Digital Cinema: Migration From Film Projectors

James Painter
Elizabethtown College

Abstract

The components of the digital cinema will be outlined, as well as the advantages that digital cinema
offers over traditional film projectors. Focus is placed on network connections between individual theaters
and distributors: uses for them as well as advanced data transmission speeds among them. Digital
content delivery and storage methods will be compared to those of conventional celluloid film. The
drawback of security loopholes surrounds a reliance on computers. Discussion of all these issues, with
input from professionals in the field, may draw conclusions for the delayed full-scale conversion to digital
as we approach already the second decade of the twenty-first century.

I. Introduction

For decades the movie industry has relied on celluloid film as the medium for public presentation of
motion picture productions. The method of has endured for over 100 years, but now we find ourselves in
the midst of a transition to a format whose foundation forms the basis of almost all computer-related
technology. 1999 introduced the first large-scale digital “film” in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom
Menace [1], and more digital films were to follow. Star Wars director George Lucas proclaims, “It’s a giant
leap forward for those of us who create movies” [2]. Movie directors as a whole applaud the new format.
Titanic director James Cameron believes it “will revolutionize the cinematic experience for moviegoers” [2].
At a time when technology is constantly raising the entertainment experience of home theaters,
commercial movie theaters must keep pace, and digital film provides the advantages over celluloid that
will allow it to do so.

II. Advantages

Digital cinema presents a major system overhaul to the projection activity of a traditional movie
theater. From the method of distribution, to showtime preparation, to movie screening and piracy
prevention, the transition institutes a multitude of changes. Digital film distribution, although still feasible
via ground shipping, has the capability of taking place over high-speed data networks with little to no
intermediate human intervention involved. The digital format itself circumvents masses of physical film.
One movie print in celluloid format can weigh as much as 150 pounds. The high cost of shipping this kind
of weight from coast to coast goes without say. The film’s location must be tracked at all times to prevent
theft, and once its tenure in theaters is complete, the film must be destroyed. This procedure applies to
each print used for the 36,000 movie screens across the U.S., costing film studios about $2300 per film
for printing and shipping. In a single year, costs on the order of $1.4 billion flow into the printing,
distributing, and destroying of film [3]. Production saves scores of money with the compact, efficient
format that is digital.

In addition to shipping labor costs, the majority of film preparation labor costs are eliminated with
digital film. Upon arrival at the theater, celluloid film’s multiple reels must be assembled prior to screening.
This lengthy process involves unraveling each reel in its entirety, along with pre-feature content such as
advertisements and trailers for upcoming films, and splicing all of their ends together to make one giant
reel. The procedure may require 60 minutes or more for even the most experienced splicer. Once
assembled, and prior to actual screening, the film is threaded through the gears of the projector in order
to set in place the continuous loop that will allow the film to re-wind as it is playing. It is at this step where
the majority of mistakes are made that damage the film. If the film is not threaded exactly to specification,
which demands about five minutes of labor, the entire film has the potential to be ruined. In the case of
digital, both splicing and threading are omitted, and the chance for accidental damage to the film is
negligible.

Dynamic showtime and auditorium switching is more practical with digital cinema. In the case of a
sellout in one small auditorium and a low attendance in a larger auditorium (both within the same theater),
theater managers will occasionally switch the venues for the two shows. In the celluloid realm, the reel of
film must be physically transported from projector to
projector, a task requiring two people. Although related
mistakes are rare, one trip or slip of the hand could
result in the entire reel of film unraveling. Once the film
is relocated, the threading procedure must be
performed. If the decision to switch screens was made
last-minute, the steps in the process will likely delay
the showtime. Digital film, on the contrary, mandates a
reliable, safe, and quick procedure for changing
venues. As the film is stored digitally on an in-house
server, auditoriums need only redirect the projector’s
source to a different film [4]. The newly chosen film is
then simply sent through data cables, and virtually no
time is lost in the transition (See Appendix A and Figure 1. Commercial-scale digital projector
Appendix B for film management systems within the manufactured by Digital Projection. [11]
theater).

