This is topic Sony about to release new cinema projector 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=000018
Posted by Warren Smyth (Member # 1838) on 04-27-2007, 08:03 PM:
Apparently Sony's new "ultra clear" projector is expected to make its theatrical debut in August. They claim it produces 4,096 x 2,160 pixels.
I maybe entirely incorrect but I seem to remember a report attributed to Kodak, saying that 4K is about equal to 35mm film. If the above specification is correct, then D cinema maybe taking a leap past 35mm and halfway towards 70mm film, that is assuming that the originating format and technology matches.
Naturally, I realize that there are differences in the two mediums and one cannot make an accurate direct comparison. Also I think we are past the old debate of film verses digital, but this development seem very significant.
Has anyone seen the results of this development?
http://www.tvpredictions.com/sonymovies042507.htm
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-27-2007, 08:43 PM:
A couple of things here....
Sony = Soon, Only Not Yet. Just because they say they are going to have something doesn't mean they are going to have it or have it any time soon or as fast as they claim they will.
4K is 4096 x 2160 and that is what is considered about the point when 35mm (1.85 with a mere .446 x .825") and the best quality video start to look the same in terms of resolving power...nothing said about color, contrast and such. Note, for 35mm scope...film gets to be not quite twice as good while video gets to be not quite half as good.
70mm remains several time better than 35mm on any format (different amounts if you are comparing 1.85, anamorphic or Super-35 origination vs. 65mm origination).
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-28-2007, 02:09 PM:
So in other words, just as the digivangelists said that the first 1.3K video projectors produced a picture BETTER than film and that film would be gone in 5 years, and then those same people assured us that 2K was definitely BETTER than film and the big "roll-out" was the beginning of the end of film for theatrical exhibition, now surely they will be shouting from the rooftops that 4K is MUCH BETTER than film and we might as well pack up those antique 35mm projectors and send them to the movie museum....what Steve summarizes means that in the end, what they say about this new 4K will STILL be so much hype and BS and remain a reality only in the minds of the people who will benefit financially from DeeCinema.
Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 04-28-2007, 04:18 PM:
Yes its true, film is done..you knew it was coming, now hury up and act now, for $50 I will scrap your film projectors and film transports for you. Especially those Kinoton,s, all junk. PM me for my services, I even take PayPal ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 04-28-2007, 06:47 PM:
quote: Frank Angel
we might as well pack up those antique 35mm projectors and send them to the movie museum
Sure...along with all those newly-antique 2K projectors! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-28-2007, 06:54 PM:
No matter how much SONY strokes and entices us, based on their history of leaving a shitload of customers getting fucked and hanging for big-time $$$...i.e. Beta VCR, SDDS, etc, I wouldn't buy ANYTHING from them again, EVER!
Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 04-28-2007, 07:10 PM:
I'm sure you could market 70mm blow-ups as 'High Definition' film and people would lap it up.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-28-2007, 07:49 PM:
Many years ago at a showeast seminar John Pytlak and DTS and myself suggested that this industry had a high def system already lets use it
as usual it fell on deaf ears
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-29-2007, 01:15 AM:
It's falling on deaf ears because lots of businessmen are greedy.
A film projector can last decades. Businessmen don't want that. They would prefer it if the theater had to buy a new projector every few years. Digital can provide that! Cha-ching!
Posted by Justin West (Member # 920) on 04-29-2007, 01:46 AM:
Bobby, you may be onto something there. Sorta like how the music industry killed off vinyl well before it's time...and now, look: their CDs are dying on the shelves! The studios are placing their bets that digital will save them the $$ that save the industry...and they may be ignoring the obvious. ![[uhoh]](graemlins/uhoh.gif)
KNOW your history!
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 04-29-2007, 04:13 AM:
While there are many good arguments for and against digital projection the one argument against that I have a problem with is the whole 'it will be obselete in few years, just like home computers' agrument. Its really not a good comparison. I bought my first computer just before I went off to college in 1998. It was a IBM PII 450 mhz PC-I can't remember the rest of the stats but that tells you all you need to know. I doubt I could effectively surf most of the websites I go to now with that machine, and most certainly I wouldn't be able to run any of the games or other software I have. I upgraded once so far, back in 2001, and I'm near another upgrade. The critics of digital would say 'You see, in 10 years you had to upgrade 3 times!'
However, as long as the studios continue to provide DCI compliant files the current crop of 2K projectors WILL WORK INDEFINATELY. Fifty years from now so long as there are spare parts and so long as the studios are still putting out product in the same format these projectors and servers WILL WORK.
Now I am not certain that the 2K spec will last 50 years. I do know, however, that when a standards change does occcur it will be up to the studios-not the digital projection manufacturs. And seeing as how the current rollout is only being made possible by studio financing I don't think any standards change will be coming soon. For better or worse we are stuck with 2k and possibly 4k for quite a long time.
Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 04-29-2007, 05:17 AM:
If Sony wants to succeed in the DC area, they should make it possible for other companies to license this technology and use it for their projectors. Just like Texas does with DLP.
http://www.sonybiz.net/res/attachment/file/12/1172517874712.pdf
http://www.sonybiz.net/res/attachment/file/26/1175002581526.pdf
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-29-2007, 08:34 AM:
quote: Patrick de Groot
If Sony wants to succeed in the DC area, they should make it possible for other companies to license this technology and use it for their projectors. Just like Texas does with DLP.
Well, ya can't really liscense sopmething that still doesn't really work... The imagimg chips can't take the heat levels associated with the higher lumens that DLP projectors put out which is why JVC abandoned it the chip altogether for cinema. Anyway you could do the exact same thing with 8 2K DLP chips...
quote:
No matter how much SONY strokes and entices us, based on their history of leaving a ******** of customers getting ****** and hanging for big-time $$$...i.e. Beta VCR, SDDS, etc, I wouldn't buy ANYTHING from them again, EVER!
Eloquently said Phil! Not only have they alienated a bunch in this industry but they've also done the exact same thing in the Broadcast industry over the last 15 or so years.
quote: Justin West
The studios are placing their bets that digital will save them the $$ that save the industry
Justin...
Not even close! Digital's main 2 goals are to stop pirating and lower distribution expenses. Digital will do exactly both of those.
quote: Alan Gouger
Yes its true, film is done..you knew it was coming, now hury up and act now, for $50 I will scrap your film projectors and film transports for you. Especially those Kinoton,s, all junk. PM me for my services, I even take PayPal
Heck... I'll do it for a package of Oreos and a half gallon of milk .
Mark
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-29-2007, 11:29 AM:
quote: Dustin Mitchell
While there are many good arguments for and against digital projection the one argument against that I have a problem with is the whole 'it will be obsolete in few years, just like home computers' argument. Its really not a good comparison.
There's a couple issues that make the comparison quite valid.
1. A film projector is far less complicated, easier to fix when something breaks or wears out and has reasonably standardized parts that haven't changed a whole lot in decades. You don't have the same situation with a digital projector.
2. There are various parts throughout a digital cinema system whose standards are in a constant state of change. Several years from now you could have various cable connectors, hard drive types and lots of other computer based parts that are no longer available. Good example of this: early DTS players. You can't support those things anymore. Toshiba hasn't been making 2X speed caddy-loading SCSI CD-ROM drives in many years. No one's making those i386 motherboards anymore either. Over the years countless types of computer parts have become obsolete or just discontinued.
Give any digital cinema system 10 years. After that decade is up, chances are the entire system or at least major parts of it will need to be replaced.
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-29-2007, 12:41 PM:
quote: Dustin Mitchell
WILL WORK INDEFINATELY
That is a bad belief on anything. I don't care what it is. It should never be stated because odds are it will come back to haunt you.
I would not even say the frame would last indefinitely. Essentially that projector is a computer. Hell I had to reboot it the other day because the touch pad screen was froze up. The big issue is the cost of replacing the components when something does go out. These things have to get to a level where a cinema owner can OWNE the projector and not rely on some over weighted service contract and lack of ownership of the projector.
I will say if anything the servers will be the first to go before the projector because they are totally computers and will need to be upgraded in the future because of various reasons.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-29-2007, 12:56 PM:
The only aspect of digital technology that remains unchanged is change itself. Given that situation, I'm not so sure paying the extra cost to own digital cinema equipment outright would be such a good idea. Leasing those expensive systems seems to make more sense.
When it comes to computer hardware and software I know full well that all of it will have to be replaced/upgraded over time. That's just the cost of doing business. Home users wind up hurting financially from the situation because those systems don't typically pay for themselves in business endeavors.
I don't think it's going to be any different regarding digital cinema systems either. Perhaps one may not need to swap out major components of the system or replace the entire system nearly as often. But I do think a 10 year life span for a newly installed 2K system may be a little optimistic.
I don't know the monetary details behind Carmike's deal with Christie and AccessIT, but I'm sure there had to be some cost advantages on the deal otherwise Carmike would not have gone through with it.
The only way I could see it being sensible for a movie theater to buy D-Cinema systems outright is if they're getting a much sweeter deal on the box office receipts. As it stands, most movie theaters are already getting screwed as it is even when they show movies on film. To top of it, the movie distributors keep making noises of wanting a cut of the concessions business. Too much more of that crap and we'll see the exhibition business just disappear.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-29-2007, 03:22 PM:
Remember that "never" is 6 months and "forever" is a year!! (to a computer guy)
For a film guy "new" is 10 years and "forever" is 50 years. Louis
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 04-29-2007, 03:29 PM:
Perhaps I didn't qaulify my statement enough; the cost and availability of spare parts is key to the longevity of digital projection, yes.
However, the primary factor that makes old computers obsolete is not so much cost/availability of spare parts-though that is certainly a factor-but rather the increasing needs of new software for more processing power and more memory. I am just pointing ut that that is NOT the case with digital projection. Assuming the 2k or even the 4k standard is still the standard in 10 years-which I think is a pretty good assumption-the processing power/memory requirements for a digital server will be the same as they are today. You cannot say that for a PC/Mac and the software it will be expected to run in 10 years.
Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 04-29-2007, 04:50 PM:
OK so everything has a life. For business purposes, there is the depreciable life of the item. That is, how many years do you have to write the cost of an asset off against your income to determine profit. Perhaps there are people here who argue that the Dcinema equipment will not last the depreciable life. This depreciation schedule has little to do with how long the equipment, with proper maintenance, will actually last.
For business purposes, the equipment should have paid for itself within 10 years. At that point, you can no longer write off a part of the purchase cost of the equipment against your income. If you feel that the equipment will not last through the depreciation schedule, then you should consider leasing it. The cost of leased equipment can be directly charged against income as it is an operating expense and not your asset.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-29-2007, 06:01 PM:
quote: Kenneth Wuepper
If you feel that the equipment will not last through the depreciation schedule, then you should consider leasing it. The cost of leased equipment can be directly charged against income as it is an operating expense and not your asset.
Actually leasing D-Cinema gear has alot of other benefits besides what you mention above.... In fact I wouldn't reccomend to anyone to actually purchase outright anything digital based thats in that expense league.
Mark
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-29-2007, 06:18 PM:
You also have the factor of the movie distributors being the ones who derive by far the greatest cost savings benefit of digital cinema. It's not making much of a difference to the movie theaters themselves, other than maybe attracting a few more tech-head types because of "digital" being on the marquee and in the ads.
When you consider what it costs to make 35mm film prints and just how many of those prints any 1st run theater shows per year, many digital cinema systems would pay for themselves within 5-10 years based on the cost savings of not making film prints alone.
This is precisely why the studios should put up a great deal of the money in installing the things. If a theater has to pay for the equipment then it should get a bigger percentage of the box office take.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-29-2007, 09:08 PM:
Well, in 1927 they didn't theaters pretty much HAVE TO BUY those new fangled "sound systems". Theaters and chains paid incessant amounts of money to the likes of Western Electric and RCA for sound playback or they went out of buisness. The priced paid in 1927 dollars translate to many more 2007 dollars than it costs for an average D-Cinema system. Seems like everyone survived sound and its built in equipment obsolescence.
Mark
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-30-2007, 12:55 AM:
The difference there is, the studios did not save money when sound was introduced. They spent money too, by investing in the equipment needed to make sound movies (not to mention also finding a whole 'nother group of actors who could act with their voices and not just their bodies).
Theatres that treat film properly now won't benefit in the least from DC except to save some labor and shipping cost, which is miniscule in the big picture. The studios will reap 90% of the benefit so they should help pay, if not in virtual print fees, then in substantial film rent discounts.
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 04-30-2007, 02:52 AM:
Absa-blooming-lootly Mike.
In the 50s exhibitors invested the price of a house to convert to CinemaScope. That was a difference that audiences appreciated.
Then there was the considerable investment in digital sound that most people liked.
BUT ... DC is like installing a new platter: No tangible difference to the customer.
If, tomorrow film distributors said "Sorry, by December we will only issue 70mm prints" then we would be making another investment in show business.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-30-2007, 08:16 AM:
You guys are way too narrow minded! We are talking about exhibition here not production. Bu ok... you want to include production... keep in mind that the typical negative cost on a single largish film film production today is 150 million... and you say the studios are not spending?
My base for comparison to sound was because it was the last time that a comparable amount of $$ was required to be spent by the exhibitor and it cost the typical 1927 exhibitor the equivelent of $100,000 in 2007 U.S. dollars just to equip for Western Electric or RCA sound, this does not include service contracts... and yes, you had to use Western Electric(again at great expense) until the feds divested that bunch. That high cost is why so many "bootleg" sound system manufacturers poped up back then. At any rate everyone survived that, Cinemascope, Todd-AO, and and THX.
No tangible difference to the customer.
Man either you haven't see it yet or you're just plain blind .
No scratches, no dust, no splices...looks like dailies when done right! Thats a difference that people DO notice.
Mark
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 04-30-2007, 06:42 PM:
No scratches, no dust, no splices...looks like dailies when done right! Thats a difference that people DO notice.
Sounds like film done right to me.
Yes, handling film properly isn't easy. I, for one will welcome its replacement with a servicable digital system that shows a better image than a good Scope print on my screen. I have seen brilliant DC. I have even shown some 1.3K E-Cinema images on our screen that look better than some flat 35mm prints.
But, on this thread, we are still talking about promises.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-30-2007, 07:14 PM:
Ron,
On the average size multiplex screen the promises have been met with just 2K projection. With a top notch transfer its pretty startling just how good it can be. I agree that handling film is not so easy but the bigger problem is finding just one person for each plex that even cares any more. typically I see one person in about 10 plex's that still cares and that one person is typically part time and never stays very long. This is one of the biggest problems that DC will solve.
Mark
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-30-2007, 07:54 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Well, in 1927 they didn't theaters pretty much HAVE TO BUY those new fangled "sound systems". Theaters and chains paid incessant amounts of money to the likes of Western Electric and RCA for sound playback or they went out of buisness.
Back then movie distributors also owned most of the movie theaters.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
You guys are way too narrow minded! We are talking about exhibition here not production. Bu ok... you want to include production... keep in mind that the typical negative cost on a single largish film film production today is 150 million... and you say the studios are not spending?
A new stadium seated multiplex theater costs at least $10 million to over $30 million to build. It's not like the exhibitors have avoided spending money either. But far worse, the exhibitors have puny profit margins the distributors keep trying to further erode. The exhibitors don't have all the ancillary markets to sell product either.
Sure $150 million is a hell of a lot to spend on a movie production (not to mention another $50 million or more to market it). But the distributors often make back all that money and a LOT more in profit from international markets, DVD sales and rental, pay per view, cable, merchandising, etc.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
No tangible difference to the customer. Man either you haven't see it yet or you're just plain blind.
The problem is not enough customers care about the difference to make a huge, positive dent in the movie theater's concession stand business.
The Carmike theater in my town is many times better than the theater in Central Mall. Nevertheless, more people still go to the mall theater just because it is in the mall. People I know keep going there even after I tell them they're endorsing bad product by continuing to pay for it. Even some distributors like Paramount will book a certain number of their movies only in that theater, regardless of the fact the Carmike would do a better job showing the movie and the distributor would save $1000-$3000 in loaning the Carmike theater a hard disc instead of a film print.
And the fact remains the movie distributors are saving lots of money on digital cinema by not having to make any film prints. The distributors have every reason to push digital cinema equipment and have good reasons to invest in it because it quickly makes a big dent in the bottom line.
The movie theaters themselves aren't gaining a big difference in profit margins over it. With that simple math it's pretty easy to conclude that it is foolish and downright unfair for a movie theater, especially any independent movie theater, to buy digital cinema hardware systems outright. They're better off getting into a leasing arrangement, preferably one where the movie distributors are picking up a significant amount of the hardware cost.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-30-2007, 09:50 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
the typical negative cost on a single largish film film production today is 150 million ...and you say the studios are not spending?
But Mark, they'd be spending that money with or without digital projection.
And yeah, I've seen a few digital presentations. They look good, but I'm with Bobby on this one...if the digital theatres weren't putting up huge lobby signs and blasting trailers that say DIGITAL!!! in front of the movies, 90% of the crowd (especially in the first weekend) wouldn't notice there was anything different. If they did, then there was something REALLY wrong with that theatre's film handling!
Posted by Joel N. Weber II (Member # 3530) on 04-30-2007, 11:21 PM:
What's the quality going to be like on a five year old digital projector that never gets cleaned, though?
Also, when sound came out in 1927, there wasn't competition with home video. Whereas it appears that, at least in theory, a good home theater ought to be able to have quality nearly as good as the D-Cinema experience: the sound ought to potentially be about equal, and the resolution about equal. (Yes, I know D-Cinema may have fewer compression artifacts. But it's close enough that there may be fewer theatergoers in 2007 than 1927, and perhaps theather owners' investment needs to be adjusted accordingly.)
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 05-01-2007, 12:05 AM:
[rant] [Redifer 2-paragraph filter].
Why are we still talking about what a film looks like after only one weekend, like that's an issue the average patron cares about?
It's been long established, that an investment of $700 or so into a film cleaner and supplies, and proper handling will keep a print in excellent condition for far longer than the average theatre would care to have it. It amazes me that so many exhibitors don't see this as a no-brainer. Filmguard and Kelmar should be as common in the booth as a xenon light bulb. But then, these are the same companies that held off on red readers, nearly until the prints showed up at their doors.
If the exhibitor saw a substantial increase in his business for the sake of film cleaners and trained operators in every booth, I doubt they'd be running their theatres like they do today.
If this was only an argument over a couple-thousand bucks a screen, I could see making an argument that the exhibitors are just being cheap. However, this whole model is just nuts. There's no other part of this business where the retailer (us) would be asked to make such a huge investment in relatively short-lived technology, knowing up front that the returns probably aren't there. We're still seeing numbers like $100,000++ for basic digital, then four-figured numbers for maintenance contracts. Adding 3D? With no guarantee of content, figure another $50k for the gear and $24k per year for permission from the manufacturer to use it... per screen! Who's making that kind of money?????
Why fingers continue to be pointed at the exhibitor as being the roadblock here doesn't make a lot of sense.
Back in the '70s, I was a union operator in our state's capital. We had 3 large downtown houses, all single-screeners. Two of them had mag sound. We had spotless, well-maintained booths, with sound systems that were under contract to RCA. Our operational standards were comparable to those I worked under in Seattle. If there was anything wrong with a customer's experience in those theatres, it sure wasn't because of the presentation.
Then, Tom Moyer expanded into our state from Oregon. He brought with him a "frugal", cookie-cutter approach to theatre construction, including early-version PRO-35 machines that shook a picture to death right out of the box. He canned the unions, automated everything and cut maintenance to near-zero. The union guys freaked, and did their best to educate people that union equaled good show, and non-union equaled dirt, framing error, upside-down pictures, bad sound, missed changeovers, scratches, burn marks and missing reels (sort of like Grindhouse). Did it matter? Nope. Moyer had newer theatres, better locations, better parking, AND all the titles on the break. The people went where the shows were, and no amount of presentation excellence seemed to matter. You can apply this same argument to digital sound. There are plenty of screens out there that are still running SR, and most people aren't walking out of their auditoriums in disgust.
So it's understandable, at least to me, why this digital stuff isn't in everyone's booth already. Right or wrong... If the studios aren't delivering the equipment with our weekly shipment of posters, the mainstream exhibitor has one reason to hold off on this that overrides all others... money.
If this really is the wave of our future, then get it in at a price that doesn't equal total lunacy, prove a reliability factor that's at least an arm's reach from what we get now, come up with a rational upgrade path, then let's go!
Oh, yah™. A consistent stream of attractive content would also be nice.
..... no?
[/rant] [/Redifer]
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-01-2007, 03:59 AM:
Jack, that's not a rant, that's just common sense. What is sooo incredible is that the big chain exhibitor owners who are by nature a stingy lot, seem to have been drugged or hypnotized or maybe the studios invited them to a big party in Hollywood and now have pictures of them all bedded down with farm animals or something because they seem to be in a trance and are being led like zombies, wallets opened while the studios and the hardware manufactures help themselves to all their money, with nary a peep out of them, other than to occasionally stutter some badly memorized jibberish about how they are on the cutting edge of the new age of jitterless, dirt and scratch-less presentation. And the rest of us stand watching like we are all in an Alice in Wonderland movie.
Oh, BTW, looks like Sony isn't about to lay down.....here comes THEIR "roll-out."
quote:
VIDEO: Sony unveils Quad HD projector with 4096 x 2160 resolution
04/30/2007 | 2:16:56 PM PST
Sony has unveiled a digital cinema projector that can display an image with four times the resolution of a high-definition picture across a 65-foot screen.
The giant projector stands roughly five feet high, just under five feet deep, and over two feet wide. It's also enormously heavy, weighing in at over 660 pounds.
At its heart sits a 4,200 watt bulb, light from which is bounced off mirrors and through a prism to three flat-panel displays based on Sony's SXRD technology before being magnified through a lens as wide as a man's hand.
The result look like this, although you can only appreciate the higher quality and rich colors by seeing it for yourself because our camera is a lower resolution.
Only Sony's image is higher quality. At 4,096 pixels by 2,160 pixels resolution it's double HDTV both horizontally and vertically so each frame has about 8 million pixels versus about 2 million on HDTV.
You won't be using this in your living room but, if Sony gets its way, you might be seeing images from it at a local movie theater soon.
A 4K system was used earlier this month at the world premiere of Spiderman 3 in Tokyo and Sony hopes to spread the sytem so that one third of Japan's 3,000 cinema screens are using it by 2010. It's also promoting it overseas and to industries outside of the movie sector.
In March Muvico Entertainment said it plans to install Sony 4K projectors in all its theaters in the U.S. The company's new 18-screen complex in Rosemont, near Chicago, that will open in August will be first to get the system. It will then be rolled out at the chain's theaters across the U.S.
"In this market the US is the biggest, there is no question. Not only for the cinema industry but also others including government, secuirty and designing. We're showing this 4K to people from these industries and we have started to introduce this 4K to a couple of these industries already."
Sony hopes cinemas will invest the 15 million yen, or roughly US $126,500, per screen that it costs for the CineAlta 4K system to return an advantage over increasingly high quality home theater systems. With the number of HDTV homes rising rapidly one of the main reasons for visiting the movies -- a better picture -- is disappearing."
My question -- who's going to loose their jobs and get their heads chopped off over at Regal for moving ahead, investing in techology that has HALF the crowing power of the Sony unit? Can you imagine the ads: "Yes, Regal had the "beta" video version of digital cinema first.....we have the perfected, next generation, state-of-the-art Digital Cinema. It's like the difference between VHS and High Definition DVDs....where would YOU want to watch a movie?!"
Regal, Cinemark, Landmark, et al....these guys spent $120,000+ PER SCREEN so they could hype it up about their digital picture being better than film (forgetting to mention, but it's not even as good as home HDTV). And now, what, only two years later, they are left in the dust. For about the same price that Regal plunked down for their 2K projectors, any one of their competitors who decides to invest in the Sony 4K system, can shout from the rooftops that THEY have the cutting edge technology, not like those loosers at other theatres who jumped into digital before it was perfected, with those has-been, yesterday's, HALF-resolution, 2K projectors. I mean, it'll be a publicity department's wet dream.
Sure in 1927 sound was an expensive upgrade, but the difference was, that the patron wanted sound, no...more like DEMANDED it. If you couldn't show a talkie, you were dead. Sound was MONUMENTALLY HUGE. Color was HUGE. CinemaScope was nearly as huge. It drew the audiences in magnets. It was a competitive edge that meant more asses in more seats and it MADE money for the exhibitor. The investment might have been tough on cash-flow for some chains, but that it was a solid, money-making proposition was a no-brainer.
