This is topic Showplace Cinemas, Evansville, IN. Going Digital 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=000191
Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 07-28-2007, 02:42 PM:
 
Interesting to read the feedback from readers at the links site.

Showplace Cinemas Evansville, In. going all digital

Local cinema going digital
By Rich Davis-Evansville Courier & Press.
Thursday, July 26, 2007

Evansville's largest theater operation, Showplace Cinemas, is converting its 39 first-run screens in Evansville and Newburgh to digital at a cost of several million dollars.

Owner Paul Stieler also said Wednesday he's spending about $600,000 on a 180-seat Hollywood Bar & Grill that will adjoin his IMAX and 18-screen Showplace East theater on Morgan Avenue.

Stieler said besides the bar, a family area will seat about 130, with menu items ranging from pizza to hot wings.

In-house restaurants and digital screens are two major trends in the movie theater business.

"Five or eight years from now everyone will be digital. Film projectors are becoming obsolete," said Stieler, noting satellite dishes will be installed atop his Showplace East, North and Newburgh theaters to receive movies. "It's coming. It's the biggest happening in the theater business since talkies in the '20s."

Stieler said Access Integrated Technologies of New Jersey will do the work starting Sept. 1 at Showplace East.

With digital, Stieler explained, not only is the visual quality better "but it's as clear the 5,000th time you show the movie as the first time."

The onset of the digital age may turn cinemas into more than movie houses. "This will let us show not only movies but (eventually) live concerts in 3D, boxing matches, maybe in five years the Super Bowl," Stieler predicted.

IMAX movies are still produced on the larger 70mm film.

Stieler's competition, the Chicago-based Kerasotes theater chain, operates Stadium 16 on the West Side. That theater reportedly has an auditorium with digital capabilities, but Kerasotes officials weren't available for comment Wednesday.

According to Access, the industry leader in deployment of digital cinema programming, Showplace is the 11th theater chain to contract for its services.

Access can deliver nearly 2 million digital screenings of Hollywood feature films and "alternative content" and is in the process of connecting its system to 4,000 screens in 41 states.
 
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 07-28-2007, 03:51 PM:
 
Do the digital PR people give these guys a script? "Good the 5000th time as the first"; "Show more concerts and sporting events"; etc. It's the same thing every time!!!

This is similar to the script they used when the big multiplexes were coming online: "We plan on dedicating a few of our screens to foreign and independent films". Yeah, like THAT happened.

Convert to digital if you wish, but get a new line!!!
 
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 07-28-2007, 04:42 PM:
 
quote: Brad Allen
"but it's as clear the 5,000th time you show the movie as the first time."
well at least they are optomistic! 5 sessions a day for 2.7 years! shame that the dvd window is so small!
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-28-2007, 07:06 PM:
 
quote:
well at least they are optomistic! 5 sessions a day for 2.7 years! shame that the dvd window is so small!
You completely missed the point of what you quoted. They aren't saying "We are gonna show this movie 5000 times and it's gonna look great all those times." They were saying "Even if we played it 5000 times, it would look just as great at the end."

They picked a large number to indicate that no matter how many times it's played, it'll look just as good.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-28-2007, 09:09 PM:
 
They could have said, "Since we don't maintain our projectors, and we have our ushers taking care of the projection booth with minimal training, and we're too cheap and lazy to take care of our prints, the films do get pretty beat-up by the end of their run. With digital, we'll eliminate that problem!"
 
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 07-28-2007, 09:31 PM:
 
Chris I didnt miss the point at all, What made you think that? I agree that digitals strongest points is its lack of wear and tear and its uncompressed multichannel audio.

Digital projection could potentially be the best thing for $1/ subrun/ repetory houses ever!

In the comments sections did anyone notice there employee issues, cutting back the hours of staff due to a federal increase of 70 cents per hour. Does this cinema have a history of poor film presentation, find it difficult to run a 35mm print say 350 times? Any locals about, just curious?
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-29-2007, 01:45 AM:
 
I wonder how long it will be before he jacks up his ticket prices and concession prices to cover his ass when he finds out that his overall attendance stayed the same.

You know I like watching the super bowl or football in general but I have no desire to go to a movie theatre and watch it with a bunch of people when I can watch it at home.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-29-2007, 01:54 AM:
 
quote:
Digital projection could potentially be the best thing for $1/ subrun/ repetory houses ever!
The sad reality is d-cinema will be a plus for most first run movie theaters. Most movie theater chains are not willing to properly train employees in the virtues of handling film properly and showing film in the standard of "film done right."

Add to this problem the situation of strangely declining standards in 35mm mass production print quality. Jitter. Side weave. And more. Right in the freaking print itself? I don't get it. Are some of the film manufacturers deliberately trying to put themselves out of business?

Digital cinema is only at this point overcoming a certain level of mediocrity and incompetence. With "film done right" in 35mm or 70mm digital cinema would have no chance.

Also, there is no VIDEO camera in existence that can even cup the balls of any 35mm film-based camera when it comes to capturing the best image quality. If we want to talk about 8-perf 35mm or 5-perf 70mm the gigantic wide gulf already separating video and film just gets more extremely separated.

I am a computer graphic artist by living. I am highly steeped in digital technology. But I fully know that certain "analog" things still drop kick the living shit out of most "digital" things quite easily. That especially goes for any glorified video camera.
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-29-2007, 03:08 AM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
I am a computer graphic artist by living. I am highly steeped in digital technology. But I fully know that certain "analog" things still drop kick the living shit out of most "digital" things quite easily. That especially goes for any glorified video camera.
That's why records, if taken care of, sound better than CD's
 
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-29-2007, 06:33 AM:
 
I think the "d-word" has worked its magic again on the owner. He thinks (mistakenly) that someone in Evansville cares. Louis
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-29-2007, 08:54 AM:
 
quote: Darryl Spicer
That's why records, if taken care of, sound better than CD's


Thats so far from true... not even close! There have been millions of crappy sounding LP titles produced over the years... Even the over $8,000.00 I once had invested in my LP "front end"... VPI turntable, Benz cartridge air bearing tone arm and Audio Research PH-3 phono preamp... couldn't keep pace with CD development and sound quality. I used to have a record collection of over 2000 disks... of which when I disposed of it I saved the best sounding ones... those totaled less than 150. Most were direct to disk recordings, half speed mastered disks or something out of the ordinary or old Capitol or Mercury LP's made back when things were done right. Even the CD versions of the half speed mastered stuff and the old LP's started to sound better than the LP's did. I suspect there is a lack of really decent equipment at the above home to allow an honest comparison.

quote: Louis Bornwasser
I think the "d-word" has worked its magic again on the owner. He thinks (mistakenly) that someone in Evansville cares. Louis
quote: Brad Allen
Stieler's competition, the Chicago-based Kerasotes theater chain, operates Stadium 16 on the West Side. That theater reportedly has an auditorium with digital capabilities, but Kerasotes officials weren't available for comment Wednesday.
I remember seeing one of those places when I was in Evansville to pull the Simplex's out of the X-Rated theater.... I think I stayed at a motel right next door or across the street or something.

In reality I think its more than likely the Digital image and sound quality worked their magic AND having Kerasodas breathing down his back. He has to do something or loose it! I applaud him for being so bold... and I'm sure many patrons will notice the improvement in image and sound.

Mark
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-29-2007, 12:07 PM:
 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Even the over $8,000.00 I once had invested in my LP "front end"...
Bet you would like to have that back. [Smile] But I am not here to raise a debate over whose equipment is better than whose. I am not trying to seek the truth about records over CD's so let's not even go there.

I do feel that if you took two theatres and sit them side by side. One of them was a slopped floor 16 screen theatre with DLP projection on all screens and the other was a Stadium seating 16 screen theatre with all 35mm screens. You will probably find that the Stadium theatre with 35 mm will beat out the slopped theatre with DLP just because no one wants to go to a slopped floor theatre if they can go to one with stadium seats. That's just the way it is. Not very many people really care about how the movie gets to the screen so long as it gets to it. But attendance will be effected if the popcorn is stale, your theatre is dirty, your employees are rude, no stadium seating, the parking sucks, a bad neighborhood, the movie never starts on time or there is not a lot to chose from at the concession stand.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-29-2007, 01:23 PM:
 
quote: Darryl Spicer
Bet you would like to have that back. But I am not here to raise a debate over whose equipment is better than whose. I am not trying to seek the truth about records over CD's so let's not even go there.
No! Definately not... I'm glad all thats gone... and having the cartridge re-tipped and all was a hassle and very expensive. Once CD's started getting better I got rid of it all. I sent all but the best sounding 150 records to the dump [thumbsup] . The used record store here in SLC is run by the same guy that was on the Seinfeld episode who wouldn't give Kramer or George anything for their used records. It was easier to just trash em a little bit each week than to take em all the way down there.

quote: Darryl Spicer
I do feel that if you took two theatres and sit them side by side. One of them was a slopped floor 16 screen theatre with DLP projection on all screens and the other was a Stadium seating 16 screen theatre with all 35mm screens. You will probably find that the Stadium theatre with 35 mm will beat out the slopped theatre with DLP just because no one wants to go to a slopped floor theatre if they can go to one with stadium seats. That's just the way it is. Not very many people really care about how the movie gets to the screen so long as it gets to it. But attendance will be effected if the popcorn is stale, your theatre is dirty, your employees are rude, no stadium seating, the parking sucks, a bad neighborhood, the movie never starts on time or there is not a lot to chose from at the concession stand.
Well, you can't say much for those cheap lame brain theater operators who have other up to date smarter local competition and have not kept up with converting to stadium. If the competition has stadium you'd dam well better have it too. Doesn't matte what you project in... if it were projected in Super-8 you'd still find more in the stadium theater.

Mark
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-30-2007, 11:14 PM:
 
One problem I've noticed with a lot of music CDs in recent years is they are extremely badly engineered -and done so on purpose!

I have a couple of different audio editing computer programs (Sound Forge and Adobe Audition). I can load up an old CD, such as the Ultradisc II 24K Gold release of Pink Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon. The levels look very good on that one. Hardly any clipping at all. If I load a track from a recent hard rock CD I purchased, there's really no damned waveform at all. The peaks on it have been amputated. It's just a bunch of vertical streaks with squared off tops. Shit. The only thing I can figure is the record company bastards deliberately screwed up the audio quality on the disc so it would sound just as good in ultra lossy compression MP3 bullshit or iTunes. It's either that or the ass-hats subscribe to the car stereo blasta-box idiots who believe loudness equals great quality. Dude, I don't care if I can hear your car stereo in the next zip code. It still sounds like stinky ass. You suck. Burn your vehicle you tool. But the record industry guys won't relent, either with the shitty mastering jobs on their discs or the inexcusably bad derivative nature of the types of music they're selling. Hey, it's just as good as a CD. A really shitty quality CD. But they can hide behind that "digital" word and insist it is all perfect.

To me, the word "digital" is just like the word "smurf" in that blue cartoon characters series. Hey digital! Did you know I ate some digital yesterday while walking up the digital to meet digital? We talked about digital while playing digital. Then digital came over to talk about digital while we played more digital. Then we ate some digital and laughed about digital. We farted out of our digitals. Digital had sex with digital. We got high smoking some digital. Then we got in our digitals to digital home. But got arrested by digital for driving our digitals under the influence of digital. We got thrown in the digital and got to spend the entire digital in the digital. Shitty digital, man!

I think that sums up about how stupid and meaningless the word "digital" is anymore. Damned near everything is digital now. There is nothing impressive about it. There is shit quality product that can reside in the digital domain. That's the one point that seems totally lost on all those folks who worship at the digital altar. Digital is not always perfect. Buyer beware. But better yet, buyer...it's time for you to get an education already. Stop being so freaking stupid.
 
Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 07-30-2007, 11:58 PM:
 
quote: Darryl Spicer
That's why records, if taken care of, sound better than CD's
Some, not all.

Some of the RCA Living Stereo series for example are extremely well mastered and still stand up to their CD counterparts, if they are played on properly maintained equipment. And it pretty much has to be a sealed copy. Same with MFSL, some of their LPs sound absolutely incredible still.

Then there is the other end of the spectrum, John doe who bought a record player in the rejuvenation they seem to be having lately. Usually with a very low end configuration, usually consisting of an inexpensive magnetic cartridge and a roughish cut diamond stylus. Thats fine, it'll play Sgt. Peppers and Glen Campbell styrenes. But its not the capability that you can harness from a thoughtfully mastered, usually vintage LP.

Towards the 80's the record companies weren't doing crash hot, in the 70's some companies resorted to punching the labels out of old records and grinding the rest back into vinyl pellets. It really shows, records of this pedigree usually wont stand up very well to any repeated play.

Generally speaking, a lot of 80's LPs sound pretty awful, who knows, they may have even been pressing with tapes mastered for CD [Razz]
Seriously CD is excellent, its brought mobility, fidelity for those who don't want to pay for it and music to the masses. You can't stop progress, but you can ignore it [Wink]

The Vinyl Vs. CD thing will probably never die, I would say the same about film vs. digital, but thats a whole other kettle of fish.
Almost everyone in the western world has had at some point both CD's and records. For the most part the records sounded crap on vintage, and or cheap systems, CD was a godsend.
But for film, only a handful of people in the world handle the stuff, and its a little biased to say on a projectionists forum that everyone knows/cares, because simply put, many people still think theres a "VCR up there".

So yeah, its all personal preference... I think that was my point. I forget [sleep]
 
Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 07-31-2007, 12:38 AM:
 
Well said. Slow clap for Damien. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-31-2007, 06:11 PM:
 
quote:
One problem I've noticed with a lot of music CDs in recent years is they are extremely badly engineered -and done so on purpose!
I all goes down to listen before you buy. Places like Borders Books, certain Barnes and Noble stores, and Virgin Records have setups so you can hear the CD you're interested in owning. There's also this place called the Public Library where you can check out the latest CD's you like for free and make illegal copies [Big Grin] .

I agree... Damien's post was to the point... One thing he said really doesn't hold true any longer though and thats
quote: Damien Taylor
So yeah, its all personal preference...
When it comes to CD's vs. Vinyl its hardly personal prefrence any longer... most folks don't have any acccess to nor do they know that new vinyl even exists any more. 99.8% of the stores out there sell only CD's. Most folks have no choice!

Mark
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-31-2007, 09:18 PM:
 
We'd sell vinyl, if anyone wanted it. If people actually bought records, they would be in stores in great quantity. You can't build a business on less than 1% of the market, it's not worth the trouble. The last time anyone asked me for an "LP," it was a Pearl Jam album from the late '90s.

I fully agree that records can sound better than CDs. But, you need to handle records with extreme care and have a system worth thousands of dollars to achieve that, and even then you only have so many "plays" before the record starts wearing out. With CDs you can put fingerprints on them and play them through a $19.99 "discman" and, as long as you have some good $50 headphones, they'll sound great.

As for the waveform thing and the clipped peaks, I agree with that in principle; but I think about 97% of people couldn't tell one from the other as long as the volume is the same from A to B.
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-01-2007, 05:33 AM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
With CDs you can put fingerprints on them and play them
You can actually put 5 evenly spaced strips of black tape (i think up to 1/8" thick) radiating from the center of the disk and it will still play (assuming the disk is in good condition) and sound the same due to the FEC scheme.
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-01-2007, 05:45 AM:
 
quote: Brad Allen
Owner Paul Stieler also said Wednesday he's spending about $600,000 on a 180-seat Hollywood Bar & Grill that will adjoin his IMAX and 18-screen Showplace East theater on Morgan Avenue.
Bet ole Mr. Stieler won't be such a happy pup when he realizes that this digital revolution he's so thrilled about is going to cost him even more when IMAX, who evidently is as equally thrilled that they can have their movies look as good on the 5000000th showing as it did on the first rolls out THEIR digital-to-replace-70mm-film system?

Seems they too are determined to fully abandon 70mm film for IMAX screens and move to digital projection using two or possibly four Sony 4K projectors -- they are not sure which will be the final configuration.

Having to buy 4 Sony 4K digital projectors is a BIG chunk of money that he'll have to cough up above and beyond the millions he's already spent for his 35mm replacement digital projectors.

I wonder if he can sell his IMAX film projector on eBay....maybe recoup some of the capital he's already invested in IMAX FILM technology. If not, he's going to have to reeeeeally jack up the price on those hot wings and pizza slices. [Eek!]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-01-2007, 08:56 AM:
 
quote: Frank Angel
Having to buy 4 Sony 4K digital projectors is a BIG chunk of money that he'll have to cough up above and beyond the millions he's already spent for his 35mm replacement digital projectors.
Frank,

Imax ONLY leases their equipment. So he won't be buying the Sony's... although in the long run that would be alot less expensive! Also, his Christie D-Cinema booths will cost him pretty close to zero. All he's responsible for is the service contract expense.

Mark
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-02-2007, 02:09 PM:
 
So how does one get such a sweet deal? How do I get a D system for nothing plus the cost of the service contract. Sounds a little to good to be true. And since we run classics, I guess I'd be playing DVDs, on this free equipment, eh?
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-02-2007, 06:54 PM:
 
Frank,

You won't be getting a free system because the Christie/AIX contract is at a point where it has almost been fulfilled... 4000 units installed. I was told there is a new one being negotiated but it won't be the same deal.

On another front Christie is just beginning production on a new D-Cinema projector that will make D-Cinema more affordable. They have a new projector that has a 50K list price. Now all of a sudden we're getting into a price realm that many theater owners can actually afford. The neat thing and the bombshell is that this projector will work on about 80% of the existing screens out there... meaning those up to about 45 feet in width. Say good bye to seeing to the expensive $80,000.00 projectors on the smaller screens! And it only requires a maximum of a CDXL30 lamp to achieve standard brightness levels for that size image... and smaller lamps on yet smaller screens. The lamps are somewhat more expensive than a standard Ushio xenon lamp, not outragously so though and have the same warranted hours as the regular cinema lamps.

These CDXL short gap lamps also work well in cinema projector lamphouses and you can usually drop down a size in lamp and cut your power consumption by about 600.00 a year. The Osram short gap lamps just have not lived up to what the Christie short gap lamps can do in life span.

Mark
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-02-2007, 07:03 PM:
 
Cool, DC has gone from $100,000 per screen to $50,000 per screen in about 2 years. How long till it hits $25,000? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-02-2007, 07:27 PM:
 
I think you'll see it sit at 50K for quite a while. NEC is comming out with a competing machine in that price range but I think it'll be a while before you see it in production.

Mark
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-02-2007, 07:59 PM:
 
quote: Damien Taylor
Some of the RCA Living Stereo series for example are extremely well mastered and still stand up to their CD counterparts, if they are played on properly maintained equipment. And it pretty much has to be a sealed copy. Same with MFSL, some of their LPs sound absolutely incredible still.

Then there is the other end of the spectrum, John doe who bought a record player in the rejuvenation they seem to be having lately. Usually with a very low end configuration, usually consisting of an inexpensive magnetic cartridge and a roughish cut diamond stylus. Thats fine, it'll play Sgt. Peppers and Glen Campbell styrenes. But its not the capability that you can harness from a thoughtfully mastered, usually vintage LP.
(a little late to make comment on this, but I'll chime in anywhos..)

I have a open reel-15ips 2trk copy of the famous 1s/1s LSC-2436 Pines/Fountains of Rome with Reiner/CSO vinyl where Mohr/Layton pushed the envelope for vinyl stereo recordings...couldn't match up to the "Living Stereo" release. Plus, I have the original open reel release of the other famous Reiner recording - the LSC-1806 Strauss Zaratrhustra - which "Living Stereo" couldn't make a decend CD copy neither.

Then, Victor blew it all to pieces with their "Dynagroove" processing - to make John Doe's cheap phonographs sound great with over modulated pressings.

Then, it went to pot from there ... - Monte
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-02-2007, 08:16 PM:
 
Actually the SACD's released of all those famous Red Seal recordings are according to the engineer that did the SACD mastering a very very close copy of the original master tapes.

Mark
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-02-2007, 09:01 PM:
 
True about the SACD version of the "Living Stereo" releases for those are a complete turnaround from the '90's BMG "Living Stereo" releases - in which the above reference came from against the analog recordings - in which I make an apology from not being more clear on that topic.

.
 
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 08-02-2007, 09:49 PM:
 
50K for the projector. How much for the server and anything else you need to switch over?
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-03-2007, 10:15 AM:
 
There are servers under 20K now. I think the Doremi is around 15K depending on options. Or look at it as costing the same as a new Range Rover LSE for the entire D-System.

Mark
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-03-2007, 10:42 AM:
 
Does the $50k include lenses? Is there anything else (besides a server) that is needed in order to make the unit work (other than a sound system, which is presumably already in place in existing theatres)?

Is the image quality and reliability of the $50k unit comparable to that of the previous generation of [dlp] projectors?

What is the typical installation cost?

If it's really possible to get a complete DCI-spec system for $65k, that's not a bad deal for a new installation, although film capability (at least on some screens in a multiplex) will be necessary for showing titles not available in DLP, which would mean additional costs.
 
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 08-03-2007, 12:40 PM:
 
No, lenses are extra as well as a playback server and automation . . . . nothing else comes to mind that you would need besides a TMS system if you want one.

The image quality is the same since Christie uses the same DLP light engine as the CP200H, NEC and Barco are using the smaller .98" DLP chip, but the pixel count and color reproduction on those are the same.

I was told that Christie's new ZX projector costs 20% less to manufacture, so if list for the CP200H was $100,000 then this one should be $80,000 . . . . . as I understand it they went with a single phase 220 lamp power supply which allowed them to fit all the components in the lamphouse body so the base is just a projector stand . . . . I recently found out that they came up with another 3K lamp that is brighter than the CDXL-30 and that is the real source of the higher lumen output . . . . the only reason the new lamphouse cannot take a 4K+ lamp is the power supply limitation and lamps larger than 4K won't physically fit (I originally thought they were using the smaller DLP chip, but they stuck with the larger one that is in the H lamphouse).

As a sidenote I heard that the Sony's are going for $85,000 . . .

As for still needing film - since early spring we have rarely had to build a print at our 2 18 screen locations (mostly limited release films) and our 10 screen has run almost 100% digital so a new cinema would theoretically only need a few 35mm systems to accomodate the rare film only releases . . . . of course we'll see how many 35mm prints get dumped on us this fall (last year we ended up with about 50% film for the fall releases after an almost 100% digital summer).

As for buying a "DCI compliant" system - don't buy yet unless you have a garauntee from the manufacturer that they will give you all future components necessary to bring your hardware up to be 100% DCI compliant -- currently there is NO DCI compliant system out there, nothing can be truly compliant until SMPTE publishes all the standards.

Installation costs shouldn't be more than anyone pays now for 35mm - i.e. the work required to align the projector and set up the server is not much more than setting up a 35mm system - i.e. platter alignment, rollers, aperture filing, etc turns into aiming, sizing the picture if the lenses are variable focal length, setting up the input files, setting the cropping files, etc. . . . . only snafu may be having to replace DOA parts . . . .
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-04-2007, 06:59 PM:
 
I just got back home from a trip to L.A. and Christie was one of my visits...QSC and DTS the others. I saw the new ZX projector in operation and all I can say is that for 50K it is going to be one big bombshell! Yes... I was told 50K list!! They are doing this because this one projector will cover most of all the screens in existance... Christie intends to get things rolling big time with this projector and have them on thousands of screens within 5 years time. If they achieve this film as a majority will go quickly.

The ZX will only take a maximum of a 3kw lamp and it's intended maximum screen size is 45 feet wide. If you have a bigger screen then you're going to be needing the larger D-C projector.

We spent a couple of hours just on lamps. The benefits of using the CDXL in film system lamphouses and the power savings they afford(600+ dollars a year savings in some cases) and I was not told of any new CDXL30 over the one that already exists. The projector is intended to be used with standard CDXL Christie lamps however regular CXL cinema lamps can also be used if your situation will work with one. The big thing with the CDXL lamps is that they have a warranty that is virtually identical to the regular cinema lamp warranty! I think Osram short gaps just got snuffed!

Now instead of $125,000 for a system you can have an entire system for anbout $80,000 if you put things together carefully. This is entirely realistic for ANY theater operator we are now servicing to aquire through a simple lease. I still prefer not to sell D-C stuff outright because a lease allows easier equipment upgrades at the end of the lease. The longest you'd be stuck with any given booth full of gear is 7 years.

Mark
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-04-2007, 07:14 PM:
 
Quite some interesting reading on this Christie ZX and what Mark said above.

(..but using switchers for these units [Confused] ?)

quote:
I think Osram short gaps just got snuffed!

And heard that Osram is doing something different with their bulbs - making bulbs that fit's any kind of budget - from cheap to expensive kinds of budgets..

-Monte
 
Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 08-04-2007, 10:01 PM:
 
How does the Barco DP-1500 compare to the Christie on price and output - it seems to be aimed at a larger range of screen sizes.
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-04-2007, 10:57 PM:
 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
This is entirely realistic for ANY theater operator we are now servicing to aquire through a simple lease.
Other than 3D screens, why on earth would I want to pay $10,000+ per year in lease payments per screen to changeover? On a new build it might make sense. Unless the film companies are going to credit me for the print cost it won't make economic sense.

Tell Christie to come up with a 4k system that can be bought (including lenses and servers) for $50,000 and it might become worth it just to be able to advertise "4 times the resolution of HDTV".
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-04-2007, 11:10 PM:
 
quote: Lyle Romer
Other than 3D screens, why on earth would I want to pay $10,000+ per year in lease payments per screen to changeover?
Well, 7 to 10 years down the road when you have a hard time getting film to run through those archaic machines it might beat letting your whole buisness collapse.

I won't dive too deep into the advantage of two projector 3-D but the second projector would increase the image quality considerably and not paying the 20K yearly Real-D fees the projector would offset itself in a little over 2 years.

Its obvious the DP-1500 is the other brand close equivelent to the ZX. I don't know the DP-1500 suggested list.

Also, from what I was told at the last Showest the ZX is using the latest T.I. .98 chips. Thats how the optical efficiency has been increased so much.

Mark
 
Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 11-24-2007, 04:26 PM:
 
Showplace Cinemas Upgrades to Digital

Showplace Cinemas upgrade to digital movie projectors
By Kate Braser
Saturday, November 24, 2007


As holiday crowds flock to the 18-screen Showplace Cinemas East theater in Evansville this weekend, they probably won't notice projectionist Ben Knapp or the recent, major change behind how the pictures make it onto their movie screens.

Audiences won't notice because that's the point: Knapp, 25, is the man behind the scenes.

As the Morgan Avenue theater's last remaining projectionist, it's always been his job to make sure the films run smoothly, since a glitch can ruin a swiftly moving plot.

Six weeks ago — just in time for the busy holiday movie season — Knapp's job got easier. For that, he credits the recent replacement of the theater's 35mm projection machines with digital equipment.

Previously the theater had 18, 35mm projectors. Now it has only one.

It's a result of Showplace Cinemas' recent conversion, at a cost of several million dollars, of its 39 first-run screens in Evansville and Newburgh to digital. IMAX movies are still produced on the larger 70mm film.

It seems the iconic image of film running through a movie projector is becoming something of the past.

Showplace Cinemas East manager Aaron Smith, 35, said in the 17 years he has worked there, the addition of digital projectors is the biggest change he's seen in the industry.

"In 10 years, you won't be able to watch 35mm film," he said. "I was old school. I thought the quality of 35mm would be impossible to duplicate, but I have no doubt now digital is better. The vibrance of color is definitely better."

One morning this week, Knapp prepared the theater's last 35mm projector to run "Bella," a lower budget, independent film. Theater managers decided to keep the 35mm projector on site because some independent films produced by smaller companies are still done using 35mm technology.

"I don't think (digital) is good different or bad different, it's just different," Knapp said. "I like 35mm because it's so real, but the digital picture is so crisp."

As Knapp walked into the narrow, second-floor projection booth, he cupped his ear.

"Hear that?" he said.

The room was filled with the quiet hum of the new digital machines. Each digital system stood about five feet tall, and looked like a giant computer hard drive.

"It was weird coming up here the first week," Knapp said. "It was silence."

Knapp explained the 35mm machines made a loud, clattering, whirring noise.

Knapp said although it's more time consuming, he still enjoys working with the theater's remaining 35mm system.

"This is so real," he said, connecting the 35mm film comprising "Bella" from a platter the size of a tire to the projector.

He turned to point toward a digital system a few feet away. "This isn't as real," he said. "Sitting in the theater, you could hear the hum of the 35mm through the window. And up here, I could touch it."

From his perch inside the projection booth, Knapp came to recognize the cues embedded in 35mm film that would signal it was time for him to switch film. A small light known as a cigarette burn in the upper corner of the screen — usually unnoticed by the audience — would tell Knapp it was time.

"My job is a lot easier now," Knapp said. "I basically carry a clipboard around and make sure everything starts as it should. Before, if the 35mm film messed up, it would take forever to fix it. But with the digital, it just takes a few touches on the computer screen."

Saving time

The digital system saves Smith time, too. He said each digital movie is 150 to 200 gigabytes — far more than the average personal computer could contain. Despite that, each movie arrives in a small case.

"Before, the 35mm films would arrive here in two big, 50-pound cans," Smith said, adding they would come separated into several rolls. Staff would put the film together, splice it and do a complete run through. The process took more than three hours. With digital, it takes less than two hours.

"Now I just copy and paste from my keyboard," Smith said. "It doesn't take nearly as much time or space."

With that time savings comes a perk: Smith said in a normal week, Showplace East receives two or three new movies. But in the midst of a rush of holiday releases this week, they are showing eight new movies — a number Smith says might not have been possible with 35mm.

"Now that we've switched to digital it helps when we get that many new movies," he said. "Because now it's really pretty easy to set them up."

And with this week amounting to one of the theater's busiest, Knapp said he'll be able to use his new free time to help busy co-workers behind the counter or running to the bank for change.

"That's weird because it's been seven years since I worked downstairs," he said.
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-25-2007, 03:42 AM:
 
quote: Brad Allen
A small light known as a cigarette burn in the upper corner of the screen — usually unnoticed by the audience — would tell Knapp it was time.
Hmmm....gives you some idea of the level of technical information flowing between the theatre operator and the reporter. If this is what the reporter gleaned from Mr. Knapp....well it kind of speaks for itself.

quote: Brad Allen
Access can deliver nearly 2 million digital screenings of Hollywood feature films and "alternative content" and is in the process of connecting its system to 4,000 screens in 41 states.
Can someone please explain this jibberish to me?
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-25-2007, 08:16 AM:
 
Makes sense to me..... I have been in one of the locations where they are all connected to!
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-25-2007, 11:23 AM:
 
quote: Frank Angel
Hmmm....gives you some idea of the level of technical information flowing between the theatre operator and the reporter. If this is what the reporter gleaned from Mr. Knapp....well it kind of speaks for itself.
Did you expect a small news article to have tons of technical info? He could've explained it very well to the reporter only to have them put in that vague description. You have to consider both that this is a non-technical writer AND they are writing to a non-technical audience.

quote: Frank Angel
Can someone please explain this jibberish to me?
The installed screens are connected to AccessIT's network and stuff gets delivered through it.

http://www.accessitx.com/mediadelivery.html
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-25-2007, 01:43 PM:
 
I think even the non-technical public understands the word "cue," which is allot more descriptive than
quote: Brad Allen
A small light known as a cigarette burn in the upper corner of the screen — usually unnoticed by the audience.
I don't know, I asked one of our secretaries if she ever saw a light that looked like a cigarette burn when she was watching a movie. She said of course not -- she said she thinks she would notice a cigarette burn on the screen; she asked what I in the world I was talking about.

And I stand by my confusion....what does it mean that "Access can deliver nearly 2 million digital screenings"? They've got 4000 screens....what the hell are 2 million screenings....and why only "nearly"? What are they computing here...number of shows? I don't get it.

At least Mr. Knapp didn't entirely piss on film -- "I like 35mm because it's so real, but the digital picture is so crisp." I like crisp too. [Razz]
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-25-2007, 02:14 PM:
 
Obviously a screening is a show. They're just using an outlandish number to point out that they have the ability to show lots of movies.

