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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » THIS is why the exhibition industry is fading...Part 2 (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: THIS is why the exhibition industry is fading...Part 2 Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-05-2015 01:58 AM                     Mike... Good luck on the disposable glasses. The way Dolby (Infitec) system works is having multilayer coatings...with current technology, you'll never get them that cheap. It isn't as simple as polarized glasses. I would counter that if the studios can pay for the polarized glasses for Real-D AND Master Image, then they could, instead, credit the exhibitor the COST of those glasses on a per-ticket basis. Thus, you'd get closer to 40-50-cents per ticket for the glasses. In the case of the polarized people, they'd have their glasses covered...you with the Dolby 3D would actually profit on it all since it does NOT cost you 40-50 cents to clean them. Furthermore, it would substantially also cover the cost of "shrinkage". Dolby's is pretty much the cheapest 3D to install aside from Real-D that ended up "giving" the cost of the equipment but takes 50-cents/ticket. Master Image is more expensive for just a polarizing disc on a motor. Similar electromechanics to Dolby but with a MUCH larger disc and external. XpanD is cheaper than Dolby for the hardware but the glasses are 2-5 times more expensive so depending on seat count (and you need more than double to allow for cleaning while showing plus shrinkage), it could be less for smaller screening rooms or more for large auditoria. As for promotion...no argument. Real-D and IMAX get their names plastered on EVERYTHING...the rest really don't. You'd think the company that plastered their name on anything audio or movies would have learned that it is important for the public to think of them, and them alone, when it came to movies. But they let it slip on Dolby 3D.  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 10-05-2015 06:41 AM                     Am I the only one caring a little for the planet? Multiplex throw away boxes and boxes of glasses every day. Yes, it's legal, yes they can. But it's wrong. Can we stop for a second and just think that because we can do it it's not necessarily something that we should do? Also, you forgot to mention that Dolby 3D is a tad inefficient when it comes to 3D. You're lucky if you get 7.5% out of your system which means you'll have to burn a little sun in your lamphouse - and also you'll end up with about 40fL in 2D which is a tad too high. Not to mention the unwanted reflections in the glasse - especially if you have glasses - and the limited angle of view. It's not so easy unfortunately.  |  IP: Logged Dave Macaulay Film God Posts: 2321 From: Toronto, Canada Registered: Apr 2001 posted 10-05-2015 07:25 AM                     I understand that for other continents it's probably different because of the shipping cost, but over here the Real-D glasses routinely get shipped back for "recycling". I don't know what Real-D actually does with them but hopefully they clean them, inspect them, and re-use the OK ones. I don't know what the practice is with MI ones at all. Multiplexes are usually hammering their bottom line lower. Paying staff to clean glasses is anathema to them. Maybe paying the shipping charges is less than what they pay for trash removal so they have chosen to bin the used ones, I wouldn't be surprised by that. Dolby 3D is the best digital 3D process out there (except Imax Laser 3D, and that's essentially Dolby 3D anyway). XpanD and similar are very close but the heavy active glasses are uncomfortable (and expensive!). The costs of the projector adapter and glasses are not the only added expense though, Steve. You need to roughly double the projector lamp power - triple is probably more accurate - to get decent Dolby 3D illumination. That means a more expensive projector and higher operating cost for power and lamps. Plus 2D will then be overbright on that screen in 99% of installations - with Barco you can have a second lamphouse but be sitting down when you ask what that costs. Admittedly Dolby 3D or Xpand are the best looking systems I've seen with low light (tolerable well below 3ft-L at the eye) because there's no hotspot... but they look really good when properly lit.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-05-2015 07:44 AM                     As odd as it may sound...over 90% of our Dolby 3D installations do indeed have a separate lamphouse (or separate lamp) for 3D versus 2D. They don't switch them on a show by show but on a day by day...so if 3D runs that day, then all shows run with the 3D lamp. Yes, the efficiency of Dolby 3D with Xenon sucks. But remember too...with the lower gain WHITE screen, even a lower center brightness than a silver screen 3D system, the Dolby 3D will APPEAR brighter because more light is actually reflected back to the audience rather than scattered across the walls. If Real-D is going for 4.5fL...Dolby can go for 3.5 and look brighter (yes, neither 3.5 or 4.5 should be used with "bright" in the same sentence but we are talking about 3D here...quality image isn't the important thing...its the gimmick that we care about). Now as RGB laser technology develops...Dolby 3D stands to be THE efficient 3D process but it is going to have to develop quite a bit to be affordable (any one price out a 6P laser projection system? It will make the cost of a second lamp/lamphouse seem very trivial).  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 10-05-2015 09:10 AM                        Thanks guys. I spent 40 years getting rid of gain screens and in 12 months we were right back there again.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 10-05-2015 09:10 AM                     Laser is going nowhere until projector manufacturers can do something to lower the very insane cost. A single 6P projector is very expensive. I expect the roll-out of "IMAX with Laser" and Dolby Cinema to go very very slowly. Meanwhile home theater is gearing up for 4K UHDTV, Dolby Vision, etc. IMAX claimed they had over 75 cinemas in line for laser installation. They launched the new system in April. Now it's October and there's less than a handful of IMAX laser-based installations in North America and then only 3 or 4 other installations elsewhere in the world. Perhaps these dual 4K laser based systems need a lot of careful, fine tune adjustments and can't be rushed into service. I really suspect the IMAX company can't afford to install more than a couple or so of these systems per quarter. Right now only about 1% of the company's IMAX-branded digital screens are laser. It may take a long time for that ratio to get above 5%. The least thing IMAX could do is de-couple that new 12-channel sound system from the laser thing. The current 5.0 system in the vast majority of their theaters needs to be replaced. Dolby Cinema appears to be in the same cost situation. AMC says it will install 100 "Dolby Cinema at AMC Prime" systems. It could take the company 10 years to do that, if not longer. I'm actually kind of suspicious about AMC's take on Dolby Cinema. Is AMC changing the interior design of their "Prime" auditoriums? The original Dolby Cinema concept had all kinds of stealth fighter looking panels all over the walls to control sound reflection. I'm not sure if all of AMC's Prime houses have Dolby Atmos. The one in Dallas still doesn't show up on Dolby's Atmos installations map despite that house now boasting Dolby Cinema. The whole thing has me wondering if AMC is merely installing a pair of 4K laser projectors and remodeling the entrance to the auditorium. I felt a little let down with a laser-based show I watched at the new Warren theater location in Broken Arrow. This is a single projector system. Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation only had a 2K DCP, which didn't help matters any. The image didn't seem much brighter or more colorful than other Xenon-based d-cinema shows I've seen. The biggest problem was that deep curved screen. The picture just didn't line up with it very well.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 10-05-2015 11:54 AM                     Marco, what's worse for the planet, throwing away cartons of used polarized 3D glasses every day, or burning a larger lamp to run Dolby 3D?  |  IP: Logged Mark Hajducki Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 500 From: Edinburgh, UK Registered: May 2003 posted 10-05-2015 11:54 AM                     quote: Dave Macaulay I understand that for other continents it's probably different because of the shipping cost, but over here the Real-D glasses routinely get shipped back for "recycling". I don't know what Real-D actually does with them but hopefully they clean them, inspect them, and re-use the OK ones. Real-D do reuse them in the UK. The packaging is different for the washed and checked ones (something like "recycled in the UK" vs "made in China).  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-05-2015 03:24 PM                        I thought all Real D glasses were recycled, but not by cleaning... the plastic is supposed to be recycled, that's one of the big Real D selling points isn't it?  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 10-05-2015 03:37 PM                     Brad, I'm with you but the average company won't care of the rubbish as long as they can save a penny on lamps. Who cares of where those boxes of glasses go as long as they don't have to pay for that. I was just saying that if Dolby 3D had, say, 15% efficiency, it would be THE 3D system hands down (WHEN laser is widely available we'll talk about that!) Steve, Fully agree that 2.5fL on a white screen looks much brighter than 4.5fL (measured on centre) with a polarised system. But you don't want to explain this to me, talk to the cinema owners and companies! Finally: quote: Steve Guttag over 90% of our Dolby 3D installations do indeed have a separate lamphouse (or separate lamp) for 3D versus 2D 100% of Dolby 3D installations do NOT have a separate lamphouse (or separate lamp) for 3D versus 2D. I shall come to America one day, guys!  |  IP: Logged Frank Cox Film God Posts: 2234 From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada Registered: Apr 2011 posted 10-05-2015 05:45 PM                        The Real D glasses frames seem to be reasonably substantial but the lenses are flimsy cut-out pieces of plastic sheet. In view of that, I've always kind of assumed that they must re-use the frames and replace the lenses which gets away from any issues of scratches and whatnot on the lenses. But in common with everyone else, I really don't know for sure what they do with them. When I have a full box of used glasses I ship 'em out to Real D and what happens after that... who knows. Some of the returned glasses are in really poor shape, though. Kids (and some adults) rip them apart into little pieces and twist them into interesting shapes.  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 10-06-2015 05:24 AM                     Frank, I believe RealD glasses are a few cents worth, am I mistaken? Do we really believe that those glasses are manually inspected by a person, sanitised and then 'refurbished' and re-packed? If we are lucky they go to a recycling facility rather than a landfill. Personally, I feel that disposable glasses should be outlawed. It's another of those "we want it and we want it now" things of our society. Alternatively, if cinemas don't want to re-use the glasses, RealD sould offer a compulsory recycle solution, for a price, where glasses are actually refurbished. It cannot always end up to "we don't want them, we stick them in a hole in the ground, it's legal and it's now someone else's problem". Apologies for being a little OT!  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 10-06-2015 06:02 AM                     quote: Marco Giustini If we are lucky they go to a recycling facility rather than a landfill. Recycling plastic doesn't really make all that much sense. Probably the best place for them to go is a plant that burns them for electricity. Honestly, even if you just threw every pair of Real-D glasses into a landfill, it wouldn't cause any problems. The world is not going to run out of landfill space anytime in the next millennium or 5. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for recycling things that make sense like metal and maybe glass. Plastic and paper are really not great candidates for recycling. The former because you are limited on what you can recycle it into and the latter because the process to do it uses a lot of resources and chemicals and because recycling paper actually leads to less trees because less virgin pulp is needed so pulp tree farms shut down and end up developed into something else. End of off topic rant...  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 10-06-2015 08:15 AM                     quote: Lyle Romer The world is not going to run out of landfill space anytime in the next millennium or 5 The fact that we have physical space for landfills does not mean that if we keep generating so much rubbish the world will be a pleasant and healthy way to live on in the future. We already see severe water contamination issues every now and then. If we keep doing what we do now it can only get worse.  |  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.