Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: dforced?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » dforced? (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: dforced?

Steven J Hart
Master Film Handler

Posts: 282
From: WALES, ND, USA
Registered: Mar 2004

posted 04-12-2009 06:53 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
The biggest issue for us, is print availability. That's always been the case. The second biggest issue is required play time. If the studios would get off of the "two week minimum" for smaller towns and let us play movies for one week, we would love to open a brand new film every single week and happily pay the higher film rent to do it. But as it is, we have to wait until "later" for many films because they wouldn't have the legs to carry a two-week run for us. (Or three weeks in some cases.)

I still fail to see why they can't allow two small theatres in neighboring towns play a film a week each. The studio's screen count would be the same, and the money generated by that print would almost double.

Mike is spot on. If NATO would work on these issues for us (independents) instead of the "Cinema Buying Group" stuff, I'd be a lot happier about paying my dues.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 04-12-2009 07:02 PM

One of my small independants was looking into DCinema just to free up "print availability" since he is given the line that there were not enough prints to go around (after the big boys got 6 copies on the break, per location).

However, he was told by his booker...that it wouldn't be likely to change in the digital world...they'd just have a different excuse. Which is dumb.

The studios really should try to work with a system that generates money for everyone. Forcing a theatre to play a movie too long doesn't generate them anything and hurts the theatre.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

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

posted 04-12-2009 08:01 PM

There you go again, Steve. . . . making sense! Louis

| IP: Logged

Eric Webb
Film Handler

Posts: 40
From: Atlanta GA
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 04-12-2009 11:16 PM

I feel they are thinking that there is a saturation point and in turn they will only let so many theaters play their product to keep demand up for the ones that's playing it. So as Steve said they are not changing the rules for digital cinema.

| IP: Logged

Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-13-2009 01:09 AM

quote:
the 35mm film presentation of KNOWING although very nice was not even as good as the up convertted to 1080p images from standard definition DVDs I have seen at home on my new HDTV. ... I feel the future of motion picture exhibition is digital.

but claude, knowing was shot on video and was full of rubbishy cgi. it is in no way representative of film's capabilities.

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 04-13-2009 03:33 AM

A year or two ago there was a digital film, I can't remember what it was now, which everybody was saying looked terrible, and using that to say that digital looked bad. It's easy to find bad examples on any format; I've seen 70mm that looked terrible.

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
When a few early adapters switched over to digital still photography shortly after it was introduced, I resisted as long as I could and stuck to film but when I saw the advantage digital photography offered, I converted. When a person lilke myself who has been making a nice living selling professional images to the public can see the the difference between a good theatrical film presentation and prefer watching the same same thing on a quality HDTV in a home in Blu Ray, I feel the future of motion picture exhibition is digital.

Claude,

I hadn't done any 'decent' photography for quite a long time, but recently I've been photographing some old telephones for somebody. There will be about 50 photographs in total, taken over several weekends. All of this has to be done on a budget of almost zero. Because I needed the movements I used a large format camera, actually a MPP Micro Technical Mk. 8 which was given to me as a box of very dusty long-dismantled parts and which I have put back together, though there are still a few minor parts missing.

Since the photographs are needed in digital form I considered shooting in digital, until I looked into the cost of renting a Betterlight scanning back for several weekends; it was far more than the cost of a couple of boxes of film and a 5 litre E6 kit.

Now, for somebody who is shooting thousands of pictures, say for mail order catalogues, or who needs the pictures quickly, the advantage is clearly with digital, but in this case it was simply much cheaper to use film. I also considered smaller formats, either one-shot digital backs or roll film, but the cost wasn't much different, and my shorter focus lenses aren't as good, so I ended up using 5x4. If I couldn't have used film, then it probably wouldn't have got done.

In the same way there are many places which show film, but not on a full-time basis, they are usually arts centres, which show film on an occasional basis, maybe once a week, maybe once a month. I know of somewhere that only runs film two or three times in a year. The equipment is often old, typically 1950s Westar or Kalee projectors, either a pair or one machine with a tower. The sound processor will probably be an old CP-50. The equipment is old, but if it's maintained in good condition the results are good. If there were to be a total move to digital, and film prints wee no longer available, then these places would no longer show films, there is no way that they could afford to install digital equipment. There are also many small, independent cinemas which would simply be closed down by a total conversion to digital, and these are the ones which tend to program the most interesting films.

To a large extent it's not a question of quality; either can look good or bad.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-13-2009 08:34 AM

quote: Steve Guttag
However, he was told by his booker...that it wouldn't be likely to change in the digital world...they'd just have a different excuse. Which is dumb.

Then this guy SHOULD THREATEN his booker and if no results prevail then he SHOULD CAN his booker! A customer of ours was initally told the same thing by his booker and our customer literally forced his booker to start booking digital for him... er elese! Well, he did start booking digital gradually and it seems now that indeed there are advantages to booking digital... our customer also on occasion can also get a film print of the same title for when it moves to a small "die out" screen! Today this booker is getting this done for some of his other customers as well. Basically... if the guy ain't werkin for ya get rid of him!!

Mark

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 04-13-2009 09:37 AM

The problem is that for some reason the distributors treat digital prints the same as 35mm prints when it comes to number or play dates, screen count and other terms. Maybe because for the short term the VPF's make it cost almost the same for them to distribute a digital print.

The two week requirement for small town singles is very stupid and I don't know why they do that even with 35mm. That second week is going to add so little in terms of additional gross that I don't understand why it matters to them.

Theatres like Mike's should add a 10 seat "screening room" in a storage room just to have a "screen" to show the second week so you can open something else on your main screen.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 04-13-2009 11:04 AM

quote: Carl Martin
but claude, knowing was shot on video and was full of rubbishy cgi. it is in no way representative of film's capabilities.

Not only that, but the 35mm film prints were likely sourced from a 2K digital intermediate. The original digital imagery was laser recorded to film and duped at least once or twice via interpositive/internegative elements before the imagery was high speed printed to actual 35mm release prints. Any advantages film has over digital are removed when the original source is just a 2K image. Add generational loss in the film printing process as another factor. Then add bad film handling and/or poorly maintained booth equipment as yet another factor. It's no surprise that movies in a good number of theaters can look pretty crappy when projected.

Still, DVD up-conversion really isn't very good either. I've seen a good bit of up-conversion and not seen any of it honestly look as good as a 35mm print shown with mediocre presentation quality. If the projector's focus is out of proper adjustment then, yeah, that will kill much of the native detail. But it's not a fault of the film print itself.

A 345,600 pixel video stream, already severely data compressed, is going to look only so good when it attempts to fake a 2 million pixel image. When you see an up-converted DVD next to a native 1080p Blu-ray image of the same movie the differences are very obvious. Not only that, but the native 1080p image helps you notice the flaws in the up-converted image. Then an icky feeling sets in about a lot of those DVDs. I'm selling most of mine.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-13-2009 12:06 PM

quote: Lyle Romer
Theatres like Mike's should add a 10 seat "screening room" in a storage room just to have a "screen" to show the second week so you can open something else on your main screen.

Believe me, we've thought of that. We've thought of:
-Buying the building on either side (neither is for sale)
-Adding a second story (too expensive, building not engineered for it anyway)
-Moving the screen forward and putting a second screen sideways behind it (would ruin our projection angle, destroy the looks of the auditorium and result in 2 dinky auditoriums instead of one nice-sized one)
-Converting the balcony to a 2nd screen (way too small)
-Buying a building down the street and doing a "Princess II" (Probably wouldn't work out financially to have two complete theatres in a town of 2000)
-Gutting the inside of the building and putting two auditoriums one behind the other, with a hallway leading to #2 (would probably work out, but would destroy the classic looks of our building...we would love a 2nd screen but am not desperate for it yet!)

The store room idea? Our largest store room is about 6 x 6 feet. We literally have no more space.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 04-13-2009 12:41 PM

Mike...it doesn't have to be big...let the 6x6 work with a two seats in it...find any old projector/sound to "show a movie" on and just bump the movie over...it is absolutely bull any way.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-13-2009 02:18 PM

Put another projector in the booth and point it out the back window onto the building across the street and call it your outdoor cinema [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Todd McCracken
Master Film Handler

Posts: 263
From: Northridge, CA, USA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 04-13-2009 02:56 PM

Bobby,
I cannot give you numbers but a large percentage of films are distributed via satellite. The matter of delivery cost via satellite is offset by the number of locations you send to, as it costs the same to send it to 1 site or 1000.
Satellite data speeds can be very fast, but it depends on the equipment you have installed. Generally the larger the dish the less error correction is needed and thus the faster you can send the files.
The one major advantage I see for smaller sites in regards to digital is that there is no such thing as a print shortage with digital. I have personally never heard of a digitally equipped site not getting a booked print because of a lack of copies. The other advantage is that you can set up multiple features on the same screen with relative ease, giving you more options in regards with your choice of programing.
When studios start offering DCI compliant catalog titles it should get really interesting as far as the options available to boutique/art houses and the like.

Edit: "Not only that, but the 35mm film prints were likely sourced from a 2K digital intermediate."
And here lies a piece of the puzzle that is often overlooked. Many films are edited and sourced from digital (its very easy and cost effective) So I cant see the 35mm print looking any better than its digital source.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-13-2009 03:16 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
it is absolutely bull any way.

Yeah, that's true....but we really would like to have a second screen. Lots of times (as everyone here knows) there's a few bucks left in a movie - just not enough to tie up the whole facility for another week.

| IP: Logged

David Zylstra
Master Film Handler

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

posted 04-13-2009 06:22 PM

quote: Todd McCracken
I have personally never heard of a digitally equipped site not getting a booked print because of a lack of copies.

If the film is booked it means you get a copy. There are cases where we cannot get an actual confirmed final booking in digital because the studios only allotted so many copies (35mm or digital) for the overall market. We have a location that has not been able to book some films in digital because of the limited copies earmarked for the market.

| 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.