Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Who is responsible for cinemas going digital

This is topic Who is responsible for cinemas going digital 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=000323

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 03-02-2009, 05:55 AM:

Following is a post I recently did for my blog.
I wanted to mention it here and get some feed back.
Opinions.. etc.

Thanks,
James
--------------------

It has never been harder for a cinema owner to make decisions on how to move forward. Going digital and the VPF (Virtual Print Fee) has taken a lot of the control out of the cinema owners hands. You want to move with the times, but cannot afford to miss out on the VPF. How does a cinema owner deal with this labyrinth?

A recent article on Broadcast TV Faces Struggle to Stay Viable Its a great read, I recommend it.

A point to take from this is that larger productions like ER and friends are no longer viable for that industry. In reality we should consider how this will also be effecting the life blood of the cinema industry. The film makers.

Going digital is to the advantage of the distributors. That is what the VPF is all about. However, the world moves forward and new issues are surfacing. The decision to go digital is no longer a matter of the distributors saving/making more money. We need to consider some new developments.

Production viability

In the article I mention above there is an indication that the production of premium content is becoming harder for TV. This indicates that the big and popular blockbusters, the life blood of cinema exhibition, are also likely to be less viable.

Going digital, at some stage, is going to reduce film distribution costs and in the long run let film makers make better films with less money. In effect making them more viable. Feeding us good premium content that patrons will enjoy coming out to see again and again.

Going Green

Every year thousands of used polyester films are dumped into land fill. These films need large amounts of water and electricity to make while also introducing unfriendly chemicals into the environment. If the cinema industry is to move forward with the times it needs to turn over a new GREEN leaf and move to digital. The use of reusable hard drives could be a great thing to do for our planet.

No excuse

By no means do I make an excuse for the distributors to pay less on a VPF. In reality I do not think they have done enough. However, it is no longer time to sit on the fence to see what happens. If the opportunities arrives it is time to move forward and embrace digital.

P.S. This is taken from the blog www.cinetechgeek.com on the film industry.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 03-02-2009, 09:10 AM:

I only have one thing to say, if distributors want to listen.

Put out a straight, nice, generous VPF open policy for, say, 10 years.

Watch the industry convert.

Then, 10 years later, it's their turn to start reaping profits from the digital era.

Until they do that, I see NO incentive for cinemas to switch.

Now, for new opening houses, it's a tough choice indeed.

I would certainly want to put at least 1 digital 3D screen in a new house. But I'm not sure if I would want to go 90% digital or only 10% digital. Regardless, I would still need to leave at least 1 screen 35mm for the time being, so not much savings yet for me in labor etc.

A few years from now, who knows.

It's distributor's pennywise attitude and studio's controlling urge that's leaving the whole industry/digital thing in the mess it's been in for the past 10 years.

And hardware manufacturers are not far behind, tooling around factories for many models just to esqueeze the extra buck. On their defense, they have their hands tied by Texas Instruments and need to recoup the $20million TI made them Pony up for the privilege of having a DLP chip cut to size.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-02-2009, 09:27 AM:

Does anyone have a real numbers on the average lifespan of a movie theatre? I'm sure if varies by market size, but not sure in which direction. These numbers may be a determining factor in the conversion to video scenario.

If the average lifespan of a theatre is 15 years how much sense does it make to "convert" a theatre? For new builds it may make sense to got all digital, especially if the planned obsolesence of the videos more or less corresponds with that of the theatre.

Then we would need to figure out how long it would take for most theatres to be replaced for the digital critical mass to be achieved.

Of course, working at a single screen, non-profit art house that has been in continuous operation since 1941, my results may vary;>

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-02-2009, 10:02 AM:

It's all about the fundamentals, which I think are being ignored. Management at movie studios don't want to face the reality of just how vital commercial movie theaters are to their business. Without the movie theaters, all movie studios would be reduced to nothing more than glorified TV production companies.

Anti-trust legislation broke movie theaters and movie studios apart from each other decades ago. Since then the two sides have been in a tug of war battle which the movie studio side of the business has been winning, but only in a manner that could be self-destructive.

Whether it is legal or not, movie studios need to be working very closely with exhibitors on maintaining the financial health of the movie theater industry, as well as taking a more active role with improving the quality of the movie-going experience. Serious quality control problems are present, even with digital cinema installed. It's going to take more people "working in the trenches" to maintain good presentation quality.

TV broadcasting is in its own state of trouble. We have too many networks spreading viewing audiences way too thin. Not enough viewers are sticking with a certain channel to bring about the kind of ad money it takes for a network to truly do well. DVRs have had a negative impact on ad revenue. The Internet is adding to the time-shifting phenomenon. As Internet speeds improve, ratings numbers for the networks will decline much further.

These are issues movie studios must consider for the long term if they want to keep eroding the foot hold of commercial movie theaters for their own short term stock gains. Movie theaters provide a unique, exclusive showcase for the movie studios' products. That same high production cost product will have an increasingly tough time competing for attention in the realm of home video.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-02-2009, 12:53 PM:

quote: James B Gardiner
Every year thousands of used polyester films are dumped into land fill.

I think this is an exaggeration. Film is routinely shredded and recycled into all sorts of things.

I agree with this:

quote: Julio Roberto
Put out a straight, nice, generous VPF open policy for, say, 10 years.

Watch the industry convert.

If the other studios would quit farting around and follow Paramount's lead on this, it would be a done deal. I would be calling my dealer today.

The huge gamble is that in 10 or 15 years, when the current equipment is beyond obsolete, newer equipment will have dropped in price such that the small-towner can afford it. That VPF-free scenario is the scariest part of the future for small towns from my standpoint.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 03-02-2009, 02:26 PM:

Small towns will have a tough time in the ditial era. With 3D and 4K and all that somewhere in the horizon.

Hopefully, DCI will approve inexpensive equipment in the future that can suffice.

In spite what people say, I find even today's projectors in the $15K realm (almost) good enough for the purpose (i.e. close enough to 2K DCI for the lack of anything better). They are just not made with brightness large enough (but almost) because it's not needed for their market, but they could be. Or you could just put two of them together.

So, hopefully, $10K projectors of 10 years from now will totally match DCI projectors of today in quality and light levels. And hopefully studios won't insist in 4K by them and allow cheap 2K's for the smaller venues (most likely).

DCI "mandates" TODAY that all DCI servers support 2K 24fps, 2K 48fps and 4K 24fps. They also mandate projectors to be able to receive all these signals and project at least 2K 12bits 2000:1 14fl out of them.

As we know, most equipment today is not fully DCI (specially in 3D, but close enough) and they are just allowing it to be used until final specs are done and manufacturers get their acts together and put products out of the "beta" stage many of them are still in (very soon).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-02-2009, 03:23 PM:

quote: Julio Roberto
Hopefully, DCI will approve inexpensive equipment in the future that can suffice.

Uh, I'm not looking for something that will "suffice." It's got to be good. Obviously we can't always afford the latest and greatest and top of the line, but I'm not going to compromise the presentation with cheap crap either. People in a small town have just as much appreciation for a good presentation as they do in the big city.

I know that used equipment is thought by some to be the savior for small markets, but I don't like the thought of buying recycled equipment that's been run 6 shows a day for years. We've never had any used equipment in our booth (except for our film cleaner) and I would hate to be forced into it by economic concerns.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-02-2009, 07:09 PM:

I.E. if you gonna spend money on stuff..you want it to LAST. Mike has booth equipment that will last longer than all of us will...makes you wonder if dCinema can match that..

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 03-02-2009, 10:57 PM:

the difficlulty in obtain limited release arthouse prints made us set up one cinema in digital . we have never looked back , we can now easily obtain digital prints of "hard to get" movies and run them while they are still fresh.

Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 03-02-2009, 11:23 PM:

quote: James B Gardiner
Every year thousands of used polyester films are dumped into land fill.

Not totally true...Kodak recycles 35mm prints through their FPC subsidiary. According to the late John Pytlak, polyester movie film base is made from the exact same material that goes into most soft drink bottles, PETE (#1). PETE can be recycled for use in a wide range of products; for example, if you have a polyester fleece jacket or a recycled polyester carry bag, there's a possibility it may have been a 35mm print in an earlier lifetime. [Smile]

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 03-03-2009, 04:03 AM:

Just because you can recycle polyester film does not mean it is getting recycled.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-03-2009, 09:02 PM:

quote: James B Gardiner
Every year thousands of used polyester films are dumped into land fill.

I can say that is true of trailers. Most theaters just throw them in the garbage can. They should really be recycling them. This is definately not true of feature films that come to the end of their life over here though. It may however be the case in other countries. Many films also land in collectors hands.

Mark

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 03-04-2009, 06:13 PM:

All very commendable going down the green route. I just wonder how often the new DLP's will need replacing, up-grading and what mercury, arsenic, heavy metal content these machines have. A good, well maintained 35mm will last at least half a century...thoughts?

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 03-04-2009, 07:17 PM:

Since you asked, DLP manufacturing over the life of the equipment, is not too bad. Film is less green, for sure.

Say a wafer with 200 chips and each capable of projecting 1 "print" a week for 10 years) ...

Each DLP engine (3 chips) would probably "save" some 500 prints (and trailers, etc).

No "mercury" or too weird stuff into semiconductors or mems (micro electro-mechanical systems). It uses quite some amount of energy, but not overly toxic stuff. Unless it's GaAs chips [Wink]

(used, but not too often, in some high-frequency applications)

Going "green" may seem like a red herring for film's demise, but it's actually a sensible position as an added "plus". Film already suffered the prohibition of several chemicals, such as the tetrachloroethylene used in wet gate telecine transfers for years, i.e.

But I don't think film industry impacts the enviroment so much that the change should be driven because of that.

Funny thing is, I have the feeling that if a 4K resolution 25,000 lumens projector existed for $20,000 with a 5 years guarantee, we wouldn't even been arguing over exhibition prints in 35mm which have originated as 4K (or even 2K) digital intermediates or increasingly straight digital adquisition (there are rumors of a camera with 23 stops of latitude, leaving film in the dust). Few would defend "film" (for this application), as it would pose virtually no advantages then and it would be a hassle and an enviromental nuisance.