|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Cyan Tracks
|
William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-22-2004 02:46 AM
This weekend's survey of one major market city's theaters which run as their regular programming independent, art, & retro fare came up with this:
Theater 1: National chain, 4 screens, upgraded to IR on all screens about 3 yrs ago, 1 screen w/DTS, 1 w/DD, other 2 Ultra Stereo optical only.
Theater 2: Independent, single screen, incandescent exciter, DTS, CP55
Theater 3: Independent, single screen, changeover, incandescent exciter & CP 65
So what's the 'penetration' for the theaters most likely to be affected by an inventory incompatibility & change?
Notice it's the independents (both very nice houses & operations) that get hit with this change. Of interest, but outside of theaters running continuous schedules, are 2 historic houses now PAC's running occasional 'classic' titles & film festivals w/a mix of modern & older stuff.
-----------
What's read from this is that the only concern for those who wished to implement the change was 1st run. Next, the biggest chains with the newest equipment get the biggest break (especially those which ran on the deplorable last run of gambling on overbuilding, buying new equipment for the depreciation, going into bankruptcy, screwing suppliers, patrons & local competition who put on better shows while having to meet their smaller budgets & watch a real bottom line.
This probably came from mere oversight in just a delightful idea that when looking at the numbers a smaller number was decided as 'incosequential' in a desire to implement the change. But in those numbers was represented theatrical businesses & presentations outside of the largest chain operations: independents & programs of non-1st run material.
I ran festival last year at a PAC of a week of programming of new-to-10 year old shorts in the morning, & new-to-40 year old features with DD & optical afternoons & nights. So when you speak of 'inventories' becoming cyan, it's just blowing off archival prints, & ENTIRE inventories onhand at the studios "classics" divisions. And the PAC's which run summer programs of movies which just serve community enjoyment of film from inventories of classic divisions & new prints? They're out too. Kiss it goodbye when the first cyan print shows up, or when mgrs hear about the soundtrack change. Kiss that small segment of programming & exhibition goodbye. Everybody's happy killing off those "statistically insignificant" segment of going to the movies? Or is there a need for an inner personal denial of responsibility?
Now that who & what's being negatively effected is becoming clear, it looks like there's a need to just do face-saving evasion & tell anyone who points out the problems to just screw off. Really, change readers between movies? How can so facile & knowingly impracticle (in the sense of not possible to put into practice) be expected to be received by someone as not being just a blow-off?
Steve Guttag & I are absolutely on the opposite side of the fence on whether the environment is an important issue, but I am really getting cranked about the attitude being given by the folks who have just decided on ramrodding this monolithic change & screw everyone who doesn't like it. Steve's legitimately angry, & instead of honest answers or even acknowledgment of important, detrimental issues related to the process & change itself, the only response is evasion, sarcasm, & a power-differential enabled posture of 'so what' ?
As it's coming into focus, if this idea had come from anyone, I would have best expected from the suits at Carmike & Regal, not the screwdriver & measuring-tape boys. I never heard an engineer say "Well, only part of it burned up, so it's OK". Hell of a piece of work from people who are supposed to come up with completely considered & practical solutions.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-26-2004 08:14 PM
Well folks, its been awhile...I've been busy in the field and then ShoWest so my ability to respond has been delayed but here it goes:
quote:
I've already mentioned the environmental "payload" of the electronics industry. Those chips and circuit boards don't fall from heaven, they are made by chemical processes.
This statement by John P is in reference to my claim that if the environment was of paramount concern, then we should go to DCinema immediately.
The problem with John's arguement here is that he is comparing the film medium with the DCinema projector. To compare same/same one should compare the film medium to the DCinema medium which is primarily hard drives. The environmental impact of hardrives, given their life is significantly less than the environmental impact of the equivalent amount of film stock.
Also not a bizzar choice of words with the "...circuit boards don't fall from heaven..." line. With DCinema, technology does indeed allow for the medium (the movies themselves) to be sent via satellite...certainly a more environmentally friendly method than the present striking of prints, placing them on cores/reels, shipping them via truck/plane and then disposing of them and again truck/planes for transport.
However with the DCinema projectors...they don't have that much in the way of microchips going on inside...the brains of the system is in something like a 6-inch by 12-inch box. The rest of the silcon part is in yet smaller quarters. Certainly the DCinema industry doesn't even register, even with 100% penetration among movie theatres as compared to say, home computers.
If your claim is all manufacturing pollutes in some way or another and here is how Silicon Valley does it...well I've long since made the claim that all industry gives off pollution...some better than others. I, unlike some, accept that with the pollution some great benefit can and often outweighs the environmental impact. Sometimes you get lucky...people expell CO2....trees and such expell O2...it is a nice exchange and everyone benefits. More often than not, one does not find a worthy device that needs the pollution of another worthy device and so "bad" pollution develops.
quote:
Mark is correct, SMPTE papers are published for "peer review". Disputing data or conclusions is best done by staking your professional reputation on a published paper. You've had almost ten years to do so.
This is more of Mark statement but it showed up in a John quote.
First I dispute the 10-year claim...it is 2004 and red readers have not been deployed that long.
But back to the juice of the statement...a paper...one of the disadvantages of working for a service company like the one I do is the inability to have the time to do proper research and, quite frankly, be as involved in the professional societies as one would want. It is not out of desire to not present my position but lack of time to do so properly. People like Mr. Goldberg and yourself (John) have the benefit of companies that allow the time and even underwrite the expense of your research including any labratory costs. These things are not afforded at all parts of the industry. None the less, I have been trying to out together measurements to quantify my claims and believe me...nothing would have made me happier to present such claims prior to a roll out of what I feel is a scientific misrepresentation of facts that I feel degrades the industry which I love. Even my involvement within SMPTE has been limited to the P-3 committee and that work happens in my spare time and at industry trade shows that the company I work for attends. To that end, even you must admit I've done my damdest to participate and contribute to the committee. Heck, if I had more time on my hands, I would have tried to rally behind EG-18, my most favorite document from the SMPTE and it was only an Engineering Guideline...but I digress.
So, as to testing...if it improves to the work I do...I've probably been afforded the time and equipment to do it. I was pretty early on exposing that Cat. 69C was not accurate in either pink noise nor Dolby Level...that Cat. 97 is not as accurate as Buzz Track. These all were measured with tools of the trade...a constant soundhead (didn't switch things around) and an R2 or scope and compared various films of the past to the current and such...not quite the level of science needed for a paper but sufficient to know if a piece of test film is worth using. I also was pretty close to first, if not first, in blowing the fake SR sound of the Cat. 222SR/A...like the problem with red light on an older print, the problems with Cat. 222SR/A was first noticed by a customer that I then had to diagnose. While I was able to swap Cat. 222SR/A and Cat. 350s in a CP-65 to prove (to myself and customers) that the Cat. 222SR/A was not in any way SR it took YEARS before I was able to obtain a specral read out that quantified the differences. I was initially duped like everyone else to believe if it had the SR badge on it, it was the real McCoy (it is in fact two "S" circuits cascaded). Likewise, the whole red reader thing is another duping that is being glossed over by the high-magenta track. The cyan agenda is lowering the bar, then switching.
I mention the above because I need the help of other people for such quanitification and that I have solicited.
As to Mr. Goldberg's data...if you read his various papers, including the one cited, you needn't do any more research to determine that visible red readers are inferior...he states it though presents it as if somehow that red readers are as good.
This sort of psudoscience begets the "clown" statements. They stop being scientists when they present conclusions that differ with their data. The data clearly says that all forms of sound quality, noise...distoritions...etc. are superior with IR and White light sources....only if one lowers the quality to High-Magenta can visible red light readers seem equally of reduced quality.
Anyone that has done any lab work knows they can steer any data to verify the results they want. However, this is shameful work. A good scientest presents the data and draws their conclusion based on the data, not based on what they want the data to say. Only when you get someone financing you to present data a certain way do you get this bogus form of science. The study on red readers was not an open one...it was performed to present red readers in the best light (no pun here).
The problem I have with the whole red-reader propoganda is that is always falls down when it confronts the facts...at most every turn the cyan clowns must spin their data to shore up their position. The only people that have it cut and dried are the labs that have an extra process that can be eliminated without application. However, I don't see them reaching into their bank accounts to fund the red reader conversion...they are the only ones that stand to gain financially from the elimination of applicated soundtracks. The ones that have to pay the most, the exhibitor actually stand to gain the least...it is very twisted and very disinginuine.
John P writes
quote:
The SMPTE Board of Editors will help you in your choice of words, choosing more professional terms than "clowns", "bull shit", "bozos", "stupid", "cow farts", "envirowackos", etc., that betray your personal bias.
I'm sure they will. Then again I just presented at the Washington DC section of the SMPTE back in January and did not need to be censored. I don't recall cyan coming up though...Persepcta Stereo did but not cyan.
However in a more public forum where envirowacko statements are made I tend to use the term...and when one presents their data in a misleading method, on purpose, no less...they are indeed clowns and, in my opinion, bad engineers and betray their field. This is a different forum and I treat it as such.
Sam states:
quote:
I feel obliged to come to Dolby's defense on the issue of pricing of the LEDs. The markup is actually almost non-existent and not at all typical of Dolby's usual markup on finished goods. How do I know? I priced them myself when I was still there.
While the mark up by Dolby may not be their norm, from all I can come up with, it is more of a mark up than any dealer could get away with selling a like item to anyone in the exhibition industry.
