Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: DCIP actually does something (maybe?)

This is topic DCIP actually does something (maybe?) 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=000254

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-01-2008, 02:21 AM:

From the Wall Street Journal

They don't say what happens when this generation of [dlp]

projectors becomes obsolete and needs to be replaced. Presumably, the exhibitors get stuck with the total bill.

quote:

Studios Back Plan to Finance Rollout Of Digital Cinema Equipment

LOS ANGELES – A consortium of movie exhibitors is expected to announce Wednesday that it has obtained the backing of a total of five Hollywood studios for a plan to help finance the rollout of digital cinema equipment in U.S. theaters, according to people familiar with the matter, giving it the critical mass it needs to make products like 3-D cinema widely available.

Though the transformation to digital projectors in theaters has been discussed for a decade, only in the past few months have a number of Hollywood's biggest studios signed onto the project. On Wednesday, the consortium is expected to announce that Lion's Gate Entertainment Corp. has joined the four studios which had previously supported the plan: Viacom Inc.'s Paramount Pictures, News Corp.'s Twentieth Century Fox, General Electric Co.'s Universal Pictures and the Walt Disney Co. News Corp. also owns Dow Jones Co., Inc., publisher of The Wall Street Journal.

The consortium of theater owners, which is called the Digital Cinema Implementation Partners and includes Regal Entertainment Group, Cinemark Holdings Inc. and AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc., has been eager to add the technology but hasn't wanted to bear the cost alone. Under the agreement, the studios will help defray the $1 billion it will cost to install the expensive digital projection equipment.

Under the DCIP plan, the three big chains will be able to outfit several thousand of their combined 15,000 screens next year with the technology, with a goal of converting almost all in three to four years. It costs around $70,000 to outfit a screen with digital projectors.

DCIP officials did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

Digital projection would cut millions of dollars in annual costs for the studios by eliminating the need for film prints. It would give theater owners more flexibility to move films on and off the screens they operate. Digital projectors are also crucial to the rollout of equipment needed for 3-D movies, which Hollywood is increasingly planning to produce.

Under the DCIP plan, the three big chains will be able to outfit several thousand of their combined 15,000 screens next year with the technology, with a goal of converting almost all in three to four years. It costs around $70,000 to outfit a screen with digital projectors.

The financing package, totaling $1 billion, will be led by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and paid for over eight to 10 years. Private equity firm Blackstone is also involved in the financing, according to people familiar with the details of Wednesday's announcement.

Earlier this month, Universal Pictures and Disney agreed to throw their backing behind DCIP, though Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros. studio and Sony Corp.'s Sony Pictures will not be involved in DCIP at this time. Warner Bros. couldn't be reached for comment.

The studios will pay their share by contributing the money they would have spent on movie prints -- about $800 to $1,000 per film -- in the form of a so-called virtual print fee. The participating studios are promising to provide a digital print of their movies for each screen that converts to digital. The studios' total annual contribution would vary depending on how many movies each company releases per year.

The Hollywood studios' payoff comes later. Once the equipment is rolled out and their financing obligations are done, digital distribution of movies will cost just pennies per digital "print." The rollout of digital cinema has also been complicated by competing technologies.

Sony Corp.'s electronics unit is trying to get theaters to adopt its own digital technology. It is expected to announce on Thursday that it has entered into its own agreement with Sony Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox and Paramount, to provide exhibitors with Sony's own digital projector system, according to people familiar with the matter.

That group plans to roll out Sony "4K SXRD" projectors in theaters in North America, Asia and Europe, according these people. Sony's projectors have more than 4000 pixels per horizontal line. Most digital projectors on the market are 2K, meaning they have more than 2000 pixels per horizontal line. Specific details of the rollout and financing have not been disclosed. A Sony spokesman, Tom Di Nome, said that Sony is "working to finalize digital cinema agreements with Sony Pictures Entertainment, Fox and Paramount for a planned announcement."

While the long-term cost savings have been an incentive to participate, the move toward digital cinema has finally picked up steam recently, thanks to interest in a new generation of high-tech 3-D movies that has been billed by some as a key to keeping the theatrical film business healthy. Several movies, such as "Journey to the Center of the Earth," have taken in considerably more revenue on 3-D than expected, getting both studios and theater owners more interested in converting screens to digital, the first step in most 3-D set-ups.
—Sarah McBride contributed to this article.

Write to Peter Sanders at peter.sanders@wsj.com

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-01-2008, 12:39 PM:

I don't see the longevity of support for D-Cinema gear being any different than say what's been provided for the DTS players since 1993. Thats 18 years now that DTS-6 plyers have been supported.

Mark

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-01-2008, 02:27 PM:

I see the support being even less than 18 years as each "new and improved" projection technology is developed.

But more disturbing is this:

quote:
Sony Corp.'s electronics unit is trying to get theaters to adopt its own digital technology. It is expected to announce on Thursday that it has entered into its own agreement with Sony Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox and Paramount, to provide exhibitors with Sony's own digital projector system, according to people familiar with the matter.

Seems like the powers at Sony will NEVER learn.. remember Betamax? The ONLY reason Sony lost to VHS is because they tried to "go it alone" and initially refused to license the Betamax technology. When they finally woke up and allowed other manufacturers to make Beta machines, it was too late. Mashushita(?) was smart enough to offer VHS manufacturing licenses right out of the gate. Sad too because Beta was superior in both picture and sound.

Toshiba just re-learned that lesson with thier Hi-Def dvd format.

Are all marketing executives/corporate VIP's really that stupid?

Or how about SDDS? Anyone seen BACP or any other maker with an SDDS reader or processor?

Any studio or theatre chain (are you listening AMC?)stupid enough to sign on with Sony will get the royal screwing they deserve. [sex]

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 10-04-2008, 09:22 PM:

I don't know, Tony. Sony was pretty successful with Betacam SP and its descendents, i.e. Digital Betacam (digibeta), HDCAM, and then HDCAM SR.

It's not like there are a lot of other 4k projectors out there right now.

--jhawk

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-05-2008, 12:12 AM:

Jhawk, That's true and the items you mentioned are quite successful and of great quality. But remember that the output of those devices will interface readily with virtually any monitor or display device. And I do believe that Sony is not the only maker of Betacam, digicam and HDcam tape. [Smile]

But as for the projectors...what about 4k? Is it going to be something that ONLY Sony's servers will interface with?

My big issue is that it will become an albatross like Beta home VCRS, and to some extent SDDS, and historically any format or system that tries to be exclusive will fail in the marketplace, with very rare exceptions.

In the article in the original post, if a theatre chain signs on with Sony's proposal, does that mean they can only play digital content from Fox and Paramount? That's how it looks from here, even if the hardware does support other studio's product. I can see a conflict where Fox and/or Paramount places pressure on the exhibitors to play thier product over someone elses.

This kind of thing, and the fact that digital projector technology keeps evolving, meaning that this 4k machine will become obsolete when the 8k machines come out, all make me maintain that the industry is extremely stupid to push for a technology with few tangible benefits(*) when we already have a world-wide standard in 35mm that is more than adequate to the task. The only ones who profits from this are the studios in saving film costs. Everyone else, including the fine projectionists here and the paying public, get the royal [sex]

* And don't give me any lines of crap like Oh, with [dlp]

we can run alternate content at our cinemas like sports events, etc. Any person with common sense will either pay to go to the event or watch it at home, with drinks and food not a problem, rather than trek to a cinema and pay through the nose. [Smile]

Alternate content is NOT going to save the cinema industry. Better quality of films (artistically and maintaing higher standards of FILM projection) along with closing the window to DVD will help bolster the cinema industry. Any thing else is just more [bs]

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 10-05-2008, 09:31 AM:

Umm, I feel like I'm missing something.

Sony's SXRD is a released product.

It accepts multiple DVI-D inputs, multiple HD-SDI inputs, and also component inputs (and probably other stuff, including whatever HDMI variant for DCI, or whatever).

It doesn't seem terribly proprietary.

--jhawk

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-05-2008, 10:29 AM:

John,

The page you linked to is showing the now obsoleted R and S versions of the projectors...the new "T" versions are do out by the end of the year. The "T" version will be HDCP compliant.

If you get the Cinema version (CineAlta)...forget about alternative content. Because LinkEncryption is TIs...Sony's current solution to copy protection is to have the server encased with the projector (as you can see from the CineAlta version)...thereby physically preventing one from connecting to the video stream. Can it be circumvented? I'm sure...but that is their current solution.

While I would discount Sony's staying power in the Cinema market...I wouldn't discount LCoS as a worthy competitor to DLP as an imaging technology...especially in bridging the gap to get cinemas to 4K. If you ever get a chance to do a serious shoot out between 2K and 4K digital projection...as I have....you'd be taken aback by the image improvement that 4K brings. Even a layperson, from the audience perspective, can perceive the increased in resolution, decrease in pixel spacing and such. DLP has a rather largish pixel spacing...it has to allow for the pivoting mirrors. For color...DLP remains King, for now.

Steve

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 10-05-2008, 01:05 PM:

Another thing that the marketing morons have not figured out, is that 3D has come and gone several times already. I think that one of the main reasons, is that most 3D movies are made just to show off 3D effects, and the movie itself sucks. At first people will go to see this, because it's new and different; but will stop going when the 3D new-ness has worn off, and they figure out that there is nothing to the movies themselves. It sounds like to studios are betting a lot on something that is not going to last.

I think they are also thinking about the life of a 35MM projector, not the life of a video projector. Due to the constant march of technology, and the (I believe) shorter life of a video projector, I think the 8 to 10 year pay off is way too long.

This whole thing is greed based. Greed is an emotion. When you make a decision based on emotions, you are not using your intellect. Emotional decisions are always wrong decisions.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-05-2008, 01:31 PM:

Lose the glasses, and 3D will become the norm. With the glasses, it is now, and will forever be, a fad. Louis

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 10-15-2008, 12:43 AM:

quote:
And don't give me any lines of crap like Oh, with [dlp] we can run alternate content at our cinemas like sports events, etc. Any person with common sense will either pay to go to the event or watch it at home, with drinks and food not a problem, rather than trek to a cinema and pay through the nose.

Honestly, Tony, listen to what you're saying. All issues with digital cinema aside, do you seriously mean to advance the notion that a business which is able to offer more to its customers is NOT improving its position in the marketplace? Even without digital, or so much as basic video, projection, we've managed to do pretty well on booking non-theatrical events and presentations.

And you couldn't be more wrong about sporting events, especially for venues that have good food and drink options. I saw the SuperBowl at an AMC location in 1999, and even with the crappy video presentation there was back then, and free admission (which is generally assumed to bring out the cheapskates), that place couldn't keep food and drink orders filled fast enough.

For smaller venues, especially those stiff competition from the big chains like we have here, alternate content can be a VERY lucrative proposition. Digital projection is just one more tool to make theatres attractive to those customers.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-15-2008, 03:36 AM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Mashushita(?) was smart enough to offer VHS manufacturing licenses right out of the gate.

JVC.

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Toshiba just re-learned that lesson with thier Hi-Def dvd format.

Except HD DVD was inferior. It deserved its fate. Toshiba is an extremely sore loser if I ever saw one.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-15-2008, 01:32 PM:

Joe, IIRC Mashushita is (was?) the parent company of JVC. So we're both right. [Big Grin]

As for Toshiba, I never really dug into the specs of either format so I guess that would be part of the reason it died. But remember that VHS IS inferior to Betamax and guess who won? So as far as Joe Consumer is concerned, I don't think the inferior quality killed HiDef DVD.

It's all about marketing...and stupid decisions made by suits who have lost all touch with reality.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-15-2008, 07:17 PM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Mashushita is (was?) the parent company of JVC.

Nope. They are two distinct companies. And, it's "Matsushita." As of October 1, the company was renamed Panasonic Corporation, after its most famous brand which has been around since the mid 1950s.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-15-2008, 07:56 PM:

Actually I attended the very first VHS "Repair Seminar" at Panasonic's Secaucus Headquarters way back in the mid 70's! At that seminar we were told that Sony actually developed the azimuth helical scannig system (VHS) but then abandoned it as to low of quality. MAtsushita who was a giant compared to Sony then(and still is) picked it up and perfected it and marketed it as VHS.

Mark

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-15-2008, 08:30 PM:

I used to sell quite a bit of Panasonic stuff - and Technics too, back when we had an "audio room." It was good product. I have a pair of Technics speakers from the '70s that still sound great.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-15-2008, 11:02 PM:

Yea, the Technics stuff was built really well. I recently sold my RS-1500 Real to Reel deck and got more for it used than I paid for it new!

Mark

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-16-2008, 02:17 AM:

..and those things weren't cheap either when they came out new - about the same for a good Tascam deck.

You definitely came out winning on that note for I remember your RS-1500 .. definitely a good machine for serious audiophiles.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-16-2008, 08:19 AM:

I made a lot of money repairing 1/2 inch open reel video in 1970! Louis

Posted by Clint Koch (Member # 1179) on 10-24-2008, 06:23 PM:

back on topic...

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/extURLs.aspx?id=330

Regal CEO says digital upgrade may be delayed.

Calling it one of the worst credit markets he has seen in years, Regal Entertainment Group CEO Mike Campbell said Thursday a $1 billion industry digital upgrade could be delayed.

"We believe, and JP Morgan believes, that it will get financed once the market returns to something that is reasonably normal," Campbell said. "We're going to continue to put together the pieces behind the scenes to be in a position to react."

The news, which sent shares of the company down nearly 19 percent, came as the Knoxville-based company, which is the nation's largest movie theater operator, reported that profits declined 46 percent in the third quarter.

Net income totaled $31.6 million, or 21 cents per share, compared to last year's third-quarter profit of $58 million, or 36 cents per share. Diluted earnings per share were 21 cents for the third quarter of 2008, compared to 36 cents for third-quarter 2007.

Third-quarter 2008 revenues were up 1 percent to $757.6 million compared to last year.

Digital Cinema Implementation Partners, a joint venture of Regal, Cinemark and AMC Entertainment, was formed to roll out cinema digital technology to theaters nationwide.

On Oct. 1, DCIP announced it had signed long-term digital deployment agreements for digital cinema upgrade with 20th Century Fox, Walt Disney Motion Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Universal Studios and Lions Gate Films. DCIP is currently in discussion with the last two major studios, Sony and Warner Brothers.

"We are excited about the conversion to digital projection because of the incremental margin opportunities provided by 3-D and alternative content," Campbell told analysts in an earnings call.

A key element to Regal's strategy in the next several years, he said, will be "to provide enhanced theatergoing experiences."

That includes 3-D, an expanded base of IMAX theaters and the potential for special events like the Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus concert film last year. A similar concert film featuring the pop singing group Jonas Brothers will debut in early 2009.

Campbell said there are a total of 40 3-D films announced for release over the next several years, and Regal is installing its first digital IMAX system this month.

"We are pleased with the studios' commitment to this premium content, which also allows us to price at a premium compared to our existing 2-D ticket prices," he said.

Regal also benefited from recently acquired Consolidated Theaters, which generated cash flows that were slightly ahead of company expectations.

"We're not recession-proof, but history shows we're as recession-resistant as any business out there," Campbell said. "This is a very difficult market for everybody. At Regal, it's business as usual. We've had a good year as an industry."

Campbell pointed to last year's record third quarter resulting from a string of blockbusters. This quarter, he said, was relatively flat, and up 13 percent to 15 percent as an industry.

Regal also will benefit this year from a 53rd accounting week, which contributed an additional 10.2 million attendees and approximately $40 million of adjusted EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) the last time it occurred, in 2003.

Campbell said he was encouraged by a strong start to the fourth-quarter box office and is optimistic about the upcoming film slate, which includes Disney's "High School Musical 3," "Saw V," "Quantum of Solace" and the next 3-D animated film from Disney, called "Bolt," featuring the voices of John Travolta and Miley Cyrus.

The company also declared a cash dividend of 30 cents.

Regal Entertainment Group operates 6,782 screens in 551 locations in 39 states and the District of Columbia.

Business writer Carly Harrington may be reached at

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-28-2008, 07:38 PM:

quote: Bruce Hansen
I think that one of the main reasons, is that most 3D movies are made just to show off 3D effects, and the movie itself sucks. At first people will go to see this, because it's new and different; but will stop going when the 3D new-ness has worn off, and they figure out that there is nothing to the movies themselves. It sounds like to studios are betting a lot on something that is not going to last.

True - going back to the old two machine interlock when running 3D back in the 1950's? How long did that last even though the mechanical setup in tying the two machines together with either an actual drive shaft or toothed belt syncing the two projectors together was a chore in itself....You still had to wear glasses (anaglyph).

Then, we go into the early 70's and a touch in the early 80's with the return of 3D - only this time getting away from the two machine interlock and having the images doubled in one frame using special lenses, mirrors and the silver screen.....You still had to wear glasses (this time either anaglyph or polarized...)

..and most of these films that were done in 3D were pretty bad - only a small handful managed to be remembered as classics.

Now, we're into the digital age. This time, of the Digital 3D releases, even though with CGI technology,they can still be forgotten.

Once again, IMO is that why Hollyrock is heading towards the digital 3D fad once again is that this time, as did back in the early 50's when TV came out, is to get the people out to the movies-to witness the magic of it all.

Plus, instead of fighting the home medium as the studios did in the past, but this time, the studios are "playing ball" in seeing it as a huge alternatve form of revenue with DVD and BR releases of the same film that can be presented in 3D for home viewing on people's huge 1080i,96sq.in. plasma or LCD monitors, only being reduced to the cheaper anaglyph format for home viewing.

It might be a fad, but it's a fad that must be needed for survival now in this digital age.

As for what Louis mentions on "without glasses" -- about the only way that 3D could work without glasses it to make it rear projection with sections of light shining though layered LCD panels (like lindicular imagery) and each panel having its separate picture information and a form of "icing on top of the cake" on the front of this screen to blend the layers into one image.

For front projection on a flat screen is the weak spot in this 3D world since there is no depth where the sections of light can fall upon where we have to depend on glasses to 'trick' us into seeing depth.

-Monte

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 10-28-2008, 11:14 PM:

Just your usual couple of quick corrections.

Most of the movies shown in the fifties in 3D were shown with polarized dual projection setups. Thus, polarized glasses (transparent grey), not anaglyph (red/blue-or-green).

And although indeed the primary way of home video 3D delivery has been anaglyphic, many movies have been released on DVD on other systems (i.e. field-sequential, to be watched with electronic glasses).

And there is no need to make LCD (or even plasma) TV's to deliver 3D in anaglyphic form only. There are plenty of LCD monitors in the market that are capable of showing 3D in suitable polarized form, thereby needing polarized glasses, (like the Zalman ZM-M220W, i.e.) or field-sequential (mostly DLP retro projection based or high refresh plasma/LCDs) or even autostereoscopically (no need for glasses, like the Philips 42" 3D6C01).

Many 3D home solutions are not developed into fully home-tv friendly products only because there is little/no demand for them until much more 3D media is available and a suitable 3D standard for home content delivery is agreed upon. But Sharp, JVC and many others have shown prototypes for years proving that they are more than ready to hit the market with convenient and effective home 3D solutions.

There is no doubt that the second the 3D content is there and the demand arises, the manufacturers will be ready with large, nice, high resolution 3D flat panel displays that will only need simple, good looking and well designed polarized glasses or, perhaps, even no glasses at all (although no-glasses solutions are not practical for current stereo movie content, really).

[ 10-29-2008, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-29-2008, 01:13 AM:

(Thx for the small corrections....)

Thus, this 3D fad is gonna stay with us for quite the time then - prob why Hollyrock is gonna get the most out of it.

If a device was to be made so we didn't have to use glasses (to get everything in the complete 3D spectrum-we see with two eyes and the projected image used a device that gets away from the flat, 2D screen), even such, it'd be as if looking out a large pane window in a 3rd person concept - not the "knife/sword/fist" image coming out of the screen that 3D was originally designed as.

-Monte

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-29-2008, 08:27 AM:

3D without the glasses? It was called ShowScan...70mm at 60fps...pretty darn impressive and no headaches.

Anyone that doen't think 3D is a fad, again, refuses to look at history and is thus doomed to repeat it. There is nothing wrong in collecting as much money that 3D has to offer this time around but to think it will become mainstream in anything resembling its present form is to ignore history.

Steve

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-29-2008, 09:51 AM:

The biggest thing 3D has going for it this time is that every high-profile animated film in the next few years, along with many other youth-skewing blockbusterish films (Harry Potter and the like), are all going to feature it. Those films will do great business, and the studios will assume the people came out because of the 3D when they would have attended the movies anyway just because of the marquee value.

Therefore we're doomed to be stuck with this 3D nonsense until there are a few 3D flops. Meanwhile, we'll be driving away customers who don't like or don't want 3D.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 10-29-2008, 10:10 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
The biggest thing 3D has going for it this time is that every high-profile animated film in the next few years, along with many other youth-skewing blockbusterish films (Harry Potter and the like), are all going to feature it. Those films will do great business, and the studios will assume the people came out because of the 3D when they would have attended the movies anyway just because of the marquee value.

DING DING DING DING We have a winner. Mike just hit the nail on the head. If you take the 3D away, those movies would do just as well. Real-D and the studios like to put out press releases about how 3D theaters grossed twice as much or whatever the stat of the day is. Of course, most people will see the 3D version if they have the choice. What they are missing though is that the movies would have done just about the same total gross without 3D.

The only way 3D will really help is if the studios announced that 3D would be a movie theater exclusive and only 2D would be available at home. This might get more people to see movies in theaters but obviously this is highly unlikely to happen.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-29-2008, 11:36 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
3D without the glasses? It was called ShowScan...70mm at 60fps...pretty darn impressive and no headaches.

But their pizza sucked [evil]

This lede from Variety about the indies I believe will one day apply to 3D

quote:
It's impossible to look at the box office numbers without concluding the following: The worst thing that ever happened to indie film was that the studios thought it would be good business."

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-29-2008, 12:57 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
If you take the 3D away, those movies would do just as well. Real-D and the studios like to put out press releases about how 3D theaters grossed twice as much or whatever...

..kinda reminds me back in the vinyl days when stereo LP's came out in 1958..Record companies really pushed this new fad called "stereophonic sound"...it took a while to grab on, then it slowly caught up to the repsective mono releases until 10 yrs later, it was the norm for vinyl releases and mono was gone.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-29-2008, 01:32 PM:

Does the Regal delay affect any of the other DCIP member companies? One would expect that it does, given that the financing is being done through DCIP, but then it begs the question of why DCIP put out a press release that essentially said that the deal was done when, in fact, it was not.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-29-2008, 02:16 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Actually I attended the very first VHS "Repair Seminar" at Panasonic's Secaucus Headquarters way back in the mid 70's! At that seminar we were told that Sony actually developed the azimuth helical scannig system (VHS) but then abandoned it as to low of quality. MAtsushita who was a giant compared to Sony then(and still is) picked it up and perfected it and marketed it as VHS.

I don't know who actually invented it, but the first format I saw which used it was the Philips 1700 which was similar to the older 1500 format with the tape running slower. The older tapes could be used in the new machines, a VC-60 tape would give a 130 minute recording time in a 1700, but they couldn't play recordings in the older format. There were even instructions in one of the magazines at the time for converting your 1502 (the last model in the 1500 series) into a 1700 format machine. It wasn't a simple vonversion. A 1700 was the first video recorder I owned, in the '70s. It was replaced by a Panasonic VHS machine in 1991 which I still have and still use from time to time.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 10-29-2008, 10:01 PM:

I believe this or a similar one was the first VCR I owned back in prehistoric times:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/SVR_video_recorder.jpg

then I got some video 2000 model, similar to this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Vr2020.jpg

It was cool how you could flip the tape over, like an audio cassette, and record another tons of hours on the other side (I think some tapes did 8 hours recording total, didn't they?)

Then the VHS vs Beta war passed by and we all had to move on to the winner.

I also believe that the 3D thing, in its current form, will also be somewhat of a fad. It won't be mainstream for a long time, probably. As many here have said before, until all TV's are 3D glasses-free and almost all cameras are 3D no-questions-asked (RED company has some nice stuff), it probably won't really happen for a while.

This time around may be a longer lasting fad as 3D is (or could be) a cheap add-on to just about any digital device, so sure enough some smart pants in hollywood is going to want to make some bucks with SAW 3D, or Journey to the center of your eye II, or re-release a converted Star Wars trilogy, etc.

Anybody remembers IMAX 3D anymore? Great quality, integrated 3D cameras, so-so 3D (a lot of ghosting) and little commercial appeal. The fad lasted long, but it finally perished once more. Main reason? Expensive as hell exhibition costs. We won't talk about production.

There is some bussines to be done, but a lot of it depends on the quick adoption of quality digital 3D by the theaters. At the rate it is happening, and for good reasons, a lot of 3D is going to be cancelled.

At current prices and quality (darkish image, ghosting, color redention, 2k, etc) it likely won't happen and we'll probably be talking only of somewhat limited releases of a handful of titles that would bring EXTRA revenue (i.e. a movie that, w/o 3D, wouldn't really do nearly as much bussiness, like a re-release Star Wars or a Journey to the Center 2, or a SAW 2D part XXI).

Cameron's Avatar will probably be big with or without the 3D. As would most animated releases.

But there is a 3D incentive in "Hooter's Sorority Girls vs the Zombies". Nobody will go to that in 2D, but turn it into "Hooter's Sorority Girls vs the Zombies 3D" with lots of stuff thrown out of the screen and hmmmm .... what fun!

It's clear what this market needs. A round of 4K, great quality, $30k, no-compromise and no-royalties 3D ready projectors NOW. Then Hollywood and exhibitors can make some extra bucks off the stuff. And who knows, maybe it will stick and will initiate a wider transition into 3D.

But only the few and unwise (or forced) will go for a 2K, darkish, royalties crippled, expensive digital 3D only to be superseeded by a $2000 3D tv next year (Hyundai already retails a 46" one in Japan as a TV channel, for the nth time since the 80's, is trying to make a living out of 3D content material).

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-29-2008, 11:03 PM:

Well, Helical scan has been around a very long time. There were Ampex 1" units back when I was just in Elementary School, and man were those recorders LARGE and tempermental! I can remember Cartrivision on display at Sears Roebuck in the early 70's... Ampex also had a 2" helical scan recorder that was color in the early 70's. But VHS was supposedly picked up and perfected by Matsushita Electric, then marketed... the first units sold here were the Model PV-1000 and they cost 1K dollars. They were built like a tank!

Mark

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-30-2008, 03:49 AM:

...and Matsushita Electric's Quasar's VR-1000 - "the Great Time Machine" used helical scan and used a tape cartridge that had stacked reels inside where the tape would be wound around an internal sleeve to be placed over a scanning drum in a helical fashion.

The entire cartridge would drop down in it's carridge where the drum would go inside the end of the cartridge and this sleeve would rotate out of the way for the tape to do the full helical wrap around the drum.

It was call the VX format. System only lasted two years and Matsushita Electric "quietly" introduced it's 2nd "Great Time Machine" - a three speed VHS unit being the VR-1500 .. to eventually phase out the VR-1000.

The VR-1000 was a unit way ahead of it's time, yet came out too quickly. Had good video quality - almost as good as Betamax, but the mechanics of the unit was its downfall -being of the belt driven head that just couldn't keep the head rotation speed constant at 3600RPM.

My friend and I, in spring of 1977, were the first two to purchase these units. Unit had a price tag of $999.95, and a two hour tape was $34.95

..and I still have my machine and tapes..

-Monte

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 10-30-2008, 05:55 AM:

Oh, and in unlikely event that I got someone overly exited about 3D on my previous post, there've been articles on the media on the words of Mr. Lucas a couple of months ago:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/07/film.george.lucas.ap/

The important bit of Lucas declaration about the "3-D" Star Wars trilogies that would indicate they are, if ever, a while off:

"We worked on some, with a company that was developing the technology a few years ago to convert films into 3-D, we worked with them. But the system works great. It's just not very practical"

But if you are still overly excited and need to buy a flat panel, polarized 3D 46" TV for your home while you wait the movie theaters to bring the same to your neighbourhood, and have some $4k lying around, you could give a shot to the Hyundai E465S here, i.e.: http://www.biccamera.com

(BTW, ugly glasses, but they are passive circular polarized - It comes with two, you can buy more separately).

And it seems that bad movies may give 3D a bad name once again. The reviews for Fly Me To The Moon are terrible, and if it weren't for the 3D, it probably wouldn't have even made it to the big screen in the US in spite of children's animated movies usually performing well.

[ 11-01-2008, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-30-2008, 04:06 PM:

Oh Pleeze! Those three films were so bad just in 2-D they certainly DON"T need to enhance just HOW BAD THEY REALLY ARE!

Mark