|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: all digital projection theatres
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-23-2007 01:43 PM
We used to do live champion fights in the 80s using godawful 3 gun CRT based video projector. We sold out every time. It was a gold mine for a non-profit operation and even though some of the hoity-toity "arts" people sneered at our doing such "low-brow" events, we were bringing garbage bags full of money to the producers headquarters after the shows with armed escorts. It was VERY lucrative for us even though we were getting only a small percentage of the house. But they were very difficult shows to run given the extremely rowdy nature of the audience.
The gold rush lasted only until Brooklyn got wired for cable. Then, in the blink of an eye, it dried up. PPV was the killer. No producer wants to go thru the trouble of booking large enough theatres of which there are precious few, even in large cities, and having to deal with security and insurance and crowd control (and believe me, these crowds needed plenty of control--and that was before people in cities started packing asault weapons), when they can just put it up on pay-per-view without any of that hassle or considerable expense.
The economics of those closed circuit theatre engagements, no matter how good the video projection might be, vs. PPV as a regular, on-going way to present those events is iffy at best. An exceptional event can possibly be pulled off, but not ever fight or every rock concert is going to make money in theatres. Theatres are simply not the only place producers of this content can sell their product. Without exclusivity, the theatre will have to compete with cable on any number of levels -- I would imagin in many cases a theatre would be lucky if they broke even on such content.
Besides, one rowdy incident at a prize fight enagagement can easily wipe out any profit that might have been realized.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mike Olpin
Chop Chop!
Posts: 1852
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 10-03-2007 01:07 AM
*Flame shields up*
While I agree that 35mm has the capability to blow digital presentation out of the water, lately I'm feeling more and more that that just isn't happening. Blame can be shared among many people for this, but the bottom line is that 35mm presentation standards are poor industry wide. A overwhelmingly large percentage of theatres do not practice good film handling. The prints are scratched and dirtied in a mater of hours, they change bulbs only when picture begins to flicker or becomes unacceptably dim, and don't bother to check the sound formats.
As a projectionist and a consumer, I find that I am now actively choosing digital presentations when available, simply because I can guaranty a certain level of quality. NO THEATRE in the area has 35mm standards I find acceptable.
While I would like to think that we can turn this around, the reality is that chains are paying lower wages, giving substandard training, and not supporting even projectionists that care. Given that this is the trend, I think the time probably is right to allow these big chains to go all digital.
In terms of staffing, I do believe that only one or two projection staffers are needed at all digital locations to handle ingeting, builds, and basic maintainance.
My only concern is that everyone seems to be leaning towards the 2k standard. 2k is only slightly higher in resolution than what is currently available in the home! Why aren't they considering 4k? How come Sony is the only company with a 4k system ready?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 10-03-2007 03:30 AM
quote: Mike Olpin
Why aren't they considering 4k? How come Sony is the only company with a 4k system ready?
Simple Mike -- who are the people buying 2K projectors? They are the same people running the chains who have let the 35mm presentation directly under their control, deteriorate to the state that you astutely observe it is currently in, i.e., much lower quality than film is capable of putting on the screen. So these same people who have already demonstrated that they care very little about presentation values and who have a lowest-common-denominator bench-mark mentality, in other words, only doing whatever the least they can get away with before the customer/patron starts complaining, are not of a mind-set to demand that the digital system supply something SUPERIOR to film. They are perfectly happy with a system that will save them booth costs (or so they think, and this remains yet to be seen) in terms of their personnel payroll. Exhibition is not looking at 2K and saying, "No, this just isn't good enough; we want something that is DRAMATICALLY superior to 35mm film. We want 70mm quality." That is not their focus; reaching a higher screen quality than 35mm is capable of is not what motivates/drives the current move to digital on either end -- distribution OR exhibition.
Hell, when the first 1k, 1.3k machines were first used and serious questions were being raised about the low quality picture, you had the head of Disney drooling at the thought of not having to strike prints saying, as far as he was concerned, 1k quality was "good enough RIGHT NOW." His own words.
Before DLP digital was even a thought in the labs at TI, there wasn't a single exhibition excutive saying, "Gee, what we really need is to get some technology that will improve the image we get on the screen from our film projectors. How we would jump at the chance to install a technology that would present a better picture to our patrons than we can now with those lousey film projectors and all the jitter and color fading and dirt and scratches." No. They were all about stadium seating (so people could better see their jitterey, scratched, color faded, dirty picture) and adding more and more screens like fornicating rabbits. There was never any hand-wringing about the state of the images on their screens and how they could improve them.
Those issues which you hear so loudly shouted as the advantages of going to a digial system were never, EVER the reasons exhibition embraced digital. Those have ALWAYS been nothing more than a smoke screen and a PR campaign -- if you are spending $130,000 + per installation, you might as well get in some good marketing hype as to why you are doing it so it sounds like there is something good in it for your customer, not just good for your balance sheet.
Both exhibition and distribution's motivation has always been because they perceive digital as being a cash cow for saving money -- distribution obviously in prints costs, and exhibition in labor costs. Image quality is irrelevant. If it were otherwise, exhibition has always had the necessary tools and means to eliminate ALL those nasty presentation-killing issues that they now admit plague their film projection systems. Has anyone EVER heard a chain executive complain that his screens have jitter and dirt and scratches and "faded color" and ask the hardware manufacturers to give him new technology to eliminate those issues? HUH?
So, why isn't exhibition demanding 4K? Why would they? They are quite content that the degraded 35mm presentation values that they have be offering to an uncomplaining public for years will easily be matched by the spanking new, out-of-the-box digital projectors. What they don't seem to understand is that those spanking new digital projectors are being put into the same booths operated by the same poorly trained, underpaid staff that let the 35mm equipment in those booths go to shit. So, for the time being, digital may very well be "as good as," or actually surpass the low quality of the current state of 35mm presentation. But what will those digital projectors look like after like after 10, 15 even 20 years of Digital Done Wrong? Add to that, the knowledge that exhibtion has gained in what level of quality the public will stand before they demand better and THAT's the mark they seem to only need to hit. It's happens everywhere in American culture. People eat McDonald's "hamburgers" and actually think they are eating food; why would McDonald's start putting sirloin steak in their "meat" patties? THEY DON'T HAVE TO. About the only place Americans seem to still demand that we actually be #1, is in sports. All the rest....we are quite happy with crap, and "music" by Britney Spears. Quality only seems to work in nitche markets. And even then, it may work only for a time until the demand in even those small markets dries up. Wittness 70mm.
Nothing about digital ever had to do with anyone's desire to give the public 70mm quality or even EK print quality. So why even consider the 4K digital equivilant? NO ONE CARES, my friend, certainly not exhibition.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic