Doesn't Bittorrent + Airport = Wireless Distribution?
Wired writes about the first wirelessly distributed film:
Good article. It address the tech and, more importantly, the implications of the tech. I agree with them that wireless distribution has a significant future in film distribution.
Specifically, it will allow global roll out - which will be an important step combating piracy. Not that I think that the film industry will go that way, necessarily. But certainly, there are films I have pirated with BT because there was *no* release date here. Or, in the case of Spartan, when it finally came out it lasted all of two weeks. Worse, they released Spartan on DVD in a pan-and-scanned 16x9 version rather than the original 2.35. Just because its 16x9 doesn't mean some studio knob hasn't butchered it. Butchering is what studio knobs do :)
It will also, hopefully, lower distribution costs for indies. No longer will one have to strike a 35mm print, insure it, and ship it around to a few of the small cinemas and festivals.
Honestly, if I were the AFC/FFC - and we all wish I was - I'd be rolling our digital projects, as per England, and planning to scale a few key 'digital cinemas' (places like the Chauvel, Dendy etc) with wireless receivers when teh tech gets safe. That way, local Aussie films can be quickly and easily distributed to a number of key sites without paying the costs of shipping prints! Moreover, films which do not fit the normal mould of the feature can be screened more easily. I'm thinking specifically of short features, short longs, long shorts, and shorts. You could have an entire funding sceheme, which they already do partly, pushing filmmakers to experiment with digital production. I wouldn't be cutting the funding either (its $90K of funding for a short shot on digital; but $150k for a short shot on film). I'd be showing how much further you can push the dollar with this tech. Then I'd be distributing the product digitally. No-one goes see these films anyway, so why pay for the 35mm prints? :) Also means you can strike a HDTV master more easily.... and you could grade the whole thing on Final Touch HD! Ahehehehe.
But it does mean we need to get a few more alternative HD formats here. THere's the Varicam and the HDCAM. I believe Panavision have been showing their Genesis camera-system around town though, and its a 4:4:4 camera... with dual-link 4:4:4 out and single-link 4:2:2 HDSDI... which means you just need a D5 deck or an SR deck. Hopefully someone might important Arri's HD offering... but there's no market currently. But thats what I want to change.
Anyway. Go read the article.
PARK CITY, Utah -- It was a film without film, a movie without moving parts. The premiere of Rize that took place last Saturday at a ski lodge here was a historic event -- the first feature film to be delivered via wireless internet technology.
Good article. It address the tech and, more importantly, the implications of the tech. I agree with them that wireless distribution has a significant future in film distribution.
Specifically, it will allow global roll out - which will be an important step combating piracy. Not that I think that the film industry will go that way, necessarily. But certainly, there are films I have pirated with BT because there was *no* release date here. Or, in the case of Spartan, when it finally came out it lasted all of two weeks. Worse, they released Spartan on DVD in a pan-and-scanned 16x9 version rather than the original 2.35. Just because its 16x9 doesn't mean some studio knob hasn't butchered it. Butchering is what studio knobs do :)
It will also, hopefully, lower distribution costs for indies. No longer will one have to strike a 35mm print, insure it, and ship it around to a few of the small cinemas and festivals.
Honestly, if I were the AFC/FFC - and we all wish I was - I'd be rolling our digital projects, as per England, and planning to scale a few key 'digital cinemas' (places like the Chauvel, Dendy etc) with wireless receivers when teh tech gets safe. That way, local Aussie films can be quickly and easily distributed to a number of key sites without paying the costs of shipping prints! Moreover, films which do not fit the normal mould of the feature can be screened more easily. I'm thinking specifically of short features, short longs, long shorts, and shorts. You could have an entire funding sceheme, which they already do partly, pushing filmmakers to experiment with digital production. I wouldn't be cutting the funding either (its $90K of funding for a short shot on digital; but $150k for a short shot on film). I'd be showing how much further you can push the dollar with this tech. Then I'd be distributing the product digitally. No-one goes see these films anyway, so why pay for the 35mm prints? :) Also means you can strike a HDTV master more easily.... and you could grade the whole thing on Final Touch HD! Ahehehehe.
But it does mean we need to get a few more alternative HD formats here. THere's the Varicam and the HDCAM. I believe Panavision have been showing their Genesis camera-system around town though, and its a 4:4:4 camera... with dual-link 4:4:4 out and single-link 4:2:2 HDSDI... which means you just need a D5 deck or an SR deck. Hopefully someone might important Arri's HD offering... but there's no market currently. But thats what I want to change.
Anyway. Go read the article.
posted by stu willis at
11:54 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home