This is topic Digital cinema may not be ready to roll 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=000036
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-14-2006, 11:05 PM:
 
Reuters Business Channel

Digital cinema may not be ready to roll
Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:20 PM ET

By Gina Keating -Analysis

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - After years of haggling, Hollywood's movie studios and theater owners agreed in 2005 to replace old film projectors with new digital systems, but some say the equipment is not ready for use.

The battle involves potentially billions of dollars, pits industry players against each other, and will be a major topic next week at ShoWest, a key industry event in Las Vegas where the studios, theater owners and equipment vendors gather.

New digital cinema projection systems are expected to bring clearer images and three-dimensional movies to audiences, as well as new revenue opportunities to theater owners who can use them to screen live sports, concerts and teleconferences.

Many in the movie industry hope digital cinema will help revive theater attendance, which fell 9 percent in 2005 in the United States.

The studios stand to save about $1 billion a year in print distribution costs because they will be shipping digital movies via computer hard drives, satellite and broadband cable, versus old celluloid canisters.

But digital deployment is expensive at about $100,000 per screen, and while the studios agreed to foot most of the bill, current equipment does not meet all the technology standards set by the industry.

"Digital cinema isn't ready for prime time," said Kurt Hall, president of National Cinemedia, a group of exhibitors led by the No. 1 U.S. chain, Regal Entertainment Group

(RGC.N: Quote, Profile, Research).

He said National Cinemedia would delay any full-scale adoption until at least 2007.

Exhibitors have been inching toward digital cinema since the late 1990s, but currently only about 300 of 36,000 U.S. movie screens have digital projection systems, according to the National Association of Theater Owners.

READY? OR NOT?

French media company Thomson (TMS.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) and U.S.-based Access Integrated Technologies Inc (AIX.A: Quote, Profile, Research), or AccessIT, are leading backers, albeit with different approaches. Thomson believes in testing now and deploying later. AccessIT thinks the launch time is now, and systems can be upgraded easily later.

Through its Technicolor Digital Cinema business, Thomson signed Century Theatres Inc. to install 90 to 120 screens in the second quarter of 2006, but those systems are built by various manufacturers and will be tested throughout the year.

John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theater Owners, said experimentation is needed to protect exhibitors. "We've had several years of prototype equipment," he said. "What we haven't had is fully integrated systems. That's what needs to be tested to make sure files can flow correctly and the pieces all work together."

Universal Studios, the nation's No. 3 movie distributor, also is in a wait-and-see mode before making its first digital movies widely available, said Michael Joe, head of its digital conversion. "We want to support the real roll-out of DCI cinema," Joe said. "There are certain aspects that are not DCI ready, but will be within a number of months."

DCI is the acronym for a working group, Digital Cinema Initiatives, that was formed by the studios to set digital technology standards. It completed its work last year, but early systems don't yet meet all the DCI recommendations.

ON WITH THE SHOW

Still, many companies like AccessIT say enough systems have been successfully deployed to prove the technology is ready, and the systems in use now can be upgraded in the future.

Julian Levin, president of digital cinema for News Corp's (NWS.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Twentieth Century Fox studio, said the conversion has reached a stage where it should get rolling at a rate of 4,000 to 5,000 screens a year and finish in six to eight years.

"It's been many, many years to get to the top of the hill and now we're at the top," Levin said.

Texas Instruments Inc (TXN.N: Quote, Profile, Research) is set to announce next week that its computer chips have been deployed in 1,000 digital systems worldwide that are as reliable as film projectors.

"We have been in movie theaters ... since 1999 showing movies to paying audiences," said TI's Doug Darrow. "I think that's a fairly good track record of technology."

Dolby Laboratories (DLB.N: Quote, Profile, Research) has installed 150 systems, and while they do not use a DCI-approved decoding language now, they can be upgraded. Knowing that, the Walt Disney Co. (DIS.N: Quote, Profile, Research) put Dolby systems in 84 theaters last fall for a 3-D "Chicken Little," its first fully computer-animated film.

Moreover, Carmike Cinemas Inc. (CKEC.O: Quote, Profile, Research), the No. 3 U.S. theater chain, began installing digital systems on all its 2,300 screens after receiving assurances from Christie/AIX, a venture of AccessIT and projector maker Christie Systems, that non-compliant components will be upgraded.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-15-2006, 12:38 AM:
 
quote: Darryl Spicer
Many in the movie industry hope digital cinema will help revive theater attendance, which fell 9 percent in 2005 in the United States.
Man I wish they would stop with this crap. Most complainers get quite a ways down their long list of complaints about "the movie-going experience" before they get to image quality.
 
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-15-2006, 05:56 AM:
 
I have come to realize that the PUBLIC (the unwashed..etc.) literally don't care how or why the picture shows up. They only care that it does, reliably.

Therefore, film, digital, magic, etc. it doesn't matter to 93% of the people as long as it is "good enough."

Digital TV will absolutely not save this industry. It's problems as well known and made worse by intrusive screen advertising, surly staff, dirt, etc. Louis
 
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 03-15-2006, 12:25 PM:
 
quote: Darryl Spicer
Many in the movie industry hope digital cinema will help revive theater attendance, which fell 9 percent in 2005 in the United States.
I found this a stupid statement as well. Many people I know already believe that some form of "DVD" is being used in cinemas. And exactly how would that boost attendance? Because of the catchword "digital"?
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-15-2006, 01:19 PM:
 
quote: Darryl Spicer
as well as new revenue opportunities to theater owners who can use them to screen live sports, concerts and teleconferences.
Yeah, just like after WWII when all of the theatres installed projection TV and the american public flocked to the theatres just as predicted. Remember? Sure ya do;>
 
Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 03-15-2006, 01:38 PM:
 
Sir Connery wrapped up the reason for the decline quit nicely with this quote that was posted else where on this board.

"I get fed up dealing with idiots," said the Scottish thesp. "There is a widening gap between those who know about movies and those who green-light movies. Then the s--t hits the fan."

The current crop of Bollywood suits have no clue.
Digital won't accomplish anything but cause us more heartburn and save the movie corporations a billion dollars per year.

Yep, before DVD most customers thought we were using VCRs'.

Remember, Joe Six Pack is watching TV at home where everyone's faces are blazing green,and he/she is in perfect bliss with the picture quality.
 
Posted by Robert John Jeromson (Member # 2559) on 03-15-2006, 02:35 PM:
 
quote: Hillary Charles
Many people I know already believe that some form of "DVD"
Even supposedly enlightend people such as doctors stand in awe when I tell them that we are still using film.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-15-2006, 03:01 PM:
 
I've got my own little "public education program" going on here in an effort to emphasize that we still use film.