The low distribution costs and theater flexibility of a digital cinema allow screening opportunities
unavailable with the traditional film projector. Test showings of independent films become practical
without the high cost of shipping and because of their already low leasing cost. If the test run proves
successful, the theater can extend the lease and make a significant profit. The high quality of digital
projectors provides a means to screen non-film content as well [4]. Pay-per-view events such as live
concerts [3] or sporting contests, even a popular television show, could be broadcasted to the theater,
pleasing those wishing to watch on the largest screen and with the loudest surround sound possible. In
Singapore, digital theaters have aired American Idol finals and planned to show 2006 World Cup matches.
Other capabilities of the digital equipment include interactive movies and private rentals for video game
parties [5].

III. Content Delivery

Due to network data transfer speed limitations, most present-day digital cinemas still attain their films
via ground shipping. A common practice is to deliver a film on a physically locked hard drive, the key for
which is delivered as a separate package [6]. The divided shipments increase security measures;
independently, the items are useless to anyone wishing to steal the film as it travels from the distributor to
the theater. Soon, however, with recent advancements in high-speed, multiple, simultaneously
synchronized TCP/IP connections, theaters may have the option of streaming video directly from the
distributor. This would allow theaters to lease and screen movies within less than an hour’s notice to the
distributor.

Currently, digital cinemas across the globe are primarily operating “2K” digital projectors. 2K refers to
the projector’s capability of displaying images roughly 2000 pixels wide. Actual sizes are either 2048x858
(“scope”) or 1998x1080 (“flat”) [7]. Compressed videos of this size occupy approximately 8.6 MB/s [8], or
54.18 GB per hour and forty-five minutes of running time. In anticipation of digital cinemas widely
implementing higher-definition video, standards organizations, such as Digital Cinema Initiatives, have
defined a 4K standard. This substantial amount of data requires an advanced network connection if the
cinema is to stream the video or if the cinema demands the film on late notice. Combining three
techniques to enhance a typical TCP/IP connection, data rates on the order of 300 Mb/s, high enough to
stream 4K video, can be obtained over a distance of 1800 miles [9].
 The first of the three techniques involves the enlargement of the TCP window, which is the size of a
data packet that can be sent before the receiver must send a return signal in acknowledgement of the
data packet’s reception [10]. Theoretical TCP window size can therefore be calculated using the required
TCP throughput and the round-trip time (RTT) over the network:
window size > required TCP throughput * RTT [9]
Handicapped by packet losses and limitations on a single TCP connection, actual transfer speeds require
tweaking in addition to window enlargement in order to reach even one-fifth of the theoretical throughput†,
and in order to stream 4K video, three-fifths of the theoretical throughput is required [9].

The second technique increases the number

of TCP connections between connected
computers. By dividing movie data into equal
segments and sequentially sending them across
different sockets, approximately two-fifths of the
theoretical TCP throughput can be achieved [9].
As the number of concurrent sockets is
increased, the throughput initially increases
dramatically, but the effect soon becomes less
dramatic and the throughput stabilizes at 64
connections (see Figure 2, orange line),
necessitating a third speed enhancement to
achieve speeds capable of streaming video.

In order to maximize data throughput over Figure 2. Data throughput implementing various
the TCP connection, a monitor of the actual TCP/IP enhancements. [9]
traffic indicates that spiking data rates must be
stabilized. As shown in Figures 3 and 4, a “shaping control” function in software can divide the outgoing
data before its transmission; by pausing between sending adjacent data segments in the queue, spikes
level and boost the average data transfer rate to about three-fifths of theoretical, or 300 Mb/s.

Figure 3. Bit rate (Mbit/s) vs. Time (ms) of Figure 4. Bit rate (Mbit/s) vs. Time (ms) of data
uncorrected spiking data rates, with length transfer implementing shaping control
of one frame labeled. [9] function. [9]

V. Conversion Delays

Despite digital film’s introduction over five years ago, it has yet to make a solid stance in the industry.
The cause for delay may attribute more to the time-tested and proven success of analog film rather than
the few disadvantages of digital. When comparing maintenance labor between the two formats, although

†
Theoretical throughput in the referenced research was about [4 MB window size] ÷ [59 ms RTT] ≈ 540 Mb/s.
digital requires less, analog’s maintenance costs fall within reason. Analog projectors have lasted
decades, necessitating only small repairs to remain functional. The reliability and simplicity of digital
projector design, therefore, fails as a primary selling point for conversion.

