Digital-Lifestyles

Business

Changes to business digitisation brings

  • Nokia N-Gage Games Possibly Cracked

    The world of introducing convergent devices is a tricky one. Following on the heals of their combined music player/mobile phone, Nokia launched their mobile phone/music player/games machine, the N-Gage, in October and its has been a shaky start. Before its launch, lots of people were less than positive, and following it, the reviews have not been great.

    Despite Nokia claiming to have shipped 400,000 units to retailers, the number of customer sales is thought to be low. This has lead to some discounting, to the point where it was available for 1 pence in the UK, if you took a particular service contract out with it.

    Nokia will be following the business model for other games platforms, sell the box for a minimum margin (or try to minimise your losses), then make your money in the medium to long term on licensing games for the platform. The same theory as razors and razor blades. Clearly this model only works if you sell the games as well.

    Nokia will not like the latest news. A Swedish hacking group claim that they have got around the protection system that ensures that N-Gage games only play on the N-Gage. They have showed photos of the some N-Gage games running on a Siemens SX1, it’s not clear if these are mock-ups or real.

    If true, the impact is far reaching. Games written for the N-Gage will run on any phone running the Symbian operating system and according to Symbian, over 2.68 million handsets were shipped with their OS in the first half of 2003.

    The damage does not stop with them only losing sales of the N-Gage hardware, but that once the games have been extracted from the N-Gage and are stored digitally unprotected, people will be able to download them – not have to buy them for between $35-$40 each.

    SX1 playing N-Gage games – Screen shots

  • Analysis: The FCC Rules to Adopt the Broadcast Flag

    The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has elected to adopt the ATSC flag, otherwise known as the Broadcast flag – a digital code that can be embedded into a digital broadcasting stream to mark content as protected. All equipment capable of receiving a Digital TV (DTV) signal, be that TV or computer, sold after 1 July, 2005 in the US must comply with the ruling.

    Content owners have been lobbying hard to try and get it brought into law, as they felt the broadcasting of their content in a digital format without the flag would lead to widespread piracy. Others, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), raised a number of objections to the most stringent of restrictions and were particularly concerned with the protection of consumers current “fair use” rights. It appears that the FCC has listened to all sides of the debate and have accounted for their views.

    The FCC announced ruling is that only equipment that is capable of receiving Digital TV (DTV) signals over the air will be affected and must “recognize and give effect to the broadcast flag”. The recording equipment and possible content protections schemes they employ will be addressed at a later date and are described below.

    Alternative protection schemes had been proposed to the FCC. The considered the encryption of content at the broadcaster and the use of watermarking or fingerprinting technologies. Both of these were rejected at this stage as it was felt that the technologies were currently not mature enough and, in the case of encryption the burden on the broadcaster would be too great.

    The FCC state the main aim of the ruling is to stop the wide distribution of the recorded content over the Internet. Many parties will be pleased that consumers will still be able to make personal digital copies. In the FCC words “redistribution control is a more appropriate form of content protection for digital broadcast television than copy restrictions”.

    While the FCC is at pains to point out that that they feel it is important that consumers are able to move recorded content around, what they call, the Personal Digital Network Environment (PDNE), they have declined to define where the edges of this lay.

    Although currently there are no detail given about the mechanism to stop personal copies be distributed wider a field, more detail on this are expected later.

    One fear of consumers, who have already spent large amounts of money on DTV capable equipment, was that they would be forced to discard their current euipment and buy new, compliant equipment. They will be pleased to discover that this will not be the case; “All existing equipment in use by consumers today will remain fully functional”.

    New DTV equipment, “Demodulator Products” sold after 1 July, 2005 in the US must comply with the ruling;

    “If the flag is present, the content can be sent in one of several permissible ways, including (1) over an analog output, e.g. to existing analog equipment; or (2) over a digital output associated with an approved content protection or recording technology”

    It is not clear if the quality that the digital broadcast brings will remain in the analogue output, or if it will be forcefully degraded to discourage the digital distribution of possible analogue recordings.

    Changes to DVD
    While it has been stated that current TV equipment will remain useable,  the future for current DVD players is far less secure. Hidden in footnote 47 the FCC states:

    “We recognize that currently, content recorded onto a DVD with a flag-compliant device will only be able to be viewed on other flag compliant devices and not on legacy DVD players.  While we are sensitive to any potential incompatibilities between new and legacy devices, we believe that this single, narrow example presented to us is not unique to a flag system and is outweighed by the overall benefits gained in terms of consumer access to high value content.  Changes in DVD technology, such as the transition to high definition DVD devices, will present other unrelated format incompatibilities.”

    The briefly translates to DVD players currently on the market will not be able to play DVDs which have been marked with a Broadcast Flag.

    Given that DVD is famously the fastest ever growing consumer technology, it is not clear what the public views will be on the fact they will need to replace them.

    Affect on the broadcaster
    As covered above, the broadcaster will avoid the burden of having to encrypt content prior to broadcast.

    The FCC has given individual broadcasters the freedom to make their own decisions as to whether they attach the Flag to their broadcast stream, but points out that they may not have content licensed to them, if they do not implement it.

    Some groups urged that the broadcast of certain types of programming, such as news and current affairs, would be prohibited from use of the Flag – in effect during their transmission, they would be forced to turn the Flag off. The FCC has ruled to decline this.

    Further discussion on recordings
    As we have touched on, while the current ruling only covers the receiving equipment, the FCC is now seeking guidance on creating policy for recording equipment and content protection schemes.

    This is the area that will prove most controversial, as it will effectively lock the content. Consumer groups fear that it will also lock the content to a particular company, leading to competing systems not allowing the playing of one companies protected content on another’s platform – the inability to exchange material between formats. This has been labelled the “interoperability” issue.

    To address this whole subject, there will be an interim policy for approving digital content protection and recording technologies to enable the FCC to certify multiple compliant technologies in time for manufacturers to include flag technology in television receivers by 2005.

    The policy details have been laid out and include the public publishing of proposals, followed by a twenty day period where any objection can be raised. The proposer is then given ten days to provide their response.

    The FCC will take all input and make their judgement, which they hope to deliver within ninety days of filing.

    The interim policy will in turn be replaced by a permanent policy and the FCC initiated a “Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” to examine this issue in greater detail.

    FCC Order and Report (Word doc)

  • BBC uses 3G video phones in broadcast TV

    Part of UK broadcaster, the BBC, is experimenting with using video phones to collect content for use on TV and radio. Where 3G mobile video phones have been used to capture still images for a while, this is the first time we have heard of them being used for moving pictures.

    In a reprint of article in the BBC in-house magazine, Ariel, that has been made available for public consumption, they explain that as the original video shot on the camera is very small, the broadcast version needs to be magnified, leading to a fuzzy and distorted picture. Clearly the quality of this will improve as the cameras become more advanced.

    So far, it has been used to shoot video for a BBC Bristol local news show and they are discussing the possibilities of using it for the undercover reporting of underage drinking.

    Interestingly, they feel that 3G phones may be of most use on radio, where “Quality is so good that reporters or members of the public will be able to use phones to broadcast without need of a radio car or ISDN line.”

    Program makers are also finding that people are being far more candid when interviewed by members of the public using video phones.

    “Bristol has already set up a live discussion with the head of the local education authority and the editors were struck by the engagement he showed. ‘It was amazing how he came to life and spoke candidly to pupils at what is considered a problem school,’ says Stephanie Marshall. ‘There was something about the informality of the equipment that was so different from a normal studio discussion.’ ”

    This has been recognised for some time by documentary makers, realising that subjects speak more freely and are less intimidated when shot by a small crew on handheld cameras rather than a full broadcast crew.

    Ariel reprint

  • FCC Win Appeal for Digital TV by 2007

    The US regulator, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), whose remit covers the regulation of American TV, has ruled that by 2007 all TV sets sold in the US, bar the smallest (under 13″ screens), must be equipped to receive both digital and analogue signals.

    The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), who represents the manufacturers of US TVs, took legal action against the FCC, claiming that they had acted illegally. Yesterday, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals, for the DC Circuit, rejected their appeal.

    President and CEO Gary Shapiro responded, “We obviously are disappointed by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which we are still studying. We will be reviewing the full opinion and consulting with our member companies, but of course will be compliant with any final court order.” So, no clear conclusion as to whether they will appeal the decision.

    The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) supported the outcome. President and CEO, Edwards O. Fritts, said “The court’s decision today upholding the FCC’s DTV tuner requirement is a milestone towards completing the DTV transition. Consumers buying TV sets will know that the receivers they buy will continue to receive all broadcast signals, even as broadcasting changes to digital. Chairman Powell and the FCC deserve congratulations for their strong leadership in advancing the digital transition.”

    The FCC had originally wanted to broadcasters to make the switch by 2006 but was extended when it became clear that this wasn’t going to be reached. Starting in 2004, larger sets must be equipped to receive digital signals.

    Court ruling (PDF)

    FCC response – Word | PDF

    CEA response

  • TI Wins Emmy Award for DLP

    Texas Instruments has won the Technology and Engineering Emmy Award for their Digital Light Processing (DLP) technology. The National Television Academy official title of the award is “Pioneering Development of Mass-Produced Digital Reflective Imaging Technology for Consumer Rear Projection Television.”

    DLP produced very high resolution video images and is used in Digital Cinema projectors, some video projectors and a number of rear-projection TV’s (PJTV). It gives an entirely digital connection between a video source and the screen by using a optical semiconductor known as the Digital Micromirror Device (DMD). The DMD is essentially a chip with many tiny mirrors that manipulates light.

    Peter O. Price, President of the National Television Academy said “The worlds of broadcasting and home entertainment are undergoing a period of significant change that is characterised by the growing choice being offered to increasingly demanding consumers, and DLP technology is playing a significant role in enabling that change to take place. We see it as a considerable innovation in the market.”

    DLP – How it works

    Emmy 2003 Technology & Engineering Awards

  • Sky earmark £20m to promote Sky+, their DVR

    Further underlining their enthusiasm to sell Sky+, their integrated Digital Video Recorder (DVR), Sky is committing £20m to its advertising campaign, which they say will make it the biggest campaign since they launched Sky digital five years ago.

    Many teaser posters have already been seen around London and these will be supplemented with sponsorship of Virgin’s breakfast show and by 40” and 10” advertising spots on terrestrial and Sky channels which are aired from today.

    The TV adverts features unlikely celebrity couples, demonstrating how Sky+ transforms television viewing. The couples – Bruce Forsyth and Kelly Brook; Ronnie Corbett and Alice Cooper; and Noddy Holder and Simon Callow – are shown living together and debating what to watch on television. The major message is “Sky+, Create your own TV channel”

    The selling of the DVR has always been very hard to do, and many hold the Sky approach as a great way of doing it – with the core message of Sky+ being “It’s just like Sky, but a bit more”, and not confusing potential purchasers by instantly attempting to explain the whizz bang features.

    Sky+

  • BBC Fightbox Review – The Creation of a New Genre?

    By Heidi Jacoby-Ackland

    After all the hype, the BBC’s virtually-virtual gameshow Fightbox [Preview] finally premiered Monday night on BBC3.  Four contestants brought their self-created virtual warriors to the arena to do battle in elimination and combat competitions against the shows computer-generated opponents – all in a studio with a “Real Life” audience.  Without a doubt, the first night’s episode was a tentative start to the series.  The contestants seemed nervous, perhaps awed by playing a computer game in front of a live audience, and the presenters weren’t especially gregarious either.  But it was just the first of 20 episodes and Fightbox hints at good things to come.  It had flashes of how’d-they-do-that wizardry and, most important of all, it grasped the possibility of cross-platform interactive programme making with both computer-generated pincers. 

    First, the good points.  The set is fantastic.  Unlike Time Commanders’ set, this one works exceptionally well, managing to look both futuristic and ancient at the same time.  For instance, the contestants are seated in cage-like pods that rise above the arena floor giving them a birds-eye view of the virtual action.  Yet references to Gladiator (the TV sport/gameshow from the early 1990’s) as well as its classical Roman inspiration are clearly evident too.  Next, the camera-work.  Top marks for wow-factor here on two counts.  First, Fightbox is (or claims to be) the first programme in which free-held cameras are used to combine both real and virtual images simultaneously.  To my eye, there didn’t seem to be any hiccups or glitches and I certainly couldn’t see the “seams.”  Second, there were some really fantastic camera angles that helped bring the best from the virtual graphics.  For example, there were a couple of over-the-shoulder shots (right) of the contestants which showed them in their pod displaying their computer monitor action in the foreground, in the middle-ground the virtual arena action and finally the real arena and audience action in the background.  In another, there was a low shot from the arena floor looking up through one of the virtual challenges, the helix.  Both these shots, amongst others, helped to create depth of vision, contributing a sense of scale and density to the action.  At no point did the huge arena appear to be empty even though, in the “Real World” it was.  (In reality, the studio audience watched the gaming on a massive screen.)  I ought to mention the graphics too.  Although gamers’ expectations are always increasing, visually the graphics in Fightbox are fairly good.  There was a consistency between the studio lighting and the graphics which was so good that virtual shadows were created which matched the real ones.  Now that’s attention to detail!

    With the good comes the bad.  There were Cheerleaders. Cheerleaders?  I can, almost, see the reference point since the MC repeatedly called Fightbox “a new sport”.  However, as any occasional viewer of American Football will testify, the Fightbox ladies’ efforts were half-hearted by comparison.  And what’s with The Weakest Link-style ridiculing of the losing contestants that the cheerleaders and the presenters indulged in?  That is unnecessary – The Weakest Link is so over. 

    Although it was the beginning of a new show, I’m not sure about the choice of presenters.  Trevor Nelson is great as the host of music-related programmes but he doesn’t seem to be all that interested in gaming, as his comments in this weeks’ Radio Times attest.  As for Lisa Snowdon, I’m afraid I find it very difficult indeed to forget the LA Pool Party colonic irrigation episode.  But maybe that’s just me.  There was one moment when Lisa attempted to react to one of the Sentients, which was truly awful – she was wooden and the timing was out-of-synch. 

    Finally, to be perfectly honest, there are some problems with the Fightbox game itself.  First, the contests are exceptionally simple.  On the one hand, simplicity is necessary since it would be tedious in the extreme if the whole episode were spent explaining the object of the tests to the audience.  However, I anticipated contests with a bit more action and was, a bit, disappointed by what was delivered.  I sure hope there’s more on offer on the PC/console game.  Also, the Sentients’ movements seemed more technically developed than contestants’ warriors.  Although the contestants had time to practice with their warriors before the TV episodes were filmed, their warriors didn’t seem nearly as agile as the Sentients.  I’m not suggesting that the game is one-sided, because it isn’t.  It simply looks like the Sentients can execute more moves with greater accuracy.  Also, when a Sentient and a contestant warrior went virtual toe-to-virtual toe, the fight action seemed a bit slow – as though there was a lag-time between the contestant’s command and the warrior’s action.  Either that or the editing wasn’t as fast-paced as viewers have come to expect from action sequences.  But all these problems are minor and thoroughly fixable in future versions.

    Fightbox also highlights a few conundrums that content-makers may face.  My main questions are about the concept of image ownership.  If Madonna can be sued for drawing inspiration from photographs that she freely admits to admire and a past athlete can file a similar suit against a telephone listings company, when does homage become theft?  In respect of Fightbox, this question is particularly relevant in two separate instances.  First, two of the Sentients bear striking resemblances to pre-existing characters:  Kodiak is a lot like Wolf from Gladiator (he even did the signature haunchy growl pose) while Nail seems to be a combination of the monsters from the films Alien and Predator (the MC described her as a predator).  Second, what about the contestant-generated characters?  One of the contestants from last night’s episode frankly described her warrior as inspired by Tank Girl.  And there was a frankly acknowledged resemblance.  Undoubtedly there are other competitors whose warriors were similarly inspired by pre-existing content.  In the high-stakes world of international rights are the creators of Fightbox treading the boundary between inspiration and imitation?  How, if at all, will this affect the sales and distribution of Fightbox to other territories?

    Conclusion

    Has Fightbox given a glimpse into a new way of thinking about entertainment programmes?  I think so.  Despite its faults, Fightbox is a good concept.  Although costly and time-consuming to develop, it is clear that every aspect and angle of Fightbox was considered in the creation of the end-products – vital if a consistent feeling of quality is to achieved and maintained across the platforms. From the development of overall visual aesthetic to the interplay between the online game and the television programme, Fightbox provides a clear example of the benefits of “through-development.”  Rather than being a web-based game with a TV bolt-on (such as the peculiarly addictive Celebdac) or a TV programme with an after-the-fact web presence (such as just about every other TV programme) Fightbox is the first programme I know of in which the platforms are truly inter-dependent.  Its makers, Bomb Productions and Ricochet Digital, have every reason to be proud.  Fightbox is very likely to become a reference point for future entertainment developers.  I’ll be tuning in again tonight.

