Digital Cinema

The motion picture industry is rapidly moving to digital video.

Nearly 900 digital screens are being added to theaters across the United States
each month. This is making possible 3-D movies, live sporting and music
events, and the presentation of sharper, scratch free images to audiences.
By mid-2011, nearly half of all 39,000 screens in the U.S. were digital, compared to
just a few thousand in 2007.
The switch to digital is doable for theaters in the three largest chains: AMC
Entertainment Inc., Regal Entertainment Group and Cinemark Holdings Inc. A
consortium representing these theaters has invested close to a billion dollars to
finance this change.
But for the smaller, nonaffiliated theaters there is a problem.
Digital hardware and software cost about $65,000 per screen. Add to that $4,000 to
$8,000 for a special silver screen and approximately $10,000 to $20,000 more for
3-D equipment and you end up with an investment that small theaters can't afford -especially with the downturn in the economy. Although financing is available in
many cases, hundreds of small theaters in the U.S. and Canada are facing other
financial realities.
For example, not only did box office revenue for these theaters drop more than
20% in 2010, but they are now competing with home video systems that deliver
sharp, on-demand movies -- sometimes just 60 days after they appear in theaters.
Several sources will stream these films into homes via the Internet.
Video production and presentation may also soon move to the noticeably superior
image quality of double frame rates (48 and 60 fps). Right now, audiences seem
to prefer this to 3-D, especially when high resolution (4K) projectors are used.
With film, doubling the frame rate is prohibitively expensive.
Meanwhile, the increase in theater prices have impacted box office ticket sales, especially
in economically disadvantaged areas with small theaters. For these theater owners
borrowing $100,00 or so with a questionable return may not be a wise investment.

And we can't forget the ever-increasing competition from Internet sources such as
Netflix, Hulu and even YouTube, which don't even require people to leave their
1

homes.
And maybe most important of all, there is this. "Film," as such, will be slowly
phased out. Some theaters that can only screen film are already reportedly having
problems getting film prints of movies when they want them. The distribution of
digital motion pictures ends up being a fraction of the cost of distributing a
digitized version on a hard disk.
As in most things, it all comes down to economics.

Percentage of Digital Theaters

2005

(3%)

Traditional "Hollywood" thinking

has long opposed production with video
equipment for "serious, professional
work."

2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

(70%)

However, today, the cost savings for

video production alone, not to mention
video's many production, post-production
and distribution advantages, make the
move to video for both production and
theater presentation inevitable.

Today, most audiences can't tell the difference

between professional film and video projection
systems.

Will Video Replace Film?

So will video or digital imaging soon replace film for prime-time TV production?
Yes, even though a few directors maintain that the look of film can't be matched by video,
eventually video will replace film in motion picture work. Aesthetic issues aside, the
transition is being driven by pure economics.

In 2011, the majority of productions done for TV were mastered on video.

Digital Update 05/05/2013

According the National Assn. of Theatre Owners' trade group by 2012 more than 85% of
the U.S.' 4,044 theaters, representing 34,161 screens, had gone digital.
Those that haven't will have to either spend $60,000 or more for digital equipment or be
forced to close, because soon movies will all be distributed on computer disks rather than
film.
Theaters that can't afford the move to digital are planning to close -- some after decades
of serving small towns around the country.
Not only do digital "films" represent a major cost savings in duplication and distribution,
but the technical quality (sharpness and clarity) of the image can be superior to film.
Many film buffs, including many film and TV directors, still strongly argue this point, of
course. However, when "Hollywood" is 100% digital, this issue may only be a matter of
historic interest.

Film and Videotape Costs

The minute-for-minute cost of 16mm and 35mm film and processing is hundreds of times
more than the cost of broadcast-quality video recording.

Offsetting the savings with video is the initial cost of video equipment.
Depending on levels of sophistication, the initial investment in video production and
postproduction equipment can easily be ten times the cost of film equipment.

On the other hand, there is a substantial cost savings in using video for postproduction
(visual effects, editing, etc.). As we've noted, for these and other reasons film productions
intended for television are routinely transferred to video. This transfer can take place as
soon as the film comes out of the film processor.
Reversal of the negative film to a positive image, complete with needed color correction,
can be done electronically as the film is being transferred to video. From this point on all
editing and visual effects are done by the video process. The negative film is then locked
away in a film vault and kept in perfect condition.
Even for film productions intended for theatrical release, major time and cost savings can
be realized by transferring the film to video for editing. The video version can then be
used as a "blueprint'' for editing the film.

