Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » What is good enough? (Page 4)

 
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Author Topic: What is good enough?
Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 12-27-2003 10:08 AM      Profile for Randy Stankey   Email Randy Stankey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I read the topic line of this thread thinking it would be about how well the operator or technician does his job instead of whether or not the theater owner buys shiny, new equipment. That's a bit disappointing.

The presentation of movies SHOULD be about the guy behind the machine, not about the machine itself.

In a lot of cases we do have theaters using old, broken down equipment and it probably would be better for them to replace/update their systems. On the other hand, an operator who knows his stuff can pull off a far superior presentation on old equipment than a Popper Jockey can on brand new equipment.

Old, dusty-looking equipment is not necessarily worse than shiny, new equipment. My booth is equipped almost entirely with used, military surplus equipmet and/or manufacturer's "B-Stock" merchandise. We put on a presentation that is at LEAST as good as the local Cinemark Tinseltown and in some respects it's BETTER. I tell people, "The only thing that Tinseltown has that Mercyhurst doesn't is digital sound." If I have my way that won't be an issue for much longer, either.

Mercyhurst has only had ONE instance of a show stoppage in the presence of paying customers in the 5 years since the projector was installed. That was because the transofrmer that powered the hand-built automation system burned up in the middle of the show. This will never happen again. I installed a Comp. Eng. "TA-10" automation shortly after that incident. (Mfg. B-Stock, by the way.)

My main beef with the way movie theaters are run today is the reliance on "technology" instead of "workmanship". Man should be master of the macnines. All too often, it is the machines who are the masters of Man.

If this attitude keeps up digital projection, as inferior as it may be, will take over movie theaters in a very short time!

In some cases, it may very well be more cost-effective to ditch your old, broken down projection equipment and buy new. In other cases, that old equipment can be repaired, rebuilt or simply cleaned up and it will give Sterling service for years to come. This is a human, "Cost vs. Benefits" desision to make, not a simple "Technology Solution".

For the price of ONE super-duper digital projection system a theater could pay an experienced, caring operator/technician a good salary for TEN YEARS!

To paraphrase a line from a famous movie:

Pay no attention to that man behind the little window!

It's the PEOPLE who make the movies, NOT the machines! Focusing our attention solely on the machines is doing a great disservice to our industry!

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 12-27-2003 10:34 AM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I side with Steve on the lens issue. Although Sankor spherical lenses have gotten somewhat better I would still classify them in the "Coke Bottle" department and are for those theatre owners that simply do not care about anything except the bottom line.

Three years ago I installed a brand new 6 plex in southeastern Indiana for a Vendor that had sold this customer all their booth equipment. Everything was new, right down to the Simplex Projectors. I was really disturbed when the new Sankor lenses arrived and that this VENDOR had sold these to them, first time theatre operators in this case and super nice people too. So along with all the nice new equipment that went in a major bottle neck to them having a decent picture on screen was also sold to them. And what did they save? Absolutley nothing at all in the long term. This was a job I do wish I had packed up and walked out of but unfortunately could not! And the really sad part was that these people who were quite wealthy would have gladly spent a few extra thousand to get the better lenses.

IMHO,many of the old ISCO lenses are still some of the finest optics ever made for cinema application, and the old ISCO MC 2X scopes are still some of the very sharpest anamorphic adaptors around. Contrast may be a bit lacking but sharpness is always there.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 12-27-2003 11:52 AM      Profile for Manny Knowles   Email Manny Knowles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Jack wrote:

quote:
When I aquired a local quad, I opened with jittery machines, crappy reflectors, foggy lenses and nothing but SR for sound. Not one single patron ever complained about the quality of the show. Not one ever said they wouldn't be back because the theatre down the street had a better show. I DID have several people make comments about my great DIGITAL sound... and only my hairdresser knew for sure.
Based on that, why shouldn't I accept that they were coming to my place instead of the other guys for no other reason than that they all loved me??!! No... I started upgrading the booth because my own presentation made me crazy. We're all digital now, I have newer lenses (brand new ones on the list for this Summer), the reflectors have been replaced, one of the three machines is new and the other three will be gone within the next few months. The crowds are decent... and growing... but I still think it's a subjective matter of how each of them have perceived the experience.

This is very similar to my experience and, I would guess, it is not uncommon at all.

Would it have been preferable to let that quad close down (or remain closed)?

Assuming that there is nothing wrong with building a theatre over time...What are the absolute bare essentials needed at the outset?

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 12-27-2003 12:22 PM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Life is compromises. If one doesn't have a degree of flexibility then they are so rigid nothing ever will happen in their life

The Sankor HD lens are as good as the older ISCO Cinelux serries I have tested them there contrast is lower but image sharpness is the same

If that is what the customer can afford then so be it

Life is not just the box of chocolates

 |  IP: Logged

Jack Ondracek
Film God

Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002


 - posted 12-27-2003 01:00 PM      Profile for Jack Ondracek   Author's Homepage   Email Jack Ondracek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
...from Manny:
quote:
Would it have been preferable to let that quad close down (or remain closed)?
My experience wouldn't indicate so... nor did it with the drive-in I bought.

quote:

Assuming that there is nothing wrong with building a theatre over time...What are the absolute bare essentials needed at the outset?

Offhand, I'd say that using the Johnny Cash method of building up a theatre over time ("one piece at a time") depends to a huge extent upon whether the community thinks they need, or want that theatre in their midst. My quad is by no means the county's powerhouse. However, it's situated at the edge of town, where the crowds have to travel another 7 miles to get to the big malls & their theatres. I'm probably more like the "community theatre"... attracting the "more adult" audience that doesn't want to deal with the insanity. We're also in a military county, and the blue-collar nature of the area has generated the numbers of loyal customers we've needed to pay off... and subsequently get going on the process of rebuilding our drive-in.

The quad was not the high-priority for the chain that had it previously. First run pictures not usually in the top 6 or 7, because those films usually played the mall houses. That an an effect on the mix of customers who frequented the place, making it a location that was not thought of first as the place where the best pictures would be. When we got it, we capatalized on the fact that even the smallest rooms have 200+ seats (the smallest chain rooms are around 72), the screens are wall-to-wall, excepting for exit doors, and our biggest house has a 38-footer, easily the largest picture in the county.

Offhand, I'd say that if the community wants you, they'll have much more patience with your deficiencies... whatever they are, as long as they perceive you're investing back into the place and not just siphoning off all the profits. On the other hand, if they don't care about you, the only way you'll get something going is to kick the competition out of town (read: have lots of money to burn!). Some people will be able to play the middle ground & survive, but these are largely the operators who go into a property and literally do everything. For many of them, the only way they keep the lights on is to avoid hiring anything out. They become slaves to their properties & that is NO fun.

As far as I've experienced, the audience will forgive cosmetic deficiencies far more quickly than they will with presentation issues. If your building needs new carpet, they'll notice that when they walk on it, but will put it aside if you give them a good, solid presentation. On the other hand, if you give them a show that has serious enough problems that they are able to make negative comparisons between you and other theatres in the area, the best carpet in the world won't save you. This is where I've taught the staff that, while the popcorn is important... and keeping carpets swept and bathrooms clean is necessary and not to be forgotten, none of that matters if the customers leave thinking more about the out-of-focus picture than the movie itself. We've gotten an awful lot of mileage from people who might say to their friends, "yah... the place is 20 years old, but they've got a 38 foot screen & their sound kicks butt!"

... my $.002 [beer]

... oh... and I have no "Snake-Ore" lenses in either of my theatres. Coke bottles are used only for soft drinks here! [Razz]

 |  IP: Logged

John T. Hendrickson, Jr
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 889
From: Freehold, NJ, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 12-28-2003 10:12 AM      Profile for John T. Hendrickson, Jr   Email John T. Hendrickson, Jr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Just a thought here. Perhaps John Pytlak would weigh in here with the point that if your theatre conforms to SEMPTE standards, then that is good enough?

