What is Digg?54 Comments
- o0joshua0o, on 11/14/2007, -1/+35Which half of the movie screens will be digital? I hope it's the left side!
- xxTazxx, on 11/14/2007, -2/+28Great choice of wording, "Penetration is deepest in the U.S."
- Hockey13, on 11/15/2007, -0/+16This article lacks a certain style. The kind of style a well-written article has.
- WiseWeasel, on 11/14/2007, -0/+14I wouldn't be surprised if this prediction came to pass, but only because by 2013, a large portion of the non-digital theaters will have gone bankrupt, leaving half of the remaining ones with digital screens...
- feelgood13, on 11/14/2007, -2/+14as if there is going to be a year 2013...
- jake8689, on 11/14/2007, -2/+13dugg for ''Penetration is deepest in the U.S'' line in the description
- inactive, on 11/14/2007, -0/+9I've been in at least a dozen digital theaters over the last year, and I have yet to see one that has a picture as good as a properly set-up film projector with a clean print.
And I've seen the best the industry has to offer, including the very latest projectors at Sony's Metreon complex in San Francisco. I can still see the pixels and jaggies. - Robiah, on 11/14/2007, -0/+5i like going to the movies..i just wish it was more nostolgic. they make these theaters all super modern,and it takes away half the fun of going.
i want the dimming lights,curtains opening,maybe even a cartoon before the movie. - kaijunexus, on 11/14/2007, -0/+5Bottom half is where the action is...
- Nerfdude, on 11/14/2007, -0/+5if you sit too close, you can make out individual pixels. the theater i go to is half digital, half 35mm. i always try to get the film showing if i can.
- asadavis, on 11/14/2007, -3/+7Spoken like a true virgin. You have to be around people now and again if you want to ***** one of them.
- Shevanel, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3what in black and white and with no sound?
- Hoogs, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3Is it just me, or are movies in digital fuzzy? Because I saw 300 in digital and the whole movie seemed fuzzy. Or is that just how that movie was supposed to look?
- johnpaul191, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3i agree a lot of non-digital theaters may suffer.... at least the ones showing big commercial movies. this may also be a boost to arthouse theaters? they can offer a ton of options, digital distribution is a lot cheaper than shipping 35mm film reels (and making the prints in the first place).
i feel like we've heard these deadlines before... then again theaters love the idea of going digital (but not the pricetag?). say Spiderman5 comes out and is a huge hit. they could theoretically show it on every screen for an early midnight screening and not have to actually get 24 35mm prints. then they can adjust what movies play on what screens with the touch of a button depending on the actual demand. they could keep adding showings of popular movies on the weekends as long as there is a demand.
the question is what digital quality will be by 2013. film blows up to screen size a lot better than digital. i'm guessing it will be pretty comparable by then. - DiscoLando, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3I enjoy the top half, myself.
- cliffzdude, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3Film is the original High Definition format, odd, but true.
- DteK, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3haha!!! for some reason in my google toolbar the only part of the subject line I saw was "penetration is deepest in..." which obviously made me check it out.
- Pilot85, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3Stadium seating solves a lot of the issues I had with theaters (I heart reclining seats), and as long as you don't go on opening nights you never have to deal with HUGE amounts of people. Plus, if some yuppie high schooler is yapping away on his/her cell during the show, you can use your righteous indignation to tell him/her to shut the hell up, AND be applauded for it.
- zeptobyte, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2The very center will be digital.
- Chicken2nite, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2I wonder what the breakdown is between 2k and 4k projectors...
- SpykerSpeed, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2True, you could get your "war news" before the movie, too. It would be in black-and-white, right after the Ripley's Believe it or Not segment.
- Coven, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2This is exactly what George Lucas has been fighting for. During one of his more recent interviews he stated that he would wait until more screens were digital before he moved to put the OT up on the big screen again, but this time in 3D.
- Amadeus2490, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2But the world's going to end in December 2012! This is just great.
- notninja, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2As a film maker I still prefer the definition of 35mm to any digital source. 99% of TV and Feature films are shot on 35mm. 50% of independents are shot on 16mm.
- KahNeth, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2"Half Movie Screens To Be Digital By 2013"
but I want the whole screen to be digital - Spamcan, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2By 2013 you'll be able to throw together a decent 1080p projection setup with 5.1+ sound for a few hundred bucks. As the home theater experience gets better and cheaper, theaters continue to become more expensive and obnoxious with shrinking benefits over watching a movie at home. Combine that with quick online distribution methods and services like Netflix and it's hard to see if switching to digital projection alone will be enough to keep people in those uncomfortable seats for a few more decades.
- funkytaco, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Why would you want to see half of a movie?
- iPirate, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1I have a local movie theater that is 10 minutes away. I also have a Rave Motion Picture Theater (all of their screens at every theater are 100% digital and they use DLP projectors) that is 35 minutes away. The difference in quality is definitely worth the extra 25 minute drive.
- ChromaVita, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1I saw Pirates of the Caribbean on film and digital, and I enjoyed the digital showing better. It seemed cleaner, and almost looked like it had more contrast and dynamic range. Also if you haven't seen a movie in Disney Digital 3d, I recommend it.
- shandromand, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Well its too bad that the Mayan calendar predicts the end of the world as we know it in December 2012. Maybe we'll get a little less than half?
- SlipstreamLucas, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2i too dugg for this reason.
sad isn't it ! - nicktheawesome, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1I saw Transformers on a digital screen. Not 3d, but it was the digital version. It was BEAUTIFUL. Everything was extraordinarily sharp and clear, far more so than most theaters are. It was just the one screen that was digital, and I loved it. Maybe I just got lucky?
And there is nothing wrong with Fark. Its just slower... - jdepp, on 11/13/2007, -1/+2Just think -- the cinemas will be able to `download' the movies on the `internet' and cut out the distribution and splicing together of film reels -- The studios could `seed' a few initial cinemas, and then the others could receive them via a `peer to peer' network... nah, it'd never happen.
- rotundo, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1And yet I still prefer film. They just don't have the resolution yet maybe?
I'm not one of those people who whines about records sounding better than CD's which sound better than mp3's. But I a decent copy on film just looks better to me. - stonedslacker, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Well. There is going to be a year 2013. We're just not going to exist in it.
- Flizzle, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1Maybe if they save all this money going digital, they'll put popcorn down to a reasonable price!
Naah, it'll never happen. =p - E7ernal, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1to all those why watch in a cinema comments:
I will, unless I can suddenly get a 1000 inch TV for a fiver. - whistlerpro, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1I know most of you probably don't care, and most vegetarians and vegans don't know, but since 'film' uses gelatine (animal fats), digital projection will be the first technology to possibly make cinema animal death free.
I'm just saying. - mattbatt77, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1I agree. 35mm film is more organic: grain, depth of field, softer edges create a look we've been used to for over a 100 years. The natural human eye doesn't see edges as sharp, made up by tiny squares -- it sees an edge as light refracting and bending around it with 1 mil :1 dynamic range in sunlight. Film has a more natural dynamic range, even though it is rumored that digital has caught up.
One frame of 35mm film holds around 17MP's, though it can be scanned at over 30 MP's; debate ranges on whether more detail is actually gained. The best digital cinema cameras hold 12 MP per frame (see RED and Panasonic's Genesis). However, digital uses square pixels to create curved lines which by default, requires a higher resolution than film to make it look equal to film. And grain, in my opinion, adds an archaic quality to film.
Digital is different, some will prefer it, others won't. The key is: it doesn't look like film. There are ways to make it look and act like film (larger camera sensors for shallower depth of field, adding grain and using 24 frames per second), but isn't that backward? I mean, new technology comes out and we try and make it look like the old?
As far as 3d movies: there is only so much the eye can take before becoming fatigued. I think complex story lines will be mired by 3d movies, but kid movies and Pixar can surely benefit. For me, things jumping out at me take me out of the story. - chris_allen, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Digital cinemas do offer incredible picture quality as can traditional film projectors if properly maintained and herein lies the biggest issue I see with most all theaters I have visited. You can just see the dust build up on the screens which effects picture quality for certain. I highly doubt most theaters stick to any sort of strict maintenance and/or cleaning schedule for equipment and this is why perfectly new prints on film still look like crap when viewed even on the opening day. Obviously the main benefit to digital is the means of distribution and the maintaining of quality with regards to the source material. Digital does not degrade like film with repeated use and I would rather see a film look good on a more consistent basis, then sit through a terrible viewing experience. Who wouldn't right!?!
- LeeSoong, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Right. Who goes to see movies in theaters?
Wait for DVD or the Internet / Netflix / Red Box / etc...
Going to the theater means going to see real people really act on a small stage with limited props.
Live Theater has made a comeback because movies are a thing of the past. - Shughes01, on 11/14/2007, -0/+0That's kind of cool to know.
www.skyelist.com - SirFoxx, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1That's what she said
- designerutah, on 11/13/2007, -0/+0Just lean close to the offender's ear and say, "Turn it off, or take it outside. WE didn't pay to listen to your crap."
- ZigVicious, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1top left quarter, bottom right.
duh. - alphacritic, on 11/13/2007, -0/+0I think it's great that more theater screens will be moving to digital. I love it!
- Psychade, on 11/14/2007, -0/+0I accidentally read this as "Half-life movie screens by 2013" and thought, "Please let it not be another Uwe Boll..."
- Evildudetx, on 11/14/2007, -3/+3I don't see why they are bothering - theaters are old school. Why would I want to sit in a huge room, in crappy seats, having to listen to other people eat, slirp their drinks, talk, deal with cell phone junkies, screaming kids, and moronic parents who bring their babies? Not to mention spend more than it will cost me to rent the movie later, or just wait for it to hit HBO,Starz, Showtime, or Skinamax?
- SlipstreamLucas, on 11/14/2007, -3/+3...particularly in black neighborhoods
- zinnate, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1thats what she said.
-
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is