explain to you, the equipment is very freaking expensive.

Scanning film at 8K doesn't make fiscal sense currently because it increases the cost of post production significantly. More storage is necessary, effects take longer to generate and render, it is harder to distribute, ect. Why go through the effort if there is nothing to play it back on? It all comes down to demand for the content.

2K projectors are already very expensive, and in the world of high end projectors the costs don't decrease all that fast over time. There is already a hurdle to convince theaters to switch to digital projection, and currently most still haven't made the jump. What makes you think that adding an additional $400,000 to the cost per screen will encourage them do do it?

You do know that Sony released the first HDTV 1080-line cameras in the early 1980's, right? It took over 20 years for that to really evolve into what is now commonplace and in most peoples homes, and even that transition isn't totally complete.

So I'll say it again: Yes, some day we will see 8K video/ cinema be commonplace. It won't be within the next 10 years.

 

[cube]

Because as Paul tried to explain to you, the equipment is very freaking expensive.

Scanning film at 8K doesn't make fiscal sense currently because it increases the cost of post production significantly. More storage is necessary, effects take longer to generate and render, it is harder to distribute, ect. Why go through the effort if there is nothing to play it back on? It all comes down to demand for the content.

2K projectors are already very expensive, and in the world of high end projectors the costs don't decrease all that fast over time. There is already a hurdle to convince theaters to switch to digital projection, and currently most still haven't made the jump. What makes you think that adding an additional $400,000 to the cost per screen will encourage them do do it?

You do know that Sony released the first HDTV 1080-line cameras in the early 1980's, right? It took over 20 years for that to really evolve into what is now commonplace and in most peoples homes, and even that transition isn't totally complete.

So I'll say it again: Yes, some day we will see 8K video/ cinema be commonplace. It won't be within the next 10 years.

What I was trying to say:

- If I were a theater owner I wouldn't be interested in switching to digital at only 2K at the current prices.
- If I were a director, I wouldn't want to shoot in 2K or 4K when one could shoot film and have the negatives definitively scanned at 8K in some years.

 

[FX120]

What I was trying to say:

- If I were a theater owner I wouldn't be interested in switching to digital at only 2K at the current prices.
- If I were a director, I wouldn't want to shoot in 2K or 4K when one could shoot film and have the negatives definitively scanned at 8K in some years.

But that's the thing, in the real world 8K cinema isn't even on the horizon, it's still on the other side of the globe.

The reason the theaters haven't upgraded to digital projection is because of cost. The cost simply hasn't come down as time has gone on. If at some point the cost does start to come down, I am sure that the theaters that do upgrade to digital won't be going straight to the top of the range, and will probably make the jump to "only" 2K because honestly it is good enough for most people.

If there aren't theaters with 8K playback, the studios won't waste time and money scanning and processing at 8K just in the hopes that *someday*, there might be a call for it. Again, see the history of HDTV.

 

[cube]

But that's the thing, in the real world 8K cinema isn't even on the horizon, it's still on the other side of the globe.

An "inexpensive" 9K digital camera will be available 2010-2011.

If we go by Moore's law, an 8K projection system should cost what a 4K projection system costs now in 4 years.

 

[compuwar]

What I was trying to say:

- If I were a theater owner I wouldn't be interested in switching to digital at only 2K at the current prices.
- If I were a director, I wouldn't want to shoot in 2K or 4K when one could shoot film and have the negatives definitively scanned at 8K in some years.

1. I'll repeat it- if you're a theater owner, only the distribution channel would make you interested in switching to digital *at all.* No matter when you switch, you're looking at >$150,000 per screen per 5-10 years vs. $50,000 per screen for 20-30 years in direct capital costs, plus higher expenses over that time period. The *only* reason to go digital in any number of screens at all is currently 3D digital and IMAX releases. That's it, no other reason exists if you're an independent. The current prices have nothing to do with it, and the current resolution has even less- the prices have to make sense in terms of an ROI, no matter what the costs are unless they're trivial. If you're holding out because you want higher resolution instead of a better ROI, it's likely you won't be a theater owner for very long.

2. If you're a director, you're worried about making your producer's money back and your profit in the year of release, not ten years down the road. You're not likely to be shooting the next RHPS. You've got two shots to make your money back and make a profit, theater release and DVD release. Waiting until 8k becomes viable to make your money back is going to cost you a *lot* more money than making it up front. You're not likely to be a director long if your question is "What resolution will my film be at in 10 years?" instead of "What's my shooting budget and how do I best make a compelling film within that budget?"

If you're a director, then the film vs. digital question has nothing to do with resolution. It's got to do with equipment availability, post production and fx capabilities/timelines/costs, the ability to judge lighting on set, speed of production, length of takes, color and luminance response and most importantly, overall production cost. It may also be that the producer makes the call, as he's the big numbers person.

Here's a Wikipedia stat:

Rick McCallum, a producer on Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, has commented that the production spent $16,000 for 220 hours of digital tape, where a comparable amount of film would have cost $1.8 million. With disk-based systems such as the Red One, the cost would be even lower, and exact backups can be stored at different locations on different media as well. However, this does not necessarily indicate the actual cost savings percentage, as the very low incremental cost of shooting additional footage may encourage filmmakers to use far higher shooting ratios with digital.

Now, $1.8M is noise in a big production budget, but it's still a fair amount of money, and if you're one of the 75% that don't make money it may be the difference between you getting another gig soon or not.

You keep trying to analyze things in terms of resolution, that's not how the business of film making works. Business works in terms of numbers- the only way to be a successful director is to make your numbers big and make your films profitable. The only way to be a successful theater operator is to make your profits on your screens. You keep avoiding looking at the numbers, and that's where you're off-base.

Look at it this way- the bulk of folks going digital are going 2k. That's despite the fact that if you take a 35mm film master and scan it at 4k, you get better resolution than if you dupe film-to-film. If resolution were the driver, nobody would go 2k, and everyone would have skipped right to 4k. Why is it that the bulk of theaters are still analog? Because the numbers don't make sense and resolution is a trivial concern.

Paul

 

[compuwar]

An "inexpensive" 9K digital camera will be available 2010-2011.

If we go by Moore's law, an 8K projection system should cost what a 4K projection system costs now in 4 years.

You've yet to make an economic case for a 4K projection system today- and as evidenced by the number of theaters even at 2K, neither has anyone else. So it doesn't matter if in 8 years the cost of an 8K system is what a 2K system is today- it's *still not economically viable.* It's not likely to be economically viable on any significant scale inside the next 10 years. Best case today, you have 20% penetration at 2K and 2x2K. How is a more expensive system going to increase penetration?

Paul

 

[FX120]

An "inexpensive" 9K digital camera will be available 2010-2011.

If we go by Moore's law, an 8K projection system should cost what a 4K projection system costs now in 4 years.

Moore's law applies to computers and intergrated circuits.

Super high end projectors, not so much so. There market is small and finite, consequently the costs do not really go down over time.

A 2K digital cinema projector costs about the same that it did five years ago.

 

[cube]

I don't know how much of a price difference actually exists today between 2K, 4K, 8K projectors, given that they are not mass market items.

I would expect to be a larger gap to the very new 8K projectors, as I think there is no 8K movie distribution specification defined.

 

[FX120]

I don't know how much of a price difference actually exists today between 2K, 4K, 8K projectors, given that they are not mass market items.

I would expect to be a larger gap to the very new 8K projectors, as I think there is no 8K movie distribution specification defined.

There are very few 4K projectors on the market today, and the ones suitable for use in a cinema are in the mid to high six figure range. Most projectors that are branded as "4K", are still 2K image engines with a future upgrade path to a 4K engine.

2K digital cinema projectors from Christie, Barco, and JVC are in the low to mid six figure range.

There are no 8K projectors even on the horizon to my knowledge. This goes back to my "on the other side of the planet" comment.

 

[cube]

There are no 8K projectors even on the horizon to my knowledge. This goes back to my "on the other side of the planet" comment.

There are 8K projectors (even laser), but I'm not sure if they are currently adaptable for cinema at 2K/4K.
I don't know if any go above 10000 lumens.

 

[cube]

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/PR.aspx?newsID=1657

http://www.oculus3d.com/Oculus3D OculR Brochure.pdf

But it's linearly polarized, not circular.

 

[TheSVD]

sorry to butt in here....
but bloody hell compuwar, you are a walking bank of information, knowledge and intelligence. Your debate skills are fantastic! I've just read through this whole thing, and wow... are you a lawyer or something? Hahaha

And to side with compuwar... to be honest, most people (the average cinema go-er) won't even know what resolution is, how it makes a difference, what 2k or 4k means, and just because that water is a bit more crystal clear, whether they'll go to the cinema or not. Whilst the image quality is probably a factor to some, it is not enough of a factor to actually make the decision to go to the cinema. Okay, i see your point, cube, that people dont want to go to the cinema if they can have the same experience at home because we can have the same image quality, but as mentioned - its not all about the image quality! So yeah, i can sit at home, watch 1080p blu-rays on my computer with some meaty surround sound, but its still nothing compared to a cinema. The screen size, the audio, the social outing...

You have to remember that the cinema os a very social thing too. Its where you go with your mates, take your girlfriend, take a girl on a date... your not going to go to a girl and go "Babe, lets not go to the cinema. I have a stunning 1080p television with a 2000w AV Receiver surround sound which can decode the lossless bitstreams, the audio is fantastic! I'll go to the corner shop and get some popcorn, we can dim the lights... it'll be just like a cinema!'

Whilst, the cinema is where you go to see a film, it is more than just that, it is a very social activity - especially amongst couples.

I am an audiophile/video-freak myself and the cinema i go to with analog (and i presume) 2k projectors is more than enough. Being into video, i always appreciate the fine image quality and cinematography within a film. To be honest, even the 720p films i watch on my monitor look crystal clear to me, just like everything does at the cinema... i still go to the cinema to watch a film from time to time. Infact, the only time i go to the cinema is on a date. I know that isn't enough evidence to justify my point, but i'm sure its the some for alot of others. If i want to see a film, i'll wait till it comes out on bluray or some sort of other means.

And as mentioned, most people won't even know the difference! It would not be cost effective to upgrade. So lets say they bring 8k in. Some people notice the extra detail, but it would still not be a deciding factor in going to the cinema! People would still go to watch the film they want to see, and some might notice the extra detail... but how would it make any more money? Raise the ticket prices? You'll just lose customers (per-se, whilst you might make more profit per ticket, you may lose customers... plus that extra ticket price is to cover the costs!) EDIT: And to expand on the fact of knowledgeness customers, i work as a TV salesman in my job. Many, many people all buy the 1080p TVs cause they think they have to; "Ooh i better get that 1080p cause they say thats the best!" Yet they will go home and put their cable box and DVD player through scart and impress all their friends cause they have a FULL HD!!!!! Television. I've known people who havent even noticed the difference between SD and HD (that made me rage!) So a majority of the masses who go to the cinema aren't going to notice either. So us tech savvy people might? So you still visit the cinema, cube? Even with 2k projectors? Would having nicer quality material really make you go more? hmm.

And to conclude...
Quality at home, Quality at the cinema... its not all about the Quality.

 

[cube]

At 2K, the big screen will still bring you to the theater. But that is less of a draw for non-visually-intense movies.

Maybe at 4K it would pull you more, as there's nothing on the table about next generation discs.

But at most, what one normally knows about a screening is whether the theater is digitally capable or not. Not the production or projection resolution.

 

[Ruahrc]

At 2K, the big screen will still bring you to the theater. But that is less of a draw for non-visually-intense movies.

Maybe at 4K it would pull you more, as there's nothing on the table about next generation discs.

But at most, what one normally knows about a screening is whether the theater is digitally capable or not. Not the production or projection resolution.

So if the big screen is not going to draw you in for non-visually intense movies, what makes you think the higher resolution will?

And for those movies that are visually intense, the big screen will always be a draw, resolution or not.

You say that 4K and 8K TVs are on the way. I think that once they are actually here and affordable for the masses, 4K/8K/beyond projectors will also be affordable for the theaters.

I'm still in doubt where 4K or 8K would even be visibly better on a movie theater screen unless you're sitting in the front row. I've seen the graphs that estimate the angular resolution of the human eye and viewing distance, and plot the 720p/1080p lines on it to see how close you need to sit at what screen size to actually see any benefit. Has anyone extrapolated these graph to movie screens and 8K?