4.2.2. versus 4.2.0

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Kevin;

You cut my quote short...

Originally Posted by Alexander Ibrahim

Theaters survive by providing a better experience than people have at home. I'd ask if that will remain the case in the future. I suppose it will because, ostensibly, theaters can throw more money at the problem of presentation fidelity.

So my argument is based on the fidelity of presentation. So we aren't talking about the same thing.

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

I'd say it's the already case that in some ways you can get a better viewing experience at home, so theaters are mainly surviving because people like to get out of the house once in a while.

I agree with your point, but I think that ultimately there has to be a reason to do any particular thing "out of the house."

You might choose a restaurant, because of the service, and perhaps because they might be cooking something you can't, or are too lazy, to cook for yourself.

Theaters get chosen because the projection looks and sounds better than people get at home. Enough so that people are willing to put up with all the other problems.

I would definitely agree that the gap is narrowing, and that many moviegoers will not be able to appreciate or even perceive the differences as a result.

With millions of households owning HDTVs and now starting to buy HD disc players, the quality of the home viewing experience is increasing while the experience of going to theaters is arguably declining with all the ads and previews and other distractions.

I agree and disagree.

Some people can't tell the difference between VHS and DVD, and the change from DVD to HD DVD is far subtler. That isn't to say I think its subtle. My point is that some people are apparently using sonar to view films.

Film projection, when done well, is so much better than HD DVD playback that it isn't fair to compare the two. Digital projection pales to well done film projection, but is actually far better than film projection at your typical multiplex.

OK, I am going off track. The point is that there is a marked improvement in sound and picture fidelity in theaters.

I agree with the distractions you mention wholeheartedly. I think that theaters will get smaller as a result.

4-20 seats. You'll reserve them with your own private group and watch whatever movie you want. Possibly with dinner served.

So, the theater business will change, but there will still be a theater business.

One good thing about the EX1 is that it records at close to the maximum quality most people are going to be able to see outside movie theaters, plus you could potentially archive the master footage on Blu-ray discs and be able to play those. This is a handy coincidence for anything besides big-screen distribution, and should make it a good camera for projects going directly to customers (both home and corporate).

Well most HD TV's are actually 720p, so for many of your HD capable audience the EX1 exceeds the resolution of their setup.

You may have noticed however that "Hollywood" DVD's typically look better than most videographer's DVD's. A lot of that is accounted for in the craftsmanship, but a non-trivial amount of that improvement comes from film.

We are going to notice that a camera like the EX1 gets us closer... and may even match the "Hollywood" look for DVD or other SD release... but on HD DVD or Blue Ray there will still be a gap.

For some reason those people in Hollywood keep making their stuff better just as we improve our stuff. Go figure.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Alexander Ibrahim

Theaters get chosen because the projection looks and sounds better than people get at home. Enough so that people are willing to put up with all the other problems.

That plus the novelty of seeing movies when they're first released, which is the main reason I bother to go to theaters any more. If first-run movies were released simultaneously on DVD the theater attendance would probably drop significantly, which of course is part of why that isn't done. And if quality was the main reason people go to theaters, shouldn't more theaters and movies be IMAX by now? I agree that projection experience is a factor but not necessarily the only important one - I'll take the comfort of my living room over a movie theater most days.

P.S. Sorry about not fully quoting you.

[Thomas Smet]

And you guys win the award for the going the most off topic today.

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

That plus the novelty of seeing movies when they're first released, which is the main reason I bother to go to theaters any more.

<picard voice on>
Agreed.
</picard>

If first-run movies were released simultaneously on DVD the theater attendance would probably drop significantly, which of course is part of why that isn't done.

I talked about this with Mark Cuban, and I suggested closing the window all the way, DVD, HD DVD, Blue Ray, Pay per view- all out on the same day as the various theatrical formats. He didn't immediately call me an idiot, which from him is a compliment.

Use a sliding scale for prices... so that an opening weekend DVD might be $100 to buy, and an opening weekend HD DVD might be $300. Slide the price down after the film closes in theaters until it reaches a price near the current average.

You sustain the model by building value add into the pricing. If you buy an opening day DVD, then there are no special features. In truth most of that stuff is still being posted when the movie is released anyway.

Later, around the time DVD's would normally be released, you put a special edition out there that contains the extras we get on DVD right now. The early purchasers get the new package (which they have already paid for in fact) by trading in their old discs.

What about piracy? All the discs are watermarked. Forget any actual copy protection, just alter key scenes of the film with unique identifiers- like they do for film prints. If a pirate version surfaces we all know who purchased the original. In other words replace restrictions with accountability.

That's just a rough sketch... there are a lot more details. Still you can see where the idea went. (i.e. nowhere)

And if quality was the main reason people go to theaters, shouldn't more theaters and movies be IMAX by now? I agree that projection experience is a factor but not necessarily the only important one - I'll take the comfort of my living room over a movie theater most days.

No. Remember that most theaters are in the candy, popcorn and soda business. They don't care about movies except insofar as they get you in the door to buy candy, popcorn and soda.

IMAX is expensive in terms of real estate and projection equipment.

The trend I think we are seeing is digital projection. Most theaters have very badly maintained and operated projectors. Don't even start with the issues of film degradation. Digital is a huge boon for theater owners, because it more reliably gives the same performance over and over, reduces maintenance and labor costs.

Before that we saw THX and Dolby certifications for theaters. Of course that was only because it drew in more of the folk who wanted to see the summer blockbusters.

Still.. to even get that much care for image quality from NATO, studios have had to share more and more of the gate. Studios do that because a lot of their follow on sales (cable, TV etc.) are structured based on the performance of the film at the box office.

P.S. Sorry about not fully quoting you.

No worries, so long as we eventually talk about the same thing I'm good. I want to talk to you not at you.

Besides in this case it led into an interesting place. As everyone can see, I love to meander along and let conversations lead wherever.

So, Thomas- I suppose I'll win that particular award quite a few times.

I'm always happy to move to another forum if its more appropriate... just too lazy to actually start that process. Still if you build it I'll meander appropriately.

[Chris Hurd]

I love to meander along and let conversations lead wherever.

Which is called hijacking a thread, because we don't care about those people who came here looking for a technical discussion about 4.2.2. versus 4.2.0 -- but it doesn't matter much anymore since it's been pretty well beat to death at this point. Closed and locked,