This article was in yesterday's New York Times:

Major Studios Set Digital Movie Standards

By REUTERS
Published: July 27, 2005
Filed at 9:16 p.m. ET
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (Reuters) - Hollywood's major studios on Wednesday finalized technology standards for digital projection systems in a first step toward a global roll-out of networks that could revolutionize the way movies are shown.

Widespread installations of digital systems -- which promise audiences sharper pictures and film studios lower distribution costs -- are unlikely to occur until late 2006 or early 2007, industry officials said at a news conference here.

Business plans covering how to pay for large deployment are still being worked out between the studios and theater owners, and theater owners want to see systems tested on a wide scale before they commit to digital systems, officials said.

``This is an historic transition that is just beginning,'' said Bob Lambert, senior vice president of media technology and development at The Walt Disney Co. .

The new standards cover ``2K'' and ``4K'' resolution, which is a way to judge picture sharpness, and offer specifications for digital compression, copy protection and packaging.

For audiences, new digital cinema systems offer the same, crisp picture the 100th time a movie is projected as the first time. By contrast, filmstrips get scratched each time they run through a projector and picture quality suffers as a result.

Moreover, filmmakers are developing new three-dimensional technology for digital cinema that is expected to enhance action flicks, and the new digital networks allow live events like music concerts to be beamed into movie theaters, which could help boost theater revenues during slow periods.

For studios, digital cinema is expected to sharply lower film distribution costs because they will not have to ship film canisters to thousands of theaters. Instead, they will send digital files via satellite or high-speed cable.

But who pays for the transition remains a key sticking point. The cost to distribute a single film print can run from $1,000 to $1,200, whereas a digital file can be copied, protected against piracy and beamed around for $300.

Theater owners say studios will save so much on distribution that they should pay, but studios want theater owners to shoulder at least some of the costs.

Officials from Hollywood's six major studios all declined to comment on financial matters and business models.

John Fithian, who heads the U.S.-based National Association of Theater Owners, also declined to discuss business details. But he did say his members, who operate more than 26,000 movie screens globally, fully backed the setting of standards.

``We suffered chaos when digital sound systems were implemented,'' he said.

When theaters switched from analog to digital sound years ago, many technologies competed and several types of digital sound systems had to be installed in each theater, which was expensive for exhibitors and distributors.

Reuters/VNU


I don't really know if this idea of sudden acceptance will really help further advance digital cinema or not, but from the current support and non/support from theatre chains, I feel rather pessemistic that the conversion from 35mm to 'digital' is not going to be that easy. For starters DLP is so cost prohibitive that theatre chains have not been jumping up and down over installing such systems. Here in the DC area, there are only three DLP equipped screens (National Amusement's) Merrifield Cineplex, (Loews) Rio and the AFI's Silver Theatre. Even the newer theatres which one would think would feature 'state of the art' theatrical presentations, Regal Gallery Place, Loews Georgetown haven't forked out the money to upgrade. Landmark's cash cow theatre, the Bethesda Row Theatres have a digital projector that is Windows Media based, but feature length films released in that form have been few to rare (the last one being, to my knowledge "Step into Liquid")

Of the few films I have seen in 'Digital' I have been very impressed (sans the crappy auditorium at the National Amusement's theatre) however, my general opinion of the format is that unless the projector's come down in considerable price, the format will flounder. Even after just three years, DLP still seems and is a pipe dream for distributors/theatre chains.

It also doesn't help the format when there are so few current summer movies released digitally: so far they have been

Star Wars Episode III
Madagascar
The Island

which suggests that even support from the major studios is also sorely lacking.

Overall I find it rather intriguing that the format is and has survived for this long.

I think 4k should be the minimum standard, but I never expected that they would do that simply because there are already too many 2k systems installed. Right now, DLP quality varies so much because you have old 1.3k systems installed in many of the digital theaters, along with 2k systems. I say ditch both and go with 4k across the country, even if it takes another 3-5 years to do it.

The problem is the cost savings to the theaters are very small, when compared to the cost savings to studios and filmmakers.

Wasn't Collateral shot digitally? I also think Soderbergh shot a couple digitally. Throw in Rodriguez's films as well. I believe Cameron is shooting his next film digital. Superman is being shot digital. So more and more films are coming. But it's going to take more digital theaters.

yes Collateral was shot digitally and even shown digitally at the Rio Gaithersburg theatres (I didn't see it as such but do remember it being advertised as such).

As I have already pointed out yes, total conversion would mean more digital theatres, but with the current price of projector's, DLP is essentially shooting itself in the foot for theatres to take the time and money to invest in them.

It's also my understanding that Lucas retinkering with Star Wars Ep IV-VI to 3D would also give the extra incentive for theatres to upgrade to DLP for polarized 3D presentations of the films.

It doesn't matter if a movie is shot digitally just that a digital "print" is offered. My local Cinemark has shown several movies in DLP that were shot on 35mm.

I think having an accepted standard was a key step in getting more projectors in theaters. It was a step along the line toward developing the business plan that will split the cost of installing the projectors, along with creating distribution standards and anti-piracy methods, etc.

While deciding a standard doesn't seem like much on its face, it is an important step (for one thing, what theater would buy a projector only to find it doesn't meet the new standard or knowing that a financial incentive of some sort is coming relatively soon), and as long as the studios and the theaters keep agreeing on things, we'll see widespread roll-out.

Agreed, but as with anything to do with theaters and movies, they work backwards than normal business. Usually, when deman is low and supply is high, prices drop. Not so with theaters. The demand for digital at this point is low, yet supply is high. So you would expect digital projectors to have low prices to entice theaters. But prices are still sky high. That's the problem with the movie business. They do everything in reverse order. Drop prices on projectors, and more theaters buy them.

There is a lot brewing in the world of digital cinema....

CHICKEN LITTLE will be released in digitally projected, polarized (clear glasses) 3-D on 100 screens minimum in November, and MONSTER HOUSE will also get the digital 3-D treatment in July 2006. It's only the beginning.

Visit www.worldenteractive.com for the latest on the rollout.

More and more chains are starting to make commitments, and Disney is even picking up part of the tab for CHICKEN LITTLE 3-D....

ShoWest was a buzz with digital (and especially digital 3-D) talk last March, with George Lucas, James Cameron, Robert Rodriguez, Robert Zemeckis, Randal Kleiser and Peter Jackson all pushing the digital 3-D agenda. Only Spielberg was missing!

The only way you'll ever get Spielberg to shoot digital is to pry the film from his hands with a crow board. He's on record as saying he won't shoot digital, except for maybe Lucas on Indy IV. Lucas won't push that. Spielberg doesn't even edit his films digitally. He does it the old fashion way. Seems way overboard, but he does.

Wasn't War of the Worlds shot, or edited, digitally? I recall reading this somewhere.

At any rate, I think what we have here (vis-a-vis the studios and the theaters implementing DP) is a classic "What comes first? The chicken or the egg?" issue. I think working on digital standards is a good way to get the ball rolling.

Neither side can expect the other to fully fund this. The studios have to realize that there has to be something in it for the theaters, and the theaters have to realize the studios can't be expect to pay for the theater's infrastructure improvements.

Something I think would help the "who's going to pay for this" issue, would be for the studios to temporarily lower their box office percentages, provided the theater chains apply their resulting increased revenue to digital projection upgrade costs. Another incentive for the theaters would be for the studios to agreement to maintain lower percentages for digital releases. (And, while you're at it, how about passing some of those savings on down the line until they reach ticket buying, theater patrons?)

The details would have to be worked out, but I think some sort of new percentages arrangement would spit the costs appropriately. Not that it really matters in the long run. Theater goers will be the ones ultimately footing the bill.

Of course, had the government not forced studios to divest themselves of theaters way back when, this entire situation would be a non-issue. If the studios still owned theaters, they'd have fallen all over themselves to install DP systems as soon as the technology was proven, just for the increased profits from film costs and distribution savings. It would have been a done deal by now. Non-studio theater chains would be there, too, just to remain competitive. And we'd all probably be paying lower ticket and concession prices as well.

really - oh wow! I bet you though out of those 100 screens not one of them will be in the Washington DC area (I'm just being cynical).

well that's a much needed incentive, I hope that with the AMC acquisition of Loews, money and time will be given to upgrading more theatres.

Doesn't a film cost around $5-10k each to manufacture and distribute? That's around $15-30mil per picture. So what does a DLP disc cost? Couldn't they just split the costs 70-30 (30 for the theater chains), or something? 15-30 per picture really, really adds up. But I'm sure they already thought of this - so there must be a miscaculation on my part.