- We have a lobby display with historical stuff in it that has some info on film, and a sample
- On our website we have a projection booth tour with photos
- I leave the booth door open if I'm in the booth working on film, so people coming to the balcony can stick their heads in and look
- Our film is all shipped in and out from my day job, so I make sure to leave the cans in visible locations with the film titles showing so people can see them (it's a small store and we're close by all the time, so the film is perfectly safe, distributors)

Even with that, we still get people who think we can rewind the show if they're late, or just play whatever movie we want, or express shock when they see me carrying the cans in or out.
 
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-15-2006, 08:41 PM:
 
quote:
- I leave the booth door open if I'm in the booth working on film, so people coming to the balcony can stick their heads in and look
We're to the point where we can't really do that anymore. The booth tours, while popular and a lot of fun for me, stopped when some 6 year-old reached out and stopped the moving turntable... with predictable results.

I'm probably going to put cameras upstairs, so people can see parts of the booth from the snack bar.

Seems to me that the public's perception that we're running DVDs might have started in the schools. The kids don't see those projectors on carts anymore. Super 8 was replaced in the home long before that. Nobody sees film equipment work unless they go to a theatre that has big booth windows, or a drive-in with a ground-floor booth.

They're still fascinated by it, though!
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-15-2006, 10:23 PM:
 
quote: Darryl Spicer
Digital cinema may not be ready to roll
No Kiddin! Some of yous guys with alot of time on your hands SHOULD really put up web sites explaining why its not ready, what the problems are, and why its not as good as 35mm, that there will be just as many or more problems with it and so on and so forth instead of wasting time posting your complaints here. No one that matters is going to see your posts on this site. Create a very informative anfd factful website and e-mail its link to every person with an e-mail address in every distributers office in the country. Had I the time I would certainly be doing it but I don't. Its apparent that the news media is never going to report it for what it really is so its up to you [thumbsup] .

www.whydcinemasucks.com would be a good domain name [Big Grin]

Mark
 
Posted by Robert John Jeromson (Member # 2559) on 03-16-2006, 01:58 AM:
 
quote:
They're still fascinated by it, though!
One of our Auckland complexes incorporates part of its projection room as the entrance to its circle lounge 1st class seating, it is an aesthetical beauty that has the (working) equipment on display and has projectionists (often) interacting with the public. The expensive ticket price keeps out most of those likely to interfere and for the rest it is a unique experience.
 
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-16-2006, 02:24 AM:
 
I don't know of any cinema still using them, and there are not many still in use elsewhere, but what really used to fascinate people were mercury arc rectifiers.
 
Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 03-16-2006, 04:26 AM:
 
There is at least one still in ue to my knowledge Stephen, Hewitic IIRC. Fascinating piece of kit, like something straight out of Dr Who!
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-16-2006, 04:27 AM:
 
quote: Stephen Furley
I don't know of any cinema still using them, and there are not many still in use elsewhere, but what really used to fascinate people were mercury arc rectifiers.
Stephen, I think that is because they have such a sci-fi look to them, as do carbon arcs. I had a technician come it to help me install the reverse scan readers because I found I didn't have (or more likely couldn't find) some of my test loops. Now this guy is has been doing this for a living for decades and when everything was completed and tested and working fine, we wanted to run a reel of the sneak AMERICAN DREAMZ. I threaded up and was ready to go when he stopped me and said, oh, but do it with the lamphouse struck. But why? Because he LOVED to see those carbons and hear the smack-hiss when they strike. I obliged. There sure is something awe inspiring about being able to sense that real power by seeing the light (and in the case of the carbons, the sound -- very much like what Lucas used for the light-sabers). Mercury bulbs have that sci-fi-ish look.

BTW, if Hollywood thinks that using digital video instead of film projection to show dog diarrea the likes of AMERICAN DREAMZ and somehow THAT is going to lure people back into the theatres to pay $10.50 a ticket, well, then I REALLY have to ask, can these people actually be THAT dillusional? Or do they know deep down that it is all a scam just so that they can save their billion a year in print costs at the expense of the exhibitors, who seem to be walking around hypnotized.

So perhaps it's not the studios execs who are the half-wits, but the exhibitors. Can't they see that this huge investment in digital will add exponentially to their maintenance and operational costs and debt service while gaining them NOTHING...not an IOTA of saleability to the public who will keep staying away from the same reasons they stay away now, and it's NOT image jitter!!

Can't they see that the studios will not only keep churning out incredibly horrid films like AMERICAN DREAMZ, but at the same time will be SHOOTING THE EXHIBITOR IN THE BALLS by moving closer and closer to what they REALLY salivate over -- DAY AND DATE with DVD. How can exhibition think the studios are anyone to "partner" with when they openly announce that what use to be their "ancillary" markets (video, cable, PPV) are now their PRIMARY source of profit, with theatres increasingly becoming an annoying cold-sore pucker of their assholes? Exhibition seems to be following this digital Pied Piper right over the cliff to mediocrity.

Where are those exhibitors who went screaming and kicking for a decade before finally breaking down and installing Dolby STEREO? (There is a multiplex in Brooklyn that STILL has some of its screens playing MONO while other were upgraded to front/read "stereo"). Where are the exhibitors we all knew and loved who won't buy new bulbs until you could barely see the image? Now exhibitors seem to think nothing of jumbing on this $120,000 per screen bandwaggon with the hopes of NOTHING in return. I don't get it; have they all been lobotomized? Has distribution put something in the drinks at ShowWest? Or is there even something more cynical going on here....some conspiracy that will allow Hollywood to take over every cinema screen and video outlet in the world? Something under the surface here doesn't meet the eye. I have a sickening feeling we will find out what it is when it is too late and down will come The Bijoux marquee and up will go the corporate logo of TIME-WARNER-REGAL-COMCAST-NEWS COMPANY-SONY THEATRES-FOX-TECHNICOLOR all merged into one global conglomerate. And we....we will be doomed to mediocrity.
 
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-16-2006, 07:20 AM:
 
quote:
There is at least one still in ue to my knowledge Stephen, Hewitic IIRC. Fascinating piece of kit, like something straight out of Dr Who!
I don't know for certain, but I would guess that Hewitic rectifiers are related to Peter Cooper-Hewitt, who designed the first practical mercury vapour lamp. Info here: It was a weird thing, with a large bulb of mercury at one end. To start it you tilted the lamp so that the mercury ran along the tube until it touched the other electrode, then let it run back, which struck the arc.

The Post Office underground railway used to have mercury rectifiers, but they were replaced several years before it closed. The Isle of Man electric railway also had them, but they were gradually being replaced several years ago, I don't know if there are any left. Most of the main-line railway ones were steel tanks, big 12 anode things, I've seen one which, in its tank was about 2 metres high, and about 2.5 metres in diameter. There were some substations on the London Underground which used very large glass bulbs; when I was young I used to like to look through the keyhole of one, to see the strange blue glow which filled the whole building; now long gone. Going back to even older technology, the New York Subway only shut down its last 25Hz. rotary converters in 1999. A few 60Hz. automatic ones on the IND division lasted slightly longer.

The last few mercury rectifiers I have seen were in lift machine rooms. We had our last D.C. lift replaced at the College where I work last year, but that was motor-generator powered. There's a picture of one powering a lift at Belsize Park deep-level shelter a few years ago on this web page Again, I don't know if it's still there.

Is the one you know of in a cinema; I didn't know there were any left? I've also seen them used for charging very large batteries, and in a plating works.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-16-2006, 07:38 AM:
 
With well over 10 BILLION feet of print film sold by Kodak every year, SOMEBODY is still using film. [Cool]

Worldwide, less than 1 percent of theatre screens are showing movies using a Digital Cinema projection system. That's SEVEN years after the Digital Cinema hype started at ShoWest in March 1999.

When you decide it's the right time to install Digital Cinema, please look at what Kodak has to offer:

Kodak Digital Cinema System

quote:
For feature presentations, we've introduced the Kodak CineServer, often used in conjunction with Barco DLP100 2K projectors. The Kodak CineServer is an easy-to-use networked solution designed and developed with Kodak's depth of image science and decades of market experience in the motion picture industry. The Kodak CineServer is also available as a single screen product for emerging markets and screening rooms.

The Kodak Digital Cinema system for pre-show applications and feature presentations is supported by Kodak's worldwide field service and support force. Taken together, the systems and services provide a full 'menu of choices' to enable customers to get started with Kodak today and to stay with Kodak as their digital cinema needs evolve.

 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-16-2006, 09:34 AM:
 
quote: Frank Angel
BTW, if Hollywood thinks that using digital video instead of film projection to show dog diarrea the likes of AMERICAN DREAMZ and somehow THAT is going to lure people back into the theatres to pay $10.50 a ticket, well, then I REALLY have to ask, can these people actually be THAT dillusional? Or do they know deep down that it is all a scam just so that they can save their billion a year in print costs at the expense of the exhibitors, who seem to be walking around hypnotized.
"Hollywood" is just a giant corporation trying to maximize profits like any other corporation. If they can get someone else to eat costs (exhibitors in this case) they will do it. All movie theatres are for most movies these days are just advertisments for the DVD.
Ok, corporate cinemas are also a bait and switch concession operations. Very little of the whole process is about film quality of any sort.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-16-2006, 02:46 PM:
 
quote: Martin McCaffery
All movie theatres are for most movies these days are just advertisments for the DVD
I hate this phrase. Without the theatrical release, a DVD is nowhere. I like the "engine that pulls the train" analogy. Without the engine, the cars just sit there.
 
Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 03-16-2006, 03:51 PM:
 
Thank you Mark for those comments. It's what I've saying for years. It's funny how people have been saying for many years now that digital is here and ready. They are no more ready today than they were then. I laugh when I hear about it. It's not going to happen anytime soon. If and when it does, the problems are going to be hell. Cant wait for that. Haha [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 03-16-2006, 04:11 PM:
 
And to fix those problems they'll need projection engineers. The standard run of the mill usher-be won't have a clue. [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 03-16-2006, 06:16 PM:
 
I have seen what a no-nothing, know-it-all can do to a video projector, it isn't pretty. When the usher-want-to-be-a-projectionist is told to "fix it, fix it" by the managemnet-moron types, things will go very wrong, and will end up costing lots of money, and will put that screen out of service for a few days. And you know people will be trying to hack the servers, CRASH! This will also cost big bucks, and take some time to fix. As with most greedy corporations, they only think about this quater, there is no thought about the future.

What happened to the Sony 4K projector? Is it still not ready, or is there no server that can supply data that fast for 2 or 3 hours?
 
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-16-2006, 06:36 PM:
 
My understanding is that production Digital TV will now allow local access, so local "repair" will not be possible. Louis
 
Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 03-16-2006, 07:07 PM:
 
quote: Bruce Hansen
Is it still not ready, or is there no server that can supply data that fast for 2 or 3 hours?
Supplying the data isn't a problem. Nor will supporting that infrastructure. Fibre runs would probably be needed, both for distance limitations, and for bandwith.

Throw some EMC or NetApp equipment in there, and you're set. The EMC Clariion CX700 has a throughput of just over 1 GB/s (not Gb)

Support will be remote, probably from India or China. Only local intervention will be to change the bulbs in the projectors, and clean the optic path.

Theaters will REALLY need to invest in power infrastructure when they go digital. Computer hardware does not like having its power unexpectedly removed.
 
Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 03-16-2006, 08:05 PM:
 
quote: Darryl Spicer
Moreover, Carmike Cinemas Inc. (CKEC.O: Quote, Profile, Research), the No. 3 U.S. theater chain, began installing digital systems on all its 2,300 screens after receiving assurances from Christie/AIX, a venture of AccessIT and projector maker Christie Systems, that non-compliant components will be upgraded.
So what does this mean for Carmike? Is it a bust or will they still got thru with the installation? I was crossing my fingers my theater would get one, just so I could say "yeah...we have a DLP...."
 
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 03-16-2006, 08:13 PM:
 
Bobby poses the argument that the future of exhibition will be large format film and 2K digital and his reasoning is sound.

Can you see distributors giving a $100,000 DC projector to community-run cinemas in rural areas? Or to an indie single screen that grosses $200,000 per annum?

There is an alternative scenario.

The evolution that is here now could be the actual path to the future.

In Australia and New Zealand (and I am sure elsewhere), film distributors are already distributing limited-release features on hard drive via Maxtor-type units for video projection on 1K+ projectors. When the feature was originated on tape or 16mm, this is a satisfactory presentation because, in my experience, by the time you get the used 35mm print it looks fairly shoddy, the digital track doesnt work and the heat has gone off the demand. Also, the distributor is not insisting on more sessions than would be viable for the film they dont need the print back. Conversely, the hard drive is on the cinemas computer so if there is a demand for a few more sessions it is possible.

The kind of video projectors in use for this purpose in Oz are typically 1-2K, adapted for cinemas (including Isco lenses).

The transfers to hard drive are done by a specialist and the image is acceptable for 16x9 screening on the more intimate cinemas where these films would usually be wanted anyway. With these limited releases the alternative is that the films would not get outside capital cities where the few prints are tied up for many months.

The same goes for the other side of the camera. For low budget film makers, the choice is usually video or 16 (occasionally Super 8), sometimes with basic production values, including lighting, so a 35mm blow-up doesnt give a better result on the screen than the hard drive copy. Perhaps a new print might be different but this doesnt happen with these films outside the cities.

We have screened features this way but this is not mainstream cinema and we refuse to accept this method where a decent film print is available and never for 2.4 format. We wait for a print, but not forever. If the quality isnt there in the first place, a better projector is not going to help. Yes, I have had the opportunity to check them side by side. I repeat that this is not a substitute for 35mm film presentation but people outside capital cities can now be given the opportunity of enjoying specialist films in a cinema environment.

The projectors currently in use for this specialist product are improving with every new model, to the extent that I can see the massively expensive DC models missing out. Why spend $100,000 when a $15,000 video projector will do this job and 35mm film (also developing more rapidly than DC proponents will admit) is superior and more reliable. The video projectors enjoy a healthy market in big convention rooms, so their makers can afford the R & D to compete. It is doubtful that the monster DC machines would be competitive in that market.

Kodak has a solid R & D programme for film and I hear that other film manufacturers are not sitting on their hands.

The DC guys are salivating over the 100,000 sales potential of their projectors but that is also a good market for film projection at a fraction of the cost. 70mm for huge screens and 35mm for screens that are comfortably big.

As the commercial lower-cost video projectors have gone into booths for pre-show and specialist releases, they sit beside 35 and 70 film equipment showing everything else. DCs main competition might be the evolution of these species. Unless the VERY expensive DC models go 4K+ at $50,000 they could miss out. Before we pronounce film as dead it might be sobering to consider what is happening right now in the marketplace. Does the industry need a 16-wheeler when a van can deliver the same goods? And the van has got there first.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-16-2006, 09:27 PM:
 
quote: Ron Curran
Can you see distributors giving a $100,000 DC projector to community-run cinemas in rural areas? Or to an indie single screen that grosses $200,000 per annum?
Absolutely or the lawsuite will be so deep as to bury digital stuff all by themselves. While the small towns may not have the 100K they can certainly afford to hire attorneys. In this conversion they are going to have to treat everyone equally or the shit that happens as a result will be neck deep.

Mark
 
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-17-2006, 02:13 AM:
 
That's pretty much what the UKFC scheme is doing, or claims to be doing, though mainstream-ish cinemas in London do seem to be getting more than their share of the allocations, from the list that I saw. I also understand that some cinemas which were selected have dropped out, due to either practical difficulties with installing the equipment, i.e. finding space for it, or the cost to the cinema to undertake the necessary building, electrical or other necessary upgrade works being too high for them to afford.

Has anybody heard any further news on the UKFC scheme? How many cinemas have now had the equipment installed? How many of them are regularly using it? What films have been screened with it? Are there film prints of those films which could have been screened, if the digital equipment had not ben available? How many people have been able to see a film that they could not have seen, or which they could only have seen a poor print of, have been able to see it using the digital equipment? What about the cinemas that applied, but were not selected, and will therefore be at a disadvantage if less, or no, prints are made of the type of films involved, due to the large number of cinemas which will have had the digital equipment provided for them? Lots of questions; but not many answers yet.
 
Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 03-17-2006, 04:04 AM:
 
Not a lot of them up here yet, none north of the border AFAIK.

Those that I've encountered in Englandcestershire are mainly being used for powerpoint presentations and screenings from DVD thus far.

Nice work if you can get it!
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-17-2006, 05:09 AM:
 
I saw Brief Encounter on the York DLP just before Christmas. I strongly suspect that the encoding was an up-res'ed rendering of a PAL telecine. The transfer appeared to be from quite a worn release print (contrast was high; little detail in black jackets or clouds). Depth and detail was roughly what I'd expect from a Beta SP played through a decent data projector, but no better. It was certainly better than a DVD, but there again so would a Beta SP played through a 20k S-XGA LCD projector have been. All in all I think I'd have preferred to see the print from which this transfer was made. The system is clearly capable of more, because Darren's shown me bits of Narnia on it which really do upstage a typical mass-run 'scope release print for clarity and saturation. A friend who saw the DLP Black Narcissus at another cinema reported similar thoughts.

But really, this is as I feared: decent high-def transfers of older or less mainstream material don't seem to be happening, and the net effect of the scheme appears to be subsidising mainstream film distribution. None of the art/rep HD transfers I've seen here come remotely close to the quality of the demonstrations I saw at last autumn's AMIA conference.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-17-2006, 09:23 AM:
 
quote:
Those that I've encountered in Englandcestershire are mainly being used for powerpoint presentations and screenings from DVD thus far. Nice work if you can get it!
No, it's not. DVD is a really crappy presentation format. Every disk is authored differently and things that should be simple (like turning on subtitles) work differently on every disk (some require using menus, some require hitting the "subtitle" button on the remote, some disks just don't play at all due to region coding or poor authoring, etc., etc.). Also, unskippablele content and on-screen displays from the players are no fun, either.

Give me 35mm, 16mm, or a professional video format (Beta, Digi-Beta, HDCAM, etc.) any day over DVD for public exhibition.
 
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 03-17-2006, 05:26 PM:
 
quote: Jason Burroughs
Only local intervention will be to change the bulbs in the projectors, and clean the optic path.
So, are you saying that if the thing has a problem you throw it away, and buy a new one? You cannot just ship the whole thing somewhere to be fixed. Even trouble shooting down to board level will require a well trained tech. This will not be doable over the phone. What if you need to replace one of the DLP chips, and then have to realign the unit? I work on broadcast equipment, so I know what is involved. How do you think the magament-moron types are going to react when they are told that screen will be dark for a couple of days (at least)?
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-17-2006, 05:55 PM:
 
Probably no different than if the intermittent goes out and you have to wait for the new part to come in. Basically oh well shit happens. The question is How often would that occurrence happen? You might go a whole year or two or even more with film projectors not keeping you off the screen for prolonged periods of time.
 
Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 03-17-2006, 09:57 PM:
 
I suspect that local bulb-swaps and optics cleaning will be it for the staff, everything else and a computer tech will arrive from one of the already existing chains of computer maintenence folks.
 
Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 03-17-2006, 11:13 PM:
 
As already stated, there is already an entire industry surrounding information services.

All the components will more likely be in various modules, if that particular module or part fails, a replacement is sent and the defective part is RMAed, sent back to China to be repaired on the component level.

If Dell can create service level agrements for 4 hour repairs, its not a large leap over to digital projection.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-18-2006, 04:22 AM:
 
quote: Scott Norwood
No, it's not. DVD is a really crappy presentation format.
I think Pete was being ironic, trying to point out that UK taxpayers appear to be in the process of blowing 150k per screen for a few hundred theatres, putting in kit which, in reality, is being used to do a job which could be done equally well with hardware costing 15-20k.

quote: Scott Norwood
Every disk is authored differently and things that should be simple (like turning on subtitles) work differently on every disk (some require using menus, some require hitting the "subtitle" button on the remote, some disks just don't play at all due to region coding or poor authoring, etc., etc.). Also, unskippablele content and on-screen displays from the players are no fun, either.
If you do have to project DVDs on a big screen, the biggest variable I've found is the bitrate at which the stream is encoded rather than any of the user interface authoring aspects. If you compare a disc which has a two hour, 16:9 colour feature crammed onto one single-layer disc with an 80-minute b/w Academy feature on a double-layer disc, on which the bitrate never goes below 7.5, the difference is like the difference between Super 8 and 35mm.
 
Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 03-18-2006, 11:07 AM:
 
Leo that was precisely my point, evidently made too subtly!

Scott, any DVD that I've seen used for exhibition here is not the standard release you can buy at Asda (Walmart), they don't have all the crap that retial DVDs have. There is a distributor here in the UK called Filmbank who specialise in theatrical DVD, really intended for film clubs, schools etc, sometimes they end up being run in cinemas. If you can't get a print.....

Leo, have you seen anything from these upscaling DVD players? I've seen one of them on screen via an Arts Alliance DLP (it's a Christie) and the result was not bad, the shadows and highlights are mush, but that's the nature of the beast. Was on a giant screen too, and I was pleasantly surprised.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-19-2006, 05:53 AM:
 
I've seen a two-minute snatch of a DVD played through the AA DLP in Screen 2 at York. To be honest I didn't see enough to be able to say whether it looked like an improvement on the same player connected to a 15k LCD job. It probably did a little bit, but when your source uses the amount of lossy compression needed to crunch a two-hour movie into 4-8gb, even the most expensive up-res and projection technology isn't going to help it beyond a certain point.
 
Posted by Paul Van Dusen (Member # 3640) on 03-22-2006, 09:57 PM:
 
What i'm waiting for is opening night of the Matrix 37, your halfway into the show, and then, all of the sudden.....BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH! I really hate to say it, but i'm gonna laugh my ass off. Honestly, when it comes to D-Cinema, if i wanted to watch dvd quality, i'd watch a dvd. Call me crazy but i prefer the imperfect perfection of film. It's like the epic cd vs. vinyl battle. Vinyl is better as is film, they just need to accept that.
 
Posted by Dominic Case (Member # 1830) on 03-23-2006, 12:53 AM:
 
quote:
I think Pete was being ironic, trying to point out that UK taxpayers appear to be in the process of blowing ?150k per screen for a few hundred theatres, putting in kit which, in reality, is being used to do a job which could be done equally well with hardware costing ?15-20k.
Well it's not strictly the UK taxpayers, Leo, as (if I understand it correctly), the UKFC project is funded by National Lottery money. (not that lottery tickets aren't bought by taxpayers, but it's not tax money).

But I agree that there are many applications for digital projection where the full DCI spec 2K installations with bullet-proof encryption are over-the-top.

If Hollywood is trying to manage a substitution process, to show mainstream studio pictures in a new process, then it has to be sure that digital projection in mainstream venues is as good or better than it is in 35mm, and as secure. (I'm not entering into an argument about whether they achieved that with DCI).

BUT, if the object is to bring films to audiences that can't see those films any other way, probably in smaller venues, then the issues and criteria can be very different,and so can the costs.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-23-2006, 02:34 AM:
 
quote: Dominic Case
Well it's not strictly the UK taxpayers, Leo, as (if I understand it correctly), the UKFC project is funded by National Lottery money. (not that lottery tickets aren't bought by taxpayers, but it's not tax money).
There seems to be some confusion about that. The last time I looked, the Lottery is not mentioned anywhere on the DCN pages on FCUK's website (the acronym sounds better that way, doesn't it?); and given that whenever we've received Lottery money for a project, it's been a contractual condition that we plaster their logo over everything - even the bog roll, it seems - that's a bit surprising. But I've now had several people remark that this project was funded by RIFE Lottery money. So what the actual score is I really don't know - and being cynical, I suspect that FCUK probably doesn't want us to know.

quote:
BUT, if the object is to bring films to audiences that can't see those films any other way, probably in smaller venues, then the issues and criteria can be very different, and so can the costs.
Granted, but I still don't think that the either the technologically most appropriate or best value for money solution is to get 2k DLP projectors and use them to show either bogstandard DVDs or SD Digibeta transfers which have been up-res-ed to an HD format, which is what seems to be happening with a significant number of non-mainstream releases. The actual effect of this scheme so far seems to be subsidising the distribution of Hollywood blockbusters.
 
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 03-23-2006, 04:54 AM:
 
quote: Dominic Case
BUT, if the object is to bring films to audiences that can't see those films any other way, probably in smaller venues, then the issues and criteria can be very different,and so can the costs.
good intentions and all, i suppose, but once something gets done half-assed, it all too often stays half-assed and noone puts any effort towards a proper solution. i, for one, want to see my films fully-assed. i refuse to buy into the impossibility of a small number of prints actually finding their way around the countryside. the lost art of good film-handling could certainly be rediscovered if anyone in a position of authority cared enough to go that route.

if showing poor video versions of films counts as access, then far better access could be provided by broadcasting them to television sets or renting them out at video stores. in fact, hasn't that been going on for years? i'm sure a national broadcast or the production of whatever number of videocassettes is much less cost and hassle than outfitting a bunch of outpost cinemas with expensive "kit", maintaining it, and doing whatever mastering is necessary to get the "films" into the right format to be shown. and everybody already has a tv (or "access" to one).

the only thing being accomplished here is the further diminution of the odds of an actual film print ever reaching a cinema out in the boonies.
 
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-23-2006, 05:03 AM:
 
quote: Leo Enticknap
There seems to be some confusion about that. The last time I looked, the Lottery is not mentioned anywhere on the DCN pages on FCUK's website (the acronym sounds better that way, doesn't it?); and given that whenever we've received Lottery money for a project, it's been a contractual condition that we plaster their logo over everything - even the bog roll, it seems - that's a bit surprising. But I've now had several people remark that this project was funded by RIFE Lottery money. So what the actual score is I really don't know - and being cynical, I suspect that FCUK probably doesn't want us to know.
I'm sure you're correct about the last bit; I'm sure they don't want us to know lots of things about this scheme, beyond the fact that they're putting lots of shiny new equipment into cnemas.

What's RIFE by the way?

quote: Leo Enticknap
Granted, but I still don't think that the either the technologically most appropriate or best value for money solution is to get 2k DLP projectors and use them to show either bogstandard DVDs or SD Digibeta transfers which have been up-res-ed to an HD format, which is what seems to be happening with a significant number of non-mainstream releases. The actual effect of this scheme so far seems to be subsidising the distribution of Hollywood blockbusters.
Well, it's certainly not the best value for money solution; I don't think anybody could dispute that. I would doubt that even Digi-Beta is going to find its way into most cinemas, the equipment is too expensive. If video is going to be used then it is more likely to come from DVD, DV of some sort of hard disk based system I think. A case could be made for doing this for material that is not available on film, or was produced on video, and it could be done at vastly lower cost than the UKFC scheme.

Sadly, so far this seems to be turning out the way I thought it would. Of course, in some years time maybe more films of the type intended will be available in digital form, and this will become the normal way of screening them. However, I think we can be pretty sure that the digital projection equipment available then will be both better and cheaper than that available now. I've seen seen serious predictions that the life of the current projectors may be only five years; if that proves to be the case then I think many of the UKFC scheme ones will see little use during much of their life. What's the betting that by that time parts for these 'ancient' machines will be unavailable, or prohibitivly expensive? For the foreseeable future going digital only will not be an option for the sort of cinemas intended to benefit from this scheme; there's no way that all of the films that they want to show are going to be transferred overnight, I would say that several decades is a more realistic estimate, so for many years cinemas are going to have to pay to maintain both film and digital equipment; more expense. Should the production of digital transfers be partly financed by reducing or eliminating the production of film prints for new releases? Where does that leave cinemas not lucky enough to be selected to receive equipment from this scheme? If the production of film prints were to cease within the next few years the effect would be to close most British independent cinemas not looked after by the UKFC; there is simply no way that most of them could afford to buy it themselves. Still lots of questions, and very few answers. I still want to see published a list of screenings made using this equipment which could not have taken place without it, and the numbers of people who attended those screenings. I would not include screenings from DVD, or other standard definition video sources, because these could be done using much cheaper equipment. I do not expect any such list to be published, but without it the success of this scheme cannot be judged. Leo, like you I am also cynical; I suspect that is exactly how the UKFC want it to be.
 
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 03-23-2006, 09:25 AM:
 
quote: Paul Van Dusen
What i'm waiting for is opening night of the Matrix 37, your halfway into the show, and then, all of the sudden.....BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH! I really hate to say it, but i'm gonna laugh my ass off.
Ummm, I guess you don't have any knowledge of how the playback systems work. You will never see a BSOD as Windows is not involved in the playback. It is used for user interface, monitoring, and platter building. The player is a separate piece of hardware that does the decoding of the input data stream.

Also, not all systems use Windows. I have no experience with the others, but Dolby is based on Unix.

Now the NCM pre-show is possible because they 64bit-XP and Windows Media Player to handle the Movie Tunes and "First Look". Haven't seen that happen yet either.

Finally, It's not DVD quality. Each frame is individually scanned and presented, just as in film. You should see it before forming an opinion. I've had a system in use for 6 years and have a customer base that comes from miles around to see it specifically on DLP.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-23-2006, 09:34 AM:
 
Here are the specifications for the Kodak CineServer for feature presentation:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/digital/cineServer.jhtml

Even the Kodak pre-show systems have operating systems based on a LINUX platform:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/digital/HiDefPreShow.jhtml

quote:
Network-based solution built on the LINUX platform, with all systems and services:
Rugged, reliable, and compatible with Kodak's in-cinema network
Able to support a variety of projectors - including the INFOCUS 333 DLP 3-chip HD projector, available as partof the KODAK System
Driven by unique KODAK Software and supported by KODAK Service, worldwide

 
Posted by Paul Van Dusen (Member # 3640) on 03-23-2006, 09:36 AM:
 
quote: Paul Konen
Ummm, I guess you don't have any knowledge of how the playback systems work. You will never see a BSOD as Windows is not involved in the playback. It is used for user interface, monitoring, and platter building. The player is a separate piece of hardware that does the decoding of the input data stream.

Also, not all systems use Windows. I have no experience with the others, but Dolby is based on Unix.

Now the NCM pre-show is possible because they 64bit-XP and Windows Media Player to handle the Movie Tunes and "First Look". Haven't seen that happen yet either.

Finally, It's not DVD quality. Each frame is individually scanned and presented, just as in film. You should see it before forming an opinion. I've had a system in use for 6 years and have a customer base that comes from miles around to see it specifically on DLP.
Ok, the bkue screen of death was more of a bit of sarcasm. I assumed if it used anything it would be a unix based system as they are much more stable than any windows system that has ever been created. While i understand that as you've been running the system for 6 years and i haven't, you know more than i do. My information is mostly based on the little bit of info our DM told us, but he didn't go too into detail because the carmike discount houses, like ours, won't be getting d-cinema. It just seems like more of a headache than it's worth.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-23-2006, 09:50 AM:
 
I once saw a BSOD on one of those little 7" LCDs which are drop down from the luggage rack bulkhead in an airliner to show you the safety video. The video was half way through telling you what to do if the plane crashes into the sea, when up came the BSOD.

I hope to goodness that none of the really critical systems (like the automatic pilot and navigation systems, for example), are run under Windows!

Stephen: RIFE is the Regional Investment Fund for England - a pot of Lottery money which is distributed by FCUK.
 
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-23-2006, 09:58 AM:
 
quote:
Here are the specifications for the Kodak CineServer for feature presentation:
Are the various systems compatible? i.e. if one cinema installs the Kodak system and another the Dolby system for example, can the same files be delivered to, and used by both?
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-23-2006, 10:32 AM:
 
quote: Stephen Furley
Are the various systems compatible? i.e. if one cinema installs the Kodak system and another the Dolby system for example, can the same files be delivered to, and used by both?
Both the DCI and proposed SMPTE DC28 specifications call for "interoperability", and a move to a single file structure for the Digital Cinema Distribution Master DCDM. The Kodak CineServer, which includes KODAK Color Science, plays MXF-packaged, JPEG2000-compressed digital movies at up to 250 Mbits/sec, per DCI specifications. The CineServer has been used with a variety of projectors -- e.g., even though Kodak has partnered with Barco, a Christie projector was used for the screening of "Walk the Line" at ShowEast using the Kodak CineServer.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=115911&p=irol-newsArticle_Print&ID=722984&highlight=

quote:
LOS ANGELES & BRUSSELS, Belgium, Jun 22, 2005 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Eastman Kodak Company and Barco announced today they have formed a strategic alliance to more effectively serve the worldwide digital cinema market with a full menu of products, systems, and services, including installation and support.

Kodak has a legacy of innovation in entertainment imaging and is the world's leading independent supplier of digital cinema systems for pre-show use; Barco is a worldwide leader in high-quality, high-resolution digital cinema projection systems and is one of only three licensees of Texas Instruments DLP Cinema(TM) Technology.

The new alliance has two purposes: It enables each company to sell - and to provide support for - complete integrated digital cinema solutions. The solutions will combine systems and services from each company, optimized for image quality and reliability. The alliance also will allow Kodak and Barco to collaborate on innovative and differentiated solutions for the future.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/digital/index.jhtml

quote:
For feature presentations, we've introduced the Kodak CineServer, often used in conjunction with Barco DLP100 2K projectors. The Kodak CineServer is an easy-to-use networked solution designed and developed with Kodak's depth of image science and decades of market experience in the motion picture industry. The Kodak CineServer is also available as a single screen product for emerging markets and screening rooms.


 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 03-23-2006, 05:05 PM:
 
quote:
I hope to goodness that none of the really critical systems (like the automatic pilot and navigation systems, for example), are run under Windows!
I'm sure that those are either proprietary OS or Unix based. Either way, they have to be redundant and in order to get certified to fly the failure rate has to be something rediculously low (1 x 10^-9 is ringing a bell). If planes were flying on Windows, there would probably be several crashes a day.
 
Posted by Dominic Case (Member # 1830) on 03-23-2006, 05:17 PM:
 
quote: Carl Martin
i refuse to buy into the impossibility of a small number of prints actually finding their way around the countryside.
It's not the physical problem, it's the commercial one, for the distributors. With the number of films coming out these days, and the number of competing attractions for our leisure dollar, films need promoting. And it's not a matter of running local advertising in the local newspaper these days - campaigns are national if not international. If the film shows up in a country town two months after it's been promoted on TV and talked about on the internet (let alone downloaded off the internet!) the local cinema owner is going to have problems getting an audience. And small-budget films (here at any rate) simply don't get enough prints made to cover the countryside simultaneously.

Understand that I am not talking about Hollywood studio films here, nor am I talking about US demographics, film distribution economics, or population distribution.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-23-2006, 06:13 PM:
 
quote: Dominic Case
And it's not a matter of running local advertising in the local newspaper these days - campaigns are national if not international.
That's for sure. AFAIC, our local advertising's main purpose is to let the people know what we're showing. They've already made up their mind if they want to see it or not before the movie comes out, thanks to the media and the trailers we've shown. Word of mouth finishes the job, for better or worse.
 
Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 03-24-2006, 06:06 AM:
 
The Arts Centre in my village has been showing DVDs supplied by Filmbank for over four years now replacing 16mm. Also mobile operators I know have no choice but to screen DVDs because 16mm prints are no longer available. One of them has however changed to portable 35mm.

I had a very interesting visit last week to a large multiplex cinema, to see a Barco DLP projector with a Dolby Digital Cinema server working, installed for showing Disney’s “Chicken Little 3D”. They are also having an UKFC Christie DLP being installed shortly along with many other cinemas listed.

Here is the first UKFC purely digital DLP single screen cinema now open in Kent. It will be interesting to see how successful this will be in a small country town, showing four different films daily. I thought that £7.50 admission was a bit steep though.

http://www.kinocinemas.co.uk/home.htm

There is also a DLP/ DVD cinema in Gloucestershire recently reopened previously 35mm.

http://www.wottoneph.co.uk/
 
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 03-24-2006, 07:13 PM:
 
Great links Bernard -

The advent of the purely digital cinema - wow!

Terrific builds / rebuilds as well - very interesting.

Note though in the case of the former cinema:

"Kino's digital content will be supplied by the world's first digital networks the UKFC's DSN [digital screen network] and Brazil's Rain Network, both offering exciting and diverse programming"

What if they want to show anything else? Are they constrained to just this programming?

Also re. the latter:

"It will be showing films from DVD and S-VHS sources, using modern high-resolution digital projection. Since new releases will not be immediately available, the Electric Picture House will concentrate on providing a mix of films. Ultimately, we hope to introduce ultra-high resolution digital projection so that we can offer new releases in our programme. This will be subject to negotiations with the Distributors."

A pity, since DVD and S-VHS sources were never designed for large-screen projection.

It makes one wonder...would variety of programming be a problem in these digital-only cinema models? Also, here's the dilemma for these community cinemas - you get away from the bygone age of 16mm reduction prints, but the DVD-type replacement has its own quality issues.

[Same issue in Ireland BTW - many film societies went to DVD [Frown] ...but then at the same time, and sad to relate, nearly all the ones that went to 35mm did so using the cheapest and worst installations possible [Eek!] ]
 
Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 03-25-2006, 06:51 AM:
 
quote: Brian Guckian
"Kino's digital content will be supplied by the world's first digital networks the UKFC's DSN [digital screen network] and Brazil's Rain Network, both offering exciting and diverse programming"

What if they want to show anything else? Are they constrained to just this programming?
I would like to think NOT if I was an exhibitor with a UKFC installation. Some cinemas will be screening live World Cup Football, but that was done four years ago so is nothing new.

quote: Brian Guckian
Also re. the latter:

"It will be showing films from DVD and S-VHS sources, using modern high-resolution digital projection. Since new releases will not be immediately available, the Electric Picture House will concentrate on providing a mix of films. Ultimately, we hope to introduce ultra-high resolution digital projection so that we can offer new releases in our programme. This will be subject to negotiations with the Distributors."

A pity, since DVD and S-VHS sources were never designed for large-screen projection.
No doubt they would have to upgrade their equipment to 2k for new releases.

quote: Brian Guckian
Same issue in Ireland BTW - many film societies went to DVD ...but then at the same time, and sad to relate, nearly all the ones that went to 35mm did so using the cheapest and worst installations possible.
Sad, the renters should check these places out and refuse product until proper standards are made.
 
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 03-27-2006, 03:25 AM:
 
quote: Dominic Case
It's not the physical problem, it's the commercial one, for the distributors. With the number of films coming out these days, and the number of competing attractions for our leisure dollar, films need promoting. And it's not a matter of running local advertising in the local newspaper these days - campaigns are national if not international. If the film shows up in a country town two months after it's been promoted on TV and talked about on the internet (let alone downloaded off the internet!) the local cinema owner is going to have problems getting an audience. And small-budget films (here at any rate) simply don't get enough prints made to cover the countryside simultaneously.

Understand that I am not talking about Hollywood studio films here, nor am I talking about US demographics, film distribution economics, or population distribution.
but isn't it the films that don't have huge national campaigns that we need to worry about? many films have to get by on local (often theater-specific) publicity and possibly trailers. that is, if anyone is willing to show them at all. that is where access is an issue and i don't see digital transfers being helpful, aesthetically or economically (unless they are video works to begin with).

surely this program was not conceived just to increase "access" to films that are blockbusters or at least are backed by hefty marketing?

or is my thinking, despite your admonition, colored by how things "work" in this country?
 
Posted by Dominic Case (Member # 1830) on 03-27-2006, 10:07 PM:
 
quote: Carl Martin
but isn't it the films that don't have huge national campaigns that we need to worry about?
Well, there's a lot of space between "huge national campaigns" and "relying on local or theatre-specific advertising".

My point is that huge national campaigns go together with large print orders, and every cinema in the major cities and many of those in smaller regional areas will be showing the "big" films in the same week. You can't miss them - the advertising is so pervasive - but also, it is very efficient.

Films that don't have a reasonable marketing effort are simply going to struggle to get the box office they might deserve. And that marketing effort is most efficient if you can promote the film everywhere at the same time. And that is only going make sense if you can screen it everywhere at the same time.

It's not the blockbusters that are running on at least one screen in every cinema in town that I'm thinking of - but it's the smaller films that might run to 20 or 30 prints nationally, and would not expect the same size of audience, but because of that simply never get out to the small country towns because they have to wait too long for a print, it's worn out when it arrives, and the freight on the print is likely to be enough to make it uneconomic.

That's the Australian argument - not sure what the rationale is for the UK Film Council project.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-28-2006, 01:13 AM:
 
That's precisely the argument being used by FCUK, the only difference being that in our scenario we're talking about replacing a 1-5 print release rather than 20-30. However, I believe that it is flawed on two counts.

Firstly, a national marketing campaign is a less important factor in attracting audiences in the case of 'arthouse' or minority interest titles (FCUK's preferred adjective is 'specialised'). We would often get these titles up to a year off release in the last theatre I worked at before leaving for the archive; and as long as the venue itself marketed them properly, they still did well. Point taken about knackered prints, as this was a serious problem. It was (and still is) made worse by the fact that the sort of venue which tends to show foreign-language or rerelease titles is exactly the sort of place which has a very limited technical budget, and is therefore likely to use old equipment, poorly maintained and operated by a comparatively low-skilled projectionist.

But I still maintain that the Digital Screen Network in the form that the scheme was launched is not a cost-effective answer. Firstly, the hardware was procured when d-cinema was still effectively an experiment, long before Moore's Law and economies of scale started to significantly reduce the unit price of projectors and servers. Secondly, the risk exists that this hardware will become obsolete in a very short timescale compared to that of 35mm equipment. Thirdly, d-cinema will only deliver the picture quality benefits proclaimed loudly and often by FCUK (i.e. no dirt and scratches) if a true HD transfer is made. The cost of that is at least the equivalent of 3-4 average 35mm prints, and can be a lot more if a new intermediate element needs to be struck for the transfer.

And finally, I believe that a substantial upgrade in both the availability and technical quality of 'specialised' titles for exhibition could have been achieved by investing, say, 10-20% of the DSN total in a thorough overhaul (and where necessary, upgrade) of existing 35mm installations in arthouse and rep venues, some projectionist training courses and a scheme for subsidising larger print runs of selected titles.

As it is, a large proportion of this scheme's budget appears to have been spent installing DLP projectors in mainstream theatres, many of which are being used primarily to show mainstream product. In short, taxpayers' and/or lottery players' money has been spent subsidising Hollywood who, having sat back while the public sector does the costly R & D, are likely to now move in with cheaper and more efficient systems. This really should have happened the other way round.
 
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 03-28-2006, 07:37 PM:
 
Just focussing in on this part of your post Leo:

quote: Leo Enticknap
And finally, I believe that a substantial upgrade in both the availability and technical quality of 'specialised' titles for exhibition could have been achieved by investing, say, 10-20% of the DSN total in a thorough overhaul (and where necessary, upgrade) of existing 35mm installations in arthouse and rep venues, some projectionist training courses and a scheme for subsidising larger print runs of selected titles.
Amen to that! That is one of the most sensible things I have heard for a long time. It's heartbreaking to see easily-remedied (for a very small amount of money) 35mm film handling and projection problems continuing, whilst money is spent by arts organisations even on conferences on d-cinema!

And - the likes of City Screen in the UK proved beyond doubt that you can have arthouse cinemas and high presentation standards and equipment specification. It's all in the passion and commitment to getting it right - and it never has to cost huge sums of money either!
 
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 03-29-2006, 02:04 AM:
 
A big problem seems to be "breakout" pix rather than the true specialised product. The latter are usually handled by specialised distribs who send them to the right locations over a few months. The breakout pix are sent to sit in unsympathetic locales till the Dolby Digital track doesn't work any more, while the cinemas that could do well with them have to wait forever.
 
Posted by Dan Suomi (Member # 2585) on 03-29-2006, 02:56 PM:
 
I was told today that our digital projector we just got for the Chicken Little roll out can't handle JPEG format, it can only handle MPEG format and now we have to get a converter chip or something to be able to run JPEG. I just think it's so funny that after all this hubbub about digital they can't even make films that are all in the same format. Next they will tell us that we need to buy another converter to play JPEG 3D. So much for the cost savings that were promised with that initial digital rollout. I just as much stay with film thank you very much.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-29-2006, 03:44 PM:
 
The move to MXF-Packaged JPEG2000 has been known for some time:

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

quote:
March 8, 2006. Kodak is demonstrating the first commercial version of its versatile new Kodak CineServer JMN3000, a digital cinema playback unit that handles JPEG and MPEG-compressed movies, including 3D MPEG features, automatically, and connects to the powerful Kodak network....

...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."

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/digital/featureSolution.jhtml

quote:
The CineServer, which includes KODAK Color Science, plays MXF-packaged, JPEG2000-compressed digital movies at up to 250 Mbits/sec, per DCI specifications.

 
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-29-2006, 04:11 PM:
 
I'm going to make a projector for 36.5mm film....I'll be rich like the Cinema TV guys!
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2