|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: DCinema equipment lifespan - why so short?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anslem Rayburn
Master Film Handler
Posts: 476
From: Yuma, AZ, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 04-08-2008 12:53 AM
Really, if something is bought for a specific purpose, and it can no longer serve that purpose, it is obsolete. What is a 16 screen theater outfitted with digital cinema gear today going to do if, in say 4 years, their particular projectors are no longer supported by the studios? Those projectors will have to be replaced with new ones if they are going to remain a movie theater, aren't they?
They might be able to re-purpose them for another use, but if they don't replace them, they won't be able to show movies and would cease to be a movie theater. I would call that equipment obsolete.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Not even a Model A is actually obsolete... you can still get all the parts for them and there are many on the roads today. Silent movies are not obsolete just because someone added sound and there was a format called Todd-AO... many of these formats are still shown today and hundreds are being reestored and they still play on today's projectors.
But I can't get anything to show on my digital projector, not even old movies that I showed on it previously. And without significant hardware additions, we can't show anything on it at all. Those hardware additions to allow different inputs was many thousands of dollars last time we talked to anyone about it, making it cheaper to buy an off the shelf projector and using it for video games, pre-show, or DVD movies.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tristan Lane
Master Film Handler
Posts: 444
From: Nampa, Idaho
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-08-2008 02:51 AM
Perhaps the title of this thread should be changed.
So far, it is really hard to judge the life-span of d-cinema equipment. Since the discussion has moved more into the territory of equipment becoming obsolete more quickly than film equipment I feel the title is misleading.
The basic d-cinema technology has proven to be equally as reliable as "new model" film equipment when looked at from a new installation standpoint. All newly installed equipment has it's aches and pains, be it film or digital. I can vouch for plenty of Apogee or Cine-X35 projectors that required a lot of attention after installation. The same holds true with D-cinema servers or projectors. Any new designs or technology have bugs that can only be found after years of constant use.
This doesn't mean that a huge portion of costly ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif) equipment has become obsolete due to the progression of technology. Those of you that are surprised by this fact and use it as proof that "film rules" are either afraid of it, or refuse to accept it as film's replacement. I agree that the current technology doesn't surpass, nor does it even compare to the quality of a well made print projected in a proper manner. But let's be realistic, this doesn't happen in 99% of the multiplexes out there. To the customer, Digital picture looks much better than the crappy presentation they are used to enduring.
If D-cinema has progressed this far in 5 years, imagine the possibilities of what could be possible 5 years from now.
quote: Anslem Rayburn
Those hardware additions to allow different inputs was many thousands of dollars last time we talked to anyone about it, making it cheaper to buy an off the shelf projector and using it for video games, pre-show, or DVD movies
That's correct. Whether it's a Barco or a Christie if it's older than three or four years, it probably needs extensive upgrades to the Formatter interface in order to play anything worthwhile. If you are still sitting on a 1.3k projector that forget about it. It's no longer worth putting any money into.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 04-08-2008 05:18 AM
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Hillery,
If I were a Ham Radio Operater they would probably be very useful to me... however I have no interest in Ham Radio... Believe me... I'm a ham all the way WITHOUT the radios . Like I need another hobby. Interestingly many Hams purchase those old cool Broadcast Tramsmitters that are also NOT OBSOLETE to convert to the 2 meter and other Ham bands.
Mark,
We're not talking transmitters here. My husband (and I) are well aware of the usefulness of old transmitters, provided tubes and components are available. The Chinese broadcast tubes are highly reliable, but I agree, that would not obsolete them.
We're talking single components to put in a rack. The SINGLE task of which is to receive a specific DIGITAL satellite signal. EVERY TIME that signal changes, there is ABSOLUTELY NO USE for the old box. The network sells another box designed specifically for the new signal.
We know someone into ham radio, and these are of NO USE to him. They are purpose built. The purpose is over. Though everything inside is okay, they are obsolete. It's not like you just change a crystal and suddenly you're talking to Antarctica.
My husband gets the trades. Don't you think that if ANYONE was buying them for ANY reason, he'd want to sell them and get some of his money back? NOBODY WANTS THEM! They are obsolete!
Again, if you're so sure there's a use for them. he'll be glad to sell them to you at half price. You can flip them and make a tidy profit.
Hillary
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin McCaffery
Film God
Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-08-2008 10:54 AM
I think the proper analogy is not cars and gasoline, I think it is film and projectors. For about 100 years we've had a fairly stable standard of 35mm for film. There have been minor changes and improvements over the years, but 35mm film basically played in a 35mm projector.
How many standards of digital have we had in the last 5 years, and how many will we have in the next 5? Digital clearly is not going to be backwards compatible, and it is pretty clear studios are not going to maintain multiple resolutions of digital films (though how tough would that be really?), so all the risk and expense is being put on the theatres. Maybe the multiplexes can afford to eat it, but not the indies, and certainly not small single screens like mine.
And then there is the rest of the world.
