Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Cinedigm (formerly AccessIT) losing money

This is topic Cinedigm (formerly AccessIT) losing money 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=000393

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 06-19-2009, 08:14 AM:

Nothing new. The company annual report.

They are not doing great, but they are hanging on there. They cut losses, but still losing money.

Also, the VPF are being reduced, since they are not meeting their targets.

They are kind of hanging in there from better than expected revenues from alternative content. Not a lot, but at least they get a large chunk of the profits instead of the peanuts from VPF.

Anyway, if you want to read it, here ya go:

http://uk.sys-con.com/node/998559

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 06-20-2009, 03:25 AM:

I have been trying to make this issue clear for some time with posts here and elsewhere..
I find it strange it gets very little comment and input from this community. Integrator services are a key to the digital cinema future.
The fact that Cinedigm, with already a huge number of sites, cannot make money. Even with the highest VPF anyone ever got.

In real terms, Cinedign should probably not be around. There was a release from Cinedign a while back about how a major ceditor is letting them of with much lower interest for the time being... Ie better to bet on Cinedign turning around in the next few years then kissing the investment goodbye. I am not sure if the recent information takes that into account.

What we need to learn from this is that the VPF model and how we implement the DCI system with the high costs of implementation.. needs to be examined.
The Christie NOC used by Cinedign looks great, but is this going to far? Can exhibition afford this level of monitoring?
A cinema screen going down is not like a bank loosing millions a hours. A bank can easily affording the infrastructure like Christie supplies. But can a Cinema?

I am not saying that Cinedign is doing anything wrong, just that we need to discuss whats going wrong here and how it could effect us all.

James

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-20-2009, 08:10 AM:

quote: James B Gardiner
Even with the highest VPF anyone ever got.

I think the equipment prices were also more expensive when they did a lot of those installs. Weren't most of the Carmikes done with the previous generation Christie projector (i.e. before the introduction of the CP2000-ZX). They certainly would have saved a ton if the M was avaiable back then for the small screens.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-20-2009, 08:52 AM:

quote: James B Gardiner
What we need to learn from this is that the VPF model and how we implement the DCI system with the high costs of implementation.. needs to be examined.
The Christie NOC used by Cinedign looks great, but is this going to far? Can exhibition afford this level of monitoring?
A cinema screen going down is not like a bank loosing millions a hours. A bank can easily affording the infrastructure like Christie supplies. But can a Cinema?

Jim,
One of the things they monitor is what projector inputs are being used and then the exhibitor is charged extra usage time for that projector. They also have a contractual obligation to get a projector back on the screen within 4 hours time... so they do need that sort of monitoring. They can also monitor lamp usage and so on and make sure the lamps get changed out when they should. And a number of other reasons like the above instances.

I too am also surprised they do still exist... Now that cinemark has announced a deal with BARCO not much left for Christie to sell to and not much more to monitor than the existing Carmike stuff and a few other small chains...
Mark

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 06-20-2009, 08:09 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
One of the things they monitor is what projector inputs are being used and then the exhibitor is charged extra usage time for that projector. They also have a contractual obligation to get a projector back on the screen within 4 hours time... so they do need that sort of monitoring. They can also monitor lamp usage and so on and make sure the lamps get changed out when they should. And a number of other reasons like the above instances.

So lets have a look at this. The cinema owners is forced to pay to have the system monitors so.. in case the system fails, that again the cinema owner pays a penalty for an issue that was most likely out of their control, and the last thing they want to happen.
Now the Paramount point of view on this seems far more realistic. They are very keen for some type of integrator and monitoring service to be in place, however, think that as a partnership, they understand you have the best interests in mind and that forced monitoring and contractual penalties are only adding to the cost of the implementation and are not needed.

Two point of views with very different operation costs. Witch is better for the industry in general? One or the other, or something int he middle?

This also leads us to the possible grandfathering or not of the older equipment? Forced upgrades? for example, like the big argument that broke out at the ISDCF meeting between a studio, who wanted the new GOR board as a forced upgrade into the projectors, and some more level headed people, who argues, that as it does not bring them any closer to FIBS approve, the upgrade has no value to the cinema owner and only costs them $$$$. so why do it.

Another point on this. Since the economic crists, the $ of integrator system to non is now over 40% (And climbing fast) no integrator. (Came up fast in my opinion. 3D is really pushing this.) But as you can see, all these new screens, no integrator like seen for cinedign. Have we heard of major of screen issues for these sites? I have not.
Tho I best some type of extra support is being supplied for these screen. Semi intergrator or non-mainstream type integrator.

James

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-22-2009, 09:29 AM:

quote: James B Gardiner
The cinema owners is forced to pay to have the system monitors so..

I believe the cost of the monitoring is included in the per screen service contract charge. About a grand(+/-)a screen per year with 4 hour guaranteed turn around which is why you don't hear of any problems... there in effect are not any.

Mark