Time is running out for theaters that haven’t made the switch to digital projection. Studios’ use of conventional 35 mm prints “is projected to cease in the United States and other major markets by the end of next year, with global cutoff likely to happen by the end of 2015,” according to the latest IHS Screen Digest Cinema Intelligence Service report. There’s still a ways to go: The firm says that 51.5% of worldwide screens had digital projectors at the end of 2011, an increase of 82% from 2010. But IHS notes that soon it won’t be sufficient to have a digital projector. Director Peter Jackson is lobbying for theater owners pay for the software upgrade needed to show his upcoming The Hobbit films at 48 frames a second. That’s the speed at which he’s shooting the movies, up from the conventional 24 frames. At the end of 2011 about 50,000 of the world’s 63,825 digital screens, including 19,000 in the U.S., would be capable of being upgraded. Theaters with Series 2 DLP and Sony projectors will be able to accommodate Jackson. Pressure to upgrade won’t abate after The Hobbit. James Cameron plans to shoot his follow-ups to Avatar at 60 frames a second. (Incidently, IHS’ figure on the worldwide total of digital venues is slightly higher than the 2011 tally from the MPAA, which counted 62,684, of which 44% were in the U.S. and Canada.)
For the most part the IHS report covers the ground we explored at April’s CinemaCon. But it has some interesting factoids regarding the transition from celluloid to digital prints. The firm says that at one point distributors used 13B feet of film a year, equal to five trips to the moon and back. By 2010, though, film usage was down to about 5B feet. One big reason for the shift: The price of silver, heavily used in film processing, soared from $5 an ounce to about $25 this year. The heat is on for all theaters to switch to digital projection.


Oh dear. People are going to FREAK when they see the “daytime soap look” of the higher frame rate.
Depressing.
So now there is TRULY no reason to go to the cinema.
That’s right, Tradition! Soon you will no longer have anywhere available for you to pay and see dirty, scratched, worn film prints. The cinema experience is not complete without frame jumps and ghosted images from a fifty year old projector scratching the film further…
Do you really believe that digital is without problems? I was just at a theater where the showing had to be cancelled because the projector blew a board. The second time it’s happened to me this year. At least a crappy print will get past a bad patch, and can be repaired by a projectionist with a high school education. Remember, cinema is a technology that’s lasted 100 years — for good reason. It’s reliable.
I know first hand it has problems. You’re right–a crappy print can get a crappy fix and you can still watch it without much delay. But that’s the point: it’s still a crappy print. I have had to cancel about the same amount of shows in digital houses as 35mm. But I have presented thousands of showings of movies deep into their run that look perfect in digital when the film print would have been in terrible condition.
My main objection is to the idea that somehow there is a magical “depth of color” on film that cannot be replicated by digital. That may have been true in 1997; it is not the case now.
Not true. Films look is far superior and digital presentation will never ba able to match what film can do, not now, not ever.Also, film effects the subconcience in a way that digital will never be able to do, in turn effecting the way audiences perceive the story.
Ummmm, ahhh…yawn…suddenly I feel so sleepy…
“Director Peter Jackson is lobbying for theater owners pay for the software upgrade” LOL….good luck with that. I gonna love it when Peter Jackson’s 60fps ego trip flops.
I had no idea Peter Jackson controlled worldwide cinema. I thought James Cameron controlled worldwide cinema.
Today’s properly set up digital projectors have better sound and picture than most of us have ever seen. The modern digital picture reminds me of the way 70 mm presentations were at the movie palaces of old. I agree that the higher frame rate looks like daytime TV.
Today’s properly set up FILM projectors have better sound and picture than most of us have ever seen. Anyone that thinks dirt, scratches and splices are part of the film experience have been going to the wrong theatres. And as for my 50-year old projector, it will still be running like a top ten years from now after today’s digital projectors have all littered the scrapyard. I’m not against digital cinema – it’s here to stay. But it has far less to do with improving the movie going experience than it does about increasing profits for the “film” distributors.
I think the reels for a 35mm movie cost about $1000 each. The digital copies are far cheaper. It is incredible how long the 35mm projector stayed in use. I guess about a century. Not too many items in your home or office have changed as little as the motion picture projector.
“35″mm fading out… (sigh)
Christopher Nolan says film looks better. I agree. Very sad.
Nolan was talking about shooting on film, not necessarily exhibition.
The higher frame rate does indeed produce a noticeable soap-opera style effect. It is not a pleasant effect. It is annoying and distracting. Some people won’t notice (because they don’t go to the movies much, or they just don’t care) but a lot of people will, and I can’t imagine they will be happy. Peter Jackson is using this as a gimmick to promote his movie but it has the potential to become an annoying and expensive folly. Remember all those awful 3d post conversions? Imagine what a high frame rate will look like in the hands of directors who are less tech savvy and meticulous than Peter Jackson and James Cameron. It’s gonna be a disaster.
“Directors who are less tech savvy” or directors with less resources and money to work with?
I doubt if 48 or 60 frames-per-second will amount to anything. Most people will not see anything better, and as others pointed out, there’s no great incentive for theatres to pay for this “upgrade”. Theatre chains can spend their money better by upgrading their other theatres to digital first, then we’ll see. I’d like to see more of the reperatory classic films converted to DCP so that when the changeover is done, we can still see those great classic films on the big screen. Sony has already done a great job by making DCP’s available on Taxi Driver, Das Boot, etc. I recently saw Duck Soup projected on a giant screen with a DCP and it blew me away. A 1933 picture never looked so good. I’m a film guy from way back, but digital projection properly done is superb.
