Digital cinema has overtaken film a lot sooner than many people might have predicted before Avatar was released, but it was probably inevitable. At latest count almost two-thirds of all domestic screens used digital projectors by the beginning of the year. That’s 25,570 screens out of a total 39,641 or 64.5%, according to the National Association of Theatre Owners. Roughly half — 12,620 — of those digital screens were equipped to show movies in 3D and 244 of those were IMAX installations. The total of individual theaters was almost 5,800, and 3,028 of those were partly or completely digital. And counting. Back in mid-2009 as James Cameron was preparing to unleash Avatar on the moviegoing public in December, only a few more than 1,600 screens in the US were equipped for digital 3D as of July out of a total of some 38,000 indoor screens at roughly 5,400 locations. By the time Avatar opened there were roughly 3,000 3D digital screens. In little more than two years, the number of 3D screens has quadrupled — propelled at least initially by Avatar’s success.
Globally, digital projection was predicted to overtake film early in 2012 — if it hasn’t already — and by the end of the year 63% of all cinema screens around the world will be digital, according to IHS Screen Digest Cinema Intelligence Service. By 2015 IHS predicts that 35mm theatrical film will amount to a niche format with just 17% of global movie screens. Art houses and independent theaters will struggle to cope with the cost of conversion. According to NATO, Canada has 1,848 digital screens, and the rest of the world has 38,874. That makes a global total of 66,292 digital screens. Texas Instruments, which licenses DLP technology used in most digital cinema projectors, in early December boasted installation of more than 51,000 DLP branded digital screens worldwide — nearly double the previous year. Slightly more aggressive than IHS Screen Digest, the company predicts a full global transition to digital by the end of 2015. Conversion to digital has accelerated in Europe, China, Russia, Latin America, India, Africa, Australia and the Asia Pacific region.
The conversion to digital also has put enormous pressure on the makers of cameras and film stock, which will likely become more expensive to produce. With print production significantly reduced, labs such as Technicolor and DeLuxe have transitioned into other areas such as digital post production, broadcast production and digital delivery. Technicolor has downsized significantly and I hear no longer handles 35mm film, only 70mm (most likely IMAX). Movies are still being shot and distributed on film but demand has decreased enough that 2011 saw the end of production of 35mm film movie cameras. Three major film camera manufacturers — ARRI, Panavision and Aaton — have phased out their film cameras to concentrate on exclusively on design and manufacture of digital cameras. To remain competitive they had to because filmmakers who wanted to shoot digital were already using cameras by RED — such as David Fincher for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and Peter Jackson on The Hobbit movies. Sony is another option and there are others.
Some industry professionals at first embraced digital reluctantly for aesthetic reasons — not enough depth or contrast under certain lighting conditions and issues with image detail. Preservation of digital formats also remains tricky and possibly unreliable over the long term compared to polyester film masters. Another bone of contention is 3D, in which screen illumination can be reduced by 25% or more. But projectors capable of higher-resolution and brighter images are already making their way into theaters, replacing earlier models with next generation technology. Eventually, shooting and projection rates of 50 frames per second or more, compared to 24 or 30 fps, promise an amazingly crisp image that will enhance or maybe even surpass 3D in visual appeal. Digital makes this more economically feasible because digital storage space is cheaper than raw film stock and processing which would at least double the cost of shooting with film at higher shutter speeds.
As recently as 2009 ARRI was only building film cameras by special order. It’s probably only a matter of time before the movies conversion to digital is all but complete. In a post late last year on Creative Cow, a site for movie and TV production professionals, ARRI VP of cameras Bill Russell said “In two or three years, it could be 85% digital and 15% film. But the date of the complete disappearance of film? No one knows.”


Sprocket holes and celluloid held our dreams for well over one hundred years. It was a long and fortuitous run. I’ll miss the mechanical clatter of film as it passes through the port of light. May cinema, no matter the ever-changing technology, live forever!
An elegant post. Thank you for saying it so well.
Gosh, I still miss Super 8. Sigh…
Now hopefully the quality of movies will improve along with the technology….Nahhhh!!!
Anyway, their still Movies .
So Avatar is solely to blame for the fact that every movie I see now has gray where black should be and a completely lifeless image? Thanks Jim. I’ll be the guy seeking out those “niche” 35mm theaters.
Actually, a bad technician is solely to blame for that.
DLP projectors are capable of blacks as deep as celluloid projectors, as long as they are properly aligned and calibrated. Problems crop up, however, when you have a hundred thousand dollar piece of projection equipment being operated by a 19 year old high school dropout.
Nope, sorry. Nostalgia for a particular film format is about as meaningful as praising the smell of old books. Nothing in this post speaks to any permanent loss or degradation of filmmaking, just some technical speed bumps as a new generation of production is growing. “I liked the old way better.” Good for you, random person. Was there a point?
Ah yes digital! Easy to shoot, easy to edit, easy to distribute, crappy to watch, crappy to watch, crappy to watch. Digital will never beat the “film” look- it makes everything way too flat for that. But w-e, we live in a world where bad movies are the norm so what to expect?
Back in the late 90s, I eschewed digital still cameras because I liked the look of film cameras much better. Finally, when the technology improved enough that there was very little difference, I bought a digital and never looked back. Nowadays, you can’t tell the difference between a photo taken with a film camera and one taken with a digital one.
If you think digital is crappy to watch, then I’m guessing you haven’t seen any well shot digital films (or maybe you have and didn’t realize they were digital). 99.99% of people would not be able to tell the difference. Back when Collateral was shot on digital, it was an artistic choice that served the story. But it didn’t look like film. Nowadays, digital can look every bit the same as film.
There will always be people who complain that whatever is new isn’t as good as what came before. Either out of ignorance or nostalgia. I’m guessing most of the people who rail on digital film know very little about it.
go listen to your 8tracks.
As an independent theater owner I can say without hesitation that if you put 100 “average movie-goers” in a theater auditorium 95 of them could not tell the difference between a good 35mm presentation and a digital presentation. There were many examples of this in competitive markets where two multiplexes were a short distance apart one all digital, the other film. The grosses were no better in the digital theater than the film based one. There is no benefit for me as a small business owner to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into technology that will not bring in any significant additional revenue. The only ones that benefit are the film companies… suprise, surprise!
If the film stock was as scratched and the projection equipment as out of alignment as both usually are at the average “independent” theater, even a drunken monkey could tell the difference. Audiences tolerate it though, as ticket prices are usually 2 dollars, versus the average 20 or so at the cineplex.
Does any remember the ‘digital revolution’ in the music industry? We heard very smart people use terms like ‘the democratization of music’. Sound familiar? This all took place in the early 1980′s and our digital future was declared to be so bright and wonderful. Everyone had to have new digital microphones, new digital mix boards, new digital recorders, etc, etc. Now we find ourselves 30 years after the digital revolution of the music industry. The music industry is a smoldering heap of ash. What happened to these promises of great diversity in music, promises of access to all talented musicians and songwriters? Well, it turns out that the pontificators were dead wrong. Today, the only group that buys music anymore is 13 year old girls. So record companies (shells of their former glory) consist of 60 year old men, with gray hair and ponytails, trying to find the next Justin Bieber. Where are all the new Bob Dylan’s, Hendrix’s, Muddy Waters’, Miles Davis’? Digital promises never fulfilled. The music industry was the canary in the coal mine . . . and the canary died. Perhaps, we should heed these lessons from the last digital revolution. More thoughtfulness and strategic advancement, and fewer pontificators with all the answers.
If you seriously believe that music is dead and there’s no good new stuff out there, you’re simply not even trying to find what you like and have resorted to just complaining about what you hear on Top 40 radio.
I’ve been a music nerd for 30 years and I have never heard the amazing breadth and scope of musicians today. Like Bob Dylan? Try Tallest Man On Earth. Like Chubby Checker? The deep, hilarious satire of Nick Curran And The Lowlifes might be your speed.
So those prognosticators were actually completely right. The kids with taste aren’t getting their music from the radio, so stop using that as a guide for what the young are into — there are incredible and talented musicians making more and better music than there ever has been in the history of recorded music.
And I hope they’re the right about the movies too, because lord knows the Studio system sure isn’t giving us much to write home about these days.
“What happened to these promises of great diversity in music, promises of access to all talented musicians and songwriters?”
I think you stayed in the coal mine too long. It happened, that you’re looking at the big record companies to lead the democratization is telling of your outlook. You’re never going to have the established big companies be the vanguard of a new generation. People buy more music now than ever – just not at record stores.
