NYTimes. Coming Attractions: Digital Projectors Could Change Film Industry [Nice QCOM reference]
nytimes.com
February 22, 1999
Coming Attractions: Digital Projectors
Could Change Film Industry
By JAMES STERNGOLD
OS ANGELES -- Nearly every facet of the movie industry has
been transformed in recent years by new technologies, from
computerized dinosaurs and other special effects to the collection and
analysis of box office data. But even with all the digital wizardry, motion
picture reels are made through a chemical film process and then
projected onto screens using technology that has changed in the past
century about as much as buttered popcorn.
Now, the industry is on the threshold of what many experts say is a
breakthrough that could bring dramatic change to the economics of
movie theaters and to the moviegoing experience itself.
Assuming that financial hurdles and industry politics can be overcome,
the potential benefits include silver-screen images free of lint and
scratches, new types of in-theater special effects, and the ability of
theater owners in the heartland to get the same access to first-run hits as
urban cinemas.
Within two years, movie theaters are expected to begin installing the
first generation of digital projectors. Reels of 35-millimeter film -- which
are several feet in diameter and heavy -- would be replaced with
electronic projectors that use magnetic tape or digital disks.
On March 10, at a meeting of the National Association of Theater
Owners, two new electronic projectors -- one by Texas Instruments
that relies on a chip with more than a million tiny mirrors, and a
competing technology using what is called a light valve produced by
Hughes-JVC -- will demonstrate what they can do. The same
four-minute film clip will be shown on each of the new projectors, as
well as a traditional 35-millimeter projector.
If several demonstrations here recently are a guide, the exhibitors will
observe a quality that is sharp, with colors as rich and as warm as the
most pristine film prints and without the usual jittery frames, scratchy
soundtracks and blotches of dust that often mar the much-used theater
prints.
The theater owners are expected to witness, in short, the birth of
"electronic cinema."
"The technology now exists to build the projectors," said Doug Darrow,
the manager for market and business development of the electronic
projector business of Texas Instruments. "The real issues are economics
and emotion. The studios have to say, 'We want to make this change."'
Phil Singleton, the president of American Multi-Cinemas Inc., a chain
with 236 theaters, added, "We can't wait for the day when we're
unshackled from the 35-millimeter prints. But conversion is first and
foremost the biggest problem to face."
Theater owners insist that the costs of installing the new projectors,
which are expected to cost roughly $100,000 for each system,
compared with about $30,000 or so for a conventional projection
booth, will have to be shared.
Studio executives generally agree, but are wary of even discussing the
issue openly for fear they could taint what are likely to be long and
difficult negotiations.
"Look it, there's going to have to be some studio subsidy of the
installation of these projectors," said one senior studio executive, who
spoke on the condition that he not be identified. "Until we know exactly
how that will work, I'm not willing to say anything."
What no one doubts is the benefits the new systems will create. For
one, the studios will no longer have to create and ship thousands of
reels of film. Each print costs in the neighborhood of $2,000, and a
major film requires as many as 5,000 prints. Those costs would all but
vanish under the new systems, in which entire movies could be sent to
theaters through a satellite signal.
"As it stands, most of the savings would go to the studios and the costs
would go to the theater owners," said William F. Kartozian, the
president of the National Association of Theater Owners. "Obviously,
this will have to be a cooperative effort. Unless it's good for everybody
it's just not going to happen."
Then there is the issue of quality and consistency. In the process of
making prints from a master the copies lose some vitality, in the form of
a softer focus and less vibrant colors. Films begin to show serious wear
after 30 or so screenings, experts say.
Electronic cinema would do away with many of those problems.
Movies would still be shot, and edited, on traditional 35-millimeter film,
and the end-product would be at least initially on film. Then, using a
machine called a telecine, the digitized print would be made, and every
subsequent digital copy would be a perfect replica. There would be no
wear and tear from each showing.
The image that people see in the theaters will still be cast by a projector
upon a screen. But instead of the projector producing the image by
shining a bright light through a strip of film, the new, digital projector
would be generating the image from data stored as computer code --
the way an audio CD player or the new home-video DVD disk players
translate digital data into sounds and images.
"I went into one demonstration where the only way I could tell the
difference between the film and the electronic version was that the film
one had that jittery movement and the electronic one didn't," said Martin
Cohen, the head of post-production at Dreamworks SKG. "They are
down to the nitty-gritty. They're finally in the ball park on the quality."
In the beginning, digital movies are likely to be delivered to theaters in
the form of electronic tapes or disks. Eventually, however, they are
expected to be delivered via satellite, then stored on a server in the
theaters.
That prospect excites some theater owners. Currently, theaters in big
cities tend to get the first prints available of popular movies and cinemas
in smaller towns must wait days or even weeks. The new system could
deliver the new films simultaneously.
It also means films could be switched and juggled instantly. If a movie is
doing well, a multiplex cinema could add showings to its other screens
with the click of a mouse rather than having to wait days for the delivery
of new prints.
The language in which movies are shown could be switched instantly, if
different sound tracks are provided. A theater near an Hispanic
neighborhood, for instance, could schedule showings of the same film in
Spanish and in English at different times.
Conventional systems already use digital sound, and generally have up
to 8 tracks available for the audio portion of the movie; the new systems
could handle 12 audio channels. Those additional channels would
permit innovations that could dramatically alter the movie experience.
There could be everything from sound from above, behind and below
the audiences to programs in which a digital signal engages devices that
shake the seats on cue or even emit smells into the theater.
The new projectors could project screens images with the quality of
high-definition digital television. They could, for example, do
pay-per-view showings of prize fights, concerts or other live events.
But there are also major questions. It is currently estimated that the
studios lose perhaps $3 billion a year or more to illegal copying of films.
Most of the studios fear that, if movies are sent to theaters through a
satellite transmission, cyberthieves might be able to intercept the signal
and steal a perfect copy.
This is an issue that Cinecomm Digital Camera, one of the companies
trying to break into the business, believes it has solved. Cinecomm is a
new company jointly owned by Qualcomm Inc., which produces
telecommunications equipment, and Hughes-JVC, a unit of JVC of
Japan that manufactures a digital projector. Qualcomm has said it is
bringing to the new company a sophisticated technology for encrypting
the movie transmission that is all but unbreakable.
"We're not going to eliminate that $2.5 billion a year or so of piracy, but
you're going to put a big dent in it," said Gary Garland, the vice
president of business development at Qualcomm.
But one of the biggest issues is who will control that transmission to the
theaters, and what it will cost.
Cinecomm claims to have solved this question, too. It intends to provide
one stop shopping by providing the satellite uplink facilities, the dishes
for the theaters, the systems for encrypting and compressing the
transmissions, then decrypting them, and the projectors, too.
In addition, to avoid the huge capital costs of removing the old
projectors and installing the new ones, Cinecomm said it intended to
bear all the initial costs itself. To cover these costs, it will charge the
theaters a fee based on the number of showings of each movie.
That all-in-one package makes many of the studios nervous, however.
The system would make the studios and the theater owners dependent
on a single supplier, and it would place a gatekeeper between the
distributors and the movie exhibitors.
"That's the buzz word: gatekeeper," said one studio executive. "We
won't permit a gatekeeper."
Ken Williams, the president of the digital studio division of Sony
Pictures Entertainment, a major player in this field, said: "Everyone
acknowledges that the digitized image will have to be encrypted, but no
system has been accepted or endorsed by any of the major studios. No
one is going to put their faith in anyone who has a proprietary black
box. It has to be an open system."
Cinecomm waves off such concerns. "There's certainly a concern that
anytime you have a single supplier you have questions," commented
Michael Targoff, the chairman and chief executive of Cinecomm. "We
have answers to all those questions. We're not trying to get anyone in a
position they don't want to be in."
Related Sites
These sites are not part of The New York Times on the Web, and The Times has
no control over their content or availability.
Hughes-JVC
Texas Instruments: Digital Light Processing
Qualcomm Inc.
Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company
|
