This is topic Regal to go 100% Sony 4K? 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=000368
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-15-2009, 07:48 PM:
Hey just a rumor I heard, ya know? Maybe an announcement on Monday even but I dunno. I heard from a guy who heard from a guy, who knows? Maybe Regal will even advertise for Sony products at their theaters, who can say?
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-15-2009, 08:47 PM:
Corroborating That Rumor (celluloidjunkie.com)
quote:
Rumor Has It Sony Is Regal’s Choice For Digital
Posted by J. Sperling Reich | May 15, 2009 3:23 pm
Earlier today I heard a rumor that Regal Entertainment had chosen to install Sony’s 4K digital cinema technology circuit-wide. Even as I was confirming the rumor, news of the decision was spreading throughout the industry like wildfire. In fact, Digital Cinema Report sent an email out to its subscribers that stated:
Regal Cinemas has selected Sony 4K digital cinema technology for all of its theatres. Two sources confirmed the news today. Following on the heels of AMC’s decision to work with Sony this marks Sony’s second major success story in recent weeks.
If this news turns out to be true it could quite possibly make Sony the market leader in digital cinema projection. At least it would once all of the projectors were installed, which could take years. There is no word on a rollout schedule or when the first units will be installed.
One reason Regal may be going with Sony is that they can provide financing for any planned rollout. Both AMC Entertainment and Regal are part of Digital Cinema Implementation Partners’ integration efforts, though DCIP has yet to announce any success they have had in raising funds for their rollout. We’ll provide updates as details become available.
Adam: I saw that. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 05-16-2009, 01:32 AM:
When all others will move to 4K, Sony will produce an 8K incompatible with anything system. The ironic part of all this is that Sony means "small" in Chinese! LOL Small my a.s
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-16-2009, 04:01 AM:
Think I'll stay with Christies and their 2k units.
More light, excellent quality and reliability and a well-known product for the buck.
Remember SDDS? Wow, they died in 2002 - a slow death.
And reading in the prior note from that link about AMC on being burned with SONY's digital department, AMC is going to give SONY another chance...with 4k installs ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You think that AMC and Sony is gonna try to convince all of the the studios in making more 4k releases - even though those 4k units CAN reproduce 2k material.
Hope that SONY can prove itself to those two DCIP members of REG and AMC, for if they fail out, I hate to see what happens next.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-16-2009, 05:04 AM:
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Hope that SONY can prove itself to those two DCIP members of REG and AMC, for if they fail out, I hate to see what happens next.
Actually, I think that it might be rather entertaining to watch this potential trainwreck.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-16-2009, 06:23 AM:
Maybe its "free" to compensate for the sdds debacle. Louis
Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-16-2009, 06:48 AM:
Well, perhaps TI should wake up and start offering some real competition.
Sony can manufacture and sell their projectors to those customers for less money while offering more resolution.
Since when having 1/4 the amount of pixels on the screen and a higher price is an advantage?
Christie/Barco/NEC may have an advantage in light level, but when it comes to 3D, Sony's effective light levels are about the same if not better. It's only in 2D that they can't compete brightness wise. Not to mention Sony's ability to do 60fps in 3D (i.e. for alternative content sports) and not having temporal disparities (flicker) like all other 3d systems.
So the Sony product is potentially better (in some important quality measures) while being cheaper (if you can strike a deal like the ones talking about). Pretending for a second that Sony's product work the way they should and the way they're spec'ed, they match or beat the competition in many quality measures like contrast, gamut, resolution, etc, etc.
About sustenability, don't think that Sony is going to have any more trouble than TI to maintain a Lcos factory, compared to a DMD one. On the contrary. If anything, I would also be more worried about DLP sustainability than Lcos panels. Sony may have lost $1 billion this year, but TI is also in the red with DLP.
The main problem is that Sony is a monopoly in 4K DCI. The only other producers of 4K (or 8K, like JVC or Evans&Sutherland) projectors either don't want to or can't (due to Intelectual Property licensing restrictions) enter the theatrical market.
Perhaps TI should wake up and either produce better products or lower their prices to reflect their resolution. Projectors with resolution similar to 2K can be had for much, much, much, much, much, much less than TI's licencees are giving. The only reason they are not there, is that TI doesn't want them to be in order to shield their protéges.
Not blaming Christie/Barco/NEC though, as they had to pony up $20million to license the exclusivity from TI to manufacture the goods and now have to pay it back.
I don't know how they were thinking that the exhibition movie industry was going to support their "way of life".
I think this market needs another player. Let's see if somebody has the technology and the cojones.
I seriously don't know. Right now, I don't like ANY of the options in the market and I have to choose one for year's end. I may have to pass. Hope the new TI projectors are indeed cheaper and not just a little because of the imaging board being made in one piece instead of three ...
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-16-2009, 09:13 AM:
Entertainment at its finest indeed. Didn't Sony lose a billion dollars last year?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-16-2009, 09:35 AM:
quote: Louis Bornwasser
Maybe its "free" to compensate for the sdds debacle. Louis
Probably not free but on the cheap for this equipment. Work out the math yourself... I came up with about 58 grand give or take per location! The total price announced divided by the number of sites. Now Sony is shooting themselves in the head again by quoting different prices to different chains. I know one chain that pays in the low 70's for their gear and then they quoted a 110 screen chain that we service which is larger than the chain getting them in the low 70s 83 grand per screen. Sony obviously has their marketing brain power shoved way up someone elses's ass in the sales division.
Mark
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 05-16-2009, 09:39 AM:
The interesting thing to me is that imaging seems to be following Moore's Law, getting twice as good about every 2-3 years.
So in 2011, we'll have 16k projectors, making the 4k obsolete right? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Dates are approximate according to my memory:
1.3k in 2000
2k in 2002
4k in 2006
8k in 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-16-2009, 09:54 AM:
Since Sony makes a ton of $$$ from selling TV sets to consumers, I can see how it might make sense for them to take a loss on the equipment sale in return for the marketing benefit of being able to advertise that their equipment is used by the two major cinema chains in the US. Perhaps that is their motivation.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-16-2009, 09:55 AM:
First off...it costs about 1/3 as much to produce LCoS as it does DLP...that has been its trouble in its life. That is why single-chip DLPs have come about to compete with other imaging solutions.
TI CAN'T lower its costs...it already isn't profitable. If you compare DCinema projector prices to A/V projector prices...you'd see that DCinema projectors are CHEAP...a real savings over traditional A/V versions.
Sony stands to make more money than TI selling their projectors for similar money. As for monopoly...at the moment it really is a duopoly...it is just Sony and TI. However, in the server market...most have sailed with the DLP plan...for Sony, everyone has to get Sony's "Media Block." It is even more of a winner take all. Oh, and I hope you don't want a second lens from Sony for any reason...check out them prices! Fortunately, Ushio makes the lamps for the Sony machines. They are more expensive than the Ushio lamps for the Barco machines so Sony will be a more expensive machine to "keep" even if it is cheaper to buy due to some "deal."
But seriously...I can sell a DLP DCinema projector for LESS than say a Sanyo LCD projector of the same resolution and the DCinema projector will also have more light and be DCI compliant. The prices are really undervalued just to push this DCinema agenda.
Steve
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-16-2009, 11:10 AM:
Scott has it right. Sony has decided it's willing to take a loss on these systems in return for getting its name prominently associated with superior movie presentation with the goal of influencing moviegoers' choice of TV set. It's a rational gamble. How it plays out for exhibitors in the long run remains to be seen but surely Regal and AMC have negotiated long-term support guarantees from Sony.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-16-2009, 12:49 PM:
I heard this same news from a reliable source yesterday. I bet Cinemark won't be too far behind.
In a way this is a good thing. Those three chains being 100% 4k in couple of years will drive 4k content to be available. 4k will become the industry standard instead of the consumer level 2k. I hope somebody other than Sony makes a 4k projector soon because when it's time to change over I don't want to have 2k while the competition has (and is able to market) 4k. Carmike must feel pretty stupid now for jumping to 100% 2k so fast.
BTW, with Sony's over/under 3D, are they using anamorphics and using 1/2 the chip for each eye or are they just using 1/4 the chip for each eye and wasting a lot of light?
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-16-2009, 01:25 PM:
What what Carmike's cost per screen? $800 or so? They have had several years of use out of them too. What was stupid for all is the realization that there are no extra ticket sales associated with DCinema anything. One is spending money for zero return.
With technology though...whenever you jump in, it isn't going to be too long till the next generation comes out and you will eventually be left behind.
As for long-term deals with Sony...don't count on it...none of these guys has shown any long-term smarts.
Steve
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-16-2009, 02:08 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
But seriously...I can sell a DLP DCinema projector for LESS than say a Sanyo LCD projector of the same resolution and the DCinema projector will also have more light and be DCI compliant. The prices are really undervalued just to push this DCinema agenda.
So, why would anyone buy the Sanyo LCD? Does it have other advantages over the D-cinema unit (smaller, lighter, works on 120v power, etc.)?
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-16-2009, 02:11 PM:
quote: Monte L Fullmer
You think that AMC and Sony is gonna try to convince all of the the studios in making more 4k releases - even though those 4k units CAN reproduce 2k material.
Why should they not ask the studios to release 4K stuff? If I paid for fancy 4K projectors, I think it would be in my best interest to get as much really good use out of it. And if everything out there is available in 4K, while my competitors have to use a downres'd 2K version, I end up possibly getting more customers (if I play my cards right and show people the difference).
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-16-2009, 02:31 PM:
Hollywood studios will only pay for 4K rendering when they feel it is absolutely necessary. Right now they don't feel that is the case.
Maybe in another couple of years when the mainstream computing industry is making serious progress migrating over to native 64-bit computing it may push prices of memory and other hardware down to such low levels that 4K will be easy and cheap to do. For now 2K is deemed "good enough" and 4K a high priced luxury.
TI is stuck at 2K due to the very high cost of research and development for higher resolution chips. TI has no consumer electronics vector in which to sell 4K chips. DLP only works in front or rear projection setups but with consumer electronics and computing displays flat panel technology is here to stay.
It may cost less money to create a LCOS chip than DLP, but Sony is stuck in the same boat as TI with that technology. LCOS doesn't have much sales potential at all in personal computing and consumer electronics. This is why Intel abandoned their big LCOS plans years ago. I agree with the comments that Sony may be pursuing the 4K thing over marketing prestige and hope the "halo effect" bleeds over into selling Sony-branded consumer electronics.
Cinedigm and RealD are apparently in deep financial trouble. That could make things easier for Sony, but Sony could end up losing lots of money as well.
Ultimately, the Hollywood movie distributors are the only ones making out well in this. They don't have to make and ship so many 35mm film prints, which saves them millions of dollars. That was the entire purpose of this whole D-cinema conversion effort. You know they're getting a cut of ticket price premiums charged for digital 3D and "digital IMAX."
I'm just wondering what the Hollywood studios will do if a company like Cinedigm completely implodes. Will the studios offer a bailout? Or will theater chains like Rave and Carmike have to rush like mad to get the 35mm film projectors they have in mothballs reinstalled?
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-16-2009, 05:11 PM:
Scott...search me...the PLV-HD2000 seems like a projector with no purpose and a big price tag.
http://www.us.sanyo.com/Projectors-Products-by-Category-Cinema/PLV-HD2000
MAP price is $45K. Note, it runs on 4 lamps that will set you back over $400 a pop so figure in another $1600/lamp change at about 1000-1500 hours depending on how you run your fans and how dark you mind your image being (it is only 7000 lumens to begin with). Compare that projector with the Christie CP2000-M or the Barco DP1200 and it just doesn't make sense on so many levels.
If Cinedigm blows up...I don't think the Carmike projectors will cease to function. I don't think any creditors would want to pull them either...who are they going to sell them to? They would likely want to strike a deal.
The reality though is that if the AMC/Regal thing goes all of the way...you have about 12,000 screens that DLP won't be selling to and all of the server manufacturers can also count them out as well. When the total US market was only 37,000 to begin with...it is a pretty big chunk. Same goes for the 3D folks...Real-D and Sony have done the deal...that leaves Dolby and Mark's beloved Master Image out. Sure, there are another 100K screens around the world to concentrate on but the US market tends to set the pace on Cinemas.
As for LCoS...the A/V market also will need large-venue projectors so that market is larger than mere cinemas. It is DLP, with no current R&D and virtually no division any longer that stands to lose what market it thought it had left (Cinema/Large-Venue). It has lost everything else. If (and I think when) DLP tanks, it will also have ramifications on those that have aligned themselves with it as an exclusive technology.
DCinema is certainly a volitile thing to be playing in and forces outside of our industry can totally crush our ability to control our outcome with digital technology. Not so with film...and I repeat...digital has not nor will sell one extra ticket.
Steve
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-16-2009, 07:11 PM:
TI has nothing to gain by promoting DLP as a "loss leader". There are no TI-branded consumer electronics (does TI even still make calculators?). TI's "It's The Mirrors" marketing campaign didn't focus on any particular brand of TV, just the DLP technology. Well guess what, DLP at the consumer level is a niche market now, mostly about corporate use of DLP-equipped front projectors for presentations. Again, nobody cares that there's a TI chip in those projectors.
Sony on the other hand has potentially much to gain via "brand extension". It won't matter that SXRD isn't used (any longer) in Sony TVs. It's all about Sony Digital branding at the consumer level. It could turn out to be a smart move if everyone follows through, meaning Sony and the exhibitors they're apparently lining up.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-16-2009, 09:47 PM:
David...
The TI Calculators actually do VERY well...many school systems require them (gotta love a forced market)...in fact, the division DLP used to be part of was the same as the Calculators and it was the calculators that made the division look good.
DLP does have one other market I forgot to mention...the pico-projectors but it is likely to die there and has a rather pathetic resolution and too large a size as compared to upcoming LCoS pico-projectors.
Steve
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-16-2009, 11:18 PM:
So, if I was going to build a digital multiscreen complex, what should I be looking for, esp if I'm looking at a long term operation, not needing to worry about being outdated and have a building full of "dinosaurs": Be it 4K LCoS, or 2K DLP?
Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-17-2009, 02:47 AM:
quote: Monte L Fullmer
So, if I was going to build a digital multiscreen complex, what should I be looking for, esp if I'm looking at a long term operation, not needing to worry about being outdated and have a building full of "dinosaurs": Be it 4K LCoS, or 2K DLP?
Hard to say.
My 8ball says: Maybe.
Whatever you get, you'll be obsolete sooner rather than later. Home technology also improves at a fast pace, so who knows what will be in the market 5 years from now ($3500 65" 1920x2160 3D TV's????). Panasonic is already teasing with their 103" active 3D plasma screens and 3D blu-rays ....
One thing is for sure. 2K in a movie theater won't make sense 5 years from now. It's tolerated right now, as are 4.5fl light levels for 3D, because there is/was no other reasonable alternative. Whenever one is developed, and it will be, then Hollywood will demand brighter 3D (they are already set to do it) and will encourage more resolution.
2K will always be supported and respected as it's part of DCI specifications, but films will be supplied in 4K soon enough and studios would appreciate if the higher quality shows on the screen instead of using only 1/4 the amount of pixels in 2K and throwing away 3/4 of the dots making up their $200m film to the trash can.
Lcos is not going to "dissapear", as it is not too expensive to tool a SI factory to do it and benefits from advancement in both, semiconductors manufacturing and LCD manufacturing, technologies both that are constantly being developed and supported for the foreseeable future.
MEMS like DLP don't benefit from LCD manufacturing improvements but it does benefit a bit from advacement in semiconductors.
If one of the two was to dissapear, and I'm not saying either one will, I would probably guess that it would be DLP first.
If there was a 4K non-Sony alternative in the market today, I would probably recommend that as the better option for DCinema. The way it stands, it's a tough choice. If I could strike a deal with Sony similar to the ones given to the fat guys (i.e. Sony will take care of everything for $60K per screen), I would probably go with Sony at the moment.
Unfortunately, Sony can quote you as much as >$100k for YOUR screen, and the deal for the tech support and upgrades, which you WILL need, may not be very sweet after the first year ... And they send you to Real D for the 3D, so not too good there either.
Meanwhile, the other guys are stuck at selling whatever TI throws at them. And they ain't throwing diamonds or cheap rubies, more like overpriced silver ...
We're ![[sex]](graemlins/sex.gif)
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-17-2009, 09:40 AM:
quote: Chris Slycord
Why should they not ask the studios to release 4K stuff? If I paid for fancy 4K projectors
Distribution spend money... HA thats a joke... They've already trashed 70mm!! Don't forget that AMC paid quite a bit less per booth then 2 K equipment costs, actually somewhere between 15 and 20K less per booth. Anything that "Costs" distribution any extra $$ is likely to get snubbed and that includes 4K releases. 2K plays back fine on the 4K projectors just like 4K plays back fine on 2K projectors.
Mark
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-17-2009, 10:31 AM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
They've already trashed 70mm!! Don't forget that AMC paid quite a bit less per booth then 2 K equipment costs, actually somewhere between 15 and 20K less per booth. Anything that "Costs" distribution any extra $$ is likely to get snubbed and that includes 4K releases. 2K plays back fine on the 4K projectors just like 4K plays back fine on 2K projectors.
Where do you get that they paid $15k or $20k less per booth than 2k? A Christie CP2000-M with Doremi server ends up being around $60k per screen installed for a low volume buyer. AMC paid (based on your calculation) around $58,000 per screen for Sony 4k.
I also think you are wrong about the 4k releases. The only reason the studios included 2k in the DCI spec at all was because they wanted the changeover to happen immediately so they could start saving distribution costs and at the time the DCI spec was written 2k projectors were the only option. As 4k digital aquisition becomes the norm, they're not going to downrez it to 2k for post production. CGI might still be done in 2k for a while but the non-cgi parts I'm sure will be 4k from camera to screen.
I can almost guarantee that with 12,000+ 4k digital screens in a few years that all releases (exept for full CGI animated movies) will be released with 4k DCPs.
The bottom line is that it makes no sense (other than if you need 3D in a location right now) to install a 2k digital projector. These deals Sony is making guarantee that 4k will be the industry standard for digital cinema. Even if most people from most seats can't tell the difference, the marketing edge is VERY important. 4k D-cinema will keep the home theatre-philes from bragging to their friends that their 110" screen with DLP projector playing Blu-ray is the same thing that the local theatre has. Especially since I can guarantee that there will be snipes on all these screens saying "Sony 4K Pure Digital Cinema - 4 times the resolution of HDTV".
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-17-2009, 10:44 AM:
Lyle's last sentence is what this is all about, although I don't think they'll mention the resolution difference. It will just push Sony Digital.
Sony and other prominent consumer electronics makers are sustaining huge losses right now:
- Sony's loss: $1.03 Billion
- Panasonic's loss: $3.99 Billion
- Toshiba's loss: $3.1 Billion
- Pioneer's loss: $1.44 Billion (and they're bailing out on TVs)
Vizio and Samsung have a larger share of the TV market than Sony. Samsung is profitable too. Sony needs to take TV market share away from these rivals. Getting 4K into theaters, along with the flashy snipe, is one part of a strategy to get there.
Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-17-2009, 11:04 AM:
I agree marketing is an important part of the whole equation.
Nobody can "brag" about having a 2K screen in a theatre, as it's the bare minimun, way too close to what people have at home and it's no better (and possibly quite "worse") than those other theaters with 35mm film across the street.
4K changes that. It offers quality similar or superior to (1.85 cropped, mechanically projected) 35mm and 4 times the pixels at home.
It's a start. And it gives you bragging rights and product differenciation.
Nobody in the industry was ever thrilled about 2K. It was a necessary evil, not the industrie's benchmark.
Hell, I'll even settle for a $50k per screen 3K solution for DCI right now. I wouldn't even complain about a low cost 2K $40k/screen solution for smaller houses.
But to ask for +$70k to equip a large house with 2K pretending it's "top of the line, finest quality" ... well, let me point you to my soon-to-get-here new 55" series 8000 Samsung screen I have €2700 euros saved for when it finally starts selling in Europe in a couple of weeks ...
And yeah, my money is that after about a year (or a bit more), close to 50% of all movies will start shooting/editing in 4K. And in 2 or 3 years, just about 100% of all major ones will be 4K. CGI animation being the exception, as they make more financial sense to keep 2K, specially if 3D.
In 5 years or so, we'll all be laughing about films shooting in 2K during the 00's the way we now do with first generation 1.3K ...
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-17-2009, 11:18 AM:
Lyle, a CP2000-M would not be a suitable projector for any half-decent sized screen, so that is a bad comparison.
In regards, yes 4K has a huge marketing advantage, but at the end of the day does it LOOK good? I mean, take the DLP systems installed by AccessIT and compare them to the ones shipping today. Without getting into an argument over why, the fact remains they simply do not look as good as the current projectors shipping. So how does the Sony image look against the current Christie DLP image?
I have not seen the Sony 4K projected, but I have seen Sony release products before they were truly ready for production and in essence fuck their customers over for many years because of it. I'm not sure I am willing to put much effort towards anything with the Sony name at this point. Sure the most obvious example has been brought up before, but is everyone forgetting about SDDS just because the price is so cheap???
History repeats itself.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-17-2009, 11:32 AM:
I have shot a Sony SRX projector against a DLP...in fact, this venue shot both Christie and Barco DLPs on the same screen.
The Sony and DLP projectors used the same source/content for both high-res stills and motion pictures. The content was primarily 2K as the Sony was not set up for 4K input at the time nor was the facility ready to transmit 4K content.
The result was not so clear cut. The Sony image was quite good...its convergence was notably superior to DLP (no red friging on the pixels). The 2K->4K uprezzing was very good as the jaggies were all but gone. The Sony pixel layout is very tight...much tighter than DLP as they don't have to giggle the mirrors and that takes space.
Where the DLP won was on color reproduction and contrast as well as uniformity. The SRX projector had background colors in the image of magenta and green (magenta being most prominate in the bottom-left of the screen). The Sony guy said it was not normal for the projector...talking with others that have worked with the Sony projector say it is more common than not.
I'd say to the average patron that goes to the movie, the Sony would be a superior image. To a DP, the DLP as it is probably a more faithful representation of the color/contrast. The Sony projector looked notably better than in my previous viewings so I would suspect that it is going to get better with time.
If DLP tanks though...I think you will see Hollywood embrace the LCoS technology anyway...even if it isn't perfect...it will be the only digital projector they have.
Steve
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-17-2009, 01:37 PM:
quote: Brad Miller
Lyle, a CP2000-M would not be a suitable projector for any half-decent sized screen, so that is a bad comparison.
Have you seen a lot of AMC's "non Big House" screens built over the years? A great many of them are not too decent size.
The CP2000-ZX is only around $7,000 more than the M (again as a non-volume buyer) so you still don't get to Mark's $15,000+ savings over 2k based on his calculation of AMC's deal.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-17-2009, 02:17 PM:
quote: Lyle Romer
As 4k digital aquisition becomes the norm, they're not going to downrez it to 2k for post production. CGI might still be done in 2k for a while but the non-cgi parts I'm sure will be 4k from camera to screen.
You can't really go direct from camera to screen with digital cameras unless you're happy with the 6 o'clock news look. All electronic video cameras no matter how glorified with 35mm film camera like gear must have their electronic footage processed to imitate the film look in post production. Shooting 24p alone isn't going to cut it. It costs a certain amount of money to apply film look processing to 1080p HD footage. Rendering time will be quadrupled for 4K footage.
The existing digital camera systems have speed/sensitivity issues that must be overcome to deliver acceptable image quality compared to 35mm in a wide variety of shooting environments -particularly in high speed and low light settings. Even the Panavision Genesis camera, which is only a 1080p HDTV level camera, has serious problems with low light photography. Get Smart shows off some of those limits all too well.
I don't think 35mm based photography is going away anytime soon. The only thing that will force a widespread dump of film-based production is if Kodak, Agfa and Fuji stop making film altogether or just go out of business. More and more movie productions are going to shoot "digital." However, good film camera setups still outperform the digital ones, especially in low light and high speed shooting environments. Digital just provides great levels of convenience and cost savings with trade-offs in image quality. Most major releases will still be shot on film for at least the next several years until it just becomes difficult to buy film stock.
I think the balance on 4K output becoming common will lie in the pricing and power of computing hardware. Currently RAM costs around $30 to $40 per gigabyte. The vast majority of computers still operate in the 32-bit realm. Once we can get over that 64-bit hump and RAM costs about 1/10th what it does today then 4K production should be much cheaper and easier to do. I think we're still a good year or two out from that. And that span of time may be enough that some new CMOS camera sensors are introduced that just blow away all the current ones in terms of speed and sensitivity.
We still have to remember that Hollywood studios are owned by larger bean-counting oriented corporations. They're looking for any way to cut costs and deliver barely "good enough" when they can get away with it. Some of these "suits" will see the speed and improvements with 4K production translated into saying "we can do 2K much cheaper than that! Let's keep doing 2K and save even more money!"
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-17-2009, 02:20 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Distribution spend money... HA thats a joke... They've already trashed 70mm!! Don't forget that AMC paid quite a bit less per booth then 2 K equipment costs, actually somewhere between 15 and 20K less per booth. Anything that "Costs" distribution any extra $$ is likely to get snubbed and that includes 4K releases. 2K plays back fine on the 4K projectors just like 4K plays back fine on 2K projectors.
Way to go at ignoring the entire point of my statement.
Ignore for a second that they didn't pay a lot. The question still stands: Why would they NOT ask studios to release 4K material? If I've got a projector that can do 4K, I'd prefer people to release 4K material.
Monte's statement that the companies shouldn't care because they'd still be able to play the 2K material, which feels like saying "AMC shouldn't ask studios to release SDDS prints because it'll still have an analog backup."
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-17-2009, 02:32 PM:
Chris,
My point was that you can ask distribution all you want... for what ever you want.. till you're blue in the face. But you'd make better progress if you just beat your head on a brick wall than waiting for them to act! Why you think they'd do anything for anybody is beyond me... It would be a first if they did. Distribution only does things in general if the studio or if some big time director has the power to make them do so. Don't forget that Distribution already thinks 2K is adaquate.
Mark
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-17-2009, 02:49 PM:
But it's not just some guy asking them to do it. You'll have people from AMC, Regal, possibly other chains (that go with Sony), along with people from Sony themselves trying to get them to do 4K.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-17-2009, 02:56 PM:
Ultimately what will happen is that the box office sales will show that 4K doesn't sell any extra tickets than a 2K theater does and thus, no need for 4K "prints".
quote: Steve Guttag
Where the DLP won was on color reproduction and contrast as well as uniformity.
And that is precisely my point.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-17-2009, 03:44 PM:
Exactly Brad! They are not going to spend any more $$ on anything unless there is some definite "show of extrea profit" from doing so. There was this from "Digital Sound" for a while but only for a while! Since they are already locked into the 2K mentality I say that 2K sourcing lives on no matter how many 4K projectors are installed. Heck, they are only producing 2K intermediates as it is for most of the releases today.
Mark
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-17-2009, 04:47 PM:
The main area where 4K is needed is with theaters boasting really large screen sizes. 2K thrown onto a 70' wide screen has a full scale resolution of only 2.4 pixels per inch. That's pretty low for large scale imagery that will be viewed at a fairly close distance for a couple of hours. 4K would go a lot farther in masking the screen door effect.
On a comparison of scale, the lowest resolution I use in designing billboard prints is 18ppi. And that would be for something like a 14' X 48' or larger board sitting alongside an interstate highway. I design at 36ppi or higher with 10' X 30' and smaller boards. LED-based billboards have really low resolution comparatively speaking. A 20mm pitch between pixel centers is common. The intense overglow of the LEDs helps a little to mask the pixel grid. Long term the trend is to tighten the pitch to 10mm and lower as LED costs continue to fall.
Unfortunately it seems the current 4K projector models don't put out the levels of brightness available from 2K projectors. That's a deal breaker for giant sized screens. It is pretty critical for Sony (and others) to improve their projector designs.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-17-2009, 08:33 PM:
Er, ahhh Bobby... Thats the area where the Sony 4K system falls apart. The largest screen you could attempt to cover is about 45' wide. There just are not enough lumens available for anything much larger.
Mark
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-17-2009, 08:36 PM:
Sony 4K D-Cinema White Paper: Does 4K really make a difference?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-17-2009, 09:32 PM:
It didn't do anything to convince me... The paper should be run through the shredder.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-17-2009, 11:38 PM:
The real unfortunate thing is as far as "digital" goes, watching at home on Blu-ray seems to be an ever improving choice.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-18-2009, 01:16 AM:
We know that home digital is really gonna explode...but, it isn't new material to watch along with you still staring at your same four walls of your home.
..and where is the excitment in doing that?
"Excitement" is the key word in any form of entertainment - why people come out of the woodwork to find this pleasure.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-18-2009, 09:12 AM:
But getting price-gouged a premium because some business guy slaps a fancy brand name on what is still HDTV-ish 2K quality takes away a LOT of that excitement. We didn't have to pay a ticket price premium on film based 3D, but now we do with digital 3D. IMAX wants more money for showing 2K in a slightly bigger and brighter manner. Some theaters are charging more for better seats or assigning the customer a seat in some odd-ball area of the room. What's next, paying another premium to see the movie with sound properly equalized?
Commercial movie theaters are already on slippery ground with customers as it is. I haven't seen the new Star Trek movie yet although I'd like to do so. I've been waiting until the crowds die down enough that I may be able to watch it during some week night with as few other people in the room as possible -that way I might be able to enjoy the movie instead of getting tortured with all the usual distractions (cell phone use, noisy teens, crying babies, etc.).
Maybe the business guys will come up with new premium ticket pricing schemes around that theme: "Pay $3 more for a cell phone free show!" Or perhaps this: "Pay $5 for the aged 25 and up show! No noisy teens and no crying babies!"
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-18-2009, 09:32 AM:
quote:
Maybe the business guys will come up with new premium ticket pricing schemes around that theme: "Pay $3 more for a cell phone free show!" Or perhaps this: "Pay $5 for the aged 25 and up show! No noisy teens and no crying babies!"
Or pay $5.00 for a theatre with and usher dedicated to that screen who will professionally and quickly deal with ANY problems. How retro;>
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-18-2009, 09:53 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
What's next, paying another premium to see the movie with sound properly equalized?
Hey, given the theaters around here, I might go for that one.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-18-2009, 10:18 AM:
Does anybody live close enough to a Sony 4k equipped theater to check out how Angels and Demons looks?
According to the Sony press release about the premier, the DCP is 4k.
As an aside, does anybody know if they used a 4k DI for the 35mm release prints?
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-18-2009, 11:29 AM:
quote: Brad Miller
Ultimately what will happen is that the box office sales will show that 4K doesn't sell any extra tickets than a 2K theater does and thus, no need for 4K "prints".
And I think someone at the chains will say "Huh, I didn't think getting 4K wooouldn't increase ticket sales" and then think that maybe it's because no 4K material is being released.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Er, ahhh Bobby... Thats the area where the Sony 4K system falls apart. The largest screen you could attempt to cover is about 45' wide. There just are not enough lumens available for anything much larger.
He said exactly that. He said that 4K would be an improvement for large screens but that the current 4K system doesn't get bright enough for it.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-18-2009, 12:00 PM:
How was 70mm justified in the past? I can't imagine that 70mm prints increased total ticket sales (as opposed to ticket sales at a specific locaion) by any significant number, but the prints were still made for the sale of better sound and picture quality.
What about magnetic and, later, Dolby stereo prints? Again, these were (and are) still made available, yet they were not likely to increase total ticket sales.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-18-2009, 12:46 PM:
Official Regal Press Release on the Sony 4K deal
Regal Entertainment Group to Install Sony 4K Digital Cinema Projection Systems Across Entire Circuit
Sony's state-of-the-art 4K projection systems produce the highest levels of resolution, contrast and image quality for Regal's patrons
Knoxville, Tennessee and Park Ridge, New Jersey, May 18, 2009 - Regal Entertainment Group, the largest motion picture exhibitor in the world, and Sony Electronics announced an agreement for the installation of Sony 4K digital projection systems across its entire circuit over the next 3 to 5 years, which will create the most extensive 4K deployment to date.
"The rollout of these Sony 4K systems gives Regal the opportunity to utilize the latest technology to provide our patrons the best available presentation," said Amy Miles, Regal Entertainment Group's incoming chief executive officer. "Sony's state-of-the-art 4K systems produce the highest levels of resolution, contrast and overall image quality."
Approximately 1,500 of the Regal screens will also be outfitted for 3D digital projection, using Sony's newly introduced dual-lens adaptor technology.
"Regal has always been at the forefront of merging technology with entertainment to create a dynamic movie-going experience," said Gary Johns, vice president and head of of Sony Electronics' digital cinema business. "The innovative design and capabilities of the 4K projectors' are a perfect fit for supporting their commitment to deliver not only the highest-quality 2D and 3D digital projection, but also alternative content, live theatrical events and more."
Sony 4K projectors offer the highest image resolution of all projection technologies, producing 8.8 million pixels. 4K technology provides image resolution four times greater than 2K projection systems and slightly more than four times greater than high-definition.
The Regal and Sony agreement is part of an initiative being led by Digital Cinema Implementation Partners, LLC (DCIP), an organization formed in 2007 by Regal Entertainment Group, AMC Entertainment and Cinemark USA, Inc. DCIP is charged with planning and implementing the deployment of digital cinema.
About Regal Entertainment Group
Regal Entertainment Group (NYSE: RGC) is the largest motion picture exhibitor in the world. The Company's theatre circuit, comprising Regal Cinemas, United Artists Theatres and Edwards Theatres, operates 6,763 screens in 547 locations in 39 states and the District of Columbia. Regal operates theatres in all of the top 33 and 44 of the top 50 U.S. designated market areas. We believe that the size, reach and quality of the Company's theatre circuit not only provide its patrons with a convenient and enjoyable movie-going experience, but is also an exceptional platform to realize economies of scale in theatre operations.
About Sony Electronics
Sony Electronics Inc. is headquartered in San Diego, Calif. and is a leading provider of audio/video electronics and information technology products for the consumer and professional markets. Operations include research and development, design, engineering, manufacturing, sales, marketing, distribution and customer service. Sony's Broadcast and Business Solutions Company develops and manufactures video and audio technologies for professional applications including its 4K projectors for digital cinema, as well as technologies for broadcast television and motion picture production, event videography, ENG/EFP, digital cinematography, videoconferencing, IP surveillance and security, digital signage, and remote system diagnostics and monitoring. For more information about Sony's 4K projectors, visit Sony 4K Digital Cinema
Media Contacts:
Dick Westerling
Regal Entertainment Group
Sr. VP Marketing & Advertising
865-925-9539
Tom Di Nome
Sony Electronics
Sr. Public Relations Manager
201-930-6357
EDIT: Fixed the broken url in the press release.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-18-2009, 12:50 PM:
quote: Scott Norwood
How was 70mm justified in the past?
Course, I'm a little late in this era when entering in the projectionist's field, but where I came from, if one wanted to see a 70mm of any film, we would have to travel over 200 miles (to SLC from E. Idaho) to see a 70mm, and let alone, a stereo sound film.
I did have mag-optical at the theatre that I worked at and did run two mag/opticals: 1976-King Kong and 1978-Fantasia stereo sound reissue.
Thus, for example the features that I would take the dandy trip to witness:
1976-Logan's Run (Centre Theatre)
1977-Star Wars (Centre Theatre)
1979-Alien (Centre Theatre)
1980-Empire Strikes Back (Centre Theatre)
1981-Raiders of the Lost Ark (Villa Theatre-played over a year here)
1982-E.T. (Crossroads Plaza..mediocre presentation)
1982-Tron (Regency)
1983-Return of the Jedi (Centre Theatre)
1984-Temple of doom(Villa Theatre)
1988-Willow (Cottonwood)
(Sadly, all of these above theatres are now closed..)
70mm, in the SLC area, was treated like going to a special event. the main advantage is that the tix price wasn't different than a regular 35mm house.
(Whoops - Dave, that link is broken on your post above..-Monte)
-Monte
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-18-2009, 01:09 PM:
Thanks Monte, have fixed the link. It was embedded in the press release and I didn't try it when I was posting.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-18-2009, 01:58 PM:
quote: Scott Norwood
How was 70mm justified in the past? I can't imagine that 70mm prints increased total ticket sales (as opposed to ticket sales at a specific locaion) by any significant number, but the prints were still made for the sale of better sound and picture quality.
I went out of my way to see 70mm presentations of certain movies when the opportunity presented itself. But then I'm not the "typical movie goer" either. It was fairly easy to see 70mm shows when I lived in New York. The only pain was commuting into Manhattan as opposed to merely watching the 35mm version out in Staten Island. I've driven 200 miles or more each way to see certain 70mm screenings in Atlanta or Dallas.
If a theater remotely as good as the Northpark 1-2 in Dallas was showing movies in 70mm I'd still drive a good distance to see the show, especially if the principal photography was in 65mm.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-18-2009, 02:43 PM:
All my predictions were correct right down to the release of the announcement. Yay me.
quote: Brad Miller
Ultimately what will happen is that the box office sales will show that 4K doesn't sell any extra tickets than a 2K theater does and thus, no need for 4K "prints".
This is true for the time being. But remember that computer power increases exponentially and very, very fast. A few years down the road, doing 4K will be very easy and certainly not any more time consuming. It requires no extra effort by anyone to make a 4K "print", only processing time and hard drive space. You wouldn't expect whoever handles that to keep using the same computers and the same versions of the software they are using right now forever, would you? They will always be updating, and being able to quickly process 4K will come with that change. It will be a question of "why not?" instead of "why?" Hell, studios still put SDDS on release prints and we know that sure as hell doesn't increase ticket sales. 4K prints as the norm will happen.
Granted, I don't think there will be much effort put in to developing something better than 4K for the cinema.
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 05-18-2009, 03:22 PM:
All this proves is that Regal are as big of dumbasses as AMC.
I hope both chains go under from this incredibly stupid decision. They deserve to fail.
Sony cannot and will not ever provide the support that a company like Christie or Dolby does.
Every time I think this industry can't get any dumber, along comes something like this....
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-18-2009, 04:02 PM:
Interesting. Thus, going back with my "digital complex" question after seeing both sides of the discussion ... what to do since it really sounds like a toughie to which side of the fence to fall over on...all depends on the "supply and demand" of which format is more easily used and how much support there will be.
Now, to drift on the 4k side - which has a hint of the HD-DVD/BR wars: Would Christie/NEC and Barco test the waters in the LCoS format, or are they tied up with TI and the DLP format-which looks like it's definitely locked in with the 2k resolution?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-18-2009, 04:05 PM:
Actually... Even to me... the doubter... I see the nail part way driven into DLP's coffen as I type this. I now pretty much agree with Heir Guttag that T.I. could and may pull the plug on DLP. This is way too large of a coverage margin for me to ignore Sony any longer.
Mark
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-18-2009, 04:58 PM:
The AMC deal with Sony 4K was one thing. Everyone could roll their eyes and laugh and ask "Anyone remember AMC and SDDS? What is AMC smoking?" For Regal to also go Sony 4K now seems like it gives Sony new credibility and puts an end to the laughing. Maybe. I'm just saying.
Monte: I bet Christie has something running in the their skunkworks using Sony 4K LCOS/SXRD. They have to have a fallback plan. Of course that's assuming Sony would license it to a competitor.
Anyone know where Sony assembles their projectors and what their production capacity is (or will be)? Is their product even considered "in full production" yet?
EDIT
quote: Bobby Henderson
Unfortunately it seems the current 4K projector models don't put out the levels of brightness available from 2K projectors. That's a deal breaker for giant sized screens. It is pretty critical for Sony (and others) to improve their projector designs.
New Sony Anamorphic Lens LKRL-A001 for 2D is claimed to achieve 14fl on screens up to 70 feet wide.
Spring 2009 issue of Sony 4K Digital Cinema Newsletter addresses at least one previous question in this thread: Is "Angels and Demons" 4K? (it is).
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-18-2009, 05:07 PM:
Stop it! Stop it!....I can NOT have Mark agreeing with ME!
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-18-2009, 06:20 PM:
quote: David Stambaugh
I bet Christie has something running in the their skunkworks using Sony 4K LCOS/SXRD. They have to have a fallback plan. Of course that's assuming Sony would license it to a competitor.
I don't agree 100% yet Steve but I'm not far from it but it has given me due cause to go job searching a bit!!
Christie certainly has the most to loose from a T.I. shutdown. Strong would vanish in a nuclear flash(no loss really!). NEC and Barco would live on (since DLP is just a corner on someone's desk at these two companies) but they would just not make DLP projectors. It would also probably literally destroy Christie Digital, although they still build and sell film projectors and related items too.
Going from 2K to 4K isn't all that easy from a technology standpoint, it's really alot different than 2K DLP. Sony has enough shuttered plants around the world that producing them isn't an issue they also have ample space to supply parts for them, and to manufacture-service the light engines and such.
Mark
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-18-2009, 07:33 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
All my predictions were correct right down to the release of the announcement. Yay me.
So Criswell, what system will Cinemark go with?
Posted by Kevin Fairchild (Member # 4985) on 05-18-2009, 07:41 PM:
And if TI fails, what is digital Imax going to do? Revert back to film?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-18-2009, 09:30 PM:
Imax only has hundreds of theaters to equip... not tens of thousands! They can buy enough projectors to last a decade and stash em away.
Mark
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-18-2009, 10:29 PM:
Now that this is official, should we have a pool on how long it will be before Cinemark announces their deal with Sony? Once that happens (and I'm sure it will) somebody else had better come up with a 4k projector or the entire industry is going to be forced to go with Sony.
You could see the signs of this long ago when Regal was originally testing the Sony 4k projectors and said that they weren't ready for rollout YET. I remember commenting in a thread somewhere about how I got the same feeling I did back when AMC installed 6 SR-D systems in the Grand 24 and said that IF Dolby turns out to be the best choice the other 18 screens are Digital Ready. Once I read that, I had a feeling they were going SDDS 100% because DTS already was widely deployed at that point so they could have gone 100% DTS immediately.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I think it is a very good thing that the major chains are going to force the industry standard to 4k instead of 2k. The bad thing is that right now everybody is forced to go with Sony. I kind of blame TI for the situation. It was them that pushed for 2k as "good enough". I realize at this point in time investing in DLP makes no sense but when they first got into digital cinema they thought there would be a huge market for DLP TV. Back then, in 1999 - 2005 or so, there would have been a business case to develop 4k DLP and have it rolled out for the marketing and branding of DLP.
I hope that somewhere close to me gets an installation soon as I really want to see what a 4k DCP played on a 4k system looks like and compare it to the 2k DLP that I've seen.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-18-2009, 11:17 PM:
According to the Sony 4K site, Cinemark has 4K installed at the Tinseltown in Plano TX, and at 3 theaters in Taiwan (is Plano their flagship?). So they've at least been taking a look at it.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-18-2009, 11:47 PM:
Plano the home base for Cinemark, so you can easily see why they shoved a 4k in there. And, when you go to the REG site, the one in Knoxville would be close to their home base in TENN.
Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-19-2009, 07:15 AM:
Well, if I were TI, I would pull the thumb out of my ... mouth and bring out the very best 3K optical engine I could possibly manufacture and lower my prices to the bare minimum and just keep strolling for a couple more years until the other guys (Lcos, etc) iron out the problems (manufacturing "defects") and better their shortcomings (light output, reliability) to the point of practically matching them.
From that point on, I don't see how TI can compete anymore, and would likely have to eventually close out.
In low-brightness markets, they already can't compete in price/performance. For proper performance, they need 3 DLP chips and they either can't or refuse (my guess) to do it for cheap. 1-chip DLP is fine for what it is, but it's not going to "blast away" the competition (LCD, Lcos), which is constantly improving.
This is not the death of 2K. Only the death of 2K as a "top quality, premium price" choice. Finally.
Again, I don't have the slightless problem with 2K except that it's priced like if it was 10K or something, while it produces a final result little more than a home projector with a 3KW lamp or a 65" LCD TV, if you know what I mean. If the result (resolution/brightness) is not 10 times better, as it's only 1.1 times for resolution and 5 times for brightness, it shouldn't cost 10 times more. I know that 50% of the cost is due to DCI security paranoia, but we shouldn't be the ones paying for it. If the studios want top anti-piracy measures, they should go and pay it themselves.
JVC could also enter this market for the smaller Dcinema screens if they so wished. They certainly have the goods to do it today even better than Sony could (quality wise).
What is funny is that the LIE about "needing" digital to do "3D" is now bluntly evident.
So what do we have as the top choice for 3D in theaters? Let's compare Sony 3D to the 3D of the 80's:
-A 4K system, split 50/50 for 2K over/under for 3D. In the 80's, a full frame 35mm (around 4K or more, too), split 50/50 for 3D. Film in the 80's win.
-Over/under adjustable split lens with a separating prism and polarizing filters. In the 80's, a variety of systems including adjustable split lenses and separating prisms and polarizing filters. Oooppsss. Exactly the same.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
So, now, why is it again that they can't print-out 3D 35mm film prints anymore? Oh, yeah, I forgot. Each 3D 35mm print costs them $1000 while each hard drive costs them virtually nothing and they are trying to use 3D to lure theaters into digital convertion and nothing more ...
I get it. Now. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Oh, and with 80's 35mm 3D ... RealD wouldn't be getting free money from 3D showings. I forgot about that too.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-19-2009, 09:14 AM:
quote: Julio Roberto
This is not the death of 2K. Only the death of 2K as a "top quality, premium price" choice. Finally.
While I agree that 2K will still exist and will become a lot cheaper, the issue is as follows. If I compete with Regal or AMC in a market and they will be marketing 4K like crazy how can I do a complex full of 2K? Even if no customer could actually tell the difference for $1 Million, word will get out that the projectors at AMC are "better". I'm sure that 4K DCPs will be more and more common now.
I know some are skeptical of this because it doesn't sell more tickets. Digital sound was really the same in 1993-1997 or so as 3D is now (except without the price premium). It shifted the audience to the digital sound equipped complexes and shows but it didn't increase the overall grosses. Still, the studios spent the money on the 5.1 mixes and eventually licensing for all three formats on release prints (SDDS added in quantity after the AMC deal).
I would venture to guess that doing 4K scanning and post (with the exception of CGI scenes) and releasing a 4K DCP is A LOT cheaper than doing a real IMAX DMR and printing a few hundred IMAX prints. I wonder if fake IMAX at Regal and AMC will change over to Sony 4K.....
Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 05-19-2009, 10:30 AM:
I have read people in a forum saying 4K DLP in 2010. I put some credibility to this statement. TI is said to have a .65 1080p part (2K) and that scales to roughly the current size of the 2K dmd for 4K.
How is work progressing replacing xenons with lasers as the light source?
In China they have a 10K lumen 3DLP prototype laser projector.
Sony has more to gain by replacing the xenon lamp with lasers. Then Sony could make a brighter projector provided the lasers are up to it. Less heat would make uniformity easier to handle on the panels. I coulds also see a contrast boost from lasers with sxrd projectors.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-19-2009, 10:57 AM:
The big thing here is going to be if Cinemark goes Sony or not. I seriously doubt that Cinemark will want a lesser quality system (2K) to attempt to promote against the other DCIP partners who also have locations in some of the same towns. Sony is also the least expensive on this scale of installs. So I am going to predict that they too go the Sony route. That for sure will signal the end of T.I. and 2K DLP...unless they have something very, very slick up their sleeves.
Mark
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-19-2009, 11:25 AM:
quote: Mattias Ohlson
I have read people in a forum saying 4K DLP in 2010. I put some credibility to this statement. TI is said to have a .65 1080p part (2K) and that scales to roughly the current size of the 2K dmd for 4K
If this is true, TI had better announce it soon to stem the Sony tide before it's too late. Hands down, I would choose a Christie CP4000-ZX 4K DLP projector with a Doremi or Dolby 4K server over a Sony 4K projector/server any day.
They need to do this and get Cinemark to commit to 100% 4K DLP (if it is really on the roadmap) now. Then, in 2 years when Sony fails to live up to the contracts with Regal and AMC, they can switch to 4K DLP.
4K DLP could do the over/under 3D and get rid of triple flash (and thus be 60P 3D capable for sports in 3D) as well.
For those that know the technical stuff better than I do, if this theoretical 1.3" 4K DLP chip was made, would the projector optics still be around the same cost as the 1.2" 2K DLP optics? Basically the question is could a 4K DLP projector be made for just slightly more cost than a 2K DLP projector?
I hope this is true because based on the image quality of 2K DLP, I would predict that 4K DLP will look better (even to trained eyes) than any mechanically projected 35mm film (except for dailies printed right off a camera negative).
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-19-2009, 12:17 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I seriously doubt that Cinemark will want a lesser quality system (2K)
Mark, what are you smoking??? Resolution does NOT dictate the "quality" of a system. Resolution dictates the resolution, but that has no bearing on the rest of the image quality.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-19-2009, 12:37 PM:
quote: Mattias Ohlson
I have read people in a forum saying 4K DLP in 2010. I put some credibility to this statement.
Who is making the claims? Why would some online guessing about 4K DLP be credible?
I think there's a better chance of Joan Crawford rising from the grave than Texas Instruments introducing a 4K DLP chip set. Even if TI could win over Regal, AMC, etc. with such a product they have no larger consumer electronics vector in which to sell the thing. DLP and LCOS are arguably dead-end technologies. If either survive they'll only survive in a tiny niche segment -like d-cinema projectors if such a venture can even be profitable.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-19-2009, 12:37 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
That for sure will signal the end of T.I. and 2K DLP...unless they have something very, very slick up their sleeves.
Mark
..and I'm sure that the three main 2k makers are watching this very, very closely - for you know they're just not going to sit and do nothing, fall in to a world of complacency while they let the big one get away.
If that ever happens, they'd be out of business in a hearbeat.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-19-2009, 01:01 PM:
After some thought, I'm pretty sure that this move (AMC/Regal announcing that they will install Sony) is just about the best possible thing that could happen for 35mm film (and, by extension, smaller chains and independents).
No one will install 2K anything now. TI can't justify the R&D expense of a 4K DLP chip unless it has some application outside of cinemas (which, it seems, it does not). Many people in the industry mistrust Sony (due to SDDS) and there is general concern over single-source hardware. In any case, these moves have created enough confusion in the industry that it wouldn't be prudent for anyone to make any conversion decisions until things shake out.
The funny part is that, assuming that AMC and Regal follow through with their announcements (a big assumption), their digital "Imax" houses will have lower resolution than their smallest multiplex screens.
Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-19-2009, 02:02 PM:
quote: Scott Norwood
their digital "Imax" houses will have lower resolution than their smallest multiplex screens.
Well, theoretically at least, the new Imax houses already have lower resolution than your corner's discount theatre showing a 35mm print of an 80's classic film.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-19-2009, 03:07 PM:
I'm not smoking anything Brad... Not even that I-15 stuff! I haven't even been influenced by the kooks that live here in Utaw. The fact is that if the others go that route then Cinemark will more or less HAVE TO go that route because of the marketing aspect (actually we would call it hype). Ya can't market a lesser number against a larger number and win. I personally don't like what's happenning either Brad... Sony has more or less become the Frito Lay of the electronics industry... stomping out other companies in favor of themselves.... this is in fact exactly Frito Lays Policy!!! At least their Play Station is now falling apart... Twas a stupid name anyway.
Mark
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-19-2009, 04:11 PM:
...and they shot themselves in the foot with the BETA system - excellent system..out performed VHS by a long shot, but their marketing schemes is what destroyed BETA.
VHS didn't want mega dollars on each of their systems manufactured, while Sony wanted those mega dollars. Those people at Mashitusta(Panasonic) knew now to market products.
So, who won out?
VHS garnished the big dollars on the long run and the small dollars went to BETA. Soon, Sony finally got into the VHS system, but it was too late to rescue them.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-19-2009, 04:21 PM:
Beta is NOT dead and will be going for quite a long time down the road. Betacam is still THE most popular video tape format in the world with all of the Betacam formats still being used and all of them supported to at least some degree by both Sony and other parts vendors. Tape is still widely available as well. The entire world IS NOT yet HD and it will be quite a long time before it is.
BTW: Betacam SP out performs 1" type C in most if not all aspects.
Mark
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 05-19-2009, 04:33 PM:
The best way to market against 4K is not to compete on resolution, but to go after one of 4K's weaknesses, which is brightness.
A new brand that would emphasize brightness could work, but some effort would have to be put into it.
As much as people like big screens and big numbers, they also want their images bright. This is evident in the "torch" mode that TV's come set with from the factory so that they look good on the store display next to all the others that are set equally bright.
How about PureBright16? "Our theaters are calibrated to the industry standard of 16 foot-lamberts. Anything less is just dim-witted."
Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 05-19-2009, 04:59 PM:
Given these recent developments concerning 4K vs. 2K, I have to agree with Scott Norwood's assessment. Independents with 35MM would have to be nuts to make a move at this point.
Converting to digital makes absolutely no business sense in that you are faced with huge conversion costs that you probably will never recoup. Exhibitors are getting
Wrong decisions in this economy can quickly lead to Chapter 11.
Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-19-2009, 05:25 PM:
Let's not forget the big guys are also getting their own sweetened VPF deals. They just chose to choose Sony as their technology partner, who I'm sure also sweetened the deal and the financing for them even more.
But now the little guys are more screwed than ever. Sony will surely charge them more if they want the 4K, being a monopoly as they are, and still no open, nice, generous VPF (except Paramount, perhaps) for the small independents.
Oh well. I foresee dual digital/35mm inventory for many years still. We better oil up and get the 35mm clean and in top shape with good, bright lamps to compete against the 4K stuff.
What is the most stable (i.e. not weavery) 35mm projector geared for the theatrical market today? What's its price point?
I guess it's good to also get whatever is the cheapest way to get 3D in one of the screens to compete with the occasional good 3D movie and occasional need for a digital print. Of course the cheapest way for 3D would be to get the distributor to make 3D 35mm prints, instead of 2D like they are doing now for 35mm engagements. But I have the feeling they ain't gonna do it ...
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-19-2009, 05:28 PM:
Sorry Mark, but meant for Beta to be dead in the home entertainment market.
I knew that 3/4"BETAMAX is still going very strong in the professional video world.
I forgot to include that in my above statement.
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 05-19-2009, 08:37 PM:
My betacam sp camera takes the standard beta 1/2" cassette. I think so does HD cam sr, different tape formulation.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-19-2009, 09:19 PM:
quote: Cameron Glendinning
My betacam sp camera takes the standard beta 1/2" cassette.
Mine too, 30 min. max length, the BVW-50 takes up to the 90 min tapes but I've never used one yet. What SP Rig do you have there Cameron? I've got a PVV-3 docked to a DXC-327. Monte's thinking of the older 3/4"SP format. It records on Metal 3/4" tape using a higher subcarrier frequency than standard 3/4" did. Like Beta SP ya also have to use Metal Tape (I hope mine don't rust !) Ya get a little better video and chroma S/N mainly...
Speaking of rigs... one customer said I could get rich making porn films with the Betacam ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
.
Mark
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-19-2009, 09:40 PM:
I liked working with Beta when I had my TV job in Georgia. At least Sony was smart enough to license out Betacam to other professional video manufacturers like Ikegami. If only Sony had done the same thing early on with consumer Beta the format probably would have lived well on into this decade.
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 05-20-2009, 01:29 AM:
Sony is still a bunch of dumbasses and so is AMC... now Regal's jumping in bed with them.
They'll get the "Regal" they deserve.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-20-2009, 01:53 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
At least Sony was smart enough to license out Betacam to other professional video manufacturers like Ikegami.
There was a problem there though I believe near the end of the production of Standard Definition Beta gear where Sony refused to supply or liscence Ikegami for any Beta at all. This led Ikegami down another road all together and I believe they teamed up with Toshiba to develop the GFCAM tapeless Hi Def ENG camera. This tapeless camera has qickly caught on really fast and has become the new standard for use in HD ENG work.
Mark
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 05-20-2009, 03:08 AM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
What SP Rig do you have there Cameron?
537p and a pv1 back. I also have a spare 537 head, they dont get much use anymore though, nor does the sony 900e 3ccd mini dv camera.
I also have a micro jib and pipe dolly and a few other bits that do still get used.
I can not decide which HD camera is worth buying at the moment.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-20-2009, 09:34 AM:
quote: Cameron Glendinning
I can not decide which HD camera is worth buying at the moment.
Well, UNless you have about 30 grand US to spend there isn't one worth looking at really. I have yet to find an affordable true 1080P HD camera thats affordable or won't be obsolete two weeks after you buy it. Thats why I've stuck to my Betacam... is is certainly SD but the color and image quality still is far better then "affordable" HD cameras can muster up.
Mark
Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-20-2009, 01:52 PM:
I'd really like to see your Laserdisc and Vinyl collection someday, Mark.
Anyway, back to topic, here is a link with some videos in case you want to swallow more Sony marketing:
They talk about their installations in Poland and Norway.
http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowContent.action?logicalname=jtm-digitalcinema-mb-0508
And just your generic marketing, including some details on 3D and stuff
http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowProductCategory.action?site=biz_en_GB&category=D-Cinema
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-20-2009, 02:28 PM:
Also back on topic. A lot of people have talked about how stupid AMC and Regal are to make this choice. However, AMC has had several complexes running 100% Sony 4K for a while now. If the image quality sucked or they were having lots of problems I don't think they would have made the deal. I also assume that these complexes have 2-4 pretty large screens (as most AMCs built in the last decade do) so I guess the Sony projectors manage to illuminate them. As another post said, Sony claims that using the anamorphic lens (I assume this allows use of the whole imager) for scope, the SRX-220 can light a 70 foot wide scope screen to 14 fl. There aren't many screens out there bigger than that and for the few that do exist, two projectors could be used. A screen over 70 feet will also be a 500+ seat auditorium so if the location justifies that much capacity then it certainly does enough business to pay the extra electric and bulb replacement costs.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-20-2009, 02:53 PM:
Even if we accept that the Sony 4K unit has good picture quality and reliability (I have no idea, as I haven't seen it), it's still a dumb move, for the following reasons:
- Both chains announced that they would go with Sony, yet it will be months or years before the DCIP funding is available to begin the installs. What happens if a newer/better/cheaper product is made available in the meantime?
- Both chains have committed to installing Sony equipment exclusively; this puts them in a bad position should Sony choose to raise prices on critical parts and/or drop support for these units entirely in the future. It would have been less risky to install equipment from several manufacturers in order to minimize the effect of this sort of situation in the future.
- Sony has no real history of involvement in the exhibition business (other than SDDS) and is not likely to be as aware of what type of products and support exhibitors expect as Christie, Dolby, and other manufacturers with a strong existing relationship with the theatre side of the business. This may or may not prove to be an issue, but it was a risky move.
The only positive result from this that I can see is that the equipment purchase price was low and AMC and Regal will be able to use the "4K!" marketing element in markets where they compete with 2K DLP houses.
This was a bad move for AMC and Regal (and could sink them both, if nothing changes), but a good move for the rest of the industry, for reasons that I indicated earlier.
Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-20-2009, 02:55 PM:
Not to mention that a number of those screens will be made silver high-gain to allow for 3D, allowing for even brighter 2D images (if the theater geometry is not too wide, etc).
I'm not saying it's great to obtain high light levels on a high gain screen, just that high gain screens are basically a necessity for 3D and, since they must be used anyway, they do count to provide a brighter image in 2D shows if done right.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-20-2009, 03:33 PM:
quote: Julio Roberto
I'd really like to see your Laserdisc and Vinyl collection someday, Mark.
Monte Fullmer has my Laser Disk Collection... The majority of the vinyl collection went to the dump many many years ago. I only kept my Refrence Recordings and Direct to Disk LP's. You should see my Nipkow Disk TV camera nand receiver .
Re: The 4K thingy above...
I don't see anything good comming from this Scott. If Cinemark also goes Sony then the othing I seen is the eventual demise of DLP all together. Also, Sony has the money to make it all happen. DCIP only need sign on the dotted line!!!
Mark
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-20-2009, 04:01 PM:
It's amusing that everyone naturally assumes that because the big chains have made some strategically-incorrect business decisions in the past (over-building, SDDS), that they must continue to do so now because they can't help themselves and/or because they are just morons.
Puh-leez!
You honestly don't think that AMC and Regal, after the SDDS debacle, have covered all those issues (supply, support, spares, etc.) in detail with Sony and are comfortable with Sony's commitment to 4K? You actually think AMC and Regal, while talking to Sony about 4K, just swept SDDS under the rug out of fear of hurting Sony's corporate feelings? It's just as likely that Sony had to acknowledge their SDDS failings to AMC and Regal and provide concrete (contractual) assurances that 4K will not be a repeat of SDDS.
If TI now suddenly discontinues DLP, will that make TI as bad as Sony? How about if NEC and Barco discontinue their D-Cinema offerings?
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-20-2009, 06:14 PM:
Mark -- the win that I see here is that the Sony move has confused the market enough that no one else will buy anything for a while. This just bought everyone some time to wait and see what happens and also for new products and technologies to emerge, and for prices to drop on existing products. D-cinema equipment is not going to get any worse or more expensive over time.
It may not be so good for dealers in the short term, but I can't imagine things working out any better for independents and small chains.
David--I don't really consider AMC and Regal to be particularly well managed companies (have you attended a screening at either one lately?). I have no doubt that Sony just offered them a sweetheart deal and they took it. That does not mean that this move was the best long-term decision for their shareholders.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-20-2009, 07:11 PM:
I guess you don't read my reviews. The Regal 15 here in Eugene (opened 2 years ago) does a very good job most of the time. It's rare for there to be a serious presentation problem. I go there all the time and post in the Reviews forum, including comments about presentation, whether it was good or bad, along with anything else I feel the need to complain about. Most of the time I have no meaningful complaints. I have no doubt that you (Scott) or Brad or Mark or Steve or Gordon or any number of other professionals here could find things to criticize and mock and that's fine. Just don't assume that every location in a particular chain is crap because some of them are. Sometimes people here like to bitch-slap Carmike. Yet Bobby Henderson has said repeatedly that the Carmike in Lawton is well-run.
Whether Sony offered them a sweetheart deal isn't really the issue. Sony is hopefully required as part of the deal to provide adequate service and support for however many years AMC and Regal need the 4K system to be viable. If that's not part of the deal, then yeah, the decision could end up backfiring if Sony pulls up stakes. Presumably there are assurances in place to make that outcome unlikely for the exhibitors.
As far as waiting for something better/cheaper, we all know that's how it is with digital electronics. At what point do AMC and Regal make a decision? Never? I mean there's always something better on the horizon, so by that logic they shouldn't do this at all, ever.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-20-2009, 07:29 PM:
quote: Scott Norwood
Mark -- the win that I see here is that the Sony move has confused the market enough that no one else will buy anything for a while.
Oh, Absolutely Scott. I agree 100%. The market has already been suffering from a wait to see if the price drops/wait to see if the equipment is reliable sort of a thing since day one. And equipment is now super reliable AND Prices have dropped somewhat enticing some to install digital but not really enough to sustain things. Those that do install digital have done either just 3-D installs or a few 2-D's sprinkled here and there, again not enough to support DLP in the long run. I already know of a couple of locations that are going to wait it out for at least a while before going down either route. CBG has also never supported Sony because of Wayne Anderson's attitude but now that the Waynster is gone they will now obviously have to have some serious sit down talks with Sony.
While I think 2K has it's place it's also going to have to become cost competitive with 4K on the scale that AMC and Regal are doing (about 58 grand a screen total cost) and I don't think that particuluar cost competitiveness price area can support DLP or the server manufacturers in the long run.
As far as how well run the two companies are... I can say that AMC here ni SLC does one of the best film projected jobs of presentation. Any company as large as these are going to have great locations and bad locations just like McDonalds and Burger King do.
Mark
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 05-20-2009, 07:43 PM:
Isn't this whole thing really about the fact that Sony can finance the conversion when DCIP could not get bank financing done?
Also, I don't understand why DLP has to go away if the US market is mostly Sony. What about the rest of the world? Don't they sell DLP office/home projectors also? Are the cinema DLP chips vastly different from the consumer/small business market?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-20-2009, 10:32 PM:
I don't know how the break down on entire world count of commercial movie theater screens, but it wouldn't surprise me if the United States had a pretty big percentage. It's likely the US has a lopsided majority of the world's d-cinema equipped theater screens. Because of the high cost per screen I think world-wide proliferation of d-cinema will be a slow process.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone here believes it would be the death of DLP entirely if the 2K d-cinema business disappeared. The real problem is DLP technology overall, with all niche industries included, isn't making enough money for Texas Instruments for TI to keep supporting it. Even without the threat of Sony's 4K projectors there is still a serious chance TI will discontinue the manufacturing of DLP chips.
The 3-chip 2K DLP arrays used in professional d-cinema projectors are very expensive compared to the smaller DLP chips sold in consumer electronics products and projectors for computers. Most office product projectors using DLP feature relatively low resolutions like 800 X 600 or 1024 X 768. I get computing catalogs all the time and haven't seen any product listings for computer projectors using the same 2048 X 1080 part used in professional d-cinema projectors.
Likewise LCOS stuff is hard to find. Sony sells a Bravia branded "SXRD" projector that can be used for home theater or computer display use. It has full HD resolution. But it costs well over $3000. I think a lot of customers will opt to buy a flat panel TV instead.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-20-2009, 10:55 PM:
quote: Matt Fields
Also, I don't understand why DLP has to go away if the US market is mostly Sony. What about the rest of the world? Don't they sell DLP office/home projectors also? Are the cinema DLP chips vastly different from the consumer/small business market?
You're forgetting that selling office projectors doesn't mean selling enough of them to make a profit. People in the office market choose any of the many cheaper options. And a person running a home projector would be even less likely than a business to do DLP. In both areas (business and home), DLP projectors lose out to regular televisions, monitors, and far cheaper competing projectors.
Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 05-21-2009, 07:22 AM:
In terms of the use of DLP/LCoS outside of DCI, the University I work for has just installed a Sony SXRD projector in a classroom at full HD for the teaching of graphics related subjects - to get the best resolution and colour reproduction.
And, of course, our cinema on campus has a Panasonic DW-10000 DLP at fullHD resolution for pre-show and e-cinema - used for showing "Slumdog Millionaire" which, in Australia, was primarily on digital and not 35mm.
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-21-2009, 09:11 AM:
quote: Scott Norwood
David--I don't really consider AMC and Regal to be particularly well managed companies (have you attended a screening at either one lately?).
Sorry, dude, but a movie theatre is as good as the Management team that runs it. I take particular offense to this generalized stereotyping. I have been to many AMC and Regals that had top notch presentations.
While many people have legit complaints about the companies in general, I save my complaints about specific locations for when I visit each individual theatre.
Thank you, and have a nice day.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-21-2009, 03:05 PM:
Dennis, it is true that the local management makes a theater as good or bad as it can be, but let's not forget moronic policies that prevent the theater from functioning at its very best that come straight from corporate. For one, Regal demands that you chop and ID frame off of the head and tail of each reel. If the theater manager does not comply, they get raped in the eye socket. Also, both AMC and Regal put WAAAAAY TOO MANY trailers on the front of their movies. There isn't much that the managers can do to correct these and many other similar issues.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-21-2009, 03:30 PM:
What Joe said.
Regal and AMC make it difficult for good managers to be good managers, from what I have seen. I agree that a good manager (and staff) is essential to a quality operation.
My point was more that Regal and AMC essentially provide a generic experience, with relatively high prices, obnoxious advertising, and generally indifferent presentation (yes, there are some exceptions). Neither has done much to improve the state of the industry or to distinguish itself from its competitors (I'm told that AMC boasts about having "invented" cupholders). It is obvious to me that both organizations are more interested in short-term profits (slim as they may be) and not in the long-term health of the exhibition industry.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-21-2009, 03:49 PM:
I pretty much agree with Joe's and Scott's views. These days you're actually very lucky IF you even get the generic treatment to be honest. Megaplex's everywhere have taken all the personal aspects out of movie going.
Mark
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-21-2009, 04:31 PM:
quote: Dennis Benjamin
but a movie theatre is as good as the Management team that runs it.
AGREE! That's a simple no-brainer. I've seen locations that can come from trash to prime rib quality with a changeout in management attitude.
(now to drift off-topic a bit..)
Interesting how, in some of these post in different forums how many comments have been expressed on both location operations and screen presentations-both good and bad.
The finger loves to point at the staff, the presentation and the location itself, yet it misses the target where it supposed to be pointing at.... at the manager.
For HE is whom the public see most of the time and should be in charge of his "store"...and setting the proper image to the public.
They don't care about the circuit that the theatre is under. It all comes down to the guy in the splashy suit with the name tag that embossed with the words "MANAGER" on it.
"the Buck stops here".
(back on topic)
I can see why the sudden push with 4k with these three circuits: a simple "looking outside of the box" concern to stay one step ahead at all times and willing to risk it all.
-Monte
Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-21-2009, 05:54 PM:
I see the move to 4K as a question of both, marketing "prestige" and fear of obsolence.
Think that if you commit to the move of thousands of screens to 2K and, for whatever reason, 5 years down the road, when your lease is still only half-paid, something in the market makes "everything" 4K (or even 8K) ... well, you are stuck with a bad investment that never recovered, much less paid off.
I, at least, see 2K not as a definitive technology for large movie theatres, but as a sacrificial stepping stone to 4K or as a budget solution for smaller screens.
I do see 4K as a viable replacement for 35mm film, adding a few advantages (i.e. in labor costs) while providing few drawbacks (higher maintenance costs).
2K, for me, is fine for a small screen in a small multiplex as long as its priced as such (i.e. 1/2 or even 1/4 of the "real thing" 4K). Otherwise, it's but an interim solution that will be obsolete just about as fast as 1.3K was.
Going above 4K is not necessary for anything not 15perf-Imax-like, so it's fine for any theater application for the medium-long term.
Of course, we all wish that there were slightly better 4K offers in terms of quality/reliability and choice of suppliers, but oh well, that's all we have now thanks to DCI stronghold on distribution (competition tribunal class action, anyone?). Otherwise, there are other non-DCI 4K (and even 8K) alternatives in the market today. Or there could be if the demand was there.
I said it many times before here. If the industry wants exhibition to move digital either:
A) Come up with a 4K (or better) $50k/screen solution. Exhibitors may go for that on their own merits (good price, good resolution, good 35mm replacemente, lower labor costs that offset higher maintenance). Sony was close to this with their ~60k/screen offer to the majors.
or
B) Have distributors pay for the 2K interim stuff so that it's "free" to exhibitors. Then exhibitors shouldn't really care to say no to free equipment, even if the quality is not all up to the par with 35mm or 4K, but close enough to get by.
or
C) A $25k/screen 2K solution existed. Well, it may hold on its own too. If such thing is feasible, but probably not if it must be FIPS/3 certified and have DCI's stamp of approval.
Right now, with the VPF, the 3 majors are getting the best of both worlds: almost free equipment paid mostly by VPF and long-term 4K investment that also screws the competition if stuck at 2K.
And the competition that doesn't want 4K (i.e. dislike Sony or find it too pricey) must pay almost the same (or higher) price for 2K and some may not even get good VPF agreements at all.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-21-2009, 06:52 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
For one, Regal demands that you chop and ID frame off of the head and tail of each reel.
I have no idea what you are talking about. My guess would be that whomever told you this was making an excuse for themselves.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-21-2009, 07:04 PM:
If those frames are routinely chopped off, won't it be detectable on screen, at least some of the time? I do not notice that happening at the Regal here. Never. I don't know if they do or don't chop the frames, but if they do it's not noticeable to me as a viewer.
I don't understand how to reconcile Big Exhibition's alleged obsession with short-term profits and their decision to go 4K. How does going 4K help their short-term profitability? If they're trying to squeeze every dollar, wouldn't they go 2K and call it good enough? Or as some argue, wouldn't they stay with 35mm film?
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-21-2009, 09:38 PM:
REG employees leaves an ID frame over here...
..It looks like it all comes down who began the booth training at certain locations, for in the REG booth training and procedure manual, it was stated to leave one ID frame on both heads and tail leaders.
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-21-2009, 09:48 PM:
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
I hope both chains go under from this incredibly stupid decision. They deserve to fail.
Have the major Theatre Chains become too big to fail?
I'm seeing a government bailout in the future.
Yikes....
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-21-2009, 10:29 PM:
The movie industry isn't "important" enough to warrant a bailout. When you add up the billions they make and compare it to any number of other industries they're way down the list of priorities. Farmers and ranchers in my neck of the woods are a whole lot more likely to get government aid than anyone in Hollywood, no matter how high profile the movie industry may be in popular culture. There's actually a LOT of people in "middle" parts of America who would be perfectly happy if Hollywood went totally out of business.
Regarding managers and good theaters, I agree good management makes a big difference on theaters providing great show quality and customer service or not. However, at the same time short-sighted decisions from corporate HQ will undermine what even the best movie theater managers can do.
Some movie theaters are totally screwed from the start due to piss poor theater design and construction. Corners get cut on the building design, where the projection port is set, how much wall treatment gets applied, how thick the walls are built and what sorts of projection and sound system equipment gets installed. The big chain movie theater manager has absolutely no say over any of that, which also makes it possible for a brand new movie theater to start out being a total piece of shit instead of degrading to that point like so many others do. And then you get to the issue of maintenance. Good managers constantly make noise to the higher ups about broken equipment that needs to be replaced. But the higher ups are the ones writing the checks or refusing to write the checks. Very often deferred maintenance is a corporate HQ choice rather than that of the local theater manager. The "suits" subscribe to "good enough" quality. Hell, they probably don't even watch movies in regular movie theaters. Who needs to stain a Brooks Brothers suit in regular seats among the "unwashed?" OK, maybe I'm going a little far with that, but you sort of get the "suits are out of touch" point with that, right?
Overall, I think both Hollywood movie studios and theaters are really pushing their luck with all the escalating ticket prices, concession prices and premium surcharges for digital 3D and fake IMAX. A family has only so much money they're willing to spend on a "out of home" entertainment outing. It is now very easy for the cost of a trip to the theater to cost more than $20 per person, including the kiddies. Add up the ticket price, concessions prices, surcharges for digital 3D and/or fake IMAX, extra charges for online ticket ordering, assigned seating, parking, etc. and it's just getting too damned expensive to go anymore. After awhile the family is just going to throw up their arms in disgust and head to Chuck E. Cheese. If they want to see that way-cool movie they'll just buy a copy of it on DVD or Blu-ray at 1/4 the cost of seeing it only once at the theater. They'll have the 480p or 1080p disc at home to watch as many times as they like. Or they can just rent the damned thing and save a whole lot more money.
Before anyone says it, yeah, I already know that "people just want to get out of the house." But do you have to go broke doing so? What the hell? At some point a line is going to be crossed and I think the movie industry is waltzing right over it. Worse yet, the movie industry is traipsing past that line without paying any attention to the basics.
We're familiar with all the complaints of how damned derivative so many Hollywood movies are becoming. 20 years ago a sequel usually required a really good original movie in order to be made. Today a movie studio can release a really shitty movie and then make 5 sequels out of it. The studios are spoon feeding the public the same flavor of Vanilla and expecting the public to buy even more of it from one quarter to the next.
Some movie theaters are well run, but most are not. With many of the theaters I visit more often than not I am typically disappointed with the sound and projection quality. The situation didn't seem quite as bad as it does now. Maybe we're getting spoiled by the pluses of home theater quality. Badly presented 5.1 surround is irritating us more than mono did back in the 1980s. On top of that we're tortured by an endless stream of pre-show ads, TV commercials as trailers, movie trailers, etc. before the actual movie begins. With this much TV and movie advertising shouldn't we be getting in for free? Really.
Finally there's the worst factor: other members of the audience. This is the main reason I don't go to movie theaters nearly as often as in years past. If I visited movie theaters with the same frequency I did in the 1980s and 1990s I would have probably already had a psychotic break in an auditorium and beat some cellphone user unconscious with a baseball bat I smuggled into the auditorium. I have thoughts about sneaking an Air-soft pellet gun into the theater to have handy to shoot cellphone users in the ears when they open their phones to start OCD texting sessions. So many assholes in the audience contribute to ruining the movie going experience for everyone else in the room. I really wish I knew what could be done to solve this problem in a positive manner, but I don't. Until theaters can figure out what to do or until the United States has some sort of cultural re-awakening of being more considerate to others I only see the situation growing progressively worse.
With that said, I'm not willing to pay upwards of $20 to see a movie in a theater. Not with what's going on right now in so many places. Some shit has to change for the high cost to be justifiable. Very few theaters are living up to that.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-22-2009, 02:08 AM:
On this subject: Talked to a mgr of a complex tonight and asked him when a standard 2D movie is playing in two houses in each format - one film and one 2K digital - how well it does in each format.
He mentions that their is really no difference in attendance, but you can tell the difference between the two if one is paying close attention.
Obviously, in the manager's eyes, the film presentation looks so much better than the digital due to the simple result of the "warmth of film usage and presentation".
Wow! .. how many of us "old time audiophile lovers" loved to get into this arguement when it came to the difference between analog sound reproduction (tape, vinyl and wire) and digital (CD, et.al.) sound reproduction - how "warm" any analog recorded source would sound when matched with tube amplifiers, and CD's would be so horribly shoved back in the corner...but you can't tell this to this recent generation...
(Mark, you're lucky that you kept your RR and direct-to-disc vinyl pressings for this very reason. It's like with me and my Victor Shaded Dogs and Classic Records releases...and yes, that is a great LD collection that I got from you along with the LD player...Thx a bunch!)
Now, I can see where 4k has massive shoes to fill: to get their digital presentations as close to the "warmth" of the classic film presentation...and beyond.
-Monte
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-22-2009, 09:56 AM:
....I still prefer to see 35mm film presented using Carbon Arc Lamps...I am able to do so by going to the Everett Theatre that is located in Middletown, Delaware....
The 'warmth' that is being referred to is ever so clear when I watch a film at that theatre.
..Now - if they could put some work into the actual building itself...
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-22-2009, 01:26 PM:
quote: Scott Norwood
I'm told that AMC boasts about having "invented" cupholders
I'm told that people can make crap up at a whim... including complaints about theater chains.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2