    Buy the FightBox game at Amazon UK on PC, PS2 or GBA

    BBC FightBox

    Bomb Productions

    Ricochet Digital

  • Preview: BBC FightBox – Let the Fighting Commence

    By Heidi Jacoby-Ackland

    Program your Tivo now. Fightbox, the BBC’s new cross-platform interactive programme, is coming to a TV near you.  Robot Wars meets The Sims-on-performance-enhancing-drugs, the BBC publicity machine is very keen to emphasise that Fightbox is a TV first.  What, exactly, is Fightbox though?  Is it the logical future of entertainment?  In development for nearly four years at a reported cost of £3-4 million, Fightbox was conceived from start to finish to cross from the net to television and then into the PC/PlayStation 2/Game Boy Advanced game environments.  Early indications for Fightbox are fairly positive and the promotional trails look fantastic. 

    Initially launched online a few months ago, gamers were drawn in their thousands to the Fightbox downloadable kit for creating their own warriors from a variety of different parts: arms, legs, weaponry, hair colour and even tattoos.  Contestants “trained” their self-created warriors on their own PC’s before downloading a set of qualifying battles to practice controlling their creation and gaining a score – the higher the score the stronger the warrior.  Then the best scoring virtual warriors (and their real creators) were invited to take part in the production of a television programme.  According to the BBC, approximately 200,000 people registered their warriors and uploaded scores in the six-week qualifying period.  As a demonstration of the interest in the game, apparently clans have emerged in the online community although they can’t play each other. Yet.  It’s all gone a bit D&D. 

    The nay-sayers complain that the PC controls are, well, hard to control.  There’s a rumour that the television production had to be put back a week because the software still had some glitches.  And, although the BBC claims that twenty percent of the gamers were women, there’s a rumour that the Fightbox producers were so desperate to attract women that an online appeal was made especially to female gamers.  Nonetheless, there’s a low hum of anticipation in the gaming community.  Those gamers whose warriors made it to the television round report that the controls are better and the virtual studio experience was wicked.  They claim that, as with all the best computer games, practice was key to their success.  In the 30-minute television programmes, filmed as-live in front of a studio-audience, the virtual warriors have been transformed by the magic of computer graphics and a new type of filming into, um, virtual warriors in a real arena with real hosts (Trevor Nelson and Lisa Snowdon).  The contestant warriors fight the Sentients (the virtual equivalent of the House Robots in Robot Wars) then, finally, go on to fight each other to find a winner.  It’s a knock-out competition until just one of the audience-created warriors is left.  And for those who participated the ultimate prize was on offer.  No, not a million quid record contract for singing out-of-tune but the chance to have their warrior return as a Sentient in the next (yet-to-be-commissioned) series.  The final champion may not get rich from Fightbox but he (or she) will get the satisfaction of directly creating a part of the game’s future.

    When we asked, the BBC spokeswoman refused either to anticipate viewing figures for Fightbox or even to elaborate on what would constitute a successful outcome to this cross-platform interactive experiment.  But it is not inconceivable that the programme could bomb as a television show while, at the same time, creating an enormous buzz for the game itself, either online or at the shop.  Then what???  Having already spent the equivalent of some countries’ GDPs on development, it would be imprudent for the BBC to completely bale on the TV programme after just one series even if the ratings are poor.  After all, the most costly and time-consuming bit of creating Fightbox, the development, is already done and dusted.  Aside from the new Sentient, most of the future content will come from the audience who, in true interactive style, are not voting for a winner but creating the characters and altering the outcomes.  The online kit is still available for download at the FightBox site.  Although it is too late to qualify for Series One, now would be a good time to start practicing for Series Two.

    BBC FightBox

    Amazon – Buy the FightBox game on PC, PS2 or GBA

    Fightbox Ltd is a joint-venture between Bomb Productions and Ricochet Digital.  Fightbox, the TV programme, airs on BBC3 at 19.30 from 13-17 October and continues in that slot for three weeks thereafter.  [Episodes will be repeated on BBC3 the following morning at 3.30 and are due to run on BBC2 in November.]  Fightbox, the PC/PS2/GMA games, are due for release on 7 November.