No one has yet adaquately explained how DeeCinema will do that --hence our astonishment that exhibition can't throw their money at it fast enough.
The BEST thing you can say about the public's reception to DC is that at best they are curious about it but certainly not WOWed by it and after their curiousity is satisfied, to them, a digital show will look pretty much like every other show that they've seen in every other multiplex. Stadium seating makes more sense from the perspective of the general public's perception -- Stadium seating has a high WOW factor. People KNOW that stadium seating is a real, tangible plus. You don't have pay off "reporters" to write gushing hype about how good stadium seating is over standard seating; it's self-evident, just like sound and color and CinemaScope. Digital? To the public, it looks like what movies always looked like. YAWN.
In fact, I actually heard rumblings by some of the stage crew who sought out a digital screen and it really surprised me; not only weren't they excited by what they saw, but just the opposit....they actually came away saying they were a little pissed. After reading all the ridiculously hyped write-ups about digital projection, they felt they had been royally coned....that it is all just so much BS.
If people start responding that way, it can easily come back to bite exhibition in the ass. People don't like to feel that they are being taken for a BS ride. They feel like they are getting ripped off by concession prices, now add to that the idea that this big digital cinema thing is a hoax. Not exactly the best PR.
Whatever you can say about the digital changeover, pro or con, there is no doubt it certainly hasn't been thought out well enough to make it go smoothly, or harmoniously or of benefit to exhibition.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-01-2007, 08:07 AM:
quote:
If this really is the wave of our future, then get it in at a price that doesn't equal total lunacy, prove a reliability factor that's at least an arm's reach from what we get now, come up with a rational upgrade path, then let's go!
Funny... they said all that about the new fangled sound systems way back in 1927.
quote: Frank Angel
The BEST thing you can say about the public's reception to DC is that at best they are curious about it but certainly not WOWed by it and after their curiousity is satisfied, to them, a digital show will look pretty much like every other show that they've seen in every other multiplex. Stadium seating makes more sense from the perspective of the general public's perception -- Stadium seating has a high WOW factor. People KNOW that stadium seating is a real, tangible plus. You don't have pay off "reporters" to write gushing hype about how good stadium seating is over standard seating; it's self-evident, just like sound and color and CinemaScope. Digital? To the public, it looks like what movies always looked like. YAWN.
Frank... you'd have a hard time convincing the folks at Megaplex here in SLC about that. They continue to draw significantly larger crowds at their digital screenings than at their film screenings... its now well over two years after the first digital system went in. I've lost count of how may DC's they now have but I want to say its approaching the 40 mark.
Mark
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-01-2007, 08:31 AM:
Frank--I more or less agree with your comments, but you're ignoring 3D and "alternative content." Both are unproven, but I could see how either or both could, if successful, benefit theatre owners. I'm inclined to believe that "alternative content" is DOA; while I personally think that 3D is a bit of a gimmick, I do like the idea that it offers the public something different and special that can't easily be reproduced in a home setting (yet). We'll see what happens.
Posted by Mike Perju (Member # 1482) on 05-01-2007, 05:21 PM:
Guys,
All Mark is saying is that commercial film projection is nearing it's end...
No matter how much I like film handling, it's a reality we all face (just ask any photographer). I will have trouble letting go, but it dosen't mean it is over... after all, I still enjoy taking 4x5 photos, and even 8x10 when I have the cash.
Yes, digital will cure those scratches. I'm not sure how it will cure piracy though.
However, Mark does have to admit that when film is done right, it still does and will blow digital out of the water (for the forseeable future, quality wise).
So let's encourage film done right.
And remember, once you fix one problem (picture damage), you might discover half a dozen more.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-01-2007, 05:31 PM:
quote: Mike Perju
All Mark is saying is that commercial film projection is nearing it's end...
If you read between the lines, he's saying that independent theatres will have to pay for their own DC equipment. I'm wondering if I'll be able to justify staying in business knowing that I'm getting a royal ![[sex]](graemlins/sex.gif)
ing from the film companies. Not to mention kissing most of my profits goodbye by making a lease payment for the rest of my life. My 20 year old booth equipment which I have owned for at least 10 years now looks like the better deal.
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 05-01-2007, 05:34 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I agree that handling film is not so easy but the bigger problem is finding just one person for each plex that even cares any more. typically I see one person in about 10 plex's that still cares and that one person is typically part time and never stays very long. This is one of the biggest problems that DC will solve.
...plus Mike's comment above that commercial film projection is nearing it's end.
These are interesting points because when you think about it, maybe film technology was never in fact suited to the kind of "hyper-industrial" (jeez, I'm a real pseud!) form we see it today, with mega screen numbers. It's not really suited to mass production, if you like. It's an artisan's technology that demands real skill and care. That doesn't sit well with increasing mass production.
So maybe how it'll pan out is that there will be smaller boutique cinemas in future that will still screen on film for that sort of personal touch, and in the name of the art and craft of Cinema, whereas the mega-giga-plexes will provide sanitised mass digital entertainment that can be literally run centrally from a spreadsheet in the financial department!
(Right - I'm off to lecture now in some university faculty. And the pay will be far better too! )
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-01-2007, 05:57 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
If you read between the lines, he's saying that independent theatres will have to pay for their own DC equipment. I'm wondering if I'll be able to justify staying in business knowing that I'm getting a royal ing from the film companies. Not to mention kissing most of my profits goodbye by making a lease payment for the rest of my life. My 20 year old booth equipment which I have owned for at least 10 years now looks like the better deal.
That's why I am saying that they have got to get the prices down to where one can purchase the equipment out right. Yes right now leasing is best because of the huge price structure but for the small independent man neither is the best option.
The other big worry is if suddenly the film companies decide to no longer pay the print fees to help pay for the equipment on the lease programs. Then who gets stuck with the bulk of the bill. I sometimes wonder if Carmike jumped in the water head first only to find out later that they may have jumped into a pool of quicksand.
It's still a confusing game of chance and a risky business for some. There is always going to be the question of image quality and resolution and all that stuff but will the average movie goer care. That I think is why they came out and stated that 2K was good enough. We as professional and technically minded people know that is a bunch of crap. however, that person who doesn't keep up with all the technical mumbo jumbo is not going to care, just so long as his or her popcorn is fresh and their coke is not flat.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I agree that handling film is not so easy but the bigger problem is finding just one person for each plex that even cares any more. typically I see one person in about 10 plex's that still cares and that one person is typically part time and never stays very long. This is one of the biggest problems that DC will solve.
Yeah if only I could clone myself and send a copy to all the theatres out their. That is an issue I have seen for many years. Finding someone who cares. I have trained many who worked out great only to move on in 6 or less months.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-01-2007, 07:11 PM:
Just remeber mark that in the city of toronto the last theatre to convert to sound in any format was in 1937 hmmmm they survived a long time on old silent product
Digital will happen but it better to be ready to fill all it shoes as to date it still has many shorcomings compare to film done right
Also digital originals cost more than the current negative costs
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-01-2007, 10:10 PM:
quote: Gordon McLeod
Also digital originals cost more than the current negative costs
And as a side note, there is an article in the April 23-29 issue of Weekly Variety [apparantly not online] about how digital is impossible to properly archive. One techie is reports 40% of the data tapes had missing frames or corruption -- and they were only 9 months old.
There were two solutions suggested for the problem of archiving the films.
1) The expensive labor intensive route Disney and Sony are taking: migrating the data every couple of years
2) Make a 3 color separation to real film!
So, film won't be dead, just hiding;>
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-02-2007, 12:55 AM:
FWIW, Kodak print film sales are enjoying a very good year.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-02-2007, 08:05 AM:
quote: Gordon McLeod
Just remeber mark that in the city of toronto the last theatre to convert to sound in any format was in 1937
Gord,
Keith told me that theater didn't even have hydro until late 1936 .
Mark
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-02-2007, 03:24 PM:
IMAX has made the decision to agressively move to digital imaging technology -- 2 Sony 4K units plus their DMR technology is what will replace 70mm IMAX. They seem to think this is all that they will need to re-create the same IMAX Experience. When IMAX can go digital, then you know that either film will soon be dead or IMAX will be.
Really, I had to take a breath when I read that, but seems like that is the direction IMAX is definately headed. Makes one shudder.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-02-2007, 06:52 PM:
Well... Imax will certainly only make one shutter when it comapses!
Mark
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 05-02-2007, 07:41 PM:
Ok, a while ago I was told that the sony's bulb cost aprox aust$10 per hour to run. Does this seem cheap anyone?
Atleast when Jack goes digital at the drive in, his screens could be perhaps 1/2 an Imax ! mmm 1/2 Imax Drive in with stadium parking .
Is it just me but doesnt 8k ( edit sorry 2x4k) seem very small res for 8 story tall screens? I was thinking more like 16k minimum. Now if film grain is 5 microns, what res would 15/70mm imax currently have?
[ 05-05-2007, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Cameron Glendinning ]
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-03-2007, 05:16 AM:
quote: John Pytlak
FWIW, Kodak print film sales are enjoying a very good year.
Assuming it will be Kodak, they will get even better with the 25000 prints of the almost 3 hour POTC: At Worlds End that are getting simultaneous worldwide release.
I finally understand why the distribs want digital so bad. 25000 x $3000 = $75,000,000 just in print cost. That one film could pay for 500 digital installs by itself.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-03-2007, 09:34 AM:
I estimate an average 1st run movie theater screen in the United States cycles through around 20 or so features per year. And I think that's a conservative estimate. Even at only $1000 per print, we're talking over $20,000 per year per screen. At that rate, a $100,000 DLP system could pay for itself in 5 years. If the prints are running closer to $3000 a pop, then the DLP system would pay for itself in only 2 years in terms of print cost savings.
That cost issue, and the fact the movie distributors have their releases so front loaded that the exhibitors hardly get any of the box office take anymore, is why the movie distributors primarily need to foot the bill on all this digital cinema hardware.
The theater should only pay for the gear if their box office percentages are a LOT better. Right now their take from the box office isn't squat.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-03-2007, 09:41 AM:
Bobby--don't forget that the prints from that first-run theatre move on to other screens (if a multiplex) and, eventually, other theatres, nontheatrical exhibitors, etc. They still have value after the initial engagement. Contrary to (popular?) belief, there is more to exhibition that first-run multiplexes.
If the distributors were truly concerned about print costs, then they wouldn't be responsible for these stupid "saturation" release patterns that are so common now.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-03-2007, 02:41 PM:
You guys can argue all you want all day long about who's going to pay for it(ultimately the movie goer no matter what) but the elimination of film ad its resultant pollution will certainly HELP the environment big time.
Mark
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-03-2007, 03:55 PM:
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-03-2007, 06:53 PM:
Um, yeah.
Film prints are kind of down the list on items that threaten the capacity of the local land fill. Wal-Mart bags, diapers, stuff like that -that's a little more common. Aren't some retired film prints shredded and then recycled?
Any potential environmental savings may be offset by the increased electrical requirements of theater booths running all that extra computer-based hardware.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
You guys can argue all you want all day long about who's going to pay for it
I don't think there's any argument at all. The distributors should pay for that D-Cinema hardware. They're the ones making the money and saving the money off that hardware, not the theater itself.
Add to that the games being played by the distributor, whether it's booking 8000 movie screens to have a record breaking opening weekend and a precipitous attendance drop the following weekend or making noises about releasing movies in theaters and on DVD at the same time.
Maybe if the distributors had a serious financial stake in movie theaters in the form of some expensive projection equipment they might not be so desperate to get everything on to DVD as quickly as possible.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-03-2007, 07:10 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Film prints are kind of down the list on items that threaten the capacity of the local land fill.
In terms of reducing chemical contamination fomr the manufacture and processing of film eliminating or drastically reducing that will be a blessing. Rochester and the surrounding Kodak Park are the sites of some pretty nasty stuff. Some of the chemicals used in processing are also quite nasty.
Booth power consumption has remained pretty much the same in all the 40+ booths around here that are now digital. In some instances where D.C. projectors go in (all have switching power supplies for the xenon) that replace a high reactance rectifier the power consumption actually goes down.
Mark
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 05-03-2007, 07:11 PM:
FWIW apparently large savings to the Distributors via D-Cinema are not in fact that significant in the larger scheme of things, remembering that most if not all Distributors are subsidiaries of the Studios or large media conglomerates.
Last year I came across some very interesting figures in the course of researching a newspaper article. These were derived from MPAA data in 2000 and showed that print costs - as a portion of total film production costs - came on average to only 4% of the average spend per film that year. Likewise, if accounted for under the Prints & Advertising / P&A category, spending on prints came to just 12% of that spend.
Looking at the corollary to these figures, 96% of a total typical film budget was being spent on non-print items, and more pertinently, 88% of P&A was being spent on the "A".
So logic dictates that if you really wanted to attack production overhead, you would cut Actors' ruinous fees a la Redstone / Cruise and also seek savings in marketing costs.
The evidence does seem to suggest that cutting print costs makes no meaningful difference in the wider production / distribution context.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-03-2007, 07:16 PM:
Since on many releases the actual biggest block of income is from non northamerican distribution that currently often gets "rejuvinated previously enjoyed" prints 35mm prints for those markets will still be required
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 05-03-2007, 07:29 PM:
Indeed, good point Gordon.
I meant to add that all costs are relative. Let's say you've consistently bought the same brand of beer for years and you've paid x for it and it goes up gradually in price year-on-year.
But now, brand y appears, apparently much cheaper, and now suddenly brand x looks "expensive".
BTW this isn't an argument against D-Cinema, but rather against some of the claims that are made for it.
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 05-04-2007, 03:29 AM:
How many countries actually recieve used North American prints? I know I've heard Brits and Aussies complain about it, but countries were dubbing/subtitling is required (which would be most everywhere besides Britain and Australia/New Zealand) you'd think they'd be striking new prints.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-04-2007, 07:22 AM:
Subtitling is often on used prints with etched titles
Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 05-04-2007, 11:14 AM:
In the Netherlands we always got new prints (when first run of course). The spoken language is the original one (except for some children movies). I think the subtitles are mostly created by a laser process.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-04-2007, 02:27 PM:
No studio ever scrapped a production because of the print costs. They spend more on food catering than on the cost of prints. Anyone think they sat around and said, "Do you think we can afford to put Spidey into production, what with that budget-breaking print cost?" My face laughs at you.
Print costs are a non-issue. Greed is what it's about, which wouldn't be so bad except they figured out how to keep more of that money at the exhibitor's expense and at the cost of lower presentation quality.
Posted by Paul Stevens (Member # 4016) on 05-05-2007, 04:09 PM:
After reading all the posts on the great DC debate, I could not help but reflect on the nearly 33 years I spent at CBS in Hollywood actually witnessing first hand the forces that drive advanced technology in that nuanced but parallel industry. The last third of that television broadcast carrier was doing nothing but dodging delivery trucks with crates full of forty to eighty-thousand dollar purchases of the most advanced digital hardware. Two years later that same hardware was loaded on to a pickup truck heading for hardware heaven. This cycle continues to repeat itself not only at the network level, but at every station in the country. The NAB and SMPTE conventions are the show place for all that neat stuff.
Several words come to mind when I attempt to some it all up, but two linked together seems to stand out above all the rest. "Show Bizz"
As a teenager sitting in the Orpheum Theater in Sioux City, Iowa in the early 60's, a song being song by Roselyn Russell in the film "Gypsy," and the Warner Brothers Orchestra's brass section blasting in the background, the following lyrics some things up pretty well.
You can pull all the stops out
Till they call the cops out
Grind your behind till you're bend.
But you gotta get a gimmick
If you wanna get a hand.
You can sacrifice your sacharo
Working in the back row.
Bump in a dump till you're dead.
Kid you gotta have a gimmick
If you wanna get ahead.
You can uh...You can uh...
You can uh...uh...uh...
That's how Burlesque was born.
So I uh...and I uh...
And I uh...uh...uh...
But I do it with a horn...
Once I was a Schleppa,
Now I'm Miss Mazzeppa,
With my revolution in dance.
You gotta have a gimmick
If you wanna have a chance!
Great discussion guys!
Posted by Rory Burke (Member # 512) on 06-07-2007, 07:12 AM:
GREAT THREAD!! Sorry for bringing it back up but I had to mention my experience with the birth of DC. Let me set the scene.. It was 1998 and a great sunny day in La Jolla California (San Diego) at a private club. The venue was a small 30 foot screen theater and THX was asked to set up a sound system for the infamous "DLP SHOOTOUT" Qualcomm and Texas Instruments were both to bring their DLP prototypes and give a select Industry "big wigs" a small taste of their work. TI arrived first and began to set up their prototype. It was the size approx of 3 computer towers put together. Qualcomm showed up shortly after and their unit was packed in a Yellow Container. It was huge.. I want to say it was the size of a VW Bug but that is more impression than accurate. Regardless it was big compared to the TI unit. After a few hours the TI guys had their unit on the screen and working out the "bugs". Shortly after the Qualcomm fellas looked irritated and packed it up and went home. LOL!! Texas Instruments did their presentation after a series of speakings that were designed to motivate the audience into the future of DC. Replacing Film was one of the "motivating factors" I remember someone got up and proudly declared that Film was the last remaining analog medium and was perhaps the most difficult to succeed in. I giggled in aggreement and I wish I could meet this fellow to shake his hand on a bold, brave, yet accurate description.
Anyway the show went on with images of "WOW" and other "Lucasfilm" media on the screen and a demonstration of HDTV quality images. The blacks were short of a dark purple and resolution had issues etc etc. Needless to say it was the culmination of years of work and design and what promised ahead was surely a new technology. Its now 2007 and I have had the pleasure of seeing many DC movies here in So Cal... but I still sit happily watching a new print being shown with a new bulb on a 3 bladed shutter at a local theater. Crisp, colorful, Liquid!!!
Just my .02 cents!
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-07-2007, 10:31 AM:
quote: Frank Angel
No studio ever scrapped a production because of the print costs. They spend more on food catering than on the cost of prints. Anyone think they sat around and said, "Do you think we can afford to put Spidey into production, what with that budget-breaking print cost?" My face laughs at you.
Print costs are a non-issue. Greed is what it's about, which wouldn't be so bad except they figured out how to keep more of that money at the exhibitor's expense and at the cost of lower presentation quality.
Print costs are not a "non-issue" especially with some of these worldwide simultaneous super wide releases. At $3000 a pop (long movie), it cost Disney close to $70 Million worldwide in print cost to release Pirates 3. I don't think you can call that a "non-issue".
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 06-07-2007, 02:24 PM:
quote: Frank Angel
No studio ever scrapped a production because of the print costs. They spend more on food catering than on the cost of prints. Anyone think they sat around and said, "Do you think we can afford to put Spidey into production, what with that budget-breaking print cost?" My face laughs at you.
Print costs are a non-issue. Greed is what it's about, which wouldn't be so bad except they figured out how to keep more of that money at the exhibitor's expense and at the cost of lower presentation quality.
Saying it's a non-issue because they spend more on food isn't valid.
Unless they somehow invent a person who doesn't eat, the cost of food will always be an issue. They have to incur that cost to keep the people. If one studio will feed their cast/crew and another won't people will tend to work for the one that gives them the better deal.
So essentially, the food cost is one that pretty much can't go away. The cost of prints, on the other hand, clearly can go away.
Your argument would be like telling Ford to design a car that'll be made out of titanium, then someone else saying "um, titanium is pretty expensive" then you saying "well you'll spend more on the R&D anyway."
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-07-2007, 02:59 PM:
There are certainly costs associated with distributing movies digitally as well. The real business case must take all costs into account, not just the media on which the movie is distributed. Film prints are still very cost effective -- a new 35mm print costs only a few dollars per showing. And there is a huge base of reliable film projectors to show them.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 06-07-2007, 04:37 PM:
Of course, but I was merely responding to the statement that cost of prints is a "non-issue."
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-07-2007, 05:56 PM:
And my point is that the cost of prints is a non-issue in the sense that it was never an issue that stopped a picture from being made. In that sense it's a non-issue, not that eliminating it wouldn't be a savings for the studios.
On the other hand, it's a REAL $70m saving for the studios ONLY IF the exhibitor foots the bill for the $120,000 per projector per screen that makes printless exhibition possible. If the studio had to BUY the projector so that it didn't have to strike a print and if the cost of streaming the data and getting that datastream to the theatre could happen all for free, only then would it be a true $70m savings. But none of those things come free.
And the studios and the video projector hardware manufactures who are all gun-ho about eliminating the cost of prints can only realize that saving because for some unfathomable reason that defies logic, a number of exhibitors have bought into the idea that they should be the ones to pay for the video technology so it can save the studios print money....those same studios who are trying to release that printless title not only in 3000 theatres, but to DVD outlets as close as they can to day-and-date....their collective wet dream.
If enough exhibitors can actually be convinced of this illogical arrangement (studios get to make gobs of money while exhibitors get to spend gobs of it to buy the equipment that makes it possible), then sure, eliminating prints becomes a huge, multimillion dollar issue -- it's found profit off the top of the distribution budget on any given release. But that only work if that obviously contaminated bowtox which exhibitors are shooting into their foreheads, continues to leak into their brain pans making the usually stingy approach to booth upgrading for which theatre owners are famous, turn into some kind of orgy of spending on new technology that gives them nothing that will bring in more butts to their seats.
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 06-07-2007, 10:30 PM:
It’s not just print costs, Frank. The business model requires exhibitors to build 30 screens where six would do. This is so that distributors can make movies for 11-year-old boys and have sessions every half hour in the first two weeks at high terms. DCI is ideal for that marketing model. Film is not. Cable tv also can’t service that market.
There is also the specialist genre of independent and documentary movies, shot on electonic gear. E-cinema is adequate for these productions. Nothing is gained by expensive transfer to 35mm. These producers can’t afford extensive advertising either (the massive component of p&a). Quite a strong network exists in certain regions for this product. I don’t see $120,000 machines being tied up with independent films when Flesheaters 7 and Titfest 5 are on offer.
There is no turning back now. The die was cast when the first cinemas went forth and multiplied.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-08-2007, 09:28 AM:
quote: Frank Angel
for some unfathomable reason that defies logic, a number of exhibitors have bought into the idea that they should be the ones to pay for the video technology so it can save the studios print money
What exibitors have done this? As far as I can tell all of the massive (changing entire complexes or chains to digital) installations have been financed through the Christie/AIX program (or something similar) where the distributors pay a "virtual print fee" for a period of time to pay for the equipment.
The exception is that it seems like some exibitors have purchased 1 or 2 projectors for some complexes for the purpose of installing Real-D. In that case, the exibitor is buying the equipement for the ROI of showing 3D.
Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 06-08-2007, 10:19 AM:
Abt Electronics has a Sony 4k projector on display at their store.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-08-2007, 08:25 PM:
quote: Lyle Romer
Print costs are not a "non-issue" especially with some of these worldwide simultaneous super wide releases. At $3000 a pop (long movie), it cost Disney close to $70 Million worldwide in print cost to release Pirates 3. I don't think you can call that a "non-issue".
If print costs were really an issue, then they wouldn't be doing a (stupid, IMHO) simultaneous worldwide release. Obviously, someone at BVPD thinks that the print costs are justified by the additional revenue of a simultaneous release.
Do we really need more crappy films with saturation releases that fizzle after the second (or first!) weekend? Don't we all want better films with "legs" that will do good business for months in more limited releases (in which a greater chunk of the boxoffice revenue ends up in the hands of exhibitors)?
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-08-2007, 08:46 PM:
quote: Lyle Romer
What exibitors have done this? As far as I can tell all of the massive (changing entire complexes or chains to digital) installations have been financed through the Christie/AIX program (or something similar) where the distributors pay a "virtual print fee" for a period of time to pay for the equipment.
Yes, I've heard that -- installations are "financed" thru virtual print fees. That sounds so civilized and benign. So why isn't this information up front and specific -- give us numbers. I am an independent exhibitor; I want to put in a Barco or hey, why stop there if as you say, the exhibitor isn't paying for it, then how about I just go full tilt and put in Sony 4K video projectors. What do I do, just go to my Cinema Supplier and say, "Hey, I want to install three of these babies in my three theatres; put it on the virtual print tab"?
I guess what I really want to know is, a video projector intallation is being paid for how and by whom, exactly? And if the exhibitor isn't paying for it, then who gets to own the projector?
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-08-2007, 09:07 PM:
quote: Scott Norwood
Don't we all want better films with "legs" that will do good business for months in more limited releases (in which a greater chunk of the boxoffice revenue ends up in the hands of exhibitors)?
We exhibitors certainly want that. The studios on the other hand want movies that Do 3/4 of their total gross in the first 2 weeks so they can keep the lions share!
I think the simultaneous worlwide release is some sort of attempt to counteract piracy. If you notice, some movies are opening overseas a few days before the US release. I guess they are trying the whole theory that people are more likely to see something legally if they have the option.
Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 06-09-2007, 09:40 AM:
quote:
We exhibitors certainly want that. The studios on the other hand want movies that Do 3/4 of their total gross in the first 2 weeks so they can keep the lions share!
As a member of the audience I hate having to see a film in the first two weeks and this is why I am losing the chance to see films I would like to see(since I refuse to go to any of the dreadful shoeboxes these films end up after the first two weeks)Someone should invent something like digital cinerama, cinemas have survived by having a different product to offer to customers, with the decreased quality of cinema exhibition and the increased quality of home cinema and the short window period, I honestly think cinemas do not have a unique product anymore. Cinemascope, Cinerama, Todd-AO were born as products that could not be shown on telly and they won the battle for a while, cinema needs another of these revolutions, something that looks gorgeous at the pictures and mediocre on telly.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-10-2007, 07:12 AM:
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
I honestly think cinemas do not have a unique product anymore. Cinemascope, Cinerama, Todd-AO were born as products that could not be shown on telly and they won the battle for a while, cinema needs another of these revolutions, something that looks gorgeous at the pictures and mediocre on telly.
All those unique-to-cinema formats were born at a time when the telly was seen by both exhibition and the studios as the common enemy. How times have changed! Today the studios are not interested in making sure cinemas have a unique product. All that has to happen for cinemas not to have to compete with the telly is for the studios NOT TO RELEASE FILMS TO THE TELLY until long after the theatrical run is over. But that's not going to happen.
The solution has always been in the hands of the studios and how fast they release to video. Fact is, they have no intention of protecting the theatrical release and certainly they are not interested in creating a format that cannot be sold to the home theatre consumer market. They are not going to create a format like Cinerama that would be difficult to convert to a home theatre screen; this is the antithesis of the studios' distribtuion model.
Even the idea that 3D digital is the savior of theatres because it can't be reproduced in the consumer market, as I have posted before, is merely a carrot held out to exhibitors to get them to invest in Dee-Cinema. Unfortunately for the unsuspecting (dare I say, gullible exhibitor) a viable, proven, working 3D video system has been around for over two decades which produces great 3D depth and is totally compatible with all video formats, VHS, DVD, HD &BlueRay DVD.
There is no doubt in my mind that just as soon as the studios think that their 3D carrot has sucked in enough of the exhibitors who will be inticed into converting to digital in the hopes that they will have that ellusive product that home video simply cannot reproduce, the studios will announce with great fanfar and hoopla that ALL their 3D animated cartoons will be available in field sequential 3D in both NTSC DVD and high def DVD, leaving the exhibitors who converted to digital specifically so as to have a format the could never be shown on home theatre screen, with their finger up their DLP projector.
What I want to know is, what mind-altering drugs have the studios been able to slip into the free drinks they were passing around at ShowWest and East that have made exhibitors believe that the studios are interested in protecting the theatrical release? These are the same studios who the exhibitors already know and loudly complain about that have been systematically and methodically shorting the video release window -- an action which directly and severely impacts theatrical exhibition. These are the studios that publicly state that their goal is to alter the release pattern to shorten the video release window even more and have bluntly said that the exhibitors may not like it, but it's a reality and they had just better deal with it (paraphrasing some Disney exec). Worse, we know of their intentions because they have actually spoken the wish for the DD word -- DAY&DATE.
3D releases will never be available in a 3D home video format? The studios could do this in a heartbeat and to hell with all those theatres who bought into Dee Cinema specifically because they thought it would give them their modern day Cinerama-like never-available-for-home-video protection. Wanna see how difficult it is to get 3D to the home-theatre market?
Clicky Then click on the Titles just to see that regular Hollywood releases are already readily available in 3D for the HOME.
When it comes to exhibitors being able to trust the studios to protect their business by shutting down the home video market until the theatrical run is exhaused, it's like the proverbial letting the fox guard the hen house. Or Neville Chamberlain before the invasion of Poland.
Silly, silly exhibitors.
Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 06-10-2007, 08:45 AM:
quote: Frank Angel
There is no doubt in my mind that just as soon as the studios think that their 3D carrot has sucked in enough of the exhibitors who will be inticed into converting to digital in the hopes that they will have that ellusive product that home video simply cannot reproduce, the studios will announce with great fanfar and hoopla that ALL their 3D animated cartoons will be available in field sequential 3D in both NTSC DVD and high def DVD, leaving the exhibitors who converted to digital specifically so as to have a format the could never be shown on home theatre screen, with their finger up their DLP projector.
Moreover, they are looking at 3-D TV without glassess. When this TV system or another one with glassess is developed for mainstream use (and it will happen, if only to sell more hardware) all these 3-D contemporary films will be seen in 3-D at home, it would be crazy to show them flat when the rest of the programming is in 3-D.
A good option for theatres would be to shoot two versions of a film, like they did with Oklahoma. They should do one for cinemas only (in a system like a new digital cinerama) and another for TVs. Since digital does not use film they would not spend that much money by shooting two versions. It is more complicated, yes, but this would ensure that cinema still offers something unique.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-10-2007, 03:31 PM:
If they ever develop glass-less 3D for home video, that will be the death of theatres with 3D digital projectors, at least for the 3D releases. Fact is, as much as they have tried, no one in over 50 years ever come up with a way to get two images projected on a movie screen so that one eye sees the image meant for it and the other eye sees its image. Only the Russians had a system that ultimately was a failure -- a screen system that, from how I heard it explained, could deflect the two different images in two slightly different directions -- problem was, you had to get your head properly positioned to actually see the images in 3D and if you moved at all any time during the show, you were screwed.
So if there ever was a 3D system that didn't require wearing glasses for the home theatre market -- theatre's with 3D capability can kiss goodbye to anyone wanting to run out to the theatre to see a 3D movie when all they will have to do was wait for it to be released on high def, 3D DVD where they can see it without having to wear any glasses at home. And you can be sure the studios will not be holding off releasing it to the home lickity split. They won't be holding off to "protect" the 3D digital theatre owners.
Exhibitors who took out second mortgages to install 3D servers and hardward had better hope that home 3D without glasses never becomes a reality.
I think in the years since the dominance of video in the home and especially now where the profit from DVD sales keeps exceeding ticket sales every year, for the studios, the importance for the theatrical market beyond being the drive behind DVD sales is marginalized. And the studios are perfectly happy with this model.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-10-2007, 04:11 PM:
quote: Rory Burke
but I still sit happily watching a new print being shown with a new bulb on a 3 bladed shutter at a local theater.
No you don't. No commercial theater uses 3 bladed shutters.
Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 06-10-2007, 04:51 PM:
quote:
If they ever develop glass-less 3D for home video, that will be the death of theatres with 3D digital projectors,
Have a look at this Frank: http://www.business-sites.philips.com/3dsolutions/Why3D/Index.html
As it has been said endlessly in this forum, to bring 2k projectors has been a great waste of money for theatres, it brings nothing new to attract patrons and with new things like Philips 3-D TV coming soon, who is going to be interested in the 2k projection at the multiplex? Someone should be held accountable for the 2k stupidity.
I personally think theatres should embrace the wide angles provided by systems like Dimension 150 or Todd-AO in large curved screens. Whoever has seen How The West Was Won in Cinerama (albeit its imperfections) or any Todd-AO production will know what I mean, you can't get that in your living room. I also think that film has a beautiful texture digital does not have, but this is a very personal taste.
As you said, if 3-D without glasses arrives soon, goodbye to all those screens which have installed 3-D with glasses.
Posted by Rory Burke (Member # 512) on 06-10-2007, 05:15 PM:
Brad said:
No you don't. No commercial theater uses 3 bladed shutters.
Never say Never!! There is one theater in the Inland Empire California that I personally installed a 3 bladed shutter over ten years ago. It is theater 8 at CinemaStar in Perris, California. I dont know if other theaters do it as a practice and I never came across one and I too highly doubt there are more. However, is there a theater with it available to paying customers???... OH YES!!! And thats where I go to watch my movies. Its only ten minutes away just like I planned it long ago... mainly for MY viewing pleasure.
Good luck!
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-10-2007, 09:48 PM:
They must have huge lamps and super small screens then. Either that or a crappy dim picture. That's just the nature of a 3 bladed beast.
Posted by Rory Burke (Member # 512) on 06-11-2007, 12:07 AM:
Brad said:
They must have huge lamps and super small screens then. Either that or a crappy dim picture. That's just the nature of a 3 bladed beast.
Or it could have good illumination on a descent sized screen regardless of the light that gets eaten up by the 3 bladed shutter. Happy endings are possible. ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 06-12-2007, 03:01 AM:
quote:
Happy endings are possible. [beer]
yes but usually only at massage parlours!!
My own 3 blade shutter story was at Plantet Hollywood in Sydney where I got great pleasure from getting them removed from its 64 seat, state of the art, 2 projector screening room! The extra light impressed everyone, including film reviewers, distributers to resturant management! Im sure they are worthwhile in screening rooms with a throw of less than 50 ft, Sydneys planet hollywood was bigger than that.
[ 06-12-2007, 07:24 AM: Message edited by: Cameron Glendinning ]
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-12-2007, 04:22 AM:
With apologies to Tina Turner:
What's throw got to do, got to do with it?
What's throw but a second hand dimension?
What's throw got to do, got to do with it?
Who needs a length when a lens can be longer?
Available light on-screen for a given light source is a function of the area of the screen and the screen's gain, but not of the throw. The throw and the lens are independent of the area.
P.S.: I hear that TI is indeed working on a 4K projector for cinema use. No time-to-market info
--jhawk
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 06-12-2007, 05:08 AM:
John, um three blade shutters are used to reduce flicker in very small screening rooms ect or so they told planet hollywood. I have never actually come across a 3 blade in a commercial cinema.
In my planet hollywood screening room case there was no noticable flicker when we converted to the regular 2 blade. Just lots more light!
I hope TI are making a 2.39 ratio chip, fingers crossed for some common sense
[ 06-12-2007, 07:28 AM: Message edited by: Cameron Glendinning ]
Posted by Amanda Mundin (Member # 3386) on 06-12-2007, 12:48 PM:
Apparently Spiderman 3 has been screened in 4K in the UK, quote from an artical in 'Producer', a free magazine direct from Sony.
"In the UK, the Odeon multiplex in Guildford screened the blockbuster for three weeks using the SRX-R220 digital cinema projector, working with an LMT-100 media block server."
Anyone see any of these screenings?
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 06-19-2007, 11:41 AM:
I'm probably going out on a limb in saying it, but 3-D is a gimmick. I'd like to talk to the decision maker at a theater who spends their money on a gimmick, and find out what they're thinking.
The only way I could see it being justified is if every single other aspect of the theater's core operation was the best it could possibly be, and adding 3-D was something fun to add to the experience.
Sadly, I've never been in a theater that couldn't use a few more bucks spent on some aspect of their operation to improve the overall movie-going experience for all their customers attending all their movies, not just the one or two 3-D movies per year.
Maybe I just don't understand the business from the theater owner's perspective well enough...
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 06-20-2007, 01:57 PM:
I agree that 3-D is still gimmicky . . . but we have not seen any live action release content yet.
The justification to put 3-D in is that the 3-D shows tend to gross 30%+ than 2-D shows - the analysis I saw from Chicken Little 3-D showed that the increased concession sales/profit justified the expense . . . . . of course as more and more locations install 3-D this arguement starts to crumble.
One of the developers of the Real-D system spoke at NAB and brought up the fact that sound on movies was originally intended to only replace the orchestra that played during movies - it was later that someone realized that dialog could be included and the modern movie was born . . . . his correlation was that 3-D is at that stage where it may take a different direction than originally intended, although what else can you do with it?
I personally think live sports events will help show 3-D for it is really worth (if anything).
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 06-26-2007, 10:49 AM:
The additional revenue can probably be tied more closely with the additional marketing that was put into the 3-D release than 3-D in particular. To some degree, people will come out to see 3-D as a novelty, but I can't imagine sitting through a full-length feature with those glasses on and dealing with the variable amount of 3-D effect. That's probably me just getting old, I guess.
The revenue increases mentioned have been stated by organizations such as THX as well. In many cases, it's the marketing behind the effort, more than the effort itself that brings in the audiences.
If you had a 10-screen theater, and you spent a certain amount of money on upgrades to two of those screens and put a label on that upgrade package (say, for example, "Super Screen" or "Premium Screen"), and you touted the upgrades and which movies were playing in the "Super Screen" I'll bet you'd have more attendance in the "Super Screen" than in a screen that wasn't given the upgrades or the marketing efforts.
People respond to being marketed to, and will often do exactly what you want them to do if you have an effective marketing campaign. The flip side is that the marketing has to have some substance behind it, so the "Super Screen" really does need to be worthy of the moniker, or the marketing rings false, and you will have a tougher hill to climb the next time you try marketing something.
Digital Cinema draws audiences because of the many marketing angles that can be used to promote it. What will keep the audiences coming back is if those presentations exceed the expectations of the audience.
3-D can be one item in a bag of tricks, but I don't think it can be the only trick. If I owned a theater, I would put my money into improving my presentations across the board, and marketing myself as having great presentations. If some other theater draws crowds with the one 3-D presentation a year, I will probably have made up the difference through the entire year, and then some.
But maybe that's why I don't own a theater...
Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 06-26-2007, 11:16 AM:
I believe 3D will pass away again. Not because of technical flaws, but because making excellent 3D movies takes more patience, technical skill and compromise than most filmmakers and studios have today.
With 3D, filmmakers have to think more about staging and directing, camera movement and editing, and the only people who are used to design pictures from scratch are the animation guys and a few Large Format filmmakers.
All the "exciting" stylistic elements so beloved by modern filmmakers do not work well with 3D, like image degradation, shaky camera movement and superfast editing to conceal that you have very little actually exciting stuff to begin with. 3D is also less forgivable to bad screen acting.
This is why I predict 3D at the movies will fade away again because it adds little to actual storytelling for the average film - maybe with the exception of animation.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-26-2007, 12:10 PM:
quote: John Hawkinson
I hear that TI is indeed working on a 4K projector for cinema use
Is this from a good source that might have some info on reality or a rumor? Also, are they working on a 4K "projector" or a 4k "chip"? A 4k projector can mean using 4-2k chips per color or doing some kind of wobulation with a 2k chip.
quote: Cameron Glendinning
I hope TI are making a 2.39 ratio chip, fingers crossed for some common sense
The ship sailed long ago on that. DCI specs are based on a 1080x2048 (2k) and 2160x4096 (4k) chips.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-26-2007, 12:39 PM:
So, has anything actually been released in 4k, or are the theatres that have Sony units just using them to show upconverted 2k releases?
Assuming that there have been actual 4k releases, are the booking terms the same as 2k releases? And are those terms the same as with 35mm releases of the same films?
Can the Sony 4k units be used to show 3D material, or is the technology specific to 2k DLP in some way?
(Historical question: have booking terms ever been different for 35mm vs. 70mm prints? Obviously shipping and print costs are higher, but do (did) exhibitors need to commit to longer runs or higher guarantees in order to get 70mm prints?)
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-26-2007, 01:08 PM:
yes the Spider-man 3 was released in 4k. Now I do not know if they up-converted in the production process. I just know that the 2k down converted the 4k file that was on the hard drive.
As far as 70mm releases go the things I could remember on a couple of them was that the title had to play in 70mm x amount of weeks. normally 4 weeks at the location that had it in our town. This location had to commit one screen. After 4 weeks it could drop it down to 35mm and play it in a smaller house. This was before multiple prints were done. I remember for Return of the Jedi they had the option to run it 70mm or run it 35mm and interlock it. They chose the 35mm and interlock. They couldn't have both on that title. They also charged the evening ticket price all day long no special discount prices. At that time I Think the evening price was $4.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-26-2007, 01:37 PM:
As far as I can tell Spiderman 3 went through a 4K Digital Intermediate but the effects work was done in 2K. So I guess any shots with no CGI were an example of true 4K production and distribution.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2