|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: What is good enough?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-25-2003 11:18 PM
Joe,
Now that all the units we tend to have had the upgades done that is probably the unit I have the most of out there(at least 200) that has the least amount of problems in the reliability department. The XD-10 is also proving itself very, very quickly as an absolutely dynamyte performer. We have 6 of them in the field at various locations and I've never heard back from any of those customers with any complaints, only praise. Wait till you get aload of its automation interface capabilities!
Sure there are bad films printed, bad reels printed, disks left out of shipping cases, etc, etc...but for the record I pretty much see an equivelent amount of defective SRD and or DTS film. As for the DA-20, CP500, CP650...They have become very, very reliable and I rarely repair one....ditto for the analog Dolby stuff Ditto for the Panastereo CSP-1200. I can't say that for USL though and Smart lies in there between Panastereo and USL. Over the last 20 years I have had less trouble with Smart Equipment than USL by a wide margin.
All in all, excepting the older Sony stuff, I find that you have the same chance with any of the three digital systems and them working properly or not.
What problems are you experiencing with DTS that are not political in nature? Shouldn't be a much different experience that most of our customers have.
As for the DVD/VHS stuff...it is merely a convenience thng for me and probably many others and mainly for me a way to enjoy movie classics that you generally don't see in the theatre...although if they play in a cinema near me I will usually go. Sure there are many with home theatres out there but most are inexpensive systems from K-Mart and Costco that can't rival even so-so theatre showings. There are also the elite home theatre owners...used to be audiophiles and such that have converted to home theatre cause more speakers equals better sound....BAH! Believe me though they are a dot on a pin head as compared to all the mediocre home systems that exist out there. And all these people still only really gain the convenience and being able to pee and or eat when you want to.....
Mark
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-26-2003 01:43 AM
I'm mostly in agreement with Brad, coming from the opposite direction. Manny's points of why people go to theaters other than a good theatrical experience (the lowest common denominator theory) all are dependent on the fact that the theatrical experience has been sold already.
Manny's points:
(1) Get out of the house.
(2) Get into an airconditioned environment.
(3) Pass the time.
(4) See a movie before it comes on video.
(5) Be around other people.
(6) Sleep. (Yes! I've known guys who did this.)
(7) Popcorn.
Number 4 assumes already that someone wants a theatrical experience. The others, though, do not even need a theater. If they're just seeking a place to get out of the house, into the air conditioning, sleep, or eat, they can hit the mall. None of those are motivations to go to a MOVIE. They presuppose other reasons for going to the theater, & if there are none, folks don't go there. They already need something else to attract them to the theater.
The missed problem with offering a specific product (in entertainment) is that it is supposed to attract people who have a strong interest, and thus an emotional stake in getting what's promised. Hey, I have something you want! Oh yes, I want it! Those are the people that must be satisfied.
Municipal symphonies that cheap out & start putting out substandard shows no longer attract the people that like well-performed music, those audiences dwindle, the boards look for other ways to fill houses with what are basically captive audiences - schoolchildren brought in like prisoners on buses & college students forced to go, occasional itinerant customers who think they 'ought to take the family once', seniors who have few other social outlets at loss-leader admissions. They're not just captive & cheap, they're lost as revenue - people aren't motivated to come back to a poor or mediocre show. Captive audiences aren't worth much, & are partially liabilities.
Orchestras are the best example, because it's easy to compare technically at the level of some mgmt. type saying "It sounds fine to me", whereas it's NOT acceptable to folks who are enthusiasts of orchestral music. They're not going back. The people of lower technical appreciation abilities only find it not a special experience; they don't come back. Houses drop, there's nobody motivated to go to the shows.
All this entertainment industry stuff works the same. In US commercial broadcasting, unless you have somehow managed to create a captive audience, revenue is brought in by ratings, who's 'attending' the show. The only way to maintain ratings is by serving the 'core audience', the rest are transients. Got a TV comedy show? The people who are motivated to tune in want to see a comedy & it better be good. Got a 'classic rock' radio station? You better have enough Led Zeppelin & Lynyrd Skynyrd, because those people come because they WANT it. The core audience for movie theaters is people who WANT to go to see a movie theatrically, & it better make them happy.
You can specifically see the result of not serving the core audience for film by looking at PAC's which do other things besides showing movies. I've mentioned before theaters-turned-PAC where you could SEE attendance drop suddenly after the first show when it was below an acceptable standard for people who desired to see a film presented in a theatrical manner. Running either very poor 16mm or even projection video, there'sr that first show of the series advertising "Movies as they were meant to be seen, on the big screen!" big house, then plummeting afterwards to nearly nothing. Or a theater that pulled 1,000 increasing to 1,700 per show each series, then switched to video, and houses drop to less than 100, the later houses always smaller than the first of the series. People come back to a good show, they don't come back to a bad one. But the mechanism is that they're not serving their core audience, people who want to see movies well-presented, as advertised. The people running those theaters who say 'It seems fine to me' are having a blast of ego over something they knowingly have no technical understanding about that they wouldn't dare put up in front of the symphony folks and say they're not calling a piano tuner because 'It seems fine to me'.
That said, & to splice with another thread, I'm with Oscar & Peter on the subject of there being a definite, constructive place for items like the CC card. Peter's talking about provincial cinemas, Oscar points out that it's for people who just aren't buying a Dolby card. It's situational, & there are situations where it's an improvement or the only way. I know lots of folks who are "Stepping over dollars to pick up dimes", but quite a few also who *seem *to be doing that but have kept their boat afloat in the worst financial times while everyone else goes under until they're flush & can spring more - I mean real showmen. It's part personality, but whatever it is, those folks evolved something that works for them. I'm amazed by what they've made work.
But for new builds, yes, you got to be the bomb. Otherwise, you start out half-sunk.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-26-2003 09:40 AM
No more decent carbons? I've had no issues with "Eagle" brand carbons from Marble. I guess they're not as good as Nationals, but they're still perfectly usable. No need to switch to xenon (mmm...IB Tech with carbon light...mmm). The one carbon house that I run semi-regularly uses 7mm and 8mm sizes; perhaps other less-common sizes aren't available with the same quality.
As for the rest of the thread--I agree with what Steve and Brad and everyone else say...to a point. Sure, a theatre in a competitive market that is showing first-run product has absolutely no excuse not to have great picture and sound quality. Twenty-year-old projectors are fine if they've been well maintained and/or rebuilt by someone who knows what he's doing, but lenses and screens and sound equipment have improved so much during that time period that anyone who hasn't upgraded is just asking for his customers to go elsewhere.
Having said that, what about smaller communities (which may be a hundred miles away from the nearest "state of the art" theatre) and smaller theatres showing art, foreign, or repertory product? Sure, we'd all like to see these places put on a top-notch show, but what if the business is really so marginal that they simply cannot afford to do this? Would the industry and general public really be better off if the communities which are served by these venues were to have no access to this type of programming?
I'm not suggesting that anyone should have to put up with flickering light, crappy video projection, or barely discernable dialogue, but rather am suggesting that, in some cases, when the option may be, say, good mono sound and interesting programming (that probably doesn't benefit much from upgraded sound, anyway), or no access at all to see this programming (which probably will never end up at the majority of video stores), that the somewhat substandard theatre experience would be better than nothing.
I've seen some of Steve's and Brad's installations and wish that all theatres could offer this level of quality. The unfortunate reality for theatre owners showing specialized product is that many of them simply can't afford it and that most of their programming wouldn't benefit from it enough to justify the costs. I'd rather see these places employ a real projectionist (union or not doesn't matter as long as he's good) than install install the latest whizzy-bangy stuff and have it run by the popcorn kids.
Would I want to see "Lord of the Rings" in a mono house? Hell, no! Would I be willing to watch the new print of "Wings of Desire" in one? Sure, if I don't have any other option.
I guess I just think it's important to distinguish between first-run houses which are among many which show the same product and whose only distinguishing features (other than location) are presentation quality items (picture, sound, cleanliness, attractiveness of auditoria, etc.), and those theatres which are barely surviving by being the only venues for specialized programming within their markets.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 12-26-2003 11:15 AM
quote:
Number 4 assumes already that someone wants a theatrical experience. The others, though, do not even need a theater. If they're just seeking a place to get out of the house, into the air conditioning, sleep, or eat, they can hit the mall. None of those are motivations to go to a MOVIE.
Number 4 doesn't assume that at all. My best friend was dying to see "Lord of the Rings" but she didn't particularly want to see it in a theatre because patrons tend to be very ill-mannered and also because she has witnessed more than her fair share of presentation SNAFU's. Also, in the case of the LOTR movies, there is more to watch on the DVD.
No, she didn't *want* a "theatrical experience" at all. For that particular fan of the books, seeing LOTR at the movies was a necessary evil if she wanted to see that movie without waiting.
As for the others, they don't need a theatre but somehow theatres fit the bill for a lot of people and it is not always about the movie. When I lived in California we had senior citizens come to the movies during summertime and it rarely mattered what was showing. They wouldn't even bother to ask "what's next?" or "what just started?" When asked what they would like to see they would say "something that doesn't have too many people."