Given a choice between installing film right now or installing digital, I'd go with film every time based completely on its record of stability. You can always install digital later if really needed. Why would anyone without millions to burn rush into buy something that will be, yes, obsolete before it is even paid off? Digital seems to equal disposable.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 04-08-2008 01:20 PM
quote: Tristan Lane
the current technology doesn't surpass, nor does it even compare to the quality of a well made print projected in a proper manner. But let's be realistic, this doesn't happen in 99% of the multiplexes out there. To the customer, Digital picture looks much better than the crappy presentation they are used to enduring.
That's pure fabrication. 99% ? -- what statistical study are you quoting to come up with that number? By far the reason patrons hate going to theatres can be reduced to a few very susinct complaints, NONE of which are complaints about image jitter or scratches! The complaints are always about high ticket prices, absurdly high concession prices, rude or even roudy patrons coupled with no managament supervision of the rooms, dirty rooms (floors mostly), screen ads and the general inconvenience of going out to the theatre compaired to saying home and poping in a DVD. Very low on any list you can site are complaints about technical issues. In fact, most of the problems related with image resolution and weave are lab problems that could easily be resolved if there were truly any motivation or desire by the studios to do so. The mere fact that the studios want to move to a technology that everyone who is honest, including you, admit
quote: Tristan Lane
the current technology doesn't surpass, nor does it even compare to the quality of a well made print projected in a proper manner.
....is ample proof that the issue was never that we need to give the patron something BETTER on the screen. Digital in terms of image and sound quality don't give the patron anything that film can't give them now. In fact, customers couldn't tell you if they were watching film or digital unless they were told, with the exception of the minority of those very poorly run, marginal theatres, which I contend don't represent the bulk of today's theatres. These are not the primary reason why so many people will tell you, and in no uncertain terms, that they hate going to the movies. Repeate: they hate going to the movies. There hasn't been a time in the 100 year history of cinema up until the advent of the mulitplex that such a sentiment could be found in the general populous. And yet during all that time when such a sentiment was unheard of, FILM was what was being run. Anyone who does logical troubleshooting will tell you, film isn't the problem.
The only conclusion I can come to is that digital is not going to make the slightest dent in the complaints patrons have about why they would rather wait for the DVD or cable or even PPV. D-Cinema WON'T fix that.
D-Cinema may certainly be the new technology that is inevitable only because forces that have nothing to do with giving the patron improved image quality have conspired to make it so. But there is nothing inevitable about changing the mass public's distaste for theatres or prying people away from the ever-growing Home Theatre threat.
Home Theatre and studios quick-releasing movies on hi-def DVD is a bigger threat than television in the 50s ever was. And when exhibition is looking to regain those patrons who they lost to Home Theatre, D-Cinema, my friends, is no CinemaScope.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-08-2008 04:03 PM
quote: Tristan Lane
I agree that the current technology doesn't surpass, nor does it even compare to the quality of a well made print projected in a proper manner. But let's be realistic, this doesn't happen in 99% of the multiplexes out there. To the customer, Digital picture looks much better than the crappy presentation they are used to enduring.
Sorry Tristan, but that simply isn't true.
The fact of the matter is most customers don't know shit about what is going on in the projection booth. They don't know if what they're watching is "digital" or film or even freaking video tape!
Most customers have no clue as to what sort of technology is being used up in the projection booth. Before digital projectors became common at all many people had the notion the movie was playing via some sort of video tape or disc and that it could be stopped and rewound. The lack of knowledge on the part of the general public is indeed that bad and the movie industry in general has done very little to solve the problem.
Another fact: most people don't give a shit about what sort of gear is being used in the booth.
I really wish this was not true, but it is. This is why shitty movie theaters inside shopping malls very often pull in much larger crowds than a much better quality standalone theater a few miles farther down the road.
The movie theater industry has to do a much better job of educating the public about the advantages of seeing a movie in a commercial movie theater. And they have to strive to deliver the best possible movie-going experience to the customer. Too many people getting into high definition TV and Blu-ray vomit out all this "my home theater is better than a commercial theater" bile. Something has to be there to refute it. I'd rather watch a movie in a really good quality movie theater. However, I'll take watching the movie on Blu-ray at home rather than wasting my money seeing the show at a shitty movie theater.
quote: Lyle Romer
Not true. D-cinema comes with discrete uncompressed 24-bit digital sound at at least 48 kHz sampling rate (it supports 96 kHz). None of the existing digital sound systems provide that and in a room with high quality speakers and amps you can hear the difference.
Not every D-cinema audio track runs at 24-bit resolution. You can have 16-bit and 20-bit audio streams thrown in as well.
DTS, when using the DTS-XD10 processor, can play surround audio equal to or even better than anything offered by digital cinema. The system can play discrete surround at levels up to 24-bit 192 kHz resolution. Basically it can do everything that DTS-HD Master Audio can do on Blu-ray. On top of that, it can be expanded to play audio formats in 10, 12 or more discrete channels.
Unfortunately, very few uncompressed surround discs have been sent out to such theaters.
It should also be noted that IMAX theaters play audio in uncompressed 6 track digital sound.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 11 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 10 11
|
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
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
. Like I need another hobby. Interestingly many Hams purchase those old cool Broadcast Tramsmitters that are also NOT OBSOLETE to convert to the 2 meter and other Ham bands.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic