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 5)

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? Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 10-14-2011 02:50 PM                       I also question the $2,000 price for a digital print. Please! Hollywood accounting is strange and mystical; films that gross 400 Million $$ and don't show an actual profit come to mind. This strange accounting used to be considered to be an only in LA issue, now it seems to have been adopted by Enron, Wall Street, etc. As usual, Hollywood is ahead of it's time. Maybe they are trying to amortize the conversion to D cinema on the back of the D-Cinema prints themselves.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 10-14-2011 03:02 PM                        This data is accurate; suppliers and film companies were present and agreed on those numbers. I was there myself. Louis  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-14-2011 03:44 PM                        quote: Louis Bornwasser Digital was $2k each plus $1k code key admin charge: net $3k per print. How can that be? I thought the whole reason studios want the switch is to SAVE money, not spend 3X the money. If they're spending $2k a print, PLUS the VPF, plus the $1k KDM charge....how is that saving them any money? Also, if it really costs them that much why would they ever give a new movie to a little place like ours on the break? In a lot of cases it would be a guaranteed money loser. I'm not calling you a liar Louis but those numbers just don't seem to add up.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 10-14-2011 03:56 PM                     Granted, 1Tb drives have really came down in price where they can be purchased in bulk form for pennies, but I bet that the duplication process from a main source (either analog or digital) to become data that has to be copied to these HD units, is where the expense is coming from. Kinda makes striking prints look like kid's play. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 10-14-2011 04:20 PM                        Assuming Louis' numbers are correct, and I have no specific reason to question him, I have to assume it's not the complete picture. There has to be a massive cost savings somewhere, or a new revenue stream, or there is no financial incentive to transition to digital. I know some of the savings will come from not sending multiple prints to the same location, but by those numbers they would have had to be averaging 3+ prints per location to realize any savings. I'm having a difficult time seeing those drive cost $2K each. I know they are not a standard SATA drive, but a SATA drive of similar capacity is only about $100. Also, I can't wrap my head around the KDM costing $1000 each - especially when they are generating a KDM for each auditorium of a complex. Again, I'm not trying to say Louis is wrong. I'm just saying there has to be some critical information missing. quote: Monte L Fullmer but I bet that the duplication process from a main source (either analog or digital) to become data that has to be copied to these HD units, is where the expense is coming from. That doesn't make sense either. Duplicating the contents of a HD is not an expensive process. The only thing I could possibly conceive as adding the cost is the security encoding for each HD/KDM combination, but even that is done by computer on the fly.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 10-14-2011 04:42 PM                     Then, wonder if the suppliers and distributors are setting a high price to protect their interests being a somewhat new procedure, in case the bottom falls out - about the only possible reason, I think, for these high prices.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 10-14-2011 05:05 PM                        Please forgive me if this has been floated in earlier postings: I've skimmed the last five pages but may have missed it. Could the essential answer to Scott's question be that studios and distributors basically don't know when they're going to pull the plug on 35mm prints totally and utterly, and are waiting for the point at which X per cent of theatres can screen DCPs before they believe that the risk of saying to the remaining ones, 'Either you convert or go out of business' is worth taking? I've been doing some research on the conversion to sound in Britain recently, and trawling through the trade press made (what for me at any rate was) a bit of a surprise discovery: that sound-on-disc had a much longer tail than it's usually given credit for, with the last distributors only finally ending distribution on disc in 1934. A relatively high proportion of British cinemas installed disc-only systems from the outset, including five of the seven nationwide chains with over 500 screens each; largely because in early 1929 Western Electric moved in with a slick sales operation and very attractive hire-purchase terms relative to RCA and the various European knock-off manufacturers of optical sound-on-film playback systems. I haven't been able to compile exact figures, but would guess that it was around 60-70% of conversions by the end of 1930. Around the summer of 1930, all the major distributors' PR machines go into overdrive with adverts and interviews with their technical managers in the trade rags, warning that film production on disc is over and that it's only a matter of time before the supply of discs with release prints to theatres will be over, too. In particular, Paramount first named September 1931 and then January 1932 as being the end of disc distribution ... but it didn't happen. Basically, theatres were far more reluctant to throw their turntables away than had been anticipated, and the independent chains and theatres were block-booking from distributors that offered a whole season's package with guaranteed discs and ignoring those that didn't. Only Radio Pictures had abandoned disc distribution by the spring of 1931, and the last holdout, British and Dominions, didn't press their last slab of shellac until the summer of 1934. By that stage, every trick in the book was being tried to get theatres to convert to sound-on-film: distributors were pressing 12" discs with thinner grooves to save money, rather than the 16" ones with which the Vitaphone format was launched, adding china clay to the shellac mix to make the records withstand more playings but at the expense of audio quality, charging exhibitors supplementary fees to supply discs, etc. etc. The bottom line was that distributors and exhibitors were locked in a four-year war of attrition. Most of the initial installation activity seems to have taken place between spring 1929 and autumn (fall) 1930, so of course by the time the Hollywood studios are trying to abandon disc distribution, the boat had sailed. By the time we get to the back end of 1930, distributors wanted to abandon what they saw as an obsolete technology, while exhibitors were reluctant to convert to sound-on-film, because many were still paying for their disc systems (and by this time the effects of the Great Depression were really starting to be felt, ergo no more easy bank loans for capital equipment purchases) and it was also widely believed that Vitaphone-type discs offered better sound quality than the optical reproducers and preamps then on offer. Could we be in a similar position with the digital conversion, i.e. the studios and distributors would abandon 35mm tomorrow if they thought they could, but there is still a critical mass of hold-out theatres preventing them from doing so?  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 10-14-2011 07:04 PM                     quote: Louis Bornwasser 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. That is absolutely ridiculous and I don't buy it for a second. What is your source for these numbers?  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 10-14-2011 07:31 PM                        I cannot reveal who said what because of the usual "confidentiality agreement," it was said in my presence by those who are in a position to know. NOT video people, not salesmen, film people who do the invoicing. Louis  |  IP: Logged Sam D. Chavez Film God Posts: 2153 From: Martinez, CA USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 10-14-2011 08:58 PM                       I believe the $800 film manufacturing cost for a high speed copy because I have heard it a number of times as well and there is a long history. I do not accept the $2,000 figure, or the $1,000 figure as valid. Someone probably decided that would be the stated charge not the actual cost. They are not selling the prints or KDM's so it's of no real importance. In any case, I'm sure the "cost" has dropped dramatically in the last few years.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 10-15-2011 07:11 AM                     These numbers may be true for the initial DCDM Mastering and key generation and administration process, so once per release - not for presentation DCPs. Distribution DCPs take different ways currently, and may be more or less expensive - but in general it wouldn't cost more than 50-100US$ to get it to the theatre, incl. a share for disc replacements and shipping.  |  IP: Logged Mark Hajducki Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 500 From: Edinburgh, UK Registered: May 2003 posted 10-15-2011 07:23 AM                     If the cost of a KDM was genuinely that high a lot more titles would be distributed unencrypted. The re-releases of pre-dcinema titles are encrypted even though you can buy the DVD/Blu-ray.  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-15-2011 09:00 AM                        quote: Sam D. Chavez Someone probably decided that would be the stated charge not the actual cost. Which brings it back around to the Hollywood Bookkeeping you mentioned earlier The lack of transparency and the confidentiality agreements are a big part of the problem Scott was asking about in the originating post. It could very well be like the pharmacutical industry where the actual cost of making a pill is a few pennies, but a few hundred dollars of "cost" is added on. We've had plenty of discussion about what a 35mm print costs, with no definitive resolution, I don't expect better results with DCP's.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-15-2011 07:18 PM                     Leo... It's funny that you mentioned Disks.. the 1929 variety. In reality we are again playing back from spinning disks... I just hope the 4:10 fast freight doesnt wreak havock with any of them. Mark  |  IP: Logged Mike Frese Master Film Handler Posts: 465 From: Holts Summit, MO Registered: Jun 2007 posted 10-15-2011 08:28 PM                        Louis, What was the approx. date you were privy to this conversation? I do not believe those numbers either. Why? Because min. guarantees for theaters not receiving VPFs from a couple studios have been lowered to $1000 from $1500 for film. Move-Over guarantee in many cases has actually gone up from $250 for film to $400 for digital. So ....Louis numbers have to certainly contain a VPF component and one that is pretty high going to the big three.  |  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.