|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: MI:3 170 Digital Cinema Screens DCDM by Kodak
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-14-2006 04:51 PM
quote: Steve Guttag
Their problem remains though that other technologies are far cheaper to make, thus TI is trying to pawn off single-chip DLP when other technologies can do 3-chip for less money. As LCOS improves (and even LCD) the edge that DLP holds will continue to diminish. It should be quite interesting to see how this unfolds over the next 10-years or so.
No doubt. I just saw a stunning TI commercial pushing their big DLP TVs. It was slick and effective. They are going after the consumer market in a big way, just as has been said here before more than once and many, many posts ago.
As for no negative reviews of digital presentation? I have only seen two and both were in the AMC on 42nd Street and both were very unimpressive. The first was JURASIC PARK III, but that could have been a 1.3K and it was atrocious with gamma all over the place, sometimes within the same scene, and terrible contrast ratio (the famed globs if black instead of hair on top of actors' heads in medium and long shots). SWIII was definitely 2K and I was fortunate enough to see this dog turd in both presentation formats, one right after another -- digital first, then film. Digital looked better than JURASIC PARK but certainly not as good as film -- soft and lacking in detail. But then again, the film version looked soft as well, with live action looking softer than the CG stuff. So I am assuming this was not necessarily the fault of either the digital or the film, but the originating material. But even as unimpressive as the film looked, to my eye it was piss poor over what normal, even high speed prints look like.
There is no question that they are going to improve on digital as time goes on, but will it be too late? Bobby has said it a number of times that if digital can't present an experience that is demonstrably BETTER than the home experience, then it's all over. And by "better," I've said should mean better than EK 35mm and even as good as 70mm. How could a new technology whose initial goal has always seemed to be nothing more than merely "as good as" the least that film can do, server the industry? Anything less than a presentation that is spectacularly better than what moviegoers are used to will simply destroy ANY motivation for people to seek out the movie theatres.
People talk about the social element of moviegoing....that people will ALWAYS want to go to theatres so they can get away from home. Well, IMHO, I think that goes only so far -- the older audiences remember when the social thing was pleasant and inviting and they enjoyed going to the movies. Now older moviegoers routinely voice the opinion that they "hate" going to the multiplex. So you can't rely on that demographic's need for a social-night-out and the Magic of the Movies to revive theatre attendance. Between that and the movies that they see as garbage, they simply are not buying it anymore; they haven't seen "magic" in decades.
As for the young demographics, they've never known the "magic of the movies" in the first place. As far as they are concerned, seeing MI3 on a DVD or a computer screen or a home theatre system or even, incredible as it may seem, on their cellphones --it's all the same, and it's certainly to Hollywood's economic advantage to make all formats indistinguishable. Digital Cinema and DVD availability will only reinforce that perception, and the studios are pushing BOTH.
As for digital going to save the movie theatres by being able to show 3D....don't bet on it. If past experience is any indication, 3D never moved past the fad stage for the bulk of the population. Sure, some of us 3D crazies would have been happy if every film ever made since 1952 were made in 3D, but I would guess we are .001 percent of the population. Besides, there is a system in place that already exists and has been used for computer 3D games. It's relatively cheap, using alternate video frames and LCD shutter glasses ala IMAX (NOT anaglyphic) to get very excellent 3D separation. It's existing, cheap, off-the-shelf hardware. The video system needs nothing, i.e., a VHS or DVD can play 3D videos without and any special alteration, except a decoding box that Ys on the video output and drives the LCD shutters. It's been around for a few decades; I've got a whole slew of 3D videos of the early 3D hits: HOUSE OF WAX, DIAL M FOR MURDER, JAWS 3D, KISS ME KATE, etc.
Don't think for one minute that if Lucas or Speilberg or Cameron, et al, decide to regurgitate every film they've ever made in 3D, that the studios won't want to release them in DVD-3D, right on the heals of the theatrical release! Once again, exhibition will risk getting the rug pulled right out from under those short short movie legs. So forget about 3D saving anyone's ass.
So we are then left with only one issue.....will Digital Cinema present a superior, compelling movie experience over what we presently have that can differentiate it from all the other ways and means of motion picture delivery and can compel audiences to seek out movie theatres. I don't think digital can or will.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-14-2006 10:11 PM
Regardless of whatever happens, it is very obvious the bean counters in corporations that run theaters are going to have to change their thinking.
Right now those bean counters are only looking at the theater business strictly in the sense of selling widgets. Their mindset is the market is only so big and therefore let's keep cutting corners to eek out an increasing amount of profit out of only so big a pie to keep the shareholders happy and have them keep paying us bonuses. Their thinking is obviously all theaters are the same, the audiences couldn't give a popcorn fart about quality so let's just move customers like they are cattle.
In adopting that dry mindset, they totally miss a basic point in marketing that comes with this kind of product: you are selling an EXPERIENCE. Restaurants know this. Anyone can put some effort into cooking a great meal at home. Successful restaurants have to put more than just good cooking into their product. The atmosphere and service are extremely important. The same is absolutely true in movie theaters. And these bean counting nitwits are screwing up all of that.
The problem is ever present in how little is done to maintain acceptable standards of quality in movie theaters. Sure, there's quite a few dumps that show film wrong. However, lots of theaters out there are simply making due with what little their corporate headquarters provides for them. Very often, that HQ is the source of why film is done wrong.
In being over-screened, many theater companies have their limited resources spread ever more thin. They have less and less money they're willing to put into the maintenance on theater screens. This is the very basis on why the United States probably needs its screen count cut in half or even more than that. We need fewer theaters, yet theaters with better quality showmanship.
I don't expect every movie theater to retune its sound system and have duplicate parts of everything like Northpark 1-2 in Dallas did. But there needs to be a better level of expertise in the booth and more pride taken in show quality than what currently exists right now. That's a major factor in driving people away to their home theaters (the other aggravations like cell phones, yakking teenagers and other disrespectful turds do their damage as well).
The customers of commercial movie theaters are paying a premium for a movie theater experience. 2K D-Cinema may offer a good improvement in that. But quite a bit of work needs to be done in other areas. Right now most movie theater companies are taking customers for granted, thinking they'll automatically show up regardless of how plain and unremarkable the experience becomes. I think that's just extremely wrong. Entertainment experiences at home are growing ever more sophisticated by leaps and bounds. PS3 will break new ground. Critics are raving about the E3 convention demo of the upcoming PC game "Crysis" (the sequel to FarCry). Movie theater companies have got to start competing with that, otherwise the customers are just eventually going to forget about them.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 05-15-2006 09:11 AM
I saw MI3 on Thursday at the Regal Lincolnshire 20 in Digital Cinema (Screen #10). I have not seen it on film, so I can't do a comparison. It was a 44' wide screen, and we sat approximately 40' away, centered on the screen.
I saw no digital artifacts and the black level was very good. The screen was very curved, which caused the image to be distorted slightly. This was only noticeable when text appeared on the screen, where the center appeared lower and the text bowed upwards to the left and the right. I don't know if there is a lens that is supposed to compensate for the screen curvature, but if it were my theater, it wouldn't be acceptable the way it is.
The movie presentation itself was OK. Good in the fact that there weren't any film-related flaws. The focus of the entire movie was on the soft side, but perhaps that was a stylistic choice? Text was sharp, so I don't think it was a lens focus issue.
One thing that I did notice was during the credit roll. The text seemed to do a little vertical jump as it scrolled up the screen. Perhaps that was a function of the resolution of the system? I don't remember seeing that at ShoWest, so maybe it was something particular to the movie or their installation.
We drove 1.5 hours to see this digital presentation, and drove past probably 5 or 6 film-only theaters to do so. We've made this trek several times to see movies in the various digital formats over the years. Each and every presentation has been better than the film presentations I've attended anywhere (with very few exceptions of 70mm shows, and some 35mm shows at McClurg Court).
I would really like for a Milwaukee-area theater to get a Digital Cinema installation, so I don't have to keep making these long drives and blow an entire afternoon and evening just to watch a movie. As a parent and an owner of a business, that time is precious to me.
Bobby's points about the entire experience are right on, and a favorite soapbox item of mine. I would be much more influenced by improvements in the overall experience than I would be by a mediocre theater merely installing a digital cinema projector. Having a manager come in before the show and welcome me to their theater and acknowledging my patronage, having clean bathrooms, and decently priced and good quality concessions would go a long way to gaining my loyalty.
Put a digital cinema projector on top of that (or at least get rid of the film flaws), and you have a great combination!
Maybe instead of just film done right, maybe it should be movies done right.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-23-2006 11:34 AM
On the other hand, I would have just dropped the number altogether. 170? Even if that represents an increase of 100%, to the average Joe, it's gotta sound quite paultry...it does to me.
When the first CinemaScope film opened, it did so on something like 85% of all theatres in the country. And to add to the sense of some monumental change that was about to happen in the theatres, every theatre in my town closed for the installation a week prior to the opening. Imagine all the theatres closed for a week! And in those days when the theatre was the main source of entertainment, closing them all down for the installation of this new CinemaScope technology "the miracle you see without glasses" (purposely leaving most people with the false impression that it was 3D but without the goggles), well that made the anticipation quite palpable. And of course when they did finally reopen their doors, there was no question to the patron that the new CinemaScope system was a major visable, audible difference from what they saw the week before.
The word CinemScope was in larger point than the film title! They certainly aren't treating digital with that kind of excitement, other than the tired old line they trot out about the billionth time looking as good as the first -- which pretty much is only meaningful to the guy who is going watch a film after it's been playing for 20 years.
With digital I think most patrons would be hard-pressed to tell any difference, unless perhaps they are preconditioned by digital hype, but that will soon wear off. And as we know, hype can often backfire when it creates an expectation that is not met. I certainly can imagine a scenario where moviegoers walk into a digital theatre expecting to see something spectacular (you know -- no scratches, no jitter, no color fade, and the rest of that nonsense) and only to find it's no different than it's always been. THAT kind of let-down certainly won't turn sagging attendance numbers around. It won't draw an significant numbers of patrons back into the theatres as opposed to their home theatres. And sorry to say, IMHO, that result has been inevitable from the start because the goal of this technology was never to make the image BETTER or different than what could be gotten with existing 35mm technology, only to make it "as good as" film.
So we are left once again with the ONLY advantage of digital movie distribution is that it gets rid of 35mm prints. Period. And unless the distributor lowers exhibitor's rental rates because the digital screen represents a savings of $2000 in print cost, then Mr. Exhibitor gets NO advantage at all because in the end, those 170 digital screens are not going to bring in any more paying customers than if they were film screens. Quite frankly, I don't see how any theatre that installs $120,000 worth of digital hardware can justify that expense given that the investment will not bring in any more customers that his competitor down the block who at most might invest in a good film cleaning unit and some Film Guard while still running his already bought and paid for film projectors. It's a basic tenent of any business -- you don't invest in something that doesn't increase the bottom line.
Even Dolby recognized that reality in that full page ad they ran for months on the back cover of IFJ -- it showed two theatres with the name of a title on both marquees. One theatre had a small line at the box office, the other had a line triple the size. The theatre with the larger line had an additional sign under the film title. It read simply, "In Dolby Stereo." That said it all. And even that carrot of increased ticket sales wasn't enough to get exhibitors to jump at installing stereo hardware. So why today are exhibitors and even NATO embracing this monumental digital expense? Well, either digital evangelists have somehow found a way hypnotized otherwise very frugal theatre owners, or exhibitors have collectively just gone insane. Remember, these are the guy who took 15 years to install $700 reverse scan red readers, and even that, kicking and screaming.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 05-23-2006 01:49 PM
quote: Frank Angel
On the other hand, I would have just dropped the number altogether. 170? Even if that represents an increase of 100%, to the average Joe, it's gotta sound quite paultry...it does to me.
In the realm of technological innovations, the number 170 at this point in time is quite significant as it suggests progress is being made (much to the dismay of those biased film-tech members who clearly want digital projection to fail).
quote: Frank Angel
When the first CinemaScope film opened, it did so on something like 85% of all theatres in the country.
