quote:

---

This results in massive savings to the distributors and lets AMC operate at about a third of the cost of a traditional film-based multiplex.

---

quote:

---

Instead of projectionists, there are one or two non-union workers overseeing all 24 screens from a single console; their duties are essentially limited to pressing a "play" button and being aware of any error messages that might pop up.

---

So AMC would normally hire a projectionist per screen???
 

---

Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 03-29-2008, 03:33 PM:
 
At least the article is refreshingly honest in the film-versus-digital debate in rebutting the digital-is-superior hype with facts. I wish more articles on were researched and written this way, without an industry agenda to force-feed...
 

---

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 03-31-2008, 12:31 AM:
 
And the article proves for one more time that:

FILM RULES!

D
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-31-2008, 09:05 AM:
 

quote: Thread Title (abridged)

---

AMC ... opens with all ... Sonys

---

quote:

---

People who prefer digital tend to fault the medium of film for things that are really problems with indifferent theatrical presentation: old or poor-quality prints, old or poor-quality projection equipment, and young or poor-quality projectionists. If a print is good, if a projector is good, and if the projectionist is at least decent, film is superior for showing movies originally shot on film.

---

At last! Somebody finally telling the Truth
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 03-31-2008, 06:08 PM:
 
This guy is way too spot on. He must have been one of us back in the day.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-31-2008, 06:41 PM:
 
We have an AMC opening here next week with all digital projection. Not sure if it is all 4k or not. However I do know that $13 a ticket is a great way to get people to stay home and wait for the DVD.
 

---

Posted by John Joseph Fink (Member # 3619) on 03-31-2008, 07:41 PM:
 
What's the big deal over the $13 ticket, the crappy Cumberland Four (yes, an art house) is $12.95 and doesn't have that new carpet smell and wide stadium seats. I too, am not a fan of everyone rushing to digital - it's fine for a documentary shot on video playing at an art house but for a commercial feature film, its not an improvement. Will AMC have a rough time with the availability of digital prints from certain Canadian distributors as the move to go digital doesn't seem as wide spread there as it does here? I assumed when I was at TIFF last year the Christie projectors were brought in for the festival and Alliance, Scotiabank and ROM don't typically project digital?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-31-2008, 07:48 PM:
 
They are fools if they don't sprinkle in some 35mm at a site like that. Also, there have not been that many actual 4K releases... just a handful as far as I know. Anyone know what titles are/were released in 4K? And just because there are now a handful of 4K projectors do you all think we will see more 4K releases or will they just be bumping them up to 4K from 2K?

The ticket price may be because... and if my memory serves me correctly... the SRXD projector requires either 2 or 4 special Sony Brand 2-kw short gap lamps operating all at once to make the 16,000 lumen level... I'd have to go back and read the Sony do-do on that teenie weenie cd-rom they were handing out last Showeast to be 100% sure on that.

I also have this funny bone tickling me inside wondering how long the Sony 4K will last... Like the SDDS debacle AMC will more than likely soon be replacing these Sonys with all Dolby Servers and Christie Digital Projectors .

Mark
 

---

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 03-31-2008, 09:09 PM:
 
I don't know the history, but AMC seems to avoid Dolby stuff whenever possible. Sony must have given them some kind of deal and if actual 4K product is available they will have a "real" benefit to advertise over competing 2K digital venues - not that there are many in Toronto yet. Knowing the way marketing people think, I expect the "4K Advantage" to be pushed hard even though the data is 2K. Sigh.
AMC 35mm cinema complexes here normally run with two weekday projection staff for 24 screens from what I've seen - one opens up and starts the matinees, there are two for the evening starts, and the late one closes: weekends may be different. They need extra staff for makeup but I can't see where the savings quoted could come from - I think you still need one person in charge of the booths at all times to do the starts and checks and be on hand for problems (or is Digital really perfect?) so that would potentially cut the booth labour in half. Doing show loading and key management stuff will take some time as well.
I haven't seen the Sony digital projection systems but they are described as a "big box" with everything integrated. No details on the sound system.
The rumour I hear is that the Toronto Film Festival wants some 35mm systems in the AMC Dundas Square complex for their use during the festival but AMC planned to be all-digital. The AMC location is pretty ideal for the festival, and TIFF has had a 35mm system in the existing Ryerson theatre (only used for the festival, otherwise it's a live house) about a block away for one of their "downtown" premiere locations for several years. Ryerson University is already involved in the AMC Dundas Square operation, they (IIRC) traded some land rights of some sort for the use of several auditoriums as classrooms on weekdays.
I hope to see a show there soon, anyway, and see how it looks and sounds.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 03-31-2008, 10:33 PM:
 

quote: Sam D. Chavez

---

This guy is way too spot on. He must have been one of us back in the day.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Also, there have not been that many actual 4K releases... just a handful as far as I know.

---

• The fold-down to 5.1 may not sound great [enough]
• They require specialized extra work, not many sound designers are willing [able?] to bother
• DTS XD10/XD10P notwithstanding, their market is not growing
• Very small deployed base

Which of these map to digital cinema?
Sure, you've got to use more expensive equipment to scan and process, but basically it scales up geometrically. There isn't much additional work for the humans, or stuff they have to do differently.

On the other hand, there might be more work for the production designer -- just like in 70mm the PD has to make the sets more detailed, so we hear they need to do the same for HD digital over SD digital. And so one imagines the same applies to 4k -- if it's going to look good at 4k, more work may be required on the set. [Maybe?]

No problem with the fold-down from 4k to 2k, and the 4k market is definitely growing right now, not shrinking...

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 04-02-2008, 02:32 PM:
 
It'll be interesting to see if 4K becomes a new standard making 2K obsolete, or if 4K has a short run then fades away, or if we end up with two standards. I could envision a scenario having two standards like we used to have with film (35mm & 70mm).
 

---

Posted by Clint Koch (Member # 1179) on 04-02-2008, 02:54 PM:
 
From what I have heard they have already started working on 8K with the intention of going up to 16K or more. Maybe only rumors yet that is what I have heard.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-02-2008, 07:58 PM:
 
Come on now Clint... We know your REAL source of information at work is probably well into development of one of those giganto pixel formats. Man, can you imagine the data rate..... .

Mark
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 04-02-2008, 10:00 PM:
 
I had exactly the same thought. Clint, you've been holding out.
 

---

Posted by John Joseph Fink (Member # 3619) on 04-05-2008, 10:23 AM:
 
Checking over showtimes I noticed Scotiabank and AMC aren't sharing films, leaving Scotiabank (a flagship of Cineplex Entertainment) with only two new movies Shine A Light in IMAX and an indie film, Kenny, while The Ruins and Leatherheads have multiple screens at AMC. (Scotiabank interestingly enough rarely showed a film on multiple screens unless it was expected to open huge). AMC is showing day and date with the upscale Cineplex Varsity (the Varsity and Scotiabank only shared comparatively more upscale studio films). What we have here is the Toronto version of NYC's Empire 25/E-Walk situation with 14 screens (one IMAX) at Scotiabank and 24 at AMC, although it seems as if AMC isn't showing the indies it does at the Empire 25 - leaving them for the Varsity, Caralton and Cumberland.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-05-2008, 12:04 PM:
 
8K and 16K would be nice -especially if feature films were getting shot in 65mm or VistaVision. But right now the movie industry can't even kick itself into making 4K post production a common standard.

Most movie productions just keep on using the 2K work flow because it is becoming ever cheaper to use. Computer processing power has continued to increase. We're now at the point where budget priced PCs are coming equipped with quad core processors and the computational ability to handle multiple 1080p bit streams. 4K is actually a quite practical format using current technology. But that also means 2K can be done even faster and even cheaper. So we'll just keep on using 2K. Shit, in another three or four years our desktop CPUs may have 16 or more "cores" and Hollywood will still be pumping out their digital intermediates in 2K.

quote: Joe Redifer

---

We have an AMC opening here next week with all digital projection. Not sure if it is all 4k or not. However I do know that $13 a ticket is a great way to get people to stay home and wait for the DVD.

---

quote: Mike Perju

---

Dalsa has not provided cameras for one or two features so far (none with a wide release) and a few commercials. Maybe he couldn't think of the Genesis camera...

---

quote:

---

I've run tests on 48 frame per second stereo and it is stunning. The cameras can do it, the projectors can (with a small modification) do it. So why aren't we doing it, as an industry?

Because people have been asking the wrong question for years. They have been so focused on resolution, and counting pixels and lines, that they have forgotten about frame rate.

Perceived resolution = pixels x replacement rate. A 2K image at 48 frames per second looks as sharp as a 4K image at 24 frames per second ... with one fundamental difference: the 4K/24 image will judder miserably during a panning shot, and the 2K/48 won't. Higher pixel counts only preserve motion artifacts like strobing with greater fidelity. They don't solve them at all.

---

quote: Mattias Ohlson

---

4K@48fps has been obvious to me for some time. If some film projector comopatability is downplayed we really shoud work towards 4K@60fps.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I doubt if any d-cinema theater is going to get a 96fps file.

---

quote: Mattias Ohlson

---

Mr Cameron had to compromize and do 2k stereoscopic at 24fps which would be 48fps non stereoscopic.

---

quote: David Zylstra

---

I've been told that the 1.2" chip can handle 120hz, and for RealD triple flash it is actually being driven at 144hz - but the picture has to be scaled down in order to not overload the processing (i.e. I understand there is a pixel count limitation at this speed?).

---