Chris Nolan did not like his films shown digitally, it wasn’t just about film being better to shoot on.
Welp, looks like all you lucky assholes with “Film” degrees now know what it was like for all those saps with a “B.A. in Telecommunications.”
Is that the same James Cameron that guaranteed 3D digital projection would bring a 75% increase in audience attendance? Ya, let’s listen to filmmakers. They know all about the cinema exhibition business. 2k projectors, 4k projectors, 3D projectors, 48 fps upgrades, 60 fps upgrades . . . and now they discover the huge cost of replacing digi projector bulbs. What’s the result? The exhibitors are bleeding red, and attendance is down. Time for the exhibitors to push back !!!
I care about story, not the medium.
Film has always had TEXTURE. Holding strips of film, you could see the emulsion. The grain will be gone. It’s okay to do experiments with cinema; it’s a legacy. 3D, Cinerama, TODD-A-O, IMAX, CinemaScope. And it’s nice to see adventurous independents using hi-res video to create. But the film experience cannot be duplicated. You can come close, but it’s not the same. It will be a poorer world for it. 3D is an interesting format, but I hope it will never become the norm. The only film I would preserve in that format in all my years of film scavenging is HUGO. As a fad it’s okay, but please. I spent my youth searching out revival houses like the Elgin and The Thalia. The Carnegie Hall Cinema. MoMA. It was an adventure. And I tried my hand at 8mm, Super 8 and 16mm, with wonderful success and personal pride. Digital projection has come a long way, and will probably improve. Most of my movies are watched at home now. The theatrical experience is just not what it once was. And I really miss the adventure of finding classic films all around new york city.
Well this is disappointing. Film has such a better quality to it than digital, and it’s just a better copy to watch. I’m very disappointed in this step of the film industry.
@Tradition: Yeah, no reason except for, you know, the 70 foot screens and room shaking sound equipment.
I am reminded of the silver shortage/price spike (due to speculators) back in the late 1970′s that almost killed the home 16mm/Super 8mm market for classic films.
BLACKHAWK FILMS was hurt big-time, and some of the other distributors actually printed B&W films on color stock!
A film degree program teaches you how to make films using a variety of formats. Yes, students learn to shoot on film, but they also learn about digital. The majority of film schools have already made the switch to all digital. And it’s not just the shooting part, a film degree is about everything related to film: lighting, directing, writing, sound, editing, etc. So, no, a film degree isn’t suddenly worthless.
Digital looks horrible in theaters. Whats next will they take away our twizzlers and popcorn? We already have to watch commercials in many theaters… No reason to go to the theater now. Just wait for the DVDs.
This is going to kill most small town theaters. I live in a town under 10,000. I know the theater owner is looking at having to invest over $250k to convert to digtal. In a town of this size it not worth it. Would take forever to pay for this investment. We where without a theater for near 18 years before they reopen a single screen theater in to a three screen theater that is currently open. Know for a fact that they dont have the money for this up grade. They will be hard pressed to get a loan for it too. There is a effort to help them raise the money, but don’t think it will work. Digtal is fine to a point, but is the final death blow to many small town theaters that can’t justify the cost of going digtal. A sad day indeed!!
Film students, (Cinema Studies it’s sometimes called) for years now, have worked with digital film and projection. It’s a lot cheaper. Pity most of the films are shite.
Didn’t Tarantino say he’d stop making movies if they stopped projecting film? Does this mean no Kill Bill 3?
We’re forgetting that who we all have to thank for the death of film and filmmaking, as it truly should be (with FILM), is the one-idea wonder, George Lucas. His push to get rid of celluloid and switch to digital (aka video) caused so many theatres in the US to close in the last couple of years because they couldn’t afford to convert to digital, and make it very difficult for filmmakers who aren’t huge to even be able to shoot on film. Roger Ebert said that when compared the functions of the brain watching film vs. digital; with digital, it’s like your brain goes into a trance, a sleep if you will, while the flicker of actual frames of film one after another is stimulating to the brain, like watching a dream. As Tradition said, there really is no reason to go to the cinema anymore now… you can project a DVD at home. It really is pretty much the same thing. If only MaxiVision 48 had taken off.
Shut the hell up!
Gosh. I’m sad to see the art of film projection become an endangered species, but you can’t blame it all on one person. I’m sick to death of Lucas-bashing. People just want someone to blame, and it’s pathetic. The world is embracing digital projection, and filmmakers are taking it one-by-one, and enthusiastically at that.
I shoot and process my own Super 8mm, and you don’t hear me bitching to Lucas, Fincher, Scorsese, Soderbergh, etc.
And don’t say things like going to the cinema is no better than DVD at home. The social experience of sharing a movie for the first time in a room full of strangers will never diminish.
So…out of curiousity, how recent is this report? Is it more recent than David Hancock’s report in November that said (essentially) the exact same things or is that report where these facts and figures are coming from? If there is a more recent write-up on this digital/analogue issue, I would really like to read it or look into it.
Read the article again. Jackson is 48FPS. Cameron is 60FPS. Points made with incorrect facts make you look stupid, stupid.
GREAT! Now movies will look like TV. Just what we’ve been waiting for!