This is topic all digital projection theatres 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=000189
Posted by Edwin Schwing (Member # 1270) on 08-25-2007, 01:08 AM:
Hi all
What do you all think of these new "all digital" theatre companies that seem to be popping up lately?
I am sure Brad hates them since "Film Juice" will never enter their abodes.
How about anyone else?
I am currently between jobs, but I am trying to decide where to go. Digital or 35MM....
Any one?
E
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 08-25-2007, 01:21 AM:
Well, its a simple choice. If you are looking for a managment position, go digital. If you're looking for a projection position your only real choice is 35mm.
I'd say what chain you want to work for should have more bearing on your decision.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 08-25-2007, 09:37 AM:
There are digital chains that realize there is still a need for qulified booth personel - i.e. there still needs to be knowledgable eyes and ears to make sure the presentation is correct. The film work disappears but it is replaced by a lot of IT work to get films ingested/transferred, schedules input, delete old content, etc - not to mention you still take care of the sound side of the equation; our guys are very busy Tue-Thu making sure everything is set for the weekend on our 18 screens.
If you like the art of presentation there will still be some digital projection positions with the exhibitors who want to ensure quality for their customers. (I know there is one exhibitor building an all digital location that is paying a decent salary for their booth manager position - I don't know what the actual title is but the duties are coordinating all the digital ingests/transfers, etc)
You could always go the service route and work for one of the evil empires doing digital field service - they definitely have long term contracts (i.e. 10 yrs +) so there is minimal worry that the work will disappear until 2020.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-25-2007, 10:40 AM:
quote: David Zylstra
There are digital chains that realize there is still a need for qulified booth personel - i.e. there still needs to be knowledgable eyes and ears to make sure the presentation is correct. The film work disappears but it is replaced by a lot of IT work to get films ingested/transferred, schedules input, delete old content, etc - not to mention you still take care of the sound side of the equation; our guys are very busy Tue-Thu making sure everything is set for the weekend on our 18 screens.
Absolutely! All the Digital Locations around here have maintained projectionists for those very reasons. The only striking difference for those who've never seen an all digital booth is the absence of platter systems. MUT's and Rewind benches. The projectors are about as big as before and there is more stuff in the sound rack or an added sound rack for the server. There is still program ingestion, build up and Code Keys to retreive load in although none of it is as labor intensive any more....
Mark
Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 08-25-2007, 03:37 PM:
Also, while digital cinema may not be as labor-intensive or prone to failure as 35mm film, things can still go wrong. A common misconception is that a digital cinema can be run completely by one person sitting at a workstation, doing all the loading up and running of movies remotely. You still need people in the booth to adjust the projector if it goes out of focus or out of alignment, change the lamps, and keep an eye on the presentation in case something goes wrong.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-25-2007, 04:14 PM:
quote: Thomas Pitt
A common misconception is that a digital cinema can be run completely by one person sitting at a workstation, doing all the loading up and running of movies remotely. You still need people in the booth to adjust the projector if it goes out of focus or out of alignment, change the lamps, and keep an eye on the presentation in case something goes wrong.
Well, one can almost run them from a central station. Indeed Christie Digital has a monitoring department resembling Mission Control in Houston that monitors all their installations from this central Office in Cypress,CA. They can tell if a projector goes down, if the lamp has failed, if an input has been switched and if a technician is at work on the system among other things. This is on a screen by screen basis. Any screen can be called up 24/7 from this central location. If a failure occurs the site automatically comes up on a large fault screen on the front wall of the office.
If a projector goes out of alignment or out of focus(digital projectors do not suffer from focus drift!) it will require a technician to properly deal with it. The regular projectionists can keep an eye on things though just as they always have. Shows can be started and stopped manually or by a time clock or by a remote just as always.
Mark
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 08-25-2007, 07:03 PM:
You guys are really making mountains out of molehills here. Ingestion? Plug the drive into the LMS/server and walk away. Build ups? Five minutes per show max. Transfers? Save your show list to where you want it, hit transfer, walk away. You have to be insane to pay someone to only do build ups/ingestions/transfers. As far as other booth things to take care of-there are very few-if any-user servicable parts in a digital projection system. Bulb changes would be it for the projector. Anything that goes wrong with the server is something a technician needs to handle. As far as sound goes there's really nothing to maintain-anything that should go wrong (outside of a blown speaker or a card in a processor that needs to be replaced) would be something a service technician should handle.
I'm not saying digital projectors don't need their own brand of 'care and feeding'; but having someone on staff who 4-5 days out of the week will only be setting start timers seems like a collosal waste to me.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 08-25-2007, 07:43 PM:
quote: Dustin Mitchell
You guys are really making mountains out of molehills here. Ingestion? Plug the drive into the LMS/server and walk away. Build ups? Five minutes per show max. Transfers? Save your show list to where you want it, hit transfer, walk away. You have to be insane to pay someone to only do build ups/ingestions/transfers
multiply this by 18, 20 or more screens - booth staff at our larger locations earn their keep Tues-Thur by managing content - i.e. weekly playlist preview changes, tracking down holdover and new KDMs, ingesting into LMS, timing all weekly moves for when there will be room on the destination server, retransfering failed transfers, QC'ing content to make sure it is good (we've had glitches that don't get caught by the checksums), coordinating special buyouts, etc.
It's a waste until something catastrophic happens that loses several busy shows - only to find out that the catastrophe could have been easily avoided by someone who noticed a minor issue and called for service before Sat afternoon.
I get a few reports a month from my staff at all 3 locations about something minor going wrong with the show starts - i.e. lamp didn't strike, sound didn't switch over, show didn't start at all, etc - I'd rather have the insurance of someone available to immediately fix the issue. We've discussed how to reduce booth labor, but no matter how you look at it if you want to ensure presentation quality for every patron you must have someone on staff to verify that each show started and that it looks and sounds good (of course building size is a factor so some smaller locations can get away with managers monitoring the booth). Also, if any location is doing any alternate content or buyouts I'd rather have someone qualified plug their source into the projector and adjust it correctly than any manager who happens to be on duty (there have been several important ones I have done myself to make sure we give the best picture possible - some minor tweaking is almost always needed)
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
They can tell if a projector goes down, if the lamp has failed, if an input has been switched and if a technician is at work on the system among other things. This is on a screen by screen basis. Any screen can be called up 24/7 from this central location. If a failure occurs the site automatically comes up on a large fault screen on the front wall of the office.
So far they have not caught any of our failures . . . . . every issue my staff calls about is news to them - all repairs have been reactive, none besides the ones I've asked for have been proactive . . . . . they are still adding features to the software so eventually they might be able to find out about server issues before we have an onscree issue, but I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 08-25-2007, 07:52 PM:
For an 18 screen theatre perhaps one could justify having a dedicated booth person even in a digital booth.
For a 12 screen theatre? No way. We normally run with the manager and either an assistant or a staff leader (on weekends or busy days its manager, assistant, and staff leader, or assistant manager and two staff leaders). While someone is always assigned the responsibility of setting start timers (and verifying the shows starting properl-who here hates the 'lamp strike fail' error?) that person can easily help out downstairs too. In a film booth one has to monitor focus/watch for brainwraps/etc between shows; time can also be spent taking care of minor maintenance of projectors that aren't running, etc. In a digital booth there is nothing to do betweens starts. In my experience (over a year now) with digital projection if the show starts fine 99% of the time nothing will go wrong during the show. The occasional malfunction can just as easily be spotted from an auditorium check as it can from the booth.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-25-2007, 07:55 PM:
quote: Dustin Mitchell
For a 12 screen theatre? No way. We normally run with the manager and either an assistant or a staff leader
Having done alot of work in Wisconsin I can attest to the fact that the projectionist is probably making cheese ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
.
Mark
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 08-25-2007, 07:59 PM:
Yes, our 10 screen has become mostly manager run - with the lower business level they have time to learn the booth and how to ingest films . . . . we usually run a "swing shift" booth person who comes in after the first set of shows have started and leaves after the last daily show starts (or goes home early if the manager is not busy) . . . .
I think eventually as digital becomes more reliable we will eventually see things run even easier (I know some chains are talking about controlling playlists from the home office) The eventual goal is to have a staff-less booth, but the equipment has to get a lot more reliable before it happens.
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 08-26-2007, 02:44 AM:
One thing they can't do from the home office. Clean the equipment. Make sure the port holes are cleaned. Wipe the dust of the projector and sound rack equipment. I'll tell you right now who ever comes in to do maintenance on the equipment is not going to want anything to do with wiping the dust off the consoles and cleaning the port glass. Remember all this stuff is computer based. It will never be reliable enough to leave it alone completely. If you believe that I just might have some swamp land down in Florida I will sell you. Sometimes I want to beat the shit out of my digital projector when it pulls the lamp failure or dowser failure or TPC locks up and you have to restart the projector. Granted this doesn't happen every day but it pisses you off when it does and it pisses the customers off when the movie does not start on time.
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 08-26-2007, 07:09 AM:
I have to agree with Dustin on this. Most of the reason to go to digital is to seriously reduce labor in the booth. If quality presentation was really the goal, we wouldn't be getting rid of 35mm in the first place.
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-26-2007, 11:01 AM:
quote: Dustin Mitchell
For a 12 screen theatre? No way.
I can think of plenty of even single screens that have a full time projectionist; indeed, most of the ones that I know do.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
If a projector goes out of alignment or out of focus(digital projectors do not suffer from focus drift!) it will require a technician to properly deal with it. The regular projectionists can keep an eye on things though just as they always have. Shows can be started and stopped manually or by a time clock or by a remote just as always.
And how long does that take, compared with the time that it takes a reasonably competent projectionist to fix a typical problem with a 35mm system, which in my experience is usually just a few minutes? Of course, there will be very rare major breakdowns which cannot be fixed that way.
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 08-26-2007, 11:19 AM:
A 12 screen theatre running film should have a full time booth manager/projectionist/whatever, yes. A 12 screen digital theatre? No.
And to answer your question, if something major happens that cannot be fixed remotely a tech will be several hours away at least usually.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 08-26-2007, 12:58 PM:
quote: John Walsh
I have to agree with Dustin on this. Most of the reason to go to digital is to seriously reduce labor in the booth. If quality presentation was really the goal, we wouldn't be getting rid of 35mm in the first place.
Another big cost reduction will be print costs to the studios, I think the current VPFs run about half the cost of a 35mm print - that's been the reasoning behind having the studios pay for the conversion since they will save more money on print costs than the exhibitor will save in labor (especially since right now any labor savings is offset by any maintenance contracts that were signed)
With the number of substandard 35mm presentations out there digital will serve to bring all presentations up or down to the same level (at least until exhibitors start buying their own equipment) . . . . . I'd be willing to bet that there will be more quality increases than decreases . . . . . But I think 2K quality gets close to 35mm but there are still some detriments that I hope will go away as filmmakers start filming and editing in digital (I'm withholding my final opinion until I see some major content done completely in digital). I personally beleive that digital should have gone with 4K as the standard only because we need to have something significantly better than 1080p HD - most consumers only look at the resolution difference and not the overall picture of contrast, colorspace, source file, etc.
We did a small "grand reopening" of our older location after some minor lobby improvements and showed the crowd some previews in digital, then the same ones in 35mm - the entire crowd thought the digital ones looked better, some even commented on how steady the picture was . . . . . but to me the 35mm picture was better overall - i.e. it was obvious that the digital picture looked "plastic" and the 35mm had better depth. (yes previews are not the best source to use for a comparison, yes the 35mm was lit properly, yes the edges were sharp, yes the jump and weave was in tolerance)
The average consumer tends to only care about sound, focus and a bright steady image . . . . only those of us "educated" folk (and a small percentage of the general population) can see that film **can** be better when done right.
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 08-26-2007, 03:07 PM:
You're right, David; I mis-typed... I meant most of the reason digital projection people are pushing for a theater owner to go to digital was to save labor. Although since most projectionists get minimum wage, I don't think they are saving much. I feel theater owners will not see much of the cost benefits brought about by digital, unless they can get into the 'alternate content' biz.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 08-26-2007, 04:12 PM:
Our owner was fed the line "you can turn the booth lights out and lock the doors" . . . . .
We saw significant labor savings only because we had 2 projectionists for every shift at our 18 screen locations - we were able to cut labor in half and use only 1 per shift . . . . our 10 screen has gone to mostly manager run so they are saving some labor there, but not as much as the larger locations. We do pay our staff more than minimum wage, but not as much as I'd like - unfortunately I'm outside the labor equation (I'd equate a digital booth manager position to that of a TV station broadcast engineer and it should pay similarly)
The alternative content is hard - in the US you can't show any major sports games (even with free admission using local broadcast signals) . . . . . we've done a lot of alternative stuff and so far nothing has really taken off - it still ends up being more profitable to show regular movies (there is not much left after you pay all the fees and revenue shares on alternative content) . . . . we are still waiting for that one line of content that will take off . . . . . but there is some success with business meetings that can be scheduled before the first show and some locally produced Indie film premieres . . . .
I'm hoping details on 3D sports events will be worked out - clips from the NBA Allstar game that were shown at ShoWest were promising . . . .
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-26-2007, 04:15 PM:
quote: David Zylstra
The alternative content is hard - in the US you can't show any major sports games (even with free admission using local broadcast signals)
I imagine if you got permission from the professional organization (MLB, NFL, whichever it may be) you could.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 08-26-2007, 04:21 PM:
We tried . . . . . so far we have had lawsuits threatened by the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB if we tried to show their games after we talked to them . . . . .
The NFL quoted some rule about not being able to show their games on screens larger than 52" . . . . . "but most bars have screens larger than that" - "we choose not to stop them" was the answer . . . .
I read somewhere that National Amusements was talking with the NFL - hopefully they can get something changed . . . . .
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-26-2007, 04:26 PM:
My guess is that they would've been ok with it if you paid a licensing fee or something. Though, obviously I didn't participate in these talks.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 08-26-2007, 04:34 PM:
That's what we were hoping for, but the answers were flat nos . . . . . . we also looked at DirectTV and paying the fees corresponding to the auditorium seating capacity but the standard contract excludes theatres from showing their content.
I've heard rumors from other sources that one of the reasons to deny theatres from showing games (and other TV shows) is ratings - they don't want to take the chance of a Neilson (sp?) family going to the theatre instead of staying home . . . . .
Something will eventually change when the larger chains go digital and start asking for permission to show broadcast content, us small guys don't carry much weight . . . . .
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-26-2007, 05:13 PM:
Showing a event at a cinema is rather different to showing it in a bar. I doubt that whatever arrangments have been negotiated for bars would cover cinemas, and possibly those agreements specifically exclude cinema screenings being licensed as well. Whoever represents the bars may well not want competition from cinemas, and may have managed to negotiate an exclusive clause.
Even is they were able to, I doubt that an organisation would want to negotiate with an individual cinema for rights to screen an event. Of course, most cinemas do not have the facilities to screen live events at the moment, so there has been little demand for this. I think you may be right that this will change, but I think you may have to wait for quite a few more years for it to happen, and I doubt that it will be cheap.
The Odeon Leicester Square screened a few matches from the last football World Cup, but I've no idea how this was arranged, nor how much it cost them. I think this was largely experimental, to see if the demand was there, as it's many years since live sporting events have been screened in cinemas here, and that was not in high definition, nor in colour..
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 08-26-2007, 06:53 PM:
We have had no issues getting overseas stuff - like Cricket matches or World Cup soccer games, but the live broadcast times are usually not during business hours and with our liquor license we cannot have customers in the building after 2am(the delayed stuff went over OK).
I'm not sure of all the rules but I think bars can show anything that is broadcast over the airwaves as well as use satellite services where they pay based on seating capacity . . . . there are some rules pertaining to screen sizes for NFL but they choose not to enforce them for bars (there may be similar screen size rules for other sports, but the NFL quoted theirs as the biggest reason to deny us).
DirectTV got into trouble with the WWE since they were selling the WWE monthly pay-per-view matches to a handful of theatres across the country - the WWE put a stop to it after a few more theatres tried to get on the same program . . . . funny thing is theatres in Cananda can show WWE matches since the rights are done through a different promotion company . . . .
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-26-2007, 07:47 PM:
The problem with showing an event like a Football Game at a Theater is that you will HAVE TO have the same accomodation as a bar.... same drinks, same onion ring baskets, free pretzels... etc. for it to ever work. If anyone really believes that Monday Night NFL can be turned into a family affair they are kidding themselves. Those folks go to the bars and clubs to watch because of the booze, beer, food, and free pretzels... and other friends they hang out with. How are you going to handle side bets in a theater scene with the NFL....
Mark
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-27-2007, 03:16 AM:
Mark,
You're assuming that the people who go to a bar for football are the same exact people who would go to a cinema.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 08-27-2007, 08:23 AM:
All 3 of our locations have full liquor licenses . . . . . . it definitely sweetens the pot for special events (i.e. corporate buyouts, Indie premiers, etc)
Chris - I think I saw in a previous post you work for Cineplex/Loews/AMC? did you ever work with Tim E? if so did he end up staying with AMC?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-27-2007, 08:33 AM:
quote: Chris Slycord
You're assuming that the people who go to a bar for football are the same exact people who would go to a cinema.
There won't be enough people left to come to see it at the cinema... if they aren't watching it at a Sports Bar for free they are cooking out at home and watching it for free there. If you accomodate these people in the ways they're used to then yes... they will come, David has the right idea.
Mark
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-27-2007, 10:17 AM:
I agree with Mark. People want to "kick back" in a bar and watch a game, throw peanut shells on the floor, hoot and holler at the cheerleaders, get drunk & stupid, eat free food, spill the beer and damage the furniture. I know, I've been there/done that!
The broadcast TV networks would probably raise holy hell if NFL or NBA or whoever started talking about licensing their content in non-television venues. BUT, if the advertisers could be kept happy, it might work out. I'd think the film companies would be lining up to buy the rights, then they could sell it just like a regular feature movie.
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-27-2007, 02:57 PM:
Mark, I didn't see the World Cup matches at the Odeon, I can think of few things less interesting than football, but I was told by somebody who did go that there were a fair number of people there. Whether this was just the novelty factor of seeing it in a cinema, or whether people would continue to go to regular shows, I've no idea.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 08-27-2007, 03:14 PM:
Most of the draw for sports is when a local team is in the playoffs . . . . . for normal games not so much . . . . .
A few years back Loews showed the Pistons in the NBA playoffs (there was a restaurant in the theatre building that was affiliated with or owned by the team ownership doing some kind of official playoff party so they asked the theatre to be their "overflow" room for their patrons) . . . . attendance was significant enough to merit wanting to do it again, I forgot how much was charged per person . . . .
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-27-2007, 05:33 PM:
quote: David Zylstra
Chris - I think I saw in a previous post you work for Cineplex/Loews/AMC? did you ever work with Tim E? if so did he end up staying with AMC?
Tim Elwell? Yeah I worked with him. In fact, I went through a small booth class with him in the Southcenter 1-plex which is now closed for some time. Good thing too; that place smelled awful and had rats.
I know he stayed for a while but he definitely isn't with AMC now. AFAIK he got a job with Strong (or or some subsidiary) working on digital projectors. But that was 2nd-hand info. I haven't seen him in a long time.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 08-27-2007, 11:51 PM:
Cool, good to know he probably moved on to something better . . . . I know there was some confusion over his position with AMC and I didn't hear what the outcome was . . . . . . I met Tim when I did some work in Tucson on a remodel job - he was there getting the booth in order and I was getting the POS stuff straightened out, as far as I could tell he is definitely one of the good guys . . . . . I remember one of my old Loews friends mentioning the WA TSE position was available and I wondered what happened (of course if my friend applied for the position it would have meant a cut in pay from his pre-AMC salary)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-22-2007, 12:41 AM:
IMHO, sporting events as alternative content for d-cinema is a big loser in all but the largest of cities -and it may even do poorly in big cities as well.
The only possible exception I can see is high profile pay per view sporting events, such as a boxing title match or UFC event. Many sports bars won't carry pay per view events because the fees are hugely expensive (a lot more than the $30 to $60 an individual will pay to have it piped into his living room for his buddies with the beer keg). The theater would be paying the same huge fees charged to commercial businesses like sports bars to carry the event, unless a movie theater chain leveraged its large number of d-cinema equipped locations to broker a better deal.
I think certain music concerts could go over really well, especially if they're live, well produced and uncensored.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-22-2007, 02:14 AM:
Yeah, I want to see the Stones movie even though it isn't strictly a live concert film...we saw a trailer for that at the convention and it looks like a really entertaining movie. (How could it not be, with the Glimmer Twins in it.)
Too bad the digital concert shows couldn't have happened back in the 1970s, when most young people were into the same kinds of music at the same time. We could've packed the Roxy to the rafters with a Bachman-Turner Overdrive concert in 1974. I can't think of a single artist who'd draw that many people here now....the music market is too fragmented.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 09-22-2007, 08:03 AM:
Mike: many of my college cinemas have left-over video equipment from the many tries that many different people made to sell concert-live events.
I have personally been involved with trying to sell daytime events in cinemas, company meetings, etc. It seems to me that if it isn't an instant (financial) success, then cinemas stop doing it. Anything successful will involve some trial & error and then a long period to get the public accustomed to it.....just like "film" did in 1920. Louis
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-23-2007, 01:43 PM:
We used to do live champion fights in the 80s using godawful 3 gun CRT based video projector. We sold out every time. It was a gold mine for a non-profit operation and even though some of the hoity-toity "arts" people sneered at our doing such "low-brow" events, we were bringing garbage bags full of money to the producers headquarters after the shows with armed escorts. It was VERY lucrative for us even though we were getting only a small percentage of the house. But they were very difficult shows to run given the extremely rowdy nature of the audience.
The gold rush lasted only until Brooklyn got wired for cable. Then, in the blink of an eye, it dried up. PPV was the killer. No producer wants to go thru the trouble of booking large enough theatres of which there are precious few, even in large cities, and having to deal with security and insurance and crowd control (and believe me, these crowds needed plenty of control--and that was before people in cities started packing asault weapons), when they can just put it up on pay-per-view without any of that hassle or considerable expense.
The economics of those closed circuit theatre engagements, no matter how good the video projection might be, vs. PPV as a regular, on-going way to present those events is iffy at best. An exceptional event can possibly be pulled off, but not ever fight or every rock concert is going to make money in theatres. Theatres are simply not the only place producers of this content can sell their product. Without exclusivity, the theatre will have to compete with cable on any number of levels -- I would imagin in many cases a theatre would be lucky if they broke even on such content.
Besides, one rowdy incident at a prize fight enagagement can easily wipe out any profit that might have been realized.
Posted by Ramin Hashemi (Member # 2694) on 10-02-2007, 03:22 PM:
Edwin
If you are still looking for a position, please contact me.
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 10-03-2007, 01:07 AM:
*Flame shields up*
While I agree that 35mm has the capability to blow digital presentation out of the water, lately I'm feeling more and more that that just isn't happening. Blame can be shared among many people for this, but the bottom line is that 35mm presentation standards are poor industry wide. A overwhelmingly large percentage of theatres do not practice good film handling. The prints are scratched and dirtied in a mater of hours, they change bulbs only when picture begins to flicker or becomes unacceptably dim, and don't bother to check the sound formats.
As a projectionist and a consumer, I find that I am now actively choosing digital presentations when available, simply because I can guaranty a certain level of quality. NO THEATRE in the area has 35mm standards I find acceptable.
While I would like to think that we can turn this around, the reality is that chains are paying lower wages, giving substandard training, and not supporting even projectionists that care. Given that this is the trend, I think the time probably is right to allow these big chains to go all digital.
In terms of staffing, I do believe that only one or two projection staffers are needed at all digital locations to handle ingeting, builds, and basic maintainance.
My only concern is that everyone seems to be leaning towards the 2k standard. 2k is only slightly higher in resolution than what is currently available in the home! Why aren't they considering 4k? How come Sony is the only company with a 4k system ready?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-03-2007, 03:12 AM:
Mike,
You are among the wisest individuals on this site!! What you said is 100% true. I prefer digital showings because to me the image is far more representative of what dailies look like... although definately not as sharp. The audio is also far superior to any off film audio including 6 track full coat.
quote: Mike Olpin
How come Sony is the only company with a 4k system ready?
I was told by reliable sources last week that Sony's price on the 4K theater unit is 180K. At that price(if this is true) its not going anywhere very fast. And in fact 2K is adaquate for most screens out there. Here in SLC its on quite a few 60' plus wide screens and the image holds up very good. The overall 2K image quality seems to have more to do with at what resolution the master was scanned than any other single factor. Also, I have yet to see any definitive proof that 4K is all that much better than 2K.
Mark
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-03-2007, 03:30 AM:
quote: Mike Olpin
Why aren't they considering 4k? How come Sony is the only company with a 4k system ready?
Simple Mike -- who are the people buying 2K projectors? They are the same people running the chains who have let the 35mm presentation directly under their control, deteriorate to the state that you astutely observe it is currently in, i.e., much lower quality than film is capable of putting on the screen. So these same people who have already demonstrated that they care very little about presentation values and who have a lowest-common-denominator bench-mark mentality, in other words, only doing whatever the least they can get away with before the customer/patron starts complaining, are not of a mind-set to demand that the digital system supply something SUPERIOR to film. They are perfectly happy with a system that will save them booth costs (or so they think, and this remains yet to be seen) in terms of their personnel payroll. Exhibition is not looking at 2K and saying, "No, this just isn't good enough; we want something that is DRAMATICALLY superior to 35mm film. We want 70mm quality." That is not their focus; reaching a higher screen quality than 35mm is capable of is not what motivates/drives the current move to digital on either end -- distribution OR exhibition.
Hell, when the first 1k, 1.3k machines were first used and serious questions were being raised about the low quality picture, you had the head of Disney drooling at the thought of not having to strike prints saying, as far as he was concerned, 1k quality was "good enough RIGHT NOW." His own words.
Before DLP digital was even a thought in the labs at TI, there wasn't a single exhibition excutive saying, "Gee, what we really need is to get some technology that will improve the image we get on the screen from our film projectors. How we would jump at the chance to install a technology that would present a better picture to our patrons than we can now with those lousey film projectors and all the jitter and color fading and dirt and scratches." No. They were all about stadium seating (so people could better see their jitterey, scratched, color faded, dirty picture) and adding more and more screens like fornicating rabbits. There was never any hand-wringing about the state of the images on their screens and how they could improve them.
Those issues which you hear so loudly shouted as the advantages of going to a digial system were never, EVER the reasons exhibition embraced digital. Those have ALWAYS been nothing more than a smoke screen and a PR campaign -- if you are spending $130,000 + per installation, you might as well get in some good marketing hype as to why you are doing it so it sounds like there is something good in it for your customer, not just good for your balance sheet.
Both exhibition and distribution's motivation has always been because they perceive digital as being a cash cow for saving money -- distribution obviously in prints costs, and exhibition in labor costs. Image quality is irrelevant. If it were otherwise, exhibition has always had the necessary tools and means to eliminate ALL those nasty presentation-killing issues that they now admit plague their film projection systems. Has anyone EVER heard a chain executive complain that his screens have jitter and dirt and scratches and "faded color" and ask the hardware manufacturers to give him new technology to eliminate those issues? HUH?
So, why isn't exhibition demanding 4K? Why would they? They are quite content that the degraded 35mm presentation values that they have be offering to an uncomplaining public for years will easily be matched by the spanking new, out-of-the-box digital projectors. What they don't seem to understand is that those spanking new digital projectors are being put into the same booths operated by the same poorly trained, underpaid staff that let the 35mm equipment in those booths go to shit. So, for the time being, digital may very well be "as good as," or actually surpass the low quality of the current state of 35mm presentation. But what will those digital projectors look like after like after 10, 15 even 20 years of Digital Done Wrong? Add to that, the knowledge that exhibtion has gained in what level of quality the public will stand before they demand better and THAT's the mark they seem to only need to hit. It's happens everywhere in American culture. People eat McDonald's "hamburgers" and actually think they are eating food; why would McDonald's start putting sirloin steak in their "meat" patties? THEY DON'T HAVE TO. About the only place Americans seem to still demand that we actually be #1, is in sports. All the rest....we are quite happy with crap, and "music" by Britney Spears. Quality only seems to work in nitche markets. And even then, it may work only for a time until the demand in even those small markets dries up. Wittness 70mm.
Nothing about digital ever had to do with anyone's desire to give the public 70mm quality or even EK print quality. So why even consider the 4K digital equivilant? NO ONE CARES, my friend, certainly not exhibition.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-03-2007, 08:18 AM:
Frank,
If you would be willing to pay the 180 grand for each 4K Sony projector then I'm sure they'd all go 4K! From my point of view the 2K system will ultimately save the movie theater from extinction... Ya know... studios could decide tommrrow to stop making film prints and go right to DVD.... in some cases they already make more $$ doing that than they do with the film prints.
Mark
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-03-2007, 12:39 PM:
My long-winded point is simply, it was never about screen image quality. It was always about economics and the balance between what was good enough and how cheaply they could get there. If you recall, the digevangelists were saying that those first DLPs were "better than film." It was always hype and BS and about running the booth by the cheap.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-03-2007, 01:33 PM:
I still contend it is a major marketing liability for the average D-cinema installation to have little difference in native pixel count than the 1920 X 1080 content on Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Sure, we can talk about differences in video bitrates, but when the public chooses crushed to death MP3 and AAC files over high bitrate uncompressed audio I get the feeling the public doesn't give a crap about bandwidth. As long as they can see all those pixels reasonably well they're going to be happy. Besides, the numerical dimensions of the image is a little easier for the average customer to understand.
Not enough people own nice 1080p HD based home theater setups at this point for the 2K issue to be much of a liability. But look for that to change. High ticket prices and ever shorter release windows between theatrical and home video make this issue even more threatening.
Unfortunately, there's little reason for any movie theater to install a 4K digital projection system when the vast majority of movies have their digital intermediates rendered in mere 2K.
Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 10-03-2007, 03:36 PM:
And beside's, the upcoming generation is being taught to watch "films" on friggin cell phone, Ipod screens and Utube.
They arn't going to give a rats ass about film vs 2k vs 4k resolution.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 10-03-2007, 06:27 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I still contend it is a major marketing liability for the average D-cinema installation to have little difference in native pixel count than the 1920 X 1080 content on Blu-Ray and HD-DVD
Even more of a liability is the fact that most AccessIT locations with fixed height maskings scale flat down to fit the 858 pixel height of scope . . . .
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-04-2007, 10:04 AM:
No I don't think there is a marketing liability with "digital" because it isn't resolution that is being boasted...just "perfect" or "digital." What I strongly disagree with Mark (on this particular idea) is that I think that DCinema will financially kill the industry. There is no money to support the DCinema industry...it hinges on such things as virtual print fees that the studios can cut off at any time...after all that is the big savings for them.
What has allowed the cinema industry to survive so long and provide (potentially) the best image quality available is that it used realatively low-tech. The electro-mechancial projectors use technology that comparatively cheap to make in low volume. As such, film projectors to this day remain VERY inexpensive. I know some exhibitors think that $10-20K for just the film projector is expensive but based on volume sales, they are damn near free. The cost/year of a film projector is nearlly free even for the exhibitor. A $10K projector that lasts 20-50 years turns into a $200 - $500 a year projector. If the theatre can't support that, it isn't a viable business anyway. We've enjoyed the 35mm standard (that has been essentially world-wide) for nearlly a century...this has also allowed the technology to be very cheap. Of all of the things in a theatre complex, the film projector remains one of the least expensive things to own and keep up and it is the key thing that brings the patrons to the theatre.
In DCinema...this (at present at least) does not hold true...you have a very expensive projector that uses specialized technology (how many people can make imagers suitable for cinema?...how much do the imagers and support boards cost). Because it is cutting edge technology, it is inherently expensive and short lived. TI, who has invested billions in the DLP technology now need to recoup that investment and it isn't going to come from cinema any time soon...it is from home sales where potentially billions of customers exist. Right now, the home world is stopping off at 1920x1080 so don't look for TI to invest more 100s of millions to go beyond 2K unless they can make a hybrid of some sort using multiple 2K imagers...37,000 domestic screens, if every single one bought a higher res projector, wouldn't justify the expense.
Now look at film...what does it cost to improve its image? Cut the film wider? Improvements in emulsions, lenses...etc improve everything related to film, not just one targeted section.
As to image quality .... digital has actively lowered the bar from what I can tell. Scope is now the "small" format...how perverted! But that didn't start with digital...Super [bad] 35 started that odd thinking. But now that 2K digital intermediates are being done...boy how the quality has dropped...even release prints show how limiting the intermediates are.
Like the discussions about lenses in another thread, the digital image appears to be full of information because there are sharp transitions due to the pixel nature...but in fact there is a whole bunch less detail in the digital image...it loses all of its depth. I don't know if it is the lack of resolution or the rigid pixel grid like nature loses the information.
I have not done enough comparisons on the audio to determine (for myself) if the Dcinema audio is any better or worse than film based...but somehow I doubt it as I have always preferred the analog magentic sound on the high end (but digital on the low-end).
Steve
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-04-2007, 09:31 PM:
quote: David Zylstra
Even more of a liability is the fact that most AccessIT locations with fixed height maskings scale flat down to fit the 858 pixel height of scope . . . .
Where did you get that information?
The Christie CP2000 projectors Carmike is using (along with AccessIT software) don't have a 858 pixel tall setting for flat. The flat setting is typically set at 1998 X 1080.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 10-05-2007, 07:41 AM:
All 46 of my AccessIT/Christie projectors are configured with only 1 lens . . . . . . Any install using a single lens solution and fixed height masking requires that scope be fitted to the screen height and then flat scaled down electronically to fit.
This is true for any single lens install with fixed height screens, not just AccessIT/Christie.
There are 2 settings for the picture - source and screen; source is set for the resolution (i.e. flat = 1080X1998), screen has presentation coordinates where you set the X/Y coordinates for the scaler - i.e. you set where the upper left and lower right corners of the picture are on the chip - flat is set to start at Y=110 on the upper left and Y=968 on the lower right, this scales the picture to 858 pixels high (it's too early for me to remember the X coordinates used)
[ 10-06-2007, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: David Zylstra ]
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-05-2007, 07:45 AM:
quote: Steve Guttag
There is no money to support the DCinema industry...
I think you'd have a very hard time convincing the Big Three on that line, I think they account for close to 20,000 some screens if I'm not mistaken. They now have all the money in place they need to convert ALL of their screens immediately... and from Wall Street backers no less. Apparently Wall Street sees the billions they are investing in the conversion as a sound financial opportunity. Early next year AMC, Cinemark, And Regal will begin the conversion over to D-Cinema. These will all be 2K systems as they have officially anounced that the Sony 4K plan is not yet ready(no Surprise!). I was told all of this by very reliable sources in a meeting on the west coast a couple of months ago. AMC will do their entire chain in a non-stop fashion while Cinemark is going to do half its chain immediately and then the other half after 4 years. As of the meeting I had on the west coast with my reliable sources Regal hadn't devulged how they wre going to approach doing their conversion. This will all officially be announced right after the first of the year. The CBG is going to have an announcement at Show East next week! What this means is that there is going to be one heck of alot of D-Cinema out there by the end of next year and the numbers are going to grow incredibly fast over the next 4 years. This has caused some to predict a domino effect as far as film goes... As less and less film prints are ordered the price per print will increase to a point that the studios will for the most part discontinue ordering them.
BTW: New projectors from Christie, NEC and Barco when bought in large quantities as these will be have helped to keep the cost of installing it way below the norm. Even the Doremi server has now gotten substantially lower in price than it was just a year ago..... in fact the basic server is not all that much more expensive than a CP-650 and its track record is quite amazing to say the least. The new projectors comming on line as we speak have remarkably increased efficiency... this allows use of smaller lamps to light up larger screens.... you'll be seeing alot of 3kw installations that will lighting up 45 foot wide 1.8 gain screens with room to coast. Being able to use the 2 and 3 kw short gaps will significently lower operating cost back into the realm of normal theater lamp expense since these lamps at least from USHIP have the same warranteed hours as their regular theater lamps, OSRAM will no doubt also be pushed to get their short gap act together.. There have even been inexpensive mods done to some of the older machines to increase light efficiency/ Technology madvances VERY quickly... it'll be fun to see where this all heads.
Oh and Steve... of course the labor saved in the booth will more than offset the extra expense... thats already been a proven fact. And while resolution my go down a tad presentation standards will be lifted sky high in the places they were not(lets say 80% of existing theaters out there). To me a good presentation is the more important aspect to keep folks comming to the movies. The general public isn't going to care about less resolution. What does annoy them are scratched prints, poor quality images... out of focus and on and on. In regards to sound... well how something sounds is just opinion anyway everyone hears things differently. At least this time it's uncompressed.
Mark
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-06-2007, 08:24 PM:
The "big Three" account for 15,000 screens...not as much as you claim but a sizable number approaching 50% of the US business, especially if you add in Carmike's numbers. That is not in dispute. Then again, these chains seem to have no problem going bankrupt and are the ones that have had policies that have brought about the low presenatation standards you mention...not really the leaders one would want.
But putting all of that aside...DCinema cost much more money than film cinema to buy and to keep up with...37000 screens in the US does not provide enough economy of scale for any high-tech manufacturing nor is one going to get the kind of repeat and continual business because if you do anticipate this business, then you admit that the equipment doesn't have a long life.
All of this investment in DCinema hasn't shown to sell one extra ticket...if the exhibitor doesn't bring in one extra dollar for their investment (either this round or the real expensive one...the next round that won't be funded by others) then it is the making for financial disaster. Exhibitors are not exactly rolling in dough...increasing their cost of operation for zero improvement in ticket/concession sales is just plain dumb.
Steve
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-06-2007, 09:03 PM:
Well, actually the gear costs have fallen dramatically... Half on some of the newer equipment and as much on some of the more mass produced units such as the Doremi Server. Of course its still more expensive than installing a average P-35 booth but not really all that much more expensive than installing a nice Kinoton Electronic booth with all the amenities... perhaps not even as expensive.
quote: Steve Guttag
nor is one going to get the kind of repeat and continual business because if you do anticipate this business, then you admit that the equipment doesn't have a long life.
Well there is maintainiance that has to be performed on a regular basis just like film gear needs it.... less maintainaince actually but it still has to be done. Much of the usual stuff... Lamp, reflector clean/check/align, Lamp brightness, verifying color space, software updates, upgrades to existing projectors/servers. In addition there are several air filters that should get attended to based on the hour meter reading. So to say there is no anticipated buisness is hogwash. Much of this maintainance can be anticipated as you know your customers typical number of running hours per week. As a bonus some of this stuff can be verified by internet and logging onto specific machines to check on them.
No one knows how long lived the gear is going to be... this is more of a manufacturer based thing and how many semiconductors they purchase to carry existing gear and circuit designs into the future... or if they design entirely new boards to replace boards that have gone outmoded. The latter can be a big advantage since there are almost always performance gains... just like getting rid of old Kolmorgens in replacing them with new ISCO's or removing an old CP-50 and reeplacing it with a 650. So its not really how long is the life span going to be on D-Cinema gear its how long is the manufacturer going to support it. A great example of how long gear can be supported is the old Air Traffic Control system that has been in place since the early 60's. This old antiquated system is still in the process fo being replaced today... 40 plus years is pretty good service if you ask me.... so long service life IS possible and more probably on units with large numbers in the field. So if a given manufacturer wants to keep gear going for decades that is certainly possible... You ought to know... Dolby is probably the best example of this in the Cinema!
As for exhibitor cost to operate I don't know how you can claim that. In fact Carmike's overall maintainance expense has dropped over what it was with all the bastard film systemns they had going. Several locations of theirs that I am familiar with have had zero down time for a period over 1 year now, thats pretty amazing for them to say the least. CBG is looking for indies to spend no more than 10K per booth for conversion. That is certainly within the realm of any even very tiny theater and in many cases will rid the booth of old poorly operating gear/lenses and film transports... and in those locations no personell will be displaced as they have been in the larger plexs. Those that have been and will be displaced will probably all be making more money at doing some other thankless job.
Mark
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 10-06-2007, 11:47 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
CBG is looking for indies to spend no more than 10K per booth for conversion.
By booth do you mean complex or screen? If it's 10K per complex then that is reasonable. 10k per screen not so reasonable.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-07-2007, 09:51 AM:
Per screen of course. But if you'd be more comfortable forking out the 80 grand or so per booth then thats ok too. I can't think of a small plex or single screen(some that don't even operate all week) that I service that couldn't afford it. That is the CBG's goal but we have yet to see if they meet or beat it.
Mark
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-07-2007, 12:09 PM:
The smaller the theatre, the less the vpf will be since there are fewer program changes.
