To: Bux who wrote (26265 ) 4/6/1999 11:48:00 AM From: Jeff Vayda Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
Bux, or can I refer to you as Maurice (your length of posts are quite similar - sorry could not resist! ggg) Let me clarify a couple of things. First off you are correct to apply the majority of the savings to the studios. From the threads previous discussion; production, transportation and copy right losses are all on the studio side. This puts the major savings from digital cinema into their pockets. Add the time to market savings and other benefits and the studios do make out quite nicely. But... what is in it for the much larger support network already established for the print films? Production and transport people would vanish with digital. Cinemas would get an expanded near real time film base, (in how many years, while in the mean time they are forced to support two systems?) they would get ease of showing multiple titles, (but most movies loose money because fewer people want to see them, it is only the 10 or so blockbusters a year that make money at the cinemas) and better quality films? For a system to make it, it needs to offer more advantages for enough people to overcome the current entrenched system. As it stands, I dont see the cinemas gaining enough over the current system to offer digital. But I agree with you: digital cinema is a great way to grease the technological tracks for the transmission of everything over the air. Make a solution for the largest data requirements and the small ones fall into place with ease. Just wondering what was behind the CC remarks, Digital Cinema in and of itself does not come across to me as a power house revenue generator for Q, and I would start a fatwah against the Q management if they suggest they could run a film distributorship or a cinema shop. Jeff Vayda