Digital projection. Wouldn't it be great if this led to lower theater tickets.
Jim A. > From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:25:20 -0400 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes > Resent-From: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:25:21 -0400 > > > I wouldn't say it's got to "many" yet - I'd expect only a handful of > digital projectors (there's currently just one in San Jose). If you > read the fine print carefully on all those other 'digital' cinemas > you'll find it's really digital sound on a standard projector. > > But there _is_ a compelling reason to change - the cost of distribution, > storage space, etc. If you look at how much a cinema pays each week for > the reels of film, and compare that with how much they'd have to pay for > either shipping a box of DVDs or just simply downloading over a fast link > a digital projector easily pays for itself over its estimated lifetime. > > Add to that the fact that the studios, distributors, etc. *want* digital > distribution rather than shipping film (they still think that they can > come up with a rights management scheme that crackers can't break), and > you can expect to see digital rapidly replacing film over the next years. > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 05:21:35PM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: >> Maybe our market here is different, but many of our more than 100 screens >> in the area are showing movies digitally. >> >> One small example: http://www.indiewire.com/biz/biz_050316land.html >> >> Shel >> >>> From: "P. J. Alling" >> >>>> There are hundreds of thousands of movie theaters which still have 35mm >>>> projectors. Movies >>>> may be shot in digital, but distribution will probably be primarily on >>>> film, it would cost a stupendous amount of money to replace those >>>> projectors, and as in any business. there would have to be a compelling >>>> economic reason to change, which at this point just >>>> doesn't exist. >> >
