|
|
Posted by Bill Vermillion on 10/30/05 02:25
In article <g6s3m158ed55vemdut97uk6igja6kij4l0@4ax.com>,
NunYa Bidness <nunyabidness@nunyabidness.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:15:49 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> Gave us:
[hunks of text brutally hacked away by Lizzie Borden].
>>Once upon a time, the studios and the theatre chains had
>>money.
> They still do, they just don't know how to use it, or distribute it
>correctly among the company's members.
Has it not always been so - the money goes to those at the top and
when they want more money instead of trying to figure ways to
increase income they spend the same amount trying to reduce costs -
which often decreases income :-(
>> They could have introduced digital in a big way,
>>they could have produced better film showing devices or
>>at least used them as they should have been used.
> That is absolutely true. Had they embraced what we now know to be
>they best method for storing what gets filmed, that being digital
>mediums, We would / could have Film On Demand personal theaters where
>customers do not need to view a film with 200 or more strangers, many
>of which doing things you wouldn't do during a film screening. There
>should be movie kiosks everywhere to watch a new release.
One of the joys of watching a good movie with a good audience is
the shared reaction of lots of laughter and sometimes applause.
Last week there was applause after the showing of Good Night and
Good Luck. The audience was a bit older. It looked like
it could have been rated NC-50 :-)
> Digital delivery at the theater level, should have happened ten
>years ago. Right around the same time as the advent of MPEG2.
>> A live
>>projectionist to monitor problems that could occur with the automated
>>systems they have. But, they didn't do any of this.
> The don't even need that really.
>>Instead, they cheapened everything, right down to the poor development
>>of the film stock we often see now.
> Within another ten years, well be "filming" in the digital realm.
> Remember when CDs came out how there weren't many "DDD" discs
>around? Check the numbers now.
For modern recordings digital is much cheaper. At first it was
quite costly - and the big Sony 32-track digital would set you back
well over $125,000 which was twice as much as our Studer A-800.
But now you can get digital devices that record 24-tracks
simultaneously for under $3000. It's the old 'cheaper is better -
even when it isn't'. And a lot of disks were never properly
labeled in the early days.
And have YOU really checked CD's lately. I just checked a stack
and only about 1 in 10 have any labeling like that anymore. It was
a selling point at one time - and I bet most people would have no
clue what it means if you found a CD with it on it and pointed it
out to them.
.....
> Actually, it was the cable companies that did most of the pissing and
>moaning about HDTV. Their equipment upgrade costs were their reason.
And locally there is far more HDTV on cable than there is on the
air.
> TV stations get their gear bought by their network carrier.
Since when. Locally one of the major network stations drops
some evening programming so they can show some locally run content
- as they make far more money selling local ads than they get paid
by the network.
.....
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|