<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Digital cinema: one step closer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.forret.com/2005/07/digital-cinema-one-step-closer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.forret.com/2005/07/digital-cinema-one-step-closer/</link>
	<description>and I mean it</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:45:03 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: blog.forret.com &#124; Mission Impossible III: largest digital release ever</title>
		<link>http://blog.forret.com/2005/07/digital-cinema-one-step-closer/comment-page-1/#comment-1458</link>
		<dc:creator>blog.forret.com &#124; Mission Impossible III: largest digital release ever</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2006 11:15:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peter.smoothouse.com/2005/07/31/digital-cinema-one-step-closer/#comment-1458</guid>
		<description>[...] (Digital cinema is obviously of much better quality than this pixelized image - this just says &#8220;digital&#8221;, doesn&#8217;t it?)  Technical requirements: It was quite an undertaking, judging by the fact that it took Kodak more than a month to prepare the movie for 170 screens: Paramount set high standards for the digital release of “Mission: Impossible: III.” The studio insisted it only be shown in theatres with 2K cinema grade projectors and DCI-level security (&#8230;). “Mission: Impossible III” is eight reels long, with soundtracks in multiple languages. In its digital release, it needed to be encoded in two different compression formats, packaged for four different server brands, and distributed via hard drive and satellite. The movie was encrypted to prevent piracy, so a unique pair of ‘keys’ – software codes – for each screen had to be created and sent separately. (&#8230;) Beginning in April, Paramount began delivering the digital masters to Kodak’s Laser Pacific facility in Hollywood. Kodak technicians compressed and encrypted each reel and packaged them to play on the different screens. Kodak and Paramount collaborated on final quality control. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] (Digital cinema is obviously of much better quality than this pixelized image &#8211; this just says &#8220;digital&#8221;, doesn&#8217;t it?)  Technical requirements: It was quite an undertaking, judging by the fact that it took Kodak more than a month to prepare the movie for 170 screens: Paramount set high standards for the digital release of “Mission: Impossible: III.” The studio insisted it only be shown in theatres with 2K cinema grade projectors and DCI-level security (&#8230;). “Mission: Impossible III” is eight reels long, with soundtracks in multiple languages. In its digital release, it needed to be encoded in two different compression formats, packaged for four different server brands, and distributed via hard drive and satellite. The movie was encrypted to prevent piracy, so a unique pair of ‘keys’ – software codes – for each screen had to be created and sent separately. (&#8230;) Beginning in April, Paramount began delivering the digital masters to Kodak’s Laser Pacific facility in Hollywood. Kodak technicians compressed and encrypted each reel and packaged them to play on the different screens. Kodak and Paramount collaborated on final quality control. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://blog.forret.com/2005/07/digital-cinema-one-step-closer/comment-page-1/#comment-221</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peter.smoothouse.com/2005/07/31/digital-cinema-one-step-closer/#comment-221</guid>
		<description>Hi David,

Yes, my quick calculations were in the wrong ballpark.
The &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/pforret/100762737/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;numbers I found in the DCI specs&lt;/A&gt; are:
135-415GB for three hour feature, so lets&#039; say 70-250GB for 90 minutes.
So no iPod, no HD-DVD or BluRay could hold a whole movie!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi David,</p>
<p>Yes, my quick calculations were in the wrong ballpark.<br />
The <a HREF="http://www.flickr.com/photos/pforret/100762737/" rel="nofollow">numbers I found in the DCI specs</a> are:<br />
135-415GB for three hour feature, so lets&#8217; say 70-250GB for 90 minutes.<br />
So no iPod, no HD-DVD or BluRay could hold a whole movie!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://blog.forret.com/2005/07/digital-cinema-one-step-closer/comment-page-1/#comment-220</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://peter.smoothouse.com/2005/07/31/digital-cinema-one-step-closer/#comment-220</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve only done a quick scan but first impression is a reasonable summary.  Sizes are quite wrong, though.  Maximum allowed data rate is 250Mbps, so around 170GB for a 90 minute movie in compressed form.  Uncompressed, a 90 minute movie in 2K would be more like 1.4TB.  So no BluRay or HD-DVD ROMs anywhere here.

-David
 www.d-cinema.us</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve only done a quick scan but first impression is a reasonable summary.  Sizes are quite wrong, though.  Maximum allowed data rate is 250Mbps, so around 170GB for a 90 minute movie in compressed form.  Uncompressed, a 90 minute movie in 2K would be more like 1.4TB.  So no BluRay or HD-DVD ROMs anywhere here.</p>
<p>-David<br />
 <a href="http://www.d-cinema.us" rel="nofollow">http://www.d-cinema.us</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.490 seconds -->