I say this not to belittle Dolby's desire to "contribute" to the exhibition industry but to note, they aren't exactly loosing money and can not be classified as non-existant. In fact if you only had to settle for the profits of the red-led market, you wouldn't have to do anything else. In short, it isn't a bad market to have, even at a reduced profit.
Just a little off topic...why the switch to the red LED for the penthouse readers when the EPT lamps were doing so well and cost so much less?
And Gordon incorrectly says
quote:
There is no practicle need to switch to an IR reader for old tracks
Bzzzzt sorry...I've already had to switch theatres that run older films from visible red to IR due to problems associated with cross-mod distortions and also for the odd VD track. Your statement is beyond misleading...it is in fact wrong...though you may not have happened across the problem yet, it does indeed exist.
Oh Dominic
quote:
William - maybe you believe that conventional silver soundtracks can't be played on red readers. That's the way you are writing. It's not true. The majority of theatres have been playing silver tracks on red readers for several years.
It isn't a matter of "can't be played" but a matter of being played in an offensive (sibilent and sounding like the track is clipping) sort of manner...just because you get something doesn't mean it is good or good enough.
quote:
As for being "ramrodded" through, the reverse is true. This change has been announced for 6 years.
Ramrodding has nothing to do with time but being forced to do something against your will and in this case with inferior results to other options.
The incompatibility truely is with cyan. Before there were cyan tracks, we had 100% compaitibility...only since this warped cyan crap have we had this push to get back to 100% compatibility...the flaw in the plan is that cyan will never be compatible with existing conventional tracks and it will never be as good.
Screw it...lets go back to the days of Charlie Chaplin and have good old fashioned silent entertainment...now thems was the days...didn't have to worry about the color of the soundtrack or the picture for that matter.
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warren Smyth
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 158
From: Auckland ,New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 03-27-2004 10:16 PM
quote:
as for being "ramrodded" through , the reverse is true, this change has been announced for six years. Isn't that long enough? some of those houses that changed their equipment are complaining that the change is too slow.
Sorry Dominic but "ramrodded" suggests compulsion and is not related to any time table. It is therefore a statement of FACT. If some exhibitors acted on advice to spend money to convert to red led four or so years before they needed to, then perhaps they should direct their anger at those who gave such advice. There is no point in complaining that the change is too slow because those who did convert, are not being disadvantaged technically by playing non cyan tracks (with the exception of silver it now seems). So why complain? unless that is, their accountants are asking some pertinent questions.
One can argue that it actually makes good business sense to hold back on converting until you really need to, because the money can meanwhile be put to better purpose where results can be seen or heard. By this, I'm not suggesting one should wait until the last week before the opening date of a cyan track. Also, further developments could provide better options in the meantime.
The cyan development is not like others where there has been resultant technical benefit to the results enjoyed by the audience, benefits which could be promoted to put more backsides on seats. I will stand corrected if we see exhibitors spend money successfully to promote that their movie was made "environmentally friendly" in the hope that more patrons will come to see it.
quote:
a theatre had to buy an anamorphic lens to show a scope movie and that was "ramrodded" through
Well you are quite correct Gordon, if you mean by "ramrodded", they were complelled. There is, however, a distinct difference. Scope was one of those developments that represented an increase in screen width and overall resolution resulting from the larger frame area. The exhibitor was able, together with the film distributor, to promote it with resultant improved business.
Actually, this is a relevant analogy you raise Gordon but not for the reason you suggest. The exhibition chain here who exhibited Fox films back in the fifties was actually bank rolled by Fox for the conversion. This was not limited to the cost of just the anamorphic lens either. It included screen and procenium changes as well. It would be interesting to know the extent to which Fox came to the financial assistance of exhibitors in other countries as well. It was, afterall, Fox who were pushing scope at the time.
If Steve is correct (and I have no reason to suggest otherwise) and silver tracks play on red light with "sibilent and sounding like the track is clipping" results, then this really opens up a can of worms for cyan and red light. The houses that are more likely to be affected are the art houses who often have a more technically critical audience. Some run two projectors with changeovers so the conversion cost to red light per screen is double per screen.
Does this distortion mean that distributors who presently hold earlier films with silver tracks may have to stand the cost of reprints, which in monochrome is very significant? We have heard plenty about the slowness of exhibitors to convert, but why has it taken so long for the issue of distortion with silver tracks played on red light to be raised? Was this issue part of the cyan/red light promotion to distributors?
Sections of the industry have understandably shown reluctance to spend money without financial return to their enterprise since Thomas Edison tried to "tax" producers for the use of the sprocket hole, on which he attempted to claim patent right. Can you really blame some exhibitors for not being too anxious to jump into the CYAN SOUP about a hundred years later? Maybe this new revelation may cause doubt with some distributors of classics as well. What is clear, is that further assurances may be required of a verifyable technical nature, rather than just environmental spin, to put concerns at rest.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic