|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Cyan Tracks
|
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 07-18-2003 07:52 PM
(Rant on):
The cost of a red reader retrofit is less than (or fairly close to) what a lot of your theatres are paying for one single xenon bulb (installation notwithstanding). In my case, I can get the parts to do almost 3 screens for what I pay for one bulb.
It amazes me the amount of debate this subject continues to generate. Issues like exciter lamps blowing in the middle of shows (I've not had that happen one single time in 35 years), owners' benefits from improved sound (most of them are more deaf than their customers) really have nothing to do with all this because there have been enough owners who have made good careers out of this industry by not putting squat in their booths.
The technology of analog audio has taken a step forward. Installing it makes an already decent process an even more excellent backup for the digital systems we've invested 'tons of money in'. The very fact that these wonderful digital systems... every single one of them... DROP OUT from time to time (how often did that happen when you were all analog?) justifies keeping the SR system in top notch shape. Anything less just makes it all the more obvious when your system DOES drop into it, which everybody knows is something an audience will notice.
In the dollars of the time, upgrades to 'scope (don't forget the sprocket replacements), mag sound (how many formats?), and the extra generators, rectifiers and interlocking mechanisms required to run 3D were far more costly than what a red reader represents.
If the exhibition industry is going to whine about four or five hundred bucks, then they can kiss ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif) goodbye and we can stop debating THAT, too! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
(rant off) ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Alexander
Film Handler
Posts: 71
From: Greenwood, Nova Scotia, Canada
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-18-2003 08:59 PM
Right thing or wrong thing., I've been waiting patiently for this for a few years. As someone mentioned, this is not a new topic, and it's not like everyone has had "LOTS" of notice. It's been put back and put off way too long already. Cyan is an improved process, and whether or not is results in savings for the distributors or the processors is a moog point. It has been directed and it has improved response and is far more enviromentally friendly. Yes there is a significant cost involved, but like I said, we've all had lots of notice, so if you are not upgraded, who's to blame. As for who should pay, come on folks, this is business and there are cost involved to stay with the game. If you don't like, don't upgrade....but don't blame anyone when the shoe falls.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Kerchinsky
Master Film Handler
Posts: 326
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 07-19-2003 03:39 AM
I really, really hate dragging this on, but I can't believe some of you naysayers. (hope that's correct spelling).
As stated earlier, and not just by me, this is an IMPROVEMENT!!!!!
Not only in our exhibition of films, but in the process of making these prints. I don't understand what's the big deal.
Some talk about cost, others about how long these will last.
I'm sure if HULK was cyan you'd really be concerned about running this film 10 or 20 years down the road as a "classic."
Get real guys. Our movies, in case you haven't noticed, don't last very long on screen.
My feeling is if you or your company invested in digital sound, whatever format, then you were looking to IMPROVE what you had before. This is another of those improvements.
Exciter bulbs are a thing of the past. Get used to it.
-30-
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 07-19-2003 04:30 PM
Here are my thoughts, for what the're worth.
There has been talk of this for years, but nothing has happened yet, few peple have seen a single foot of film with a cyan track. Under the circumstances, it's not surprising that there are many places that have not converted yet.
If it is going to happen now, then this is how I think it should be done:
A definate 'cut-off' date should be published, after which all new prints will be cyan.
I don't think the two months notice being given for this release is long enough, on the other hand, the cut-off date shouldn't be too far into the future, as that would cause theatres to put off the conversion. I suggest that a date of 31st December 2003 would be suitable.
Any films released with cyan tracks before the cut-off date should have some prints made with silver tracks, and these should be made available to theatres which have not yet converted, passibly with a small surcharge to cover the additional cost involved. It should be made very clear to theatres when these prints are booked that this is a short term measure, and that silver prints will not not be made for films released after the cut-off date.
This forthcoming cyan release should be in the theatres for at least a week before any more cyan prints are made, just in case any unforeseen problems arise when they get out into the real world.
Tom thinks that the labs should not pass on cost savings; I disagree. In financial terms, the labs stand to gain more than anyone else from this, due to reduced consumption of water, energy, chemicals and print stock, and to an increase in the amount of silver they are able to recover and recycle. The cost to the labs will be almost nill. I suspect that most processors are able to bypass the re-development section, if not it is unlikely that anything more than a couple of rollers will be required. It's not as if the labs have had to make a large investment in order to bring about their cost savings.
For the theatres, things will be very different. they will have to make the greatest investment, and will see only minor benefits. Indeed, many of those that have not yet converted probably do not have the best of sound systems, and may well gain nothing at all. I believe strongly that the labs should pass on a proportion of the savings to their customers, who should, in turn, pass on some of it to the theatres. Even if they only save a dollar or so on each rental, they would be able to see some saving, which could, over the life of the new equipment, pay for its cost. I do not think that the theatres should pass on any saving in reduced ticket prices for two reasons:
The theatre-goers are not facing increased costs for which they need to be compensated
Cinema ticket prices are, in my view, too low at present.
There will be a small number of theatres for whom these changes will cause serious hardship. Those for whom the conversion costs, for some reason will be unusually high, where it could make the difference between a theatre which is just viable, and one which has to close. I don't know how many such theatres there would be, but I would guess only a fraction of one percent of the total number of screens. I would suggest that in these circumstances, where a theatre can show that real hardship will be caused, due to changes being imposed on it against its will, special provision could be made, maybe an interest-free loan could be made available, to enable them to spread the cost over a longer period. Due to the small number of theatres involved, the cost would not be geat.
Any comments?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 07-20-2003 05:50 AM
OK.
Steve has some valid points, taking his experience for granted. I don't have a problem with that.
However, given the level that I work within on an every-day basis, the conversion process does represent a noticeable improvement.
I don't have the luxury of working top-flight, large city booths any more. My union days are no doubt behind me, and the big flagship companies I once worked for are either gone, or have a much different view of how they want their booths run. I'm now an owner in a smaller community, whose theatres have projectors at least 15 years old. Many of the other booths I work around and on, at one level or another are even older.
Given this, many of the systems I have frequent contact with are running Motiograph, Simplex and Century heads with original slit lenses. A very few, like the Ballantynes I acquired with the theater I recently opened, had already had their lenses upgraded.
Fortunately, they all have (at least) dumped their phototubes... but some probably wouldn't have, if they hadn't gone stereo.
The upgraded lenses, with original exciters are producing frequencies up to 16kHz. Due to this, and the fact that we have everything on hand to maintain A-chain integrity, 3 of those 4 in my indoor house have not yet been replaced with reverse scanners. The other reason is that I'm replacing those 3 remaining Ballantyne systems with Centurys, and I don't want to change these things twice.
For the rest, again, at this level, reverse scan replacements represent not only an improvement in high frequency performance, but better stability as far as A-chain levels are concerned. I recently ran loops in a remote theatre that had not been touched since reverse scanners were installed... more than 4 years ago. The Dolby levels were nearly perfect. I doubt that would have been the case, had the theatre still been operating with exciter lamps and solar cells.
I'll take your word for it, Steve. You probably know more of the details than I do (guess I should check up on that)... but the conversion process does represent potentially improved performance (if not perfection) for theatres outside of large city circles like Seattle, where regular maintenance schedules can be infrequent at best.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 42 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 40 41 42
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic