Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Sony about to release new cinema projector (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Sony about to release new cinema projector
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 04-29-2007 12:56 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The only aspect of digital technology that remains unchanged is change itself. Given that situation, I'm not so sure paying the extra cost to own digital cinema equipment outright would be such a good idea. Leasing those expensive systems seems to make more sense.

When it comes to computer hardware and software I know full well that all of it will have to be replaced/upgraded over time. That's just the cost of doing business. Home users wind up hurting financially from the situation because those systems don't typically pay for themselves in business endeavors.

I don't think it's going to be any different regarding digital cinema systems either. Perhaps one may not need to swap out major components of the system or replace the entire system nearly as often. But I do think a 10 year life span for a newly installed 2K system may be a little optimistic.

I don't know the monetary details behind Carmike's deal with Christie and AccessIT, but I'm sure there had to be some cost advantages on the deal otherwise Carmike would not have gone through with it.

The only way I could see it being sensible for a movie theater to buy D-Cinema systems outright is if they're getting a much sweeter deal on the box office receipts. As it stands, most movie theaters are already getting screwed as it is even when they show movies on film. To top of it, the movie distributors keep making noises of wanting a cut of the concessions business. Too much more of that crap and we'll see the exhibition business just disappear.

 |  IP: Logged
Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

- posted 04-29-2007 03:22 PM      Profile for Louis Bornwasser   Author's Homepage   Email Louis Bornwasser   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Remember that "never" is 6 months and "forever" is a year!! (to a computer guy)

For a film guy "new" is 10 years and "forever" is 50 years. Louis

 |  IP: Logged
Dustin Mitchell
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1865
From: Mondovi, WI, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

- posted 04-29-2007 03:29 PM      Profile for Dustin Mitchell   Email Dustin Mitchell   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Perhaps I didn't qaulify my statement enough; the cost and availability of spare parts is key to the longevity of digital projection, yes.

However, the primary factor that makes old computers obsolete is not so much cost/availability of spare parts-though that is certainly a factor-but rather the increasing needs of new software for more processing power and more memory. I am just pointing ut that that is NOT the case with digital projection. Assuming the 2k or even the 4k standard is still the standard in 10 years-which I think is a pretty good assumption-the processing power/memory requirements for a digital server will be the same as they are today. You cannot say that for a PC/Mac and the software it will be expected to run in 10 years.

 |  IP: Logged
Kenneth Wuepper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1026
From: Saginaw, MI, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

- posted 04-29-2007 04:50 PM      Profile for Kenneth Wuepper   Email Kenneth Wuepper   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
OK so everything has a life. For business purposes, there is the depreciable life of the item. That is, how many years do you have to write the cost of an asset off against your income to determine profit. Perhaps there are people here who argue that the Dcinema equipment will not last the depreciable life. This depreciation schedule has little to do with how long the equipment, with proper maintenance, will actually last.

For business purposes, the equipment should have paid for itself within 10 years. At that point, you can no longer write off a part of the purchase cost of the equipment against your income. If you feel that the equipment will not last through the depreciation schedule, then you should consider leasing it. The cost of leased equipment can be directly charged against income as it is an operating expense and not your asset.

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 04-29-2007 06:01 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Kenneth Wuepper
If you feel that the equipment will not last through the depreciation schedule, then you should consider leasing it. The cost of leased equipment can be directly charged against income as it is an operating expense and not your asset.
Actually leasing D-Cinema gear has alot of other benefits besides what you mention above.... In fact I wouldn't reccomend to anyone to actually purchase outright anything digital based thats in that expense league.
Mark

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 04-29-2007 06:18 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You also have the factor of the movie distributors being the ones who derive by far the greatest cost savings benefit of digital cinema. It's not making much of a difference to the movie theaters themselves, other than maybe attracting a few more tech-head types because of "digital" being on the marquee and in the ads.

When you consider what it costs to make 35mm film prints and just how many of those prints any 1st run theater shows per year, many digital cinema systems would pay for themselves within 5-10 years based on the cost savings of not making film prints alone.

This is precisely why the studios should put up a great deal of the money in installing the things. If a theater has to pay for the equipment then it should get a bigger percentage of the box office take.

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 04-29-2007 09:08 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well, in 1927 they didn't theaters pretty much HAVE TO BUY those new fangled "sound systems". Theaters and chains paid incessant amounts of money to the likes of Western Electric and RCA for sound playback or they went out of buisness. The priced paid in 1927 dollars translate to many more 2007 dollars than it costs for an average D-Cinema system. Seems like everyone survived sound and its built in equipment obsolescence.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 04-30-2007 12:55 AM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The difference there is, the studios did not save money when sound was introduced. They spent money too, by investing in the equipment needed to make sound movies (not to mention also finding a whole 'nother group of actors who could act with their voices and not just their bodies).

Theatres that treat film properly now won't benefit in the least from DC except to save some labor and shipping cost, which is miniscule in the big picture. The studios will reap 90% of the benefit so they should help pay, if not in virtual print fees, then in substantial film rent discounts.

 |  IP: Logged
Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

- posted 04-30-2007 02:52 AM      Profile for Ron Curran   Author's Homepage   Email Ron Curran   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Absa-blooming-lootly Mike.

In the 50s exhibitors invested the price of a house to convert to CinemaScope. That was a difference that audiences appreciated.

Then there was the considerable investment in digital sound that most people liked.

