Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: dforced?

This is topic dforced? 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=000349

Posted by Rod Cornelison (Member # 5202) on 04-09-2009, 05:48 PM:

Are the smaller chains being forced to go dcinema or what?I have been told that showwest was looking for the coffin nail for 35mm! what a sad time!!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-09-2009, 06:02 PM:

Nobodys being "dforced" to do anything. The digital thing is the same as when silent converted to sound. Those who didn't convert would eventually close. The same thing will happen this time. Except this time there's a whole lot more money at stake (for everyone except the studios, that is).

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-09-2009, 06:40 PM:

Luckilly, my small chain has discount locations that still do very well in the 35mm market - we have no digitial even though the market around us has digital/3D capabilities.

Digital, for now, will be an option (not like sound where it was a either live/or die situation) for anyone who wants to play the "digital game", for there will always be 35mm film that will be struck.

Studios has to realize that there are still tonnage upon tonnage of cinemas nationwide and in the world that can't afford digital at the present price and moment.

Thus, if they still want their product to hit every screen available, there will still be 35mm prints struck.

It would be major self destruction for the studios if they went to a digital only releases in this generation and generations to come.

Not to pick on Mike, but he has a small cinema there in Montana - and does very well with it. Would he benefit if he changed over to digital, and if he did, how long would the benefit last..that we just don't know...

Going to digital, in some markets, would be a bit risky.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-09-2009, 07:04 PM:

MOnte - I don't doubt that film will still be available...the question is, how much film? When all of the big chains are digital, and there are only a handful of 35mm houses left and none of them are big moneymakers for the studios, will we go back to the day of having to wait months for a print?

Here in Forsyth, when I was a teenager it was commonly over a year before a blockbuster movie would play here (and you can imagine the condition of THOSE prints!). I don't think things will go that far, but if it gets down to the point of having one or two prints to service all the indies in Montana (and there are a bunch of us) we would be in real trouble. People here want to see those blockbusters right now just like their big city counterparts.

Posted by James. R. Deeter (Member # 837) on 04-09-2009, 07:13 PM:

I think you will see a day when if you need a 35mm print, you will have to guarantee the cost of the print on top of your film settlement.....

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-09-2009, 08:27 PM:

James; you already have to guarantee that. "No print available. . . "

I don't suggest you be the last to go video. I do suggest you not be in the first 60%. More later. Louis

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-09-2009, 10:08 PM:

Mike, the difference here is that with sound...you were offering something silent didn't. That is not the case with digital/film. There is no up-side to what digital can do versus film, from an exhibitor's standpoint.

It is really up to the exhibitors to decide what they want to do.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-09-2009, 10:48 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
There is no up-side to what digital can do versus film, from an exhibitor's standpoint.

Oh Steve... Come on...

A: Out here digital has made such an improvement in presentation that it's almost stupendous. I can actually go to movies locally again and do not have to wait till I'm on the road at some nice theater we installed someplace to see the latest film. It can make a difference and it takes ALOT LESS effort that it does with film to get really good results.

B: It can cut back on labor expenses drastically without cutting back presentation quality. Most if not all servers can operate completely automatically.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-10-2009, 08:43 AM:

Sorry Mark...you keep preaching, drinking the Kool-aid and such...but all your yapping doesn't make it true. Enjoy lowering your standards.

Steve

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-11-2009, 06:49 AM:

I don't know what "local conditions" are where Mark is, but here in Louisville presentation is pretty good to excellent. Even the bad guys aren't too bad. I have not seen film damage since the 1970's. Most theatres have 16+ ft/lm. and Ultra style lenses. Dolby Digital is the norm for first run.

Is D Cinema an improvement? Hard to say, but it seems to be dependent upon who did the set up and what the title is. I would say on average, film still has a slight edge. Louis

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 04-11-2009, 07:17 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Luckilly, my small chain has discount locations that still do very well in the 35mm market - we have no digitial even though the market around us has digital/3D capabilities.

I fear that studios will make 35mm harder to get and more expensive to obtain as the large chains convert.

While it's "niche" right now, it's only a matter of time before film presentation is abandoned by the studios due to the decrease in cost when enough exhibitors have converted.

Our independent theaters will be left in the dark when that day comes, unless we find a way to make the transition profitable.

I believe independent theaters have been a thorn in the side of the majors for a while, and digital gives them a valuable tool to do us in for good unless we find a way to go with the flow...

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-11-2009, 11:10 AM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
Is D Cinema an improvement? Hard to say, but it seems to be dependent upon who did the set up and what the title is. I would say on average, film still has a slight edge.

I pretty much agree Louis but it's not who did the setup and what the title is but who is actually running the booth. In this area where the booth mongers are not paid anything they get know nothings working the booths and most don't even know what a surround channel is let alone a motor brush in a plattter motor. We even had one location where the booth operator(ok, iddiot) didn't know what or where the projector motor was on a 4-Star sound head. So very definately yes... Digital has drastically improved things around here. It has eliminated those types of booth people for the most part. No more scratched prints either. Lower standards...? Hardly! The average digital print looks better as per color balance, isn't scratched, and is far steadier then the average film print! The sound is actually far superior to film! Lower rez... sure... but a very logical trade off for having everything else right. We now have higher standard presentations at most digital locations than we ever had since there were real projectionists on duty.

Edit: All in all digital's slightly lower rez is very definately a decent trade off for poorly matched reels,bad color, shaky images, scratches and dirt.

Mark

[ 04-11-2009, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gulbrandsen ]

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 04-11-2009, 12:08 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Not to pick on Mike, but he has a small cinema there in Montana - and does very well with it. Would he benefit if he changed over to digital, and if he did, how long would the benefit last..that we just don't know...

I often think about Mike's situation when I read a lot of what Mark Gulbrandsen writes in many threads on this forum. I don't doubt Mark - in fact I believe what he says about the "booth mongers". All of us understand that. However, back to Mike, given his geographic location it might actually benefit him to convert to digital.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a single screen house in rural Montana is a perfect example of using technology to cut out shipping costs over hundreds of miles from a depot. It is not an upstart, but a landmark operation with expert ownership. Perhaps setting aside 15% of the yearly net income (just an example) will help build a slush fund in the event digital picks up steam. Again, I'm not a businessman, but this is something I would consider doing if I owned a theater - if anything to lessen the blow digital will bring to the bottom line.

Now I also believe in this:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
I don't know what "local conditions" are where Mark is, but here in Louisville presentation is pretty good to excellent. Even the bad guys aren't too bad. I have not seen film damage since the 1970's. Most theatres have 16+ ft/lm. and Ultra style lenses. Dolby Digital is the norm for first run.

Where I'm at "rural" means much closer to the city than many of us country boys want to admit. I think it might be more wise for many of us to stay with film. Our shipping distances are less, our customer travel distances are less, and lets face it - most of the fools in the seats think they're already watching digital to begin with.

Point is nothing beats film done right. And so I too fear:

quote: Anslem Rayburn
Our independent theaters will be left in the dark when that day comes, unless we find a way to make the transition profitable.

I just hate to see all these great theaters go out of business because changing technology willed it. As one customer commented to me, "Its only a movie ... nothing more."

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-11-2009, 12:40 PM:

quote: Aaron Mehocic
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a single screen house in rural Montana is a perfect example of using technology to cut out shipping costs over hundreds of miles from a depot.

Shipping charges aren't really the big concern - TES films cost the same to ship to anybody, and Deluxe uses UPS to ship from Denver so it's not too bad either. We're lucky in that we're only a two-day ship from Denver.

The biggest issue for us, is print availability. That's always been the case. The second biggest issue is required play time. If the studios would get off of the "two week minimum" for smaller towns and let us play movies for one week, we would love to open a brand new film every single week and happily pay the higher film rent to do it. But as it is, we have to wait until "later" for many films because they wouldn't have the legs to carry a two-week run for us. (Or three weeks in some cases.)

I still fail to see why they can't allow two small theatres in neighboring towns play a film a week each. The studio's screen count would be the same, and the money generated by that print would almost double.

This is where digital could really help us out. As much as I love film, if the satellite delivery system gets affordable (thereby reducing the print and shipping costs to near zero) and the studios would hold still for shorter play times, we'd be digital as quickly as possible.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-11-2009, 02:01 PM:

How many feature films are actually being delivered to theaters via satellite? Our local Carmike theater has a big dish on its roof, but I think they're still getting feature films on large capacity hard discs.

Are the compression levels higher on movies that are downloaded via satellite? It would seem like it would take a long time to download movie files in excess of 200GB from a satellite.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-11-2009, 02:37 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
How many feature films are actually being delivered to theaters via satellite?

During our last theatre convention we toured the booth at one of the Megaplex theatres in Salt Lake City (a 16-plex) and I *believe* they told us all of their movies come in by satellite. Mark G. can verify if that's true or not. That booth was IMPRESSIVE.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 04-11-2009, 03:04 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
How many feature films are actually being delivered to theaters via satellite?

I have not checked the actual count but pretty much any film handled by Cinedigm is delivered via their satellite system to their customers - we still get HDs for Deluxe and Technicolor sourced content. I beleive TDC locations probably have most of Technicolor sourced content delivered with Deluxe and Cinedigm sending HDs.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Are the compression levels higher on movies that are downloaded via satellite?

The resulting file from a satellite transfer is the same as what would be on a HD.

From what I understand the satellite transfers take many hours - it is not just a factor of the raw bandwidth that affects how long it takes, but the transfer has to result in a file with no errors.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 04-11-2009, 03:14 PM:

And the error rate from this kind of transfer is ...?

I'm thinking this might be a big ass problem for digital multiplexes where anywhere from 4 - 6 films are traded out every Thursday night.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-11-2009, 03:26 PM:

Stupid digital questions:

On trailers. When a feature film comes with trailers "in the digital can," do those trailers stay in the projector to be played later? Or do they "erase" when the feature itself is deleted?

And how are trailers distributed by themselves? Separate HD or DVD or what?

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 04-11-2009, 04:00 PM:

Trailers are separate DCPs (Digital Cinema Packages) from the film itself so "attached" trailers are simply additional peices of content to ingest and manage - they stay on the server until deleted individually (even if the movie they came with is deleted).

Most of the time new trailers come on feature HDs but sometimes they are sent on DVDroms.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-11-2009, 04:08 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I *believe* they told us all of their movies come in by satellite. Mark G. can verify if that's true or not. That booth was IMPRESSIVE.

No, its about like what David said... they both have all the same satellite equipment. Those satellite companies do charge for those downloads too but it's slightly less then shipping a digital print or about the same depending on which company. One of them does download onto your catch server all the movies from the stuidos they distribute for though and thats what you're probably thinking of that they told you. Yes, Thats a very impressive booth! Odd without all the platter going round and round isn't it...

Bobby, No they're not compressed any differently and the download times can be very long. Its all done a week or so before the release date of a given title though and the lack of a KDM is what keeps the new content secure.

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-11-2009, 04:28 PM:

quote: Aaron Mehocic
And the error rate from this kind of transfer is ...?

I don't know the particulars on how movie studios or companies like Cinedigm encrypt the data streams. But it seems obvious to me that one of these movies could be sent to theaters as a multi-part download, possibly thousands of separate files to reconstruct later when all the parts are successfully downloaded. Such a thing would seem very feasible with Motion JPEG2000 content since it's all many thousands of still images.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 04-11-2009, 05:52 PM:

So theoretically, using the Motion JPEG 2000 software as Bobby suggests and releasing content a week or so in advance of the playdate as Mark noted.

I'm just curious as to how much of a hit I'm going to take economically by loosing my Thursday night if the company ever goes digital.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-11-2009, 07:14 PM:

Bobby,
Thats exactly how it works... if one had incliment weather or catch server problems the download will automatically resume where it left off. At least one system uses redundant satellite dishes too, but thats no guarantee of no drop out in heavy rain or snow... or an iced up dish. It's all pretty fool proof...

Mark

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 04-11-2009, 11:22 PM:

The Independent Cinema Association of Australia is negotiating for dci changeover but I doubt that there will be any joy for cinemas like ours where we schedule a mix of subrun and first run with more of the former. I can’t see a film distributor wanting to pay a vpf for a subrun. So if we run six first run seasons a year the vpfs would probably only cover one month’s lease payments. No one pays vpfs for e-cinema copies.

As Mike pointed out, the seasons required make first run difficult for single screens. We would love to get two week seasons; the minimum here is usually four weeks. The next Harry Potter is five. If two weeks was common we would book mostly first run. Occasionally they will allow a circuit with a 2-3 week run each but who would get a vpf in that case?

We all must plan for dci or close down. Oil-based products like film will not be around forever.

Film companies have to think hard if they want to lose independents business which (I am told) is 30% of their market.

We used to do good business with family fare first run ($50-80K) but with those movies in 3D at a multi 10 minutes away we no longer book them. Would the multi be taking $50-80K more to make up the difference to the film company?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-12-2009, 04:05 AM:

Here's a goodie to ask: You know that a lot of cinemas prescreen their movies the night before first performance.

You get the USB (dongle) key after you get your HD copy of the feature so you can unlock the feature to be played....

Can you do the same with D-cinema features? Caught wind that this is impossible to do with DCinema features, but I can't believe that.

The one who said this doesn't know tim from adam on booth stuff.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-12-2009, 10:23 AM:

Monte...the KDM can be sent even with the movie but it isn't necessary...it can arrive first via email or any other means.

The KDM will unlock its content for the player for the dates it is told to unlock it. Pre-screening is normally built into the KDM too...though sometimes just a portion of the movie and for specific times.

Don't think of it like putting money in a parking meter...the time does not start when you use the KDM...the KDM specifies specifically WHEN the content may be played and on what equipment.

Steve

Posted by Kevin Fairchild (Member # 4985) on 04-12-2009, 03:17 PM:

Our keys generally unlock the movie Thursday morning. So we can still screen the movie, although we hardly do.

Steve, I don't think it's possible for only a portion of a movie to be unlocked. The entire movie is either locked or unlocked.

Kevin

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 04-12-2009, 03:41 PM:

quote: Kevin Fairchild
Steve, I don't think it's possible for only a portion of a movie to be unlocked. The entire movie is either locked or unlocked.

He could be referring to the fact that once-in-a-while you get a movie where a separate file is included that is the "first reel" to use for testing purposes. I know that happened with one 3D movie we received though I'm blanking on which one.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-12-2009, 05:20 PM:

I saw two films during the past week in a theatre. One of them was MONSTERS VS ALIENS in IMAX 3-D and the other one was KNOWING which was not too bad. The 35mm image on the scheen was nice and sharp as usual at the Kapolei 16 and for the very first time, I had noticed the difference between a good theatrical film presentation and movies on HDTV at home. The 3-D digital IMAX image looked like my Samsung 1080p HDTV picture with a nice contrast and sharpness without the 3-D but the 35mm film presentation of KNOWING although very nice was not even as good as the up convertted to 1080p images from standard definition DVDs I have seen at home on my new HDTV. It is not my intention to be critical of the 35m format at this time but after enjoying the awesome picture quality I had experienced when I saw films like DOUBT, YESMAN, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, MARLEY & ME on Blu Ray and many Up Converted DVD image in HD, I now prefer digital over film. Up until I got HDTV, I was very happy with 35mm film because it had the edge over the standard television image I was watching at home from DVDs

When a few early adapters switched over to digital still photography shortly after it was introduced, I resisted as long as I could and stuck to film but when I saw the advantage digital photography offered, I converted. When a person lilke myself who has been making a nice living selling professional images to the public can see the the difference between a good theatrical film presentation and prefer watching the same same thing on a quality HDTV in a home in Blu Ray, I feel the future of motion picture exhibition is digital.

-Claude

Posted by Steven J Hart (Member # 2340) on 04-12-2009, 06:53 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
The biggest issue for us, is print availability. That's always been the case. The second biggest issue is required play time. If the studios would get off of the "two week minimum" for smaller towns and let us play movies for one week, we would love to open a brand new film every single week and happily pay the higher film rent to do it. But as it is, we have to wait until "later" for many films because they wouldn't have the legs to carry a two-week run for us. (Or three weeks in some cases.)

I still fail to see why they can't allow two small theatres in neighboring towns play a film a week each. The studio's screen count would be the same, and the money generated by that print would almost double.

Mike is spot on. If NATO would work on these issues for us (independents) instead of the "Cinema Buying Group" stuff, I'd be a lot happier about paying my dues.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-12-2009, 07:02 PM:

One of my small independants was looking into DCinema just to free up "print availability" since he is given the line that there were not enough prints to go around (after the big boys got 6 copies on the break, per location).

However, he was told by his booker...that it wouldn't be likely to change in the digital world...they'd just have a different excuse. Which is dumb.

The studios really should try to work with a system that generates money for everyone. Forcing a theatre to play a movie too long doesn't generate them anything and hurts the theatre.

Steve

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-12-2009, 08:01 PM:

There you go again, Steve. . . . making sense! Louis

Posted by Eric Webb (Member # 2772) on 04-12-2009, 11:16 PM:

I feel they are thinking that there is a saturation point and in turn they will only let so many theaters play their product to keep demand up for the ones that's playing it. So as Steve said they are not changing the rules for digital cinema.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 04-13-2009, 01:09 AM:

quote:
the 35mm film presentation of KNOWING although very nice was not even as good as the up convertted to 1080p images from standard definition DVDs I have seen at home on my new HDTV. ... I feel the future of motion picture exhibition is digital.

but claude, knowing was shot on video and was full of rubbishy cgi. it is in no way representative of film's capabilities.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 04-13-2009, 03:33 AM:

A year or two ago there was a digital film, I can't remember what it was now, which everybody was saying looked terrible, and using that to say that digital looked bad. It's easy to find bad examples on any format; I've seen 70mm that looked terrible.

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
When a few early adapters switched over to digital still photography shortly after it was introduced, I resisted as long as I could and stuck to film but when I saw the advantage digital photography offered, I converted. When a person lilke myself who has been making a nice living selling professional images to the public can see the the difference between a good theatrical film presentation and prefer watching the same same thing on a quality HDTV in a home in Blu Ray, I feel the future of motion picture exhibition is digital.

Claude,

I hadn't done any 'decent' photography for quite a long time, but recently I've been photographing some old telephones for somebody. There will be about 50 photographs in total, taken over several weekends. All of this has to be done on a budget of almost zero. Because I needed the movements I used a large format camera, actually a MPP Micro Technical Mk. 8 which was given to me as a box of very dusty long-dismantled parts and which I have put back together, though there are still a few minor parts missing.

Since the photographs are needed in digital form I considered shooting in digital, until I looked into the cost of renting a Betterlight scanning back for several weekends; it was far more than the cost of a couple of boxes of film and a 5 litre E6 kit.

Now, for somebody who is shooting thousands of pictures, say for mail order catalogues, or who needs the pictures quickly, the advantage is clearly with digital, but in this case it was simply much cheaper to use film. I also considered smaller formats, either one-shot digital backs or roll film, but the cost wasn't much different, and my shorter focus lenses aren't as good, so I ended up using 5x4. If I couldn't have used film, then it probably wouldn't have got done.

In the same way there are many places which show film, but not on a full-time basis, they are usually arts centres, which show film on an occasional basis, maybe once a week, maybe once a month. I know of somewhere that only runs film two or three times in a year. The equipment is often old, typically 1950s Westar or Kalee projectors, either a pair or one machine with a tower. The sound processor will probably be an old CP-50. The equipment is old, but if it's maintained in good condition the results are good. If there were to be a total move to digital, and film prints wee no longer available, then these places would no longer show films, there is no way that they could afford to install digital equipment. There are also many small, independent cinemas which would simply be closed down by a total conversion to digital, and these are the ones which tend to program the most interesting films.

To a large extent it's not a question of quality; either can look good or bad.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-13-2009, 08:34 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
However, he was told by his booker...that it wouldn't be likely to change in the digital world...they'd just have a different excuse. Which is dumb.

Then this guy SHOULD THREATEN his booker and if no results prevail then he SHOULD CAN his booker! A customer of ours was initally told the same thing by his booker and our customer literally forced his booker to start booking digital for him... er elese! Well, he did start booking digital gradually and it seems now that indeed there are advantages to booking digital... our customer also on occasion can also get a film print of the same title for when it moves to a small "die out" screen! Today this booker is getting this done for some of his other customers as well. Basically... if the guy ain't werkin for ya get rid of him!!

Mark

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 04-13-2009, 09:37 AM:

The problem is that for some reason the distributors treat digital prints the same as 35mm prints when it comes to number or play dates, screen count and other terms. Maybe because for the short term the VPF's make it cost almost the same for them to distribute a digital print.

The two week requirement for small town singles is very stupid and I don't know why they do that even with 35mm. That second week is going to add so little in terms of additional gross that I don't understand why it matters to them.

Theatres like Mike's should add a 10 seat "screening room" in a storage room just to have a "screen" to show the second week so you can open something else on your main screen.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-13-2009, 11:04 AM:

quote: Carl Martin
but claude, knowing was shot on video and was full of rubbishy cgi. it is in no way representative of film's capabilities.

Not only that, but the 35mm film prints were likely sourced from a 2K digital intermediate. The original digital imagery was laser recorded to film and duped at least once or twice via interpositive/internegative elements before the imagery was high speed printed to actual 35mm release prints. Any advantages film has over digital are removed when the original source is just a 2K image. Add generational loss in the film printing process as another factor. Then add bad film handling and/or poorly maintained booth equipment as yet another factor. It's no surprise that movies in a good number of theaters can look pretty crappy when projected.

Still, DVD up-conversion really isn't very good either. I've seen a good bit of up-conversion and not seen any of it honestly look as good as a 35mm print shown with mediocre presentation quality. If the projector's focus is out of proper adjustment then, yeah, that will kill much of the native detail. But it's not a fault of the film print itself.

A 345,600 pixel video stream, already severely data compressed, is going to look only so good when it attempts to fake a 2 million pixel image. When you see an up-converted DVD next to a native 1080p Blu-ray image of the same movie the differences are very obvious. Not only that, but the native 1080p image helps you notice the flaws in the up-converted image. Then an icky feeling sets in about a lot of those DVDs. I'm selling most of mine.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-13-2009, 12:06 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
Theatres like Mike's should add a 10 seat "screening room" in a storage room just to have a "screen" to show the second week so you can open something else on your main screen.

Believe me, we've thought of that. We've thought of:
-Buying the building on either side (neither is for sale)
-Adding a second story (too expensive, building not engineered for it anyway)
-Moving the screen forward and putting a second screen sideways behind it (would ruin our projection angle, destroy the looks of the auditorium and result in 2 dinky auditoriums instead of one nice-sized one)
-Converting the balcony to a 2nd screen (way too small)
-Buying a building down the street and doing a "Princess II" (Probably wouldn't work out financially to have two complete theatres in a town of 2000)
-Gutting the inside of the building and putting two auditoriums one behind the other, with a hallway leading to #2 (would probably work out, but would destroy the classic looks of our building...we would love a 2nd screen but am not desperate for it yet!)

The store room idea? Our largest store room is about 6 x 6 feet. We literally have no more space.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-13-2009, 12:41 PM:

Mike...it doesn't have to be big...let the 6x6 work with a two seats in it...find any old projector/sound to "show a movie" on and just bump the movie over...it is absolutely bull any way.

Steve

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 04-13-2009, 02:18 PM:

Put another projector in the booth and point it out the back window onto the building across the street and call it your outdoor cinema [Wink]

Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 04-13-2009, 02:56 PM:

Bobby,
I cannot give you numbers but a large percentage of films are distributed via satellite. The matter of delivery cost via satellite is offset by the number of locations you send to, as it costs the same to send it to 1 site or 1000.
Satellite data speeds can be very fast, but it depends on the equipment you have installed. Generally the larger the dish the less error correction is needed and thus the faster you can send the files.
The one major advantage I see for smaller sites in regards to digital is that there is no such thing as a print shortage with digital. I have personally never heard of a digitally equipped site not getting a booked print because of a lack of copies. The other advantage is that you can set up multiple features on the same screen with relative ease, giving you more options in regards with your choice of programing.
When studios start offering DCI compliant catalog titles it should get really interesting as far as the options available to boutique/art houses and the like.

Edit: "Not only that, but the 35mm film prints were likely sourced from a 2K digital intermediate."
And here lies a piece of the puzzle that is often overlooked. Many films are edited and sourced from digital (its very easy and cost effective) So I cant see the 35mm print looking any better than its digital source.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-13-2009, 03:16 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
it is absolutely bull any way.

Yeah, that's true....but we really would like to have a second screen. Lots of times (as everyone here knows) there's a few bucks left in a movie - just not enough to tie up the whole facility for another week.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 04-13-2009, 06:22 PM:

quote: Todd McCracken
I have personally never heard of a digitally equipped site not getting a booked print because of a lack of copies.

If the film is booked it means you get a copy. There are cases where we cannot get an actual confirmed final booking in digital because the studios only allotted so many copies (35mm or digital) for the overall market. We have a location that has not been able to book some films in digital because of the limited copies earmarked for the market.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 04-15-2009, 10:00 AM:

No prints/digital copies doesn't mean not enough exist, it means none are available to YOU.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-15-2009, 10:07 AM:

Well yeah, but this is the area that 'satellite distribution' is supposed to fix. Anyone who wants to abide by the terms 'should' be able to open any film if they have satellite delivery.

I've never seen an estimate of what that little add-on would cost....anyone have any idea?

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 04-15-2009, 11:36 AM:

If you are talking about the add on of satellite delivery it should not cost much to the exhibitor since most of the benefit is to the company sending out the HDs - i.e. by sending via satellite they don't need to stock and manage an inventory of many thousands of HDs.

Our current satellite delivery cost per print matches what we pay per HD delivery.

I hope digital will help small town theatres by allowing them to book films on opening day instead of having to wait for a 35mm print to be available.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 04-15-2009, 12:33 PM:

It's not a shortfall in product. If they don't want you to get it, you won't get it, even if there are 100 prints in the warehouse or satellite downloads. A few weeks back when Fox Searchlight said they had no prints of Slumdog it was bullshit. The delivery driver said there were dozens of prints in the dist. center and he had a few more on the truck but none were going out. Same with Wrestler, they claim they have no prints, a call to the driver revealed otherwise. Digital won't make the decision makers change their minds on who gets what and when, the only thing that will change is the excuse stated for withholding product. Maybe they will claim that all the encription keys are used up.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-15-2009, 03:18 PM:

quote:
If they don't want you to get it, you won't get it,

I remember years ago when Fox had a ridiculous "small town" policy in place; when a movie came out, they would set an arbitrary date on which it would "become available" to small towns. It didn't matter how many prints were sitting idle on the floor - if the magic date hadn't arrived, we were out of luck. Sony was the opposite -- if they had a print, they would overnight it from New York City if necessary, gross potential be damned...they just wanted as many prints on the screen as possible.

Since there are more prints, things are better now -- we started playing movies on the break in 1999 and we now play around 12 to 16 a year on the break. The most recent time we didn't get a title we wanted was last year's Indiana Jones film but in most cases, if we are willing to play the required amount of weeks, we don't have a problem.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-17-2009, 05:52 AM:

quote: Bill Enos
It's not a shortfall in product. If they don't want you to get it, you won't get it, even if there are 100 prints in the warehouse or satellite downloads.

Bill, you are too too cynical....almost as much as I am. And of course you are completely right.

I have come to the conclusion that because many of these live-or-die decisions on the part of the studios suits are so irrational, that the ONLY conclusion one can come to is that they are made solely as ego-boosting power-trips and to give an aire of importance to their positions....makes them feel like "movers and shakers." In what other business would a company have a supply of product sitting on a shelf but refuse to sell it to a customer who comes in offering money to buy it?

OR, they are just totally corrupt scum and in bed with the big chains getting kick-backs from them when they refuse product to smaller players. Oh, what? Like that's never happened before?

Just theories, of course.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 04-17-2009, 09:11 AM:

I don't know what it is like in the commercial film biz, but in the art film world, such behavior is standard.

I can accept not getting prints right away, as the films we show usually only have a couple of hundred prints, tops, and they want to make the money in the big cities first.

However, I recently showed an academy award winner that I wanted to show while it was still a nominee. I called every week for over a month and each week the distrib told me "It is going to be in [corporate chain] next week." It never was. Finally, the week before the Awards, he tells me he didn't want to "ghettoize" it by putting it in the art house (keep in mind, this is the art branch of a studio), but let us have it.

Because we are a calendar house, it wouldn't be until the week it comes out on video, even though I held my schedule in the hopes of getting the film. To add insult to injury, the week before I show it, it shows up in the other corporate chain with 1) no listing in the paper and 2) no listing on their website. I imagine they grossed $40 for the week, but at least it was released out of the ghetto first.

Posted by Rod Cornelison (Member # 5202) on 04-26-2009, 03:49 PM:

Wow!!! I love how a simple question can be turned into this!!! [Razz]

We did a satelite special of some concert when i worked for my competition and it was horrible!! I just hope i can get through this "technology upgrade" and still have a job. As to special school and factory holliday interlock "fun" this will be lost as so many things are. Here is to all the lost sleep i may be able to catch up on in the digital relm!