This is topic R.I.P Film Projectors 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=011117
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-24-2011, 11:05 PM:
From Fox News on 12-23-11
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/23/film-projectors-rolling-out-theaters-for-good/
The odds are good that the next movie you watch will be displayed by a digital projector. After a reign of more than 100 years, 35mm film projectors are quickly becoming a thing of the past.
More than half of projectors in use today are digital. And the world's theater industry will be completely digital in the next four years, according to Texas Instruments, which makes the chips that power many all-digital projectors.
Digital projectors make crisper pictures and enable 3D films. But will skipping the celluloid change your experience of watching the new Mission: Impossible or Sherlock Holmes flick? Absolutely, says Michael Harrison, a projectionist at the Tower Theatre in Fresno, Calif.
"The feeling [from a digital projector] is very plain and sort of programmed to me," Harrison told FoxNews.com. "Film itself has an aesthetic and an appeal and vibrancy of color, with some sort of life that's not in digital."
John Moses, an instructor in Film Studies at Fresno City College, agreed that digital projection tech might take the magic out of the movies.
"There's something maybe magical about the little scratches that cross the celluloid," he told FoxNews.com. "And the colors are going to be a little less vibrant."
Many Hollywood directors still prefer to shoot with film cameras as industry bible Variety recently noted: Among other things, they value the discipline of knowing they must wrap -- the end of the reel is near.
How a film is shot is different from how it's projected, of course -- but both affect the quality to your eyes.
Texas Instruments points out that a digital presentation will be cleaner -- there's no dust, jitters or splices, after all. And you'll no longer see the changeover cues, those black dots that appear in the corner of a film to let a projectionist know when the reels needs to be switched.
Digital cuts costs for studios too, since distributors no longer need to ship huge reels of film to theaters around the country. And films arrive at the local megaplex much faster via the matrix than via planes, trains and automobiles.
In the digital system, studios supply theaters with a downlink from their network that can be captured on the theater's management system. The theater operator then sets up playlists with the day's program, the movies and trailers that entertain theatergoers.
Yet smaller theaters may find it difficult to survive if they don't make the switch -- and the very high cost of installing digital projection systems may be more than they can afford.
"Studios and other companies are helping commercial theaters help the big chains make that conversion," Moses told FoxNews.com. "They're going to be less concerned with a small independent theater."
Christie makes projectors for sale to movie theaters around the world. Almost two years ago, the company went digital -- after making film projectors for over 80 years.
"Because of the economic advantages of distribution via digital content, I became quite concerned about the future of Christie," Jack Kline, president and COO of Christie Digital Systems, told FoxNews.com. "If we didn't have a solution we could actually become extinct."
The company Kinoton, which calls itself "one of the biggest manufacturers of professional film projection technology," declined FoxNews.com requests for an interview. But experts say most film projector makers are racing to build and sell new digital models.
Is Kodak, the company that single-handedly pioneered much of the film industry getting involved in the rush? Not so much, the company said.
Kodak recently told Variety that its film business was still profitable and quite viable.
"We're still making billions of feet of film and will continue to do so," Ingrid Goodyear, vice president of marketing said. "For the foreseeable future we still see film to be an important part of Kodak's business."
America's cinema industry is big business; it's the largest film industry in the world. Last year, box office numbers reached an all time high at $31.8 billion, according to the Motion Picture Association of America. Yet despite the big bucks, attendance is steadily falling, and expected to hit a 16-year low in 2011 -- something expensive 3D moves can only do so much to offset.
Digital projectors have helped those 3D movies take form and improve quality for the audience. For example the box office hit Avatar would have been impossible to achieve with film.
"It's given us better animation and dynamics not as practical on 35mm film -- and a clearer and more steady picture," Kline said.
Most of us aren't cinephiles -- we're not rushing to see the latest foreign film and are more concerned with comfortable, stadium seating than how the images hits the screen. But no one wants to lose the classics; Raging Bull, or Citizen Kane or Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
Many small theaters are concerned that the transition might make movies that were printed on film obsolete.
"We need to make the best of the transition so that [film] won't disappear entirely and people can go to museums and see movies projected on 35mm," Moses said.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/23/film-projectors-rolling-out-theaters-for-good/#ixzz1hWHMKYw7
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-25-2011, 12:17 AM:
Great article, but it all boils down to getting "Hollyrock" to get movies out there that can have a good plot and storyline and get away from the tons of "eye-candy" and kiddie CGI stuff that's flooding the screens now.
..and put 3D back into the specialty movie closet.
Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 12-25-2011, 07:00 AM:
quote: Monte L Fullmer
put 3D back into the specialty movie closet
I couldn't agree with you more Monte. Last year when my kids were here, they wanted to see a movie. It was in 2D, RealD and IMAX3D. I forget the prices, I think it was $7 then $8 then $10 per ticket. My son wanted IMAX, to which I replied that they were the enemy ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
, we "experienced" the cartoon in RealD. At the end of the show, my son went to put his glasses in the box right outside the auditorium exit. I told him to keep them and wear them as sunglasses or put them in the recycle bin at home, I paid for them. (it sucks going to the movies and shelling out $50 to a theater that I helped build and worked for the owner for 13 years).
The 3D 8/70 systems I set up were in amusement parks, so once you paid to get through the gates your admission to see a 3D film was to stand in line.
Rick "The Polarizer" Hamilton
P.S. I'm thinking of starting a company called "REEL D" actual 35MM film (I think I'll charge extra for the "film" effect) ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
Posted by Bernie Anderson Jr (Member # 410) on 12-25-2011, 09:32 AM:
quote: Jack Ondracek
And films arrive at the local megaplex much faster via the matrix than via planes, trains and automobiles.
Then why am I still rushing to get crap on screen by the end of thursday? My drives come via UPS (at 8am in the morning!) No one is at the theatre that early, so the drive arrives at 8pm on the return trip back to the UPS depot. So it's not getting to the projector until 9-930 wed night!
To be honest, I've run film for 20 years in all different formats and I've never had the problems in any film booth that I'm having with 16 Sonys, a Christe and a D-IMAX. The sonys have ingest crashes where the projector locks up at 100% of the ingest and you now need to totally reboot the projector (not just restart SMS) and now there's a phantom bug in them that shows the movie is still playing and counting down the elapsed time but has stopped on screen. Again, another reboot. Sony doesn't seem to know what causes it. IMAX's SMS is sloppy at best. It doesn't stop when you press stop, the SMS crashes, you can't ingest while running and its USB ingest only!!! The only projector that is any good is my Christie. Its so good, we forget about it sometimes. These Sonys are a nightmare and unfortunately, they have the best conversion deal out there.
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-25-2011, 09:55 AM:
quote:
Then why am I still rushing to get crap on screen by the end of thursday? My drives come via UPS (at 8am in the morning!) No one is at the theatre that early, so the drive arrives at 8pm on the return trip back to the UPS depot. So it's not getting to the projector until 9-930 wed night!
That's still a hell of a lot better than Brakewater dropping prints off Friday morning at 1am, and having to rush to build them up before your first show at 10am.
And I am wondering if it matters much of this "news" "article" is, like many "news" items through Fox News, neither fair nor balanced?
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-25-2011, 01:21 PM:
quote: Bernie Anderson Jr
These Sonys are a nightmare and unfortunately, they have the best conversion deal out there.
Aaaaah, yes. ANOTHER fine compliment to the Sony system. For most people it doesn't matter how many times you say it, it just doesn't compute.
When calculating a financial decision, a proper decision should not be based upon the price. It should be based upon how much it will cost.
Case in point, buy the Sony package and it will "cost" you damn near into bankruptcy because of the extreme operating expenses. Buy a standard Barco/Christie/NEC setup and your "cost" will be somewhere in the middle. Buy a Film-Tech DCS and the "cost" is the cheapest out there.
Too many decision-making people failed math or simply don't understand the difference between the word "price" and "cost". ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-25-2011, 02:33 PM:
In the spirit of the season, I will be generous. . . .
I DO believe you expect too much from the "suits." After all, they are just like us only with nice clothes and good hair. They do not miss the "blonde bimbo" very far.
In the words of one of my former employees: "Poor people can't afford to be this stupid." Louis
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-25-2011, 06:26 PM:
quote: Brad Miller
Case in point, buy the Sony package and it will "cost" you damn near into bankruptcy because of the extreme operating expenses.
With a little luck that might just happen to Regal and AMC... or at least force them to sriously rethink many of their locations... It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys!!
Mark
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-25-2011, 07:14 PM:
quote:
Then why am I still rushing to get crap on screen by the end of thursday? My drives come via UPS (at 8am in the morning!) No one is at the theatre that early, so the drive arrives at 8pm on the return trip back to the UPS depot. So it's not getting to the projector until 9-930 wed night!
Do you not have a delivery room? We get most of our drives by Wednesday morning - some come as early as Monday. In the 18 months or so that we've had digital, I don't think I've had more than 2 drives show up on Thursday.
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 12-26-2011, 02:53 AM:
quote: Jack Ondracek
Digital cuts costs for studios too, since distributors no longer need to ship huge reels of film to theaters around the country.
So why is this not being passed on to the customers in the form of LOWER PRICES? It's also sad to see yet more comments here that there should be fewer 3D movies because they don't want to pay extra for them- the solution to that is to drop the premium charged for 3D. Couldn't help but notice a link to something else about "Why fewer families are going to the movies this year" too.
Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-26-2011, 08:13 AM:
Hardly surprising that Foxnews is reporting this issue in the usual Fox Limited News full-of- ![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
style. It's obviously no coincidence that Fox is also a non studio-participant in the Technicolor 3D film-based 3D system.
Tossers. ![[fu]](graemlins/fu.gif)
Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 12-26-2011, 08:40 AM:
Like others have said, I'm still waiting to see the hard drives arrive more than a day or so before the opening. Why is this? I sure cant play the thing unless I have the key!!!
I'm still having to ingest at each projector!
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-26-2011, 09:19 AM:
Bruce, What system (TMS/LMS) are you using that would necessitate ingesting at each projector? If you have it even on the same day one should have enough time to ingest at the LMS and push it to the theatre(s) needed.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-26-2011, 12:00 PM:
Booths with SONY's desparately needs TMS operations - only sane way to do ingests without problems.
quote: Brad Miller
don't understand the difference between the word "price" and "cost".
Obviously, no research wasn't performed prior to purchase then..
Newbie question: what makes the SONY units, high cost in operational expenses?
Posted by Robert Carnino (Member # 5633) on 12-26-2011, 12:13 PM:
Bye Bye film..Can't wait to go ALL DIGITAL!!!!
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-26-2011, 01:27 PM:
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Newbie question: what makes the SONY units, high cost in operational expenses?
A couple I can think of:
- 550 hour lamp life
- Changing out light engines every other year or so
due to aging/darkening
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-26-2011, 02:09 PM:
quote: Robert Carnino
Bye Bye film..Can't wait to go ALL DIGITAL!!!!
Does Mark G. have two profiles now? ![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Posted by Bernie Anderson Jr (Member # 410) on 12-26-2011, 04:09 PM:
My Sonys are very buggy. Along with low lamp hours and light engines that require cleaning every so often, their SMS is horrible. From my understanding, if you go with the Sony deal, their SMS is required. The Projector is not that bad, but the Software.... The latest issue with it is that it locks up on almost every ingest on every projector, which requires a hard reboot each time it happens. So if you're ingesting and a movie is running, you will have to wait till the movie ends to complete the ingest. Anyone that says, "well, ingest should happen on downtime and not during operation" has never had run a big chain multiplex where there is constant swaps. Its not practical to just ingest over night. And regardless, it will still lock up anyway, if its playing or idle. Now there is a bug in the firmware that stops the show after a clip or reel file, the screen goes blank. but the SMS is showing on the monitor that the show is playing just fine. They are slow on ingests on top of it. USB or network only, no CRU at the projector like a DoReMi or Dolby. So a standard movie on USB with the projector not playing is real time upload and through the library (depending on how many items are being ingested) is still 3/4 real time. With the Doremi, our Lord of the Rings reissue only took me 40 mins. And now, if the projector is running, its usually double time, so unless you plan on an interlock during your build ups during the week, you can't really do it on the fly. If I go in tonight at 6pm and they want an interlock or an extra screen for a 9pm show tonight, I'm probably not gonna get it on screen in time. It already has to be there. And you guys remember with film, a lot of interlocks came almost at the last minute (especially in the chain theaters). If you're running a small theatre and you're not doing crazy schedules every day, it probably will be ok, but otherwise they're clunky at best.
Posted by Steven J Hart (Member # 2340) on 12-26-2011, 05:02 PM:
quote: Bernie Anderson Jr
no CRU at the projector like a DoReMi or Dolby
or GDC......
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-26-2011, 06:11 PM:
Many of the films I had seen recently were all with digital projection at Regal's Pearl Highland Theatres because most of their screens are now set up for it. I do frequent Consolidated Theatres anymore because I am more than happy a the Regal theatre located not too far from where I live but I did get to see a film based movie at Consolidated Ward 16 in Honolulu yesterday on Christmas and it was superb!. I saw WAR HORSE and both the movie and everything about it was excellent. The show I saw was the first unspooling of the film because I caught the first presentation and the screening was great. What I saw yesterday on film at the Ward looked just as good as the gorgeous digital shows at the Pearl Highland I had recently seen. As a person who grew up loving movies projected from film, I will miss the format when it is fully replaced by digital within the next four year.
-Clauade
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-26-2011, 06:13 PM:
Thx, Claude for sharing that bit of info on how film presentations can be just as good as a digital ...
SONY's - make sure that the media block server isn't past 70% on saved content when beginning to do any ingests, otherwise, thing will definitely have probs doing USB ingests from the HD.
Keep that server cleaned out and do a cold boot once a week and they'll behave.
Oh, the XDC4200S from Philips are now rated at 700hrs before the warranty pull....
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-26-2011, 10:15 PM:
Oh sure the lamps are expensive and don't last long at all, but when you have to burn a 4K lamp in a Sony vs. burning a 3K or even a 2K lamp in a real projector...that'll cost you more in electricity too.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-27-2011, 08:10 AM:
Well! Other than THAT, it is perfect. Louis
Posted by Bernie Anderson Jr (Member # 410) on 12-27-2011, 08:59 AM:
Monte,
I've tried countless ways to figure out the ingest problems. At first I thought the 100% ingest crash had to do with the percentage of the hard drive usage, but there seems to be no correlation to crash and the usage at all. I've had projectors that I would ingest to that were at 24% with a hard drive going to the projector directly and it would still lock up. Some of these screens I reboot at least 3 or 4 times a week. It doesn't matter. There is definitely something going on.
We still have some theaters that do not have library's and you have to go directly to the Sonys.
I never understood the HD drive arrival date either. We had a sneak of "We Bought a Zoo" one Saturday. The HD showed up about 3 days before. Great. The following week, we had another sneak of the same film in the same screen. Great, again! Nope. They sent out a note on Thursday saying that the distributor was sending ANOTHER hard drive, which was to arrive by 4pm on Saturday (the same day as the 730pm show). The content as exactly the same, but the CPL had a different date code! Which also means, keys that won't work with the first file. WHY?! And then to send the damn HD the same day and expect it to be ingested in time for a showtime 3 hours later?! This is the kind of crap that will kill theaters
Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 12-27-2011, 09:05 AM:
Steve G, I replied to you directly.
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-27-2011, 09:39 AM:
Bernie, the content for the two sneaks of We Bought a Zoo was not exactly the same. While I still have yet to watch the entire movie, I did notice some small and subtle changes during the last 15 minutes of the movie in the revised print.
Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 12-27-2011, 10:01 AM:
I tend to defend the sony to a degree on the grounds that I have to work with them.
I can get behind most of the remarks here but if you can't beat them (I.e. stuck with them) then join them.
talk to your rep. Document everything.
I wont say what they did but they've been pretty reasonable about making the projectors we have usable.
they're still more unstable than id like. Our dolby and Marco is a he'll of a lot more consistent than the r220s we have but they're getting there.
If you have ingest problems check your firmware.
And don't push more than 6 ingests over the network at a time. The server is shotgunned but even that wont keep up after a certain point.
We operate a high volume in a small space theater with sony machines so choreography is second nature to us. It has to be.
you've just got to think efficiency ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Lastly, they have tms. Beat on your reps head to get it working how you'd like.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-27-2011, 10:34 AM:
quote: John Wilson
Does Mark G. have two profiles now?
No, but I feel much the same way. I'm tired of the oily, messy, antiquated film equipment. I have a garage full of filum equipment... come and get it! Jet powered film projector should have replaced the Steam driven units many years ago.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-27-2011, 12:36 PM:
quote: Dominic Espinosa
check your firmware
Has to be v.5.00 or better.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-27-2011, 01:36 PM:
sooo mark garage full come and get it does that include westrex 5000s
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-27-2011, 02:47 PM:
You have to take the bases too!
Posted by Kyle Cranney (Member # 6198) on 12-27-2011, 03:05 PM:
I can vouch for Mark's garage, and his storage sheds.
He's like the keeper of the Museum of Film.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-27-2011, 03:33 PM:
I don't understand this psychological need that people have to declare film dead. It's weird.
Disregard the quality aspect of the two formats.
As many of you predicted, years ago, the cost factors ended up being a wash and, in fact, in some cases digital is more expensive.
What else do you gain? Labor savings? Maybe. Depends on how you do the math.
It's a fucking VIDEO PROJECTOR. Plain and simple!
It's a big, expensive, complicated video projector. Nothing more.
The only difference between video and movies is marketing.
What fancy-ass high-fallutin' words can some marketing "expert" come up with to describe video that will make people want to have it?
DIGITAL!
And people are so fucking stupid that they buy it!
Here's a good example:
"MiO Water enhancer."
What is this stuff? It's a little bottle of liquid flavoring that you pay $3.99 for. You squirt some into your bottled water and you drink it.
Do you want to know what it really is?
KOOL-AID! It's fucking Kool-Aid!
Yes, people are so FUCKING STUPID that they are willing to pay $4.00 for KOOL-AID... something that they can buy in the supermarket, five for a dollar.
And it's all because some marketing asshole thought up the words, "water enhancer."
And, people are stupid enough to fucking believe it!
And, people are stupid enough to jump on the bandwagon and declare film "dead" because some fucking asshole at Fox News wrote an article that says so.
People are just fucking weird.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-27-2011, 03:36 PM:
are they the reel 5000 bases or just century ones
Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 12-27-2011, 03:59 PM:
[QUOTE]are they the reel 5000 bases or just century ones /QUOTE]
I think they were a complete set he had pulled out the Cinerama 70mm Theatre a few years, some where I had a message from Mark G about them.
Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-27-2011, 05:20 PM:
Mark.
Any chance of getting a list of stuff you have for disposal? I'm in need of a Century DAW2 film trap and intermittent pad assy.
I wholeheartedly agree with Randy's comments above. One very spot-on observation and I'm interested to see how it pads out.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-27-2011, 05:34 PM:
Gord...
They are reel Westrex 5000 bases!! BUT... you have to come get them... I won't ship because I don't want to even move them, or even touch them for that matter. The Westrex Penthouses have unused 6 tack Teccon Heads in them. I think there is an extra 5000 head and possibly an optical reproducer.
There is a complete and runnable Simplex with a Western Electric 211A sound reproducer. Three point base. No lamp house though. I have an old ORC 1600 watt xenon I'll throw in to who ever buys it.
What is not for sale in my Garage:
The VistaVision Projector
None of the Phillips FP-56 stuff.
None of the Strong Switchers.
There will be like 14 or so Century Projectors and related junk available in the very near future... so hang in there.
Randy... Let me know how it pans out in the not too distant future when you have no film to run.
Mark
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-27-2011, 07:40 PM:
My point has very little to do with the medium through which content is presented. For all I care, you could stick an aerial into somebody's skin and run a signal through his brain. (Yes, it's from The Normal.)
No, the question is why do people have the pathological desire to build one complex, abstract concept upon another then use this as a basis to decide what's real? Why can't people just perceive reality as it is and act upon that?
The way it is, now, all we have to do is think up some new words or series of words to describe something and people will flock to it as if that thing really is new when, in reality the object in question is just a rehash of something that's been around for years.
Compare:
MiO Liquid Water Enhancer -- http://www.kraftbrands.com/mio/
You mix it with water and drink it. It tastes sweet and artificially fruity.
Kool-Aid -- http://www.kraftbrands.com/koolaid/
You mix it with water and drink it. It tastes sweet and artificially fruity.
Mio = Kool-Aid.
The difference? MiO costs $3.99 each. Kool-Aid costs $1.00 for five of them.
Other than that, some slick marketing person built up one abstract marketing concept on another until he was able to hornswoggle the consumer into paying TWENTY TIMES the price for virtually the exact same product.
The same thing goes here:
Digital video is to MiO as movie is to Kool-Aid.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-27-2011, 10:20 PM:
quote:
What fancy-ass high-fallutin' words can some marketing "expert" come up with to describe video that will make people want to have it?
DIGITAL!
And people are so fucking stupid that they buy it!
I don't think it's anything to do with people being stupid or not. It's just what people want to do. They want to go out to the movies. Not sit at home in front of their TV. They don't care how the picture gets there -- just that it's there. Most of them have thought we were projecting video for years anyway.
Done properly, a digitally projected image looks almost exactly like a properly-projected film image .... to the vast majority of people.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-27-2011, 11:42 PM:
Randy, I really have to disagree with the point you're attempting to make. Comparing Film vs. Digital to different types of water flavoring is completely off base.
The conversion from film to digital is completely changing the movie theatre business model. Not only does it change the way content is received and delivered to the screen, but it changes the economics, and it changes what it means to be a "movie theatre" with the accessibility to alternative content.
Perhaps an article from Fox News, or some other consumer news outlet, is unnecessary because the changes don't substantially affect the consumer. But that's a different issue.
Rather than comparing the change to water flavoring, perhaps it would be more appropriate to compare it to something like broadcast vs cable television. Yes, both resulted in a picture being delivered to home television. But the change had much broader implications than simply improving the quality of the picture.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-28-2011, 12:18 AM:
The real point here is who is being sold.
The cinema owner really has no choice, he needs to play content to make money and stay in the game.
"Digital" really has nothing to do with it, it just is the new "standard."
AFAIK no one in studio land is really trying to sell digital as better than film to the audience, it's just happening right under their nose. They just want to see a movie.
So, the only net difference is that 3D is feasible at any cinema with no real fuss so more people can experience it, FWIW.
The broader implications don't really matter to the audience. If they don't see the alternate content on the big screen, they will see it at home.
The implications are all inside baseball stuff that matters only to us in the game, IMHO.
Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-28-2011, 12:30 AM:
quote: Sam D. Chavez
The implications are all inside baseball stuff that matters only to us in the game, IMHO.
I totally agree - with one addition.
It matters greatly to those small movie houses that cannot afford to convert and hence close.
THIS aspect of the conversion issue really gets on my tits.
Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 12-28-2011, 07:38 AM:
quote: Ian Parfrey
really gets on my tits.
Ian, that's a good one. Never heard that expression before, but you bet your ass, I'm gonna use it
Rick
Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 12-28-2011, 07:38 AM:
We all know digital is capable of great things, and while film is awesome, it's just no longer practical.
As Ian said, the thing that sucks is the venues being left behind. We've established that 99% of people just want to see the movie and don't care about the format, but the cinemas that can't afford the upgrade and close because they can't show anything aren't even fulfilling that need.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-28-2011, 08:21 AM:
Justin, the physical comparison is irrelevant. I specifically chose the water/movie comparison because they are two different things.
The point I am making is that, simply by calling things by a different name, we trick people into thinking they are something different.
Do you remember the old joke of calling a garbage man "Sanitation Engineer?" A Sanitation Engineer is still a garbage man, no matter how you look at it.
Some empty suit in the marketing department of Kraft Foods came up with a way to sell Kool-Aid by giving it a different name.
Some empty suit in a corner office somewhere in Hollywood came up with a way to sell digital video by giving it a fancier name and declaring film "dead."
It's nothing more than a trick of words. Yes, it is changing the face of the movie industry and it's redefining what it means to be a movie theater. I don't think it's a good change at all.
The general public and most of the people in the movie theater industry have been hoodwinked by word tricks. That's why I think people are so stupid.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-28-2011, 10:02 AM:
quote: Sam D. Chavez
AFAIK no one in studio land is really trying to sell digital as better than film to the audience, it's just happening right under their nose. They just want to see a movie.
Thats very true and in fact I'd wager that 98% of the people going to see the movies are there for the movie and not there because of what equipment it is being shown on. People like us account for the other 2%...
Mark
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-28-2011, 01:52 PM:
quote: Sam D. Chavez
it just is the new "standard."
Thus, someone is gonna be paying for this new 'standard' if the public doesn't know the difference, or even care how the content is presented..just, 'to quote a phrase' .. how it gets on the screen.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-28-2011, 05:10 PM:
If nobody really cares how the movie gets presented then why the change?
The economics at the theater level turned out to be a wash if not a greater expense. I remember many of you saying just that.
Repair and maintenance turned out to be a wash. While executives were touting digital's superiority in the maintenance department, we were sitting here laughing at the theaters who adopted digital early on and who ended up with dark screens because of it. Many of us agree that there are just as many maintenance issues with digital projectors are there are with film.
Security is a laugh. HDCP has already been cracked. The only saving grace is that it takes specialized hardware to decode the data in real time.
Hey! Wait a second! Doesn't it take specialized hardware to play back a 35mm movie, too?
Hmmm... I guess it's another wash.
So, there are three ways that, for all its promises, digital video has been a wash for the theaters. Nothing lost and nothing gained, for the most part.
Why the change, then? It didn't really benefit us. The customers don't give a rat's ass. Who does it benefit?
Why would anybody spend all this time and money to convince people to change from one perfectly good presentation medium to another when, in the end it all ends up being equal for the theaters?
Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 12-28-2011, 05:42 PM:
I wasn't aware that the security of dcinema has been cracked. Has it? At what point? Can someone take a DCP and pull the audio and video out without the KDM? Or, if they have the KDM, can they pull it out without being on the trusted device list? Or has someone managed to imitate a trusted device? I think the studios are pushing for the migration from interop to SMPTE DCPs partially for improved security. The forensic marking by the media blocks should also help chase down piracy sources.
I don't know the numbers, but I'd expect there to be a substantial savings from not making film prints and shipping them. Of course, it does cost something to duplicate hard drives, but it SEEMS that making film prints would be a lot more expensive. Then, moving to satellite or other electronic delivery would eliminate this hard drive duplication cost. There's still the cost of the circuit time, but that might be comparable to freight on a bunch of hard drives.
So... it SEEMS that distributing movies digitally should be less expensive and more secure than film. On quality, I think 4k looks pretty good. Much better than the 2k I've seen. This was watching 2k and 4k versions of Sintel on a DLP projector.
Harold
Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 12-28-2011, 05:47 PM:
Keep going Randy. I'm behind you 100%.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-28-2011, 05:49 PM:
Sounds like an excecutive decision for this change...for what reason, we'll never know.
Reminds me of a person, to pay off one credit debt with another credit debt, will take a square rug, cut it in half, trade the ends around and sewing the opposite ends together .. and you still have the same square blanket as the results.
Who wins? .. and that topic has been around a few times before.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-28-2011, 06:15 PM:
Randy Says,
"Why the change, then? It didn't really benefit us. The customers don't give a rat's ass. Who does it benefit?
Why would anybody spend all this time and money to convince people to change from one perfectly good presentation medium to another when, in the end it all ends up being equal for the theaters?"
We already know the answers to all this.
The studios have the content and at the end of the day, the cinema owner needs the content to keep them off the streets. God knows to what ruin they would come to if they tried to run other entertainment based venues.
There was the matter of cinema owners not needing skilled labor in the booth. Some might call this greed, progress, or whatever you please.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-28-2011, 06:50 PM:
First they didn't need skilled projectionists in booths and then by the time digital came around they didn't need unskilled minimum wage kids in the booth.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-28-2011, 07:08 PM:
The HDCP algorithm has been reverse engineered and the master key has been publicized. The studios tried to squelch the news but not before the key was in the wild. You can find it if you look hard enough.
Again, the key won't do you much good unless you have the hardware to do the heavy lifting. The algorithm was designed to be done in hardware such that software decoding, although possible, can't be done in real time. Even then, this presupposes that you know how to use the master key once you get it.
Bottom line: It's not easy but it can be done. HDCP won't stop anybody but an honest thief.
quote: Sam D. Chavez
The studios have the content and at the end of the day, the cinema owner needs the content to keep them off the streets.
Ding! It's the studios that are feeding everybody a line of bullshit just so they can stack the deck in their own favor. They are taking advantage of the theater owners' greed to do it.
They promised that eliminating film would cut cost. The promised that automating the booth would eliminate labor costs and lower payroll.
But, if all that's true, why has the average cost of a movie ticket gone UP? You would expect the increased cost of a movie ticket to, at most, keep pace with inflation.
The truth is that this is all nothing more than words after words; abstract concepts built upon abstract concepts; piles of bullshit stacked on top of piles of bullshit; specifically targeted to the consumer (who really doesn't give a rat's ass in the first place) and designed to take advantage of the theater owners' greed, all for the purpose of allowing the Hollywood studios to keep more of the money for themselves.
We've all been hoodwinked and the only difference is that we now pay more for the same crap we were getting before.
It's a $4.00 package of Kool-Aid that we once paid 20˘ for.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-28-2011, 07:59 PM:
Randy, it's true that digital doesn't significantly benefit theatres. Any short term labor savings are probably washed out by long term maintenance costs. In reality, we won't really have a handle on this until years down the road.
The real issue is that we are essentially a middle man. We play content for someone else and collect a fee for doing so. If the content owner decides they want to send it in a different format, we can choose to comply.
Really what it boils down to is someone is saving a huge chunk of change by not producing 35mm prints. Another thread had a debate on the cost of a 35mm print; If we can use $1500 per print for the sake of discussion, it could be a quarter to half a billion dollars a year being saved by eliminating 35mm.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-28-2011, 08:22 PM:
So the studios save money, the theater owners are left to eat nothing but shit sandwiches yet the cost of movie tickets still rises faster than the rate of inflation.
A four dollar pitcher of Kool-Aid.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-28-2011, 08:25 PM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
long term maintenance costs
This'll keep the techs rolling in a secure, long term job for sure...
Have you noticed the drop in percentage of tix sales in the last two years along with the announcement of a 16yr low in sales with this news story below:
quote:
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Hollywood has more tricks in its bag than ever with digital 3-D and other new film tools. Yet as the images on screen get bigger and better, movie crowds keep shrinking — down to a 16-year low as 2011's film lineup fell well short of studios' record expectations.
Through New Year's Eve on Saturday, projected domestic revenues for the year stand at $10.2 billion, down 3.5 percent from 2010's, according to box-office tracker Hollywood.com. Taking higher ticket prices into account, movie attendance is off even more, with an estimated 1.28 billion tickets sold, a 4.4 percent decline and the smallest movie audience since 1995, when admissions totaled 1.26 billion.
Just what has put the movie business in the dumps is anyone's guess — though safe bets include the tight economy, rising ticket prices, backlash against parades of sequels or remakes, and an almost-limitless inventory of portable and at-home gadgetry to occupy people's time.
The year got off to a dismal start with what could be called an "Avatar" hangover, when revenues lagged far behind 2010 receipts that had been inflated by the huge success of James Cameron's sci-fi sensation.
A solid summer lineup helped studios catch up to 2010, but ticket sales flattened again in the fall and have remained sluggish right into what was expected to be a terrific holiday season.
"There were a lot of high-profile movies that just ended up being a little less than were hoped for," said Chris Aronson, head of distribution for 20th Century Fox, whose sequel "Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked" has been part of an under-achieving lineup of family films for the holidays. "The fall was pretty dismal. There just weren't any real breakaway, wide-appeal films."
Big franchises still are knocking it out of the park. "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2," the finale to J.K. Rowling's fantasy epic, was the year's biggest earner and the top-grossing film in the series at $381 million domestically and $1.3 billion worldwide.
"Transformers: Dark of the Moon" pulled in $352 million domestically and $1.1 billion worldwide, while "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn — Part 1" has climbed to $271 million domestically and $650 million worldwide.
Other franchises did well in 2011 but came up short of their predecessors on the domestic front, among them "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides," ''The Hangover Part II," ''Kung Fu Panda 2," ''Cars 2" and "X-Men: First Class."
Strong overseas business has helped make up for shrinking domestic revenues and declining DVD sales. But 2011 was the second-straight year that domestic attendance declined sharply, and audiences generally have been shrinking since 2002, when admissions hit a modern high of 1.6 billion.
It could be a case of the same-old same-olds, with fans growing tired of over-familiar characters and stories. It could be overcrowded weekends such as Thanksgiving, when studios loaded up on family films that cannibalized one another's audiences. It could be the economy, with fans growing more selective on how often they spend their spare cash to catch a movie, particularly at a time when so many films play in 3-D with premium ticket prices.
And it could be the times we live in, when audiences have so many gadgets to play with that they don't need to go to the movies as much as they once did.
"It's not any one thing. It's a little bit of everything," said Jeff Goldstein, general sales manager at Warner Bros., whose Robert Downey Jr. sequel "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" has done solid business, yet is coming in well short of the first installment. "But consumers are being more specific with their choices on how to spend their money. The options are a little greater than they were a few years ago with gaming and social-networking opportunities."
The year's animated slate failed to produce a $200 million hit, the first time that's happened since 2005. Likewise, comic-book superheroes slipped in 2011, the genre unable to deliver a $200 million hit for only the second time in the last 10 years.
Even Adam Sandler, one of Hollywood's most-bankable stars, had a mixed year, managing a $100 million hit with "Just Go With It" but barely crossing $70 million with "Jack and Jill."
Studio executives typically blame slow business on "the product" — weak movies that leave fans indifferent. But during the first few months of the year, when business lagged as much as 20 percent behind 2010's, studios were confident they had great product coming, with many executives predicting that 2011 would finish with record revenues, topping the all-time domestic high of $10.6 billion in 2009.
The movies themselves turned out fairly good, and surprise smashes such as "Bridesmaids," ''The Help," ''Rise of the Planet of the Apes" and "The Smurfs" boosted business.
But the year was littered with duds ("Happy Feet Two," ''Tower Heist," ''Cowboys & Aliens"). And with only days left in 2011, Tom Cruise's "Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol" is leading a batch of holiday releases that so far has done only so-so business, despite generally good reviews and high marks from the fans that are showing up.
Hollywood is left right where it was 12 months ago, finishing the year quietly and looking ahead to a promising lineup to turn its fortunes around next year.
Even more so than 2011's schedule once looked, the 2012 film list looks colossal. Among the highlights: the superhero tales "The Dark Knight Rises," ''The Amazing Spider-Man" and "The Avengers"; the latest in the animated franchises "Ice Age" and "Madagascar," along with "Brave," the new adventure from animation master Pixar; Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones' "Men in Black 3"; Daniel Craig's new James Bond thriller "Skyfall"; Johnny Depp's vampire story "Dark Shadows"; Ridley Scott's "Prometheus," a cousin to his sci-fi classic "Alien"; and Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey," the first in a two-part prequel to his "Lord of the Rings" films.
That's just a small sampling of 2012's big-screen titles, which also include 3-D reissues of "Titanic," ''Finding Nemo," ''Beauty and the Beast" and "Star Wars: Episode I — The Phantom Menace."
Looking ahead, there's good reason for optimism in Hollywood. Looking back, though, the past year spells caution.
"I'm not prepared to be Chicken Little yet, but if the films coming in 2012 can't reverse this trend, then I think we need to reevaluate our expectations," said Hollywood.com analyst Paul Dergarabedian. "We are living in a different world today than we did in the mid-'90s in terms of the technology available to deliver media. That may finally be having an impact."
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-28-2011, 10:18 PM:
The end of the story, and the explanation for the whole thing, can be found right here:
quote:
The year got off to a dismal start with what could be called an "Avatar" hangover, when revenues lagged far behind 2010 receipts that had been inflated by the huge success of James Cameron's sci-fi sensation.
Factor in "Alice in Wonderland" -- which was a 340-million dollar hit in MARCH, a month that almost never has that size hits....there's your difference between '10 and '11 right there.
The media just loves to spew doom and gloom scenarios. It's a load of crap. The cause of an up, or down year is ALWAYS the product. Sure, the movies from this past summer LOOKED great on paper but how many of them actually WERE great? How many times do these studio idiots think they can go to the well with these sequels and remakes? If they make GOOD MOVIES there's no problem but how good was "Pirates 4?" "Hangover 2?" "Happy Feet 2?" and so on. The word on a crap movie spreads faster than ever these days --- but so does the word on a great movie. That's why "True Grit" was a hit for weeks after it came out.
The trouble is, if they tell the actual facts, it makes for a boring story. Or another thing, the media is apparently populated by people under 30 who have no reference to the past -- since the exact same phenomenon happened the year after "Titanic," the year after "Lion King," the year after "Passion of the Christ," and so on and so on and so on.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-28-2011, 10:40 PM:
quote: AP News Story
Even more so than 2011's schedule once looked, the 2012 film list looks colossal. Among the highlights: the superhero tales "The Dark Knight Rises," ''The Amazing Spider-Man" and "The Avengers"; the latest in the animated franchises "Ice Age" and "Madagascar," along with "Brave," the new adventure from animation master Pixar; Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones' "Men in Black 3"; Daniel Craig's new James Bond thriller "Skyfall"; Johnny Depp's vampire story "Dark Shadows"; Ridley Scott's "Prometheus," a cousin to his sci-fi classic "Alien"; and Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey," the first in a two-part prequel to his "Lord of the Rings" films.
That's just a small sampling of 2012's big-screen titles, which also include 3-D reissues of "Titanic," ''Finding Nemo," ''Beauty and the Beast" and "Star Wars: Episode I — The Phantom Menace."
Hmm. Out of that list of would-be blockbusters, Only two of them are new movies (Brave and Dark Shadows). Any major studio can plunge $200 million into producing a sequel or remake and have it spit-shined to a fine iridescent glossy sheen. Nevertheless, the audience is always going to have that "been there, done that" feel, even if the movie was really pretty good.
I'd like to see The Dark Knight Rises in the theater, but would prefer to see it in 15/70 IMAX. That's going to involve planning some kind of trip to Austin, TX or somewhere else that might still have 15/70 gear installed. I will NOT bother with any IMAX Digital crap. It ain't worth the hefty premium. In all likelihood I'll probably just watch it locally at the Carmike 8. Lawton to Austin is 350 miles. Some friends of mine live in Austin, but still that trip represents some serious gas money.
Roger Ebert has a new op-ed piece listing 6 reasons why he thinks attendance is falling. The Avatar hangover factor is one. But other pains in the ass one encounters too often in theaters are definitely driving away many long time customers. Combine that with all the in-home digital conveniences of watching Blu-ray or streaming movies via more than a dozen online services and it makes the decision to watch movies at home so much more easy.
If the movie really has my interest peaked, I'll make a genuine effort to see it in the theater. Unfortunately far too many movies give me the "I'll wait for the Blu-ray rental" or "I'll wait for it on cable" vibe.
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-28-2011, 11:01 PM:
Randy, going from film to digital changes the playing field for everyone. It's been discussed on F-T many times, and I just think you're playing the Tom Petrov role in this thread for... well, shit, I don't know why. You're just dead set on being the cranky old man about this, no matter how many benefits digital distribution and exhibition has over film.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-28-2011, 11:37 PM:
Yeah, you're pretty much right. Maybe it's the pills I'm taking. (Not joking.)
Regardless of how edgy I am about it, I think my point still stands true: Movie executives have been relying more on fancy words to describe old things and just plain bullshitting than they have on providing substance. And, this is Hollywood we're talking about! The land of bullshit! And, now, the bullshitters are believing their own bullshit.
The problem with layering abstract concepts on top of abstract concepts and using fancier and fancier words to describe things is that people are eventually going to get wise. You can only string people along so much before they stop believing you.
That is what I think is happening. The underlying concepts are starting to crack and the mountain of bullshit is beginning to cave in.
Look at what Bobby just said. Only two movies on the list of upcoming would-be blockbusters are new, he doesn't seem interested in going to any of them at this point and he says that he's likely to wait for them to come out on home video before he watches them.
When the people who are in the movie business don't even want to watch the movies anymore, that's pretty freakin' bad!
The switch from film to digital video is just a symptom of the problem. Hollywood just can't sustain itself on the course it is on. The empty suits are squirming and they are trying to weasel out of the bind they put themselves into and they are doing it on the backs of the movie theaters.
They are counting on the pundits and the reviewers and so-called insiders to band together and proclaim film to be dead and that DIGITAL MOVIES will usher in a new era. They are trying to take advantage of the herd mentality.
Maybe I am acting like a cranky, old man but, the way I see it, theater owners have been led down the primrose path and, unless something changes, they could be coming to the end of the road or, at least, the end of movie theaters the way we know them today.
Again, back to the bottom line. People in the movie business, the studios and the theaters, need to quit using fancy words to describe the same old crap and start producing some new crap or else they'll all be in trouble.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-29-2011, 12:44 AM:
quote: Randy Stankey
describe the same old crap and start producing some new crap or else they'll all be in trouble.
Thus, makes one wonder who will make the first step then if both plan on keeping travelling on the survival road?
Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-29-2011, 01:47 AM:
I totally agree with Randy.
He's not being the cranky old man here, he is stating a trueism.
The theatres that can afford the conversion will do well- for the time being anyway. Those that can not afford it will just close.
Which ever way you cut this, it sucks arse big time.
quote: Randy Stankey
theater owners have been led down the primrose path and, unless something changes, they could be coming to the end of the road or, at least, the end of movie theaters the way we know them today.
The studios will not and do not give a shit about these cinemas. That suits them, they do not want the exhibition industry to skive off coin from any given movie's bottom line. Why would they? It's called 'cutting out the middle man', and guess what? Cinemas (in the eyes of the studio money men) ARE the middle men.
And what better way to get this process going?
...how about forcing a technical change, under the guise of 3D capability, that will prove to be way too expensive for many locations to fund.
Okay, so far it's Studios 1 Exhibitors 0.
Next step is to lock down operation of the very same equipment they have forced on to the exhibitors. How smart is this!
Would anyone here buy a car and only get to drive it when the manufacturer gives you the keys? Fuck no!
Studios 2 Exhibitors 0.
Next step. Maintainenance and running costs on the projectors. Do the math and cross check the running ( AND initial purchasing cost) of 35/70mm film based systems versus 2k/4k/whatever k projectors. On longevity alone, 35mm equipment shits on any digital projector available today.
Studios 3 Exhibitors 0.
Final step. Make the product virtually identical to what is available in the home.
We have to screen DVD's of some movies for fuck sake! No prizes for guessing what Joe Public watches at home. So why would he want to come out and pay a premium to get what he gets at home for peanuts?
Studios 4 Exhibitors still 0.
So now we are forced to show an identical product, for more, at more inconvienience to the patron and we are supposed to think this is a good idea? WTF?
Sorry, but Randy is spot on here. It pisses me right off when I constantly hear the bleatings of the pro-conversion set. THE BOX-OFFICE FIGURES PROVE THE DIGITAL ADVANTAGE IS A CON....and the best part from the studios POV is that the cost is shunted onto the exhibitor.
I only hope those who have converted make more than enough profit to replace their equipment in 5-6 years time. Whether there will be cinemas as we know it in that time span is a question to ponder.
Now THIS is being a cranky old man.
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-29-2011, 03:05 AM:
Quick question for those who think studios don't give a shit about theatres...
Why have so many studios own movie theatre chains around the world?
Ian, in your part of the world, Village Roadshow produces movies, distributes movies and show them in their Village Cinemas. They also own a number of cinemas in the United States, and co-own Golden Village in Singapore alongside Golden Harvest, who themselves are a producer, distributor and exhibitor of motion pictures. The French company Pathe produces and distributes movies, and owns a chain of theatres around Europe, in conjunction with Gaumont, another company that produces and distributes movies. You can also count India's Reliance MediaWorks as a company who not only produces and distributes movies, but also owns chains of cinemas around the world.
And, of course, let's not forget that Landmark Theatres is owned by 2929 Entertainment, who also produce movies and distributes movies through Magnolia Pictures. Or that Warner Brothers owns a number of cinema chains around the world. Or that Paramount Pictures (who until yesterday operated Mann Theatres in conjunction with Warner Brothers through a limited partnership) is a part of National Amusements, which operates more than 1,500 movie theatres around the world. Or that Disney spent $14m restoring one theatre in Hollywood to use as their flagship theatre.
And let's not forget that in our very recent past, Sony used to own Loews, that Universal used to own 49% of Cineplex Odeon, that Cannon owns a number of cinemas around the world, or that studios have been finding ways to get around the Paramount Decree since the Paramount Decree was first issued in the late 1940s.
So can we PLEASE, once and for all, get this bullshit belief that the studios don't give a damn about theatres out of the argument?
Digital benefits the studios in the long run, because they don't need to spend billions each year creating 35mm prints. It benefits independents, who don't need to spend millions of dollars on 35mm prints to get their films in to theatres. It benefits the environment, which isn't being strip mined for resources to create 35mm prints, or being polluted from planes and trucks getting those prints to theatres. It benefits theatres, who now have a greater variety of programming to play in their theaters.
The only people the digital conversion isn't helping are those who were too stubborn and/or foolish to wake up to the fact that the biggest seismic shift in their industry in their lifetime was breathing down upon them, and did nothing to prepare for it.
And that's the only way it cuts.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-29-2011, 03:39 AM:
quote: Edward Havens
The only people the digital conversion isn't helping are those who were too stubborn and/or foolish to wake up to the fact that the biggest seismic shift in their industry in their lifetime was breathing down upon them, and did nothing to prepare for it.
I've been working in the theatre industry since 1996. I would say that by 1999-2000, it was a foregone conclusion digital was going to happen. And certainly by 2002 when the DCI was formed. Anyone in the industry who claims that it came as a surprise has either had their head in the sand or has been in denial.
At the very least, people should have saw the writing on the wall when the ramp up of digital installations leading up to Avatar's release, and the acceleration after that. Now the projections I'm hearing are that 85-90% of US screens could be digital by July of 2012.
At this point it's not even worth further discussion about whether digital is a good idea. Digital is the reality of the movie exhibition industry and there is no turning back. Whether you like it or not, the reality is that 35mm film as a medium for the exhibition of new movies will probably be done before the end of 2012. Maybe it will linger for a while as a niche market with a handful of prints moving from theatre to theatre where it was booked months in advance. But sure as DVD killed VHS as a commercial release medium, DCinema has already signed the death warrant for 35mm film.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-29-2011, 06:24 AM:
Hmmmm.....how to join this latest volley of "discussion."
Historically, studios have only "liked" exhibition WHEN they own it. As others have said, without them owning it, they are paying a middle man and are not making all of the profit.
Part of the declining revenues from theatres is the studio's doing. Their release window between cinema and home is WAY TOO SHORT. It hurts BOTH markets because the potential patron now can choose to wait to see that big release at home, where it is now ultimately cheaper than in the cinema (try taking your family to a theatre for less than the cost of even an expensive BluRay).
These short release windows even hurt home sales...there is no need to rush out and get a movie that you may have already seen not too long ago. Furthermore, once it hits the home market...it seems to stay there indefinitely so again, there is no rush to get it (Disney does limited home releases on their classics).
If the studios would bring back 1-year plus release windows on the theatrical releases, they would see a marked increase on their theatrical ticket sales. Furthermore, they can have all of the hoopla once it does get to the home market. Instead, they choose to dilute BOTH markets and cry about poor sales.
They also need to loose this fixation with theft as the cause for lost sales. Anyone that thinks that all of those "thefts" would turn into revenue is delusional. Some of it would as there are those that fall to temptation or too-good-to-be-true pricing but by and large, those that steal content (movies, software...etc) would not buy or could not afford it in a legitimate manner. This does not condone theft, something I truly despise but I also realize that the elimination of movie theft would barely change the bottom line of a movie's gross, if at all.
As to the DCinema part of this "discussion" DCinema has zero affect on boxoffice...even the 3D BS was ALWAYS possible with film...Hollywood only CHOSE to release it digital only. Heck we still have studios like Fox and Disney that CHOOSE to only release digitally.
How many of you that are now digital or plan to be digital before October 2012 paid for your equipment WITHOUT VPFs? Of those of you that have your hands still up...how many of you could have paid for your equipment WITHOUT VPFs? Those of you with your hands still up are the ones that can truly afford DCinema...the rest of you are heading for "going out of business." The reason is you really can't afford the equipment you bought. In fact, you'll be in for some rude surprises in a few years when that light engine goes and the bill will be $15K-20K and then it happens again on another projector. This stuff is EXPENSIVE and the current fire-sale prices on DCinema equipment will fade away after 2012 when the sales plummet. Those that don't realize how cheap DCinema equipment is in the video industry should check out what "equivalent" A/V projectors sell for (compare resolution, and brightness). Dealers are currently forced into new lows in pricing due to the high volume (a missed sale could mean missing dozens of systems, not just one complex). This creates instability in that market place too. A company must charge enough to remain stable. Those that charge too little generally fold up once the boom is over because their business model was based on high-volume.
Whereas the exhibitor never bore the cost of 35mm film (except maybe in shipping) the costs associated with film were that of the distributor so it is clear who digital benefits when it comes to just the media.
Very little of digital's theatre benefits can not be done with film, despite it not having been done. That is, in automating. Digital can certainly lower the amount of man-power required in the cinema and that should result in some cost savings (which is reoccurring so its advantage there should not be underestimated). It also will generally give more flexibility with moving titles around a complex to better fit the crowds for a type of picture during a time of day (kiddie movies doing better in the afternoon, dating movies doing better in the evenings). Note, film could do this too, if a complex were set up reel-to-reel so a movie could be moved BEFORE it ended but few here really understood the many advantages of running on reels...however this would require manpower so again, digital will win on this flexibility. Build ups/tear downs, again, digital wins on employee costs associated with those tasks.
Most exhibitors I'm talking to really are thinking in the short term...they are picking deals that seem like the cheapest TODAY without thought as to how much it will cost them day-to-day. Be that in lamp costs, electricity to run the theatre (less sophisticated automation to manage electric usage more efficiently, not just increases in electric bill on lamps), less sophisticated system to really reduce manpower more. It is the reoccurring costs exhibitors should look at more closely.
The other thing is who is supporting this stuff? Many NOCs are not doing a good job and many installers are just banging this stuff in. There seems to be a growing market for fixing bad installs and providing superior service on supporting the equipment. This is not to say that film installs were done in a spectacular manner but like it or not, film equipment has a MUCH longer longevity and can be fixed often locally. I find exhibitors not doing their part of keeping filters changed/cleaned. This stuff is expensive and they should be doing everything possible to make it last as long as possible. Trust me, keeping your filters clean will be much less time consuming that the time you should have been spending on keeping film projectors clean.
-Steve
Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 12-29-2011, 07:29 AM:
So with the higher maintenance costs, higher costs for parts, longer time being down if there is a breakdown,the ridiculous cost of all the equipment, more equipment glitches than film ever had, how is this better again? Also, how are the small independent theaters that don't run mainstream movies going to convert and afford it? They're not. Who is protecting them? If digital is so much cheaper and better, why is the cost not being passed down to the customer? Digital is only an improvement on film because for the last many years, the big chains got rid of qualified projectionist and used people that had no business being in the booth. So for years after that they could promote how digital was going to be so much better. No more dirt, scratches, etc..... If you have the right people doing the job, film presentation would be perfect. Randy is not being cranky or talking shit. He's telling it like it is. There are many people that think this way. It doesn't matter though. Things are going to change regardless. Money is to be made. I don't think it will be by the theater owners though.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-29-2011, 10:24 AM:
I agree with Randy,Steve and Richard.I started in this business when I was 11 in 1975.Steve just broke it all down very well above.
The theatre I am most involved with will have to pay for it's D Cinema projector and likely forget any VPF or integrator that wants 35mm removed.
If we were clever we might realize closing up as soon as film is gone is the way to go.
It's not clear how clever we are but it looks bad long term.If this digital revolution were not happening,it would still be a struggle.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-29-2011, 10:32 AM:
Steve G's points are are all on point as are Justin's and Ed as well as others.
What's the conclusion? "Progress" and it's messy.
There are some improvements and some detriments.
Some cinemas and many technicians will be left behind. Those of us like Louis and perhaps me will be swept away. Who is to say long term this is a bad thing? Dinosaurs fuel the gas tanks of our cars, right?
Same as it ever was.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-29-2011, 11:24 AM:
Agreed with Sam and others, but the real issue that most of us have with this change is that the "progress" does not represent a net improvement. For the venues that have invested in top-quality film equipment and have maintained and upgraded it over time, this transition represents an expensive downgrade in image quality. It is no doubt an improvement for theatres that previously offered "film done wrong," but it is a slap in the face to those who are able to provide "film done right" to their customers.
Moreover, this will destroy the economic model for the exhibition industry. As Steve notes, those who are unable to survive without VPFs will be out of business in a decade (if not sooner) unless there is a huge shift in booking terms (unlikely to happen).
If I were a theatre owner, I would think that this might be a very good time to get out of the industry. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-29-2011, 11:31 AM:
quote: Randy Stankey
People in the movie business, the studios and the theaters, need to quit using fancy words to describe the same old crap and start producing some new crap
The theatres don't have any control over what kind of crap is produced.
Steve G.'s best point above is the part about the windows. He's right that if the studios went back to a 12 month window, ticket sales would go up.
The studios are convinced that anybody who can't see a movie in their house immediately to will go to the internet and steal it. So that's the biggest reason the video window keeps shrinking. That, and they don't like paying for two marketing campaigns.
The point they are missing is that they NEED the theatrical business to create those big hits. Without the theatrical business and its high numbers on opening weekend, any movie is just another video release.
The studios also think they can sell a movie on premium VOD for big bucks. They think they can do something to reach into the wallets of the people who never go to movies. Well guess what? These are the people who are now waiting for the DVD/BR. They aren't going to change their habits. The people who are currently waiting 3 or 4 months for the DVD/BR are going to continue to wait, because they don't want to spend the big bucks. They want to rent the movie for a dollar from the Redbox pop machine, or stream it for even less from Netflix. They're used to waiting. They don't mind waiting.
The studios have made this mess by de-valuing their product. It doesn't have anything to do with the method of projection.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-29-2011, 12:21 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
The theatres don't have any control over what kind of crap is produced.
Correct but they need to stop regurgitating the bull crap that the studios constantly spew.
We are not in the movie business. We are in the movie THEATER business. Although it is an allied industry it is a different industry.
Instead of parroting the movie studios, theaters need to grow a backbone and stop knuckling under to all the crap the studios spew.
This is not an anti-digital rant. This is an anti-bullshit rant. It just so happens that, the way things are being presented now, digital is pretty much bullshit.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-29-2011, 12:58 PM:
The studios in Hollywood have been taking movie theaters in the United States for granted. Their product is increasingly derivative, predictable JUNK.
Movie theater chains keep booking Hollywood's crap only because of the enormous amount of marketing money being thrown behind it. They don't have the guts to book more independent product and foreign releases. If they did, it would force Hollywood studios and their very short term, narrow sighted parent companies to do something different.
It's a myth that only big city movie viewers want to see independent and foreign produced movies. Roger Ebert talked about some of these movies doing particularly well on Netflix, one of the only outlets many Americans outside of big cities have for seeing such movies.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-29-2011, 01:04 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Roger Ebert talked about some of these movies doing particularly well on Netflix
That's because the Netflix viewer is not necessarily a theatrical viewer.
I love to book the arty, edgy, independent films. Unfortunately they don't pay the bills (except in large or sophisticated markets). Look at all the great reviews, Oscars, etc. that "King's Speech" got -- and we played the trailer for weeks and weeks -- yet it's going to end up in our "bottom 20" for the year. I have hordes of similar stories from my years in the biz. I can't count how many times there's been a "really good" movie that everyone loves, but nobody comes to see it.
You can't blame the theatres for only playing Hollywood's crap. Theatres have to play what is made. If people suddenly started flocking in droves to more quality fare, then more of that kind of movie would be produced. But a $500-million 'Transformers X" gross is only going to beget more Transformers crap.
Roger Ebert is a smart guy and a great writer, but he's not a theatre owner and therefore he can't think like one.
Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 12-29-2011, 01:08 PM:
Quite a discussion! A couple comments...
1. I'm very impressed with the techs I've worked with that have made the transition from film to digital. They've become IT experts in a very short time.
2. On piracy, I think it is indeed a very serious issue. I know LOTS of people who have no problem with copying other people's CDs or DVDs or copying everything off their iPod. I was on a plane recently. A couple people just met. Within half an hour, they had exchanged all their iPod music. One of the IT guys where my wife works told her about a site to download books to her Kindle for free. Among the general public, there appears to be absolutely no respect for copyright. Forensic marking of digital playback should help identify the source of piracy. Systems like http://www.pirateye.com/ also look interesting.
While I was writing this, I see another comment was posted. My wife and I loved watching The King's Speech last Christmas day in a local multiplex. The auditorium was full. Most of the movies we see are at a local independent ( http://www.thepalmtheatre.com/ ) with three screens. A couple weeks ago we saw The Descendants there. We also use Netflix. We watched Woody Allen's Murder in Manhattan last night. But, I realize we're in a minority. We don't watch "Hollywood Crap," and respect copyrights.
Harold
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-29-2011, 01:42 PM:
Steve, I respect the hell out of you. You cut out the passionate personal bullshit and get right to the point. I wish more F-Ters were as articulate as you.
However, I do have one counterpoint and one question to your response.
The counterpoint: Theatre chains started going all-digital five and six years ago, and studios have been offering VPFs for longer. I understand, and I admit I could be wrong here, that studios now offer VPFs directly to an exhibitor, and that these plans may not allow an exhibitor to recoup as much as previous VPF plans. But the writing has been on the walls for many years now. Independent theatre owners in smaller markets have had a number of years to either join a VPF program and/or save for the cost of these items.
The question: How do we know if the window to video expanded back to a year that theatre attendance would spike back up? Seems to me, in this day and age, if it was going to take a year for a movie to get released on video, that would just drive up the desire for a pirated version, and drive up the number of instances where opportunists would do what they can to get that content.
Thank you.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-29-2011, 01:47 PM:
..and with that question, I see a 'Catch-22' here.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-29-2011, 01:58 PM:
I don't think the writing on the wall was ever that clear until after Avatar.
So many ways to interpret what crap was on the wall before that.
Don't forget Dark Knight was this huge first ever 2D feature film to take advantage of 15/70 Imax.
The wishful thinking that film could co-exist for a long time was also on the wall.
At least for some of us smaller film people.
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-29-2011, 02:06 PM:
No, Victor, Avatar is when it became painfully obvious to even the most oblivious person. Regal, AMC, Cinemark, Rave and many other chains started the conversion process or were already all-digital long before Avatar was released.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-29-2011, 02:07 PM:
quote: Victor Liorentas
At least for some of us smaller film people.
Definitely an unfair situation here for the smaller markets.
Suddenly, the 'dragon' came upon us and some weren't ready to defend and save themselves from the wrath and destruction. And now, sudden decisions have to be made.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-29-2011, 02:15 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Movie theater chains keep booking Hollywood's crap only because of the enormous amount of marketing money being thrown behind it. They don't have the guts to book more independent product and foreign releases. If they did, it would force Hollywood studios and their very short term, narrow sighted parent companies to do something different.
As sad as it might be, crappy sequels and dumb Adam Sandler movies put more butts in the seats than "arty" films. Because theatres have budgets and expenses to pay for, they have to play whatever puts the butts in the seats.
I'm not going to make a big deal about Hollywood putting out so much crap product since that's what the audience is voting for with their money. But I would like to see more attention paid to writing and production values. Adam Sandler movies would be much more watchable if they relied on well written stories with clever dialog rather than dumb sight gags and one-liners.
In my opinion, one of the biggest problems created by the short release windows is the need to have more product. As a result, the studios are releasing movies that would have been direct to video 10 years ago - if they were ever made at all.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-29-2011, 02:16 PM:
I was talking about the smaller loyal film guys and not the big corporate chains.
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-29-2011, 03:31 PM:
We all know, the expansion to digital is very expensive and many established chains like Regal, AMC and others can afford to do it with all or most of their screens but what will happen to the smaller theatre operators who cannot come up with the money to do it? My guess is they will have to shut down and that will be a shame. Does anyone know what percentage of theatre operations will cease to exist once everything reverts to digital?
-Claude
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-29-2011, 03:45 PM:
Claude, there is no telling how many that might be. It's really going to be a matter of who can raise the money and who can't - or chooses not to. I suspect the most likely to be affected are the older single screens and twins in small towns that don't put up much of a gross to begin with.
While there are some of these theatres saying they will just close their doors when they can't get film anymore, they may change their tune when it comes to making that decision. And it's possible some of these will be bought by people with the money to afford the conversion.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-29-2011, 05:19 PM:
So, after we've been fed all these vague statements saying digital movies will be a great democratizer which lowers the barriers to entry and gives more people the ability to distribute movies and alternative content, we find out the truth. Instead of making it easier for people to make movies it turns out that this whole charade is little more than a way for Hollywood execs to exclude outsiders and lock them out.
Movie theaters that don't bow down to the studios desires are locked out and would-be movie makers are locked out because the studios have even more control of the distribution channels than they did with film.
When will the bullshit end?
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-29-2011, 06:30 PM:
quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
but what will happen to the smaller theatre operators who cannot come up with the money to do it?
If they are First Run locations, they can still jump on the VPF bandwagon to get help in this area.
Otherwise, it's a straight purchase, but yet heard that with the DCI compliance, that some digital owners are unloading Series 1 units to get into the Series 2 units to be complient for the 4K upgrades.
Thus these used units are cheaper to be had for the ones who couldn't make the VPF bandwagon, but it could be a risk being used units that no guarantees are to be had to render repair like light engines and other computer related equipment inside the units.
Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 12-29-2011, 06:52 PM:
And the smaller theater operators that are not first run are screwed. They can't purchase the equipment themselves. Also, what about the seasonal theaters. I service a bunch of them. They are in even worse shape. Nobody will buy them because they can only operate seasonally. The little guys just keep losing. See any pattern here??
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-29-2011, 06:52 PM:
Yop! No guarantees. Even used projectors for, presumably, less money, will swamp out some marginal operations. This much is certain; the smaller operations have been marginalized for some time. Many will be thrown "under the bus." Louis
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-29-2011, 07:17 PM:
..and to think long term here with the topic of future content:
Right now 2K content is the norm, but give a couple of years and 4K content will be the norm..thus extinguishing out the lamps of those Series 1 units for good.
Then, the Series 1 units will be heading to STRONG for the recyclers to have fun with as did the 35mm equipment.
-Monte
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-29-2011, 08:58 PM:
quote: Edward Havens
However, I do have one counterpoint and one question to your response.
The counterpoint: Theatre chains started going all-digital five and six years ago, and studios have been offering VPFs for longer. I understand, and I admit I could be wrong here, that studios now offer VPFs directly to an exhibitor, and that these plans may not allow an exhibitor to recoup as much as previous VPF plans. But the writing has been on the walls for many years now. Independent theatre owners in smaller markets have had a number of years to either join a VPF program and/or save for the cost of these items.
The question: How do we know if the window to video expanded back to a year that theatre attendance would spike back up? Seems to me, in this day and age, if it was going to take a year for a movie to get released on video, that would just drive up the desire for a pirated version, and drive up the number of instances where opportunists would do what they can to get that content.
Ed, you ignorant slut...You may go about showing your digital pictures like so many fluzzies in a magazine but...
The VPF thing, as we know it really started with the Carmike deal. There were other experimental efforts like from Qualcomm, Dolby but nothing of significant numbers. Carmike got the "best" deal with the least amount of restrictions (they have some theatres with mono sound and DCinema!).
Regal/AMC/Cinemark formed the DCIP and pretty much wrote their own deal...15,000+ screens speak VERY loudly. These companies also tend to work with other people's money and often lose it. I don't think AMC has gone bankrupt yet but they have come damn close.
The current VPF deal, aka "Phase 2" are really a bunch of deals shrouded in secrecy. There is the CBG one with Cinedigm, individual ones with Cinedigm, Film-Tech and GDC...one only knows just what each one gets. It is one problem with the whole VPF thing...it isn't out in the open...why are they so covered in secrecy if something shady isn't going on?
A couple of studios have offered VPFs direct to the exhibitor (Paramount comes immediately to mind) but just that one or maybe two studios contributing is not going to cover your expenses for this expensive equipment (that is cheap by its own industry standards). Heck, unless something has changed, GDC still hasn't got Warner Brothers on board and that should be a no-brainer for Warner Brothers.
But the whole NEED for a VPF plan should be a BIG red flag! If exhibitors could really afford DCinema, they shouldn't need a VPF. The fact is, exhibition can not afford what it is buying. When this generation of projectors are ready for the scrap heap, there will not be a VPF plan to replace them with either.
The bottom line is, the VPF deals are varied and do not affect all exhibitors equally and leave some out...which shouldn't be...all operating theatres should be offered the same "deal". If you run a WB product for the next period of time, then WB deducts the agreed amount off the rental. Likewise with the rest of the distributors...there shouldn't even be a need for additional middle men.
As to lengthening the window...how do we "know"...Well if we knew with absolute certainty, then it would happen right now since it is so obvious to all. However, it is only logical. Furthermore, it is backed by the evidence that as the window has shrunk, so have sales to both entities (theatrical and home). For me, it is painfully easy to see.
As for increasing piracy, not too likely...the real piracy is the VIDEO form of the movie...not so much the camcorder. Those buying camcordered movies are really sales you NEVER had. But once you release it via cable/satellite and disc, you have perfect sources to copy, cheaply too. With the internet you even get all of the artwork you need to make it look nice! If the source material is kept away for longer, it certainly isn't going to help the pirate's cause.
I tell you what...why not give it an experiment? make it very public...put it in the distribution ads that this wizbang movie will not be released to the home market for a year or make it even longer...if it is a summer release, make the video release the fall of the following year so it doesn't compete with the big summer/winter titles of the following year. See how bad the piracy is during that time...heck if there are videos of the movie...they are obviously pirated copies during that time period...no confusion.
I think most everyone here is wrong about Avatar...which didn't need DCinema for anything. It did give 3D a kick but that has nothing to do with DCinema. Avatar spurred 3D DCinema sales because that was required by a choice by the studios, not the technology. Exhibitors saw what that title did in 3D...then again, exhibitors always think the next Star Wars is coming...those sorts of titles come VERY rarely where they shift the industry. The '80s were a pretty good decade of having really big summer blockbusters...particularly the early 80s with the late 70s...to think Star Wars, Close Encounters, Star Trek, Empire, Raiders, ET, Star Trek II, Wargames, Jedi, Temple of Doom. These were all films that played into the fall and damn nearly into winter! Note, Star Trek was huge because of the whole phenomenon of Trek being canceled and actually GROWING popularity in syndication. It was a bottle that had been shook up and was bound to blow. It was the only TV series to go to the big screen big back then.
Now look at what Hollywood puts out...all of the digital wonderfulness they have at their fingertips does NOT make the movies any better. Good writing, good acting, and good production standards do.
As to movies like the King's Speech...There is such a thing as a "market." Not all theatres will play all movies equally and never have. Lets get into the way-back machine and say you had a porno theatre...and due to popular reviews, that theatre played a movie like "Star Wars" (we are back in '77)...first off...the cliental would think it was a play on words and still think it was a skin flick...that theatre would not have had the massive crowds that your downtown palace theatre would have done.
We have clients that cleaned up with The King's Speech because it fit their market. Some markets have to be cultivated (teach the locals that this sort of entertainment is available and that they can count on you to provide it). That often takes time. I know back in my exhibition days, getting a good "Midnight" crowd took time to develop. People had to count on you being open late on Friday/Saturday in order to plan on going there...if you experimented for a few weeks a theatre, they were dismal flops.
As to friends sharing things...this is older than one may think. So long as there are recording/copying devices...it has been happening to any and all mediums. People have been recording off radio for decades rather than buying albums, making mix-tapes, sharing video tapes...and so forth. Photocopying news papers (or articles) and giving them out. It is absolutely true that people don't appreciate the theft they are participating in. I never got libraries. Why would one buy a book when you can "loan" one out at the library? In fact, those that can not afford to buy books do just that. Records used to also be in libraries (and probably still are...I haven't been in a library in quite some time). Yet most authors support the heck out of libraries.
-Steve
Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 12-30-2011, 04:04 AM:
Two comments from me, who is working a venue that has a fully-compliant d-cinema projector that we do not actually own -- but is not owned by any of the integrators out there. We are wonderfully, completely independent. So, from my POV on the sidelines (kind of):
Comment 1: costs of all this: as I recall the evolution of all this, from over the years, the benefits ($$$) primarily accrue to the account of the distributors. THEY are the ones who are not having to buy all the prints, many of which end up being scrapped, once the 3000 to 4000 domestic screens of opening weekend runs are concluded. Most older movies now exist with very few (say, between 1 and 10) copies available for use. So, why exhibitors have to pay for any of this d-stuff sure escapes me. And yet, in our own case, we've actually had to pay **extra** to get DCPs of a couple of the early Bond movies. Huh? WTF? Here we are, not putting any wear and/or tear on their print(s) -- and they're charging us extra? We got the show on a drive, which cost maybe $50, and which is, really, just a "loaner" -- they'll promptly re-use for some other show once the drive is back. And for this, we pay **extra**? Anyway, this all may change, but it seems to me that since "they" don't have to make and circulate prints, "we" shouldn't have to be paying for the equipment to show "their" newfangled files.
It will be interesting to see what happens, in a couple of years, when push comes to shove about all this. Will the theatres be put out of business? Can they afford any upgrades when VPFs are gone? Will exhibitors actually spend anything additional? It's an interesting thought as to what will happen if the Series 1 projectors [which is what I have] are decreed to be unsupported somehow. I'll bet that was not part of the original concept for d-cinema, for sure (enforced obsolescence)!
The 2nd comment from me had to do with some messages from about two days ago, which need a bit of clarification (even for me). There was talk about the security issues, and some mention of HDCP, and how it had been reverse-engineered out, etc. But I think one person was talking about DCI encryption, and one person was talking about HDCP. Both are encryptions, but they're quite different from each other. The DCI (d-cinema) encryption is significantly more complex than HDCP. IIRC, I heard that DCI encryption might be "breakable", but that it would take so long that the selected content would lose any commercial value over that time, so why bother? Of course, that was several years ago and now maybe computer hacking has progressed to the point that even cracking encrypted DCPs is less of a challenge -- but I've not heard of any fully functioning DCP playback of encrypted files without appropriate keys.
Summary: while the encryption holds up, the studios hold all the cards. And the distributing entities are the ones who should be paying for any and all of this equipment. Back in the 50s, when mag sound was coming out, that was an addition to the booth equipment (and a major upgrade to the sound systems of the day), but it was an addition, not a total displacement. The exhibitors paid for those ADDITIONS. The distributors should be paying for all these electro-toys, which are complete DISPLACEMENTS.
Don't get me wrong -- I've seen enough crappy, faded, scratched prints (and seen some amazing restorations) and feel that d-projection certainly has its place, and we need to make peace with that. But the installation of all this is really saving the distributors money. So they are the ones who should be ready to PAY UP!!!
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-30-2011, 08:29 AM:
quote: Randy Stankey
Movie theaters that don't bow down to the studios desires are locked out and would-be movie makers are locked out because the studios have even more control of the distribution channels than they did with film.
Ha? You don't know what you're talking about. Indeed D-Cinema equipment offers the exhibitor far more options than film ever did. I already have had customers running Blu-Ray for Mainstream movies that will pay them VPF's, Margin Call was the most recent and played in Blu-Ray via D-Cinema in Jackson Hole! An exhibitor also has the option of giving up VPF payment on any screen he chooses and to run any other content he desires. He just looses VPF payments on that screen for that duration. VPF's resume when he books and play's his next mainstream title.
quote: Randy Stankey
When will the bullshit end?
Yea, that's what I'm wondering...until you have at least some experience with D-Cinema how about stoping your rash of Bullshit because that's exactly what it is.
Mark
Posted by Bob Bregazzi (Member # 5623) on 12-30-2011, 11:27 AM:
with reference to the above comment, a bit harsh and very rude.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-30-2011, 02:10 PM:
Don't worry. I don't have a problem with it.
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 12-30-2011, 06:24 PM:
The writing was on the wall years ago when the prints we were showing lacked life. A combination of 2K scanning and high speed printing resulted in muddy looking prints. Add to this the bonus of dirt and damage with sub-run release and the result was not pretty. Film-Guard did help but it couldn’t rehabilitate some prints.
Occasionally, a good print would turn up and re-assure us that our equipment was not the culprit. Even e-cinema looked better than many 35mm prints. And the 6-channel audio was intact; there was no worry about a dodgy Dolby track or missing DTS discs.
Certain distributors had very few film prints of any title and none of some titles. So, if you wanted that title, it was digital cinema or parallel with dvd, even if your figures more than justified a print.
Now with D-cinema, the quality of image and sound is at least consistent. People comment on how clear it looks. They don’t see any of the problems that concern people in the industry.
I can train a reasonably intelligent person in hours instead of weeks. We can offer better front-of-house service because we have one extra staff – the one who would normally have to be in the box to watch a film presentation start. We can book almost any title without getting the “no prints” or “we have to see how it opens” number.
While it is too early for any of us to judge operating costs, it would appear that lamp cost per hour will be similar to our 35mm. Looking at the construction of the projector, it seems that modules can be replaced and/or upgraded. My experiences with computers indicate that the server will probably be the first item that will have to be replaced.
We didn’t bother with the current incarnation of 3D. Most of the 3D product is for kids and our primary audience is mature. Parents are now telling us that their kids don’t like the glasses and they don’t like the ticket price. Also, we didn’t bother with VPFs, I can’t tell you why because I had to sign a NDA before getting the details. Of course I will now have to wait till next century before I can afford to retire.
If film had remained a quality presentation medium, the change would have been hard to justify. Our film system remains in place but I doubt it will ever again be used. I am beginning to feel less sad about it every week.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-31-2011, 10:09 AM:
quote: Steve Guttag
As to friends sharing things...this is older than one may think. So long as there are recording/copying devices...it has been happening to any and all mediums. People have been recording off radio for decades rather than buying albums, making mix-tapes, sharing video tapes...and so forth. Photocopying news papers (or articles) and giving them out.
That's true but before the internet it wasn't possible to give-out millions of perfect copies all over the world with one click of the finger.
Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 12-31-2011, 10:40 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
perfect copies all over the world
Hey, Leave China out of this
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-31-2011, 05:39 PM:
Uh huh...how many millions of perfect copies have been downloaded (and I mean entire features, not snippets) of each title?
The internet isn't THAT fast for having PERFECT copies. Again, those that are "stealing" in that manner are likely non-sales anyway. It does not excuse the theft but it also doesn't affect the bottom line of the studio because they don't turn into sales.
Now if they would embrace FILM a bit more, perfect copies would be harder to have. They could skip the whole video thing all together and never release on video...edit on film...etc...it would really cut down on illegal copies...it would also really cut down on their profits (overall) since the benefits of the legitimate means far outweighs the illegal leeches.
-Steve
Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 12-31-2011, 09:55 PM:
quote:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Roger Ebert talked about some of these movies doing particularly well on Netflix
That's because the Netflix viewer is not necessarily a theatrical viewer.
I love to book the arty, edgy, independent films. Unfortunately they don't pay the bills (except in large or sophisticated markets). Look at all the great reviews, Oscars, etc. that "King's Speech" got -- and we played the trailer for weeks and weeks -- yet it's going to end up in our "bottom 20" for the year. I have hordes of similar stories from my years in the biz. I can't count how many times there's been a "really good" movie that everyone loves, but nobody comes to see it.
You can't blame the theatres for only playing Hollywood's crap. Theatres have to play what is made. If people suddenly started flocking in droves to more quality fare, then more of that kind of movie would be produced. But a $500-million 'Transformers X" gross is only going to beget more Transformers crap.
Roger Ebert is a smart guy and a great writer, but he's not a theatre owner and therefore he can't think like one.
I 100% agree with Mike on this. I have owned video stores for 20 years and get pretty much everything. We push the best movies whether they are independent/arthouse or big studio produced. The independent/arthouse has always been a hard sell.
Most Netflix users are not people who want the newest movies with wide releases. Why?? Most are not available for 28 days. They are heavy catalog users and that is great for Netflix as it reduces their cost of rental.
I played more Oscar nominated movies than any other theater within 40 miles of me. None of them besides Toy Story 3 was in my top 50%.
Back to the original topic: this conversion is almost done and the studios have the power over us. You want to stay in the game? Got to play by their rules. No need to dwell over it.
Posted by Mark Pasquesi (Member # 7208) on 12-02-2012, 05:14 AM:
Just a thought here..
Thanks to digital, and the DCP capabilities on a Linux box,
independent filmmakers have finally been able to get out of the 8mm and 16mm quality limit, avoid the awful hell of dvcam and hdv,
and make progressive imaged digital films.
For doc films, and activist filmmakers, and even the crazy MF's of extreme sports, they are finally able to fix their image (now if they could only improve the edit/stories : )
Having worked a lot of festivals, when I say independent, I mean real self-funded independents, not 35 million dollar or even 1 million dollar budget films, and not even Spike Lee She's Gotta Have it budget of 100,000. I'm talking about UN activists in war zones, war photographers and reporter's SAns Frontier, refugees, activists in Cuba, Iran, etc. I'm also talking about art students who don't have to #@$-up to the School to get their film out there, change their film so it fits 'the norms' and codes, etc. We are getting cooler and crazier content with much lower costs. This is great!!!
In addition, we as projectionnists can help. When I test material for projections, I send notes to independent's, and first-timers, and I can help them be their own lab - their only cost is their own time...Helping with scaling issues, exports, etc, for independent file content shown off the computer - 8 bit in image quality if you go single DVI into your projector, up to 12-bit 444 dual sdi with a good video card, and up to 16-bit 444 with dual dvi.
Example:
I just had to 'remake' a damaged Bray for a festival (the last 2 minutes took 10 minutes - luckily for us, even though the film was dramatic, the audience took it well, and we finished with 100 laughing people) 2 hours later, we had a perfect copy for the Argentinian filmmaker for the next 3 showings in two other cinemas...
One of our local cinemas is already producing their own DCP's on the cheap for local publicities with a linux box - Ubuntu anyone?
Disadvantage - cheap cables creating bugs, too many interfaces reducing quality due to
a) ignorant or DGaF*&^ installers
b) ignorant or DGaF*&^ projectionnists
In fact, we matter now as projectionnist/technicians much more than we ever did as film handlers - we could never improve the print before - only protect it, and assure the projection..
Of course, Our salaries haven't change much : (
//Yes, I do make indie films, and work on them, and still shoot in B&W/color Super 8 on my Beaulieu at 72 fps - and yes, I refilm with whatever HD I can get my hands on, and I love how it looks : )//
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2