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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Resolved: Problem with a MasterImage MI-2100: Disc won't spin; Up & Down don't work (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Resolved: Problem with a MasterImage MI-2100: Disc won't spin; Up & Down don't work Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 12-25-2013 06:12 PM                        quote: Mark Gulbrandsen Also the .50 cents a ticket comes out of the 3-D surcharge so the theater in effect is paying absolutely nothing This is close to correct, except the theatre is still paying film rental on the whole surcharge. So if the theatre is paying 55% aggregate film rental on a 3D movie, the cost per ticket for RealD will actually be $0.775 per ticket - $0.50 to RealD and $0.275 for film rental. The cost per ticket for Master Image. I know we did the calculations for our company's two theatres and found we were better off with RealD in one location and MI in the other location.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-25-2013 06:49 PM                     The biggest advantage with Real-D until recently is that you don't pay unless you play. I had customers equip all screens in complex's with Real-D and they pick and choose to play 3-D when and on what screens. For many theaters having to front 35K per screen for 3-D equipment is certainly feesable for a screen or two but is not likely to happen for many more in a given complex. Real-D recently layed off 20+ people and changed their policy to require a large chunk of $$ up front instead of the per ticket. The per ticket charge kicks in once the initial payment is used up. IMHO this sort of deal is absolute suicide for Real-D! I have already had two customers one of which is a very important location in regards to Hollywood type people that were just about ready to install the new white screen systems and then decided to nix 3-D completely. I still like Real-D as being the most practical, it's stable well made equipment and it stays aligned once set up properly. The windows on their devices are optical coated and very high quality. Low to no maintainance. It also doesn't sip up the theater profits by requiring large lamps.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-26-2013 01:28 AM                     Actually up here real d requires all 3d titles be played in 3d  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-26-2013 07:02 AM                     Yes, the 50¢ comes out of the surcharge (if you are charging one)...but that is after your split with the studio. If you have ANY other 3D system...you get to keep that 50¢ from your cut...no matter how you cut it, it cost the theatre 50¢ a ticket. So how fast does that add up? So on a typical movie that averages (meaning some shows are full some are near empty), you have only say 50 tickets. That is $25/show. Lets say you are running only 4 shows a day, that is $100/day or $700/week. You could change the MI filter wheel EVERY WEEK and spend a fraction of what you will with Real-D. MI customers get "free" glasses too. No matter how you cut it...Real D is the most expensive 3D out there. The only place one can pick up on the $$$ is that Real-D is about twice as efficient as MI (just under twice) so lamp costs would have to be factored in too...that will narrow it a bit...but still it won't be even close.  |  IP: Logged Alan Gouger Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 501 From: Bradenton, FL, USA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 12-26-2013 09:43 AM                        A non profit theater recently negotiated with RealD ( Sony projector ) who considered adding 3D to their cinema. The representative took into consideration the lack of income and offered a 5 year contract @ $25k. They passed on the offer.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 12-26-2013 11:27 AM                     Sony also forces RealD, so let's not forget that for those folks stuck with Sonys.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-26-2013 12:14 PM                     Run! It's a Sony.... quote: Steve Guttag Yes, the 50¢ comes out of the surcharge (if you are charging one)... Ahhhh... However the studios actually force you to charge the 3-D surcharge and there is a minimum on that which they allow a theater to charge. If a given theater chooses not to charge it they are STILL PAYNG IT to the studio out of their own profits. Typically it's $3.00 and after the 50 cent Real-D fee the theater still typically nets about 22 cents on the surcharge. So the statement the theater pay more by installing Real-D is untrue. They just make about 1/2 as much as the theater paying of the ten year loan and interest on 100 grand worth of M.I. units. If you buy a 35K M.I. unit or a 35K Real-D unit you're looking typically at a ten year pay back or at least a 7 year write off anyway. You have to maintiain your own M.I and Dolby... $500.00 M.I. filter wheels and occasional sensors, not to montion if you accidentally break a dolby color wheel or loose one in a lamp explosion! Ouch! Real-D costs nothing to maintain except for cleaning the optical wndows once in a while. If your Real-D breaks down you have a new one to replace that unit the next day at no charge. Just have your tech swap it out. quote: Steve Guttag You could change the MI filter wheel EVERY WEEK and spend a fraction of what you will with Real-D. But you're not figuring in the cost of the technician to go do it or the down time and lost 3-D shows. M.I. actually wants the filter wheel screws torqued to their spec if they are to warranty the disk. Not many cinemas are going to buy the necessary torque driver set nor will the Candy Girl probably know how to use it correctly. So depending on driving distance you better add about another grand to each filter wheel you end up replacing. And after all those multiple cleanings on that plastic wheel your many times cleaned wheel is going to produce horrible optical results on screen. I have seen the latter happen a number of times! You may as well be running Real-D on a Sony instead! Sure you also have to have a tech switch out your Real-D unit, but I have never known one to fail... or go out of alignment for that matter. BTW: I have absolutely nothing but praise for M.I. in the support department! They do stand behind their products and they did offer to cover the cost to repair damaged lenses back in the exploding disk days. Based on their support alone I'd be willing to try a fully enclosed unit but the filter disk better last at least a couple years at the minimum. Mark  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-26-2013 01:44 PM                     Mark...clearly not all theatres are getting the same deal...for the 3D minimum surcharge does not not apply to all. But lets get past that because it doesn't matter. 50 cents to Real-D is 50-cents that one is not paying to any other company. It really comes down to payback time. Back in the day, I actually did a spreadsheet that shows the math. Master Image, payback time based selling an average of 100 tickets a day...11-months based on a $3.00 up charge and the theatre only getting a 40% aggregate. After that first 11-months...all of their portion of the upcharge is theirs. With Real-D...it never stops. While it is true that one is responsible for their own repairs, discs, technician time...One week's worth of Real-D charges covers that for a year...the other 51-weeks is in the theatre's favor. No matter how you dance around it, you can't make the math work in Real-Ds favor...a theatre will make less the longer they run 3D. The more 3D they run, the more the other systems make more money for the theatre. It isn't rocket science, it is pretty low-end math here.  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 12-26-2013 04:45 PM                        Steve, the problem with your example of 100 3D tickets per day, is it assumes the theatre will sell 365,000 3D tickets in a year. My theatre is a relatively high grossing small theatre - we usually average about 40-50% of the national PSA. 365,000 is roughly 2.5-3 times our annual attendance for all movies. And 3D tickets only account for about 20% of all tickets sold. So taking a hypothetical 20% of 120K tickets is 24,000 3D tickets or $12,000 per year in payments to RealD whether you have one or three 3D screens. If you have 2 or 3 3D screens, how does that change the equation? I don't know what the numbers are nationwide, but I would imagine there aren't more than a couple dozen theatres in the country that sell 350,000 3D tickets per year.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-26-2013 05:28 PM                     It is an interesting point. When I first did the study...all shows in the 3D theatre were 3D...not mixed as they are now (my chart even had Technicolor in it). 100 tickets/day basically had about 20 tickets/show in a 5-show/day theatre...not exactly stellar business. It was an average based on the numbers I was given at the time...where busy times would be in the hundreds per show and dead times would be much less. In a typical 200-300 seat house...one sell out covers half your week. So with 24,000 3D tickets sold a year, you stand to collect about $30,000 a year in 3D up charges, depending on your split with the studios and how much up-charge you have. So, in a single 3D theatre, payback is just over a year/3D system (based on Master Image prices). Master Image will counter that you can move their system from theatre to theatre though none of ours ever did. As compared to Real-D...if you have three theatres, then yes, the break even with them is going to be closer to 9-years. I'd question why you would have so many 3D systems if they generate so little revenue. It is also likely that 3D is stealing revenue from 2D shows. We have one client that decided to forgo 3D...his attendance goes up on potential 3D movies as he gets audience from his nearby theatres since he is not in 3D for the prime time shows and is consequently less expensive. As I said above, the more 3D you have, the worse the Real D deal is. If one is betting on low 3D turnout, then a less expensive up-front cost system (Real-D has traditionally been the lowest up-front...that is the hook)...then again, Dolby 3D is about $11,000 street price (give or take) with 300 pairs of glasses thrown in...so again, there are cheaper alternatives to Real-D that generate money for the theatre faster, longer.  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 12-26-2013 05:54 PM                        My math was off: 100 3D tickets per day is 36500 per year, not 365,000. I blame holiday fatigue. The main reason for having more than one 3D auditorium is because of the number of 3D titles out at a time during the summer and holiday season. At times there may be as many as five 3D titles which are within the first 3-4 weeks of release.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-26-2013 06:32 PM                     Oh...1 auditorium...that was always foolish since it typically tied up the big theatre on a dead movie a couple of weeks in. You think your math is bad...I didn't catch it at first glance either though it did trigger my "huh" sensor since the number was much further off than what I was told back then ( I used actual theatre numbers). Note, one did more than 20% on 3D back then too...it was closer to 50%+ I still claim that 3D can reduce sales if it is forced in the prime time slots since many people don't want to pay extra for it or don't want the 3D experience. It all depends on the market. But if one thinks they are going to do big 3D business, Real D is not the way to profit from it. As our exercise has shown...the less 3D business you do, the more attractive Real-D becomes (due to the lack of up-front costs). I hear though, Real-D is starting to do up-front costs...which makes them a bad bet again. And if you aren't going to do enough business to justify 3D, why bother? Remember too, with a polarized system, you have to compromise EVERY show in that theatre (light wise).  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-26-2013 08:51 PM                     Unfortunately I don't have a single customer that gets away without paying the surgharge. The big chains perhaps do... The little guys always get screwed by the studios! As for 3-D hurting the gross ticket sales... it all depends on location. I service many places where people wouldn't go to 3-D if it were free. Nearby theaters that have it also do poorly. And then there are places where there aren't enough 3-D screens like Elko, NV where they sell out every dang 3-D show irregardless of whats playing or how long.  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 12-26-2013 09:15 PM                        With regard people going to 3D movies, I'm finding that with most family movies, people are increasingly skipping the 3D version in favor of the 2D version. Our afternoon 2D performance is almost always the busiest showing of the day. As an example, over the summer Despicable Me 2 was about 2:1 2D to 3D. However, word does get out that some movies are more worth seeing in 3D. For example, Frozen was about 55%/45% 3D to 2D. It also seems to depend on the audience. Thor 2 was about 60% 3D. While there are certainly people who have actual issues with 3D - either they have vision problems that causes them problems when viewing 3D, or the glasses are uncomfortable, or they don't like wearing 3D glasses over their regular glasses. But the main objection is on price. People simply don't like to pay extra for the 3D.  |  IP: Logged Randy Pryde Film Handler Posts: 32 From: Casper, WY, USA Registered: Feb 2013 posted 12-26-2013 10:40 PM                        We replaced most of our Dolby 3D systems with the MasterImage Wave. This is an ownership model that has worked well for us. The studios accepted our $1.50 admission surcharge as sufficient for them to provide free glasses. After paying film rental and state admission taxes, the system was paid for after 17,500 admissions. There have been no maintenance costs. In fact, operational costs have decreased since we no longer purchase, collect and wash glasses. Brightness nearly doubled to 8.5 fl using the same projector and lamp. Previous screen was a Perlux 220, replacement screen is a Spectral 240. Proper screen curving will minimize the problems with 2D projection. Our guests appreciate the single use glasses and improved brightness. We have seen 3D attendance gains of 25% to 40% since the changeover. The only negative has been some rare ghosting that we never had with Dolby. The MI Wave system has no difficulties with High Frame Rate.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

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.