Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: "Film" rental on digital "prints"?

This is topic "Film" rental on digital "prints"? 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=000231

Posted by Mike Sellars (Member # 4042) on 06-22-2008, 11:45 AM:

A competing theatre in my area that is all digital was running two separate sets of showtimes for the Hulk, as we would have to do if we had two prints, but we only got one. As we consistently outgross them, this annoyed me and I called my booker to see if we could get another print and was told that we could not. When I pointed out that they were running it in two separate houses, my booker called the distributor and was told they were only given one "print". Are the rules supposed to be the same for film vs. digital when it comes to film rent? Since they only got one copy but are running it in two houses, they would have to pay rent as though they had two physical prints, right? If not, and they can pay rent one time and then run it in as many houses as they choose, then THAT pisses me off!!!

[Mad]

Mike

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 06-22-2008, 02:18 PM:

Isn't film rental based on a percentage of box office gross?

Perhaps the print fee is just associated with the physical print you are using. I wouldn't really consider this a rule, but simply a charge to help offset the cost of the print. Since your site runs film, and film cost more than a hard drive then it would seem "fair" to charge you more for an additional print. The digital site doesn't need additional hard drives, since they can ingest the content on as many playback servers as they would like with that one hard drive.

In regards to the virtual print fees associated with digital cinema, the competing site may own their equipment and not pay VPF's. I am unable to say exactly how the VPF is charged in regards to the amount of screens used for a particular run.

This is one of the things that the digital cinema proponents view as an added bonus for making the switch.

When we showed "300" for the midnight show, we were able to continue selling tickets and running shows after the first two auditoriums sold out. Earlier that day presales were strong so we ingested the feature content on most if not all of the screens in anticipation of a huge turnout. Overall we sold out 4 more screens.

Interlocking film can achieve the same purpose, but not when the midnight shows have already started and you still have people pouring in at 12:15 or later and want to add more screens. (with only one print of course)

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 06-22-2008, 02:28 PM:

Booking for digital "prints" is exactly the same as 35mm - if we were booked for only 1 print of a movie we would only be able to show it on 1 auditorium and therefore only have 1 set of showtimes (we have been all digital for over 2 years).

The only thing we would be able to do is show the same showtime in 2 auditoriums - much like running an interlock with 35mm (and house allowance only pertains to the auditorium booked).

If they are digital through an integrator (i.e. AccessIT, TDC, etc) they may get caught when that entity tries to bill the studio 2 VPFs for that "print" (every show is logged for both security and billing purposes). If they are a national chain it may have been a mistake in the company - i.e. the location was told they were getting 2 copies but the home office never communicated down to the location that only 1 ended up being booked.

If what your booker says is true he should turn them in - what they are doing will strengthen the studios trying to key specific prints to only 1 auditorium (a bad business idea for exhibitors).

Digital prints also fall under the studios "rules" of having only so many per market - i.e. if they allow only 4 "prints" in a market that means if 2 are film there can only be 2 digital.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-22-2008, 03:37 PM:

David, I've seen Carmike in Cheyenne, WY. run one "digital print" on as many as 6 of their 9 screens merely by asking and getting more KDM's.

You don't need multiple film prints to be on multiple screens... Are you not set up for runing interlocking at least two of your screens? If not then why? If not then you really have no valid gripe about not getting a second print. If you tihnk scarcity of prints now is bad just wait a few more years [Eek!]

. If you're in a low grossing area... not grossing enough to pay for distribution to strike you a 2nd print then oh well... Interlocking is an easy thing to do and by itself is cheaper then shipping that 2nd print round trip! With digital they could run one "digital print" on all of their screens if they wanted to. All they need is a different KDM for each system.

So our customer in Cheyenne who has many more screens than Carmike has had the same problem. He had us install interlock on 4 of the DP-70's AND he added two digital systems to other screens. Now its not a problem for him to at least more or less pull off the equal of what Carmike does.

Best of luck!

Mark

Posted by Mike Sellars (Member # 4042) on 06-22-2008, 04:38 PM:

Mark,

If they were interlocking I wouldn't have a problem with it... but they are running it in two houses with different showtimes, and you can't do that with interlocking unless you put on a hell of a lot of leader!

I hope it was a mistake, as I do not wish animosity between us... we will see.

Mike

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 06-22-2008, 07:29 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
David, I've seen Carmike in Cheyenne, WY. run one "digital print" on as many as 6 of their 9 screens merely by asking and getting more KDM's.

Actually as a matter of policy there should be KDMs generated for every digital screen in a complex - shortly after DCI was published NATO put this in their requirement document (of which we recently published version 2.0), i.e. ALL screens in a complex get KDMs to allow the same flexibility we have now in regards to film moves - basically we don't want to have to call the studio on a Sat morning to get permission to move a non-performing movie to a smaller house in order to move the better performer to the larger house.

As long as Carmike is running them all at the same showtime they are OK since it can be argued that it is the same as an interlock - and of course they need the right permissions to cancel any shows they may be cancelling.

I'd say chalk this up to a one time mistake, but if they continue with both sets of showtimes next week then I'd start complaining.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-22-2008, 07:38 PM:

Oh you platter people... Just set up for changeovers and you can stagger your show times as much as you want (with a single print). With the "glut" of used equipment on the market...this has never been cheaper!

If you insist on the silly platter...then there is Brad's way with the "Delayed Interlock" posted elsewhere on this forum.

You can not blaim a technology for taking advantage of its benefit.

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-22-2008, 07:47 PM:

quote: David Zylstra
As long as Carmike is running them all at the same showtime they are OK since it can be argued that it is the same as an interlock - and of course they need the right permissions to cancel any shows they may be cancelling.

No, Carmike staggers the starting times... usually a show starting every 15 min. Our customer will also soon be all digital at this location so I suppose he'll be able to "get even". Now except for a few titles our customer hasn't gotten KDM's for every screen he has digital at that location... usually only one per screen.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 06-22-2008, 08:42 PM:

It's actions like this that will cause the studios to try and limit KDMs to just the booked auditorium - it's a can of worms Carmike shouldn't be playing with. If these are staggered midnight shows I hope they have studio permission.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Now except for a few titles our customer hasn't gotten KDM's for every screen he has digital at that location... usually only one per screen.

I know we get KDMs for all titles for all screens, the exception being advance screenings. If they don't get KDMs for all screens once they are 100% they should tell someone at NATO if they are members.

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 06-23-2008, 02:35 AM:

quote: David Zylstra
it's a can of worms

If what you stated earlier is true in regards to that policy, than the [bs]

will hit the fan someday soon.

But, it wouldn't be due to the theater playing a feature on multiple auditoriums, it'll be due to the theater down the street who is unable to do the same thing and complains to the right people.

quote: David Zylstra
if we were booked for only 1 print of a movie we would only be able to show it on 1 auditorium and therefore only have 1 set of showtimes

David, Are you sure you are correct? The question running through my mind is, D-cinema was supposed to eliminate prints and print fees. Virtual print fees are used to help the exhibitor pay back the equipment, and isn't that fee only paid once per title - for the entirety of the run, regardless of the amount of screens?

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 06-23-2008, 09:20 AM:

We could of course book 1 less screen with the idea of running 2 copies, BUT we can only have 1 set of showtimes - bookings are still done on a per screen basis. The same rules as 35mm apply - i.e. they only assign so many copies per market.

The VPFs are paid once per "booked copy", not per title - i.e. if we book 3 screens of IJ4 then AccessIT bills Paramount for 3 VPFs because with 35mm Paramount would have made 3 physical prints, once these 3 VPFs are paid we can show those 3 copies on any 3 screens in our building (interlocks are allowed).

We've been running digital for over 2 years and there have been a few booking miscommunications where we have gotten in "trouble" for having 2 sets of shows when only 1 screen was booked (i.e. we were supposed to drop a second print of something and the manager was not told and scheduled 2 screens)

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-24-2008, 01:11 AM:

I don't understand this whole thing. Why should there have to be more than one digital "print" (hard drive) in a complex? Can't you just put the same "print" in as many auditoriums as you need to? And shouldn't you be able to run as many showtimes as you can sell tickets for? Isn't that one of the big selling points of digital? Who really gives a crap whether a complex has a second set of shows or not?

For a studio to have to send out two hard drives just so a theatre can have a different "print" on two screens when it's totally possible to just copy the "print" into the second screen from the same drive seems dumb. Is that what the specs require though?

I would think, if one complex is really better than the other, and both are showing the same movies, then whichever has the better package of presentation/seats/popcorn should win out at the boxoffice, regardless of what format is being used. And, if a complex is grossing enough to be selling out consistently on an opening weekend, a second print shouldn't be a problem.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-24-2008, 05:32 AM:

The issue is with the Virtual Print Fees, not the physical hard drives. The financing for the digital changeover is based upon having x number of "prints" go through a complex per year. If you allowed one VPF to play in a situation that you would have needed (well, for most theaters that don't run changeover of Brad's delay system) multiple 35mm prints, the whole financing plan falls apart.

Digital cinema will also put a damper on the "we're having a problem with that movie" method of creating an interlock screen. If something doesn't play the correct number of times, the studio will know about it.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 06-24-2008, 08:23 AM:

for multiple "prints" we only get 1 HD - then we copy it into as many auditoriums as we are booked to show it in (each server has its own internal storage).

The gist of the business side is nothing changes from how we operate now - i.e. the studios still limit the number of screens their movie is played on in a given market and each copy that is authorized to play is booked to a screen just like it is now; the only change is to how a movie is projected onto the screen.

Digital is not a license to say "I'm going to run all 18 screens IJ4 and cancel all my other booked films" - the studios who have content booked on your other screens may not like it.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-24-2008, 09:33 AM:

That was the other part of my question which I meant to put in and forgot...what about other showtimes that would have to be cancelled. But I don't see why you couldn't use the same VPF to play a slew of midnight shows if no other showtimes are booked for those screens.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 06-24-2008, 10:02 AM:

quote: David Zylstra
Digital is not a license to say "I'm going to run all 18 screens IJ4 and cancel all my other booked films" - the studios who have content booked on your other screens may not like it.

Around here it kinda looks like it is. We have a Carmike 8-plex and a Rave 15. On opening weekend of IJ4 there were 27 showtimes combined at the two plexes. I didn't bother to figure out by the listings how many screens were being used, but it looked to me like they were maximizing output. I have no idea how many HD's they had either, but knowing Carmike anyway, they weren't going to pay for more than one

If they want to use the same print to play matinees all day in a house where they will show a 10pm show of their "regular" feature (a fairly common practice here), why would the studio complain, as long as they get their cut of the action, and the "house nut" is being accurately credited?

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 06-24-2008, 11:11 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
But I don't see why you couldn't use the same VPF to play a slew of midnight shows if no other showtimes are booked for those screens

Midnights are a different story - i.e. if the screens are open they don't seem to care if you run multiple auditoriums for the midnight shows - this falls under the current business practice of running interlocks . . . . . . but I would think they would need studio approval if they ran a midnight, 12:10, 12:20,12:30, etc.

quote: Martin McCaffery
We have a Carmike 8-plex and a Rave 15. On opening weekend of IJ4 there were 27 showtimes combined at the two plexes

27 showtimes with 5 showtimes per screen is about 5 or 6 "prints" - that sounds about standard with 2 at the 8 plex and 3 or 4 at the 15; we had 3 digital "prints" plus 1 35mm at each of our 18 screens.

The exhibitor does not have to pay any more for the HDs than for 35mm - actually with multiple prints you save shipping costs because you only get 1 HD for multiple copies.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-28-2008, 02:57 AM:

quote: Lyle Romer
Digital cinema will also put a damper on the "we're having a problem with that movie" method of creating an interlock screen. If something doesn't play the correct number of times, the studio will know about it.

How exactly do they know? Do the players have to report daily to the mother ship?

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-28-2008, 08:43 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
How exactly do they know? Do the players have to report daily to the mother ship?

I don't know if they actually monitor it but the integrator (whoever is providing the equipment and dealing with financing) has access to the information.

I guess if you outright paid for the equipment they may not be able to monitor it but if you do it through one of the subsidized plans, they can check via the integrator.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 06-28-2008, 02:41 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
How exactly do they know? Do the players have to report daily to the mother ship?

In some cases maybe . . . . . . DCI includes security logging requirements that log every time a KDM is accessed to playback a film - the studio goal is to pull these logs to track every time their films are played . . . . .

Buying your own equipment does not exempt you from the possible requirement of sharing log files with the studios - the studios are including a log requirement in their digital cinema addendums to film contracts, besides all they have to do is say you cannot book any more of their digital films until you produce past logs and you pretty much have no choice . . . . .

Currently the integrators use the information to facilitate "VPF billing" so they can prove to the studios that the films ran in digital.