BUT ... DC is like installing a new platter: No tangible difference to the customer.

If, tomorrow film distributors said "Sorry, by December we will only issue 70mm prints" then we would be making another investment in show business.

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 04-30-2007 08:16 AM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You guys are way too narrow minded! We are talking about exhibition here not production. Bu ok... you want to include production... keep in mind that the typical negative cost on a single largish film film production today is 150 million... and you say the studios are not spending?

My base for comparison to sound was because it was the last time that a comparable amount of $$ was required to be spent by the exhibitor and it cost the typical 1927 exhibitor the equivelent of $100,000 in 2007 U.S. dollars just to equip for Western Electric or RCA sound, this does not include service contracts... and yes, you had to use Western Electric(again at great expense) until the feds divested that bunch. That high cost is why so many "bootleg" sound system manufacturers poped up back then. At any rate everyone survived that, Cinemascope, Todd-AO, and and THX.

No tangible difference to the customer.

Man either you haven't see it yet or you're just plain blind [Big Grin] .

No scratches, no dust, no splices...looks like dailies when done right! Thats a difference that people DO notice.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged
Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

- posted 04-30-2007 06:42 PM      Profile for Ron Curran   Author's Homepage   Email Ron Curran   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
No scratches, no dust, no splices...looks like dailies when done right! Thats a difference that people DO notice.

Sounds like film done right to me.

Yes, handling film properly isn't easy. I, for one will welcome its replacement with a servicable digital system that shows a better image than a good Scope print on my screen. I have seen brilliant DC. I have even shown some 1.3K E-Cinema images on our screen that look better than some flat 35mm prints.

But, on this thread, we are still talking about promises.

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 04-30-2007 07:14 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ron,
On the average size multiplex screen the promises have been met with just 2K projection. With a top notch transfer its pretty startling just how good it can be. I agree that handling film is not so easy but the bigger problem is finding just one person for each plex that even cares any more. typically I see one person in about 10 plex's that still cares and that one person is typically part time and never stays very long. This is one of the biggest problems that DC will solve.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 04-30-2007 07:54 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Well, in 1927 they didn't theaters pretty much HAVE TO BUY those new fangled "sound systems". Theaters and chains paid incessant amounts of money to the likes of Western Electric and RCA for sound playback or they went out of buisness.
Back then movie distributors also owned most of the movie theaters.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
You guys are way too narrow minded! We are talking about exhibition here not production. Bu ok... you want to include production... keep in mind that the typical negative cost on a single largish film film production today is 150 million... and you say the studios are not spending?
A new stadium seated multiplex theater costs at least $10 million to over $30 million to build. It's not like the exhibitors have avoided spending money either. But far worse, the exhibitors have puny profit margins the distributors keep trying to further erode. The exhibitors don't have all the ancillary markets to sell product either.

Sure $150 million is a hell of a lot to spend on a movie production (not to mention another $50 million or more to market it). But the distributors often make back all that money and a LOT more in profit from international markets, DVD sales and rental, pay per view, cable, merchandising, etc.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
No tangible difference to the customer. Man either you haven't see it yet or you're just plain blind.
The problem is not enough customers care about the difference to make a huge, positive dent in the movie theater's concession stand business.

The Carmike theater in my town is many times better than the theater in Central Mall. Nevertheless, more people still go to the mall theater just because it is in the mall. People I know keep going there even after I tell them they're endorsing bad product by continuing to pay for it. Even some distributors like Paramount will book a certain number of their movies only in that theater, regardless of the fact the Carmike would do a better job showing the movie and the distributor would save $1000-$3000 in loaning the Carmike theater a hard disc instead of a film print.

And the fact remains the movie distributors are saving lots of money on digital cinema by not having to make any film prints. The distributors have every reason to push digital cinema equipment and have good reasons to invest in it because it quickly makes a big dent in the bottom line.

The movie theaters themselves aren't gaining a big difference in profit margins over it. With that simple math it's pretty easy to conclude that it is foolish and downright unfair for a movie theater, especially any independent movie theater, to buy digital cinema hardware systems outright. They're better off getting into a leasing arrangement, preferably one where the movie distributors are picking up a significant amount of the hardware cost.

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 04-30-2007 09:50 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
the typical negative cost on a single largish film film production today is 150 million ...and you say the studios are not spending?
But Mark, they'd be spending that money with or without digital projection.

And yeah, I've seen a few digital presentations. They look good, but I'm with Bobby on this one...if the digital theatres weren't putting up huge lobby signs and blasting trailers that say DIGITAL!!! in front of the movies, 90% of the crowd (especially in the first weekend) wouldn't notice there was anything different. If they did, then there was something REALLY wrong with that theatre's film handling!

 |  IP: Logged
Joel N. Weber II
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 115
From: Somerville, MA, USA
Registered: Dec 2005

- posted 04-30-2007 11:21 PM      Profile for Joel N. Weber II   Email Joel N. Weber II   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
What's the quality going to be like on a five year old digital projector that never gets cleaned, though?

Also, when sound came out in 1927, there wasn't competition with home video. Whereas it appears that, at least in theory, a good home theater ought to be able to have quality nearly as good as the D-Cinema experience: the sound ought to potentially be about equal, and the resolution about equal. (Yes, I know D-Cinema may have fewer compression artifacts. But it's close enough that there may be fewer theatergoers in 2007 than 1927, and perhaps theather owners' investment needs to be adjusted accordingly.)

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
   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.