  • Hulk Up-loader Receives Six Months Sentence and Fines

    Vivendi Universal Entertainment took legal action against 24 year old Kerry Gonzalez after they found he had uploaded an unfinished version of The Hulk on the Internet several weeks prior to its theatrical release.

    Gonzalez pleaded guilt in the summer and was sentenced at the end of last week to six months home confinement, three years probation, fined him $2,000 and ordered him to pay $5,000 in restitution to Universal. He had faced up to three years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for felony copyright infringement.

    Gonzalez had obtained a “work print” of the movie that had been sent to a New York advertising agency. The print was missing some special effects, graphics, and a soundtrack.

    The FBI traced the Internet copy back to Gonzalez through an encoded “security tag” on the print, which was widely thought to be a watermark burnt into the video image. This could have traced the copy to an individual but neither the advertising agency or the employee who has made this possible by passing him the video tape were named or action taken against them. The reasons for this are not clear but it adds weight to the recent AT&T labs research that much of the unauthorised video available on the Internet is sourced from within the industry.

    After the pre-released version was uploaded, reviews started appearing on sites like Ain’t It Cool News slating the film for, among other things, its shoddy CG effects. Studio executives claimed that this could have depressed ticket sales, but the early criticism didn’t have too negative an impact; The Hulk grossed a $62 million in its opening weekend, a record for a June opener. It has earned $130 million so far, after costing $150 million to make.

    Vivendi Universal Entertainment, commissioned several studies to determine what Gonzalez’s actions cost the studio. While assigning a dollar amount is an inexact science, the studio settled on about $66 million in a victim-impact statement to the federal court. The court moved to make Gonzalez pay $5,000, but it is not clear if Vivendi will take further action against him.

    This kind of high profile court case will certainly make people think twice before uploading unauthorised video content to the Internet, or passing preview material to those who might.

  • Marc Cuban and Todd Wagner Buy US Art-house Cinema Chain

    It is with great interesting that we see that Marc Cuban and Todd Wagner have bought Landmark Theatres, America’s largest chain of 54 art-house cinemas which are scattered over fourteen states.
    They both came into the public eye when they sold an innovative webcasting company, broadcast.com, that they had founded in 1995, to Yahoo! in 1999 for $5.7 billion. Following that avalanche of cash, Cuban went to buy the NBA team Dallas Mavericks, found High Definition TV specialist HDNet and co-found 2929 Entertainment with Wagner.

    HDNet two 24/7 networks, HDNet and HDNet Movies, produces and televises more hours of original HDTV entertainment, news and sports programming than any other network.

    2929 Entertainment is a vehicle for movie production and, following its November 2001 purchase of Rysher Entertainment, holds substantial film and television programming library, including various rights to shows including “Sex and the City”. It is also currently in post-production on two films including “Godsend” staring Robert DeNiro.

    The Landmark Theatres chain has been for sale since 2001, languishing as part of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. The financial terms of the purchase, which is scheduled to close in October, have not been disclosed.

    Why does this make an interesting deal?

    Digital cinema has held promise for a long time, but has effectively stalled.

    The cinema theatre owners are not willing to pay for the digital projectors, as they say the margin that the make on showing films is so slim (the reasons the cite for the necessity for popcorn sales) that they are not able to invest in the equipment. They also point out that it is the film distributors that will gain most benefit from the drastically reduced film distribution costs – physical copies of the film, at a cost of around $3000 each, do not have to be made, nor to they have to be transported to each of the cinemas.

    The film distributes say it is not for them to pay for the equipment, as this is the responsibility of the theatre owners. It is also widely believed that they have very little will to digitally distribute their content, as content protection schemes haven’t been decided upon.

    The excitement of d-cinema is not just about showing blockbuster films, but the ability to economically distribute small, independent film and other video content that would not normally be shown at as cinema, such as music or sporting events – enabling cinema to become something different.

    Now they have the theatre chain, Wagner said they can now take movies from production to the screen with no outside interference – “We think this acquisition provides a unique opportunity to make a significant impact in the art and independent film, HDTV production and digital exhibition communities.”

    Together this collection of companies not only have the content, technical savvy, strategic vision and the money to make this possible, but they are run by people who are keen to shake things up. This could be the kind of competition that the film companies need to make them sit up, stop the current stalemate and move up a gear or two in realising digital cinema. We wait with baited breath.

    Landmark Theatres

    HDNet

    2929 Entertainment