This is topic Lack of Concern for 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=000136

---

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 05-14-2003, 03:03 PM:
 
Is it me or has the hype surrounding DLP gone away? I used to see ads everywhere for DLP and hear even the general public talking about how they wanted to go see the big films in digital.

Have enough people now seen DLP and decided that they don't care? Or is it that there just hasn't been many blockbusters lately?

Is X-Men and Matrix playing in DLP in very many places?
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-14-2003, 03:27 PM:
 
X-MEN 2 is playing in DLP at the Chinese (Grumaun's) in Hollywood and the Village (Westwood). At least they WERE. Today both screens are showing THE MATRIX Reloaded in 35mm.
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 05-14-2003, 03:43 PM:
 
Four of the five DLP locations in the NYC metro (AMC Empire, Crown Marquis, Edgewater Multiplex, Loews Jersey Gardens) are showing X2 in DLP. The AMC Empire has 2 DLPs loaded with X2.

The Crown Marquis plans to open Finding Nemo in DLP per the Crown website.

WB decided against DLP for The Matrix Reloaded.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-14-2003, 04:03 PM:
 
I should have added that FINDING NEMO will be playing in DLP at the El Capitan starting May 30. Theat fact was presented in the brochures I receive from that theatre (big slick flyers and ginat postcards).

I think altogether, 5 or 6 theatres in LA were advertising X-MEN 2 in DLP. And they had a special box in the LA Times display ad to hype that fact.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-14-2003, 06:24 PM:
 
I'm not surprised by WB's move not to do any DLP stuff for "Matrix Reloaded." The certainly had to be underwhelmed by the DLP handling of "The Perfect Storm." The Matrix has a lot of the same dark, shadowy imagery that might start blocking up with compression artifacts as they did on "The Perfect Storm".

Then there could be the issue of the film being 2.35:1. IMHO, DLP works better for 1.85:1 films. It works best for computer generated stuff. Out of all the films coming out this summer, the only one I am tempted at all to see in DLP is "Finding Nemo."
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-14-2003, 07:18 PM:
 
Considering the release of new film projector designs by several companies I think you're right. I would also think that by now judging on the cost of the equpment that most prospective, and present customers have realized there is no economical way to keep up with technology on DLP, or any other high quality digital projection means, and have hence shyed away fomr the really high end stuff....Its still just way too expensive.
Mark
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-15-2003, 12:44 AM:
 
Once you get DLP you're screwed because then next year they have a chip that's twice as good. Then the year after than yet another new chip and compression method. Pretty soon the new files will be incompatible since your projector is not designed to handle such digital goodness. Exhibitors are 100% positive that the film that is made 10 years from now (or longer) will run in projectors that exist today. No upgrades needed.

Moving to Film Handler's Forum.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 05-15-2003, 03:47 AM:
 
Joe: Next year? More like next decade!

Moore's law has so far NOT applied to DLP. They did their first theatrical demos in 1997 with Star Wars Episode I, and announced their first resolution increase in 2003. 6 years is an eternity in the electronics industry. DLP is moving at a snail's pace.

And as far as I know, they have not yet actually installed any of the new 2K chips in any theaters. If you go see DLP, you are still seeing the same old 1280x1024 version(s).
 

---

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 05-15-2003, 08:50 AM:
 
Non-film projection isn't going away, but the huge number of installed film projectors plus the cost of changing is going to forestall wholesale adoption for a long time yet.
I expect new cinema construction to be generally non-film in the next 5 to 10 years, if a decent projector and datastore package standard surfaces and is supported by all distributors. Once there's a unanimous decision to release all first-run product in digital format the majors will go this way IMO. Providing dual inventory doesn't cost the world, scanning a "film" feature to digital or recording a film negative from a digital source is fairly cheap.
To justify digital releases, there have to be exhibitors that can use them... and to justify exhibitors investing in hardware there must be product. Because the adeed cost to distributors is fairly low and most of the benefits of digital distribution are theirs, I expect that the evolution of a standard and the availability of digital product will happen before exhibitors start any whyolesale change to non-film. The current demo installations are hopefully going to prove the patron acceptability, reliability, and running cost savings available to exhibitors.
 

---

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 05-15-2003, 08:59 AM:
 
As with many products, the actual installation of an announced item isn't shipped until some time later.

TI has stated that the 2K chips work with the same boards currently in the projector head and same data stream coming from the server.
(There may have to be prom changes possibly).

It was going to be a promising summer season for DLP and there is a bunch of interest in my area to see movies on DLP. Calls and emails about big releases really pick up closer to a release date.

Charles is right that WB decided against the release in DLP. They also pulled Dreamcatcher earlier this year.

The Hulk was rumored, but Movieline International states that this will not be on DLP either, so the next title is Nemo and that may be it for a while.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-15-2003, 09:37 AM:
 

quote:

---

...there is a bunch of interest in my area to see movies on DLP. Calls and emails about big releases really pick up closer to a release date.

---

Where is your theatre located relative to the Texas Instruments DLP R&D site on Chase Oaks Boulevard in Plano? I assume your theatre might be one of the first to get the new 2K projector.
 

---

Posted by Bill Mantz (Member # 754) on 05-15-2003, 10:25 AM:
 
Cinemark Legacy is just right aross the street to TI you can walk to the office.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-15-2003, 10:39 AM:
 
I am not sure how much public motivation there is for seeking out a theatre playing a title in DLP. I am in the trenches and among my patrons, the buzz has totally died down to the point that no one has asked us about digital for months now. When Lucas and Fox turned up the hype machine about digital with the release of SWII, we got quite a number of patrons asking us what digital was all about. When it played at the AMC Empire in both formats I went to see it and noted that both theatres were about equally populated at about 3/4th capacity; it didn't look like patrons were specifically choosing DLP (otherwise you would have had a full house in the DLP theatre with the leftovers shunted to the 35mm theatre).

If anything, my guess is that a lot of the initial interest in digital may have been more curiosity to see what it was all about. Once a patron walks into a theatre and sees that there is no spectacular improvement or even ANY discernible difference with what they see and hear compared to what they have seen and heard before in 35mm presentation (except possibly the clearer images and better contrast of the 35mm image) there is very little incentive for them to seek out DLP presentations. It is not like the introduction of color or 3D or CinemaScope where they could see and hear a spectacular difference.

Lack of patron drawing power may be DLPs worst enemy. It means it has lost any power to give the exhibitor who invests in it any economic advantage over his competition who is still running his 35mm projectors. Bottom line....if the technology doesn't wow the customer, the exhibitor is loath to spend a cent on it. Hell, look at how long it is taking to ratchet-up red readers in theatres....there are still not enough to "go wide." What's the delay -- it's because red readers mean nothing to patrons -- the exhibitor doesn't sell more seats by converting so there is little incentive for him to junk something that is already working and fully paid for.

Deee-Cinema would work if the entity that profits from it (distribution) shares the savings with the entity that doesn't (exhibition) but sharing profits and savings isn't quite what capitalism is all about. Personally, I am happy the fools haven't gotten past the greed to work this out because I would hate to see a technology being locked in that takes us steps backward in quality rather than forward; and secondly, because for sure whatever they work out won't include the art houses and second run theatres.

Then there's the third world.

Frank
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-15-2003, 11:04 AM:
 
Here's links to information about the Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) group, headed by Chuck Goldwater and Walter Ordway:

http://www.infocusmag.com/03January/digital.htm

http://www.infocusmag.com/03february/digital.htm

http://www.infocusmag.com/02june/digital.asp

http://www.uemedia.com/CPC/article_5092.shtml

Some recent views by NATO:

http://www.natoonline.org/UNIC-NATOSurveyUSAnswers.pdf
 

---

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 05-15-2003, 12:32 PM:
 
I agree with Frank about the public not seeking out DLP. I'm not a technical genius, and I'm not terribly picky about presenation (*coughadamcough*) but I DO work in the industry and I can tell a bad presenation when I see one. I can't tell much difference between DLP and 35. But truly... what motivation does Joe Public have to see it in digital if they can't tell the difference between a good 35mm presentation and a bad 35mm presenation?

I honestly forgot about DLP until I sat around debating on where I wanted to see the Matrix and I wondered if it was showing in DLP anywhere. (Apparently it isn't since they didn't release it in DLP )

(the above has been randomly composed just so I could congratulate myself on starting a post that 1) got moved cause I was too stupid to put it in the right place and 2) got put into the Film-Handlers forum.... I haven't had anything intelligent to say about Film Handling in years... and I still don't!)


 

---

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 05-15-2003, 01:40 PM:
 
As Bill stated, I am right across the street.

Even with that, I know that people come from Oklahoma, Houston, Waco and surrounding cities specifically to see the DLP presentation.

Anyone who was at Showest this year saw the presentations using the 2K chip.

Paul
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-15-2003, 01:56 PM:
 
I asked because it seemed logical that your theatre be a beta-test site for the 2K projector, especially if the TI engineers can just about walk over.
 

---

Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 05-15-2003, 04:22 PM:
 
Just saw a DLP presentation of X2 at the AMC River East 21 location in Chicago. They're running a TI DLP projector, according to the snipe.

DLP right now is a tradeoff, as far as I'm concerned. On the good side, there's no dirt specks, no scratch lines, and no projector chatter bleeding through from the booth. At the risk of starting a flame-war, it's "film done right lite" for operators who can't be bothered to do film right.

On the bad side, when scenes are shot with a shallow depth of field, putting either the foreground or background out of focus, I notice digital artifacting in the defocused areas. Also, when the end credits roll, I really notice the lack of resolution. The credits, which would be sharp as a tack on 35mm, are distinctively blurry on DLP.

I believe that what I saw in the backgrounds were compression artifacts. This is good in a sense because as the cost of data storage decreases, the DLP engineers are going to be able to reduce the amount of compression, and those sorts of artifacts should diminish and eventually disappear at the point when data storage is so cheap that compression becomes unnecessary.

I suppose that if the only time you notice the lack of resolution is during the credits, then the problem is mostly solved. That said, I hope that DLP resolution continues to improve to at least 6K lines.

Once DLP resolution reaches the point where it can visibly resolve each film grain, and can reproduce the linearity and contrast of film, I'll consider the technology to have surpassed 35mm. Until then, it's a work in progress.
 

---

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 05-15-2003, 06:24 PM:
 
I remember seeing a PBS show on the early development of the personal computer. One thing that was said on this show, that has stayed in my mind ever since (stuck in one of my remaining two brain cells), was that for any new product to "make it", it must have a "killer application". For the PC it was the spread sheet. Before the PC, it took a lot of time to do a spread sheet. I don't see a killer app for DLP. It has nothing over 35MM.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 05-16-2003, 01:52 AM:
 
Perhaps once they go "all out" with "new super duper, more resolution than film" DLP projectors, the ones currently out there and other obsolete ones would be sold cheap to the arthouses or sub-runs. Sort of like a "hand me down."

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-16-2003, 01:55 AM:
 
Actually, the art houses (Landmark) are going with a CHEAPER system than DLP, namely, Microsoft Windows Media Player 9, from DELL computers playing off non DLP-CINEMA projectors (might still be regular DLP though).

It should be pointed out that these are for low budget indie films an dnot regular ones, though time will tell.
 

---

Posted by Ray Derrick (Member # 1001) on 05-16-2003, 05:21 AM:
 
This is probably not the most appropriate thread to bring this up, but one thing of great concern with digital projectors is the very high cost of replacement xenon lamps. In many cases, even though the lamp is manufactured by companies like Osram or Ushio (and even bears their part number), the lamps can only be purchased from the projector manufacturer, and at very inflated prices.
 

---

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 05-16-2003, 09:20 AM:
 
There is nothing special about the bulbs used in a DLP lamphouse. I don't see why anyone should be forced to use a specific mfr bulb or have to order directly from mfr.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-16-2003, 10:29 AM:
 
I think Ray may have been referring to the lamp modules used in some of the smaller DLP and LCD projectors. And when you need higher wattage lamps to get enough light, the operating cost goes up.
 

---

Posted by Ray Derrick (Member # 1001) on 05-16-2003, 06:01 PM:
 
Yes indeed John, the new 2k Barco being a case in point. Nice picture but very expensive lamp replacement.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-16-2003, 06:12 PM:
 
Some folks might drive a considerable distance to check out a DLP show either out of curiosity or just to be a "everything digital is perfect" digital fanboy.

Moore's law may not apply to DLP, but the law should apply for the sake of theaters willing to use DLP. Most digital projection systems installed in commercial theaters deliver image quality no better or not as good as a D-VHS D-Theater 1080HD tape played on a HDTV monitor.

Home theater is already convincing lots of folks to watch movies only at home, and many are choosing to do so only with DVD. If movie theaters convert en-masse to something not significantly better than the best home theater standard they'll have no technological edge of superiority. That's a big liability in economic terms.

DTS is one of the few companies around trying to elevate commercial theater standards well above home theater. Their XD-10 processor has the capability of delivering sound formats far more sophisticated than the DTS-ES 6.1 format currently ranking supreme for home theater. Of course, there is one big catch. When is a movie company actually going to release a film with a 10 channel audio track?
 

---

Posted by Ray Derrick (Member # 1001) on 05-16-2003, 07:57 PM:
 
Bobby, do you really think adding more cinema audio channels will have any impact on the proliferation of home theatres. Whatever technology cinema adopts it can equally be done at home, so no-one wins this race.

Cinema has survived and I believe will continue to do so because it offers three things that home theatre cannot. First release, sheer scale of presentation and social interaction. 1. People will always want to among the first to experience a new film, otherwise you are left out of the conversation when friends are discussing it and by the time it comes out on DVD you already know what it's all about and probably know the ending. 2. No matter how hard you try and how much money you spend you cannot recreate the look and sound of a big room in a small room. 3. There is no substitiute for seeing a movie in the company of a large group of other people.

Cinemas should concentrate on giving their customers the very best presentation and service. If, whenever you go to the cinema, the picture and sound are not perfect, or you have to wait in a long queue just to buy a drink, then people will look to other forms of entertainment. I can't see how adding more sound channels will stop people from turning to DVD.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-16-2003, 08:20 PM:
 
I think the extra audio channels would be more used for multi lingual purposes than anything else....at least as soon as distribution figures out they are there and only have to make one set of DTS disks.
Mark
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-17-2003, 09:58 AM:
 
Osram has a special 7K lamp that is specified for use on the Barco Kinoton DLP machines and it is far more expensive than the regular 7KHS and a shorter life span to boot
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-17-2003, 11:54 AM:
 
Custom lamp modules are nothing new...anyone that had dealt with xenon slide projectors has probably happened upon them. In the crave for higher lamp efficientcy, a lamp module can offer a pre-aligned system that is also often sealed against the elements. However, when you are "changing the lamp" you are also changing the reflector as well.

As to DCinema projectors...the "big boys" (Christie and Barco) have used conventional cinema lamphouses that use conventional xenon light sources. The Barco claim of OSRAM special lamps, from what I have seen are just off the shelf lamps...I have not used one of their 7KW systems though. The 3-5KW lamps were standard OSRAM lamps. I have BARCO projectors in service with my preferred Christie lamps doing just fine (4-6KW).

Steve
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-26-2003, 11:04 PM:
 
This guy may or may not be an idiot, as I didn't actually have time to read this whole thing.

quote:

---

DIGITAL CINEMA: WHY BOTHER?

Friday, May 23, 2003

DIGITAL CINEMA: WHY BOTHER? -- Well, the answer to that is easy: Money. The studios will save a fortune several times over when cinemas changeover from photochemical film-based exhibition to digital presentations. When you consider the economics of widely-released films -- the only films that bring in the kind of money that keeps the machine running -- the cost benefits of NOT having to strike 8500 prints (U.S. theatrical, alone) of THE MATRIX are evident. But digital projection isn't here yet, because the technology isn't affordable, or, better put, no one wants to pay for it. The cinema owners understand who will benefit and figure it's up to the studios to make the changeover economically feasible. The studios, naturally, want to shift the burden to the exhibitors, but also correctly point to anti-trust issues they cannot circumvent in re-equipping theaters. (Read the consent decree.)

But none of those practical issues will matter to audiences by the time digital cinema becomes a reality. How do we know this? First, because theater owners are the last to catch up with cinema innovations, with the studios in hot pursuit. Remember Dolby Stereo? Not Dolby Digital, but Dolby STEREO. There are still mono theaters in the U.S. They are in ever-dwindling numbers, granted, but this is after -- what? -- 26 YEARS? Not only that, but the level of audio performance in most people's living room far exceeded that in commercial cinema until Lucasfilm's THX came along. Theater owners not only fought stereo sound, but once they relented, they often opted for cheesy FAKE stereo sound, most often surround decoders that let them keep mono audio upfront, behind the screen, and add a mono surround track for a few bucks. There were also phone Dolby decoders theater magnates could buy, too. "Ultra Stereo" was the poor man's Dolby and a widely accepted substitute that exhibitors could tout without the Dolby trademark.

But the point is that the entire world was in stereo before most theaters were. And the same thing is going to happen to pictures. Already, digital DVDs, projected on home cinema front projectors (as opposed to those awful black box rear screens) offer performance that's quite competitive with 35 mm film on small screens. And, by "small," I mean screens less than fifteen feet wide. So, for anywhere from $2500 to $10,000 and enough room in your home, you can basically much of the benefit of digital cinema systems that are still three to ten years off. When high-definition DVD finally becomes available, there will be no practical difference between the home and cinema experiences, save for the availability of first-run films and a crowd big enough to offer the mass-viewing emotional boost. Don't have the room or the money? Don't worry, digital projectors are making their way into corporate meeting rooms, church basements and every bar and restaurant that has cable or satellite TV. By the time cinemas go digital, the rest of the world will have already done so. It will be about as exciting as stereo sound is today, which is to say not in the least.

As far as I can tell, this is completely lost on the studios and exhibitors, who often act as though they have a death wish anyway.

So how can digital cinema make a difference? By fundamentally changing the rules of cinema, for one thing. Today, a movie is two hours long and plays for one week to six months. The movie you see on the last night in the theaters is the same as the one that opened, weeks or months earlier. By the time it gets to DVD, it has miraculously transformed, quite often, into a "special edition," sometimes with new footage, a director's commentary track and "extras," that extra footage that offers a reason to buy the film, though not necessarily to watch it.

But why should a film stay the same throughout its run? Why can't directors change things before it gets to DVD? That's what happens during the run of a Broadway play; creators constantly tweak a production to make it play better in front of the audience. How many film directors do you think would like to do this? Okay, none that have hit movies, but I'm sure there are plenty of filmmakers with flops on their hands that would love a shot at this.

How about dynamic recasting? Why not have alternative versions of the film with alternative casts that might replace the original cast halfway through a film's run? (Naturally, both casts would need to be shot at the same time.) Or alternative rated versions? This causes howls of protest when it's proposed by moralistic watchdogs, but what if the filmmaker and studio marketing types prepare versions specifically designed for different audiences? Alternate endings? Forget the debacle with "Clue" in the 1980s. This is an idea that has yet to be fully explored.

Or why not, for that matter, just move those ultimate fan editions that only get DVD release into theaters to stimulate repeat viewings or pick up boxoffice late in the run? Short film programs work in digital cinemas, where the program can change frequently without incurring great expense. Heck, we may even see the return of the newsreel or other non-fiction short films with the advent of digital.

One awful omen is already visible on the horizon, however. My favorite multiplex has installed digital video projectors -- just standard definition NTSC projectors -- that they feed with DVDs running local ads in the interstitial time between shows. Not only is the presentation awful, but these ads are a constant reminder that someone will pay for every minute of a captive audience's time. Will the advertising assault on movie audiences ever end? And will screen ads in the U.S. ever attain the escape velocity necessary to elevate the mundane to either art or entertainment worthy of an audience's attention? If they can't, then theater owners better quickly learn that they are a turn-off that will drive audiences back to their homes, where advertising can be eliminated with a touch of the remote control.

Finally, theater owners dream of turning their cinemas into some kind of multi-use venues that can accommodate corporate confabs, big public meetings, religious services and more, once you can put a movie-quality program (that's not a movie) on the screen. Alas, someone should pop this dreamy balloon right now. With a surplus of digital projection, from homes to classrooms, cinemas won't have anything more to offer than a bigger room and some hot popcorn when the technology makes this possible. Still, one would hope that adventurous show people (if there are such people any longer) would respond to the challenge of bringing theater, performances, sports and new genres of public spectacle to these new digital cinemas. These are, I think, all possible with a little imagination.

Right. But that's the hook isn't it?

---

quote:

---

from Adam:
"But digital projection isn't here yet, because the technology isn't affordable, or, better put, no one wants to pay for it. The cinema owners understand who will benefit and figure it's up to the studios to make the changeover economically feasible."

---

quote:

---

I'm not really sure why I'm being lectured

---

(edit... earlier response disappeared... just found out why.)...

Sorry for getting wordy, Adam. It wasn't really aimed at you personally. A lot of us drive-in operators have been a bit on the touchy side, having taken the early hype quite seriously. With the screen sizes we deal with, not to mention lamp requirements and cost, this thing had us pretty concerned. Now, we're just mad we took it so seriously & we're generally skeptical about anything that comes down from the DLP industry.

Anyway... I feel much better now... steam pressure's lower!

[ 05-29-2003, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: Jack Ondracek ]
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 06-15-2003, 01:06 PM:
 
Lack of concern? Not in New York -- Finding Nemo sold out its 7 PM show on a DLP screen last night at the UA Union Square. I noticed the "Sold Out" sign in the box-office window on my way out of L'Auberge Espagnole.

UA is using special mylars with a "Digital" tag to identify the DLP shows.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-15-2003, 01:50 PM:
 
Charles,
Nemo selling out is not news by any means, nor is it selling out on a DLP screen. The fact is that its a great film and it is still seling out everywhere. What we need are more films to run on the order of Nemo!! DLP, or other digital projection wouldn't make any difference one way or the other if one has a great story to tell.
Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-15-2003, 09:06 PM:
 
BTW: nemo reclaimed the top box office spot this weekend.....definately without any help from the few DLP sites.....
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/15/box.office.ap/index.html
Mark
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-15-2003, 11:34 PM:
 

quote:

---

nemo reclaimed the top box office spot this weekend.....definately without any help from the few DLP sites.....

---

Well, the highest grossing theatre showing FINDING NEMO is showing it in DLP.
 

---

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 06-16-2003, 09:08 AM:
 
July is going to be a good month for DLP showings:

Here is what is being offered to theatres:

Terminator 3
Sinbad
Pirates of the Carribean
Spy Kids 3-D

I'll be showing 3 out of 4 these titles.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-16-2003, 09:18 AM:
 
"Well, the highest grossing theatre showing FINDING NEMO is showing it in DLP."
_________________________________________________________________

That is true but if it were film it would make the same gross . The majority of patrons certainly don't go there just because its in .....
Mark
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-16-2003, 11:50 AM:
 
Agreed with Mark G. The gross won't be significantly different just because Nemo happens to be available in DLP. It's doing well because it's an excellent film, not because there are a few dozen places where one can see it in .

Wow! There are four DLP releases in the next month! I guess film must be dead by now. Never mind that exactly zero of the 20 or so titles that I have shown in the last couple of months were available in and none of the titles that I'm likely to show in the forseeable future will be available for theatrical exhibition in any format other than 35mm film.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-16-2003, 01:00 PM:
 
All venues showing DLP should take down all identification, posters, mylars or whatever that trumpet the word DIGITAL. When a DLP auditorium gets the same promotion as a similar-sized nondigital one showing the same movie (in a cinema where film is "done right), and outgrosses it, then we can believe that audiences seek out digital screenings.

Has anyone else thought the newer DTSs don't sound as good as the older ones?

[ 06-16-2003, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Mike Blakesley ]
 

---

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 06-16-2003, 01:44 PM:
 
Scott, DLP will probably never replace the type of material that you present. (I don't exactly know so I am making an assumption here). The costs of doing digital conversion for an independent may just be too great to swallow.

On the other hand, Digital will slowly make inroads into theatres. There are alot of issues to work out between exhibitors, distributors, vendors, etc in regards to Digital Cinema. As I have stated before, there are true film people who will never be satisfied with D-Cinema in any form or fashion. They will always find something to bitch about. The manufactures know what their limitations are, and are working to fix these.

Recently, I had a call from a gentlemen in Austin calling to see what was going to be on DLP as he wanted to plan his vacation accordingly. I have met others who travel from Oklahoma, Arlington, Fort Worth just to see the DLP presentations.

Agreed with others that Nemo is a good film and based upon scheduling and other factors, the DLP house may have done better than the film houses. (I don't know how mine did.)

One thing to think about, if the directors and studios are satisfied with the results of D-Cinema, and with the coming of the 2K chips, then why hasn't it (D-cinema) stopped altogether. You would think that they are just as concerned about the things that others in this forum bring up.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-16-2003, 04:29 PM:
 
Hey, I've traveled from Rochester to New York City, Secaucus, Atlantic City, Dallas, Orlando, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas to see DLP-Cinema presentations! I haven't always been totally pleased with presentation quality, and have even encountered "Digital Done Wrong" at a few theatres.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-16-2003, 09:58 PM:
 
Today we heard from a major DLP manufacturer that there are 94, or was it 96, or 98 screens worldwide equipped with . WOW! Thats a huge amount! I bet the T.I. guys have a huge get drunk party when number 100 hits the streets.

John P.,
Does this total include all the Kodak ILA projectors too?
So there are still about 100,000, perhaps more than that to go.

Brad,
We need a special Graemlin for the Kodak verson of digital projection. Perhaps a bit larger TV set with John P. on the screen.......or a good cartoon running
At least we know its going to be "Digital Done Right"....or at least as right as it might be in this infant stage......
Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 06-17-2003, 04:56 PM:
 

quote:

---

All venues showing DLP should take down all identification, posters, mylars or whatever that trumpet the word DIGITAL.

---

quote:

---

When a DLP auditorium gets the same promotion as a similar-sized nondigital one showing the same movie (in a cinema where film is "done right), and outgrosses it, then we can believe that audiences seek out digital screenings.

---

quote:

---

I went to see just what DLP looked like. I was very impressed with the picture...as long as I stayed back least 1.5 screen widths. At 1 screen width, it started to "pixel" up. At .5 screen widths, it was quite annoying.

---

Pretty much in line with my experience with the current DLP-Cinema technology. I find that I am distracted by the pixel stucture and "jaggies" when I sit closer than about 2 screen heights, or in your terms for a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, a little more than one screen width.

The current 2K D-ILA projectors and prototype 2K DLP-Cinema technology have much less visible pixel structure than the present 1280 x 1024 pixel technology.
 

---

Posted by Matt Hale (Member # 1518) on 06-18-2003, 12:55 PM:
 
On Monday I had a chance to see one of the newer D-ILA projectors in action. The screen was rather small, only about 12 feet wide, but even when standing right next to it I had a very hard time discerning individual pixels. There was absolutely no grid effect. Areas of similar brightness and colour blended perfectly. There were signs of some jaggies along sharp edges when sitting closer than about 1.5 screen heights, but I was considerably more impressed than I have been with other digital projectors I have worked with.
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 06-18-2003, 03:26 PM:
 
John,

I used "widths" as that is easy to calculate from ceiling tiles. It's hard to calculate the vertical in the dark. Besides, it was my only day off for awhile, and I didn't feel like working .
 

---

Posted by Ted Costas (Member # 473) on 06-19-2003, 08:23 PM:
 
Any studio that releases a movie in Digital Cinema is losing money on every site they go to. Currently, the model doesn't work financially, but down the road it will. With less than 100 Domestic sites, the costs per site can be higher than that of a print. That's a nice way of saying, the Studios must be supporting this effort or they wouldn't be throwing money away with every D-Cinema site. When we get over 1000 screens, then you'll start seeing the hype machine get into gear... but right now... there's not a lot of folks that want to drive 100 miles to see something that is not "better than film."

Yet. Digital promises long term quality. And I hate to say it, but not every theatre has operators that care about a quality presentation like those on this web site. Hence, prints get scratched, mangled, and it's the audience that suffers, or as Mark G. says, it's the audience that accepts it. Also, yes, there will be cost savings to the content owners as well... once there are a good number of D-Cinema screens.

Timetable: It's funny, I have an old e-mail I sent a friend that said. "It'll take 5 years for D-Cinema to take over 5% of the domestic market, so don't bother me 'till 2004." That was an aggressive prediction in 1999. But I have a feeling that this ShoWest in 2004 will be a big one for D-Cinema. There is a lot brewing out there, and maybe some of the issues you all are 100% correct about, the high cost of projectors, blink-of-an-eye technology upgrades, visible pixels for those sitting up front, will be addressed within the next year... Then again, I may have to change the date on my quote to read, "don't bother me 'till 2006." We'll see.

Yours, Ted
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 06-19-2003, 08:56 PM:
 
There is an excellent article on Digital Cinema in the Circuits section of the NY Times.

You can find it at the NY Times website, but it is only available free for a few days, and it does require registration.

Article was very fair, emphasizing that research is still being done, and that it will not replace film in the near future. It was not a "If its digital, its better" article.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 06-20-2003, 03:09 AM:
 
Mark, here is the NY Times article you referred to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/19/technology/circuits/19cine.html

Also of note is this DigitalCinemaMag article from February:

http://www.uemedia.com/CPC/article_5092.shtml

Both articles focus mainly on the Digital Cinema Initiatives consortium and its efforts to establish a standard. I am particularly encouraged by the DigitalCinemaMag article, which says the group has already decided HDTV quality isn't good enough.
 

---

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 06-20-2003, 05:05 PM:
 
Everyone talks about what a pop corn jockey can do to film, what do you think he will do to a DLP, and it's server. "Gee, I wonder what this knob does; gee, I wonder if I can get onto ebay on this baby? The theaters may end up hireing someone who knows video projection, AND someone who knows servers. That is going to cost a good bit more than a pop corn jockey.
 

---

Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 06-21-2003, 04:07 PM:
 
Hello John Pytlak

We live in the "Imaging Capital " of the world butI find it depressing how far behind we are here in Rochester in regards to complete lack of any digital presentation ( other than what takes place behind closed doors at Kodak) also just as depressing is the fact every other city including Buffalo is broadcasting some form of High Definition TV but us.
While other cities are going HD our local channel 13 just went stereo.

Very sad

Have there been any local digital presentations I have missed that you are aware of or do they not see Rochester as a major market worth the effort?
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-22-2003, 12:13 PM:
 
No local Digital Cinema presentations in Rochester, other than the ones internal to Kodak. The Kodak Digital Cinema team did fill the huge screen in the 2000- seat "Theater on the Ridge" a few months ago, open to all Kodak employees. Impressive.

The local theatre circuits like Cinemark, Regal, and Loews have a few dozen Digital Cinema sites in other cities, but are likely waiting for the technology to mature, and a workable business case to be proposed by the Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) committee.

Guess you'll have to travel to Toronto, NYC, Boston, or Cleveland to see the few close theatres that have it.

Rochester DOES have both 8-perf 70mm (the Strasenburgh Planetarium) and 15-perf 70mm 3D (Cinemark IMAX) theatres.

http://www.bigmoviezone.com/txshows/theaters/?uniq=554

http://www.bigmoviezone.com/txshows/theaters/index.html?uniq=548

And the Theatre on the Ridge can still show 5-perf 70mm on that huge screen.
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 06-28-2003, 10:34 AM:
 
The UA Union Square is opening Terminator 3 in DLP. Add the ongoing run of Finding Nemo and Union Square will have 2 titles in DLP for the 4th.

Instead of hyping Ah-nold Warner Bros. should have pushed the DLP runs -- "See T3 in DLP!"
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-28-2003, 10:44 AM:
 
John--is there any chance of getting some pics of the Theatre on the Ridge for the F-T gallery? It sounds like a great venue.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-28-2003, 12:03 PM:
 
Charles said "Instead of hyping Ah-nold Warner Bros. should have pushed the DLP runs -- "See T3 in DLP!""

Why say anything like that all it does is hype the technology not the movie and the technology regretably at best is still inferior to most 35mm presentations

If anything the intrest in DMR proves audience interest is in very large screen presentations that are bright and sharp not pixelated murk
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-28-2003, 04:49 PM:
 
Alan said: "We live in the "Imaging Capital " of the world butI find it depressing how far behind we are here in Rochester in regards to complete lack of any digital presentation other than what takes place behind closed doors at Kodak"

Don't be depressed -- you are not missing anything. It is better that the exhibitors in your area wait until that time when the digital technology REALLY offers something better than film, rather than invest now in a technology that has no standards, is proprietary, and already is 3 generations away from the first DLP installations. At least if ever a time comes when Deeee-Cinema can offer something tangible to the movie-goer -- improvements in picture and/or sound, hopefully that's when Rochester exhibitors may make the jump. Right now they are very wise to wait. And believe me, your itch to see what a digital image looks like may fulfill your curiosity, but it certainly will not impress you enough to come back to the specific theatre which installed it (it may even drive you away). It's not the giant technology leaps taken before in cinema history that enraptured audiences and made them flock to theatres like B&W to color, or Academy ratio to CinemaScope or mono optical to multitrack mag sound. About the most you can say about digital cinema is, well, it's not film.

Frank

And PS -- Kodak is very wise to hold off going public with their digital work. They seem to be holding off until they can make it better and with an economic model that actually works. With fewer than 100 installations here in the US, it doesn't look like Kodak has to worry about loosing any market share by waiting.

PPS -- So of those 100 installations, how many were part of that outright gift that Technicolor was supposed to have given to select markets as "seed" installations? Weren't they supposed to giving away 1000 Christie units? Well, if only 100 sites now have DLP, doesn't that mean that Technicolor couldn't even GIVE away 9900 projectors for free? Maybe if they PAID exhibitors to install them......
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-28-2003, 05:57 PM:
 

quote:

---

Instead of hyping Ah-nold Warner Bros. should have pushed the DLP runs -- "See T3 in DLP!"

---

I'm sure by opening day display ads will be doing just that. The MANN Theatre directory ads list Terminator 3 as being in "Digital Projection!" at their Chinese Hoolywood, Village Westwood and Glendale locations. No mention of Ahnold in the directories.
 

---

Posted by Larry Zuverink (Member # 1483) on 06-30-2003, 01:24 PM:
 
I think we can all agree that DLP is nothing more than a marketing gimmick right now. If you are in a large town and can afford the $150,000 to put it in one screen under your marketing budget, you'll have it. If not you won't. Until the Distributors install the projector (They are the only ones saving money with it) film is here to stay.
 

---

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 07-06-2003, 01:04 AM:
 
Because it was brought up, I thought I would post some numbers

Tue - Special Showings (DLP and Film Prints 2 shows each) 8 total.
DLP - 517
Print A - 159
Print B - 144
Print C - 138

Wed - All prints run at least 5x/day
DLP - 1434
Print A - 547
Print B - 516
Print C - 609

Thu
DLP - 1288
Print A - 521
Print B - 544
Print C - 687

Fri - 1466
Print A - 535
Print B - 690
Print C - 636

Those in Dallas can confirm that our theatre ad lists the time both separately and with the regular title.

DLP Consistently outsold every film print. It had the first show of each round, so it didn't even get the best time like 30 or 60 minutes into the round.

I know this doesn't really prove anything but thought some of you might be curious to see numbers.

Paul
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-06-2003, 11:45 AM:
 
Paul: Was the seating capacity of the four auditoriums the same? Same screen size? All digital sound?
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 07-06-2003, 11:50 AM:
 
Using Paul's Numbers:

Tue - Special Showings (DLP and Film Prints 2 shows each) 8 total.
DLP - 517
Film - 441

Wed - All prints run at least 5x/day
DLP - 1434
Film - 1,672

Thu
DLP - 1288
Film - 1,752

Fri
DLP - 1466
Film - 1,861

Playing with numbers can be fun.

If your advertising said 'Come see it in DLP' or 'Come see in Digital', then of course there were more people at the DLP showings. That and the fact that there were three film prints also skewed the numbers.

I think you would have to have two identical theatres across the street from on another with one saying "Come see it in Digital DLP" and one saying "See it on Glorious Film in TXH" for there to be a fair comparison.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-06-2003, 11:53 AM:
 
Yeah, like anyone is going to know what TXH means...heck I don't even know what it means...tell us Ian, what does it mean?

Steve
 

---

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 07-06-2003, 01:11 PM:
 
It's supposedly taken from THX-1138, George's first feature which apparently was based on a USC student film he was involved with. That cheats a bit though, as the film name must have come from somewhere, no?
General concensus is that THX is for "Tomlinson Holman's Experiment" and Tomlinson Holman indeed had a lot to do with the THX sound system theory and specifications. He is still working in cinema sound at USC and has a company http://www.tmhlabs.com/ involved with studio and home theatre audio.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-06-2003, 01:26 PM:
 
TXH is the dyslexic version of THX featuring screen and surround channels wired R-L instead of L-R. Designed for left-handed people who are in their right minds.
 

---

Posted by Nicholas Roznovsky (Member # 861) on 07-06-2003, 01:59 PM:
 
It's a common misconception that TXH is just a sound system. TXH applies to the entire presentation - the audio AND the visual. Not only are the speakers wired opposite, the film is also flipped so the image is mirrored on screen. (This tends to wreak havoc on sound readers, but hey - that's the cost of progress.)

TXH - Listening is Audience The.
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 07-06-2003, 02:07 PM:
 
.cixelsid ylthgils m'I ,ti timda I ,kO
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 07-06-2003, 02:37 PM:
 
In Manhattan the UA Union Square and Loews Kips Bay get to open Pirates of the Caribbean in DLP. Union Square's DLP shows of Finding Nemo end Tuesday.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-06-2003, 10:06 PM:
 
El Capitan in Hollywood shows Pirates in DLP as well.
 

---

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 07-06-2003, 11:17 PM:
 
To answer John,

DLP House seats 563

The following are placements for the film prints.
Tue
266 (DTS), 563 (SRD) and 266 (SRD)

Wed, Thu and Fri
266 (DTS), 242 (DTS) and 266 (SRD)

T3 was moved out 1/2 way through Wed b/c LB2 was out performing T3.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-07-2003, 01:48 AM:
 
Pirates of the Car-rib-be-an (Care-Ib-Bee-Ann?) is also playing in DLP at the AMC Pleasure Island 24 in Downtown Disney. (of course) They'll probably pull Nemo out of there.

The DLP house at the AMC is not their biggest. The largest house has a balcony on the second level, SRD and SDDS. But... it sounded more "stage-like" than "movie-like" in there; strage acoustics.

The DLP house is THX certified.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-07-2003, 08:49 AM:
 
Thanks, Paul. As I expected, there is likely some correlation with the auditorium/screen size as well, so the higher numbers can't all be credited to digital presentation. For a picture like T3, I would normally seek out the largest screen. And once upon a time, the 70mm print.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 07-07-2003, 01:05 PM:
 
It's very difficult for the audience to find the "largest" screen that a movie is playing in out of multiple screens at a single location. Lacking special promotions in the newspaper, or THX/digital sound presentation indicators in the paper or online, it's very difficult to do.

I've traveled from Milwaukee to the Chicago suburbs twice to see a movie in DLP, and I would definitely pass up a movie playing with film for the same movie playing in an equivalent screen in DLP.

While I will allow for the fact that DLP may not exceed the best film presentation, there are very few instances of "best" film presentations in my experience. Using the limited sampling I have for comparison, I would wager that a very good presentation would be more possible with DLP than with film.

No bad splices, no out-of-sync errors due to bad film tension or poor emitters, and especially none of that irritating film jitter that seems to be a hallmark of presentations in this area.

If anything, the numbers posted debunks the idea that DLP is worse than film. If people really thought that DLP was a lesser quality presentation, they would stay away from the DLP shows.

Think what you want about the intelligence of the average movie-goer and how that relates to the best quality presentation, the DLP presentations were earning more money per screen than the film presentations.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-07-2003, 01:28 PM:
 
As I've noted here before, I've had my share of "Digital Done Wrong" too, even to the point of the show having to be shut down and going to the film back-up, with nearly a week needed to get the "Miranda unit" repaired. See the post on "Digital Hiccups":

Digital Cinema Hiccups?
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-07-2003, 07:04 PM:
 
yeah but when it comes to advertisments you don't have them putting see it in the wonderful film done right splender of 35 mm prints.
Lets see how well DLP would do if you didn't put the big word DIGITAL in the ads and just rely on word of mouth. Nobody will say anything because they probably wouldn't know the difference. It's that word DIGITAL that puts oh this must be better in peoples minds. That does not always mean it is better.
 

---

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 07-08-2003, 09:40 AM:
 
I am going to add one final thing about T3 advertising. After looking at the newspaper on Sunday, the only DLP advertising was in the Cinemark ad for our theatre that had the DLP showtimes listed separately. The co-op ad had no special mention of Digital Presentation.

However, Pirates and Nemo both do. To be fair, I will try to post numbers for Pirates around Sat.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 07-08-2003, 10:25 AM:
 

quote:

---

Lets see how well DLP would do if you didn't put the big word DIGITAL in the ads and just rely on word of mouth. Nobody will say anything because they probably wouldn't know the difference. It's that word DIGITAL that puts oh this must be better in peoples minds. That does not always mean it is better.

---

quote:

---

My experience with DLP is limited, but I've seen enough to get excited about its potential.

---

quote:

---

I see tremendous possibilities with digital projection, and after some of the technical and logistical kinks are worked out (this is new technology after all) and the price of installation comes down, I think theaters will wonder what in the world took them so long to embrace it.

---

They'll know why. They were waiting for the technical and logistical kinks to be worked out and the price to come down.

That and they're still waiting for the quality to come up. Maybe it's just the magnetism up here, but the quality of current digital cinema systems is at best on par with the average 35mm presentations around 'here'.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-08-2003, 10:36 PM:
 
Scott,

Logistics are much more important than technology when it comes to day/night film switches. Moving a print doesn't take long at all. What does take long is setting up the show schedule so that the two films you want to switch (usually a 90 minute G or PG film and a 120 minute R rated film) end at approximately the same time so that you can get the people into the auditorium. I used to manage at a theatre that had two, 290 seat auditoriums and six with 160 seats. There were many times we wanted to switch and the times were just to kooky to do it (trying to schedule maximum showings AND be able to switch with enough time between shows). It didn't matter if we had film, digital or a live performance, it wasn't going to happen. Slightly off topic but I just wanted to point out that technology isn't the be-all end-all to everything.

BTW, if we don't wait for higher resolution d-cinema, the theatre owners will be wondering why people in the front part of the auditorium try to climb the screen during the opening titles, then they'll realize that the people think there's a staircase!
 

---

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 07-09-2003, 10:03 AM:
 
Here are the ads. (Please no comments about the quality, my batteries were low, so I rushed to get this out. Plus, working in close up mode it's hard to hold the camera steady)

Co-Op ad of Terminator 3


(Notice the word Digital next to most theatres)People who didn't know better have called and wanted to know if this meant it was being shown on DLP. We let them know it means digital sound.

Co-Op ad of Pirates Of The Caribbean


Theatre Ad

 

---

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 07-21-2003, 09:08 AM:
 
Because I said I would publish seat counts for Pirates, here it is.

The DLP and Print A were in equal size (563) houses.

7/9
DLP - 1729
A - 1014
B - 724

7/10
DLP - 1270
A - 644
B - 566

7/11
DLP - 1738
A - 898
B - 701

7/12
DLP - 2075
A - 1479
B - 910

7/13
DLP - 1933
A - 1249
B - 825

7/14, 15, 16 and 17. DLP outperformed the film prints.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-21-2003, 09:17 AM:
 
Thus proving that DLP is BETTER than film!
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-21-2003, 11:13 AM:
 
Joe wrote:

quote:

---

Thus proving that DLP is BETTER than film!

---

Or IMHO, just maybe, "Thus proving that DLP is HYPED better than film!"

(Personally, you won't find me sitting close to the screen in Paul's theatre when I'm there to enjoy the movie).
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-21-2003, 11:43 AM:
 

quote:

---

Thus proving that DLP is BETTER than film!

---

quote:

---

John, I'll let you know when I get 2K chips.

---

Or maybe a Kodak Digital Cinema System.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/digital/system.shtml
 

---