Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Rant on D-Cinema

This is topic Rant on D-Cinema 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=000382

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 06-05-2009, 10:54 AM:

D-Cinema has come, is coming or whatever you want to call it. It is happening slowly, very slowly and at this time there is a certain "stall" as 3D is the next (actually the first ancient) big thing with D-Cinema installs. The benefits of D-Cinema are well known. Pristine picture every time, no misframing, no deterioration e.t.c. Small things which seem to be making sense to the exhibitors but perhaps not so much to us, people of the trade. Distribution companies go on and on and on how D-Cinema helps business both for the distributor and the exhibitor. They fail though to recommend ways of actually financing the ridiculously priced projectors and servers and leave all that to land on the exhibitors' side. Quoting a client for equipment with the price to perhaps equip 3 or even 4 cinemas with new 35mm projectors seems really sky high and out of this world. The exhibitor has no real benefit what so ever except the added cost of purchasing the equipment. Why should the exhibitor suffer all the time. Why won't distribution companies come to an aggreement with manufacturers for perhaps "trade in" solutions or even "sponsored" solutions that will help small countries or small exhibitors to be able to make it into the Digital realm.
D-Cinema is merely a doomed situation. Equipment bought today is obsolete tomorrow and so on and so forth. Investing huge amounts of money to throw them away in no less than 5 to 6 years. The main question one should ask is "Does D-Cinema bring that extra client in the audience". What are the actual revenue benefits. When will the investment pay off? Where is the distribution support!
3D Cinema is even worse than D-Cinema. Production companies keep saying how 3D is now better than ever. 3D is good for business. 3D is the next big thing. Again. Does 3D bring that extra client in the chair? How are revenues of 3D movies compared to other movies? If you played the same movie in 2D will it make a difference to the audience? Why should someone invest if there is no revenue return. I am really dismayed in D-Cinema. I appreciate its' good aspects but feel like being cheated out in a lot of ways not from manufacturers but mainly from distribution companies who insist on paying less for making more money. My main question to all of the exhibitors out there who do have 3D or D-Cinema, has that brought the extra client on the chair or not?
Demetris

Posted by Kevin Fairchild (Member # 4985) on 06-05-2009, 12:53 PM:

I think that digital really is helping us! Especially the 3D. When Beowulf came out, our competitor had 3D, while we did not. Normally we do 50% of the business, but Beowulf dropped to 9%. Ouch! We are now up to 55% on all movies. Since we converted to all digital our overall ticket sales have actually increased. Why? Because we can "interlock" We can have multiple prime time shows of the big movies. In a multi-million dollar market, that 5% increase in market share adds up fast.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-05-2009, 08:28 PM:

I think it was comming along very well until all the chains started signing with Sony... That will certainly and rightfully slow the 2K end of things down even more than than it is going along now...

Mark

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-05-2009, 10:05 PM:

By then, the 2k products will be more suitable for smaller - less than 35'- screens.

Really, the 2048k resolution belongs on the small screen to look real good.

Can we see an overstock of 2k projectors not being sold, or traded in for 4k units, to where manufacturers will cut massive liquidation sales so that the "mom and pop" cinemas can have a budget minded crack at D plus 3D cinema?

-Monte

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-06-2009, 12:19 AM:

I understand the power requirements of something like a Christie CP2000 projector are a little above what a normal home residence with 120V 20 amp circuits could support.

What does someone looking to glorify their high end home theater setup have to do in order to accommodate a professional 2K cinema digital projector sold in a fire sale? I would think they would be paying at least a little more for their electric bill, along with a healthy bill for changing the electrical wiring of their home.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-06-2009, 03:19 AM:

Bobby,
CP-2000 SB or similar requires three phase not more then 230 volts per leg. 208 is preferred.

CP-2000 ZX and M both require single phase power not over 230 volts. 220 volts preferred. None of them will operate off 120 volts. All have a DVI input, the SB and similar is not HDCP compliant(yet).

A fire sale projector can be a good deal... the only thing you may not use are the HDSDI inputs.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-06-2009, 06:58 AM:

The 3-phase portion would be the only trick for the home...single phase though is easy...regardless of the voltage as transformers can get you voltage you need. I don't know a home yet that does not have 220-240 available (for driers and such)...a double pole breaker is all you need. Buck-boost transformers can shave the voltage down from 240+ to 230 or less...that is what they are for.

Remember...power is power...you have to have the power capacity in the panel and on the wiring to handle the load, period.

Steve

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-06-2009, 08:20 AM:

Mom & Pops won't get a break. These machines are going obsolete because no one will provide Hollywood prints for them due to piracy issues. No film=obsolete. Home use is great!

I can't wait to sell those 6500 watt bulbs to the video nuts! Louis

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-06-2009, 10:30 AM:

Yeah, that's the other thing. Lamps. It already isn't exactly cheap to replace lamps in consumer-oriented projectors for video and computer display use. What does a lamp for a Christie projector cost?

It's obvious the main use of a professional projector in a home environment would be showing Blu-ray movies and HDTV content over the DVI connection (the DVI port supports the HDCP 5C flag, right?). The only thing I can see making use of the HD-SDI connection is perhaps a higher end video editing setup where the computer has a video I/O card featuring HD-SDI outputs.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-06-2009, 03:03 PM:

Bobby,
One of the fallacies of D-Cinema is that they want you to buy those "digital lamps". Indeed in some locations and for 3-D the short gaps lamps provide the extra light needed but in many cases the regular "Cinema Lamp" will work out just fine. The other problem is that manufacturer's Digital Lens calculator programs only specify short gap lamps.

Couldn't tell you how much it would cost you to run a machine at home but with the M model and a 1600HS lamp you can easily light up a 20 foot wide matte surface and still have plenty of headroom left over for lamp again. The 1600HS lamp is the cheapest route there is right now.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-06-2009, 04:20 PM:

The 1600HS is also a relatively long-life lamp too.

As for the digital lamps...there are properties to them that have application in either film or digital but as Mark noted...just because it says "digital" does not mean it is best choice.

My own experience with the CDXL line is that they are often notably brighter than their CXL counterparts and they also have a MUCH shallower burn-back than the typical cinema lamp. A CDXL-45 will drop only about 10% of its light in 300 hours...a CXL-40 or like lamp will loose closer to 20% in 100 hours. I've measured some lamps that will loose MORE than 20% in 100-hours.

When one sizes lamps...they really should plan on running it no higher than 75% of its rating when it goes in...if you really want to maintain spec, you will need that extra 25%+ by the time it runs its course.

I believe Christie is going to be coming out with a 1200-watt lamp for the M soon.

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-06-2009, 06:56 PM:

Unfortunately the 1200 watter will also be a short gap lamp but that may not preclude the use of the 1000HS if the rectifier will go down low enough... The 1200 watter will probably be very expensive too. Manufacturers need to update their calculators to include regular cinema lamps.

Mark

Posted by Mike Schulz (Member # 4297) on 06-07-2009, 02:52 AM:

quote: Demetris Thoupis
My main question to all of the exhibitors out there who do have 3D or D-Cinema, has that brought the extra client on the chair or not?
Demetris

This all depends on how you interpret things. If you are the only cinema in town, then it should not matter whether you are playing 2D or 3D or digital or 35mm. However, if the cinema on the other side of town offers 3D digital cinema while you do not, well then the answer is obvious. In the end, marketing wins. People are sheep which is why IMAX makes money [Wink]

You can make comparisons to almost anything in the past that has been upgraded with technology. Does a classic Beatles album sound better on vinyl or on CD? We all know the correct answer here but the average consumer will insist the digital CD has to be better.

The cinema I currently work at has a 35mm on every screen and 8 of those screens has a 2K digital projector. The general audience doesn't even know the difference when we play one format or the other (3D excluded, obviously). The only customers who are actually vocal seem to prefer 35mm as the only questions we seem to get are "which screens are 35mm?" and they proceed to buy a ticket to that show if it is available.

I apologize for going off topic here but assuming all of your digital hardware is properly calibrated (which is almost always the case where I work), you have to rely on the DCP to not be a piece of crap. There have been quite a few times as an operator where I have chosen to run the 35mm print as opposed to digital because the DCP looked like complete crap on screen.

I will admit I do not know what all goes into the release of a digital feature but my current understanding is that the director of photography signs off on both the digital intermediate and also the first show print off of the line. At that point, the DI is sent off to Deluxe or Technicolor (or wherever) to be converted into the DCP that is sent to the theatres. This is where the problem is, I think. It may be true that the DI on a feature may look outstanding, but the DCP that is sent out to cinemas may look like a completely different movie. This is a huge problem.

I do not know where I am going with all of this, it it simply observations.

As for the Sony "4K" deal, I don't think any studio since the release of "The Da Vince Code" has even released anything in 4K. I suppose with the amount of screens that both AMC and Regal have it may change things but we shall see.

-Mike

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 06-07-2009, 03:56 AM:

One single screen location installed Kinoton Dolby 3D solution and is being warred with a 6 screen and a 5 screen multiplex. A whole campaign was done for the first 3D system in Cyprus. This single screen has capacity of 500 and is in the middle of the capital of Cyprus. You know how many tickets it got for "Fly Me To The Moon 3D" over the last weekend? A total 37!! while the other two multiplexes who were playing the film edition of the movie made much more.
Demetris

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 06-07-2009, 05:03 AM:

People are not, and by large, interested in 3D past the novelty (which wears off quickly) and gimmik value. I have run a couple of 3D festivals and some were a success (audience-wise) and others a complete failure (shows run to almost empty houses).

It is obvious that, if 3D was so good that increased the attendance by any significant amount, Hollywood would've long figured out to make most (or at least 10%) of all the movies in 3D, as GOOD technical solutions for 3D in cinemas have existed for ... oh, well, forever.

Some 3D films have made tremendous business because 3D fits some horror explotaition (and yes, "adult" explotation too) patterns very nicely. This will continue and a couple of 3D films are bound to do good this time around. You know, like Jaws 3D and stuff like that.

But as a general tool to attract audience, 3D is but a MODEST addition to the arsenal on fighting TV and the internet, just like Dolby-EX and stuff like that maybe. Subtle improvements, not groundbreaking stuff.

If 3D were the same price as 2D, then you may get some additional customers. The higher price ticks off a few people and drives them to 2D show, so it doens't pay off 100%. Hollywood is forcing all this down the throat as a method to convince theaters to change to digital, which is where the benefit (for them) lies. For the theatre owner, it is just a huge expense with little possibility of total pay off in many cases.

Can you do more business with 3D and digital? Sure, you could make slightly more, specially if the competition lacks it. But don't forget to set aside a good chunk of those extra profits for Real-D, Barco/NEC/Christie, AccessIT, etc, etc. You'll need some upgrades and stuff 10 years from now that may still be kind of expen$ive.

Only thing that makes sense, is for studio to finance via VPF the changeover. Once in the digital realm, 10 years from now, cinemas would have no real option but to remain digital and studios can start to benefit as can cinema owners. But as it stands, I have little doubt staying 35mm, with perhaps a single screen digital to add 3D and booking flexibility, is a better deal right now for most theatre owners.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-07-2009, 08:59 AM:

quote: Mike Schulz
As for the Sony "4K" deal, I don't think any studio since the release of "The Da Vince Code" has even released anything in 4K. I suppose with the amount of screens that both AMC and Regal have it may change things but we shall see.

The actual quantity of 4K releases don't matter one single bit. The number and range of penetration into the market of 4K projectors IS what matters. All it'll take is Cinemark signing with Sony to spell the end of 2K DLP because there won't be enough locations to sell 2K equipment to.

Now is the best time to wait and watch for what happens regarding Cinemark before any large expendatures go into 2K any place.

Mark

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-07-2009, 10:50 AM:

Of course the problem about cost is an issue that simply won't go away, especially in these economic times. And if exhibs thought it was questionable if digital would actually bring in more butts to seats and offset their sizable investment, it becomes even more questionable what upchucking $$$ for 4K will do. Sure, at least with digital they could do the "bad film -- good digital" nonsense hype. The general people seem to have an vague idea that digital is better -- fine, but JQPublic has never heard of 2K to begin with, so how do you hype a change to 4K? -- it will be meaningless in terms of a business edge over a competitor who is sticking with his 2K units. Digital hasn't been around long enough for exhibs to start claiming an even NEWER technology.

It was bad enough that patrons walking into a new digital install could see or hear very little difference from the film counterpart. Trying to differentiate 4K from 2K will be futile. Unless the patrons sees something VERY spectacular (and I mean spectacular like an IMAX seven story screen), claiming you've got 4K as a reason for ticket buyers to choose your theatre over your competitors will be a real marketing challenge. I don't think even coming up with a fancy new monikor for 4K will do much to help. DigiMax4000? Digital 2 to the Power of 4 [Eek!]

Yah....that will sell more tickets.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-07-2009, 11:19 AM:

I dunno...4K for theatres should be a relatively easy idea to promote. It is many times superior to home quality HDTV.

As for the sound, I agree that it is a non-starter as the home has PCM multichannel audio now.

I will say, I was quite pleasently surprised at how clean and nice the opening of UP sounded as compared to typical film digital audio...the lack of encoding artifacts were notably absent.

As to 4K cost...it costs TI 3 times as much to make 2K DLP as a 2K DILA...thus the 4K DILA is only a little more expensive than 2K DLP. Sony is exploiting that fact.

Sony, should complete their masterful stroke by reviving their cinema audio division (Sony Cinema Products) and take the sound too. After all, Sony's digital audio technology always was superior to other cinema offerings (talking sound quality, not the SDDS tracking performance). Sony is not a newcomer in digital audio...in fact, they predate Dolby and DTS on that by quite a long time.

The Sony system should just hand off the audio to the amplifiers rathter than depend on someone elses sound processor to potentially muck it up.

Imagine if they could revamp the DFP-D3000 and change one of the digital inputs to a true AES input...there is already an installed base and it would be a platform they could grow that on as well. It is silly to just throw away the time/money they put into the DFP series...even if they just evolve it for DCinema.

Steve

Steve

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-07-2009, 12:49 PM:

I agree 4K should be easy to market. More than 4 times the pixel count of 1080p HD. Pretty simple. Of course, the native 4K content has to be there -not 2K artificially blown up to 4K. And the 4K projection quality has to be very good.

Sony would be goofing up big time if they tried to sneak SDDS back into the scheme of things. As good as SDDS was on paper it was still a data lossy compression system. Blu-ray in home theater has already rendered all data lossy audio formats as inferior. Further Blu-ray can do 8 channel audio (with 4 discrete surround channels) and deliver as much as 24-bit 96kHz resolution for each audio channel. 24-bit 192kHz is possible under certain circumstances -normally for 2 channel stereo.

Sony could make a bigger push to get 8 channel audio back into theaters or even take things a step farther by placing 5 channels behind the screen and providing 4 discrete surround channels like Blu-ray can do in the home.

Unfortunately the vast majority of commercial theaters are merely set up for 5.1 audio and little is being changed with existing theater sound setups with regard to digital cinema installations. The booth isn't running the lossy 5.1 film sound format, the same audio hardware is playing PCM 5.1 instead.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-07-2009, 06:04 PM:

Bobby,

You miss my point...I wasn't talking about reviving the SDDS format for DCinema...what I was saying is that there is an installed base of DFP-D3000s out there...turn one of the digital inputs into a true AES 8 channel input and use its B-chain as well as Non-Sync capabilities. This would allow the installed base (AMC after all is a big one and they have signed with Sony) to merely update the 3000, use their existing B-chain and just plug in the new projector to it.

Concurrently, also bring out a DCinema only processor for new-builds.

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-07-2009, 09:18 PM:

I thought that AMC had already replaced many of the Sony's they had installed...

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-08-2009, 12:13 PM:

They certainly have done some...not all.

Steve