Anyone contemplating this should do a 5 or 10 year financial analysis. In addition to the loss-of-control, it is imperative to see how much money per year is paid to you versus how much you are paying. At least a few theatres would be better off staying with film/paying their own freight to video. Louis
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 10-07-2007, 02:06 PM:
I wonder if the 10 grand is inclusive of install or if it is equity in the equipment and install is extra . . . . . . . the outlay for most of the AccessIT deals was a little less but it was mainly to cover Christie's install costs and not equity.
Compare the investment to what theatres spent to upgrade from stereo to digital sound or even upgrade from mono to 4 channel stereo . . . . . . both upgrades could easily have been more than $10,000 depending on equipment chosen.
Of course some locations will need to invest additional money in sound equipment - i.e. upgrade to be 6 channel capable.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-07-2007, 03:37 PM:
Can you please give more information about this CBG. There is a way to get DCinema equipment for $10,000? I am all ears.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-07-2007, 03:41 PM:
You have to join the group. While I don't advocate these guys they may very well some day be able to save many an independent theater from oblivion. The cost is minimal and if nothing comes of it there is little lost. Its probably good insurance for those that can't afford D-Cinema or just don't want to pay the full price. Many here belong to it.
Mark
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 10-07-2007, 04:04 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I can't think of a small plex or single screen(some that don't even operate all week) that I service that couldn't afford it.
$80,000 on an 8-plex isn't chump change especially when there is no quality improvement so it won't sell a single extra ticket. Yes I understand that at some point 35mm won't exist but that is my problem with this whole thing. The studios are telling the independents either change over or close.
quote: David Zylstra
Compare the investment to what theatres spent to upgrade from stereo to digital sound or even upgrade from mono to 4 channel stereo . . . . . . both upgrades could easily have been more than $10,000 depending on equipment chosen.
There's a HUGE difference. Those upgrades allowed the theater to provide a vasty improved presentation which could improve ticket sales. Also, the choice wasn't upgrade to digital sound or close. In fact there are still some regal plexes around that I know aren't digital sound in all auditoriums even now.
[ 10-07-2007, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: Lyle Romer ]
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-07-2007, 06:03 PM:
Lyle,
80 grand is alot cheaper than loosing the possibly several million invested in a common plex found today. Also, from an operational standpoint D-Cinema is miles ahead of the operational aspects of film.
Mark
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-07-2007, 06:51 PM:
quote: Lyle Romer
The studios are telling the independents either change over or close.
Really? Who is saying this? When? Why?
$10k isn't cheap, especially since it won't sell any more tickets and exhibitors will need to maintain existing film systems as well for a number of years.
And what about DLP is it that _requires_ multichannel sound? Why would an exhibitor who is presently running mono need to upgrade (other than for the benefit of his customers)? Is there any technical reason why the new equipment can't be configured to work with an existing mono sound system?
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 10-07-2007, 07:28 PM:
As far as I know the "prints" are not being encoded with anything but multi-channel sound . . . . . . there were some initial digital files being created with LT/RT but they were separately labelled and after the first few months we stopped seeing them . . . . . . I'm sure it's possible to choose 1 or 2 of the 16 available channels to record mono or LT/RT (I can't remember offhand what DCI calles out the extra channes for) . . . only question is will the studios do it . . .
I heard that some of the TDC installs included a JSD-80 since using a DMA8 didn't always get the job done because the existing cinema processor sometimes did not have a 6 channel external input . . . . . I'm not sure who paid for it though (I'm only hearing it second hand from some of the guys who did the installs)
quote: Frank Angel
Can you please give more information about this CBG. There is a way to get DCinema equipment for $10,000? I am all ears.
CBG is now under the NATO umbrella - do a search for "Cinema Buying Group" and you'll get their website . . . . AccessIT and Technicolor Digital Cinema are doing "free" installs as well . . . . I know the AccessIT option includes similar up front per screen fees (mostly to fund Christie's installers) . . . . AccessIT's VPF deal for their first 4,000 units is almost up so if/when they negotiate their phase 2 the deal may be different . . . . . . . . I have only talked to guys doing the TDC installs so I don't know if their business deals are similar to AccessIT or CBG . . . . .
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-08-2007, 03:32 AM:
quote: Scott Norwood
And what about DLP is it that _requires_ multichannel sound? Why would an exhibitor who is presently running mono need to upgrade (other than for the benefit of his customers)? Is there any technical reason why the new equipment can't be configured to work with an existing mono sound system?
The Digital 'prints' only have the full six-channel mix on them, and there's nothing in the player to provide a Lt,Rt mixdown from it like there is with DVD players.
We ran digital for a while with only one surround channel because we didn't have our surround speakers wired in two groups, but this has been fixed some time ago; more expense for the cinema on top of the building work to provide a new port, HVAC work to provide an extract, ADSL line, connections to fire alarm system, Dolby DMA8, replacement of faulty Cat. 441 card that we didn't know about before as the fault only affected he digital input, which was previously unused. The amplifiers were also replaced with better ones, though this wasn't strictly required for digital, and has improved film sound as well.
We've had two films so far, I can't remember the titles now but I did mention them in a previous post, where only two channels, L and R, had any sound on them.
Several times there has been a film which was supposed to be supplied in digital, but for some reason wasn't available in that form, so we were supplied with a 35mm print instead. Other venues had played the same films in digital, so I don't know what the problem was. 'Pan's Labyrinth' was one of these. Another film was supplied in digital, but there was an aspect ratio problem with it, so it was run on film instead.
Staffing costs for us are unchanged; there is one projectionist, no more and no less, on duty when the cinema is open; it takes longer to load up a digital copy than it does to prepare a film print, and you cannot start showing a digital film until the entire film is loaded. If a film print arrives late I can have it on screen as soon as I can check and spool up the first reel; about ten minutes.
With digital we can show video with better picture quality than our old video projector could provide, when we bring back the same film for several runs we can keep the files loaded on the system rather than having to make up and break down a print each time, the sound quality is potentially better with digital, though this improvement isn't always realised; some films just have lousy sound however you play them. There's the possibility of showing live events, such as the Met. opera, though in our case this is unlikely.
As far as picture quality is concerned, I've seen digital look good, and I've seen it look terrible; the same with film. There's no dramatic difference between the formats.
Maintenance for film plus digital equipment is obviously going to be more expensive than for film only, and going digital only is simply not an option for anything other than a strictly mainstream venue at present, and isn't likely to be for a considerable time to come.
Other things being equal, having both film and digital installed is better than having only film, and I'm glad to have the digital available, but if the cost was coming out of my pocket then I wouldn't even consider it at present. There are almost no feature films that are not available on film; there are plenty, and if you are showing classic films a huge number, that are not available in digital. Most 'alternative content' is standard video, which can be shown on a normal video projector.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 10-08-2007, 07:41 AM:
We've had a few near SNAFUs where we almost got a 35mm print instead of digital - usually it ends up being confusion on our bookers part because they didn't know for sure if a film was available in digital and the studio rep they talked to may not have known for sure . . . . . . we've also seen a few where there were limited digital prints put out.
quote: David Zylstra
AccessIT's VPF deal for their first 4,000 units is almost up so if/when they negotiate their phase 2 the deal may be different
I should clarify this - the VPF deal itself is not almost up (i.e. the studios are locked into paying VPFs on the 4,000 installs for a long time) - I meant AccessIT is nearing the deadline to get the 4,000 screens signed up under this first VPF deal.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-08-2007, 08:12 AM:
quote: Stephen Furley
it takes longer to load up a digital copy than it does to prepare a film print, and you cannot start showing a digital film until the entire film is loaded.
Well, You can let the server ingest the files while you do other work. Or you can leave the server on (prefered) and let it ingest when you leave the night before. Hopefully you don't sit and watch it ingest the whole time. Once the files are ingested actual make up of a show takes but a few moments.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 10-08-2007, 08:25 AM:
I know AccessIT is working on the speed . . . . . The latest AccessIT software has a significant improvement in transfer speed from the LMS (or TMS by DCI definition) - smaller films now get transferred in under an hour . . . . (I'm told the increased speed is due to full utilization of network bandwidth and servers with SATA II drives will see the most improvement)
Ultimately any title is supposed to be ready to play in 15 minutes per DCI . . . . we'll see if anyone reaches that goal . . . . .
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-08-2007, 09:26 AM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Well, You can let the server ingest the files while you do other work. Or you can leave the server on (prefered) and let it ingest when you leave the night before. Hopefully you don't sit and watch it ingest the whole time. Once the files are ingested actual make up of a show takes but a few moments.
This is true, but not much help if a digital 'print' is late being delivered, or there is something wrong with it, and we have to get a new copy. This has only happened once, and the replacement arrived in plenty of time, the original copy was delivered several days before the date on which we opened the film. The fact still remains that from the moment a digital copy comes in through the projection room door it's going to take a long time before it can be on screen, almost certainly over an hour, unless it's a very short film, whereas I can easily have a film print on screen in ten minutes from its arrival, and if I really wanted to I could probably do it in five minutes, however long the film. I have had to do this several times in the not too distant past. If a film print arrives just minutes before a show, no problem. If a digital copy arrives at the same time then the show would have to be cancelled. I will admit that a digital copy is less likely to arrive late, for two reasons: Firstly because the keys can be configured to not be valid until shortly before the film is due to be shown, therefore the distributors may send the films out earlier, though this is not likely to apply in our case. Secondly, with film we receive many of our prints on crossover, so we cannot get them until several hours after they have come off screen at the previous cinema. Obviously this doesn't apply with digital copies.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-08-2007, 10:01 AM:
quote: Stephen Furley
almost certainly over an hour
Granted you have a two machine booth there but with 96% of the rest of the states running platter the 1 hour time is about the same as making up a 2 hour film to run patter. The other nice feature digital affords is changing previews and headers pretty much instantainously where with filmits a bit more work, especially on platter.
Mark
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-08-2007, 10:01 AM:
quote: Stephen Furley
almost certainly over an hour
Granted you have a two machine booth there but with 96% of the States running platter the 1 hour ingest time is about the same as making up a 2 hour film to run platter. The other nice feature digital affords is changing previews and headers pretty much instantaneously where with film its a bit more work, especially on platter.
Mark
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 10-08-2007, 07:59 PM:
Good to see Mark posting in over/under 3D.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-08-2007, 09:52 PM:
I don't know Ron, I don't see the 3-D here.... I don't know Ron, I don't see the 3-D here....
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-09-2007, 04:37 AM:
You should have put that in a condensed font Mark; then you'd have the anamorphic side-by-site format. Or I could drag it over onto my widescreen monitor, stretch the window out a bit, and it could be side-by-side 70mm. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
To get back to the original subject; has anybody had any experience of the new digital 3-D processes, either watching or operating? Any comments on them, good or bad? I haven't seen any yet.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-09-2007, 08:42 AM:
I've seen 2 Real-D features. Both had horrible color(probably improper color space) and the room the screen is in was too wide although the 3-D part of it seems to work. Real-D requires a silver screen.
I've seen one short demo of the Dolby 3-D system and it looked better in terms of color but at this point I can't say for the actual 3-D part since it was just a demo... although what I saw was adaquate. It does not require a silver screen but does require special (spinning I believe) filters installed in the projectors light path. I have a customer that wants to go this route sonce he's in direct competition with a Carmike Real-D System. Another thing to throw at you. Real-D is a 20K per year cost for each screen its put on... While the Dolby 3-D system is available for purchase for about 20K.
Mark
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 10-09-2007, 01:08 PM:
[ 10-18-2007, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Paul Konen ]
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-09-2007, 02:11 PM:
Indeed its less expensive and far higher quality to use two ZX projectors for 3-D than one projector as in the Real-D system. Just a little over two years worth of Real-D payments per screen pays for the second ZX projector... With this and the Dolby 3-D system available soon I think REAL-D will be headed for the Real Dumpster. Hey... I wonder if thats what the D stands for in Real-D....?
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 10-09-2007, 02:15 PM:
Mark, I didn't realize the return (ROI) would be that quick. I was thinking a couple of years longer. Thanks.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 10-09-2007, 04:54 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
With this and the Dolby 3-D system available soon I think REAL-D will be headed for the Real Dumpster. Hey... I wonder if thats what the D stands for in Real-D...
If you ask our owner he would say the D stands for Dumb since he regrets the decision to move forward with RealD - i.e. he was Real Dumb to let the studios talk him into the purchase.
Since Rave seems to have bought into RealD big time I think they will be around for a while (or does someone at Rave have ownership in RealD?)
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-09-2007, 07:27 PM:
Well, Even if the ZX is sold for as much as 60K by a dealer that just doesn't know how to sharpen his pencil thats still just three years of Real-D. At 60K a dealer is making a very healthy profit on that ZX!! I am just considering the one extra projector in this case. Obviously I am considering a new install where the first ZX and server are already factored into the costs and it will probably take two show players but in many Real-D locations that 2nd show player already exists.
What it really does boil down to is that Real-D won't be able to charge that much for its liscense... I think the color rendition on Real-D pretty much stinks anyway. Anything with two projectors is certainly superior to using just one in the brightness department. Also you will be able to run smaller lamps in each machine and get more hours from those lamps where you may have to run a 6 or 7kw lamp in a large projector to get near equal the brightness and with less lamp life... all in all it makes more sense to go 2 machine. You also have a spare machine for the majority of the time you are not running 3-D.
Mark
Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 10-11-2007, 03:07 AM:
It seems that soon there will be another option for those wanting 3D. The ZX is one of the least-expensive new digital projectors to come to market, with capabilities of producing more light than some of the currently installed equipment out there right now.
I doubt RealD will disappear, But I'm guessing that they will have to change their business model in order to stay competitive. Theaters are now going to have two options when it comes to 3-D. Either option is not without drawbacks, but I'd think that if/when Dolby is able to supply cheap disposable glasses to it's customers, it will be much easier to decide which format to go with.
When projector prices drop to a level that makes it economic sense to purchase the second projector, rather than the active polarizer that RealD uses....perhaps. But, Linear polarization has it's drawbacks.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-12-2007, 06:27 PM:
quote: Tristan Lane
When projector prices drop to a level that makes it economic sense to purchase the second projector, rather than the active polarizer that RealD uses....perhaps.
Actually I would say that it is certainly economically feesable right now. With Real-D charging 20 grand per year that fee is offset by the second machine in just about two and a half years time. Image quality is also vastly superior... so it makes even more semse to slide right past the Real-D thing and go directly for 2 machine 3-D. Asside from the above it also gives the booth an extra machine if needed in a pinch.
Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 10-13-2007, 11:37 PM:
Curious,
With the extra machine, how are you sending the A channel to one, and the B channel to the other? As far as I know, cinelink2 only allows for communication to one projector head, not two.
Or is your media block non-traditional....and therefore non DCI compliant?
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 10-14-2007, 12:30 AM:
I can't imagine that it wouldn't be DCI compliant. I will ask the TI guys about CineLink.
[ 10-18-2007, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Paul Konen ]
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-14-2007, 09:23 AM:
I suspect some modification to the software program has been done to allow this and to keep it DCI compliant.
Mark
Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 10-14-2007, 11:42 AM:
About 3D: who is using NuVision? It uses active IR controled shutter glasses. You can use a normal screen. What is the difference with Dolby 3D?
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 10-14-2007, 03:43 PM:
From TI:
CineLink 2 can operate to more than one projector from a single server. However, the server's security manager would need to key each projector individually. And, it is DCI compliant.
Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 10-16-2007, 03:04 AM:
I'm on the same line as Mark on this. I feel that some extra software and KDM provisions needed to be made to make this possible. I have yet to see an option on current servers for an additional projector. I'm not an expert on Cinelink2, but it is nice to know that dual projector is an option.
Very interesting, nonetheless.
Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 10-16-2007, 09:54 AM:
The local chain Atlas Cinemas has removed their film equipment and are now using Christie digital cinema equipment.
As far as I know this is the first chain in the Cleveland, Ohio, area to convert completely to digital cinema from 35mm.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-16-2007, 09:43 PM:
Checked with all the manufacturers except QVIS here at Shoeast and right now the Dolby and Doremi can do it out of the box, and early next year the DTS server will do 2-projector 3-D. Just like Paul said. A feeds to one projector and B feeds to the other and using linear polarizers. We have a system going in like this in a little over a month. In this case most of the time the two projectors will each serve normal duty on standard D-Cinema projection each from it's own server and when there's 3-D we will pull one projector and stack it with the other and run film in that theater we pull the head from. There are a ton of 3-D releases planned for over the next several years that will all be available only through D-Cinema methods. The nice thing about D-Cinema is that the 3-D crap can go as obsolete as it wants to but the projectors and servers can always be used normally for 2-D.
BTW: I also was able to somewhat pin Sony down on the price on the 4K projector and I was told "off the record" 120K by a guy in their booth just for the projector. The interesting part of the Sony is that its all air cooled.
Mark
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-16-2007, 11:33 PM:
One thing I find kind of strange on the 3D front is that no one is taking any steps to take advantage of this current (and very big) lull between 3D releases by booking other kinds of 3D content.
Most Carmike locations haven't played anything in 3D since Meet the Robinsons this past Spring. Quite a few locations will be playing The Nightmare Before Christmas starting this Friday. And then it will be a few weeks until Beowulf opens.
After that, then what? I don't know when U23D will open, or even if mainstream multiplex locations like those run by Carmike will even play it.
IMHO, I think studios like Paramount and others who released full color 3D movies back in the 1980s should try to make some effort at reviving those releases for midnight showings.
Paramount has booked midnight showings of Friday the 13th Part III in 3D in previous years on 35mm. I remember seeing the original release in 1982 and had a great time watching it. The movie itself basically wasn't all that great, but the 3D aspect of it made the show a lot more fun. The subsequent re-releases didn't work so well. Print damage really did a LOT to screw up the quality of any attempts to show the movie in 3D. Several years ago it was shown here in Lawton and the staff had a nightmarish experience dealing with it. The picture just couldn't stay in sync with the polarizing system. One splice could blow it all to hell. Digital projection would completely eliminate those headaches.
I think the studios should be exploring some of those possibilities to get audiences more accustomed to 3D movies and build interest in advance of their big slate of native 3D produced movies when they finally hit theaters sometime in 2009.
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 10-17-2007, 09:19 AM:
Bobby, there is a trailer on the 2007 Nightmare Before Christmas showing this year for Journey 3D with Brandon Fraser
It is the traditional goofy, in your face 3D stuff.
Camera looking up while he spits after brushing teeth.
Flashlight spinning in air, with the light hitting you in the eyes.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-17-2007, 07:58 PM:
According to IMBD, Journey 3D isn't supposed to be released until the Summer of 2008. Outside of that title, I can't think of anything else that's supposed to be released in 3D during 2008.
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 10-18-2007, 12:03 PM:
It's a scary thought but at least it's only a week. Here is what looks to be the first 3-D release for 2008. This was also announced on our local news today.
Hannah Montana Concert in 3-D
"Hannah Montana" fans everywhere will have a chance to see their favorite singer, songwriter and actress, Miley Cyrus, perform her sold-out "Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour" on the big screen for one-week only with a special Disney Digital 3D presentation coming exclusively to movie theaters in the US and Canada from February 1-7 2008, it was announced today by Dick Cook, chairman of The Walt Disney Studios. The film will also open in several international markets in spring '08 which include UK, Australia, New Zealand, German speaking Europe, Latin America and other selected Asian and European territories.
This filmed version of the concert tour will be shot in state-of-the-art 3D at several venues during the upcoming 54-city tour, which begins in St. Louis on October 18th with Cyrus's special guest, Jonas Brothers. The film is directed by Bruce Hendricks (ESPN'S "Ultimate X: The Movie") and produced by Art Repola (ESPN'S "Ultimate X: The Movie") from the concert tour created and directed by Kenny Ortega ("High School Musical"). Cyrus, the 14-year old singing sensation and star of Disney Channel's hit series, will perform as both a solo artist and as her hugely popular television character, Hannah Montana. The series is currently in its second smash season, and has attracted legions of fans all over the world.
Commenting on the announcement, Cook said, "Miley is one of the most exciting and talented performers of her generation and watching her on the concert stage is a genuine thrill. As soon as she committed to the Best of Both Worlds tour last winter, we wanted to find some special way to let all of her fans share the excitement and fun of this live event, and filming the concert in 3D seemed like an ideal way to do that. This is going to be an exciting 3D motion picture event experience for everyone who loves 'Hannah Montana.'"
Bob Cavallo, chairman, Disney Music Group, added, "Miley Cyrus continues to be one of today's most popular performers as the recent #1 debut of her 2-CD set, Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus, on the July Billboard Top 200 Chart demonstrates. She is a fantastic live performer and this film is a great way to see her doing what she does best."
Rich Ross, president, Disney Channel Worldwide, said, "The success of 'Hannah Montana' on Disney Channel and our broadcast partners worldwide is nothing short of sensational and we're so proud that the characters, the stories, the music and our stars have connected so strongly to kids and families everywhere."
"Hannah Montana" is seen on Disney Channels all over the world and on DisneyChannel.com via streaming broadband video. 2007-to-date and for 2006, it was the #1 series on basic cable in the U.S. among Kids 6-11 and Tweens and, across all television, was second only to "American Idol" in those key youth demographics. It is also seen Saturday mornings on the ABC Television Network's "ABC Kids" programming block.
In October 2006, the Hannah Montana soundtrack became the first ever TV soundtrack to debut at #1 on the Billboard Top 200, and turned Miley into a multi-platinum recording artist. Her latest CD, Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus, was released on July 24th, and scanned over 325,000 units in its first week, to become the top selling album in the U.S.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-18-2007, 01:53 PM:
quote: Darryl Spicer
"Hannah Montana" fans everywhere will have a chance to see their favorite singer, songwriter and actress, Miley Cyrus, perform her sold-out "Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour" on the big screen for one-week only with a special Disney Digital 3D presentation
I guess this is how Disney intends to make good to Hannah Montana fans after scalpers completely hijacked the tickets for the tour's live shows.
Oh. Did I say "scalpers?" I'm sorry, I meant to say the politically correct term: "online ticket broker companies."
Scalping is scalping. Those bastards are ruining a lot of good concerts with hyper inflated re-sell prices. I hope that fans of Miley Cyrus and lots of other performers revolt against this kind of bullshit. I hope they revolt by refusing to buy those high priced tickets and also revolt by contacting their various political representatives and district attorneys offices. Ticket scalping is still illegal in many states but those organized online-based businesses are using little tricks to get around the law and screw over music fans anyway.
Those stratospheric Hannah Montana ticket prices might make things interesting in how the audience is made up during the 3D filming/taping of the concert. If it's a bunch of snooty rich kids and shi shi parents in the crowd things aren't going to be very lively. "Blue collar" class audiences definitely have a lot more energy.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-18-2007, 06:34 PM:
The telling words in that story are:
quote: Darryl Spicer
for one-week only
Disney is smart enough to know that they'll do kickass business with the fans for one week and that'll be it. If they left it open-ended, week 2 would surely be about a 75% letdown.
This is another example of something that has zero need to be in 3-D.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-19-2007, 12:07 PM:
Mike...
There is zero need period for alot of the films that are churned out of Disney every year.
Mark
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-20-2007, 02:09 PM:
An interesting thought here: could someone pull this off by building a new DISCOUNT (2 buck) theatre complex in decent size metropolitan area with a 10+ number of screens, small seat houses and go all digital?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-20-2007, 04:36 PM:
I don't know if an independent theater could manage it. The theater operator would need to be part of a larger group of buyers to get a good deal.
It appears that perhaps a handful of Carmike's 2nd run locations may have digital projection systems installed. They already have a number of bargain 1st run locations digital equipped.
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 10-29-2007, 08:19 PM:
More and more individuals are making movies with electronic gear then trying to distribute them commercially.
Some of these features were intended for broadcast television and, on completion, their producers were encouraged to distribute theatrically first.
Our cinema is approached every week by different producers with an electronic feature they want to show at our cinema. Some want to hire the cinema to exhibit their work commercially.
We are averaging about one of these hard drive feature a month. It is doubtful that any of these producers will be able to afford dci-compliiant transfers.
In Australia, many cinemas have equipped for E-cinema, many of those, like us, have upgraded to 2K servers, necessary to accept the latest files. The vast majority of features are distributed only on 35mm film while a few features are available on hard drive and film. Smaller distributors are actively promoting e-cinema to widen distribution.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-29-2007, 08:36 PM:
quote:
It is doubtful that any of these producers will be able to afford dci-compliant transfers.
Give it time. I figure the 2K DCI format (and perhaps 4K as well) will be available in a number of "off the shelf" video editing applications (Apple's Final Cut Pro, Avid, Adobe, etc).
As to whether video cameras can actually shoot natively in the format is another matter. But I wouldn't mind being able to native encode DCI format motion graphics material directly within Adobe After Effects. I can already design for any pixel dimensions I choose from within AE.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-31-2007, 02:15 AM:
Are all DCinema virtual prints distributed only on hard drives deliverd to the theatre manually? Or are some coming down via Fios or satelite, which was the wet-dream a few years ago when they were talking about how digital "prints" would get to the theatres? Are there hot-swap ports where the hard drives can just plug in to be "ingested"? Or does the server just play the datastream right from the hard drive?
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-31-2007, 02:21 AM:
HDD sends that gets transferred to the server's HDD with a USB key sent later on to unlock the information for playback.
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-31-2007, 03:02 AM:
The keys can be sent by various means; most of ours so far have been on the hard disk, along with the film itself. They can also be sent on a USB key, e-mail attachment or directly onto the server via the Internet, if it has a connection, which the DSN ones do, I don't know about others.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 10-31-2007, 11:54 AM:
quote: Frank Angel
Are all DCinema virtual prints distributed only on hard drives deliverd to the theatre manually? Or are some coming down via Fios or satelite, which was the wet-dream a few years ago when they were talking about how digital "prints" would get to the theatres? Are there hot-swap ports where the hard drives can just plug in to be "ingested"? Or does the server just play the datastream right from the hard drive?
We have an AccessIT "solution" and currently films that AccessIT distributes are sometimes sent via satellite, all others are coming via HD and get "ingested" into the TMS(Theatre Management Server, AKA LMS from Access) - from there the films are transferred to the screen servers . . . . . ingestion for the Access LMS are done via USB only (the DoReMi can also be ingested directly via USB if needed).
I beleive the Dolby can do both USB and HD caddy insertion for ingestion as well as potentially play back from the content drive (but it's not recommended to play back from your only "master" copy).
KDMs come in via various means - some over the satellite, some by modem, some via email and some by USB thumbdrive.
I know TDC has a similar satellite distribution to Access so they could be sending their content via satellite too.
Just think - with DCinema you could end up with 5 satellites on your roof: 1 for AccessIT, 1 for Deluxe, 1 for TDC, 1 for NCM/Screenvision, 1 for alternate content (i.e. Dish, DirectTV, etc).
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-31-2007, 01:34 PM:
Something I have noticed is the extreme variation in the validity of the keys we have received. For example, 'La Vie en Rose' was valid only on the days we had it booked, I don't think we could even check it on the day before, 'Wizard of Oz' for about three months, and 'This is England' for about thirty years!
Posted by Phil Ranucci (Member # 3820) on 10-31-2007, 11:44 PM:
That's because there will always be an England! Or at least for another 30 years.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-31-2007, 11:45 PM:
quote:
Are all D-Cinema virtual prints distributed only on hard drives delivered to the theater manually? Or are some coming down via FIOS or satellite, which was the wet-dream a few years ago when they were talking about how digital "prints" would get to the theaters?
The vast majority of movies are delivered on hard disc. That's because most DCI-compliant movies in JPEG2000 run in bit rates far too large to transmit via satellite in any sort of cost effective manner. The bit rates for a 2K movie can often run in the range of 250 million bits per second. That's roughly 6.5 times the bandwidth of the best Blu-Ray movie discs.
Most movies are delivered on 300GB portable hard discs with USB 2.0 connections. Although I don't know the details of it, I understand companies like AccessIT and Dolby are working to move beyond the limitations of USB 2.0 and connect to movie servers in better, faster ways. When you connect using USB 2.0 it will often take nearly 2 hours for a 2 hour movie to "ingest" into a movie server. Newer standards like eSATA can move those bits from hard disc to hard disc a lot faster.
quote: Stephen Furley
Something I have noticed is the extreme variation in the validity of the keys we have received.
I have heard that, including a lot of complaints behind it as well. There has been at least a few movies whose keys only become valid within a stupidly short amount of time before the first paid audience screening of the feature. You're basically stuck having to preview the movie that morning right before the first wave of shows hit their start time.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 11-01-2007, 12:01 AM:
For the more anticipated releases, we often get keys to screen the day before for a short window, (say 6 am to noon on Thursday, and a seperate key that is good at midnight the night before.
It seems that how long the keys are valid varies by studio, (duh)
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-01-2007, 06:04 AM:
quote: David Zylstra
Just think - with DCinema you could end up with 5 satellites on your roof: 1 for AccessIT, 1 for Deluxe, 1 for TDC, 1 for NCM/Screenvision, 1 for alternate content (i.e. Dish, DirectTV, etc).
We're not far from reaching that 'goal' at my theatre.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-01-2007, 08:22 AM:
Bobby,
You left out a major thing thing! The Dolby server generally takes a hot pluggable HD to load in the contents, its been this way from day 1. It ALSO accepts a USB hard drive as well. Igestion is about an hour for the typical two hour file... much quicker than USB 2 drives.
Mark
Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 11-01-2007, 01:26 PM:
The local guy that just converted to all digital is receiving all films via satellite. He use's accessit.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-01-2007, 02:20 PM:
Stupid question: do they still send 35mm backup prints for DLP shows? (I'm guessing no, but....)
When files are delivered by satellite, do they send a backup copy on physical media, or is satellite transmission reliable enough that this isn't necessary?
Is there ever any confusion as to what format (35mm, DLP) should be delivered? In other words, have theatres ever expected a feature to play in DLP and gotten (only) a 35mm print, or vice versa?
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 11-01-2007, 02:41 PM:
Only the first few months did we get backup 35mm prints, but that was only because we were the first to convert 100% and the studios did not completely trust the equipment reliability - in the first few months we definitely needed the prints, they stopped sending backup prints in late spring of 2006 . . . . . .
We sometimes get backup HDs after a satellite transfer, but I understand they are only supposed to send them if the TMS fails to ingest the file.
We have had 1 mistake where a digital print was booked but a clerk somewhere tagged us as getting a 35mm - neither a 35mm or digital HD showed up . . . . . studio was alerted late Thursday and a HD arrived AM Friday . . . . . beyond this we have always gotten what was booked.
quote: Brad Allen
The local guy that just converted to all digital is receiving all films via satellite. He use's accessit.
I don't think he can be since Technicolor and Deluxe don't have a deal with AccessIT to use their satellite - AccessIT only distributes for a select few studios.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-01-2007, 04:31 PM:
quote: Scott Norwood
Stupid question: do they still send 35mm backup prints for DLP shows? (I'm guessing no, but....)
I don't think they do. I know my friends at our local Carmike only get the hard drives. The only time they seem to get any film prints is in those increasingly rare cases where a movie is released only on film.
quote: Scott Norwood
When files are delivered by satellite, do they send a backup copy on physical media, or is satellite transmission reliable enough that this isn't necessary?
I'm not aware of satellite transmission even being very common at all yet. Most Carmike locations have satellite dishes installed, but they're still getting their movies on disc.
quote: Scott Norwood
Is there ever any confusion as to what format (35mm, DLP) should be delivered? In other words, have theatres ever expected a feature to play in DLP and gotten (only) a 35mm print, or vice versa?
Given that providers like AccessIT are directly involved in the booking process, I'm not sure how they could mistakenly send a movie theater a 35mm print instead. The nearest thing I've seen along these lines is a theater getting a 35mm print and finding out late that the movie didn't have any d-cinema version at all.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
You left out a major thing thing! The Dolby server generally takes a hot pluggable HD to load in the contents, its been this way from day 1.
All I know is AccessIT is implementing something different (and much faster) to get movies loaded into the Doremi servers. Outside of USB 2.0, there's not much other choice than to go with hot-swapping hard discs in/out of the server or using a higher bandwidth connection standard like eSATA to offload the data. I'm kind of wondering how Firewire 800 would stack up in all of this (and wondering why they didn't use that in the first place; lots of external hard discs come with Firewire 800 connectivity).
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 11-01-2007, 05:34 PM:
quote: Scott Norwood
Stupid question: do they still send 35mm backup prints for DLP shows? (I'm guessing no, but....)
We once or twice received both formats, but I think this was simply an error.
quote: Scott Norwood
When files are delivered by satellite, do they send a backup copy on physical media, or is satellite transmission reliable enough that this isn't necessary?
I don't know, but if they were going to send a physical copy as well, then I can't see any point in sending the satellite copy at all, except possibly as a test to see how well the system worked.
quote: Scott Norwood
Is there ever any confusion as to what format (35mm, DLP) should be delivered? In other words, have theatres ever expected a feature to play in DLP and gotten (only) a 35mm print, or vice versa?
Whether by reason of confusion or otherwise I don't know, but this has happened several times, both ways, to us. Expecting digital and receiving film seems to be more common than the reverse. This is out of a total of probably something like twenty digital films so far since the first one, in March. We normally run at least four different films per week, sometimes more for special events, private hires, etc. I was working the last two Saturdays, three different films each, everything was on 35mm. On another recent week The Saturday morning children's film was the only thing, except for the adverts and trailers, all week which was on film. I think September was about 35-40% digital screenings, and that's probably the highest so far. It really does seem to be pretty random at present.
Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 04-04-2008, 02:55 PM:
audio and photos at web page
quote:
NE Ohio movie chain switches to digital projectors
No more film reels
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
The movie industry appears to be getting past a logjam that has lasted six or seven years. Movie theaters are beginning to switch over from film projectors to digital projectors ... and that's opening up a whole new menu of entertainment options. One small locally-owned theater chain in Northeast Ohio has taken the plunge and converted all of its screens.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-17-2008, 09:44 AM:
A buddy of mine went from working for HBO to a new company that books "alterative content" for the theatres which have installed digital. He's looking for another job because they are about to go bankrupt. No one wants alternative content. They want mainstream blockbusters. Well, yes, there are a few theatres that have booked the odd concert or the Met operas and the occasional business conference meeting -- no video game deals so far; he says the game copyright owners so far are thinking like the studios -- they want 90/10 deals.
So far, all these great alternative content ideas have turned out to be much too nitch-oriented with little evidence that there is any substantial demand for it, at least not enough to sustain a distribution company that only handles that type of program material. Perhaps with proper (read: very expensive) regional advertising, they might be able to generate demand for say a gaming competition, or a sports event, but to date they can't get investors to come forward to plunk down that kind of $$.
If I were a theatre owner contemplating digital conversion, I don't think I would rely on my bottom line being helped much by profits that I might find booking alternative content.
One other point he made clear is that they don't care if the theatre has installed D-Cinema for the programming the company was hoping to offer -- they are so in need of bookings that they are perfectly happy allowing programming of this sort to be run on E-Cinema projectors which most theatres have anyway. The D-C equipment is really not even necessary.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 04-17-2008, 12:49 PM:
quote: Frank Angel
So far, all these great alternative content ideas have turned out to be much too nitch-oriented with little evidence that there is any substantial demand for it
You are exactly right - my company has been dabbling in alternate content since before 2000, the only content that hit big time was wrestling and the WWE eventaully told us to stop in 2006 even though DirectTV sold us the package knowing we were a theatre - turns out they were not supposed to.
Currently it seems like the alternate content business is doing the shotgun way of trying to find what makes money - i.e. throw a bunch of stuff out there and see what brings people in.
Personally I think what needs to happen is a way to apply theatre attendance to nielson ratings - then we start showing popular pay per views, TV shows and sports during the week. (Nielson factors in TIVO views somehow, why not theatre attendance?)
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 04-17-2008, 01:41 PM:
The way to view alternate content is as a way to fill some seats during typically slow times.
The D-cinema pushers and alternate content companies are making it sound like alternate content is the new savior for the industry.
Yes, it can help bring in a little extra revenue on a september wednesday but no, it isn't going to suddenly double the location's revenue.
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-17-2008, 03:31 PM:
That's the approach I've seen here. NCM Fathom Events schedules on traditionally slow nights with some of the local Regal locations. I've attended a few of their anime screenings, which is a niche market if there ever was one.
NCM delivers the content via secure satellite link. The playback is done through each screen's pre-show projector.
I could be picky and gripe about the rather low image quality when doing it this way (e.g. the Castle of Cagliostro source was up-rezed from the latest DVD re-master of that title complete with macro-blocked colors and way way too much edge enhancement), but at least these companies are trying something different, and maybe making a few extra bucks along the way.
Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 04-17-2008, 04:44 PM:
One of my screens is set up to run live events through NCM, using an Infocus projector which replaced the Christie LW25 in that house. The high resolution operas and the one concert (Garth Brooks) looked good. (Garth sold out, BTW.)
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-17-2008, 06:01 PM:
Garth Brooks could sell cow crap to a rancher. I don't understand why he's still about the biggest thing in country...he's no more talented than any of the other hat guys who sound/look just like him.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-17-2008, 06:25 PM:
Garth Brooks is great at marketing himself. He kind of picked up on the George Strait kind of modern country music and sold it far more effectively. I think the only other music performer just as good (or even better) at the music marketing angle is Madonna.
At the same time, I kind of hate how guys like Garth Brooks have changed country music. It's all about the marketing and how the stars look anymore. It's exceedingly rare to actually see someone average looking make it big in country music anymore.
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-23-2008, 08:06 PM:
I've had a theory about this "new" country music for some time. I think a lot of acts go into country because it's not as hard to break into as mainstream or pop (or, at least that's their perception). This results in artists like Garth Brooks and The Dixie Chicks, who would much rather be making rock and roll records - and evidenced by the sound of their "country" songs.
After all, how country can you be when your favorite group is KISS (Garth's favorite)?
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 04-23-2008, 08:58 PM:
The only new country guy I really like is Dwight Yoakam and that is due to his roots in "Classic" country as in Buck Owens.
Not a bad actor either, Red Rock West, Sling Blade, etc.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-23-2008, 09:23 PM:
"New" country is pretty much just like '70s rock, except with cowboy hats (sometimes). Think about a record like Steve Miller's "Jet Airliner." Production style aside, it sounds exactly like today's country music.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-23-2008, 10:27 PM:
What's sad is if you took the 1970s incarnation of Steve Miller and put him into this time he wouldn't be good enough looking to get a record deal.
I watched the Blu-ray version of The Last Waltz last night (it was one of the freebie discs I finally got in the mail for my PS3 purchase). That concert had an amazing collection of rock and blues talent on stage. And a lot of those now legendary performers wouldn't get the time of day from a modern record company if they were unknown acts today. I think even Eric Clapton would have a difficult time breaking through if he was just some 20 year old guy today. That's how bad I think the situation has become.
Sorry about contributing to the thread drift. This tangent is an interesting topic.
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-23-2008, 10:39 PM:
Now the music industry is in a sad state of affairs now in general. People with talent are passed over for people that are controversial good music is butchered in remixes to have stupid rap jabbed in it. Music has become a game of prostitution of the artist in lot of ways.
Would Reba McIntyre be able to make it now? I don't know and I think she is one of the greatest female CW stars of all time. Country is now more like old time Rock than anything else not that that is a bad thing in someways but it isn't really country anymore.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-24-2008, 11:49 AM:
quote: Sam D. Chavez
The only new country guy I really like is Dwight Yoakam and that is due to his roots in "Classic" country as in Buck Owens.
Make sure you go see him live some time... I've seen him twice... the first time by mistake in Ogden, Utaw... but what a performance... went and saw him another tme too. The fiddler they have is absolutely amazing! By far the best Country band to go see.
Mark
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-24-2008, 03:11 PM:
I really wouldn't consider Dwight Yoakam a new guy anymore but that is just me. I guess he is newer than Tricia Yearwood she has been around for 18 years but I think he has been around well over 10 years.
Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 04-24-2008, 05:02 PM:
Yes I really like the new model of Dwight projection equipment much better than the old Garth Brooks models.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-24-2008, 07:52 PM:
Tristian... I think you MEANT to say Barf Brooks... ![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
Thats what he is known as in this part of the world. I agree Ron... Dwight Yokum is actually pretty old stuff now... but good stuff. He did start out very young in the music buisness and has been around the block so to say.
quote: Bobby Henderson
That's how bad I think the situation has become.
Yes! I think the music world has now resorted to that stupid TV show to find new vocal talent... not much there really, just once in a blue moon! The four that critique the performers are an utter joke and pretty pathetic themselves.
Now perhaps we can get back to discussing "ALL DIGITAL THEATERS"!
Mark
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2