5 ms·

> Today, those fees have expired and the original digital projectors are out of date or failing outright, servers are crashing, and each service call demands a

> Today, those fees have expired and the original digital projectors are out of date or failing outright, servers are crashing, and each service call demands a highly paid IT technician — presuming you can find one at all. So, all those promises from 20 years ago about how it will be so much cheaper to run a cinema on digital tech, no more duplicating and distributing physical film prints, no more calling out expensive maintenance staff to repair projectors with all those fiddly moving parts... plus ca change, as Jean-Luc Godard might have said. I guess in part this is connected to a broader symptom all HNers will recognize, that we live in a society that generally thinks software is free or cheap to produce, and computer-based thingies, once installed, never need any maintenance or upgrading...

Finnucane 3y ago
Cheaper for the studio, not for the theater. The studio cut their film distribution costs and outsourced the rest.
- rob74 3y ago
  One fact that still remains (and the article suspiciously doesn't mention) is that there's still less manual work involved with digital projection: no loading/unloading/changing film reels, which means reduced personnel costs.
  - OJFord 3y ago
    A bit less, but you'd be surprised how much is similar. The films are delivered on physical drives, loaded and unloaded, sent back. There's keying in timings with lights & curtains & music etc., there's checking it actually worked (because yes you're right, there isn't a projectionist sitting there the entire time). If all goes to plan it definitely is less, I suppose it's roughly the same work for 1 showing, but almost nothing for the rest. But not nothing, and obviously it does go wrong sometimes.
- steveBK123 3y ago
  Digital photography kind of was like this. The operational costs (film, development) were eliminated but the capital cost (cameras) were 5x higher and needed updating more often. A serious amateur could shoot the same film body for a decade, or even a life, with maybe some regular maintenance (fairly repairable right up through cameras made in 80s and even 90s). Maybe they had a manual focus body, then an autofocus body, and.. that was about it. The camera you were using was probably re-sellable at a decent price because the production life of any given model could run up to a decade. With digital, the leaps & bounds being made in tech caused camera purchases to be much more frequent. Say every 2 years in 2000s, every 3-4 years in 2010s, and every 4-5 years in 2020s, as the rate of change did eventually slow. Regardless, the camera body also became practically disposable, basically a write-off if damaged, and resale value plummeted due to the rate of advancement. As it worked out, if you were a heavy shooter, maybe the operational cost going to $0 actually netted you out on the equipment spend. Most light hobbyists and general vacations/weddings/birthdays sharpshooter ended up spending far more in the digital era. This lasted right up until iPhones became good enough, even indoors poorly lit, that most normies don't own a single camera (5~10 years back). Camera makers have adjusted to this new world by moving up-market, with less frequent releases, but at higher and higher price points. They understand that their main market now is hobbyists, and the decision to spend $$ vs 0 to enter the hobby is a bigger decision than spending $3k or $1.5k on a body.
  - Finnucane 3y ago
    >A serious amateur could shoot the same film body for a decade, The oldest camera I have still in working condition is a mid-1950s vintage Speed Graphic.
    - potta_coffee 3y ago
      I have several working cameras from the 40's and 50's and two fantastic Pentax cameras from the 60's and 70's respectively. The newer Pentax is a K1000 that I've had completely refurbished and it works like it just came out of the box.
      - 3y ago
HDThoreaun 3y ago
Film is incredibly expensive. Digital can be expensive but still cheaper than the massive amount of film that was used in analog theaters.
rintakumpu 3y ago
From moviegoers point-of-view it has made a world of difference. For a smaller release the number of film copies we had in circulation here in Finland was miniscule and there was no chance of seeing those movies outside the bigger cities. With DCPs we've seen a resurgence of independent and/or countryside cinemas.

Finnucane 3y ago

Cheaper for the studio, not for the theater. The studio cut their film distribution costs and outsourced the rest.

rob74 3y ago
One fact that still remains (and the article suspiciously doesn't mention) is that there's still less manual work involved with digital projection: no loading/unloading/changing film reels, which means reduced personnel costs.
- OJFord 3y ago
  A bit less, but you'd be surprised how much is similar. The films are delivered on physical drives, loaded and unloaded, sent back. There's keying in timings with lights & curtains & music etc., there's checking it actually worked (because yes you're right, there isn't a projectionist sitting there the entire time). If all goes to plan it definitely is less, I suppose it's roughly the same work for 1 showing, but almost nothing for the rest. But not nothing, and obviously it does go wrong sometimes.
steveBK123 3y ago
Digital photography kind of was like this. The operational costs (film, development) were eliminated but the capital cost (cameras) were 5x higher and needed updating more often. A serious amateur could shoot the same film body for a decade, or even a life, with maybe some regular maintenance (fairly repairable right up through cameras made in 80s and even 90s). Maybe they had a manual focus body, then an autofocus body, and.. that was about it. The camera you were using was probably re-sellable at a decent price because the production life of any given model could run up to a decade. With digital, the leaps & bounds being made in tech caused camera purchases to be much more frequent. Say every 2 years in 2000s, every 3-4 years in 2010s, and every 4-5 years in 2020s, as the rate of change did eventually slow. Regardless, the camera body also became practically disposable, basically a write-off if damaged, and resale value plummeted due to the rate of advancement. As it worked out, if you were a heavy shooter, maybe the operational cost going to $0 actually netted you out on the equipment spend. Most light hobbyists and general vacations/weddings/birthdays sharpshooter ended up spending far more in the digital era. This lasted right up until iPhones became good enough, even indoors poorly lit, that most normies don't own a single camera (5~10 years back). Camera makers have adjusted to this new world by moving up-market, with less frequent releases, but at higher and higher price points. They understand that their main market now is hobbyists, and the decision to spend $$ vs 0 to enter the hobby is a bigger decision than spending $3k or $1.5k on a body.
- Finnucane 3y ago
  >A serious amateur could shoot the same film body for a decade, The oldest camera I have still in working condition is a mid-1950s vintage Speed Graphic.
  - potta_coffee 3y ago
    I have several working cameras from the 40's and 50's and two fantastic Pentax cameras from the 60's and 70's respectively. The newer Pentax is a K1000 that I've had completely refurbished and it works like it just came out of the box.
    - 3y ago

HDThoreaun 3y ago

Film is incredibly expensive. Digital can be expensive but still cheaper than the massive amount of film that was used in analog theaters.

rintakumpu 3y ago

From moviegoers point-of-view it has made a world of difference. For a smaller release the number of film copies we had in circulation here in Finland was miniscule and there was no chance of seeing those movies outside the bigger cities. With DCPs we've seen a resurgence of independent and/or countryside cinemas.