The price tag of a digital cinema ultimately blocks the road for its integration, despite its long-term
assurance of increased profit. On the large scale, cost for the digital transition across the entire industry
would range from $3-5 billion [4]. Per screen, costs can exceed $200,000 [4], depending on the
auditorium size (consequently required projector brightness), with the digital projector itself exceeding
$130,000‡ [11] and the remaining cost attributed to labor, computer servers, communications equipment,
and facilities renovations. Analog projectors, meanwhile, can be
obtained second-hand for less than one-tenth of this cost [4].
Theaters deliberating the upgrade to digital not only face the cost
of one digital projector, but for all practical purposes, must consider
purchasing two or three [6]. Generally, theaters screen new titles in
one of their largest auditoriums, and over time, as the film’s
popularity declines, it gradually works its way down to the smallest
auditoriums. With only one digital screen, a digital print becomes
static; because its format renders playback impossible on other
screens, it could deprive the theater of profit from either
overbooking or underbooking the auditorium, depending on how
long the film has been in release. The theater would have to
purchase an additional celluloid print of the film if it needed to
change venues. The substantial cost to integrate one digital screen,
let alone three, greatly discourages theater owners from venturing
Figure 5. [12] Clipping of analog
into steep debt. Estimates show that cost turnaround would require
celluloid film, of which an entire
about 2.5-5 years, even when taking into consideration increased
reel can weigh 150 lbs.
revenue from additional pre-feature advertising capabilities of
digital projectors [4].

Because film material and distribution account for the greatest costs associated with celluloid film, the
studios benefit most from digital upgrades. Additionally, with the theaters’ ability to more strategically
screen new releases (resulting in the need for additional copies of the film), and factoring in film leasing
costs that are higher closer the film’s original release date, the studios can again reap financial benefits of
digital§. Theaters themselves enjoy the added benefits of digital’s conveniences, such quality, efficiency,
and ease of use, but in all practicality, these incentives alone generally do not outweigh the monetary
drawbacks of eliminating celluloid in favor of digital [4].

Several other unresolved issues continue to delay the progress of digital cinema. One is the ongoing
debate over technical standards. Specifications too particular will hinder the growth of digital cinema, but
specifications too general will cause headaches for the studios attempting to record in an all-compliant
format. Two organizations, the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) and the
Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI), are central in defining the standards, and they seek a basis by which
digital cinema can prosper in the film industry [3]. Included in standards discussions are digital security
issues, for which the importance rises over that of celluloid due to the intangible nature of digital film (See
Appendix C for encryption implementation). And although it may appear as if the film studios have only to
gain in the story of digital cinema, they may be disadvantaged by the very fact that, using digital format,
they grant theaters more control over their prints [4]. Unless a monitoring-feedback system is instituted
within the theater, the studios may have no knowledge of how many auditoriums in which exhibitors are
screening a single print. In the celluloid world, studios know exactly how many copies of a film they have
distributed to each theater. This knowledge paints them a better picture of movie dispersion, and
furthermore they can bill theaters more accurately and fairly for leasing prints. Finally, the steep cost of
digital cinema looks less attractive today as the film industry is only now climbing out of a several-year

‡
£70,270.00 converted to U.S. dollars on 11/24/06 at rate of 0.5242:1
§
Assuming distributors would charge for additional copies of one print. Theaters, however, could be given the
freedom to display a print as often and in as many auditoriums as desired, after an initial lease payment.
period of weak earnings. If the box office continues to prosper in the coming years, all surrounding cost
issues may lessen in importance.