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 12-28-2003 10:57 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Conforming to ANSI/SMPTE standards falls into the "necessary but not sufficient" category.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

John T. Hendrickson, Jr
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 889
From: Freehold, NJ, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 12-28-2003 04:48 PM      Profile for John T. Hendrickson, Jr   Email John T. Hendrickson, Jr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
WOW! So, Steve, what is sufficient?.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 12-28-2003 06:15 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Isn' t that the topic of this thread? Trying to find out what people think is sufficient. Meeting the standards are a given but things like the projectionist or the show or equipment choices...etc...those are not necessarily covered by standards. If you are projecting your Scope film in a 2:1 ratio...that is not good enough...period...the rest (not covered by standards)is subject to interpretation.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003


 - posted 12-29-2003 01:55 PM      Profile for Scott Jentsch   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Jentsch   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
After so much avoidance of the initial question...I now wonder if anyone on this forum is brave enough to make an apparently futile attempt to enumerate the bare minimum that is required for a theatre to be "good enough" in his/her opinion..?
I can't quote exact equipment, as I'm not in the business, but I've already mentioned what I believe to be the bare minimum performance in the 70mm thread:

quote:
Make sure that the sound is perfect, make sure that the picture is in focus and doesn't jitter. Make sure you aren't projecting on the wall and that you are framing it properly. Make sure your customers can't hear the projector running, distracting them from the experience you are supposed to be immersing them in.

When you have that done, then make sure that the staff is courteous, make sure the concessions are good. Make sure the bathrooms are clean and are something people aren't afraid to go into.

Make your theater a place that people want to come to by using interior and exterior design that builds on the magic people want to feel when they go to a movie. Accessorize those elements with standees, posters, and other items that support that experience.

I'm sure that I'm missing some crucial details, but using guidelines like these and a budget figure, I would think that a good dealer could suggest the right equipment to make all of the above happen within their control, and then the rest (staff, etc.) is on the shoulders of the management.

Is it possible to outline the "bare necessities" equipment to attain the above goals, perhaps with some MSRP's to go with it?

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 12-29-2003 03:32 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Scott said....
"I'm sure that I'm missing some crucial details, but using guidelines like these and a budget figure, I would think that a good dealer could suggest the right equipment to make all of the above happen within their control, and then the rest (staff, etc.) is on the shoulders of the management."
_________________________________________________________________

I think Scott pretty much hit the nail on the head in the line above. This sort of situation should be true for at least 95% of the stuff happenning out there. The other 5% are owners that simnply do not give a dam.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged

Jack Ondracek
Film God

Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002


 - posted 12-29-2003 05:12 PM      Profile for Jack Ondracek   Author's Homepage   Email Jack Ondracek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Just a thought here. Perhaps John Pytlak would weigh in here with the point that if your theatre conforms to SEMPTE standards, then that is good enough?

At least one part wouldn't be for me, John.
I had a respected area tech come up to help me get my booth going again. After a lot of work, the VIP35s looked fairly decent on the loops... and his explanation of the SMPTE standard for that indicated that the vertical movement was within spec. In practice however, it was... and continues to be objectionably noticeable to me. The Century I installed in place of one of the VIPs is rock solid... and I'm sure looking forward to retiring the other 3.

Based on that, I'd guess that at least some of the standards shouldn't be hard to meet, but the tradeoff for meeting the minimum level will be a merely adequate presentation. My worry about that would be that some owners could use meeting minimum SMPTE levels as an excuse to avoid fixing something they knew could be better.

 |  IP: Logged

John T. Hendrickson, Jr
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 889
From: Freehold, NJ, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 12-30-2003 05:35 PM      Profile for John T. Hendrickson, Jr   Email John T. Hendrickson, Jr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
So...Who do you trust?

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 12-31-2003 10:47 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Most of the performance specifications are not even SMPTE Standards --- for example, "Projected Image Quality" is covered by Engineering Guideline EG 5, and "Projected Jump and Weave" are covered by Recommended Practice RP 105.

Image area and screen luminance ARE standards, SMPTE 195 and 196M, respectively.

THX did a nice job in consolidating performance specifications into a single document for their Theatre Alignment Program:

http://www.film-tech.com/manuals/TAPGUIDELINES.pdf

 |  IP: Logged

Edward Jurich
Master Film Handler

Posts: 305
From: Las Vegas USA
Registered: Jul 2003


 - posted 12-31-2003 11:21 AM      Profile for Edward Jurich   Email Edward Jurich   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If you were interested in opening a small theater in a smaller town you might have to work with a really small budget to keep cost down. Using used equipment might be your only option.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.