This is topic Disney, Dolby and Digital Cinema -> OT Bring back 70mm; film stock; hdtv; other stuff 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=007298
Posted by Ted Costas (Member # 473) on 06-30-2005, 07:39 PM:
 
The three "D's" add up to 100 new screens by November. And this is for real... we're not saying "in the next five years" or "if we receive financing" or "1000 to 2,500 screens"...

This is money in the bank.

I believe the full press release is on the Dolby Web site.

And before we get attacked for this move by all the film purists... of which I am one, take a step back and consider this venture. With Box office declining, we gotta fill those seats and continually improve the experience...

Keeping you all up with the headlines...

Yours, Ted

[ 07-06-2005, 01:59 AM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-30-2005, 07:46 PM:
 
Oh well, 100 is just the equivelent of the zit on a gnats ass anyway. But good luck with the venture!!

Mark
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 06-30-2005, 08:34 PM:
 
Keep pluggin' along! [Smile]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-30-2005, 08:50 PM:
 
Will these be 2k pixels or 4k? In other words, is it anything that would make it better than HDTV, besides the size (and thus decreasing the overall sharpness as a result)?

I think I'll stay home.
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-30-2005, 09:01 PM:
 
Apparently there's a little more to this...

Link

quote: Text Of Article
BURBANK, Calif., June 27, 2005 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- Disney once again leads the film industry by introducing Disney Digital 3D(TM), a brand new, state-of-the-art technology providing the first true three-dimensional digital experience in movie theatres, with the highly anticipated movie Chicken Little to be released on November 4, 2005. In collaboration with Disney, Dolby Laboratories plans to install its Dolby(R) Digital Cinema systems in approximately 100 specially-selected, high-profile theatres in 25 top markets that will present the 3D film. Visual effects giant Industrial Light & Magic (a Lucasfilm Ltd. company) will render the movie in 3D so it can be played on Dolby Digital Cinema servers at selected theatres. This joint effort will create the next leap forward in the evolution of motion picture entertainment, bringing animation to life.

This historic debut of an entirely new release format will further define, refine, and elevate the film art form and marks the first time a major motion picture studio (Disney) has fully embraced a digital deployment plan. Disney selected Dolby Digital Cinema, a state-of-the-art digital cinema presentation system, to debut Chicken Little's brand new proprietary CG animation process. Dolby's technology, combined with Industrial Light & Magic's newly invented method of creating digital 3D imagery, provides the first feature motion picture presented in true digital 3D. Viewers of Chicken Little will experience this revolutionary format with the use of special 3D glasses offering greater clarity and more comfort than conventional 3D glasses.

Commenting on the announcement, Dick Cook, chairman, The Walt Disney Studios, said, "Disney Digital 3D is a truly groundbreaking technology that combines the latest innovations of science and art, and we are proud to be a part of filmmaking history. Our proprietary, state-of-the-art CG animation process used to make Chicken Little and future animation projects will finally allow moviegoers to experience true digital three-dimensional entertainment in theatres." Cook continued, "Walt Disney pioneered many technological breakthroughs and set an uncompromising goal for his Studio to constantly push the envelope to offer a superior movie going experience. We are very proud to add this animation milestone to the long list of technological breakthroughs for the studio, and we are especially thrilled to work with entertainment technology leader Dolby in this exciting launch. Likewise, we are proud to have the wizards at Industrial Light & Magic to help deliver the movie in 3D."

"Disney and Dolby's commitment to digital cinema paves the way for a large scale digital cinema deployment," said Tim Partridge, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Professional Division, Dolby Laboratories. "Dolby is a trusted brand for providing technologies that dramatically improve the moviegoing experience, and Disney has a fantastic reputation for delivering incredible movies to audiences worldwide. This is a great collaboration between both companies to launch Chicken Little on Dolby Digital Cinema."

ILM President Chrissie England said, "The digital 3D release of Chicken Little is a very exciting chapter in Hollywood history as it marks the next generation of moviemaking. We are delighted to participate with Disney in setting a new benchmark for the future. We are pleased that Chicken Little is the first animated movie to use our new process using Disney's actual 3D models, animation, and camera data. This process allows us to provide a richer, more nuanced viewing experience for moviegoers than any existing postproduction techniques. We feel audiences will embrace this experience as the new standard in animated features."

 
Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 06-30-2005, 09:01 PM:
 
Yeah, that'll bring 'em in...for two minutes! Just like the original 3-D, CinemaScope, 70mm, Dolby Stereo, digital sound, surround EX, etc. These were all exciting in their day, right? Of course, when the customers get to these theatres, there will be no staff, because, as usual, they will have CUT THE PAYROLL to pay for another gimmick instead of giving GOOD SERVICE and applying GOOD MANAGEMENT!
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-30-2005, 10:07 PM:
 
Oh geez, LIES I tell you. ALL LIES! What a load of crap.

quote:
...blah, blah, blah...with the highly anticipated movie Chicken Little to be released on November 4, 2005
Like anyone is actually looking forward to that chicken turd. [Razz]
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-01-2005, 05:46 AM:
 
Yup, just after getting everyone to invest in red readers, Chicken Little starts telling everyone that the sky is falling yet again and they must "go digital" to fill those seats because film isn't doing it.
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-01-2005, 09:32 AM:
 
quote: Steve Guttag
they must "go digital" to fill those seats because film isn't doing it.
Like any average movie goer gives a shit anyway. I don't look for attendance to suddenly jump based on what medium the movie is projected with. Hell, half the people I talk to think we use DVD's or Large Video tape VCR's to play the movie. If hollywood wants attendance to go up then stop making huge piles of shit like REBOUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Posted by Bernie Anderson Jr (Member # 410) on 07-01-2005, 10:33 AM:
 
Digital isn't gonna fill more seats. Can't anyone see that? And I can not believe that people that work as Projectionist on this forum want to see this happen. You will be out of work. As it is, they don't want projectionist. That aside, digital is not the answer. I have digital slides and preshows and standard film in my Loews and I tell you ,no one knows the difference or cares. As sad as that sounds. What we need is something like IMAX to grow. Take a look at Polar Express. 35 Million over Christmas. Batman broke a new record for IMAX over it's opening weekend. This is the stuff that they should be putting money into, not digital. Don't you see, that the only reason the distributors want Digital is because it will save THEM money. What will it do for the exhibitor? From what I see nothing. As it is, It took Technicolor almost a month to install the digital slides, and it still doesn't work properly. If Digital was that successful, then we should have seen more installations over the past 7 years.
 
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 07-01-2005, 12:22 PM:
 
Myself, I feel we should learn about digital, because it's the comming thing. I think it's going to take longer than the 2-3 years some people are saying, but it will happen. I want to learn more, not only so I can continue in this industry, but maybe I can even be one of the many minor people that helped a new technology come alive.
 
Posted by Ted Costas (Member # 473) on 07-01-2005, 12:23 PM:
 
Glad to see the spirit of Film-Tech lives!

The one advantage to Digital Cinema, and of course it does not affect you guys, is that there is no quality degredation such as wear and tear, over time, with a "digital print." The first show is as clean as the last. Dirt and scratches don't happen (I know, Brad, your prints don't have those problems... it's the other 34,000 domestic screens I'm talking about).

And those are my opinions, and not that of Dolby, Dolby, Dolby.

Yours, Ted
 
Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 07-01-2005, 01:02 PM:
 
First of all, 3D, while possibly another fad, WILL bring people into theaters, especially for kids movies. We might not want to see Chicken Little (or most other animated features designed for kids), but families DO and the 3D gimmick will get them into the theaters more often than "waiting" for the DVD release.

As far as digital cinema is concerned, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I'm always going to feel that 35mm (or 70mm) is the only "real" medium. (I still have all my vinyl albums.) On the other, digital presentation and storage does have many advantages and film is 19th century technology. I swore I would never go 35mm digital until the cameras offered were at least 12MP and priced close to my film body, but I went digital a year ago and the truth is that I never pick up my film body anymore. I just carry it around as a backup if I'm shooting for others in case the digital body fails.

The digital presentations that I've seen so far, even though only 2K, have mostly been quite good. Some have looked slightly worse than film in terms of black levels, but in every other respect were superior. I have not seen the pixilation that many here have written about. And while it's true that digital will supposedly look good "forever", I think that's actually somewhat less of an issue for theaters since these days, the studios only care about opening weekend anyway.

Personally, I think the industry should wait for 4K.

History shows us that theatre owners have ALWAYS resisted technical changes. In the 1950s, although they installed Cinemascope screens, few theaters aside from the roadshow houses installed magnetic stereo. In spite of the fact that in the 1970s and 80s, theaters with 70mm installations far outgrossed 35mm theaters, most owners still resisted installing 70mm 6-track. Digital sound has been around for 12 years and there are STILL many theaters that haven't installed it or have implemented such a lousy B-chain, that you can't tell it's digital anyway.

While I understand resistance based on the fact that the studios need to share cost savings with the theaters and I also understand specific legit, technical and aesthetic objections, many of the general objections I read on this Board seem to not be based on facts, but completely on emotion (and the strange desire to be negative and wise-ass about just about everything.)
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-01-2005, 01:36 PM:
 
Very well said, Martin. Amen.
 
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 07-01-2005, 04:33 PM:
 
This is the way digital should be going! It's a new medium which should be exploited for all it's worth and - which is not often said - it's a wonderful engineering achievement too.

Using digital as a replacement for 35mm to save on print costs is an extremely limited approach...like asking a great artist to forsake oils and start using an airbrush because it's cheaper, when the airbrush could be used to create other types of fantastic art instead.

This must be really welcomed, just as film continues to give us rich, natural and compelling images (what about the stunning work Janusz Kaminski has just done on War of the Worlds ?).

Well done to all involved - look forward to seeing it when it comes out.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-01-2005, 04:37 PM:
 
quote: Brian Guckian
what about the stunning work Janusz Kaminski has just done on War of the Worlds ?
Sorry, but I thought War of the Worlds was the crappiest looking film I have ever seen except for "Hitch"...most student works included.
 
Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 07-01-2005, 05:20 PM:
 
Some of the CGI in WOW, looks horrid.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-01-2005, 05:29 PM:
 
quote: Ted Costas
The one advantage to Digital Cinema, and of course it does not affect you guys, is that there is no quality degredation such as wear and tear, over time, with a "digital print." The first show is as clean as the last.
That may be true. But am I going to care about that when I'll be able to watch the same movie with the same number of digital pixels at home on a 1080P HDTV monitor? Why do I need to pay the price premium at the box office once I have something digitally equivalent at home?

Of course, most people here know my opinion: that Hollywood and D-Cinema tech companies really need to push hard for 4K as a minimum standard for mass install into the commercial movie theater marketplace. The product has to be demonstrably superior to anything anyone can view at home.

I think commercial movie theaters are already taking it on the chin when it comes to 5.1 surround sound on home setups. You don't have to spend a ton of money to have a good sounding discrete surround setup in your home. And now digital cable, digital satellite, HDTV broadcast, computer systems, X-Box and more are delivering 5.1 content. By comparison, a lot of theaters have let presentation quality slip in the sound department. Most theaters I visit anymore have really weak sound. Managers and projectionists who do care about this have to fight tooth and nail with their home offices just for basic maintenance, never mind asking for upgrades! It isn't like it was back in the early 1990s when 5.1 surround was one way for a theater to mark itself as better than the rest.

Many people have the perception their home system sounds better than that of most any commercial theaters they can visit. I think if Hollywood chooses to mass install a "good enough to get by" standard of 2K for commercial theaters they're going to invite upon themselves the same problem in the image department. Right now 1080p HDTV monitors are expensive. But by the end of this decade, you probably won't be able to buy a widescreen TV that has anything less than 1980 X 1080 pixels. Commercial cinema has to be able to separate itself from that with significantly sharper image quality. Keep shooting movies on film and then do the digital work in 4K.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-01-2005, 06:25 PM:
 
quote: Martin Brooks
History shows us that theatre owners have ALWAYS resisted technical changes.
That's because, more often than not, the "changes" are some flash in the pan that costs a lot of money but is really just a novelty or a dumb idea. Here is a list of just the ones I can think of during my movie career. We didn't buy into any of these.

- 3D (how many of those dual-image-lens doohickeys from the 80s are still gathering dust?)
- Dim red LED analog sound readers
- Cinema Digital Sound (the original system)
- SDDS (dying if not dead)
- Sensurround
- 6000' reels (we did invest in an adapter for the bigger spindle diameter)
- Smell-o-vision
- Canola oil on popcorn
- 8 channel surround (still not on enough releases to make it worthwhile)

DCinema looks great, but it isn't going to save anyone any money except the studios, and it isn't going to improve attendance. Only good movies will do that (and a longer DVD window would help).
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-01-2005, 06:36 PM:
 
I say just release movies straight to DVD and high definition DVD. Sure, lots of people will be out of ridiculously underpaid jobs, but they can get hired at McDonald's and make the same if not more money and perhaps get treated with even more respect than they do now.

2K digital cinema offers NO advantages over HDTV. None. Yet it is good enough for Kodak and Dolby. Which means Kodak and Dolby both embrace mediocrity, which leads me to believe that both companies must be mediocre. Tim Reed says the technology needs to evolve. Well Tim, when we came out with digital sound, it wasn't WORSE that optical sound in quality. But for the video, that is acceptable to you? Get thicker glasses, my friend!
 
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 07-01-2005, 06:46 PM:
 
With all the hype about digital cinema, I wonder if most people believe that all theaters are now using digital projectors? If this is the case, I wonder if, in the backs of their minds, they think "why should I pay $8 to $10 to watch TV at the theater, when I can watch TV at home for free"? This would be an interesting question to ask the general public.

With attendance at theaters falling, some say due to home TVs and sound systems getting better, the last thing theaters need to be dong is installing TVs, that are not even as good as what you can get in your home, right now, today.

A few months ago I read a couple of posts here, written by people who saw a feature projected by a DLP, and than returned to that same theater some time later, to find that the DLP picture had degraded. It sounded to me like dust and dirt had found their way onto the internal optics of the DLP projector, and proper maintance was not being done. To say that digital projection will never degrade, is totally wrong. The problem here is that it won't be just the "older" features that have degraded, but ANYTHING that is shown with the degraded projector will look bad. There is a LOT more that can go wrong with a digital projector that will degrade the picture, than a 35MM projector. If the theaters don't want to spend the money to maintain their 35MM projectors, don't expect things to change with digital, which by nature, will be more expensive to maintain than 35MM projectors.

When TV came along, some years ago, the theaters saw attendance drop. They made changes to bring people in to the theaters. Today, the theaters are making changes that make them THE SAME as TV.

When someone tells me that something is the answer to all the problems in the world, I know that not only will "it" not solve any problems, "it" will cause MORE problems.
 
Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 07-02-2005, 09:23 PM:
 
quote:
Quote: Martin Brooks
History shows us that theatre owners have ALWAYS resisted technical changes.
quote: Mike Blakesley

That's because, more often than not, the "changes" are some flash in the pan that costs a lot of money but is really just a novelty or a dumb idea
Yes, but all the ones I listed were important and useful, yet largely ignored anyway. And I can tell you that at NYC theaters that have featured both digital and 35mm for the same film, at the same time, the digital presentations have far outgrossed the 35mm presentations. That might be based on naiveté and incorrect assumptions on the part of the customers, but they are demonstrating that as a preference. Is that putting more customers in the seats? No way to tell. There was no way to tell with 70mm either, but 70mm houses far outgrossed non-70mm houses.

It's not at quality first-run houses that digital will make such a difference, but at the type of theaters that today get used prints and/or have incompetent staff in the booth. I'm not saying that some small-town independently owned theater should rush out and spend $200K on a projector - obviously that doesn't make business sense, but everyone needs to look at this without emotional blinders.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-02-2005, 09:41 PM:
 
quote: Martin Brooks
Blah blah blah.....the digital presentations have far outgrossed the 35mm presentations. That might be based on naiveté and incorrect assumptions on the part of the customers, but they are demonstrating that as a preference.
I don't think it is because they prefer digital to film, I think it is because they are more curious than anything.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-02-2005, 09:47 PM:
 
I think it's more because "digital" has become such a stupid buzzword that people truly believe "digital is perfect". Hardly.

Sure that's not to say that 90% of the theaters out there wouldn't have a better presentation with digital cinema than those with film...in fact that's quite probably going to end up being the case because most theaters out there right now SUCK in terms of their film handling skills. However there ARE still people out there who DO truly put digital cinema to shame with their 35mm presentations.

If only the studios would let us have 70mm again, with today's advances in filmstocks, the presentation possible from a current 70mm release would make people laugh at digital cinema. Of course the studios won't let that happen! It's all about the money and greed. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-02-2005, 09:54 PM:
 
Brad:
Digital cinema makes 70mm make sense. I have said this for 5 years; I am talking about the money.

Louis
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-03-2005, 12:29 AM:
 
quote: Martin Brooks
And I can tell you that at NYC theaters that have featured both digital and 35mm for the same film, at the same time, the digital presentations have far outgrossed the 35mm presentations.
And I'll bet the digital presentation has a huge sign outside of it saying "DIGITAL." And there's probably a standee somewhere in the building crying out how much better digital is than film. Try putting a movie in two identical screens -- one digital, one film -- with the same showtimes, but no signage, and make sure the film house is properly presented/maintained, and I'll bet the grosses would be almost exactly the same even over the long haul. If the film is being "done right," the public should never be able to figure out which is the digital presentation unless they know what to look for in the booth window.
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-03-2005, 10:15 AM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
make sure the film house is properly presented/maintained
Are you saying it takes extra effort [read: cost] to do film done right, as compared to digital done right? [Razz]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-03-2005, 10:32 AM:
 
All you missed(or forgotten) missed the entire pont for these installations and thats so Lucas can show his Star Wars re-done in 3D in a year or when ever it happens. These systems will ahve all been well proven by that time. Although the general moviegoer is pretty darn sick of the whole Star Wars thing these may indeed still sell some tickets. If he doesn't install them as operable 3D systems then there won't be any place to show them as no one else is going to foot the bill.

Mark
 
Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 07-03-2005, 11:15 AM:
 
I have to take a break from my 15-hour Live 8 marathon (Hey Regal - how come you're not showing this? You could sell a shitload of concession!) to point out that the Chicken Little system is different from the one that Lucas will be using. Disney is using the REAL D system which uses a silver matte screen, passive polarizers, and disposable glasses. Lucas is using the In-Three system, which features an existing white matte screen and LCD shutterglasses. The page-flipping 3D is already allocated on the DMD chip. Expect another 3D feature, probably on the In-Three system by December of this year. Keep in mind that the 200 Christie/AIX systems being installed by the end of this year do not include the 100 systems being used for the REAL D system.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-03-2005, 12:22 PM:
 
quote: Martin Brooks
I'm not saying that some small-town independently owned theater should rush out and spend $200K on a projector - obviously that doesn't make business sense, but everyone needs to look at this without emotional blinders.
Actually it would be nice for those on the "pro digital" side of the issue to take off their emotional blinders as well. If they really looked at it in a logical, impartial fashion they would readily see the deal doesn't make any sense.

The digital projection systems are far more costly than any 35mm setup, but offer picture quality no better than film (and arguably worse when compared to film done right). The digital projection systems have no technological advantage over HDTV in the home. This is a very bad model for business. If the film projectors are to be removed and replaced with basically a glorified television, that TV needs to be a lot better than the ones people can put in their homes.

Most of the folks on the "pro" side of the digital cinema issue are biased. They have vested interests in selling equipment and are putting out a lot of spin to support their sales pitch. Some of that spin includes the testimonials of viewers who really don't know what they're talking about. But they heard that "digital projection" buzz term and assume the picture quality to be perfect. This business model simply doesn't work as a long term investment. The sales guys may indeed know this, but they want to make that money anyway. But this is how a great deal of business in America is conducted anymore. Just get together on the golf course, hammer back a few beers and then negotiate a faulty campaign.

One more thing to add: it is foolhardy for the D-Cinema sales folks to take advantage of customers crowing about the quality of "digital" in the cinema. Those same folks can just as easily turn around use the same "digital" talking point as a reason to choose their just-as-good HD home systems over those in the commercial theaters.
 
Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 07-03-2005, 03:00 PM:
 
All pro film comments left aside
2k projectors and hdtv are two separate subjects

2k projectors will be showing quality encoded content at upto 250Mbit/s. Encoded with full color information and possibly at 12 bits per primary. You can not compare this with bitstarved hdtv at perhaps 10 Mbit/s with 8 bits and subsampled color. The color gamut of digital cinema will probably be 50 percent greater than your home setup. The professional setup will be calibrated and your home setup uncalibrated. (we are talking about average Joe) The cinema is using a 10m+ widescreen. At home the screen width is about 1m.

If you say that home setups will be 1080p in five years that is fair but then digital cinema is 4k. I still think we underestimate the number of people that can pay 10 dollars to see a movie but will not buy a 1000+ dollar 1080p TV.
 
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 07-03-2005, 05:47 PM:
 
US 8VSB HDTV has a data rate of very close to 20 Megs, not 10 megs. (Just more misinformation from the pro theater TV people) With all due respect to the pro TV people, when I see anyone spreading misinformation in order to make their product look better, I know there are some serious problems with their product.
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 07-03-2005, 06:10 PM:
 
Just how many "k" is "real film" [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-03-2005, 08:32 PM:
 
Broadcast HDTV can get upwards of 20Mb/sec. The D-VHS D-Theater format, which has been available for a few years, can go upwards of 30Mb/sec.

quote: Mattias Ohlson
If you say that home setups will be 1080p in five years that is fair but then digital cinema is 4k.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. "1080P" is a reality now. You can buy HDTV monitors with 1920 X 1080 native pixels now. Some of these monitors have been available for several months already. Their numbers are going to grow. The "5 years from now" comment refers to the strong possibility that customers will not be able to buy new televisions anywhere showing less than 1920 X 1080 native pixels by that time.

Also, "Digital Cinema" is NOT 4K at all.

Most video projection setups are still of the lesser than HD quality 1280 X 1024 generation of models. The new systems being installed are 2K at best. There are no 4K systems being installed in the field. As far as I can tell, there are no specific time tables on getting 4K systems getting installed into the marketplace. Even worse, most movies using CGI and digital intermediate techniques are opting for the quicker, cheaper 2K standard rather than doing more to future proof their product with 4K rendering.

Like I said, those sales droids getting drunk on country club golf courses really don't care. They're just out to get paid. Who cares if it threatens to damn the future of the commercial movie theater industry.

One of the things those fellow have to realize is just how tentative a foothold can be in a digitally driven marketplace. When it comes to digital based product, market forces can turn against you in an instant. A company has to be diligent to an extreme in preparing for various contingencies. The rate of growing sophistication in home computer and entertainment hardware and software is not something to be underestimated.

While movie theaters continue to use 35mm film, they have a product that is based on an entirely different paradigm separated from most things digital. But once they convert everything to an all digital basis, the standard they choose must be substantially better than what's available for the home. Otherwise they're going to lose out big time to customers opting to save money by staying at home.
 
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-03-2005, 09:26 PM:
 
Here's what I don't get... everyone raves about 70mm, yadda yadda, but at the same time complains about how crappy movies look these days with piss poor cinematography, full of CGI and whatnot, so my question is, what difference would 70mm make, to make the crappiness of these films even "brighter"? [Smile]
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-03-2005, 09:47 PM:
 
70mm makes everything better. Even a technically horrible movie like War of the Worlds would be improved.

Ya gettin' it yet? [Wink]
Now take a truly well photographed film (in scope of course) and blow it up to 70mm and you've really got something!
If you ever visit Texas I will arrange to give you a direct A/B comparison of a 35mm print vs. the exact same reel of film on 70mm...2 projectors running in sync just toggling the changeovers back and forth until you make a mess of yourself. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 07-03-2005, 09:48 PM:
 
Gee, remember the good old days when Speilberg's pictures were avaialble in 70mm?
 
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-03-2005, 09:50 PM:
 
I know, I know... [Wink] Fortunately there are still movies made on occasion where seeing it in 70mm would be a benefit.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-03-2005, 10:17 PM:
 
I really wish the movie studios would wake up and start using 5/70mm and 8/35mm systems for making movies (again). The analog basis of 70mm and VistaVision formats will gracefully hold up against successive generations of digital video formats. They will digitize to those formats far better than anything originated on digital videotape.

Maybe several years to a decade from now, 4K CGI and DI techniques will be the defacto standard and "D-Cinema" systems will have the 4K level as the entry mark on presentation resolution. Shows like "Sin City" and "Episode III" are not going to blow up to those higher rez video formats well at all. They're locked into their lower native resolution and that's it. OTOH, any movie shot on 35mm or 65mm film will digitize to a 4K format (or 8K, 16K, etc.) and hold up nicely. Not everything analog is bad.

Plenty of music recording studios still embrace "legacy" analog audio recording techniques for this reason. A well engineered recording onto 2 inch mag tape with SMPTE time code and DolbySR can sound every bit as good as the highest resolution digital recordings. It's no accident many of the DVD-A and SACD music discs being released to the marketplace are older albums using high quality magnetic original master tapes. I never see anyone trying to take an early "DDD" mastering effort from the 1980s and blow it up to DVD-A. What's the point in doing that? You only have the limited number of recorded bits in that original DDD master.
 
Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 07-04-2005, 03:27 AM:
 
Hdtv broadcast is ideallly 18-19Mbit/s but sometimes this is decreased. From what I know it is not uncommon to have one SD channel with the HD leaving even less for HD. Also with new encoding I exect 1080p to go down closer to 10Mbit/s.

Do you really want 70mm back in big style? That cost money too. Would it not be better if studios released movies in the very best 35mm prints there can be?

I am not going to watch a movie an a monitor. 20 inches is not the same as 20 meters wide even if my nose touches my monitor. If kids download crap quality video and watch it on a monitor it is their loss.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-04-2005, 09:14 AM:
 
quote: Mattias Ohlson
Do you really want 70mm back in big style? That cost money too. Would it not be better if studios released movies in the very best 35mm prints there can be?
For me...that is a big fat YES. 70mm is THAT much better than 35mm and anything video has dreamed of. It is sharper, steadier and just plain fantastic. 35mm at its best is not good enough. Then again, 24fps is not good enough either. It is time that 30fps and beyond is looked at again. Until you get back to 70mm at 30 fps, the industry is still behind what we had over 50-years ago.
 
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-04-2005, 09:29 AM:
 
Steve; agreed:
It would appear that we are slowly accepting less; at least in visual terms. 50 years ago we HAD 70mm/30 frames (& Cinerama, too, bigger thn IMAX! Also 30 frames.) Yes, 35mm is better than it was then. But old 70mm stands tall over everying now available.

Louis
 
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 07-04-2005, 11:26 AM:
 
quote: Mattias Ohlson
I still think we underestimate the number of people that can pay 10 dollars to see a movie but will not buy a 1000+ dollar 1080p TV.
The people who do buy the $1000 or even $4000 TVs are going to feel that they need to stay home and watch their new toys, and don't want to spend $10 to see anything in a theater. This could be one of the reasons that people are not going to the theater.
 
Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 07-04-2005, 11:35 AM:
 
Bruce
My point that "poor" people are more likely to pay ten bucks and go to the cinema. I agree that if you have invested a large sum in your own setup you will not go out to see a mediocre movie.

Steve
I agree with upping the fps. Digital will probably end up at 48fps. I understand the reason given why 70mm is better. Still with todays technology is it not possible to make 35mm projection very steady. Using the best print stock for 35mm is not todays 35mm as good as 70mm 25 years ago?

What about something like Maxivision?
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-04-2005, 12:05 PM:
 
Actually, poor people are not likely to visit the commercial cinemas at all. They're going to buy a used VHS or DVD player from a pawn shop, perhaps buy some used movies there and then rent any new movies they see from the video store. A family living with a low income isn't likely to pay $50 for a trip to a first run movie theater.

If people with low incomes are going to visit a commercial theater at all, it will likely be a 2nd run "dollar" house. There's lots of Americans who have very little discretionary income after all their bills, mortgages, SUV payments, etc. and they often have to settle for the bargain houses or just stay at home.

On film setups, 35mm can be shown in a very steady fashion. You just can't blast it up on a giant screen more appropriate for 70mm hardware.

D-Cinema at 48fps. That's isn't going to happen anytime soon. The business people swilling beer on golf courses are the ones who decide what film gauges and frame rates will be used. 35mm at 24fps has been deemed "good enough" for many years. Now those guys are trying to push HDTV-class video as being "good enough."

The simple fact is 70mm would actually cost a lot less to deploy than these digital video methods. A 70mm projector isn't nearly so expensive and delivers a very noticeably superior image to that of 35mm. Film productions would benefit greatly from making films on 65mm because the very high resolution image would transfer gracefully to any video format that could be developed over the next several decades.
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-04-2005, 12:11 PM:
 
quote: Robert Harrison
Gee, remember the good old days when Speilberg's pictures were avaialble in 70mm?
I remember when his TRAILERS were in 70mm! Anyone else remember the 7+ min trailer for Close Encounters?
 
Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 07-04-2005, 01:25 PM:
 
What it comes down to is four things:

For the studios - digital prints only cost $200 to $300 each - big savings.

For the filmmakers - we get a more accurate playback image of what they filmed, if filmed in digital, and those like Cameron and Lucas that are falling in love with 3D have a platform of thousands, rather than a couple of hundred theaters with that capability. If "Shark Boy" had been shown in digital 3D in full color, it could have easily doubled its grosses.

For the exhibitors - what John Fithian coined ODS, or other digital stuff - 3D (without having to spend $1.5 million on a large format theater), advertising, and broadcast of live events). Not to mention cost savings by downsizing of the dedicated projectionist.

For the patrons - a propensity of operations have poor prints or projection (majority on this board hopefully excepted!) which will be replaced by fairly decent digital image.

That's not to say I haven't seen bad digital presentations. At the 2004 Consumer Electronics Show, TI had a special screening of "Last Samurai" and it looked like it was transferred from a 35mm print with really bad emulsion. Film choice is another thing. I've chastised myself for wanting to see every digital film that's come out - thank you very much Eddie Murphy and "Pluto Nash!" Other questions abound. If the idea is to convert all screens to digital within the next decade, if the theaters I go to are full of concession trash from prior shows and loud people are talking on cell phones, what's going to make that change? Who's going to make sure the projector is in focus, properly framed, and free of debris? Who’s going to maintain these systems? I've been to a number of theaters where they take pride in the presentation on film and frankly a few weeks in the image looked as pristine as a digital print. I certainly don't want to see film go. I'm the kind of guy who, although I think DVD's are cool, still hangs onto my laserdiscs.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-04-2005, 03:11 PM:
 
No, even the best 35mm prints of today do not look as good as 70mm prints of yesteryear.

The simple fact is that you can't make a 35mm system as steady as a 70mm system...throughout the process the 70mm system is given the edge due to less magnification.

Lawrence of Arabia is playing in 70mm (starting today) at the AFI/Silver in Silver Spring, MD. Even the kids that work there, that have not grown up on 70mm recognize that it is notably superior...and that is a 40-year old film. The AFI/Silver has some of the best projeciton equipment anywhere...16, 35, 70 or digital (though their DLPs are the 1.3Ks due to when the complex was opened).
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-04-2005, 03:36 PM:
 
Oh my goodness. EVERYONE MARK YOUR CALENDARS TODAY AS THE DAY IN HISTORY THAT STEVE GUTTAG WAS FLAT OUT WRONG!!!

quote: Steve Guttag
No, even the best 35mm prints of today do not look as good as 70mm prints of yesteryear.
No sir, you are terribly wrong about that. There are crappy looking 70mm prints out there and incredible looking 35mm prints of recent times. I dare you to take a 70mm title such as Ghostbusters and put it up against many great looking films of recent years, such as Moulin Rouge, Detroit Rock City or even Bad Boys II (to name a few off the top of my head). You will quickly put your tail between your legs and squirm out of the room.

Advances in film stocks have come a LOOOOOOONG way!

Still though, when comparing the same title in 70mm to 35mm, yes 70mm ALWAYS AND WITHOUT QUESTION blew away the 35mm.
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-04-2005, 04:00 PM:
 
No he was not wrong
The 70mm prints struck from 65mm camera negtives look far better than the films on 35mm today and LOA is a good excample (probably due to Freddie Youngs photography)
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-04-2005, 04:38 PM:
 
Now you are wrong too, because that's not what he wrote.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-04-2005, 05:41 PM:
 
Sorry Brad, you chose to read into it wrong. With respect to some "blow ups" there are some horrible inter-negatives out there that created some crappy 70mm prints...however, that was the result of a poor blow-up not the 70mm film of the era.

Even my example film was that of Lawrence of Arabia...a 40 year old film.

70mm was and still is superior to 35mm film. One can certainly find examples of each as being crap but not due to the film itself. All things being equal, the 70mm picture will win every time.

Which would you rather watch...a current film shot Super-35 or a a 65mm production that uses say 15-year old technology stocks. I'll take the 65mm stuff. I'd rather see a print-down of a 65mm negative in 35mm than some nasty Super-35 thing with boulder sized grains and has been high-speed printed though too many generations.

I'm fortunate in that I get to see many an EK print and they do look fantastic...many times better than a "select" release print of the same feature (in color, clarity and steadiness). An EK print of a film will look better than a 70mm blow up in contrast and color but that is about it. The 70mm print is still steadier.

35mm just doesn't look that good to me on screens over about 25 feet wide (we won't get into video). 70mm holds its own up on the biggest screens.

Again, I'm sorry if you interpreted what I said wrong, it was not my intent.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-04-2005, 07:59 PM:
 
There's really nothing here to interpret, Steve.

quote: Steve Guttag
No, even the best 35mm prints of today do not look as good as 70mm prints of yesteryear.
That's what you said. Not my problem you chose your wording poorly. [Razz]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-05-2005, 03:13 AM:
 
quote: Mattias Ohlson
Hdtv broadcast is ideallly 18-19Mbit/s but sometimes this is decreased. From what I know it is not uncommon to have one SD channel with the HD leaving even less for HD. Also with new encoding I exect 1080p to go down closer to 10Mbit/s.
What? Who cares?! This is completely irrelevant. That's like saying "I'm using the Cinepak codec at 1,000 megabits per second, but you are using the Divx codec at only measly 50 megabits per second at the same exact resolution and frame rate. Your video MUST look inferior. My logic is infallible!" Also, who cares about broadcast HDTV? All of my references point to the upcoming high definition DVD formats, which will not use the same codec as ATSC. I remember having an argument with some guy on another website who claimed that a 720x480 video was technically high definition just because the bitrate was so damned high. I made sure he know that he was wrong. Actually I bet he still believes he was right. People. [Roll Eyes]

Also, you say by the time people have 1080p, theaters will have 4k? Yes, that may be available to new installations. But do you think a bunch of theaters will actually PAY to upgrade their 2K or sub-2K systems to 4k? No way. Theaters are cheap. Look at what they pay their employees. They HATE spending money. They are against it in every way. Will studios pay to upgrade the existing installations? HELL NO! So sorry my friend, theaters will forever be stuck at 2K except for new installations. I wouldn't put it past the studios to make 4K movies incompatible with anything projector beow 4K, though.
 
Posted by Ted Costas (Member # 473) on 07-05-2005, 02:01 PM:
 
Ahh the days of 70mm... those were fine days indeed.

But they are gone.

Sorry. I started working for TAP looking at 70mm prints exculsively. I am very fond of the quality of those prints. But like an old football player that retires and goes to the hall of fame (if he's lucky), so will 70mm prints. We can visit them and try and relive the old days, but 70mm prints are for the film "hall of fame", to be talked about fondly in web sites like this, and occationally shown at a special event. But they ain't a comin' back.

Now to respond to a few of you...

Martin Brooks - Movies that make money need more than an opening weekend (yes, the opening is vital) to make their full potential. The term "legs" is only applied to movies that can hold a screen for a bit -- and those are the tent pole releases the studios dream of. They need to look good for more than the first days shows... so there is an advantage to the long term quality of a digital show.

Bobby H. - 4K is in the DCI spec. It is what the industry is striving for. 2K on a big screen, with the correct space dialed in, looks really good. Unfortunately for me, I don't have a room in my house that could hold a 60 foot screen... but other than that, sure... HDTV is as good as 2K, whatever you say. Also, Bobby, movies are for people to escape the reality of their lives... even during the great depression, people found a way to see a movie to take a two hour escape from their day. The poorest people need entertainment just as much as the richest people do, and a good story and a good presentation will do the trick everytime.

Joe R. - That was wrong... the mediocrity comment. If Dolby isn't constantly pushing the technology envelope, who is? I'd tell you about some of the stuff we are developing, but I'm afraid that you may not be able to fully grasp the magnitude of the concepts in general, and the general public is far from being ready to adapt to these technological vississitudes. Actually, Joe, you may be the perfect candidate for live testing... we want to implant 12 discrete channels into your brain with an input plug at the base of your neck. This will guarentee the best sound option at all times (say in case you enter a theatre that doesn't offer Dolby sound). I'm kidding about the above, except your mediocrity comment was still, to quote Brad, "wrong."

And for everyone who made a comment about attendance being down. The reason is simple -- good movies. We need more of them. We are two blockbusters short of last year's numbers and nobody is jumping out of widows because of it.

Don't worry, be happy.

And again - the comments expressed here are mine, and not that of Dolby, although I bet there is a sentence or two here that they would agree with.

Yours, Ted
 
Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 07-05-2005, 02:33 PM:
 
Joseph L. Kleinman wrote:

"If "Shark Boy" had been shown in digital 3D in full color, it could have easily doubled its grosses."

Wishful thinking. [bs] in 3D is still [bs]
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-05-2005, 03:07 PM:
 
Ted said "Ahh the days of 70mm... those were fine days indeed.

But they are gone."

They are only gone because a large portion of the industry has adopted a "good enough" point of view
mediorce presentations or mediorce product is the industrys big problem
If excellence is there in both areas it still doesn't sell
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-05-2005, 08:28 PM:
 
I dunno there Ted...

70mm is dead because? The film stocks are available, the projectors are available...heck even the infernal platters that run them are available. Perhaps the company you work for has little use for it. The CP650 can't really handle it too well...unless a DTS player is used [Wink]

As for just the films being the problem with attendance...that is way too simple a rational. It is certainly a contributor. Technology can't make a film...just improve its experience.

However, today films cost a bit more, the mainstream theatres oversaturate their customers with ads and previews to the point of annoyance, the cost of gas has gone up to affect disposable income. You compare it to depression times...most people didn't need cars back then...they lived in the cities and had many theatres to choose from. The theatre might have A/C when their homes did not. The theatre had "news" that even the illiterate could appreciate. Customers were treated far FAR better when going to the theatre back in those days than they are today. After all, back then people came to see the movie and to have a "night out"...not be around rude people on cell phones, forced to watch way too many ads...the whole atmosphere of the theatres back then was true glitz and customer service...right down to usshers that would actually show you to your seats.

Least you think too highly of movies back in the depression era. Only one major studio made money....MGM...with more stars than in the sky. Warner Brothers broke even and the rest lost money.

quote: Ted Costas
I'd tell you about some of the stuff we are developing, but I'm afraid that you may not be able to fully grasp the magnitude of the concepts
Not that Joe needs any defending...but he probably can grasp concepts better than you...just judging by your respective posts.

Dolby needs no defending...they have made a very definate positive mark on the industry. Ray Dolby has pioneered audio improvement above and beyond most in the industry. Come on...Dolby-A and Dolby-SR are achievements of a life time. Dolby Digital is certainly and achievement in making the most of a tiny amount of storage space. The with the exception of the CP45 and SA10, their processors have certainly stood the test of time and support by a company. I don't think that anyone that puts in a box with the Dolby badge on it worries about it working or performing well. The CP650 remains my most reliable processor though the remotes have been a bit flakey (seemingly have been worked out...now years into production).

However, Dolby Labs have not always been behind the best sound available...SVA was pushed over 4-track magnetic when Dolby-A on 4-track would easily provide superior sound. Likewise, 70mm's dismissal in the light of Dolby Digital when Dolby-SR is available for 70mm seems like settling for grade B when grade-A is available and the picture quality of 70mm remains the highest-definition.

As for digital pictures....they are certainly coming. As someone that has HDTV and a relatively high pixel count projector 1366 x 768 on a 10-foot wide screen. I would say HDTV is okay for the home but not great on the big screen.

I've seen 2K digital and a lot of 1.3K digital for DCinema...they can look pretty damn impressive from the booth...but they do tend to fall apart as one gets closer to the screen. 4K is too low a target for DCinema though I can understand it as a stepping stone to bigger and better things. One thing DCinema should have done is to have started with 2K rather than adopting an AV format with 1.3K that even AV is abandoning in favor of 1400 x 1050 imagers.

I'm interested by Dolby's Digital Cinema offering though question the rather deeeeeeeeep storage unit (most cinemas will be removing the rear doors on the their racks to accommodate this device.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-05-2005, 09:59 PM:
 
quote: Ted Costas
The poorest people need entertainment just as much as the richest people do, and a good story and a good presentation will do the trick everytime.
Yes, that's true. There is escapist value in visiting a commercial movie theater. But many low income families can't afford to do that. It's even pretty costly for a lot of middle income families just trying to escape debt. They're being pushed to settle for the bargain theater or just watching at home on whatever setup they can afford.

If price isn't the issue, you have the usual negatives people associate with the theater experience: ringing cellphones, crying babies, noisy teenagers, 30 minutes of trailers (all louder than the movie itself). As great as stadium seating is, it has also allowed more jerks to stick their feet on your seat.

There is some freedom in watching movies at home. You don't have the theatrical atmosphere, but you don't have all the annoyances either. You can adjust the sound as loud as you like. And you can pause the show when you have to take a break.

The most important attraction is the movie itself. But so many releases are just so derivative. We have all these TV shows turned into movies, sequels of bad movies and other shows that are just garbage. "Batman Begins" was a good movie. But did we need to re-start that franchise when the old one started just 16 years ago? How about a "blockbuster" based on an entirely new story?

Presentation quality is a huge issue on the Film-Tech forums. But "film done right" seems even more rare now, even with many thousands of screens equipped for digital surround sound. I can only think cost cutting on theater maintenance has something to do with this. Profit margins for theater chains has to be hurting with windows between theatrical and DVD release being ever more narrow.

This is an area where I can HDTV-quality digital cinema systems can actually be a threat to the long term health of commercial cinemas. The term digital cinema may attract more viewers at first. But the biggest fans of the video technology could be among the first to abandon the theater in favor of getting a 1080p home HD rig and proclaiming the setup to be every bit as good as what the best theater can offer. They'll be sure to brag to every one of their friends.

So, if the customer has it in his head that his home system provides image and sound quality as good as any theater, he's not going to have much problem waiting for the HD-DVD, Blu-Ray disc or whatever format is used. Waiting won't be much of a problem either with big releases taking as little as a season to go from the big screen to home release.

quote: Ted Costas
4K is in the DCI spec. It is what the industry is striving for. 2K on a big screen, with the correct space dialed in, looks really good.
4K may be in the DCI spec, but is not what's happening in practice. 2K remains the de-facto standard. It stays stuck there since most CGI work and digital intermediate work is rendered at that level. Over the last five years computer processing power and disc storage capacity has grown enormously -to levels more than adequate to handle 4K economically. But most in Hollywood are using the technological gains to do 2K work even faster and more cheap.

There needs to be some strong upward pressure on Hollywood to produce their product using digital standards like 4K, and even reconsider larger film formats for production. Sure, we may never see 70mm used as a theatrical release format again. However, you can still shoot a movie on 65mm or VistaVision and have an enormously superior original to manipulate digitally.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-05-2005, 10:46 PM:
 
quote: Ted Costas
...your mediocrity comment was still, to quote Brad, "wrong."
2k projectors produce an image that for a movie theater venue is mediocre. 2k projectors push absolutely no boundries. Dolby may push the limits of sound processors and other nonsense which I could not possibly comprehend, but if Dolby says "2k projectors are good enough to install in theaters" then the person or people who made and/or embraced that decision at Dolby have mediocre standards regarding theater video. That's really all there is to it.
 
Posted by Oscar Neundorfer (Member # 458) on 07-06-2005, 07:46 AM:
 
quote: Ted Costas
Joe R. - That was wrong... the mediocrity comment. If Dolby isn't constantly pushing the technology envelope, who is? I'd tell you about some of the stuff we are developing, but I'm afraid that you may not be able to fully grasp the magnitude of the concepts in general
Over the years, I have heard more than one person say that Dolby has been content with "good enough". Now maybe that attitude attributed to Dolby is a perception rather than reality, but sometimes perception IS reality (or perhaps more accurately, it might as well be reality). If people think so, then it is true in their mind. If this is the case, then Dolby has had a PR problem.

I agree with Steve when he said, "Not that Joe needs any defending...".
In the last part of Ted's statement quoted above, the level of arrogance and condescension expressed is nothing short of astounding.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-06-2005, 08:12 AM:
 
Oscar,
You are right about Dolby and it shows in their lack of customer service knowledge and extreme arrogance. There was always some arrogance as there is with most companies but it seems today that the arrogance factor has gone from a 3 to a 9.5. We have a number of customers that have been directly offended by Dolby personel arrogance at shows and seminars and wouldn't have their products for free. Since the only two knowledgable technical cinema people have left there its been a fast down hill ride. Those two alone upheld what quality there once was, and in part helped by assisting in the design of many excellent past products. Dolby may be working ono a lot of high tech stuff but for me Dolby has becocme a second rate product source that I would only spec in if I had to. Were a Dolby product to break I doubt that I could obtain adaquate tech assistance with it, their tech assistance rates a zero. I have only ever met two Dolby employees that I would consider humble, connsiderate people and they are no longer there.

Mark
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-06-2005, 12:32 PM:
 
There seems to be two different standards in American business when it comes to selling a product or providing a service.

Standard #1: Doing the job right.

Standard #2: Making as many compromises as possible without blowing the sale.

This a broad complaint I think sticks like glue to a lot of industries. We gnash our teeth when we hear a digital cinema company rep go on about how digital projection is better than film. The guy probably knows he's full of crap, but he's going to spin things however he has to in order to make the sale. Sadly, there's not many sales jobs anywhere in this world where you're going to make more money by telling the honest truth.

Fundamentally, I just think it's a bad idea to put short term sales gains ahead of the long term health of the theatrical exhibition industry.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-06-2005, 12:48 PM:
 
Bobby,

Hear, hear!! Well said. I can honestly say, that every job I sell is one that I would want to own or have done my duty to properly inform my customer.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-06-2005, 05:30 PM:
 
quote: Steve Guttag
I can honestly say, that every job I sell is one that I would want to own or have done my duty to properly inform my customer.
Well Steve,
If you would want to own Strong built Simplex's or CP-650's when you could own something better and end up with superior results then I have to question that statement. I for one would own neither when there is better available for no more money or perhaps just a little more.

Mark
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-06-2005, 11:07 PM:
 
Yup Mark...I have worked with and continue to sell Strong built Simplexes and Dolby CP650s. I would have zero problem owning either and or both. If I didn't think they were good, I wouldn't sell them.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-07-2005, 07:50 AM:
 
I just have a had time believing that you would settle for B grade equipment when you don't have to.

Mark
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-07-2005, 10:05 AM:
 
I dunno...I get pretty good results from Simplexes (I use the PR-1014). Likewise, I don't consider the CP650 B-grade at all. I actually like most things about it. In many circumstances, it is the most cost effective solution when working with Dolby Digital.

I don't think everyone needs an $80,000 projector, just because it is the best. If you need to do studio work with high-speed rock/roll operation, then it is the right tool for the job.

For normal 35mm release prints...the Simplex 35 is going to do just fine and last a very long time. I've seen Simplexs used in some pretty high-end screening rooms and nobody was flipping out about them.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-08-2005, 12:31 AM:
 
quote: Steve Guttag
For normal 35mm release prints...the Simplex 35 is going to do just fine and last a very long time. I've seen Simplexs used in some pretty high-end screening rooms and nobody was flipping out about them
In reality there are Kinoton projectors that cost the same as the Simplex and are certainly the better-wiser choice. I would rate these in the A catagory. The Simplex USED to be a good projector but the quality of the movement parts aren't even close to what they were 30 years ago, nor do they last as long. Bearings from China, and still many parts made from what is essentially pot metal doesn't help it at all. I can take you to two different screening rooms that wish they had installed something else, and one that took them out and installed something else. It doesn't require 80,000 projectors to equip a screening room, just depends on the rooms requirements.

As for the procecssor I wasn't really refering to anything that is cost effective, just what sounds best. There are alot of processors out there but in reality there are only two decent procecssors to compare and that places the 650 in the B catagory while the CSP-1200 still garners the A spot. Speaaking of cost constraaints I can't think of a job we've done in the last three years in which the CSP and DA-20, or DTS couldn't be made to fit within the budget constraints.

Mark
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-08-2005, 01:21 AM:
 
quote: Ted Costas
If Dolby isn't constantly pushing the technology envelope, who is?
DTS has a lossless system available. When can we expect that from Dolby?

quote: Ted Costas
I'd tell you about some of the stuff we are developing, but I'm afraid that you may not be able to fully grasp the magnitude of the concepts in general, and the general public is far from being ready to adapt to these technological vississitudes.
Oh, I don't know about that... we're a pretty sharp bunch here. Fill us in. We'll let you know when you're losing us.

Mark
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-08-2005, 12:43 PM:
 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
In reality there are Kinoton projectors that cost the same as the Simplex
In reality, that is not true at the moment.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
The Simplex USED to be a good projector but the quality of the movement parts aren't even close to what they were 30 years ago, nor do they last as long.
Hmmm...none of the movements I've put in the last 20+ years have died...pictures still steady. Doesn't seem consistent with your statement.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
It doesn't require 80,000 projectors to equip a screening room, just depends on the rooms requirements.
Well that was a typo I just couldn't pass up (you forgot the dollar sign, but if anyone wants to equip their screening room with 80,000 projectors...give me a call...quantity discounts are in order!). I agree with the thought of your statement though. That was my point about 2nd rate or B-grade...there are more levels than that. There are the Kinoton EC series of projectors that are above the standar "E" series and then the mechanical movment models. Not all rooms will realize the benefits of the higher models unless they have specific requirements. In fact, we've never sold an EC projector though I've had applications for an EQ and many ES series. Then there are the "E" series that have done the job just fine. Moving on down...the mechanical movements...are often all that is needed/desired.

As for Simplex, maybe I have the touch or something...but mine have steady pictures and they seem to last and last. I'm not saying that the Simplex is better than the Kinoton or that Kinoton is across the board better than Simplex...it depends on the requirements and customer. Personally, I've never regretted the Simplexes I've put in (again, PR-1014 models). Actually, my biggest complaint isn't with the projector itself...I'm not the biggest fan of the 5-star or applying a pinch roller to the picture area of the film. The new Apogee does not do that and its picture will rival most any other projector (its sound will track very well too).

Do I prefer one over the other? Sure, but I wouldn't classify the other as second rate...you do and are entitled to your opinions.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
There are alot of processors out there but in reality there are only two decent procecssors to compare and that places the 650 in the B catagory while the CSP-1200 still garners the A spot.
I dunno. There is the new JSD-80 (aka XD-10P), the CP650 and CSP1200 all claiming to be high-end processors.

The Panastereos are fine pieces and the most flexible. They certainly are the cleanest processor on the market (and easiest controlled via RS232). I do not agree that they are the best choice for every job. The same can be said of the CP650. It is very cost effective and very reliable. It has steadily improved since it was released and has become quite quiet. When doing studio screenings....that is the processor they most want to see (to the point of removing a house processor for the screening and putting the CP650 in). When the guys that mix their films look at a reference processor, they think CP650. To say it is anything other than 1st rate is just your opinion. It is not as flexibile as the CSP1200. I also don't agree that using a 10+ year old D/A design in a DA20 is as good, let alone superior than a couple year old D/A converter.

I think the CSP1200 makes the most of what it is given but it starts with the source. For just optical sound, yes, I would say it stands above the rest...for digital? Maybe.

The JSD-80 is the new kid on the block....we'll see what people start to think of it. Its feature set is pretty impressive and forward thinking.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-08-2005, 06:05 PM:
 
I can guarantee you that all my Smart processor quotes will be changed over to the JSD-80. With the new helm at Smart that can't even reply to his own e-mail brings serious doubts aabout the company. For Panastereo at least its Rays design.

quote: Steve Guttag
I also don't agree that using a 10+ year old D/A design in a DA20 is as good, let alone superior than a couple year old D/A converter.
I have a good friend that is actually an academy award winning mixer and he hates the 650 but has to utilize it because of polotics so perhaps its more Dolby's good marketing strategy and brainwashing that has gotten it there. Most would still rather see a CP-200 by a long shot.

Actually in a brand new DA-20 you will find quite up to date circuitry as Dolby has kept the DA-20 pretty well abreast of new semi's and such. They've had to because of obsolesccense and as there are still alot of them in use in studios. I suppose its alot less expensive than designing an all new DA-30. Really, the sould quality of SRD is all a big compromise of how much level vs. frequency vs. bandwidth that one can fit per channel anyway.... so it is indeed a big compromise.... compared to what the DTS XD-10 can do with 96/24 right out of the box is like comparing the 707 to the 777 . Dolby of course can do this but not off the given area of the film that is presently in use. I would like to see the JSD-80 do SRD internally though. I would sell those just because I like USL as a company MUCH better and have had much better customer service from them than from Dolby. Oscar would do well at USL! They are one of just a few companies that still knows the meaning of customer service.
BTW: I have to extend kudos to DTS as well. Their newly re-designed D to A audio board for the 6D is a great example of a company keeping the old equipment up to date and servicable. If there is any audio quality gain from thhe new board I can't say but being an all new dsp design as you mentioned there may very well be some benefit there.

We(actually our customers) just don't have that kind of luck with Simplex around here and there are lots of them, 1014's included, runing under all kinds of differing conditions. Perhaps you don't face the variety of conditions that I see out here. They still keep on being the most repaired movment in our shops. We see alot less Ultramittents over the last two years than Simplex's even though the number of each machine might be just about be equal. As for simplex/kinoton pricing it might just matter where you get your Kinotons from. Kinoton always seems to be the higher priced source.

Mark
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2