I don't think those people were seeking a "theatrical experience" at all. They wanted someplace that was cool and a seat that was more comfortable than a mall bench.
As for the popcorn -- I'd be a rich man if I had a nickel for every time someone commented on the unique flavor of movie theatre popcorn. I, for one, have never seen the flavor duplicated elsewhere.
But -- as you pointed out -- none of those items on my list are reasons to go to a MOVIE. And, yet, people do patronize theatres for those very reasons.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 12-26-2003 11:38 AM
Some figures on the relative pricing of DVD vs. theatrical showing:
Most everyone I know is not a loner when they see a movie. Sure, I do have one friend who will watch movies alone at home, and will also go to a movie theater alone. That's his choice. By far, however, most people I know want to enjoy movies with others. That's why it's often called a "movie night" -- there's not much special about a "movie night" for one.
So, assuming that we're talking about the scenario that is common to me and my friends (most of whom are parents, by the way. Don't forget that the influential demographic for entertainment is skewing older than the 14-25 group, and many of them are going to have kids)
I'll use Seabiscuit as the test case, since it was just released on DVD on Dec 16th, and it was a popular movie in theaters.
DVD: $17.99 at Amazon.com today. $19.99 at Best Buy. I believe the price was even lower opening week. We can often get new releases on the first week of release for around $15 if one browses the ads carefully. Best Buy is advertising S.W.A.T. for $16.99 (releasing on 12/30).
Popcorn: Betty Crocker Pop Secret Homestyle Microwave Popcorn ~$1 per bag.
Soda: Mountain Dew 24oz bottle ~$0.40 (1 per person max)
Total cost for two people: ~$20
Movie Tickets: 2 evening shows at Marcus Ridge Cinema $8.50 each (add $1 each if purchasing in advance)
Parking: Free
Popcorn: $4.50 (Regular Size, roughly equivalent to a bag of microwave popcorn)
Soda: $3.50 (Regular Size, I think about 24 oz.)
Babysitter: $15 for ~3.5 hours
Total Cost for two people: $40
Going out to a movie is twice as expensive as staying home, a difference which is multiplied if we invite more people over.
You can change the numbers by assuming people without kids, but that just makes it easier to go out, so now increase the total number of people in the group. And that isn't factoring in a dinner, which would make for a nice "date night" out of the house.
You can lower the cost to about $2 for the DVD if you have a Netflix membership, which we do. We don't buy very many DVD's since it's so convenient to rent them from Netflix and watch them when we have time. The $2 cost is determined by my cost per DVD in the past year that I have been renting from Netflix at $20 per month together with a friend.
People with kids and jobs tend to have little free time, so watching a movie at home cuts down on the time needed for a leisure activity such as watching a movie. Going out means that I have to pick up the sitter, then drive to the theater, wait for the movie by waiting in line and then watching advertising in the screen, drive home, and drive the sitter home.
For a 2:20 show like Seabiscuit, that's 4.5 - 5 hours of free time needed to go out to the movies. Please feel free to ask any parent how many times they have that large a block of free time...
My point with this exercise is to illustrate that not only is watching a movie on DVD cheaper, but it is also less time intensive. These two factors alone makes it much more likely that people will stay home and watch a DVD than to go out.
When we do go out, we're going to have high expectations due to the cost of both money and time. Since we're paying the theater to entertain us, what we get should be nothing but the best that can be delivered. I challenge anyone to honestly look at their operations from that perspective and say that sub-optimum experiences aren't really that important.
You will always have a core audience that will attend a theater no matter how bad the experience. I think that there is potential to be tapped by theaters that can do the experience right.
Can you put a dollar value on every element? I can't imagine it. Maybe someone has done some studies of test audiences where each element was switched out and the audience satisfaction measured, but I haven't seen anything like that. (That would be a very interesting study to read, however!)
I'm sure that economics have to play a role in the decisions that theaters must make to keep their doors open, so maybe curtains aren't in the cards if it means that each auditorium can be built decently and have good sound and picture. Many theaters around here don't have curtains, but they do have bleed-through from adjacent theaters and the projection booth, the picture is highly variable in quality, and the sound is usually good.
I can't imagine what those things would be like if they would have taken money from those things to add curtains! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Do you think that anyone building a theater has ever asked a group of people to come in and give their opinions about the movie-going experience? A properly managed focus group could be an eye-opening experience!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
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
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
and a Panastereo .
Printer-friendly view of this topic