The real digital revolution will not be taking place in a theater, but on Netflix, ITunes, VOD. But you’ll miss it, you’ll be at your 35mm theater saying “I told you so”.
Lawyers and suits ruined the music industry, not recording technology. I remember working the scene in the late 90′s, when college stations were still huge, and labels were abundant. Then came the purge of the early 00′s, and one after another, the labels swallowed themselves until only a few were left. Mass produced Top 40 became the rule of business, as the big labels dropped smaller artists who performed solidly but not spectacularly, for cookie-cutter “urban” artists who stole music from their predecessors, fed it through 8 layers of sound processing, and then played it in the background while they bragged how tough and rich they were. It was absolute trash that no one even remembers now, but it sold big initially and that’s all executives cared about.
To all of this, I say thank god for the digital revolution, which opened up a new era of recording and distribution for smaller artists whom the big labels have overlooked. Performers no longer have to kiss ass and sell their souls for a record deal, instead moving to a direct sales model, and letting their work speak for itself. Horrible for the music industry, Awesome for the musicians themselves. Let the industry continue to wither and die in it’s own manufactured Top 40 hell. And if Hollywood must follow, so be it. Artists love a good shakeup every now and then… it’s the suits in their ivory towers that have something to fear.
Many “college radio stations” of a decade or two ago now carry 24/7 news and talk from NPR, while an increasing number of commercial FM radio stations have abandoned music for various talk formats.
If these trends continue, five or ten years hence, there may be only a handful of over-the-air radio stations programming music.
Distribution channels come and go, radio lives on through Rdio, I Heart Radio, Pandora, Sirius/XM and a plethora of other options, all of them better than traditional radio.
Vinyl sound better than CDs to the educated ear, film looks better than digital to the educated eye, and steak tastes better than hamburger to the educated palate. SFW? Why think of May in November, when December is all that you’ll get? It’s all about short-term profits rather than long-term equity, and nobody’s gonna miss film until they can’t open a digital file in ten years because the format’s changed, and they go “oops.” Yet a 100-year-old print will be as good then as it was new. I may be old and chauvanistic, but I once saw a nitrate print that actually glowed on the screen. Sigh.
I00 year old print, good? Nonsense.
Talkies will ruin the industry, and video killed the radio star… yeah yeah yeah we got it, thanks.
For anyone that feels the need to complain about digital cinematography, perhaps you should take a look at the number 1 and number 2 movies this weekend, which would never have been made if not for the digital film revolution. Chronicle was put together on a budget of 15 million, but is a better super hero movie than any of that genre which came out in 2011, even though they had 10 times the budget. For better or for worse, we now live in a world where almost anyone can make a movie, which I consider a good thing, as this puts pressure on the big studios to step up their game. Beyond that, digital cameras allow for shots that would never before have been possible on old film stock cameras of yesteryear, driving the film makers of tomorrow to push the creative limits, and take the audience to places it’s never been. Places like Pandora, and beyond.
“Beyond that, digital cameras allow for shots that would never before have been possible on old film stock cameras of yesteryear” Really?? Leaving cinematic tastes aside and considering only technical achievements: Citizen Kane, Sunrise, 8 1/2, City Lights,It’s a Wonderful Life, The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Jaws. Lawrence of Arabia, Taxi Driver, Rear Window, Vertigo, Psycho… the list goes on and on. Ask a “movie professional” how easy was to make any of these movies. I agree that digital is inevitable and I welcome it, but “places like Pandora and beyond”? Give me a break. There has no been a single movie made in the digital format that we can compare to any of the movies mentioned above. “The Decline and Fall of Film as we have known it”. INDEED!!!!!!!
Well said, Marco.
You just named about 60 years worth of film, and compared it to a new technology that has only been in use for about 2. How about you give it a chance, Marco. I’d sure hate to be a 2 year old in your presence. “Stupid kid, balance my books and build me a fence! Then go write the next great American novel, assuming you can pull yourself away from Spongebob long enough. God kids are lazy these days!”
Just like there are those who feel color will never look better than black and white, there are sure to be others who feel digital will never look as good as celluloid. Pandora in and of itself may not be a wonderful film, but it was an amazing showcase of what is possible in this new digital era. All the movies you mentioned above were directed by pioneers in their time, who took the technology of their day to new heights, in some case even inventing new technology when what already existed couldn’t bring life to their vision. From Capra’s double exposures, to Marty’s impossibly intricate crane shots, all exploited the strengths and weaknesses of their medium to produce classics that have endured for decades. Digital is still young, and so far the only real master director we’ve seen is Cameron himself, who is in many ways still stuck in the past, for all his creativity and innovation. The individuals who will show us all the possibilities of digital cinema have yet to graduate in most cases, and are still tinkering around with youtube videos filmed on their iPhones, much the same way Lucas himself got his start recreating war movies in his backyard with his dad’s 8mm. The wheel turns, Marco. Go with it, or be crushed by it, bogged down in your own negativity and pessimism.
NOT QUITE RIGHT, I was addressing 2 specific statements you made. I guess I will have to stop here because your second posting is worse than the first. You talk about “digital technology” as if it were a re-invention of a media that will always be the same no matter how we end up capturing images and sound, and it is called CINEMA. It was cinema when the first camera came out and it will always be CINEMA no matter the definition we end up shooting on. My pessimism is that people like you think CINEMA is about the camera and the technology when in fact is about how well you tell a story. But since I am a nobody, let me quote someone you can’t argue with:
Aaron Sorkin spoke in a recent interview about how filmmakers learn all about cameras and lenses and how ” I know nothing about that. I realized that I needed to learn all about storytelling, so I focused in studying Aristotle’s Poetics.”
The little I know is that it is not a new art form because it became digital. It is still CiNEMA. The reason movies suck today has nothing to do with the ” digital technology” and how NEW it is, It has to do with the fact that “capturing HD imagery” has become the main focus for the new filmmakers and as they become extremely proficient in using the new equipment they have forgotten to study a little bit of “human behavior” which is the soul of all cinematic endeavor. And as I said before: I welcome digital cinema because it allow us to spend less money shooting. I learned to cut on a flatbed and these days I would kill anyone who tried to take away my FCP. But I know that my red camera, my HVX, my letus adapter, my Zeiss lenses, my FCP are all a mean to an end and they have nothing to do with CINEMA.
And your argument fails when one thinks about plastic arts. Should we assume that because of the “new brushes” and ” new canvas” it will take awhile until we find a new Leonardo to paint the Mona Lisa?
In another words, are you really saying that digital technology is a completely new art form? Seriously? I love cinema. I am dying to go to a movie theater and see a new ” Godfather” but it has been one disappointment after another. It seems, however that we have one thing in common: you obviously love movies but you erroneously think that we are starting from scratch. Novels will be novels long after they close the last Barnes and Nobles store. I would clog the wheel if I could to keep books alive if I could, but I will take solace that good writing has NOTHING to do with the method the writer used to bring me his story. The same goes to CINEMA.
With regard to your saying, “Digital cameras allow for shots that would never before have been possible on old film stock cameras of yesteryear, driving the filmmakers of tomorrow to push the creative limits, and take the audience to places it’s never been.” Please offer this imperical conclusion to the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) or offer this conclusion to the International Cinematographers Guild (ICG). They will laugh you out the door, and they will recommend that you educate yourself about motion picture film cameras. Simply put, it’s not true. There are 35mm cameras that can fit into a glove compartment of a car, and they’ve been around for decades.
And they look just like a 35mm stuffed into a glove compartment, whereas digital cameras the size of a shoebox can produce gorgeous shots that look like they came from a panavision rig the size of a small asian car, and cost a third as much.
Could the movie “Chronicle” have been so inexpensive to make because it was shot and posted in Canada (30% tax rebate) and South Africa (40% tax rebate)? Yep, there lies the real cost savings on the movie. Not to mention the fact that the movie was populated with no-name actors, probably working for union minimums. I’ve seen the line item cost comparisions between shooting film and shooting digital. Digital is less expensive, but the savings is nowhere near 1 million dollars. Also, guess what they do when they have to archilve all of those digital files. They archive onto special high-quality archival film stocks. Yes, it’s true, you either have to buy film now or you have to buy film later. FujiFilm was just awarded a Technical Oscar for innovating an awesome nano-tech archival film stock. At the end of the day, the cost savings for shooting digital is quite small. Sorry to be the spoiler at the digi picnic, but it’s true.
