Cinema's Digital Takeover

[Richard Lightstone, CAS]

From Deadline Hollywood:

Cinema’s Digital Takeover: The Decline And Fall Of Film As We Have Known It

Digital cinema has overtaken film a lot sooner than many people might have predicted before Avatar was released, but it was probably inevitable. At latest count almost two-thirds of all domestic screens used digital projectors by the beginning of the year. That’s 25,570 screens out of a total 39,641 or 64.5%, according to the National Association of Theatre Owners. Roughly half — 12,620 — of those digital screens were equipped to show movies in 3D and 244 of those were IMAX installations. The total of individual theaters was almost 5,800, and 3,028 of those were partly or completely digital. And counting. Back in mid-2009 as James Cameron was preparing to unleash Avatar on the moviegoing public in December, only a few more than 1,600 screens in the US were equipped for digital 3D as of July out of a total of some 38,000 indoor screens at roughly 5,400 locations. By the time Avatar opened there were roughly 3,000 3D digital screens. In little more than two years, the number of 3D screens has quadrupled — propelled at least initially by Avatar’s success.

Globally, digital projection was predicted to overtake film early in 2012 — if it hasn’t already — and by the end of the year 63% of all cinema screens around the world will be digital, accordingto IHS Screen Digest Cinema Intelligence Service. By 2015 IHS predicts that 35mm theatrical film will amount to a niche format with just 17% of global movie screens. Art houses and independent theaters will struggle to cope with the cost of conversion. According to NATO, Canada has 1,848 digital screens, and the rest of the world has 38,874. That makes a global total of 66,292 digital screens. Texas Instruments, which licenses DLP technology used in most digital cinema projectors, in early December boasted installation of more than 51,000 DLP branded digital screens worldwide — nearly double the previous year. Slightly more aggressive than IHS Screen Digest, the company predicts a full global transition to digital by the end of 2015. Conversion to digital has accelerated in Europe, China, Russia, Latin America, India, Africa, Australia and the Asia Pacific region.

The conversion to digital also has put enormous pressure on the makers of cameras and film stock, which will likely become more expensive to produce. With print production significantly reduced, labs such as Technicolor and DeLuxe have transitioned into other areas such as digital post production, broadcast production and digital delivery. Technicolor has downsized significantly and I hear no longer handles 35mm film, only 70mm (most likely IMAX). Movies are still being shot and distributed on film but demand has decreased enough that 2011 saw the end of production of 35mm film movie cameras. Three major film camera manufacturers — ARRI, Panavision and Aaton — have phased out their film cameras to concentrate on exclusively on design and manufacture of digital cameras. To remain competitive they had to because filmmakers who wanted to shoot digital were already using cameras by RED — such as David Fincher for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and Peter Jackson on The Hobbit movies. Sony is another option and there are others.

Some industry professionals at first embraced digital reluctantly for aesthetic reasons — not enough depth or contrast under certain lighting conditions and issues with image detail. Preservation of digital formats also remains tricky and possibly unreliable over the long term compared to polyester film masters. Another bone of contention is 3D, in which screen illumination can be reduced by 25% or more. But projectors capable of higher-resolution and brighter images are already making their way into theaters, replacing earlier models with next generation technology. Eventually, shooting and projection rates of 50 frames per second or more, compared to 24 or 30 fps, promise an amazingly crisp image that will enhance or maybe even surpass 3D in visual appeal. Digital makes this more economically feasible because digital storage space is cheaper than raw film stock and processing which would at least double the cost of shooting with film at higher shutter speeds.

As recently as 2009 ARRI was only building film cameras by special order. It’s probably only a matter of time before the movies conversion to digital is all but complete. In a post late last year on Creative Cow, a site for movie and TV production professionals, ARRI VP of cameras Bill Russell said “In two or three years, it could be 85% digital and 15% film. But the date of the complete disappearance of film? No one knows.”

[Marc Wielage]

Sad story, but very true. I wouldn't mind except many of the decisions made were done solely due to cost. The economics of the last five years have really throttled the film post business. Sadly, film does not really add that much to film budgets -- I think the daily costs are about $10,000-$20,000 for an average (non-action) film. Realistically, it's $250K for an indie budget, and maybe $1 million for a blockbuster epic. Not that big a deal. Digital leads to a lot of other expenses in other area -- no more lab, but you need a DIT and data backup people on the set, plus the camera rentals are double the cost of film cameras -- so it's not a slam-dunk for digital. But I can see why many filmmakers feel the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

I'm not sure if Technicolor still has anything left in the old building on the Universal lot; it was announced that NBC is going to move most of KNBC in there over the next year or so. A year ago, it was possible to at least develop 35mm negative; not so sure now. It's a good question as to how much longer the film side of Fotokem will keep going in LA.

[Angelo Waldron]

Why don't we crunch some numbers.

Say the average 90 minute 35mm 5 reeler movie is 10,000 ft of film.

You want it on 1,500 screens across USA at the same time.

15 million ft of film, and maybe you get a super discount at .10 cents per ft.

$1.5 million ?

or

Make the Digital file for $5,000.

Clone to 1,500 hard drives, you bought a semi truck load including shipping case for $50 each, plus labor to copy to drive, let's say another $50 each

$155,000 ......

Did I do the math right?

Then there is the shipping of these 35mm prints (50lbs) vs. a hard drive (5lbs)

What do we do with all these theaters prints after initial release?

Next step.. how bought a satellite downlink instead of hard drives.

[Richard Lightstone, CAS]

Angelo,

Your figures are too simplistic to be accurate. Yes there is a large savings in the cost of film prints. But even in the case of digital copies there are the same transportation costs and even more important digital security of those "prints".

But whatever type of media is used, studios will still be spending upwards of $25 - $50 million in advertising and promotion for a major film. That cost is a part of the "negative" costs too. So the cost of printing on film becomes tiny in comparison. It is also an asset that can continue to bring in revenue, whereas advertising is a a one shot deal.

[Angelo Waldron]

Yes, Richard, I am a simple person!

Individual shipping by courier is probably the same $.

But what about air freight... they have large warehouses near airport for shipping and storage,

what happens to all these prints? I think it's an eco/environment issue as well.

I believe the security of these DCP files is greater than the print version.

Highly encrypted and particular to the DCP's server type and model with a certificate from the server needed, as

well as a license key needed to play within a certain time frame. These are added labor costs...

But I still think shooting on film will go on... without so much Kodak I guess.

[Richard Lightstone, CAS]

Angelo,

I never implied that you were "a simple person". I hope that was a joke?

Best

[Angelo Waldron]

[Marc Wielage]

Why don't we crunch some numbers. Say the average 90 minute 35mm 5 reeler movie is 10,000 ft of film. You want it on 1,500 screens across USA at the same time.

Oh, my numbers were only for shooting on film, not releasing on film. I think film releases are just about dead for North America; that ship has sailed.

I think the average print cost for a large run (say, 3000 or more prints) is about $2000 per set of film reels, so you'd be looking at $6 million for prints. But then you have to ship them. Next-day FedEx (insured) to 3000 theaters ain't cheap. No question, the difference for making and shipping a $100 hard drive is monumentally cheaper.

[mono]

 

 

 

[Petros Kolyvas]

@mono Thanks for sharing. That was incredible.

 

I don't know why but I especially enjoyed the multiple checks.