Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Warren theaters switching to digital

This is topic Warren theaters switching to 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=000192

Posted by Jon P. Inghram (Member # 4125) on 07-12-2007, 01:09 PM:

http://www.kansas.com/101/story/120250.html

quote:
Warren goes to digital projection
Bill Warren hopes to have the nearly $5 million project done by the end of the year.
BY BILL WILSON
The Wichita Eagle

Bill Warren's Wichita theaters are going digital.

Warren plans to award a multimillion-dollar contract in 60 days to install digital projection in all of his local theaters that show first-run films.

At $100,000 per screen and 47 screens, the project cost will approach $5 million, Warren said.

Warren is on the leading edge of a nationwide conversion to digital projection, said Patrick Corcoran, director of media and research for the National Association of Theater Owners.

The changeover isn't a response to growing competition, Warren said, despite a new IMAX complex coming in Maize.

"We have a commitment to put on the best movies possible in an old-style theater setting," he said. "This is just an upgrade to be part of that."

Currently, five digital projection providers are demonstrating products at the Warren East location, 11611 E. 13th St.

"We're taking a look at all of them, trying to determine what's the best," Warren said. "I hope to have a contract in a couple of months and have this in place around the end of the year."

There are 3,300 digital projectors in American theaters, which total 38,600 screens, Corcoran said.

That number should rise to about 4,000 by the end of 2007 and will double in 2008 as large chains like Regal and AMC roll the projectors out system-wide.

"For the operator, the advantage is presentation," Corcoran said. "The first showing is going to look as good as the last showing, unlike film, which degrades."

Uploading films from a server also allows multiple screen presentations with one copy, unlike today, when each screen requires its own film copy.

Despite the advantages, there are still significant issues, Corcoran said.

"We don't know a lot about how long these projectors will last," he said.

"At $100,000, the cost is four to five times a new film projector, and we know how long film projectors last -- 30 to 40 years."

Plus, the film distribution industry is in flux, with both film prints and digital film copies being produced. Eventually, the end of film will save the distribution industry $1 billion a year, Corcoran said.

The bottom line is good news for the consumer: more vivid films at no extra ticket cost.

"You're going to get a degree of clarity equivalent to the film experience and a product that's beyond what you get on high-definition television," Corcoran said.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-12-2007, 02:02 PM:

quote:

"For the operator, the advantage is presentation," Corcoran said. "The first showing is going to look as good as the last showing, unlike film, which degrades."

You know, Warren builds some DAMNED nice theaters, but film does NOT degrade in the slightest bit under proper projectionist care.

I dare this bonehead at NATO to do a side by side demo with me at the SMG Arlington theater...DONE FAIRLY THIS TIME, NOT WITH A BEAT UP PRINT! The place has dual port windows and is already electrically pre-wired for it too.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-12-2007, 02:05 PM:

quote:
The bottom line is good news for the consumer: more vivid films at no extra ticket cost.

BULLSHIT!!!! Charging premiums for 3D?

quote:
"You're going to get a degree of clarity equivalent to the film experience and a product that's beyond what you get on high-definition television," Corcoran said.

Yeah maybe, but that is not the problem and that is not the reason why people stay home. It's the assholes who sit around you that do not know how to shut the FUCK up!!! That keep people away from the theatres.

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 07-12-2007, 02:27 PM:

You know, I just this week viewed my first Digital presentation.
It was I believe a Dolby Digital Cinema system. I can't say I was impressed in the least.

There is one problem that hasn't gone away with digital. Idiots in the booth.

The digital presentation that I viewed had one of the most glaring problems of the same type that this theatre is known for with it's film presentations. The damn image was horribly out of FOCUS.

The only thing that did strike me in a positive way was the absolute rock solid image.

So until an auto-focus system that WORKS be developed, digital isn't going to solve anything presentation wise.
Also saw lots of pixelation during action scenes.
The port glass and the lense I could clearly see was filthy as well.

Posted by Jon P. Inghram (Member # 4125) on 07-12-2007, 02:35 PM:

quote:
...in place around the end of the year.

Here's hoping the Christmas "bonus" isn't pink...

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 07-12-2007, 02:58 PM:

You know for most part that's the driving reason the chains like digital, they see cost savings in payroll.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-12-2007, 03:21 PM:

Too bad these savings are more than offset by THE BULB and THE MAINTENANCE expense. (I won't even mention the carrying charges on the initial purchase.) The "punishment" seems fitting, however. Frugality "rewarded." Louis

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-12-2007, 05:05 PM:

Pardon my digital ignorance here, but why should a digital projector ever be out of focus? Can't that be dialed in when the machine is setup? I mean, I can see where fine adjustments might be necessary but why should it ever be extremely out of focus?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-12-2007, 05:25 PM:

Digital projectors uses lenses just like film ones. It is a myth that they will stay in focus forever. I constantly have to tweek them to keep them in critical focus all over the screen. They don't drift like with film projectors (the focal plane isn't a moving target like with film and the heat has been heavily filtered for digital).

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-12-2007, 07:54 PM:

Considering some of the VERY ODD port placements I have seen in a number of new theaters, I wonder if that isn't a contributing factor in focus problems with new digital projector installations.

I can understand why a projection port might be in a rear corner of the room if the auditorium is just part of what was once a much larger room. Lots of theaters that have been twinned or worse would have this problem.

But I have seen this stupidly strange port in the rear corner (and almost up in the roof) bullshit in a number of new theaters. I see no excuse for that. And it's going to make for a shitty quality picture regardless of what sort of projection is used. Sure, the digital projectors may have "digital keystone correction." But they don't have anything to correct problems when the projector's plane of focus doesn't line up at all with the screen.
[Roll Eyes]

Back to topic, if Warren Theaters is going "digital" I really hope they choose the right kinds of projectors for the right kinds of auditoriums.

I've been waiting and waiting for that new Warren 20-plex in Moore, OK to open (it's just south of Oklahoma City and a little over 1 hour's drive from here). Word is the largest 4 auditoriums will have screens as big as 80' across. They will need a lot more than just one 4000 watt lamp in a Christie CP2000 projector to illuminate a screen that big. Standard 35mm film projection does a shitty job on screens that big. For film, 70mm is needed for giant screens like that.

The Warren 20 in Moore is currently under construction. I haven't been by the site in several months (when it was just a bunch of empty land). My understanding is that the foundation is done and the walls are going up right now. I don't expect the new theater to be open before Spring of 2008.

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 07-13-2007, 12:45 PM:

I failed to mention that in the digital install I just witnessed, to top everything else, the port glass was angled perfectly.......to reflect the image back onto the front of the lense. [Eek!]

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 07-13-2007, 04:55 PM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
Too bad these savings are more than offset by THE BULB and THE MAINTENANCE expense. (I won't even mention the carrying charges on the initial purchase.) The "punishment" seems fitting, however. Frugality "rewarded." Louis

So far my company's lamp costs are minimally higher than our 35mm costs were . . . . . and if we had anamorphic lenses I could save significantly on lamp costs (our install does not use the entire DLP chip because we have side moveable masking) . . . . . as to the offset of maintenance expenses - in our case this came close to a wash due to only needing 1 operator per shift for 18 screens instead of 2 . . . . but our 10 screen is a different story . . . . .

It is a fallacy for any company to believe they can close and lock their booth doors with digital -- there still needs to be a qualified eye and ear to judge the quality of presentation - any digital savings would be seen by those companies that have mostly 16+ screens per location and currently pay attention to quality by having adequate and qualified staff to run their 35mm booth.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-13-2007, 10:15 PM:

quote: David Zylstra
So far my company's lamp costs are minimally higher than our 35mm costs were

Thats the same thing I'm beginning to see in our area and I'm hearing this from other D.C. users. I think some dealers are just gouging for those 6kw short gap lamps.

I applaud them for doing the comversion. I just hope they have enough sense to go with Dolby.

Brad.... Sounds like you must have gone to a Carmike location... definately where ever it was it is not kept up. Most of the systems here in SLC (around 50) are now artifact free even on action stuff. The locations with Dolby D.C. stuff continue to look the best. As software decoding programs evolve for both the projector and servers which is happening quite fast things will get better and better. Rolling credits and rain continue to be the moost difficult to reproduce but I've definately noticed improvements there over the last year.

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 07-14-2007, 06:37 AM:

While I don't object to the coming of the "digital age", I'm constantly amazed by the level of disinformation pumped out by people in support of this great new thing. Film degrades? What the hell are you doing to it? Must have an entire new print for each screen? Guess I should scrap all that interlock wiring and pull those funny looking rollers off the ceiling...

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-14-2007, 06:40 AM:

quote: Brad Allen
Also saw lots of pixelation during action scenes.

Aren't the digital releases all JPEG2000 only by now? If so, there isn't any more likelyhood of pixelation during action vs. static scenes because JPEG2000 compresses each frame as if it was a unique still image.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 07-14-2007, 09:17 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandson
I applaud them for doing the conversion. I just hope they have enough sense to go with Dolby.

I watched "Pirates" in Warren East's biggest auditorium in digital. They did use Dolby Digital Cinema. And it looked good, even on that monster screen...although I was sitting towards the rear.

I have every faith in Bill Warren's ability to do it right.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-14-2007, 10:50 AM:

quote: Lyle Romer
Aren't the digital releases all JPEG2000 only by now? If so, there isn't any more likelyhood of pixelation during action vs. static scenes because JPEG2000 compresses each frame as if it was a unique still image.

I'm pretty sure the movie studios still have to provide some MPEG-based hard discs to some theaters. Just about all of the newest d-cinema installations are capable of using JPEG-2000. I think all of Carmike's AccessIT/Christie systems use JPEG-2000 exclusively.

The video compression format is only one factor. There are several levels of compression that can be used with JPEG-2000. Many of the movies I have been seeing locally have high bit rates (around 250 million bits per second) and fill much of the 300GB portable hard discs. But some movies are smaller, such as the new Harry Potter release, which is squeezed to under 100GB.

Then you have the factor over how much time is spent on the process of encoding the video. Even at a huge 250Mb/sec. bandwidth, the 2K video stream is significantly compressed. Fully uncompressed HD-SDI video runs at around 1.4 gigabits per second. If someone quickly creates a JPEG-2000 file with a flat compression level applied to the video stream then viewers are more likely to see little problems popping up here and there. If a lot of time and effort is put into the video encoding process just about any problem can be dealt with and even get the video down to much smaller file sizes. I have seen some Blu-Ray movies that honestly look fantastic and they have data bandwidths 1/7th the size of many DCI-compliant JPEG-2000 movies.

Unfortunately, lots of movies are in production right up until the week before opening day. Many things are done in a rush. Very often there will not be much time at all to spend on getting a JPEG-2000 d-cinema file encoded at the highest possible standards. This is one area where home video has a sort of unfair advantage. If the filmmakers want to do so, they can go back and "fix" what they didn't get right for the rushed theatrical release and get everything tweaked properly for DVD.

Posted by Jarryd Beard (Member # 2543) on 07-14-2007, 11:14 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Brad.... Sounds like you must have gone to a Carmike location... definately where ever it was it is not kept up.

quote: Brad Allen
It was I believe a Dolby Digital Cinema system.

That doesn't sound like a Carmike location to me. They have Christie projectors.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-14-2007, 11:29 AM:

I think at least some Dolby Digital Cinema systems utilize Christie CP2000 projectors, like the ones Carmike uses.

Carmike does not use Dolby's server system. They use Doremi with the AccessIT interface.

Carmike has d-cinema equipped theaters in Indiana...northern Indiana. They have a 20-plex in Fort Wayne and a 14-plex in Elkhart (near South Bend off I-80/I-90). That's a pretty good haul from Evansville.

The charge that it is a Carmike (and that things aren't being maintained) sounds like more knee-jerk Carmike bashing and sounds a little biased toward selling Dolby Digital Cinema systems. The areas where I think you're more likely to encounter problems in a converted Carmike d-cinema theater are issues in the sound systems -an area where the Christie and AccessIT people don't have much control to fix when there is a problem. That sort of thing falls onto the shoulders of the theater manager to bother noticing when there is a problem and making the appropriate calls to get it fixed. Most theater chains, regardless of the damned brand name, have this situation in place in at least a few locations.

Posted by Jarryd Beard (Member # 2543) on 07-14-2007, 12:18 PM:

The "knee-jerk Carmike bashing" sounds more accurate to me as well. Mark, based on your participation in other threads, I would think you to know by now that Carmike uses the Christie/AccessIT system.

BTW, I believe Christie techs are responsible for the sound systems as well (in digital locations). While there is little that may be done for a cheap or poorly designed sound system, problems that creep up should be as easily rectified as projection issues. All of this goes back to the manager of the theater... regardless of the name on the front of the building.

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 07-14-2007, 01:21 PM:

Mark, nope wasn't a Carmike. It is a Kerasotes location. Apparently they have taken lesson's from Carmike on up keep.

I will have to say that the sound was the best I had ever heard in this complex. The surrounds were at a level you could actually hear them.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 07-14-2007, 07:26 PM:

Perhaps it was installed without an anamorphic like the above mentioned installation, would that would have an effect on pixalation?

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 07-14-2007, 11:55 PM:

and if we had anamorphic lenses I could save significantly on lamp costs (our install does not use the entire DLP chip because we have side moveable masking)

I'll have to find out from someone in the know, but you may be violating something within the DCI spec in this regards. You are cutting off part of the image.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-15-2007, 01:56 PM:

Brad,

That somewhat explains it but there were two Kerasotes chaing as many years ago the two brothers had an argument and falling out... they split up the chain. I used to do some GKC service work for Abbott Theater Supply years ago and GKC Theaters was as bad or worse than Carmike back then. Those theaters were sold to another chain a few years ago but I don't remember who... prehaps Regal. Now the Kerasotes Chain proper always did a pretty good job on their theaters. Their technical guy Fred Walraven was a decent engineer but its also possible they've just gotten too big for their breeches.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm pretty sure the movie studios still have to provide some MPEG-based hard discs to some theaters.

More than likely not since its all but obsolete!! All servers that I know of out here are very definately JPEG based.

quote: Paul Konen
I'll have to find out from someone in the know, but you may be violating something within the DCI spec in this regards. You are cutting off part of the image

The present DCI spec leaves out anamorphic lenses. Sad but true and a big blunder IMHO. The anamorphs available for D-Cinema were touch and go for quality but eventually they's have gotten it right. Small batches of handmade lenses which is what they were sometimes have a wider variance than normal production stuff does.

The "knee-jerk Carmike bashing" sounds more accurate to me as well. Mark, based on your participation in other threads, I would think you to know by now that Carmike uses the Christie/AccessIT system.

Jarrad,
I only bash somthing that cries out to be bashed! It has nothing to do with the Christie/Access it systems. Many other chains use the same system with excellent results! Its all about how the higher ups care about their operations and image. While there ARE a few good Carmike locations in this neck of the woods that I know of I can very definately count them on one hand. Overall they are the worst chain still in existance, there were a couple that were worse...one in PA too but they were bought up and cleaned up. And you are right... its upper management that causes the problems or more likely just ignores tham... just another bit of evedence of the lowly Carmike operation amd comming from a Carmike employee. Yes, The Christie techs are responsible for the sound systems too, and the film systems that are left in place... Reportedly Christie has only had luck hiring computer geeks and while they work out fine for some of the D.C. gear they are not knowledge equipped to deal with the rest of the booths typical gear. So in the long haul Carmike will still be headed down the exact same road they were on... just a different set of problems to try to deal with and for the most part ignore.

Mark

Posted by Jarryd Beard (Member # 2543) on 07-15-2007, 02:15 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Those theaters were sold to another chain a few years ago but I don't remember who... prehaps Regal.

Actually, it was Carmike that bought GKC. I guess that couldn't have been planned any better. LOL

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-15-2007, 02:21 PM:

quote: Jarryd Beard
Actually, it was Carmike that bought GKC. I guess that couldn't have been planned any better. LOL

They certainly deserve each other! Brad... that explains the whole bad experience thing!

We experienced a take opver out here too. AMC took over the Cineplex locations. The operations have improved so remarkably that I've been blown away.

Mark

Posted by Jarryd Beard (Member # 2543) on 07-15-2007, 03:08 PM:

Kerasotes is not the same company as GKC. Somebody around here probably knows more, but didn't one of the two form from a split of the other? Here is what I do know: GKC Theatres are now Carmikes. Kerasotes Theatres are still completely unaffiliated with Carmike; they are a completely separate chain.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-15-2007, 04:18 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
The present DCI spec leaves out anamorphic lenses.

Well, kind of. It should have specified that all scope format movies use the entire imager and use anamorphic lenses for the highest possible resolution. Instead the spec says that if anamorphics are used, all scaling and squeezing must be performed by the projector. The spec doesn't disallow them but it doesn't use them for anything useful other than I guess if a projector needed to use it to light the screen.

I'm sure it was a cost saving thing so that the projectors only required spherical lenses but they could have made 'scope digital cinema much higher quality.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-15-2007, 05:07 PM:

quote: Jarryd Beard
Kerasotes is not the same company as GKC. Somebody around here probably knows more, but didn't one of the two form from a split of the other? Here is what I do know: GKC Theatres are now Carmikes. Kerasotes Theatres are still completely unaffiliated with Carmike; they are a completely separate chain.

Yes, I somewhat explained about that in my above post.

Mark

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 07-18-2007, 10:14 PM:

quote: Paul Konen
and if we had anamorphic lenses I could save significantly on lamp costs (our install does not use the entire DLP chip because we have side moveable masking)

I'll have to find out from someone in the know, but you may be violating something within the DCI spec in this regards. You are cutting off part of the image.

I'm in the know and DCI does not really speak about anamorphics - the language dealing with lenses is a little vague - one of the errata speaks about the intent of projecting either the full vertical OR full horizontal pixel count which under one interpretation rules out the scaling option that Christie uses with single lens and fixed top/bottom masking.
Nothing in DCI gives a limit to cropping the image, but using anamorphics does not crop any of the image it just uses more of the DLP chip for the image. Time will tell what DCI and studios will require in terms of lenses.

Of note is that if your screen is wider than 55' you will most likely need anamorphics to reach the DCI requirement of 14FL (with the current solution our 58' wide screen is barely reaching 12-13 on a new CDXL-60 lamp) - I think DCI screen luminance will trump any DCI lens requirements.

I apologize for the long post, but I've been involved in both ISDCF and NATO discussions about digital cinema for the past 9+ months so I've heard a lot of the issues from both sides - once SMPTE publishes all the standards we'll truly know what is required.

Posted by Dan Suomi (Member # 2585) on 07-19-2007, 12:07 AM:

I am now the proud booth manager of a new all Digital 16 screen theater. I am very impressed with how the image looks on screen. I don't have any issues with focus, sound, or scratches, you know the usual presentation flaws of 35mm. I saw earlier that someone was complaining about it being out of focus, well the focus is supposed to be set by the installation team with a in projector test pattern that is shown on the screen. Once it is set it should be good and no one should ever need to mess with it. If there is a focus problem it is because some one messed with it.

Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 07-19-2007, 12:57 AM:

quote: Dan Suomi
I am now the proud booth manager of a new all Digital 16 screen theater.

As someone that used to stomp around the Western 'burbs, I am curious where your new location is?

They say that opinions are like ass holes because everyone's got one. Here's mine. Every time I see a posting about digital projector installations there appears to always be a debate that rages between the pro-DLP crowd and the pro-film crowd. You see a lot of the same comments posted in similiarly themed forums from both sides.

I still think that it comes down to what the customer wants and percieves as the better value. Currently, that seems to be what is new and flashy. I currently run a location that is 12 screens DLP and 6 screens 35MM. Without getting into numbers, the overwhelming choice of the public is DLP. I actually have to factor in when to start a 35MM print of a film vs. a DLP presentation for multiple prints of the same movie. If you start the 35MM first, the show will be less than half full and the later DLP presentation will be maxed out on attendance.

As with any change in our industry, I think our role is to make sure we are putting forth the best product possible, (I know I am opening myself up for criticism on this [Smile]

). Make sure that the presentation looks great no matter what the format, that the theater is clean, the staff is neat and professional and the popcorn is always warm.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-19-2007, 09:34 PM:

quote: David Zylstra
once SMPTE publishes all the standards we'll truly know what is required.

I am somewhat familiar with how SMPTE works and by that time digital may be obsolete.... SMPTE mooveth slower than molasses. We would never have been to the moon had NASA relied on them for rocket engine standards.

Mark

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 07-20-2007, 03:56 PM:

I agree, by the time SMPTE finishes it will be time to start over because DCI or the studios will have changed their minds on several points . . . .

Although to SMPTE's credit I've heard that a lot of people are surprised by how fast things have moved so far (I think the sub committee for digital cinema standards is DC-28) - as a side note most of the efficiency credit has gone to one woman from Warner Bros who has kept things moving.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-20-2007, 05:28 PM:

quote: Shane Cooper
If you start the 35MM first, the show will be less than half full and the later DLP presentation will be maxed out on attendance.

Do the DLP auditoriums have big flashing "DIGITAL" signs outside? If so, that's a lot of what drives the traffic. Naturally, given the choice between 2 showtimes 15 minutes apart, people are going to pick the one with "digital" on the marquee because that's this decade's buzzword.

I'd be willing to bet that if you took down all signage and digital "indicia" and just let word-of-mouth dictate the traffic, and provided you have good film presentations in similar sized auditoriums, the public would be less selective.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-20-2007, 05:40 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Do the DLP auditoriums have big flashing "DIGITAL" signs outside?

None of the theaters here have that outside each house and none of the theaters here have it on their display marquee's at ticket sales. There are admittedly some one sheets on display here and there for D-Cinema or NEC or Dolby D-Cinema.... but thats about it. Some have it marked in the paper though but not all of them. You have to ask if there are multiple screens runing the same film or just ask if its in Digital.

Funny thing is that Shane is right.... it seems to sell itself. People are always seeking out the latest thing. Didn't we all run to see Cinerama and Todd-AO? Isn't it odd that people really do notice the lack of scratches and zero dust [Cool]

. The digital houses around here are far more likely to be filled than the film houses. The sound playback IMHO is also far superior.

P.S. Shane... what western burb did you used to stomp around? Am also from that area... Glen Ellyn and St. Charles.

Mark

Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 07-20-2007, 11:01 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I'd be willing to bet that if you took down all signage and digital "indicia" and just let word-of-mouth dictate the traffic, and provided you have good film presentations in similar sized auditoriums, the public would be less selective.

Actually, we don't do anything different with our DLP than we do with our 35MM in terms of advertising the shows. These aren't 15 minutes apart either. For example, Harry Potter played at 6:15, 7:00, 7:45, 8:30, 9:15 and so on. A good representation of this is the woman that had tickets for the 7:45 (DLP) show but wanted to switch to the 8:30 (35MM) because the house was very full. I switched her tickets, but she came back to the window 10 minutes later. She wanted to go to the 9:15 because the 8:30 was 35MM. She perceived it as a better value and worth the 1 1/2 hour wait. She wasn't alone as the 9:15 show sold out well before the 8:30. You can rinse and repeat this scenario for any movie with multiple prints and sold out shows.

I appreciate your point Mike, but that is similar to what I wanted to get accross. The customers dictate what is popular and the directions we move in as an industry.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
P.S. Shane... what western burb did you used to stomp around? Am also from that area... Glen Ellyn and St. Charles.

Mark - I used to live in Naperville and I ran theaters in Batavia and Oswego. I miss the city sometimes, but not the cold!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-21-2007, 09:16 AM:

I guess my question would be, do people ask for the "digital" screenings when buying tickets? And do they ask because they really see an improvment, or just because they think "digital" is the latest thing so it must be better?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-21-2007, 09:21 AM:

Mike,
Come on down and I'll take you around the the various locations and you can ask in person. I can almost for sure tell you that at Megaplex you will find that patrons ask for it because they find that it is better. No doubt that the sound IS alot better.

quote:
Mark - I used to live in Naperville and I ran theaters in Batavia and Oswego. I miss the city sometimes, but not the cold!

I did all the work at the Elgin Fox when it was built. You musta been at the Randall Road Goodrich location. I don't miss the area at all or the humidity... its way too congested back there now! Last trip back I told everyone if yas want to visit again you'll have to comne out here... most of them have...

Mark

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-21-2007, 10:54 AM:

The "raging debate" depends upon how good a job you do with film. If film is excellent, there is not a great difference from excellent film to excellent digital TV.

I am blessed to live in an area that does not tolerate film damage. All of my theatres are capable of 20+ ft lamberts, etc. Even the "other chains" do a credible job. This was not always so.

The local "take" on digital is that the average Joe can't tell or doesn't care. Film does, locally, have a slight brightness advantage. Louis

Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 07-21-2007, 02:14 PM:

It is important to me that the presentation is as good as it can be, whether it is film or digital.

I am sure that we have some that don't care, but we get a ton of requests for the digital format. The perception appears to be that digital is superior and the better value, (which, I know, can be debated endlessly).

In my location it will be a moot point since we are completing the conversion on the final 6 screens this week.

Mark - I was at the GQTI Randall 16. I also oversaw the Kendall 10 in Oswego.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 07-22-2007, 12:34 AM:

quote: Shane Cooper
Mark - I was at the GQTI Randall 16.

Is it still 16? Seems like they keep expanding that one.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-22-2007, 11:09 AM:

Isn't there an Imax there now....?

Mark

Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 07-22-2007, 11:11 AM:

I think it is actually now the Randall 14 with an IMAX. I think they combined two theaters to make a larger auditorium and then removed another to complete the IMAX.

I left there at the end of 2003 when all of that was just being discussed.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-23-2007, 03:14 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
No doubt that the sound IS alot better.

Why would that be?

Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 07-23-2007, 03:22 AM:

Because DC uses uncompressed audio (is this always the case?). However, you still need a quality processor, amplifiers and speakers. And it needs to be setup correctly. These are VERY important things.

Posted by Dan Suomi (Member # 2585) on 07-23-2007, 09:51 AM:

I am working for Cinemark/Century in Bloomingdale at Stratford Square Mall. Tore down the old theater that was there and built new.

The theater in Batavia is now an IMAX. I worked there for a time as an IMAX projectionist. The IMAX theater there is not a retro it was rebuilt as a true IMAX auditorium.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-23-2007, 11:51 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
Why would that be?

Aside fomr no compression the almost non-existant error rates and cleaner data comming into the audio processor would be contributing factors. Lower amounts of JITTER actually have a large contribution to improved sound quality of digital audio... and film reading based systems introduce alot of JITTER!!!

Mark

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-23-2007, 12:45 PM:

Frank,

The audio for digital cinema is uncompressed and at a minum of 48k samples per second and 24 bits per sample. On a high quality sound system it is very noticeable compared to Dolby Digital, DTS or SDDS.

I noticed the difference before I ever knew what the specifications were.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 07-23-2007, 05:12 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I've been waiting and waiting for that new Warren 20-plex in Moore, OK to open (it's just south of Oklahoma City and a little over 1 hour's drive from here). Word is the largest 4 auditoriums will have screens as big as 80' across. They will need a lot more than just one 4000 watt lamp in a Christie CP2000 projector to illuminate a screen that big. Standard 35mm film projection does a shitty job on screens that big. For film, 70mm is needed for giant screens like that.

Bobby our CineCapri is 71' by 30' and we use a regular 35mm projector. We use Vic 5 heads and Cinemecanica lamp houses. And the picture looks as good as it would with the same projector on our smaller screens. We use the same heads and lamp houses on all of our houses.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 07-23-2007, 07:46 PM:

quote Mark Gulbrandsen
"... and film reading based systems introduce alot of JITTER!!!"

Would this be more pronounced with basement readers than penthouse readers?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-23-2007, 09:43 PM:

quote: Kurt Zupin
Bobby our CineCapri is 71' by 30' and we use a regular 35mm projector. We use Vic 5 heads and Cinemecanica lamp houses. And the picture looks as good as it would with the same projector on our smaller screens.

I've been to the CineCapri in Oklahoma City a few times. That auditorium has a 70' wide screen. A Kinoton projector is in the booth. I thought the image quality was a tad on the dim side. I've seen similar problems previously on over sized 35mm-only screens in the Dallas area (specifically at the UA Galaxy in Garland, Cinemark at LBJ & Webb Chapel and another in Grapevine). My personal observations aside, people from Kodak have have recommended 70mm use for giant sized screens. Several years ago one of the executives with Edwards Cinemas was stressing the importance of 70mm use in response to all the giant sized, stadium seated theaters being built at the time. Sadly the talk amounted to nothing.

Now that is appears Warren Theaters is going the DC route, I'm just hoping they'll choose the best projector models for the job. It appears there's at least a couple digital projector designs that can properly illuminate something as huge as a 80' wide screen.

The thing that has me feeling optimistic is that the people running Warren Theaters are far more into installing equipment that works very well instead of cutting corners. That theater in Moore should be pretty damned impressive when it opens. And it will be pretty cool that it's in Oklahoma of all places!

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 07-25-2007, 09:56 PM:

I forgot to put in my previous post, we use a 7k bulb in the capri.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-25-2007, 10:13 PM:

We just did a theater in Mesquite, NV with a 62 foot wide screen that has 22fl fairly well distributed. Nothing special there either. Its running with a Christie Cine-X35 and a 7kw SLC running with a 5kw lamp. Amazingly, the projector doesn't even get warm. We have a duplicate of this system going in at a new site in Logan, UT next month except the masked scope size will be 70 feet wide, slightly larger lamp, better architect too.

quote: Bobby Henderson
They will need a lot more than just one 4000 watt lamp in a Christie CP2000 projector to illuminate a screen that big.

They will probably have to go 6 or 7kw on that screen. The 70 footer at Gateway in SLC has an NEC projector runing 7kw and easily makes 14fl. Excellent image considering the size! Athough there are alot of optics in DLP there is no shutter eating up half the light.

quote: Ron Curran
Would this be more pronounced with basement readers than penthouse readers?

Depends on the condition of the sound reproducer. The Davis tight loop penthouses do have some advantage there, isolation form the projector motion being one of them.

Mark

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 07-26-2007, 08:53 AM:

Brad Allen, RE: your 7/12 post mentioning auto focus, I'll repost part of a old post of mine from another forum:

... a number of years ago Kinoton showed a FP-30D with auto focus (using a video camera aimed at a section of the screen feeding a computer driving a rapid acting focus motor). This thing worked great. I could repeatedly open and close the skate a bit and the image stayed right in focus. It added a couple thousand to the price. Sales? None. So after dumping lots of $$$ into R&D for things that the owners just won't buy, I suppose one gets tired of these expensive exercises.

By the way, the Kinoton's E series always stops with the movement "set" so misframes from misthreading are way less likely, and the endless electronic framing can be remoted easily so framing errors can be corrected easily from the auditorium. Wow, those things coupled with better stability and focus; operator safety, etc; they must be jumping off the shelves! Well the PK-60E (primarily made for the US market) was discontinued due to almost non existant sales. Why? It cost more than a geneva machine.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-26-2007, 09:21 AM:

quote: Larry Shaw
they must be jumping off the shelves

No, but the E machine at Sundance sure IS jumping!

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-26-2007, 06:55 PM:

As a mild correction...the "E" projector will stop in frame...AFTER it has been turned by hand to engage the intermittent mode of the motor.

The problem with the PK60E for mainstream exhibitors is that the incremental improvement versus the increase in cost did not balance. You would need an exhibitor that actually is trying to improve their show (picture) to value that sort of improvement. Remember, the increase from a D to an E isn't like going from bad to great...it is going from great to greater. Now the new "Premier" Es should be something with a 4-5 fold improvement in steadiness over the original E.

Steve

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 07-27-2007, 06:48 AM:

I started to notice that the standard poor quality prints had so much 'jitter and weave' that there was no point in buying an 'E' projector.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-27-2007, 08:28 AM:

Then there is John's arguement...most release prints ARE the limiting factor.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-29-2007, 01:29 PM:

Which all goes back to what I've always said since my first day on these forums... that ultimately the labs will be driving the film end of things out of existance. And they are doing a fine job of that at the moment!

Mark

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-29-2007, 02:03 PM:

I am starting to wonder if the high school kids have taken over the labs. If so we will never see quality return to film. One thing I have been noticing is how sometimes suddenly prints start to have this washed out look that comes and goes.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 07-29-2007, 02:35 PM:

I also wonder how much some of the poor quality is the fault of the studio's budgets and unwillingness to pay for higher quality prints . . . . . . unfortunately it seems to be the American way - cheaper and faster, not necessarily better - contract goes to the lowest bidder regardless of quality (and companies will compromise their own quality in order to keep from losing a customer's contract) . . . . maybe poor quality prints is a plot to make digital look better than film (I'm mostly joking)

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-29-2007, 03:51 PM:

Which brings me to a famous quote from President William McKinley....

"I do not prize the word cheap. It is not a badge of honor... it is a badge of despair. Cheap priices make for cheap goods; cheap goods make for cheap men; and cheap men make for a cheap counttry"

Mark

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-03-2007, 04:55 AM:

Unfortunately our striving for cheap has moved most of what we use to manufacture out of the country, so seems like those in the top ranks of corporate America would fall under McKinely's definition of "cheap men." They all seem to be in love with the workers in China, Malaysia, Thailand, etc.

In the last ten years Ford has been building dozens of plants outside the USA and hiring cheap labor. During that same period, Toyota has been building dozens of plants on US soil hiring American workers. Last fiscal year, Toyota has seen profits to the tune of 3 billion, while Ford has racked up a debt of 9 billion. Gotta tell ya something.