Talk:Digital cinema

message: Perhaps is would be best to split Digital Cinema into "Digital Filmmaking," the process of producing film via digital techniques, and Digital Cinema, a method of distributing and presenting motion pictures.
This would be best because movies shot on film may be distributed digitally, while films made digitally (including Star Wars Episode III, Sin City, etc.) have been primarily distributed through film prints. In fact, even if digital projectors become the standard many filmmakers like the look of film and will source material on film for digital projection. 216.64.26.114 11:44, August 26, 2005 (PST)
::Agree. I'll put a proposal on the main page Fitch 08:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. There is already a lot here that overlaps with the digital cinematography article.--Onejaguar 00:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest edit, on August first under economics, while good for formatting, highlights an older entry that really should be under digital cinematography. And has POV problems. It repeats as gospel truth the idea that DC is much cheaper than film production/distribution. StevenBradford 13:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split topic

message: Regarding bias:  The use of broadly perjerative terms is troubling.  For instance, "stillborn digital revolution" and "at this point, no movie directors are seriously using HD cameras to make theatrical films."  Huh?  What about Spike Lee, Steven Soderberg, Michael Mann, David Fincher, George Lucas, Bryan Singer, James Cameron, Lars von Trier, and Robert Rodriguez?  One failure like "Shark Boy" does not a "stillborn" digital revolution make.
(The author's petulant response to the post alleging bias doesn't help his argument against his bias:  denigrating phrases like "weird culture," "adolescent fantasy," "wishful thinking" and "loudmouth dreamer?"  Whew!  Let's talk rationally here.  I doubt the many millions of dollars being invested by films studios, filmmakers and technology companies into evolving video into worthy competition for film involve wishful thinking, unless they're financially incompetent.)
Conversely, some of the ADVANTAGES of digital cinema could also be taken issue with as stated.  The "digital cinematography" W-entry claims that the digital format actually does not, in the overall, save money in production, and cites concrete reasons.  Which one is right?  Which claim about digital cameras' superiority in low-light situations is accurate?
These two articles have been suggested for merger.  I suggest a review of the facts and general attitude beforehand. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 65.42.107.58 (talk • contribs) 12:31, December 29, 2005
:Lucas.. Example: Ep III 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 08:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry, seems like there are facts and bias in dispute in this article 

message: This article is currently a mixture of useful information and material that ranges from mistaken to nonsensical. This article desperately needs contributions from experts. -- Karada 22:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's worse is that people keep adding stuff about digital cinematography! I just don't have the time to merge it properly there, so I'm not deleting it, but it needs to go! And the above discussion is all about digital cinematography, too, not digital cinema. I don't think digital cinema should be associated with that kind of attitude. —Wikibarista 06:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs a lot of work 

message: Some of the above comments are rather absurd, but also rather lacking in... detail.
Let's do some quick math for fun. Say we're shooting a two-hour feature film, with a comfy 8:1 shooting ratio (for every 8 feet of film we expose, 1 foot ends up screen). That's 3600*2*8 = 57,600 seconds, at 18 inches per second (24fps, 4-perf = 0.75in), comes out to 86,400 feet of film. A quick check of FotoKem's web site doesn't show a price list, but a little Googling turns up a price list for their services to the USC cinema school  which should give us a decent start. $0.10/ft for basic negative, another $0.20/ft for one-strike dailies... that's $25,920 to develop all our film and give us a complete set of daily prints to go over in preparation for picking what to edit with.
A little more Googling, here's some company selling filmstock ; a 1000-foot reel of, say, the 250D costs $705.64; so let's say $60,967.30 to buy all the film negative in the first place.
Even if we give a huge amount of wiggle room on these figures, we're looking at something on the order of $100,000 for a huge amount of film. Double it and we're still looking at a measly $200,000. Now, compare this to the costs of talent, labor, insurance, location fees, set construction, equipment rental, electrical, post, etc etc. These things add up, especially with the big names... ten million dollars, thirty million, a hundred million, two hundred million?
Now, if you're a no-budget amateur production, sure, that film cost is big, and since it's consumable you can't borrow it from a buddy for free. Going digital can be a big budget-saver for a small production. It can also be really convenient if you're a big-budget CGI-fest, as you can skip film scanning. But the cost of film over tape doesn't seem likely to cause a significant production to decide to run fewer takes; the cost of labor is going to be a much bigger factor.
Disclaimer: just an ex-film student, not a real producer. :) --Brion 08:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-the-cuff calculations 

message: I posted some warnings at the top of this talk page, hopefully to curb the abuse. From WP:CIV
 —Wikibarista 15:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is getting ridiculous 

message: While earlier presentations have been recorded, it should be noted that the popular introduction of digital cinema to the public was on June 18, 1999 with the digital premiere of George Lucas's "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace."  The movie was shown in four digital theatres in the US, two on the West Coast and two on the East Coast. These were Loew's Meadow 6 Theater in Secaucus, NJ, Loew's Route 4 Theater in Paramus, NJ, Pacific Theatre's Winnetka-21 in Chatsworth, CA and the AMC-14 theatre in Burbank, CA.  Two different projectors were used, one on each coast: a prototype DLP-Cinema projector and a JVC ILA-12K projector.  These projectors were driven by Pluto servers storing the movie in a lightly compressed format. 
Karagosian 05:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggested addition to "claims to significant events" 

message: When will we see 4K monitors go on sale for the consumer market?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.112 (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  4K Digital TV for the home? 

message: Here is an article in the Wall Street Journal that can be worked into the article:
*Universal, Disney Back Rollout of Digital Cinema Equipment --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article for use

message: I would really like more on the method of projection in this wiki. It is my understanding that the projectors use a strong light that passes through transmissive LCD panels. Are there different panels for each primary color (R,G,B)? Is it one panel? You get the idea.
:I have developed a system that culminates three diode pumped lasers into a single white beam. I then use two spinning mirrors to create a raster that scans across a transmissive LCD screen. The light passes through and carries the image from the LCD to the screen. Being that laser light is a zero point source, it needs no lens to focus the image that it carries. You can see the project that inspired me to try this on instructables. http://www.instructables.com/id/Laser-Image-Projector/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.98.22 (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The area of technology seems sparse to me. 

message: Copied from a comment  on my talk page:
*http://en.wordpress.com/tag/digital-cinema-events/
*http://digitalcinemabuyersguide.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/dvidea-at-cine-expo-2008/
*http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/PR.aspx?newsID=865
*http://www.d2cinema.com/
*http://www.cinemaexpo.com/filmexpo/photos/pdf/A_CEI09_TSB.pdf
*http://www.madcornishprojectionist.co.uk/news-europe.php
*http://fullres.blogspot.com/2008/06/dvidea-introduces-new-functionalities.html
*http://www.cineserver.nl/
*http://www.manice.org/ 
--Ronz (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked through each link, and I don't think any of them meet WP:RS.  Mostly, this is just self-published information from Dvidea, or discussions about Dvidea in blogs. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to consider as references

message: One piece of information I am looking for which is not in this article: what is the typical cost, to the movie theater, to buy a "digital print", that is to say, rent the digital file to load into the digital projector? I was briefly a movie projectionist, in 2005. I learned that the cost to the theater for one 20 minute roll of analog film is $6,000 (US dollars). So, for a 10 reel movie, like Alexander, the cost to the movie theater is $60,000 per copy of the movie. Does anybody have ballpark figures for the digital equivalent, and can put those figures in the article?68.186.59.182 (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Typical cost to the theater for a digital print?

message: There are several references to "VPF", but no clear explanation of what exactly this is, or even what the acronym stands for. Apparently, in the Virtual Print Fee business model the distributor pays a third party to install digital cinema equipment in a theater. The theater pays the distributor the full price for each "print", and the distributor uses the money they save (since digital distribution is so much cheaper than traditional film prints) to pay the third party which provided the digital cinema equipment. Any experts willing to add something like this to the article?
I'm not familiar with Digital Cinema myself, but here some possible references:
* What is a VPF? http://www.mkpe.com/digital_cinema/faqs/#vpf
* What is the VPF (Virtual Print Fee) Model? http://www.artsalliancemedia.com/vpf/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtwernbold (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of VPF (Virtual Print Fee) 

message: ""Multipurpose", and cameras capable of recording 5K, such as the RED EPIC"
The red epic can't record in 5K - it captures STILLS in 5K.
From RED.com
"With the innate ability to capture 5K REDCODE RAW stills and 4K motion"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joffboff (talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong abut red 

message: The article is about digital cinema. If there is a close enough relation between HD TV and digital cinema to warrant the presence of the block, that relation should be elaborated in the article.
Dick Grune (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there a block on HD TV at the end of this article? 

message: Hi
there seem to be much more discussion going on here than on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digital_Cinema_Package, so I'd like to draw the attention of the community to my suggestion  Talk:Digital_Cinema_Package#additional_resources to add two resources.
Because I authored both resources I suggest and because I'm a new contributor, it might look as spam. I hope it won't because the resources are neutral and interesting, and because I won't be doing the edit myself !
cheers  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charbonstudio (talk • contribs) 07:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  additional external resources for Digital Cinema Package... which I authored 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Digital cinema. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130319052633/http://www.doremilabs.com:80/downloads/manuals/DCP-2000_and_DCP-2K4_User_Manual_001822_v1_2.pdf to http://www.doremilabs.com/downloads/manuals/DCP-2000_and_DCP-2K4_User_Manual_001822_v1_2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Digital cinema. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140101065704/http://www.dolby.com/gb/en/professional/hardware/cinema/cinema-servers/dss200.html?utm_campaign=cin-dss200-pro&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_content=dss200-v1 to http://www.dolby.com/gb/en/professional/hardware/cinema/cinema-servers/dss200.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326214343/http://www.natoonline.org/pdfs/NATO%20Digital%20Cinema%20System%20Requirements%20-%20release%202%201.pdf to http://www.natoonline.org/pdfs/NATO%20Digital%20Cinema%20System%20Requirements%20-%20release%202%201.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113223151/http://www.boxoffice.com/latest-news/2013-04-16-sonys-digital-cinema-momentum-continues-with-record-number-of-4k-projectors-shipped-eight-years-of-continuous-growth to http://www.boxoffice.com/latest-news/2013-04-16-sonys-digital-cinema-momentum-continues-with-record-number-of-4k-projectors-shipped-eight-years-of-continuous-growth
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150812075520/http://pic.templetons.com/brad/photo/pixels.html to http://pic.templetons.com/brad/photo/pixels.html/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under cons we have:"Digital cinemas' efficiency of storing images has a downside. The speed and ease of modern digital editing processes threatens to give editors and their directors, if not an embarrassment of choice then at least a confusion of options, potentially making the editing process, with this 'try it and see' philosophy, lengthier rather than shorter.[40]:63 Because the equipment needed to produce digital feature films can be obtained more easily than celluloid, producers could inundate the market with cheap productions and potentially dominate the efforts of serious directors. Because of the quick speed in which they are filmed, these stories sometimes lack essential narrative structure."[40]:66–67
This doesn't belong anywhere in this article.Longinus876 (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pros and Cons 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: What is the reason for the creation of a redirect from "6K" to this lemma? --Angerdan (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for redirection from "6K" ? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jnolan27 (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History and Theory of New Media