|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Carmike's DCinema Installs stopped?
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-11-2007 11:11 AM
quote: Tony L. Hernandez
I know my local Carmikes...the Carmike 5 in Greeley, CO and Carmike 10 in Fort Collins, CO have already converted to D-Cinema but still have the 35mm projectors standing by for obvious reasons. Is this what most theaters that convert do or do they tear the 35mm out most the time?
The 35mm film projectors removed from service often stay up in the booth, just stored out of the way as much as possible. Carmike could round up all those projectors and store them in a centralized location. But it would cost a good amount of money to gather up those projectors and ship them. And does Carmike even have any kind of big warehouse anywhere to stash that stuff?
I figure a lot of that gear is going to stay in various projection booths perhaps until it is sold, scrapped or something. I don't know.
quote: Tony L. Hernandez
As a response to the subject, I hope for the love of God they do stop while they still have some 35mm screens.
Carmike isn't getting rid of all its film projectors. Most locations are keeping at least 2 or more 35mm projectors intact. For screens running both 35mm & digital, the Chrisite CP2000 is installed alongside the film projector. A new port is installed and the keystone correction feature is used get the image as straight as possible.
quote: Tony L. Hernandez
As a response to the subject, I hope for the love of God they do stop while they still have some 35mm screens. D-Cinema is a ridiculous little trend that will be dead soon, hopefully. Come on, film has been around for over 100 years and has served us wonderfully all this time; let's not fix what isn't broken.
As much of a film fan as I am (particularly of large format film), I have to insist that many of these theaters getting new Christie digital projectors are getting a noticeable improvement in quality over what the 35mm equipment they were using previously.
Not all 35mm systems are created equally. And in Carmike's case they have had a broad smorgasbord of different projectors varying wildly in quality. 2K projection is indeed a step down from the image quality seen from a high quality projector with high quality lenses that is also very well maintained. Such booths that deliver that are too few and far between.
I see a lot better image quality at my local Carmike playing the movie in digital than I do in seeing the same film at the Central Mall 12-plex in 35mm. That's mainly because the mall theater's gear is crap.
Add to that the problem of most movies using 2K resolution digital intermediate techniques in post production. What's the point in watching the movie in "film done right" when the source image's resolution was already reduced down to 2K in post?
For 35mm to beat digital projection, the source image would have to be entirely film based (no digital anywhere) or it would have to feature a higher resolution workflow, such as doing everything in 4K. Currently 4K is hardly used at all. Sony seems to be the only one doing it and only doing so on some key projects.
quote: Tony L. Hernandez
A better solution to the problem would be to get real projectionists back in to the booth and stop having armatures damaging prints and putting on lousy shows.
I'm not very optimistic that can happen under the current business climate. The major movie distributors keep eating into movie theater profit margins. The theater companies themselves often care far more about quarterly report differences than delivering a product with high quality. Finally, audiences deserve a great deal of blame for being doofus idiots. Many don't even notice poor quality presentation when they see it, or it just doesn't bother them. Many of those who are bothered by it just keep going to the same crappy theaters anyway. There's not enough market incentive out there to force movie theaters and movie distributors to deliver a better quality experience.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony L. Hernandez
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 158
From: Windsor, CO, USA
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 05-11-2007 11:32 PM
To those wondering about my objection to D-Cinema: I have attended many D-Cinema presentations so I feel I can speak in am educated manner both a a customer who has experienced D-Cinema and a long time projectionist and as an individual who has been in all ends of the movie theater business for most of my life. Northern Colorado is dominated by Carmike and Cinemark. I always attend Carmike Theaters when I choose to view a movie as a customer (was treated rudely one too many times by the Cinemark 16 in Fort Collins, CO to ever set foot in a Cinemark Theater again). To me, D-Cinema reminds me of sitting in front of a huge TV set. There is no way I can put my finger on the exact difference; I don't think anyone can. To try my best to put it in to words, film has a certain "life" and "constant motion" to it that D-Cinema does not. D-Cinema does fine presenting the picture and sound information, but lacks the life and excitement of film. I know there is a Christian Missionary service that teaches isolated tribes about Jesus via film presentations that they take to the jungles and show to the tribes. I'm sure many of you have heard of them. They still insist on continuing 16mm presentations citing that the audience pays more attention to film than DVD presentations. There are also several K-12 school districts and universities that maintain and even occasionally add to there 16mm film libraries for the same reason; the students pay more attention to film that other digital sources. One of these school districts is in Golden, Colorado. Could this be because film just has more life to it?
I have a large National Park Service movie collection, primarily on DVD and VHS with several titles I have on both DVD and 16mm film. I still prefer to break out the old Elmo projector and watch the film print when I am not too lazy or busy to do so.
I do have an interesting and unique story to tell. One booth that I regularly work in did a showing of a classic horror film just last week. I believe it was "Daughter of Horror" but don't quote me on that. Anyway, only 4 reels of the 6 reel film were sent to us, so we showed the first for reels, had an intermission and then had a DVD cued up to play "reel" 5-6. Keep in mind, all the equipment in this booth is the best quality available and in theory, no one should have noticed the difference. After the show, a gentleman came in to the booth and asked me why the last half of the show looked so poor. That's what an audience thinks of a side by side comparison of 35mm print and digital projection.
I do realize that nothing in life is black or white. I know D-Cinema has many wonderful features and advantages to it but when you compare them with the bad, it just does not make the cut. I think the industry needs to focus on correcting film presentations. If you can't hire a projectionist, properly train the managers. Come on, guys, you know this is not impossible. Aside from the fact that I have been doing it for years, it really is not hard at all for me. When in the booth, I just employ my knowledge and training, triple check everything I do, and care deep in my heart about the show I am putting on. I have been in the booth since I was so young I had to stand on a stool to thread the projector (age 8 or 9). It also did not hurt that the 2 men who did the majority or my training were ex union guys who had worked in the business since the '50s. And I have yet to so much as scratch a print...
Although it is not ideal, it is possible for a manager to put on a proper show. At one of my theaters, we are a small family operation that does not have one person devoted to projection. The "projectionist" is also in charge of selling tickets/concessions, cleaning the theater, etc. But we still have a wonderful presentation and take good care of our prints. BTW, we have platters there.
And I do watch TV, Mark, but I would never pay $7.50 a show to view it. I have seen around 20 films in D-Cinema so I feel I can voice my opinion from a customer stand point. When I saw my first D-Cinema film back last September, I was very excited to see this new technology and unbiased. I have formed my opinions over the past 9 months. Although I do not know anything about the D-Cinema booth or its operation, I know what I think as a customer. I am young, slightly under 20, and although I am inclined to embrace new technology and ideas with my youth, I just cant be sold on this one. I do,however, plan on attending seminars and want to recieve training in D-cinema as I plan on spending the rest of my natural life in this business. While it will be a godsend for AMC, Cinemark, Carmike,etc, it will be the final nail in the coffin of small town single screen theaters and drive-ins. Most of these theaters are run by older people who keep them open as a hobby or for the sake of posterity, and hitting their financially failing business with the large bill required to convert to D-Cinema would be impossible. Withdrawing the availability of 35mm prints from small theaters and drive-ins would be like taking an emphysema patient's oxygen away...it will kill it. I know if my family's theater ever is forced to switch to D-Cinema, it will put us out of business so fast we wouldn't know what hit us. I cringe just thinking of how many hundreds of theater and drive-ins D-Cinema will permanently shut down.
And besides all the practical views of it, wouldn't you all miss threading up a projector, building up a print, making changeovers, etc? I know I would!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-12-2007 12:17 AM
quote: Tony L. Hernandez
There is no way I can put my finger on the exact difference; I don't think anyone can. To try my best to put it in to words, film has a certain "life" and "constant motion" to it that D-Cinema does not. D-Cinema does fine presenting the picture and sound information, but lacks the life and excitement of film.
Digital cinema can indeed seem a little video-ish at times. It would really look like 100% video if certain movies that were shot on video retained their video look. For some movies I don't think that would be a bad thing. I think Collateral probably would have had a more raw and immediate feel to it if Michael Mann had simply left the video looking like video. The image quality would have been better as well.
I think a lot of people are just used to seeing film done wrong. Problems like picketing, side weave, dirt, scratches, wavering focus due to film breathing back and forth in the gate and more add to what many associate with watching movies on film -at least it does for those who know they're watching film. A lot of viewers have thought the movies were already playing on tape or disc for years.
