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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » More d-cinema morons (Page 16)

This topic comprises 18 pages: 1  2  3  ...  13  14  15  16  17  18

Author Topic: More d-cinema morons Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 06-26-2004 03:05 PM                     When a movie studio is able to literally flood the North American market with more than 8,000 prints of a certain film (when 2,000 is enough) I really have to question just how badly they are getting hurt with print costs. It all sounds like a lot of bullshit to me. Over the past few years studios have flooded the exhibition market with 2 to 3 times the normal number of prints for a wide release just to screw the exhibitors out of a few percentage points on box office take. It comes as absolutely no surprise that the studios want the exhibitors to foot all of the bill for "D-Cinema" when the studios themselves are the only ones who will see any cost savings at all over it. A 35mm film projector can last in service for decades, all at a cost of $30,000 or less for the projector. A DLP setup turns into an obsolete White Elephant in less than a handful of years, all at a cost of $150,000 and up. The marketing of D-Cinema is crap. The audiences don't seem to care. So much for the exhibitors getting any return on investment. If the studios want D-Cinema so bad, they should pay for all of it. And that especially goes for the frequent and very costly system upgrades. quote: Mattias Ohlson When are you happy with things? I hope there are such times. There's plenty of things that make me happy. But the business culture in the United States is definitely not one of them. You're lucky enough to live in a country where the medical industry isn't allowed to rape the living hell out of the public the way it works here. Most people here either have no health insurance or have really shitty coverage. I dated a woman last night who lost her job at Goodyear over medical claims costs. She herniated a disc in her neck on the job and the company made up some excuse to can her to get her out of their claims pool to cut costs. I need have surgery soon on a inguinal hernia that developed recently. With a $2,000 deductable, I'm trying to figure out how this event is going to keep from emptying my bank account and plunge me into a whole lot of debt. Most Americans are employed by small businesses and small businesses either cannot afford health insurance coverage at all or can only purchase really crappy coverage. But this is all in the name of paying for lush country clubs, million dollar homes and other nice things for the medical industry elite. So this is what drives the anger I have these days. And when you have guys from Enron laughing on audio tape how they're screwing Grandma Millie in California, I want to line those bastards up in front of a .50 caliber machine gun and blast them. We have a really screwed up culture of greed and excess in this country and without some significant change this culture will really put this nation into some very bad shape before the decade is finished.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 06-26-2004 07:58 PM                    Bevan, those are all revenue streams they can exploit apart from the film vs. digital question. I don't know what sort of margin there is on MP products but obviously they have deep thinkers pondering these things as well and if there is room for a change in pricing strategy which will still leave them a nice profit and such a change will delay wide adoption of d-cinema by 10 years from what it would otherwise be then no doubt they would consider it in their long term strategy. It would be great if they pulled the rug out from under d-cinema's already very shaky economics. Of course they'd might have to move production overseas to accomplish this.  |  IP: Logged Bevan Wright Expert Film Handler Posts: 176 From: Fountain Valley, CA, USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 06-27-2004 07:56 PM                        Steve, I actually believe they are related. Don't mean to speak for John P. but I see it as a transitional step for Kodak. Sort of 'getting the foot in the door.' Now whether or not they want to go through that door is a different question. Sure is interesting to think about the possibilities.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 06-28-2004 11:25 AM                        On an inflation-adjusted basis, film print costs from the major labs are probably as low as they ever have been. The cost structure of Digital Cinema infrastructure, equipment, data delivery, and maintenance needs to be reduced further to make it more competitive with film, not the other way around. http://www.kodak.com/go/dcinema  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-28-2004 12:17 PM                        Bobby, Very elegantly put. I'd add only six more words: "....the haves and the have mores."  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 06-28-2004 07:12 PM                    The cost structure of Digital Cinema infrastructure, equipment, data delivery, and maintenance needs to be reduced further to make it more competitive with film, not the other way around. Only if you want it to succeed, John.  |  IP: Logged Scott Jentsch Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1061 From: New Berlin, WI, USA Registered: Apr 2003 posted 07-05-2004 02:15 PM                        It's so hard not to allow myself to get sucked into this discussion, only to reiterate previous points... It's a testament to the quality of that antique projector that it could still provide its useful purpose after all these years. It's a statement about the longevity (and perhaps the stagnation) of the film format that this antique projector is capable of displaying what is still being used in a majority of theaters 92 years later. Back in the mid-80's, very few people were interested in CD's. They were priced more than LP's and cassettes, and CD players were incredibly expensive compared to turntables, which were a technology dating back to before that hand-cranked projector. They were touted as being higher quality, digital, and better in many ways. (Sound familiar?) They were also frowned upon by the audio elite as too harsh and lacking the "sound" of vinyl. I remember people coming into the MusicLand I worked at, scoffing at this digital technology and saying that it will never catch on. (Sound familiar?) Eventually, prices came down and the quality of the technology improved as lessons were learned. For the most part, analog playback media has withered into obscurity, satisfying only a small niche market. I can't help but think of the episode of M*A*S*H when a new young doctor comes in to show off some new procedures, and the more experienced doctors wouldn't even give him the time of day. By the end of the episode, however, they realized that there was value in what he had in spite of his relative immaturity in the field, and they learned some valuable lessons. DLP and other digital delivery systems are also relatively immature. The technology is still quite new in regular terms, much less when put into perspective of how long film cameras and projectors have been in service. Perhaps those that see well-done film on a regular basis can see an obvious difference between 1k/2k DLP and well-done film, and find D-Cinema to be unacceptable. It's also somewhat fashionable for such people to look down with scorn on those who cannot see an obvious difference, but the big point to keep in mind here is that the "cattle" pay the bills and what they are willing to pay for will win in the end. McDonalds may not be great food, but it's consistent. A public with money to spend and not very much time will go for consistency of quality over usually high (but inconsistently so) quality more often than not. The biggest challenge for everyone who believes that their film presentation can outdo any digital presentation any day of the week is for their presentations to set the bar so high that digital will have to get really good before it can take film's place. In my experience in many different theaters in the area, digital has already eclipsed film presentations. No splice problems, no jump and weave, and no dirt after the first weekend. Maybe after repeat viewings, I would begin to notice the lower resolution and it would bother me, but the movies I watched in DLP looked pretty good to me, and I'm probably more discerning than the average movie-goer.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-05-2004 02:54 PM                     "In my experience in many different theaters in the area, digital has already eclipsed film presentations. No splice problems, no jump and weave, and no dirt after the first weekend. Maybe after repeat viewings, I would begin to notice the lower resolution and it would bother me, but the movies I watched in DLP looked pretty good to me, and I'm probably more discerning than the average movie-goer." Then the theatres you attend must be pathetic. Just rememebr the lack of maintance and operator error will filter down to the dcinema world too. The bottom line is not the quality but the cost until the exhibitor can make as much money with out an increased investment it will not happen  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 07-05-2004 11:36 PM                     quote: Scott Jentsch The biggest challenge for everyone who believes that their film presentation can outdo any digital presentation any day of the week is for their presentations to set the bar so high that digital will have to get really good before it can take film's place. That's on the quality end of things. But D-Cinema cannot even satisfy the basic dollar cost and return on investment part of the equation. D-Cinema is not able to prove it is any better than 35mm film projection. Without a substantial jump visual quality, and one that lots of people are willing to pay extra to experience, why invest in it on a widespread basis? It makes no sense. Hollywood would get a lot more mileage out of visual improvement of movies and pay less money if they revived 5 perf 70mm. Several things have to happen. Certainly the technology has to improve to a point where the D-Cinema image is noticeably better than 35mm film print shown in "film done right" fashion. The technology also must improve to a point where the image quality is substantially superior to HDTV. Right now there isn't much of a difference. Finally, hardware standards have to be settled. Who wants to pay upwards of $200,000 for a D-Cinema setup that turns obsolete in less than a handful of years? At the very least, equipment developers need to have a low-cost upgrade path for changing out components. The idea of having to buy a whole new projector to upgrade to a 2K DLP chip just seems stupid.  |  IP: Logged System Notices Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi Posts: 215 Registered: Apr 2004 posted 07-27-2005 03:32 AM                 It has been 386 days since the last post.  |  IP: Logged William Hooper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1879 From: Mobile, AL USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-27-2005 03:32 AM                        "It's not going to be too long before celluloid film is the exception, instead of the rule"� -- any day now, any day, meantime, we'll be running Casablanca from a DVD & telling you it looks better than if you were watching film. Another PAC living on grants & run by folks who don't WANT to know anything technical, but only what's glitzy, is snowed by "digital projection": ---- By Justin Miller, Daily News Editor July 11, 2005 The Michigan Theater [Ann Arbor, MI] will purchase new digital cinema projectors and video displays with a grant given to it by the state in an effort to lure college graduates to Ann Arbor. The city applied for the grant as part of Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s Cool Cities initiative to make Michigan cities more attractive for college graduates to live and work in. The city asked for $100,000 for theater improvements and an art display to be built on the side of the Maynard Street Parking Structure, but the grant was only given to the theater. "They said that they were looking for projects with one focus. They preferred the Michigan Theater project,"� said Brandt Colutas, chair of Ann Arbor's Cool Cities taskforce. The theater will purchase two high definition video projectors, each worth tens of thousands of dollars for its theater and screening room. This equipment will keep the theater up-to-date and accessible to small, independent filmmakers. "It's not going to be too long before celluloid film is the exception, instead of the rule,"� said Russ Collins, executive director of the Michigan Theater. "This will allow us to exhibit all kinds of digital cinema. A lot of smaller, independent filmmakers do their formats only in digital."� Theater patrons will not have to be in their seats to watch films, with the addition of a "micro-cinema"� gallery in the lobby. Like an art gallery, people will be able to walk along the flat-screen displays and watch short films. This added diversity of film will help the theater live up to its role as an arts organization, Collins said. Collins said the city would also benefit from the theater improvements because of the theater's reputation for showing rare films. He also said he hoped that the digital cinema would turn the theater into a magnet for filmmakers when the improvements are finished next year.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 07-27-2005 06:10 AM                     quote: William Hooper will purchase new digital cinema projectors and video displays with a grant given to it by the state in an effort to lure college graduates to Ann Arbor. Yet again, digital equipment cannot be justified on a commercial basis, and requires some sort of external funding.  |  IP: Logged Matt Fields Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 545 From: Ohio, United States Registered: Jun 2005 posted 07-27-2005 07:54 AM                     quote: Bobby Henderson When a movie studio is able to literally flood the North American market with more than 8,000 prints of a certain film (when 2,000 is enough) Many small theatres would be out of business with only 2000 prints released into the market. I would be out of business. I couldn't get a print until the movie came out on DVD, and people who really want to see the picture would have to drive to Columbus (1 hr 30 min one way). If the studio makes a little extra because of the wide releases, why should that bother anyone? I, for one, want the studios to make money. Healthy studios can produce more, and hopefully better, movies. And if a theatre is willing to pay higher film rental because they want to play a movie when its new, that is nobodies business except the theatre owners and the studios.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-27-2005 08:03 AM                     How about this Matt...before the second print is issued to a mega plex, you get your print (and the other theatres that service non-major metropolitian towns). It sounds better to me, at least. Everyone gets to see the film then and not so much film is wasted on 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and probably 6th prints in one plex...only to start dropping those prints after the first week or so.  |  IP: Logged Matt Fields Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 545 From: Ohio, United States Registered: Jun 2005 posted 07-27-2005 08:28 AM                     Steve- That's an idea, and admittedly its a little frustrating when I can't get a print and the megaplex has 2 or more. But I don't see a way to "force" a studio to give me a print. The contracts with the studio usually state that they simply have to sell movies to the owner from "time to time". I think it would be hard getting them to agree to give me any movie whenever, as long as I'm willing to pay the percentage. Thats the one benefit I do see to D-Cinema, the studio would be able to release the movie to anyone that wants it, assuming they'll pay the percentage. In the future, when the price of the technology has gone down, D-cinema may allow places that currently don't get new releases, or don't even have a theatre, to have them, because access to the movies will be easier.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 18 pages: 1  2  3  ...  13  14  15  16  17  18

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.