my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Sony about to release new cinema projector (Page 4)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Author Topic: Sony about to release new cinema projector Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 05-03-2007 05:16 AM                     quote: John Pytlak FWIW, Kodak print film sales are enjoying a very good year. Assuming it will be Kodak, they will get even better with the 25000 prints of the almost 3 hour POTC: At Worlds End that are getting simultaneous worldwide release. I finally understand why the distribs want digital so bad. 25000 x $3000 = $75,000,000 just in print cost. That one film could pay for 500 digital installs by itself.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-03-2007 09:34 AM                     I estimate an average 1st run movie theater screen in the United States cycles through around 20 or so features per year. And I think that's a conservative estimate. Even at only $1000 per print, we're talking over $20,000 per year per screen. At that rate, a $100,000 DLP system could pay for itself in 5 years. If the prints are running closer to $3000 a pop, then the DLP system would pay for itself in only 2 years in terms of print cost savings. That cost issue, and the fact the movie distributors have their releases so front loaded that the exhibitors hardly get any of the box office take anymore, is why the movie distributors primarily need to foot the bill on all this digital cinema hardware. The theater should only pay for the gear if their box office percentages are a LOT better. Right now their take from the box office isn't squat.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-03-2007 09:41 AM                        Bobby--don't forget that the prints from that first-run theatre move on to other screens (if a multiplex) and, eventually, other theatres, nontheatrical exhibitors, etc. They still have value after the initial engagement. Contrary to (popular?) belief, there is more to exhibition that first-run multiplexes. If the distributors were truly concerned about print costs, then they wouldn't be responsible for these stupid "saturation" release patterns that are so common now.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-03-2007 02:41 PM                     You guys can argue all you want all day long about who's going to pay for it(ultimately the movie goer no matter what) but the elimination of film ad its resultant pollution will certainly HELP the environment big time. Mark  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-03-2007 03:55 PM                      |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-03-2007 06:53 PM                     Um, yeah. Film prints are kind of down the list on items that threaten the capacity of the local land fill. Wal-Mart bags, diapers, stuff like that -that's a little more common. Aren't some retired film prints shredded and then recycled? Any potential environmental savings may be offset by the increased electrical requirements of theater booths running all that extra computer-based hardware. quote: Mark Gulbrandsen You guys can argue all you want all day long about who's going to pay for it I don't think there's any argument at all. The distributors should pay for that D-Cinema hardware. They're the ones making the money and saving the money off that hardware, not the theater itself. Add to that the games being played by the distributor, whether it's booking 8000 movie screens to have a record breaking opening weekend and a precipitous attendance drop the following weekend or making noises about releasing movies in theaters and on DVD at the same time. Maybe if the distributors had a serious financial stake in movie theaters in the form of some expensive projection equipment they might not be so desperate to get everything on to DVD as quickly as possible.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-03-2007 07:10 PM                     quote: Bobby Henderson Film prints are kind of down the list on items that threaten the capacity of the local land fill. In terms of reducing chemical contamination fomr the manufacture and processing of film eliminating or drastically reducing that will be a blessing. Rochester and the surrounding Kodak Park are the sites of some pretty nasty stuff. Some of the chemicals used in processing are also quite nasty. Booth power consumption has remained pretty much the same in all the 40+ booths around here that are now digital. In some instances where D.C. projectors go in (all have switching power supplies for the xenon) that replace a high reactance rectifier the power consumption actually goes down. Mark  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 05-03-2007 07:11 PM                     FWIW apparently large savings to the Distributors via D-Cinema are not in fact that significant in the larger scheme of things, remembering that most if not all Distributors are subsidiaries of the Studios or large media conglomerates. Last year I came across some very interesting figures in the course of researching a newspaper article. These were derived from MPAA data in 2000 and showed that print costs - as a portion of total film production costs - came on average to only 4% of the average spend per film that year. Likewise, if accounted for under the Prints & Advertising / P&A category, spending on prints came to just 12% of that spend. Looking at the corollary to these figures, 96% of a total typical film budget was being spent on non-print items, and more pertinently, 88% of P&A was being spent on the "A". So logic dictates that if you really wanted to attack production overhead, you would cut Actors' ruinous fees a la Redstone / Cruise and also seek savings in marketing costs. The evidence does seem to suggest that cutting print costs makes no meaningful difference in the wider production / distribution context.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-03-2007 07:16 PM                     Since on many releases the actual biggest block of income is from non northamerican distribution that currently often gets "rejuvinated previously enjoyed" prints 35mm prints for those markets will still be required  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 05-03-2007 07:29 PM                     Indeed, good point Gordon. I meant to add that all costs are relative. Let's say you've consistently bought the same brand of beer for years and you've paid x for it and it goes up gradually in price year-on-year. But now, brand y appears, apparently much cheaper, and now suddenly brand x looks "expensive". BTW this isn't an argument against D-Cinema, but rather against some of the claims that are made for it.  |  IP: Logged Dustin Mitchell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1865 From: Mondovi, WI, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 05-04-2007 03:29 AM                     How many countries actually recieve used North American prints? I know I've heard Brits and Aussies complain about it, but countries were dubbing/subtitling is required (which would be most everywhere besides Britain and Australia/New Zealand) you'd think they'd be striking new prints.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-04-2007 07:22 AM                     Subtitling is often on used prints with etched titles  |  IP: Logged Patrick de Groot Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sprang-Capelle, Netherlands Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-04-2007 11:14 AM                     In the Netherlands we always got new prints (when first run of course). The spoken language is the original one (except for some children movies). I think the subtitles are mostly created by a laser process.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-04-2007 02:27 PM                        No studio ever scrapped a production because of the print costs. They spend more on food catering than on the cost of prints. Anyone think they sat around and said, "Do you think we can afford to put Spidey into production, what with that budget-breaking print cost?" My face laughs at you. Print costs are a non-issue. Greed is what it's about, which wouldn't be so bad except they figured out how to keep more of that money at the exhibitor's expense and at the cost of lower presentation quality.  |  IP: Logged Paul Stevens Film Handler Posts: 42 From: Galena, Ohio, USA Registered: Oct 2006 posted 05-05-2007 04:09 PM                     After reading all the posts on the great DC debate, I could not help but reflect on the nearly 33 years I spent at CBS in Hollywood actually witnessing first hand the forces that drive advanced technology in that nuanced but parallel industry. The last third of that television broadcast carrier was doing nothing but dodging delivery trucks with crates full of forty to eighty-thousand dollar purchases of the most advanced digital hardware. Two years later that same hardware was loaded on to a pickup truck heading for hardware heaven. This cycle continues to repeat itself not only at the network level, but at every station in the country. The NAB and SMPTE conventions are the show place for all that neat stuff. Several words come to mind when I attempt to some it all up, but two linked together seems to stand out above all the rest. "Show Bizz" As a teenager sitting in the Orpheum Theater in Sioux City, Iowa in the early 60's, a song being song by Roselyn Russell in the film "Gypsy," and the Warner Brothers Orchestra's brass section blasting in the background, the following lyrics some things up pretty well. You can pull all the stops out Till they call the cops out Grind your behind till you're bend. But you gotta get a gimmick If you wanna get a hand. You can sacrifice your sacharo Working in the back row. Bump in a dump till you're dead. Kid you gotta have a gimmick If you wanna get ahead. You can uh...You can uh... You can uh...uh...uh... That's how Burlesque was born. So I uh...and I uh... And I uh...uh...uh... But I do it with a horn... Once I was a Schleppa, Now I'm Miss Mazzeppa, With my revolution in dance. You gotta have a gimmick If you wanna have a chance! Great discussion guys!  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.