Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Landmark theaters to install Sony 4K digital projectors

This is topic Landmark theaters to install Sony 4K digital projectors 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=000214

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 03-15-2005, 04:29 PM:

From an article in today's New York Times (registration required, or there's always bugmenot.com):

quote:
Theater Chain Buying Sony's Digital Projectors

Landmark Theaters, the art-house chain controlled by Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner, will become the first chain to install a new generation of digital projectors developed by Sony, which show movies at twice the resolution of previous digital projectors.

Landmark will buy six of the Sony projectors when they become available in July, and over the next few years will install others in all 58 of its theaters, Mr. Cuban said.

Hollywood has been discussing the use of digital projectors, which show movies without using film, for the last several years, but fewer than 100 are currently used in theaters to show full-length features.

Substantial questions remain both about the projectors' technical merits and, more important, who would pay for them. The main advantage of digital projection is the potential to save movie studios the expense of copying movies on film, which can cost more than $1,000 a print.

Theater owners are waiting to see if the studios will find a way to subsidize the cost of the projectors, which can be $100,000 each when the costs of the other needed hardware and software are included.

Landmark, however, chose to pay for the projectors itself, largely because it is building a business model different from that of most theater chains.

Mr. Cuban and Mr. Wagner, who together created Broadcast.com, an Internet media site that they sold to Yahoo for about $6 billion in 2001, are building a series of companies related to independent film and high-definition television. In addition to Landmark, they control HDNet, a cable network devoted to high-definition programming, and several companies involved in producing and distributing films.

Mr. Cuban, who also owns the Dallas Mavericks basketball team, said that the projectors would give his theaters flexibility to show a broader variety of programming, including broadcasts of live events, like concerts and sports events. Moreover, digital projection ability will allow Landmark to show works by independent filmmakers who are starting to use the inexpensive high-definition cameras coming to the market.

Landmark chose the new Sony model because it can display images at a resolution of 4096 by 2160 pixels, known as 4K resolution, compared with the previous generation of projectors with half the number of horizontal pixels.

Mr. Cuban said it took a trained eye and a seat close to the screen to see the difference between the sorts of projectors, but he felt the new projectors were worth the investment.

Mr. Cuban said Landmark was paying more than $100,000 for each projector and related equipment, about double the cost of lower-resolution digital projectors.

Landmark's announcement raised some eyebrows among digital cinema experts, who noted that Sony's technology is under development and that the shipping of the projectors had been delayed several times.

"I'm happy that Landmark will buy 4K projectors," said Walt Ordway, the chief technical officer of Digital Cinema Initiatives, a consortium of major film studios that is defining standards for digital projection. "I'm surprised that the sales have started prior to demonstrations of a production unit."

John Scarcella, the president of Sony's broadcast and production systems group, said the company would demonstrate a nearly complete version of the projector at the ShoWest motion picture industry conference in Las Vegas this week. "We are making some last little tweaks," he said. "We will have the projectors in the market by July."

Major theater chains do not see any pressing need for such high-definition projectors. Regal CineMedia, the nation's largest theater chain, has installed digital projectors at about 5,300 of its 6,273 screens. But those projectors have substantially lower resolution, and are used by Regal only to show commercials and some special event programs.

"There is no financial incentive for us to do it," Kurt Hall, the chief executive of Regal, said. "We can't charge more for tickets and it won't increase our attendance."

Glad to hear it's 4K, although I don't know about the whole "concerts and sporting events" thing, which always seems to get mentioned along with digital cinema. That doesn't seem like such a great way to attract customers (a discussion we've had here before).

However, the mention of independent films is pretty interesting. Do they intend to bypass distributors, and allow indie producers to book their films directly? With HD cameras reaching consumer level pricing, this could get interesting.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-15-2005, 06:22 PM:

I don't see how cheap HD cameras will change anything. Even with film, cameras and raw stock aren't what make filmmaking expensive. It's the writing, acting, set design/art direction, and production talent which cost big $$$ if one desires a quality product. By comparison to the other costs involved with filmmaking, film stock or HD camera rental are incidental. Digital acquisition and exhibition doesn't make much difference.

As for Landmark: I'll believe this when I see it. They've made noise about this before (big press release a couple of years ago about putting in low-def DLP projectors with Windows Media Player) and nothing came out of it. This is a company that won't spend money on anything, so I have a hard time believing that they would install $100k video projectors in any quantity. It's also interesting that the model that they're supposedly buying isn't a real production unit at this point, which seems pretty risky to me....

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 03-16-2005, 03:34 AM:

i do wish more money and effort would go into the "fundamentals" of film presentation before stuff like this even got considered.

ah, what that $100k could buy...

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 03-16-2005, 08:28 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
I don't see how cheap HD cameras will change anything.

An all-electronic system from camera to editing to exhibition might not mean as much to medium and high budget productions, but very low budget stuff, especially documentaries, could benefit from it by more cheaply reaching a wider audience.

I do agree with your point about Landmark being more talk than walk. They have indeed said this sort of thing in the past. I, too will believe it when I see it.

The most significant thing about this article (to me, anyway) is that people are starting to talk seriously about standardizing on 4K. Just a few years ago, it seemed everyone had the idea that 2K was "good enough". This is a good sign.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-16-2005, 09:21 PM:

Kodak was talking 4K as the desireable goal years ago:

Kodak Digital Cinema

quote:
Rodli says that Kodak is committed to a 4K system and will provide leadership as digital projection technology continues to evolve. He also stresses that film quality sets a moving target.

"We have made a quantum leap forward in emulsion technology with the new generation of KODAK VISION2 films," Rodli says. "When you couple that ongoing progress with gains being made in digital intermediate technology, the possibilities for creating more nuanced and visually compelling motion pictures are unlimited."

Rodli lauds the pioneering work done by the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) in collaboration with Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI), representing the seven major studios. That collaborative effort resulted in the production of a short film designed for use as standard evaluation material for prototype digital projectors. Rodli notes that the original 35 mm negative was scanned at 6K resolution, and the ASC/DCI test material is available at both 2K and 4K resolution.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-16-2005, 10:13 PM:

Oh come on John, everything's KODAK KODAK KODAK with you. Geez, a person would think you work for Kodak or something!

[Big Grin]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-16-2005, 10:18 PM:

quote:
Geez, a person would think you work for Kodak or something!

Let me check my paystub...

By gosh, I do work for Kodak! [Big Grin]

I enjoy what I do. [thumbsup]

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 03-16-2005, 10:24 PM:

what John isn't telling us is that he has a 6k in his office ready to be mass-produced [Big Grin]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-18-2005, 08:57 AM:

quote: Dean Kollet
What John isn't telling us is that he has a 6k in his office ready to be mass-produced.

All I can say is that I don't have a 6K projector in my office. [Wink]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-18-2005, 09:57 AM:

quote: Scott Norwood
As for Landmark: I'll believe this when I see it.

My sentiments as well.

I suppose the one that could make this happen is Mark Cuban's infatuation with digital video projection. It seems a little strange to me that Landmark would target the not quite ready for prime time Sony 4K unit when Cuban has said in previous interviews that existing video projection systems were better than film. Okay.

Even if/when Sony is able to bring their 4K unit to the marketplace there's still going to be the issue of content. It is not likely much of it will be of 4K variety. More likely, studios will keep churning out 2K stuff (particularly CGI work) at "good enough" levels. This is in spite of the fact computing technology, particularly in graphics acceleration areas, has 15 times the level of performance than it did 5 years ago. I guess we'll have to see what happens. If the Sony 4K units perform well and are installed in a respectable number of theaters, I'll judge the continued use of 2K as even more of a cost savings thing than I do now.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-18-2005, 10:44 AM:

Was the Sony-AMC Theaters arrangment that placed SDDS in AMC's theaters some kind of a sweetheart deal for AMC? In other words, did AMC get some kind of big discount on SDDS systems, with Sony banking on the supposed publicity they would get out of it with a major exhibitor choosing SDDS?

I'm wondering if this is a similar arrangement between Sony and Landmark. Landmark goes on the record as choosing the Sony 4K system, gets the projectors at some below-market price, while Sony hopes to create some momentum and recoup in the long run by selling more projectors to other chains.

Just speculating. Sony was odd-man-out in the digital sound battle. Maybe they're hoping not to repeat that mistake. For all I know the Sony 4K system will turn out to be awesome. I'll believe it when I see it though...

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 03-18-2005, 11:47 AM:

David, I do believe AMC did get a big discount on SDDS products when they made the agreement to install SDDS exclusively on all screens.
I was told that was the reason they went with SDDS rather than Dolby Digital.

I think Sony getting into digital cinema projection is great.
Now we will have picture dropouts to match the sound dropouts! [Big Grin]

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 03-18-2005, 12:06 PM:

quote: James R. Hammonds, Jr
I was told that was the reason they went with SDDS rather than Dolby Digital.

I'm sure that's true. At the time of the deal, though, a PUBLIC explanation AMC made was that SDDS was obviously the best system because it was the MOST EXPENSIVE! (and this from a company that once tried to drive the industry towards 16mm prints for screens with less than 400 seats so that they could save shipping costs!)

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-18-2005, 01:32 PM:

It's all marketing strategy, PR, and spin control. AMC and Sony made what they thought was the right business decision at the time. That's what Landmark and Sony are doing now. The projector deal with Landmark gets Sony some press and mindshare among other exhibitors. But those same exhibitors aren't likely to forget SDDS.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-18-2005, 02:32 PM:

I didn't get to see any 4k demos at Showest this year. The projectors are one thing, serving and LAN distribution quite something else at these bit rates. I'd like to see how they're serving up these 4k image streams.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-18-2005, 03:20 PM:

Did anyone get to in to see the Sony demos of their prototype 4K system? I think they were up in the Las Vegas ballrooms at Bally's. [Confused]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-18-2005, 03:21 PM:

As always, I forgot about the rooms clear on the other side of Bally's. Why people rent those is beyond me. They might as well rent a room in the Flamingo.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 03-18-2005, 05:33 PM:

I got to see the demo.

Here is a thread about the 4k projector demonstrations at showest.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-19-2005, 04:34 AM:

quote: Aaron Haney
An all-electronic system from camera to editing to exhibition might not mean as much to medium and high budget productions, but very low budget stuff, especially documentaries, could benefit from it by more cheaply reaching a wider audience.

I hear this all the time....how theatres will benefit from being able to use digital for "alternative content." Well, you know what? Theatres won't book alternative content unless it has presold, value-added marketing punch behind it. The reason people pack the theatres (when exhibitors are lucky) to see the latest releases is because of the multi-million dollar marketing campaign that precedes them. Low-budget documentaries and other independent stuff (you know, the same stuff exhibitors won't touch even when it is available on film) will require the exhibitor to spend big bucks on advertising in order to bring in an audience, an area in which he does not traditionally venture or which he is particularly adept at.

And then there's the public. It gets harder and harder to drag them out of their living rooms and their newer and bigger "home video theatres" for BIG releases. Does Landmark see some vast demographics that want to go to the movies to see documentaries? How many ordinary Joe Publics do you know who actually paid for a ticket to see even one of the nominated documentaires? And for those in the demographic who DO want that content, they have PBS and cable as the place they traditionally look to find that kind of program material. me thinks it will be a very long, painful up-hill road to get a sizable audience to trek out to a Landmark theatre to see a documentary about the slums of Calcutta.

As for all those live (on video) concerts they think will draw crowds, same problem....same misconception, IMHO. What will change the viewing patterns of the public when the traditional places those who desire to see that kind of thing is either at the live event in a stadium or a concert or on pay-per-view. What will make seeing the live event in a small movie theatre attractive to that population?

As for classical music concerts, again, PBS and the cable channels are the traditional video venues where that small population of classic music lovers go to see this or that Philharmonic; they don't go to a movie theatre, which are already are stained by the perception that they are not pleasant places to see movies, let alone the ballet or a symphony orchestra. I work at a beautiful concert theatre and over the years it gets more and more difficult to entice audiences to see this artsy stuff LIVE. I can't imagine what it will take to convince them to see it at the multiplex in large enough numbers to make it alternative content profitable.

There is also the question of the cost for capture and distribution of the program material. How fast will all the studios come on line to offer every title in a digital format that will match the 4K rez? Well, like SDDS, I guess exhibitors can feel pretty sure they will be guaranteed that Columbia product at least will be made available. Bet that is a great comfort.

Then there is this bogus idea that somehow a theatre will be able to be better utilized if they can fill seats at times when traditionally they are empty. Hello! The reason people don't go to the theatre at 10am isn't going to change because the theatre can now program a video lecture on the wonders of the horned beetle or even a concert from Royal Albert Hall at that time. People don't go to the theatre at those off-peak times, alternative content notwithstanding....period.

Landmark surely has its work cut out for it if they think they are just going to simply roll out this very expensive piece of equipment and then turn a profit overnight, or over a year, or even ten, or ever.

Oh, and let's not forget there is one up-side to all this....film collectors take note: the market will soon be flooded with all those discarded and disrespected 35mm projectors Regal is going to be selling dirt cheap to make room for the spiffy new $150,000 Sony video projectors! (What projectors do they typically have in their theatres? I wouldn't mind picking up a pair of 70mm machines!)

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 03-19-2005, 05:37 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
me thinks it will be a very long, painful up-hill road to get a sizable audience to trek out to a Landmark theatre to see a documentary about the slums of Calcutta.

much as i agree with you in general, frank, it happens that enough people have been trekking out to see born into brothels to sustain a run of 1 1/2 months or so. damn thing left me cold, though. it looks bad, shot on video, and it's about photography! i have been blown away by some documentaries lately, though, and they were all shot on film. what do i know?

carl

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-19-2005, 11:49 AM:

I don't buy the "alternative content" angle with "D-Cinema" either. Since Mark Cuban owns the Dallas Mavericks, he's obviously thinking about the angle of showing sports programming (such as pay per view events) on a theater's video projection system.

I just don't think anyone is going to want to pay any kind of admission to watch that kind of thing at a movie theater. They're not going to choose a movie theater for watching a big sporting event when they can make a short drive down the road to the nearest sports bar. Most sports bars allow free admission, and you can watch the game for nothing while you eat like a pig and get drunk as hell.
[thumbsup]

On top of that, the more affluent market Cuban is targeting is very likely to simply stay at home -just like Frank said. They've invested in their $10,000 plasma screen TV and have their Martin Logan tower speakers all set up. They'll have no problem paying the $29 to watch the pay per view fight at home, and they'll invite over some friends and throw a party. Economically, they still wind up coming out ahead as opposed to the group going to the theater to watch the show.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-19-2005, 12:33 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
They've invested in their $10,000 plasma screen TV and have their Martin Logan tower speakers all set up. They'll have no problem paying the $29 to watch the pay per view fight at home

.....while they're griping about $8 for a movie ticket. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 06-13-2007, 06:54 PM:

It has been 816 days since the last post.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-13-2007, 06:54 PM:

*bump*