Digital Projection: Pros and Cons
Filed under: Universal, Tech Stuff, Exhibition
After reporting last week about plans to soon equip one-third of American cinemas with digital projectors, I received a few comments telling of disappointing encounters with the new format. It got me wanting to do some more research on the technology and the experience, and hopefully soon take in a digital showing somewhere. I haven't yet become an expert on the subject, but I did come across an interesting set of articles in Sunday's Ventura County Star, both written by Allison Bruce, which give the pros and the cons of both digital and film projectors. Aside from the obvious factors that make digital attractive -- clearer picture, cheaper distribution -- Bruce includes an amusing comment from director Barry Sonnenfeld in which he says studios could easily change a movie that has been badly received by critics or audiences, after it has opened in theaters. He cites King Kong as a good example of a movie that would have benefited had Universal been able to cut out 40 minutes of the film after hearing that viewers complained of it being too long. I highly doubt that any studios would actually take advantage of this, though. After all, isn't that why they have test screenings?
One thing I think that hurts digital, evident from Bruce's article supporting digital, is that most of the format's pros are beneficial to studios and theaters more than to audiences. The cheaper distribution, the ease of projector use, the issues with piracy and the scheduling ideas for exhibitors are all meant to save the businesses money. But will it trickle down the savings to the consumer? No way. In fact, I see digital being used as an excuse to raise prices for the ticket buyers. Consider that the big theater chains are about to borrow a collective billion dollars. It is obvious that we, the audience, will be depended upon to pay those loans back.
I find it especially helpful that Bruce countered her own pro digital piece with her pro film article. In this she lets it be known that even digital projectors have mechanical difficulties, which are comparative to the problems people have with film projectors. While film may be scratched or dirty or may break in the middle of a show, digital may have computer glitches, resulting in completely blank screens. According to the article, digital fails 0.1 percent of the time, while film fails less than that.
Anyway, as I can tell you from experience, the major errors with film are caused by ineffective projectionists, and once again this is because of cost-cutting on the theater's end. Since the mid-90s most cinemas have replaced professional projection experts, who they deemed too expensive, with their own managers. The problem is, most of these managers are inefficiently trained and are expected to often multitask between the projection booth and the main floor. Chances are if there's a problem with your film -- scratching, breaking, bad focus, and starting time issues -- it is because the man in charge of the projector is busy selling popcorn. I guarantee this happened all weekend at your local multiplex showing the surprisingly popular Pirates of the Caribbean.
Since audiences are not likely to save and many moviegoers don't notice the difference between watching film and watching digital, theaters are going to have to make a big case for the new format if it is really going to save cinemas as much as they're hoping. Obviously they are already making the transition and nothing will stop their plans, so we regular moviegoers all need to get used to digital and hope the technology improves, but for those people who are already staying home and contributing to the box office decline, something far more substantial than an improvement in picture quality will have to draw them back.
_thumbnail.jpg)
Discuss: So, How Was 'Twilight'?
Quizzimatical: Vampire Movies
Insert Caption: Twilight
Fan Made: 'Twilight' Cookies
Cinematical Seven: Great Exports from Down Under
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
_thumbnail.jpg "Watchmen Storyboards")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-10-2006 @ 3:24PM
Carlton Bale said...
I saw Mission Impossible 3 in digital. I had no idea that there was a digital theater in Indianapolis, but as soon as the first digital trailer started, I noticed a significant improvement vs. film. Brighter, better resolution, better contrast, no scratches, no "cigarette burns" before reel changes, no flicker from the low frame rate, no dropping out of Dolby Digital because of worn sprocket holes. I look to see which movie is playing in digital at the Indianapolis Kerasotes Showplace 16 and pick the showtime based on that even though there are usually three or for other non-digital screens showing the same film at potentially more convenient times.
The movie theaters do stand to increase profitability with digital projectors, but each projector is at least a $100,000 investment for them. If there wasn't a financial payback, they would never make such a large investment. If they can reduce costs, improve profitability, and deliver a better viewing experience to the consumer, it is a win-win situation for everyone, not just the consumer.
Reply
7-10-2006 @ 6:36PM
Scaramanga said...
I mentioned it in my comment for your previous article on this: My only concern is SKINTONE, as it's not as soothing as film can be when you witness palid greyish-peach colors attempting to make you forget you're looking at a digital projection.
I'm sure this will improve. A few quick plusses, without much thought: The idea of a theater being able to keep some of it's theaters 'on stand-by' to cater to opening-night madness - instantly devote, say, 4 theaters to a smash movie instead of 2. Conversly, with lower distribution costs and the high-speed transfers, theaters will be able to change their line-up and weed out the duds a little more elegantly...
We'll see, but I guess we don't really have a choice - 'entirely digital' is what's coming to a multiplex near you.
Reply
7-10-2006 @ 11:22PM
Nathan said...
Hopefully it will give theatres more opportunity to show classic movies. They could even run requests via the web, people can choose a movie they want to see and it waits until it has enough people who want to see it as well then sends out a mail with choices of screening time and all people respond and a date and time is set accordingly. Power to the consumer. Not sure how studios would take it, extra revenue or cuts into DVD sales.
Reply
7-14-2006 @ 2:56PM
BruceW said...
I've been a big fan of DLP since the late 90's. I have great memories of seeing Toy Story 2, as well as Mission to Mars in DLP - picture was brighter, scratch free and very crisp and in focus.
Alas, my most recent encounters with Chicken Little 3D and Superman Returns have been mixed. CL was ok, though it seemed a little dim, and Superman, while lookiing very vibirant (those over saturated colors, natch), was clearly fuzzy and in soft focus.
Interestingly, all my viewings have been at the same huge 24 screen theather complex here in Orlando, where the first screenings were in the biggest and newest auditoriums -- and the two most recent in the smaller, older, and more grubby ones. Not a great sellling point for the Digital Enema experience.
Reply
1-12-2007 @ 5:06PM
Jason said...
I saw Star Wars Episode 3 on a digital screen and it was amazing. Very clear and vibrant. I then had the oppurtunity to see it on a regular screen. I hardly could stand it. So much detail was lost. Digital is an experience everybody needs to see.
Reply
7-29-2008 @ 11:30PM
Eric said...
I never understood why people hate "long" movies. Tickets these days cost a LOT of money, in NYC they're twelve dollars and in LA they're fifteen. If I'm paying more than eight dollars for an afternoon show, I want it to be as long as possible.
It amazes me that people complain about movie lengths, it's just not sensible! Look up the running time on the internet and then chooses whether or not to see it based on that, but please, don't complain about it.
Reply