This is topic D-cinema...what is everyone thinking??? 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=000030
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-29-2006, 05:09 PM:
Times change and over the years new technology is available to us. This is a given, but what is the intelligent choice?
When digital sound was starting to appear in the early 90s my stance was that CDS would in no way survive due to the lack of a backup audio track. Then shortly later I firmly pushed everyone to go with Dolby Digital and not SDDS and DTS because I didn't feel that SDDS would last the test of time being on the edges of the film and that getting dts discs could be a problem. I was correct on both, and sadly not a single person listened to me as SDDS and DTS was installed like crazy all over town. Now everyone who installed SDDS has since retired most of their units and had to purchase Dolby or DTS, yet the DTS folks are always complaining about damaged or missing discs. It seems some people never learn.
Now we have D-cinema. I feel that Dolby again has got the better product for D-cinema and my backing goes again to them, but I am surprised at the people jumping on the bandwagon so quickly which is the purpose of my post.
Let's face it guys, D-cinema equipment purchased now will be totally obsolete within a few years. I highly doubt ANY of it will still be running or up to standards 10 years from now. Meanwhile there are 35mm projectors that have been running for decades and will continue to run without failure.
Why are we settling with JPEG2000? It doesn't look THAT good. 4K is a very real possibility in the near future, so I am amazed that people are jumping to quickly to adapt the 2k standard.
Just look at what has happened with computers in the last 10 years alone. In 1996 the system everyone was using was Windows 95. That's a mere 10 years ago! Do I really need to remind everyone what a joke Windows 95 was?
I say let the big boys like Regal or AMC put all of their money into D-cinema. A certain number of years down the road they WILL find that they will need an arsenal of techs to keep things updated and running, plus more and more shows will be lost due to computer glitches. This is just a fact of life with computer equipment as it ages.
Then even possibly as little as 5 years down the road, the big boys who invested now in D-cinema will be stuck with the outdated equipment currently available because they were the guinea pigs for the new technology. As a result the smaller guys will enter the market with better systems which will attract customers in the same thought process that is being used now to convert to digital "as quickly as possible" and the big boys will suffer (possibly again into bankruptcy).
I could rant on, but I think most of the obvious points have already been made elsewhere on the forums, but seriously, what's the rush? Why is everyone in such a panic to spend an insane amount of money to be the beta testers?
Yeah it looks great now, but all of the equipment is just too new to be failing yet. Mark my words, a few years down the road this forum will be littered with people having major problems and lost shows due to this first generation of D-cinema.
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-29-2006, 06:20 PM:
quote: Brad Miller
I could rant on, but I think most of the obvious points have already been made elsewhere on the forums, but seriously, what's the rush? Why is everyone in such a panic to spend an insane amount of money to be the beta testers?
I agree with you here Brad. If we were looking at a situation where films were no longer being released on 35mm prints, as has happened with 16mm, then you would need to either install digital, or close, as previously 16mm venues had to move to either video, or 35mm. That simply isn't the case with 35mm at the moment, and isn't likely to be for at least some years to come. There's a very large number of 35mm cinemas in the World; they couldn't all convert overnight, even if they wanted to.
A few weeks ago Nigel Wolland retired as Chief at the Odeon Leicester Square; I was among a large group who attended an event at the theatre to wish him well, listen to the organ, and have a look at their present equipment installation. This was the first time I had seen 2k digital; it looked good, much better than the first generation 1.3k equipment, but I wouldn't say that it looked better than a good film presentation. There were othere there who disagree with me about this. There were two other digital projection systems in the box that day, one partly dismantled, and I believe that the Odeon has had at least one other in the past few years. This theatre does update its equipment more frequently than most, but they have had five generations of conventional film projetors, plus a pair of Kalee Vistavision machines, since they opened in 1937.
If I was a cinema owner I would not even consider installing digital today, unless there was some special requirement; e.g. to show live events. I would keep an eye on the situation, and maybe in a few years time I might think the time was right, but I don't think it is today. If I was designing a cinema today, I would certainly make provision for the future installation of digital equipment.
New digital cinema equipment is not cheap, and is never likely to be; the production volumes are simply too small, though no doubt the cost will come down. Secondhand equipment is now almost useless, as the studios do not want to support the 1.3k format. Very good rebuilt twenty year old 35mm equipment, which still has many years of life in it, is much cheaper to buy, and will probably outlive the current generation of digital equipment. You will almost certainly be able to buy a better digital projector, at a lower cost, in a few years time than you can today. I'm not saying ignore digital, but for most cinemas I don't think the time is right.
The very small single screen cinema where I have been projecting for the last couple of years is due to have a digital machine installed sometime around November this year, as part of the UK Film Council/Arts Alliance scheme. I was thre when the site survey was carried out earlier this month; the installation will not be easy, and exactly how it will be done has not yet been decided. At the moment removing the film equipment and going totally digital is simply not an option, at least for an art house/classic film type of venue, so the choice is between film, or film plus digital. Have we yet reached the point where a digital only installation is practical for a purely mainstream venue? Other things being equal, a film plus digital installation is better than a film only one, but there are often considerable costs and difficulties involved in adding digital equipment to an existing venue, even where the digital equipment is being funded externally, as with the Arts Alliance scheme. Where the cinema has to pay the full cost, this is very high. We keep hearing that somebody else, the studios, the distributors, the equipment manufacturers etc. paying part of the cost is the answer. I have serious concerns about this; if somebody other than the cinema pays for the equipment, then that somebody is very likely to want a say in the programming policy.
If the distributors were to announce today that they would cease to supply 35mm prints from the end of this year, which is not going to happen, then the effect would not be to make most British cinemas buy digital equipment; it would be to close most of them down.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-29-2006, 06:52 PM:
quote: Brad Miller
Why are we settling with JPEG2000? It doesn't look THAT good. 4K is a very real possibility in the near future, so I am amazed that people are jumping to quickly to adapt the 2k standard.
Because its the highest data rate that can easily be transmitted over an ethernet link at this point in time. Its also about the highest data rate that can be digested by the DLP decoding/decrypting engine. The 4K thing has also been adapted as part of the standard but the main problem is that there is no standard for its transmission between the server and projector... it may very well be just too high of data rate to transmit with out phone company type laser fibre optic links. Are youa ware that its not just double the 2K data rate... Its actually the square of the 2K data rate. Are you also aware that Sony has yet to actually demonstrate its own 4K projector actually running at 4K? Thats right fans! We were told at the semiinar that T.I. has absolutely no plans do do anything but 2K for the long forseeable future because the demand and extremely high expense for a 4K system will lkeep it at bay right where its parked now. Would you pay $500,000 for a 4K system? thats what its estimated to cost. As far as producing it there just wouldn't be enough profit in it for any company to produce it in quantity today.... that may change in 10 or more years but it will probably be that long in reality before any 4K system really emerges. Ever wonder why the 3K Kodak DILA system has completely disappeared? Its because the chips just can't take the heat from high intensity lamps.... So they have stuck mainly to home entertainment systems. Yes, Sony has had that exact problem with the 4K projector!
These are but a few reasons for the wider acceptance of the 2K system... right now and for the forseeable future its the only one that'll be around in quantity, affordable, and practical for years to come. I still can't see what everyone is worried about... it looks BETTER than a good 35mm does on a 35' or so wide screen. Sure scope uses a smaller imaging area on the chip and will suffer some... but only just some. It'll still look far better than the average 35mm print running at the local barn. The Regal/AMC consortuim has just approached Wall Street investors for 1-billion dollars to oconvert every screen they have over to D-Cinema. With that big of committment it will fly very well.
Also, as new imaging techniques come available the projectors can easily be converted over to them if need be. We wil not be stuck at JPEG 2000. It may be the standard now but in the future when other better ways become available the projectors and servers are very adaptable at being upgraded. The light engine is not the limiting factor there. Its only the limiting factor as regards resolution.
I will say further that until all of you have attended a competantly run seminar and have developed at least some proper understanding as to the who-what-where-when-and why of things you will never be able to accurately judge anytihng about it.
Mark
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-29-2006, 06:58 PM:
Mark said "
These are but a few reasons for the acceptance of the 2K system... right now and for the forseeable future its the only one that'll be around, affordable, and practical for years to come. I still can't see what everyone is worried about... it looks BETTER than a good 35mm does on a 35 or so foot wide screen. Sure scope uses a smaller imaging area on the chip and will suffer some... but only just some. It'll still look far better than the average 35mm print running at the local barn."
funny the average screen size in canada with all our silver citys and the likes is in excess of 58' for a 1.85:1 image
2K doesn't cut it on those screens and audience reactions are they will not accept smaller screens
and 35mm high speed sloppy prints still n average exceed DLP
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-29-2006, 07:00 PM:
Sorry Gord, but you're flat wrong. The material we did see at Dolby was just your run of the mill preview material. All the techs and engineers there agreed it looked far superior to its 35mm film equivelent. Many of those attending had seen the preview in 35mm recently.
Mark
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-29-2006, 07:12 PM:
Mark: MPEG (as you know) did not look "healthy" The JPEG even made a believer out of me. Probably not many have seen JPEG on a perfect system. Agreed that there is a size limitation due to horsepower. Louis
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-29-2006, 07:39 PM:
Mark the screen at Dolby is far smaller than most of the ones up here
been there done it it still looks like crap 58' wide
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-29-2006, 07:40 PM:
I find most of the reason why people think DLP looks better is because of a lack of DIRT! Obviously other things come into play as well, mainly the lamphouse, screen and lenses. Still, on a properly designed and setup system, those run of the mill high speed 35mm prints are still superior to what I've seen in DLP (both 1.3k and 2k systems). The problem is that with rare exception I don't see what I call properly designed and setup 35mm systems in theaters today, so to most people's eyes DLP does look better because of the detail being given to those installations right now.
So far the best DLP I've seen hands down was a 2k demo at Christie's offices. The Barco I saw at Dolby was not as impressive to my eyes, nor was any other setup. Give it 5 years. There is no reason whatsoever to "settle" for JPEG2000 just because it is here now. Sure it looks pretty darned good, but there are still artifacting and weird motion issues that as of right now can only be aleviated by using film.
Mark, be patient and give it a little time. It won't take long for the higher data rate issue to resolve itself. With you a strong advocate of 70mm back in the day, I am shocked you are jumping on the lower quality current DLP bandwagon. What's the freakin' rush???
Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 07-29-2006, 09:03 PM:
While I agree that the industry should wait for 4K (even though I haven't personally seen it), the presentations I've seen with 2K have been amazingly good and I have always gone in wanting to hate it. I know many on this Forum hate D-cinema and think it's crap, but I think everyone is going to have to admit that there's a bit of built-in bias because of the perception that professional projectionists won't be as needed in a digital cinema world.
As with any medium, you gain something and you lose something. With digital, you gain consistency of brightness across the screen, no dirt or scratches, no shutter sync problems, a rock-steady image, no print grain and a show that looks the same every time you present it.
You lose some dynamic range in the image and the blacks aren't quite as good, although I recently had occasion to see MI3 and Cars in both 35mm and digital on the same day in the same theatre (but not the same screen) and I really could not see any differences in color, contrast or black levels. And sitting halfway back in the theatre, I didn't see any pixilation.
For a naive audience member, I think the positives outweigh the negatives, especially when you consider how second run prints look today. I've always felt that aside from the expense, D-Cinema is going to benefit second-run theaters more than first run.
The potential of 35mm vs. Digital is not the issue. It's true that at its best, 35mm is pretty great. The problem is 35mm is rarely presented at its best, even in first run large-city theaters anymore - I've seen filthy and scratched prints on the first day of a run. It's like the debate over vinyl LP vs. CD. At its best, a vinyl LP can sound great. But on average, CD sounds far superior. (Not that anyone really cares about audio quality anymore since everyone is listening to compressed music on MP3 players.) Even in the days of the "beloved" 70mm Dolby 6-track and even in NYC, there were only a few theaters that presented with really high quality--I can think of only three: The Ziegfeld, the Loews Astor Plaza and the old Loews Orpheum Twin (before it was turned into a multiplex), even though almost every Manhattan screen had 70mm capability.
I've seen D-Cinema on some pretty large screens. The screen at the Ziegfeld in NYC is 52' and digital there looks fine. There's a 62' screen at the AMC-Loews Kips Bay (screen #10), but I'm not 100% sure if I've seen digital presentations there, but I think I have, so I don't think the 58' screens in Canada would be a problem, but even if they are, the vast majority of screens today are tiny.
One thing we don't know yet is over the long term, will non-professional "projectionists" (i.e. 'the popcorn kid') play with projector settings and screw up the presentations? Will we start seeing the equivalent of "blue screens of death" or total lockups? Once the market is better established, will low-end providers push out crappy projectors with poorer quality or reliability? Once the studios have a ton of features stored digitally, will they start to compress the files for storage purposes making future "copies" of lesser quality or if technology changes, will there be artifacts introduced as one format is converted to another? Watch TV and you'll see tons of artifacts on digitally recorded shows and even live digital shows because of the compression used to uplink.
One of the reasons why chains are adopting now is because I don't think they're paying outright for the equipment. My belief (although I have no first-hand knowledge) is that they are leasing the equipment. If you're leasing and you eventually have to trade up, it's not really a big deal. It's like trading in a leased car every two years - your monthly payment pretty much stays the same.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-29-2006, 09:16 PM:
Aren't the projector settings pretty much locked down so nobody unauthorized can play with them?
Also aren't the projectors being financed by a private deal with distributors, and the exhibitors get a "credit" of some kind every time they don't have to be shipped a print for the digital screen? The credit represents the amount the distributor saved in making and shipping a film print. It's those credits that are largely making the payments on the projectors for exhibitors. At least that's how I understand it. After some period of time (years) the projectors will have been paid for by these credits, the exhibitors will own the hardware, and the distributors will get to keep the full cost savings from not making and shipping prints. It's a win-win.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-29-2006, 09:16 PM:
quote: Martin Brooks
One thing we don't know yet is over the long term, will non-professional "projectionists" (i.e. 'the popcorn kid') play with projector settings and screw up the presentations?
That is why there are such hurdles as passwords. But even if they take that hurdle and mess around in the setup, you can just reload the original settings and the good thing is, there are logfiles... So no more coming into the booth and finding rollers broken off but no one knows when it happened.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-29-2006, 10:38 PM:
quote: Gordon McLeod
Mark the screen at Dolby is far smaller than most of the ones up here
been there done it it still looks like crap 58' wide
Gord, If you'd actually read all my posts you'll find that I admit its not good for over 40' to 45' wide.
quote: Brad Miller
So far the best DLP I've seen hands down was a 2k demo at Christie's offices. The Barco I saw at Dolby was not as impressive to my eyes, nor was any other setup.
How do you know which was MPEG or not? There is a very definate difference.
IMHO to get this launched JPEG 2000 is indeed good enough for now... and converting to something better in the near future as the standards committie approves it will probably just be as easy as a board change and software upgrade in both the show server and the projector. Thats all it took to go from MPEG to JPEG. Also you get to a point where the source is very definately good enough for the 2K format as after a point you won't gain a thing because of rez limitation of the light engine and optical system themnselves. Do you really have a single customer that will spend 500K for a 4K system? Thats doubtful to ever happen.
quote: David Stambaugh
Aren't the projector settings pretty much locked down so nobody unauthorized can play with them?
Absolutely! It will ultimtely be difficult for many techs to even deal with it.
quote: David Stambaugh
Also aren't the projectors being financed by a private deal with distributors, and the exhibitors get a "credit" of some kind every time they don't have to be shipped a print for the digital screen? The credit represents the amount the distributor saved in making and shipping a film print.
Yes, but then why hasn't Christie returned calls to many independent large chains that have attempted to contact them? It appears that they are almost only after certain locations. I'd bet that when a point is reached where all the "important locations" are covered the financing will be cut off.
Mark
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-29-2006, 11:28 PM:
Compression? I don't think "compression" and "professional" belong in the same sentence or the same subject with each other. So to me D-cinema is very consumer level-ish/amateur-ish. I don't want to pay outta my ass to see a movie that won't give me full bandwidth 4:4:4 color. If I want to see compression, I'll wait for the DVD or Blu-Ray or whatever. I don't go to the theater to watch what I can see at home. I go to see something better. Something impressive. Currently, D-cinema is for pussies.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-29-2006, 11:58 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
I don't want to pay outta my ass to see a movie that won't give me full bandwidth 4:4:4 color.
Joe,
JPEG 2000 is 4:4:4....
You guys can think what you want to but the technology is ready and its going to improve ALOT of locations presentations. What the majority of you are forgetting is that there are more bad film handling locations than good ones in the world.
quote: Joe Redifer
Currently, D-cinema is for pussies.
Well, if there is going to be ALOT of really good pussy at some of those D-Cinema screenings, I might just start hanging out at some of them ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
.
Mark
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-30-2006, 12:54 AM:
Good luck with that, Mark. Really.
Are you saying D-Cinema is using the LOSSLESS version of JPEG 2000? I find that highly unlikely. The connection between the server and projector can handle full uncompressed data. If they are only using an ethernet cable to connect the two, well then that's some pretty pathetic technology they've got goin' there.
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-30-2006, 01:03 AM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Would you pay $500,000 for a 4K system? thats what its estimated to cost. As far as producing it there just wouldn't be enough profit in it for any company to produce it in quantity today....
Easy way to get 4K: use double the 2k chips. Since the devices are in a beamsplitter anyway, it's just as good a place to introduce a complimentary resolution bank for each color and recombine them on the screen.
Now, if some enterprising manufacturer will run with this idea... please send royalties to me, in care of Film-Tech.
Posted by Raymond Watson (Member # 3644) on 07-30-2006, 01:20 AM:
Dammit Gulbrandsen..... your lips are sharp tonight.....
I'll be there with you Mark....(where the pussy is). lol.....
I am anxious to see a digital release on the big screen.
I wish I could get some of that cheap finacing and a $40 credit on each d-Cinema movie that I rolled..... that would damn sure help with the payment!
Also..... Breaker 1-9.... thats a great idea, doubling chips before the beam splitter...... you could make a mint..... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Ray
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-30-2006, 01:38 AM:
The problems will raise their evil heads when production increases on the products. It's like when you have a Christie platter show up with no holes for the ring to go in or the drive surface is rough and rutted causing the motor to bounce as the platter turns. No one has seen the real problems yet but as soon as quality control goes out the window look out. Yes it will happen it always does. Thats called trying to meet supply and demand. That's why if this is to be the wave of the future everyone needs to be patiant and let the production of the units and other equipment run at a pace where quality assurance can be maintained. Otherwise we are going to have big issues and pissed of customers and with customers out there having to pay a premium on top of their ticket price to see these special 3-D shows, they may have second thoughts of ever coming back.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 07-30-2006, 02:00 AM:
Joe, Where did you get the idea the server files are going to the projector on Ethernet cable? This is not correct. If I remember correctly, JPEG goes over on not one, but two high speed coaxial cables.
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-30-2006, 02:04 AM:
I have normal, run-of-the-mill XL projectors, with Big Sky 7kW lamps behind them. I have dedicated film cleaners on each screen & run through nearly a case of Filmguard per season. I marvel at my screens, the flawless images, and wonder how you can take a 35mm frame... blow it up to 86 feet wide, and believe the notion that digital looks better if the screen size is smaller.
Seems that the film image would be better at smaller screen sizes, too. Given that simplistic logic, the notion that digital looks better at ANY size just doesn't make sense to me.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-30-2006, 02:19 AM:
Sam, Mark - did the setup in the Dolby screening room use an anamorphic lens for scope?
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-30-2006, 02:35 AM:
quote: Sam D. Chavez
Joe, Where did you get the idea the server files are going to the projector on Ethernet cable? This is not correct. If I remember correctly, JPEG goes over on not one, but two high speed coaxial cables.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Because its the highest data rate that can easily be transmitted over an ethernet link at this point in time.
quote: Joe Redifer
The connection between the server and projector can handle full uncompressed data. If they are only using an ethernet cable to connect the two, well then that's some pretty pathetic technology they've got goin' there.
|
I think Mark may have been referring to the link from a satellite distribution server to the servers that each projector would have. Joe may have miss interpreted it as being between the server and projector.
I remember reading somewhere that they are working on trying to get a satisfactory compression ratio for satellite downloads otherwise it will take something like 20 hrs to do it with out compression.
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 07-30-2006, 03:15 AM:
Yes, Brad, I agree with your contention that there’s no need to rush into DC.
There are several threads on this forum that discuss the issue in detail, including the 70 vs DC and Improve 35 thread.
The film quality situation must be better in Oz. People who like good presentation in a civilized atmosphere simply steer clear of multiplexes. Very few prints look really bad. We do get DTS discs most of the time (thank goodness, coz Dolby Digital reliability is iffy and – IMHO – DTS sounds better).
The powers that be always seem to be in a hurry to give us something we don’t need. Our little cinema is in danger of disappearing because the local authorities are imposing unwanted changes. Then, our customers will probably choose to upgrade their home cinema systems rather than seeing movies at a multiplex; even if it is totally digital.
Although I prefer my movies in full Scope and DTS, it is not as important as having an involving story in any medium. I just showed a session of Ballets Russes (flat, SR, gainy historic footage, some video shots). The audience sat rivetted throughout and burst into loud applause at the end. That’s what it’s about.
Film companies: if you need to save money, don’t blame film. Tell some of the overpaid “talent” that stories are more important. Teach projectionists how to get more sessions per print. Stop piracy at the source. Slow down the release pattern (we can all wait another few months to get our dvd copy). Greenlight “must-see” movies instead of retreads.
It has been said a thousand times. There is nothing wrong with this industry that a good movie can’t fix.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-30-2006, 06:22 AM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Because its the highest data rate that can easily be transmitted over an ethernet link at this point in time.
The ethernet link is between theaters for transfering data between units and to have all the systems controllable on a theater wide show manager from any one position. There is a Cat 5E or greater ethernet cable between the Show Store and Show Player as a data link. Between the Show Player to the projector its via 2 HD-SDI cables (total data rate of 2.970 GBPS). For MPEG it only requires 1 HD-SDI cable(1.485 GBPS). For the Sony 4K it would probably take 10 HD-SDI cables(14+GBPS) just to do JPEG 2000...can you imagine how huge themShow Store wold have to be for just one two hour movie? The etnernet system the Dolby is using is 1000 base-T. Fiber is the prefered link for long runs between theaters.
quote: Michael Schaffer
Sam, Mark - did the setup in the Dolby screening room use an anamorphic lens for scope?
Michael,
Yes they are using an anamorph although the one they have is very sharp... obniously hand selected... we only saw the ASC (SPARTS?) test film in scope there. The rest of the stuff we saw was all flat.
quote: Tim Reed
Easy way to get 4K: use double the 2k chips. Since the devices are in a beamsplitter anyway, it's just as good a place to introduce a complimentary resolution bank for each color and recombine them on the screen.
Tim,
Stacking two DLP Chips would not be practical... These are lagre chips thata re mounted in a metal casing for heat sinking... once you see a light engine you'd see why. And hey, a 2K light engine costs 30 grand by itself anyway..... There is a solid quartz receptor in there thats fairly long for smoothing out the light before it hits the face of the chips.... That is also a big expense but resulting light is very flat and very, very nice.
Mark
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-30-2006, 06:40 AM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
For MPEG it only requires 1 HD-SDI cable(1.485 GBPS). For the Sony 4K it would probably take 10 HD-SDI cables(14+GBPS) just to do JPEG 2000...can you imagine how huge themShow Store wold have to be for just one two hour movie?
Again, patience. It won't take long for this to be a "no biggie". Just look back 10 years. We were marveling at 3 inch floppies!!!
And for the piratetards out there, having such a huge master file would even FURTHER help prevent piracy because it would make it that much MORE difficult for a pirate to deal with a file size so large. Of course that won't do anything for the studio screeners. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-30-2006, 08:10 AM:
Pirating is not a problem now with the present encryption format... There are more unlock number possibilities than one could try in several lifetimes... Actually one of the guys at Dolby said therea rea ore number code possibilities than there are particles in the universe. Basically infinite....
Brad, Its not that they are not going to be able to pull off real 4K in the future... its what it will cost.... and what it will cost by the time they actually are able to do it. We were told that T.I. has looked at it and it isn't going to work out finanvially or anyone. Even today no one has any real workable financial plan for getting these things out there.... not even the Christie/AIX deal is working for everyone. And Regal/AMC have had to go to Morgan Stanley to ask for a billion dollars just for 2K upgrades. This stuff is not going to get any cheaper either... How do you think they'll come up with a plan for selling $500,000.00 projectors of they can't even have a stable plan for selling the $100,000.00 systems....?
Sorry... saying it'll all be worked out is not the answer.....
Mark
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-30-2006, 09:49 AM:
quote: Tim Reed
Easy way to get 4K: use double the 2k chips
Actually, it'd be 4x the 2k chips. You'd need 12 2k DLP chips (4 of each color) or you'd need 4 2k light engines converged together.
Like Mark said, technically it could be done but the projector would cost 4x the price.
Anyway, I think the rush is due to fear of losing the financing support from the studios. I think the smaller exibs feel that if they wait too long, they are going to have to finance those $100,000 projectors themselves. If that happened, a LOT of independents wouldn't be able to make it.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-30-2006, 11:08 AM:
Mark, if the present system that is in place (35mm film) was of poor quality or was unreliable, then I could understand your excitement to go D-Cinema. However the problem is that it isn't a problem. The only people D-Cinema truly benefits are the studios.
Theaters THINK it will benefit them by having totally automated systems so they don't have to pay projectionists and everything will run perfect all the time. Bullshit. Sure everything will run smooth for the first few years like all NEW electronic items do, but like I said, 5-10 years down the road theaters will be worse off with repairs and lost shows.
Again, there is no valid reason to rush the conversion.
(PS you might want to pick a side and stick with it. Only a few months back Dolby was the devil according to you and you were reporting that their equipment was crap, now suddenly they are saints in your eyes. What the heck???)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-30-2006, 11:52 AM:
I, too, agree Digitial Cinema isn't quite ready for mass adoption as a replacement for 35mm projectors.
4K would be a better standard. However the current DCI spec has both 2K and 4K plopped into a 150Mb/s-250Mb/s data rate. So if 4K is used it will have around 4 times the level of data compression as a 2K image. This data rate is well below the uncompressed 1.4GB/s raw data output by a HD video camera.
I can understand the reasoning behind having that bitrate. Many theaters will be receiving their video files via satellite. What's to stop studios from dumping those bitrates down further? Are the DCI specs mandatory? Or can we expect to see some movies with bitrates down in the 30Mb/s bandwidth of consumer formats like Blu-Ray? I certainly would not put it past a few folks to do such a thing for it being faster, cheaper and "good enough."
For 4K done right, current computer hardware is not quite up to the task. There are no video cameras anywhere that can natively record a true 4K resolution image. Not even those new units from Panavision and Arri. For hard discs and data cables to handle a 4K stream in real time it must be done in parallel.
In a few years off the shelf retail computers will be more than powerful enough to handle it with a single multi-core CPU and new generation of hard disc. By then we might even see CCD and CMOS imagers with enough pixels and sophistication to shoot 4K and do it well.
The Marketing Angle
For a long time I've been very concerned about the marketing end of digital cinema. When you deal with computer graphics stuff the word "digital" means very little. I'm more interested in things like native pixel count, bit depth, color mode and compression level.
The "digital" buzzword is enough to stun most people into bewildered confusion unfortunately, especially when it comes to selling electronics be that a HDTV set to an individual or a D-Cinema package to a theater operator.
"Digital" can be great, but I feel right to slam it now and then for frequent tendency for the people making design decisions to make quality cutting compromises and then hiding those downgrades by just exclaiming "digital" even louder.
"HD Digital Radio" is a very good example of this marketing spin. What a crock of shit. There is absolutely nothing "HD" about this "next generation of radio broadcasting technology" at all. Satellite radio sounds bad enough with its 96kb/s data rate. HD Digital Radio uses a lesser quality compression codec and dumps the bitrate further down to 64kb/s. I guess the swirling, brassy audio quality is supposed to be "HD" somehow. It may be "digital" but it sounds like shit. It sure isn't anything like DVD Audio or SACD, despite what the brand name implies.
Lets not forget about the problem posed by home theater and its steady improvement.
It is indeed a marketing problem when a 2K system has only 128 pixels more in width (2048 versus 1920) and the same amount of pixels in height (1080) as a home theater setup. A couple years ago many figured the best a home display could do was 1080i. Every HD-DVD and Blu-Ray disc I've picked up has a 1080p prorgressive scan video stream. Some titles, such as the Blu-Ray version of The Fifth Element boast 5.1 channel uncompressed Linear PCM surround.
These new HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs actually look pretty damned good, even on a current standard "1080P" HDTV monitor with a stunted HDMI cable standard that drops the video to 1080i. New sets are on the way with improved HDMI connections that will be able to show the progressive 1080 video streams on those discs, as well as show 1080p mode for that brand new Playstation 3.
For the past decade I have avoided buying a HDTV set for all the shortcomings of the technology. But now they're finally improving into where they should have been years ago. Progressive 1080p input will allow these sets to function as computer monitors at full 1920 X 1080 resolution. Such a "convergence" product will sell very well. TV broadcasts, video players, game consoles and a PC or Mac will be able to hook up to it -maybe all at the same time.
What's all that HDTV shit have to do with movie theaters? From the viewpoint of regular people who don't know any better they'll think their home setup looks as good as the theater. The home technology effectively trumps what's happening in the theater.
By converting all elements of presentation over to digital technology it puts the commercial theater into a digital arms race with both home theater product lines and even computer technology as well.
Ultimately the 2K thing will end up being worthless as a marketing tool to lure people to theaters.
That's going to put even more pressure on theater operators to improve other aspects of show quality. Some theater chains are already taking steps to greatly improve the appearance of their auditoriums and lobbies. They're trying to look more classy.
But what do you do about the other jerks in the audience?
I swear, the last few times I've been to the movies I've seen a big lightshow of cellphone displays popping up within the audience beneath the movie I was watching. This is actually turning out to be a BIG DISADVANTAGE with stadium seated auditorium designs -or perhaps a good case to sit as close to the screen as possible. Not only do you have cellphones ringing, babies crying, some asshole kicking the back of your seat, another jerk deliberately spilling his soda and upending his popcorn tub just to be funny, you have every other butthole in the auditorium compulsively checking their phone messages throughout the duration of the movie.
Basically audiences have become a lot more selfish and rude over the years and they are poisoning the movie-going experience -perhaps beyond the control of theater operators to do anything about it.
I realize as much as anyone that many people go to the movie theater just to get out of the house and "do something." But they're not going to keep on doing that if the cattle they encounter at the theater just keeps making the experience more distracting and anger-inspiring.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-30-2006, 11:58 AM:
There is most certainly "no rush."
The mpeg/jpeg comparison test we saw originated on film. JPEG was good enough that grain was clearly apparent even in the rear seat where I sat. I would assume tht we saw a scan of the positive off the camera negative. It was plenty good enough. I have seen 70mm that looked worse and only a few 35mm that looked better.
The financial model is slightly flawed. For example: in a multiplex; money saved by NOT making a new 35mm print would pay for all of 1 projector, 90% of the second; 60% of the third, 30% of the fourth. Exact payments would depend on the TOTAL PRINTS NOT MADE per year. Without multiple projectors there is no way to move a print down to a smaller house without making a 35mm print. Louis
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-30-2006, 12:05 PM:
quote: Louis Bornwasser
Without multiple projectors there is no way to move a print down to a smaller house without making a 35mm print. Louis
I think that is one reason why we're now seeing circuit-wide conversion efforts with chains like Carmike and Rave. Every Carmike install has had at least half its screens equipped for digital already. Some locations now have it on every screen.
The distributors won't save much, if anything at all, by installing just one or two digital systems in a theater complex. You wind up having to make the same amount of 35mm prints anyway.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 07-30-2006, 01:03 PM:
While there is certainly no rush and there are debates aplenty as to whether film is better (I am in that camp)sometimes a move to a new technology develops a life of its own. (Look at the conversion to hideous, unpaintable white Vinyl windows). This IMHO is what is happening.
The train has left the station, the baby has wet the bed, the milk has been spilt, the cherry has been popped, ad nauseum or infinitum.
It's all down hill from here. OK, enough cliches by half.
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-30-2006, 01:33 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Stacking two DLP Chips would not be practical... These are lagre chips thata re mounted in a metal casing for heat sinking... once you see a light engine you'd see why.
Maybe. It depends on how bad they want 4k and at what cost. You change the design, of course. Hey, they got 3 chips in there, and our projected light that previously allowed room only for a film frame the size of a postage stamp was rearranged. Any one of us would've said that'd be impractical, too, but they did it and did it well.
It's all about design and desire. How bad do they want it? Nothing is impossible.
If you can dream it, you can do it. -Walt Disney
Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. -Helen Keller
It's people! Soylent Green is people! -Charlton Heston
quote: Lyle Romer
Actually, it'd be 4x the 2k chips.
Yes, you're absolutely right.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-30-2006, 02:32 PM:
There is a very strong reason for the 2k limit on DLP technology...it has to do with the DLP division at TI running in the red...since day 1.
The 2k limit has everything to do with the consumer market...that is where the big pot of gold remains. The only way TI can recoup its investment is to "win" the consumer market. The problem remains, DLP is the most expensive of the current technologies currently after that consumer market. The only reason for the stupid color wheel single chip DLP is that they can't do the technology cheap enough.
LCD is definately cheaper and there are now 1080p LCD projectors out there for about a third of DLP...however it is LCD technology and the colors will never be as good as the DLP technology (particularly on a day-by-day basis).
LCoS definately has the potential to steal the consumer market away from DLP...it can do what DLP can do but at 1/3 the cost...and it gets better each and every year.
If LCoS or another alternative technlogy grabs the home market from DLP...you will see DLP slam its doors shut just like GE did with the Teleria or the Hughes/JVC system.
It is a very risky technology to be investing in from the theatre standpoint. There just isn't enough money in movie theatres to offset the R&D to bring better technologies out.
Sony has their 4K system and they HAVE been going in...just not into movie theatres...the National Geographic Society has one in their theatre in Washington DC.
For putting up high resolution "art", the Sony 4K system can be quite impressive but that doesn't do us Cinema people much good.
I agree with Brad in that there really is no rush to putting in what really amounts to 2nd generation "Beta" technology. I also question the support structure of the current players. Most of them just don't seem to get that "the show must go on" theory the cinema industry has had its entire life.
Some of the players in this biz also want to charge the exibitor per year to provide for advance replacements and future enhancements to their servers (QuVIS, wants upwards of $2500/year just for their server).
Christie seems to have a "winner take all" attitude. Only a Christie tech may work on a Christie DLP or you void the warranty and unlike Dolby and Barco...they don't offer training to outsiders. In fact, they were quoted to have said at ShoWest that "anyone over 40-years old won't be able to understand this stuff anyway."
At least Dolby has the Cinema concept down and knows the importance of technician training and support of their products...as evidence by this course which continues their fine tradition. I applaud Dolby for always striving to have their products perform as well as they can by passing along the knowledge to those in the field that need to work with their products.
So Mark...the dual-link HDSDI cable...was it Belden or Gepco? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-30-2006, 03:02 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
In fact, they were quoted to have said at ShoWest that "anyone over 40-years old won't be able to understand this stuff anyway."
Well, that's an incredibly stupid thing to say, if true, and if not in jest.
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 07-30-2006, 04:11 PM:
The battle of the service teams...Christie in one corner....Strong in another...all with retirement plans for the employees who reach 41 ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
It is excellent that some manufacturers offer training opportunity but you also must balance the bias from any "sales pitch" element in the training. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-30-2006, 05:37 PM:
quote: Brad Miller
Mark, if the present system that is in place (35mm film) was of poor quality or was unreliable, then I could understand your excitement to go D-Cinema. However the problem is that it isn't a problem.
Brad,
I never said that film as a medium was a problem... Its the places exhibiting the films that are the problem. Replacing film with digital at thise locations.... I'd guess 60% of the theaters in existance.... will make them have a great presentation literally overnight. Da, Its not about film, projectors, or projector oil.... its all about the uality of presentatioj and digital will shine there way past film.
quote: Steve Guttag
Sony has their 4K system and they HAVE been going in...just not into movie theatres...the National Geographic Society has one in their theatre in Washington DC.
Actually they are in theaters... AMC has one in operation near San Francisco.... being fed via a Dolby Server System. It will give a seemingly brighter image but its still only going to be playing 2K material with the projector scaling it up.
quote: Steve Guttag
So Mark...the dual-link HDSDI cable...was it Belden or Gepco?
Actually it was a brand that I'd never heard of before... some European stuff.
Mark
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-30-2006, 06:53 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I never said that film as a medium was a problem... Its the places exhibiting the films that are the problem. Replacing film with digital at thise locations.... I'd guess 60% of the theaters in existance.... will make them have a great presentation literally overnight. Da, Its not about film, projectors, or projector oil.... its all about the uality of presentatioj and digital will shine there way past film.
Hmmm if that's the case it would be cheaper to put more professional people back in the booth and by cases of film guard and film cleaners and update some of the lower quality lamp consoles.
It's all about eliminating the distribution costs for the film companies. That's what they want and that's why they are pushing it towards the exhibitor. The big issue for the exhibitor other than the initial cost is what's going to happen in ten years when all the equipment starts failing. Then they see even more costs of upgrading computer servers and loss of revenue due to systems failing. You can't sit back and think that it will not happen because it's Murphy's law, what can happen will happen, and the funny thing is, the film companies will be sitting back laughing there asses off. Because everyone took the hook and bait and tangled their selves up in a mess of trouble. Whatever happens will happen I just don't happen to totally agree with it at this time. I just think the consumers are going to end up paying for it hard with rising ticket costs due to the extra expense and lack of any real savings.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-30-2006, 07:21 PM:
quote: Darryl Spicer
Hmmm if that's the case it would be cheaper to put more professional people back in the booth and by cases of film guard and film cleaners and update some of the lower quality lamp consoles.
Humm, 40,000 a year(and thats a low amount of pay!) per projectionist times say 25000 screens.. there are more screens than that though....equals $1040000000 per year times the 15 year predicted life span of Digital equipment equals... $15600000000 total. The labor appears to be the more expensive route because this does not figure in health insurance, retirement contributions, or vacation time. These should double that last figure easily!
Oh well.....
quote: Darryl Spicer
It's all about eliminating the distribution costs for the film companies.
There will still be big buck distribution costs for the distributers no matter what. Aside from making and distruibuting Hard Drives, DVD's, or Blue ray Disks there are a fleet of office people needed just to keep track of and issue the code keys so the film will actually play.
Eliminate costs... I don't think so...
Oh well.....
Personally I am not a fan of any one projection system... I am a fan of both film and digital. Each will find its place in the exhibition world.
quote: Steve Guttag
just like GE did with the Teleria
G.E., one of the worst companies in existance sold it's Talaria division off years ago to the employees running that division. They are known today as Vaccum Optics and they still support that dinosaur of a system..... Brand new light valves are still made for them... cost is about the same as a DLP light engine... low to high 30's depending on model. Talaria was originally designed for use in Uncle Sam's war room displays by Lockheed Martin but was also licensed to GE for the commercial marlet. They just never looked very good no matter what!
Mark
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-30-2006, 07:30 PM:
Whether there is a $40,000+ employee in the booth full time or not, those video-based systems are going to need more periodic maintenance than their more simple analog (film) counterparts.
When something on a film projector or console has a problem you may be able to do something simple to fix it. Perhaps a small part here or an adjustment there. You're not going to have that sort of situation with digital projection. When something breaks chances are you'll just have to replace it rather than fix it.
Worse yet, those problems with a digital system may require a visit from an authorized tech to get the problem solved. My understanding is theater managers with some mechnanical skills aren't going to be able to touch any of this stuff. What's going to stop screens from going black when a problem arises?
I sure hope they're stocking theaters with plenty of hot-swap capable hard discs.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-30-2006, 07:39 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
My understanding is theater managers with some mechnanical skills aren't going to be able to touch any of this stuff. What's going to stop screens from going black when a problem arises?
I believe that Christie is promising 4 hour or less turn around on a down projection system... I doubt that Weak International could do that. With the Dolby server you can loose one drive and it doesn't matter... it will also continue running the currently selected content with a second one dead but the raid array has to be re-configured when both those bad drives are replaced. Takes about an hour for them to re-configure.
Mark
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-30-2006, 07:45 PM:
Anyone know how long it takes them to dupe a movie onto a set of hard drives? And how many sets can they do at one time?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-30-2006, 07:46 PM:
quote: David Stambaugh
Anyone know how long it takes them to dupe a movie onto a set of hard drives? And how many sets can they do at one time?
Thousands at a time.... It is assumed that the labs will eventually get into doing this process.
Mark
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-30-2006, 07:48 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
15 year predicted life span of Digital equipment
That's not a good thing knowing that your predicted life span of the equipment is at such a short span for that expensive of an investment. Especially when we have projection equipment that has been running out there for many more years than that.
quote:
Humm, 40,000 a year(and that's a low amount of pay!) per projectionist times say 25000 screens..
What are you figuring one man on each machine. Maybe it should be more like this.
lets say one per location times 3000 locations. That is still a lot of money and I agree it would be costly but my whole point is we need more professional attitude in the booth not just I am getting out of working downstairs. Teach them how to run it properly and use the film guard and the film cleaner.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I believe that Christie is promising 4 hour or less turn around on a down projection system
Is that part of the Christie/Accessit agreement? I wonder who they will start sub contracting with when more and more units go online. My feeling is that the big boys like Cinemark, Regal and AMC going through Nationalcinemedia will want to try and keep as much control in house as they can with their own techs. I guess we will all see as time goes by.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-30-2006, 08:27 PM:
I remember awhile back nobody anywhere wanted to put D-Cinema in their theaters because no one could figure out who would pay for it. It was the studios who saved all of the printing and shipping money. The theaters only saved the minimum hourly wage of the god damned pesky projectionist (don't you just hate those guys? Managers are far better people). Now theaters are buying them by the bucketloads. Are the studios chipping in? If not, why do theaters feel the need for them all of the sudden? Are they perhaps retarded?
Oh, and 20 hours to download a movie is NOTHING! It takes longer than that to ship a print so what's the big deal? Do theaters have to buy and pay for new monthly high-speed connection as well?
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-30-2006, 08:29 PM:
I'm sure there is some fine print on that 4 hour tech arrival time. Maybe in a few key markets, but surely not all across the country.
At least with film the projectionist, manager or freakin popcorn kid can often be talked through what to do to get the show back on screen until the tech can arrive. D-cinema? NOPE, you're just DOWN!!!
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 07-30-2006, 10:02 PM:
The only thing I really like about D Cinema is the change it will make in movie distribution. Anything that lowers the cost of distributing movies will make movies more available.
As a small town theatre owner with limited number of screens, that will help my bottom line more then saving a little on labor.
Once it costs virtually nothing to get me movie, there would be no reason why I couldn't get anything I wanted on the break. Also, studios might start making one week deals for new movies, allowing me more booking flexibility.
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-30-2006, 10:07 PM:
quote: Matt Fields
Also, studios might start making one week deals for new movies, allowing me more booking flexibility.
Sure... assuming you can live on 30% of your boxoffice income. Constant churn like that will never get your percentages down. Even with a near-zero distribution cost, nothing about D-Cinema suggests the studios are going to give the exhibitors the slightest break.
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 07-30-2006, 10:13 PM:
Jack-
I'm not paying 70% on everything the first week. Are you?
I'm not saying the percentages will go down (and I don't want to play everything for a week), but the flexibility will improve. Like right now, I would like to play "Invicable" on the break Aug 25. But Disney is only going 2000 or so theatres, which will leave me out.
If I was digital and it cost almost nothing to get me a copy, why wouldn't they let me play it?
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-30-2006, 10:22 PM:
Not anymore, Matt... but then, drive-ins work under a little different business model. My indoor opened most everything at 70%.
As for whether the distribution cost is the reason why studios release 2,000 prints of one film, yet 3,800 prints of another; that makes sense, but I don't know anyone at the studios who would say one way or the other. Could make a difference, though.
As for whether the cost of digital, or lack thereof would make it easier for you to get a title; guess that's all speculation right now. Most theatres I'm aware of that have D-Cinema don't have any problems getting whatever they want in 35mm, so asking them won't help.
As it is though, don't you think the proliferation of prints and screens in this country might have a little bearing on why the business is having its challenges right now?
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 07-30-2006, 10:28 PM:
I agree the US is way overscreened and that is the main problem with the theatre business right now.
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 07-31-2006, 03:00 AM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Humm, 40,000 a year(and thats a low amount of pay!) per projectionist
it may be low but it's probably about 3x what i make.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
times say 25000 screens..
as darryl points out, there are a lot more screens than projectionists.
quote:
The labor appears to be the more expensive route because this does not figure in health insurance, retirement contributions, or vacation time. These should double that last figure easily!
you're funny!
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-31-2006, 07:48 AM:
There is absolutely no way that any of the current ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif)
installations will still be running in fifteen years without substantial hardware and software upgrades. Not going to happen. There will be huge improvements in data storage, networking, processing, encryption, and projection equipment during that time. Sound will likely improve as well. I'd give the current systems five years before they become seriously obsolete and five to ten years before they become completely unusable for displaying current product, without making upgrades which probably are less cost-effective than simply replacing the unit.
Once the standards are completed and the equipment has gone through another generation of improvements, I can see becoming viable for smaller screens showing mainstream commercial product, probably with film capability as well, provided that the economics can be made to work with a five-year replacement cycle.
As things stand now, though I don't see any reason for exhibitors to consider installing unless someone else is paying for it or possibly for special venue situations.
I don't think that anyone is seriously concerned about the cost of projectionists since the major chains generally seem to be largely manager-operated and don't employ "projectionists" anyway (except maybe of the $5.15/hour variety). The art houses, independents, and special venues which do employ projectionists generally aren't the ones who would be able to install anyway, due to their programming and economic situation. Are there any network engineers who will work for $5.15/hour?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-31-2006, 09:19 AM:
News Flash!
Dolby to offer 3-D cinema technology
Joining forces with virtual reality company Infitec for theater system
Updated: 41 minutes ago
LOS ANGELES - Dolby Laboratories, best known for its movie theater surround-sound systems, on Monday said it has teamed up with German virtual reality company Infitec GmbH to develop a three-dimensional theater projection system for theaters.
Dolby will integrate Infitec's 3-D technology, designed by Daimler Chrysler for automotive design, with the digital cinema playback system it developed for movie theaters converting to digital projection systems from 35-millimeter film projectors.
Digital 3-D systems are one tool Hollywood is using to staunch competition from DVDs, the Internet and video games to bring consumers back to theaters.
Last week's 3-D debut of Columbia Pictures' animated movie "Monster House" raked in more than twice the average per-screen box office of the 2-D version, showing that 3-D systems can boost a movie's appeal.
Dolby says its Infitec-based system would be cheaper and more flexible than that of the leading 3-D cinema company, Real D, because it allows a 3-D image to be projected directly onto standard white screens.
Real D's system requires silver screens to boost light on the image. Real D has installed more than 200 screens worldwide and has led the two largest digital 3-D film debuts ever — the Walt Disney Co's "Chicken Little" and "Monster House."
Existing 3-D systems that use white screens also require theater-goers to wear expensive, battery-charged glasses to view the 3-D images. Dolby said its solution allows theater patrons to use the inexpensive polarized plastic glasses used by Real D systems.
Tim Partridge, senior vice president and general manager of Dolby's professional division, said the company got serious about designing its own 3-D system during the debut of "Chicken Little."
Dolby worked with Disney and Real D to convert 100 theaters worldwide to digital 3-D systems for the film's run last fall.
"During that roll out we were able to see what an impact 3-D had on the experience," Partridge said. "We learned about the drawbacks. We stood back and tried to figure out what it would take to have an optimized 3-D system."
Dolby has deployed its digital playback system on 160 theater screens worldwide. The company expects its 3-D technology to be available by spring of 2007.
Link to original article..... here
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-31-2006, 09:36 AM:
So I assume absolutely nobody in the theater industry who posts here knows the answer to the question I asked in my last post.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-31-2006, 09:49 AM:
quote: Joe Redifer
So I assume absolutely nobody in the theater industry who posts here knows the answer to the question I asked in my last post.
Most of the financial arrangements are covered by confidential disclosure agreements. But do a search on "Virtual Print Fee" and you will find more information on some of the business proposals. For example:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001699185
quote:
...The business plan, while not fully developed, is expected to be based on a virtual print fee model, under which the studios bear the brunt of the costs for each digital print in theaters. The plan is similar to those being proposed by other financing vehicles hoping to roll out digital cinema, such as AccessIT's subsidiary Christie/AIX and Technicolor Digital Cinema. Hall said NCM's plan is an "open-book financing plan," whereby all parties can see how the contributed funds are being allocated.
AccessIT and Technicolor have signed content deals with the majority of the studios. When asked whether the NCM effort would bypass those being put forth by AccessIT and Technicolor, Hall said that he would be happy to talk to either of the parties regarding financing but has not. In-depth talks with the studios also have not taken place...
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001477275
quote:
Technicolor Digital Cinema on Wednesday announced its long-awaited deployment plan for digital cinema, for which four studios are on board and three more are in final negotiations.
Under separate, long-term agreements, DreamWorks, Sony Pictures, Universal Studios and Warner Bros. Entertainment have signed on to distribute content digitally and to pay a virtual print fee for each screen equipped with the DCI-compliant digital cinema system.
In addition, 20th Century Fox, New Line Cinema and the Weinstein Co. are in final negotiations to back the venture, which intends to deploy up to 5,000 DCI-compliant screens during the next three to four years. Over 10 years, Technicolor plans to take the system to a total of 15,000 screens.
http://www.forbes.com/business/global/2005/0725/020.html
quote:
...Here's where things get tricky. Installing the equipment needed to send and show the films digitally costs between $75,000 and $100,000 per screen. This includes a satellite to receive the movies, a cache server to hold them, a local area network to distribute them to the right screens, and media players and digital projectors for each screen. That means an investment of up to $1.6 million for a 16-screen multiplex. There's almost no cost savings to the theater owners to put in all that technology, and with box office receipts in the U.S. recently down for 19 weekends in a row, owners have little incentive to spend. The studios are willing to cover the costs, but they have yet to figure out just how...
...But there are other companies trying to steal Technicolor's business before it even gets off the ground. In June a small New Jersey software company called AccessIT announced a joint venture with Christie Digital Systems, which supplied the Cinerama Dome's new projector. The two entities have a scheme to put similar units in 2,500 screens within the next two years.
Under the Christie/AIX plan, all studios would agree to pay a "virtual print fee" approximately equal to the difference in cost between printing and sending the film manually and distributing it digitally, regardless of whether the studio used AccessIT to send out the film. In return Christie/AIX would outfit theaters with digital projectors at little to no cost.
"We looked at some of the other plans out there and realized nothing was happening, so we decided to do something ourselves," says Dale (Bud) Mayo, founder of AccessIT. Mayo won't say which studios or theater chains have signed on to his scheme.
A day after the Christie/AIX announcement, Kodak unveiled a partnership with the Belgian digital projector company Barco to sell and manage cinema systems. Although Kodak did not include specifics about funding, a spokesman says the company is in discussions with Wall Street firms about a financing scheme.
Meantime, Thomson and Technicolor have stayed mum...
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-31-2006, 10:30 AM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Digital 3-D systems are one tool Hollywood is using to staunch competition from DVDs, the Internet and video games to bring consumers back to theaters.
Old thinking. "Hollywood" doesn't get hurt by competition from DVDs -- it sells DVDs which supposedly are now the primary source of profits rather than theatres. So Hollywood is perfectly fine with the relationship between DVD sales and the sagging theatrical release. What it can't make from its 90% of the boxoffice take, it happily makes up for in what used to be called ancillary markets.
And gee, if they can just put a stop to that cancer in the belly of the industry -- piracy (which we all know is exhibition's fault), they could add those 8 BILLION dollars to their profit margine (and give the exhibitor a better percentage deal? ).
It's exhibitors who are hurt by DVD sales, not Hollywood. And there is no question how stauchly Hollywood will fight to protect exhibition.
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 07-31-2006, 12:14 PM:
From the Dolby 3-D announcement above:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Real D's system requires silver screens to boost light on the image.
Isn't the purpose of the silver screen to maintain the polarity.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-31-2006, 12:19 PM:
quote: Mark Lensenmayer
Isn't the purpose of the silver screen to maintain the polarity.
A "silver" screen has high gain (helps screen luminance efficiency when properly curved) and maintains polarity. For 3D projection on a large screen, BOTH properties are important.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-31-2006, 01:31 PM:
quote: John Pytlak
A "silver" screen has high gain (helps screen luminance efficiency when properly curved)
The Cinemark here that installed Real D has a flat silver screen, and the illumination seems uneven to me. Would that problem be mitigated if the screen were curved instead of flat?
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-31-2006, 02:16 PM:
quote: David Stambaugh
The Cinemark here that installed Real D has a flat silver screen, and the illumination seems uneven to me. Would that problem be mitigated if the screen were curved instead of flat?
Since a high gain screen acts somewhat like a mirror (angle of incidence = angle of reflection), it needs to be curved to reflect the light from the projector back to the prime seating area of the audience. A high gain screen that is installed flat will have uniformity issues, especially in a wider auditorium, or when viewed from an angle.
See SMPTE Recommended Practice RP95, which says:
quote:
2 Considerations
2.1 A gain screen is any screen surface with a gain of 1.1 or more. Gain determination of screens is specified
in SMPTE RP 94.
2.2 The effect of the screen gain is reduced when the angle of viewing is increased away from the major
reflected rays (see annex A.4).
2.3 When the light projection is perpendicular to the screen surface, the effect of gain diminishes in every
direction away from the perpendicular condition to the screen center.
2.4 Specular screens follow the physical law; i.e., the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-31-2006, 03:03 PM:
That screen is 40' wide, fixed width top-masking. Sitting eye-level dead-centered on the screen about 1.5 screenheights back (maybe 2 max), the illumination drops off noticeably in all directions. As I noted in my review of "Monster House", it also looked "splotchy", like it had water stains.
==========================
This article is from today's Eugene Register-Guard newspaper.
Movie theaters begin to test the waters of 3-D
By Lewis Taylor
The Register-Guard
Published: Monday, July 31, 2006
More than 50 years after the film "Bwana Devil" promised a "lion in your lap," 3-D movies are back.
Just as the first wave of stereoscopic films were an attempt to make the movie theater experience new again, the latest set of 3-D comes at a time when theaters are still feeling the hangover of last year's box office slump and facing increasing competition from DVDs, video games and cable and satellite TV.
"I think 3-D is really a technology whose time has come," said Paul Dergarabedian, a Hollywood box office analyst and president of the industry group Exhibitor Relations. "The theatrical moviegoing experience has to distinguish itself more and more from the home theater experience. This is one way to do that."
In Springfield, theatergoers at Cinemark 17 have been getting a peek at the new technology. The theater recently installed a new 6,000-watt digital projection system in one of its screening rooms, allowing it to screen the new animated film "Monster House" in 3-D. Several people who have seen the film say it's well worth the extra $1.50 per ticket that the theater charges for the experience and the Buddy Holly-style glasses.
"It was 100 times better (than the old 3-D movies)," said Sara Bazzi of Eugene, who brought her kids Savannah, 9, and Eric, 11, to a matinee screening on a recent weekday. "It made me want to reach out and grab something."
"Monster House" isn't the only new 3-D film. A slate of movies that jump off the screen are coming to a theater near you, including the recently opened animated feature "The Ant Bully," which is being offered in 3-D at some IMAX theaters. Other upcoming films include the IMAX 3-D films "Open Season" and "Happy Feet," and the forthcoming films "Meet the Robinsons" and Tim Burton's "The Nightmare Before Christmas," both of which implement the same Real D format used by "Monster House."
At least six films will be released in Real D in 2007. IMAX has been talking to producers of "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" about creating several scenes in 3-D, and George Lucas has announced his intention to remaster his Star Wars films in 3-D.
Until a couple of weeks ago, it wouldn't have been possible to view new 3-D movies in Eugene or Springfield. Just days before the July 21 opening of "Monster House," Cinemark installed the new digital projection unit that allows it to screen films in Real D. The theater also replaced its white theater screen with a silver screen to optimize the viewing experience. Instead of arriving in giant reels, digital films arrive in what looks like an external hard drive unit about the size of a book. Cinemark can screen non-3-D films in the theater and, eventually, it may have the capability to receive movies beamed by satellite, spokeswoman Terrell Falk said.
While Vincent Price's "House of Wax" and other 3-D features from the past were notorious for leaving viewers with headaches and nausea, the newer technology is supposed to be easier on the eyes. The newer method of screening 3-D films doesn't require the use of two projectors, and the lenses of the polarized 3-D glasses are clear instead of red and blue.
"There's nothing gimmicky about it," Cinemark spokeswoman Terrell Falk said. "You feel like you are there. It's a very solid, wonderful looking 3-D."
The picture does look clearer through the new 3-D glasses. In "Monster House," the decrepid old house that's a central character in the film buckles and splinters and appears to project out into the audience. At least one 9-year-old viewer tried to reach out and grab the air in front of her.
Although 3-D films enjoyed a brief renaissance in the 1980s, the new wave of 3-D films didn't begin cresting until around 2003 when James Cameron released his Titanic documentary "Ghosts of the Abyss." Robert Rodriguez used the same 3-D technology for his film "Spy Kids 3D: Game Over." In 2004, Warner Bros. released its "Polar Express" in IMAX 3-D. The success of that experiment led to an encore screening of the film in the 2005 holiday season. Last year's "Chicken Little" utilized the same Real D technology used for "Monster House," and last month's "Superman Returns" featured 20 minutes in 3-D in IMAX theaters.
Whether the new 3-D technology continues to be successful will depend on whether audiences continue to be impressed, says Dergarabedian, the box office analyst. At one point, he says, the 3-D technology of the 1950s that looks underwhelming by today's standards was highly impressive to audiences.
"What will make 3-D a viable alternative and not just a gimmick or a fad is the quality of the technology and the quality of the image," Dergarabedian says. "If it's really, really good, then it's something that becomes viable and something that people will pay extra to see."
Springfield is currently one of 19 Cinemark screens in the country outfitted with the digital projection technology. The company plans to convert 150 theaters to digital by 2007.
Regal Entertainment Group, the operator of the Cinema World 8 in Eugene, has 38 screens nationwide that are capable of showing films in Real D, the Los Angeles Times reported. The company did not return phone calls to The Register-Guard about its plans for the future in Eugene-Springfield, but there is speculation that it will add at least a few digital projectors to its Regal Cinemas Valley River 15-theater complex, which is currently under construction on the southwest side of the Valley River Center.
Until then, theater No. 8 at the Cinemark 17 complex will remain the only digital projection system in town, theater manager Chuck McLaughlin said. But he sees more digital projectors on the horizon. And more 3-D.
"I think 15 to 20 years from now, there won't be film anymore," McLaughlin says. "I think this is the beginning of the end for film."
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-31-2006, 03:09 PM:
quote: David Stambaugh
That screen is 40' wide, fixed width top-masking. Sitting eye-level dead-centered on the screen about 1.5 screenheights back (maybe 2 max), the illumination drops off noticeably in all directions. As I noted in my review of "Monster House", it also looked "splotchy", like it had water stains.
Sitting that close would entail a fairly steep viewing angle to the sides of the screen, so visible falloff on a flat high gain screen wouldn't surprise me. Very high gain screen surfaces can be easily damaged, and any ripples/dimples in the screen could show up as "splotches" too.
If it's not 3D, you'll get better uniformity with a properly curved moderate gain screen or a flat matte screen. Of course, the film or digital projector has to have sufficient light output to light it.
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 07-31-2006, 03:53 PM:
Silver screens are very hard to manufacture and have a higher replacement rate due to surface imperfections or poor installation. I saw Chicken Little on a curved frame but in a stadium style room; 1/2 of the seat locations had noticeable light falloff.
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 07-31-2006, 08:50 PM:
Quote Mark Gulbrandsen:
"Sure scope uses a smaller imaging area on the chip and will suffer some... but only just some. It'll still look far better than the average 35mm print running at the local barn."
Thanks, Mark, for giving a straight answer to a question I have asked before.
So DC is a 16 x 9 format, while theatrical film has been optimised at 2.4 for 50 years?
Does this mean that DC will fall back to domestic scale after widespread adoption?
Also, I am amazed that professional cinema is being governed by the lowest common denominator. We are all being forced to buy expensive gadgets because the worst theatres can't get their presentation right.
I recall something that happened in the advertising industry. The old talent was replaced with young "artists". They actually were production assistants. Agencies bought them Macs and expensive programs to make them artists. Gadgets to replace creative talent.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-31-2006, 09:33 PM:
Yes, the chip's resolution is 2048x1080=1.89. The flat signal usually is 1998x1080, scope 2048x858. If an anamorphic lens with a factor of 1.25 is used for scope, then at least most of the chip area can be used for playback. The projector will squeeze the image to an 1.89 aspect ratio which will fill the chip and can then be unaqueezed by the lens. This may cost a little bit of light, but I think it is a better solution for screens with side masking. Oddly, the evil top or top and bottom masking actually works better for DC as you have a larger image area for flat than for scope. You can move the image around on the chip easily, so if you have top only masking, you can easily place the scope image in the lower portion of the chip area.
Of course, using the anamorphic factor does not create any resolution or image content that wasn't there before, but it might still be a slightly better image - I haven't had an opportunity yet to test both solution side by side.
The problem here is that if you have side masking and no anamorphic lens, you have to either zoom between flat and scope - if both image sizes are within the zoom range - or you have to letterbox the flat image within the scope. So you end up with a flat image that is actually only 1588x858 (!).
Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 07-31-2006, 09:47 PM:
quote: Brad Miller
Why are we settling with JPEG2000? It doesn't look THAT good. 4K is a very real possibility in the near future, so I am amazed that people are jumping to quickly to adapt the 2k standard.
I'm surprised no one has pointed out yet: JPEG2000 is just a compression standard -- it is not limited to a particular resolution. An image could be at 4k resolution but still stored in the JPEG2000 format. The "2000" in the name merely refers to the year it was finalized.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-31-2006, 11:06 PM:
quote: Aaron Haney
I'm surprised no one has pointed out yet: JPEG2000 is just a compression standard -- it is not limited to a particular resolution. An image could be at 4k resolution but still stored in the JPEG2000 format. The "2000" in the name merely refers to the year it was finalized
EXACTLY! Some folks obviously missed that fact at the seminars.
quote: Ron Curran
Also, I am amazed that professional cinema is being governed by the lowest common denominator. We are all being forced to buy expensive gadgets because the worst theatres can't get their presentation right.
Ron,
It alot more than just a few bad "worst" theatres. I'd have to say that I'd guess it would amount to at least 70% of theatres world wide. They can range fomr lousy to really rotten. Perhaps you can come up with a long term labor fix worldwide that would cost less????? Best of luck!
Michael,
You're absolutely correct on all of that. Dolby does in fact use a hand picked anamorphic on their projector. The SPARTS (ASC) film was run that way. I still felt that flat format had an edge over the scope format. In the SPARTS I couldn't pick out the difference between the 35mm material and the 65mm material at all proving the 2K limit is about 35mm in quality on that size screen... still razor sharp
Mark
[ 08-01-2006, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gulbrandsen ]
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-31-2006, 11:49 PM:
No one mentioned lossy compression?
quote: Bobby Henderson
4K would be a better standard. However the current DCI spec has both 2K and 4K plopped into a 150Mb/s-250Mb/s data rate. So if 4K is used it will have around 4 times the level of data compression as a 2K image. This data rate is well below the uncompressed 1.4GB/s raw data output by a HD video camera.
I can understand the reasoning behind having that bitrate. Many theaters will be receiving their video files via satellite. What's to stop studios from dumping those bitrates down further? Are the DCI specs mandatory? Or can we expect to see some movies with bitrates down in the 30Mb/s bandwidth of consumer formats like Blu-Ray? I certainly would not put it past a few folks to do such a thing for it being faster, cheaper and "good enough."
JPEG2000 is a good lossy compression format that is actually quite common in graphics circles now. A default Photoshop installation won't have it as a Save As feature. But you can install Adobe's JPEG2000 plug-in from the extras CD.
Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 08-01-2006, 02:52 AM:
Its amazing how many parallels I see in this whole rush to convert or die business. Bobby on page two mentioned HD radio, something I have admittedly been following more closely than the DC movement. So tell me if any of this sounds familiar:
1. The incoming system under laboratory conditions is compared to its analog counterpart under worst possible conditions and everyone from the cheering section screams "Gee, its so much better!"
2. The inner workings of the system, specifically the encoding, are held behind a vail of secrecy, by a heavily backed private entity, in the case of HD radio, Ibiquity.
3. The new system require the reworking or complete replacement of the existing infrastructure, which in both cases has remain backward compatible since its inception.
4. The new systems aside from external noise/dirt advantages, yields all of us a lower quality product than the one its replacing is capable of.
Now, I'm not a total prude. Here in the real world, we have dirt and scratches, as well as impulse noise and multipath distortion. But these problems can be overcome. Look a the new tools we have to fix the existing problems. Online film cleaning for film, DSP technology and newer receiving schemes for radio. In the end, I guess the limits of our technology is the limits with in ourselves, our physical limitations. I really dont need a sound reproducing or transmission systems that can deliver all the way to 20,000 cycles per second, as I can only hear to 18,500. But where do we draw the line as "good enough"? When your preaching to the choir the sky's the limit, but for the average joe who thinks the picture quality on his Ipod is fine, and the noise ridden picture on his analog TV is sufficient, then we have met our match, cut our losses and go home.
'Cause if ya cant sell it, what good is it.
JJ
I'm gonna go run a reel in my basement, and enjoy the dirt
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-01-2006, 04:12 AM:
Josh, very well said. The thing is, there is nothing wrong with educating and uplifting the general population's ability to appreciate higher standards. The whole reason why all of us here strive to make presentation the best we can and why we get crazed at attempts to compromise quality and why there is a mile long thread expounding on how 70mm might become viable, and lament that 35mm is not used to near its potential, is because we have experienced what film can do and how it inspired us -- it's all about being able to pass that down to the next generations in AT LEAST as good as we have now.
Where I become an insane man is when I hear this kind of bullshit from jerks who don't know what the hell they are talking about, for example:
quote: David Stambaugh
While Vincent Price's "House of Wax" and other 3-D features from the past were notorious for leaving viewers with headaches and nausea, the newer technology is supposed to be easier on the eyes.
Says who? This idiot needs to come to the 3D World Expo 2 in September and see what HOUSE OF WAX really looks like and how that system, when run well, was spectacular. I never, EVER got headaches from any 3D presentation when I was a kid -- and I would go back over and over, all day long. Statements like the above are just so much mental diarrea.
And then there are these kinds of statement (which I heard in all the way back in 1998), only the time-frame that was quoted back then was that film would be extinct in ALL theatres in FIVE years!!! -- at least they are widening the year film that they would like to see film dead, as in....
quote: David Stambaugh
"I think 15 to 20 years from now, there won't be film anymore," McLaughlin says. "I think this is the beginning of the end for film."
These people need to have gallons of botox injected directly into their brain-pans on one end and into their arses at the other, only because it's difficult to tell which of the two is where. A mouth full of crazy glue to shut them up wouldn't be a bad idea as either.
And BTW, it was Richard Cook, now a big mucky-muck at Disney, back then around the time TOY STORY first came out who said he would be perfectly comfortable with "releasing all Disney films in digital because it's good enough right now" said he; and he was talking about 1.3K!!....you know, the system that is already obsolete. THIS kind of mentality is what we are up against, my friends. And it SHOULD scare us....rightfully so because we may very well be dooming future generations to visual mediocity....quality that is much lower than what we have been privileged to experience ourselves. And THAT prospect is like a knife in my heart to know that my descendants may never get to see LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, MY FAIR LADY, 2001, et al, the way I saw them. There is something evil about today's power brokers who don't care that this many come to pass, and it means nothing to deprive future generations of the best that our truly indiginous art-form can give.
It would be like, and I have used this analogy before but forgive me, I am on a roll -- it would be like the curator of the Met slipping a color Xerox copy of Monet's Water Lilies into a frame, hanging it in the great Impressionist Gallery and telling everyone that it is "good enough."
They angels would weep (and then hopefully rain fire and brimstone down on them all).
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-01-2006, 08:03 AM:
Josh,
As long as radio goes away when you pass under a bridge it will never be any good nor would I consoder it perfected. Digital radio is just like digital TV... more useless channels sent out on just one frequency!
quote: Josh Jones
2. The inner workings of the system, specifically the encoding, are held behind a vail of secrecy, by a heavily backed private entity, in the case of HD radio, Ibiquity.
If you think that HD radio is bad at retaining its secrets you should see how tamper proof the Dolby Show PLayer is. If you even open it up it no longer works and has to be reset by Dolby at Dolby Lsbs ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
. And this sort of security is whats in the D-Cinema Spec, similar for some of the projectors... fitto for all equipment eventually if it is going to meet D-Cinema Spec. Also the Key Codes are infinite number/letter strings that can never been cracked.
quote: Josh Jones
4. The new systems aside from external noise/dirt advantages, yields all of us a lower quality product than the one its replacing is capable of.
Thats definately an uneducated assumption. All 17 of us agreed that the D-Cinema trailers we saw looked more 70mmish than flat aspect ratio film ever has. If you've ever seen how good dailies can look thats exactly what it looked like. Go take a class before making any more assumptions.
quote: Josh Jones
3. The new system require the reworking or complete replacement of the existing infrastructure, which in both cases has remain backward compatible since its inception.
Again, Simply not true in the least. The Dolby Show Player connects to the Dolby NA-10 Auditorium controler which in turn connects directly to your existing automation. That not only directly interfaces with existing automation it also includes the film side of things in its controler. Also Dolby's method of drag and drop of automation icons onto the show time line simply blows any existing film automation away from an operating standpoint.
All of you who are speculating about the good or bad side of this system need to become alot more educated about it before drawing conclusions .
Mark
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-01-2006, 08:53 AM:
Mark,
Digital is not perfect. You may want to have your eyes checked if you think it is. Just like how you can hear compression artifacts in mp3s, there are visual artifacts in D-cinema. The thing is, once you notice them they are terribly distracting.
Also bear in mind we are talking about the conversion of D-cinema as a whole, not Dolby's specific hardware which is why I did not ask the initial question on the Dolby thread. I have been very impressed with everything I have seen from Dolby's D-cinema equipment and I have faith the setup will most probably beat out the rest of the competition in pretty much every aspect. This is not the discussion here. The discussion here is regarding all of the problems the switch to D-cinema is going to bring to the cinema industry once the first 5-10 years pass and the equipment being purchased now is considered old technology as well as all of the problems that are bound to occur. Remember, we are talking computers here.
And since you brought it up...
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Thats definately an uneducated assumption. All 17 of us agreed that the D-Cinema trailers we saw looked more 70mmish than flat aspect ratio film ever has. If you've ever seen how good dailies can look thats exactly what it looked like. Go take a class before making any more assumptions.
He saw the same 2K demonstration I did at Dolby and Christie. While Christie's setup looked better than the Barco at Dolby, there were still artifacting that we both agreed was distracting. Yes it looked very good, but it's not quite good enough yet. Show some patience and have a cookie.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-01-2006, 09:29 AM:
Just to be clear, I didn't say the things Frank quoted. I was quoting from a newspaper article.
Also, just to provide some context, the Chuck McLaughlin quoted in that article is the GM for Cinemark 17 in Springfield. Chuck is not a popcorn kiddie - He's an older guy who has been in the exhibition business for like 50 years. So he's seen a lot of changes along the way. Obviously that doesn't make him technical. The point is when he says "film will be gone in 15-20 years" he means "it will be gone from theaters as I currently know them". If anything, I'd say it will happen much sooner than his estimate. Film will not be gone gone, but it will be gone from the multiplexes. So on that score, Mr. McLaughlin is correct.
In my earlier comments about "Monster House" in Real D, I mentioned the uneven screen illumination, and the "blotchy" look of the screen. In other words, Cinemark apparently didn't go the whole nine yards in this upgrade to D-Cinema. The flat silver screen should probably be curved, and the screen material is probably either improperly installed, or it's defective and should be replaced. THAT is worth some criticism. Will that be the pattern for D-Cinema conversions? Do it 80% but not the full 100%? Sounds like a continuation of the same "just get an image on the screen and sound coming from the speakers" syndrome.
Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 08-01-2006, 11:12 AM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
As long as radio goes away when you pass under a bridge it will never be any good nor would I consoder it perfected. Digital radio is just like digital TV... more useless channels sent out on just one frequency!
I was about to say, Mark, finally something we agree upon, but then, once again, you sink to the level of cutting people down who dont agree with you.
I've seen the demo's at dolbys screening room, and was not that impressed.
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 08-01-2006, 11:21 AM:
quote: David Stambaugh
In my earlier comments about "Monster House" in Real D, I mentioned the uneven screen illumination, and the "blotchy" look of the screen. In other words, Cinemark apparently didn't go the whole nine yards in this upgrade to D-Cinema. The flat silver screen should probably be curved, and the screen material is probably either improperly installed, or it's defective and should be replaced. THAT is worth some criticism. Will that be the pattern for D-Cinema conversions? Do it 80% but not the full 100%? Sounds like a continuation of the same "just get an image on the screen and sound coming from the speakers" syndrome.
Most likely that was probably one of the last minute installs. They added a few at the last minute. By chance did some of that splotching look like it was coming from the center portion of the screen around where the speakers would be placed. They could have some speaker horns actually touching the back of the screen causing this effect. You are also going to have keystone issues with the light pattern on systems that are not in perfect relation to the screen. I had this problem years ago when you tried to align the bulb for even light you had to run down to the auditorium to make sure the light looked even from the center of the auditorium.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-01-2006, 11:52 AM:
The blotchy thing, kind of resembling waterstains, was over most of the screen.
I can understand it might have been a rush job, but rush jobs usually mean cutting some corners and sometimes those corners never get properly fixed. In fairness, it's possible they fully intend to correct the screen problem at some point, but all I can tell you is what I saw.
One thing I noticed is they must have done some digital keystone correction on the projector. The black bars on flat trailers were perfectly vertical, no keystoning at all, and the scope image seemed to fit the screen masking perfectly.
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 08-01-2006, 12:27 PM:
Tight blotchy "water like" splatter if not caused by rubbing the surface when installing, can also be poor spray coating of silver or spraying under less than ideal temperture / humidity conditions. Some screens are manufactured from pre-silvered material....their issues are sometimes poor matching of reflective surfaces when sewing or welding the sections that make up the screen. Silver is also hard to clean, especially if there is ice cream, soda or Gummi Bears on the surface I remember six years ago going to an eight-plex with four silver screens. The Theater owner was complaining about his bad lenses when in fact it was bad surfaces
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-01-2006, 02:10 PM:
The troubling thing for me with this rush for the movie industry to adopt something just "good enough," even moving to originate movies in that "good enough" 2K format (rather than shooting on film) is they're not bothering to think about how this will play in the long term.
Those movie industry executives are simply assuming their industry will always be around. They're assuming they'll always have their jobs, regardless of any mistakes or how far the work to actually downgrade the true quality of the product. They're assuming people will always buy it regardless of any shortcomings.
Here's a little news flash for them: when you deal in digital technology and base your product in digital technology, change is the only constant and the future is absolutely UNPREDICTABLE.
Worse yet, with the product being digital it will be even more vulernable to paradigm shifts happening in computer technology, home theater, gaming, music and lots of other stuff. At least with film origination and film projection commercial theaters had a completely separate paradigm of medium. Not any longer.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Thats definately an uneducated assumption. All 17 of us agreed that the D-Cinema trailers we saw looked more 70mmish than flat aspect ratio film ever has. If you've ever seen how good dailies can look thats exactly what it looked like. Go take a class before making any more assumptions.
Mark, Josh is right and his stance at least concerning radio is an educated, experienced one.
HD Digital Radio is indeed a lower quality solution parading itself as something superior. It's right there in the damned name, "HD!" As I said before, it is a good example of what's wrong in marketing various kinds of digital audio and video formats. The sales guys give the customers something of lesser value, but then proclaim it to be perfect at the same time. That is the only idea behind repeating that honestly useless "digital" buzzword.
True CD quality audio is 16-bit 44.1kHz 2.0 channel audio at 1.411 million bits per second. Unless you are losslessly compressing that data at no more than a 2:1 ratio, it is NOT CD quality. Period.
The age of downloading music has allowed various liars in sales jobs to tout MP3 files lossy compressed to 192kb/s as being "CD quality." Apple sells most of its 99 cent AAC iTunes files at a mere 128kb/s bit rate.
Sirius and XM satellite radio sends out its broadcasts typically at 96kb/s using MPEG compression. The squashed bitrate shows in the brittle audio quality. But Sirius and XM did more to tout their variety of music, lack of commercial interruption and coverage in remote areas than claiming it sounded better than regular radio.
HD Digital Radio drops quality further to cram in more channel capability within some very limited broadcast spectrum. They're using a "PAC" codec, which like Josh says is backed by that Ibiquity investment group. That's in spite of MPEG and AAC standards being far more proven. Cameron University here in Lawton is broadcasting two HD Digital Radio stations on top of their existing analog signal. The first one runs at an optional 96kb/s bitrate, but may be dumped to 64kb/s. There is even a provision for it to run at 32kb/s. But since it's still "digital" they'll probably keep saying it's better than anything analog.
Just how far do you have to compress, degrade and downsample a digital audio or video stream before the sales assholes will finally admit it isn't as good as the old analog format it intends to replace?
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-01-2006, 03:45 PM:
How does anyone here know what the deciders (heh) at Regal, AMC, Cinemark, etc. are thinking with regard to the long-term viability of 2K? I mean, come on, do you really think they're not considering where the industry will be in 3 years, 5 years, and 10 years? Not to be argumentative, but it's completely bogus to state as fact that they haven't taken any of those issues into consideration. I mean, the truth is, they know all that, yet they're doing this anyway. As fragile as the exhibition business seems to be, would they embark on a risky and expensive new technology like this without being confident that it's the right thing to do in the long run? I don't think so.
'Course, we'll all know in 10 years whether they made the right decisions now.
As far as Mark's opinions, he was there. Nobody else here was there at the same time as Mark (that I'm aware of; Josh says he's seen Dolby demos, but apparently not the same ones as Mark. Josh, were the demos you saw in the same physical location as Mark saw it, same equipment, etc?). If Mark says it was 70mm-ish, why would I doubt him? (Of course, he may have a vested interest in selling the new technology... Or maybe Dolby put something in everyone's catered lunch... Hmmm... just kidding Mark, although it does really sound like you've done a 180 on D-Cinema. )
Does anyone here know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-01-2006, 06:25 PM:
Right now the hot word in the industry is "digital cinema". Any way you slice it, that title is selling more tickets than the "non-digital" equivalent auditoriums. Of course the same was the case with 70mm, when digital sound was new and when THX really meant something. Once most of the industry has converted to D-cinema, it will be nothing that can really be used to advertise to get people to patronize a particular theater.
Josh and I were in the Dolby screening room, the same place Mark was, and I'll just bet it was the same Barco projector too. I do know it was a 2K system we saw, but again the 2K demo we saw at Christie 2 days later (with the same content) looked better to the both of us. It's quite possible something was amiss with that particular projector and has since been fixed, but still you see my point.
Sorry Mark, but with the way you praise one product and bash another, then "flip sides" and start bashing the product you used to think was the only one worth using, I find it hard to take these comments 100% seriously. In reading your posts over the last couple of years, you seem to change your mind too much on things. Your recent excitement with D-cinema just seems all too similar to those self-help seminar scams where people go to them, get all pumped up and excited, then a couple of months later wake up from their brain coma to realize it was all bullshit.
Mark's excitement over D-cinema also smells a lot like a type of brainwashing I recall back many years ago at Cinemark. My favorite example which still gets laughs today was when I was opening a new location and some of the prints we were to open with were going to be used. The GM walked into the booth and said "we will be getting our second copy of that movie from X theater". My response "I hope the print will be good." Brainwashed manager's response "of course it will be a good print. It is coming from a CINEMARK theater and ALL Cinemarks have perfect, flawless presentations." I just smiled and said "thanks for the info". The print was fair at best, but when I pointed it out to him on-screen he thought it looked magnificent. I wonder if Mark got himself a little "brainwashing" action/pep talk combo. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-01-2006, 07:46 PM:
I'm not sure it is brainwashing...DCinema really does present itself very well on first glance. Even the 1.3K stuff sent shivers down my spine when I first saw it...from the booth it still looks pretty impressive.
The problem with it is as one sees its flaws, you start to notice them more and more (the same is true with film)...To claim 2K has a 70mmish look to is absurd though...I wonder how long it has been since seeing a good 70mm image. You see a 70mm image on a 40-foot wides screen and it almost has a 3D quality to it (run it at 60fps and it DOES have a 3D quality to it).
But having spend a week with DCinema does not an expert make. I'm around it a fair amount of time and it is just "media" to me.
Is 2K DCinema good enough for some...you bet...there some theatres that NEVER need to go beyond it.
However, this really is 2nd generation beta equipment.
I can not see a good business reason to jump on it at this stage...techncially it has something to offer to many (it will be an improvement) but to many it offers a downgrade. Financially it is very stupid at the moment. Long-term reliability and support are quite suspect (not from Dolby per-say, their track record of support give DCinema credibility where others dont).
The fact of the matter is, I can take a projection system that is 20% as expensive and put out a superior image and it will last 10-times as long and cost a fraction for each year of ownership.
If they need a system to wow the consumer that they can't get at home...forget 3D and digital...its 70mm...it has always delivered and it is the State-of-the-Art. The cost to the exhibitor has never been cheaper and the cost to run is zero dollars more.
Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 08-01-2006, 08:11 PM:
As brad said, I was at the same demo he was.
On a side note, and I appologize for the thread hijack, HD radio stuff. If you check out the audio samples on Ibiquity's website , in several of the examples, aside from the simulated multipath distortion, you cannot actually tell the difference between the two. The whole selling point early on is that HD would offer all of us a relaxed, less processed copy of the analog audio. But the loudness wars rage on, and with it is lost any hope of HD as a better sounding alternative. Before we had harmonic distorion from the distortion cancelled clippers in the processor, now we have intermodulation distortion instead, as modern codecs do not like clipped audio, we are now using look-ahead limiting to control modulation and loudness.
So we can rule out improved audio quality as a benefit, the only thing left as others have pointed out is more internet quality channels that like the main channel feature canned music, cheesy as hell DJ's, and hopefully some shred of local content. Its getting pretty sad up here when I can hear the same satellite country format on 6 stations with a good antenna.
From pubic servant to public nuscance....
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-01-2006, 08:36 PM:
The program content and highest quality presentation of which is what matters.
But that's all lost on those suits. They think they can con everyone else with some lesser system while proclaiming their new thing is better. It's one of those "Emperor's New Clothes" kind of things.
True 65mm photographed movies on 70mm film still remains the absolute high point on movie production and presentation technology. Its capability is far and away superior to any of this HDTV quality stuff. But it's analog and that's just too icky for those sales droids out there.
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 08-01-2006, 08:55 PM:
I recall when people replaced their $80 turntable with the new $400 CD player and marvelled at the improvement.
CDs do sound great and they are more convenient.
However, the domestic market is a different animal to the commercial operation. What makes people willing to leave their comfortable homes and plonk money down on your ticket counter?
If DC cost the same as film projection equipment (capital and running costs), the argument would be different.
Convenience of operation is of no concern to our customers. Otherwise they wouldn’t bring their kids along to trash our theatres.
Given a choice, if the industry wants to make my work easier with digital projection or make it a bitharder with 70mm prints, I would go for the latter without blinking. Or an improved 35mm format for that matter.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-01-2006, 09:24 PM:
quote: Ron Curran
However, the domestic market is a different animal to the commercial operation. What makes people willing to leave their comfortable homes and plonk money down on your ticket counter?
Humm, CD's found their way into commercial arenas, radio, TV, etc.very quickly... within a year in fact after they were introduced.
I would say too that I do prefer film way over digital... One has to be realistic about the whole picture and its a fact that the advent of digital has killed any possibilities of any 65/70mm stuff ever being done again on a large scale. And a new 35mm format... that'll be the day... those came and left us long ago with just about every avenue having been explored on that frontier. I guess I just like to embrace new technology as it comes along and as its available to the markets, there is no reason not to as long as it is in a situation that makes sense. I agree with everyopne that until a sound financial plan comes along its not going to happen. Tne likes of Christie and Gort will end up ruling the industry and thats alot worse than any other aspect of DC itself.
Mark
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-01-2006, 10:34 PM:
To use a different analogy, the movie industry has a declining level of professional standards when it comes to the production and presentation of the end product. They're blinded by that "digital" word. Or using that "digital" word to try to blind everyone else so they can get away with whatever con job they're trying to run.
Look at it in terms of still imagery publication by comparison.
Even though digital cameras are all the rage, most of the high end still photography being done for things like magazine covers, coffee table books, calendars, etc. is being done using analog view cameras. Granted, some of these photographers have highly expensive digital backs for these devices for quick and dirty stuff. But they're still using the tried and true analog chromes for the best quality output.
The graphics industry has been diminshed by "digital" for all the rampant lack of professionalism that has infected workflows, especially here in the United States. I pull no punches at all in saying anyone who designs logos using Photoshop is a dumb fuck idiot who is only costing his customers money. When they need the logo done right in vector format for something like a large scale sign, I'm going to charge those customers a hefty fee to do the job right and then tell them, "hire someone who has a clue next time you need a logo designed."
In my field of work, the whole "digital" thing has allowed a lot of no-talent idiots to con their way into the field when they wouldn't have been able to manage it when everything was done in the "analog" way. I've never heard of anyone waking up one morning and thinking, "wow, I'm going to go buy an oil painting kit and instantly paint like Rembrandt!" But many think if they download a copy of Photoshop that makes them magically on par with anyone doing graphics work.
This bullshit, dumbassed "digital" fuck-tard word just causes all kinds of hair-brained issues for lots of people. For some twisted reason 99% of the folks out there allow their brains to go on autopilot the second they find out a computer is involved in the product they're about to buy or experience. They can't be bothered to look a little farther to see if they're getting screwed.
Whatever happened to raising the standards bar to a new level?
I contend the era between the 1950s and 1970s was the last great era in defining high standards for film production and exhibition. With the sole exception of the introduction of digital surround sound, pretty much every other "high water mark" on movie quality was defined in that long past 20 year period. We had everything from the birth of Cinerama, Todd-AO and IMAX in that time span. 70mm Dolby Mag was born during that time.
The only things we've seen since then which have truly improved the movie going experience was the arrival of Dolby SR mag at the end of 1986 and uncompressed discrete surround audio as part of D-Cinema in 1999. Those two points are fairly minor with the other developments that happened between the 50's and 70's.
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 08-01-2006, 11:13 PM:
Bobby, you are confirming what I observed earlier. Kids being given gadgets to make “artists” of them. One other myster for me is that I used to be able to get material to a metro paper a daybefore in the bad old days; now they have to have a file about 4 days ahead.
Anyway, the reason film presentation advancement has been resisted or stalled is because, last century, we were promised that digital would replace film before we woke up next morning.
Thank heavens that Kodak and Fuji are still investing in film r & d.
Our little cinema was the first in our region to get 4 track mag, DTS, Dolby Digital and digital pre-show. So don’t accuse me of being a Luddite. Although I did resist the last wave of 3D. But I am in no rush to grab this 2k toy. It isn’t feasible at this stage.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-01-2006, 11:59 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
tell them, "hire someone who has a clue next time you need a logo designed."
I hope you don't really talk like that to clients. Even if they do some dumb-ass thing, they are the ones with the money.
You know what really ticks me off is all these amateur people who keep buying these "home theatre" systems so they can play "movies" (which are really nothing more than TV, you know) in their freaking homes. WE are the professional entertainers. We run the REAL theatres. What business do these non-professional dorks have trampling on OUR territory? I think this problem is far worse than the people with the downloaded copies of Photoshop.
Or maybe these people have the misguided notion that they can get something that's nearly as good (or in their warped minds, better) for "less" money.
Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 08-02-2006, 01:36 AM:
So what? I havent seen anything on the screen in a year and a half that I actually wanted to see. I demand new material damnit!
JJ
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 08-02-2006, 09:05 AM:
The screen that I have was manufactured by Harkness. I imagine that the other Cinemarks used the same manufacturer.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-02-2006, 01:02 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
The only things we've seen since then which have truly improved the movie going experience was the arrival of Dolby SR mag at the end of 1986 and uncompressed discrete surround audio as part of D-Cinema in 1999.
I have to correct myself. D-Cinema did not introduce uncompressed digital surround sound. IMAX was actually first to do it with their Sonics system.
quote: Mike Blakesley
I hope you don't really talk like that to clients. Even if they do some dumb-ass thing, they are the ones with the money.
First, I don't give that message to clients in nearly so terse a manner. Second, they're not the dumb-ass, the person they hired to "design a logo" is the dumb ass.
Basically I have a G-rated, less angry version of that speech at the ready if the customer has a problem with the $50 and up rate that I am going to charge to get his logo converted into proper shape. I let them know if the designer they hired had a better sense of professionalism he would have designed the artwork properly in the first place. The customer wouldn't be getting hit with those design fees had that happened.
If someone intends to get paid doing any sort of computer graphics work, they need to do more than just illegally download some applications. They need to know what they hell they're doing. I contend the vast majority of people dinking with Photoshop and other apps they grabbed warez style do not.
This isn't any different from a person taking his car to a mechanic for service work, or visiting any other person working in any field of specialization. I simply cannot excuse incompetence. Sadly, most customers just don't know any better and the no talent wannabes out there are able to take advantage of that. Most people think any art file on a computer disc is interchangeable with any application and perfect for any purpose. After all, it's a "digital file."
quote:
So what? I havent seen anything on the screen in a year and a half that I actually wanted to see. I demand new material damnit!
Yeah, I think most people feel the same way. The "re-imagining" of older movies into remakes, countless sequels of even shitty movies and TV show send ups has grown very old.
One thing I'm hoping will be able to happen out of this D-Cinema conversion is better variety in movies. I missed out on quite a few "indie" films and other limited release fare over the last year and simply wound up having to wait for the DVD.
If one movie is tanking badly in a D-cinema equipped theater that show can be pulled (provided it doesn't violate some sort of contract) and replaced with something else fairly quickly. You don't have to have the print playing to an empty house for a week until it is torn down.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-02-2006, 03:55 PM:
Hardware never solves software problems. The bad movies you describe will persist even though they are delivered in another format.
In addition, the larger screens will be "first to d-cinema" so they will have literally NO specialty films until film dies and video is the only release medium; if that ever happens. Louis
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-02-2006, 07:18 PM:
That is a good point. It does cost a serious fee to get some movie transferred over into a format "digital cinema" equipped theaters can handle. That's true even if the indie flick was shot on videotape.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-02-2006, 07:24 PM:
But you can also plug in a DVD player or similar consumer type hardware into the projector (no analog though), so if you have something shot that way, you can easily play it back on the machine.
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 08-02-2006, 08:57 PM:
Introducing a dvd or a vcr player into the system (in our experience) presents operational difficulties.
If we show a work that originated on a medium other than film, we need a copy on a hard drive, thank you.
Posted by Joel N. Weber II (Member # 3530) on 08-02-2006, 09:09 PM:
My understanding is that 1 gigabit is not the limit of ethernet today; there seem to be fiber 10 gigabit ethernet interfaces available for somewhere around $3k each. While $3k for an ethernet interface is certainly not mass-market yet (and for that matter, fiber ethernet has not been terribly mass market, although perhaps some decade the telcos will change that), I also thought part of the point here is that one goes to a theather to see something better and more expensive than mass-market .
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-02-2006, 09:25 PM:
quote: Ron Curran
Introducing a dvd or a vcr player into the system (in our experience) presents operational difficulties.
What kind of difficulties have you run into? We have played with that kind of stuff a lot, DVDs, hard drives, satellite, HD broadcasts, live HD feeds over fibreoptical network, you name it, we have done it. Once you figure out how to format and resize the image, it's really easy. In most cases, you don't even need the media adapters some manufacturers offer, like Barco's ACSAR.
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 08-02-2006, 10:09 PM:
Michael, we have had dvds that stall and a distributor-supplied dvd where we had to cue to bypass the anti-piracy crap.
It is difficult to program the automation to show a smooth show with a dvd.
Not insurmountable, but we prefer film or hard drive.
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 08-02-2006, 10:15 PM:
Micheal, I'm guessing that Ron has had a similar experience to me with DVD. Several times I have had them freeze and then skip whilst showing them. not a big issue at home but very embarrassing in front of 400 people! now to reduce this I have moved away from Name brand DVD players to cheap Chinese players, do a scan check of the DVD in my laptop before running, in case of dust or a scratch!
Now Ron is the sort of person that runs out and buys the latest technology because he believes that his small town audience deserves the very best. He has installed a digital server for part of his preshow advertising.
My cinema has just had a digital server installed for our release of a very popular British documentary "49up" The HD output is noticeably better than DVD and much more reliable
As far as D cinema is concerned, I am trying not to think
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-03-2006, 08:16 AM:
quote: Steve Guttag
To claim 2K has a 70mmish look to is absurd though...I wonder how long it has been since seeing a good 70mm image. You see a 70mm image on a 40-foot wides screen and it almost has a 3D quality to it
Actually alot more people in attendance than I felt that way. I wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise. I've run millions of feet of dailies... which look better for the most part than even their 70mm blow up counterparts from years past. There is nothing better than 1st generation off the camera negative! The stuff I saw at Dolby indeed looked more like dailies footage than anything I've seen other than actual dailies footage. I doubt that you saw the stuff at Dolby in JPEG 2000 since they have not been doing public demos till very, very recently... and yes, MPEG looks piss poor by comparison... I would never sell a system based solely on MPEG. While the demo at Christie may have been JPEG 2000 since other tend to release things before they might be ready... Dolby doesn't. There is indeed a definate difference between MPEG and JPEG... I was easily able to see that without knowing which was which when the demo started. Others there also easily saw the difference.
Of course there are artifacts in digital but there are an equivelent number of artifacts in film, perhaps even more and the number of film artifacts present are direclty porportional to how the film is handled at a particuluar site. We are used to those film artifacts but we are not used to the digital artifacts so some of us tend to point our finger at them. Some of the digital artifacts will eventually go away and some will not.
Brad, As for me changing my mind back and forth that simply is not true. I certainly am outspoken and I enjoy being somewhat of a rable rouser around here... someone needs to be and it sure gets people posting and good points often result. I will be the first to criticize a company for a lousy product or poor suppport. In fact I seem to be the only one here with enough balls to point that stuff out.
Change my mind...? I've always liked the Panastereo the best and I still do. For audio I still prefer high end analog and the Panastereo is the only high end analog processor still made. As long as its available I probably will prefer it. We had tons of problems with SRD in the Mountain States starting about 9 years(ask Monte!) ago but Dolby has made great strides in quality control at the lab level over the years and the problems have pretty much vanished. However even those problems didn't keep me from hanging DA-20's on Panastereo's and other analog processors at locations that called for it because I knew the equipment was good. CP650 installs lately show that they do indeed sound ALOT better than the early units we installed a number of years back. After those first units we did not install any for several years. So now I can comfortably sell and install them. I've never changed my stance on Sony and probably never will.... you don't have the buisness end dealings I've had to tolerate with them over almost 30 years. You've never had to deal with them on the different levels that I've had to on the consumer, broadcast and cinema levels... Sony really is a joke of a company and hence I never took the cinema end seriously from day one nor did I sell a single SDDS unit when I ran Midwest TS. There are only a couple of others here that have had that wonderful Sony expereince over as broad an area as I have and over many years. If you want 4K to ever exist you'd better kick Sony in the butt and get them to care about their dealers and customers.
I will always like the DP-70 and I will always dislike the Pot Metal Simplex. The almost 70 DP-70's we've installed over the years just never break down and continue to put out excellent pictures. To make keeping film path replacement parts economical we had all our own parts, sprockets, bands, runners and lateral guides made. The cost to our customers to maintain the film paths on these DP-70's is no more expensive than a Simplex. Many others come to us for these parts now as a result of theor economical price and many DP-70's that might have been removed are still running today. They have also been upgraded where they can be and are even more flexible the average Kinoton's being installed.... If 70mm should ever make any come back we can be quickly ready at more locations than anyone else, if not the projectors will never wear out running just 35mm! Centurys can be good projectors when they are properly assembled or great projectors after peroper re-building if they are not. Six sets of Centurys served me flawlessly on over 40 dailies jobs I did and another three sets I converted to dailies units and sold to Cinematographers have served them equally as well on over another 150 features. I can go on and on. You like Kinoton and so do I but I can't get those that be in our company to sell the stuff. I prefer JBL and always have... I was their largest cinema dealer in the Midwest for quite a few consecutive years. As for amplifiers I can live with QSC... they have been reliable and their rebuild kits are a great asset. When I ran Midwest QSC came to me and wanted me to be a dealer. At CLACO we make alot of money rebuilding them when they fail after the many years of service they give. However there are a number of better sounding but not necessarily as user friendly amps out there that are just as reliable that also have their place.
All in all I always embrace new technology when it comes along until it proves itself otherwise... as Sony easily did and as DTS certainly has. As for DTS I have changed my mind about them... unfortnately we're all in the same boat there. I've always appreciated Dolby's support of their products over the years. In past years Dolby was always understaffed in that regard and recently their support has gotten better yet in many ways... partly due to the extra personel there that cross over from D-cinema to cinema. That makes me more comfortable to install their equipment. It wasn't long ago that it took a day or longer for them to get back to you or you had to call that Dolby person on their cell phone. Because of the extra personel there the recent 650 software problem I had was taken care of in a little over an hour. Thats not good customer service thats excellent customer service! If D-Cinema is sucessful I guarantee you that we will be able to atribute alot of that sucess to Dolby.
You can think what ever you like about me.. I have no problem with that because everyone is entitled to their opinion, but its also a fact that you don't even know me in the least.
Mark
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 08-04-2006, 06:34 AM:
I like Panastereo too.
Enjoyed reading the facts Mark
Cameron
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-04-2006, 10:49 AM:
I, too, was at the Dolby meeting. MPEG/2000 looked cartoonish, like colorized b/w film. Probably OK for Looney Tunes, but NOT OK for real film (people, GWTW, drama.)
The difference the detail makes! JPEG/2000 Color was more greatly defined. Individual hair strands were distinct and subtly multi toned. Rain & smoke looked "right."
To be sure there were subtle differences from film, but when you can see "film grain" from the originating film, you are most of the way "there."
Certainly the biggest obstacles are: obsolesence, financing, operating expense, and light. When a 6k bulb is needed to replace a 3k bulb, you are in trouble. What will the 40+ foot wide screens do?(other than make them smaller.) Louis
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-04-2006, 11:13 AM:
Kodak Digital Cinema was one of the first to offer servers compatible with JPEG2000 encoding:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/digital/featureSolution.jhtml
quote:
The Kodak solution for high-quality digital feature presentations is built on the robust and reliable KODAK CineServer. The CineServer, which includes KODAK Color Science, plays MXF-packaged, JPEG2000-compressed digital movies at up to 250 Mbits/sec, per DCI specifications.
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/digital/cineServer.jhtml
quote:
The KODAK CineServer JMN3000 is designed to be used in network configurations to take full advantage of the capability, efficiency and power of the KODAK Network. It also can be used for standalone applications. This flexible product includes KODAK Color Science and plays MXF-packaged, JPEG2000-compressed digital movies at up to 300 Mbits/sec, per DCI specifications or MPEG-2, MXF-packaged 2D or 3D content at 80 Mbits/sec (160 Mbits/sec for 3D). The KODAK CineServer automatically recognizes the compression format used and employs that for playback.
The Kodak Digital Cinema System is capable of achieving 12 to 16 footlambert screen luminance on screens much larger than 40 feet wide. I believe the Kodak Digital Cinema installation at Cinemark Tinseltown in Rochester has one 60-foot screen, and another screen that is about 40-feet wide.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-04-2006, 01:40 PM:
Far too often people associate edge enhancement with greater resolution and detail. I think that is happening here.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-04-2006, 02:02 PM:
quote: Brad Miller
Far too often people associate edge enhancement with greater resolution and detail. I think that is happening here.
The real test of sharpness is to look at the fine detail in a long shot --- can you clearly see the faces in the crowd scene? ---can you see the individual leaves rustling on the trees? That's what separates 2K, 4K, 35mm, and 65/70mm. If there are only 2048 pixels across a 60-foot screen, each pixel is still about 0.35 inches wide.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-04-2006, 02:48 PM:
If there is anything that makes an image look like "video" i.e., "electronic" and unnatural, it's freakin edge enhancement. ![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
If it's not there to begin with, good chances are that you are not going to be able to create it artificially. If the resolution wasn't captured to begin with nothing you can do is going to be able to "create" it after the fact.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-04-2006, 02:55 PM:
quote: Louis Bornwasser
To be sure there were subtle differences from film, but when you can see "film grain" from the originating film, you are most of the way "there."
Exactly Louis! The grain was not obvious but definately there if you looked for it... very fine stock was obviously used. I will reiterate again... it looked so close to high quality film dailies that it was almost scary and its obvious to me now why most shows are now projecting dailies with D-Cinema equipment. Since I used to do alot of video system alignments of true high end video gear I'm quite familiar with edge enhancement and its effects and how it looks. There was no visible edge enhacement in anything they ran at Dolby that I watched.
We were told that the most difficult thing to render digitally was rain. The system at Dolby did that flawlessly.
I for one am not going to keep my head burried in the sand regarding D-Cinema. When the conditions are right and circumstances call for it I will happily be installing them.
Mark
Mark
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-04-2006, 03:09 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
When the conditions are right and circumstances call for it I will happily be installing them.
Hey Mark, we FINALLY agree on something!
It's just ashamed that it isn't time yet.
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 08-04-2006, 07:11 PM:
When I watched dailies (admittedly, I'm going back 15 years) they were on small screens. 35mm and 16mm looked brilliant.
The release prints were superb too. The producers supervised the process and the labs were fastidious.
Our screen is not monsterous, so most films still look great. Although I wish they all looked as beautiful as The New World.
As far as Dolby taking time to get it right, when are they going to improve the durability of their digital sound track so that we don't have to switch to analog on prints more than 6 weeks old (from other cinemas)?
Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 08-04-2006, 08:14 PM:
Most of what we see in theaters these days has already been run through a digital intermediate at 2K resolution. And it sucks. As John P. pointed out, you can't see good detail in wide shots or crowd scenes. It's less noticable in closeups, but that's not all there is to movies. Those few movies with 4K digital intermediates look much smoother and more detailed. That's the goal digital cinema should be heading towards. 2K isn't enough.
And then there is the issue of contrast. Aside from the occasional movie printed on Kodak Vision Premiere, which looks great, most movies these days are printed on cheaper stocks, which leaves us looking at milky blacks. Yet every single d-cinema presentation I have seen has been even worse. You want to see really muddy, milky looking dark scenes? Just go look at one of these Dolby D-cinema installations. Yuk.
quote:
And BTW, it was Richard Cook, now a big mucky-muck at Disney, back then around the time TOY STORY first came out who said he would be perfectly comfortable with "releasing all Disney films in digital because it's good enough right now" said he; and he was talking about 1.3K!!....you know, the system that is already obsolete. THIS kind of mentality is what we are up against, my friends. And it SHOULD scare us....rightfully so because we may very well be dooming future generations to visual mediocity....quality that is much lower than what we have been privileged to experience ourselves. And THAT prospect is like a knife in my heart to know that my descendants may never get to see LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, MY FAIR LADY, 2001, et al, the way I saw them. There is something evil about today's power brokers who don't care that this many come to pass, and it means nothing to deprive future generations of the best that our truly indiginous art-form can give.
Well said, although Cook's statements were actually more around the time of Toy Story 2, or just a little bit later. But yes, he did indeed say that 1.3K systems were already "good enough", which is ludicrous.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-04-2006, 10:04 PM:
quote: Ron Curran
As far as Dolby taking time to get it right, when are they going to improve the durability of their digital sound track so that we don't have to switch to analog on prints more than 6 weeks old (from other cinemas)?
That is absolutely not Dolby's fault, nor is it the fault of the labs or the makers of the film stock. That is directly the fault of bad projectionists and a lack of proper film lubrication. Using Toy Story 2 as an example, I put over 1500 passes on that print I ran and it was still tracking perfectly. (I don't recall the error compensation rating, but it was 2 or under.)
If I actually thought there was a market for true projection training, I would open up advanced training seminars 4 times a year for those who already know the basics, but need to learn how to perfect their presentations.
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 08-04-2006, 10:18 PM:
When I say Laurence of Arabia in 70mm it was the re-release with exta footage in the 90's. I saw it at the Hoyts Centre Cinema in Sydney.
When the film started the picture was even but a little dim. Within 5 minutes the CW3 (lets not call them a projectionist) ajusted the Xenon. Well it was really bright in the very middle and pitch black on the edges, It was a horrible experience and I often wondered what happened when the action moved away from the centre of frame.
Now that was over 10 years ago now and to be honest the situation of poor staffing has only got worse. So when people say that 1.3K dig was good enough, well they may have a point. With the major chains haveing made their beds with there constant budget cuts and zero quality control, I am often amazed that people bother to come at all.
Unfortunatly the professionalism found on this site is now rare in the industry, but its good to know that the mom and pop operations and selected larger operations still have a dedicated, trained staff and will not have to waste there money on early examples of digital cinema simply because they can still milk 35mm superior image. Unfortunatly the big boys really need to do something.
Brad do you really think that dolbys decision to put the sound between the sprockets as ideal? Thankfully some genius invented film gaurd which to me seems like the ideal companion for long term quality Dolby Digital presentation. As far as I know, as yet no big companies use this product here.
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-05-2006, 02:23 AM:
quote: Brad Miller
If I actually thought there was a market for true projection training, I would open up advanced training seminars 4 times a year for those who already know the basics, but need to learn how to perfect their presentations.
you won't know until you try it. brad, i really think you should be doing this.
you could get the ball rolling with a discount for f-t members.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-05-2006, 07:07 AM:
Cameron, yes between the sprockets was absolutely the smartest place to put the digital data. Can anyone say SDDS? That being said, that same print of Toy Story 2 I referenced above also played fine and dandy the last week in SDDS.
Carl, the problem is that to do the training properly, I would need to set up a training center with a wide variety of equipment. Training centers without this are only really training on the theory, and not the specifics of each model of machine. Short of that, it would take a bunch of local theaters to permit in-house training which would end up forcing the cancellation of shows. As you can imagine, getting through all of the obstacles of setting up such seminars would be an issue. Plus then there is the issue of students. I don't think large groups would be proper training either, maybe half a dozen maximum.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-05-2006, 08:09 AM:
quote: Brad Miller
Carl, the problem is that to do the training properly, I would need to set up a training center with a wide variety of equipment. Training centers without this are only really training on the theory, and not the specifics of each model of machine. Short of that, it would take a bunch of local theaters to permit in-house training which would end up forcing the cancellation of shows. As you can imagine, getting through all of the obstacles of setting up such seminars would be an issue. Plus then there is the issue of students. I don't think large groups would be proper training either, maybe half a dozen maximum.
Reality Check..... Unlike the ballpark in the cornfield... you could build it but no one would come! You could train at your facility until your pants catch on fire but it wouldn't do a bit of good since you'd be talking to the wall at the other end of your classroom. Do you actually think any employer is going to pay big money to send a $4.00 per hour employee to your facility? The only way for this to ever work is for you to train a bunch of very competant people of your own and send them out to individual theater sites like the old Kodak training program. The only way to really get things straightened out is to get the theater owners... large and small... to first pay their projectionists at least a half way decent wage so thay are not being replaced by another no-nothing every three or four weeks when they are offered another 3 bucks an hour at the local McDonalds.
What I see is huge turn around in the booths and the lack of any film handling related mechanical aptitude test that should be required of any booth personel applying for the job. That and the huge turn around I see are the largest cause of no one knowing anything about proper film handling in the booth let alone having anyone that could recognize a mis-aimed giudance roller, mal-functioning pay out, low oil, or a loose screw.
If you want to do something good to start off with come up with a standard test for film handler prospects that cold be downloaded from this site to filter out those that don't even have the ability to hold a screw driver, recognize a loose screw in a piece of equipment, or a mis-aimed guidance roller or let alone handle a roll of cleaning media properly. There are way too many of these sorts of people attempting to run the booths out there today. Also you'd best be prepared to re-visit the sites every time there is turn over the the booth and the kiddies have run off to work at McDonalds.
Oh, and you will also need to train them for proper digital operation at the same time since it is quickly making inroads at many locations (there will soon be nearly 50 of them in SLC alone) and you will be visiting booths that are digitally equipped as well as film equipped... As John P. mentioned "Digital Done Right" is just as important as "Film Done Right"!!
Mark
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 08-05-2006, 11:31 AM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
What I see is huge turn around in the booths and the lack of any film handling related mechanical aptitude test that should be required of any booth personel applying for the job. That and the huge turn around I see are the largest cause of no one knowing anything about proper film handling in the booth let alone having anyone that could recognize a mis-aimed giudance roller, mal-functioning pay out, low oil, or a loose screw.
Mark hit the nail on the head on that one. We used to do a training program where our technician and at one time an actual trainer came around and trained the booth staff in trouble shooting and things. Problem was that by the time the trainer got back around to that theatre the staff was totally different. So he was having to train or retrain people. Now that has been abandoned. Now he pretty much tries to find that one good person and hope that the knowledge passes down. We pay our staff above minimum but you still only get the collage kids who can't work days and are out the door when they graduate.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-05-2006, 12:30 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
If you want to do something good to start off with come up with a standard test for film handler prospects that cold be downloaded from this site
Then there would need to be a huge advertising campaign to raise the awareness among the giant group of "projectionists" and theatre operators that have never heard of Film-Tech.
I still think that Brad should produce rolls of stickers that say, "To learn how to improve your presentation, check out FILM-TECH.COM" which could be distributed to all interested Film-Techers. We would all start applying these stickers to the inside of film cans, or to reel flanges, whatever.
Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 08-05-2006, 02:37 PM:
quote: Cameron Glendinning
When the film started the picture was even but a little dim. Within 5 minutes the CW3 (lets not call them a projectionist) ajusted the Xenon. Well it was really bright in the very middle and pitch black on the edges, It was a horrible experience and I often wondered what happened when the action moved away from the centre of frame.
Now that was over 10 years ago now and to be honest the situation of poor staffing has only got worse. So when people say that 1.3K dig was good enough, well they may have a point.
How would going digital have prevented that situation? Digital projectors have Xenons, too.
I'm constantly surprised when people propose digital as a solution to problems that could just as easily happen with either digital or film projectors, such as poor/uneven lighting, focus, etc. Going digital would not help in those cases, yet people talk as though it would. It just doesn't make sense, and goes right back to Brad's original question: What is everyone thinking?
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-05-2006, 03:09 PM:
Image and lamp focus are actually less an issue with digital systems as the only focus problem would be one caused by lens focus. There are no focus problems as can be caused by bad tracking of film in the gate, failed cooling, uneven gate bands, etc. The Christie CP2000 have a lamp autofocus function which actually works very nicely to keep the lamp mostly in focus and the current on a constant light level. I don't know if other 2k models out there have that, too, but I wouldn't be too surprised if they do.
RE What is everyone thinking, that could be said right back here. It is obvious that a lot of people are having opinions about the whole digital cinema thing without really much or any practical experience and knowledge of the subject.
It *is* a very interesting subject and also very interesting to compare it to 35mm, but as someone who has worked with digital cinema more than most other people here I have to say it is very, very tiring to read all those posts from people who don't really know what they are talking about and just spam the thread with all their uninformed nonsense.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-05-2006, 04:06 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Then there would need to be a huge advertising campaign to raise the awareness among the giant group of "projectionists" and theatre operators that have never heard of Film-Tech.
I still think that Brad should produce rolls of stickers that say, "To learn how to improve your presentation, check out FILM-TECH.COM" which could be distributed to all interested Film-Techers. We would all start applying these stickers to the inside of film cans, or to reel flanges, whatever.
Absolutely! Its high time to get this site dug out of the sand and get it into the lime light. A booth at Showorst would also be a very good way to get alot of exposure.
quote: Aaron Haney
How would going digital have prevented that situation? Digital projectors have Xenons, too.
Digital projectors have light integrators in the optical path to smooth out any unevenness. Hence they are capable of having an amazingly flat field of light... more so than any typical film lamphouse/projection system out there.
quote: Michael Schaffer
Image and lamp focus are actually less an issue with digital systems as the only focus problem would be one caused by lens focus. There are no focus problems as can be caused by bad tracking of film in the gate, failed cooling, uneven gate bands, etc. The Christie CP2000 have a lamp autofocus function which actually works very nicely to keep the lamp mostly in focus and the current on a constant light level. I don't know if other 2k models out there have that, too, but I wouldn't be too surprised if they do.
RE What is everyone thinking, that could be said right back here. It is obvious that a lot of people are having opinions about the whole digital cinema thing without really much or any practical experience and knowledge of the subject.
It *is* a very interesting subject and also very interesting to compare it to 35mm, but as someone who has worked with digital cinema more than most other people here I have to say it is very, very tiring to read all those posts from people who don't really know what they are talking about and just spam the thread with all their uninformed nonsense.
I'm sitting right next to you re: that post Michael . Having an Electronics, Film, and Broadcast background believe me I do see the light! I completely agree with your post. When Brad starts up his training he's going to have to be able to teach all projection formats in use and with all equipment currently in use. Not an easy task.....
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-05-2006, 05:32 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Do you actually think any employer is going to pay big money to send a $4.00 per hour employee to your facility?
Nope! Not only did I never say that, your example is yet another reason why such a thing would never fly in reality. As far as going out in the field to do training, that is not feasible for a multitude of other reasons that isn't even worth getting into a discussion over. Plus field training like that is only good for beginning basic type of training.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
When Brad starts up his training he's going to have to be able to teach all projection formats in use and with all equipment currently in use. Not an easy task.....
Ummm, I would honestly say it would be a damn near impossible task, which is why the idea has been thrown around for years and nothing has ever come of it. Too many obstacles to do a proper job because I'm not interested in doing a half-ass job with such a thing.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
A booth at Showorst would also be a very good way to get alot of exposure.
Showorst? See what I mean?
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 08-05-2006, 06:12 PM:
This site is definitely the best learning resource for projectionists and technicians in the world today. It is so more than the sum of its passionate members and while it exists the Future of Cinema is bright
Here in Sydney 2 training courses have been attempted one by the Australian Film, Television and Radio School several years ago and currently Metro screen offers one (set up to train for the government program to restore and reopen country town cinemas). The effect has been minimal as the major operators simply don't recognize them
Love Marks idea about the film-tech stickers, let people know!
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-05-2006, 06:31 PM:
quote:
Love Marks idea about the film-tech stickers, let people know!
Er, Thats Mike's idea at least in this thread it is.... I'd certainly be willing to stick em all over the booths I work on....
quote: Brad Miller
Showorst? See what I mean?
If you had been to half as many of them as I have you'd call it the same thing. Or should I call it "The Big Exhibitor Kiss Each Others Ass Show"? Still a good place for you to start word of the training thing Brad....
Would be nice to see an "Independent Exhibitor Of The Year Award" for a change.
Mark
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-05-2006, 07:48 PM:
I'm just ragging you on ShoWest, Mark. Once someone has been to one or two years, the entire show can be done in under a half hour because it's the same thing every year except for the occasional new stuff.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-05-2006, 08:05 PM:
Well this IS the cinema industry! I mean, except for the Apogee...if you've seen a Simplex in the last 50-years...you've seen a Simplex...some got turrets some dont (they don't show those anymore)...
Christie won't be showing their newest film projector anymore...they've scrapped it and are sticking with the P35 series with some of their X's features.
Oddly enough...for Dolby, ShowEast typically has their newest stuff.
But the projection/sound side of things rarely have a whole bunch of NEW things...each group seems like they take turns.
I like the shows to meet up with people and I can often take care of some business a lot faster than in text or phone. For some international manufacturers, the shows are the only time you can really get a 2-way dialog going.
Whereas I love the industry, I also like going to a place that has exhibition, manufacturing and dealers all in one room. Needless to say, I only go to the tradeshow and the occasional demo of a new process or equipment.
It is also nice to meet up with people you would otherwise not have the opportunity or time to meet up with. I missed ShowEast last year and it is quite possible I will miss it again this year.
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-06-2006, 02:03 AM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Digital projectors have light integrators in the optical path to smooth out any unevenness. Hence they are capable of having an amazingly flat field of light... more so than any typical film lamphouse/projection system out there.
so why don't film lamphouses have these?
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-06-2006, 03:54 PM:
Theatre owners "could not stand the light to be lost." In the new era, we just get a bigger bulb and larger electrical bill. There is almost a 50% loss in that kind of device. Remember than ANYTHING in the light path has a loss as anyone with an Orcon II will attest. Louis
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-06-2006, 07:22 PM:
Louis,
You didn't know that the integrater is made from pure Kryptonite...... There is no loss at all through it... actually some gain .
Actually and truthfully you can run a larger lamp in the D-projectors and still have a lower power bill... The switchers they use are almost 87% efficient.
Mark
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-06-2006, 10:35 PM:
again, that seems like something that could be used for film as well.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-06-2006, 10:52 PM:
Of course it could... but you need to get a manufacturer to commit to doing that sort of thing and sometimes at great developmental expense that may or may not be recovered.
Mark
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2