|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: I'm curious to know why many on Film-Tech seem to be so negative on digital cinema
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-26-2008 09:36 PM
Bobby,
No argument...however...the number I've heard on film prints is actually less than $1000 per. Another factor is that film prints are written off for tax benefits....those would not exist for digital prints.
The problem with expecting someone else to pay for your equipment is that it opens the door to who's equipment it is and just how will it be used. There is no way exhibitors wouldn't lose some control over what comes out of that projector if someone else is footing the bill.
and now to Justin
quote: Justin Hamaker
Steve, I take serious exception to your characterization of my work habits.
Sorry, your exception will have to stay with you...nothing in your most recent post has done anything but reinforce the perception, real or not.
Your description of your job is no more spectacular than most any GM or House Manager or whatever the title may be in your company, my wife included...except she puts in 60+ hours all year...not just the summer months.
Your main bitch seems to be that you don't have projectionists. I mean, if you were releived of the duties of the booth and only had to tend to the floor and management, would your dislike of the film system be reduced? Believe it or not, there was a time when there were people that made a living showing movies and it wasn't that long ago. What changed? It wasn't really the technology...platters and automations go back quite a ways...it was the attitude about showing the movie that has progressively eliminated the job. Believe it or not, I know of theatres to this day, little guys, that actually employ projectionists, show a profit and run very good shows.
Will digital make your life easier? I guess...it appears that you are not able to pay people well...that is a chief reason for high-turnover...it also tends to show up in the over theatre performance.
quote: Justin Hamaker
I will no longer have to worry about the young people I train making sure they get the film in frame and in focus every single time, 25 times a day.
This is a good one...do you find it THAT hard to train people and for them to get it in frame each time? I've only been doing that (like so many others) for about 30-years...many of the theatres I'm associated with also have multiple projectors on one screen (changeovers)...they seem to do it every reel. But again, it seems to be something more of YOUR predicament rather than some intrinsic problem with film.
quote: Justin Hamaker
And as far as my work upstairs goes, I may not obsess over whether my film is emulsion up or emulsion down or running Film-Guard over every fourth showing.
Okay...there we go. It isn't a matter of obsessing...its a matter of just doing things consistantly and doing them for a reason. Perhaps if you DID have your emulsion facing the same way every time and Film-Guard EVERY SHOW then you film shows would look stunning and it would be easier for you and for you to train others.
quote: Justin Hamaker
But I do spend time every week dealing with a variety of maintenance issues and when the need arises, I can repair almost anything on my projectors. Thursday night, I was actually at the theatre until 4:45 in the morning filing a new flat aperture plate for one of my auditoriums because I realize the existing plate was showing picture about 18" into the masking.
I don't know a manager that doesn't get in and try to keep things going. So, with film projectors, you can fix most anything...and with digital projectors? So your aperture plate work...which I really don't want to take away anything from your efforts to improve your show...did you use any sort of target film to determine what the opening should be?
quote: Justin Hamaker
You mock my complaint about the heads and tails about a print I received last week, but I think you failed to read my post.
Yes I did (as did others) and WE did read your post...so they alternated heads/tails...waaaaaaaa! How often do you get prints like this? So you had to rewind a few reels...big fat hairy deal.
quote: Justin Hamaker
Don't get me wrong, I have no illusions about digital cinema eliminating maintenance. But how can I not look forward to no more scratched prints resulting for a single mistake. How can I not look forward to having to move around prints Thursday night/Friday morning - especially having to move prints to the drive-in. How can I not look forward to projectors that do not leak oil like a sieve. How can I not look forward to projectors that do not have hundreds of moving parts that could fail at any moment costing me time and lost shows to repair.
The way you describe your operation, I guess you make a fair number of mistakes that result in scratched film...perhaps if you just got more consistant, those sorts of problems would go away. With most film equipment, you almost have to try to scratch film.
Yes, in a five plex it is tough moving prints around...then again with a plex that small, with digital you could load all of your servers with all of the titles at all times because moving electronic prints around a complex is not instant. For the Drive-In...invest in a Modular Platter reel...move the whole print and it is ready to go.
Projectors that leak like a sieve? I thought YOU did the repairing! Okay that was a jab but you opened yourself up to it. If you truly have projectors that leak that bad and you have gone through a reasonable amount of effort to stop/slow the leaks, then that projector/soundhead has many, many times the life that a DCinema machine will ever achieve.
If leaking machines are your big concern there are several machines out there to choose from that are guaranteed not to leak...they come from such brands as Christie, Cinemeccanica and Kinoton and ALL of them cost substantially less than a DCinema projector and will outlast a DCinema projector.
I'm almost aghast you put in that last line...you are wanting to trade hundreds of parts (most do not move) that you are able to fix with the most basic of tools for over 6.6 million jiggling mirrors plus a bazillion little semiconductor parts, any of which could fail and take you down and you can't repair, unless you happen to have the costly spare parts on hand. Your arguement just doesn't make sense.
quote: Justin Hamaker
I'm sure the complaints about picture quality are valid (I haven't seen enough to know), but I know 90% of the customers coming through the door won't know the difference. But they do know when can't play Hannah Montana in 3D because we don't have digital projectors.
Okay these are all valid points...however on the Hannah Montana...the Digital 3D thing isn't something intrinsic with digital, just the attitude of the industry at the moment...an attitude that you seem to be feeding into. Why doesn't NATO and other theatre groups demand film 3D? The theatre would only need to buy the screen and lens...far cheaper than the digital add-ons to the already more expensive digital equipment. And, as you stated, your customers won't know the difference.
quote: Justin Hamaker
And by the way, the purpose for this thread was to seriously understand why some people have a negative view of digital cinema. Because from my perspective, I see a whole lot of upside once it's ready for prime time.
Yes it was...Bobby and I did provide some of the reasons why.
But look at your response to my statements...they clearly had anger in them....mine did not.
You don't seem to get that a well operating film theatre isn't having the problems you seem to be having.
As for studios to pay for existing theatres to convert...why? They are not telling you to buy digital projectors or you are not going to get the title are they? I guess Hanna Montana was a case in point...it had more to do with the 3D aspect though. It also only did one-week's worth of business on about 700 screens. Imagine a 4000 screen roll out because EVERYONE had digital 3D...what would the per-screen average had been then? It was a limited release with a lot of hype.
I'm sorry you don't like my position on the matter. You are welcomed to yours.
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 07-26-2008 10:08 PM
quote:
Or is it really much lower than 50%?
It is a little lower than 50% when you take the year on average. The major "tent pole" releases end up somewhere in the 60/40 range in favor of the studio.
My concern with the digital stuff is going to be the upkeep expense. After the big rollout (whenever the agreements finally happen), when the subsidized period ends what happens when a projector needs a $10,000 light engine replaced? I guess that the manufacturers will end up offering extended warranties.
My biggest problem with digital is that it was rolled out way too soon. What should have happened is the studios should have said to manufacturers "we want a digital projection system that meets or exceeds every specification of the best possible 35mm release print". I'm sure within 5 years, a 6k system could have been designed that had the contrast, color and dynamic range of the best EK show prints. Digital could have been a way to drastically increase quality over run of the mill multiplex 35mm projection and especially the home.
Instead, they decided that 2k DLP projectors with not-too-great contrast were good enough becuase they are available now and can save print costs sooner. Then the DCI spec was designed with 4k being the highest possible quality (but running at the same maximum data rate as 2k).
The problem is not Digital Cinema, it is the quality level digital cinema that has been chosen (although some people will claim it looks as good as 35mm dailies). If 4k or 6k Digital Cinema with 10,000:1 real contrast (not the full field on/off bs) was available, then it would blow away 35mm film projection.
I guess the whole problem could be summed up simply as:
Digital technology should have been used to get the picture quality of regular theaters closer to IMAX instead of digital technology being used by IMAX to make IMAX closer to the quality of a regular theater.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-27-2008 06:28 AM
Demetris...Christie has hardly stopped on their film projector. Its been less than a year since their last major upgrade. The difference is that most of Christie's refinements have been on the gear....er....pulley side...in fact it was the pullies that received that change...round-tooth, plastic-ish and such. The goal was reduced belt wear, and improved operation so the effects of belt plucking (or cogging) is reduced.
Though the soundhead didn't get a design change (it has, several time in the last 30 years...the biggest being with the Central Pivot), it got a massive boost in performance now that the film itself is be moved more smoothly.
Christie, like any company, is going to look at their sales and judge about the continuation of their products. They show no signs of retiring their entire film line and, as was just shown, have invested in improving it.
They did recently retire some of their VERY slow moving items. When you are only making a handfull of something a year, it takes time away from what is selling briskly to make those one-offs. It also means that you have to stock up parts to manufacture those items even though you can't predict in what time-frame they will actually sell. That is just money sitting on a shelf.
By a show of hands....how many of you, in the last 5-years, bought a new Christie SLH lamphouse (separate, none console), a MARS make up table (looks like a hand-truck).
Probably the only odd things that Christie discontinued were the Mini-Wind because you only get one when you NEED one but for Christie, the Mini-Wind shares too few parts with the standard Autowind, I guess and thus needed its own metal work at the ready. The other odd one was the Phoenix kit. Not that I don't doubt that they only sell a couple a year (it is for the CH series consoles) but that it essentially has the same parts as the current SLC console...with an extra flat panel for the controls, meter and status lights. But you know...they've had it for quite a long time and if you really wanted to upgrade your 40-year old console, you should have done it by now!
So, if Christie is really going to dump their film line then they are not giving any indication of it. They are letting both film and digital markets dictate what they each need. They also seem to be give EACH R&D as they each need. The difference is, DLP is more emerging and thus NEEDs more R&D and will likely show more changes. It isn't like film didn't go through the same thing, over time.
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-27-2008 01:24 PM
quote: Mark J. Marshall
In my opinion, this is incorrect, but it may be true of other CG animation from other studios. Pixar uses the more expensive Kodak high contrast film stock with all of their movies. With Toy Story 2 they even had some IB prints made. The color saturation and contrast on Pixar film based features looks far superior to that offered by a DLP presentation in my opinion.
I think any quality differences between film projection and digital projection will be attributable to the setup and maintenance of the projection hardware, as well as the size and type of screen being used.
The notion that a film print will somehow show more detail, contrast or color depth of a 2K digital source than 2K digital projection could manage doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The original source file is already plagued with a number of limitations. This doesn't just go for CGI movies like Ratatouille or Shrek. It also applies to any movie put through a 2K digital intermediate - and that's pretty much most movies these days.
If there was more in the way of 4K level digital intermediates being used on movies, as well as CGI animated movies being done in 4K, I would choose a theater showing the movie in 35mm film projection. Unfortunately for me, the nearest theater to me doing 35mm well at all is the Harkins Bricktown 16 in downtown Oklahoma City. With gasoline and tolls, that's a good $60 just to get to and from the theater. The cost of actually seeing the show goes on top of that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God
Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 07-27-2008 03:34 PM
quote: Steve Guttag
Tony...where did you get the 15-20 times number? I don't think the cheapest film projector against the most expensive DCinema projector comes close to 15 times the cost. Maybe used film versus new DCinema. When you add everything up, depending on the grade of film equipment you are used to, it is probably closer to 3 to 5 times at the moment.
Steve, that was the case last time I looked into the total cost of D-Cinema where the projector and server were priced in at around $180k.
My film pricing comes from the last 20-plex purchase order I saw, the projector/console/automation package was around $12k each, in the 20 unit quantity. That was for a very major theatre chain and I'm positive that with the building boom they were on at the time, they got the most killer deal on the equipment.
So I stand corrected, based on that info, I should have said 10 - 15 times the cost. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Thinking back I do realize that was over 5 years ago, the cost factors have most likely changed since then.
Even at current price comparisons, as others have pointed out, the maintenance issues, lack of reliability of servers, and the initial cost still makes D-Cinema a bad idea.
And not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet, but my experience so far has been that at EVERY theatre running D-Cinema I've ever been to, they're running a 35mm backup print delayed by 5-10 minutes. (Dowser and lamp off, but ready to switch over at a moment's notice.)
So now we're STILL running a print just to be safe.
And most of the threatres doing that have had to resort to that backup at least twice a weekend.
Insanity.
Edited to fix punctuation.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-27-2008 05:56 PM
quote: Demetris Thoupis
Digital basically offers nothing more than a good 35mm presentation.
Exactly! But the other things it does offer is less expense at the distribution level as well as far less pollution to your planet earth. The production of film, the processing of film, the distribution of film, and the subsequent disposal of film are all very expensive, much of it highly polluting.
quote: Steve Guttag
Well, just last year in 2007, the E premiere line of Kinoton incresed film steadiness 4-5 times and increased light output by nearly 20%....not too subtle.
A really subtle improvement that few if any in the industry will even know about let alone notice or care. For the cost of those machines they should also wipe your ass!
quote: Steve Guttag
So, if Christie is really going to dump their film line then they are not giving any indication of it.
Yes, I have been given signals that it will happen slowly with key film people slowly moving into "Digital" positions. Assembly people as well as now utilized assembly areas will also slowly be moved over to doing assembly/repairs of a digital nature.
quote: Lyle Romer
My biggest problem with digital is that it was rolled out way too soon. What should have happened is the studios should have said to manufacturers "we want a digital projection system that meets or exceeds every specification of the best possible 35mm release print". I'm sure within 5 years, a 6k system could have been designed that had the contrast, color and dynamic range of the best EK show prints. Digital could have been a way to drastically increase quality over run of the mill multiplex 35mm projection and especially the home.
2K was chosen because it is practical today. 4k as it sits is hardly practical nor affordable. In 5 or 6 years we developed the equipment that took us to the moon and back... at enormous expense! Of course any type of system can be designed and built but it will be enormously expensive... like Steve's E Series Kinotons. Even 2K is way too expensive for exhibition as it sits.
quote: Lyle Romer
Instead, they decided that 2k DLP projectors with not-too-great contrast were good enough becuase they are available now and can save print costs sooner. Then the DCI spec was designed with 4k being the highest possible quality (but running at the same maximum data rate as 2k).
Actually Christies latest projectors with the high spec optical coatings have over 2000 to 1 contrast ratio capability which is a far improvement over early digital units like the older BARCO DP-100 are capable of. Lenses have also taken a step ahead with high contrast lenses that can maintain the inherent contrast ratio ability in the Christies. I doubt that very few mainstream cinemas could even display that range of contrast ratio. Ambient lighting which is way too high being the precluder to that. I have yet to see a 4K presentation that I thought looked as good as todays better 2K presentations look. Light levels and color are still not up to par on the Sony 4K projectors that I've seen content projected. An interesting thing happened at NAB where Sony was all set up to run a specially filmed 4K demo... and low and behold the projector wouldn't work(must have been their legendary technology at work). Christie also had their CP2000SB demo gear set up and Sony asked Christie to project it's content for them. No one at NAB knew it was projected in 2K instead of 4K. Everyone thought it was 4K!
Mark
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 18 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 16 17 18
|
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
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
To any reasonable person, "Next to nothing" would be, like, say, 10%. Even if it's as low as 50%, that's hardly "next to nothing". It may only pay their operating expenses, but that's hardly nothing.
Printer-friendly view of this topic