|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Small theater operators weigh digital conversion
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-22-2011 04:32 PM
quote: Ron Funderburg
The people I work for are going digital this year as well and Chickahsa isn't a booming town.
Is that the company that runs theaters in Altus and Weatherford as well?
Duncan, OK has a small theater downtown that I doubt will go digital.
quote: Ron Funderburg
The Warren Theater in Moore Oklahoma is all digital. It is the busiest theater in the state and has decimated the surrounding theaters Grosses (actually halved them to decimate it is reduce an enemy by 1/10th and they have certainly done more than that).
The Warren location in Moore is getting its attendance from other things besides being "all digital." First off all the theater's nearest competition is arguably a joke. The Hollywood Theaters Spotlight 14 in Norman never impressed me, even when it first opened back in 1997. The former Regal Crossroads Mall site AMC now runs isn't all that great. Crossroads Mall is on the brink of ruin and the surrounding neighborhood is in a state of decline. OTOH, things are booming a few miles to the South in Moore.
The Warren Moore 14 is in a class of its own among theaters in Oklahoma, but it could be better. I am not a fan of 2K projection thrown onto 80' screens. They have to upgrade to 4K as soon as possible. The audio quality there is good (every screen is THX certified, unlike any of Warren's competition in OKC). But it doesn't have the rich, thump the air in your chest dynamic I fondly remember with the GCC Northpark 1-2 in Dallas.
I really have to agree with the others saying digital doesn't add much in the way of increased attendance. Here locally, the Central Mall 12 has better attendance than the Carmike 8. Yet the Carmike 8 is a far better designed, equipped and operated theater. Only 1 of the 12 screens at the Central Mall theater is equipped with digital projection and only 2 are equipped with 5.1 digital sound. The rest are stereo/mono. Plus the mall theater's customer traffic has more in the way of noisy teens, compulsive cell phone users and other distractions. If "digital" had as much marquee value as one would expect many would just avoid the mall theater. But they keep going there because it's in the mall.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 04-22-2011 05:33 PM
quote: Ron Funderburg
Doesn't the general public perceive the conversion to Digital as an upgrade? Given the sorry state of much of the projection in the country today isn't prints that won't be scratched a positive thing? Many of the general public don't seem to be able to tell the difference in quality between their DVD at home and the picture on the big screen.
I know the pictures are not as good on digital I can see it but can John Q Public?
In most situations around here, changing to Digital Cinema is a net boost in image quality. The film presentations aren't awful to the point of being unacceptable, but they are nowhere near what they should be in order to be held up as some sort of high-water mark that Digital Cinema could only hope to achieve!
I consider myself better than average when it comes to pickiness about picture and sound quality, and if given the choice, I'll see a Digital Cinema presentation over film around here any day.
The most noticeable improvement in my book is the steadiness of the image, followed by the absence of scratches and dust and dirt. A majority of my movie watching is using a JVC LCoS projector, so when the image is jumping around in a theater, it's very annoying. If these film projectors are so amazing, why can't theaters seem to keep the image coming out of them steady?
Maybe if I looked at film presentations done right on a daily basis, I could see the supposed problems that Digital Cinema has, but no one outside the theater business does that. The moviegoing public does a majority of their viewing at home, so if the picture and sound quality is better than that, who's going to complain?
That's the reference people have, and there's no reason a theater shouldn't be able to do much better than that, but when there's jump, weave, dust, and dirt, the theatrical picture quality is less than the home experience.
Digital Cinema is then an improvement for people, so if they notice that improvement (even if only on a subliminal level), that's great customer satisfaction, which should result in increased business.
A smart business person would take the marketing opportunity to advertise their digital conversion, tout its benefits so that people realize that a change has been made to improve their experience. Just hearing that you are making improvements will also garner some additional customer satisfaction and perhaps create some additional word of mouth. All things which should improve business, even if only slightly.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 04-23-2011 07:49 AM
Scott, on the technical side...the majority of the bad aspects of what you described can be traced to the lab work and what most of us here have been called the "dumbing down of film."
Scratches and most of the dust/dirt are indeed theatre related problems.
I, personally, don't believe that the audience (in any significant numbers) seek out digital presentations from film ones (or vice-versa). As such, it isn't an improvement that generates money for anyone...it does save the studios money.