DI - the Intermediate Digital Step

By 2005, major motion pictures were using the advantages of digital imaging (DI) as an
intermediate step between the color negative film shot in the camera and the final release
print copied for use within theaters. (Here, we are talking about films made for theatrical
release.)
Scanning the film into digital form provides much more control over color correction and
artistic color changes.
Of course once in digital form visual effects with video are much easier and less
expensive than with film.

Uncompressed Video
One of the quality compromises involved in HDTV has been the need to compress the
signal.
However, as the cost of digital recording and storage has decreased we are seeing some
production facilities move to uncompressed (4:4:4, 10 bit) video recording and editing.
Silence Becomes You, released in 2005, was billed as the world's first uncompressed
4:4:4 feature production--shot with a video camera and later converted to film.
Once this approach is more widely adopted, we'll see a major jump in image quality and
post-production speed and economy, making the switch to "hi-def" even more attractive.

Digital Cinema
So-called digital cinema or e-cinema (electronic cinematography) is rapidly gaining
ground, especially since it is becoming almost impossible for most theater patrons to
distinguish between it and film.
E-cinema is now preferred by many independent "filmmakers," and major "film"
competitions now have more entries on video than on film.
The major disadvantage of the move to digital cinema has been video projectors. But, the
latest generation is based on projector imagers with a 4-megapixel resolution--twice that
of the previous generation. The detail possible with these projectors exceeds that of
35mm film projection.
Now the major stumbling block for digital cinema is the great initial investment in
equipment--the projector and the associated computer. However, once this investment is
made, major savings can be realized.
Directors of Photography in film often resist moving to video equipment because
"everything is different." It can take decades to move up to a Director of Photography
position, and old habits and patterns of thinking are difficult to break.
For this reason, video camera manufactures have made some of their cameras resemble
the operation of film cameras.
The video camera shown here uses standard 35mm motion picture lenses.

This means that directors of (film) photography do not have to abandon all that they have
learned over the years with film camera lenses.

Film also can have a more saturated color appearance. With sophisticated video
equipment this can be simulated by adjusting the color curves in a sophisticated video
editor. This can also be addressed in post-production by channeling video through
computer programs such as Photoshop CS3, After Effects, or Chroma Match.
By softening the image to smudge the digital grid of video, and reducing the contrast, you
can take additional steps to make video look like film.
Of course, the question is why would you want to degrade the quality of one medium to
match another?
Possibly it's a matter of what people get used to. When people first heard high-fidelity
audio, they didn't like it. After listening to music and voice for decades on low quality
radio and phonograph speakers, they had become used to this as "the standard" in audio
quality, and anything else--even something much better--didn't sound right.

The feature film, 28 Days Later, released in mid-2003, did very well at the box office
and was shot with video equipment.
By 2011, many feature films had been shot in high-definition (hi-def) video and then
transferred to 35mm film for release in theaters. However, in many cases this final step
was not necessary. Many theaters had been equipped with video projectors, especially to
show 3-D "films."

Single-Camera, Multiple-Camera
Production Differences

Purely technical considerations aside, the primary underlying difference between film and
video lies in the way it's shot.
Film is normally shot in a single-camera style, and video is often shot using a multiplecamera production approach.
In film each individual scene can be carefully set up, staged, lit, rehearsed, and shot.
Generally, a number of takes are made of each scene and the best one is edited into the
final production.

As they strive for perfection in today's high-budget feature film productions, some
directors re-shoot scenes many times before they are satisfied. (Possibly the record is
held by one well-known film director who reportedly shot the same scene 87 times.)
Quite in contrast, video is generally shot with several time-code synchronized cameras
covering several angles simultaneously.
Instead of lighting being optimized for one camera angle, it must hold up for three or
more camera angles at the same time. This means that it's generally lit in a rather flat
manner, which sacrifices dimension and form. And, with the exception of single-camera
production, multiple takes in video are not the rule.
By replacing film with videotape and speeding the production process George Lucas
saved at least $3-million on the 2002 Attack of the Clones.