Reinventing Cinema
The First Decade of Digital Cinema
By Nick Dager
Smashwords Edition
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.
Copyright 2010 Nick Dager
Introduction
The case could be made that digital cinema has been around for a long time. I wrote an article for Variety in 1990 about electronic cinema’s potential to transform the movie industry. But the consensus at that time was that any serious implementation was a decade away. Cut to May 1999. That was when Star Wars: Episode 1 – The Phantom Menace opened with a handful of digital screenings in movie theatres in and around New York and Los Angeles. Admittedly major developments were decidedly slow for many years after that, but that movie gave the idea of digital cinema serious momentum and the transformation had begun: digital cinema’s first decade was underway.
To be sure there were serious efforts prior to 1999. JVC with their D-ILA technology can make a legitimate claim for the first digital cinema demonstration. On March 19, 1998, they collaborated on a digital presentation at a cinema in London. Another early effort was the movie The Last Broadcast, which may have made cinematic history on October 23, 1998 when it became the first feature to be theatrically released digitally, via satellite download, to theatres across the United States. Wavelength Releasing, Texas Instruments, Digital Projection and Loral Space headed that effort. In 1999, it was repeated across Europe using QuVIS technology and The Last Broadcast became the first feature to be screened digitally at the Cannes Film Festival. In 2000, Disney, Texas Instruments and Technicolor worked with several U.S. and international exhibitors to deploy prototype digital cinema systems in commercial theatres. Technicolor assembled and installed the systems using the TI mark V prototype projector, a special Christie lamp house and QuVIS’s QuBit server with custom designed automation interfaces.
But the Phantom Menace digital screenings generated widespread visibility and publicity and developments began to occur on a more regular basis. The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers began work on standards for digital cinema in 2001. The Digital Cinema Initiatives formed in March 2002 as a joint effort by Disney, Fox, MGM, Paramount, Sony, Universal and Warner Bros. The serious technical groundwork was being laid. The rest, as the cliché goes, is history.
The challenge? To literally rethink, retool and reinvent, from the ground up, a global industry that had worked successfully for a century. Read that sentence again to get a sense of how overwhelming – and some would, and did, say unnecessary – that task would be and you may gain a greater appreciation for how much was actually accomplished in a decade.
By 2009 and the end of digital cinema’s first decade, according to the National Association of Theatre Owners, there were a total of 38,939 movie screens in the United States. Of those, 5,837 were digital and of the digital screens an estimated 2,000 were 3D.
Predicting the future is always problematic but, while digital cinema development has focused on the United States in general and Hollywood in particular in its first decade, it seems clear to me that the coming years will be increasingly dominated by developments around the world – in Europe, Asia, India and Africa – and by the widespread growth of alternative content of all kinds. By the end of the next decade 3D will be mainstream in movie theatres and glassless 3D will have begun to make serious inroads.
I confess that my next and last prediction is actually more of a hope. Surely by the end of the next decade a business model will have been found to enable more independent movies to find a home in a significant number of movie theatres, at the very least on a regional basis. All well-made movies deserve a home on the big screen. That has always been one of the unspoken promises of digital cinema. Time will tell.
I launched the website Digital Cinema Report in November 2002 largely because I believed that while Hollywood movies will continue to dominate the screens of theatres worldwide for generations to come, this newly-developing technology held the promise of opening up more moviegoers to a greater diversity of content. I still believe that.
Reader be warned: What follows are columns I wrote for the website that, I believe, offer an accurate picture of the ongoing digital cinema transition as it has evolved. But they are bi-weekly columns and have the strengths and weaknesses of that form. One of the strengths is the sense of immediacy that contemporaneous writing can have. A weakness is a certain absence of reflection that can only come with a longer period of consideration. Still, I think ten days gives a writer the chance to gain enough perspective that some reasoned analysis is possible. I believe these columns hold up well and provide a genuine sense of things happening as they happened, more often than not in the words of the people who were creating the changes that were taking place all over the world. For a variety of reasons, not every column is included here. Some were dropped because they were, frankly, too timely and have since become irrelevant. Others simply wouldn’t add anything.
The columns begin with July 2005. That was truly a benchmark year. In March 2005 Texas Instruments unveiled its 2K DLP projector to executives from the major studios who had gathered in Las Vegas for the industry trade show ShoWest. That summer the Digital Cinema Initiatives, after three years of hard work by many people passed its technical specifications. Those specifications, which continue to be updated and revised, remain the framework for the digital cinema transition that is happening worldwide. But something else happened that summer of 2005 that changed things dramatically and that is where we begin.
2005
Which Line Is It?
July 1, 2005
Depending on who you talked to, last week’s announcement that AccessIT and Christie Digital Systems have created a framework to fund the rollout of digital cinema technology represents either the starting line for the industry’s future or a desperate move by two companies that have crossed the line. One insider even suggested that at best it’s a waste of time and at worst that it could undermine the years of work by the Digital Cinema Initiative.
Under the terms of the agreement, AccessIT has formed a subsidiary, Christie/AIX, to act as a funding vehicle and administrator. The new entity will provide funding for a turnkey digital cinema solution that includes the latest generation 2K resolution digital cinema projectors and all related hardware systems.
AccessIT and what are being called “interested third-party lenders” will provide capital for the systems. Christie/AIX will serve as intermediary between content owners - including major studios and independent distributors, who will pay "virtual print fees" - and exhibitors, who will be responsible for installation costs, software license fees, and a 10-year maintenance contract, with a cost structure similar to conventional film maintenance.
The
companies insist that the plan will satisfy the diverse concerns of
movie studios and exhibitors by standardizing content format,
delivery and presentation. They say further that it minimizes
financial risks for studios and exhibitors by establishing an
innovative template that allows private investment in the burgeoning
Digital Cinema industry. The agreement includes a two-year plan for a
2,500-screen rollout, with more than 200 screens to be operational by
the end of 2005.
Christie/AIX, contracting with Christie, will
provide exhibitors with a full range of DCI-compliant hardware and
software including the industry-leading Christie CP2000 DLP Cinema
projectors, media players and central server equipment. This includes
AccessIT's vendor-agnostic library/central server software called
Theatre Command Center (TCC). Christie will perform all field
installation and support services. AccessIT will offer its digital
delivery and content management services, under commercial terms, to
customers of Christie/AIX who utilize the company's fully managed,
satellite-based content delivery services.
The Christie/AIX
plan will be in effect through 2018. Top executives at the two
companies were, predictably, bullish on the deal.
"This
landmark agreement represents the crucial and long-awaited first step
to make the transition to digital cinema a practical reality for both
exhibitors and the film studios," said Bud Mayo, president and
chief executive officer of AccessIT. "Christie and AccessIT have
laid the foundation - not only for a rollout to 2,500 screens, but
for an innovative, flexible template and real-world solution for the
entire industry to launch a digital cinema deployment to all 36,000
movie screens throughout the United States and Canada, using multiple
vendor sources."
Jack Kline, president/COO of Christie
USA, said, "AccessIT continues to demonstrate its unique
understanding of both the business and technical requirements of
digital cinema. We share a unified vision of the future of digital
entertainment. AccessIT's unique capabilities, combined with
Christie's market-leading services and technologies, as well as our
understanding of exhibition and long history in the industry, make us
the natural choice to fulfill the long-anticipated promise of digital
cinema. It's a significant step toward helping to revitalize the
entertainment experience for millions of movie-goers in North America
and around the world."
But there was some negative reaction to the deal. One key industry player who refused to be quoted called the announcement “ridiculous” and “a desperate move” and said the plan can’t work because it doesn’t allow for technology upgrades, doesn’t immediately include other manufacturers and doesn’t yet have buy-in from all the studios.
An AccessIt spokesman disputed that viewpoint and said, “This [deal] addresses all the issues.” He said that all seven major studios got term sheets and added that, “We expect four studios to sign within the next sixty days.” He said talks are also underway with Dreamworks and New Line Cinema. He also disputed the idea that other manufacturers won’t be included, at least down the road. “The plan will require other vendors,” he said.
John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theatre Owners counted himself in the skeptic’s camp. “This is not the first time there’s been [an independent] financing plan,” he said. He cited earlier efforts by Texas Instruments, Boeing and Technicolor and said, “They all failed.” Fithian said NATO’s official position is that, “Exhibitors recognize a financing plan that encompasses all the major studios.”
“We just want it to happen right,” he said and predicted that a more comprehensive studio plan would be ready by the end of the year.
Responding to Fithian’s less than enthusiastic reaction, Christie’s Kline said, “I have scheduled meetings with John to discuss our plan and how it relates to NATO's mandate. It is fully our intention to have all studios signed up. However, in the initial stage, 100 percent participation may not be practical due to internal politics within studios and other factors. It may take time to overcome all the hurdles. We can say, however, there will be adequate content to be played on the projectors.”
“As to not including all the exhibitors,” Kline continued, “we have not necessarily excluded any exhibitors; however, in this initial roll out, our main concern is to insure that the systems are installed and maintained properly; operators are trained, and digital cinema becomes the ultimate viewing experience for any movie. Christie has had a long relationship with exhibition, and it is fully our intent to continue to service the entire exhibition community as we have for 75 years. With such a huge undertaking, it may be more manageable with a smaller participation initially.”
For his part the AccessIT spokesman said, “The rollout will really start in October. The majority of the system is already spoken for.” He said he believes there will be “several thousand” digital screens in place by the end of next year. “We’re 95 percent confident it’s going to happen,” he concluded.
Hollywood Moves Forward
August 1, 2005
The Digital Cinema Initiative announced late in July that it has completed the final overall system requirements and specifications for digital cinema. No matter what happens in the next several years as the world makes the transition to digital cinema the people who made this happen (and, in particular Walt Ordway) deserve a tremendous amount of praise. The job they faced on behalf of the seven major Hollywood movie studios was formidable if only because it represented a group of extremely competitive companies somehow working together in a common cause.
Then there were the equally formidable technology challenges.
The official press release announcing the move is filled with congratulations from studio executives, exhibitors, filmmakers and other interested parties.
But there is a negative aspect to the announcement and that is because there is no mention of when a business model will be approved.
Until that happens these technical standards, as important as they are, have fewer teeth. And as we report in every issue the world is not waiting.
Here is the official DCI press release:
(Hollywood, CA - July 27, 2005) Digital Cinema Initiatives, LLC (DCI) has completed the final overall system requirements and specifications to help theatrical projector and equipment manufacturers create uniform and compatible digital cinema equipment throughout the United States, it was announced today by Walt Ordway, Chief Technology Officer, Digital Cinema Initiatives.
"After three years of careful planning, discussion and reaching out to all the various constituencies who make up our industry, DCI member studios are pleased to have reached unanimous agreement on the necessary overall system requirements and specifications for digital cinema," said Ordway. "We now have a unified specification that will allow manufacturers to create products that will be employable at movie theatres throughout the country and, it is hoped, throughout the world. In fact, the specification is being translated for international markets."
"These specifications should provide a common ground to spur innovation and encourage many more players who were previously resistant to invest capital in technology that may or may not have been viable," said Ordway. "And as the market gets more competitive, the price of the equipment and its installation - previously thought to be a major barrier to digital cinema - will become increasingly affordable, to the point where that stumbling block should no longer be of consequence."
DCI member studios and industry leaders hailed this long-awaited development, which will be applicable to both 2K and 4K resolutions.
"Twentieth Century Fox will release all of its theatrical feature film digital content in full compliance with the DCI specification," Bruce Snyder, President Domestic Distribution, and Paul Hanneman, Executive Vice President Sales and Strategic Planning Twentieth Century Fox International, said in a joint statement. "For the industry to flourish and to provide a smooth transition to an all digital future, it is essential there be one digital distribution and exhibition format. That format is the DCI specification."
"With this essential specification now in place, Warner Bros. now plans that by the end of 2005 we will be releasing our movies in two formats: 35mm film and DCI digital cinema," said Dan Fellman, President, Domestic Distribution, Warner Bros. Pictures. "Having the DCI spec in place is a big step forward in the global distribution of digital films. We look to this standard to be used in our International releases," said Veronika Kwan-Rubinek, President, Distribution, Warner Bros. Pictures International.
"Sony Pictures completely supports the work done by DCI on the digital cinema technical specifications. We look forward to releasing our feature films digitally to cinemas deploying digital cinema systems compliant with the DCI specifications worldwide," said Jeff Blake, Vice Chairman, Sony Pictures Entertainment and President, Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group, Worldwide Marketing and Distribution.
"The DCI specification represents the right level of quality to ensure that the digital cinema experience remains the ideal way for moviegoers to enjoy films well into the future. We look forward to delivering our films into the DCI digital cinemas in the US and around the world," said Chuck Viane, President of Buena Vista Pictures Distribution, and Mark Zoradi, President of Buena Vista International.
"Paramount embraces the DCI specification for the theatrical exhibition of digital cinema and we look forward to releasing our films in compliance with this standard of distribution," said Wayne Lewellen, President, Distribution for Paramount Pictures. "Exhibition and, most importantly, the movie-going audience are greatly benefited by the work done by DCI and its resulting specification."
"Universal Pictures is pleased that a unified format has come to fruition as this will allow both moviegoers and studios to enjoy the benefits of the digital cinema experience," added Nikki Rocco, President, Distribution for Universal Pictures. "DCI has worked tirelessly to create an approved uniform standard that will provide our industry a level of satisfaction regarding how films are being shown in the digital format."
John Fithian, President of the National Organization of Theater Owners (NATO), stated, "This spec, created over the past three years by DCI with input from exhibitors and vendors, is an important step toward making digital cinema a reality. With this piece now in place, we look forward to working with all the involved parties to achieve our mutual goal - bringing the best possible moviegoing experience to the consumer."
"The ASC is proud to have collaborated with DCI during the development of a final specification for digital cinema," said Richard Crudo, President of The American Society of Cinematographers. "With the future hard upon us, part of that effort involved creation of the StEM (Standard Evaluation Material) film. Besides marking a great milestone in our traditional role as 'guardians of the image,' it also recalled one of the main reasons that led to the start of our organization in 1919. And though the industry may not yet realize what debt they owe this achievement, its significance will be plain to anyone who views a motion picture for many, many years to come."
"This is an important milestone in the advancement of the theatrical motion picture," commented Frank Pierson, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences president. "In its first hundred years our art form made a forceful universal impression, at least partly because worldwide standards for projecting film were adopted early on. The next hundred years are likely to be similarly affected by DCI's work in defining how digital motion pictures will be presented to world audiences."
Said Jim Cameron and Jon Landau, "All of us at Lightstorm Entertainment are thrilled that DCI has finalized their digital cinema standards. We believe this now opens the door for the roll out of digital cinema, which will revolutionize the cinematic experience for moviegoers around the world. We look forward to presenting our next feature film in 3D Stereo at DCI compliant theaters."
George Lucas and Rick McCallum said, "It's a giant leap forward for those of us who create movies and, perhaps more importantly, for everyone who sees them. We have been advocates of digital cinema for nearly a decade, and this is a day we have long hoped would come. Digital cinema will increasingly become the standard and will change the way movies are made, seen and experienced around the world."
"Standardized digital theater equipment is as significant to motion picture exhibition as DVD was for the home video industry," said John Lasseter, Executive Vice President, Pixar Animation Studios.
Mr. Lasseter directed Toy Story 2, the first film in motion picture history to be entirely created, mastered and exhibited digitally. "Even the best film presentation starts to wear out after a few weeks, but with digital cinema the last screening is as pristine as the first. DCI's new universal standard will enable audiences to see Pixar's digitally rendered films with the same consistency of color, detail, and resolution the world over."
"Hallelujah - It's about time!" commented Robert Zemeckis.
"This is a great day for digital cinema with the completion of the DCI Specification. I am looking forward to releasing my films in a manner that reflects my creative intent," added Robert Rodriguez.
Internationally, the announcement was greeted with equal support. The UK National Film Trust released the following statement: "The completion of the DCI specification is a major milestone for all digital cinema efforts around the world. The NFT's Digital Test Bed (UK) supports and will continue playing an active role in the efforts to see the specification turned into standards that will help make high-end digital cinema a large scale reality in the UK, Europe and in the rest of the world."
"We congratulate DCI in the completion of the digital cinema specifications. This is a significant milestone in the digital cinema development worldwide as it brings us a big step closer to realizing the true benefits of digital cinema. IDA is happy to support DCI's specifications as Singapore can contribute as the Digital Exchange hub to better manage and distribute content digitally," said Mr. Khoong Hock Yun, Assistant Chief Executive, Industry, Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA).
International exhibitors also expressed their enthusiasm for this crucial turning point in the implementation of digital cinema worldwide.
"We acknowledge DCI's tremendous work on gathering inputs from the whole industry and now releasing its Digital Cinema Technical Specification," said Laura Fumagalli, exhibitor of the Arcadia Cinema in Milan. "By introducing Digital Cinema equipment compliant to DCI's Specification, Arcadia continues its commitment to offer Italian patrons the best theatrical movie experience."
"The movie-going experience is a special one, but in order to continue drawing large audiences, theatres must outpace competing media," said Charles S. Swartz, executive director/CEO of the Entertainment Technology Center at USC. "DCI's digital cinema specifications not only set the stage for higher quality theatrical presentation, they also help insure the global nature of cinema exhibition for films and countries, large and small. The Entertainment Technology Center at USC is proud to have played a part in DCI's landmark work."
Ordway concluded "We have finally reached a consensus that all of our various constituencies can not only live with, but should also embrace. Studios, exhibitors, and most important of all, the audiences who love movies will now be able to enjoy all the benefits and possibilities that digital cinema offers."
Digital Cinema Initiatives, LLC (DCI) was created in March 2002 and is a joint venture of Disney, Fox, Paramount, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal and Warner Bros. Studios. DCI's primary purpose is to establish and document voluntary specifications for an open architecture for digital cinema that ensures a uniform and high level of technical performance, reliability and quality control.
The Aristocrats
August 15, 2005
Look what digital has wrought. Using a handful of consumer camcorders and their considerable access to many if not most of the top comedians in the country filmmakers Penn Jillette and Paul Provonzo – better known as Penn & Teller – have created a documentary that is interesting, hilarious and utterly obscene. It also makes some key points about the future of digital cinema.
The movie concerns a joke that traces its roots to vaudeville days and is apparently well known by comedians everywhere. Although comedians rarely tell jokes in their regular routines, when they are with other comedians this is one they tell each other. They all seem to have their own version (or versions) and one of the points is to top the person who told the joke to you.
The topping (pun intended) is where obscenity enters the picture. And make no mistake, virtually no one could or would defend this film as appropriate for mainstream audiences. Some have criticized the movie chains (most notably AMC) that have refused to show The Aristicrats. I believe AMC is doing the right thing. As a writer and publisher, I’ll defend this movie’s right to be seen by adults anywhere. It has everything to do with freedom of speech issues. But as the parent of a teenager I also believe this movie is absolutely not for children. The moviemakers not only understand this, it is part of the project’s charm. In fact, posters for the film proudly declare, “No Nudity. No Violence. Unspeakable Obscenity.” First the premise of the joke:
The only required elements of the joke are its opening premise and its punch line. The premise is: a man walks into a talent agent’s office and says, “I have a great family act that you’re going to love.” The description of the act is what varies from comedian to comedian and is both the heart of the movie and the source of all that is offensive. Comedians consider it a badge of honor to tell a grosser, more disgusting version of the joke than the one’s they’ve heard. It’s the challenge. When the description is over (and some comedians can take thirty minutes and longer to tell it) the punch line is that the talent agent asks what’s this act called and the answer, with a flourish, is the Aristocrats.
The basic joke is not that funny and many of the versions told in the film are barely funny at all. But some make you laugh so hard they bring tears to your eyes. The Aristocrat’s joke really isn’t the point of the movie. The point is that we’re being allowed to share a behind-the-scenes part of the comedy world that few if any of us knew about. And even more importantly, the movie is about the very nature of comedy and how jokes are crafted, in short, what makes people laugh.
It is fair to say that the film could not and would not have been made ten years ago, simply because the technology would have been in the way. Film cameras and even lower quality video cameras were either too expensive or didn’t do a good enough job to mount a credible motion picture. Even if they did, their sheer size would get in the way of the intimate feeling this movie captures.
The digital cinema era will feature smaller more personal films, films that serve even smaller niches than we currently understand today. New theatres and theatre chains are opening around the country that understand and will take good advantage of this.
Hollywood and the big movie chains are not going to go away. Digital technology offers benefits that only they can use. This is not a zero sum game. This is about new business, new growth.
The Aristocrats opened on four screens and made $243,796 its first week. That’s nothing to shake up the industry but given what this movie must have cost, the filmmakers should be well on their way to a profit.
People who don’t have access to the movie in theatres will get their chance when the DVD is released. It promises to be even better anyway and to break some interesting new ground. In the closing credits the filmmakers invite anyone to videotape himself or herself telling their own version of the joke. They say they’ll select the best of those and include them as an extra in the DVD.
Now I know what I want for Christmas.
Speed Bump or Long-term Trend?
September 15, 2005
Box office returns for Hollywood movies have taken a serious downturn this summer. The question remains, is this simply a short-term problem or is it something more?
While I would never bet money that Hollywood can’t overcome this latest development there are two factors that, at best, will make the challenge ahead more difficult ever.
(Three factors if you count the unspeakable arrogance of the Hollywood movie industry, but that has never been a major issue for them and it probably won’t be this time either.)
But first, the problems.
As David Germain reported earlier this month for the Associated Press, movie attendance in North America this past summer was the worst in nearly a decade.
“For the 18 weeks from early May through Labor Day, domestic movie grosses are expected to total $3.6 billion, down 9 percent from summer revenues of $3.96 billion last year, according to box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations,” Germain wrote, adding, “ Attendance figures are even bleaker. Factoring in higher admission prices, the number of movie tickets sold should come in around 562.5 million, down 12 percent from summer 2004.”
Germain interviewed several industry executives to get a consensus as to what may have caused the downturn. There were four possibilities raised including rising ticket prices, concession stand costs, pre-show advertising and, to put it politely, movies that didn’t capture the attention of the mainstream public.
A sales mentality currently dominates Hollywood and more than ever before the creative community is not controlling what movies get made by the major studios.
For that reason to my mind, Hollywood’s first (and potentially biggest) hurdle on the road back to success is, ironically, the enormous popularity of the DVD and the ongoing rise in home theatres. Yes, Hollywood is making a fortune from DVD sales and will continue to do so but the danger here is that the studios are public corporations and bottom line sales are very important.
Germain’s article echoed supported this.
“With so many other entertainment choices — video games, limitless TV programming, home-theater setups — audiences may be edging away from moviehouses,” he wrote. “In an Associated Press-AOL News poll in June, nearly three-fourths of adults said they would prefer to stay home and watch movies on DVD, videotape or pay-per-view rather than traipse to a theater. Almost half said they think movies are getting worse.”
The second hurdle is E-Cinema.
Movie theatres are the country (and around the world) are embracing this technology at a very rapid pace and that seems certain to continue. The danger for Hollywood here is that E-Cinema opens the doors for exhibitors to expand their theatre businesses into markets that don’t rely on the supply of Hollywood product.
As Germain reported, and as always happens, there were some surprise successes, most notably the French documentary March of the Penguins.
Another question remains. How will Hollywood respond?
"In an ideal world, people would say `OK, we have to think more creatively, we have to think outside the box and come up with new and different things,'" Steven Friedlander, head of distribution for Warner Independent Pictures, which released March of the Penguins told Germain. "But I'm afraid what's going to happen is, we're all going to sit in a room and say `We need more penguin movies.'"
The Mouse That Roared
October 1, 2005
Building on a legacy of technology leadership that can trace its roots back nearly a century to the company’s founder, Disney is the first major Hollywood studio to move forward on digital cinema. Questions regarding “if” digital cinema will begin are now history. The only questions that remain are who will be next, when will they act, and which business model will they adopt.
First a brief look back at some of the highlights in Disney’s technological history:
The first was Steamboat Willie 1927, one of the first sync sound pictures. Then came Flowers and Trees 1932, the Academy Award winning first-ever movie in Technicolor (and a short film still well worth watching, especially with younger children). And, of course, there was Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs 1937, the first animated feature length movie and, in 1995, one of the first films to be digitally re-mastered for re-release.
Thus, it is no real surprise that Disney made the first move. As one industry leader said after the announcement, “They’ve wanted to go digital for eight years.”
And the fact that Disney made its deal with Christie/AIX a non-exclusive one has mollified all but the harshest critics.
The real question for me is what has got the critics of this deal in such an uproar? Put a different way, what am I missing?
What critics of this deal seem to overlook (or, at least, to discount) is the enormous investment in time and money that many companies in this industry have devoted to the development of digital cinema.
It is one thing to urge caution and to wait until absolutely every detail has been resolved. It is quite another to operate in a world that demands a fair and timely return on investment.
What Disney, Access IT and Christie have said is, enough. And I, for one, count myself among those who thank them and encourage others to get on board.
It’s time to move forward.
Milestones or a Concise History of Digital Cinema
November 15, 2005
With this issue Digital Cinema Report celebrates its third anniversary and it’s remarkable how much has happened in just three years.
When we started, some things were in place but many were not. The Digital Cinema Initiative had already been formed by the seven major Hollywood studios and begun its work on technology standards. This despite the fact that it took several tries before the consortium even settled on an official name.
Hollywood’s official position then was that digital cinema had to be 4K and nothing less would be worth the effort. There was fear among cinematographers because they felt that film acquisition was under attack and there was fear among exhibitors that they would be forced to go bankrupt converting to digital or watch the world pass them by.
The first milestone occurred in March at the ShoWest convention when the presentation of the “$100 Million Reel,” the annual tribute to the top grossing movies of the year, was shown via Texas Instruments’ new 2K DLP digital cinema projector. The event drew a standing ovation and as many people in the audience seemed to be applauding the technology as were applauding the clips.
Around that same time the nine-screen multiplex Formula Kino in Moscow became the site for Russia’s first digital cinema demonstration.
The presentation was part of CSTB 2003, an international exhibition that covers cable and satellite TV, wireless technologies for TV and cinema and broadband telecommunications. NevaFilm Digital, Barco Digital Cinema, Kinoton and EVS Digital Cinema organized the presentation.
Digital images from a variety of different sources were screened including HD and 35mm film. The audience included executives from some of Russia’s largest cinema exhibition and distribution companies.
“Most of the audience found the quality of the digital projection to be very high,” Oleg Berezin, managing director of NevaFilm Digital said at the time. “They pointed out the superiority of [the] digital print over duplicated 35mm film print which is usually delivered to the theatres.”
What happened next was either progress or a step backward depending on who you talked to but it was a milestone nevertheless.
That Spring of 2003 Landmark Theatres and Microsoft announced that they would be equipping the 177 screens in all 53 Landmark Theatres across the United States with digital cinema playback systems based on Microsoft Windows Media 9 Series.
One exhibition insider sent me an email after that announcement saying, “We do not believe that the Landmark deal constitutes the biggest ‘digital cinema’ installation, as your article suggests, because we do not believe that the technology being installed constitutes ‘digital cinema’ at all. Landmark's deal with Microsoft makes sense for them. It's for small independent movies for small screens. But it's not digital cinema.”
The terms were not in widespread use at the time but the ideas of E-Cinema and ODS (for Other Digital Stuff) were being born.
That June 2003 another milestone, another setback.
In an article in The Hollywood Reporter Sheigh Crabtree and Nicole Sperling reported that digital cinema pioneer Boeing had sent “a request for all the major studios to sign an agreement freeing it from any liability should its systems break down and prevent the viewing of a digital movie.”
Crabtree and Sperling went on to report that, understandably, the request was not well received and the end result (short term, at least) was that the 20th Century Fox movie X-2: X-Men United was not released digitally on the 29 systems Boeing currently has installed in US theatres.
The movie was run digitally on the more than 35 screens supported by Technicolor Digital Cinema.
But that month of June also brought a significant positive step forward.
In a move that was welcomed by everyone interested in the ongoing implementation of digital cinema, the American Society of Cinematographers announced the formation of a committee to recommend standards and practices for emerging technologies.
November 2003 saw another breakthrough in Singapore and evidence that Asia was far ahead of the US in its move to digital. In a widely publicized event Cathay Cineplexes made some with the first digital cinema screening of Finding Nemo at the Cathay Cineplex Orchard.
More significant progress as soon as the year 2004 was born. In January Christie Digital Systems announced that it had installed a CP2000 2K projector in Hollywood’s world famous Grauman’s Chinese Theatre. It was the first 2K digital cinema projector to be installed at a commercial theatre in North America and the event got some star power when the first screening with the new projector was Tom Cruise’s The Last Samurai, which was viewed by an audience that included Cruise himself.
Whether coincidence or not, a subsequent film produced by and starring Cruise would become another digital cinema milestone.
The next milestone gained decidedly mixed reviews.
In March at ShoWest, 4K technology made its initial public appearance, although for the most part it was behind closed doors.
One was a 4K demonstration by server manufacturer QuVIS for members of Hollywood’s digital cinema initiative. The demo was kept so quiet that even some QuVIS executives didn’t know about it until afterward. At least one DCI member called the QuVIS demo “very impressive.”
The other top-secret demonstration had become perhaps the worst kept secret in digital cinema. Sony was showing its 4K digital cinema projector to invitation-only guests. It was known that the projector is based on the same proprietary technology that Sony used in the company’s consumer projector that was a big hit at CEDIA last September. Word was that the public might get to see it by the summer.
Many people (privately, at least) began to campaign against 4K, especially 4K projection. Following the widespread enthusiasm surrounding TI’s 2K chip the consensus was forming that 2K was ideal for digital cinema and was ready for implementation.
At that same ShoWest Singapore’s Eng Wah Organization announced that it was completing what it said was the world's first 2K digital cinema deployment in a five screen multiplex theater. The deal was made possible by its collaboration with government agencies, the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) and the Media Development Authority of Singapore.
Two films that summer of 2004 were major digital cinema milestones.
Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow was shot in HD and some 85 percent of the total 2,100 shots in the movie included live action elements that were composed entirely against blue screen. The film gained mixed reviews and was a disappointment at the box office.
A bigger success in every way that summer – both in critical terms and at the box office – was Michael Mann’s Collateral. It starred Tom Cruise (who also produced) and Jamie Foxx. It was the first major Hollywood feature film to get critical acclaim for its look not despite the fact that it was shot in HD but rather because it was shot in HD.
Hollywood cinematographers seemed to be truly embracing digital cinema when the ASC nominated Collateral for an award.
Momentum stalled after that. There were isolated examples of progress but nothing was sustained. The industry was clearly mobilizing around a minimum of 2K technology for a standard and the number of so-called E-Cinema installations – especially in Europe and Asia – was growing, in some cases significantly.
HD technology satisfied many demands and in many smaller markets offered a higher quality movie experience that was actually less expensive than film. In the US, in a similar vein, HD pre-show installations began to flourish and in virtually every case proved to be moneymakers.
Forward movement seemed to stall.
At ShoWest 2005 in Las Vegas, the overall mood was difficult to describe. Exhibitors remained upbeat – at least publically – but privately the strain of many years and millions of dollars of investment with significant return was taking a toll. Enough was enough.
At that show Sony showed its 4K projector openly and the reviews were by and large very positive. At that same show Sony along with Landmark Theatres made what many people thought was one of the most significant announcements in the short and chaotic life of the transition to digital cinema. At the show Sony executives told a small group of reporters at a press conference that beginning this summer Landmark will install Sony SXRD 4K projectors in all 59 of its theatres covering 22 markets.
Things began to develop more quickly after that.
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith debuted in digital theatres around the world in June.
As part of that major event AccessIT opened its newly-acquired Pavilion Digital Showcase Theatre in Brooklyn, New York, where the Star Wars premiere was shown on five 2K-digital cinema screens and lays claim to being the largest commercial 2K venue in the United States. The facility functions as a showcase for digital cinema technology but it is also a working theatre that has been in business since the days of silent films.
The following month AccessIT and Christie Digital Systems announced that they had created a framework to fund the rollout of digital cinema technology. That announcement brought sighs of relief in many quarters but was roundly denounced by some as at best a waste of time and at worst something that could undermine the years of work by the Digital Cinema Initiative.
Perhaps. But the Digital Cinema Initiative announced late in July that it had completed the final overall system requirements and specifications for digital cinema. One of the biggest milestones had finally taken place.
This past September the final shoe dropped. The Walt Disney Studios' distribution arm Buena Vista Pictures Distribution and Access Integrated Technologies' Christie/AIX unit entered into a non-exclusive agreement to supply feature films from Walt Disney Pictures and Touchstone Pictures to DCI-compliant digital projection systems to be deployed by Christie/AIX.
It has been an incredible three years and now the real fun begins.
What E-Cinema Means to Post-Production
December 1, 2005
Much has been made about the terms D-Cinema and E-Cinema mean. This is more critical than it might seem at first glance and, in fact, the distinctions are especially important for people working in post.
Today the consensus is this: to qualify as D-Cinema an image must be 2K resolution or higher, in essence anything that adheres to the technical standards set for the major Hollywood studios by the Digital Cinema Initiative.
By that definition D-Cinema will play its key role in mainstream movie theatres around the world. The rollout of 2K projectors has begun and will increase dramatically in 2006 and 2007. For post-production houses this will fuel the growing demand for digital intermediates, especially in the traditional big film markets such as Los Angeles, New York, Toronto and London to name just the obvious suspects.
Everything else qualifies as E-Cinema, what some people rather derisively refer to as ODS, which stands for Other Digital Stuff. (There is at least one other definition for the acronym.) Clearly “everything else” covers an awful lot of ground and there are many examples and more will undoubtedly arise as distribution and display technology evolves.
The most obvious example, in movie theatres at least, is digital pre-show material such as commercials and trailers. There is a growing trend among the larger theatre chains that have led the way in digital to run dedicated pre-show programming. The first to do this was Regal Cinemas. Their digital network numbers in the thousands of screens and they have a pre-show program called The 2wenty that is produced by NBC. The 2wenty relies a bit too much on promoting NBC shows but it is well-produced and is a vast improvement over traditional pre-show slide presentations.
Other chains have developed their own versions and the number of E-Cinema installations in addition to Regal’s now numbers in the thousands in the US. That number continues to grow.
What has fueled this growth is that by all accounts and in almost every case digital pre-show installations have proven to be very profitable very quickly for theatre owners. The costs for HD projectors and servers are reasonable and digital pre-show programs enable theatre owners to generate money from new profit centers such as local advertising.
This is where the opportunities for producers and post houses everywhere are beginning to emerge.
As local theatres embrace E-Cinema installations there will be an increasing need for local content. Once these installations are in place, theatre owners will want to maximize their use and that extends beyond pre-shows. There are many hours (even days) when movie theatres are not in operation and this presents still more opportunities for local producers and post houses. There are already examples of concerts being presented digitally in theatres and these and other events will flourish.
E-Cinema installations already outnumber D-Cinema installations and this disparity will increase simply because there are many more potential applications for E-Cinema, good news for producers and post houses everywhere.
Is Enforcement Necessary?
December 15, 2005
Now it gets interesting. Since the Digital Cinema Initiative finalized its standards last summer all the major Hollywood studios have announced plans to move forward aggressively with digital releases of their upcoming films. As the technology roll out progresses an important question is being raised: Is an independent system needed to verify that a given piece of technology is truly “DCI compliant”?
This question needs to be answered to the satisfaction of every post house and theatre in the world before they make what for most is a very substantial financial commitment.
What they face is a growing number of manufacturers that claim their technology is DCI compliant. In all likelihood much and probably most of the technology on the market today does meet or exceed the highest possible standards. But the devil is in the details and the pressure to succeed in what is quickly becoming an intensively competitive business can (and will) lead to at best gray areas.
A certification process is part of the DCI specifications and as Walt Ordway, DCI’s chief technology officer, said here last March, “We really believe that certification is necessary.”
But again, determining exactly who will supervise that certification remains an issue.
Ordway said the studios probably couldn’t do it themselves because of anti-trust issues. He suggested the Academy of Arts and Sciences as a possibility. When I suggested SMPTE, he called it “an interesting idea.”
There are two ways to address this issue. The first is to simply let the market decide, which it often does anyway. But digital cinema (and the current world economy) promises enough technology challenges without relying on that to work well. The second is for trade organizations of some kind (and possibly a new one dedicated to this) to step in and objectively decide what qualifies as DCI compliant and what does not.
One of our goals in the coming months will be to focus attention on this critical issue and try to determine a consensus. To that end we hope you’ll participate in a totally unscientific survey.
If you believe there is a need for some kind of objective certification system to determine which tools in fact comply with all DCI standards let us know. If you feel that no certification system is required and believe that the market will sort itself out let us know.
And if you have suggestions about how a certification process might work and who could manage it we welcome your thoughts.
2006
Yes to DCI Certification
January 15, 2006
The results of our admittedly unscientific survey are in. They show that by slightly better than a three-to-one margin you want some kind of system to certify that the equipment you are buying (and selling) fully comply with the technical standards approved last year by the Digital Cinema Initiative. But even many of you yes voters have serious concerns about how that can be achieved and what it could mean.
Here’s a sampling of the responses:
John Mayberry
You’ve got to be kidding. Perhaps we could let the Europeans put together a bureaucracy to run it, perhaps in Belgium? I think that at least 600 to 800 members would suffice for a governing body.
Rickard Gramfors
The major problem with DCI is that it is not a ratified standardization committee but rather a lobby group of powerful Hollywood studios who want to keep their world hegemony, keep the films in the big cities and be gatekeepers of the new technology. [Digital cinema is] a technology which could really make a huge different to small town communities, world cinema, independent film makers and the worldwide film industry as a whole, not just only Hollywood.
Mike Franck
While my initial answer for DCI equipment compliancy is yes, I believe that the consumer will determine content Compliancy. If the consumer doesn't like it, they won't pay for it. And if they do pay for it and don't like it, they'll certainly let the world know why they didn't like it. As has been shown in every Electronic Cinema (or Digital Cinema) demonstration since (circa) June of 1986, if you ask, they will tell. Rather than create yet another expensive and expansive layer of bureaucracy, just keep asking.
Jim Kappus
I believe there is a need for some kind of objective certification system to determine which tools in fact comply with all DCI standards. However, the certification system should allow entry by anyone willing to invest the time and money to participate and pass the certification.
Jay Wack
No standards means the person or group with the most money rules the industry.Not novel, but is that what is optimal? No standards [will breed] monopoly. In the end, the standards are absolutely necessary to keep the thieves out, protecting the contracting office from most errors. On the other hand, standards testing is expensive. In the digital cinema arena, I think interoperability would be a primary demand; both from the theater owners and from the studios. Standards foster interoperability. Then comes the question of who writes the standard against which things are measured. If the testing system is open and the standards are truly written for the benefit of the customer/market they work, they are worthwhile, and interoperability and efficiencies can be enjoyed. An attitude and process with these characteristics is very hard to accomplish and sustain.
Jack Cashin
I suggest THX since George Lucas started in a major way the digital cinema revolution. They already test audio and are generally looked upon favorably throughout the world. Why not video?
Brian McCarty
I am a member of the SMPTE Digital Cinema committee. We agree certification is necessary.
However, we do NOT want the same "certification" errors made in the past to continue.This means certification should be an independent, non-affiliated body (perhaps funded by certification fees charged to the theatres, with overhead carried by the major studios). We do NOT want this process done by Dolby Labs, Lucasfilm/THX, or other entities that have proven to be biased in their past work.
As our survey indicates most people in the business seem to want some kind of certification but even some supporters of the idea have serious concerns. Meanwhile, a group of manufacturers has met to discuss ways they might be able to address the issue.
I learned about the manufacturers’ group from Dave Schnuelle, who is the director of Dolby Laboratories Imaging Technology division. Prior to joining Dolby three years ago he was at LucasFilm for ten years and among his efforts there were the digital cinema launches of Star Wars Episodes I and II.
For his part, Schnuelle agrees that the industry needs some way to verify that when a manufacturer says their product complies with the DCI standards that it actually does.
There are some obvious problems.
To begin with, as Schnuelle sees it, “The DCI specs don’t go into enough detail to tell us how to build equipment.” One requirement that all manufacturers must meet, for example, he says, is “a certain level of security. A Federal Information Processing Standard” level of security. According to Schnuelle the specs are vague on what exactly that means.
He does not particularly care for the term enforcement. “Enforcement’s a hard word,” says Schnuelle. He much prefers the term “interoperabile.”
No matter what word is used, however, the fact remains that there should ideally be a way to verify a manufacturer’s claims.
That was the goal of last month’s meeting, which was attended by representatives from four server manufacturers, three exhibitors, two studios and two distributors. Schnuelle would not say who the actuall participants were because it was a private meeting but he described them as, “People representing every slice of our industry.”
He says they were working on the development of “a consortium that would allow us [as manufacturers] to police ourselves. The purpose was information sharing.”
Schnuelle says the meeting went well but wants to leave it at that for now. “It’s in the formation stages,” he says.
Fair enough. We’ll keep you posted on developments there as they become available.
But from the outside looking in, the concept of a group of manufacturers and Hollywood-centric customers raises almost as many issues and it might solve.
The promise of digital cinema is that it presents a wealth of new opportunities for independent filmmakers and smaller exhibitors alike, the world over. A plan that further solidifies the wall that has always existed between Hollywood and the rest of the film world would be a huge mistake.
Will the Bubble Experiment Change Exhibition?
February 1, 2006
Last month’s controversial simultaneous theatrical, pay-per-view TV and DVD release of Steven Soderbergh’s feature film Bubble received a significant amount of press coverage but it remains to be seen how much, if at all, the experiment will change exhibition.
Assuming you don’t know what this is all about, the official Bubble website offers a decent and, for the most part, objective summary of the basic facts.
According
to that site, “Bubble is the first of six films Steven
Soderbergh is directing for HDNet Films that will be shot in
high-definition and released simultaneously in theatres, on DVD and
on cable television. Todd Wagner and Mark Cuban are experimenting
with this day-and-date model utilizing various media properties they
own, with a goal of giving consumers a choice of how, when and where
they wish to see a movie.”
“The first film of the
group, Bubble, opened in theatres across the country on January 27
and was shown digitally in Landmark Theatres where available,”
the site continued. “On the same night, HDNet Movies showed the
television premiere of Bubble twice. Magnolia Home Entertainment
released the DVD through retail outlets on January 31, immediately
following the theatrical release.”
It concluded: “For the first time, consumers will truly have their choice of how they want to watch a new film.”
In the days leading up to the film’s premiere the entire venture received a great deal of publicity in the U.S. mainstream media. According to several accounts, Soderbergh had long wanted to direct a feature on a very low (by modern Hollywood standards) budget and contacted Wagner and Cuban to gauge their interest. They, in turn, had long wanted to try a simultaneous release and the three men decided to move forward as a team. The first result is Bubble.
Using actual Ohio locations and working with an enthusiastic group of non-actors, Soderbergh was able to bring the finished work on a reported budget of approximately $6 million.
John Fithian, president of NATO, called the experiment “a death threat” for the exhibition community and his comments prompted a rather angry and somewhat defensive diatribe by Cuban on his website.
Cuban’s response – emotional content aside – makes sense to me but both he and Fithian seem to be sidestepping the critical points here.
The first point is that this is not a typical small film.
The initial critical response to Bubble was basically positive and some critics – including Roger Ebert of The Chicago Sun Times and A. O. Scott of The New York Times – were fairly lavish with praise. With the exception of a handful of films screened at major film festivals – Sundance, Toronto, New York – I can’t recall the last time either of those two men reviewed a small picture like this. They reviewed it because it has become a media cause and it has become a media cause in large part because Steven Soderbergh, a deservedly acclaimed and highly respected director, made it.
That, however, does not completely negate the importance of Bubble and I’ll pose the second point as a question: why is anybody surprised? The issue was never “if” a simultaneous release would happen once digital exhibition became a reality; the issue was “when.”
For several years now Hollywood has made most of its profits not from exhibition but from the sale of videotapes and DVDs. Why on earth would they not want to maximize that part of their business?
I agree with Cuban when he says that simultaneous release will not destroy the exhibition business but promises, instead, to expand it. And expand it dramatically.
Fithian is right as far as his statement goes. If exhibitors continue to rely entirely on Hollywood for the future of their business they will fail. But if they understand the possibilities that digital technology can create, their newly diverse enterprises will surely thrive.
What Chicken Little 3D Means
February 15, 2006
The success of Disney’s Chicken Little in 3D – along with a look back to the turn of the last century – offers clues about the future of entertainment.
The first point to make is that, with all due respect, Chicken Little is not a great movie. While it’s certainly not a bad film – critics have generally rated it average or a bit above average and audience ratings online suggest they rated it a bit higher even than that – but it is no Citizen Kane; it’s not even Toy Story. And yet it has grossed more than $130 million dollars, as of this writing, and is still going strong.
The novelty of good quality 3D is certainly a big part of the story and all the anecdotal evidence suggests that in places where Chicken Little played in 3D, audiences have turned it into a genuine hit. The reason is simple. People love something that they can’t get anywhere else, something brand new, something different.
Which brings us to a brief look back a hundred years or so.
The following excerpt comes from the book “Cinema Treasures: A New Look at Classic Movie Theaters,” and I want to thank Andreas Fuchs, a friend and, along with Ross Melnick, one of the book’s co-authors for pointing it out to me.
According to their book, “The evolution of the nickelodeon, in fact, mirrored that of the motion pictures they exhibited. Just as the films began to stand on their own and not as part of a larger vaudeville program, so too did the venues erected to show them.