In comparison to what Mark G brought up...there is a difference...when sound came out, it was all the rage and then it became expected and hence "normal." With CinemaScope and other widescreen processes...similar results. 70mm NEVER lost its mystique. That was a failing of the studios to think of it as just an improvement to the sound. They squandered those potential benefits as 70mm theatres have always outdrawn 35mm ones showing the same film in the same market. 70mm also often gave a credibility to a film even if wrongly so.
As for digital sound...when it came out it did give the audience an experience, sound wise, they only could experience with 70mm...which is to say a small percentage of the movie going public (70mm was mostly in larger areas)...digital gave better sound (potentially) to the masses (as Manny has touted in other threads). However, like with SVA before it, digital sound is now expected and is normal...nothing to boast about and to not have it is something to be ashamed about.
Digital projection? There is nothing really to boast about...if you were a competent exhibitor, you didn't have scratch/dirt problems so if digital is an improvement, it is an admission of failure. It does not nor should not create an improvement. Technically, the audience, by and large, already thought this industry was playing the movies off of a digital disc for about a decade (if you have be listening to what the general populace has been saying...ever have a no-theatrical person in your booth...their eyes get big when they see film equipment and a disbelief that it was being done that way).
The generation growing up now and are becoming the prime movie going public has never held a piece of film in their hands or loaded a film camera...there is no concept of it. They already think we are digital so the switch is not really news. I don't know how they have written off the scratches in the past...then again, I don't know how people sit through out-of-focus images and otherwise nasty presentations...but they do...en-mass.
-Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 04-23-2011 12:54 PM
quote: Ron Funderburg
Doesn't the general public perceive the conversion to Digital as an upgrade? Given the sorry state of much of the projection in the country today isn't prints that won't be scratched a positive thing?
Depends entirely on what your background is and what you're sensitive to.
How many of us know, or can tell whether acoustics in an opera house are "perfect" (whatever that is)? If you're listening to a pipe organ in a performance venue, as opposed to a church here or a theatre there, Who's to say which organ, or what brand, sounds most like what an organ should? Do the radios in any two vehicles sound the same? What's the standard?
People are used to the fact that the sound (or visual) quality of playback equipment varies from place to place to place. We have references, so we can get things as close to the ballpark as the rooms and technology will allow, but I suspect very few of us are good enough to exactly duplicate results from room to room to room. If you are, raise your prices... you're probably not charging enough.
People come to my drive-in and comment about my picture and sound quality all the time. Still, I'm under no illusion about whether jamming all of my sound channels through a mixer, processing it & sending it out on FM results in a product that matches "what the producer intended"... nor do I argue that blowing up a 35mm frame onto an 86-foot-wide screen results in the kind of image quality that you'd get on a 30 foot indoor... but it's pretty darn good, comparatively speaking.
So... my feeling about the lack of public recognition for digital is that it's much like the disappointment many owners felt when they installed digital sound, and few noticed. If your original system was crap to begin with, it probably was a huge improvement. For those of us with Dolby, correct processing and well-equalized auditoriums... maybe not so much so.
Frankly, I doubt digital will put one extra car in my fields that I wouldn't have had with film. It's a survival move, which is what makes it frustrating for me. Gotta do it... or close.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 04-23-2011 05:12 PM
Technically, Christie went with the "Glue cable" route but it has the same effect...the critical board is wrapped in a tamper-proof package.
Christie is also doing another thing differently...they are taking an "RX" approach, by and large. If you have a type-2, then that is what they are going to try and send you with the glue-cable mod...likewise all of the way out to type 4s. That is why you have to find out what type of board you have, first. Note, they have an option to just upgrade to a type-5 outright...a good idea since it will give you HDCP support too.
Barco, on the other hand, has taken the approach that ALL series 1 projectors will upgrade to type-5 boards so even a DP100 will become HDCP compliant (though one may need an additional modification if it is old enough).
The STUPIDEST thing about these updates is the battery cable. Since the board will commit suicide if left un-powered for 6-months or more, they have to sit on a charging rack until sold...as such they attach (permanently) a set of battery cables...the Battery cable should have been plug in, at the very least so the cables need not ship with the board. The problem with the cables is that one has to carefully route them and ensure that they don't put pressure on the covering of the board least that pressure kills the board.
-Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic