Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: AMC to use pre-show projectors and satellite to distribute movie

This is topic AMC to use pre-show projectors and satellite to distribute movie in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=006536

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 09-05-2004, 06:50 PM:

This was in today's Kansas City Star. Personally, I'd want my money back if this was the best quality presentation available. Film, no, digital projection done wrong.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/entertainment/9566532.htm

Megaplex to the rescue

AMC adopts indie coming-of-age film, the first time a theater chain has stepped in to make sure a movie gets to audiences

By ROBERT W. BUTLER The Kansas City Star

Michelangelo had the de Medicis.

Shakespeare had the Earl of Southampton.

First-time feature film director Enid Zentelis has AMC Entertainment Inc.

On Friday AMC will debut Zentelis' coming-of-age film "Evergreen" on 114 of its screens in 27 cities, including all but one of its megaplexes here.

It may be the first time any major theater chain has "adopted" a film, bypassing conventional distribution to bring a picture directly to customers.

To cut the costs associated with marketing and distributing the modestly budgeted movie, AMC has taken advantage of the latest digital technology.

Instead of striking exhibition prints of "Evergreen" (which could cost up to $2,500 each), the company is distributing the film by satellite, beaming it into theaters. It will be shown using the same digital projectors that display the chain's pre-shows of movie trivia and advertisements.

That's another first.

For writer/director Zentelis, who feared that her low-budget movie might go unseen or be lost in the art-house ghetto, it's a happy ending to a project that has consumed several of her 33 years.

***

"Evergreen" is the story of Henri (newcomer Addie Land), a young teen dragged by her single mother (Cara Seymour) between minimum-wage jobs and bad relationships with men. Now they've spent their last dollars on a bus ticket to Everett, Wash., where they'll sleep on the floor of the tumbledown house occupied by Henri's grandmother (Lynn Cohen).

Henri hates her poverty and is ashamed of her family. When classmate Chat Turley (Noah Fleiss) invites her to his home, she's welcomed by his parents (Mary Kay Place and Bruce Davison) and floored by the Turleys' wealth and sophistication.

She wants desperately to become part of their seemingly ideal world. Only later does Henri realize that the Turleys have problems that not even money can solve.

"Evergreen" isn't autobiographical, Zentelis said.

"It's a work of fiction, but I write about what I know. I've worked every kind of (cruddy) job you can think of since elementary school. I grew up poor, but unlike Henri I didn't have self-esteem issues because my parents imbued me with a sense of self-worth."

Zentelis studied film at NYU, where she won several awards for her shorts "Dog Race" and "The Man With My Nose" and made the documentary "Granny Was an Outlaw," about her grandmother's experiences during World War II.

She was a director-for-hire, making behind-the-scenes documentaries. "I also did housekeeping, office work, whatever it took to keep my head above water."

In 1999 she began writing "Evergreen" and the next year refined it at the Sundance Writers Lab.

Getting the film made, though, was another story.

"We put together some financing in New York, but it all fell apart. Instead of giving up I went to Seattle determined to put the production together any way I could."

The Sundance Institute gave her a camera and film stock. She assembled a crew, most of whom agreed to work for deferred salaries. And she sent her script to Place and Davison.

The Emmy-winning Place, who is usually cast in comic roles, said she jumped at the chance to tackle a serious role.

"Besides, I like independent films, and this movie is really about something," she said.

"Almost everything in the media perpetuates the notion that things will bring you happiness. It's precisely the opposite of the value system embraced by this movie."

"Evergreen" was shot in 18 days in spring 2003.

"It's kind of fun to work that fast," Place said. "But there was always enough time for what we needed. It never felt like we had to accept something that wasn't quite right."

***

At January's Sundance Film Festival "Evergreen" played to enthusiastic audiences but wasn't picked up for theatrical distribution.

In recent years the cost of marketing and distributing a typical Hollywood feature has risen to nearly $30 million. Without major stars, action, special effects or adolescent humor, the low-profile "Evergreen" couldn't justify that sort of investment.

Quality wasn't the issue. Marketability was.

A month later Zentelis was brainstorming with her producers and colleagues about how they might get "Evergreen" into theaters when she remembered meeting a man named Dick Walsh at the final Sundance screening of her film.

Walsh, chairman of the AMC Film Group, recalls being blown away by "Evergreen."

"My economic background wasn't the greatest," he said. "I wasn't born on third base, and watching this movie I was reminded of my own teen years. The experiences this girl in the movie goes through were exactly the sort of thing I remembered.

"It was a very accurate portrayal of the things a family goes through when they're struggling economically."

Zentelis recalls Walsh introducing himself after the screening and telling her he had two teenage daughters who needed to see "Evergreen."

"It was a really satisfying thing to hear a middle-aged white guy reacting so emotionally to my film," she said.

Walsh was one of several persons who left Zentelis their business cards.

He told me: "This film deserves to be screened in a top-quality venue.' "

It was a few weeks before she actually took a hard look at the card and realized that Dick Walsh ran one of America's biggest exhibition chains.

"It took a while for us to wrap our minds around what this could mean," she said.

It meant Zentelis had a big fan who ran his own theaters.

***

"Evergreen" is ready for its close-up, according to AMC spokesman Rick King.

"It was beamed down from the satellite a week ago," he said. "Now it's stored in each theater's server."

It's the first time a commercial feature has been distributed to theaters by satellite.

So far the movie industry hasn't come to a consensus on an official standard for digital projection. Large-scale digital distribution of features won't happen until exhibitors and distributors agree on the hardware and software and who pays for the conversion of theaters from film to digital.

Meanwhile, AMC has installed Sanyo projectors in 2,500 of its auditoriums. The image thrown by these units isn't as clear as 35mm film or the high-end digital projectors, King acknowledged, but was good enough that director Zentelis approved.

Theaters usually just sell tickets and show movies. Marketing challenges like setting up press screenings, getting coverage in newspapers and on radio and TV stations, cutting trailers and producing press kits for reviewers fall to studios and distributors.

In the case of "Evergreen," though, those jobs landed in the laps of AMC staffers like marketing chief Frank Stryjewski, head of strategic development Frank Rash and marketing coordinator Mara Weaver.

For these and other individuals at AMC, "Evergreen" has provided a crash course in promoting and selling a film.

Two weeks ago Hollywood's big boys, Disney, Universal and other studios held simultaneous press junkets in Los Angeles for their coming films.

AMC decided to piggyback its "Evergreen" press efforts with those of the big boys. It sent screener DVDs to critics in cities where "Evergreen" will open and invited them to visit the AMC suite to interview Zentelis, Davison, Place and Land.

"Not only did we get three dozen reporters to show up, but I was impressed because so many of them had watched the DVD before coming," King said.

"We had no idea what to expect. This hasn't been done before, but we felt really good about the response."

"Evergreen" may not sell enough tickets to cover AMC's expenses, but there are other benefits.

"It's a win for a filmmaker who otherwise might never have seen her film play outside of New York and Los Angeles," King said.It's a win for moviegoers who get to see something they otherwise wouldn't have.

"And it's a win for AMC because it allows us to broaden our programming options and address the growing appetite for specialty films.

"We're not looking at "Evergreen" as a make-or-break experience. We would absolutely like to do this again with another movie. We intend to do it again."

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-05-2004, 06:57 PM:

quote: Mitchell Cope
art-house ghetto

What an interesting word choice. Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you. Oh, well. I bet her video will look great on those AMC screens.

I wonder how this stands legally? The exhibitor is the distributor all over again. Did AMC offer to distribute this film to any other exhibitors? Probably not.

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 09-05-2004, 07:21 PM:

The exhibitor is the distributor all over again?

Distributors only exist - today - to solve the logistical issue of distributing heavy cans of filmic stuff to cinemas. Remove that need, and the need for distributors goes away.

The better question is do AMC have a contractually exclusive right to show this movie? If so, then you could easily argue that this deal is anti-competitive. If not, then anyone who wants to can also approach Zentelis's production company, and ask for rights to exhibit said movie, and there is no anti-competitive element there. Just one chain who have worked out how to get a jump on the rest.

But the real question is how will this experiment play with the punters. If it fails, due to [dlp]

done on the cheap, well, AMC lost a few bucks. If it works, then the script has just been rewitten.

We live in interesting times.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-05-2004, 10:11 PM:

It is not illegal for an exhibitor to distribute a film. Cineplex Odeon had a distribery (in Variety speak). So did Madstone. The fellow who runs the Railroad Square Cinemas in Waterville, Maine has a tiny operation called Shadow Distribution (I don't know if there is a formal corporate connection.) Others as well I'm sure.

Obviously AMC was not a party to any of the consent decrees many decades ago.

This beats Mark Cuban's plan to put video in many or all of the Landmark screens and distribute small movies that way.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 09-06-2004, 03:06 AM:

i don't see that it's any better or worse. the thing was shot on film, according to the article, and should be shown that way. i assume it played as a film at sundance, so at least one print was struck. striking a few more wouldn't be that prohibitive. they could travel from one amc to another. of course, they would have to be treated well by the <amc term for projectionist>s, but that would be a much more worthwhile way to revolutionize the business than going video. heck, even if the prints were to get a bit abused and battered, they'd still look a damn sight better than video, particularly if they're struck from the camera negative.

carl

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-06-2004, 03:45 AM:

AMC did not produce the film and, hence, this is not an example of vertical integration. Furthermore, AMC is mostly showing movies by other distributors. The consent decree of the 1940s was intended to make theatres available to independent producers, which is exactly what AMC is seeking to do. I don't foresee any legal problems with this.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 09-06-2004, 04:58 AM:

[ 09-08-2004, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Chris Hipp ]

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-06-2004, 10:32 AM:

Well, Chris, people keep paying for it without complaining. In many ways, projection in general is no where near as good as it was 30 years ago. Back when I started as a projectionist, being off the screen or having a film break wasn't an option. Guys used to get fired for stuff like that.

Lo and behold, theatre circuits slowly get rid of the projectionist craft and presentations get crappy. Public sez nothing... So, it's whatever they will pay for without griping. That's all that matters anymore.

Like the frog in a pot of water, with the heat slowly turned up... they don't notice until they're dead.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-06-2004, 02:32 PM:

quote: Manny Knowles
The consent decree of the 1940s was intended to make theatres available to independent producers

Actually it was to give independent theatres access to major studio films. At the time, the major studios would supply their own theatres with their product (vertical integration) but far more troubling, would rent their movies to other major studio theatres at favorable terms, thus freezing out the small exhibitor.

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 09-06-2004, 03:44 PM:

quote: Chris Hipp
I can not justify the anal raping of a customer just because something is considered an "art" film.

The customer is getting the anal rape thing not because its an art film (although if you are gonna screw about with your customers, its probably best to start with a smaller crowd), its because AMC can, because it makes finanical sense for AMC to do so.

Furthermore, I dont believe the hype that this all happened due to a chance meeting of a director and a cinema chain manager. AMC were ready for this, the only chance item was which movie was first out of the blocks.

Anyway, unless AMC customers complain like buggery (poor pun), then expect more of the same. The only thing that will stop this experiment in its tracks is the discovery by AMC that customers wont accept fifth rate cinema. If this works, the next thing will be a sequel that would have gone direct to video having a "limited theatrical release", just at AMC.

So, this is where we all get to sit back and wait for the newspaper reports. Will they say " [dlp]

is cinema done bad - boycott your local AMC" or " [dlp]

revolutionises access to cinema - the future is here". We'll know in a few days, and when the history is written, this could be one of those definining moments of cinema...

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-06-2004, 04:11 PM:

quote: Carl Martin
i assume it played as a film at sundance, so at least one print was struck

Not necessarily; I had heard somewhere that Sundance has a few digital projectors too.

After all that talk about putting her sweat, blood and soul into making this FILM, you would think she would want people to see the best presentation, not settle for video -- and not even the best video available.

Many, many small, independent films get made and are distributed on FILM, the only catch is that the distribution pattern can't be what it is for a major Hollywood release -- it can't open in 3000 theatres on the same day. Only a few prints are struck and they play many theatres over a longer period of time. This gives the small distributor time to market it in various markets, tailoring the campaigns more carefully, rather than using the broad, bulldozer, multimillion dollar approach of the big studios.

This metered distribution pattern works well for many smaller projects; remember, films were distributed to key cities and subsequent markets in much the same fashion for decades and it worked very well. This instant opening in every theatre on the planet on the same day is a relatively recent shift in distribution patterns; it's the atom bomb approach whereas the small openings in key cities with very targeted marketing is the shotgun approach. There are a number of smaller distribution houses that will pick up a project that is worthy of their type of shotgun marketing. From the enthusiasm of the AMC exec, it seems like her film is a good one and surely could be marketed successfully by a smaller distributor.

The mistake is that the stupid filmmaker should have said, "Well, if you think my FILM has merit, Mr. AMC executive, why not invest in a few dozen prints and circle them around the AMC circuit....that's why they call it a CIRCUIT." Not what methinks she actually did say (gushingly while fluttering her eyelashes).... "Oh, Mr. AMC executive, I am getting oh so wet just thinking of my film playing in all your AMC theatres at once that I simply don't care what it looks like....I just wanna see my name up in lights!...Sir."

So what if it looks like crap; audiences have been dumbed-down already to accept the shitty look of high-speed, multi-generation prints, what's another step into mediocrity? To hell with her personal integrity and how this film comes from her soul and all that other NYU Film School crap.

Hell, if this is what she wanted, for people to see video, why didn't she just go directly to DVD? Get a DVD distributor; they would spend a lot more on marketing than AMC did and launch a much bigger, professionally run campaign than the unskilled office workers who were enlisted to do the marketing at AMC. Bet AMC didn't get any Point Of Sale giant standees made for EVERGREEN like the video distributors would. She could have done the "art-house ghetto" (how obnoxious is that!) with a handful of prints and then with that under her belt, gotten it picked up by a DVD distributor.

I also think it is fair to say that this will NOT become a trend, given the fact that chains generally vigorously resist playing films with no big distribution advertising bucks built in (advertising is the biggest cost in distribution -- the print costs are a drop in the bucket compared). Chains won't play independent, low budget films even when they have traditional distribution with 35mm prints. What makes anyone think that will change just because they can play them on inferior (which even the AMC exec acknowledges) video projectors? The economic model that makes it unprofitable for large chains to tie up screens with smaller, independent films with little or no advance marketing applies whether or not it's available on film or on video.

This is a blip on the radar screen....some hot-shot 30-something AMC exec who thinks he's come upon a brilliant new idea. Just like the AMC guy who thought he had a come up with a "first"....."Wouldn't it be a great idea if we ran cartoons before a movie?!!" Like theatres never did that before. And he got all puffed up and got Warners to strike special boxed (1.33 in an 1.85 frame) versions of their old cartoons. How long did THAT last? Same with this video thing.

All I know is, if I see EVERGREEN playing anywhere in NYC, I will go just so I can go to the manager 10 min into the video and demand my money back.

Posted by Mike Bianchi (Member # 271) on 09-06-2004, 05:31 PM:

Hello all - I'm still lurking and occasionally posting. I think the last post says it best - some exec's experiment. Who knows, it might just work.

Still, striking a few prints should not have been that prohibitive. Heck, Bubba Ho-Tep started out with just 10 or 12 prints and garnered a big following!

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-06-2004, 05:37 PM:

Frank said "The mistake is that the stupid filmmaker should have said, "Well, if you think my FILM has merit, Mr. AMC executive, why not invest in a few dozen prints and circle them around the AMC circuit....that's why they call it a CIRCUIT."
Frank how silly you are each of those theatres probably has a "scratch-a-matic" installed just think what it would look like [puke]

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 09-06-2004, 05:57 PM:

Will AMC charge a lower price than "normal"? The lower quality should be reflected in the ticket price.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 09-06-2004, 10:17 PM:

[ 09-08-2004, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Chris Hipp ]

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 09-07-2004, 01:47 AM:

quote: Mitchell Cope
Quality wasn't the issue. Marketability was.

Well, duh.

AMC doesn't have to do well with this one, they just have to do it again. They will then have experience in digital distribution & exhibition & will have 'pioneered' it. That goes a long way on a press release or newspaper/magazine story about new media distribution practices. Subsequent showings can be on better projectors in some venues, as financing & promotion is worked out. The good thing about this system (from an AMC view) is that it's moving toward equipment-independent at each venue. You can have cheap projectors in one location, or in small auditoriums, better projectors as they can be put in place, even if they're not as good as 35mm or current theatrical DLP - as long as you keep the arguments *general* - "it's digital, we've had success with this, people can't tell the difference, it's better than old fashioned film because it doesn't scratch & humans don't have to touch it" - you can maintain a plausible argument with folks who don't want to investigate beneath the veneer.

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 09-07-2004, 02:38 AM:

quote: David Buckley
Distributors only exist - today - to solve the logistical issue of distributing heavy cans of filmic stuff to cinemas

Hear, hear ! - And yet they they do not think so, themselves:
Still, the most obvious difference between Distributors and Our Lord up there is, that the Lord does not walk about, believing he's a film distributor. [Razz]

-------------------------------------------------

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-07-2004, 03:34 AM:

quote: Chris Hipp
yes it should, but no. if you have a "moviewatcher" card then you do get $2 off. I guess that is somethign at least.

Ah, but Chris, then they would have to offer a "VIDEOwatcher" card! At least if they want to claim they haven't violated any "truth in advertising" laws.

And Gordon, yeah, silly me to think a print could be playable after making only a few rounds through those assembly-line projection factories.

The only problem with this whole scenario is that there is no way to make megabucks out of showing films without big stars, big special effects, big controversy or big advertising budgets -- and if the astological bodies are aligned just right, all of the above. No; exhibitors are business men....usually smart business men. And looking at their success model over the years shows that they are only interested in stuffing money into their pockets by running blockbusters or the top 20 grossing pictures of the moment. There is very little interest out there in marginal, low-budget product, unless it has the potential for becoming blockbuster hits, like THE BLARE WITCH PROJECT or FARENHEIT 911. And how many low-budget independent releases become that type of blockbuster?

There has never been any dirth of independently produced, small budget "art films," many of very which are of very decent, even award-winning quality. And they didn't need digital projection to show them....they were readily available, just-waiting-to-be-booked on 35mm film. Yet they get very little play on the big boys multiplex screens; they get most of their play in the "art-house ghetto."

The top exhibitors have no interest in showing films that are not presold for them. They are not in the business of marketing movies. And unless movies are well marketed (at distribution's expense), there is no money in them for the chains, at least not the kind of money that prompts an exhibitor to book "art-house" titles.

Why on earth would a chain want to take on the added burden of marketing someone else's film (unless the filmmaker practically turns over almost all ownership to the chain). Even then, why would the chain take on such a risk? That would make them distributors of product they have already demonstrated no interest or belief in? They certainly aren't going to make a decision to take on the costly addition of an area traditionally handled by the distributor's well-honed marketing department in the hopes that, if they are really lucky, one of those hundreds of independent films will rise to the level of blockbuster status after a sizable, out-of-pocket marketing investment. The hope of that happening is just pie-in-the-sky and smart exhibitor business men want their pie down on earth and in their wallets.

Bottom line, they don't run independent "small" films when all they need to incurr is the traditional exhibition costs -- why would they even consider running these same films when they would have to shell out additional marketing costs for them as well?

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 09-07-2004, 12:27 PM:

[ 09-08-2004, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Chris Hipp ]

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 09-07-2004, 05:27 PM:

At the 2004 Sundance Film Festival, the projection format of Evergreen was Sony HD Cam (1080i), aspect ratio 16:9. According to the festival program the origination format was 35mm.

The feature was preceded by the short film Water, 35mm, 1.85:1, Dolby SR.

Posted by Edward Jurich (Member # 1787) on 09-07-2004, 09:44 PM:

I'm not sure this will look much worse than the print of "The Best Two Years" we are running. Really poor color, probably shot on video although there is no credit for a video transfere. [puke]

I've seen AMC preshow junk here in Kansas City and the quality really sucks. Could be AMC is looking for some sort of tax write off by chasing customers away

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-08-2004, 12:29 PM:

quote: Paul Linfesty
Actually it was to give independent theatres access to major studio films.

While this is correct, it is still only partially correct. The use of the word "actually" here seems to suggest that my answer was incorrect. I stand by my answer, adding the following...

The Consent Decree eliminated, among other things, the practices commonly known as blind bidding and block booking which had left independent exhibitors without much of a "say" in terms of what product they would show. So, it follows that the independent theatres already had access to the major studios' product up to that point. That was not the problem, per se. Rather, the concern surrounded the unfair conditions for use and the negative consequences thereof.

The short story, in plain English:

The "little guys" could get the "big movies" but then they couldn't show anybody else's movies. They also had to show a whole bunch of crappy movies in order to get a few good ones. They also never knew which would be good ones or bad ones because they were not permitted to preview any of those movies. There was also no guarantee that they would get a movie at the time of release or at some later point. Furthermore, they might find themselves competing directly with a bigger "studio theatre" across the street or on the same street or in the same neighborhood. Being so tightly tied-up with the big movies meant they could not show "independent" movies. Hence, both independent exhibitors and producers were being screwed by that kind of deal. Hence, the investigation, lawsuit and the eventual Consent Decree.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 09-08-2004, 02:39 PM:

The Consent Decree eliminated, among other things, the practices commonly known as blind bidding and block booking which had left independent exhibitors without much of a "say" in terms of what product they would show.

Eh? The "Consent Decrees" were back in the 1950's. Blind bidding was alive and well until well into the 1980's, and to some extent still exists today. Sometime in the 1970's, Pennsylvania made it illegal, but that only applied to that state.

In addition, the "Consent Decrees" only apply to those companies that signed agreements with the Justice Department to abide by them, in return for the Justice Department dropping their anti-trust lawsuits against them. Other companies, and companies that did not exist at that time are not bound by them, and are only subject to the broader anti-trust laws.

/Mitchell

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 09-08-2004, 09:44 PM:

A lot of the digital pre-show projectors that I have experienced at various AMCs a) Don't fill the screen at all (I guess they aren't meant to); b) have very bad EQ; c) sometimes it sounds like the left & right are out of phase, which will make the dialogue fun to listen to for this "feature".

And of course, there is also no way you can sit through an entire feature sitting up close to the screen because the resolution absolutely blows, so AMC better be hoping this movie doesn't sell out!

The audience seems to not care about these problems during the commercials, which no one really watches anyway. It will be interesting to see how much they care about them during the feature.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-08-2004, 09:49 PM:

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
Blind bidding was alive and well until well into the 1980's, and to some extent still exists today.

This is true.

And, you know, as I wrote that I *did* stop and think to myself, "Oh my goodness...It came back!"

That part about the Consent Decree not applying to other entities is also correct.

I recall an instance where a theatre I worked for was told they would get an exclusive with a certain highly-anticipated kids' movie if they agreed to play some overblown Oscar-contending vanity flick which was predicted to be a bomb. The theatre begrudgingly ran the epic and it bombed big-time...and sat in that theatre for maybe as long as 3 weeks. So you can imagine how the fur flew when that kiddie show opened at the theatre across the street.

I asked the owner about it about a year later and he smiled and said something like "we make our deals, we do our part and hope for the best but in the end...what are you gonna do?"

It reminds me of that old adage that says: In Hollywood, "trust me" means...

quote: Mark J. Marshall
The audience seems to not care about these problems during the commercials, which no one really watches anyway. It will be interesting to see how much they care about them during the feature.

It will be *very* interesting if people are actually okay with the image quality. What then?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-09-2004, 05:55 AM:

quote: Manny Knowles
It will be *very* interesting if people are actually okay with the image quality. What then?

Unfortunately, some people will watch anything, no matter how bad the image quality. But it's likely the theatre will be losing a large part of their potential audience, who won't return because of poor presentation quality. I suspect 1 complaint represents about 100 people who are dissatisfied and never speak up, but won't return.

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 09-09-2004, 11:26 AM:

If I am not mistaken, this will be the widest release of a 'digital' feature film yet. 576x1024 LCD at about 3k lumens with a new lamp. Anyone seen the movie in 'digital' yet?

[ 09-09-2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Bevan Wright ]

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 09-09-2004, 12:18 PM:

576x1024 LCD

Gee, I can buy one of these for under $1700. Why would anyone want to pay a theatre for the privilage of watching consumer grade video?

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-09-2004, 12:50 PM:

More than that, probably, for the lumen level required. But indeed not very costly.

So people will see this, form a negative impression of digital projection (if it's properly identified as such)? This is a bad thing? Maybe this experience will help offset the buzzword aspect of "digital" and force the real digital cinema systems to compete entirely on price & quality.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 09-09-2004, 01:21 PM:

Porn theaters have been showing consumer-grade video for over 10 years now.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 09-09-2004, 08:44 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
And he got all puffed up and got Warners to strike special boxed (1.33 in an 1.85 frame) versions of their old cartoons. How long did THAT last?

I ran those cartoons. It lasted one year - exactly as long as it was supposed to last. It was to celebrate Bugs' 50th birthday if I'm not mistaken.

Posted by Edward Jurich (Member # 1787) on 09-10-2004, 10:26 PM:

quote: Jesse Skeen
Porn theaters have been showing consumer-grade video for over 10 years now.

I guess you know this from first hand experience [thumbsup]

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 09-11-2004, 06:54 PM:

Yes, I went to our local porn theater (the Regency, formerly a Pussycat theater and I've heard it was a mainstream theater before that) a few years ago just to check it out, as I'd never seen the inside. Still looks pretty nice, but was sad to look up and see the projection booth dark. The picture was coming from a large video projector set up in the front rows and roped off, it didn't look very good at all. Still haven't seen any of these new-fangled "digital preshow" things so don't know if they look any better or worse.

Posted by Matthew Jaro (Member # 1786) on 09-11-2004, 09:11 PM:

How come all of Chris's posts are edited out? It makes it hard to read the thread.