Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Digital Projection for Independent theaters

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Digital Projection for Independent theaters (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Digital Projection for Independent theaters

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 03-20-2007 10:38 AM

Or better yet, keep film equipment that over the life of the theatre is essentially free, and buy increasingly CHEAP digital projectors for the ads!

The ISCO/Schneider lenses for DCinema are fixed focal length on the premise that they can build a higher quality fixed lens than a zoom...I don't doubt that is true. However, with Flat/Scope often requiring a focal length change since neither the height nor width is constant in a DCinema machine, it adds to the problem. Furthermore...the change in chip sets as they come out require NEW lenses to work with them...it isn't like film where the thing you are projecting is a fixed target...new chip sets have different optical paths and the lenses need to be redesigned to accommodate.

The Cinema Black chips are also nothing particularly new...that is how DCinema projectors have been getting 2000:1 contrast ratios without active iris trickery (trickery since if you put up a checkerboard pattern of black and white...the variable iris machines show their true lack of contrast ratios).

Thus far, when new technology has come out for DCinema, there has been no secondary market...the DCinema folks (studios) simply stop all support for the old technology regardless if it works or not. This has been true for 1.3K projectors and is becoming true for MPEG servers.

As for 4K and beyond...the computer model presented is not a good one...with computers you have a potential multi billion user base to buy your superior product...that is what drives the technology. You will never have that in the cinema market...there just is not enough potential sales to justify the R&D to update it beyond a certain point. 2K was easy in a sense since that is where the home video market is going to settle for some time since they have bandwidth issues and the fact that a 2K picture, even on a large home theatre projector looks quite impressive to one that is used to NTSC (or even PAL or SECAM).

There really is no economical reason for theatres to switch to DCinema. It offers nothing but big expense to save someone else money.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-20-2007 11:32 AM

quote: Steve Guttag
There really is no economical reason for theatres to switch to DCinema. It offers nothing but big expense to save someone else money.

If you could just convince the rest of world of that..... Personally, I look forword to seeing the obsolete and archaic system of film projection go bye-bye.

Mark

| IP: Logged

David Graves
Film Handler

Posts: 38
From: Cocoa, FL
Registered: Nov 2006

posted 03-20-2007 11:45 AM

More importantly- what's the point? When we show films that are only available on one-two screens, often times the distributor doesn't even have enough money to place a print ad, much less do a 2k digital transfer. Also, we play a ton of foreign films, the prints of which are mainly festival prints with English subtitles. So before we're getting all digital content, the ENTIRE PLANET essentially has to go digital.

Theaters that play mainstream studio stuff exclusively are one thing- but there are a great many theaters that play mostly studio stuff mixed in with some indie films. Those guys will have to keep their 35mm projectors to play them, if digital transfers not available. Add this to the lack of any sort of standard format, and what do you have?

Another 5-10 years before this clicks into place for everyone.

| IP: Logged

Mark Hajducki
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 500
From: Edinburgh, UK
Registered: May 2003

posted 03-20-2007 04:09 PM

quote: David Graves
When we show films that are only available on one-two screens, often times the distributor doesn't even have enough money to place a print ad, much less do a 2k digital transfer.

How many of these films are shot on digital?

A 2k transfer will be a lot better than a copy on Digi-Beta tape or worse.

quote: David Graves
Also, we play a ton of foreign films, the prints of which are mainly festival prints with English subtitles.

It should be a lot easier (and cheaper) to make the digital subtitles, rather than having to laser subtitle films.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-20-2007 06:38 PM

The thing I don't understand with a great deal of "indie" movies, is how so many are very obviously shot on videotape, yet drafted over through a film-step and put on 35mm prints. I can understand the practice for just getting the movie into a traditional film projection based movie theater. The "not understanding" part is how they try in vain to keep the "film look" via that photo-chemical step after the movie has been released on DVD and cable.

My message to the indie grungie guys: you're not fooling anyone! We know you videotaped the movie! Stop trying to hide the fact you shot a video and not a film. It's just downright pretentious.

If digital is so great, bask in the glory of it instead of trying to make it look like film. The method isn't working and only makes the video imagery look even more shitty. That especially goes for all those productions shot on ordinary DV tape or Digital Betacam.

[ 03-20-2007, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 03-20-2007 06:49 PM

David, the film is the only internationally-compatable exhibition system at the moment.

The current situation in Australia is that mainstream releases are 100% 35mm. The few 2K machines installed are mostly idle because there is no content for them.

There is a highly competitive industry here providing 2K files of independent features and selling 2K servers and new generation 1.3K DLP 16x9 chip projectors to run them. Most of those features are still also coming on 35mm. If you wait, you can get a print but if you want the feature early you can get a hard drive copy.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-21-2007 05:45 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
Or better yet, keep film equipment that over the life of the theatre is essentially free

Absolutely! A film showing in 15 years will be a curiosity to a whole new generation and or the quaint old gear will make for a nice display in the lobby if there's room. [thumbsup]

quote: Steve Guttag
This has been true for 1.3K projectors and is becoming true for MPEG servers.

Seems to also have have happened to some cinema sound gear like SDDS and Stereo DTS and even many 35mm lenses made since 1980 can't be repaired. Now parts are hard(one source only)to get for the first two DTS players... Nothing is obsolete proof these days, not even film equipment.

quote: David Graves
So before we're getting all digital content, the ENTIRE PLANET essentially has to go digital.

Reminds me of the day when we all said "when will these dang foreign and indie films be in SRD" [Cool]

. Now just about all of them are and it did not take the entire world switching to SRD for it to happen. At any rate it won't take the entire world to be "Digital Projection" for the smaller films do be shown digitally. In fact going from the edited neg directly to digital 2K is FAR LESS EXPENSIVE than first going to film release. In fact it will allow far more films to look better in theaters than some of the lousy foreign prints that are being made today. A good example of this is the fact that there were no 16mm films shown at Slumdance this past year. All of those type of films were shown "digitally" instead.

Mark

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 03-21-2007 08:50 PM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
A good example of this is the fact that there were no 16mm films shown at Slumdance this past year. All of those type of films were shown "digitally" instead.

But many of the winners are still shot on 16mm film, rather than video. For many filmmakers, film is still the preferred origination medium.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 03-21-2007 09:03 PM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Seems to also have have happened to some cinema sound gear like SDDS and Stereo DTS and even many 35mm lenses made since 1980 can't be repaired. Now parts are hard(one source only)to get for the first two DTS players... Nothing is obsolete proof these days, not even film equipment.

Gee Mark...it would be neat if you would at least pay attention to the statement before repsonding foolishly to it.

SDDS is not obsolete as much as most people wish it would. SDDS films are still printed to this day. And that for the lesser of three formats (in terms of installed base). Yes, DTS stereo was abandoned...WITH an upgrade path for all that had the stereo version by merely adding the 6-track board and a disc drive to their existing unit.

As to lenses...just what are you trying to get at? The point of my statement was that existing working equipment is being refused source material simply because they don't want to provide a 1.3K or MPEG version. It isn't like the theatre police go around to film theatres and check the date codes on their stuff to see if it is 5-years or newer (despite that having a good sound to it...or at least a theatre police to ensure theatres have to meet technical standards...but I digress).

Again, I was not referring to equipment becoming unrepairable after a full life but to equipment being forced into dissuse, just "because." If a 1.3K MPEG system was good enough in 2003 it is no different in quality in 2007...it just isn't as good a a 2007 JPEG 2K system. Same is true for film in terms of lenses and in some cases older projectors versus new...then again sometimes with film projectors are superior if they are older.

Certainly anything can become obsolete...it is just harder for mechanical devices since the technology to recreate most needed items is available.

If the day comes when a working SRD processor (DA20 or CP500) can not play current SRD films just because they are not going to contine to provide SRD films for things before the CP650. That isn't going to happen. Likewise for DTS or SDDS...even though the DTS code has changed, the older players will play the current films.

The 1.3K stuff an MPEG technology should have had a secondary market such that smaller screens or smaller chains/independents should have had the opportunity to purchase 2nd hand older equipment much the same as they do with film equipment, cars and you name it.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-21-2007 11:25 PM

Steve... relax... I'm just yankin yer chain!

What we have to do is say still supported but obsolete format as per SDDS. Obsolete is hard to actually define but manufacturers that I have worked for(Panasonic and Canon) consider a product obsolete when it ceases to manufacture it for what ever reason, generally though they will still support it for a set time frame or until parts are exhausted. Another good example aside from SDDS is Type C 1" video tape. This was the norm for years and many stations still have machines around that are used fequently but it is still an obsolete format even though parts are available and 1" tape is all over the place. So we can certainly say that both SDDS and 1" type C are obsolete but still supported formats.

Yes, I have had ISCO lenses made since the mid 80's that were not repairable... this has certainly always been the plus side to Schneider(even before Century Optics was aquired)as they will repair just about anything they made during the same time frame.

quote: Steve Guttag
The point of my statement was that existing working equipment is being refused source material simply because they don't want to provide a 1.3K or MPEG version.

How many 1.3 K projectors are out there that could be put into action? Not many on the whole... probably less than 1000. In reality its just not worth the time to burn a few 1.3 K copies of every film released to please a few folks. Dolby had similar problems with SR analog and dual inventory with theaters that had purchased shiny new 280T cards but ended up with Type A source material. They eliminated type A and their problem. Even though the projectors may be acceptable in some applications DCI did the same by eliminating the 1.3K system. Aside from the fact that its not compliant... which in itself is somewhat vague the folks that bought and the dealers that sold the 1.3K machines were taking a chance since there was no standard nailed in place then as there is today.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-22-2007 08:46 AM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
the dealers that sold the 1.3K machines were taking a chance since there was no standard nailed in place then as there is today.

Is there a standard yet? Not the DCI spec, but an actual SMPTE standard? If so, that's pretty significant.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.