• 1. Proper projection equipment
• 2. Proper sound equipment
• 3. Proper auditorium design
• 4. Proper maintenance
• 5. Proper operators

quote:

---

Theaters that "cheap out" on their presentation are not providing what the customers paid for.

---

quote:

---

I would never install a new christie lamphouse they have far to high of colour temperature of light output

---

WHOA! You mean you will install a processor (I'm not going to continue to pick on SMART, so I'll choose a different example) such as a dts6-AD which has horrible SR emulation, but color temperature which hardly anyone notices you refuse to install?

I've got news for you Gordon, the prints may be timed to be projected at a certain color temperature, but the soundtracks are also encoded to be played back with a certain kind of noise reduction. You are contradicting yourself.

...and if Christie's reflector was so terrible, why did everyone who got to see a direct comparison a few years back here unanimously agree the 3K SLC looked phenomenally better than a 4K Strong Highlight running the same section of a trailer in a loop and in side by side identical auditoriums? You must be smokin' some of that I-30 stuff.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-25-2003, 07:47 PM:
 
Check the specs christie is the only manufacturer lobying to raise the colour temp standard from 5400K
WHere it rightfully should stay.
There light is excessvly blue and some prints loose a lot of the deep reds and warm tones with them
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-25-2003, 07:53 PM:
 
Gordon, I have two Super Lume X lamphouses in my screening room. One came with a 5200K and the other with a 5600K reflector. The 5200K (left projector) looked awful compared to the 5600K (right projector). Later I was able to get ahold of a 5400K reflector for the left projector. Even still, the unanimous (not majority, "unanimous") vote on everyone asked is that the right machine with the 5600K reflector looks better. So feel free to whine about the 5600K average in an SLC all you want.

Now how about explaining your contradicting statements regarding audio? Why is it not acceptable to "compromise" (if you want to call it that) on the picture, but it is fine and dandy to compromise on the audio?
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-25-2003, 08:01 PM:
 
There is some debate on compromise. Bottom line the SLC's Itested were all around 6000 -6200K
Some people like the blues
And in a lot of cases I don't think I compromisse on sound either
 

---

Posted by Matt Zeiner (Member # 1914) on 12-25-2003, 08:09 PM:
 
I think we all would like to see the industry improve. For most of us, this is our art, and as such we are all unhappy to have to compromise it, and sign our name on a substandard presentation, which we are all called upon to do on a regular basis. Want to improve the situation? Change the fact that movie theatres have become glorified hotdog stands. Force the studios to start kicking some of that money they are making on the openings of their movies back into the theatres pockets. Not gonna happen. ever. And so we limp along dissatisfied. Merry Christmas. Hope you are feeling better, John.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-25-2003, 08:12 PM:
 
Actually the ultimate exact color temperature has little meaning in every day cinema application. There are at least several other factors such as the position of a lamp in a given reflector, port glass, dirt on the port glass, type of lens coating, cold mirrors, and the exact color of the screen surface. Attempting to keep the color temperature dead on is a fruitless thing to attempt in most cinemas...it would have to be tweeked daily in most cases!

For critical use accurate screen color temperature is needed. But I can't say I've ever seen a given house with the light so far off as to be very an objectionable shade of a blue, yellow, or red.

In new installs I too think the Christie console or lamphouse is probably the best bang for the buck, but there are at least several other decent contenders out there to consider that are either more or less expensive.

I also pretty much agree with what Bradsaid on all but one of the points. Forst I'll bring up one spillover from the Cat 280T thread. I would gladly keep the curtains off the sales ticket in order for my customer to have the proper sound equipment. Now thats 10 to 15 grand per screen for curtains that will last any length of time. Dam, thats 80 grand in an 8 plex and it would be better put to use on on purchasing finer seating, projection equipment and sound gear. It will keep his mortgage lower, allow him to pay off his loans faster and hopefully he might even use some of what would be on the paymnent to increase his employees saleries. I can't think of a theatre owner that would even consider curtains in any location excepting special single screen locations or other special puropse locations. Every owner that I've done work for is EXTREMELY concious of how much he is spending on a given site, most leep traqck day by day! In this day of on screen advertising with most slide projectors already having given way to digital ad projection by almost all of our customers, very few of our customers would ever use curtains. Those curtain systems that were installed typically now sit idle for the sake of the on-screen advertising. Now I absolutely HATE on screen advertising but the income from that can also help pay for other proper equipment, or upgrades to be installed. From the theatre owners standpoint(and his accountant)its simply smart buisness and I believe its a decent tradeoff for their bottom line to become better. Many make 25K to 50K a year for ten screens of advertising.

The majority of our customers, and all the owners I've delt with in 22 years, hire, and train their own operators. Training operators and keeping track of them is definately not within any dealers or techs normal boundries other than the training on a new install location, or new equipment that is installed during an upgrade. Although I am certainly happy to train anyone on any piece of equipment or installation as it is requested. Keeping tab on weather the operators at the 400 plus locations we service would simply be impossible, so Brad, you're not quite on the mark including this one on the list. It is in reality the owners responsibility to keep good operators at his sites.... Some do and some don't and we have to live with that unfortunate thing in life.

Indeed being on friendly terms and keeping ALL of our customers happy, and properly informed is the first priority at hand and should be any companys first priority. I also can state that we don't have a single customer that needs to or even wants to just "get by". Many of our customers do lots of upgrades, some are major, each year as they have found that it pays to do it.

As for Gords statement as to a market dictating what is best...in reality there is no "Best anything". I would rather think that a market would dictate what is correct but one should still stick with some general principals and one of mine thats near the top is proper SR decoding and the best "A" chain available. In reality it should be tough to tell when a digital system reverts.

Even poorer, slower markets ALWAYS recognize a class operation and thosr cistomers too will return. Returning customers are extremely important to any location, many will also bring their friends back with them.
Mark
 

---

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 12-25-2003, 08:30 PM:
 
I tend to lean in Brad's direction. I don't mind the idea of getting used stuff and some pieces of equipment seem to be timeless(Older projectors for instance. Some of them are still reliable today if regular pm is kept up on them.)

On that note though, I'm tired of the it'll get us by mentality. It seems to me that keeping up with problem equipment costs as much in time and labour as just getting something good would cost over the same period of time.

The SMART argument in the other thread, I'm just not um, knowledgable enough to get into(I found that rather difficult seeing as I'm normally up for a pun). I do tend to lean in Steve G's direction which I suppose comes much from my music background where my guitar tone and keyboard sounds are concerned. Samples that have obvious loop points are often not heard by listeners, but they make this annoying click sound that drives me batties. Solid State guitar amps sound mostly junk to me. The new digital modeling amps do a fine job for scratch track recording(and as an amature I will use them, but never if I was doing it for a living...hopefully that day is comming) but not really for the real deal.

I guess to me the equipment in a theatre that is a no charge theatre(i've never seen one or heard of one but if there were...) it would be ok to go with substandard equipment.

Where I see Gordan's points is that just like in the music world, some people find solid state acceptable and actually prefer it. But, the big difference is that in the theatre industry we are tyring to faithfully display someone else's vision released in a format that he is expecting to do just that. In that case it SHOULD be about the filmaker's vision and not what is acceptable to me or any customer. This is where the the idea of touring acts comes in. I may get royalties if someone else records and performs my song, but it's likely not the way I would want it. It becomes thier interperetation of my work. Which is fine. It's flattering most of the time, but that's not the business we as exhibitors are in.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-25-2003, 08:54 PM:
 

quote:

---

I think customers expect a certain level of quality when they pay top dollar to go to the movies. If they get a better show at home, then somebody is not doing their job right.

---

quote:

---

A movie ticket costs somewhere around $8 whereas a DVD of a new release may cost three times that amount.

---

Yes, but in some theatres it's a lot more than 8 bucks, and you have to pay it again and again and again if you want to see the movie more than once. You buy a DVD once and can watch it for years and years and years.

Also, if the DVD is defective you get it replaced and can watch it over and over. If the movie is just poorly exhibited, you might get a refund or a pass, but there is still the one time only, and your pass brings you back to the inferior theatre(as most won't give refunds at all.)
 

---

Posted by John McConnel (Member # 2000) on 12-25-2003, 09:12 PM:
 
Regarding colour temperature, I prefer a picture projected with light from a carbon arc, which is going the other direction in color temperature. On another vein, is there a relationship between color temperature and the sharpness of focus?

I also prefer follow spots with carbon arcs. Maybe it's just my eye.
 

---

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 12-25-2003, 09:15 PM:
 
Hey John, did you get my P.M.?
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-25-2003, 11:09 PM:
 
Christie lamphouses rock! I hope that MiT comes out with something similar or better. Perhaps Gordon thinks they look "blue" because the actual lamphouse itself is blue and that is influencing his perception. No matter what though, the DTS-6AD is a horrible piece of equipment. If one was to complain about a slight color temperature difference, then why would that same person complain about the DTS-6AD?

PS - Can somebody remind me to ban Brad for his teaser subject title later?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-25-2003, 11:17 PM:
 
A note on color temp...

While the industry standard is 5400K and prints are supposed to be timed for that...only EK prints really achieve it. When running even Select prints the color temp is all over the place...how many of you have noticed the color shift right at the reel change?

There are problems with the 5400K color temp and xenon light...it isn't natural for it. Sure you can try to correct for it and bring it down to 5400K but to achieve that single number value you will muck up the overall color spectrum. Precise color readings should be done in X and Y coordinates which paint a more accurate picture.

The facts are that people often perceive higher color temps as brighter ...TVs have long goosed up their color temps to outsell their competitors.

If a print is truely timed for a particular color spectrum (temp) then it should be presented as such or the flesh tones and all other colors will not be correct...it isn't an opinion thing either...there is right and wrong...if a subject is filmed at a particular color then it should be faithfully reproduced at that color.

There are many factors that affect color temperature and the biggest contributors are the light source, the reflector/coatings, and the Screen...the lens and port are minor contibutors but they factor in too.

As to the light source...the Carbon Arc is indeed superior to xenon when it comes to the full light spectrum...it is no small wonder that people prefer it, given the comparison.

As to the curtains...if you don't use them...even with the pre-show events (do a curtain call for petesakes) you are starting out with a chip against your presentation.

Customers are not technical (as a large percentage) they are just there to be entertained...they don't know 70mm from 35mm or why they liked one theatres show over another...sure they know rude when they see it or outright neglect but...the other 90% of the show they couldn't tell you why one is better than the other. They do know if they liked it or not though and I've consistantly found the theatres that do the show part right (including the feakin curtains) get more than their share of the public...to make a claim that spending money on the show and cutting back on that as a valid cut to put money into another area is a false one long term...sure you can show on the initial purchase but you can't show long-term it was good decision (because it isn't).

As to what the customer paid for...that is really an intangable...they paid for a performance...right down to the feature itself...sight unseen. I would say that if the industry has standards, then any theatre that doesn't present their product up to established standards is comitting fraud. So if you are projecting a 2:1 picture and it wasn't composed that way...you are not presenting the picture properly and should be liable for it. Note...all of the digital formats have that tag on them "in selected theatres" so nothing is given there...until you advertise you are presenting it that way.

Good enough is defined by the patron...they don't complain but they also don't seem to be coming to the theatres as much as they used to either. When looking at patronage...one really must compare tickets sold versus population (not dollars that get raised annually nor just tickets sold that ride on the population increase). If you sold 100 tickets last week and your town is only 1000 people strong and the following year you sell 200 tickets a week but your town is 10,000 people strong...you may have gained 100% ticket sales but you really went from having 10% of the market to 2%...you are really loosing ground in your industry. You can blaim all the other entertainment industries all you want...you can blaim home video but really look yourself in the mirror...the theatre industry is not delivering the entertainment it once did at the theatre level.

As to comparing the cost of a home experience on a DVD versus going to the movies...sure it is $8 - $12 a ticket (in the bigger markets) but the spending doesn't stop there...you have the overpriced drinks and popcorn, parking...and so forth to add in...it isn't that cheap and when the evening is over...all you have are memories...those memories are greatly affected by the environment they were experienced in.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-25-2003, 11:18 PM:
 
Joe,

Now that all the units we tend to have had the upgades done that is probably the unit I have the most of out there(at least 200) that has the least amount of problems in the reliability department. The XD-10 is also proving itself very, very quickly as an absolutely dynamyte performer. We have 6 of them in the field at various locations and I've never heard back from any of those customers with any complaints, only praise. Wait till you get aload of its automation interface capabilities!

Sure there are bad films printed, bad reels printed, disks left out of shipping cases, etc, etc...but for the record I pretty much see an equivelent amount of defective SRD and or DTS film. As for the DA-20, CP500, CP650...They have become very, very reliable and I rarely repair one....ditto for the analog Dolby stuff Ditto for the Panastereo CSP-1200. I can't say that for USL though and Smart lies in there between Panastereo and USL. Over the last 20 years I have had less trouble with Smart Equipment than USL by a wide margin.

All in all, excepting the older Sony stuff, I find that you have the same chance with any of the three digital systems and them working properly or not.

What problems are you experiencing with DTS that are not political in nature? Shouldn't be a much different experience that most of our customers have.

As for the DVD/VHS stuff...it is merely a convenience thng for me and probably many others and mainly for me a way to enjoy movie classics that you generally don't see in the theatre...although if they play in a cinema near me I will usually go. Sure there are many with home theatres out there but most are inexpensive systems from K-Mart and Costco that can't rival even so-so theatre showings. There are also the elite home theatre owners...used to be audiophiles and such that have converted to home theatre cause more speakers equals better sound....BAH! Believe me though they are a dot on a pin head as compared to all the mediocre home systems that exist out there. And all these people still only really gain the convenience and being able to pee and or eat when you want to.....
Mark
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-25-2003, 11:32 PM:
 

quote:

---

When running even Select prints the color temp is all over the place...how many of you have noticed the color shift right at the reel change?

---

quote:

---

...and if Christie's reflector was so terrible, why did everyone who got to see a direct comparison a few years back here unanimously agree the 3K SLC looked phenomenally better than a 4K Strong Highlight running the same section of a trailer in a loop and in side by side identical auditoriums?

---

I'm curious now, were the trailers quality controlled to be timed at the same color temperature? If not, there could have been a problem with making that comparison. Or did you mean it was the same trailer interlocked between the two projectors and the comparison was made when the scene reached the respective projector?

Look at us film dorks talking about color temp of lamphouses on Christmas. We should be stuffing ourselves retarded!

=TMP=
P.S. By the way, what's this I-30 stuff you speak of, and where can... my friend... get some?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-25-2003, 11:45 PM:
 
Of course the Highlite and Super LumEx reflector is a much older design than the Christie and I'm somewhat surprised that Strong has not done a redesign of their reflectors in the past couple of years.

Steve,
I agree it would be nice and proper to have the correct color temp on every screen however that is not physically possible for any Tech that I know of. Its also a waste of time and your customers money unless the labs get it together in that department first.....and that is all to unlikely to happen. Within plus or minus a couple of hundred degrees is fine with me but that is still about impossible to attain and hold over a normal three times a year service basis. Also keep in mind that general release prints, excepting custom wet gate prints struck for important sites, rarely if ever match what the cinematographer gave final approval on back to the color timer at the lab. They get it close but it generally no cigar.

Carbon Arc is great, especially the light from a properly working Super Cinex. However I pulled out the last pair of running Carbon Arcs, genny run here in Utah last summer. The owner/projectionist claimed he was getting to old to run them....he is 87! He reasoned the unavailability of parts, no more decent carbons, and his age. They were a pair of old Simplex Highs. He is amazed at thelight out of his new Super Lum-Ex's and switching supplies. His power bill stayed about exactly the same but his light level on the screen doubled.
Mark
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-25-2003, 11:47 PM:
 
Mark, I can't speak for Joe, but my issue with the 6-AD is that the analog reproduction is absolutely first class shit. When in digital, it's not all that bad, but nowhere as good as say hooking up a dts-6d to a CP65. I would seriously question anyone who thinks that the dts6-AD processor does even a "somewhat decent" analog reproduction. Every SMART and Ultra Stereo product blows it away by comparison. Again though, my major beef with the 6-AD is the analog section, so please don't misread that.

Thomas, it was the same long loop from two brand new trailers running side by side. So technically no it was not from the same "print", but I wanted to make sure people were seeing the same images. The difference was amazing though. I hear Cinemark is dropping their 7000 watt CFS (aka: junk) lamphouses and replacing them with Christie SLCs 4000 watts and getting superior results. That doesn't surprise me in the least bit.

Maybe Gordon will save some of that I-30 stuff and send to you.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-25-2003, 11:55 PM:
 
Sorry Brad,
I misread it as 6D. Anything about the 6AD rarely pops up here... I think we have less than a handful of 6AD's out here but I never have problems with them either....I agree they sound worse than lousy though, somewhat brittle and tinny on the high end, poor definition too. Wait till you try out an XD-10 and a Panastereo .
Mark
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 12-26-2003, 01:43 AM:
 
I'm mostly in agreement with Brad, coming from the opposite direction. Manny's points of why people go to theaters other than a good theatrical experience (the lowest common denominator theory) all are dependent on the fact that the theatrical experience has been sold already.

Manny's points:
(1) Get out of the house.
(2) Get into an airconditioned environment.
(3) Pass the time.
(4) See a movie before it comes on video.
(5) Be around other people.
(6) Sleep. (Yes! I've known guys who did this.)
(7) Popcorn.

Number 4 assumes already that someone wants a theatrical experience. The others, though, do not even need a theater. If they're just seeking a place to get out of the house, into the air conditioning, sleep, or eat, they can hit the mall. None of those are motivations to go to a MOVIE. They presuppose other reasons for going to the theater, & if there are none, folks don't go there. They already need something else to attract them to the theater.

The missed problem with offering a specific product (in entertainment) is that it is supposed to attract people who have a strong interest, and thus an emotional stake in getting what's promised. Hey, I have something you want! Oh yes, I want it! Those are the people that must be satisfied.

Municipal symphonies that cheap out & start putting out substandard shows no longer attract the people that like well-performed music, those audiences dwindle, the boards look for other ways to fill houses with what are basically captive audiences - schoolchildren brought in like prisoners on buses & college students forced to go, occasional itinerant customers who think they 'ought to take the family once', seniors who have few other social outlets at loss-leader admissions. They're not just captive & cheap, they're lost as revenue - people aren't motivated to come back to a poor or mediocre show. Captive audiences aren't worth much, & are partially liabilities.

Orchestras are the best example, because it's easy to compare technically at the level of some mgmt. type saying "It sounds fine to me", whereas it's NOT acceptable to folks who are enthusiasts of orchestral music. They're not going back. The people of lower technical appreciation abilities only find it not a special experience; they don't come back. Houses drop, there's nobody motivated to go to the shows.

All this entertainment industry stuff works the same. In US commercial broadcasting, unless you have somehow managed to create a captive audience, revenue is brought in by ratings, who's 'attending' the show. The only way to maintain ratings is by serving the 'core audience', the rest are transients. Got a TV comedy show? The people who are motivated to tune in want to see a comedy & it better be good. Got a 'classic rock' radio station? You better have enough Led Zeppelin & Lynyrd Skynyrd, because those people come because they WANT it. The core audience for movie theaters is people who WANT to go to see a movie theatrically, & it better make them happy.

You can specifically see the result of not serving the core audience for film by looking at PAC's which do other things besides showing movies. I've mentioned before theaters-turned-PAC where you could SEE attendance drop suddenly after the first show when it was below an acceptable standard for people who desired to see a film presented in a theatrical manner. Running either very poor 16mm or even projection video, there'sr that first show of the series advertising "Movies as they were meant to be seen, on the big screen!" big house, then plummeting afterwards to nearly nothing. Or a theater that pulled 1,000 increasing to 1,700 per show each series, then switched to video, and houses drop to less than 100, the later houses always smaller than the first of the series. People come back to a good show, they don't come back to a bad one. But the mechanism is that they're not serving their core audience, people who want to see movies well-presented, as advertised. The people running those theaters who say 'It seems fine to me' are having a blast of ego over something they knowingly have no technical understanding about that they wouldn't dare put up in front of the symphony folks and say they're not calling a piano tuner because 'It seems fine to me'.

That said, & to splice with another thread, I'm with Oscar & Peter on the subject of there being a definite, constructive place for items like the CC card. Peter's talking about provincial cinemas, Oscar points out that it's for people who just aren't buying a Dolby card. It's situational, & there are situations where it's an improvement or the only way. I know lots of folks who are "Stepping over dollars to pick up dimes", but quite a few also who *seem *to be doing that but have kept their boat afloat in the worst financial times while everyone else goes under until they're flush & can spring more - I mean real showmen. It's part personality, but whatever it is, those folks evolved something that works for them. I'm amazed by what they've made work.

But for new builds, yes, you got to be the bomb. Otherwise, you start out half-sunk.
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 12-26-2003, 08:12 AM:
 
Strong is biting the bullet and is coming out with the HighlightIIA with new reflector design that I assume will compete with Christie. They have had an upgrade reflector kit especially for 4 - 5 kw with a smaller diameter reflector which was more efficient for the Highlite. I would always get better light from a SLC or even an Xenex II at 4 kw than the existing Highlite.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-26-2003, 09:40 AM:
 
No more decent carbons? I've had no issues with "Eagle" brand carbons from Marble. I guess they're not as good as Nationals, but they're still perfectly usable. No need to switch to xenon (mmm...IB Tech with carbon light...mmm). The one carbon house that I run semi-regularly uses 7mm and 8mm sizes; perhaps other less-common sizes aren't available with the same quality.

As for the rest of the thread--I agree with what Steve and Brad and everyone else say...to a point. Sure, a theatre in a competitive market that is showing first-run product has absolutely no excuse not to have great picture and sound quality. Twenty-year-old projectors are fine if they've been well maintained and/or rebuilt by someone who knows what he's doing, but lenses and screens and sound equipment have improved so much during that time period that anyone who hasn't upgraded is just asking for his customers to go elsewhere.

Having said that, what about smaller communities (which may be a hundred miles away from the nearest "state of the art" theatre) and smaller theatres showing art, foreign, or repertory product? Sure, we'd all like to see these places put on a top-notch show, but what if the business is really so marginal that they simply cannot afford to do this? Would the industry and general public really be better off if the communities which are served by these venues were to have no access to this type of programming?

I'm not suggesting that anyone should have to put up with flickering light, crappy video projection, or barely discernable dialogue, but rather am suggesting that, in some cases, when the option may be, say, good mono sound and interesting programming (that probably doesn't benefit much from upgraded sound, anyway), or no access at all to see this programming (which probably will never end up at the majority of video stores), that the somewhat substandard theatre experience would be better than nothing.

I've seen some of Steve's and Brad's installations and wish that all theatres could offer this level of quality. The unfortunate reality for theatre owners showing specialized product is that many of them simply can't afford it and that most of their programming wouldn't benefit from it enough to justify the costs. I'd rather see these places employ a real projectionist (union or not doesn't matter as long as he's good) than install install the latest whizzy-bangy stuff and have it run by the popcorn kids.

Would I want to see "Lord of the Rings" in a mono house? Hell, no! Would I be willing to watch the new print of "Wings of Desire" in one? Sure, if I don't have any other option.

I guess I just think it's important to distinguish between first-run houses which are among many which show the same product and whose only distinguishing features (other than location) are presentation quality items (picture, sound, cleanliness, attractiveness of auditoria, etc.), and those theatres which are barely surviving by being the only venues for specialized programming within their markets.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-26-2003, 09:54 AM:
 
It is funny but I can always get more light out of a X60 than a highlite with the smae reflector. But as for colour temp a rhodium reflector (hot) with a heat filter will yeild 5400K easily
the problem is dichroic reflectors tend to rais the colour temperature
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-26-2003, 10:36 AM:
 
Scott...all of my distant, no theatre in dozens of miles...theatres; be they first run or subrun or art, use quality projection and sound (Dolby or Panastereo processors). Oddly enough...those houses that couldn't afford digital sound from the onset (mostly art houses) have real SR in them...for them it isn't the back up format. I don't buy into the "we can't afford the basics" line. You wanna skip on digital..okay...but get everything right from the soundhead to the speakers (for sound). Likewise for picture...everyone can afford Schneider or ISCO lenses or they can't afford to be showing movies.

Don't tell me your tale of woe...if a theatre isn't viable, it isn't viable.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-26-2003, 11:15 AM:
 

quote:

---

Number 4 assumes already that someone wants a theatrical experience. The others, though, do not even need a theater. If they're just seeking a place to get out of the house, into the air conditioning, sleep, or eat, they can hit the mall. None of those are motivations to go to a MOVIE.

---

Number 4 doesn't assume that at all. My best friend was dying to see "Lord of the Rings" but she didn't particularly want to see it in a theatre because patrons tend to be very ill-mannered and also because she has witnessed more than her fair share of presentation SNAFU's. Also, in the case of the LOTR movies, there is more to watch on the DVD.

No, she didn't *want* a "theatrical experience" at all. For that particular fan of the books, seeing LOTR at the movies was a necessary evil if she wanted to see that movie without waiting.

As for the others, they don't need a theatre but somehow theatres fit the bill for a lot of people and it is not always about the movie. When I lived in California we had senior citizens come to the movies during summertime and it rarely mattered what was showing. They wouldn't even bother to ask "what's next?" or "what just started?" When asked what they would like to see they would say "something that doesn't have too many people."

I don't think those people were seeking a "theatrical experience" at all. They wanted someplace that was cool and a seat that was more comfortable than a mall bench.

As for the popcorn -- I'd be a rich man if I had a nickel for every time someone commented on the unique flavor of movie theatre popcorn. I, for one, have never seen the flavor duplicated elsewhere.

But -- as you pointed out -- none of those items on my list are reasons to go to a MOVIE. And, yet, people do patronize theatres for those very reasons.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 12-26-2003, 11:38 AM:
 
Some figures on the relative pricing of DVD vs. theatrical showing:

Most everyone I know is not a loner when they see a movie. Sure, I do have one friend who will watch movies alone at home, and will also go to a movie theater alone. That's his choice. By far, however, most people I know want to enjoy movies with others. That's why it's often called a "movie night" -- there's not much special about a "movie night" for one.

So, assuming that we're talking about the scenario that is common to me and my friends (most of whom are parents, by the way. Don't forget that the influential demographic for entertainment is skewing older than the 14-25 group, and many of them are going to have kids)

I'll use Seabiscuit as the test case, since it was just released on DVD on Dec 16th, and it was a popular movie in theaters.

DVD: $17.99 at Amazon.com today. $19.99 at Best Buy. I believe the price was even lower opening week. We can often get new releases on the first week of release for around $15 if one browses the ads carefully. Best Buy is advertising S.W.A.T. for $16.99 (releasing on 12/30).

Popcorn: Betty Crocker Pop Secret Homestyle Microwave Popcorn ~$1 per bag.

Soda: Mountain Dew 24oz bottle ~$0.40 (1 per person max)

Total cost for two people: ~$20

Movie Tickets: 2 evening shows at Marcus Ridge Cinema $8.50 each (add $1 each if purchasing in advance)

Parking: Free

Popcorn: $4.50 (Regular Size, roughly equivalent to a bag of microwave popcorn)

Soda: $3.50 (Regular Size, I think about 24 oz.)

Babysitter: $15 for ~3.5 hours

Total Cost for two people: $40

Going out to a movie is twice as expensive as staying home, a difference which is multiplied if we invite more people over.

You can change the numbers by assuming people without kids, but that just makes it easier to go out, so now increase the total number of people in the group. And that isn't factoring in a dinner, which would make for a nice "date night" out of the house.

You can lower the cost to about $2 for the DVD if you have a Netflix membership, which we do. We don't buy very many DVD's since it's so convenient to rent them from Netflix and watch them when we have time. The $2 cost is determined by my cost per DVD in the past year that I have been renting from Netflix at $20 per month together with a friend.

People with kids and jobs tend to have little free time, so watching a movie at home cuts down on the time needed for a leisure activity such as watching a movie. Going out means that I have to pick up the sitter, then drive to the theater, wait for the movie by waiting in line and then watching advertising in the screen, drive home, and drive the sitter home.

For a 2:20 show like Seabiscuit, that's 4.5 - 5 hours of free time needed to go out to the movies. Please feel free to ask any parent how many times they have that large a block of free time...

My point with this exercise is to illustrate that not only is watching a movie on DVD cheaper, but it is also less time intensive. These two factors alone makes it much more likely that people will stay home and watch a DVD than to go out.

When we do go out, we're going to have high expectations due to the cost of both money and time. Since we're paying the theater to entertain us, what we get should be nothing but the best that can be delivered. I challenge anyone to honestly look at their operations from that perspective and say that sub-optimum experiences aren't really that important.

You will always have a core audience that will attend a theater no matter how bad the experience. I think that there is potential to be tapped by theaters that can do the experience right.

Can you put a dollar value on every element? I can't imagine it. Maybe someone has done some studies of test audiences where each element was switched out and the audience satisfaction measured, but I haven't seen anything like that. (That would be a very interesting study to read, however!)