Film done right can be absolutely rock steady, have razor sharp focus, be evenly bright across the frame and lack any dirt or scratches. That level of presentation quality can seem a little video-ish too for the lack of flaws. It takes a good booth operator and very good equipment to deliver that.
quote: Tony L. Hernandez
Anyway, only 4 reels of the 6 reel film were sent to us, so we showed the first for reels, had an intermission and then had a DVD cued up to play "reel" 5-6. Keep in mind, all the equipment in this booth is the best quality available and in theory, no one should have noticed the difference. After the show, a gentleman came in to the booth and asked me why the last half of the show looked so poor. That's what an audience thinks of a side by side comparison of 35mm print and digital projection.
That is an inaccurate analogy.
A standard DVD Video holds NTSC format imagery in a mere 720 X 480 non-square pixels at a maximum bit rate of 10 million bits per second. It's nowhere near HDTV levels, certainly not anywhere near 1080p format.
2K digital cinema has 6.4 times the pixel count of DVD video and 25 times the maximum data bit rate. Any suggestion the two different formats are on the same level with each other is ridiculous.
quote: Tony L. Hernandez
I think the industry needs to focus on correcting film presentations. If you can't hire a projectionist, properly train the managers. Come on, guys, you know this is not impossible.
Sadly, it is all but impossible in today's business climate. Good luck on convincing various corporate board members to invest in great quality personnel and equipment. Many see film done right as a negotiable, variable kind of thing. They're given further incentive to cut corners by movie distributors who constantly try to eat further into a theater's dwindling profit margins.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony L. Hernandez
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 158
From: Windsor, CO, USA
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 05-12-2007 04:51 AM
Bobby, I never intended my story of what happened last week (the half-35mm,half DVD presentation) to be an exact analogy from the time I wrote my post and I realize that it wasn't. But you must admit it is not at all out of the ballpark of what we are talking about. It was a general comparison of a random film image to a random digital image. One was film and the other was digital. It was a simple comparison of the two general formats.
I cannot understand why everyone is jumping down my throat over my sentiments towards the 35mm format that has served us well for over 100 years as though I have said some horribly rude and offensive thing. I am not trying to change anyone's mind here...simply expressing my personal findings and opinions. In truth, your pro-D-Cinema views and my pro-35mm views really do not matter in the scheme of things; they will not change a thing. We all must sit back and see weather D-Cinema will take over the entire industry at some point or fizzle out eventually. It is all just speculation at this point. I'm not trying to tick anyone off or make enemies.
Darryl suggested that film lovers just want to see the format live because we enjoy playing with it. Although he/she was 25% true guessing how I feel, the other 75% of my feelings lie with what I feel is best for the industry.
I see nobody as of yet has been willing to tackle my lengthy statement about the moral concerns of what this switch will do to mom and pop theaters and drive-ins across the USA...many of which are historic. Truth is, the film companies do not really care weather the above places live or die. Not enough money comes from them. But everything is not about the almighty buck. People need to learn this fast.
Cameron: Yes, the system does upconvert to HD. It's a very nice system and would have been just fine had we not run the first half of the picture on 35mm. That was one of the most unique situations I have ever had to deal with.
Bobby: your talking about film done wrong brought back an amusing memory of about a month ago: I was at a little mom and pop theater in the middle of nowhere here in Colorado where for the first 8 minutes or so of the feature, the film was being run without the plate. WHOOPS...pretty much topped all the bad film done wrong mistakes I have seen in my life. The rest of the show was excellent with good chageovers,etc.
On a lighter note, one of my co-workers recently quipped that he could not see why the film company that produced "Grindhouse" wasted time,money and effort into making the film look worn, dirty and damaged. He said they should have just sent all the prints to the Carmike Theaters for a week and they would have had all the damage they wanted with no cost or effort!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-12-2007 10:48 AM
quote: Tony L. Hernandez
Bobby, I never intended my story of what happened last week (the half-35mm,half DVD presentation) to be an exact analogy from the time I wrote my post and I realize that it wasn't. But you must admit it is not at all out of the ballpark of what we are talking about. It was a general comparison of a random film image to a random digital image.
Yes, the comparison is indeed "way out of the ballpark."
For DVD video, being "digital" is besides the point. The fact remains that it has a far lower level of image resolution than 35mm film, 2K DC and HDTV.
Just from watching the imagery on a HDTV alone, the quality differences between regular DVD and formats like Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are staggering. That even goes for DVD players with HDMI and upconversion filters. The native HD discs still look a LOT better. There is no substitute for high native image resolution. A low res image is just only low res. Interpolating more pixels just makes for a soft and blurry low res image.
quote: Tony L. Hernandez
I cannot understand why everyone is jumping down my throat over my sentiments towards the 35mm format that has served us well for over 100 years as though I have said some horribly rude and offensive thing.
I'm not jumping down your throat. I'm just speaking bluntly about the current situation in the movie theater business and speaking bluntly about the technical facts behind film and digital.
quote: Tony L. Hernandez
In truth, your pro-D-Cinema views and my pro-35mm views really do not matter in the scheme of things; they will not change a thing.
If you have read a good number of the posts I have made about digital cinema you would know better than to simply say my views are "pro-D-Cinema."
It's a sad truth many movie theaters are not run well. The shows are not well projected. Many don't have good sound systems. Many of the ones with good sound systems don't have them properly adjusted. This has been true for a lot of Carmike locations. Many of those locations are getting a major upgrade by going digital.
The downside I see with going digital, at least in terms of the 2K variety, is that it doesn't have a high enough quality difference between it and HDTV. Sure, the bitrates are 7 times higher than any HD movie disc. The bit depth is deeper on color and the audio is high bit rate and uncompressed. But in terms of actual pixel count, there isn't much difference at all between 1080p HDTV and 2K digital cinema. That's scary from a marketing perspective. That's why I think everything needs to be going 4K as soon as it can. For the time being we're stuck with 2K, even at the production level. A 4K projector won't mean squat if it is being fed material originated in 2K.
quote: Tony L. Hernandez
I see nobody as of yet has been willing to tackle my lengthy statement about the moral concerns of what this switch will do to mom and pop theaters and drive-ins across the USA...many of which are historic.
That subject has been covered in lots of other threads. We have been talking about that issue and many others regarding digital cinema for several years.
quote:
On a lighter note, one of my co-workers recently quipped that he could not see why the film company that produced "Grindhouse" wasted time,money and effort into making the film look worn, dirty and damaged. He said they should have just sent all the prints to the Carmike Theaters for a week and they would have had all the damage they wanted with no cost or effort!
Regardless of movie chain brand, every major theater chain and most of the small circuits all have at least a few low quality, poorly operated locations. I've had bad experiences at theaters run by AMC, Cinemark, Loews, United Artists, Regal and a number of others.
Lumping the blame of bad presentation on Carmike alone is a bunch of ignorant bullshit. Unlike the other majors, Carmike is at least taking some bold steps to do something about it. You don't like it that they're going the route of digital projection. Unfortunately, that's what most garden variety movie theaters are going to have to do to fix the situation. The movie theater chains don't want to spend extra for top of the line Kinoton projectors and Schneider lenses along with paying what it takes to have a truly qualified projectionist running the booth.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jarryd Beard
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 229
From: Hellertown, PA
Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted 05-12-2007 01:39 PM
quote: Tony L. Hernandez
I'm not even gonna bother reading this thread anymore. I cannot believe the particular level of immaturity and nit picking that is going on.
To me, it looked more like a relatively civil conversation. Who's really the immature one? You can't win every argument. You don't have to lose either (Although it appears you've conceded now). Almost every opinion expressed on these forums has one to counter. Get used to it. I've learned a great deal on these forums. I'd like to think that, even though I work for a large chain, the knowledge I've gained through discussion at Film-Tech sets my theater's operations and presentation apart.
Digital Cinema may not be for all theatres. However, it has had a very positive impact at the one I work for. We still run the occasional 35mm film, and I'm glad we do. However, for the most part, the digital has been a perfect fit. We're cutting costs and providing a far superior presentation when compared to our old setup and even the two competing stadium theatres in the area. I can quickly swap out ads and remove trailers as needed. Digital allowed us to sellout ALL 5 screens of Spiderman 3 last Thursday at midnight. There would've been no way to interlock 35mm on all five screens (converted from a late 1960's twin). I've seen properly run 35mm; I realize the benefits. I've seen several films at the recently reopened State Theatre running Kinoton changeovers... installed by Steve Guttag. These presentation were truly impressive. However, in a reality where 20+ screen multiplexes are becoming more and more prevalent, digital seems to be the way to go for the multiplex venue.
Oh, and 35mm vs. DVD, terrible comparison. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
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
![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif)
"need" multichannel sound any more than film does? Just because they're doing other upgrades (which is a good thing) along with the 
Printer-friendly view of this topic