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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » why is the "digital transition period" being handled so badly? (Page 4)

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? Ron Funderburg Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 814 From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA Registered: Nov 2007 posted 10-13-2011 04:17 PM                        Chris yes they do but I haven't seen a picture from them. I doubt that their system makes up for the inherent shortcomings of 3D. 3D seems to be running out of steam what a shock! 20's had stereophonic viewing both motion and still photography, the 50's had the run at 3D a small run in the late 70's and 80's. All attempts have failed. Oh wait ViewMaster was popular for a long time. So maybe the movies need to see what they did to make it work better. And really those big binocular size viewer would be perfect in theaters.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-13-2011 05:09 PM                        quote: Ron Funderburg I doubt that their system makes up for the inherent shortcomings of 3D. 3D seems to be running out of steam what a shock! 20's had stereophonic viewing both motion and still photography, the 50's had the run at 3D a small run in the late 70's and 80's. All attempts have failed. I'm not wanting to turn this into another 3-D debate but it should be pointed out that this current round of 3-D started in 2005, so it's been going for six years, which is the longest run that 3-D has ever had and there's no sign of it stopping. The average right now is about 40% of ticket sales are for the 3-D version, which has been holding steady for a while now. There are going to be about 40 more 3-D movies in the next 18 months. I would hardly call that a "failure." Since the film-companies have finally realized that it's best to offer movies both ways, the consumers have a choice. Given all of the above, there may be a smaller number of 3-D films in the next few years as things level out, but I think the format is here to stay. Oh -- and the Dolby 3-D picture looks great, if the projection system is set up properly.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 10-13-2011 05:22 PM                     I've mentioned this else where on this website but curved screens pose and present new problems that the DCI has yet to be addressed or corrected - the relatively new DLP system at the Uptown Theater has the image at all four corners bowing inwards (I've heard the Arclight Dome also has this problem) - this was never a problem with past 35mm/70mm presentations  |  IP: Logged Ron Lacheur Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 650 From: British Columbia, Canada Registered: Feb 2002 posted 10-13-2011 08:59 PM                     quote: Jonathan Goeldner the relatively new DLP system at the Uptown Theater has the image at all four corners bowing inwards (I've heard the Arclight Dome also has this problem) - this was never a problem with past 35mm/70mm presentations It was just the bottom corners where it was bowing inward.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 10-13-2011 08:59 PM                     quote: Jonathan Goeldner this was never a problem with past 35mm/70mm presentations ..since they cut the aperture plates with a "frown" in them to counteract for the curve of the screen, then cut the sides of the plates with a slight trapezoid to counteract for the keystoning.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-13-2011 10:03 PM                     Sam, I fully intend to develop this into something that will show up in the "rags" and/or in the SMPTE Journal. The spare time thing is in VERY short supply right now, unfortunately. I also plan to introduce the information on the next round of SMPTE docs relating to illuminating screens (both for Film and DCinema). My data is grown, albeit slowly now. When I am taking the measurements, I'm using a USL PSA-200 meter and when possible, also taking a picture from the same perspective as the light meter...I'm also measuring the light when sitting off-axis. One would be AMAZED at how the light improves on the curved screen. On to the Uptown...a subject I'm rather aquatinted with, in its film days. First off, unlike the Cinerama Dome (aka Arclight)...the Uptown's projection is almost straight on with a very slight upward projection angle. In 35mm, we had lenses for 1.85 and 70mm that mitigated the barrel distortion, for the most part...however, on the sides one would get a pincushion distortion. Scope, on the other hand, never had a curve corrected lens (though I did experiments with how to do it on a Deep Curve screen and it worked...it would cost a pretty penny though). What one would likely see in DCinema is a barrel distorted image...the top and bottom horizontal lines would curve towards the center but the sides would be mostly straight (the image would be football shaped...in the American sense). A flaw in the plan is that Silver screen...the curvature would be too great and it is likely that the sides of the screen are brighter in the center (if one is seated in the center)...the upward projection angle would keep the lower seating area from being well lit but it would favor the balcony. The rather tallish screen would make the image seem like there was a band of light about half way up the screen that stretched from side to side but the corners would be very noticeably darker than the middle. If they are not using anamorphic lenses there, then they are wasting an large amount of light on Scope. The anamorphic lens would help, minimally, with the screen curvature too. Note, I have NOT seen the Uptown since it has gone digital but I do know the physics of what must occur and I also know its projection location. As has been pointed out, the Digital Cinema industry has not developed deep-curve lenses and probably never will. There are not enough deep-curve theatres to justify it. The lenses that existed for film have their origins date back to when Cinerama, D-150 and the like. The T-Kiptikon series...but was kept alive and actually made it into the ISCO Ultra line with multi-coatings and such. The MagnaCom 65 was also a very good tool in a deep-curve situation as it will pincushion an image...DCinema does not have such tools. Short sighted people also put a "no visible artifact" scaling rule in the DCI spec...while for typical flat screens with straight on projection, I absolutely agree. But what if you have some significant horizontal offset? Which looks worse and has more visible artifacts, a digitally keystone corrected image with credits and captions parallel to the bottom masking board or a badly keystoned image that is cropped? In the case of a deep curve screen, scaling the image to deal with the shape of the screen is preferable to cropping a bunch of pixels and having visible artifacts due to the screen shape. As projection resolution goes up, the becomes even more true. -Steve  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 10-14-2011 01:14 AM                     I was going to ask a question, but I already found the answer, thus, please disregard this post.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-14-2011 06:44 AM                        It appears that my original post here was widely misunderstood. The intention was not to start another film vs. big-screen-TV flamewar or to debate the aesthetic qualities of each. We have plenty of other threads in which to do that. My issue was with the potential failure of the existing business model for exhibitors and also with the ethics of distributors' making a change to their business which will have a significant impact on their customers (the exhibitors) without providing them with sufficient information to make informed decisions. In particular, the last issue above has essentially turned the distributor-exhibitor relationship from a mutually beneficial one into a giant poker game. Assuming that the major distributors have every intention of eliminating 35mm film distribution for new titles in the forseeable future (and apologies to them if they do not), I believe that they have an ethical obligation to communicate these intentions to exhibitors. If they cannot set an actual cutoff date for 35mm, then they should make a statement to the effect of "we will guarantee print availability until June 6, 2015 and cannot guarantee availability after that date." I believe that the current policy of silence along with an implied threat to exhibitors is unfair to both parties and is unlikely to result in an outcome that is favorable to everyone. I agree with those who state that distributors have the right to make money. I agree. They have a legal and ethical obligation to maximize shareholder value. I am not convinced that eliminating 35mm will do this for them, but that is neither here nor there. I do believe that they need to be more open about their intentions to their customers, and that doing so would be in both parties' interests. I also believe that, unless they really want to see a signficiant number of screens go dark if/when 35mm is eliminated, that they need to offer a more transparent and more universally applicable method of subsidizing the equipment costs for exhibitors. I am not convinced that the existing VPF plans do this, as the exhibitor still needs to find a way to increase revenue to support future upgrades. If this cannot be done, then the VPF policy (if it even applies to the theatre in question) has done nothing more than provide (say) ten years worth of life support to a dying business. I can understand how, in certain situations, D-cinema can make economic sense, particularly in venues which can use the equipment for "alternative content" and/or in multiplexes where the ability to "interlock" or move "prints" among screens on very short notice is necessary. These venues should definitely install the equipment and go that route. My concern is with the majority of exhibitors where there is essentially zero benefit to making the conversion. As for the manual/documentation issue: where I can I download Dolby or Christie installation manuals without having to register for a web site? This is annoying and should be unnecessary. Where can I get the root password for a particular server? It's not in the Dolby manual (admittedly, it is easy enough to figure out on their server, but that is not my point and should not be necessary). Why is it necessary to have a service technician to accomplish the "marriage" between server and projector? I can do my own 35mm equipment installation...why can't I do this with DLP? I would also argue that source code should be available for all of this equipment (I am not suggesting an open-source license...just that licensed users should have access to the source code), but that will never happen. As for previous forced upgrades (sound and CinemaScope): these provided differences (and, arguably, improvements) to presentation quality that audiences noticed. D-cinema (with the exception of 3D, which can also be done with film) does not do this. One could argue that talking pictures resulted in a downgrade of film aesthetics for the following few years, but audiences preferred them to silents and bought tickets for them. As for 70mm and Todd-AO, no one was forced to install either, and the two Todd-AO films were photographed twice, specifically to accommodate 24fps/35mm distribution in venues which would not or could not accommodate 30fps/70mm. The only real parallel that I can see here (a forced upgrade that did not do anything noticeable to the average cinema patron) was the cyan-dye track conversion, which had plenty of lead time and communication between distribution and exhibition. It also required a relatively small cash outlay by the exhibitors. I don't really have a solution here, but I do believe that someone needed to raise these issues while it can still be done. I do think that the push for D-cinema was premature and that it should have been delayed until widespread availability of 4K DLP equipment (which should have then become a mandatory minimum requirement...well, at least the 4K part, if not DLP). I also think that the specification needs work that should have been done before it was agreed to by the various parties. There are some things that DCI got very right, but many aspects of the specification are quite lacking or substandard. I also believe that film terms need to change. There needs to be a discount for D-cinema bookings (not an increase for 35mm) and that this needs to be continued in perpetuity to account for the higher equipment costs. Distributors need to re-consider exhibition as a loss-leader or at least a break-even deal that increases the value of their product in other markets. The whole VPF thing, with its insidious conditions, the typical requirement for an "integrator" (middleman), and nondisclosure clauses needs to be re-worked to be more equal to all exhibitors. And distributors need to make their intentions regarding exhibitor requirements clear, including forcing DCI compliance for D-cinema houses by refusing to provide content to non-DCI-compliant installations (after a suitable notification period to allow for upgrades).  |  IP: Logged William F Green Film Handler Posts: 84 From: Brighton, East Sussex, UK Registered: Jun 2005 posted 10-14-2011 10:36 AM                     I personally did not believe that any VPF deal would have realistically worked for us. And I don't like having ANY strings attached which might affect the way I choose to operate our business.. We are an 'independent' cinema and want to stay that way. So we bought a used series 1 machine outright at relatively low cost. And Scott is right, we only bought a digital machine due to the implied threat of impending lack of 35mm supply. I think that will happen, but I really wouldn't like to say when. Call me cynical, but when everybody is digital what's to stop distributors deciding that they don't 'like' the VPF deals after all and renegotiating them? Anybody who thinks VPF's are cast-iron legal documents that can't be re-negotiated, just look around and think again.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-14-2011 11:01 AM                        I was in the same boat with VPFs. The $ would have been nice, for sure, but I didn't (and don't) like the idea of "big brother" peeking over our shoulder all the time. Not that we have anything to hide here, it's just the principle of it I guess. We were already experiencing difficulty getting prints last spring when we changed over. This was more due to Carmike's changeover than anything else; since they have over half the screens in Montana, a lot fewer prints were being allocated here. Everything else aside, I'm really enjoying the ease and convenience digital provides, and yes I think the picture is better...even though we had a darn good film picture before.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 10-14-2011 11:22 AM                     quote: Mike Blakesley I'm really enjoying the ease and convenience digital provides ..and I do believe that this is the basis for this conversion: a win-win for both parties - owner and distributor. From VHS to a simple disc, et.al. One day, I thought of this convenience thing and did a small test: how many steps is needed to get a show on the screen with both formats. The 35mm, it took me over 40 steps to get the show on the screen (from when I pull the ring out until I hit the "Start" button), Digital, less than 10. And the time needed is also drastic as well between the two. Sadly, it had to be in this day and generation. Good luck-Monte  |  IP: Logged Matt Fields Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 545 From: Ohio, United States Registered: Jun 2005 posted 10-14-2011 11:29 AM                     The thing that I didn't like about the vpf's is that you are not only depending on the studios to keep their word, but that the third party provider will be around to properly hold up their end. Look at Cinedigm. The stock trades for 1.20 and the company financial statements are lousy.  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 10-14-2011 01:46 PM                       Scott raises a lot of interesting points but it's the way of the world. It's amazing it's as tidy as it is considering every studio has its own legal department, added to the fact Sony Studios has it's own conflicts of interest, where they foist this atrocious projector on the industry in support of parent company Sony. A lot of our picture technology changes over the years were more about convenience and not about making the perceived image sharper for the audience. For instance, finer grain films were used for the super 35 camera format being used to shoot scope 2.35 films without anamorphic lenses and then throwing away half the resolution in the process. You could say the only true advance in image quality in the last 30 years was the change from VHS to DVD.  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 10-14-2011 02:14 PM                        I'm curious to know if anyone has ever heard an actual number on how much the studios were spending each year for 35mm prints. I've heard various per print costs through the years with something in the ball park of $1500 being the most recent. Doing a little math with that $1500 number: $1500 per print x 8000 prints for a tent pole release = $12,000,000 There are something like 150 film a year that get a wide release (1500+ theatres). 150 films x $1500 x 2000 prints* = $450,000,000. *2000 prints is a total guess at the average number of prints produced for all wide releases, including tent poles where the number could be 4+ times that many. So basically that's something like half a billion dollars a year spent to produce 35mm prints. Not to mention the related costs for shipping and so forth. Hard to imagine that distribution content on reusable hard drives even approaches 1/3 of that number - especially when one drive replaces multiple prints at a given location. And this doesn't even begin to speculate on the savings from trailers delivered on hard drive rather than film stock. In my mind, the financial incentive to eliminate 35mm film is not difficult to see. Yes, it would be good for the studios to come out and say they can not guarantee film beyond a certain date. Although no specific date was issued, that was basically the point of the letter from Disney that was reposted on FT a while back. Letter from Chuck Viane  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 10-14-2011 02:29 PM                        Justin: if the data you had was accurate, you would be right. As of "How to Train Your Dragon": 35mm print was 800-1000 dollars per print to the studio in bulk. Digital was $2k each plus $1k code key admin charge: net $3k per print. You may say that this is too high, but that is the number and, because of long term contracts designed to amortise the production system, the studios are stuck right there for the better part of 20 years. Even I think film will be gone by then. The difficulty is low grossing theatres who do digital may not be getting "expensive" digital prints. The studio would have to net out at $3k+ just to break even on the print. Film would then have the cost advantage. Louis  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.