I'm sure that economics have to play a role in the decisions that theaters must make to keep their doors open, so maybe curtains aren't in the cards if it means that each auditorium can be built decently and have good sound and picture. Many theaters around here don't have curtains, but they do have bleed-through from adjacent theaters and the projection booth, the picture is highly variable in quality, and the sound is usually good.

I can't imagine what those things would be like if they would have taken money from those things to add curtains!

Do you think that anyone building a theater has ever asked a group of people to come in and give their opinions about the movie-going experience? A properly managed focus group could be an eye-opening experience!
 

---

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 12-26-2003, 11:42 AM:
 
It's all cause and effect. Don't you think that it is likely that people don't "want a theatre experience" because fo some of the corner cutting that has been going on?

I think people would start wanting the "theatre experience" if it were consitantly a good experience. I fully plan at some point in the near future to drive an hour and 45 minutes to Baltimore just to see a movie(any movie) at the Senator. It has nothing to do with me being in the theatre business. I may not be in this business in three weeks if certain things work out right. I'd love to own a nice theatre and all that, but I'm a musician and it is ultimately the direction I want to go in life.

I've always been that way. I always wished I could go to the 70mm houses in the big cities but I lived in small town four hours away from everything. To this day I've never seen a movie in a THX house. Never seen a 70mm print. I've longed to for years. Long before I knew what a lamphouse was.

The romance has to be put back into this business. Yes, that puts a lot of responsibility on a lot of people at a lot of levals. But, I firmly believe it can be done. Tom at the Senator is an example of that. Who doesn't want to see a movie there? I can't imagine someone leaving there and saying... blah. Not from what I have heard from so many different people all over the country.

Give them stereo that sound better than any DVD running in 2 channel could ever wish it could give. Better analogue than any high end VCR could wish to give. Better digital than any home theatre can give. Better picture than any plasma can give.

Then, I'm totally with Steve on this one without even the slightest hint of doubt, get those curtains working again. Bring back the cartoons and STINKING NATIONAL ANTHEM. LOL.

Do the things that make you stand out, and I fully believe you can survive against any Regal in existance(I personally don't have anything against Regal... I enjoy many of them and I love modern atmosphere too.)

If product is a problem... get to Show West. Meet the people. Put a face and a sense of reality to your voice on the phone. And, why can't there be full service theatres anyway? Have an all day Star Wars marathon on one screen while the new releases are on other screens. If it can't happen... we need to make it happen anyway. Whether the specifics of that idea are a good idea or not, creativity seems to be a lost art.

If you believe in this business at all, sell it. Sell it to the venture capitalist. They like passion every bit as much as a business plan. Would you want to help someone make a dream work over the long haul that was so unconfident about the business they are in that they don't believe that getting the best equipment that best serves the customer is even financially feasable?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-26-2003, 01:34 PM:
 
Scott Norwood...

quote:

---

what about smaller communities (which may be a hundred miles away from the nearest "state of the art" theatre) and smaller theatres showing art, foreign, or repertory product?

---

quote:

---

No, she didn't *want* a "theatrical experience" at all. For that particular fan of the books, seeing LOTR at the movies was a necessary evil if she wanted to see that movie without waiting.

---

quote:

---

You will always have a core audience that will attend a theater no matter how bad the experience. I think that there is potential to be tapped by theaters that can do the experience right.

---

quote:

---

The romance has to be put back into this business.

---

quote:

---

Presentation and a good auditorium design DOES matter.

---

quote:

---

Why? The business seems to be doing just fine without it.

---

quote:

---

If you sit still while the world keeps moving along, you are really moving backwards.

---

I find this observation interesting, coming from a guy who wants to "bring things back."

And, Steve:

I guess I agree with everything you've been saying. My adverse reaction to this kind of discussion is borne out of a sense of hopelessness, powerlessness and frustration.

I can't do anything about these problems. Truth is, a lot of us are in that same boat.

I'm not going to turn down a job just because there are no freakin' curtains or because I don't like the lamphouse they purchased. My financial situation doesn't permit me the luxury of having those kinds of principles.

This is a business. It's a job.

What's wrong with doing the best with what you've got and feeling good about it?

After so much avoidance of the initial question...I now wonder if anyone on this forum is brave enough to make an apparently futile attempt to enumerate the bare minimum that is required for a theatre to be "good enough" in his/her opinion..?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-26-2003, 04:22 PM:
 
Come on...I've worked (and still do work) for the chains...I've tilted many windmills in my time and as a result I get some victories and some defeats. I have never made the kinds of statements that things need to be inferior to make it work though. People spending money always would like to spend less (wouldn't you?). That is an old fight and a never ending one. This is true of the movie patron too...they'd like to see movies for free in a perfect environment.

Scott...if a theatre can not afford the money you spoke of then yes...they should go away...their level of quality is too low to the point they are presenting our product in such an inferior manner as to degrade the quality of the theatre experience for the industry.

As to the lenses...how many theatres out there are running 16mm? It is the single biggest ticket item that a art/rep house can omit. 16mm capability will put demands on the $$ and on precious floor space. If you go the Kinoton FP-38E route...you will have a 1st class show (16 or 35mm) but your figures will be into the 6-digits pretty quickly by the time you have all of your lenses and sound.

Lets work with your $10K figure for lenses (it is pretty good for an art/rep theatre that wants to run 1.37. 1.66. 1.85 and Scope on 2-projectors...lets see ...how long do you think those lenses are going to last? 10-years? 20-years? Do you think your theatre will last 10-years? (if it is less than that now...quit now before pouring money into the hole)...so if you spend money on new lenses and you anticipate you will still be open in 10-years...that is a mere $1,000 a year for one of the single biggest factors on the picture quality. Boy that is a lot of bang for the buck. Heck...compare that to most of your other expenses and it is pretty darn cheap. Think you are going to be around in 20-years? Your lens expendature is a mere $500/year..for the biggest quality improvement in your picture you can buy. It is a great deal that any bozo can see...an ISCO or Schenider lens will put on the screen what is on the film. If you have ISCO Ultra MCs (and they go back over 20-years in design...then I would be less inclined to push for it but anything older...then yes the improvement is significant.

Same goes for sound...Say you got mono? You probably have a mono sound system to go with it. Do you have any noise reduction to with it? Are the films you are running not recorded with Dolby-SR (or A if this is a rep house running '80s films)? While A-type in a mono house passed quite easily due to the characteristics of A-type and the "N-curve" typical of mono houses...you don't get the same break for SR...that is going to sound like compressed bullshit with goofy frequency characteristics. Is that what people are paying for? Could they do better at home with a DVD?

Maybe you don't do it all in a year's time...perhaps you have a plan and improve things over time so that after say 5-years you reach your goal.

If you business is so dismal that no operator can be afforded, no quality can be afforded to the show...then the public really isn't supporting your business...it is time to go.

You know...I have a customer that is in a 1-horse town and is running a barn of a single...each year something new is done...be they a new sound system, going from a clapped out projector to a reliable XL (used), new lenses, an Ice-Cream shop, seats, Neon Marquee...it is under continiual improvement as funds allow. Had they let it go as the previous owners...it would be gone by now...to sit and coast is to admit defeat and await the day you blame the business for not supporting you or that DVDs have taken over or whatever the excuse of the day is. Sometimes the town dries up (no more coal mining or steel production...whatever) and the business dies (like many other businesses do that situatoin) but then again sometimes a business dies just because no one values the business.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 12-26-2003, 04:32 PM:
 

quote:

---

I find this observation interesting, coming from a guy who wants to "bring things back."

---

quote:

---

I guess I agree with everything you've been saying. My adverse reaction to this kind of discussion is borne out of a sense of hopelessness, powerlessness and frustration.

I can't do anything about these problems. Truth is, a lot of us are in that same boat.

I'm not going to turn down a job just because there are no freakin' curtains or because I don't like the lamphouse they purchased. My financial situation doesn't permit me the luxury of having those kinds of principles.

This is a business. It's a job.

---

quote:

---

What's wrong with doing the best with what you've got and feeling good about it?

---

quote:

---

After so much avoidance of the initial question...I now wonder if anyone on this forum is brave enough to make an apparently futile attempt to enumerate the bare minimum that is required for a theatre to be "good enough" in his/her opinion..?

---

What do you mean avoidance of the question. It's all we've been talking about. My second sentance in the previous paragraph and my whole second paragraph explains what I think is good enough. The minute you think it is good enough and just lay back, is the minute complaicency sets in. IMO anyway and it fits with observances of mine in several jobs and situations I've been in.
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 12-26-2003, 07:34 PM:
 
I don't think there is anyone on this forum who is serious about presentation who would ever be completely satisfied short of perfection. That said, we all know that we live in an imperfect world. We must play the hand we are delt. The trick is to maximize that hand.

Do I want Dolby CP650's and top of the line amps and speakers in every house? Hell yes. Will I be given that?? Not likely. That doesn't prevent me (and everyone else on this forum who gives a rat's ass) from giving the audience the very best we have to offer.

That means maintaining equipment, scheduling service calls for things we can't handle, and constantly monitoring our operation to see that we are doing the very best job we can. To me, that is the definition of "what is good enough."
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-26-2003, 08:45 PM:
 
John,

I would say your statement is an excellent one of "doing as much as one can do" not necessarily what is "Good Enough" from the theatre business' standpoint. There is a difference. Depending on where you are in the food chain there is truely only so much you can do and if you do that then that is the hand you are dealt...that should not be construed to mean that is all whomever owns the theatre can do however.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-26-2003, 09:03 PM:
 
In some ways this and another topic seems to be going down the road of elitist utopian view of the industry
If a theatres presentation sucks below what a customer will pay for then that is the forces of the public and a free market economy
I supply and install what the customer asks for in the budget they can afford not say go andtake your business elsewhere as one would not be in business for long if one did
Examples are products of lower cost provide suitable and viable alternates. Even the current top Sankor lens outperform the early ISCO cinelux lens that are still in daily use in many mainstream locations or does everyone think that each improvement in quality of equipment the owner must scrap what they have and go out and buy new If so those theatres wouldn't be open long
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-26-2003, 09:33 PM:
 
I love it when people get so involved in opinion rants that you eventually compare these things quite favorably with a dog chasing his tail.

From looking at this thread, it should be obvious that establishing a fixed answer to questions of what's best, what's adequate and how these factors balance against the size of market is as likely to happen as whether we should ban a political party or two, and what parties those should be. It's just not going to happen. Everyone has good points, and views that make some level of sense... especially within the world those people live in. As is normal, competitive factors tend to dictate performance levels, with the capitalistic profit motive in the balance.

Can a Motiograph, Wenzel Ace or BX?? put as steady a picture on the screen as the latest mechs out there? Some would say the classic machines can be better. I certainly got my money's worth out of them, especially during the years when most of what I was making went into my mortgage. After I paid the place off, I started upgrading the booth. Did I do that because it would make the presentation better? No. The presentation didn't change one bit. I did it because my old stuff, combined with the rest of our operation, produced a product that started filling my place up during the Summer. I upgraded out of sheer terror at the thought of dumping an entire field and sending 1,600 people home... maybe even losing an entire weekend because of a worn out part with too many miles on it that I couldn't replace. So... my booth is more modern. I've dumped a whole lot of $$$$ into making it that way. Result? Absolutely nothing the audience can see or hear. In a way, even that's the way it should be. All I did was basically pay up my "reliability insurance".

When I aquired a local quad, I opened with jittery machines, crappy reflectors, foggy lenses and nothing but SR for sound. Not one single patron ever complained about the quality of the show. Not one ever said they wouldn't be back because the theatre down the street had a better show. I DID have several people make comments about my great DIGITAL sound... and only my hairdresser knew for sure.

Based on that, why shouldn't I accept that they were coming to my place instead of the other guys for no other reason than that they all loved me??!! No... I started upgrading the booth because my own presentation made me crazy. We're all digital now, I have newer lenses (brand new ones on the list for this Summer), the reflectors have been replaced, one of the three machines is new and the other three will be gone within the next few months. The crowds are decent... and growing... but I still think it's a subjective matter of how each of them have perceived the experience.

On whether, in the opinion of a projectionist, manager or service tech, an owner has ever invested enough in the booth, it's operators' paychecks, the auditorium, walls, curtains or vacuum cleaners; I have NEVER, in over 40 years of business activities, EVER heard an employee or vendor say "you've put enough into your place... please stop!"

Unfortunately, that's the way those things are. It's not likely to ever change, and to argue the subject is pointless. I can think of countless examples of working for exhibitors whom I felt were bastardizing the history of motion picture presentation for no other reason but the profit. Bottom line, however, is that it's the exhibitor's perogative to balance his investment against his pay check. The ones who do the best job of reacting to customer wants, needs and what the other guys in town are doing to attract those customers will probably do far better than those who blindly toss money at a building just to have what others consider "the best". This could be part of why the digital industry was scratching their heads for a time, trying to understand why the exhibitors weren't all climbing over themselves to replace their antiquated old junque projectors with George's lean, mean digital projecting machine.

OK... rant off. The rest of you guys were belching opinions here, so why not blow some extra bandwidth this way, eh?

Peace out
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-26-2003, 09:38 PM:
 
One thing I've concluded is that if we dealers on this thread all swapped locations blind none of us would have a clue as to what to offer each others customers in the equipment department. We'd all go out of buisnes quite fast by loosing many bids. Sure we could try to get it right based on what we know is correct our past experince and such but if you were not quoting pretty much what they are used to installing none of us would be around very long. Its pretty definate that doing everything the right way as we have discussed would be nice, I'd bet those installations comprises less than 10% of the theatres built annualy.

What I see our customers at CLACO doing are generally decent, no frills, state of the art theatres going in where the theatre owner has made the final calls on the bottom line based on his experience, needs, and budget. With very few exceptions, what the equipment bottom line turns out to be is not a call the dealer can actually ultimately make, nor should he. He can only quote and try to sell what is needed for it to be done correctly but he'd better have other options built in as well.

Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-27-2003, 12:17 AM:
 
Like some others...I've been on both sides of the dealing line and having to decide what was of value and what was not. I've always felt I got the most bang for the buck when I was the customer. Even on the dealing side...a theatre like the South Branch 6 (see the photos section) is a lot of bang for the buck without frills that met the customer's desires.

As to what is good enough...that bar is certainly non-fixed and impossible to find. The movie theatre customer is a passive one that only really speaks when talking in their cell-phone or to the screen itself. They don't, by-in-large, complain about technicalities like focus (unless it is grossly out), wrong lens (scope for flat or vice-versa) or even scratched films though you'd be hard to find a single one that had a more satisfactory experience in a theatre with the above problems than in one that got the presentation correct.

As such, the customer complaint excuse for not doing something is a false one...they don't complain about such technicalities it does affect the opinion of their experience, even if it is on a subconscience level...their brain knows what appears focused or not (but one example).

It is certainly the exhibitor's choice as to how and where to put their money (I don't think anyone, regardless of opinion on how well they are doing that as a general statement questions that). I do feel that many exhibitors to know that their show is quite literally substandard (does not meet even ANSI/SMPTE standards) or is less than satisfactory for many patrons or potential patrons.

Mark has something to a dealer/customer relationship. They need to be a match for a continued relationship. There are customers I wouldn't touch and some I've just dropped and as such there are customers that would prefer a different dealer/consultant than I.

Lastly, I guess I stepped on another sore spot for Gordon and the Snake Ore lenses...I've seen even the modern ones that look like ISCO Ultra-Star knock offs on the outside (right down to the blue-stripe)...they suck too...even a 20-year old ISCO Ultra is a better investment.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-27-2003, 10:08 AM:
 
I read the topic line of this thread thinking it would be about how well the operator or technician does his job instead of whether or not the theater owner buys shiny, new equipment. That's a bit disappointing.

The presentation of movies SHOULD be about the guy behind the machine, not about the machine itself.

In a lot of cases we do have theaters using old, broken down equipment and it probably would be better for them to replace/update their systems. On the other hand, an operator who knows his stuff can pull off a far superior presentation on old equipment than a Popper Jockey can on brand new equipment.

Old, dusty-looking equipment is not necessarily worse than shiny, new equipment. My booth is equipped almost entirely with used, military surplus equipmet and/or manufacturer's "B-Stock" merchandise. We put on a presentation that is at LEAST as good as the local Cinemark Tinseltown and in some respects it's BETTER. I tell people, "The only thing that Tinseltown has that Mercyhurst doesn't is digital sound." If I have my way that won't be an issue for much longer, either.

Mercyhurst has only had ONE instance of a show stoppage in the presence of paying customers in the 5 years since the projector was installed. That was because the transofrmer that powered the hand-built automation system burned up in the middle of the show. This will never happen again. I installed a Comp. Eng. "TA-10" automation shortly after that incident. (Mfg. B-Stock, by the way.)

My main beef with the way movie theaters are run today is the reliance on "technology" instead of "workmanship". Man should be master of the macnines. All too often, it is the machines who are the masters of Man.

If this attitude keeps up digital projection, as inferior as it may be, will take over movie theaters in a very short time!

In some cases, it may very well be more cost-effective to ditch your old, broken down projection equipment and buy new. In other cases, that old equipment can be repaired, rebuilt or simply cleaned up and it will give Sterling service for years to come. This is a human, "Cost vs. Benefits" desision to make, not a simple "Technology Solution".

For the price of ONE super-duper digital projection system a theater could pay an experienced, caring operator/technician a good salary for TEN YEARS!

To paraphrase a line from a famous movie:

Pay no attention to that man behind the little window!

It's the PEOPLE who make the movies, NOT the machines! Focusing our attention solely on the machines is doing a great disservice to our industry!
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-27-2003, 10:34 AM:
 
I side with Steve on the lens issue. Although Sankor spherical lenses have gotten somewhat better I would still classify them in the "Coke Bottle" department and are for those theatre owners that simply do not care about anything except the bottom line.

Three years ago I installed a brand new 6 plex in southeastern Indiana for a Vendor that had sold this customer all their booth equipment. Everything was new, right down to the Simplex Projectors. I was really disturbed when the new Sankor lenses arrived and that this VENDOR had sold these to them, first time theatre operators in this case and super nice people too. So along with all the nice new equipment that went in a major bottle neck to them having a decent picture on screen was also sold to them. And what did they save? Absolutley nothing at all in the long term. This was a job I do wish I had packed up and walked out of but unfortunately could not! And the really sad part was that these people who were quite wealthy would have gladly spent a few extra thousand to get the better lenses.

IMHO,many of the old ISCO lenses are still some of the finest optics ever made for cinema application, and the old ISCO MC 2X scopes are still some of the very sharpest anamorphic adaptors around. Contrast may be a bit lacking but sharpness is always there.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-27-2003, 11:52 AM:
 
Jack wrote:

quote:

---

When I aquired a local quad, I opened with jittery machines, crappy reflectors, foggy lenses and nothing but SR for sound. Not one single patron ever complained about the quality of the show. Not one ever said they wouldn't be back because the theatre down the street had a better show. I DID have several people make comments about my great DIGITAL sound... and only my hairdresser knew for sure.
Based on that, why shouldn't I accept that they were coming to my place instead of the other guys for no other reason than that they all loved me??!! No... I started upgrading the booth because my own presentation made me crazy. We're all digital now, I have newer lenses (brand new ones on the list for this Summer), the reflectors have been replaced, one of the three machines is new and the other three will be gone within the next few months. The crowds are decent... and growing... but I still think it's a subjective matter of how each of them have perceived the experience.

---

quote:

---

Would it have been preferable to let that quad close down (or remain closed)?

---

quote:

---

Assuming that there is nothing wrong with building a theatre over time...What are the absolute bare essentials needed at the outset?

---

Offhand, I'd say that using the Johnny Cash method of building up a theatre over time ("one piece at a time") depends to a huge extent upon whether the community thinks they need, or want that theatre in their midst. My quad is by no means the county's powerhouse. However, it's situated at the edge of town, where the crowds have to travel another 7 miles to get to the big malls & their theatres. I'm probably more like the "community theatre"... attracting the "more adult" audience that doesn't want to deal with the insanity. We're also in a military county, and the blue-collar nature of the area has generated the numbers of loyal customers we've needed to pay off... and subsequently get going on the process of rebuilding our drive-in.

The quad was not the high-priority for the chain that had it previously. First run pictures not usually in the top 6 or 7, because those films usually played the mall houses. That an an effect on the mix of customers who frequented the place, making it a location that was not thought of first as the place where the best pictures would be. When we got it, we capatalized on the fact that even the smallest rooms have 200+ seats (the smallest chain rooms are around 72), the screens are wall-to-wall, excepting for exit doors, and our biggest house has a 38-footer, easily the largest picture in the county.

Offhand, I'd say that if the community wants you, they'll have much more patience with your deficiencies... whatever they are, as long as they perceive you're investing back into the place and not just siphoning off all the profits. On the other hand, if they don't care about you, the only way you'll get something going is to kick the competition out of town (read: have lots of money to burn!). Some people will be able to play the middle ground & survive, but these are largely the operators who go into a property and literally do everything. For many of them, the only way they keep the lights on is to avoid hiring anything out. They become slaves to their properties & that is NO fun.

As far as I've experienced, the audience will forgive cosmetic deficiencies far more quickly than they will with presentation issues. If your building needs new carpet, they'll notice that when they walk on it, but will put it aside if you give them a good, solid presentation. On the other hand, if you give them a show that has serious enough problems that they are able to make negative comparisons between you and other theatres in the area, the best carpet in the world won't save you. This is where I've taught the staff that, while the popcorn is important... and keeping carpets swept and bathrooms clean is necessary and not to be forgotten, none of that matters if the customers leave thinking more about the out-of-focus picture than the movie itself. We've gotten an awful lot of mileage from people who might say to their friends, "yah... the place is 20 years old, but they've got a 38 foot screen & their sound kicks butt!"

... my $.002

... oh... and I have no "Snake-Ore" lenses in either of my theatres. Coke bottles are used only for soft drinks here!
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 12-28-2003, 10:12 AM:
 
Just a thought here. Perhaps John Pytlak would weigh in here with the point that if your theatre conforms to SEMPTE standards, then that is good enough?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-28-2003, 10:57 AM:
 
Conforming to ANSI/SMPTE standards falls into the "necessary but not sufficient" category.

Steve
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 12-28-2003, 04:48 PM:
 
WOW! So, Steve, what is sufficient?.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-28-2003, 06:15 PM:
 
Isn' t that the topic of this thread? Trying to find out what people think is sufficient. Meeting the standards are a given but things like the projectionist or the show or equipment choices...etc...those are not necessarily covered by standards. If you are projecting your Scope film in a 2:1 ratio...that is not good enough...period...the rest (not covered by standards)is subject to interpretation.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 12-29-2003, 01:55 PM:
 

quote:

---

After so much avoidance of the initial question...I now wonder if anyone on this forum is brave enough to make an apparently futile attempt to enumerate the bare minimum that is required for a theatre to be "good enough" in his/her opinion..?

---

quote:

---

Make sure that the sound is perfect, make sure that the picture is in focus and doesn't jitter. Make sure you aren't projecting on the wall and that you are framing it properly. Make sure your customers can't hear the projector running, distracting them from the experience you are supposed to be immersing them in.

When you have that done, then make sure that the staff is courteous, make sure the concessions are good. Make sure the bathrooms are clean and are something people aren't afraid to go into.

Make your theater a place that people want to come to by using interior and exterior design that builds on the magic people want to feel when they go to a movie. Accessorize those elements with standees, posters, and other items that support that experience.

---

quote:

---

Just a thought here. Perhaps John Pytlak would weigh in here with the point that if your theatre conforms to SEMPTE standards, then that is good enough?

---

quote:

---

the big difference is that in the theatre industry we are tyring to faithfully display someone else's vision released in a format that he is expecting to do just that. In that case it SHOULD be about the filmaker's vision and not what is acceptable to me or any customer.

---

quote:

---

so if you spend money on new lenses and you anticipate you will still be open in 10-years...that is a mere $1,000 a year for one of the single biggest factors on the picture quality. Boy that is a lot of bang for the buck. Heck...compare that to most of your other expenses and it is pretty darn cheap. Think you are going to be around in 20-years? Your lens expendature is a mere $500/year..for the biggest quality improvement in your picture you can buy. It is a great deal that any bozo can see...

---

That's just it - $10K seems a lot of money in one go...but it is in fact an investment with up to 20 years return. That's what's so great about film too (as has often been said) - the initial investment lasts many, many years if the equipment is looked after.

So a theatre owner / investor / manager etc. has the vision and desire to help the filmmaker communicate with their audience and understands why the technology is fundamental to that - then perhaps those 5 points that Brad raised will fall into place.

Happy New Year!
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 01-04-2004, 05:35 PM:
 
unfortunately, if that lens is scratched then it's out the window. the number one investment has to be competent and careful operators who will not nullify the other investments.

carl
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-04-2004, 08:41 PM:
 
Just to put the quote in context...were were discussing a 2-projector system with 4 formats each or 8 lenses, adapters...etc. So you would only scratch one lens...something that is, quite possibly, repairable.

Also scratching lenses must be a talent because I don't see it that often...now with turrets..I see the ends of the barrels getting beat up on pad roller arms and such as the turret spins but not the glass area so much.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 01-05-2004, 01:35 AM:
 
What I don't understand is...

It seems to me that the Directors of these films should be shouting at the rooftops about the way thier movies SHOULD be presented.

I remember hearing a conversation when I first started in theatres about how George Lucas was a pain because of his screen selection process. I thought then and still do think, Heck yeah, more power to him. That is the way it should be.

I really do think that the studios will figure out that they will make more money if they charge less for film rentals so the smaller guy who loves movies has a chance to make it financially, and if they adopt a GL type theatre screening process.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-05-2004, 02:47 AM:
 
I recall reading that there were actual studio visits to theatres that were going to show "The Exorcist" when it was first released back in the 70s.

They reported finding potholes and rips in screens in addition to antiquated loudspeaker systems behind them. The filmmakers were understandably quite upset to discover that few theatres could accurately reproduce the film over which they had so carefully labored.

(The book was called "The Making of The Exorcist" or "The Story Behind The Exorcist" or words to similar effect.)

Why don't the filmmakers get involved? A few possible reasons spring to mind:

1. The individual filmmakers are quite possibly not aware of any widespread problems because they tend to see their films in the better theatres.

2. Politics -- If filmmakers speak out openly against "poor presentation" they run the risk of being criticized by the exhibition industry (and probably the distributors, too). I guess those occasional "love letters" that come in the cans are the extent to which the filmmakers are prepared to tell us how to do our jobs.

3. Time is money -- Time spent mounting a campaign for proper presentation is time away from other projects. The filmmakers won't get involved until/unless there is a dramatic decrease in ticket sales which can be traced back to widespread presentation problems.

4. My personal favorite...The Conspiracy Theory -- a.k.a. "Give them enough rope to hang themselves!" -- The jist of this theory is that Hollywood doesn't want 35mm to reach its potential in theatres. As the overal level of presentation quality declines, the industry moves closer to a shift toward dCinema which, at least as far as the distributors are concerned, is a less expensive/more efficient mode of release and, hence, more favorable from their standpoint. It would thus be counterproductive to assist in any way with the elevation of 35mm presentations. The so-called "crap code" is also tied to this theory.
 

---

Posted by Edward Jurich (Member # 1787) on 01-05-2004, 11:30 AM:
 
Scratched lenses....I knew an operator in Chicago back in the 60's who cleaned the lenses with paper napkins , the kind you wipe your hands on. Those lenses has so many scratches they looked like slightly fogged glass, image wasn't bad though.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 01-05-2004, 05:46 PM:
 
Manny, I hope that conspiracy theory doesn't turn out to be true!

Here's some reverse psychology: set up a dubbing theatre that promises to "faithfully mix the sound as it is reproduced in the theatre".

So...you'd have lousy acoustics, drop a stage channel, disconnect some of the surrounds, omit the subs - that kind of thing. For the picture you could have those scratched lenses!

But to be serious, maybe it's the approach that doesn't work; laying down the law saying "you're not doing it properly" is surely going to get people's backs up.

Everyone knows they're "supposed" to have good sound and picture, but perhaps they don't know why.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-05-2004, 07:08 PM:
 
A friend of mine was a manager at an old Moyer theater here in Eugene in the early 90s (W. 11th Movieland, now closed). They ran a private sneak preview of "Arachnophobia" - I think the story was Jeff Daniels (the star) was from Eugene and he was attending the screening with a bunch of other industry people or some such thing. Anyway, the studio sent a couple engineers up ahead of time to thoroughly check out the theatre and make whatever changes they thought were needed. Funny thing is, this was one of those very wide, short-throw rooms with a very large wall-to-wall screen, and it couldn't put up a really good image no matter what they did (my opinion). It was always dim and not very sharp.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-05-2004, 11:56 PM:
 
This has no bearing on your story but actually Jeff grew up in Michigan. Friend's mom used to babysit him.
 

---