Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Digital Cinema is Overpriced

This is topic Digital Cinema is Overpriced 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=008595

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 03-23-2007, 01:05 AM:

How many of you believe that Digital Cinema projectors and servers are overpriced! Buying 1 Digital Projector and 1 Server might be the amount of equiping 4 Cinemas with Projectors and Lamphouses and maybe the main surround processor! I do not want to mention prices from companies for obvious reasons but I believe that the price for the time being is not applicable to small venues, only to large giants but at the end of the day, Is it worth it?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-23-2007, 03:02 AM:

...all depends on the owner/buyer on what the final decision is, for that is a question that can't be answered directly.

Maybe some small 'indie's' want to do digital and some just can't see the worth mentioned...

Too much grey matter here....

Posted by Bastiaan Fleerkate (Member # 3826) on 03-23-2007, 04:51 AM:

In The Netherlands there are a few companies that would lend you a projector and use it for a fixed price per month. CinemaNet (with the screwed up technical shoot out), XDC, and other smaller companies. Than it is also something that can be done with a lower budget.

But hey....35mm Rules. (Look at the Interlock 101)
Digital Cinema couldn't ever be that fun [beer]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-23-2007, 05:41 AM:

So is gas, milk, food in general, and most other things in life.

Mark

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-23-2007, 06:44 AM:

Given the very high development costs, and the small size of the potential market for such equipment the costs probably are 'justified' The question is whether the benefits of buying the equipment make the costs worth paying. For most cinemas. at the present time, I don't believe they do.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-23-2007, 11:25 AM:

Movie theaters should not be footing anywhere near the entire bill for any digital projection system. I think any movie theater that is asked to pay 100% of the cost of any digital projection system should reply:
[fu]

The movie studios should be paying a significant amount of the cost, perhaps even the majority of the cost. After all, they're the ones who are deriving the greatest benefit from it by saving millions of dollars on print duplication and shipping costs.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-23-2007, 12:18 PM:

The problem with that is that if somebody other than the cinema owns/pays for the projection equipment then somebody other than the cinema is very likely to want a say in what gets programmed to be shown on it.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 03-23-2007, 03:33 PM:

Enter AccessIT, Technicolor Digital Cinema, DCIP (and others?) . . . these entities "lease" the equipment to theatres and the equipment/lease payments get paid for by VPFs (Virtaul Print Fees) . . . . each theatre gets the equipment almost for free, all they have to do is commit to a service contract . . . .

I know AccessIT wants to be in the delivery and alternative content business so they charge the exhibitor a nominal fee per print delivered and the film companies pay them a per-movie fee that is less than a 35mm print costs.

I heard that Christie's newest digital projector using TI's latest 2K chip costs 20% less to make, so progress is already being made on getting the costs down . . . . but once all screens are digital the market dwindles down to about 1000 projectors per year (1000/yr is the average screen count growth across the US in the last few years)

Most contracts should include language that keeps control in the hands of the exhibitor.