Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: MI:3 170 Digital Cinema Screens DCDM by Kodak

This is topic MI:3 170 Digital Cinema Screens DCDM by Kodak 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=000033

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-09-2006, 09:38 AM:

Kodak Provides Digital Cinema Support for MI:3

quote:
May 8, 2006

Paramount Picked Kodak To Handle Digital Preparation And Distribution For ‘Mission: Impossible III’

Paramount and Kodak partner to release on the greatest number of screens ever showing digital cinema feature presentation

HOLLYWOOD, May 8 -- Add one more superlative to Paramount’s ‘Mission: Impossible: III’: it is the largest digital release ever, playing on more than 170 digital cinema screens throughout North America. And all digital preparation and distribution to those screens was handled by Kodak Digital Cinema.

Paramount set high standards for the digital release of ‘Mission: Impossible: III.’ The studio insisted it only be shown in theatres with 2K cinema grade projectors and DCI-level security and they chose Kodak – a company with a legacy in the movie business -- to handle everything.

“We told Kodak we expected the highest quality presentation delivered with complete security, seamlessly and painlessly,” says Jim Tharp, Paramount’s President of Distribution. “We worked closely with them to make that a reality.”

“We’re proud that Kodak has been selected to prepare and deliver this movie – and to handle a project of this magnitude for Paramount,” says Bob Mayson, general manager, Digital Motion Imaging, Eastman Kodak Company. “We have a long history of serving them with film and now we’re pleased to be one of their critical partners in digital.”

The movie is playing on more than a third of all digitally equipped screens in North America. This was the largest digital release in Paramount’s history and one of the largest releases ever in the industry’s history.

“We have great confidence in this franchise,” Tharp says. “We knew the movie had everything going for it – a great cast led by the world’s reigning superstar, Tom Cruise; incredible effects, and a huge fan base. As the weekend box office proved, this is a movie audiences wanted to see and we gave them a choice of seeing it on film or in digital.”

‘Mission: Impossible III’ is eight reels long, with soundtracks in multiple languages. In its digital release, it needed to be encoded in two different compression formats, packaged for four different server brands, and distributed via hard drive and satellite. The movie was encrypted to prevent piracy, so a unique pair of ‘keys’ – software codes – for each screen had to be created and sent separately.

“It’s a complex undertaking,” Mayson says, “but one Kodak is particularly well equipped to handle; we’re experienced in the entire process, from digital master to the cinema screen.”

Beginning in April, Paramount began delivering the digital masters to Kodak’s Laser Pacific facility in Hollywood. Kodak technicians compressed and encrypted each reel and packaged them to play on the different screens. Kodak and Paramount collaborated on final quality control.

“Paramount has high standards and so do we,” Mayson says. “At Kodak, our goal is to make digital distribution look simple, so audiences can sit back and enjoy a spectacular new edition of ‘Mission: Impossible’, delivered and displayed the way the filmmaker intended.”

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-09-2006, 05:24 PM:

quote:
Paramount set high standards for the digital release of ‘Mission: Impossible: III.’ The studio insisted it only be shown in theatres with 2K cinema grade projectors

Wow....blow me over and kick me down....that's really SUPER high standards; imagine....2K!! Good thing Paramount wasn't setting similar high standards for the film release -- they might have demanded nothing less that 16mm prints!

quote:
and DCI-level security

Well, I hate to break it to the ole Paramount execs, but this is already OUT ON THE STREET, which would lead me to bet it is somewhere on the internet as well. They better go back to the drawing board on that DCI-level security....heh heh

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-09-2006, 07:38 PM:

I think the data security steps are necessary in D-Cinema installations, but they'll do nothing to stop things like pirated DVDs. Again, it's similar to CAP code: security being applied after a crime has already happened. It's like putting a bulletproof vest on someone who already got shot in the chest. If Hollywood really wants to get serious on the security thing, they have to apply security steps far earlier in the movie making process.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 05-10-2006, 08:51 AM:

I think the idea is many of the problems of digital distribution are being resolved. Major players are working together to get digital going. It's true that 2K projection isn't that good, but while everyone waits for the price to go down, the distribution, servicing, and training issues (at the theater) are being worked out.

It's a small announcement/press release, but so was the first time Dolby was used for motion picture sound, or the first use of a xenon bulb in projection.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-10-2006, 09:42 AM:

Frank:

I don't know of any 4K installations playing this picture. The point is that Paramount does not want it shown using the old 1280 X 1024 pixel systems.

If there are pirated copies on the street, I doubt they came directly from an encrypted file loaded onto a theatre server. More likely from an unencrypted file, or a camcorder copy.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 05-10-2006, 10:13 AM:

John, I believe an even better statement is that no distributor allows a 1K projector to be used. Even though they were happy with it for about the last 6 years or so. This kind of edict (sp?) has burned the early adopters of d-cinema because now they have a nice looking boat anchor.

Haven't seen a 2K signal down converted to 1K projection to know why the distibutors are saying that.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-10-2006, 10:25 AM:

If they care so much about quality, then why aren't there any 70mm (or IMAX DMR) prints? And why didn't they shoot it in 65mm or VV?

I suppose that it is all well and good that we are progressing toward a common standard for [dlp]

projection and that the production and distribution issues are being sorted out, but it still seems sort of anticlimactic to go through all these years of "progress" and still end up with something that is "almost as good as" the standard for the last hundred years, and which is demonstrably worse than what was being done fifty years ago. ("But it doesn't have scratches!")

Meanwhile, Blu-Ray/HD-DVD is becoming a reality and inexpensive DLP projectors for home use keep getting cheaper and better. One wonders how long it will be before the pirated copies have _more_ resolution and color information than the versions being shown in theatres. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-10-2006, 11:08 AM:

The Digital Cinema standards being developed by the SMPTE DC28 Digital Cinema Technology committee are based on industry consensus. Higher quality film formats are already standardized and readily available for those distributors that want to use them. Choice is available, and one does not exclude the other. Kodak tries to provide the best of both worlds.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-10-2006, 11:46 AM:

quote: John Pytlak
The point is that Paramount does not want it shown using the old 1280 X 1024 pixel systems.

So, where does that leave a cinema that bought a, very expensive, state of the art, digital projection system just a few years ago? Where will it leave them in just a few years time, if they buy a state of the art 2k system today?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-10-2006, 11:58 AM:

The 1280 X 1024 pixel systems were often part of a "beta testing" program, often heavily subsidized, and were not standardized by SMPTE. Now that SMPTE Digital Cinema Standards are coming into place, the basic format is not likely to change.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-10-2006, 12:46 PM:

Hmmm...I have three Barco DP50s under my care...they were not subsidized by the industry at all. They were "state-of-the-art" when the facility was installed and run HD every day. Why should they be excluded? Is the industry going to subsidize an upgrade?

Where was it stated that these earlier systems were "beta" tests? Did ISCO know that their 1.5 and 1.9 anamorphic lenses were going to be used just in Beta test markets?

Is this really the foot that DCinema wants to start on? That is.."thanks for helping to get the ball rolling, but screw you for being an early adopter."

In 5-10-year when 2K is passe, is the industry going to take a "we haven't done 2K in years...get with the program" attitude then? Someone had to pay for all of these systems at the tune of over $100K each by the time they were fully functional.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-10-2006, 03:03 PM:

Unfortunately, you take that risk when you install a system before standards are established.

Kodak has always advocated 2K or better systems, along with most cinematographers. Kodak supports the SMPTE Digital Cinema standards being written:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about/dcServer.jhtml

quote:
The Kodak CineServer is designed to evolve, as DCI specifications are turned into industry standards."Until SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) publishes the standards and independent agencies can provide certification, no company can claim full compliance," Moore said. "But, as all that happens - and it will - we will make the upgrades necessary to make the CineServer compliant. We support high standards; we've always done that with film and we intend to do that in the digital environment."

Posted by Oliver Pasch (Member # 1335) on 05-10-2006, 03:10 PM:

quote:
In its digital release, it needed to be encoded in two different compression formats, packaged for four different server brands, and distributed via hard drive and satellite.

...just for the records: so much about standards and interoperability when it comes to digital cinema in May 2006.

Question: in Europe and even in Germany, MI:3 is also distributed on / for XDC-/EVS-Servers and their platform. Has this DCDM been prepared by KODAK as well? Or is this a different DCDM (with probably a different quality? Just to point this out: i'm not saying or assuming better or worse!). What to expect for the future, when one fine day there will be a SMPTE-standard and full-JPEG2000-interoperability, probably even a standard for the format of the hard-discs: one DCDM for the whole world? Prepared by whom? And where on this planet?

Everybody's talking about saving money with the digital-roll-out...this all sounds pretty expensive to me.

Oliver

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-10-2006, 03:28 PM:

Anyone who installs anything DLP or computer related thinking it will be a standard for more than five or ten years isn't familiar with the computer industry at all.

It's mind boggling to sit back and watch an industry try to set itself up for a colossal implosion.

Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 05-10-2006, 03:37 PM:

I think a DC projector should be modular in design. The light output section (xenon bulb, mirrors, alignment...)is standard as are many other parts of the machine itself. However, things that are most likely part of technological enhancements like the image producing parts (DLP) should be easy to exchange with other types or even modules from other brands. So the interface should become a standard on itself. This is the only way to keep things economical practical...

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-10-2006, 04:55 PM:

quote: John Pytlak
Kodak has always advocated 2K or better systems, along with most cinematographers.

But my understanding is that the 2K projectors are NOT backward compatible in that you can't simply install a new 4k or 8K nano-module when those become commonplace. So "or better" will rarely be the case for those theatres that jump on this "rollout."

So what is going to happen, and this is my main objection to the way the industry has handled digital, is that there will be an uneven playing field out there of theatres equipped with 2K rez and theatres with 4K rez and then 8K and whatever else comes down the pike, and the consumer will have no way of knowing what quality will be on that screen after they plunk down their $10 or $15 bucks. Exhibition certainly will not re-invest every time Hollywood decides they have a new so-called state-of-the-art digital technology. This will be the industry's dirty little secret.

To say that the 1K originals were "beta" products and, "hey, that's the risk you take when you invest in something that is not the standard," is a bit facetious, not to mention a bit of revisionairy history as well. Does anyone remember those early press releases ever saying that the Technicolor's 1000 DLPs were "beta" equipment or that the resolution was admittedly only marginal but that it would improve with subsequent upgrades (upgrades which we now know meant completely different projector heads)? I certainly don't. In fact, I recall every press release saying that those first digital projectors produced images that were not only BETTER than film, but would do away with film in theatres as we know it within FIVE years -- you know, the same crap they regurgitate with EVERY new "rollout."

The thing is, for the studios, image quality was never, EVER the goal of going digital. Does anyone really think those committees sat around looking at 70mm reels and said, "THAT's what we've got to match?" Please. And as far as I can see, nothing has changed. Their only goal and evidently their major wet-dream is simply to do away with making prints, no matter what the cost to image quality. It's not, "let's get a technology that will supersede what we now get with film," it's, "Let's get a technology that does away with print costs. Quality level? Oh, whatever is just under the threshold were people will complain."

You remember how pleased-as-punch they were with 1K? I guess they thought if they said it is better than film often enough, it would somehow become reality. Well, it hasn't become reality by virtue of their repetition and just because people with vested interests sat down and decided that 2K was good enough and then went ahead and made it a "standard," doesn't make it better than or even as good as film. In fact, that DCI has put an imprimatur on 2K mediocrity makes it even worse because those committee members will be dead and gone long after generations will have to live with those low quality images for a long, long time. This is a technology that should have waited another 10 years for them to get it right before rolling it out.

Come back and tell me that a new digital technology can let me give my audience a more impressive visual impact and better experience than I got when I first saw a 70mm presentation of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA or SOUND OF MUSIC, and I will be first in line to figure out how to get such a technology into my booth. Hell, I would settle for an image that was only AS GOOD as 70mm.

What I would like to know is, why is an industry that claims it is hurting for audience, why is it settling for mediocrity instead of striving for the spectacular? 70mm made me sit there nearly speechless and in total awe. We are now offered digital 2K and I sit there with my eyes ACHING to see what isn't there....like wouldn't it be nice to actually see strands of hair on top of actors' heads instead of big blobs of black. Big blobs of black might work for CG CARTOONS (remember all the oohing and aahing they all made over the DPL TOY STORY?) but it sure doesn't cut it for real-life images.

I'll say it again....with the Hollywood people who are now steering this ship, get out your life jackets; WE ARE DOOMED.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-10-2006, 05:38 PM:

What Frank said.

(As a side note, I just today talked with a theatre owner about the possibility of installing 70mm equipment. So far, he seems interested in pursuing it. In any case, he only runs film occasionally and could never afford DLP.)

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-10-2006, 05:47 PM:

There is also zero excuse not to support the 1.3K DCinema projectors (and they are DCinema projectors...they were the shoulders that the current 2K projectors stood on to get to where they are now). Sure they are frozen in time technology wise but they do have the Link Decryption just like the 2K and 4K machines...it is just a matter of getting them the 1280 x 1024 files.

As to the consumer not knowing what they are getting? Oh you will see things similar to "70mm" in Digital Theatres. "Presented in 4K Digital", "Presented in Super-8K digital" Presented in Ultra-16K digital...and so forth (no doubt with much slicker names. Theatres will have to in order to differentiate themselves from a home market that will probably stop at 2K for quite some time (whereas HDTV is not looking to go beyond 1920x1080).

At the present, "2K" is not an advertising ploy since it is effectively home quality and as others have said, you can't talk bit-rate with the stay at home crowd, they won't see nor understand the difference.

Then again, if one reasons that the movie screen is 10-times bigger than their home screen, it will take a 20K projector to just equal the home experience. Nope, digital definately has issues in encouraging people to leave their homes on technical superiority. With film, at least a layperson (nor most in the industry) can't seem to put a number on its quality level.

And NOTHING I've seen yet touches 70mm in the theatre.

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 05-10-2006, 06:31 PM:

Who makes a 4K digital projector, anyways?

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 05-10-2006, 06:46 PM:

This whole thing reminds me of Painasonic (yes, I know how I spelled it) when they came out with their M2 tape format, and it was incompatible with the original M format, only a couple of years after the original M format came out. Painasonic did not sell many M2 recorders, everyone moved to Betacam (SP)(Betacam and Betacam SP are compatible with each other). Now the theaters that put in those 1.3K projectors are being screwed. They should call technicolor (or whoever put it in) and tell them to come and get their already obsolete digital crud projector, or it will go in the dumpster. And don't expect those theaters to ever want another digital piece of crud.

DCP is not ready for prime time, and should not be in theaters until it is.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-10-2006, 06:58 PM:

Sony has a 4K digital projector "SXRD" (their advertising term, kinda like that "VEGA" thing that looks more like "WEGA"). I think it's still in that demonstration phase similar to what SDDS was stuck in from Summer 1993 to Summer 1994.

The real thing that kills 4K is next to nothing is being produced in native 4K format. Few CGI effects sequences are rendered in 4K. Few, if any, digital intermediates are rendered at native 4K levels either. There's a lot of pie in the sky talk about 4K in the film industry. Sadly, there's very little in the way of actual follow through. Current technology is more than up to the task of dealing with 4K -and can do so now at faster rate than Hollywood effect shops could deal with 2K in the year 2000.

Film distributors got spoiled by that DVD thing. DVD let executives off the hook for bad decisions and poor product by making bad movies profitable. Over the last few years Hollywood studios have, on average, been "phoning it in." That's what they say about a prima-donna actor who sleep walks through a role. Well that's what they're doing here with all their remakes, sequels of shitty films and send ups from TV. Their output lately reminds me of how bad popular music has become -with all the rap crap reigning preeminent, complete with sampled melodies from other truly original songs recorded long ago. All things derivative and regurged are king in Hollywood.

Those studios are so spoiled by home video revenue they are ignoring the very venue that makes the movie industry a movie industry: the commercial movie theaters.

That is why I contend the "2K" standard has a sort of tyranny against progress. 2K is close to the HDTV standard. Film industry executives are hell bent to get the movies into home video release as fast as possible and producing at 2K standards can make that happen even faster.

quote: Steve Guttag
There is also zero excuse not to support the 1.3K DCinema projectors (and they are DCinema projectors...they were the shoulders that the current 2K projectors stood on to get to where they are now). Sure they are frozen in time technology wise but they do have the Link Decryption just like the 2K and 4K machines...it is just a matter of getting them the 1280 x 1024 files.

I seem to remember griping about how digital projectors would quickly become obsolete. But even in my most negative of viewpoints on D-Cinema did I guess Hollywood would cease to provide any video product to play on those things. The development is pretty staggering.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-10-2006, 10:56 PM:

Whether it's Film or Digital Cinema files, the DISTRIBUTOR decides what formats to support (or not support). If they want to support a few hundred 70mm screens, a hundred IMAX theatre screens, or a hundred older 1280 X 1024 pixel projectors, that is their decision. They own the production. They pay for the prints and digital masters.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-11-2006, 12:03 AM:

That's true. I'm not blaming Kodak (or any other film or digital services provider) for the problem. The suits at the studios deserve most of the blame. They are the ones going along with the "good enough" policy rather than pushing the state of the art.

Posted by Oliver Pasch (Member # 1335) on 05-11-2006, 03:06 AM:

quote: John Pytlak
They own the production

Agreed.
But we own the projectors. At least we are supposed to. And we should continue to do so even in the digital future, otherwise we'll only be operators of studio-remote-controlled playback-facilities (formerly known as CINEMAS). Even though ownership of the equipment will not have the same meaning in the digital future, it will be more important who owns the right to deliver and accept key delivery messages. Owning a digital projector and server means nothing if you don't own the "Destination Theater Certificate" (which still might be owned by the company having provided the business model).
What's a production worth if it's not compatible?

It's not true, that only the production side is setting the standards. Of course, they try to, and with strange issues such as the conversion to cyan-dye-tracks, they even succeeded in untunedly changing a standard with the result that exhibitors had to pay loads of money for a projector-upgrade which didn't had any positive effect for them or their audiences at all. Not blaming KODAK or any other provider here for the issue itself, but for the fact that they didn't even tried to host a constructive communication between distribution and exhibition in order to find a convenient solution for both sides. But why is that? Obviously, because companies manufacturing film stock and prints are not paid by exhibitors but distributors.

And exhibitors - worldwide - simply seem to be unable (or too stupid) to stand together and say NO every now and then. They should learn quickly - some NOs might be crucial with the digital rollout.

Oliver

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-11-2006, 08:30 AM:

The way the standards should be written ideally is that there is only one delivery format, 4K. Then, the theatres will be able to choose between 2K and 4K for playback. If 2K is an option for delivery, 4K has very little chance of getting installed. Certainly nobody wants to go back to the days of digital sound where you had DTS in an auditorium but only universal films were available to play in it.

Who is going to pay extra for 4K so that they can play a few movies a year in a better format. Just make the damn standard that all movies must be delivered in 4K, either at full 250 Mbps or with a variable rate encoder set to constant quality that is equivalent to 250 Mbps.

If you do that, hopefully that will encourage the Digital Intermediates (and maybe even visual effects) to actually be done in 4K since I assume there would be a cost involved in up-rezzing 2K material for delivery in 4K.

Open plea to all who possibly have anything to do with the DC standards. IT'S NOT TOO LATE. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE MAKE 4K THE ONLY OPTION FOR FILE DELIVERY.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 05-11-2006, 08:56 AM:

From my conversations with the TI guys (a while back anyway), the 1K projectors are able to down convert the 2K signal for 1K projection.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-11-2006, 09:34 AM:

True, but the input resolution for the 1.3k Barco DP50 maxed out at 1920. So no 2048. I don't know how the projector would behave with a 2048 stream. We never had that while we were running these machines. I don't remember if we even ever had a 1920 file. NOw we have all Christie CP2000, so that is not an issue anyway.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-11-2006, 09:49 AM:

What did you do with your Barcos? Were they purchased or rented? What is the market for this sort of "obsolete" equipment? It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that you would just sell on Ebay to the highest bidder....

Can they be made to accept some sort of "standard" NTSC input (e.g. SDI, component analog, etc.)? If so, I could see them being useful for large-screen (non-cinema) video projection.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-11-2006, 10:15 AM:

They don't take any analog inputs, but you can use A/D converters which accept components and put out an SDI stream. They do accept DVI 480p though.
I don't know what happened to them. They belonged to AccessIT, and they came and took them. I think they are in a better place now where the sun always shines.
I think they wanted to sell them to universities or other instituions which might have use for them in the kind of application you suggested.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-11-2006, 10:28 AM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
I don't know what happened to them. They belonged to AccessIT, and they came and took them. I think they are in a better place now where the sun always shines.

I thought they were part of the Boeing deal with UltraStar Theatres. Did AccessIT buy all the assets of Boeing Digital Cinema? [Confused]

Didn't you also have some NEC Digital Cinema projectors?

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-11-2006, 11:27 AM:

Yes, Acess bought the whole package when Boeing bailed out of the digital cinema project.
We demoed NEC projectors (the 2k generation) on several occasions. That was before our present Access project happened. The decision to go with Christie was made by them because they offer the whole package.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-11-2006, 03:42 PM:

The Barco DP50 will indeed take a 1920 file though DCinema content was always formated 1280x1024 so that it was exactly the imager. The inputs that worked on the DP50 are the two HDSDI ports and the DVI port. Note, the DP50 wanted to see progressive signals so if you fed it interlaced signals, there was significant "jutter" in the image.

At the AFI/Silver, they bought their DP50s (all there was at the time) and they are used daily. They mostly feed them standard HD and SD video from as low a source as VHS and as high as HDCAM and D5. These go through Barco's ACSAR which is a switcher/scaler that outputs on the DVI port. The results are quite good. The DP50, having both anamorphic lenses can disply 16:9 and 2.35 content just fine. Mind you it doesn't compare to a 2K native machine very well but it does do well.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-12-2006, 04:14 AM:

quote: John Pytlak
If there are pirated copies on the street, I doubt they came directly from an encrypted file loaded onto a theatre server. More likely from an unencrypted file, or a camcorder copy.

Or a screener.

(John, you shoulda known you'd be opening a can of worms with this post.) [Wink]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-12-2006, 08:20 AM:

quote: Tim Reed
(John, you shoulda known you'd be opening a can of worms with this post.)

Just keeping people informed of Kodak's role in providing the best of both FILM and Digital Cinema. Anyone keeping track of the progress in Digital Cinema knows the earlier 1280 x 1024 systems fell short of what was required for widescale industry acceptance. The SMPTE Digital Cinema standards are finally coming into place, 2K systems are common, and 4K are on the way. Today, the issues are mostly around the cost and the business case, rather than the technology. 35mm release prints are still a very cost-effective distribution and presentation method, and larger film formats still offer superior image quality by any measure.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-12-2006, 09:08 AM:

quote: John Pytlak
Just keeping people informed of Kodak's role

Yes, it certainly is something to boast about. Rightfully so. But I also cringed a little when I saw the title of the thread, bracing for the inevitable. [Smile]

To dive headfirst into the fray, I am making a little history in Digital Cinema as we speak... although it's killing me that I'm not at liberty to say anything about it until after it happens. When it does, though, you can bet I'll be boasting about it. [Wink]

Way to go on MI3! [thumbsup]

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-12-2006, 09:48 AM:

quote: John Pytlak
2K systems are common, and 4K are on the way

Aside from Sony, are there any other 4k projectors in development? Nobody in going to buy cinema products from sony (except maybe crazy Mark Cuban) after the SDDS fiasco. Maybe one of the projector manufacturers can buy Sony's 4k sxrd chips the same way they buy DLP chips from TI.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-12-2006, 11:25 AM:

quote: Lyle Romer
Maybe one of the projector manufacturers can buy Sony's 4k sxrd chips the same way they buy DLP chips from TI.

That makes too much sense. Sony should sell the chips to Christie (or whoever) and make sure a short SXRD promotional snipe is played before each feature. Their goal should be to promote SXRD to millions of TV consumers, not to sell a relatively small number of projectors to cinemas who understandably don't want to touch a Sony-built cinema product with the proverbial 10-foot pole.

Sony doesn't play well with others. [Wink]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-13-2006, 12:38 AM:

The "consumer" angle is the only way how 4K will reach widespread acceptance. There's only so many commercial movie theater screens. There's a much bigger market in terms of consumer product sales and an easier way to amortize out that cost of development.

However, another alternative is the "professional" business market.

I think "2K" levels of resolution will reign supreme for HDTV for a long long time. However, there will be a growing demand for ever improving resolutions for enthusiast and professional uses. People who spend UnGodly amounts of money on gaming computers and computer graphic artists who need to display more and more native pixels on the monitor will always have a need for something better. I think that's the area where Sony, Intel and other companies pursuing LCOS imagers can make serious money off creating better quality imaging chips for large ultra high resolution monitors.

I have a feeling Texas Instruments' DLP technology will reach a glass ceiling at far lower resolutions than other competing technologies by nature of the huge complexity involved in making a DLP chip with millions of spinning mirror parts. I'm not even going to expect to ever see a 4K DLP chip since I'm not sure it's possible to even make one. We had a 6 year lag between the 1.2K and 2K DLP chips. I think other technologies are going to supercede DLP in the long run.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-13-2006, 08:09 AM:

I think Bobby is very correct on this one.

The big pot of gold for most any manufacturer is the consumer market, not cinema...the consumer market is going to stop at 2K for the forseeable future, thus TI has reached that goal. The DLP division is still in the RED as for as R&D that has been put into the product versus total sales. The only way to recoup that is for it to hit it big in the home market.

Their problem remains though that other technologies are far cheaper to make, thus TI is trying to pawn off single-chip DLP when other technologies can do 3-chip for less money. As LCOS improves (and even LCD) the edge that DLP holds will continue to diminish. It should be quite interesting to see how this unfolds over the next 10-years or so.

Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 05-13-2006, 08:37 AM:

JVC, the major developer of LCOS chips, have given up on high output projectors, and are concentrating on the home market.
We've got one of their 1.3K projectors (5000 lumens) and they're very good - just not compliant.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 05-13-2006, 10:26 AM:

Sony has done the opposite regarding their chip fab operations; they closed OEM client accounts two years before the 4K SXRD projector introduction...probably they forsee HD for home and 4K for cinema will keep this division busy.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 05-13-2006, 11:26 AM:

While I agree that the industry is handling this badly and that varying standards of quality in theaters is problematic, the fact is that we've always had varying standards of quality in theaters in both picture and sound (but perhaps especially sound.) Even the quality of 70mm presentations varied and there were a number of 70mm sites in NYC in which one could barely tell the presentation was in 70mm mag. Just because a film was playing in Dolby, whether A, SR or SR-D was absolutely no guarantee of quality and two screens playing a digital track in the same format (let's say DTS), can sound unbelievably different, due to acoustics and B-chain, among other factors.

Meanwhile, I saw MiIII at the Ziegfeld in Digital and even though I really, really wanted to hate the way it looked, I have to admit that it really did look damned good. Even the blacks were good.

One thing I noticed during the preshow is that the trailers, to my surprise, were played off a different digital projector and there was a lot of quick (but very smooth) switching between the film projector and the digital. In other digital presentations I've been to, the trailers played off the same projector as the feature.

The trailers didn't look that great and I thought the feature was therefore going to look like crap, but as soon as the feature came on, it was much higher quality than the trailers and I turned my head to look back at the booth and noticed they had switched projectors.

IMHO, any owner who went out and outright purchased a digital projector is nuts. It was always obvious that this technology was going to rapidly evolve regardless of whether SMPTE standards had been established or not. If one bothers at all, equipment like this should always be leased. Then you simply exchange old for new, just like a car lease - a new car every two years or so.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-13-2006, 11:46 AM:

quote: Martin Brooks
I saw MiIII at the Ziegfeld in Digital and even though I really, really wanted to hate the way it looked, I have to admit that it really did look damned good. Even the blacks were good.

Yet another favorable eyewitness report contradicting all the negative nabobs. [Wink]

I mean honestly, has anyone here posted a flat-out negative review of any d-cinema presentation? I don't think so. Maybe they did and I missed it. Most of the negativity seems to come purely from looking at the specs and concluding "This can't be as good as, let alone better, than 35mm film". Eyewitnesses continue to say otherwise though.

Posted by Kris Dirix (Member # 3012) on 05-13-2006, 12:14 PM:

Yes David, It is not bad, sometimes it looks good. But, did you ever see a digital show which was better than film????????????

The "arrogant" commercial boys say they did.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-13-2006, 12:16 PM:

David,

It all depends on what one is looking for...The digital image has a steadiness about it that the 35mm film lacks. It is less subject to the particulars of the duplication process. I, however, hate the very flat appearing image of it, it is unnatural. Film clearly wins in that. 70mm film stands toe-to-toe on image steadiness yet adds depth and looks notably better.

I'll tell you this...even the 1.3K projector had a lot of heads turning when they just looked at the image and not the technology. Depending on how close you are to the screen it was not bad but clearly about 1/3 as good as a current 2K.

If you do get an EK print, the 35mm will beat the digital version every time but that is not a fair comparison since only a select few ever get to view those. That is probably the biggest advantage that digital has...the public gets to see a non-duplicated film. Imagine if everything you read in a book came from a 4th generation photocopy...and then you looked at a computer screen...WOW the screen would take on a clarity that really is not inherently better.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-13-2006, 01:30 PM:

quote: David Stambaugh
I mean honestly, has anyone here posted a flat-out negative review of any d-cinema presentation? I don't think so. Maybe they did and I missed it.

I saw a good number of negative comments on image quality from D-Cinema shows, but that was mainly of the 1280 X 1024 rez-based shows. I also have strong doubts the digital versions of "The Perfect Storm" and "Dinosaur" (which brought up more quality complaints than any other movies I recall) were encoded at bitrates anywhere near as high as those in the DCI spec. If they were, then it would be an even more embarrasing testament to the poor quality of the kind of video compression used.

My primary gripe with 2K is not over how 2K looks. It's probably adequate for many small to medium sized auditoriums. My big gripe with 2K is that it does not have enough clear superiority over 1080HD and its related home theater formats. I think it opens too critical a marketing opportunity for home electronics outlets to compete against commercial movie theaters.

There simply has to be more pressure applied to have 4K become the standard for CGI and DI work.

One other thing I believe must happen is consolidation in the exhibition industry. Not mergers, mind you -we've had too much of that. This nation is horribly over-screened. A lot of screens simply need to be closed, and we need new movie theaters with -amazingly- fewer screens.

I think it's just ridiculous for a 24-plex to have several prints of a single movie playing. Basically the studios are using the theater's over-abundance of screens against it. The movies play for a far shorter amount of time and then get to DVD so much quicker.

I think if the movie studios had a lot fewer screens on which to book their product they would have to let movies play themselves out for a longer period of time commercially.

Naturally the studios would hate this idea since they want the movie on DVD ASAP. But if the commercial theaters are building fewer screens, but ones of much better quality then it may not be such a bad deal for the studios. They can move away from this idiotic and destructive "opening weekend gross" insanity and get back to making movies perform with "legs." I don't remember the opening weekend tally for "Titanic" and don't really care. The more impressive thing about that film's box office performance was that it was still selling out shows four months after it was released. That wouldn't happen today.

Ultimately someone has to come up with some idea for keeping movies in commercial movie theaters for longer amounts of time. There will be no upward pressure to improve the standards of presentation in commercial movie theaters as long as release windows continue to shrink. All bets are off for 4K if any of the studios adopt the "day and date" model between commercial theaters and home video.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-13-2006, 08:57 PM:

The Usual Disclaimer: I still haven't seen a digital show. One of these days I gotta drive up to Portland and check one out.

70mm, or 35mm EK prints ["done right"], will undoubtedly beat 2K D-Cinema in a showdown. No doubt whatsoever. But for better or worse, those standards of quality weren't the goal of 2K. Realistically the public can only compare it to what they're used to with 35mm production prints (and maybe HDTV). If 2K beats production prints, then it's a step up.

We can still debate whether it's a big enough step though. We'll know the answer to that in 5-10 years. Maybe sooner if 4K ever takes off.

1.3K D-Cinema was a non-starter so it shouldn't be used as a basis of comparison to anything. [Big Grin]

I totally agree that the country is over-screened. Also that 4K should be the basepoint for mastering new A-List material. And 4K needs to find its way into the best of the best theatres, or at least the ones with the largest screens (not a problem here in Eugene though. [Wink]

)

Regal has a new-build 15-plex opening in Eugene around Thanksgiving/XMAS. I hope to hell they have at least a couple 2K screens right from the start.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-14-2006, 04:51 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Their problem remains though that other technologies are far cheaper to make, thus TI is trying to pawn off single-chip DLP when other technologies can do 3-chip for less money. As LCOS improves (and even LCD) the edge that DLP holds will continue to diminish. It should be quite interesting to see how this unfolds over the next 10-years or so.

No doubt. I just saw a stunning TI commercial pushing their big DLP TVs. It was slick and effective. They are going after the consumer market in a big way, just as has been said here before more than once and many, many posts ago.

As for no negative reviews of digital presentation? I have only seen two and both were in the AMC on 42nd Street and both were very unimpressive. The first was JURASIC PARK III, but that could have been a 1.3K and it was atrocious with gamma all over the place, sometimes within the same scene, and terrible contrast ratio (the famed globs if black instead of hair on top of actors' heads in medium and long shots). SWIII was definitely 2K and I was fortunate enough to see this dog turd in both presentation formats, one right after another -- digital first, then film. Digital looked better than JURASIC PARK but certainly not as good as film -- soft and lacking in detail. But then again, the film version looked soft as well, with live action looking softer than the CG stuff. So I am assuming this was not necessarily the fault of either the digital or the film, but the originating material. But even as unimpressive as the film looked, to my eye it was piss poor over what normal, even high speed prints look like.

There is no question that they are going to improve on digital as time goes on, but will it be too late? Bobby has said it a number of times that if digital can't present an experience that is demonstrably BETTER than the home experience, then it's all over. And by "better," I've said should mean better than EK 35mm and even as good as 70mm. How could a new technology whose initial goal has always seemed to be nothing more than merely "as good as" the least that film can do, server the industry? Anything less than a presentation that is spectacularly better than what moviegoers are used to will simply destroy ANY motivation for people to seek out the movie theatres.

People talk about the social element of moviegoing....that people will ALWAYS want to go to theatres so they can get away from home. Well, IMHO, I think that goes only so far -- the older audiences remember when the social thing was pleasant and inviting and they enjoyed going to the movies. Now older moviegoers routinely voice the opinion that they "hate" going to the multiplex. So you can't rely on that demographic's need for a social-night-out and the Magic of the Movies to revive theatre attendance. Between that and the movies that they see as garbage, they simply are not buying it anymore; they haven't seen "magic" in decades.

As for the young demographics, they've never known the "magic of the movies" in the first place. As far as they are concerned, seeing MI3 on a DVD or a computer screen or a home theatre system or even, incredible as it may seem, on their cellphones --it's all the same, and it's certainly to Hollywood's economic advantage to make all formats indistinguishable. Digital Cinema and DVD availability will only reinforce that perception, and the studios are pushing BOTH.

As for digital going to save the movie theatres by being able to show 3D....don't bet on it. If past experience is any indication, 3D never moved past the fad stage for the bulk of the population. Sure, some of us 3D crazies would have been happy if every film ever made since 1952 were made in 3D, but I would guess we are .001 percent of the population. Besides, there is a system in place that already exists and has been used for computer 3D games. It's relatively cheap, using alternate video frames and LCD shutter glasses ala IMAX (NOT anaglyphic) to get very excellent 3D separation. It's existing, cheap, off-the-shelf hardware. The video system needs nothing, i.e., a VHS or DVD can play 3D videos without and any special alteration, except a decoding box that Ys on the video output and drives the LCD shutters. It's been around for a few decades; I've got a whole slew of 3D videos of the early 3D hits: HOUSE OF WAX, DIAL M FOR MURDER, JAWS 3D, KISS ME KATE, etc.

Don't think for one minute that if Lucas or Speilberg or Cameron, et al, decide to regurgitate every film they've ever made in 3D, that the studios won't want to release them in DVD-3D, right on the heals of the theatrical release! Once again, exhibition will risk getting the rug pulled right out from under those short short movie legs. So forget about 3D saving anyone's ass.

So we are then left with only one issue.....will Digital Cinema present a superior, compelling movie experience over what we presently have that can differentiate it from all the other ways and means of motion picture delivery and can compel audiences to seek out movie theatres. I don't think digital can or will.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-14-2006, 10:11 PM:

Regardless of whatever happens, it is very obvious the bean counters in corporations that run theaters are going to have to change their thinking.

Right now those bean counters are only looking at the theater business strictly in the sense of selling widgets. Their mindset is the market is only so big and therefore let's keep cutting corners to eek out an increasing amount of profit out of only so big a pie to keep the shareholders happy and have them keep paying us bonuses. Their thinking is obviously all theaters are the same, the audiences couldn't give a popcorn fart about quality so let's just move customers like they are cattle.

In adopting that dry mindset, they totally miss a basic point in marketing that comes with this kind of product: you are selling an EXPERIENCE. Restaurants know this. Anyone can put some effort into cooking a great meal at home. Successful restaurants have to put more than just good cooking into their product. The atmosphere and service are extremely important. The same is absolutely true in movie theaters. And these bean counting nitwits are screwing up all of that.

The problem is ever present in how little is done to maintain acceptable standards of quality in movie theaters. Sure, there's quite a few dumps that show film wrong. However, lots of theaters out there are simply making due with what little their corporate headquarters provides for them. Very often, that HQ is the source of why film is done wrong.

In being over-screened, many theater companies have their limited resources spread ever more thin. They have less and less money they're willing to put into the maintenance on theater screens. This is the very basis on why the United States probably needs its screen count cut in half or even more than that. We need fewer theaters, yet theaters with better quality showmanship.

I don't expect every movie theater to retune its sound system and have duplicate parts of everything like Northpark 1-2 in Dallas did. But there needs to be a better level of expertise in the booth and more pride taken in show quality than what currently exists right now. That's a major factor in driving people away to their home theaters (the other aggravations like cell phones, yakking teenagers and other disrespectful turds do their damage as well).

The customers of commercial movie theaters are paying a premium for a movie theater experience. 2K D-Cinema may offer a good improvement in that. But quite a bit of work needs to be done in other areas. Right now most movie theater companies are taking customers for granted, thinking they'll automatically show up regardless of how plain and unremarkable the experience becomes. I think that's just extremely wrong. Entertainment experiences at home are growing ever more sophisticated by leaps and bounds. PS3 will break new ground. Critics are raving about the E3 convention demo of the upcoming PC game "Crysis" (the sequel to FarCry). Movie theater companies have got to start competing with that, otherwise the customers are just eventually going to forget about them.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-15-2006, 07:39 AM:

Agree with Bobby 1000%. I think a lot of this is a result of all the mergers. Since such a huge percentage of theatres are run by AMC and Regal they don't really have competition. Muvico builds great looking buildings but they aren't run that well and the auditoriums aren't that great.

The thing that drives me nuts about the 4K thing is that hardware exists to provide it. I don't know how all the specs of Sony's SXRD compare to DLP but I know that they have 4K chips in existance. The rest of the playback chain has to be capable of 4K based on DCI spec. All we need is for Christie or Barco or anybody to buy the SXRD chips from Sony and design a projector. Since LCOS is a more scaleable technology than DLP, if there are still shortcomings in contrast or color, I'm sure sony is working on that for the consumer resolutions. Those improvements should be able to be applied to the 4K chips.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 05-15-2006, 09:11 AM:

I saw MI3 on Thursday at the Regal Lincolnshire 20 in Digital Cinema (Screen #10). I have not seen it on film, so I can't do a comparison. It was a 44' wide screen, and we sat approximately 40' away, centered on the screen.

I saw no digital artifacts and the black level was very good. The screen was very curved, which caused the image to be distorted slightly. This was only noticeable when text appeared on the screen, where the center appeared lower and the text bowed upwards to the left and the right. I don't know if there is a lens that is supposed to compensate for the screen curvature, but if it were my theater, it wouldn't be acceptable the way it is.

The movie presentation itself was OK. Good in the fact that there weren't any film-related flaws. The focus of the entire movie was on the soft side, but perhaps that was a stylistic choice? Text was sharp, so I don't think it was a lens focus issue.

One thing that I did notice was during the credit roll. The text seemed to do a little vertical jump as it scrolled up the screen. Perhaps that was a function of the resolution of the system? I don't remember seeing that at ShoWest, so maybe it was something particular to the movie or their installation.

We drove 1.5 hours to see this digital presentation, and drove past probably 5 or 6 film-only theaters to do so. We've made this trek several times to see movies in the various digital formats over the years. Each and every presentation has been better than the film presentations I've attended anywhere (with very few exceptions of 70mm shows, and some 35mm shows at McClurg Court).

I would really like for a Milwaukee-area theater to get a Digital Cinema installation, so I don't have to keep making these long drives and blow an entire afternoon and evening just to watch a movie. As a parent and an owner of a business, that time is precious to me.

Bobby's points about the entire experience are right on, and a favorite soapbox item of mine. I would be much more influenced by improvements in the overall experience than I would be by a mediocre theater merely installing a digital cinema projector. Having a manager come in before the show and welcome me to their theater and acknowledging my patronage, having clean bathrooms, and decently priced and good quality concessions would go a long way to gaining my loyalty.

Put a digital cinema projector on top of that (or at least get rid of the film flaws), and you have a great combination!

Maybe instead of just film done right, maybe it should be movies done right.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-15-2006, 09:37 AM:

Someone needs to knock Sony upside the head. They don't have a chance in hell of selling more than a handful of 4K projectors, but they might sell a lot of 4K chips to other projector manufacturers and they'd sure as hell get a lot of good marketing boost among consumers for the SXRD technology.

Somewhere else I said the US is overscreened. What I meant is the US has too many mediocre (or worse) theaters. Their days are numbered.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-22-2006, 06:26 PM:

quote:
Paramount and Kodak partner to release on the greatest number of screens ever showing digital cinema feature presentation

quote:
Paramount’s ‘Mission: Impossible: III’: it is the largest digital release ever, playing on more than 170 digital cinema screens throughout North America.

quote:
This was the largest digital release in Paramount’s history and one of the largest releases ever in the industry’s history.

Who on earth wrote up this press release??? The largest digital release in Paramount's history??? Isn't it their first?

In one comment, they state the largest digital release ever, and in another place they state one of the largest. Well, which is it?!

In addition, my research suggests that the 170 digital engagement figure for North America is actually worldwide (unless there are a LOT more Carmike installations than I'm aware of). I'm aware of about 100 digital engagements in North America. The worldwide record, I believe, remains Star Wars Episode III Revenge Of The Sith (offered in both 1.3 & 2K).

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-23-2006, 07:29 AM:

quote: Michael Coate
Who on earth wrote up this press release???

Most likely Bob Gibbons, Director of Communications for Kodak Digital Cinema. Bob is usually pretty accurate in getting his facts and figures straight, but he's probably not on site counting the bits being sent to theatres.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-23-2006, 11:34 AM:

On the other hand, I would have just dropped the number altogether. 170? Even if that represents an increase of 100%, to the average Joe, it's gotta sound quite paultry...it does to me.
When the first CinemaScope film opened, it did so on something like 85% of all theatres in the country. And to add to the sense of some monumental change that was about to happen in the theatres, every theatre in my town closed for the installation a week prior to the opening. Imagine all the theatres closed for a week! And in those days when the theatre was the main source of entertainment, closing them all down for the installation of this new CinemaScope technology "the miracle you see without glasses" (purposely leaving most people with the false impression that it was 3D but without the goggles), well that made the anticipation quite palpable. And of course when they did finally reopen their doors, there was no question to the patron that the new CinemaScope system was a major visable, audible difference from what they saw the week before.

The word CinemScope was in larger point than the film title! They certainly aren't treating digital with that kind of excitement, other than the tired old line they trot out about the billionth time looking as good as the first -- which pretty much is only meaningful to the guy who is going watch a film after it's been playing for 20 years.

With digital I think most patrons would be hard-pressed to tell any difference, unless perhaps they are preconditioned by digital hype, but that will soon wear off. And as we know, hype can often backfire when it creates an expectation that is not met. I certainly can imagine a scenario where moviegoers walk into a digital theatre expecting to see something spectacular (you know -- no scratches, no jitter, no color fade, and the rest of that nonsense) and only to find it's no different than it's always been. THAT kind of let-down certainly won't turn sagging attendance numbers around. It won't draw an significant numbers of patrons back into the theatres as opposed to their home theatres. And sorry to say, IMHO, that result has been inevitable from the start because the goal of this technology was never to make the image BETTER or different than what could be gotten with existing 35mm technology, only to make it "as good as" film.

So we are left once again with the ONLY advantage of digital movie distribution is that it gets rid of 35mm prints. Period. And unless the distributor lowers exhibitor's rental rates because the digital screen represents a savings of $2000 in print cost, then Mr. Exhibitor gets NO advantage at all because in the end, those 170 digital screens are not going to bring in any more paying customers than if they were film screens. Quite frankly, I don't see how any theatre that installs $120,000 worth of digital hardware can justify that expense given that the investment will not bring in any more customers that his competitor down the block who at most might invest in a good film cleaning unit and some Film Guard while still running his already bought and paid for film projectors. It's a basic tenent of any business -- you don't invest in something that doesn't increase the bottom line.

Even Dolby recognized that reality in that full page ad they ran for months on the back cover of IFJ -- it showed two theatres with the name of a title on both marquees. One theatre had a small line at the box office, the other had a line triple the size. The theatre with the larger line had an additional sign under the film title. It read simply, "In Dolby Stereo." That said it all. And even that carrot of increased ticket sales wasn't enough to get exhibitors to jump at installing stereo hardware. So why today are exhibitors and even NATO embracing this monumental digital expense? Well, either digital evangelists have somehow found a way hypnotized otherwise very frugal theatre owners, or exhibitors have collectively just gone insane. Remember, these are the guy who took 15 years to install $700 reverse scan red readers, and even that, kicking and screaming.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-23-2006, 01:49 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
On the other hand, I would have just dropped the number altogether. 170? Even if that represents an increase of 100%, to the average Joe, it's gotta sound quite paultry...it does to me.

In the realm of technological innovations, the number 170 at this point in time is quite significant as it suggests progress is being made (much to the dismay of those biased film-tech members who clearly want digital projection to fail).

quote: Frank Angel
When the first CinemaScope film opened, it did so on something like 85% of all theatres in the country.

For the record, when CinemaScope opened, it did so on a whopping single screen.

Like most other new innovations, the deployment was staggered over time. The first scope film, "The Robe," was distributed initially in much the same fashion as the roadshow releases during the '60s, partially for the benefit of having prestigious exclusive engagements in large cities and partially to allow time for the installations to take place. One the first week; three the second; eleven the third; etc. Granted, seven years in, CinemaScope was installed in more than 170 theatres!

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-23-2006, 05:18 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
no scratches, no jitter, no color fade, and the rest of that nonsense

Frank, are you saying those problems don't exist in typical theaters running 35mm film? Frequent eyewitness reports here say otherwise. Or maybe you're saying they shouldn't exist but do because of poor maintenance. If it's the latter, and all those frequently-seen film defects are removed from the equation with DLP, but you're still left with other issues that affect both film and DLP like light output, haven't you still scored a net improvement in the presentation?

I mean we can argue until we're blue in the face over film's potential but in 90% of theatres that potential isn't being realized and never will. So DLP would be an improvement in those theaters.

I see that Cinetopia 8 in Vancouver has DLP features running on all 8 screens right now. They must be happy. [beer]

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-23-2006, 05:27 PM:

quote:
Imagine all the theatres closed for a week!

Pretty interesting. In Bakersfield, the Fox Theatre installed CinemaScope at the end of July, 1953 without closing at all (the screen was constructed behind the original screen on off-hours). Note: Michael Coate is correct on the slow roll-out of this process. Even though the Fox had the system as well as Stereophonic Sound installed this early (although the sound may have been limited to interlocked mag dubbers at that point, they still didn't get THE ROBE until the end of the first week of November, even though the film world-premiered towards the end of September.

The Nile Theatre was the next theatre locally to install CinemaScope (with full stereo) in January 1954, even though they wouldn't get a CS film for another month. This theatre was only closed one Saturday afternoon for the installation.

(Two other local theatres installed "wide-vision/panoramic" curved screens around the time of the Fox's installation, but these weren't CS regulation).

No other local theatres altered their operating schedules at all for the installations.

quote: Frank Angel
Quite frankly, I don't see how any theatre that installs $120,000 worth of digital hardware can justify that expense

Current business plans puts the lion's share of the equipment cost with the distributor.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-23-2006, 07:47 PM:

quote: Paul Linfesty
Michael Coate is correct on the slow roll-out of this process.

I had planned to include in my previous post a list of playdates for "The Robe" during the film's first few months to illustrate my point, but when I tried to edit the post a message appeared indicating a moderator had configured the site to reject any posts of mine that contained a certain word or phrase that "has caused trouble in the past" or some such wording. How dare they!

Maybe I should take "Tucson" out of my list and try re-posting. [Big Grin]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-24-2006, 05:37 AM:

Granted, it may have been different other places in the country, but in my town, THE ROBE opened in all the Century theatres at once. And they did close for a week for the installation. Perhaps being New York, even an outer borough of Queens, we got it first, but the point is, the anticipation for the release was palpable, EVERYONE was talking about it. In my school, a teacher who had been shown an advance screening came into class with a piece of film to show to us and explain the anamorphic process and the 4trk mag. I saw a piece of 4trk mag in the 7th grade!

I have no doubt that it did play a Roadshow pattern, and not open up on the same day -- most really big titles did. Thing is, this was an EVENT. I don't see that kind of excitement for digital not in any measure. People couldn't wait to see THE ROBE. People are not chomping at the bit to see an digital titles that I know of. Digital titles play along side the film version (I saw SWII on film while right ten feet over it played in digital and if you went between the two screen, you had to look to see any difference at all) The people who saw the film version seem perfectly happy with it.

On the other hand if you wanted to see THE ROBE, you HAD to see it in CinemaScope. The Fox publicity machine made sure that the film (which for whatever reason was wildly popular in its own right) and the technology were inseperable. With digital, there was no such effort to make the technology stand out as something unique. In fact there seemed to be a conscious effort to make little distinction between the two; in fact, the studios have long been of the mind that wherever and however they can sell the product, the better -- be it film, 2K digital, DVD, PPV -- it's all good. I just don't see how an exhibitor will recoupe his investment if audiences seem perfectly happy going to see MI3 without much preference to the technology, because to the majority of moviegoers, they can't tell the difference, and THAT doesn't give the owner of the digital projector much of an competitive edge.

quote: David Stambaugh
Frank, are you saying those problems don't exist in typical theaters running 35mm film? Frequent eyewitness reports here say otherwise. Or maybe you're saying they shouldn't exist but do because of poor maintenance. If it's the latter, and all those frequently-seen film defects are removed from the equation with DLP, but you're still left with other issues that affect both film and DLP like light output, haven't you still scored a net improvement in the presentation?

I mean we can argue until we're blue in the face over film's potential but in 90% of theatres that potential isn't being realized and never will. So DLP would be an improvement in those theaters.

Granted, but David, what I am saying is the problems with film are very fixable and much cheaper than chucking out technology that has PROVEN it can give superior presentation. And the other side of that coin is that the 90% of theatres whose presentations are less that what film can provide, I contend that digital may not fair much better once they get their dirty fingers on.

To me, this is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. And we have yet to discover if the new baby will come with some dirty water as well. What do we do then?

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-24-2006, 12:32 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
Granted, it may have been different other places in the country, but in my town, THE ROBE opened in all the Century theatres at once.

So you're strictly talking about the neighborhood engagements that followed the first-run exclusive engagement at the Roxie (which scored an impressive $350,000 (approximate) gross in its first week). Typically, the New York burroughs (and neighborhoods of Manhattan) wouldn't get films until after their first-run engagements). I'm sure Michael Coate can supply the actual data here if I'm wrong. (The only other engagements I'm familiar with were the Fox (California) in SJ (same Nov 6 opening as Bakersfield) and the Hollywood premiere at the Chinese (being joined later by a day-and-date with the Downtown Los ANgeles Theatre).

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-25-2006, 04:12 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
On the other hand if you wanted to see THE ROBE, you HAD to see it in CinemaScope.

...unless you saw the version shot concurrently in the academy ratio.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-25-2006, 02:17 PM:

quote: Carl Martin
...unless you saw the version shot concurrently in the academy ratio.

I was under the impression that the flat shoot was only a backup and that unit was shut down once they were convinced that the scope version had no major problems. I didn't think a flat version was actually ever released. If it did play in that flat format, I would imagine it wasn't in first run houses or in the major cities. And how embarassing for the theatre that had to remove all references to CinemaScope from ads and one sheets, given that the Fox publicity machine linked THE ROBE and CinemaScope as almost one and the same thing.

Anyone know if a flat version was actually completed and played anywhere? Wouldn't THAT be a historically significant print to screen today?! [thumbsup]

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-25-2006, 05:28 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
Anyone know if a flat version was actually completed and played anywhere?

I think I read somewhere the flat version was completed but only played on TV, at least in the U.S. There are a number of examples of other scope films that were also shot in flat (with a few actualy getting released in the U.S. (i.e. The Command and maybe one or two other WB titles). Still others (such as Brigadoon, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers) were shot both ways, but U.S. distribution was limited to CS only, with some foreign territories getting an option.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-26-2006, 12:28 AM:

quote:
Anyone know if a flat version was actually completed and played anywhere? Wouldn't THAT be a historically significant print to screen today?!

There were trade reports that the Academy version of "The Robe" was reduced to 16mm and made available to non-theatrical venues such as churches and schools.

I wish these alternately shot versions would be included as a supplement on the DVD, but with an exception or two ("Seven Brides For Seven Brothers" comes to mind) the studios seem to be clueless about what's in their vaults or they're too cost-conscious to go to the trouble. As an example, Disney's latest 2-disc collector's edition of "Lady And The Tramp" (a film recognized as having been shot twice) includes both the scope widescreen version and a 1.33:1 version, except that the 1.33 version is a pan-and-scan job from scope. [Mad]

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-03-2006, 12:06 AM:

The first NYC neighborhood theatre release (following the Roxie's exclusive engagement) began on December 25,1953. Don't know about the outer burroughs, but all the Manhattan nabes opening it were only closed for one day (December 24) prior to the opening. The theatres were: Academy of Music, RKO 58th Street, RKO 86th Street, RKO 23rd Street, Riverside, Nemo, and Coliseum.