Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Question on Digital Cinema

This is topic Question on Digital Cinema in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=000009

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-23-2008, 06:26 PM:

This may be the wrong place to ask this but I can't really see where it would be so if I'm wrong someone move me to right place or point me there and I will.

My employer called and asked me some questions about Digital Cinema and the cost factors and what the print purchase rebate was. He said it is what the film company pays you for setting up digital cinema or playing it he wants to know what that pay back is.

I haven't investigated Digital Cinema much in the last 2+ years so can someone enlighten me so I can enlighten him? And no he will never join a forum site!!!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-23-2008, 06:57 PM:

There's no flat, reliable figures to report on what it costs to install a digital projection system onto a theater screen. If you're an independent theater operator you may be stuck paying list price for the equipment, the cost of which can easily exceed $100,000 per auditorium.

Large theater chains like Carmike Cinemas definitely negotiated a much better deal for the sheer volume of sales. I think Regal, Cinemark, AMC and perhaps some other exhibitors may still be shopping together as one giant sized group to eventually buy and deploy d-cinema systems at a fairly steep discount in return for installing many thousands of systems in short order.

I don't know if anyone is truly doing anything constructive to give small theater chains and independents an opportunity to install digital projection without the cost of the systems being a very serious hardship.

Nevertheless, this is an area where I think Hollywood's major distributors should make some extra strides. Some of the most respectable and unique theater locations in the country are independently operated. And the issues of unfair collusion and anti-trust can be raised if Hollywood's distributors give major exhibitors an unfair advantage on the cost of d-cinema systems and make indie theaters pay full price.

Obviously independent operators must be concerned about the eventual prospect that Hollywood distributors will stop producing 35mm film prints for the North American market. If an independent theater has no way to install digital projection equipment in a comparable level of cost as a major theater circuit that independent operator will have a legitimate gripe -especially if he no longer has any supply of 35mm prints.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-23-2008, 07:30 PM:

Bobby NATO has the buying group and it looks to be a good deal it has a line in it (my boss thinks he can still get in on this initial deal I think it is too late we will see) anyway it has a line in it about a reimbursement for theaters for doing it. There are other groups that are forming of independents and smaller chains as well. He asking me for the specific on what the film companies pay him when he does it! I don't know and my original advice was call NATO ask for the CBG and see what they say! But then I said I would ask around!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-23-2008, 08:10 PM:

I always love it when the experienced step in and try to answer....

quote: Bobby Henderson
There's no flat, reliable figures to report on what it costs to install a digital projection system onto a theater screen.

There very definately IS a price that can be set. We just installed three systems in Wyoming and we have quotes out for several other plex's and two Universities. Just contact your local theater supply dealer for the price. They can quote per single system or plex... Higher quantities used in a plex... generally over 10 systems net the dealer a much larger discount. Some dealers will pass this on and then some would rather fuel their private planes or pay for expensive cabins in the wilderness. If you don't feel comfortable with the price from the first source then get at least two more prices as you will probably find a pretty wide variance in what a dealer "thinks" he needs to net off the sale for his own pocket.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Large theater chains like Carmike Cinemas definitely negotiated a much better deal for the sheer volume of sales.

Actually Carmike didn't do the negotiating... That was done by AIX on Carmikes behalf. And indeed AIX owns all the equipment thats been installed in all those Carmike Theaters. Christie was contracted by AIX to maintain the equipment which is why no other entity other than Christie can touch the stuff.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I think Regal, Cinemark, AMC and perhaps some other exhibitors may still be shopping together as one giant sized group to eventually buy and deploy d-cinema systems at a fairly steep discount in return for installing many thousands of systems in short order.

Actually it is JUST... AMC, Cinemark and Regal. Regal is already in the midst of the conversion and theor own people have been trained by Christie to handle the job. AMC has also begun deploying Digital although not as fast as it appears Regal has. Cinemark has said they will deploy 50% of theor chain over 4 years and then the remainder will be converted at the end of those 4 years.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't know if anyone is truly doing anything constructive to give small theater chains and independents an opportunity to install digital projection without the cost of the systems being a very serious hardship.

CBG so far is the only group in the process fo such a deal. They have about 8,000 members so that really gives them some negotiating power. Also, CBG is offering the mid sized BARCO with a lens for $48,500.00 for theater owners wanting to purchase outright at a decent discount. That is certainly going to get the remainder of the BARCO dealers really pissed at BARCO in short order. BTW: Membership to CBG supposedlky closed some time just before last ShowEast so those that didn't join are SOL.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Nevertheless, this is an area where I think Hollywood's major distributors should make some extra strides. Some of the most respectable and unique theater locations in the country are independently operated. And the issues of unfair collusion and anti-trust can be raised if Hollywood's distributors give major exhibitors an unfair advantage on the cost of d-cinema systems and make indie theaters pay full price.

Actually I think their approach so far has been pretty good and very professional. Distribution support has been very good and seems to go way beyond today's film support. There is always someone there 24/7 to answer the phone to help solve problems... generate new KDM's or get a new copy of a digital print on the way to you.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Obviously independent operators must be concerned about the eventual prospect that Hollywood distributors will stop producing 35mm film prints for the North American market. If an independent theater has no way to install digital projection equipment in a comparable level of cost as a major theater circuit that independent operator will have a legitimate gripe -especially if he no longer has any supply of 35mm prints.

Boy howdy! Once Regal, AMC, and CInemark have converted those few prints that will be manufactured are going to cost alot more than they do now. This will ultimately hurt the small town locations that are today marginal. Distribution will think twice about striking a print that will end up costing 3 to 4 thousand dollars each for these markets. This and the accompaning rapid pace of lack of availablity of projector parts will bring widespread film to an end in about 7 years... possibly less.

Mark

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-23-2008, 08:38 PM:

Hum why am I unable to make this clear. I'm asking what this rebate, reimbursement, film print savings pay back or whatever it is that the film companies are paying to theaters that use Digital Prints. I mean the rest is interesting and I want the information but that is my primary question on this at this time.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-23-2008, 08:45 PM:

Teaser thread title!

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-23-2008, 08:49 PM:

Mark, I see you and I have the same feelings on Digital that it is about 5 to 7 years before you have digital or nothing. I have felt for a long time that it is very short amount of time before film will start to die.

Actually the parts issue isn't an issue, I mean seriously you pull out 30 thousand units from use there are plenty of parts for the 8 or 9 thousand still around!

For some reason on my computer your full answer didn't load before I posted the last post I made!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-23-2008, 09:03 PM:

Ron,

The studios paying for your equipment won't be happenning through Virtual Print Fees... The last chance you had for that was with CBG. Anyone that didn't join before the shut off date is on their own. Of course hopefully they will change that.

I guess you're right about the parts issue... just hit any one of the local junk yards and get an X-L projector for a nickle a pound. Its new parts that'll become really scarce. LaVezzi's projector end of things is but a tiny dot of their overall buisness.

Mark

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-23-2008, 09:52 PM:

Ron - the Virtual Print Fee is somewhere around $1500. It is not paid to the theatre but to the company that financed the digital install.

You can still join the CBG but you can't participate in whatever digital deal they strike for the mass rollout in the indies. But, as Mark said that could always change.

Your big mistake (or your boss's) is not reading up on all this stuff in the last 2 years. Get to it.

[Edit: Fixed a typo]

[ 01-24-2008, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Mike Blakesley ]

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-23-2008, 09:53 PM:

Thanks for the info. I'm not sure what we are going to do yet! I have a boss that can't believe he missed the sign up even though I warned him this time last year, in July last year and again in September!! Maybe they will have a phase II or something.

I did stay up with it when I owned theaters but not so much of late though for the year and half (well more than that) that I have been working for these guys I have been warning them.

Joe, my first wife always said I was a big tease. No wait she said big cheater and that was as she was shoving me out the door. I did hear that again for oh 3 maybe 5 years as my second wife was walking out the doors! I have at least learned my lesson I have kept wife number 3 for 10 years now and I stayed single for 13 years before I married her! [Smile]

Okay a new question from my employer and his point makes some sense. Why two format sizes for pictures? Why do we in digital have them both what is driving that?

I think it is because they both survived not much more of reason than that. If you look you had flat at around 1.85 to 1 and then VistaVision in some area of 1.85 to one up to to 2.0 to 1, Super 70 at 2.2 to 1, ultra 70 - Todd-A-O - Cinerama all at a bit 2.65 to 1 up to 2.75 to 1, original CinemaScope 2.5 to 1 (no optical sound track) CinemaScope with sound track 2.35 to 1 and now 2.39 to 1 and a few others as well. Scope and flat have survived but why both in the digital world? Why not one or the other? Concerns about DVD or Broadcast?

That was his question after we discussed the other formats that didn't survive. I can't tell him why both other than maybe George Lucas always works with Scope because it is more a movie (his words not mine) in that format. You have Steven Spielberg and his must work on TV vision, however, he isn't all that big on Digital Cinema.

Anyone else know the reason?

[ 01-23-2008, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: Ron Funderburg ]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-24-2008, 07:42 AM:

There is no reason we need to keep dual aspect ratios other than since the introduction of anamorphic wide screen, there have been two aspect ratios. That's what we grew up with. The entire cinema world -- directors, cinematographers, producers, etc. and of course the general public as well, think in those terms. Wide is for certain "epic" films, not-so-wide is for not-so-epic films. That seems to be engrained in our brains now and forever....at least until we die off. A couple of generations from now and that may not be the case.

After all of us who gasped with delight when we saw the curtains opening wider and wider and wider on THIS IS CINERAMA and THE ROBE have gone off to that great movie palace in the sky, maybe the digital age youngsters will think they only need 16:9....you know...."what's all this fuss about wide screen? All our screens are wide-screen at 16:9" said the kid watching the latest movie on his cellphone. The need for wide screen in theatres was only to counter TV. Now that TV will have wide screen, it seems odd and a little quaint that theatres should need to widen their image that extra couple of feet to counter what exactly?

Dual aspect ratios may very well get lost in antiquity.

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 01-24-2008, 07:54 AM:

So lets say as an independent cinema you buy a "Digital Cinema Projector" ... say its cost $80,000 with all the computer and any sound updates and changes. What is the virtual print fee for a film? is it still about $150.00 for a week play and 35% of box office (Second run, repertory rates in Canada). If its still the same what are you saving other then laying off the projectionist? Also will the catalog be as diverse as 35mm in getting older classics? I have a feeling most repertory single screen cinemas will wait till the bitter end of film...when 4k projectors are selling used for $25,000... 8 years from now [Smile]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-24-2008, 10:16 AM:

quote: Ron Funderburg
Okay a new question from my employer and his point makes some sense. Why two format sizes for pictures? Why do we in digital have them both what is driving that?

The driving factor is the way movies are produced. Most are still photographed on film.

The different aspect ratios, such as 2.39:1 are often defined within the camera -especially when a movie is filmed in anamorphic 'scope format.

Any d-cinema system will also support more than just 2 aspect ratios. The 2.39:1 and 1.85:1 formats are just the most commonly used ratios. They're just cropping inward to some degree on the 2048 X 1080 imaging chips (2048 X 852 for 'scope and 1998 X 1080 for flat). The 1.77:1 HDTV ratio (1920 X 1080) wouldn't use all the area of the imaging chips either.

I think differing aspect ratios will be supported in various digital video playback formats for quite a long time. For the past 50 years movies have been made in a variety of aspect ratios and current production trends show no change from that at all, even when some of the movies, such as Collateral are shot on video yet still cropped to 'scope.

A "one size fits all" approach just isn't going to work. Pan and scan was inspired by the lame goal of making all pictures fit the same shaped frame. I see no reason to bring back that garbage on the occasion of TVs going HD and theaters going digital. Original aspect ratios need to be preserved. IMHO, if some people don't see the aesthetic point in having different shaped frames for different kinds of stories then that's their own deal.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-24-2008, 10:56 AM:

Yes, that's exactly the deal. I am not convinced that future generations will feel the same impact as we do about those differences. The difference was significant when screens went from Academy to scope. If everyone grows up not knowing anything but 16:9 on everything the see other than in the theatres, I am not so sure they will have the aesthetic acuity to be concerned about that extra width. Consider, they watch movies on iPods and on computer screens -- they are perfectly comfortable about that.

In the old days when wide screen was introduced, it was a strong selling point to get people back into the theatres. It was touted by the industry as The Second Coming. Many early films had the word CinemaScope in the same point size as the film title. Now, scope pictures are played without so much as a reference to that fact anywhere, not in the ads, not at the theatre lobby, not on the 1 sheets. Wide screen has been so marginalized by the industry itself that it really isn't a significant marketing tool any more. What's the difference on the multitude of smaller multiplex screens between scope and 1.85? Not a lot to crow about, if it is even noticed by the majority of patrons. So if they can't sell it, how long do you think they will bother to produce it?

I don't put a lot of stock in the power of the aesthetics appreciation of Mr. & Mrs. Joe Public. Will they think something is missing from their local theatre if everything is 16:9? Someplace along the line someone decided that, yah, the aesthetics of a curtain in front of the movie screen was nice and all, but if it's eliminated most people wouldn't even notice. How many theatres today have curtains?

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-24-2008, 01:02 PM:

The Cinerama aspect and other wide screens in excesses of 2.39 to one were developed to mimic the human filed of vision, as in take up all of it we see at about 2.9 to one with our peripheral vision counted in. the film maker wanted us to notice nothing but the movie during the movie (in addition to just competing with TV). I find wider aspects easer to watch with out distractions in a theater. For that matter in the home.

There is really not now nor has there ever been a need for multi formats (TV aside) other than companies sprang up with a “better” idea to capture the audience while in the theater. We have had the multiple formats for so long it is part of the movie experiences but you still have the home theater to contend with 4 x 3 is basically a dead format now other than the existing shows that were shot that way. While TV hasn't all gone wide it is probable only a matter of time. 16X9 is a compromise between 1.85 to one and 2.39 to one. You can letter box in the scope and pillar box in the 4 x 3, 1.66 to one and the 1.85 to one they crop the top and bottom a bit!

I think the dual formats will stay even though they aren't needed. But with that said I do like wider way better and I miss those big curved almost semicircular screens in Cooper Theaters!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-24-2008, 03:32 PM:

Paul G: Film rental stays the same, from what I hear. The virtual print fee is NOT paid to the theatre. It's paid to the company that financed the installation of the digital equipment.

On the Cinemascope topic - when that format was introduced in my theatre, the industry was trumping it up as if it was 3D! Here's a clip from a newspaper article about our Scope installation from 1953:

quote:
The big project, however, will be the complete remodeling of the front or stage end of the theatre, in preparation for the installation of a wide panoramic screen, which will be 30 feet wide and 16 feet high - just about twice the width of the present theatre screen, which is 14 x 16 feet. This screen, when installed, will accommodate regular motion pictures, as now projected, and also the new Cinemascope method of projection, wherein the illusion of three dimensions, height, width and depth will be realistically placed before the audience without the use of colored glasses or anything other than normal vision. It is the last word in the new three dimension method of presenting motion pictures - the same method as was employed at the initial and phenomenal showing of "The Robe," which has been widely acclaimed the world over. Two and one half times as much subject matter is projected on the new wide screens as is seen on the ordinary movie screen. Incidentally "The Robe" will be presented by the Roxy late next spring.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-24-2008, 03:40 PM:

quote: Blakesley
On the Cinemascope topic - when that format was introduced in my theatre, the industry was trumping it up as if it was 3D!

That's because many of the industry folk involved with CinemaScope saw it as competing with 3-D rather than television or Cinerama.

Original CinemaScope promotion: "The modern miracle you see without glasses!"

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 01-24-2008, 03:45 PM:

quote:
On the Cinemascope topic - when that format was introduced in my theatre, the industry was trumping it up as if it was 3D!

I found a newspaper article from 1953 which described all THREE 3-D systems that were either in or making their way towards theatres. 2-projection polarization, 3 projection Cinerama, and CinemaScope. Yep! all three were hyped as 3-D systems. I noticed, though, that the newspaper articles on the new technoliogies began decreasing the 3-D claims of CinemaScope the closer it came to actual public presentations.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-24-2008, 08:40 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
I am not convinced that future generations will feel the same impact as we do about those differences.

I'm not so sure about that. At least in this region of the country the folks I see buying/renting "fool screen" DVDs are in older generations. A lot of younger adults are surprisingly knowledgeable or at least very observant about things like differing aspect ratios and the "look" of 'scope.

quote: Frank Angel
Many early films had the word CinemaScope in the same point size as the film title. Now, scope pictures are played without so much as a reference to that fact anywhere, not in the ads, not at the theatre lobby, not on the 1 sheets.

The bulk of a movie's credits were shifted from the front of the movie to the end of it during the 1970s. With that change, phrases like "filmed in Panavision" have been crawling up screens facing vacant auditoriums every since.

Many large movie palaces have closed over the past few decades, only to be replaced with cookie cutter multiplex builds. It seems a little ironic to have a giant "CinemaScope" logo projected onto a tiny screen in an auditorium not much bigger than work place break room. This problem really grew in the 1970s.

Movie poster design even began omitting phrases like "filmed in Panavision" during the 1970s. Every now and then I see a modern movie poster use the Panavision logo or that marketing phrase, but it's rare.

The biggest problem today screwing up how 'scope is treated is way too many movies are using it. Movies in 1.85:1 seem pretty rare, unlike the late 1980s when damned near everything was flat -thanks to the influence of the booming home video rental industry and VHS. Today, if a movie is shot spherically, chances are it will just get cropped to 2.39:1 regardless of what kind of movie it is, be it an epic worthy of 'scope or some little throw-away comedy. 2.39:1 is getting so over-used that it doesn't seem special anymore.

Those problems don't help framing formats like 2.39:1. But there's still a certain fashion to the look of 'scope. Just look at all the music videos on TV that have been filmed with anamorphic lenses to get that distinct movie look.

quote: Ron Funderburg
The Cinerama aspect and other wide screens in excesses of 2.39 to one were developed to mimic the human filed of vision

There's more it than that.

Different aspect ratios give a director and DP different options for composing the frame. Take a walk through a gallery showing paintings or photography. You're not going to find everything on the wall there framed in the same shape. Why should movies be forced to do that?

"Portrait," "landscape" and very wide "marine" framing conventions in painting have been around for hundreds of years. Immersive movies like This is Cinerama left a visceral influence on filmmaking. But I contend that classic art and still photography as art have had a much greater influence on choice of framing format and shot composition.

With the overuse of Super35 and the often safe, half-assed compositions that go with that home video safe wide screen, I could see that being the opportunity for everything to go 1.85:1 or 1.77:1. When someone shoots a 2.39:1 movie in anamorphic, he has little choice but to compose for that super wide rectangle.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 01-24-2008, 10:56 PM:

Scope is particularly important in smaller cinemas. If the screen is 18-25 ft wide in Scope, it becomes too small for flat. Make it common width and it’s a great let-down when the masking drops for a smaller Scope.

Screens under 15ft in a complex should be totally devoted to 16x9 product and not pretend to be cinemas.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-25-2008, 04:06 PM:

Okay, don't any of you fellow wonderful film handlers take any offense to the following statement. It is a statement of the facts of life in our current cinema environment.

I'm tried of the half trained, fully careless, totally unconcerned way that the current crop of unqualified film handlers do their jobs. I hate to receive film off break now, scratched, jumbled edges from brain wraps, layers and layers of tape on splices, broken DTS CDs crammed in under the reels. The film looking as if it was run though a washer, or trampled under foot. Dirt, grit and generally very poorly taken care of film.

It will be a good thing when we learn you can't take people and just dump them in the booth! Well I have know that for a long, long time but the bad condition of film after just few short weeks is something I don't understand. I got “The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything” today and built it up only to find several spots where it was obvious they had brain wraps, multiple layers of tape on the frames where they had joined the reels.

How can movie have several layers to be stripped off after two weeks? It is scratched in several places that I can see while building up so I'm not looking forward to seeing it on the screen.

God help us when did we get where any 16 year old kid could run a booth!

Posted by Roger Summars (Member # 4494) on 01-25-2008, 04:15 PM:

sounds like you got a print from the town just to my south

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 01-25-2008, 05:19 PM:

quote:
God help us when did we get where any 16 year old kid could run a booth!

Xenon lamps, automation and the almighty dollar!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-25-2008, 05:29 PM:

In defence of at least three of those 16 year olde that do a good job I can alsorelate a good number of Union horror stories that are just as bad. Being in an organization that's devoted to the refinement of a craft is meaningless unless the person actually cares about said craft and his/her job.

Mark

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-25-2008, 06:14 PM:

Mark,

I look for people that are dedicated and have a true interest in film and my place doesn't, as a rule, cause film problems! I have had both good and bad union employees but I have never seen the like of scratched film as the last few years.

I have been the big city and the little town and looked at films all over and there is just a proliferation (thats a 30 cent word for a lot) of bad film around these days. Lack of concern at the labs as well as the theaters but hey I'm just a lil ole theater manager!

Roger what town would that be? I mean what would the first letter of that town start with? Out of some amount of curiosity!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-25-2008, 07:38 PM:

One of the problems is too many business people in this country follow the business model of hiring whoever will work for the least amount of money rather than paying a bit extra or significantly more for someone who can do that job very well.

There's lots of people with very little art/design talent trying to work in the graphic design industry, and they're given jobs because they're willing to work for very little pay. They have the following mindset: "Ooh, I can click a few buttons in Photoshop; that makes me a graphic artist!" Yeah, I can swing a golf club, but that doesn't make me Tiger Woods. I own three electric guitars, but I'm no Edward Van Halen.

On the bright side, the notion that "computers are making the art, so we don't need to hire any real artists" is finally dying out a bit. People with real art/design talent have far better developed visual problem solving skills and are therefore far more productive in design than anyone who cannot think visually.

It's sad that film projection is turning into a sort of lost art form. I think it just comes down to having someone in the booth who really loves movies, has some mechanical aptitude and just gives a damn about doing his job competently. And that doesn't necessarily require a person that would turn film projection into a career either. It just takes some decent work ethics.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-25-2008, 07:59 PM:

Ron,

Agreed... its only getting worse and worse... I just wanted to at least give those three 16 yo kids somewhere out there a pat on the back for doing a good job.

quote:
There's lots of people with very little art/design talent trying to work in the graphic design industry, and they're given jobs because they're willing to work for very little pay. They have the following mindset: "Ooh, I can click a few buttons in Photoshop; that makes me a graphic artist!"

My wife sees the same thing in the CAD field... her company hires newbies right out of school... they then proceed to design huge oil and chemical storage tanks for refinries. Wife always has alot of mopping up to do in the detail end of things so the tanks parts will all actually fit together.

Mark

Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 01-26-2008, 01:52 PM:

Dolby's
new Digital video.

Posted by Roger Summars (Member # 4494) on 01-29-2008, 03:27 PM:

Ron Funderburg

On 2 occasions, we have received a print 3 weeks old from a town in Northwest Oklahoma that starts with the letter "W". I know we received from them because someone had to drive over there to get the print. In both cases, the print was VERY dirty from start to finish. Because of that, we have instituted a new procedure in the booth where we do a "Booth Checklist" for each film we run, and put the completed form in a folder for the theater manager to review. It contains such information as lamphouse hours, lamphouse current, how many spare rolls of splice tape, condition of the print/DTS discs, any pre-show issues, and on and on.

Someday I'll make friends with the manager of that "W" theater, and I can casually say "What kind of equipment are you running? Care if I have a look?"

On the upside.....
Since this happened, I have been able to get the booth crew interested in maintaining a cleaner booth, a cleaner projector, and generally a cleaner environment for ourselves and our equipment.

Roger

Posted by Adam Holland (Member # 4539) on 01-29-2008, 05:29 PM:

Do any of you know that if you are just getting into the business trying to redo and old theatre if it would be possible to get in one of the buying groups to go digital?

Also in the stage we are in would it be wise to go with a platter system or digital?

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 01-29-2008, 06:49 PM:

It's sensible and prudent to do both. Have your booth designed for both film and digital.

It may also be a good idea (and this applies to Ron's original question) to explore a stand-alone business model for the D-Cinema equipment. A small premium on tickets for 3-D and alternative content (live concerts, sports, etc.) can be used as a revenue stream that pays for the equipment over a defined period.

This means that the cinema owner remains in full control, and can choose the best outcome for their theatre.

Also, financial projections can be done on the basis that there is now a known supply of 3-D titles in the pipeline, and you can employ the services of a reputable engineer / tech who is impartial and familiar with both film and digital equipment.

quote: Roger Summars
On the upside.....
Since this happened, I have been able to get the booth crew interested in maintaining a cleaner booth, a cleaner projector, and generally a cleaner environment for ourselves and our equipment.

Roger

Congratulations! [beer]

This is the kind of pro-active approach that works wonders. Better to light a candle than curse the darkness [Cool]

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 01-29-2008, 07:32 PM:

Filmgard will also fix your problems ie dirt and light bass scratching, It really is an amazing product and does allow prints to be run 300 times at opening night quality! A lot cheaper than going digital!
BRAD when are you going to produce the dolby style tags?

quote: Adam Holland
Also in the stage we are in would it be wise to go with a platter system or digital?

If you have $100,000 dollars for it, do the digital cinema.
If you don't, 2nd hand 35mm with LED optical sound plus a platter and filmgard would be an inexpensive start.
Large screen video presentations can be made from cheap consumer grade video projectors.
All while you wait for the price of Digital Cinema to get cheaper and the quality continues to improve.

Running a single screen cinema is hardly a big money spinner. One of your options would be as a mulipurpose venue, mixing live performance, corperate and occasional film screenings, or another option is to convert your large cinema into several smaller ones. ie drop a wall infront of the balcony and now a cinema 2, additional projection room can be built downstairs ect. This is done mostly to be able to get a better deal with film companies "terms"

Untill we know more about the buildings plans, Its hard to answer your question properly.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-30-2008, 02:39 PM:

Cameron Film guard is a great way to keep prints new it doesn't help on badly damaged prints! On the other hand you have to get the owners of where you work to invest in the $500.00 or so cleaning unit and the $60.00 a platter mounting bracket. This is something I have been unable to achieve!

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-30-2008, 04:03 PM:

Where did he say that it would help on badly damaged prints? He said it would help on "dirt and light bass scratching."

Posted by Roger Summars (Member # 4494) on 01-30-2008, 04:14 PM:

Adam Holland

We just got our theater re-opened after being closed for 15 years. The projector was still there, and worked. We replaced the lamphouse, put in a used platter system, and replaced the sound system. Total cost --- less than 20K. All the equipment was used. I too want to go digital, but the longer we wait, the cheaper it will be, and the better the equipment will be. Until then, I'm not unhappy with my Century Model C.

I thought I read somewhere that there was a guy in Amarillo, Texas who was rebuilding old Century projectors. If anyone knows who that might be, I sure would like to make contact with him just in case we need parts or help.

Roger

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 01-30-2008, 04:29 PM:

quote: Roger Summars
thought I read somewhere that there was a guy in Amarillo, Texas who was rebuilding old Century projectors. If anyone knows who that might be, I sure would like to make contact with him just in case we need parts or help.

Don't know about Texas... but Louis from Hadden Theatre Supply in Louisville, KY has quite a rebuild shop for Centurys and Simplex's.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-30-2008, 04:33 PM:

Yes, he did state that but my complaint way back when was badly scratched prints from other theaters. The statement was on what film-guard couldn't help with nothing more!

Posted by Adam Holland (Member # 4539) on 01-30-2008, 07:06 PM:

Roger,

I wish we were in as good shape as you were when you began you project. However, what we inherited were two worn our Motiongraph 1950 model projectors and motiograph sound equipment that didn't work. However our ORCON II lamphouses did work until I sold the sound equipment to a guy and he cut the wrong wire when disconecting it.

Bill from Tri-State in Memphis has put us a quote together and we are hoping to get about 15 to 30 grand from the state in grants to help us out. He has suggested going back with one simplex xl and a new sound system with a 15x26 retractable screen that will hang about half way back on the stage.

We are hoping to close in May to do this restoration and open back up in August.

Currently we are renting from Swank and showing movies on DVD with a power point projector on a 9x15 screen nailed against the back wall of the stage (Note Screen is a painters drop cloth)

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 01-30-2008, 07:22 PM:

Adam, not to put a kink in your plan but May to August is your busiest time of the year. Weather it is first run or not those are the prime months!

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 01-31-2008, 10:01 AM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Filmgard will also fix your problems ie dirt and light bass scratching

Well you can see that I have speakers on my mind! Base scratching sorry

Ron, my comments were generaly aimed at Adams question, I find his current involvement in the restoration of an old single screen cinema facinating from afar.

Your situation I do understand, I do not have a filmgard applicator in my projection room. One of my former employers did buy it when I suggested it though, and if you could have seen the before and after effect that filmguard had on a well worn 1960's print of "Thunderbirds are Go", you would probably sing its praises too.

Now if you were to go to your boss and say, that for $700 you can upgrade the current gear, get the same on screen results that a $100 000 digital upgrade can achieve. Especially if you add, that then you can wait until the gear gets cheaper and of better quality! "Opening night quality every night" can be achieved other ways. It might be exactly what he wants to hear?

Then again, what he probably wants to hear is that the digital gear is free.

Posted by Adam Holland (Member # 4539) on 01-31-2008, 04:37 PM:

Ron,

Thanks for your concern, but that will be as soon as we will be able to get some capital out lay funds as the legislature doesn't begin meeting on fiscal matters until April. Even then it may be longer until we get our funds. Currently we are showing with the equipment I mentioned above just one weekend a month.

We also have other programing such as gospel concerts, pagents, talent shows, etc that we rent the building out for $300 per month.

We will be showing Amazing Grace Feb 15-17, if any of you showed this movie how did it do for you and what can I expect.

We are mailing invitations to all the local preachers and asking them to mention it in thier bulletins and will be showing it to about 200 high school seniors durring the day on the 15 as it is can be considered a piece of English lit.

Posted by Roger Summars (Member # 4494) on 02-01-2008, 11:06 AM:

Adam,

Tri-State supplied the equipment for our rebuild, except for the DTS-6AD and speaker wire. They had some great used equipment at fair prices, and they sold us new amps for the sound system.

You don't say how big your theater is.... we have a used 1000 watt lamphouse and power supply, but I'll bet you can get a good deal from Tri-state.

Good Luck !!!

Roger

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 02-01-2008, 11:22 AM:

Cameron I used Film guard a great deal in the theater's I owned, when I owned them. I found it to protect the film and to be a valuable asset for the booth. I just can't make the owners I work for understand this is a wise way to spend money! It is but I can't make them understand it!

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 02-01-2008, 11:42 AM:

I don't know of anyone in Amarillo who is rebuilding projector heads. Doesn't mean someone isn't, but I simply don't know of anyone who is. I don't think there is a tech who lives out there.
R.W. "Pinky" Pinkston is still rebuilding Century and Simplex intermittents, but he lives closer to Dallas/Ft Worth...or he was as of 2 years ago when he did some work for Skeet Noret.

Posted by Roger Summars (Member # 4494) on 02-01-2008, 01:59 PM:

there is a film cleaner on ebay.... item # 160204122405. Does anyone know if this will work with FilmGuard? I'm looking at the products tab on the web site, and that cleaner looks much different.

thanks

Roger

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-01-2008, 02:13 PM:

No. That is bracket for Particle Transfer Rollers (PTRs). Filmguard requires a cleaner that supports dry (well, or wet) cloth media that can be advanced along with the film.

--jhawk

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 02-01-2008, 02:18 PM:

Roger that appears to be a tacky surface cleaner not a film media cleaner. Film guard is liquid that you put on film media pads (rolls of film media actually) the one you are showing uses a tacky surface on roller to pull the dirt off the film and I don't recommend those at all.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-01-2008, 05:11 PM:

Careful, Ron - John Pytlak might just come back and haunt you for that! [Wink]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-01-2008, 06:18 PM:

They won't work with FilmGuard but you can use them to stop any paperwork pertaining to FilmGuard from blowing away.

That's about all they're good for.

Posted by Adam Holland (Member # 4539) on 02-01-2008, 06:45 PM:

Roger,

Our thaeatre is a 700 seat two level facility with the projection room being at the top of the upper deck. The port windows are about 100 feet from where the new screen will be and about 25 feet from ground level. We currently have 3000 watt lamp houses hooked up the the old equipment and that is the size Bill from TriState said we would need with the new simplex xl.

If you are ever in Northeast Louisiana make sure you stop by to see us.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-02-2008, 12:14 PM:

Sounds like a nice project with some good advice behind it - good luck with it.

quote: John Wilson
That's about all they're good for.

Is that fair? AFAIK PTRs were not designed for heavy cleaning duties, but to remove light material as found on negative stock and on new release prints.

A case of "Horses for courses"?

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 02-02-2008, 04:52 PM:

I tend to agree with John and Ron, The Wet Gate process of Filmguard not only improves the on screen look of film. It protects against mistread damage, brings second hand prints back to new condition and leaves most prints spotless.

As with Dolby Digital 2k projectors claim "Opening Night Quality, Every night!" Filmguard is the only product that can allow film to do this. PTR's don't come close even when new! As they age they simply seem to move the dirt from one part of the print to another.

PTR's do do something and are better than nothing, plus are enviromentally friendly.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-02-2008, 05:06 PM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
PTR's do do something and are better than nothing.

You're absolutely correct! They spread the layer of dust and crap out evenly throughout the entire length of the film. So at least the crap layer is consistant for the duration. Actually, they are absolutely worthless for cleaning features in the average booth... and a job which they were never intended for. Proper use of FilmGuard is the only way to counter the dirt/crap problem.

Mark

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-02-2008, 06:29 PM:

If you read my post again, I wasn't advocating the use of PTRs instead of FilmGuard; clearly FilmGuard is a much better cleaning method for medium to heavy dirt build-up on prints, and helps prevent dirt build-up in the first place.

Also, one is meant to swap out PTRs regularly and wash them.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 02-02-2008, 08:29 PM:

Brian, give it up once the dogs have a bone they ain't going to let up no matter what you meant to so or not! Just have to chew and chew and chew!

LOL ain't it grand!

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-02-2008, 09:05 PM:

Yeah, most people that pan PTR rollers have no clue on how to use them. If you are running them for an entire feature, they are not going to do well...they are a preventive cleaner to keep light dust off of a film and are the only in-booth cleaner for archival films.

I use them in screening rooms and change the rollers for each and every reel. As such any dust on the film from the lab is removed as is any dusting due to projection.

For main stream cinemas however, Film-Guard with a media cleaner is THE only way to go.

Steve

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 02-03-2008, 05:58 AM:

I use PTRs' for film festivals & premieres which helps minimize dust / wax build up in the gates, partically in straight gate V-5 machines. The painted film leader, especially red, is a dust leaver running through a warm film gate [Frown]

Most local festivals locally do not want any sort of wet cleaning due to liability or lack of time. Several times I have cut off film can padlocks with the O.K. of a studio represenative(s) who did not have the "combination" [Wink]