VI. Conclusion

As of May 2003, only 156 movie screens worldwide were digitally equipped [3]. By 2005, some 300
cinemas had been fitted for the technology [13]. Despite the miserably slow adoption trends early in its
lifecycle, digital cinema’s population rate will continue to rise as equipment costs decrease and standards
issues are established. Foreign countries, even some less technologically-established than our own,
could serve as a test market for the U.S. In the U.K., initiatives have been put forth by their Film Council
to provide funding for 250 digital screens; similar action has been taken in China, where national
financing is the capital for the construction of 200 new digital cinemas [3]. And in 2004, Brazil began an
effort to construct 100 digital screens, which will allow satellite film distribution to replace the shipping that
occurs over an infrastructure ill-suited for timely delivery [14]. In the U.S., however, it appears that
evading monetary obstacles may require cooperation between the movie studios, who profit most from
the transition, and the theaters, on whom the transition both waits and relies.

Perhaps the process will be expedited if studios work together with theaters, leveling on their
common ground that is the belief in a digital cinema providing benefits for both parties. If studios offer
reduced leasing fees for digital prints, it will expedite the process by encouraging theaters to take the risk
of investing in digital renovations [4] (See Figure 6). This reduction fee could decrease over time as
theaters climb out of their digital upgrading debt.
If nothing else, time itself will be the means by
which digital cinema overtakes celluloid. Rather
than switch directly from film projectors to digital,
as theaters expand, renovate, and construct
they will simply choose to install fully digital
systems for newly built screens. And inevitably,
prices for digital equipment will become much
more reasonable. Analog options will diminish.
Hopefully we, as the consumers of digital
entertainment, will witness the overdue
breakthrough of digital cinema and not be forced Figure 6. Cash flow for cooperation within the film
to wait for time to play its role. industry. [4]
Appendix A. Single Screen System Architecture [15]
Appendix B. Multiplex Theatre System Architecture [15]
Appendix C. Digital Cinema System Workflow [15]
References

[1] Lucas Online, “Phantom Manace First: Digital Projection,” May 1999, http://www.starwars.com/
episode-i/release/theater/news19990312.html.

[2] BBC, “Hollywood hails digital film deal, “ July 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/
4724335.stm.

[3] R. Dettmer, “Digital Cinema: A Slow Revolution,” IEEE Review, vol. 49, issue 10, pp. 46-50, Oct.
2003.

[4] M. Katz, J. Frelinghuysen, and K. Bhatia, “Digital Cinema: Breaking the Logjam,” Booz Allen
Hamilton, 2002.

[5] B. Einhorn, “Now Playing In Asia: Digital Cinema,” Business Week, issue 3987, p. 46, June 2006.

[6] Carl, Cinema Centers Inc. projector technician (private communication), Nov. 2006.

[7] MKPE, “Digital Cinema Frequently Asked Questions,” Oct. 2006, http://www.mkpe.com/
digital_cinema/faqs.php#2K+4K.

[8] Peter Forret, “Megapixel Calculator - Digital Camera Resolution,” http://web.forret.com/tools/

megapixel.asp.

[9] T. Yamaguchi, D. Shirai, Ta. Fujii, and Te. Fujii, “SHD Digital Cinema Distribution over a Global
High-speed Network: Internet2,” NTT Technical Review, vol. 1 no. 5, pp. 10-15, Aug. 2003.

[10] National Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, “A

User's Guide to TCP Windows,” June 1996, http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/vwelch/net_perf/
tcp_windows.html.

[11] Ivojo Multimedia Ltd., “Digital Projection HIGHlite Pro 12000HD-2k,” http://cinemaprojectors.co.
uk/digital_projection_highlite_pro_12000hd-2k.html.

[12] “The Front Row: Movie Projection Booth Information,” Nov. 2006, http://www.geocities.com/
jonesjohn2000/filmstrip1.jpg.

[13] BBC, “Cinemas set for digital revolution,” July 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/
4681859.stm.

[14] Christian Science Monitor, “Brazil Takes Lead Role In Move To All-Digital Cinema,” Feb. 2004,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0205/p07s01-woam.html.

[15] Digital Cinema Initiatives, LLC Member Representatives Committee, Digital Cinema System
Specification V1.0, Digital Cinema Initiatives, LLC, July 2005.