Also, with the "cue" or "cigarette burn" most people I know had no idea those were on screen whatsoever until they saw Fight Club. Hell, one of my old coworkers saw some movie at another theater and the print was so scratched that he said he wanted to go in their booth and find out how they were able to damage a print that much, then when he left he said something to his wife about it and she said she hadn't noticed a thing.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-25-2007, 03:48 PM:
 
Yeah...did you notice the 3-hour build up/run through time...if you are going to add in the run through time for the film add it in for the diigtal.

As for color...well film has digital beat...and film remains with twice as much resolution on the worst format...though 2K digital intermediates can lower film's final outcome to digital's level. I wonder why his film presenations were so crappy as to see an improvement in digital.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-25-2007, 08:35 PM:
 
quote: Steve Guttag
I wonder why his film presenations were so crappy as to see an improvement in digital.
Steve,

Its still obvious that you're living in your own little fantasy world of perfect booths and presentation every time... about 80% of the rest of the world suffers incredibly from the poor projection of film. Why digital is an improvement in most locations should be all to obvious.

Mark
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-26-2007, 10:55 AM:
 
I was talking to a nephew who was home from college for Thanksgiving. He said he didn't notice any huge difference from the digital conversion in the theatres he had attended (in Utah). I said, "Good...that means they were doing a good job with film."
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-26-2007, 12:07 PM:
 
I don't know how you come to that percentage, Mark, but they just put in a 18plex here in Brooklyn and one of those high-end, creature comfort multiplexes with waiter service and gourmet food, etc., and I must say that in both of these operations, the film presentation is top notch, and both have only one and two digital screens respectively. They don't seem to find the need to go full tilt digital. Maybe that's because their film presentation is as good as their digital, giving them no advantage in terms of audience preference.

I don't know what theatres you go to that you can make that statement, but either the theatres where you live are just generally very badly run or you are simply exagerating because here in Brooklyn (not Manhattan where you'd expect top draw presentation) and out on Long Island, I challenge you to find any significant number of movie-goers who can tell the difference between digial and film presentations, certainly not enough to perfer one over the other. And I come by THAT statement by talking to my patrons and to managers, many of them are my personal friends. Perhaps you are making your conclusion based on the theatres that you service, which would be the theatres that are having problems. However you come to that percentage/conclusion, I don't think it's valid.

Saying that 80% of ALL theatres suffer from "incredibly poor" film presentation starts to sound a lot less like a measured, unbiased technical observation and more like more of the same digital hype that we've all heard ad nausium from the people who sell and will profit from digital -- you know, the stuff that sounds like it's coming from a used car salesman, and with about as much credibility.

If you want the world to embrace digital, it won't happen by pissing on film -- it just alienates people who have worked with film their entire careers and who normally would approach new technology with open minds. All that denegrating film just slams those minds shut.
 
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-26-2007, 12:57 PM:
 
I must live in my FILM fantasy world. There is no scratch or jump or bad focus in any theatre where we work; 90% have Dolby Digital and the rest are SR. All are JBL on speakers and amplifiers are typically functioning at 0.010% distortion or better.

While we have a couple of "average" operators; most care about damage & presentation. Yes, I must live/work in that area where 100% of the good 20% Mark mentions.

Digital to our customer's customers is something that puzzles them since it looks the same, except darker. Louis
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-26-2007, 08:54 PM:
 
The other fantasy about all this is perfect digital presentations...about all that they can be guaranteed is that they are scratch free....however misformated has already been reported here. It appears that light levels do indeed vary quite a bit and exhibitors still try to avoid changing a lamp until it won't strike....yes digital presentations with dark/flickery lamps...exhibitors are still exhibitors. Most of the digital specs for lamp life also are based on 1.8 gain screens...who is putting those in? A 1.8 gain screen requires it to be curved for even illumination...digital or film. 3-D digital also does yet even more hand-waving with the overall light specs...kiss 14fL good bye.

Another thing that has been mis-represented is the lamp costs...sure Christie had their CDXL line...they cost SIGNIFICATNLY more than their CXL versions. A preception of flicker-free presentations is much less tolerant in digital due to the lack of shutter than with film. Realistic life expectancies are sill longer with film and thus the cost/hr to operate film remains less.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-27-2007, 08:44 AM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
I said, "Good...that means they were doing a good job with film."


Actually there are just one or two locations still showing film in SLC. The Holliday 6 screener is too far from any of the Colleges for him to have visited and the Cinemark 24 screener which is way southwest of town in West Jordon is about the only location still running all film(ok they have one digital system there). So Mike I think what you meant to say was they it means the digital here is so good he mis-took it for film.

quote: Louis Bornwasser
I must live in my FILM fantasy world. There is no scratch or jump or bad focus in any theatre where we work; 90% have Dolby Digital and the rest are SR. All are JBL on speakers and amplifiers are typically functioning at 0.010% distortion or better.
So Louis.. I guess you must be striking IB prints for all your locations so they are perfectly steady, or your locations only play RP-40! Todays typical high speed contact print is barely passable in the steadiness department frequently not even meeting SMPTE standards for picture jump.

While many of your locations are SRD what about all those CP-45's you sold that don't have "Real SR"?

And the Ashly power amps that I also like are very clean but what about those JBL's that typically approach 12% to 15% harmonic distortion on the lower octaves? Those clean Ashleys don't really matter much do they... but the JBL commission check at the end of the year is certainly nice! Sorry, but there are better speakers to be selling with far lower distortion and better build quality that don't cost your customer very much more for the extra return in performance.

A fantasy world we do live in especially when we've fooled ourselves and our customers into thinking some of the things we do. In my world neither film nor digital is perfect and both still have too many ways to set yourself up for disaster. Digital has an excuse... its still a baby... with film there is no excuse after 100 years!

Mark
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-27-2007, 10:44 AM:
 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
So Mike I think what you meant to say was they it means the digital here is so good he mis-took it for film.
No, actually what I meant to say was "Las Vegas" instead of "Utah." (Got two of my nephews mixed up) He's been there for about 3 years so he's seen film and digital presentations in the same theatres.
 
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-27-2007, 02:14 PM:
 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
there are just one or two locations still showing film in SLC. The Holliday 6 screener is too far from any of the Colleges for him to have visited and the Cinemark 24 screener which is way southwest of town in West Jordon is about the only location still running all film(ok they have one digital system there).
did the tower theater close or go digital? i think i remember them renting videos in the lobby as well when i stopped in 10 years ago.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-27-2007, 04:47 PM:
 
The Tower is still there and it is still as usual very much a dump. Strictly art fair and they do on occasion run digital but machines have been brought in for that. If a movie plays there that I want to see I prefer to wait for it on video.

Mark
 
Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 11-28-2007, 01:25 AM:
 
In the UK, the uptake of digital cinema seems to have been much slower than in the US. Most multiplexes have only one or two screens that are equipped for digital projection; the rest are film-only. Many cinemas don't have any digital projection equipment at all!

I've always found that digitally projected movies are a bit too good... there's no bob or weave, no film scratches (unless they were present on the original camera negative), and often a sharper picture. Plus, they never start out of frame or need refocusing! However, depending on how close to the screen you are, you can often see the individual pixels on a digitally projected movie. I have only ever seen 2.5 digital movies in my life (the .5 being Beowulf where the sound screwed up; see my other post) - and have been really impressed by the picture quality.

Having said that though, film presentations can look really good as well. Sometimes, the bob and weave you see on the screen is not the fault of the projector; the movie is actually printed like that! One time I was watching a movie and the BBFC card came up... it was so steady and 'clean' that I had to look back and make sure it hadn't switched over to digital! [Big Grin]

At least the majority of movies I go to, they do manual starts and the projectionist checks framing and focus (adjusting if necessary) during the first few seconds.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-28-2007, 08:17 AM:
 
And just to squash Mr. Guttags idea that D-Cinema may go nowhere before it gets somewhere the "Cinema Buyers Group" is now 8200 members strong and has received proposals back from 4 vendors which include... Acess-IT, Technicolor, Kodak, and one other whose name escapes me at the moment. They are indeed still aiming for a 10K per booth cost to the exhibitor, the remainder to be paid for in virtual print fees. Yep! Those don't seem to be going away like he claimed either. To top that off Acess-IT has received approval for financing for another 10,000 screens of digital cinema. I would imagine that also means that T.I. will also be seeing better sales in the DLP Chip department that he claims is doing so woefully poor. Oddly enough Sony doesn't appear in this game plan anyplace at this point in time.

