Yes, because the cost of buying the digital projectors was offset by an agreement with the studios to pay the same amount for "digital" prints as they currently do for film prints, with the extra cost going towards the cost of the digital projectors themselves.
At some point in the future, when everything is all digital and the projectors have been paid for, I do expect the costs of digital prints to go down, but probably not to actual cost, since (a) the precedent was established, and (b) filmmakers are constantly pressuring for better equipment.
For example, The Hobbit is being shot at 48 fps. Not all digital projectors in use in theaters today can play back 3D material at that frame rate. The ability of the theaters to upgrade their projectors is made possible, in part, because the digital "prints" cost well above their actual cost.
A very good question though, and the answer frustrates pretty much all low budget filmmakers. :)
Ha, thanks for the info! That's some interesting financial trickery that I wouldn't have assumed, but in light of the other financial engineering that goes on surrounding films, I can't say I'm surprised. With rapid improvements in digital inevitable (I could see the pixels at a recent "IMAX Experience" viewing), I'm guessing that Hollywood will be on the hook for a while as they try to reach parity with film...
Comments
Yes, because the cost of buying the digital projectors was offset by an agreement with the studios to pay the same amount for "digital" prints as they currently do for film prints, with the extra cost going towards the cost of the digital projectors themselves.
At some point in the future, when everything is all digital and the projectors have been paid for, I do expect the costs of digital prints to go down, but probably not to actual cost, since (a) the precedent was established, and (b) filmmakers are constantly pressuring for better equipment.
For example, The Hobbit is being shot at 48 fps. Not all digital projectors in use in theaters today can play back 3D material at that frame rate. The ability of the theaters to upgrade their projectors is made possible, in part, because the digital "prints" cost well above their actual cost.
A very good question though, and the answer frustrates pretty much all low budget filmmakers. :)
Ha, thanks for the info! That's some interesting financial trickery that I wouldn't have assumed, but in light of the other financial engineering that goes on surrounding films, I can't say I'm surprised. With rapid improvements in digital inevitable (I could see the pixels at a recent "IMAX Experience" viewing), I'm guessing that Hollywood will be on the hook for a while as they try to reach parity with film...