Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Major studios in deal to convert to digital movie projection

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Major studios in deal to convert to digital movie projection (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Major studios in deal to convert to digital movie projection

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-12-2008 08:09 AM

quote steve "it is true that those that want to see the stuff in 3D will pass by a 2D theatre (film or digital). It makes sense, for the moment"
Yes I usually pass up the 35mm theatre for the one that is showing it in 70mm [Smile]

In the current ecconomy I see far more theates being converted to retail rather than spending non recoverable money for digital

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 10-12-2008 08:55 AM

Oh no Gordon...you are wrong on that one...FIRST they will convert to digital...then they will go to retail...except nobody can afford to buy things at retail either.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 10-12-2008 01:23 PM

quote: Frank Angel
As much as those 50's 3D titles were wildly successful, that didn't turn out to be the good yardstick by which you could have predicted how much staying power 3D would have. The hard fact is that inspite of its initial popularity, 3D was dead in a matter of just a few years

Gentlemen, one word...(adopts unfathomably deep voice):

A V A T A R

Wherein Cameron has pushed the envelope of the format from gimmick to serious artistic medium (so they're saying) [Razz]

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-12-2008 02:38 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
it is still a fad/gimmick. It does not really add anything to movie except a novelty.

I certainly don't see this time round as a fad... there are way too many companies involved in it for the long term. T.I. has spent millions making the full DLP chip happen, THE DLP that you predicted would disappear sometime soon... Either of the 3-D systems are so easy to implement and at least with Dolby 3-D there isn't any compromise with color... I've never considered anything that required a silver screen to be very viable in the everyday movie biz... and hence don't consider the Real-D System a viable 3-D system for every day theaters many reasons both technically and economically...

quote: Steve Guttag
Shoot, Dolby even recommends high-gain screens (1.7ish)...so much for light uniformity.

Sure.... to keep lamp sizes within realistic limits. However do not forget that the screen in Dolby's screening room is a 1.0 gain ... brand new in fact... and it works just fine with their 3-D system. The use of the full DLP brings matte white more into play for smaller screens.

All in all I certainly see this as being a very similar fad as 70mm 6 track was... in fact I'll go so far to say that 3-D is replacing 70mm 6 track as the format of the future. It isn't going to be all movies but it'll be there for special releases just like 70mm used to be. Just because you don't like it and it doesn't meet your specs doesn't mean the general public doesn't like it.

Having seen many 3-D clips at Dolby's screening room last week of both old, present, and upcomming stuff as well as the PACE demo film I'd say we are in for a very interesting and fun ride!

Mark

| IP: Logged

Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004

posted 10-12-2008 03:51 PM

Great, now we get to see the [bs]

movies so light on story that they would float away in 3D and [dlp]

!!!

Until Hollywood grows a pair of bollocks and starts making movies with substance in story and acting this whole industry is going down the crapper soon.

I am so glad that I'm getting near retirement so I don't have to endure the [bs]

much longer... [Razz]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 10-12-2008 04:50 PM

Any movie presentation format that does something different will be dependent on popular movies to survive. I think that is what ultimately killed the use of 65mm photography by 1970. Too many bad movies were associated with it. Far and Away wasn't a very good movie either. If it had been a major hit, we may have seen more movies filmed in 65mm afterward. The success of The Dark Knight is leading at least one more other movies to copy the gimmick of filming certain parts in IMAX. I would prefer to see an entire movie filmed in IMAX, or just 5-perf 65mm.

Once a certain process becomes popular enough, just about any movie will use it. Back in the early 1990s most movies merely had stereo prints. Today, it's very rare for any movie to be released without a 5.1 digital audio mix.

Most movie productions now use digital intermediate instead of old fashioned photo-chemical color timing. The use of DI makes it easier to supply digital cinema equipped movie theaters with JPEG2000 movie files and create AVC or VC1 copies to use on Blu-ray.

3D will only survive if hit movies make use of it. Back in the 1980s most movies that used 3D were pretty bad quality movies. There weren't any blockbusters using 3D back then. Odds are different with digital 3D. There's a lot of movies planned for 3D release. At least some are bound to be big hits.

As to which system is more practical, the install numbers suggest Real-D as being the one most theater companies prefer. Dolby 3D doesn't need a silver screen. But the theater has to buy and maintain those glasses. It cannot be cheap from both the equipment and labor standpoint to clean those glasses for every show. And the theater is going to lose a certain amount of glasses to customers.

The biggest problem I see with either 3D system is they don't work on large theater screens (unlike IMAX 3D).

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-12-2008 05:12 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
The biggest problem I see with either 3D system is they don't work on large theater screens (unlike IMAX 3D).

Actually they can work on much larger screens but the 3-D exaggeration effect really comes into play on close ups. There is also a light level problem but a stacked system can deal with that problem.... and in one of three ways too!

With the ability to do an outright purchase and have no yearly contract obligations and the price reduction on the Dolby glasses to a low of about 27 bucks and the cycle number having gone way up to somethng like 450 cycles(they now claim) the Dolby works out to like 20 cents per cycle including cleaning and so on. Real-D is still at .75 cents a set of cheapo plastic glasses... so you do the math and decide which one is the cheaper. Also, any complex that installs Real-D cannot by contract install anyone elses 3-D system for a ten year period.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004

posted 10-12-2008 07:31 PM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Also, any complex that installs Real-D cannot by contract install anyone elses 3-D system for a ten year period.

Mark, that statement is one reason why I am so opposed to this whole [dlp]

mess. It's a throwback to the days of monopolies and the idea that I cannot choose to install someone else's equipment is counter to good business practice.

It's like saying that if I buy Christie PG-35's I cannot install a Century JJ or Norelco AA in my largest house to have 70mm capability.

Again, like I stated in another thread in regards to some theatres signing up for Sony's 4k machine, anyone dumb enough to lock themselves into an exclusive contract deserves to get [sex]

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-12-2008 10:01 PM

Exactly Tony! That was my point.. its easy to see that Dolby is the clear winner on the 3-D front... and with no strings attached.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 10-12-2008 10:55 PM

I wouldn't be declaring Dolby the 3D winner until they're actually outdoing Real-D in installation numbers. Real-D is making deals with Cinemark, Regal and others with orders numbering in the hundreds or even well over a thousand. Dolby needs to make similar deals and announcements with other theater companies.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
With the ability to do an outright purchase and have no yearly contract obligations and the price reduction on the Dolby glasses to a low of about 27 bucks and the cycle number having gone way up to somethng like 450 cycles(they now claim) the Dolby works out to like 20 cents per cycle including cleaning and so on. Real-D is still at .75 cents a set of cheapo plastic glasses... so you do the math and decide which one is the cheaper.

You're leaving out a couple of factors.

The theater has to install whatever kind of sanitizing / cleaning equipment is needed for cleaning the glasses. If the theater has to install something along the lines of an industrial quality dish washing system not every location will have the space available for that gear.

Worse yet, you need theater employees standing at the exits to collect the glasses at the end of each show. That isn't much to ask at large theater locations. The average 8 or 10 screen complex is going to be run with minimal staff. Those places may need at least another person or two on payroll for the collecting and cleaning glasses duty. That's going to add up a significant amount of cost, perhaps enough to sour the theater's attitude on the deal.

| IP: Logged

David Zylstra
Master Film Handler

Posts: 432
From: Novi, MI, USA
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 10-12-2008 11:48 PM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
its easy to see that Dolby is the clear winner on the 3-D front

My jury is out for 3-5 years before I declare who wins, many factors have to play out before I decide the winner (in my own opinion, of course) - i.e. 100% compatibility with ALL servers/projectors, who pays for the disposable glasses, removing any 3D upcharge from film rent, consistent number of yearly 3D releases, how many more 3D display products come out, cost effectiveness of scaling to multiple screens, etc.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
so you do the math and decide which one is the cheaper.

I did and at our moderately attended 10 screen my estimates show that RealD shows profit in year 2, Dolby shows profit in year 3 (but does not catch up to RealD in accumulated profit until year 6). When I add a second 3D screen RealD shows profit in year 3 but Dolby takes until year 6 to show profit.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Also, any complex that installs Real-D cannot by contract install anyone elses 3-D system for a ten year period.

That's only true if the exhibitor signs a 10 year contract.

quote: Bobby Henderson
3D will only survive if hit movies make use of it.

Exactly! Hopefully we will see more if/when DCIP gets Regal and Cinemark's digital projectors installed.

I wonder how the current financial "crisis" will affect DCIP and AccessIT's ability to get the financing they need.

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 10-13-2008 06:04 AM

Never overlook the "cheap" factor. I'm talking about initial start up costs. Quality is not now, nor ever will be, a factor. Louis

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 10-13-2008 08:04 AM

We are changing from Dolby 3D to Real-D at an 8 plex due to the rate we lose glasses. Customers seem to have been conditioned by Real-D that they are entitled to keep the glasses. Even one extra staff member isn't enough to get them all back every show.

If Dolby came up with disposable glasses or sub $10 glasses then the issue would go away but even at $27 Real-D works out better especially when at least one studio charges film rental on a Dolby 3D upcharge (warner).

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 10-13-2008 09:55 AM

quote: David Zylstra
My jury is out for 3-5 years before I declare who wins, many factors have to play out before I decide the winner (in my own opinion, of course) - i.e. 100% compatibility with ALL servers/projectors

I'm pretty sure Dolby 3D works only with the Dolby Digital Cinema system. Real-D works with a variety of servers, including Dolby Digital cinema servers.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-13-2008 04:05 PM

David,

I don't think you've looked at Dolby's pricing lately and its obvious you have also not looked into Dolby Direct where you end up getting the gear at Dolby Distributer cost... but I'm certainly not pushing you to go around your dealer! You have a contract with Real-D and you're stuck with them at what ever sites you've installed it for the duration of your contract. How one can ever declare any profit from Real-D is beyond me since you never actually "own" the equipment. Weather the yearly RD fees are burried in your Access-IT program or not the fact stands that no one can own outright any Real-D systems. They are simply not for sale. The 20 cent per cycle cost for the Dolby glasses was including cleaning the glasses and amortizing the washing machine to wash them... the doorway detectors... and the electricity... and the labor to collect them. And you don't have to purchase a room full of glasses to get them at that low 20 cent price as you would have to with Real-D glasses where you'd have to buy upwards of 50K pairs at once!

If you take the cost of one pair of glasses... at 27.95 and divide that by 400 cycles that works out to just under 7 cents per cycle on just the set of glasses so I think you can see the 20 cent figure including the machine, power and labor is well in line. Several of my customers have done the math and it clears out way ahead of Real-D's glasses cost.

Then take the huge disadvantage of Real-D's need for a silver screen that typically costs you 4 to 6 times the price of a mid-gain screen and they have about 1/4 the life span. Another really big disadvantage! Also realize that no chain is going to replace those silver screens.. they will hang for the same duration the normal white screens are up! Yucko!

All in all Real-D doesn't make any sense at all... You're always paying for it in some way or other weather you realize it or not, The quality is lousy because of the directional characteristics of the silver screen, and in the end you have nothing to show... you don't own it! All thats happened is Real-D has made gobs of $$ off of you.

Those who loose glasses can be the only ones to blame, you probably also don't have any ushers that actually help your patrons find seats or correct theater screens, you probably have a very low quality-shoestring type of operation. Really, its no big deal to install the detectors at the doorways nor are they expensive... the part that sets your alarm off is built into every pair of Dolby Glasses.

Mark

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.