It's about time. Better image quality, no tape degridation, cheaper (for them and hopefully us), potentially faster releases, et cetera. Possibly by the end of the year. Article.

it will only get better, but the theatre will never have my couch.

one other advantage is the medium of distribution to the theaters across the country, this will in the future enable movie makers to transmit the entire movie over a secure connection to the theaters.......I did read that the theaters are quiet opposed to this idea as they can then be monitored very closely

Man, 'film' will soon be 'antique'

^ definitely a good point about monitoring. my buddy worked at a theatre in high school and they would show films before they were allowed to, etc.

we're in a world that can monitor every keystroke and action you make behind an IP address. my ex-fiancee found that out the hard way! LOL

Oh dear.

Ugh... Raindance... I just got a chance to read that article - everyone else seems pleased with the idea of theatres going digital. I'm not.

Digital audio - I'm all for... the bandwidth requirements for that we've been able to provide for years (~1.4 Mb/s for stereo) but video still has to be seriously compressed, both for player/pipe bandwidth and for media capacity. Uncompressed video (completely uncompressed, though Betacam gets around this by running the color info at half the video subcarrier - see also: 4:2:2) at standard TV video resolution requires ~31.0Mb/s (video only), and I would sincerely hope that they would use a much higher video resolution (I'd rather not be looking at pixels the size of my torso!)... and IMAX? Fuggedaboutit, to carry their 65mm negs at their rated resolution, you'd need something that could pump out 4320Mb/s, which would fill up your huge home hard drive in a minute and a half, and require it to spin at ~216000 RPM.

So in the end, we'll end up with more MPEG-looking compression, which is fine for adult web sites but terrible for theatre/home theatre viewing. More macroblocks and group of pictures creepy crawlies - oh joy!

About the only benefits of digital delivery of new movies are lowered costs to the studio (more money for Universal and Touchstone!) and for the viewer - no jump or weave (vertical and horizontal image shake, respectively) but at the cost of a pixelated image with crawling blacks and blocks of colour.

Bren R.

I guess I'm with Bren on this one. And Bren, thank you sincerely for lending your technical expertise to those of us who are, um, not rocket scientists. I learn from you, and I appreciate that.

This news represents another event in the demise of traditional cinema, not only from a technical standpoint, but from a marketing one as well.

If I understand Bren (dubious, but plausible), the technology is not there yet and may be some distance off to allow theatres to display a high-fidelity image digitally given the size of the screen. At the same time, Home Theatre is maturing rapidly, with many people using projection systems that allow them to see HD images in sizes that (seriously) approach those of your local multiplex.

So, the incremental quality difference in going to the theatre is being reduced to the point where the only advantage is being able to view something "sooner"; I have long been unwilling to give up my couch, my beer, and my schedule to see movies in theatres (with a very few exceptions).

And if digital distribution is a reality, why would movie distributors NOT want to go directly to capable, ready consumers?

In short, I think pay-per-view killed the multiplex star. The movie house is dead.

It's not dead at all...there seem to be more movies now then ever that go over $100 mil in the theaters. They'll be around for 2 reasons: 1. The marketing and hype make people feel they have to see the movie as soon as it comes out. 2. Not everyone has HT like we do, so doesn't have nearly as good of a home environment to watch movies in.

I agree with Zarak that they are not dead. I think there is a lot to be said for seeing a film in a good sized theater with a crowd. I enjoy seeing movies in the theater with the San Francisco audience. It can add a good bit to the experience (as well as detract... babies and cops shooting people dead). I saw Episode one on opening night with a packed crowd and it was way more fun to watch because of the crowd and the excitement than it is at home on my home theater setup. All the geeks (myself included) really added to the atmosphere.
I'm not sure what you mean by movie house. Do you mean the large one screen theaters or the multiplex?

Did you see Episode 1 at the Coronet? That's an awesome theater.

If you have the chance, check out the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland. Instead of boring you with commercials before the movie, they have someone playing a big Wurlitzer organ right in front of the screen. It descends into the floor as the curtains open for previews.

You know, I think I still haven't seen a movie at the main screen there. Certainly never seen their organ..

The Mighty Wurlitzer! Now, that could get me back into the theatre!

Okay, I'm probably full of it. Just riffing.

All this talk about port length and organs though. Disturbing. It's beer time.

Coronet? Wow, that was a LONG time ago. I remember when star wars first came out and the lines went around the block for months.

Actually, yes I did Peter. I saw it Tuesday night at 12:05 at the 1000 Van Ness theaters, again the next day, then the following Friday night at the Coronet. The Coronet is my favorite theater in the city still. I'll have to check out The Grand Lake one of these days. I would also recommend the Castro theater. It's a great theater and has a similar setup. It's also the perfect place to see old Hitchcock flicks. The Birds, Vertigo, Rear Window... excellent!