Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: QuVIS closes doors, 29 unemployed

This is topic QuVIS closes doors, 29 unemployed 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=000285

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 12-09-2008, 07:52 AM:

QuVIS closes doors, 29 unemployed

By Michael Hooper

The Capital-Journal

Published Monday, December 8, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. CST

QuVIS, a Topeka technology company that tried to woo Hollywood into using its digital cinema technology, has closed its doors, the company’s founder said today.

QuVIS laid off 29 employees Dec. 1, said Kenbe Goertzen, QuVIS president and founder.

The company, which has 1,900 shareholders, was struggling under $40 million in debt and insufficient revenue. It struggled to meet payroll during its last three months. The company makes digital movie players and editing equipment.

Goertzen was sitting alone in front of a laptop over the noon hour today at 2921 S.W. Wanamaker Drive. He said he was communicating with secured note holders and shareholders, trying to find a way to reorganize.

“I’m providing volunteer labor to see if anyone wants to reorganize in any way,” Goertzen said. “It is complicated and difficult at this 11th hour. We were still getting good reviews on our products, but we have limited maneuvering with no funds.”

He said it’s possible the company may enter bankruptcy. He said the assets of the company were owned by secured note holders and some shareholders.

He said assets were “intellectual property, furniture, inventory, receivables, name, blue sky -- anything could be considered an asset under a secured note.”

In the early 2000s, QuVIS, marketed itself to Hollywood and was able to digitize several movies, such as “Toy Story II,” “Bounce,” “Shrek” and “The Perfect Storm.”

But Hollywood wasn’t ready to switch to QuVIS' digital format.

“A lot of eggs were put in the digital cinema basket, but that came to a screeching halt,” Goertzen said.

QuVIS started to diversify two years ago, making deals with government agencies such as NASA and the Department of Defense.

Goertzen founded QuVIS in 1994 in Topeka after working for another technology company called NewTek, which moved to San Antonio, Texas, from Topeka.

Goertzen acknowledged timing was not good to raise money for QuVIS because of the meltdown in the financial markets.

“Whether or not we can get out of here has yet to be seen,” Goertzen said.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-09-2008, 08:44 AM:

It doesn't surprise me at all... the little companies will never survive in this biz... I'll predict that the next one to bite the dust will be Qube...

Mark

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 12-09-2008, 06:00 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I'll predict that the next one to bite the dust will be Qube...

...Or may it be Sony as today they have announced in the Press they are cutting up to 16,000 Jobs Worldwide and that must see some cut backs in their D-Cinema Products.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-21-2008, 12:14 PM:

quote: Bevan Wright
Goertzen founded QuVIS in 1994 in Topeka after working for another technology company called NewTek

...makers of the Video Toaster, which was built around the Commodore Amiga computer.

Some time after Commodore folded, NewTek was still marketing Video Toaster with what must have been, I suppose, NOS Amigas. I must admit, however, it did pretty cool stuff in its day (the last time I saw one was in 1991). I was impressed.

The only things that kept me from buying a Video Toaster was the Amiga base (the bottom was just waiting to fall out, and it eventually did) and the name. I always thought "Video Toaster" was a stupid name, since toasting was probably the last thing you'd want to do with your work.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-21-2008, 05:25 PM:

The current version of Video Toaster (5.2) requires a dual core or dual CPU PC running Win XP Pro SP2. The system also needs an open 66MHz PCI slot for the VT5 card and a Firewire card or port for DV and HDV capture.

Lightwave 3D is still the most popular product from NewTek and continues to be used on a lot of visual effects for TV series and motion pictures. Lightwave competes with Softimage, Studio 3D Max and Maya for professional 3D use.

Posted by Kevin Fairchild (Member # 4985) on 12-24-2008, 05:28 PM:

Has anyone ever used the QuVis Wraptor program?

I downloaded the trial about a month ago. I downloaded some 1080p trailers off of Apple's website and converted them to the DCP file for our server. The image looked great on screen.

And since QuVis closed, would it be considered stealing if I used someone else's serial number to unlock the whole program? How can you steal from a company that doesn't exist anymore?

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-24-2008, 06:02 PM:

When a company goes out of business, its software does not automatically go into the Public Domain. It is likely that someone will pick up the intellectual property rights from Quvis, and either sell it to the public, or just hold on to it for reasons of their choosing.

So, you are most likely violating the terms of the software license by using another serial number.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 12-25-2008, 06:56 AM:

Only Cinema manufacturers who invested in D-Cinema will survice if D-Cinema survives!

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 12-25-2008, 08:07 AM:

So by that logic NEC will go out of business [Roll Eyes]

but then again Digital Cinema is somewhere in NEC's 4 billion in sales per year.
Our past dealings with Quvis where good and one of my former techs loved their hardware. We where about to try out Wraptor for our Final Cut system since we are receiving more calls uregarding DCP files.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 12-25-2008, 09:32 AM:

what happens with units already out there? support?? Hello D-Cinema lovers with the two year obsolete technology. It won't last. Period

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-25-2008, 11:58 AM:

Demetrus... The buisness world is just like mother nature... allowing only the fittest ones to survive. It's doubtful that NEC will disappear but I could certainly see them parting ways with Strong, in fact there already exists NEC Direct which doesn't put you out of the ring with the kooks in Omaha. But given the "crappy quality after service" I'd bet that BARCO either shuts down here in the States or undergoes a major re-organization at some point. Folks in Europe tell me they are a first class company... not at all like they are over here... At any rate Christie has room at the plant in Canada for at least a half dozen more DLP production lines... so they could probably take up the slack of the other two companies if they both disappeared!!

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 12-25-2008, 04:09 PM:

From my point of view, its the US market and the European market. US market will stick with NEC and Christie and the European Market with Barco, Kinoton, Cinemeccanica. D-Cinema will only be good enough when they are able to do a full 360 degree interactive movie shootout and perform it in a full 360 degree theater. I don't understand why people just don't get it that the equipment they buy today is obsolete tomorrow. It's nothing like the 35mm projectors. D-Cinema projector are obsolete in a matter of mostly five years time just like computers.
Demetris

Posted by Kevin Fairchild (Member # 4985) on 12-25-2008, 05:29 PM:

quote: Demetris Thoupis
It's nothing like the 35mm projectors. D-Cinema projector are obsolete in a matter of mostly five years time just like computers.
Demetris

Are you saying that new 35mm projectors won't be obsolete in five years? True, I bet that there will be new versions of digital projectors by then that out-perform today's digital projectors, but those same new projectors will be able to out-perform 35mm.

The truth is, all 35mm projectors are becoming obsolete. Yes, I know that a properly 35mm projection can look superior to 2K. (But that's another story)

Regardless, The conversion to digital is happening.

Kevin

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-25-2008, 11:02 PM:

Hey Kevin...wanna wager on that one?

Just what new digital projectors do you see on the horizon? And just what manner do you think they will exceed current models?

As for film projectors being obsolete...DCinema...even after nearly 10-years, of which the last 5 have been at the 2K level...have not made a statistical impact on the installed base of cinemas in either the world or the USA.

DCinema is proceeding, for sure, but at a snail's pace and for many, though not all, for the sake of the current 3D fad.

The bottom line is, DCinema doesn't sell one extra ticket to this industry and it costs more to buy and more to keep...business wise, it is a money loser...though it certainly has been getting less expensive. The biggest invester in DCinema is Access IT and their financials are just plain scary. I also maintain that DLP is not as secure a technology as many hope it to be...it has been drawing red ink since its inception and DCinema won't change that...what if, this time next year, DLP tanks? Would you change your prediction?

Steve

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 12-26-2008, 01:59 AM:

Kevin I totally dissagree. 35mm has been here more than 100 years. 70 year old projectors still are being used and they will be used for many years to come. You cannot beat precision mechanics with boards! It simply cannot be done. Why don't you get that paying that huge amount of money for D-Cinema projectors offers you absolutely nothing (besides maybe the 3D which is a hype now but who knows in 2 years). People should search the market and see, does it worth paying about 50K or more per screen? Instead of that, cinema owners could be sending that 50K to countries which really need them and have true problems like hunger e.t.c. But NO. Lets see how much we can be the FIRST to install something that in 2 years WILL BE obsolete. It's statisticaly proven dozens of times with computers and home theater projectors. D-Cinema projectors are being obsolete the day you buy them. 35mm projectors are not. I mean honestly, why would anyone want to buy a 50K projector to have the same quality of image he can get via a blue ray DVD player! It's 2K after all isn't it?? Or perhaps I am missing the true point behind D-Cinema. Let's get all the exhibitors money!!! I remember in Cine Expo a few years ago that someone mentioned during the lecture that D-Cinema is good enough or even better than todays 35mm (have in mind tha 2K had been there for at least 1 year before). How can a solution, which the same resolution be actually better than last year!? Who are they fooling? The bottom line is: Does D-Cinema get be the extra tickets in the theater or not? Try answering that.
Demetris

Posted by Kevin Fairchild (Member # 4985) on 12-26-2008, 03:09 PM:

Demetris,
I agree with you when you say "You cannot beat precision mechanics with boards!" Yes many 70 year old projectors run great, but how about the prints? How many mass produced prints are made with "precision?"

Plus, when you have other projectionists at the theater that scratch [Eek!]

prints, digital just works better (here at least.)

People seem to notice the difference so far, we have been getting compliments on how great the picture looks, espeially how vibrant the colors are.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-26-2008, 05:21 PM:

Ironically, color is one area where d-cinema is way behind the curve compared to 35mm. Maybe these are the same people who talk about how good computer-generated posters look when they have huge in-your-face pixelation because somebody blew up a 72dpi image to 300dpi.

(Maybe your d-cinema projector is a lot brighter than your 35mm projector?)

--jhawk

Posted by Kevin Fairchild (Member # 4985) on 12-26-2008, 05:49 PM:

Really? I thought that colors were supposed to be much superior on digital.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't a 3-chip DLP system supposed to have no fewer than 35 trillion colors?

(But yes, our digital screens are using a brighter bulb)

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-26-2008, 05:58 PM:

quote: Kevin Fairchild
Plus, when you have other projectionists at the theater that scratch prints, digital just works better (here at least.)

You hit the nail on the head! It works better here too! Thats why the majority of 1st run screens in the Salt Lake City area are now digital, close to 70 I believe. I'd wager that less than 10% of the film locations I service really care about print handling and proper care of both film and equipment... let alone would they know it or not if the old mechanical projector is even working properly to be able to report trouble. This is much more the reason why film has gotten bad... the 35mm prints I saw running of "Day The Earth Stood Still" looked excellent to say the least... much better than the digital counterpart... however the 2K digital counterpart will ALWAYS stay looking like new, while the filum condition will quickly deteriorate, sometimes in just a matter of a half dozen showings at some locations.

As for the color I believe that JPEG 2000 is on a par with the color spectrum that Eastman Negative film can resolve... Lets not forget that film is also limited in its color resolving ability. Digital just can't do the deep blacks that film can... yet!

Mark

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-26-2008, 06:07 PM:

My understanding is that there are two facets of the color issue that apply to d-cinema versus film. Perhaps some of our colorimetry experts will weigh in...

The first is that the ability of digital projectors to reproduce color is more limited. In fact, you might see colors that look more vibrant simply because they are not the correct colors. On the other hand, you will see more consistent colors on a single projector throughout a feature. Various people complain on this site with some regularity about the inconsistency of the labs' color work from one reel to the next; not an issue with d-cinema. (And to be honest, whether the projector in screen 3 has the same colorimetry as screen 17 is less of a big deal. It is the transitions that are the most objectionable).

The second is compression -- one of the first places compression gets applied is in color space. So when you see a gradient or blend from one color to another, look closely and see if you can discern transitions or steps in the color. Look at, for example, a blue sky.

Maybe slightly different but related is contrast. It's tough for d-cinema to get the same contrast ratio that film can produce, and that leads to an (effective) narrowing of the color space.

log2(35 trillion) is 45 bits...that doesn't sound right to me. DCI specs 12-bit color (that means each red, green, or blue pixel has a value between 0 and 4095). I'm out of my depth here, but I think a good d-cinema projector will have trouble reproducing that 12-bit color definitively.

--jhawk

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 12-26-2008, 07:26 PM:

In a perfect world the Digital Cinema DMD chips with proper processing should handle 16 bit. 12 is good, especially looking a 8 and 10 bit displays. Color space of digital is not as wide as a perfect 35mm print; you can see the difference on a file running on a 3 chip projector, cyan ( blue-green ) is less precise. I recently ran a digital press screening with forest foliage and foggy blue skys which was knocking on the cyan end point too much.
What impress many people with digital is the edge to edge illumination ( due to the integrator rod optics ) which make the image seem more colorful and brighter than a typical 35mm cinema projector with a hot spot.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-27-2008, 12:47 AM:

What is with this hot-spot myth? My film systems are no less even in illumination than my digitals...sheesh...Sure, you CAN get hot-spots on film...that is normally due to lamphouse and lens choice. Whereas the digital folks have the luxuary, for now, of having a small enough platform (what do we have, 1.2" and .98" chips designed from a common supplier, regardless of who's projector it is in) to have an easier time to design it all, you should be able to have nearly identical illumination characteristics, film or digital.

As to color...film's color space is notably larger than DCinema's (there are several CIE charts out there that show the various color spaces). It is true, the color of DCinema is more like a technicolor type color...there is a certain phoniness to it at the same time it is very vibrant. Then again, a typical release print's color has a certain dullness to it.

Color uniformity from reel-to-reel...DCinema wins, particularly in a release print situation.

As to print degredation...while yes it is possible to have it degrade in a few shows...there is no inherent reason for it...there are many venues that do not suffer such degredation. I too believe, if you sucked at film cinema...you will end up sucking at DCinema. Caring is not technology dependant.

Steve

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 12-27-2008, 02:30 AM:

As a myth buster most lamphouse systems have a 75 to 80% bright spot which can be defocus to flat with in limits based on lens / optical bench / size of bulb. I have set up plenty of screening and grading rooms which are flat....if you throw enough money at 35mm projection systems you will get better results. How many cinema lamphouses has glass compound reflectors or integrated xenon lamp module that Kodak had patented a system?

CIE color space rendering for D Cinema does seem to exhibit Technicolor / Kodachrome bias on much of the product. Using LUT programs to set up the limits for display are becoming more common.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-27-2008, 09:47 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Sure, you CAN get hot-spots on film...that is normally due to lamphouse and lens choice.

Steve,
I absolutely disagree! I believe you'd find most lamphouse/ projector/lens combos are capable of at least meeting SMPTE illumination specs... some screen installations are poorly designed and or installed properly but the main culprit is due to the many booth operators who just don't know how to properly replace a lamp... not that doing so is necessarily easy! A few lamphouses do make this job easy but most do not. There are some lamphouses with clumsy adjusters such as the Super Lum-Ex or Super 80. Old Christies with cracked or broken nylon gears and many consoles that have their adjustments more or less hidden... or you need a three foot long allen wrench slid in past AC wiring to get to an adjuster. Myself, I blame most of the manufacturers for the uneven light on the screens across America because of the difficulties involved for a novice during lamp replacement.

As for digital... it certainbly doesn't cure this woe 100%, especially in a projector like the BARCO DP-100 where replacing a lamp can be a daunting task for even a trained novice but a couple of manufacturers, NEC and Christie have made very large strides towards making lamp replacement much easier and adjustment highly accurate. Is digital illumination flatter??? I'd say that except for a handful of screens such as Steve's that do receive proper maintainance... yes, most digital screens have much flatter illumination than the 35mm predecessor that was previously installed. I also find the light much more pleasant light to look at.

quote: Richard Fowler
CIE color space rendering for D Cinema does seem to exhibit Technicolor / Kodachrome bias on much of the product. Using LUT programs to set up the limits for display are becoming more common.

Richard,

Thats one advantage of the use of todays Digital Intermediates. The final color mix is determined by the colorist, director, D.P., it has nothing to do with being digital or film. I can remember many a film with highly saturated colors and there exist many a digital release with muted colors. You can go either way with either system. One thing I will note here is that D-Cinema is far more capable of presenting the look of I.B. Technicolor properly (excepting the blacks) than any I.B. transfer to Eastman stock will render. There are still colors that Eastman can't do such as certain greens, yellows and violets that I.B. was fully capable of and D-Cinema has no trouble reproducing them.

Mark

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 03-10-2009, 11:14 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I'll predict that the next one to bite the dust will be Qube...

What do you base that on, Mark? I ask because it looks like Qube will be our company's server choice for our first three screens of digital.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-10-2009, 11:28 PM:

The cube is a excellent server and there encoders are used in many post production houses so they will probably hang in for a long time