For the record, when CinemaScope opened, it did so on a whopping single screen.
Like most other new innovations, the deployment was staggered over time. The first scope film, "The Robe," was distributed initially in much the same fashion as the roadshow releases during the '60s, partially for the benefit of having prestigious exclusive engagements in large cities and partially to allow time for the installations to take place. One the first week; three the second; eleven the third; etc. Granted, seven years in, CinemaScope was installed in more than 170 theatres!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-23-2006 05:27 PM
quote:
Imagine all the theatres closed for a week!
Pretty interesting. In Bakersfield, the Fox Theatre installed CinemaScope at the end of July, 1953 without closing at all (the screen was constructed behind the original screen on off-hours). Note: Michael Coate is correct on the slow roll-out of this process. Even though the Fox had the system as well as Stereophonic Sound installed this early (although the sound may have been limited to interlocked mag dubbers at that point, they still didn't get THE ROBE until the end of the first week of November, even though the film world-premiered towards the end of September.
The Nile Theatre was the next theatre locally to install CinemaScope (with full stereo) in January 1954, even though they wouldn't get a CS film for another month. This theatre was only closed one Saturday afternoon for the installation.
(Two other local theatres installed "wide-vision/panoramic" curved screens around the time of the Fox's installation, but these weren't CS regulation).
No other local theatres altered their operating schedules at all for the installations.
quote: Frank Angel
Quite frankly, I don't see how any theatre that installs $120,000 worth of digital hardware can justify that expense
Current business plans puts the lion's share of the equipment cost with the distributor.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-24-2006 05:37 AM
Granted, it may have been different other places in the country, but in my town, THE ROBE opened in all the Century theatres at once. And they did close for a week for the installation. Perhaps being New York, even an outer borough of Queens, we got it first, but the point is, the anticipation for the release was palpable, EVERYONE was talking about it. In my school, a teacher who had been shown an advance screening came into class with a piece of film to show to us and explain the anamorphic process and the 4trk mag. I saw a piece of 4trk mag in the 7th grade!
I have no doubt that it did play a Roadshow pattern, and not open up on the same day -- most really big titles did. Thing is, this was an EVENT. I don't see that kind of excitement for digital not in any measure. People couldn't wait to see THE ROBE. People are not chomping at the bit to see an digital titles that I know of. Digital titles play along side the film version (I saw SWII on film while right ten feet over it played in digital and if you went between the two screen, you had to look to see any difference at all) The people who saw the film version seem perfectly happy with it.
On the other hand if you wanted to see THE ROBE, you HAD to see it in CinemaScope. The Fox publicity machine made sure that the film (which for whatever reason was wildly popular in its own right) and the technology were inseperable. With digital, there was no such effort to make the technology stand out as something unique. In fact there seemed to be a conscious effort to make little distinction between the two; in fact, the studios have long been of the mind that wherever and however they can sell the product, the better -- be it film, 2K digital, DVD, PPV -- it's all good. I just don't see how an exhibitor will recoupe his investment if audiences seem perfectly happy going to see MI3 without much preference to the technology, because to the majority of moviegoers, they can't tell the difference, and THAT doesn't give the owner of the digital projector much of an competitive edge.
quote: David Stambaugh
Frank, are you saying those problems don't exist in typical theaters running 35mm film? Frequent eyewitness reports here say otherwise. Or maybe you're saying they shouldn't exist but do because of poor maintenance. If it's the latter, and all those frequently-seen film defects are removed from the equation with DLP, but you're still left with other issues that affect both film and DLP like light output, haven't you still scored a net improvement in the presentation?
I mean we can argue until we're blue in the face over film's potential but in 90% of theatres that potential isn't being realized and never will. So DLP would be an improvement in those theaters.
Granted, but David, what I am saying is the problems with film are very fixable and much cheaper than chucking out technology that has PROVEN it can give superior presentation. And the other side of that coin is that the 90% of theatres whose presentations are less that what film can provide, I contend that digital may not fair much better once they get their dirty fingers on.
To me, this is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. And we have yet to discover if the new baby will come with some dirty water as well. What do we do then?
| 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
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic