Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Doomsday is just around the corner and teaser titles are no longer allowed: free DLP!

This is topic Doomsday is just around the corner and teaser titles are no longer allowed: free DLP! 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=000053

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-24-1999, 12:58 AM:

Well, I keep hearing from different engineers that doomsday for 35mm film is just around the corner.

Apparently there is at least one manufacturer who is willing to basically give theaters all the digital video equipment for new installations in exchange for a tiny equipment rental fee. As I've heard it, they are trying to make it more appealing than buying 35mm projection equipment and that tiny fee is less than paying a real projectionist's salary. It is expected to have a couple of thousand units runing by the end of the year 2000! (This sounds awful familiar to the SDDS scam a couple of years back with AMC...trying to flood the market to ensure the "less than ideal" format would succeed.)

What a deal, eh?
Questions, reactions, comments???

[ 11-23-2004, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 06-24-1999, 08:04 AM:

I think that the comversion to digital projection might have a good comparison with the conersion to the reverse scan/red led conversion. New theaters might/will do it but the old ones will wait and see, and wait and wait. If it were me I would want to see the track record of these new fangled projectors, to see what the "catches" would/will be. I think the industry will be slow to convert.

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 06-25-1999, 01:07 AM:

I can't see how "digital" cinema (why don't they just call it television) will ever take off. Hell, they don't even have any standards yet. No compatibility.

At least with 35mm film you can project it in ANY theater in the world and regardless of whether the equipment is 60 years old or brand spanking new, you've got a show. What would happen if the video projector broke down on a busy Saturday night. How far would a tech have to come from? Or better still, how expensive would the repairs be?

I'LL choose film any day over video.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 11-22-2004, 01:08 PM:

It has been 1977 days since the last post.

Posted by Timothy Eiler (Member # 383) on 11-22-2004, 01:08 PM:

Still waiting for the free digital video equipment.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-22-2004, 01:26 PM:

Kodak Digital Cinema at ShowEast 2004:

http://www.kodak.com/go/dcinema

quote:
ORLANDO, FLORIDA, (October 22, 2004) - Eastman Kodak Company announced today at the annual ShowEast Conference that the company is taking a major step forward in its goal of making high-quality digital cinema available for motion picture exhibitors around the world. The company is demonstrating the Kodak Digital Cinema Solution for Feature Presentations, a bundled package of hardware, software, and support services.

Kodak CineServer
The core of the package is a unique Kodak CineServer, which includes proprietary color technology and image science to deliver high-quality images to the cinema screen. The full solution includes preparation and distribution of content and technical support.

"This is a significant step in our continuing commitment to help assure the evolution of digital cinema in ways that best serve the interests of exhibitors, studios, the creative community and the movie-going public," said Bill Doeren, general manager of Kodak Digital Cinema.

Doeren emphasized that Kodak sees digital cinema as a whole new process that involves the preparation, distribution, and display of movies in a new way.

"Our approach," said Doeren, "is to offer a menu of choices to help simplify complexity, to provide the solutions they need to 'go digital' when they're ready, and to assure them of the quality and attention they expect when working with Kodak."

Kodak services include preparation of the Digital Source Master files by LaserPacific, a Kodak company. LaserPacific provides complete digital postproduction services, including digital intermediates, encryption, compression, and encoding in digital cinema color space, all designed to enable audiences to experience movies they way the filmmakers intended.

The digital content is transferred to a hard disk drive or DVD-ROM, which are distributed to cinemas. The disks are loaded into the Kodak CineServer, which decrypts and decompresses the movie and sends it to a cinema-grade digital projector to play on the theatre screen.

Customers can choose the projector brand and quality level to best meet their current needs. The Kodak server is compatible with projectors up to and including those with 2K resolution.

"The Kodak CineServer supports MPEG2 encoded video today and we're committed to raising the quality bar by offering JPEG2000 tomorrow," Doeren said. "We intend to be compatible with all industry standards as they evolve."

All components can be connected to the Kodak network, which serves as a vital communications link and adds effectiveness and efficiency to the entire process.

Kodak's Digital Cinema Services uses the network to provide the security keys, which protect against movie piracy. Kodak also monitors the health and performance of system components, and verifies that all content has been received and plays as scheduled.

The in-cinema network includes a Kodak Content Manager which handles all scheduling via its interface to the ticketing system - so movies play on the screens where they're booked. The Kodak CineServers are networked to the theatre's automation system, which controls curtains, lighting, and projector start.

As part of Kodak's approach, the company also can handle all aspects of project management, including training staffs in their new capabilities.

Doeren emphasized that Kodak is making a long-term commitment to continued advancements in digital cinema.

But we're happy to sell FILM too! [Smile]

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 11-22-2004, 04:40 PM:

Motion Picture Theatre Companies Adopt United Position on Digital Cinema

National Association of Theatre Owners Board of Directors’ Resolution Sets Forth List of Objectives

A unanimous Board of Directors of the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) yesterday adopted a resolution that describes their fundamental objectives regarding the potential transition to digital cinema.

The NATO resolution highlights the most important goals of theatre operators in four broad areas – quality, standards and competition, security and operational control, and financing and roll out. With respect to quality, the resolution calls for a branded movie-going experience that exceeds film, and exceeds home entertainment systems. The resolution also reflects exhibitors’ need for open and global technical standards to promote competition and ensure interoperability. In the important area of security systems, the resolution seeks to ensure that theatre operators of the future have the same control over their business as they have today. Finally, and perhaps most important, the resolution calls on the studios to develop a universal financing plan supported by studio funding that permits the participation of all exhibitors and all studios.

“Industry planning for digital cinema stands at a critical juncture,” said NATO Chairman Steve Marcus of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. “Our members believe it is the right time to describe our needs publicly.”

“We are pleased that exhibitors have come together on a united position,” added NATO President, John Fithian. “Digital cinema will be the most important technological transition in our industry’s history since the advent of sound. For the sake of our patrons, we must get it right.”

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/NewslinksTarget.aspx?ID=100

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-22-2004, 05:27 PM:

I'm still waiting for SDDS to succeed. [Razz]

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 11-22-2004, 05:29 PM:

I heard you can trade in 40 SDDS readers and 20 DSP-2000s for a new Sony 4k LCOS projector. [Wink]

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 11-22-2004, 06:10 PM:

Bevan,

What does that do for the end user? It's still Sony product... [uhoh]

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 11-22-2004, 07:09 PM:

If the 4K LCOS works as well as the rest of the Sony stuff I've bought we'll need 3 of "em to get thru the first year, maybe they will be on wheels so they can be moved in and out between shows.

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 11-23-2004, 03:07 AM:

According to the TV last week, me and the projectionists I support will be 'a thing of the past'. Whilst I don't doubt that digital will become de rigeur, based on what I've seen over the last few weeks, I don't think I'll start looking for a new job just yet.

About 15 years ago when I first stepped into a projection booth, I was told not to bother as it was a dieing trade (this was by a guy from Sony installing a 3 gun CRT projector) I'm still here, that 3 gun CRT machine lasted less than a year before it was decomissioned and replaced with a Westar.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-23-2004, 03:17 AM:

To the original poster of this thread: Please edit the topic title so it is not a teaser title or we will do it for you. All of our rules are retroactive and you should have known what the rules of the future would be when you posted it. [Razz]

Back on topic:
Wow, digital is sure taking off! It is unstoppable! Does anyone actually still show film?

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 11-23-2004, 07:51 AM:

Both of the recent DLP shows I saw were botched in some way. IMHO, this will untimately kill theaters not because people can get better quality/resolution or sound at home, but because at home your image is ON the screen, not the masking, it's IN focus all of the time, and it doesn't crash if you keep it maintained. Aaah, that's the key! Maintenance!!

What made them think that just because there's no film, a manager can run it and put on a quality presentation? Or that since it's digital, you never have to change the bulb? (The one I was at flickered worse than those old silent films that change density every few feet).

It's the same theory behind those "Self Check-Out" stations that are to replace cashiers. The idea won't work as long as there's a few idiots out there.

=TMP=

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 11-23-2004, 07:53 AM:

A few idiots? What happened to the rest of them?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-23-2004, 06:53 PM:

Here's a funny point that I'm sure at least a few people have pondered: "Analog" 35mm film projectors have some similarities to old, classic cars. Those newer "digital cinema" video projector systems are more like the newer cars.

With the old classic cars, you could actually work on the things in your garage and not have to do too awful much to keep them maintained. You can't do too much to new cars without taking them to the dealer. There, they have to hook them up to all sorts of computer systems, and do crazy shit like taking the engine up out of the motor mounts just to get to some otherwise inaccessible chip to fix the problem. And then the car is never fixed quite like it should be. You've just got to pony up much dollars to buy a new one.

A regular 35mm film projector isn't anywhere near as complex or costly to maintain as a complicated video projector. A film projector can last decades. DLP projectors are getting replaced after only a few years. Blah.

The whole idea of spending $200,000 on what amounts to an enterprise level computing system to show movies on one screen --and then expect to do so without the trouble of projectionists (or rather, people who can maintain it, make sure it doesn't catch on fire, etc.) is pretty laughable. Maybe I'm stupid or something, but it would seem to be the less complicated analog setup would be the easier and cheaper thing to maintain.

Posted by Mike Babb (Member # 1379) on 11-24-2004, 11:30 AM:

Excuse me if this question has been answered elsewhere...we just finished an addition of 4 screens, 35mm, and I had been following this thread. The features are showing on Simplex, ORC (but with Technalight upgrades), Dolby CP650, Ashly amps, basically a nice set of equipment. The ad guys installed the usual pre-show LCD. I know if DLP comes along eventually the trailers and policy will likely run on DLP but are/will theatres be running the ads for the local dentist and car dealers on the DLP as well? So many negatives come to mind thinking about this...

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 11-24-2004, 04:01 PM:

That's a great point, Bobby.

The proponents of digital cinema are telling us "it ain't broke, so let's fix it".

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 11-24-2004, 06:03 PM:

If the studios and distributors keep turn out shit quality prints like they have done for the last years, people will not notice the change even to an inferior digital system.
Some days ago I saw THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE in the absolutely worst print I ever watched in 35mm format. Every type of video projection looks better - and with today's fine duplicating processes and print stock there's absolutely no reason why a major motion picture should look (even in foreign market prints) like 16mm 500 ASA high speed push-processed two stops.

Sometimes I wonder if they try to kill theatrical release altogether by lowering the standards below DVD quality. [Mad]

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 11-24-2004, 09:26 PM:

I watched a show on the History channel tonight talking about the history of cinema and near the end of the show it talked briefly about D- Cinema. One of the comments made by a representative of, I believe Loews theaters, was that one of the problems they have had was with blue specks on the picture caused by dust. He said that was easily taken care of. Of course you only have one maybe two units to look after. one could only imagine trying to keep dust controlled on all 20 or what ever screens.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 12-16-2004, 11:29 AM:

Good deal in Europe?
XDC formed by the server manufacturer EVS is offering the four different packages.
Prices from 500-1500 euro per month
The most expensive system
2k dlp 12k ANSI lumen
Free installation and training
Free replacements lamps
Digital server , 8 hours
Satellite connection
At least 50 digital movies in the first year
Every movie ordered is deducted partly from your renting cost
Non movie use of the projector is taxed

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-16-2004, 01:39 PM:

quote: Darryl Spicer
blue specks on the picture caused by dust

How does dust cause blue specs and not black or any other color specs? Why blue?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-16-2004, 02:04 PM:

quote: Mattias Ohlson
Good deal in Europe?
XDC formed by the server manufacturer EVS is offering the four different packages. Prices from 500-1500 euro per month.

Published source of that information, especially regarding the pricing? [Confused]

As I understood the XDC announcement at Cannes 2004, the distributors were expected to substantially subsidize the system, so you really need to add that to those figures to figure the REAL cost. [Roll Eyes]

What distributors have actually agreed to this proposal? What theatres have actually leased systems?

quote: Mark J. Marshall
How does dust cause blue specs and not black or any other color specs? Why blue?

With an additive system, dust or a defect in the red, green, or blue channel will result in a colored defect on screen. For example, a "dead" blue pixel in the "on" position will show as a blue spot on screen.

Posted by Jannette McQueen (Member # 1885) on 12-16-2004, 03:14 PM:

I've only been working in projection since Oct 2002. I haven't been doing it for long, but like Pete Naples, I got into it even though it's a "dying trade". I'm going to be very sad when DLP becomes mainstream. But I guess I can't really be all too surprized. The theater I work at now has a digital projector to show wrestling matches. It's already creeping into my life.

I agree with everything that Bobby said. With the Digital Projection equiptment, you're handing things over to people like Bill Gates. How many times did you have to restart Windows98 in a sitting? [Wink]

I don't know all the specifics about the digital projection equiptment, how "great" it looks. I've only read testimonials. Presentations where you can see the individual pixels up on the screen. Read about the drawbacks for certain types of digital projection. Even when I was in a photography class in highschool, out teacher talked about the grain of the film and compared it to the digital camera we had. Granted it was a few years ago now, but considering how much more fine the grain is to the pixels, makes me think it'll be a very long time before anything digital could compare to a well maintained film.

If there were more people working projection like those people who visit this site, if there wasn't so many manager-run-booths, and projectors run by popcorn jockys there wouldn't be any need to change things. It breaks my heart when I go to another theater and see the print all scratched to hell, and I think to myself "this is why digital will work".

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-16-2004, 03:37 PM:

Ok, but why does he say "blue" and not "colored" though? Are they always blue, if so, why? Or is blue just the most easily noticeable?

I'm guessing probably the latter given blue's shorter wavelength, but that's just a guess.

Posted by Christian Volpi (Member # 2370) on 12-16-2004, 03:41 PM:

Couldn't have said it better myself, Jannette. I read some where that projectionist used to be called artists because what we do is litterally an optical illusion. Where's the art in digital? We are artists that are proud of what we do. There is a reason why we come to this site, so that we can continually learn how to be the best showman in the industry. Don't let digital take away our pride.

Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 12-16-2004, 05:05 PM:

Sorry... it's going to happen wheather we like it or not.

[puke]

fjn
Local 294 Ret.

Posted by Matt Manalis (Member # 2367) on 12-16-2004, 05:43 PM:

Christian is right we are all so proud of what we do and get better every day learning new things and putting on the best show we can is the art of the industry when DLP comes on we will be standing next to the projector praying that the OS doesn't crash. thats if they let us in to the projection box after DLP come in. the manager will sack us all cause we are not needed well so they reackon....

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 12-16-2004, 05:51 PM:

Anything that is not maintained falls apart. Why wouldn´t staff be necessary with dlp as it has been with film.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-16-2004, 07:04 PM:

quote: Mattias Ohlson
Why wouldn´t staff be necessary with dlp as it has been with film?

Some of the folks promoting video projection are implying staff won't be necessary. They want to throw out that payroll savings, job cuts angle to sweeten the Return On Investment picture. Lots of narrow-minded MBAs absolutely love high tech things and also love to cut jobs. Easiest way to fake a good looking quarterly jump in earnings. Still, just like a lot of other schemes, the math doesn't add up right.

Just today, there was a news report about a 2nd generation of Honda's walking and waving robot. The company spokespeople, in usual overly optimistic corporate spin, make claims about how this robotic technology will in short order replace lots of human jobs and "save money" (i.e. make a shitload in bonuses for a company's CEO and big dividends for the board of directors). Honda doesn't mention how its current and highly limited robot costs upwards of $200,000 per year to lease, just for one. And the price isn't coming down anytime soon.

Anyway, the Honda thing is just an analogy to show how the perceived financial benefits of video projection for theaters just doesn't wash at all. The video projector is 7 to 10 times more expensive than a 35mm projector. And it will take more than just some minimum wage person pushing a single button to keep it running.

For the same cost of one video projection setup, and its required technical personnel, you could probably have several 35mm/70mm units along with decently paid and qualified projectionists to keep them going.

Here's something for the video projection people to consider: how about coming up with a video projector that doesn't cost anymore than a film projector, shows as good an image as a film projector and isn't anymore complicated to maintain than a film projector? If they can manage those things then we'll see a pretty rapid switch from film projection to video. But for now, while video projection remains an overpriced step backward in quality for the theaters, most 'plexes are going to be better off sticking with the film thing.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 12-17-2004, 03:41 AM:

Bobby H.
What is the cost of a state of the art 35mm projector bought new with all the extras for smooth operation.

On the cost side of video projectors I believe you underestimate how low the prices can get.

I agree that everything will be a mess without qualified and dedicated staff/projectionists.

Posted by Wayne Keyser (Member # 2420) on 12-17-2004, 08:27 PM:

"A tiny equipment rental fee"....???

There was a guy used to hang around schoolyards urging teens to try some of his drugs ... "Come on, the first one's FREE, and I'll let you have this crack pipe for a tiny equipment rental fee"

Let's see, you've gotten his free digital equipment and sold your 35mm capability ... now you're stuck! Upgrades - fee hikes - maintenance - the charges will keep rising, I'll bet!

Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 12-17-2004, 08:32 PM:

Even if a cinema-grade [dlp]

system cost not much more than a state-of-the-art 35mm setup, it would still be way too pricy over the long run when you factor in the relatively high obsolescence rate of any computer-based system.

When someone designs an inexpensive digital projection system that can automatically self-upgrade its resolution through its storage medium (like 35mm does when higher-resolution stocks from Kodak and others are introduced) and can outlast a well-maintained Simplex E-7, then I might give it some consideration. [Razz]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-17-2004, 11:37 PM:

quote: Mattias Ohlson
What is the cost of a state of the art 35mm projector bought new with all the extras for smooth operation.

You can put together a 35mm projection setup (not counting the sound gear) for $20,000 to $30,000 depending on the models of equipment you buy.

A good 35mm projector with manned turret, outfitted with some good Schneider lenses will cost at least $10,000. Add to that the cost of the console, power supply, automation, and other gear to make the projector complete. This is not an exact cost quote. I'm sure there's at least a few participants in this forum who can deliver exact figures for specific equipment packages and do so under the broad estimate I provided.

I didn't include sound gear in the total estimate since you still have to buy much of the same audio stuff in any digital projection setup (amplifiers, crossover, etc.).

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-18-2004, 01:12 AM:

And let's not overlook the fact Mr. Exhibitor has already invested heavily in his existing 35mm equipment. Assuming a scenario where the move to video projection reaches a critical mass and the move to it goes exponential with these things just FLYING of the shelves, that would pretty much do it for 35mm projectors. They would be about as worthless as carbon arc lamphouses after xenon took off.

Who's gonna buy a 35mm projector that no one can use? especially when all the theatres in a short time-frame will be looking to unload them? You wouldn't even be able to sell them on ebay! So not only will the theatre owner be forced to reinvest in new technology, but gee, he can't even sell his old stuff that he owns outright.

He didn't so much mind loosing his investment in carbon arc technology because xenon allowed him to run dozens of screens with one salaried projectionist (soon to be replaced with a high school student who he could pay minimum wage) instead of dozens of salaried projectionists. He was giddy with the potential of investing in xenon technology because of the operational cost advantages.

Has anyone ever met any exhibitors that you could call "giddy" over having to invest in video technology? Not when saavy theatre owners know that with the per/hour rate that they are going to have to pay a video technician down the road to service and maintain a not-quite-so-spanking-new video projector, he could have hired a couple of dozens of projectionists and still come out ahead. Video projection is expensive, but salaried people are even more expensive.

Oh, and btw, it is not at all inevitable that video projection technology will come down drastically in price; that happens in the consumer market because of volume; sales of video projectors, even if every theatre in the US retrofited with one for each screen, that still might not be enough to bring down costs. How long since the first DLP was put into commecial use? How many are in use now? And THAT was with Technicolor giving 1000 away free! They couldn't even give those units away. Nothing "mass" about the DLP installion numbers. So this idea that the price of everything must come down is just wishful thinking. Has the price for quality lenses come down? There ya go.

And then there is question I have been asking and getting no answer at all -- just HOW do the nano-mirror modules die? Does the entire module one day just stop? Not likely. Do they get dimmer as time goes on uniformly or maybe not? Possibly, but my gut tells me that those little mirrors sooner or later, one by one, will stop flipping to and fro. I envision a screen with little specks of always on or always off color, and either all white or all black dots that will simply stay there throughout the movie. Either one of these scenarios, or possibly even a combination of both, to me would be WORSE than any scratches a film might have. After all, a scratch or speck of dirt lasts all of 1/24th of a second....yah, it's there, but then it's gone. If pixels remain fixed, that would be MUCH more distracting than film dirt or scratches.

And again, the operational costs present themselves as they enevitably will with all technology; video is no exception. Knowing many exhibitors penchant for letting things go until patrons come storming out of the theatre demanding their money back (for example like when they wait to change xenon bulbs until daylight scenes look like night and night scenes have patrons pulling out night vision goggles), I don't see them changing just because the projector is video rather than film.

How expensive will it be to replace a nano-mirror module? How easy (or not) to install and align it (by that $200/hr TI nano-mirror specialist)? How many "dead" pixels do you think management will tolerate before they spring for a new unit and a technician to come on buy? Betcha those modules are not cheap either. And how many TI-trained techinicans will there be all around the country that you can get one of them like "yesterday?" Will they all live in Texas or the west cost? Will folks on the east coast have to fly these guys out and pay them for travel time?

How come you never hear the DLP video guys talk about how these things age? Take a guess. I've seen enough pixelated displays here in NYC on Times Square, and I can tell ya, they're not a pretty site when they get old.

[ 12-18-2004, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Frank Angel ]

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 12-18-2004, 04:32 AM:

What does 35mm equipment cost new not used. We should compare new units. Equipment already paid for is always cheaper.
I am sure the price of dlp systems can come down dramatically.

The servers will likely be advanced fault tolerant linux boxes running shows as a "professional" grade htpc. Servers could be really cheap.

Selling million of dlp products to the homes will let them take a small hit on the cinema side such as replacing dmd´s that break down. The lamp and optics will be a rather fixed cost film vs dlp. On the dlp side the dmd´s and electronics add to the cost. The price on semiconductor products and electronics always go down.

Are the faulty pixel displays in NY lcd or dlp. Lcd units might have been sold with dead pixles. I am sure that cinema grade dlp are sold with all mirrors working. If you are interested in technical documentation about reliability I am sure you can find it.

Why can´t dlp/digital and film coexist? You could have four film screens and one digital screen. The digital screen would allow you some subtitle/audio flexibility as well as alternative content.

It sound like the people running theaters don´t spend a dime if they don´t have to. That is why film is made to look sub standard sometimes. That is why dlp gets any attention.

I see great promise in scanning the camera negative at 8k and storing at 4k. Then the whole process is done at 4k. Eventually the release print is printed at 4k and then projected.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-18-2004, 01:35 PM:

quote: Mattias Ohlson
What does 35mm equipment cost new not used.

Mattias, I gave you NEW costs, not used. Here's one specific price quote from American Cinema Equipment in Portland, OR: Kinoton PK60D Projector Kinoton PK60D Projector w/ man Turret D/A Reverse Scan: $8,995.00. I found a number of other Century and Simplex models that cost even less.

If you want to shop for used 35mm equipment, you can put together a 35mm projection system for well under $20,000 --maybe even under $10,000.

quote: Mattias Ohlson
I am sure the price of dlp systems can come down dramatically. The servers will likely be advanced fault tolerant linux boxes running shows as a "professional" grade htpc. Servers could be really cheap.

Don't hold your breath. The prices are going to remain quite high for the forseeable future. All digital projection setups are in essence an enterprise level computing setup. You're talking about highly proprietary and very expensive hardware.

Even if the data storage and playback systems could be greatly simplified, improved and reduced in cost, you still have the piracy thing to consider. If the hardware is cheap enough then just about any computer nut could afford to have something similar. Hollywood is not going to sit back and allow something as simple as a Linux-driven PC operate the show. Even if you could have something as simple as a plain vanilla PC playing a movie, the system still has to be hooked up to a projection lamp house, power supply, console, etc. not too far different from a film projector in design. In the end, you're still not beating 35mm film projection on hardware cost.

quote: Mattias Ohlson
Selling million of dlp products to the homes will let them take a small hit on the cinema side such as replacing dmd´s that break down.

This is a fundamental area where I believe digital projection is a very very bad idea. Commercial movie theaters and home theater equipment should NEVER feature the same hardware/components. It poses a marketing nightmare to theaters. If a home user has the exact same picture quality as the commercial movie theater, then why should the consumer spend upwards of $10 per ticket to go to a commercial movie theater? Commercial movie theaters must have exclusivity on being able to show something a home viewer cannot recreate in his living room. The theater must have not only a bigger picture, but a sharper and much higher resolution picture as well.

quote: Mattias Ohlson
Why can´t dlp/digital and film coexist? You could have four film screens and one digital screen. The digital screen would allow you some subtitle/audio flexibility as well as alternative content.

What you pose does not make any sense from a dollars/cost standpoint. Digital projection does not do any better job at all than 35mm film projection, but the hardware costs several times as much. Profit margins are very slim for movie theaters these days. The four "digital" screens you mention would cost upwards of $1 million to install. How in the world is the theater going to recoup that giant investment? How are they going to do that when the same D-Cinema fans wind up gloating about how their HDTV at home shows a picture of better quality? If a neighborhood multiplex is going to spend $1 million on something, they would be better off installing an IMAX system.

quote: Mattias Ohlson
It sound like the people running theaters don´t spend a dime if they don´t have to. That is why film is made to look sub standard sometimes. That is why dlp gets any attention.

No, DLP and D-Cinema in general gets its attention because there's still enough people out there all too quick to be hoodwinked over that "DIGITAL" buzzword. There's still a lot of analog things that remain better.

When you talk about people not wanting to spend a dime -point that accusation over to the film distributors themselves. They're the ones promoting it. And I think it is a scam. They want the exhibitors to foot the bill for all those digital projection systems while they're the only ones looking to gain any cost savings from it. The only purpose for "D-Cinema" at this point it to eliminate the costs of 35mm film prints. Nothing more. The way I see it, if the distributors want all digital projection in movie theaters, then they need to pay for it.

quote: Mattias Ohlson
I see great promise in scanning the camera negative at 8k and storing at 4k. Then the whole process is done at 4k. Eventually the release print is printed at 4k and then projected.

That won't be happening for quite some time. Most DLP systems are still of the puny 1024 X 768 pixel variety. Most CGI stuff and digital intermediate work is still completed at only 2K, just a minor step above 1080 HD resolution.

With many movie productions costing well over $100 million (and doubling the cost to promote), the most sensible thing to do is shoot the movie on better quality film formats (VistaVision and 5/65mm). A project that turns into an enduring classic can be scanned at higher and higher resolutions as technology improves over the decades.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 12-18-2004, 03:43 PM:

Bobby H.
I proposed 4 FILM and 1 digital not the other way around. It might still be a bad idea in your opinion I guess.

I understand the distributor should take the cost if they mandate the change.

OK the price was for new and not old.

I agree with the marketing nightmare. I have hdtv dlp at home so why should I go to the cinema. That is why I feel that any serious d-cinema has to be 4k, one step above the best some people have at home. Simple users will not understand the difference between low bitrate htdt 4:2:0 at 8 bits compared with high bitrate 2k/4k 4:2:2/4:4:4 and 10+ bits per channel.

Essentially no systems are 1024x768, the lowest resolution is 1280x1024 and that is on its way out. The standard today is 2048x1080. With that resolution you could continue even when higher resolution becomes available.

Don´t you see DI becoming normal in the future. With DI without any optical step you can go directly from the camara negative to the print that I see in my local theater without significant loss. That is with FILM and might kill d-cinema.
When paying attention to mr Pytlaks post. 35mm today is as good as 70mm of yesteryears, not projected but in aquisition.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-18-2004, 06:25 PM:

Ah, 1 digital screen. I thought you said four, my mistake. Still, an exhibitor must be able to get a healthy return on investment. With current digital projection systems not fundamentally any better than 1080 HDTV, there just doesn't seem to be anything special about it posed for customers. Like you said, one could make remarks about higher levels of video compression on home formats, but most customers wouldn't care about that. They're only going to count pixel layouts and think their home setup is equal.

The 1024 X 768 was also a typo. But 1280 X 1024 is not much better, and well below the 1080 HD and 2K CGI standards. Even the new 2K DLP chips are not really good enough to give commercial theaters any kind of competitive edge.

A 4K digital projection system might be nice. Unfortunatly, the giant cost of product development for something like a 4K DLP chip would force electronics companies to sell the same components into the consumer electronics and computing industries, thus removing any kind of "exclusivity" on the technology for commercial movie theaters.

Digital intermediate processes will have more room to improve, thanks to big advances in computer hardware and other related technology. We've seen graphics horsepower multiply at least 8 fold in the last four years. Current moves by Intel and AMD in "dual core" main processors will finally make symmetric multiprocessing computing a very mainstream thing and quicken the pace of advancement.

But what happens in regard to those advancements? How are they used? Most of us want to see large format film origination and higher standard for CGI and digital intermediate work. We want the 2K standard abandoned and move to 4K and even higher standards. Unfortunately, the movie industry is a business before anything else. More than likely, the industry will take those improvements in computing technology and use it to speed up de-facto 2K standard work, thus making it cheaper and giving more flexibility to release schedules. It will be tougher to make them go to 4K or more expensive rendering standards. 4K and above would deliver much greater quality to the screen in CGI and DI work. But is Hollywood willing to pay for it?

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 12-19-2004, 05:23 AM:

If you read a bit here and a bit there most seem to agree that 4k is the way to go on all fronts. It might be slow to take off but everyone realizes that is a reasonable standard.

People over at avsforum has suggested shorter exposures of film with digital cinema in mind.
One example is to shoot at 48fps and a have a short exposer to get a really sharp picture of moving content. Kodak seem to have developed very sensitive films so with half or so the exposer time of yesterday you still get as good a picture as you got some years ago with a longer exposer. The advantage could be very sharp action sequencies.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-19-2004, 06:37 AM:

quote: Mattias Ohlson
...shoot at 48fps and a have a short exposer to get a really sharp picture of moving content. Kodak seem to have developed very sensitive films so with half or so the exposer time of yesterday you still get as good a picture as you got some years ago with a longer exposer. The advantage could be very sharp action sequencies.

Certainly a higher frame rate improves motion rendition, reduces strobing, and reduces granularity. We all know about Showscan, using 65mm camera negative at 60fps. MaxiVision 48 and Super Dimension 70mm come to mind for 48fps:

http://www.superdimension70.com/articles/wide-screen-article.asp

http://www.superdimension70.com/process/

quote:
Super Vista Corp's Super Dimension-70™ (SDS-70™) is a patented theatrical film process that employs five perf. 70mm advanced film based technology.
The SDS-70™ process significantly "raises the bar" of theatrical film entertainment to an impressive level never before possible.

http://www.maxivision48.com/

quote:
MaxiVision Cinema Technology™ has invented a new way to see movies with a picture so enhanced that feature films made in MaxiVision48™ will set a new standard for a compelling visual experience. Just as the change to the widescreen format ensured that movies remained a unique entertainment experience in the face of competition from television, so will MaxiVision48™ give renewed excitement to the idea of going to the movies. This novel combination of patented technologies offers a visual adventure beyond anything ever seen in theatrical feature films.

While the significant quality improvements of recent films like Kodak VISION2 500T Color Negative Film make production at higher frame rates easier, the usual issue is the cost of production, since significantly more film is used.

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 12-19-2004, 07:21 AM:

Well that is the first time that I have heard 4k called a 'reasonable standard'. The farther D-cinema gets away from consumer resolutions and interfaces the more expensive it will become.

There was actually a demonstration last week of 48fps D-cinema using the 2k DLPs and the StEM material at the ETC. Basically, at the higher frame rate the material becomes razor sharp, less motion blurring... more video-like and often you find yourself looking at detail instead of the subject of the shot. Perhaps it is just a issue of not being accustom to shooting at that frame-rate and knowing what to avoid. At any rate I think provisions for higher frame-rates are part of the DCI spec.

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 12-19-2004, 08:57 AM:

Mattias Ohlson said:

"Why can´t dlp/digital and film coexist? You could have four film screens and one digital screen. The digital screen would allow you some subtitle/audio flexibility as well as alternative content."

Because of the nature of the business. I would assume you would want the digital in your biggest house. So you book a big DLP release and it falls flat on its face in the first week. No exhibitor in his right mind would allow that picture to remain in the biggest house.

Now what do you do? Move it to a 35MM house? You need a print. Will there be one available? Will it be delivered on time. Then you have to build it up. In the meantime, is there another picture being released in DLP that you can playt in your digital house?

The nature of the business does not permit what you propose. It leaves no flexability to the exhibitor.

If you put the digital in a small house, that makes no sense at all. You would be turning away business in the first week.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-19-2004, 10:39 AM:

For the foreseeable future it would be difficult to imagine someone investing in the infrastructure of an auditorium including the building, HVAC, seating, flooring, screen, proportional amount of lobby, concession, and restroom capacity, plus the audio B chain (amps, speakers etc.)...all that money...putting in a digital projection system and not also installing 35mm film projection. Especially when with decent used gear you could do so for, what, maybe under $20K. I think this will remain true even as more and more films become available in digital versions. It's just such a small price to pay for tremendously increased flexibility and we won't even talk about backups.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 12-19-2004, 03:52 PM:

Higher frame rate is more likely to happen with digital since there is less lagacy baggage to consider. Film projectors could perhaps be made to project at 30fps but no faster. New projectors is another matter.

With digital and perhaps 48fps some sharpness could be gained. However of the digital technologies dlp stands to loose on 48fps vs 24fps since less time is available to flip flap a picture into being. Some other digital technologies would not lose on 48fps. It wouldn´t be a big deal.

Mr Pytlak
No daring movers of the about to advance film presentation any time soon?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-19-2004, 06:34 PM:

quote: Mattias Ohlson
No daring movers of the about to advance film presentation any time soon?

The technology "to advance film presentation" is already in place. It's just a matter if anyone is willing to pay more for it with higher framerates or a return to 70mm theatrical releases or even simple on-line film cleaners and more skilled projection personnel.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-19-2004, 08:42 PM:

quote: Mattias Ohlson
Higher frame rate is more likely to happen with digital since there is less lagacy baggage to consider.

Digital video has plenty of "baggage" to consider when it comes to upping frame rates. Lots of it.

First, you have the issue of CCDs themselves. They're not nearly as fast as film can be. Most higher res digital still cameras have quite a frame rate lag for the time it takes a charged couple device to "see" an image. The highest resolution still cameras, such as "digital back" solutions for large format view camera chassis actually work kind of like a scanner. Other types of electronics in the camera will only harden some of those limitations.

Next issue: the video carrying format. You have data input and output limits in recording video. Next you have the problem of having to use existing broadcast standard formats, unless you want to spend a ton of money on some kind of proprietary solution. Recording directly to hard discs has limits as well. Standard formats are going to limit you in terms of image resolution, frame rates and all sorts of other stuff.

In terms of playback, you may have more flexibility. But the original material is likely to be film-originated, especially if it is based on higher frame rates like 48fps or even something like Showscan's 60fps. Improving RAID standards are going to allow greater amounts of data input/output. But to get something like 4K imagery in realtime without some serious data compression is going to be tricky. Uncompressed, a 2.39:1 4K image (4096 X 1714) is going to be 20.1 megabytes per frame. You can imagine how the data load is going to balloon when jumping from 24fps to rates like 48fps. The data storage demands alone would be staggering. With film distributors fantasizing about beaming out movies to theaters instead of shipping discs, that's going to further punish efforts of bumping up resolution and frame rates.

With film projectors, faster frame rates are possible through somewhat simple modifications to the motors and other mechanics in the machine. Showscan was already a proven format. IMAX HD showed that 48fps was possible from a 15/70 system. 48fps on a 35mm system would be more simple to deploy.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 12-20-2004, 03:34 AM:

Bobby H.
I was thinking about 48fps aquisiton with film not video cameras. You could be clever and vary the fps during the movie if you want to save on storage. You would then use 48fps when there is a lot of motion and the motion is the central part of your experience.

On storage I noted that IBM think they will be able to deliver 100TB tapes to the market.

4k and 48fps would increase storage with almost 10 times. You could have a film in less than a TB. You read about TB optical discs are being researched.

The link to 65/70mm at 48fps is more like it. It would be interesting to see that happen. There would not be one where I live but a few good movies in that format every year is still a good idea. Maxivision on the other hand could be more important it it became the new 35mm standard. I could get Maxivision48 where I live and many movies could be shot that way, at least the bigger ones.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-20-2004, 09:02 AM:

quote: Mattias Ohlson
On storage I noted that IBM think they will be able to deliver 100TB tapes to the market.

Very few archivists would ever rely on digital tape for long term storage. [Roll Eyes]

Even for a short-lived bulk distribution media, tape is at a significant disadvantage to disk media or film.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 12-20-2004, 11:48 AM:

Mr Pytlak
Have you seen sds-70 or Maxivision48?
It is a shame that good things are slow to catch on.

100TB might be useful for short term storage before recording to film for archival. What really would be excellent is 1TB optical discs for shipping digital movie files. Hard drives should work pretty well for distribution as well. Downloading files should be possible to do in real time, 2hr movie -> 2hr downloading. Downloading is naturally a background process.

Do you expect any of the two formats you mentioned to make it in this world?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-20-2004, 12:10 PM:

Unfortunately, I have not seen demos of SDS-70mm or MaxiVision 48, as most of them have been in the Los Angeles area, but never when I was on a business trip to Hollywood. I have seen 60fps Showscan on several occasions, and it certainly could deliver superb image quality.

I recall that the Disney attraction "Soarin' Over California" is based on 48fps IMAX 70mm format.

All these systems are based on technology available for film TODAY. Will superb image quality sell in today's market? [Confused]

It depends on the market. And how it is marketed! [thumbsup]

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 12-20-2004, 01:39 PM:

I've seen them both. MaxiVision was shown in a prototype lab with a 6ft wide image, it used an electronic intermittent and could switch from 48fps to 24fps on the fly with a simple cue. Never heard of it being demonstrated in a cinema. I doubt a new film format will emerge... a lot better ideas were never accepted by the marketplace. I've never understood why the audio portion always gets more attention and funding than the image.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-20-2004, 02:43 PM:

Bevan,

How big was the screen for the SDS-70mm demo that you saw? How did that one look (not that it really matters since the studios will never go for the expense of 70mm running 48fps)?

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 12-20-2004, 03:24 PM:

It was on a 50ft screen (IIRC), I have a picture of the set-up somewhere, I'll see if I can find it.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-20-2004, 05:49 PM:

Personally I was not that impressed with Showscan's 60fps when I saw it. Perhaps the projector was set up wrong, but I could notice quite a bit of 60Hz flicker in the bright areas. It was like looking at a CRT computer monitor set at 60Hz. After a few minutes you jusy can't stand it. The frame rate didn't seem exceptionaly smooth or anything, and there was quite a bit of jitter in the image as well. I have no idea why I am more easily able to tolerate normal 35mm projection at 48Hz, but I am.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 12-21-2004, 04:30 AM:

Joe
The Showscan presentation you saw was most likely much brighter than a normal 35mm presentation. Brightness increases your sensitivity for flicker. With sds70 the flicker rate is 96Hz so you should have no problem even with the off screen reflected 30-40ftL.

I am not sure but I guess that Maxivision48 uses a flicker rate higher than 48Hz.

Perhaps the only way to sell a new format is to sell at as an event. Sds70 has 24->48 and 48->24fps solutions. The first create intermediate frames using old 24fps movies. The second option is to show movies shot in the new format to play on "plain" 35mm projectors.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-21-2004, 07:52 AM:

Joe: Where did you see Showscan? Once it got out into the pizza places and the ridefilm attractions, some of the sites were less than optimum. Unless there was a problem, the perceived flicker was certainly much less than with 24fps using a two blade shutter.

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 12-21-2004, 09:01 AM:

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-21-2004, 10:22 AM:

Bevan,

Thanks for the pictures. It is hard to tell from looking at them so I have a question. Is the projector/platter capable of 35/70mm and normal/SDS changeover?

Everybody else,

Are they still actively marketing this system? I know that with Maxivision, it's been years since it's had any real momentum.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-21-2004, 10:49 AM:

Looks alot like a twin intermitent mega projector to me

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 12-21-2004, 11:47 AM:

Megasystems, 70mm only for this model.