Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: New L.A. Theatre Features 4K Digital Projection

This is topic New L.A. Theatre Features 4K Digital Projection 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=000193

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-01-2007, 06:27 PM:

Cinematical article:

quote:

Next-Generation Movie Theater Opens in L.A.

Posted May 31st 2007 5:01PM by Christopher Campbell
Filed under: Tech Stuff, Exhibition

While most movie theater chains have been more interested in wooing audiences with material amenities like concession variety or a "Guest Response System," Landmark Theatres has been working on delivering the best picture quality to its customers. This week the art-house chain opens its latest theater in Los Angeles' Westside Pavillion, and the cinema is noteworthy because it is offering the city its first (public) taste of 4K digital projection. Landmark already has 4K projectors, specifically Sony's SXRD, in locations around the country, despite the fact that most content is only digitally available with 2K resolution.

While I'm no expert on digital projection, here is what I understand about the difference between 2K and 4K resolution (aided by Jette's post about digital restoration): 2K is the current standard for both digital cameras and digital projectors. The amount of (picture) information offered by 2K is less than the amount of information offered by film and film prints. 4K offers twice as much information as 2K and it more sufficiently represents the quality of film. While 4K cameras are currently available, most digital features are shot with 2K cameras and most features shot on film are digitally scanned using 2K scanners. So why is it so important for Landmark to have overqualified projectors?

Landmark is co-owned and co-run by Todd Wagner and Mark Cuban, the duo that also operates HDNet (and HDNet Films and HDNet Movies). Through HDNet, Wagner/Cuban is currently producing 4K content, which they will be able to distribute to their 4K projectors, as well as to non-theatrical 4K media (like Blu-Ray, HD DVD and HD television, presumably). Cuban also points out that they are simply preparing for when 4K content becomes more common. For now, though, Landmark patrons will only be able to appreciate 4K resolution in the form of pre-show materials provided by Sony. If Wagner and Cuban are smart (which they certainly are), they will also hit up Warner Bros. for newly restored 4K versions of Blade Runner, Cool Hand Luke and Bonnie and Clyde to screen as part of their midnight movies selection.

The Hollywood Reporter article:

quote:

4K window to future at L.A.'s new Landmark

By Carolyn Giardina
May 31, 2007

The debut of Landmark Theatres' new flagship complex called the Landmark, which opens Friday at Los Angeles' Westside Pavilion, prompts a closer examination of 4K resolution digital cinema, which represents four times the picture information found in today's commonly used 2K digital cinema resolution.

The Landmark opens with three theaters equipped with Sony's SXRD 4K digital cinema projectors. These -- and one at the Landmark-owned NuArt -- represent the only screens in Los Angeles that offer 4K projection for paying audiences.

Landmark already has ordered about 25 4K projectors from Sony, which is the only manufacturer offering 4K digital cinema projectors to theater owners. In addition to Los Angeles, there are installations in Landmark theaters in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Indianapolis, New York, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington. Plans are to also install 4K technology in Baltimore and Denver.

The 4K dialogue in the film community extends well beyond projection, including production, post and mastering.

Landmark Theatres -- part of the Wagner/Cuban Cos. co-owned by Todd Wagner and Mark Cuban that includes Magnolia Pictures, Magnolia Home Entertainment, HDNet Films, 2929 Prods., HDNet and HDNet Movies -- is looking at the bigger picture. Cuban said he selected 4K projection technology "because cameras were being developed that did 4K and we wanted to be ready for them.

"4K to 4K is the best quality available," he said.

Of course, this requires a steady flow of 4K content. Sony Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures have created select 4K deliverables, but today's digital cinema content is typically available in 2K.

"(4K content) is being developed as we speak," Cuban said. "HDNet plans on actively using 4K for productions and for distribution of content beyond just 4K theatrical." He said that some of the upcoming films he is producing would be mastering and distributed in 4K, though he declined to reveal details.

Citing the aforementioned 4K content from Sony and Warners, Andrew Stucker, director of Sony's digital cinema systems unit, said: "It's still an expensive proposition. While 4K is coming, we expect the majority of the content will be 2K."

Stucker predicted that this would be the case for at least another year. "There needs to be a healthy number of 4K projectors out there. We hope to take care of that over the next year," he said.

Pointing to the added cost of 4K rendering and digital intermediate work, Stucker added: "There is a dollar difference. As those costs come down in the next 12-18 months, we hope to see 4K Digital Cinema Packages going out the door."

It appears that initially, Landmark theatergoers will get a look at 4K imagery through select trailers as well as clips of 4K content that will be supplied by Sony as preshow content. "The idea is to give audiences the visual concept of what 4K will mean for them when it finally does get going," Stucker said.

The Landmark opens with a total of 12 auditoriums, three with 4K projection, three with Panasonic 2K digital cinema projectors and all 12 with film projectors. Dolby Digital EX Surround Sound and Klipsch speakers will create the audio experiences. Digital cinema deliverables would be received via hard drives on files, though Jason Hudak, vp technology at Landmark Theatres, said the company is looking into broadband delivery options.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-02-2007, 12:17 AM:

Christopher Campbell's article is interesting, but as usual has some of the typical misgivings common in dealing with the subject of digital projection and digital creation of movies. It's probably not all that fellow's fault with guys like Mark Cuban carefully feeding him data they only want him to report.

quote:
While I'm no expert on digital projection, here is what I understand about the difference between 2K and 4K resolution (aided by Jette's post about digital restoration): 2K is the current standard for both digital cameras and digital projectors.

Sony is currently the only company offering a digital projector with native 4K resolution. All others fielding new machines are in the 2K camp.

I wonder just how many years it will take for Texas Instruments to develop a 4096 X 2160 pixel DLP imaging chip. I also wonder if they can ever do it.

TI may not even think there's even any need to push for a 4K DLP chip. After all, Hollywood is just dragging its feet on doing anything to adopt the 4K standard as a real standard. They would prefer to just cut costs and keep doing 2K even though the technology is there to fully utilize 4K.

quote:
Cuban said he selected 4K projection technology "because cameras were being developed that did 4K and we wanted to be ready for them. "4K to 4K is the best quality available," he said.

No video cameras fully record the 4K standard. You must use film, in either 4/35 or an even better format to capture full motion action that can be scanned and digitized at that level of resolution.

Mark Cuban's own HD-Net cable channel shows a lot of movies in HDTV. But nearly all have been shot on 35mm film and mastered to HD. Many of the movies are older films made in the 1970s and 1980s.

About the best thing available currently in digital video cameras, at least in terms of pixel count, is the Arri D20. Its sensor in film mode records at 3018 X 2200 pixels (6.6 million pixels). The sensor is the same size as a 4 perf 35mm camera frame and allows standard 35mm film camera lens systems to be used.

I think that underscores the importance of originating movies in more graceful, flexible, organic, traditional and analog film formats.

Technology will continue to push video cameras and anything else recording or displaying pixels to ever higher levels. One thing I think could push that process radically is the "Surface" computer Microsoft has been showing off lately. It's a big table top computer without a keyboard or mouse. You just touch the screen or make hand motions above it -sort of Minority Report style. Lay a digital camera on top of the table and it sucks the images out of the camera. I can see the need for such a device having a huge pixel count for the display.

The D-SLR angle:

As to how the 4K standard compares to digital still cameras, that's really an apples to oranges thing. There's a number of still camera sensors and camera models that record detail well above the 4K standard. However, they're only capturing still images. They're not having to record 24 frames, 30 frames or even more than that per second.

The New Canon EOS 1D Mark III is a 10.1 megapixel camera and is currently billed as the "fastest, most powerful D-SLR in the world." Its fastest "burst rate" is 10 images per second and a maximum burst of 110 shots. That's very impressive for a D-SLR still camera, but not anywhere near anything acceptable in terms of full motion video performance.

The Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II records images in 4992 X 3328 pixels (16.7 million) via its full 8/35mm sized sensor. It has been one of the most popular D-SLRs among professional photographers for the past couple of years. The Canon EOS 5D also has a full frame sensor, but records images up to 4368 X 2912 pixels (12.8 million pixels).

Some very expensive "digital backs" for large format camera bodies now run up to 40 million pixels.

The much more affordable Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi records its images at 3888 X 2592 pixels (10.1 million pixels). That's quite a bit closer to the 4K standard, but still a little over a million pixels more than the "4K" 4096 X 2160 format (8.8 million pixels). It doesn't have the digital processing muscle of the new EOS 1D Mark III or the weather sealing either. But it is currently the best selling D-SLR on the market.

quote:
The Landmark opens with a total of 12 auditoriums, three with 4K projection, three with Panasonic 2K digital cinema projectors and all 12 with film projectors. Dolby Digital EX Surround Sound and Klipsch speakers will create the audio experiences.

If the digital movies are DCI compliant, they will not use a severely lossy compressed format like Dolby Digital. It's going to be LPCM 5.1. You can certainly post process that converted to analog signal with Dolby EX. This is just another reason why someone needs to come up with a better way to sell people on multichannel LPCM. It doesn't have the brand recognition of Dolby or DTS. Still, by the simple fact LPCM is uncompressed that makes it superior to any of the lossy systems.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 06-02-2007, 12:50 AM:

Wow! And 35mm analogue can only record 100 million megabytes. [Big Grin]

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 06-02-2007, 05:10 AM:

[evil]

Call me evil but I will be so pleased when one of these "Digital" projectors breaks down because resistor R2 on PCB board C3 under plate B2 has gone kaboom! and then you have to wait for a day or two until an expert who knows jack shit about cinema but only pcb boards will be able to trace the problem because buyin that board new will cost another fortune. While if you use a belt driven machine, the belt goes out, 10 minutes of wasted time for you to change and walla! The show goes on.
Demetris

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-02-2007, 08:43 PM:

Demetris: that's progress! Louis

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 06-02-2007, 10:27 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
No video cameras fully record the 4K standard. You must use film, in either 4/35 or an even better format to capture full motion action that can be scanned and digitized at that level of resolution.

How much longer until the RED (4k motion picture camera) is released? Its definitly coming soon! Red web page

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-03-2007, 02:03 AM:

Until the "red" camera is actually in production and actually used on any real projects I would only consider it being a conceptual item. Just whose CMOS or CCD devices are they even using in this camera? Are they getting their own chips developed? What's going on?

I remember when Arri started selling people on the D20 camera. Some sales droid people were trying to bill it as a 10 megapixel camera when its imager really only delivered 6 million pixels in "film" mode and that Superman Returns was really only being mastered in 2K or 1080p HDTV format. Basically the sales people were lying their asses off to everyone who didn't really know better or know enough to ask questions.

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 06-03-2007, 03:09 AM:

What I'm interested in seeing is a native 4K presentation being shown on a large screen (70+ feet) to compare to a 2K presentation.

Off topic response to an off topic statement:

quote: Demetris Thoupis
Call me evil but I will be so pleased when one of these "Digital" projectors breaks down because resistor R2 on PCB board C3 under plate B2 has gone kaboom! and then you have to wait for a day or two until an expert who knows jack shit about cinema but only pcb boards will be able to trace the problem because buyin that board new will cost another fortune. While if you use a belt driven machine, the belt goes out, 10 minutes of wasted time for you to change and walla! The show goes on.

I have a large selection of spare parts available to fix almost any problem that should arise with a DLP. I rarely have to dip into these parts, and it's a proven fact that solid-state devices are much more reliable than mechanical devices.

So, while your trusted belts are getting old, and your bearings are wearing out, that R2 resistor is still plugging away.

In the majority of D-cinema installs, the customer (i.e. theater) doesn't pay a dime extra for the replacement, since the cost of parts is covered under their service contract.

I can't count how many times I've had to let a 35mm projector sit dark for over a day due to the fact that parts were unavailable to repair immediately. Even belt failures have cost theaters more than 10 minutes of lost time due to the fact that they didn't have any spare belts on hand. Kinoton machines could have a Lenze inverter fail (due to resistor R2 on the primary PCB blowing), and without a spare onsite, a similar down time could result. All due to that "cursed" new technology that is evil and terrible.

Or........ A platter power supply could fail
Or........ A High Reactance tranny could fail
Or........ An intermittent could fail, with no spare on site
Or........ Resistor R2 could fail on a reverse scan reader in a non-digital equipped theater

Gimme a break................

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-03-2007, 05:22 AM:

I've never lost a show on film due to an equipment failure; I've never been to a show which has been cancelled due to an equipment failure. Over the years I've lost three, I think, shows due to the non-arrival of a print, and I've been to one show which was cancelled due to a total power failure, beyond the cinema. The latter would obviously affect both film and digital equally, and short of installing a generator there is nothing that could be done about it. Such failures are rare enough as to make the cost of generators generally unjustified.

As for the non-arrival of a print, digital probably has a slight advantage. If we are running a film for the first time then there's probably an equal chance of either not turning up, but if we're bringing a film back for another run, as we often do, sometimes several times, then it's likely that we'll still have the files sitting on disk, and so do not need them to be delivered again. A new key, if needed, could be supplied by telecoms means.

Breakdowns during a show are pretty rare, and I've never had one that I couldn't fix within a few minutes. The last one was actually on Saturday last week; the ends of some of the reels, near the core as supplied, were damaged, the film had been badly wound, and the edge was turned over. At the end of the first reel the film jumped out of the split roller, and tripped the ACOP; we were back on screen in about ten seconds. I once had a take-up failure when running a single machine with a tower, and had to turn the take-up spool by hand for a couple of hours. This was at a venue which only ran film occasionally, and it was fixed before the next show.

I've lost one show on video due to an equipment failure, and I've done far less video shows than film ones. I've never lost a digital show, but then I've only done eight digital shows so far. If the digital equipment did fail then I think it is far less likely that I could fix it than with film. As for how reliable the digital equipment will be; it's too early to tell yet.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-03-2007, 07:38 AM:

Well, I've certainly lost shows with those mechanical monstrosities I've had in my booth over the years.

Lessee... A couple of diode failures in 22 year-old xenon power supplies, a couple of shutter gear failures in some 40 year-old projector heads, and one platter motor that had a bearing freeze up after only 25 years of service. Oh, yeah... I had the centrifugal start switch give out in a motor, once. That sound head was an antique when it was put in here... I couldn't tell you how old it was. Otherwise, rock-solid performance, far beyond the lifespan of most mechanical equipment...

Yes, some of these events did cause a cancellation. However, they never had a "service contract" to keep them at optimal condition... just me. Even with the carload passes I gave out, I'm WAY far ahead of the financial curve on this argument. Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure the money I would have saved by not having 3 annual contracts (so that someone would have "R2" in his parts box) is a lot more than what it's cost me over the years to upgrade my booth.

Sorry... this line of thinking doesn't justify the digital argument. And, I'm still wondering if Carmike is really paying 4-figure maintenance fees per screen. Adding up the maintenance for ONE multiplex could mean a pretty good living for someone. Chain-wide, that cost would be sheer insanity.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-03-2007, 07:57 AM:

I'd forgotten a Saturday morning children's show a few months ago, lost due to the print arriving with one reel in such a state that I literally couldn't get it to go through a projector. However, that is not totally unlike the situation with 'The Painted Veil' recently where the disk arrived, but the files wouldn't load. Fortunately it arrived early, and there was time to get another copy to us before the first show.

We've only had five different films on digital so far, so it's still too early to tell how common this will be.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-03-2007, 02:12 PM:

Come on guys, there isn't a technology on the planet that doesn't have the possibility of catastropic failure built-in; DCinema or F(ilm)Cinema can and will have lost shows because of the very nature of physics -- EVERYTHING can breakdown. Just ask the guys during that one live national presidential debate where audio died for 18 minutes. Just ask any techie at NASA. So what's the point? Either film or video system can give up the ghost at some point or another.

On the other hand there is the practical matter -- if an intermittent craps out or an entire mechanism strips its gears, it more than likely there will be a spare someplace in the basement that can be swapped out to get a show back on the screen in short order. With DCinema costing what it does, it will be a long time coming, should that puff of smoke pour out of the projector electronics and the image go black, that there will be another DLP head just sitting around waiting to take over from a failed unit.

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 06-03-2007, 10:33 PM:

I think Frank's post does a better job saying what I mean to say.

To try and discount DLPs' reliability simply due to the fact that it carries a lot of electronics, and that Film isn't subject to the same causes of failure seems strange.

As we all know, there's a lot of folks in the industry that would love to see [dlp]

fail miserably. This isn't hard for me to understand based on the simple fact that many Technician's careers and livelihoods depend on film remaining.

My disagreement was with Demetris' statement that if a component level failure on a DLP machine were to happen, it would solidify his belief that "film rules", and better prove his point that film should remain the industry standard.

As to the economics and cost of repairs: One cannot argue that in most cases, a failure on a DLP will cost much more in parts to repair than that of a film projector. This will change as DLP becomes more widely used, and technology and manufacturing is improved and becomes more readily available.

Considering that many of the service contracts being used by the current D-cinema providers eliminate the need for an in-house technician and also reduce the need to keep spare parts on hand, It may be financially justified to pay the cost for the service contract. I'm not privy to the numbers the theater companies pay, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the cost was far too much for an independent operation to pay.

Call me an advocate if you will....

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 06-04-2007, 02:04 PM:

A reasonable theater should keep main parts as spare in the projection booth especially large complexes. Belts, Shutter drive, intermittent drive and certain power supplies are a must. What I am saying is that D Cinema is so advanced in technology that it is very unlikely for someone to be able to repair a fault on one of the electronic PCB boards if one occurs during a show and will have to suffer a whole night until a new PCB board arrive to change it. Fixing a film projector is much easier for a competent projectionist. D Cinema is mainly for the larger markets. That is my belief. It is very unlikely that it will be able to reach small islands and small markets in the next 5 to 6 years. But my theory of "Film Rules" is what I always will believe. Going to a cinema which is a place of "moving images" without having images to move anymore is not thrilling for me.
Demetris

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-04-2007, 03:03 PM:

quote: Demetris Thoupis
It is very unlikely that it will be able to reach small islands and small markets in the next 5 to 6 years.

I used to feel the same way about where I live just a few years ago. I had conversations with the manager of the Carmike 8 here in Lawton and we were all but sure hell would have to freeze over before his theater got stadium seating, much less anything new and very expensive like DLP. Here we are in 2007 and his theater has both stadium seating and d-cinema in all 8 auditoriums. Carmike has put d-cinema into a lot of small markets across the United States.

My feeling is any first run movie theater that charges $6 or more per ticket will eventually be showing movies off hard disc, regardless if it's an improvement or downgrade for any particular theater.

Based on print costs, the movie studios would still be saving money if they bought the d-cinema systems outright themselves and simply had them installed in movie theaters across the world.

quote: Demetris Thoupis
But my theory of "Film Rules" is what I always will believe. Going to a cinema which is a place of "moving images" without having images to move anymore is not thrilling for me.

I don't quite share the same sentiment. I like film projection, but prefer film projection that is sharp and rock steady. I don't find anything magical about a picture that has issues of side weave, picketing, strobing, etc. A very good film projection setup should look every bit as good, if not better, than a d-cinema setup.

Sad thing is most major releases today are put through a 2K digital intermediate step, so you're gaining nothing extra by watching such a movie on 35mm.

The area where I believe film still rules is in movie production. Video camera technology just isn't as good as 4/35mm at this point. The image quality is lower overall, especially on image resolution. The only thing one gains in shooting a movie digitally is short term convenience. That temporary convenience is only felt at that point during production. The lower level of image quality recorded is a permanent cost and one that will have negative consequences in years and decades to come.

Movies shot on video in what equates to 1080p today will look antiquated and obsolete maybe 10 or 20 years from now. Shoot a movie on 35mm and it will at least stand some chance to gracefully adapt to those better formats. Shoot a movie in large format and it will stand up to the increased demands of future video playback formats for many decades. The extra time and money it takes to shoot in large format now may indeed be a very good long term investment.

I think it will be at least a few more years before we see video camera sensors able to truly tackle 4K resolution. That will certainly be so when it comes to all the different frame rates a 35mm film camera can record.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 06-05-2007, 01:19 AM:

Are you under the impression that they will stay on 4K only? Wait a few years and you will see all 2K projectors becoming obsolete since all films will be released only on 6K! 50 year old projectors still show film. Digital projectors today will not be able to project in 50 years later.
Film Rules!
Demetris

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-05-2007, 10:19 AM:

I have said a number of times, as much as I love to handle film and have a sort of emotional affinity just because it's been my love since I was a child, intellectually I really don't care what the technology is. My desire is to put an image on the screen that can have the same impact that I experienced as a kid watchin LAWRENCE or MY FAIR LADY or WEST SIDE STORY, et al. Those classics are our national film heritage and future generations shouldn't be deprived of experiening those works of cinema art as we were able to experience them with the same quality and same intensity that is inherant in the original.

If DCinema could reproduce the quality of 70mm, then hell yes, I want it. Hopefully it will become available at a price that makes it viable for more rather than less of the majority of exhibitors. Wouldn't it be nice to have most of the theatres in the country able to show images akin to 70mm!

But the huge problem is, DCinema isn't anywhere near that capability yet and everyone knows it, no matter how much they babble about 2K. What's worse, as Bobby points out, the whole rush to DCinema is solely driven by one single motivation: the studios fixation on getting rid of print costs (at ANY cost) and the theatre owners' nearly irrational idea that somehow DCinema means the elimination of expensive technical skilled labor, i.e., the projectionist, without serious consideration of what yet unseen costs that $120,000 piece of technical aparatus will cost to maintain over the years of operation when it's no longer out-of-th-box new and tweeked.

And there in lies the insidious rub. Once a $120,000 2K level quality video projector is purchased and plunked in a booth with a quality level that is far below anything I was talking about in terms of the capability of exisiting film systems, that 2K machine has met the goal of the studio -- no more prints needed for that booth. End of story as far as what's going to happen in that theatre. That unit will STAY in place no matter WHAT the furture gains in presentation quality. There will be absolutely no economic reason to ever upgrade it. And even if there were a reason, say the Regal execs see their 8k or 6k or even 4k competitor putting on demonsterably better looking shows -- they've already blown their wad; they are not about to retrofit once again, putting them at an incredible economic disadvantage, possibly unsurvivable, to have to spend yet again so they can have what their competitor only had to purchase once.

That puts my kids and my grand kids at a markedly serious disadvantage over our generation because there will be Regals and Carmikes who jumped in too soon, unable to junk their 3000+ 2K projectors, and others with their 4Ks and then still more with their 6K and then the young turks with whatever the latest will be, possibly not even DLP. So it will be all over the map. And THAT's why I am very much against DC at the momment. It's just being implimented too soon and in a way that is irreversible.

So a pox on both their houses -- Distribution and Exhibition.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-05-2007, 12:14 PM:

quote:
Are you under the impression that they will stay on 4K only? Wait a few years and you will see all 2K projectors becoming obsolete since all films will be released only on 6K!

I have doubts that would happen.

First, a DCI-compliant 2K d-cinema projector should be able to play a DCI-compliant 4K movie. It just would only display 25% of the pixels on screen. Security was the main factor that killed off support for the original 1.2K DLP systems -not to mention the fact it had only around half the pixel count of 1080p HDTV.

The bigger problem is there still isn't any drive on the part of Hollywood to embrace the 4K standard. They seem perfectly happy doing everything in 2K and merely using new advances in computer technology to do 2K faster and faster (as well as cheaper and cheaper).

Hollywood doesn't seem in any big hurry to adopt 4K work flow since all that extra detail would only be seen for about a month in just a few first run movie theaters. The studios don't really care all that much about the magic and tradition of commercial movie theaters. They just care about getting the product onto DVD or whatever disc they're going to be selling to viewers at home.

I would actually prefer it if Hollywood did jump from 4K to 6K and so on and so forth. That would push a lot of technological advancement. It would also force film makers to use better methods in filming on 35mm and perhaps even use larger formats like 65mm. The viewers would win in the end by seeing much improved image quality.

Instead, I think we're just going to see most movies geared very much for display on a 1080p HDTV for the foreseeable future.

The only thing in the home that could force standards to go higher is computer monitors of increasing size and resolution. The gaming industry is competing pretty hard against the movie industry (as well as stealing many of the best and brightest computer animators and engineers). We'll certainly see "4K" computer monitors long before any TV set offers such native resolution. But the increasing importance of computers in entertainment and the factor of monitors working double purposes as both TVs and computer monitors may drive those resolution standards higher in the long run.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-05-2007, 12:29 PM:

I saw my first digital screening of a movie with real people in it (as opposed to a computer animated film) about a month ago. It was "Georgia Rule" at a Carmike here in Montana.

While the picture looked excellent to me, I can see what the anti-digital people are getting at. The picture if anything was TOO perfect. There were none of the tiny anomolies of film, and no I'm not talking about dirt and scratches. I can't quite pull off the technical words to describe what I was feeling as I watched it, but it didn't have the LIFE of film. To me at least, it's not as much to do with the quality of the picture (which looked fine to me) as it is with the sterileness of it. So I think I get what all of you anti-digital guys are yelling about.

But I have yet to hear any "civilian" person (not in the business or closely connected to it) say they don't like it. My wife said it looked awesome. A couple of friends who have been to the digi-Carmikes say the new picture looks great. Apparently in order to dislike digital, you have to be in the film business or maybe a reviewer, or somebody who sees a couple of hundred movies a year.

So talk about being between a rock and a hard place here. To the general public, it certainly is an improvement to them over what they're used to. I can see why they'd think it looks better, even though with my film-seasoned eyes, I know there's something missing.

Posted by David Graves (Member # 4069) on 06-11-2007, 02:17 AM:

Someone wrote a great article about this (for the life of me I can't find it), suggesting that the thing that was missing was the lag time in the 48fps of film where the shutter is closed. It seems to lull people into a dream state, and after watching a lot of digital I kind of agree- whereas I can sit back and fall into a film, with digital, I just feel a little on edge the whole time, kind of like I really need a cigarette or something.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-11-2007, 10:04 AM:

I just said this in another post about [dlp]

in the Film Handler's Forum. The main thing I see missing in digitally projected shows is that hint of real film grain swirling and dancing around on the screen. When really good film projection is dialed in to its sharpest level of focus you can see that on even the smoothest looking film prints. You don't normally see any film grain at all in digital projection unless it has been artificially added into the image via some "add noise" digital effects filter.

Viewers also don't hear the very faint rattle of the projector shutter tapping away up in the booth. Not that viewers should be hearing that in the first place, but it seems like [dlp]

makes the auditoriums a little more eerily quiet.

There's also little if any light fall off at the corners. The Konica Minolta lenses used on those Christie CP2000 projectors are a lot bigger than the Schneider lenses I saw previously used. The image is more uniformly bright. While that might be a plus, it also draws more of a similarity with what people are used to seeing with television displays.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-11-2007, 10:20 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
that hint of real film grain swirling and dancing around on the screen.

Bobby - you nailed it. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 06-11-2007, 10:39 AM:

The audience, viewer would not mind if it was either Film or Digital. Someone in the industry though surely does mind. I can clearly undestand the benefits to both the exhibitioner and the distributor when it comes to Digital Cinema. But as with any advanced electronic like a PC, unfortunately it will not stop developing up to the point were people will be scrapping a years old equipment to purchase the "new" technology. That is why I am so against Digital cinema. I have a saying with all the projectionists in cyprus going something like "Mihani mes ta ladia hilia hronia tha se parei" which is translated in "A Machine build in oil will last for a thousand years".
Demetris

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 06-12-2007, 03:23 AM:

quote:
suggesting that the thing that was missing was the lag time in the 48fps of film where the shutter is closed. It seems to lull people into a dream state,

The fact that the cinema screen is blank / black 55 - 60% of the time, really must make a difference when it comes to eye fatigue, Its no secret that you are more likely to fall asleep while watching tv rather than a 35mm screen. DLP 100% constant mirror system perhaps means that filmmakers will have to work harder to keep the audience awake?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-12-2007, 09:44 AM:

If movie studios really want to keep audiences awake they should try making a lot fewer sequels.

Persistence of vision makes a lot of the flicker in film projection almost imperceptible. The same principal does a lot to mask ways the TV screen is refreshed/redrawn when watching video or looking at computer based content.

quote: Demetris Thoupis
But as with any advanced electronic like a PC, unfortunately it will not stop developing up to the point were people will be scrapping a years old equipment to purchase the "new" technology.

The DCI standards do more to address backward compatibility. I don't think movie theaters are going to be switching out newly purchased 2K projectors any time soon. However, I certainly would not expect them to have anywhere near the life span of a well built 35mm projector. A 10 to 15 year life span for a Christie CP2000 projector might seem about right or perhaps a tad bit generous. But they're not going to be switched out in a mere 5 years like the first generation of DLP systems.

Computer technology is going to continue advancing at a relentless pace. I constantly complain about the "tyranny of 2K" and how Hollywood ought to be trying harder to push boundaries of creativity and technology. At some point the advances in hardware will be sufficient where any major studio will have to work in 4K or even higher resolution standards.

Likewise, at some point, the technology in digital projection is going to mature enough that any 35mm-based theaters still able to hold out will finally want to convert. There are merits to avoiding 2K-based projectors and holding out for something better, provided your theater is showing "film done right" and able to show at least some movies not already reduced to 2K digital intermediate in post production.

These changes happening now are kind of minor compared to what I think may be taking place in more than just the entertainment industry in just a few years.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 06-12-2007, 11:18 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
But they're not going to be switched out in a mere 5 years like the first generation of DLP systems.

Here is were people start contradicting themselves. Even though you are suggesting that the 2K won't be changed any time soon, the first generation HAD to change after 5 years. Wait 5 years and you will see. I am not against Digital cinema as a mean. I am against it mostly because is a ripoff to the exhibitor who will be forced to change the equipment he buys today after 5 or 6 years. I'd rather have the studios paying more for print costs for a film projector which will last forever.
Demetris

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-12-2007, 03:21 PM:

I'm not contradicting myself at all. The first generation of digital projectors had to change for very obvious reasons. The pixel count was far too low, barely half the pixel count of 1080p HDTV and 2K digital intermediates. The data run on those old systems was not very secure or even secure at all. The video encoding standards on some of those old 1.2K standard movies was crap.

The 2K systems will indeed stick around for a lot longer than five years for a number of reasons. The video encoding standards are a lot better. DCI compliant 4K material can play on 2K machines. The movie data is a lot more secure. The 2K resolution standard is very well entrenched in Hollywood.

Hollywood has been doing the vast majority of all its CGI visual effects work, CGI animation and digital intermediate work in the 2K level for a really long time. Hollywood is also showing very little indication at all that it intends to abandon that old 2K format.

Very simply put: if the final render of a movie is merely 2K then what is the point of even showing it on 35mm or a 4K projector or anything better than that? It is still only a 2K image regardless of how it is blown up. It's a huge waste of emulsion to blast up 2K content to IMAX. Just freaking stupid.

The highly shortened windows of release between commercial theaters and home video will only do more to convince movie studios to keep vomiting out their content in mere 2K resolution.

The growing trend of movie producers and directors embracing video cameras as a means to make movies will do even more to enforce that low 2K standard.

I'm not satisfied with the 2K standard. Hollywood should be using all the technology advances that have been happening to push quality standards a lot higher. But they are not doing that. Instead, they are using the increased muscle power in computing to merely save money by rendering things in 2K even faster.

quote: Demetris Thoupis
I am against it mostly because is a ripoff to the exhibitor who will be forced to change the equipment he buys today after 5 or 6 years.

Any movie theater operator who simply buys a digital cinema system outright is making a stupid mistake.

Companies like Carmike Cinemas are using their large number of screens to negotiate better terms on leasing the equipment, service agreements and getting movie studios to pony up a good amount of the cost on the hardware.

The movie studios would still be saving money if they paid 100% of the cost on the digital projection systems. That seems fair to me since the studios are taking just about all the money from the box office anyway.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-13-2007, 10:21 AM:

The Landmark will be featuring a 4K digital presentation of the Stanley Kubrick classic Dr. Strangelove that recently underwent a 4K digital restoration starting this Friday.

Link #1

Link #2

[ 06-13-2007, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-13-2007, 05:48 PM:

Wasn't it Landmark that was crowing about their DeeCinema installations....but they were all 2K Christies, not 4K Sony's, were they not? So, if that is correct, then it's not a 4K digital presentation, but a 2K presentation of the 4K restoration.

Landmark would be better off showing the prints struck from the 4K digital master rather than the half rez 2K down conversion. Since film has the resolution capable of the equivalent of 4K and beyond, if they ran one of the new Sony prints, they would be better off. Oh....I forgot -- the took out their Ultra High Resolution film projectors. So sad.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 06-13-2007, 06:14 PM:

Frank, I guess you did not get the memo.

But Landmark's Sunshine Complex in Manhattan has had two Sony 4K projectors for about a year now. And they are equipped in other select markets too with the Sony projectors. I've been running a Sony 4K for a year now.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-13-2007, 06:46 PM:

Frank, why don't you go back and read Michael Coate's original post. The article he cites very specifically states that this Landmark theatre utilizes 4K digital projectors. Also, Landmark hasn't removed their film projectors at all. (The Nuart in West L.A. STILL runs changeovers from two 35mm projectors in addition to their 4K Sony projector...and still uses curtains!)

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 06-16-2007, 08:10 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Very simply put: if the final render of a movie is merely 2K then what is the point of even showing it on 35mm or a 4K projector or anything better than that? It is still only a 2K image regardless of how it is blown up. It's a huge waste of emulsion to blast up 2K content to IMAX. Just freaking stupid.

This is why I have stopped going to cinemas. The digital intermediate in 2k reduces the quality of the image and I have noticed this in all the 35mm prints I have seen with digital intermediate (apart from Water that looked good). The painted veil would have looked gorgeous in 65/70 or even in 35mm anamorphic without the digital intermediate. I have been a fan of cinemas for many years and this reduction in quality is very upseting. I will move to home cinema until something betters comes back, if it does. Digital is cold, film is warm the only reason film is going is because of money.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-16-2007, 12:25 PM:

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
I will move to home cinema until something betters comes back, if it does. Digital is cold, film is warm the only reason film is going is because of money.

Well if you're looking to escape "digital" whatever, going to home theatre won't do that...every DVD is digital.

The last part of your quote is true though. The only reason ANYTHING happens in the business world is because of money, one way or the other.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 06-16-2007, 01:43 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Well if you're looking to escape "digital" whatever, going to home theatre won't do that...every DVD is digital.

I know that home cinema is all digital but I refuse to pay 9 pounds (a lot of money) every time I go to the pictures for an inferior product.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-16-2007, 07:50 PM:

quote: Tristan Lane
I can't count how many times I've had to let a 35mm projector sit dark for over a day due to the fact that parts were unavailable to repair immediately. Even belt failures have cost theaters more than 10 minutes of lost time due to the fact that they didn't have any spare belts on hand. Kinoton machines could have a Lenze inverter fail (due to resistor R2 on the primary PCB blowing), and without a spare onsite, a similar down time could result. All due to that "cursed" new technology that is evil and terrible.

Or........ A platter power supply could fail
Or........ A High Reactance tranny could fail
Or........ An intermittent could fail, with no spare on site
Or........ Resistor R2 could fail on a reverse scan reader in a non-digital equipped theater

Gimme a break................

Break given... I'm on your side for sure and I can't wait till the day I don't have to mess with that googy oil in projectors and sound heads nor clean out the crud that all Simplex shutters manage to suck into the back end.

I also can't begin to tell you how many days I've waited at distant locations for projector, sound, or platter parts to arrive.... gives me good time to explore an area though [thumbsup]

. When I worked in broadcast once a new unit was debugged and up and running it rarely ever failed... usually never... excepting DBX gear. The most frequent thing replaced was 2" video tape heads back then as they had a limited 1000 hour life to begin with. Big stations had proper cooling for their equipment... the ceiling was the cold air feeding the tops of all racks and the raised floor was the return plenum for that. Things were very reliable... never a Tektronix, Grass Valley, nor other major piece of gear failed. Just two failures of simple components in TK45's over three years.

Yep, I look forword to the all electronic cinema big time be it 2K or 4K! 2K's exist in this area by the droves and do extremely well in the reliability department overall. There is basically zero down time. The worst thing I can remember happenning is a lamp explosion in a Barco. It was pushed over hours to experiment with its life span on purpose.

Overall things will be more reliable [thumbsup]

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Digital is cold, film is warm the only reason film is going is because of money.

I disagree. I've seen quite a few presentations projected digitally now and in fact I have come to prefer it. It doesn't look cold unless the projector's color space is set up improperly. IN fact it can match film quite remarkably. Soon it may actually surpass film in color range and contrast ratio, some projectors are VERY close now!. I agree on the money thing though!!

Mark

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 06-17-2007, 05:41 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I disagree. I've seen quite a few presentations projected digitally now and in fact I have come to prefer it.

It is certainly a very subjective matter. What I meant is that cinemas for me always represented a big step from what can be enjoyed at home, it used to be a big event for me, the big event is no more and unless they do something radical to bring that "wow" effect back they have lost me as a customer. Nevertheless, I will still go socially sometimes and to see classics (on film support only). It is a personal choice, I know. For 9 sterling pounds I expect to get a large, slightly curved screen, five speakers behind the screen and a quality matching 65/70, no less. I saw K-Pax yesterday at home, a rather well done film, and I thought that there was no difference seeing it at home or at the multiplex, I would never say that about Lawrence of Arabia or How the West was won.

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 06-17-2007, 04:48 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Yep, I look forword to the all electronic cinema big time be it 2K or 4K! 2K's exist in this area by the droves and do extremely well in the reliability

So we could assume that you will not be in the Projection Service when the D-Cinema is rolled out in your area as there will be no Service/call out work?.

Much I would dream to see 65mm feature produced films projected in 70mm in large cinema, it just will no longer happen while we have the Film Studios who simply produce a product and want a quick return on production cost, after all Cinema's are only marketing platforms for DVD Home Market sales and the main cinema admissions age group are Teen's who could not care less if it is film or D-Cinema.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 06-17-2007, 05:20 PM:

quote: Ben Wales
the main cinema admissions age group are Teen's who could not care less if it is film or D-Cinema.

I wish they produced a product for adult audience both in contents and presentation, maybe the adult market is not good enough to invest on it, I do not know.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-17-2007, 08:06 PM:

quote: Ben Wales
Cinema's are only marketing platforms for DVD Home Market sales

I hate this statement. It doesn't give "cinema" the respect it deserves. Without the cinema industry there would be no DVD industry. We are the engine that pulls the train.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-17-2007, 08:41 PM:

quote: Ben Wales
So we could assume that you will not be in the Projection Service when the D-Cinema is rolled out in your area as there will be no Service/call out work?.

I'm quite sure there would be work in actual film for the next decade or so around here... we only service about 700 screens. Some of those mom and pop jobs will be running film for a long time.

quote: Ben Wales
Much I would dream to see 65mm feature produced films projected in 70mm in large cinema, it just will no longer happen while we have the Film Studios who simply produce a product and want a quick return on production cost, after all Cinema's are only marketing platforms for DVD Home Market sales and the main cinema admissions age group are Teen's who could not care less if it is film or D-Cinema.

A dream I share too but unfortunately it will never get past the dream stage any longer. Reality exists in the changes that are taking place (not necessarily in the quality though) out there too and I prefer the reality aspect. Who knows, perhaps as things digital evolve there will be an electronic replacement for 65mm... by then it ought to look as good or better. They could have a key for "Super Panavision Look", "Todd-AO Look", even Cinemascope mumps if you want the realistic early Cinemascope look.

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
I would never say that about Lawrence of Arabia or How the West was won.

Of course HTWWW could be done easily with D-Cinema. Just take 3-4K Sony projectors and.... No problem and I would bet that some day it will be done.

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-17-2007, 09:06 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Without the cinema industry there would be no DVD industry. We are the engine that pulls the train.

I think there is at least a few studio executives in Hollywood who need to be clued in on that fact. That especially goes for any studio executive pushing to release movies in theaters and on DVD at the same time. Stupidly short sighted.

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 06-18-2007, 12:02 AM:

As someone who deals with it every day, I can honestly say that average presentation quality has increased dramatically since the departure of film in the theaters I service.

That's not to say that film can't out-do 2K. There are many theaters that can produce outstanding images using the correct equipment, and having the right people operate and maintain that equipment. But in this multiplex laden world, where the bottom dollar counts more than pristine presentation, Digital offers a level of consistently reliable presentation that the customer will enjoy. Also, these good theaters are hard to find, and the average customer probably doesn't notice all of the efforts that the operators put into making a stellar show, but we would all wish to think so.

Digital has kept me just as busy as film did. The workload has been evenly distributed between the different components in the system. Basically the film projector head and platter have just been replaced by a light engine and media server. As time progresses, the light engine is proving itself to be very reliable. Most of the calls I have dealt with have been equally spread between sound, server playback (software), content distribution, and the occasional lamphouse issue.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 06-18-2007, 03:24 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Of course HTWWW could be done easily with D-Cinema. Just take 3-4K Sony projectors and.... No problem and I would bet that some day it will be done.

I know, I mentioned the idea of digital cinerama in another thread. Something like this or 65/70 is what theatres need (and good films, of course).

[ 06-18-2007, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Ramon Lamarca Marques ]

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 06-19-2007, 01:41 PM:

quote:

quote: Ben Wales
Cinema's are only marketing platforms for DVD Home Market sales
I hate this statement. It doesn't give "cinema" the respect it deserves. Without the cinema industry there would be no DVD industry. We are the engine that pulls the train.

I agree that cinemas are currently the engine that pulls the train, that will only be true so long as cinemas continue to be granted the exclusive engagement that studios currently provide to them.

From a marketing standpoint, showing a movie in commercial theaters is still necessary for movie studios because of the credibility that the public (and the industry, such as AMPAS, which requires a theatrical run for qualification for the Oscars, if I recall correctly) holds for movies that appear first in movie theaters and then on home video.

I don't say this to be disrespectful to anyone here, but that exclusive engagement will end at some point, and theaters will lose the cachet of lending that credibility to movies in the eyes of the paying public.

All it will take is a successful launch by a studio of a movie that has a day-and-date release on home video, or a home-video-only release (no theatrical release at all). That will be the first fissure in the dam that will gradually widen and allow the floodwaters to rush through, quite possibly leveling many/most movie theaters in the process.

