Re: Kodak shrinks with changing times

[Richard Knoppow <dickburk@ix.netcom.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "etienne garbaux" <photographeur@nerdshack.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Kodak shrinks with changing times


> Ross wrote:
>
> > How far are we from a central "release print" distribution 
> > point without
> > even the hard drive transportation requirement?
> Some theaters here do "pay-per-view"-style events, usually 
> prize fights and other sporting events (although they also 
> market themselves as fancy for-rent videoconference 
> facilities).  The programming for these services is 
> delivered by satellite or fiber optics.  Most theaters 
> these days seem to be running filler material from digital 
> projectors (in this case, the projectors are not yet up to 
> feature-film standards -- too dim, and you can see the 
> pixels).  There is no reason the same channels couldn't be 
> used to distribute encrypted movies.  Theaters that paid 
> the license fee would receive the decryption key and could 
> put the release on their in-house hard drives.
>
> One can envision the day when the large theater chains 
> rationalize the viewing schedules for all of their 
> theaters and do central distribution by satellite in real 
> time, eliminating the need for projectionists entirely. 
> (The trend is long underway -- union projectionists are 
> long gone and these days, the average multiplex with 
> platter feed projectors only has one or two projectionists 
> running the whole thing.)
>
> Best regards,
>
> etienne
    Most likely the distribution will be via optical fiber 
which is both more secure and has greater bandwidth than 
satellite. Since the material will be on a central server 
there is no need to adjust the screening schedual. It will 
work like internet streaming, each program will start at the 
beginning at any time. The technology exists now.
    I must say that the recent remarks by some about the 
relatively superior quality of digital vs: film presentation 
is partly due to the poor quality of a lot of prints made 
now. Film weave seems to be built into some prints due to 
the speed at which the printers operate now, the same for 
the slightly blury prints which seem to be common. Although 
both negative and print film are superior to those of the 
past the release prints of 50 or more years ago are often 
sharper and steadier than modern ones.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com