Somehow D-Cinema all seems to be falling right into place...

Mark
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-28-2007, 09:27 AM:
 
Mark...you may spout what you want...but CBG thus far is installing nothing and TI will NEVER make its numbers from DCinema and A/V venues, combined. Take your 18000 screens...that amounts to 54,000 chips...TI needs annual sales in excess of 1,000,000...even if the entire industry switched tomorrow...it would never make for 1,000,000 in annual sales (and that is the threshold, not the goal).

People that are throwing their money at DCinema are paying a preminum for no more ticket sales...it makes no sense from a business stand point. And at the end of the day...you STILL have an inferior system.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-28-2007, 11:23 AM:
 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
"Cinema Buyers Group" is now 8200 members strong and has received proposals back from 4 vendors which include... Acess-IT, Technicolor, Kodak, and one other whose name escapes me at the moment.
I believe the missing name is Digeserv. CBG actually received proposals from 10 vendors but narrowed it down to the short-list of four.

quote: Steve Guttag
And at the end of the day...you STILL have an inferior system.
I think that a huge majority of the audience would not think digital is inferior. I think most people would say that it looks as good as film, or better if they even notice a difference. I've only seen 3 or 4 digital movies, and while I can't say I love the way it looks (I guess maybe I like a little bit of unsteadiness?) I have to admit that it looks good. Different. But good. I also have to believe that by the time it works its way to our neck of the woods, even more improvements will have been made.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-28-2007, 12:35 PM:
 
Mike...by not as good, I'm speaking of the physical numbers of resolution, color rendition and contrast. There is a very 2-D look to digital images...it isn't that the images are not sharp, they really can be but the resolution is about half of what the 1.85 film image is...as such there is just less information there (speaking of 2K).

Would most customers think it is worse?...probably not...but why would you spend significantly more money in the near and far term to get a customer base that doesn't see a significant improvement that would result in increased ticket sales? It isn't like 70mm when you had a slam-dunk improvement in the show combined with an exclusivity that allowed those exhibitors so equipped to get more than their fair share of the pie.

Steve
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-28-2007, 01:04 PM:
 
Steve - All true, but if the studios eventually stop making film (as we know they want to...don't they?) and if the audiences think digital looks fine, then it becomes more of a financial decision for the theatre owner. There's also the fact of how fast technology is progressing...in 20 years, we'll probably look back on "2k" and laugh as we watch movies in 256k or whatever.

The big thing I have always wondered about (and nobody has ever addressed) is what about upgrades in 10 years when all this new equipment has been vastly outdated? Even if the studios extend the VPFs for a while, they won't extend forever. At some point, the cost of systems has to drop dramatically.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-28-2007, 03:53 PM:
 
quote: Steve Guttag
Mark...you may spout what you want...but CBG thus far is installing nothing
I hardly think any vendor is going to turn down installing 8200 screens worth of gear! Wait till Showorst, they should be gearing up by then to actually start doing the installs...

quote: Steve Guttag
Mike...by not as good, I'm speaking of the physical numbers of resolution, color rendition and contrast.
Steve..... this is usless... we all understand that but the public doesn't. This is something that a very tiny percentage of today's movie goers even know about or stop to think about. Indeed the studios have even put all that gobbildigook on the back burner a long time ago... not that I like it either.

quote: Steve Guttag
There is a very 2-D look to digital images...it isn't that the images are not sharp, they really can be but the resolution is about half of what the 1.85 film image is...as such there is just less information there (speaking of 2K).
Well, I definately don't see the 2-D aspect weighning into Digital projection unless its done very poorly.... film done poorly is actually far worse with its scratches, dust, and splices. I find good digital projection to more closely resemble the look of dailies... or to have a look much closer to the negative itself.... indeed today most films in production screen their stuff digitally if they bother to screen it at all. I actually find good digital to be more 3-D ish myself and have grown to prefer a good digital screening to the every day film screening. The sound is also superior.

I feel that digital has a more a perceived sharpness(even thought its not really there) by the general public and viewing audience because essentially a dirty window has been removed from in front of the image(scratches, dirt, and splices).It would be very interesting to conduct a psychological study into what pople perceive when watching digital vs. film.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Even if the studios extend the VPFs for a while, they won't extend forever. At some point, the cost of systems has to drop dramatically.
Well also ask yourself what will your desktop computer look like in 15 years??? It will more than likely be residing in your cell phone along with your GPS. So in 15 years whats a digital projector and server going to look like? Once you know that answer then you can tell what the cost will be. Myself... in 15 years I think as far as image projection goes that the Xenon Lamp will be obsoleted by lasers of some sort. The server, what ever that will look like or if we even need one... will be built into the projector and it will occupy 1/6th the space that the typical D-Cinema system occupies today.

Mark
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-28-2007, 04:19 PM:
 
Mark you miss that when it comes to projectors for cinema...there is not economy of scale to drive the costs down. The exhibitors also have no continual desire for the latest and greatest. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the dynamics of the projection technology to think that there is going to be this R&D to go beyond very far. 2K was funded by the desire/need for consumers...there is no plans (except some experimental stuff in Japan) to go beyond 2K for the home.

In truth, I think they way to really high-def is like Mark said, not with arc lamps...it would be more likely with laser or skip projection all together and have the screen be an emense flat panel display. It has the best chance of being able to use other industry technology for a better cost of scale.

Steve
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-28-2007, 06:10 PM:
 
quote: Steve Guttag
skip projection all together and have the screen be an emense flat panel display.
I can see where that will happen but I hope it doesn't. Some of the magic of the movies is that beam of light going through the air.
 
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-28-2007, 06:23 PM:
 
Mein Gott! Steve and I agree exactly!

Yes, and (because of obsolescence) today's digital projectors (along with their 10-15 year time payments) will be gone & forgotten in 4-6 years.

I think I'll stick with film for awhile longer! (NextGenTV). Louis
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-28-2007, 06:27 PM:
 
Oddly enough...I'm not as concerned about the media or the light flickering through the air...I don't think that was ever what movies were about...that was just the means available to bring it about.

To me it is all about the story and the production...the ability to emerse oneself into the movie...even if it is only a documentary (I love them too).

I hate settling for less and newer is NOT always better and with DCinema right now...it should be nothing more than Beta testing...2K is not sufficient for replacing film whereas film is a superior format. There are applications where I think DCinema quality is sufficient though not cost efficient. I feel that 2007-2008 is not the time to make the switch for cost or quality reasons.

Steve
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-28-2007, 07:42 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
Some of the magic of the movies is that beam of light going through the air.
The only thing important is the light on the parton's faces!!!

quote: Steve Guttag
There are applications where I think DCinema quality is sufficient though not cost efficient. I feel that 2007-2008 is not the time to make the switch for cost or quality reasons.
I agree but 2007/8 is really just the beginning point to start from. I don't consider the Carmike part of this at all relevant except to show that as a big experiment it can be done and it can work.

As far as savings... I think if you were the one ordering the thousands of prints and answering to your distribution department head you would probably feel different. In the end the only benefactor to this whole thing is distribution!

Realistic lifespans for equipment is going to be solely based on the manufacturer of the gear and how long they want to support it... not chip or electronics obsolescence. Should T.I. give in on the DLP chip... which is very unlikely just because of its fast rise in popularity and the fact that both Sony and JVC are rival compeditors in this field that division would more than likely be sold off to some small semiconductor vendor as has happened before. In cases like this a decent profit margin can be made for a smaller parts vendor than a large one with enormous overhead.

Overall I don't worry so much about obsolescance... the D-Cinema gear thats out there today with the exception of the 1.3K projectors has actually withstood obsolescence many times over just through easy board upgrades or simple software upgrades in most cases and it has either been at zero cost or at great cost. Those who own BARCO projectors that are not DCI Compliant will spend over 5K just to make them DCI Compliant! The DSP engines used in this equipment are very much software reliant to do more or less what ever you need them to do... so in alot of cases a simple software upgrade is all anything might need.

Mark
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-28-2007, 07:56 PM:
 
Actually, the service record of the Barco DP50s that I still care for has been rather good. After a couple of color board failures early in their life (covered by Warranty)...we have had one folding mirror go bad and Barco supported it. The DCine Communicator works with them still and all of the TI updates apply to them as well as the newer 2K stuff...they were made with TI boards, afterall. I think I stopped upgrading them on the TI software at 11.1 or perhaps they are at 10.x since they were no longer going to receive any more 1.3K DCinema stuff...what was the point?

You and are definately looking at this from differing points of view, my friend.

Steve
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-29-2007, 11:36 PM:
 
Getting back to the subject of having your computer residing on your phone and being at Christie University this week someone brought up using an I-Phone to do the alignment on the new ZX projector... which utilizes a simple web based browser to log onto the projector... Its certainly a doable thing and certainly now worth getting an I-Phone...

Those that haven't seen the innards of the new ZX are in for a very pleasant surprise. Its now the most well planned and executed digital projector out there. Its all super easy to service and much more inexpensive to keep working right down to the reflector system.... which no longer costs 4K or more to replace.... less than half that in fact if ever needed which is less than most other comparable glass reflectors. Out of the box to image on the screen can be about 30 minutes... Some of the adjustments such as Bore Scope(or Scheimphlug adjustment) and convergence can be as time consumming as you want them to be depending on how well you want them set... so total setup time is dependent on how efficient one is at going through all the adjustments required. The real nice part is that all of the adjustments are really easy to get to.

Christie is getting set to introduce a more efficient version of the large CP-2000 which will coast easily at 30K lumens and also a smaller projector based on the .98" DMD chips that will be capable of a 30 foot wide maximum screen. This new projector is far smaller and has the CBG written all over it.

Mark
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-30-2007, 07:10 AM:
 
Note, Barco's DP3000 is at 30,000 lumens already and has the DP2000 and DP1500 with the .98 chip...they are 20,000 and 15,000 lumens respectively.

As for ease of service, oddly enough Kinoton might take that prize...it is quite roomy inside.

NEC's latest projector, the NC1600C (replaces the NC1500C) is based on the .98 chip with a price drop to match.

The Christie 2000ZX and the NEC NC800C both are the fastest out of the box to showtime projectors that are basically point and shoots. They are definately favored by rental houses.

Steve
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-30-2007, 08:06 AM:
 
I've seen both the Christie ZX and the NEC and worked with the Christie. The Christie wins hands down for ease of service. I think it might even beat out BARCO's new projector in that realm. Its almost like they took all the other manufacturers projectors problematic points and eliminated them completely. The upcomming small Christie is built similar to the ZX but is quite a bit smaller overall. ZX's are not just being favored in rental it appears to have been Regal's choice for screens under 46 feet in width as they are opening several brand new builds... one just an hour from Cyprus and all the projectors are ZX's. They are already approaching the 600th ZX shipped.

RE: The original CP-2000 was rated at 20,000... the latest CP-2000's have many improvements to them optically. Also, The 30K lumens the CP-2000 is capable of is on a coast mode. Here in SLC the big Barcos several of which are operating on 70 foot wide screens struggle to do 14fl with a 6kw lamp and many still loose ignitors and positive DC connection plugs still occasionally burn up in spite of removing the star washers.I hope BARCO has taken care of this expensive to fix engineering goof up on the new machine!!

The new prism coatings that Christie has patented has gained them about 18% more lumens alone over the other manufacturers prisms and the new coatings are on all the Christie manufactured prisms only!! Now if we could get Schneider and ISCO to get off their asses and get the prime lens market covered for D-Cinema we'd be seeing even more lumens because there'd be less glass in the light path and far better corner to corner sharpness out of all these projectors.

The ZX has indeed dropped the daily operating AND maintanance costs to right about film level if you run with OSRAM short gaps. The CDXL's are still just too darn expensive.

Mark
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-30-2007, 10:08 PM:
 
Mark, actually Schneider DOES have a line of fixed focal length lenses...the problem is that when the imager changes from 1.2 to .98, more than the focal lengths need to change apparantly...it isn't like a film plane. The whole lens design has to chanage! That is one reason zooms (more accurately variable-focal length) are being used...it keeps the lens design down to a minimum. If the industry stabilizes, you will see more fixed focal length lenses. There is definately a shift now from 1.2 to .98 imagers as they look to be handling up to 40-foot wide screens.

As to the Christie ZX....on those larger Regal screens, are they using the super-dooper CDXL30SP version of the 3K lamp?

Also, have you seen the Kinoton projector? VERY roomy inside.

Steve
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-01-2007, 09:45 AM:
 
Well, the Schneiders are not really available as of Showeast and only a few focal lengths have actually seen the light of day... er DLP. Lens design is far more critical for DLP because it is a larger extremely flat surface you have to back focus to. Almost all of the lenses in use or in development involves multiple aspheric surfaces as well as special flourite glass which is extremely difficult to produce and grind. Konica/Minolta is seeing almost 100% of the lens sales for DLP right now and the center to corner variance I saw in their different focal length lenses while setting up borescope(or Scheimphlug adjustment)is not at all pleasing. There is also some drift as zoom is changed... a characteristic of all zoom lenses unfortunately. Luckily Christie has comissioned Konica/Minolta to build a magnifier that goes into the lens changer to allow one zoom setting to be used for constant height. When the 1.26 magnifier swings in it keeps scope constant height. The magnifier is EXTREMELY sharp and also utilizes aspheric elements. Its is also relatively inexpensive when compared to the cost of DLP anamorphics, including the lens changer less than half the cost of a single anamorphic. They also added in an offset adjustment on the screen setup to allow one to compensate for any offset the magnifier might introduce into the image.

As for the Regal installs far as I know they are using the latest version of the CP-2000 (with the new optical coatings) for all the larger screens and the ZX on the screens under 45 feet. The CDXL30SD is meant mainly for use when single machine 3-D steps in. It takes the ZX machine to 20K lumens and actually has a 1500 hour life use. The CDXL30 life rating has been bumped up to 2500 hours and the CDXL20 up to 3500 hours as stated right in the ZX manual. This further lowers the daily cost to operate these DLP projectors. Should a tightwad exhibitor deside to go for very long hours on the CDXL20 or 30 mirror replacement is not outrageous at all and is in fact alot less expensive than many glass mirrors used in cinema lamphouses today.

I have seen the Kinoton and its definately very roomy but roominess is to me the least important factor in a DLP projector... Compactness and servicability very definately are to me the most important. The ZX servicability has literally left everyone else in the dust. It dismantles completely in 20 minutes or less and re-assembles just as easily! All major pieces such as light engine, reflector, and so on are all located with dowel pins.... you can take it apart and re-asemble major pieces without having to do any major realignment. The choice of the Sanrex ignitor and switcher was a very smart move and Sanrex reliability has always been tops. The entire light engine is easly accessable with the aid of swing out panels for convergence and the ribbon leads to the formatters are easily swappable to aid in diagnosing light engine/EFIB problems. The double filtered airflow over the face of the DMD chips keeps them cleaner and also aids in cooling them better... it may indeed even allow higher light levels than other manufacturers DLP projectors.

The web browser based setup allows almost any palm type computer, I-Phone, etc to do a complete setup of their projectors through a simple wireless network. The two Interrogator functions are excellent aids and go way beyond just the typical log files... they also gather and store data about the memory status in the light engine Formatters, EFIB, and processor boards. T.I. has seen some problems lately with some memory and running 3-D at the the higher switching rates!!

Christie's experience in the DLP field is really beginning to shine and their overall support is also tops at least at this point in time. They have far more technical people with more knowledge and a far larger stock of parts than any of the other players, the best part is the quaity of the product is steadily improving and in many regards not in just one or two aspects. They have more room for quick production expansion if needed to produce more projectors at the Canadian facility. They run just two assembly lines at this point one CP-2000 and one ZX line and there are room for at least three more lines. A light engine repair facility is being set up in Cypruss, etc. I think their purchase of Electrohome was a wise move... other film companies like Strong, Neumade, Big Sky seem to just be groping at what to do when film projector sales cease... er they apparently thay have almost ceased at some of these companies. Geez, these other companies have indeed missed the bus leaving the train station!

Mark
 
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-01-2007, 08:51 PM:
 
Shouldn't we wait for the next train, rather than the bus? Louis
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-02-2007, 10:44 AM:
 
My point of view shows that the next train has already arrived at the station and has for the most part begun to pull away from the station. There is very definately a certain group of folks that were not there to meet the train!

Mark
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-02-2007, 07:55 PM:
 
Then again, the tracks may lead to a non-completed bridge to fall into.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-02-2007, 08:15 PM:
 
Admittedly... all bridges are inspected including that one in Minnesota.... luckily the train wasn't on that bridge just underneath it. Its the switches and crossings you need to worry about!
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-03-2007, 06:13 PM:
 
Can those obsolete, discarded, good-for-nothing requiring DCI complianticity be fed say an HD or BluRay DVD signal and produce a watchable picture....say for a home theatre? Seems it should be, given that we were told THOSE projectors produced an image BETTER than film. I wouldn't mind buying one or two for cheap for our small theatres that are constantly needing to screen standard DVDs.

Where did those projectors wind up? Did TI buy them back? Did any theatres actually buy those or where they given to them. I recall Technicolor was handing 1000 of them out as a "seed" project.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-03-2007, 08:08 PM:
 
Yes, with a proper scaler(about 350.00). Many are still sitting idle in theaters .

Mark
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-03-2007, 08:17 PM:
 
Depending on the DVD player and the projector, they could go directly so long as you had an HDMI to DVI cable.

However, at the AFI in Silver Spring, three (3) DP50s are still in use 7-days a week running HDTV (HDSDI sources like HDCAM, HDCAM-SR and D-5) on down to NTSC. They have an ACSAR 1 with suidable HDSDI, SDI, 5-wire and Composite/S-Vid input modules. They still do everything they did when new...just not DCinema features to feed them (but they have done screenings directly from D5 and HDCAM-SR).

I would say, don't skimp on the scaler...it could be your weak link in the picture. These projectors also have only HDSDI and DVI inputs so your scaler will need to output a suitable signal for them to be able to handle it.

Steve
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-04-2007, 12:10 AM:
 
I need to find someone who will sell us one first. [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-04-2007, 07:36 AM:
 
Wouldn't you also need some way to delay the sound? There is usually a processing delay with the large DLP units that will cause unacceptable sound-sync issues. The small DLP units usually have a delay of about one frame, but that is actually ideal for a normal-size theatre (sync is usually correct about halfway back, just as with film).

Steve (or anyone else who knows): will an HD-SDI input accept an SD-SDI source (e.g. Digi-Beta, modified DVD player, etc.), or is the interface completely different? It's pretty easy to convert NTSC composite or component video to SD-SDI with an AJA box (or similar).
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-04-2007, 08:25 AM:
 
quote: Steve Guttag
I would say, don't skimp on the scaler...it could be your weak link in the picture.
I would highly reccomend the Geffen scalers... I've tried two different models at this point in time, they are inexpensive and they produce top notch results. The VGA to DVI scaler is right around $300.00 street price.

The new Christie ZX does not require a scaler. It is HDCI compliant and auto setects the incomming format and adjusts itself accordingly.

Mark
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-04-2007, 09:04 AM:
 
Gefen generally makes good stuff. Their VGA to DVI scaler/converter probably does a better job at converting than scaling/deinterlacing. That is, if you need to get your laptop plugged into a DVI port, it will do the job. It can take component 480i on up to HDTV stuff but you will likely do better by not using it for that sort of scaling.

Scott, HDSDI ports on these projectors will not work directly with SD-SDI signals. The the SD signals will need to be turned into HD first and there are many gizmos to do that...AJA being one of the popular brands.

As Mark points out, HDCP compliance is something the new crop of DCinema projectors are being aware. The Chistie ZX is already compliant, the new Barcos are slated to HDCP compliant and their switcher scaler ACS2048 is already compliant. The NEC NC2500 and NC1600 are compliant IF they use the MM2000B switcher/scaler since it is internal to those units and you buy the NEW DVI/HDMI module (less than 3-weeks old) that is HDCP compliant.

Of course, the big problem wiht HDCP is HDCP itself...when it doubt it shuts you off. With some cable boxes, I've had less than 20% success using all HDCP compliant gear. Your milage may vary but I always have a backup to HDMI with HDCP sources.
 
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 12-04-2007, 10:12 AM:
 
quote: Steve Guttag
The Christie 2000ZX and the NEC NC800C both are the fastest out of the box to showtime projectors that are basically point and shoots. They are definately favored by rental houses.
I think the ZX is the small machine that seems to be aimed at pretty much the same market as the NC800c; is that correct?

Any thoughts on the replaceable 'lamp module' of the NEC Vs. the more conventional 'just replace the lamp' on the ZX? Both Christie and NEC seem to promote their chosen approach as being one of the advantage of their product. I've no idea what the lamp costs for digital machines are. Arts Alliance in the booklet that comes with their systems say that the cost of buying an exchange re-lamped module from them is about half the cost of buying a complete module, but I don't know what the cost is.

The NEC looks quicker to replace, but neither should take very long. If you happened to have a lamp fail, i.e. refuse to strike, unexpectedly during the day, and you had a spare module in stock, this might be useful, but if a lamp happened to explode then I suspect that more than just replacing the lamp module would be necessary.

The last time I worked a shift at the Clocktower the lamp on the NEC was up to about 550 hours in just under nine months of use. That's more than I expected, but still a long way to go before replacement.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-04-2007, 12:38 PM:
 
With the NEC on the NC800, you are beholden to NEC for the continuation of the lamp. With the Christie, you are not so there is that factor.

The Christie CP2000ZX is capable of much larger screens than the NEC as it can go up to 3KW lamps and Christie has a super bright version of their 3K to eek out a bit more. Christie has a much broader market with the ZX than NEC with the NC800 but both have their fans. Note too, the NC800 is now considered an older machine (formerly the IS8) but has ties to the A/V industry too.

Steve
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-05-2007, 10:59 PM:
 
Christie has a new projector comming out soon that is about 1/2 to 2/3 the size of the ZX, I saw pics of it when at Christie U last week. It will cover screens up to 26 feet in width. Don't know the model number yet... or if there is even one for it. It will take a maximum of a 2kw lamp and will utilize the .98" DMD's while the CP-2000 and ZX employ the same light engine with the 1.2" DMD's.

I have not tried the DVI input on the ZX yet but will over the next few days. I can say the Gefen scaler actually works VERY well though I prefer the dedicated type of scaler... even having to have several of them for different jobs... makes more sense for most than the large do it all in one box type of converter. I think the all in one boxes have alot of built in compromise where's the dedicated purpose scalers are much easier for the designer to fine tune to do a better job. The Geffin VGA to DVI has alot of options in its menu that one would think. LIkewise for the ZX. Its capable if "locking onto" a wide multitude of incomming signals.
 
Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 05-15-2012, 05:26 PM:
 

It has been 1622 days since the last post.


 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-15-2012, 05:26 PM:
 
I'm a little confused about the mention of Kerasotes and Showplace as competing chains because, here in Bloomington (Indiana), the Kerasotes theatres were called "Showplace" (and then AMC bought them in 2010).

quote:
Evansville's largest theater operation, Showplace Cinemas, is converting its 39 first-run screens in Evansville and Newburgh to digital at a cost of several million dollars.

Owner Paul Stieler also said Wednesday he's spending about $600,000 on a 180-seat Hollywood Bar & Grill that will adjoin his IMAX and 18-screen Showplace East theater on Morgan Avenue.

<snip>

Stieler's competition, the Chicago-based Kerasotes theater chain....
For some reason this website isn't allowing me to quote from the 2nd article. But I can't believe these points escaped:

1. If the projectionist (Knapp) was running platters, he never used the cues.
2. He could hear the projector in the auditorium.
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-15-2012, 08:10 PM:
 
... and it was always obvious that the journalist's entire understanding of film came from watching Fight Club. [Smile]
 
Posted by John Rhoades (Member # 6699) on 06-01-2012, 09:44 AM:
 
Hello Manny,
In Evansville, Indiana "Showplace Cinemas" official name is North Park Cinemas Inc. They have done business as "Showplace Cinemas" for years. When Kerasotes moved into town, they called themselves "Stadium 16" so it would not confuse the locals. North Park Cinemas also has a theater in Connersville Indiana because it was close to the "Kerasotes Showplace" at the time, they named that theater "Showtime Cinemas".
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2