Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: How much time left for film?

This is topic How much time left for film? 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=000220

Posted by John Rizzo (Member # 1289) on 04-21-2008, 08:24 PM:

Hello Gentleman
I haven't been on this forum for a while but after reading all this digital cinema stuff it sure seems that film is on it way out very quickly, all these chains converting etc, can some one tell me how much longer 35mm film will still be being used in theaters?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-21-2008, 10:43 PM:

I don't think anyone knows for sure.

For theaters in the United States, my guess is 35mm film prints may continue to be produced for at least the next 5 years or so. But after that new prints may be rare. This all depends on how fast the largest theater chains (Regal, AMC, etc.) convert to digital projection.

It took Carmike over 2 years to get over 2000 screens converted. The process may take longer than that for the combined total of those larger chains unless more installers and technicians are hired. How many first run screens are currently operating in the United States? 30,000? 40,000? I'm pretty sure d-cinema is currently standing at around 15% of that total number of screens.

Film projection will continue to be used in other countries for at least a few years longer.

I believe the original photography for most movies will continue to be film-based over the next decade. Some filmmakers, such as Steven Spielberg have insisted they will keep shooting on film as long as film stock and film cameras are available. Video camera technology is improving, but needs to overcome certain limitations in order to be on par with both the look and resolution of high quality 35mm film photography.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-22-2008, 02:11 PM:

I think they have to provide film till no one needs it anymore. It will just cost a pretty penny to get it. Probably to the point that you might as well be digital to off set the cost. So putting a date on that is not really possible. It should be how long will film be available in the area you live in. If everyone is digital in the area you live in then film is gone from theatres unless you still have a 35mm set up playing classics. That is until they take the best elements of the classics and put them on hard drives if that happens that is.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-27-2008, 07:43 AM:

At last year's AMIA conference, Kodak hosted a 'Kodak's Continued Support for Archival Film Media' panel. They assured us that the company had no plans to cease manufacturing any product line for which (what they argue is) an equivalent alternative doesn't exist. But during the Q & A session a few ominous points did emerge:

1. Many of the lower volume product lines (e.g. panchromatic b/w intermediate stock for printing seps, most colour negative stocks on 16mm and/or on a polyester base) are now special order only, with a production run happening only when enough orders have been accumulated to make one viable. In other words, unless you order at least a million feet, be prepared for a wait of several months.

2. Kodak are business planning on the assumption that 60% of cinemas worldwide will have gone digital by 2011, and that 80% of their turnover will come from digital imaging and related products and services by the end of that year.

Regardless of the timescale, one thing is for clear, and that is that archivists are going to experience big problems, both in preservation and access. No way currently exists of archiving digital data long-term at the same cost/longevity ratio even with nitrate film. To a certain extent Moore's Law will inflate the problem away for the end result of digital preservation work carried out on 'born analogue' material, but for born digital, the data will expand to fill the space available. As intermediate and other specialist stocks used in preservation work either become unavailable or shoot up in price, more of that work is going to be carried out digitally. Where access is concerned, encoding the current viewing collections of the big archives for d-cinema (the BFI has 35mm viewing prints of around 100,000 hours of material, for example) is going to be a huge and expensive undertaking, and can probably only be carried out reactively. Meanwhile, as traditional film projection skills decline and the maintenance of 35mm installations starts to slip as the digital rollout gathers pace, the risk of damage to existing viewing copies will increase.

My line of work is going to face some serious challenges in the next few years; that's for sure.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-27-2008, 01:13 PM:

I think the Blu-ray format will create a growing push for older movies to be treated similar to that of new movies: scanned, processed via digital intermediate and stored as 2K or possibly 4K files.

The Blu-ray format is very revealing of flaws in older HD telecine methods for drafting content into HDTV formats. Some catalog titles have been released on Blu-ray using HD telecine derived transfers and the end result just isn't very impressive. When an old movie, such as The Searchers or 2001: A Space Odyssey is transferred to HD using the most modern techniques, with scanning and digital intermediate being central to that, the results end up looking better.

Unfortunately this means a lot of previous "digital transfers" of movies will have to be trashed and redone. From what I've read, it appears Sony is spending some money for a completely new digital transfer of Lawrence of Arabia for its release onto Blu-ray in late 2008 or sometime in 2009.

This situation raises all sorts of questions. Which classic movies will be restored and processed via digital intermediate? What quality level will be used in the process? 2K? 4K? Or even something better (particularly for 70mm & VistaVision movies)? Will the cost of this process rise or fall? Will newer technology make the process easier?

I think a certain window of opportunity is also developing. Many older, classic films will have their best shot at being restored and digitally processed within the next few years. Computer processing power and data storage capability continues to grow. Tools for manipulating digital imagery files are continuing to improve. But that has to be balanced against eventual declines in film stock availability and rising prices of film.

I'm certain that computer processing power and data storage capacity will be staggering by today's standards in 2015. But by that year it may be more and more difficult to take an old movie, do a film-based restoration and create a new film-based archival print.

Hopefully the growing enthusiasm over Blu-ray and high definition viewing in general will help get as many classic films properly restored very soon.

quote: Leo Enticknap
No way currently exists of archiving digital data long-term at the same cost/longevity ratio even with nitrate film.

People and businesses in all circles already shuttle lots of archival data from old modes of storage to new types of storage. Movie studios will just have to get into a habit of periodically creating new mirrored backups of files already stored on other discs.

As hard discs and other methods of data storage continue to scale to larger capacities, and as computer speed continues to improve, it will become increasingly easy to dub copies of uncompressed 2K, 4K or greater sized digital movie files.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-02-2008, 09:41 AM:

Bobby said"Movie studios will just have to get into a habit of periodically creating new mirrored backups of files already stored on other discs."
Yah that is why large quantities of nitrate negs were permitted to decay with no backup made
It just gets put on a shelf and forgotten

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-06-2008, 11:40 PM:

quote: Darryl Spicer
I think they have to provide film till no one needs it anymore. It will just cost a pretty penny to get it. Probably to the point that you might as well be digital to off set the cost.

What will actually happen is that film prints ordered in smaller quantities will cost distribution alot more per print. Then distribution may think twice before they put that $4,000.00+ 35mm print at a marginal site. Those sites will then be beter off gong to digital.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I think the Blu-ray format will create a growing push for older movies to be treated similar to that of new movies: scanned, processed via digital intermediate and stored as 2K or possibly 4K files.

No doubt that will happen and in fact it already has happened to a few films... Its the storing and being able to play back those 2K and 4K files in 50 or 75 years thats the big deal. Take a close look at the amount of data that NASA has lost over the years from digital tapes deterioating and not being properly stored. Also a digital storage medium that is universally acceptable needs to be adopted... and really I think its time to leave SMPTE in the dumpster on this... it'll take them forever and many more films will be lost while waiting on them. The main thing here is that equipment extant in 50 or 75 years has to be able to read or play back these archival files or the entire archival process will need to start all over again.

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-07-2008, 12:44 AM:

One of the keys to ensuring data remains compatible is by keeping certain companies (such as Microsoft) from trying to "own" the format completely. If one single company has dominant control over a certain data storage format they will be more free to fart around with it and cause compatibility problems with older versions.

Ongoing legal efforts are begin made to establish Motion JPEG 2000 as an open source standard, but my understanding is certain legal hurdles tied to the previous JPEG format still exist. JPEG 2000 supports data lossless image storage along with many varying levels of lossy data compression.

Obviously it's critical to make sure whatever media is used to store the data has good integrity and is stored to very high standards rather than just dumped on some shelf in a hot warehouse somewhere.

I think studios will have to keep multiple, revolving copies of their most important titles. After a certain number of years, make a safety dub of the data. Additionally, they'll have to utilize higher quality modes of long term storage more often.

There's former salt mines in Kansas and Missouri that are being used to store all sorts of very fragile things, from original negatives of classic movies to rare stamps. Valuable digital archive data can be stored in those places too. Temperature and humidity levels are more steady in those places than almost anywhere else.

Even in the safest climates, no method of digital data storage is completely perfect. The trick is figuring out when it is necessary to make a new dub of the data.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-07-2008, 01:14 AM:

Someone told me today that all theaters would feature digital projection in about 16 months. I decided that he was being perhaps a tad optimistic (or pessimistic, depending on your point of view).

Posted by Mike Schulz (Member # 4297) on 05-07-2008, 02:36 AM:

If the digital installation at my cinema is a sign of the future, then film will be around longer than you think. I find myself running film backup almost all of the time now which kinda defeats the purpose of going digital in the first place.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 05-07-2008, 03:11 AM:

Gotta wonder which digital package you are using-we haven't had a lost digital show in months.

Posted by Mike Schulz (Member # 4297) on 05-07-2008, 03:29 AM:

I would give you all of the details but I don't know how much I can say before I could get myself into trouble. I will just leave it at what I've already said. We've had nothing but trouble with our entire setup so far and it is all brand new, they installed everything just a couple of months ago.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-07-2008, 07:30 AM:

We have digital customers that have never lost shows... ever... No matter who's equipment you have installed there it can and will run much more reliably than ANY film based gear can.

Bobby, I gree that it needs to be some open source thing... the problem thogh is more storage and equipment related in the long haul... Will some computer needed to decode/playback these files still exist and even operate in 75 years time? And yes... those such as Microsoft and SMPTE should stay out. Studios already are used to keeping multiple archival copies on film at different places around the globe just in case of some catastrophe occuring.

Mark

Posted by Mike Schulz (Member # 4297) on 05-07-2008, 08:14 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
No matter who's equipment you have installed there it can and will run much more reliably than ANY film based gear can.

Are you kidding me? I can't remember the last time one of our film projectors stopped in the middle of a show for no reason or froze or had audio go out of sync with the picture all of which have happened with our digitals in the past week. I am happy that your installations have gone smoothly and have had equipment perform flawlessly, but don't say that any digital setup will perform better than film, that is just not true at all. Don't believe me? Come visit my cinema for a week, or even a day for that matter and you are guaranteed to see something go wrong with one of our projectors [Smile]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-07-2008, 10:38 AM:

It sounds to me like someone didn't set up the d-cinema system in your theater correctly.

On the data storage topic, the ever changing kinds of media used to store data (not to mention the methods of cable connection) is a huge problem -perhaps an even bigger problem than data eventually going bad on a disc or tape. Even if the data on an old tape cartridge is still good, it may still be a complete loss if there are no compatible tape drives to read that kind of cartridge.

This is the main reason why I have had to re-dub a lot of my art files over the years. Look at all the different kinds of data storage media that have come and gone over the last 20 years.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-12-2008, 08:42 AM:

I'll have to say that I've never seen a digital show freeze up or stop in the nmiddle either... Bobby is correct... You have installation OR operational problems at your theater OR the equipment is incorrectly installed, improperly networked, configured wrong, or you're simply not operating it correctly. Another possibility(more likely probablility) is that you're way behind in software updates.... software updates are the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of a digital booth to keep up with. What type of gear are you running there? Certainly mentioning that can't get you into trouble. Complaining is usless unless you can provide us with make, model, software version, etc. so we can try to help you sort it out If you're under service contract with someone then its your own fault for not keeping AFTER THEM until ALL the problems are ironed out. If they won't iron them out then find a different booth... there are only thousands to choose from... film or digital or both...

Mark

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 05-12-2008, 01:05 PM:

I've seen digital shows freeze as well as stutter - we were some of the very first full digital installs so we had a lot of growing pains the first few months. Most of our issues were related to the rollout of Cinelink2 and watermarking, some were bad equipment (DoReMi servers mostly, but some Christie items). Some of the initial problems were related to transitions between differing content (the DoReMi had trouble transitioning between 2K and 4K content files - basically it would freeze).

Over the summer of 2006 all our issues were worked out.

Of late we have only seen the occasional stutter issue and it is sometimes the result of a bad transfer from the TMS or poor RAID performance. I can also say that all our problems have quieted down to about the frequency of 35mm issues.

I agree with Mark that the issue could very well be software versions or configuration, I know with each upgrade for us the entity responsible has to make sure all the projector components are at a compatible version with the new server version.

[ 05-13-2008, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: David Zylstra ]

Posted by Michael Dolan (Member # 4808) on 05-26-2008, 09:59 PM:

We are planning to go digital on two of our screens here pretty soon. I have never worked let alone been next to a digital projector. Can anyone tell me how hard is it to be trained all over again?? Does it take time to get used to digital compared to the 35mm.

Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 05-27-2008, 11:47 AM:

Well, if you have any computer experience you should be able to figure out the basics on a digital system in about an hour (cues and all) What kind of equpment are you installing?

Posted by Michael Dolan (Member # 4808) on 05-27-2008, 01:35 PM:

I have no clue they just had some people up here looking around and taking measurments and such a month ago. I asked about it again the other day and I guess there just waiting for the owner to sign off. I know for a fact they have to convert by next year. alot of Disney movie are going to be disney digital, and disney digital 3-D. Our audience is families and kids we barely ever will run a R rated movie here. But I would imagine it would be a Christie that is what all of our equipment is now

Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 05-27-2008, 01:38 PM:

Are you going to be part of a Christie/AccessIT rollout or is Christie just installing? If you are part of a Christie/AccessIT rollout drop me a PM when you know the dates and any concerns you have in regards to training and Ill be glad to make sure you have all that you need.

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 05-27-2008, 02:59 PM:

The change to digital is dictated by the large circuits changing over to the format. No one else matters!

Or do they?

The smaller operator is now in a better position than ever to upgrade their equipment as there is going to be a lot of up to date second hand equipment on the market. It was mentioned in another topic that at least one equipment manufacturer in the USA has started to list refurbished equipment for sale. This is a quite major turnaround in the market as it recognises that 'NEW' mechanical projection equipment is rapidly becoming less attractive as an investment. Why buy Brand New 'IF' it's going to be obsolete in a few years especially as some projectors have given some very long service life.

The independent market for digital is always going to be slow in the uptake because of the investment required and the availability of good second hand equipment is hard to resist.

That being the case the distributors either ignor them and push on with a total digital market and drop them or continue support. Does anyone have any idea how much of the market the independents contribute?

To just remove product availability for them would take a very brave decision from the bean counters. You also need to consider the third world markets share to the bottom line.

Yes the big players provide the biggest slice of the overall pie but the rest would be a great loss and very difficult to justify right now.

35mm film will continue for some considerable time at least I guess more than 5 , 8 or even 10 years. No industry has been able to totally change it's delivery system with one broad stroke. To do so would be financial suicide. It has to be done in a slow progressive fashion where the benefits are enticing to all concerned.

Take the change to digital tv broadcasts. The benefit is very clear and easily demonstrated. And yet it has to be phased in over a number of years so as not to lose a large part of your market to another medium or service provider.

The same applies to cinema.

The next few years may well provide an opportunity for the smaller exhibitor to raise their presentation standards which will benefit the whole industry. Or the industry can just abandon 'film' and close a whole section of the market down which will benefit no one.

As for digital reliability.... I hear nothing but problems. All of the installations done by one company in very different locations. I personally don't believe the equipment is ready yet to build a business model based on a totally digital set-up.

The cost is prohibitive, at this time, for the smaller exhibitor and the reliability needs to be proven to at least match that of traditional projection systems.... and that will never happen in my lifetime!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-27-2008, 03:31 PM:

quote: Michael Dolan
We are planning to go digital on two of our screens here pretty soon. I have never worked let alone been next to a digital projector.

If you can run Windows operating systems than you can run digital! Depending on what server they select its either drag and drop or point and click to build up shows. Assumming you plan your show schedules ahead of time figure about 5 min. build time per show.

Figure up to 4 hours ingest time for USB drives and 50% or less for hot plug hard drives.

Lamp changes on projectors are just about the same as film lamphouses and you need to follow similar rules. Christie has an auto lamp adjust on all their projectors that really works amazingly well. The Barcos I work with have manual lamp alignment using a readout on the projector control panel you tweek X,Y,Z for a maximum number readout.

Hopefully they have the sense to go with Christie for projectors and either DTS or Dolby for servers. There are NO OTHER viable servers or projectors in my book, but your dealer may try to steer you another very, very wrong way. Three best D-Cinema companies to work with are... Christie, DTS and Dolby in that order!!

Good luck with your equipment [thumbsup]

Mark

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-31-2008, 08:31 PM:

At present, there are NO fully DCI compliant servers or projectors. (see Disney letter) Louis

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-01-2008, 10:34 AM:

Louis,

The Disney Letter is old. You seriously need to pay attention to what is going on in the D-Cinema world!! The DTS server recently received approval and not just for a single mode of 2-D operation but also for 3-D and stacked 3-D. All of the studios and DCI testing accepted it. Dolby has been forced to play catch up now and has drastically dropped the pricing on their server by at least several thousand dollars and they are still not near the price of the DTS unit... Dolby can't even give their 3-D systems away even with reduced pricing on the mega dollar glasses and the spinning filter unit! The next short while in this industry will certainly be most interesting!

While the Dolby GUI is still the best the DTS GUI is but a step or two behind and the DTS has much superior image quality. Gotta wonder where this leaves DoReMi, Qube, and the other server contenders....
Mark

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 06-01-2008, 02:50 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
DCI testing accepted it

What DCI testing? last I knew they were still looking for a company to do the testing and each studio still has their own "approved" server list . . . . .. I also thought that only DoReMi and Dolby were the only 2 servers to have gotten FIPS certification (or did DTS get theirs certified without telling anyone? or maybe I missed an official communication somewhere).

DoReMi is left with a significant market share due to the initial AccessIT screens as well as being one of 3 choices on their next wave of 10,000 (hopefully DTS can get themselves in with AccessIT, DCIP and TDC)

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-01-2008, 04:08 PM:

Anything not fully DCI-compliant will not get product; that is the thrust of the Disney letter. Therefore, barring upgrades, ALL present equipment is obsolete and will not be usable for its intended purpose: presently major motion pictures. (It may well be adequate for "alternative product" but that's not the business we are in.) Louis

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-01-2008, 07:13 PM:

Disney and the other major studios approved the DTS server within the last week and a half. We have been waiting for this to happen because our install is stacked 2-D/3-D before we go ahead with a major install. If any of you need any more info on this I suggest you contact Stacy at DTS.

Mark

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-01-2008, 09:00 PM:

One of the things that's going to dramatically push theatres to digital is the 3D product coming up. Many theatre operators have already gotten a sense of the money being left on the table because of the Hannah Montana concert movie earlier this year. There are something like 9 movies coming out in 3D in 2009 and the number will only grow from there. As I understand it, many of these movies will not be released with a 2D version.

Theatres in competitive markets are going to have to go digital on at least some screens just to protect their business. And as more theatres upgrade their screens, there will be an increasingly smaller demand for 35mm prints which will likely drive digital even more. For first run theatres and any other theatres that specialize in main stream Hollywood releases, I just don't think they will be able to resist the market pressures to go digital for more than another couple years.

The limiting factors are going to be equipment production and availability of qualified installers and techs.

I am curious to know what the future holds for theatres specializing in limited release or independent films. The upside is digital could open so many doors in terms of product availability. But is there enough money in this segment to push digital.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-01-2008, 10:58 PM:

Your post is 100% correct Justin! Many will be forced to install equipment if they want to make $$$$.

Actually the encode process to D-Cinema format is not that expensive and should be far far less costly than a production's first answer print. A customer of ours is having a 45 min large format film encoded to JPEG 2000 from an existing HD format tape they have and the cost was around 3K. Once they do a permanent 4K scan from the new edited version of their film which was originally lensed in 15/70 the cost to transfer and encode that is right about 150K for the 4K scan from the 15/70 negs and the final JPEG 2000 encode. Most of that 150K cost is obviously in scanning the 15/70 elements at 4K rez.

Mark

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 06-02-2008, 12:48 AM:

Here in Australia, freezing does seem to be causing some (probably occasional) problems in the limited number of screens that have been converted recently, or so I have heard. I'm also curious about the lamps being changed so often, is 6-10 weeks per bulb sound right? With film I'm getting over 14 months per bulb (vertical lamphouse).

[ 06-02-2008, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: Cameron Glendinning ]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-02-2008, 08:01 AM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
With film I'm getting over 14 months per bulb (vertical lamphouse).

We go by hours, not months. 14 months assumming a few shows per day isn't really all that great either. I see customers run theor CXL20's for well over 21,000 hours in a horizontal lamphouse. I used to have a few verticles running but they are obsolete in terms of even lighting so they were replaced with new equipment. AlthoughI will say that I know of customers that ran verticles that never changed the lamp during the time period I serviced them.

Hard to say on the freezing issue Cameron... over here its really a non-issue. As for lamps if they are lighting up a large screen and running 6kw lamps that may be correct. This be another good reason to use Christie (UShio) Short Gap Lamps because they generally have a longer rated burning time than other brands do. The 3kw CDXL30 for instance can run for 2500 hours in the ZX projector. I think we'd really need more specifics as to what projector, lamps, screen size, and are they using same projector for pre-show, etc. to be able to gauge what and why from a better angle. Otherwise its all just guessing... but many here seem to like to guess so let them have a crack at it...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-02-2008, 10:01 AM:

quote:
Your post is 100% correct Justin!

All except the whole "3-D" rant. It remains a gimmick and a movie with a good story will work just as well without it. I worry about Toy Story 3 -- will Pixar still continue their commitment to story over every other consideration, or will they be so fixated on getting things to stick into people's faces that the story gets sidelined?

The Hannah Montana thing was a fluke, which is proven by the relative flop of the U2 movie that came out right afterward. Teenyboppers would have flocked to Hannah without 3-D.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-02-2008, 12:32 PM:

Mike,

A gimmik it may be to some but if it adds several hundred thousand dollars to your bank account over several years it's not such a bad gimmik after all! Also Digital 3-D is here to stay, not only is the 3-D quality hard to beat, only rivaled by two projector 15/70 3-D but the possibility of just purchasing an add-on unit for your already existing D-Cinema projector makes it all the more plausable as a viable format. 3-D 35mm Film was never a good 3-D choice because the over/under processes that were used were pretty awful in and of themselves. Also, the color space on a silver screen can also be set properly for both 3-D and for 2-D to enable decent quality 2-D on a silver screen more bareable.

Mark

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-02-2008, 12:52 PM:

If the CBG works out a good deal subsidised by VPFs from the studios for the transition to digital cinema, 3D will be a no brainer. The up front cost to add Real-D to an existing D-Cinema setup is very low (in the same range as adding Digital Sound to an already well designed sound system in the mid 90's). It is really a no-brainer to make a few screens per complex 3D capable once you have the 2D digital projection system in place.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 06-02-2008, 01:16 PM:

Well said Mike - I too beleive HM would have been as popular in 2D, but I think if the release was wider there would not have been much increase in attendance, that's my current issue with 3D - what happens when every theatre on the block has multiple 3D screens? I think digital 3D as a format is here to stay, but will be limited to animations and specialty shows.

I think the U2 digital 3D flop was due to Imax getting it exclusively 2-3 weeks in advance as well as all the marketing I saw was geared toward Imax and not digital 3D at theatres.

Mark - I'm interested to know what your observed light output at the beginning and end of the CDXL-30's 2500 hour life. I've tracked 2 in 2 separate CP2000Hs and shown a significant drop in light output after only 900 hours - i.e. 110% power at install yeilded 24FL and now barely 13FL (yes, the initial install was set for 14FL and the lamp has been refocused weekly), I've seen a similar drop with the CDXL-20 lamps - so far my CDXL-60 and CDXL-45 tests are not showing the same drop.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-02-2008, 02:51 PM:

The issue with the digital 3D is not whether the product would have been just as popular in 2D or whether it's a better product because it's in 3D. The issue is that the product may only be available in 3D and our customers will be demanding to see it.

If Toy Story 3, Ice Age 3, Coraline, and all the upcoming 3D movies also have a 2D version, then there would be no reason to switch. But my understanding is many of these will only have a 3D version - at least for the theatrical release. Which means that if we want to play these movies at all, we have to have 3D.

I do believe Toy Story 3 will have a 2D version, but my Fox rep didn't know if there would be for Ice Age 3. And as far as I know, Journey to the Center of the Earth is 3D only.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-02-2008, 03:31 PM:

quote:
Mark - I'm interested to know what your observed light output at the beginning and end of the CDXL-30's 2500 hour life. I've tracked 2 in 2 separate CP2000Hs and shown a significant drop in light output after only 900 hours - i.e. 110% power at install yielded 24FL and now barely 13FL (yes, the initial install was set for 14FL and the lamp has been refocused weekly), I've seen a similar drop with the CDXL-20 lamps - so far my CDXL-60 and CDXL-45 tests are not showing the same drop.

I have not checked them as of yet but will be doing so in a few weeks, there is now 6 months running time on them. I'll post the results then. If there was that much light drop over the amount of time you say I know that this customer would have called us to change out the lamps, he is very light conscience.
The interesting thing about the sooper dooper CDXL lamps is that they are not designed to put out any more lumens... They are designed to maintain the stated number of lumens over the stated life of the lamp whilst running at full power. I will be experimenting with the new 6kw sooper dooper lamp in a couple of weeks. We are replacing an Iwerks 15/70 system with a stacked Christie CP-2000 system... and those tests should be interesting to say the least. We already ran preliminary tests on the existing 82X62 foot 1.8 gain screen and the results with just one CP-2000S had almost triple the light on the screen that the aging Iwerks 15/70 could muster running with a 7kw lamp. With stacked CP-2000Ss we should have no trouble maintaining 14fl over the lamp life in their format running 6kw lamps.

The interesting thing here is that now we have a whole bunch of Imax and Iwerks theaters knocking on our door for this system(which does involve some custom optics). Once they learn they can own a system that will perform perfectly satisfactorly, learn they can cut back the labor involved in operations, learn they can save the rediclous Imax/Iwerks maintainance expense and royalties its a simple no brainer on which way to go.... To boot, many large format films are already available in Digital format. For the theater above they have put 14 years of hard use on their 15/70 system and the projector is simply wearing out and not worth the high cost of upgrading the lamphouse and repairing the rotor, feed shoes, sprockets, new 15/70 prints, etc.

Mark

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-02-2008, 04:12 PM:

quote:
if it adds several hundred thousand dollars to your bank account over several years it's not such a bad gimmik after all!

I would like to interview a few hundred patrons at a 3-D movie and ask them, if this movie had NOT been released in 3-D would you have come to it anyway? I'll bet the answers would consist mostly of:

1. Sure, who cares if it's 3-D?
2. Yes, we didn't even know it was in 3-D until we got here.
3. Yes, in fact I'd like it better because I wouldn't have to wear the stupid glasses.
4. Yes, because then we wouldn't have to pay the extra cost.
5. Yes, because then I wouldn't have this headache.

There might be a few "no" answers, but I'll bet they would be in the minority.

Just for the record, I'm all excited about digital cinema and look forwad to it and plan to get it, but damn, that 3-D thing just leaves me cold.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 06-02-2008, 04:37 PM:

Thanks Mark - I've roped myself into a months long lamp study to prove which lamps from Christie are the best choice for our screens (we were originally installed with all CXLs since the CDXLs were not widely available so I need to be convinced they are a better choice) . . . . . . so far after about 900 hours I can say that the CDXL-20 and CDXL-30 lamps have dropped significantly where the CXL-30 and CXL-45 have not dropped as much (40% compared to 20%), but the CDXL-45 and CDXL-60 seem better (when installed all were measured and at 110% power they hit close to the estimated lumen output of each lamp type with the CP2000H)

So far none of these lamps have dropped to below 13FL onscreen and I doubt the average person could really tell unless it dropped to below 10 (there is one all digital chain that I heard asks to have their lamps set at 10FL when lamps are changed)

My worry is while the M is supposed to put out 14,000 lumens it might drop significantly as the lamp ages and depending on how quick and far it drops the resulting screen size could be limited.

Once I have all my data I plan on posting under the digital equipment review thread.

On the 3D/2D thing -- we have run both 2D and 3D copies of each 3D film (except Nightmare Before Christmas) . . . . I've analyzed our ticket sales and for weeks with both versions the 3D attendance was higher by 40-70% . . . . . all advertisements showed 2 separate titles with times separated . .

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-02-2008, 04:43 PM:

So far there is but one 2kw lamp made for the M. I don't know if other2kw lamps or smaller lamps will even fit in it. We'll just have to wait and see on this....

Mark

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-02-2008, 05:27 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
The issue is that the product may only be available in 3D and our customers

This sounds like what Lucas threatened to do with SW, version ?

Are we at the point where a portion of the installed 3D base is good enough for a company like Pixar to risk a major release? If not, then I'd take a bet that the threat would last up to about 2 weeks before the release, and miraculously, we'd hear about 7,000 or so prints hitting the sales floor.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-02-2008, 05:40 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
The Hannah Montana thing was a fluke, which is proven by the relative flop of the U2 movie that came out right afterward. Teenyboppers would have flocked to Hannah without 3-D.

3D had nothing to do with the lack of commercial success for U23D. The advanced age of the band and its best songs was more of a factor than anything else. Some U2 fans love the early 1980s albums and hate the more recent stuff. The die hard fans, such as myself, showed up to see the concert movie. Not many others did. Most people under 30 aren't interested in U2 at all. It's not music from their generation.

The plummeting ratings of American Idol do a lot to prove my point. The popular Fox TV series is losing young viewers by the millions. They're not interested in the show anymore because it is filled with music for middle aged people. There is very little at all for people in the 13 - 30 age demographic. The average viewer age for American Idol is now 42. The only demographic where American Idol gained viewers over the last season was in the 65 and older demographic. The show's producers are looking to retool the formula.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-02-2008, 06:28 PM:

Jack; you speak with great Wisdom! I agree exactly. Louis

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-02-2008, 07:27 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
And as far as I know, Journey to the Center of the Earth is 3D only.

I don't think this is true. The TV commercials have "Real-D in selected theatres" or something like that at the end. If it was 3D only I'd think they'd point it out on the commercials.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-02-2008, 07:47 PM:

Mark, where did you get your information on the CDXL line of lamps not being designed for more lumen output...that is complete crap and I don't care who misinformed you (or if you are just speaking out of your butt).

They are shorter arc lamps, which are inherently more light efficient/watt. Now the design of their anode is decidedly different and no doubt is trying to keep the "burn-back" to a minimum.

My own current experimentation on the "45" is showing nearly a 40% increase in light over a "40" AND the burn-back is notably slower....in fact, where as a typical lamp loses 20% of its light in the first 100 hours, the CDXL-45 lost only about 10%...even after 300 hours it hasn't dropped 20%.

I suspect that part of long life is dependant on the extra effective lumens since one is going to run the lamp at less power when new...as such it will age pretty slowly then...kinda like lowering the current on LEDs in the sound system.

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-02-2008, 08:41 PM:

Steve,

I am referring to the "Sooper Dooper" line of lamps... as you call them. Not the standard "short gap" CDXL series of lamps.

Christie classifies the Sooper Doopers as being able to keep the maximum rated lumen output over the rated life span of the lamp when running said lamp at maximum rated current. Simple as that. I have been told this by at least three different people at Christie. Although I doubt that you have yet to get one of the yet to be released "Sooper Dooper" 6kw's to try but if you have and your findings are different than mine then you should report your findings to Christie... not to me. For now at least I will utilize these lamps as Christie reccomends them to be used, and that is very specific.

Mark

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-02-2008, 09:13 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
3D had nothing to do with the lack of commercial success for U23D.

I never said it did, did I? My point was, that after Hannah was a hit, the "suits" thought any concert movie would be money in the bank. WRONG, proof being the U2 film and also "Shine a Light." (Which isn't a concert movie really but hopefully you get my drift.)

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 06-02-2008, 09:26 PM:

Center of the earth is available on good ole amercian film stock as well as that new fangled digtal "stuff".

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-02-2008, 11:36 PM:

If Journey to the Center of the Earth will have a 2D release, they sure aren't putting the word out there. I checked WB's exhibitor relations site and there is no mention of a 2D release. I sent an email to our exhibitor relations rep on the issue.

The thing that really bothers me if there is a 2D release is that the movie is being completely branded as 3D which will ensure that non-3D theatres will have many complaints refunds.

Posted by Michael McGovern (Member # 4807) on 06-03-2008, 12:27 AM:

At this stage in the game, it would be financial suicide for a studio to release any major film in 3-D only, which is why so far we've only see repository titles like Nightmare Before Christmas, and films with very little in the way of production costs like Hannah Montana, as far as films only available in 3-D. There just aren't enough 3-D screens out there yet for a major 3-D only release to be possible.

This raises an interesting point however, if Dreamworks plans to release all their upcoming titles from now on in 3-D, does that mean there's not going to be a 2-D release at all? Are they going to pressure exhibitors to increase the adoption rate on the Real D projectors to ensure that there's at least one theater in every major market in the country that has one? As of right now that's certainly not the case at all. Eventually it's going to become push vs shove with the studios jumping on this 3-D Bandwagon against the Exhibitors forced to adopt the expensive equipment to support it, and I think in the end, the exhibitors are going to win.

Check me off in the 3-D is a gimmick that people will quickly get tired of, category.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 06-03-2008, 10:42 AM:

If Dreamworks is only going to release their films only in D3D they are cutting their throats as far as subruns and kids shows at all of the mom&pop places that specialize in those things. Kids shows particularly have a life span years longer than the first run release.
Granted, they don't pull in the bucks the first release does, but money is money.
Or maybe they are going to go the Disney route and pull their films from distribution until it is time for a rerelease.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-04-2008, 10:08 AM:

They will RELEASE the films in 2D as well as 3D. The big problem is, will they PROMOTE both types? I'm guessing no. They will blare the "IT'S IN 3-D!!!" message as loud as they can and ignore the 2D situations.

People who don't have 3D should prepare some signs apologizing for the fact the movie isn't in 3D, but touting all the good things about that: No uncomfortable glasses, no eyestrain, no headache, and so on.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-04-2008, 10:45 AM:

That would be kind of strange to pitch some pro-2D messages in a theater that was showing the movie in both 2D and 3D, which has been a somewhat common thing for releases like Beowulf and Meet the Robinsons.

I think the higher price of the 3D show is probably enough to make customers think twice about whether they want to watch the 3D version or just choose the 2D version on another screen.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-06-2008, 11:13 PM:

Yeah, if the 2D is being shown on a decent sized screen. But if it's a choice between the 600-seat, 60' 3-D screen and a 60-seat, 16' 2-D screen... might be tempting to just wait for the vid.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-07-2008, 12:23 AM:

From what I'm hearing through my sources, it sounds like New Line had intended Journey to be a 3D only release. But now that WB is in charge, they want it 2D as well as 3D.

We received some new one sheets where the 3D was removed from the title and it just says "See it in Real D in select theatres". I don't know when they changed their campaign because I stopped paying attention to the movie when I was under the assumption we wouldn't be able to play it. But it certainly makes that second weekend of July more complicated for my 5 screen theatre.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-07-2008, 01:01 AM:

my advice might be to pass on it. I think it's going to be a huge flop. It looks terrible, it has Branden Fraser and word of mouth is going to choke it to death. I think Warner Brothers is just trying to get as much as they can out of it. I may be wrong in my thoughts but that's just how I feel.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-07-2008, 09:29 AM:

Its also possiblke that 3-D may also make it into a decent passable film much like the original House Of Wax was. Now any of you that have seen the opriginal House Of Wax in 2 projector 3-D know how good it is... but watch it in 2-D on television and it turns it into a real dud.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-07-2008, 10:12 AM:

I've seen House of Wax in 2-projector as well as single strip side-by-side. The 3-D worked well either way though the 2-projector was notably superior in several respects (brightness and ghosting...not in the shutter since).

Steve

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 06-07-2008, 11:56 AM:

Apart from the paddle man and the dancers, were there any other obvious 3D scenes in House Of Wax? Its been so long but I remember there were a few scenes in the 2D version where it seems like they were showing off. But the story still holds up quite well, probably since the director couldn't see 3D.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-07-2008, 08:09 PM:

Well, that is the key...the film should work as a 2D film and just let 3D add to the experience.

Note...with all of this 3D craze they are not offering it in film. I would like to see a comparison of a Digital 3D versus a film 3D (using an over/under polorized system) in terms of boxoffice.

The film system will be cheaper to install (just need the silver screen and the lens...plus the glasses...but they are of the lowest cost type).

Then look at the profit of the two digital versus film in terms of equipment cost versus boxoffice receipts.

I'm continually amazed at how much picture quality degredation is allowed in the name of 3D.

For 3D, you typically get 1/3 to 1/5th the light, wacked out colors (over saturated due to the silver screen), and with most of the digital versions, lower resolution. The 1.3" chips can't use their entire resoultion with triple-flash 3D so you only get something on the order of 70% of the resolution...yet all of this is blessed and okay and desired! Note, by lowering the white level to 3-5fL you also knock your contrast ratio down by an equivalent percentage. What part of the image ISN'T compromised by adding the 3rd dimension?

Now I know that there are those that are doing dual projector stuff and the new .98" chip projectors can use the full imager, but this is not the norm and the fact remains that the spec for 3D is only 3-5fL or your color saturation will be all wrong.

I just can't see 3D catching on this time any more than it did in the past.

Steve

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-07-2008, 08:38 PM:

After seeing Beowulf in Real D, I can see the 3D catching on. Unlike the Red/Blue glasses 3D, I was able to watch the entire movie without my eyes hurting and the glasses were fairly comfortable to wear. Furthermore, I felt that the 3D was mainly used to add depth perception to the film, rather than gimicks with things flying at you.

Whether it actually catches on will remain to be seen, but I actually think most people will go for 3D once they realize it's a different experience than in the past.

And I don't think the average customer cares about subtle details in screen brightness and other issues. The average customer isn't even aware of cigarett....er... change-over cues or glue splices mid frame.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-07-2008, 09:05 PM:

3D has its own set of technical challenges to overcome, things a customer may have a harder time overlooking than a random scratch, fleck of dirt or roughly assembled splice.

Just like the situation with surround sound, 3D demands the viewer find a seat in the theater's "sweet spot." At least with RealD, if you sit too close to the screen objects moving forward toward the viewer are going to look like they're splitting in two. Ghosting effects can be a distracting problem too. The knitting needle in the Coraline trailer is a pretty good test case to use. The upside is many digital 3D equipped theaters are also stadium seated and audiences tend to gravitate to the highest rows in the rear of the auditorium.

quote: Steve Guttag
Well, that is the key...the film should work as a 2D film and just let 3D add to the experience.

Agreed. The main failing of 3D movies in the 1980s was that those movies were crap regardless of whether you saw them in 2D or 3D. The 3D part of it added a viewing factor to distract audiences from how bad the movie was.

Recent movies that have used digital 3D or IMAX 3D processes have been better than any of those 1980s 3D movies. Despite its poor commercial performance, I thought U23D was an excellent concert movie and wonderful to watch in 3D. Beowulf was a pretty good movie as well, even though the dreaded problem of CGI people looking "dead" still showed itself on screen from time to time. Beowulf didn't seem gimmicky the way 3D movies from the 1980s were.

I'm not getting a good vibe from Journey to the Center of the Earth. It looks like it may be pretty silly. I hope I'm wrong about that. Coraline looks more interesting.

I think a lot more attention will be given to 3D in 2009 when Dreamworks' Monsters Vs. Aliens and James Cameron's Avatar arrive in theaters. Both appear to be the most ambitious movies ever put together with 3D in mind. If either or both are successful it could legitimize the use of 3D on many more movies.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-08-2008, 04:22 PM:

quote: Damien Taylor
Apart from the paddle man and the dancers, were there any other obvious 3D scenes in House Of Wax? Its been so long but I remember there were a few scenes in the 2D version where it seems like they were showing off. But the story still holds up quite well, probably since the director couldn't see 3D.

There are films that will excell in 3-D and films that are not helped in the least. In House of wax the best part is when the Wax Museum burns down... the entire theater I was in filled with 3-D smoke. What a cool effect it was. Also the 3-D effect added much depth when in the Museum itself adding to the creepieness factor. A film like Dial M For Murder was just as slow moving in 2-D as it was in the 3-D side by side version I saw. The only striking point being the hand that comes out of the screen at you during the murder. I think Hitchcock coulda done alot better had he had more time and a better script. North By Northwest woulda been great in 3-D!!

quote: Steve Guttag
Now I know that there are those that are doing dual projector stuff and the new .98" chip projectors can use the full imager, but this is not the norm and the fact remains that the spec for 3D is only 3-5fL or your color saturation will be all wrong.

The studios are wanting to see that go much higher in the near future and with dual projector it is actually pretty easy to accomplish.

Mark

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 06-08-2008, 10:52 PM:

I love film, but how much longer will we have oil to burn in our cars, wear as our clothes, walk on as carpets and run as strips through our projectors?

There are alternatives and I am afraid that we will eventually have to accept the replacement of film just as we had to accept the elimination of silver sound tracks and (sob) magnetic sound.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 06-14-2008, 07:55 AM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
Unlike the Red/Blue glasses 3D, I was able to watch the entire movie without my eyes hurting and the glasses were fairly comfortable to wear

Polarized 3-D has been around for a long-time, even before the 1953 3-D craze, the fact that in some areas they did not bother having proper polarized 3-D and went for the cheap anaglyphic version does not deny the fact that good 3-D has been around for many years. I have seen many examples of interlocked projection in polarised 3-D from the 50s and it looks amazing. Many digital advocates imply that there was only anaglyphic 3-D before digital, which is a big lie, and if not what has been IMAX doing for so many years.

quote:
I think Hitchcock coulda done alot better had he had more time and a better script. North By Northwest woulda been great in 3-D!!

Hitchcock did not want to use 3-D and was forced by Warners to shot the film in 3-D and so he placed the dual cameras at a distance between themselves as to show the less 3-D effect possible. Nevertheless 3-D reinforces the theatrical aspect of the film and I prefer it in 3-D.

Posted by Andy Frodsham (Member # 4061) on 06-20-2008, 12:30 PM:

You know, I've given-up worrying about this anymore! I think I've come to accept the fact that, like vinyl recordings, film will lose its place at the top of the pyramid. Sadly, this isn't because that place isn't deserved anymore but because teams of faceless accountants have decided its the way business must go.

I'd love to think that digital cinema is a fad which will go away, but we all know deep-down that isn't going to happen. One thing though, if they have to do it, I hope and pray they do it right!

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-21-2008, 07:19 PM:

Ya know I was discussing going to movies with someone at work and the conversation drifted to the digital preshows, and the guy actually said "You can see a huge drop in quality when they switch over from the digital projector to film. It goes from nice and crisp and clear to muddy and murky and ugly". That's pretty much a direct quote.

Now mind you he's talking about the digital preshow, not D-Cinema. He actually thinks the digital preshow looks better than 35mm film. Never mind that the pixels are the size of golf balls and it's never anywhere near as bright as it should be, etc. etc.

And from that I conclude that there is no hope. [uhoh]

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 06-21-2008, 10:05 PM:

The general public really is the way to look to see the attitudes of the masses. As projectionists, we will never be unbiased in our appreciation of one format over another. As people with such passion for our craft, its sometimes hard to think about all the people who just don't care, and what they think about the film to digital change. Nothing.

Muddy, murky and ugly sounds like a lot of cinemas unfortunately. All too often when I see a film at a multiplex with a turret I find it is at least a little out of focus or has drifted and not been checked. Since I started at my current job where we are still using the barrel I've become a focus perfectionist so I suppose I notice more.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 06-22-2008, 01:41 AM:

Damien, I have used both and I actually prefer the turret. Both flat and Scope lenses seem to stay sharp most often with the turret. If not, it is easy to make a slight adjustment regardless of the system.

You are correct in assuming that the presence of someone who gives a damn will make a difference.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-22-2008, 10:21 AM:

I agree Ron... Turrets generally but not always offer much more fine adjustment of many aspects of the image. Focus can usually be controled as well as a single lens mount machine and image position is definately easier to control and set up.

Mark

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 06-22-2008, 05:18 PM:

I definitely agree, but the "set and forget" mentality towards automated equipment by the few booth jockeys out there I've seen working, should stop.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 06-22-2008, 07:26 PM:

I run dual strip on a semi-regular basis at my screening room. So long as you're phase is correct (and sync, of course), and you're keeping an eye on your vertical alignment, there should be no problem at all.

That being said, I've never run a digital 3-D show, but I've seen how it's run. There are a lot of things I still shake my head at, but have to concede that it's the simplest foolproof answer at the moment.

The biggest problem today is the photography. Shots misaligned, convergence points all over the place, total lack of respect of the stereo window, and unleveled cameras make for the stuff of eyestrain and headaches.