|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: why is the "digital transition period" being handled so badly?
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 10-13-2011 12:46 AM
Hang in there Scott. My team has been working non-stop on keeping up with the demand for our DCS systems. There simply hasn't been any time for us to update the manuals in the warehouse. It will happen, but not for awhile.
To those who say there is good digital and bad digital, you couldn't be more right. Just last week we sent an installer into a building that had one existing digital 3d system and he was going to outfit the place with DCS systems. What was found on the existing system was pretty horrifying. They were cropping EVERYTHING down to scope...because the wrong lens was ordered and the original dealer/installer from a year ago didn't care enough to correct it. It was also very much out of focus. This isn't the first time we've seen things like that. We have seen theaters with the wrong color spaces and various settings, some with bad convergence issues, and even some that never even bothered to shoot colors! There is lots of "bad digital" out there. Digital is not perfect if the installer is rushed and doesn't do the job PROPERLY, but done right it can be pretty darned impressive...definitely better than anything available on 35mm these days.
The main thing I am seeing that is downright foolish with digital conversions in general though are much of the exhibitor decisions being made these days. We are seeing TERRIBLE equipment and installation choices being decided upon by either the absolute bottom line with NO regards for how much that will cost them down the road (quite possibly pushing them into bankruptcy due to the increased operating costs). Yes of course I mean Sony, but I also mean some of the DLP-based systems in various scenarios.
The other sad thing we keep seeing are over-aggressive equipment salesmen that are selling horseshit...and because they are slick talkers or they "take care of the decision-maker" under the table, their equipment gets selected with little to no regards for what the consequences. Case in point did you know Christie is the brightest projector? Did you also know that Barco is the brightest projector? Heck, NEC is DLP based and that means it puts out the same amount of light, those other companies are just making crap up. But no, Barco supposedly faked their world record demo by only measuring the center of the screen. Of course Christie's lens calculator is wrong. But then again so is their competitor's.
What some people have said is "THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE BRIGHTEST PROJECTOR! THE OTHER 2 OF YOU ARE LYING!" Of course the reason why even that isn't a fair statement is because there is no one projector manufacturer that is "the brightest" in every scenario. Sorry, but that is a FACT. It is also a fact that the calculators the manufacturers provide are simply incorrect! They don't take into account port window light loss, color correction light loss, screen degradation, bulb degradation...none of that! All they care about is taking a brand new super-duper/super-expensive bulb and blasting it with as much power as they can to take a measurement real quick under completely unrealistic circumstances and then claiming their projector can do it. Well sure it can, just not in an actual cinema environment under real conditions!
I see all the time these salesmen pitching that you can use their smaller projector in certain situations. Well, maybe for the first 100 hours of the bulb. What most people don't realize is that those same salesmen that earn commission from the projector sales commonly also earn commission from the bulb sales! It is IN THEIR BEST INTEREST for you to buy the smaller projector and to get eaten alive with bulb costs!!! After all, once you have made the purchasing decision, you're pretty much screwed...and therein lies the problem.
Nobody does the math. I'm not even sure how many people can. There is one thing I am sure of, don't ever, ever trust a salesman! And yes we even tell customers of ours that applies to us as well. We will work up the data with the TRUE cost of operation as fairly as possible, recommend the equipment that is in the client's truly best interest based upon the findings, and then we ask they take that and go to their techs for validation and we back off. (Nobody likes a high pressure salesman and anyone pushing really hard to buy their equipment is hiding something.) The numbers should speak for themselves and be validatable. We can run the numbers any way with any equipment the client wants in any combination and they are all done fairly. For example, if a client's theater complex is best served with Barco projectors but they want Christie, no problem. After all our system is hardware-agnostic, so any mix and match of projectors and servers can be used. Fact of the matter is depending on screen sizes, throws, masking type and so forth Barco may win on some and Christie may win on others. Without running the ACTUAL numbers for each scenario, nobody can make a blanket statement. We can run the paperwork both ways and they can choose whichever they like...but at least we gave them the proper education.
It is that education that is sorely lacking in these conversions. In the end, one poor decision now will result in millions of lost revenue. That is why we incorporated energy management into our systems and they are the only TRULY 100% projectionist-free systems that exist. (And yes, a manager that does projectionist duties is STILL a projectionist. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ) To top it of we have one heck of a good VPF program going with the lowest upfront costs, lowest ongoing costs and highest recoupable amount that exists.
People have for years made the (somewhat lame) joke that Film-Tech should make DigiGuard so people could have "digital done right". Well if you step back and really look at the DCS system and everything we have put into it, you will quickly see...we did. We just gave it a better name.
Digital doesn't have to be a bad thing if it is done right. Not everyone is though.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 10-13-2011 10:23 AM
I have thought long and hard about how to put this and I am not trying to make an argument. I am just sitting here reading all of this and see this mutual group gripathon about film companies and their greed.
Well welcome to the grown up world. The film companies are just like every other major corporation on the face of the earth. They have the same goal as every other major corporation out there, are you ready for it? Their goal is to make money and I am betting the company you work for wants to make money as well. You probable have the same goal.
You may not have the goal of making as much money but you need that money or you won’t be working there. I know that this industry (exhibition) is traditionally low paying believe me I know I have been in theaters since I was 17 with less than 4 years since then that I wasn’t working for an independent, chain, booking, or owning a theater. By the way I managed (not assistant) my first theater when I was 21 years old. I was one of those kids running a theater you are talking about on here only it as a long time ago. Often I worked two fulltime jobs to make ends meet.
Let me go back to the greedy film companies for a minute. If you are a franchise holder for GM, Ford, or Chrysler you sell what they provide. That is because you have a contract and you represent them. If you sell electronics, you sell what the manufactures provide. If you don’t like the direction of RCA you can drop that line, if you don’t like what GM is doing you have only a few of options.
1 you can send them a strongly worded letter (Oh yes that does a lot of good).
2 you can change sell your franchise and perhaps pick up another one.
3 you can just shutdown.
The product belongs to film company we provide it to the customer in the means and manner of the owner of the product demands. I guess you have a few options as well.
1 you can send them strongly worded letters, or complain endlessly on discussion forms.
2 you can look for film companies that will provide product film
3 you sell the theater (if you are the owner)
4 you can leave the business
I don’t know if film will be gone in the near future or ever. My guess is that it will be gone with in a few years. Many independents are already having problems getting film print on break or off break. It is a shame that this would happen but it is out of the hands the local exhibitor except to complain loud and often.
Do I wish we as the exhibitor had more control of the product, well yes I do. That will never happen as sad as it is we are just a means to end for the film company.
Do not get me wrong I was and am dead against digital in theaters. Film that is take care of (TAKEN CARE OF) is always superior to digital at least for now. I will miss the little clickit click click of film running though a projector. This is out of our hands just as discontinuing the Model T was out of the hands of the local dealer.
I agree with much that has been argued on here I just know in the end we don’t own the product.
Added later! Missed something!
I agree with Brad on the conversion it is matter of cost vs value and unfortunately owners are good with the calculator on today's cost but not so good on the long term cost!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 10-13-2011 01:25 PM
Sam,
I hesitated to re-write what I have stated in other threads on the subject of light and its interaction on the screens.
But the cliff notes version:
If you take a matte white screen, light it to 14fL in the center, you will have something like 13.5fL on the sides. No matter where you sit in the theatre or the projection angle, the odds are the light you are seeing is relatively uniform and approaching 13-14fL. The standard allows one down to 85% of center or about 12fL. Through actual measurements, I've found that lets you go to about a 1.3 gain screen (Stewart Ultramatte 130 was the screens I found that met the spec). Any screen with a higher gain will not. In fact, I've yet to measure a screen with a gain of 1.4 or higher that meets the spec.
If you look at what is happening to the light as the gain goes up is that you are really increasing the "Q" of the light and by holding onto just the center light reading, you are fixing the APEX of the curve at that one point and "pushing" the rest of the light down.
Taking Stewart out of the equation and using "typical" cinema screens from MDI, Harkness and Severtson...if one has a "matte-white" screen with a center brightness of 14fL, the AVERAGE light over the ENTIRE screen will be about 13.2fL if you are sitting in the center seat. Now, take out that white screen and put in a Silver screen with a gain of about 2.2-2.4 (depends on the manufacturer, the run that day and the age of the screen). If you set your center brightness to still be 14fL, your average brightness over the entire screen drops to 8.5fL!!! It will appear darker (about 64% as bright). Yes, if you are the lucky person sitting dead center and you can fixate on the 2-degree portion that represents the center of the image, you will have a "normal" brightness image...but almost nothing is in the dead center of the screen during an actual movie. Faces are biased high on the screen. Your high gain screen actually made the picture DARKER. Now, if you want the silver screen to look as bright as the matte-white, you have to raise the center brightness to about 22fL so that its AVERAGE brightness is that 13.2fL discussed earlier. The corners are still going to suck as they will be down to 6-7fL and you will loose some of your black in the DEAD CENTER but on average, the picture will look about as bright. Curving the screen can mitigate a LOT of this but not all of it. I have a screen with a raidus of 5/6th the throw with a Silver screen that only need to have center raised to 17fL to have the same average light as a matte-white screen of identical size/shape.
(and this was the short answer)
-Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
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
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
After all some of our calculations data came from our very discussions.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic