Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: D Cinema in trouble?

This is topic D Cinema in trouble? 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=000201

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-04-2007, 02:46 AM:

Question: I've noticed lately that none of the two theatres around here haven't had a DCinema feature for quite the time....is DCinema in trouble...is this new format not the "magic carpet" that everyone wants to ride on?

thx-Monte

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 03-04-2007, 03:21 AM:

Nine of our twelve screens have only digital projectors. Sixteen of the Oakdale Stadium 20's screens are only digital. Etc. etc. None of us have any trouble getting digital 'prints'.

Are the screens you're talking about 1.3k or 2k?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-04-2007, 05:00 AM:

Sorry, forgot to mention the resolution size ... 2k units ..

Maybe, it's just a local/regional thing since I don't work in theatres that have digtal projection.

thx anywho ... Monte

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-04-2007, 06:16 AM:

I ran the first digital screening at the Clocktower, 'Wizard of Oz', yesterday. There will be three screenings of this film. The next digital film we have booked will be six screenings of 'Inland Empire', in late April. I haven't seen the programme for May yet.

It's probably not a bad thing that we have few digital screenings at present, as we still have a few technical issues, and this gives us time to resolve them. These issues are not with the digital projection system itself, which worked perfectly yesterday, but with our sound system, and with playing 'alternative content' through the system. 'Ghosts', which was run on Beta SP, would have been the first digital screening, on Wednesday and Thursday last week, had to be run on the video projector, rather than the digital one. It's early days, and these issues should be resolved soon. How fast the proportion of digital screenings will grow is unclear at present.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-04-2007, 11:37 AM:

I think a key thing to watch on these early DCinema adoptors will be their financial success or failure.

Ultra-Star cinemas was the first or one of the first to boast all Digital all the time...they have also gone into the RED.

The rummors (and that is all they are) are that Carmike also isn't doing all that well.

I maintain, that DCinema makes no financial sense for exhibitors in this year. There virtually no financial gain to be had for a substantial expense.

It will also be interesting to see Christie AIXs financial developments.

Mind you, I'm not wishing any ill will...just noting that from a business stand point, DCinema is a bad choice at the moment from an exhibition format...from a studio standpoint...I can definatley see its advantages.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-04-2007, 02:04 PM:

..and obviously, the maintenance and servicing these "D" units against film units.

...like working on a old Chevy with parts galore, to finding parts to restore a Yugo.

Have to see what happens, but do agree with Steve on that the studios do reap well with D Cinema...

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-04-2007, 04:56 PM:

I was really surprised that the new 15-screen Regal here has only 1 D-Cinema installation, with 3D. I was told their 35mm projectors are Simplex Millenium. So Regal still seems to be extremely cautious, at least in this relatively small market.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-04-2007, 06:25 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
..and obviously, the maintenance and servicing these "D" units against film units.

The parts for digital projectors and server systems are more certainly more expensive than their film-based counterparts. However, the one nice thing Carmike will have going for it is identical projection systems in all the theaters. That can greatly simplify the maintenance situation.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-04-2007, 06:44 PM:

supposedly one of the biggest issues other than money right now is supply and demand. From what I hear Christie can't ramp production up fast enough to meet the demand causing the bulk of the projectors produced to be sent to the christie/accessIT project involving Carmike and over seas comitments.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-05-2007, 12:24 AM:

Coversely Bobby, when the CP2000 goes obsolete due to factors either within or beyond Christie's control, the entire chain of theatres will have an issue. I've known chains to avoid identical systems just to avoid having to potentially replace every thing at once. Ever notice that once one light bulb goes they all start to go within a complex...they all get about the same hours and same service life.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-05-2007, 07:53 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Ultra-Star cinemas was the first or one of the first to boast all Digital all the time...they have also gone into the RED.

I think they were or near the red even before they adopted DC. They were months paying bills to us but finally did after threats with collections.

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-05-2007, 11:43 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Ever notice that once one light bulb goes they all start to go within a complex...they all get about the same hours and same service life.

But there's not much of a problem at all in getting a replacement part quickly -or even keeping some spares in stock.

If you have a smörgåsbord of different makes of equipment throughout the booth you might be stuck when something breaks, especially if you have some old, odd-ball pieces of equipment. I've seen that sort of thing occur at a number of big theater chains. When the Cache 8 theater in my town was still in operation there would be times where they would have a screen or two dark for weeks because of replacement parts that were in need.

I agree Carmike and Christie/AIX definitely have the potential to need to replace all their digital projection systems at once if Hollywood studios pull another stunt like they did with the 1st generation 1.2K DLP systems. How much of that equipment replacement cost will the Hollywood studios handle?

Certainly one of the worst design features of every digital projector system is lack of upgrade capability. If you want to go from 2K to 4K you have to get an entirely new projector, just like what happened with the move from 1.2K to 2K. The imaging chip, lamp house and lens designs are all completely different.

File server systems would seem to have more upper end capability. Doremi is boasting 4K capability in its DCP2000 server. However, those rack mount units may end up needing to be replaced even more often due to wear and tear as well as changes in data security and other issues.

The one thing that may be on Carmike's side is that 2K was a big jump above the inferior 1.2K standard. It's possible that D-Cinema standard could persist for quite some time. Nearly all movies using digital intermediate methods and heavy CGI use go with the 2K standard. Even if 4K projection does manage to get heavy commercial adoption, the 4K standard itself is useless as long as movies are not being natively rendered to that format. It's nothing more than an interpolated blow-up from 2K otherwise.

I'm not very optimistic that Hollywood will embrace full 4K production standards anytime soon. 4K is getting used on only a mere few projects, and I doubt if all of those movies have 4K as the standard for all digital material. The studios seem perfectly content at rendering most things in 2K and gearing their business more for home video release. It's already very feasible for Hollywood to be rendering CGI and digital intermediates in 4K, but its seems that they prefer to use increasing levels of computer horsepower to render 2K at faster and faster rates instead.

Whenever Hollywood studios decide to embrace 4K as the main standard for digital work flow then Carmike and Christie/AIX can start worrying over their investment in hardware.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 03-05-2007, 01:52 PM:

Barco will be showing their new DP-1500 & 2000 D-cinema projectors at ShoWest. This unit uses a smaller 0.98 chip set which should make lens design less costly. They have reported a sale of 700 units to the Chinese for this new series....maybe there will be a CP2000-A from Christie [Razz]

Carmike is well known for recycling and storing old hardware. I used to work for a T.V. station that was owned by WKY / Gaylord Broadcasting...they had hardware up to 50 years old sitting in a huge basement; we alway had to contact the Oklahoma City home office for possible "spares" before thinking of buying anything new [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-05-2007, 02:49 PM:

Let us not forget content is important to DCinema as well... are studios providing all films in Dcinema, or just select titles?

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 03-05-2007, 03:21 PM:

Content is important and I'd like to see films that can't afford to be printed on 35mm to show up on digital screens. D cinema from the get go was touted as being an in for the art/indpendent low budget filmmaker to get on the big screen but are any being shown in this format?

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 03-05-2007, 04:51 PM:

I believe that all studios are delivering the major titles each week in a Digital Release.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-05-2007, 08:27 PM:

It is becoming a rare thing for a mainstream movie release not to have a D-Cinema virtual print available. The situation is still quite a bit different for independent releases. I'm not exactly sure why since so many indie movies are videotaped rather than filmed anymore.

The booking situation will continue to improve for theaters with video projection as circuits like Carmike make the screen counts more inviting for such releases.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-06-2007, 01:27 AM:

Thus with all of this, has there been any reports of D Cinema downtime due to software/hardware issues that could be springing up anytime now since the DCinema market now had made a dent in the industry and is really spreading its wings, or is it still too new to let the D units get really broken in proving its reliability and dependibility to the masses?

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 03-06-2007, 10:19 AM:

I lost a 1 1/2 days of shows with my digital projector because the power supply went out.

Not a specific failure of the digital components. Would have lost the same amount of time had it been a 35mm projector.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-06-2007, 02:49 PM:

Really? What film supply can't be changed out in that amount of time? It doesn't even need to be the same brand. If it is a brute force supply, then it is often no more than a diode away from working. What tech doesn't have a full set of those at the ready?

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 03-07-2007, 10:10 AM:

Nope, wasn't a diode. My staff member said that some white dust or something came out of it.

It was ok, as we took a auditorium that was doubled up with another print and made a full show schedule out of both. Used the 35mm that is still next to it, so I technically wasn't down a theatre.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-07-2007, 03:48 PM:

If the d cinema didn't run and a 35mm did then the dcinema lost a show and I guess that is the reel number an exhibitor must budget around

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 03-07-2007, 11:12 PM:

It isn't any different had a PS gone out on a film console that you would have had to replace the entire PS.

That's getting extremely picky.

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 03-08-2007, 03:12 AM:

I think Gordon's point was that it really WAS a lost show since normally you wouldn't have the 35mm backup, and in the future there will not be any backup.

As far as the power supply is concerned, it is the same thing. Had the power supply failed on a 35mm console, requiring a complete replacement of the power supply, you would still be down until the part arrived. Unless you happen to have a spare.

The Sanrex thyristor ballast can be repaired in the field if you lose a thyristor. All SCR's are fuse protected. The boost circuit is also fuse protected. Admittedly, since the rectifier is "computer" controlled and monitored, there might be a little bit more that could go wrong than a standard high reactance power supply. This doesn't mean that one of those components couldn't be replaced in the field either.

It only takes about 10 minutes to swap the whole thing and be back up and running. This applies to the thyristor unit, or the switcher.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-08-2007, 08:20 AM:

The point was that to be economically viable under the virtual print fee no 35mm print would be there as a backup

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 03-08-2007, 09:00 AM:

I see Gordon. My installation isn't a "normal" one as I have had a DLP projector since 1999 and the booth has 3 port windows.

Installations happening today are that they 35mm is removed and the DLP put in its place.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 03-08-2007, 09:14 AM:

Cinemeccanica D-Cinema unit has an Irem magnetic supply as an option for a switcher....like having one foot in the past and one foot in the future [Wink]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-08-2007, 08:57 PM:

Of I were ever to sell a Cinemecanicca/Barco DLP I'd go with the magnetic unit for sure. Actually the old ORC magnetic supplies are some of the best and most reliable supplies ever made...except for their alumnium wire windings whose crimped connections oxidize apart. But alas these can be fixed properly so they don't do that. There are still several running in theaters that I service... I've never had to ever service them but recently took one down just to clean it out... all the original diodes are still in there and these must be from the early 70's.

Mark

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 03-08-2007, 10:29 PM:

One of the things I've noticed in NYC is that there are far fewer digital "prints" unless the theaters are not advertising them as such.

It used to be that the Empire 25, Loews Kips Bay, UA14, Loews E-Walk, Loews Lincoln Square and a few other theaters played many released in digital.

Aside from the digital presentation of Dreamgirls at the Ziegfeld, most films are playing digitial only at the Pavillion in Park Slope, Brooklyn.

I have a feeling that manufacturers placed projectors in those other theaters on a trial basis and perhaps they've now been pulled. Aside from Dreamgirls, the last film I can find that played anywhere but the Pavillion was the re-release of The Nightmare Before Christmas, released in October 06.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-09-2007, 04:00 AM:

Well, if digital is going to get its reputation from theatres like the Pavillion, then it really IS in trouble....BIG trouble.

The Pavillion is the what happens when single screens are tortured into rooms that are not fit for man nor beast. I think they started as a five-plex (and even then the rooms were too small) and it kept going from there....every few months a new "cinema" was added. What are they up to now, Martin, 9 or 10? I need to go back to check as I am truly intrigued where they could possibly stick another screen. Perhaps in the john? You watch a 30in flat digital panel while sitting on the commode!

These are rooms that are dark, dank, uninviting abortions that gave cinemas a bad name when they were running film; putting in digital won't save their sorry asses. It's "theatres" like these that make people say they hate going to the movies and that give them very strong incentive to wait three months so they can see the film in the comfort and warm atmosphere of their own, much more inviting home digital theatre.

Aside from all that is wrong with the schlock design of this place, you first have to deal with an impossible parking situation outside in a neighborhood notorious for terrible parking. And then, when you finally get a spot, sometime after an hour of searching, you get into the theatre -- and not in the best of moods to see a movie, and are confronted with the surly help who are downright rude and obnoxious.

I think someplace in another thread I recounted my experience with a concession girl and her usher friend one night at the Pavillion -- both simply ignored my obvious presence as I waited at the concession counter wanting to buy popcorn and anxious that the film was about to start. When I finally figured I had waited the appropriate amount of time that that politeness required before interrupint them, I finally cleared my throat and asked if I could get some popcorn as I didn't want to miss the start of the film. The concession girl looked at me with utter contempt and said in as nasty and sarcastic a tone as she could muster, "Well, next time I guess you'd better get here sooner."

That's the Pavillion for you; repaying the second mortgage they had to take out for their digital installs is the very least of their worries.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 03-09-2007, 09:18 AM:

Frank makes a very good point (even if he didn't intend to [Wink]

). DCinema will ultimately, in my opinion, not be the determining factor if a theatre chain succedes or fails. Sure, if they make a huge financial outlay and that pulls them under you could say DCinema was the cause, but so far that hasn't been the case. No, theatres will survive or fail based on their operations. If a theatre chain that embraces digital technology runs into trouble I would not be so quick to blame the digital projectors as I would to blame poor operations.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-15-2007, 08:03 PM:

After coming back from Showest, it looks like D-Cinema is on the strong uphill climb and never will stop. Good luck to all of the manufacturers who make this device.

AND,it looks like that the format that will stick around as a standard will be the 2k resolution.

(the Sony 4k 3D 1080i presentation was excellent, yet it's going to be a long time for that to be a standard in the market..and prob just for large screen venues...)

-Monte

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-16-2007, 11:48 AM:

4K projection is a complete waste of time unless it is being fed real 4K material, not stuff blown up from 1080 HD and 2K sources.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-16-2007, 07:36 PM:

Muvico Entertainment recently announced their intent to equip their entire circuit with the Sony 4K system.

quote:

PARK RIDGE, N.J.-Mar 14, 2007

MUVICO CHOOSES SONY SXRD 4K PROJECTORS FOR CONVERSION TO DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY

Muvico Entertainment will build the world’s first theater complex with Sony’s 4K SXRD™ projectors in all its theaters. The projectors will be installed in Muvico’s new Chicago area entertainment complex, as the initial step in converting the chain’s 12 theaters (228 screens) across the United States to digital technology.

According to Muvico, the new 18-screen facility, scheduled to open this August in the suburb of Rosemont, Ill., will have all of its theaters equipped with SXRD projectors: a combination of the SRX-R210 unit, a 10,000-lumen model, and the SRX-R220 model, an 18,000-lumen unit, as well as Sony’s LMT-100 media block system.

Muvico said it also plans to follow this first installation with SXRD roll-outs in three more of its locations by 2008. The chain is now working with Sony to secure proper services for installation and maintenance of the systems.

“We carefully evaluate anything that we feel can strengthen the final presentation we make to our patrons, and the quality and performance of the SXRD technology really impressed us,” said Mike Whalen, president of Muvico. “Not only is this the highest resolution available, but this type of technology opens up so many new opportunities for displaying alternative content in our theaters such as live concerts and sporting events. It gives us a solid foundation in converting our chain to digital. We believe installing digital projectors with 4K resolution will redefine the movie going and live event experience by providing our guests with picture quality never seen before on the big screen.”

Muvico stated that the new Chicago area venue will feature the company’s “Premier Concept” where guests ages 21 years and older can enjoy an adults-only environment that consists of reserved seating, oversized “love seats,” complimentary valet parking and popcorn, and access to a full-service restaurant and bar for the ultimate entertainment experience.

“Premier guests can enjoy beer, wine or a cocktail as they view the latest blockbuster movie or live event in a truly sophisticated environment on 4K digital projection,” Whalen said. “For parents, the entertainment venue will offer an exclusive on-site children's playroom that will be supervised by teachers and assistants. This in turn will provide spontaneity to movie-going parents who want to relax and enjoy a film or live event hassle-free without a frantic—and often unsuccessful—‘last-minute’ search for an at-home babysitter.”

The playroom will feature a fun, “kid friendly” themed environment that includes such amenities as a computer zone, a reading corner, an arts and crafts space, a science area, and a play spot with assorted play activity areas.

“Muvico’s vision for the movie theater of the future is that exhibitors need to offer more complete services to enrich the theater-going experience,” said Andrew Stucker, director of Sony’s Digital Cinema Systems Group. “These projectors are a perfect fit for that vision.”

Both projector models to be installed by Muvico are designed to DCI-compliance and are Sony’s newest 4K systems designed specifically for movie theater projection.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-16-2007, 09:45 PM:

The Muvico announcement is interesting, and a positive development.

However, I think more 4K installations are going to be needed (as well as more 4K projector models from vendors other than Sony) for the much higher quality standard to gain traction.

Right now Sony seems almost by itself in promoting the 4K standard for digital intermediate and digital presentation. 4K movies like The Da Vinci Code and Spiderman II came from Sony. I don't think any other major studio is doing any serious work in 4K format.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-16-2007, 09:49 PM:

This is good news. But I bet it's another sweetheart deal, just like AMC is said to have gotten when it was gifted with - oops - I mean, when AMC "chose" SDDS over DTS and SR•D.

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 03-17-2007, 03:56 AM:

What were people's impressions of the 3D NBA all-stars presentation that Sony did on Tuesday? (one day late due to them having problems with the equipment on the prior morning)

Was it shot in 4K? Was it presented in 4K? or was it just presented "using Sony SXRD technology"

EDIT: Also, I don't know how anyone could make an educated opinion on 4K by this presentation alone. The screen was very very small.

I do like the idea of alternative content being shown in 3D, but getting it to the theaters in live form will be a huge challenge. They said they broadcast the all-star game to Mandalay Bay over fiber......... Probably ran specifically for that event.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-17-2007, 04:16 AM:

quote: Tristan Lane
The screen was very very small.

... with resolutions of 4096 x 2160 pixels, one can see why the presentation was small emitting from a 1.55 diag inch chip - prob was using stock lenses without zoom options to fill a much larger screen. (cheating here from the SXRD brochere)

..yet, it was impressive, but somebody is gonna pay to help pay for this setup.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-17-2007, 12:15 PM:

Blowing any HD video source up to 4K is a waste of time. You're not going to see any more native detail in the imagery than you would when watching a normal HDTV set with native 1920 X 1080 resolution or from a 2K digital projection setup.

Sony should know better than pulling that crap as well. They have a couple 4K DI sourced movies, such as Spiderman II, that might serve as a better example of demo material. At the very least anything they're using to show off 4K projection should only be film-sourced and natively scanned/DI-ed at true 4K resolution.

This kind of crap reminds of the garbage I have to put up with in my day job where a customer will e-mail a low rez JPEG image and expect that to look good on a 14' X 48' billboard design. Just because some image is "digital" by no way means it has infinite, scalable levels of detail. It's quite the opposite and limited at that.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 03-17-2007, 02:22 PM:

Bobby,

That was my point exactly. Which is why I asked if it was shot in 4K and presented in 4K. I highly doubt that they would be able to shoot, edit, and broadcast the 4K image in real time. Throw in the fact that the whole all-star game was also shot in 3D, It makes it even harder to believe that this was a 4K image.

Comparing this to a standard TI 2K projector, wouldn't SXRD projectors have similar limitations on what size the presentation area [on the chip] can be due to the high frame rate required by 3D presentation?

I personally didn't find the picture quality to be any better than what I see with 2K. I think the focus of the presentation was to demonstrate the 3D capabilities of alternative content, rather than the capabilities of the projector itself. The 3D quality was the same as what is presently being used.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 03-17-2007, 07:48 PM:

I wonder if any of the manufacturers using DLP chips will ever use a "wobulation" technique to make a 4k DLP projector. Even though it's not true progressive scan if they used a high enough "field" refresh rate like if they showed each 2k block 8 times per frame or something it should appear pretty close to a true 4k progressive scan. I suggest this because it is pretty clear that TI is not going to develop a 4k DLP chip anytime soon and using Sony for cinema products would be crazy.

Notice how Muvico's deal is for one complex with others starting in 2008. That gives them plenty of time to switch to another manufacturer if/when Sony goes away.

Posted by Bernie Anderson Jr (Member # 410) on 03-17-2007, 09:40 PM:

I still think we're pissing up a flagpole with this DLP crap. The theatre business model is what needs to be changed, not the media of the projector. As it is, most people think these images are digital already, so its a moot issue. Is it totally logical to put so much money into a business where the whole point is to screw the exhibitor? And remember its the studios that are pushing this and NOT the exhibitors. We have DVD windows shrinking on every release and a major push to release day and date video and theatres releases. Bob Igar of Disney has said the windows will continue to shrink. If you add up all the grosses of the top ten films a week and divide it by an average ticket price, you have probably 6-8 million people seeing movies in theatres a week. Just because you change up stairs, its really not changing what is being projected on the screen for $10 a ticket. And that's the bottom line.

BA

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 03-18-2007, 02:50 AM:

quote: Paul Gordon
Content is important and I'd like to see films that can't afford to be printed on 35mm to show up on digital screens. D cinema from the get go was touted as being an in for the art/indpendent low budget filmmaker to get on the big screen but are any being shown in this format?

In my opinion if the film can't make it past the festival circuit and secure the financing it takes to go limited, wide, or beyond it shouldn't be "on the big screen" as they say.

Not that there aren't good small-timers, but if they were great I'd think they would be able to at least go limited...No amount of technology will make them good films.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-18-2007, 02:19 PM:

quote: Dominic Espinosa
In my opinion if the film can't make it past the festival circuit and secure the financing it takes to go limited, wide, or beyond it shouldn't be "on the big screen" as they say.

I wish some kind of standard like that was applied to all the major studio releases. There's a LOT of movies from major studios that aren't worth putting on the big screen.

Unfortunately, it's not a fair, perfect world.

There's a lot of good, independent movies that can't get wide releases due to limited marketing budgets. I've seen some indie movies get booked at theaters here in Lawton only to watch them play for one week with hardly anyone showing up to see them. People aren't familiar with the movies, or just think they might be boring or something. At the same time they'll line up in droves to watch some shitty horror movie remake/sequel.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-22-2007, 01:58 AM:

Like, when I began in this industry many moons ago - I was a projectionist in then what was called a "2nd run house" since discount theatres weren't around then.

The owner gave me a small business lesson when I mentioned to him on a sight upgrade to the equipment in the booth that I thought we could use, but more of a desired item than a needed item.

He mentioned that whatever we do to improve needs to increase his gate sales, but being such a tivial thing,then it's not worth wasting the capital money. It has to be something big to make the exspenditures worth while.

(but, eventually, he went automated, I lost my job due to the automation and the building burnt down due to a coal furnace fire a few years later...and the word buzzed around that it was a possible arson case since the owner fell into bad times...)

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 03-22-2007, 02:49 AM:

Ultimately the success or failure of a feature depends on the market.

Thinker movies, like a lot of the indies out there don't do well in markets dominated by idiots who want to marvel at the pretty people on their screen...A plot is a terribly hard thing to follow!

The theaters that do well with anything create the awareness.
There are signs up all around down-town San Francisco for things I've never hard of on the tops of lamp posts.
And you know what? I'm sure the Metreon is doing just fine.

Put some grass-roots effort behind a movie that isn't generating enough exposure, little guys can some times split the advertising cost with the studio as well.

If an ounce of the blood, sweat, and tears being spent on D-Cinema was spent instead on showmanship the theater would be worth going to and marveling over the magic of the FILMS again.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 03-22-2007, 04:29 AM:

FILM RULES!

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 03-23-2007, 03:46 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
The owner gave me a small business lesson when I mentioned to him on a sight upgrade to the equipment in the booth that I thought we could use, but more of a desired item than a needed item.

He mentioned that whatever we do to improve needs to increase his gate sales, but being such a tivial thing,then it's not worth wasting the capital money. It has to be something big to make the exspenditures worth while.

I would agree with the concept behind this statement.

However, how one quantifies the benefit to be had from a particular improvement greatly affects the cost vs. benefit determination.

For example, it's easy to quantify something like adding a person to the concession stand during busy times. If, by adding a third person to the stand, and you make 50% more sales than without that person, now you can subtract that person's cost for that time period and come up with the net effect in sales. The icing on the cake is that you probably have happier customers because they didn't have to wait as long to get their popcorn and drink.

But now, apply that same logic to the carpeting in the lobby. It's getting a little worn out and it's not looking the best, and probably should be replaced. Will replacing it have a direct impact on sales? No. It will have an indirect impact on sales due to the overall experience by the customer. But how do you quantify that indirect impact? It's very difficult, even though most reasonable people would probably agree that the carpeting should be replaced.

Applying that logic to something like D-Cinema, how many customers are going to come to Theater A because they have D-Cinema, vs. Theater B that does not?

One would hope that just having D-Cinema equipment isn't the only thing that Theater A can hang their hat on, there are probably some benefits that they can use to their advantage:

It's a marketing buzzword that can help to build interest
If the theater had any issues with jump and weave, those should be gone. Don't underestimate the impact this has on the customer. Home theaters have gotten people used to the idea that the image doesn't have to bounce around on the screen, and a lot of detail can be lost by that little dance that film likes to do.
There are titles/events/programs that are now available to Theater A that are not to Theater B. An entrepreneurial theater can do a lot to draw audiences and create revenue streams that weren't previously possible/practical
etc.

D-Cinema won't make or break a theater, but any theater that flat out dismisses the technology is deluding themselves of what the future looks like. Unless their presentations are spot-on perfect at all times, there are benefits to be had for the customer and that should reflect in a residual increase in box office sales. It can't be alone, though. The rest of the experience has to be up to par, and some marketing needs to be done (D-Cinema or not) to attract customers on a regular basis.
If D-Cinema allows a theater to provide a better presentation, to work more effectively, and/or to bring additional revenue in the form of new features, services, ad opportunities, et al. it should be given more than a passing consideration and dismissal.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-23-2007, 04:59 PM:

Conversley, I would disagree with the "lesson" taught to Monte. Spending money on something does not necessarily have to show up as an increase in revenue. It all depends. The money spent may also translate into not losing business.

For instance...theatre A spends money on a nice digital sound system while theatre B does not. Theatre A's attendance may or may not go up but theatre B's may go down as the perceived quality at that theatre is less than it should be. You can starve your business to death.

Take it to the stupid extreme. Do you not buy say paperclips because they won't bring in additional patrons even though they help with the paperwork?

There are things that need to be done to maintain the existing customer base, to run a business efficiently that just won't map over to increased ticket sales but are just as vital to the long-term health of the business (any business, not just theatres).

It is one of the big problems movie theatres have with the current business sense...there is no perceived income for money spent on the actual showing of the movie. The theatre retains only a small portion of the ticket sale and it VERY hard to translate money spent on showing the movie (so long as it runs) to increased ticket (and hopefully per-capita concession sales).

At what point is a theatre being thrifty and efficent with their money and at what point are they costing themselves business by being cheap?

Film projection does not have to have that extra movement as mentioned by the post above...digital should not really have that big an edge there. The image quality should really be about 2X the current digital technolgy for Flat films and go beyond that for Scope and 70mm. If film is not, why not? However in order to maintain that quality it has to be perceived that there is business value in showing the movie itself...then exhibitors would demand superior print quality (don't skip the step printing stage when creating the Inter-Neg)...there really is a big difference between different film projection equipment out there...enough difference that customers will notice without having to be able to say why. The exhibitor really needs to show movies like that is where they make all their money (and in truth it is where they make their money...without the movie, nobody is going to come in the door to buy the goodies).

While I too believe the future of theatres is a digital medium...I don't think that what is out in 2007 is what we should settle for...it is the second step. Finacially it is a stupid move though. You can achieve all of the benefits of alternative content without the big DCinema investment and committment. You can also have the substantially lower cost and higher quality of film projection.

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 03-24-2007, 01:03 AM:

I often find myself spending money on things that I know will not improve ticket sales (new carpet for example), but will keep the theatre in good condition, in order to avoid competition coming into town.

If you don't keep your place up to date, eventually someone else will come in.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 03-24-2007, 08:44 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
There are things that need to be done to maintain the existing customer base, to run a business efficiently that just won't map over to increased ticket sales but are just as vital to the long-term health of the business (any business, not just theatres).

It is one of the big problems movie theatres have with the current business sense...there is no perceived income for money spent on the actual showing of the movie. The theatre retains only a small portion of the ticket sale and it VERY hard to translate money spent on showing the movie (so long as it runs) to increased ticket (and hopefully per-capita concession sales).

About a year ago, I was talking with one of the theaters that I work with about digital sound systems and the like, and the conversation travelled to the use of curtains. I said that I thought it would be very cool to see curtains across the screen before the show, and have them open when the movie began. His immediate question was "How many more sales would I get if I did that?" Unless he could see a direct correllation between ticket sales and the purchase, he couldn't justify it.

Perhaps that's why I don't run a theater, as I wouldn't be profitable at doing so. To me, things like the curtain spread, digital sound trailers, the talks before the show, those are all what makes the presentation fun and enjoyable for the audience. Maybe not every customer would appreciate them to the degree that I would, but like a fine restaurant that creates an atmosphere that reflects the owner's tastes and ambitions for the place, I think a theater should be more than a customer assembly line.

I see D-Cinema as a way to simplify the operations of a theater (I don't know for sure if it actually does), create additional opportunities for content (the Opera showings, for example, not that I get into that sort of thing), and maybe even additional revenue opportunities through advertising, meeting simulcasts (Microsoft just held one of these at some Regal Cinemas in Illinois), etc.

If there's a business case out there that makes sense, and it sounds like there is, it's foolish for theaters to dismiss it out of hand. It's gotta be all about the showmanship, and anything that adds to that goal has to be worth something.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-24-2007, 06:19 PM:

Scott, just showed a case in point on the curtain issue. Curtains are associated with class operations...you could probably map incresed ticket sales associtated with curtains if you did the study over a long term. It isn't something that has marquee value to have an immediate impact but long-term, customer perception would be that the theatre that has the superior experience will do better in any circumstance as compared to the theatre with the inferior experience.

Those theatres that I've worked that have/had curtains...when they break for a period of time...patrons almost always ask what happened to them. I can only translate that into that add to the theatre experience and are one of the factors when one chooses a theatre.

Like so many things...making one nice thing will not cover up many evils but doing as many things right as possible will add up to an overall superior result.

Curtains belong in theatres, not rolling stock type ads or even slide show types. While the money is inticing, it ultimately will take away from ticket sales. The closer theatres make the movie going experience like the home experience, the less reason people will have to go to them.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-24-2007, 06:33 PM:

I think there's definitely a corollary comparison in how theaters operate to that of restaurants. How does a given multiplex rate compared to various categories of restaurants? Right now, I think many movie theaters fall into the "fast food" category. Not nearly enough are the "fine dining" variety.

In restaurants, the difference between "fast food" and "fine dining" isn't always in the food either. Usually there's a notable difference. But the biggest differences are often found in the customer environment. The same is true for movie theaters. Curtains in front of the screen and other classy touches can go a long way to creating a finer environment.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 03-24-2007, 10:26 PM:

This and other threads have discussed the shortcomings of 35mm film.

Not the camera stocks. Kodak’s Vision series and Fuji’s newest releases are better than ever.

Unfortunately, nobody on this forum has the power to improve the situation.

With computer power so cheap and getting faster by the minute, why not scan at 4K as standard? Many labs are capable of this. It is an extremely competitive business internationally. Could a lab win oders by offering 4K exclusively at no extra cost? Is high speed printing really such a money saver while the number of prints is reducing due to digital files?

Even simple items like making all release prints constant height anamorphic for better screen illumination seem to be impossible.

Would it be too hard to make CS-perf Super 35 to increase the filmed area? Techs could modify the hardware quickly. Alternatively, anamorphic lenses have improved greatly in the last 50 years, so is it physically impossible to design models that are even better?

Are good film techs so busy putting theatres right that they don’t have to advertise? If so, why does presentation remain such a problem?

It is depressing that solutions are not a consideration just because digital will eventually be the answer.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-25-2007, 06:32 PM:

Unfortunately, producing CS-1870 perforated film again on a wide scale would involve millions of dollars in retooling perforators, and the image area increase would not be that significant compared to KS-1870 perfs.

I do think that 4K scanning, rendering, and output will become more common as costs decrease, and the image quality improvement will be obvious, especially if the printing duplicate negatives are output directly from the 4K files. Digital output to a master positive is faster and less costly, but continous contact printing of a short pitch master positive to short pitch duplicate negatives does compromise sharpness and steadiness.

Posted by Chris Parry (Member # 4178) on 03-26-2007, 02:20 PM:

My grandfather was a self-made, started-out-with-twenty-bucks, richer-than-rich kinda guy, and he used to say, any time someone complained about an expense not bringing in an immediate sales increase, "Did you see a Coca-Cola billboard today?"

The person complaining would usually reply yes, to which my grandfather would reply, "Did you stop and buy a Coke when you saw it?"

The answer would inevitably be no, and my grandfather would reply, "So are they wasting their money on that billboard, or do you think they see it as a longer term investment?"

Replacing carpet, or upgrading equipment, or streamlining an operation is a cost with no immediate benefit, but a substantial long term benefit. And any company that doesn't view those as being important will fail - or at the very least, struggle.

Wal-Mart was built on long term thinking - they'll lose money on products when they first open a store, effectively driving competitors out of the market, and allowing them to ramp up prices when they're the only gig in town.

Putting new chairs and carpet in a theater won't bring many people to your theater in and of itself, but when the competition DOESN'T replace their old chairs and carpet...

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-26-2007, 04:16 PM:

I think the "loss leader" marketing strategy of Wal-Mart is a bit different from that of movie theaters.

Any movie theater should go the extra mile of providing a movie going environment that borders on opulence to do two things: provide something the viewer is not going to get at home and to build a positive customer relationship.

If the customer feels like he is visiting a theater worthy of hosting a premiere he'll feel like coming back to that specific theater to watch movies he thinks should be seen on a big screen.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 03-26-2007, 10:05 PM:

quote: Ron Curran
Unfortunately, nobody on this forum has the power to improve the situation.

umm wow what a thread, so much common sense and facts in one place. Personally I think we can make a difference, not any one of us has the power, but if all 4055 of us had a unified aproach I think we would be able to make a difference. I would never suggest that it would be easy however.

[ 03-27-2007, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: Cameron Glendinning ]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-26-2007, 11:20 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I think the "loss leader" marketing strategy of Wal-Mart is a bit different from that of movie theaters.

(to drift off-topic on this subject above:) There was an extinct circuit called Excellence Theatres that believed (or, at least tried,) in following success with another form of business - and they tried to follow Wal-mart's idea in operation and success,but it didnt work out.

They went through the 'heartland' of the northern central part of the country in remodeling their theatres and recent purchases to make them look better than they were, which indeed was a good thing to happen with many of them in trying to bring back the magic in their business, but something happened and this didn't work out as well to eventually for them to go under and be soaked up by Carmike Cinemas.

A theatre company needs to find their own nitch in their form of market and stay with it - even if they do try digital and really concentrate in promoting this medium in as well as make this the showcase house that this medium is presented in.

Good luck to them all ...

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 03-27-2007, 12:25 PM:

Ahh, Excellence. I barely remember it but I do remember seeing the 'Esseness' (or was it 'EssAness'?) sign before they rebranded to Excellence.

Not to hard to figure out what happened-they went to far in debt, couldn't make they're payments. Bank owned more of the company than the 'owners' did so Carmike bought the debt and thus bought the company.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-27-2007, 02:28 PM:

(Yea Essaness Theatres - "S and S" - Silverman and Spiegel out of Chicago. Dad Silverman died and Jr. took the company out of Chicago and moved west with it, spent too much money and "you know the rest of the story.")

With the move, Jr. decided to rename the company to Excellence since it's theme was "projecting into the future" due to the westward expansion.

Lot of good people worked in Excellence. Now, some of them are with REG and are doing well with REG

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 04-22-2007, 05:51 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
Well, if digital is going to get its reputation from theatres like the Pavillion, then it really IS in trouble....BIG trouble.

The Pavillion is the what happens when single screens are tortured into rooms that are not fit for man nor beast.

Word has it that the Pavillion is being closed and turned into condos. The two main screens in the Pavillion (which I think comprise the main part of the auditorium of the original theatre) aren't too bad - decent sized screens and pretty good sound. I was recently stuck near the back row at a crowded screening and thought it was going to be terrible sitting out of the sweet spot, but it was really nice being able to hear the surrounds for a change. But all of the other screens that I've been in really suck. Some of them have tons of broken seats, you can smell the bathroom and the air conditioning was set way too high.

I don't think you can permanently blame a theatre for one lousy employee behind the popcorn stand. That can happen anywhere. This is what happens when we live in a world of minimum wage employees who are given little or no training.

The bigger issue is not the Pavillion: it's why are Manhattan theatres not presenting much in digital anymore (aside from 3D)? Is it because the equipment was pulled by the manufacturers? Is it because they saw no increase in business? Is it because they decided to wait for 4K? Is it because they don't like the quality? Is it because there have been unreported problems and the studios don't want to "blow it" in Manhattan where critics might see the films? What's the story?

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 04-22-2007, 07:23 PM:

aside from 3D

That is a telling comment. IMHO I think the whole thrust of D-Cinema has been in the wrong direction, bigtime.

It should be treated as a completely new medium, complementing Film, not replacing it. That model is full of possibilities. You extend the cinema experience into areas current technology can't reach satisfactorily, such as with 3D. You do completely new types of programming such as factual, events, etc. alongside the existing tried and tested format. You show new types of movie shot digitally, such as animations but also material such as 300. And so on.

The beauty of this is that theoretically what you're doing is creating an additional new market which should also pay for the equipment.

This daft "we'll replace 35mm" ethic was dreamt up by guys who know nothing about the cinema industry. Time to leave all that behind now and embrace the true possibilities of Digital, whilst continuing with what people know and love already... [Wink]