With DLP technology developed by TI, in your opinion, how will this technology impact the use of color film by the movie industry? When one couples DLP with the move by many commercial, wedding and portrait photographers to digital, how will these two factors ultimately impact the availability of color film for art photography?
Judging by the amount of complaints at several film festivals, it appears the biggest problem is putting final colour adjustment at the mercy of the projector operator. So while acquisition is happening more often using HD video, there is still final output happening as tape (or files) to film. In fact, there have been a few new file/tape to film output machines brought onto the market just in the last couple years.
Commercial, wedding, and portrait photographers are delivering content to be played back on their clients personal viewing devices, and not on theatre. There is no real direct comparison for these markets. Another example would be news gathering, which really only needs fast processing and uploads, either for broadcast and/or internet distribution. Neither market has needed film for motion imaging for well over a decade (or three).
Distribution, as well as a need for more skilled (i.e.: higher paid) digital projector operators, means some theatres don't see a good profit level moving from film projection to digital projection. Studios can control distribution and delivery of film cannisters, though there are more developments trying to ease digital distribution. Basically this issue is not fully resolved yet.
Then there is the moving target of High Definition. What consumers can now purchase at Best Buy or similar stores, will go to even greater realms in the future. Same thing is happening with DLP and other digital motion picture technology. Partially this moving target is the reason why some television shows and many feature films still start with film capture. It is possible to re-purpose content for greater future standards not yet in place, meaning re-releases or syndication possibilities. This also shows why new telecine and tape/file to film transfers are still a huge market.
How does all this impact still films? Some newer film technology development has occurred with motion picture films. There might be some trickle down of technology. If there is a greater difference in film and chemical sales for motion imaging in the near future, there might be a possibility of still photo labs, or mini-labs, moving towards different chemistry. Again, it would be a question of economic feasibility. While the processes for making and developing motion and still films are similar, the end results are unique enough for little cross-over of technology. Basically, I don't see demand for motion imaging films and chemicals, either to a greater or lesser extent, ever impacting still film sales; they really are very different market segments, with very different needs.
If I would worry about anything, it might be the decrease overall in the amount of E-6 processing labs around the world. An extreme case would be like Kodachrome, where now only one lab in the world processes that, though Dwayne's indicate about 1000 rolls per day being processed. In an extreme case, if we had only one E-6 place in the world, and if they only did 35mm sizes, then it would definitely be well past the time of finding other ways to do colour imaging.
You might want to go to rogerebert.com and ask the answer man. I know he has written articles that were in the Suntimes a while back with his thoughts on new technology in the movie industry.
I thought all of his reviews and articles were archived at his site but a quick search yielded nothing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks