Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Regal to go 100% Sony 4K?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Regal to go 100% Sony 4K? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Author

Topic: Regal to go 100% Sony 4K?

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-16-2009 02:08 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
But seriously...I can sell a DLP DCinema projector for LESS than say a Sanyo LCD projector of the same resolution and the DCinema projector will also have more light and be DCI compliant. The prices are really undervalued just to push this DCinema agenda.

So, why would anyone buy the Sanyo LCD? Does it have other advantages over the D-cinema unit (smaller, lighter, works on 120v power, etc.)?

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 05-16-2009 02:11 PM

quote: Monte L Fullmer
You think that AMC and Sony is gonna try to convince all of the the studios in making more 4k releases - even though those 4k units CAN reproduce 2k material.

Why should they not ask the studios to release 4K stuff? If I paid for fancy 4K projectors, I think it would be in my best interest to get as much really good use out of it. And if everything out there is available in 4K, while my competitors have to use a downres'd 2K version, I end up possibly getting more customers (if I play my cards right and show people the difference).

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 05-16-2009 02:31 PM

Hollywood studios will only pay for 4K rendering when they feel it is absolutely necessary. Right now they don't feel that is the case.

Maybe in another couple of years when the mainstream computing industry is making serious progress migrating over to native 64-bit computing it may push prices of memory and other hardware down to such low levels that 4K will be easy and cheap to do. For now 2K is deemed "good enough" and 4K a high priced luxury.

TI is stuck at 2K due to the very high cost of research and development for higher resolution chips. TI has no consumer electronics vector in which to sell 4K chips. DLP only works in front or rear projection setups but with consumer electronics and computing displays flat panel technology is here to stay.

It may cost less money to create a LCOS chip than DLP, but Sony is stuck in the same boat as TI with that technology. LCOS doesn't have much sales potential at all in personal computing and consumer electronics. This is why Intel abandoned their big LCOS plans years ago. I agree with the comments that Sony may be pursuing the 4K thing over marketing prestige and hope the "halo effect" bleeds over into selling Sony-branded consumer electronics.

Cinedigm and RealD are apparently in deep financial trouble. That could make things easier for Sony, but Sony could end up losing lots of money as well.

Ultimately, the Hollywood movie distributors are the only ones making out well in this. They don't have to make and ship so many 35mm film prints, which saves them millions of dollars. That was the entire purpose of this whole D-cinema conversion effort. You know they're getting a cut of ticket price premiums charged for digital 3D and "digital IMAX."

I'm just wondering what the Hollywood studios will do if a company like Cinedigm completely implodes. Will the studios offer a bailout? Or will theater chains like Rave and Carmike have to rush like mad to get the 35mm film projectors they have in mothballs reinstalled?

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 05-16-2009 05:11 PM

Scott...search me...the PLV-HD2000 seems like a projector with no purpose and a big price tag.

http://www.us.sanyo.com/Projectors-Products-by-Category-Cinema/PLV-HD2000

MAP price is $45K. Note, it runs on 4 lamps that will set you back over $400 a pop so figure in another $1600/lamp change at about 1000-1500 hours depending on how you run your fans and how dark you mind your image being (it is only 7000 lumens to begin with). Compare that projector with the Christie CP2000-M or the Barco DP1200 and it just doesn't make sense on so many levels.

If Cinedigm blows up...I don't think the Carmike projectors will cease to function. I don't think any creditors would want to pull them either...who are they going to sell them to? They would likely want to strike a deal.

The reality though is that if the AMC/Regal thing goes all of the way...you have about 12,000 screens that DLP won't be selling to and all of the server manufacturers can also count them out as well. When the total US market was only 37,000 to begin with...it is a pretty big chunk. Same goes for the 3D folks...Real-D and Sony have done the deal...that leaves Dolby and Mark's beloved Master Image out. Sure, there are another 100K screens around the world to concentrate on but the US market tends to set the pace on Cinemas.

As for LCoS...the A/V market also will need large-venue projectors so that market is larger than mere cinemas. It is DLP, with no current R&D and virtually no division any longer that stands to lose what market it thought it had left (Cinema/Large-Venue). It has lost everything else. If (and I think when) DLP tanks, it will also have ramifications on those that have aligned themselves with it as an exclusive technology.

DCinema is certainly a volitile thing to be playing in and forces outside of our industry can totally crush our ability to control our outcome with digital technology. Not so with film...and I repeat...digital has not nor will sell one extra ticket.

Steve

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 05-16-2009 07:11 PM

TI has nothing to gain by promoting DLP as a "loss leader". There are no TI-branded consumer electronics (does TI even still make calculators?). TI's "It's The Mirrors" marketing campaign didn't focus on any particular brand of TV, just the DLP technology. Well guess what, DLP at the consumer level is a niche market now, mostly about corporate use of DLP-equipped front projectors for presentations. Again, nobody cares that there's a TI chip in those projectors.

Sony on the other hand has potentially much to gain via "brand extension". It won't matter that SXRD isn't used (any longer) in Sony TVs. It's all about Sony Digital branding at the consumer level. It could turn out to be a smart move if everyone follows through, meaning Sony and the exhibitors they're apparently lining up.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 05-16-2009 09:47 PM

David...

The TI Calculators actually do VERY well...many school systems require them (gotta love a forced market)...in fact, the division DLP used to be part of was the same as the Calculators and it was the calculators that made the division look good.

DLP does have one other market I forgot to mention...the pico-projectors but it is likely to die there and has a rather pathetic resolution and too large a size as compared to upcoming LCoS pico-projectors.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 05-16-2009 11:18 PM

So, if I was going to build a digital multiscreen complex, what should I be looking for, esp if I'm looking at a long term operation, not needing to worry about being outdated and have a building full of "dinosaurs": Be it 4K LCoS, or 2K DLP?

| IP: Logged

Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008

posted 05-17-2009 02:47 AM

quote: Monte L Fullmer
So, if I was going to build a digital multiscreen complex, what should I be looking for, esp if I'm looking at a long term operation, not needing to worry about being outdated and have a building full of "dinosaurs": Be it 4K LCoS, or 2K DLP?

Hard to say.

My 8ball says: Maybe.

Whatever you get, you'll be obsolete sooner rather than later. Home technology also improves at a fast pace, so who knows what will be in the market 5 years from now ($3500 65" 1920x2160 3D TV's????). Panasonic is already teasing with their 103" active 3D plasma screens and 3D blu-rays ....

One thing is for sure. 2K in a movie theater won't make sense 5 years from now. It's tolerated right now, as are 4.5fl light levels for 3D, because there is/was no other reasonable alternative. Whenever one is developed, and it will be, then Hollywood will demand brighter 3D (they are already set to do it) and will encourage more resolution.

2K will always be supported and respected as it's part of DCI specifications, but films will be supplied in 4K soon enough and studios would appreciate if the higher quality shows on the screen instead of using only 1/4 the amount of pixels in 2K and throwing away 3/4 of the dots making up their $200m film to the trash can.

Lcos is not going to "dissapear", as it is not too expensive to tool a SI factory to do it and benefits from advancement in both, semiconductors manufacturing and LCD manufacturing, technologies both that are constantly being developed and supported for the foreseeable future.

MEMS like DLP don't benefit from LCD manufacturing improvements but it does benefit a bit from advacement in semiconductors.

If one of the two was to dissapear, and I'm not saying either one will, I would probably guess that it would be DLP first.

If there was a 4K non-Sony alternative in the market today, I would probably recommend that as the better option for DCinema. The way it stands, it's a tough choice. If I could strike a deal with Sony similar to the ones given to the fat guys (i.e. Sony will take care of everything for $60K per screen), I would probably go with Sony at the moment.

Unfortunately, Sony can quote you as much as >$100k for YOUR screen, and the deal for the tech support and upgrades, which you WILL need, may not be very sweet after the first year ... And they send you to Real D for the 3D, so not too good there either.

Meanwhile, the other guys are stuck at selling whatever TI throws at them. And they ain't throwing diamonds or cheap rubies, more like overpriced silver ...

We're [sex]

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-17-2009 09:40 AM

quote: Chris Slycord
Why should they not ask the studios to release 4K stuff? If I paid for fancy 4K projectors

Distribution spend money... HA thats a joke... They've already trashed 70mm!! Don't forget that AMC paid quite a bit less per booth then 2 K equipment costs, actually somewhere between 15 and 20K less per booth. Anything that "Costs" distribution any extra $$ is likely to get snubbed and that includes 4K releases. 2K plays back fine on the 4K projectors just like 4K plays back fine on 2K projectors.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 05-17-2009 10:31 AM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
They've already trashed 70mm!! Don't forget that AMC paid quite a bit less per booth then 2 K equipment costs, actually somewhere between 15 and 20K less per booth. Anything that "Costs" distribution any extra $$ is likely to get snubbed and that includes 4K releases. 2K plays back fine on the 4K projectors just like 4K plays back fine on 2K projectors.

Where do you get that they paid $15k or $20k less per booth than 2k? A Christie CP2000-M with Doremi server ends up being around $60k per screen installed for a low volume buyer. AMC paid (based on your calculation) around $58,000 per screen for Sony 4k.

I also think you are wrong about the 4k releases. The only reason the studios included 2k in the DCI spec at all was because they wanted the changeover to happen immediately so they could start saving distribution costs and at the time the DCI spec was written 2k projectors were the only option. As 4k digital aquisition becomes the norm, they're not going to downrez it to 2k for post production. CGI might still be done in 2k for a while but the non-cgi parts I'm sure will be 4k from camera to screen.

I can almost guarantee that with 12,000+ 4k digital screens in a few years that all releases (exept for full CGI animated movies) will be released with 4k DCPs.

The bottom line is that it makes no sense (other than if you need 3D in a location right now) to install a 2k digital projector. These deals Sony is making guarantee that 4k will be the industry standard for digital cinema. Even if most people from most seats can't tell the difference, the marketing edge is VERY important. 4k D-cinema will keep the home theatre-philes from bragging to their friends that their 110" screen with DLP projector playing Blu-ray is the same thing that the local theatre has. Especially since I can guarantee that there will be snipes on all these screens saying "Sony 4K Pure Digital Cinema - 4 times the resolution of HDTV".

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 05-17-2009 10:44 AM

Lyle's last sentence is what this is all about, although I don't think they'll mention the resolution difference. It will just push Sony Digital.

Sony and other prominent consumer electronics makers are sustaining huge losses right now:

Sony's loss: $1.03 Billion
Panasonic's loss: $3.99 Billion
Toshiba's loss: $3.1 Billion
Pioneer's loss: $1.44 Billion (and they're bailing out on TVs)

Vizio and Samsung have a larger share of the TV market than Sony. Samsung is profitable too. Sony needs to take TV market share away from these rivals. Getting 4K into theaters, along with the flashy snipe, is one part of a strategy to get there.

| IP: Logged

Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008

posted 05-17-2009 11:04 AM

I agree marketing is an important part of the whole equation.

Nobody can "brag" about having a 2K screen in a theatre, as it's the bare minimun, way too close to what people have at home and it's no better (and possibly quite "worse") than those other theaters with 35mm film across the street.

4K changes that. It offers quality similar or superior to (1.85 cropped, mechanically projected) 35mm and 4 times the pixels at home.

It's a start. And it gives you bragging rights and product differenciation.

Nobody in the industry was ever thrilled about 2K. It was a necessary evil, not the industrie's benchmark.

Hell, I'll even settle for a $50k per screen 3K solution for DCI right now. I wouldn't even complain about a low cost 2K $40k/screen solution for smaller houses.

But to ask for +$70k to equip a large house with 2K pretending it's "top of the line, finest quality" ... well, let me point you to my soon-to-get-here new 55" series 8000 Samsung screen I have €2700 euros saved for when it finally starts selling in Europe in a couple of weeks ...

And yeah, my money is that after about a year (or a bit more), close to 50% of all movies will start shooting/editing in 4K. And in 2 or 3 years, just about 100% of all major ones will be 4K. CGI animation being the exception, as they make more financial sense to keep 2K, specially if 3D.

In 5 years or so, we'll all be laughing about films shooting in 2K during the 00's the way we now do with first generation 1.3K ...

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 05-17-2009 11:18 AM

Lyle, a CP2000-M would not be a suitable projector for any half-decent sized screen, so that is a bad comparison.

In regards, yes 4K has a huge marketing advantage, but at the end of the day does it LOOK good? I mean, take the DLP systems installed by AccessIT and compare them to the ones shipping today. Without getting into an argument over why, the fact remains they simply do not look as good as the current projectors shipping. So how does the Sony image look against the current Christie DLP image?

I have not seen the Sony 4K projected, but I have seen Sony release products before they were truly ready for production and in essence fuck their customers over for many years because of it. I'm not sure I am willing to put much effort towards anything with the Sony name at this point. Sure the most obvious example has been brought up before, but is everyone forgetting about SDDS just because the price is so cheap???

History repeats itself.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 05-17-2009 11:32 AM

I have shot a Sony SRX projector against a DLP...in fact, this venue shot both Christie and Barco DLPs on the same screen.

The Sony and DLP projectors used the same source/content for both high-res stills and motion pictures. The content was primarily 2K as the Sony was not set up for 4K input at the time nor was the facility ready to transmit 4K content.

The result was not so clear cut. The Sony image was quite good...its convergence was notably superior to DLP (no red friging on the pixels). The 2K->4K uprezzing was very good as the jaggies were all but gone. The Sony pixel layout is very tight...much tighter than DLP as they don't have to giggle the mirrors and that takes space.

Where the DLP won was on color reproduction and contrast as well as uniformity. The SRX projector had background colors in the image of magenta and green (magenta being most prominate in the bottom-left of the screen). The Sony guy said it was not normal for the projector...talking with others that have worked with the Sony projector say it is more common than not.

I'd say to the average patron that goes to the movie, the Sony would be a superior image. To a DP, the DLP as it is probably a more faithful representation of the color/contrast. The Sony projector looked notably better than in my previous viewings so I would suspect that it is going to get better with time.

If DLP tanks though...I think you will see Hollywood embrace the LCoS technology anyway...even if it isn't perfect...it will be the only digital projector they have.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 05-17-2009 01:37 PM

quote: Brad Miller
Lyle, a CP2000-M would not be a suitable projector for any half-decent sized screen, so that is a bad comparison.

Have you seen a lot of AMC's "non Big House" screens built over the years? A great many of them are not too decent size.

The CP2000-ZX is only around $7,000 more than the M (again as a non-volume buyer) so you still don't get to Mark's $15,000+ savings over 2k based on his calculation of AMC's deal.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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.