JHC’s info is absolutely correct. The digital industry has done a marvelous job of perpetuation numerous fictions, including cost savings and quality. They’ve said the lies enough that the lies have become talking points adopted by virtually everyone who’s uneducated about the reality of the costs and artistic merit of digital vs. film.
Every penny saved by shooting digital is spent in the DI suite and other aspects of post. THERE ARE ZERO COSTS SAVINGS BY THE END OF THE PROJECT. IT’S BREAK EVEN.
Tax credits alone don’t account for the small budget.
And I’m not sure what film preservation outfit you work for, but the three companies I’m aware of all transfer digital stock to high quality magnetic tape cartridges, which have a 200 year shelf-life with zero degradation of stored information. If you’re talking about the film archival projects, that transfer old film stock onto new stock, that’s something completely different. I guarantee you won’t find any archival footage of modern digital movies transferred to film, as most are recorded in 30p, which doesn’t translate to film stock’s 24p.
Maybe when the industry’s digital orgasm afterglow has worn off, it can get back to making better movies with good scripts. Something that’s been sorely lacking over the past ten years or so.
Beautiful and poetic digital work is being done in nature documentaries breaking with the tradition of the documentary as grainy truth. In fact, the digital revolution has brought about a golden age for the documentary. Expect the documentary to become more of a hybrid fictional narrative. This has the potential to alter the standard Hollywood studio story formula which could do with a facelift.
“Act of Valor” was shot with a $2,500. camera. Love the movie or not, It’s wonderfully shot film. A $2,500. Canon DSLR!!!
Im all for films shot with digital cameras, but not for digital presentation. With digital projection you do not get the phi phenomenon effect, which effects how we take in a film.
This is all about economics — “Avatar” is a red herring. Digital projection now provides better picture quality for less cost than 35mm. It’s a fact of life the film snobs will not admit.
If there is any doubt that digital has overtaken film, read about Kodak and their long decine into Chapter 11.
egg tempera was “the” medium for painting for hundreds of years, till it was replaced by oil based paints in the 1550′s, and acrylics in modern times. Did the fine arts world collapse with these changes? The film world won’t either. If we want to get all retro, then most films should be black and white silents, and color films should be hand-tinted frame by frame.
Haggle all you want over this, but it all comes down to a great SCREENPLAY!
Avatar may have been innovative as all hell, but a lot of people panned the simplistic Pocahontas story.
Give me, Steve Zailian, Scorcese, Daniel Day-Lewis, other tops actors, and Roger Deakins using either technology and I’m in all the way.
I’d rather watch something these people shot on an iPhone than a amateurish film shot on the most expensive digital technology.
The revolution happened. Music is all around and easily accessible. Your rant is horribly out of touch with reality
Yay now the artists aren’t making a dime except for on the road. A couple hundred bucks split 4/5 ways. Maybe they’ll sell some CDs at their gigs, but wait, CDs are dying now, too. Most artists aren’t making sh** off downloads. The ones that are, ironically, are signed to the big, bad major labels who everybody wants to demonize. The only people who win are those who pass mp3s around for free. Viva la Revolution!
Re: digital cinema, let’s face it, most morons can’t tell the difference between sh** and shinola. These are the people who talk and munch popcorn and nachos through the whole flick. You can run digital thru filters to make it look like film stock, like Instagram only a whole movie. Fake outrage from the purists, ho hum.
In the 1980′s, when you were a 13 year old girl? Maybe the new versions of those artists are out there, you’re just to busy listening to Dylan to find them. How anyone can ever say there isn’t the variety or talent in music anymore is beyond me, how many records could you buy in the shop each week in the 1970′s? Compare that to the average persons music consumption today and what is avaliable to them if the bother to look. I bet you sound just like your parents sounded at your age, whatever that is.
24 frames per second holds an intrinsic chemistry with the way life anatomically unfolds, there is a spiritual rhythm between subject and film director. Also film is film and the other is not quite the same enough that the magic just ain’t the same. I truly believe that, for all its help technology can also erase soul and lesson the spirit…
Blowing up first from 16mm, them from super16 was never as good as original 35mm, does new digital projection technology will improve the screening for blow up productions recorded with small full HD or HDV cameras?
Actually, the seriousness of the preservation problem with digital shouldn’t be understated – it’s a big deal. Analog media, like film & paper, had proved more durable than digital time & again. Big opp for someone to figure this out.