To date, we've seen only mediocre and/or limited releases done day-and-date. 2929 Entertainment is doing day-and-dates with Landmark Theatres, but since the movies that have been done haven't been blockbuster-scaled movies, a real test has yet to be done.

What would happen if, say, Pirates of the Caribbean 3 were to have been released day-and-date? Same budget, same marketing push, same cast and storyline. For credibility sake, let's assume that it would have been available on both the iTunes Store and Amazon for immediate download on opening day or for purchase on DVD/HD DVD/Blu-ray with delivery guaranteed for opening day.

Bottom line: People that wanted to see the movie on opening day would have it available to them in their homes. People that wanted to see the movie on opening day in a movie theater would be able to do so (assuming that movie theaters would not boycott the release).

What kind of impact do you think that would have on the future of movie theaters as the "engine that pulls the train"? I think it would have a major impact!

It's a perception thing that succeeding generations are more than happy to adjust to. Those of us who grew up on the traditional release schedules will find it very odd, but I'd bet that many teenagers would have no issue whatsoever accepting a movie with a big-name cast and that delivered the entertainment they are expecting no matter what medium it was shown on.

Lest everyone think that I believe that movie theaters are doomed to extinction, I don't. Movie theaters still have the ability to provide an experience that cannot be matched in the home, no matter how much money has been poured into a home theater. There are aspects of going to a movie theater that cannot be replicated, and it's up to movie theaters to leverage those advantages.

The ability to show a 4K (or higher) resolution image is one of those advantages, if the source material is available. However, just as with home theater projection and digital cameras, resolution isn't the only qualitative factor affecting the picture quality of the movie. There are lots of factors involved.

Unfortunately, I think that far too many theaters lean on the exclusive release as a crutch to deliver mediocre presentations. There are excellent theaters out there, I'm sure, but from the feedback that I see on a regular basis, those excellent theaters are the exception, not the norm.

Home video is training people to become accustomed to no jump or weave at all. There are no such things as audio dropouts, bad film splices, or dust, dirt, and scratches. If someone comes to my home and pulls out a cell phone and starts talking, they would be shown the door pretty quickly as such behavior would be unacceptable.

People who are used to film have become so used to jump and weave and other film-related issues that such issues have become part of the experience. The same is true for people that haven't given up their vinyl LP's because they like the sound; pops, crackles, hiss, and all.

I was in a high-end audio shop the other day, and this guy was playing some music on a $1,000 turntable and comparing it to a CD that was in a very expensive CD transport. To him, the LP sounded better. To me, the LP had a chestiness to the sound that also had rolled-off highs. In comparison, the CD might have been a little bright, but it sounded much more pleasing to me. He was ready to plunk down the cash for the turntable, though.

While I do believe that it is possible for high quality LP's to sound better than the standard run-of-the-mill CD production, I think that this guy was much more affected by his sentimental attachment to the character of the LP than to the pure audio quality of the product. I think a parallel can be drawn to film and digital cinema.

Anyone getting angst-ridden about the fact that technology marches on and refusing to make the jump to digital cinema is ignoring the possible benefits that doing so can provide to their business.

Companies deal with technology obsolescence all the time, and you don't see office buildings tossing hundreds of PC's out the door just because some new Intel processor has been released. The oldest boxes get replaced as they need to be, and they bring new boxes in to serve their needs. (I have a client whose file server is 8 years old, ancient by technology standards!)

I think I might have lost my point along the line here, but I see digital cinema being a boon for theaters to streamline their operations and opening up new possibilities for content and revenue. There seems to be financial assistance available to do so, depending on the situation, so the cost impact might be able to be addressed as well.

Digital Cinema is the inevitable future. I think even its most ardent opponents will begrudgingly admit that fact. If I owned a theater, I'd be taking the classes that Mark has mentioned, and getting to know as much as possible about the products and what deals are available so that I could make an informed decision about when to take the plunge.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-19-2007, 02:48 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
All it will take is a successful launch by a studio of a movie that has a day-and-date release on home video, or a home-video-only release (no theatrical release at all). That will be the first fissure in the dam that will gradually widen and allow the floodwaters to rush through, quite possibly leveling many/most movie theaters in the process.

I don't see a problem with this. Most theatres suck. Let the generic multiplexes die--they don't deserve to continue to exist. I agree with the previous poster that theatres need to provide something more than just seats, a screen, and exclusive rights to product.

I've been of two minds on the simultaneous-release thing for a while, but have since come to the conclusion that, yes, it would kill many theatres and that, assuming that it kills the dumpy ones that survive only because of the "theatrical window" and not because they are actually providing a quality "entertainment experience," the industry will ultimately be better off with fewer screens that are of higher quality than what is typically found today.

Does "Pirates" really need to open on thousands of screens? I don't think so. I'd rather see something like that open on one or two screens in a given market, and see those houses really put on a show, complete with 70mm prints, short films before the main feature, and first-rate presentation and customer service throughout. Installing big-screen TV sets doesn't help here, but 70mm does. The theatres that would benefit most from [dlp]

are the ones that can't handle film properly and which should just go away.

Having said that, I'd also love to see a big-name film and/or director release a feature only to the theatrical market, never to be avaialble on VHS/DVD/TV/HD/etc. Don't any big-name directors truly believe that films should be experienced in good theatres? If so, then why won't they put their money where their mouths are?

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 06-19-2007, 03:45 PM:

Scott, the idea won't work anymore. There are to many people on the payroll. The studios want their money quick now. An actor recently remarked "the worst the script the more money he makes". If the D-Cinema plan works out the studios would love to drop spending millions on prints and the shipping.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-19-2007, 04:48 PM:

Pirates 3 wouldn't be a good example to try a day/date video/theatre release, because Pirates is already pre-sold.

But that'll be the type of movie they try it with, and sales will be terrific, and then they'll do it with some unknown quantity and it'll sink like a stone.

Most of the best selling direct-to-videos are the sequels that already have a huge theatrical hit driving them.

If day and date DOES happen, maybe the theatres could get something the DVD doesn't...like added scenes, or a director's cut, or something like that. Trouble is, those kind of things usually make a movie worse.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 06-20-2007, 02:11 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
While I do believe that it is possible for high quality LP's to sound better than the standard run-of-the-mill CD production, I think that this guy was much more affected by his sentimental attachment to the character of the LP than to the pure audio quality of the product. I think a parallel can be drawn to film and digital cinema.

I have thought about this myself. However, I think there is an important difference. Audio hardware has always tried to reproduce the closest possible sound to the real sound, whereas with image this is not always the case, otherwise why would directors insist in shooting in black and white. There is a pictorial attribute to cinema, artists do not always want to reproduce the closest image to reality and here is where many of us find justification for our love of film, as I said many times before, oil on canvas is different from watercolor as film is different from digital, it is a matter of taste. The advantage cinemas have got is that they are nowadays the only places where film can be experienced. They should strive for superb film presentation.

quote: Scott Jentsch
Anyone getting angst-ridden about the fact that technology marches on and refusing to make the jump to digital cinema is ignoring the possible benefits that doing so can provide to their business.

I do not see as a technological issue, I personally like technology, I see it as an artistic issue.

quote: Scott Jentsch
I think I might have lost my point along the line here, but I see digital cinema being a boon for theaters to streamline their operations and opening up new possibilities for content and revenue. There seems to be financial assistance available to do so, depending on the situation, so the cost impact might be able to be addressed as well.

I doubt about alternative contents, whoever likes live filmed concerts will know it is better to see them at home, you can see them as many times as you like for a fraction of the price that would cost to see them at the pictures, as for sports, people go to see them in the pub, with a pint of beer, not at the pictures. With music and sports gone, there is not much left as an alternative content.

quote: Scott Jentsch
Digital Cinema is the inevitable future.

Digital cinema is the obvious present in many households, is there anything else out there that can take us out of our houses and comfortable sofas?

quote: Scott Norwood
Installing big-screen TV sets doesn't help here, but 70mm does. The theatres that would benefit most from are the ones that can't handle film properly and which should just go away.

I agree with 65/70 and I would add, wide ratio and wide lenses, they look awful at home and superb at the pictures with a slightly curved screen, a Todd-AO film cannot be experienced at home properly, a super 35mm film can be seen at home without problem.

quote: Scott Norwood
Having said that, I'd also love to see a big-name film and/or director release a feature only to the theatrical market, never to be avaialble on VHS/DVD/TV/HD/etc. Don't any big-name directors truly believe that films should be experienced in good theatres? If so, then why won't they put their money where their mouths are?

I think they would fear their films going into oblivion and also pirate DVDs would appear. I think the idea mentioned of a cinema version is good. Imagine a film shot in a modern version of D-150 with all the wide angle shots filmed twice, one for the big film experience and another for the small home theatre experience, that could bring people to the pictures, because a particular version of a film (more immersive and spectacular) could only be enjoyed at the pictures.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-20-2007, 07:57 PM:

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
all the wide angle shots filmed twice, one for the big film experience and another for the small home theatre experience, that could bring people to the pictures, because a particular version of a film (more immersive and spectacular) could only be enjoyed at the pictures.

The vast majority of today's TV viewing audience would not know the difference or care.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 06-21-2007, 02:21 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
The vast majority of today's TV viewing audience would not know the difference or care.

They do not have a good reference to compare with because they have never seen good Todd-AO projected on a curved screen.

In any case, it is true that DVDs nowadays come with loads of extras, some of them very interesting and without ads, whereas cinemas come without any extras and with ads!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-21-2007, 01:59 PM:

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
cinemas come without any extras

Uh, yeah.

In the "good old days" a cinema only had to have seats, a screen, a booth and a building. Many didn't even have concession stands. Some theatres were very ornate, it's true, but picture quality was dicey at best because films played far longer and were more fragile than now. These days a decent theatre is expected to provide digital sound and/or projection (and the image had better be perfect or else!), fresh popcorn daily, a pristine-clean environment, security in the parking lot, baby-changing stations, handicap-accessible everything, a wide selection of candy and drinks, assistive listening devices, extra ushers to keep the crowd quiet, the latest movies on the break at 70% film rent, and deluxe seats rivaling the recliner at home. How many more "extras" do you want for the price of a ticket?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-21-2007, 02:19 PM:

FWIW: The Michael Todd and Cinestage theaters in downtown Chicago that were owned by Michael Todd never had concessions until Henry Plitt-Stein took them over in the late 60's. Apparently Todd didn't want tnything to distract one from the performance. I can't think of any other "roadshow" theaters that didn't have concessions...

Mark

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 06-21-2007, 02:30 PM:

Mark

The Rivoli Theatre in NYC when "Oklahoma" opened it's Roadshow engagement.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 06-21-2007, 02:53 PM:

quote:
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cinemas come without any extras
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh, yeah.

Please, do not get me wrong, I used to love cinemas and used to drag all my friends to the best possible cinema amongst all the cinemas that were showing the same film. I enjoyed cinemas in Barcelona at its best (nearly all gone) and I can tell you that it was impressive, big halls, amazing decoration (every cinema had its own distinct decoration), big halls, there were concessions in Barcelona, curtains, big screens and many cinemas with 70mm screenings and 5 speakers behind the screen, if you compare this with what TV was in the 70s you will imagine that I and many more were amazed at what cinemas had to offer. There were dedicated double-bill repertoire cinemas, art cinemas, and the films would last for months and so there was no rush to go and see them. As I said many times before, an experience like Lawrence of Arabia was back in the 60s when TV had very poor quality, I would expect cinema exhibition to have progressed from there the same way TV has progressed, but it has been the opposite, it has gone backwards. My point, and I know I am taking this far from the subject of the thread is that cinemas must offer something much, much, better than home cinema and much, much better than the best 50s and 60s technology (and I include here VistaVision on dye transfer prints).

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-22-2007, 12:24 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I can't think of any other "roadshow" theaters that didn't have concessions...

Concessions, yes. Popcorn, no.

BTW, there have been several negative reviews by the paying public as to this new Landmark theatre.

http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-wk-landmarka14jun14,0,1463811,print.story

Landmark, meet backlash

June 14, 2007

In the May 24 edition of Calendar Weekend, we offered a preview of the new Landmark theater in West L.A. ("In This Corner … "). It was several days before the grand opening, and construction was still going on. Though we had concerns, particularly about the layout, it looked promising and we took a couple of good-natured swipes at its chief rival for discriminating movie butts, the ArcLight. The theater has been open two weeks, and we thought it only fair to print some of the criticism offered by customers. (Landmark was contacted for a response but declined to comment.) Consider us enlightened.

--

I read your article on how the new Landmark stacked up against the ArcLight. The author said the Landmark won by a nose. And since the ArcLight is the Holy Grail of movie complexes, I figured it must be something special. What with its leather seats, "living room" theaters and imported snacks, I was counting down the days until it opened.

So, on the second day of the theater's working existence, my best friend and I headed off to the 7:40 p.m. showing of "Mr. Brooks," armed with our reserved tickets and high expectations. My grin couldn't have been wider.

That didn't last long.

The biggest problem with the Landmark is the layout. The ticket desk, elevators, escalators, ticket kiosks, concierge desk, bathrooms and concession stand are in the same small area of the lobby. In fact, the lobby isn't really a lobby; it's more like the walkway of an airport terminal. And when it's busy, you're really just trying to get out of people's way. After getting our condiments, we had to circumvent the people heading to the bathrooms, then sidestep the lines of people at the tiny concierge desk in order to head to our theater. "Round your partner, do-si-do."

Inside the doorway to our theater there were two tiles of frosted glass in the floor with about a 3,000-megawatt bulb underneath. When we crossed over them, we were instantly blinded and consequently stumbled up the ridiculously narrow walkway to the main floor of the theater, which was boxy and tall like an AMC, not spacious and airy like the ArcLight.

After the trailers began, we noticed that the fancy digital projection made the images seem oversaturated and oddly pastel in color. The movie looked OK, but about 10 minutes into it, we heard an odd noise that we discovered was a result of the theater's acoustics. It was the sound of everyone chomping on their popcorn and rustling through their bags of imported candy. But by far the most annoying things were the little blue safety lights along the stairs. Combined with the high-gloss paint used on the stairs, it caused such a reflection that I had to hold up my hand to block out the glow.

The next day we went back to try out the "living room" theaters that come equipped with couches and end tables. The couches are a bit silly, because they're styled so that you have to sit up straight instead of lounging, which is what most people want to do in a couch.

The concession stand was decent: cool foods, friendly people. The wine bar looked nice. The leather chairs in the theater were comfy. It isn't the worst theater I've ever been in, and if I was given a choice of the Beverly Center or the Landmark, I'd choose Landmark. But saying that it's giving the ArcLight a run for its money? Not a chance.

KEVIN P. TAFT

West Hollywood

http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-wk-landmarkb14jun14,0,6624883.story

ALL your coverage of the opening of the new Landmark Theatres multiplex at the Westside Pavilion failed to mention one interesting fact: The theater has decided not to hire union projectionists, even though Landmark hires union projectionists at its theaters in Northern California and in other western states. With all the money it has invested in the new theater complex, this seems to me like buying an expensive sports car and letting a 15-year-old, unlicensed driver take it for a spin.

The union pickets outside the theater on opening day suggested boycotting the theater. Nice, but conventional. Because the theater probably will (like most theaters) make most of its profits from the concession stand, I will attend but boycott the concession stand. I encourage others to do likewise.

TOM STEMPEL

Los Angeles

http://www.calendarlive.com/printedition/calendar/calwknd/cl-wk-letters21jun21,0,6735648.story

June 21, 2007

Yet another unhappy viewer

Re "Landmark, Meet Backlash" (June 14):

I recently visited the new Landmark theater in West Los Angeles with high expectations. I went to see "Paris, Je T'aime," which was playing in theater No. 4. The very nice usher took me to my seat, which was the last row of the front section, where I usually sit at the ArcLight or Century City AMC. From this seat you had to look almost straight up to see the screen.

Before I said a word, the usher said, "I know, we get this all the time. I'd be happy to get you another seat." Well, after two more seats, I found one that was tolerable. That is the worst designed small theater in L.A. because the screen is way too high and oddly placed. There are only about 20 good seats in the entire room.

The usher said, "Next time, try the other theaters; they're a lot better."

The ArcLight and Century AMC have nothing to fear.

MARK GROSSAN

Los Angeles

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 06-22-2007, 08:05 AM:

quote: Paul Linfesty
TOM STEMPEL

Well Mr. Stempel forgot to mention that Landmark's other theatres in the Los Angeles market are all run non-union. And have been running that way for a long time.

Westside Pavilion 4 (closed, replaced by new plex)
Regent Theatre (Westwood)
Nuart Theatre (West LA)
Rialto Theatre (South Pasadena)
NuWilshire Theatre (Santa Monica)

I've been to all 5 locations as a patron and had no problems with them as a non-union movie theatre.
GO SONY 4K! [thumbsup]

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 06-22-2007, 10:23 PM:

Looking at the future through rose-coloured glasses, perhaps studios will soon need only hundreds instead of thousands of 35mm prints. Processing labs competing for the business might be offering higher quality as an incentive.

If 4K digital projection becomes more common, 4K scans of 35mm could become the standard where digital intermediate is required.

Also, there have been a few cases of 65mm origination for wide establishing shots so lets add this to our wish list for new standards.

OK, tell us it will not happen but let the dreams sit on the forum for a few minutes.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 06-23-2007, 12:56 AM:

Ron, Its impossible to tell what the future holds, It ends up being economics, I suspect that there actually is money from quality, after all it has been proven to work in the past! Now that as Ramon points out, Cinema and Television are now equal again for the first time in 50 years.

At the moment the studios have hopes for Digital 3D to be the cinerama of the future. Personally I don't have much faith in the idea of wearing glasses in a cinema will ever take off, but hopefully I will be proven wrong yet again!

What I find funny about cinema is that it keeps moving side wards and sometimes backwards, not forwards! Lets face the fact that todays cinema experience is not better than a trip to the big city cinemas of the 50's. Mag sound, valve amps, 70mm. Big grand venues, professionally staffed.

Personally over the past 20 years, I have seen some late 1990's 35mm prints look as good as vista vision! and mag sound compares favourably to digital sound. Altec horn loaded speakers can sound more natural than todays THX. 2k digital is no better but similar to 35mm. So far over the last 50 years the only perceived improvement would be cup holders and sessions on the hour! mmmmm small empty auditoriums do destroy the shared experience though, so why not see it at home!

4k really does seem to me to be the possible break through, finally a higher quality than 35mm,the potential to fill a rock steady quality image on the biggest of screens. D cinema features uncompressed digital sound, combine that with high end 4 way active horn loaded speaker systems (that are more like a vintage altec system than the JBL's that replaced them) are being made by Kliphs and Lenard Audio, both companies seem to be avoiding the CD and Bi Radial Horn designs, which in hindsight appear to be a marketing sucess, but yet audio wise a step back.

The real question for me is whether the current generation of movie goers will find that 4k Digital cinema creates similar life long memories that 70mm did for us! With our then child like innocent memories?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-23-2007, 11:52 AM:

quote: Ron Curran
Looking at the future through rose-coloured glasses, perhaps studios will soon need only hundreds instead of thousands of 35mm prints. Processing labs competing for the business might be offering higher quality as an incentive.

I don't know. I'm concerned that as demand falls for 35mm film prints, the cost of those prints for those who still need them could increase radically.

Lack of demand is one of the primary reasons why 70mm film prints are so ridiculously expensive. The labs have to tool up for that unique film gauge and then only run off only a limited number of prints, or even just a mere handful.

If 70mm prints had been very commonly used, like up to 1/3 or 1/2 the print inventory of a major release then something like an optical 70mm DTS print could have ended up costing only double or even less than double the cost of a 35mm film print. Instead, 70mm prints cost a bunch whether they're mag striped or not.

Right now 35mm film prints are relatively cheap. They have to be produced in the thousands since so many theaters around the world need them. The cost of tooling up for a specific movie's print run is amortized across the entire print order. If the current trends of digital cinema adoption continue (and I see no reason why they wouldn't) we'll see the average major release print order in the United States drop from around 3000 to just a few hundred or even less than that.

Improved print quality may indeed be a real possibility for film printing labs if they're not having to rush out so many prints. But the film prints are still going to be more costly.

The one very slim hope I have is Hollywood studios will wake the hell up and finally start shooting in larger film formats again. They can reap huge visual dividends by filming in formats like VistaVision and 5/65mm.

If Hollywood and the exhibition industry played it right, we could actually see two tiers of quality movie presentation. It's obvious digital cinema is going to end up taking over most mainstream movie theaters eventually. But I think luxury minded movie theaters and theaters with giant sized screens and auditoriums could actually get by with only showing movies in 70mm. 4K projection may be one thing. But it still isn't going to compare favorably against 70mm projection of 65mm or 8/35mm originated material.

I'll repeat, there's a very slim chance that's going to happen.

quote:
4k really does seem to me to be the possible break through, finally a higher quality than 35mm, the potential to fill a rock steady quality image on the biggest of screens.

4K isn't superior to 35mm. It's simply a digital format that gets a lot more of the image detail from the 35mm negative onto the screen than what 2K can manage.

Right now Hollywood isn't really supporting 4K as any kind of de facto standard. Sony seems almost completely alone is pushing the 4K standard. There has only been a mere sprinkling of support for the 4K format from other studios. Just about all of them are happy doing the "good enough" thing by pushing movie post production through a 2K process. The studios are only thinking about their product in terms of what they can do with it on DVD. So they don't have much enthusiasm for higher resolution formats whose benefits will only be seen in commercial theaters. And they're using the leaps and bounds of advancement in computer technology to render 2K faster and cheaper. Hollywood is not doing very much to push technology to its limits and deliver better looking movies.

On the audio aspect, uncompressed digital surround sound is not exclusive to digital cinema. It is possible to get the very same thing from a DTS-XD10 player. The newest DTS players can play up to 8 or 10 channels of uncompressed audio, even in 24-bit 96kHz format. The problem is the studios aren't taking advantage of that capability like they might have had something like that been available back in the early to mid 1990s.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 06-23-2007, 10:13 PM:

If the loss of economies of scale means that a film print costs $1,000 more, the relative expense of providing the highest quality will be less of an issue.

To put that figure into perspective, it is less than a day’s film hire on a major release at our cinema.

There is still hope. Although the IMAX model cops some flak here, it should be noted that people are still plonking down a premium price to watch a 40 minute doco that, as a flat 35mm support, would send most of the audience out to the candy bar. I believe that 65 originated 5/70 provides a better experience than IMAX but IMAX is all we are getting these days. Even good 4/35 can knock your socks off.

Sooner or later, someone might have the balls to give it a go. Maybe a modern 35mm Technirama camera would be more practical that special-order 65mm film. Perhaps it won’t be Hollywood that takes the plunge.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 06-24-2007, 05:00 AM:

quote: Ron Curran
it should be noted that people are still plonking down a premium price to watch a 40 minute doco that, as a flat 35mm support, would send most of the audience out to the candy bar.

This is so true!

There is an equation I would be very interested to find the solution for.

We take the best TV set from the 1960s and compare it to the best TV set nowadays.

Then we take the best film system from the sixties (Todd-AO?) and try to find what kind of system we should be seeing now at the pictures if cinema had evolved as much as TV in quality. I think the result of that equation is what we should be seeing in cinemas these days, since this is not what we are seeing, no wonder people are deserting cinemas.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-24-2007, 11:37 PM:

Pacific's The Grove in L.A. now appears to have 4K Digital Projection and is showing "Ocean's 13" using that system.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-25-2007, 08:43 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't know. I'm concerned that as demand falls for 35mm film prints, the cost of those prints for those who still need them could increase radically.

Not being in the buisness why would you be concerned?

quote: Bobby Henderson
4K isn't superior to 35mm.

How do you know? In reality none of us know if it is or isn't...

quote: Bobby Henderson
Lack of demand is one of the primary reasons why 70mm film prints are so ridiculously expensive. The labs have to tool up for that unique film gauge and then only run off only a limited number of prints, or even just a mere handful.

Thats one of the more rediclous statements I've ever read on this site!! Labs don't tool up to make 70mm prints.... there is but one lab left in this country that specializes in doing 65/70mm any more. Imax is whats kept them in the 70mm buisness and the price.... well, about the same as it was back in the 80's if you figure in the dollar devaluation and slight increase in film stock cost. What killed 70mm? The suits that run distribution that only have their eyes on the bottom line and not on quality, nothing else.

quote: Bobby Henderson
They can reap huge visual dividends by filming in formats like VistaVision and 5/65mm.

Nice try but a Studio's dividends go Ka-ching every time a ticket is sold. And thats the way it is.....

Mark

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-25-2007, 02:05 PM:

Everyone seems to forget or conveniently ignore the fact that a typical 35mm release print, even a "good" one, isn't anything like a show print or EK print or whatever. It's a futile exercise to compare 4K to showprints or 35mm camera negatives because nobody in the real world ever gets to see that level of quality. The only issue that matters in the vast majority of cinemas is whether 4K (or even 2K) is as good as or better than typical "good" 35mm prints. In my limited viewing experience, 2K looks better than most 35mm prints, at least on a typical screen and from a reasonable viewing distance. At least "Fantastic 4 Silver Surfer" did. And 4K can only be better than that.

70mm film is not going to stage a comeback. 35mm film's days are numbered.