Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Software maintenance costs, get used to it....

This is topic Software maintenance costs, get used to it.... 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=000407

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 07-11-2009, 09:36 AM:

There was something I picked up on some of the latest Dolby literature I wanted to bring to the communities attention. And also to get some feed back on how they feel about it.

Software maintenance as a part of the ongoing cost of owning equipment.

Being from the IT world, this is typical. And a typical cost for it is 20-25% buy price per year.
Considering the evolving nature of DCI, we can expect it to require regular updates going forward. So, for example, if a DCI player is $21,000 to purchase, that would mean at about 20% maintenance, ~ $5000 per year to keep the player up to date.

Now this is typical and required on something like a DCI piece of equipment (Player and projector) due to the evolving standards (Ie we still need to migrate to 4K soonish by the looks of it). The need for software maintenance on sound processors, like we have now, you would not expect such a need... But I must admit, the sound processors coming out are extremely complex and all software based these days.

Dolby has stated that all new equipment, will now require software maintenance (First year free) costs.. AND.. if you lax on the maintenance, a 150% penalty to bring you to to date will apply to get the latest update.

This first shocked me, but after considering it.. This behavior is not unusual for large companies like Oracle, Microsoft or other enterprise service companies.

Cinema owners, I would like your opinion on this.
What do you think a fair price would be.

Typically, software maintenance is phone support and access to the upgrades. You would still have to pay to have them implemented usually. Ie by your local cinema tech support company/contractor.
What should be involved in software maintenance?

A side note, I have been attempting to find out what this software maintenance for Dolby kit would costs.. No one seems to know. Personally I don't think they know themselves. It probably not decided yet. If anyone does know, or has examples of this in other parts of the industry, would like to hear about these examples.

Thanks,
James

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-11-2009, 12:54 PM:

I'm not a cinema owner, so I can't answer as one.

My whole take on this is: why should I pay for updates? I should just wait until the right equipment is available (fully DCI compliant 4K equipment) and, if the price is right or I get financing kick-back from the distributors saving on the price of 35mm prints, then I may buy.

Meanwhile, nothing wrong with current 35mm equipment and nothing digital really offers to theatre owners that offsets the cost.

Since Hollywood is determined to force 3D only in digital, even though they allow for dual-projection (Imax or custom) and over/under (Sony), which they could just as well allow in 35mm, then I MAY consider a SINGLE 3D digital screen per theatre.

In that case, if I had to buy right now, I'll probably go for the cheapest possible thing I could find and not pay any maintenance fees whatsoever for a long as distributors keep supporting my equipment as, eventually, it's gonna have to go all out the windows and (by then) new equipment will be available up to the latests specs, pbbly 4K, perhaps 8K, perhaps 12fl 3D, perhaps 60fps compatible, etc, etc.

That's what I would do anyway.

Otherwise, I would wait for fully DCI compliant 4K equipment (i.e. Sony) and call it a day.

If the industry is not ready to move to digital due to on-going standards and unfinished products of inferior (i.e. 2K or Sony's manufacturing issues) quality at top prices ... they can kiss my [Moon]

Many here will agree that 35mm offers just as good or better images to customers for much lower price. Once the digital issues are resolved, or the price of current equipment lowers to reflects its transitional (<4K, few frame rates supported like not-25fps and not 60-fps, non-DCI compliance), unfinished situation, then it's another matter.

It's also another matter if studios are willing to pay for (obsolete, transitional) equipment that may last 10 years. Then I also wouldn't have problems purchasing it, paying it off with money from the duplication film cost savings, and then 10 years from now throwing it out the window and purchasing "the real stuff".

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 07-14-2009, 08:10 AM:

Julio,
I am not surprised with your attitude. But really, this is quite unavoidable.

A lot of the DCI SMS makers are loosing money. The projector makers are not doing that bad..

The ongoing upgrades and modifications to the software to support more frame rates, legislated captioning and DCI approval levels.... This development is considerable and needs a lot more support then in the past.

Support costs like this exist because it is "commercail". ie it cannot be offered unless such costs did not exist. This is typical in all industries in which software is a major factor to a product. Look at QuickBook, Photoshop, etc

Would you prefer to simply have to purchase a fully new system when required to? Likely costing you even more in the long run?

What happens if the system is not compatible with newer projectors.. Again, purchase a full new system?

The DCI standard is a living standard that is striving to archive a moving target.

Dolby has stepped forward to try and start to introduce you to the new reality of costs for those going digital.

This is "commercial", ie the products cannot likely exist without them. The DCI developers cannot simply keep giving free support indefinatly. If they cannot make money out of it, they will stop making it.

This is a serious issue and I know is likely to make many cinema owners unhappy. I am trying to bring it up here as to start a dialog to get a feel for what cinema owners feel is fair.
What they would prefer.

And really, you should ALL be asking your regional suppliers what this support cost will be. Call them. Ask.

Lets discuss..
Its within your best interest.
James

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-14-2009, 09:27 AM:

Dell doesn't charge for any server firmware ugrades if you download them from the Dell web site but they do charge for a subscription service so you get a DVD delivered as the latest firmware versions are released, the cost for this is very minimal even for a large IT center. Microsoft does not charge for their OS upgrades which can be both automatically or manually downloaded when they are released. Also, upgrades can only go so far before you have to replace the equipment. The best example of this is to try to run a Microsoft server program on an old Dell server... it isn't going to happen because the hardware can't do it, drivers don't exist, and finally Dell dropped support of that server long ago.

I'd say wait and see how the rest of the indusrty will persue this idea. I learned along time ago that what Dolby does is generally what the rest of the industry does not do!!! Another factor will be to see how many more theater owners become more tempted to stay sitting on the fence post. This number lately seems to be growing and growing and growing because of way too many uncertain aspects all happenning at once in D-Cinema.

Another huge factor is still the equipment price. Sure you have the Christie M for about 48K with lens but aside fomr projectors using Cermax lamps it's also the most expensive projector to operate if you're stuck using their 2kw short gap lamp and the 48K is just the projector... you still need a base, server, D to A, and lamp. You get to the 60 to 70K arena really fast. Until 2K systems are in the 30-40K range for a complete 2K system things are going to stay stalled out. 4K DLP is going to have to be in the mid 80K range to compete with Sony's 83.5K price on it's 4K systems and that means 2K will need to drop down into the 30-40K range to even be considered by anyone, ultimately it may vanish completely as has 1.3K. Then on top of price you have the Second generation electronics for 2K systems to be released later this year and this will accept the Media Block type of server system. With the Media Block system emerging will D-Cinema servers as we know them even exist in two years??? The bottom line is just that and no matter what technoligical marvel happens in the next 30 minutes it's still all about price no matter what! And theaters are going to go with the cheapest system what ever it is, especially when it comes to doing large scale installs.

All in all this is the best time there has ever been for a theater owner to wait about another year to see how all this pans out. It's not who is going to win this time around but what equipment will be left in the playing field that we will be working with and if the equipment previously sold does become obsolete or not.

Mark

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-14-2009, 09:41 AM:

Funny. . . . we don't have this expense with "old, obsolete film." [beer]

Louis

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-14-2009, 10:17 AM:

And what are the upgrade software service fees for my Motiograph AAA

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-14-2009, 11:06 AM:

You can read in this article from a couple of weeks how moving to d-cinema is still on a wait-and-see in most of the world and how, whatever is selling, is mostly to add a single 3D screen to a complex.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3id499f8aa1018de83a147fc0ed0916566

quote:
So far, conversion of analog screens to digital in developed countries worldwide hasn't happened as quickly as expected. Anthony Marcoly, president of sales and distribution at Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures International, says most of the close to 2,500 digital screens outside the U.S. are one-offs in multiplexes specifically added to show 3-D movies.

As in the U.S., conversion to all digital presentation won't occur until financing sources open, and that depends on the global credit crisis. That isn't stopping aggregators from doing deals in Europe, Asia, Russia and elsewhere based on the U.S. model of "virtual print fees" paid by studios to pay back the cost over time. The money needed now has to be borrowed, and that has not been possible since last fall. So while multiplexes worldwide rush to offer 3-D on at least one or two screens per location, the existing theaters are still firmly in the analog world.

...

That didn't mean the end of all digital, though. "The focus in the recent past has been on installation of digital 3-D screens," says Clapp, who projects that by year's end there will be about 600 digital 3-D sites from a total of 3,600 screens in the U.K.

...

Dowley notes digital eliminates the cost to ship the cans of celluloid, makes it easier to offer advertisers last-minute content changes that can be beamed to theaters. He says their research shows U.K. audiences "are loving the 3-D experience," and his company plans ads in 3-D as well.

It's not just happening in the U.K. or Western Europe. Across developing Eastern Europe, Russia, India and China there's a theater building boom and they all are including one or two 3-D ready screens. The opening of new theaters is inevitably followed by a rise in boxoffice in that territory.

They keep spreading the lie that "3D doubles or triples" income. As Jonas Brothers or Battle for Terra has demostrated, that's not so. Even tenpoles blockbusters like Ice Age opened 3D and all only to SECOND place in BO after (already one week old and pretty-crappy) 2D Transformers 2. Even on Ice Age 2nd week, it couldn't outdo 2D Brüno in spite of the R rating against the PG of Ice age.

Do you think that if movies in 3D really doubled (or tripled) the income, producers of Transformers or Brüno or Iron Man 2 or Harry Potter wouldn't have done them in 3D?

The numbers are doctored to make it look like that but the truth is that, since most 3D movies are top-grossers anyway shown at top (brand new, 3D) houses, with top ticket prices (3D surcharge etc) they often do well, but not because of the 3D.

3D helps some people in some markets. 3D pbbly DOES bring a little (modest) extra profit that offsets the extra expenses (glasses, etc) and perhaps leave a modest premium. But it does not double the profits unless you are the only one showing a big 3D film in an area where your only competition is showing 2D only.

And, still, when the novelty factor wears off and the average consumer has seen 10 to 20 3D films, the 3D will lose a great deal of its appeal.

I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND software/firmware updates in the industry, but the main blame goes to DCI association (bunch of ....) which have not clearly, professionally written up the "standard" they want to follow (KDM delivery mess, FIPS absurdly high and expensive security, lack of frame rates and flexibility). It's their mess, not the theatre owners who are forced to a) wait of b) pay.

The problem with b) is that you don't even know if paying will get your hardware up to specs as software support usually vanishes almost as soon as the new hardware hits the shelves.

If you factor (say) 25% of purchase price per year .... I rather buy now, don't update for 4/5 years (25%x4=100% of the price), then throw it away (sell cheap second hand) and then buy a new (updated, current, better, perhaps cheaper) machine.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-14-2009, 11:55 AM:

Wait...is the maintenance fee for new features or for bugfixes?

I object to the idea that users should be expected to pay to fix defects that existed in the unit as it was delivered. On the other hand, it seems perfectly reasonable to sell software releases with new features or functionality for an upgrade price or as part of a service contract/maintenance fee.

If one buys something that does not meet the DCI spec, then it is not reasonable to assume that the upgrades necessary to make it meet the spec will be free (unless it was sold that way).

(I tried to upgrade the firmware on my Centurys, but I couldn't find the serial ports. They work fine, though, for both old and new prints, so maybe I won't bother.)

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-14-2009, 12:26 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
I tried to upgrade the firmware on my Centurys, but I couldn't find the serial ports

They are next to the USB ports, on top of the Firewire ones, right under the Ethernet and next to the HDMI. It uses a non-standard connector, so you have to make your own cable. Don't forget to connect the 220v to the +5v line and ground the whole thing really well. [Wink]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-14-2009, 12:27 PM:

quote: Gordon McLeod
And what are the upgrade software service fees for my Motiograph AAA

You couldn't afford it!!

I completely agree with Scott! I also feel that no one should have to pay for firmware updates just because DCI or the studios might want to change or add some feature that benefits them. IMHO Dolby is droping the ball here.

Julio,
No process is going to save a BAD MOVIE! And Follywood is still making way too many bad and mediocre movies... I'd give them about a 50 to 1 ratio of bad to good films these days. 70mm already proved way back when that a good film process can't save a lousy film. Look at results like Krakatoa, Cleopatra, etc.

Mark

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 07-15-2009, 12:18 AM:

Thanks for the feed back guys.

You all have excellent points of view.

The position of sitting on the kit is a reasonable one in many ways.

However, in terms of bugs getting fixed. Outside of a service contract, No. bugs will not get fixed as the software evolves with feature sets at the same time.

So if you want the fix, you need to purchase the upgrade or service contract to move to the latest version.

I know this may seem unfair, but it would not be commercial for the company to spend time/money on non profit making areas when they didn't make enough money to start off. And its surprisingly difficult and expensive to go back and fix these extremely complex systems.

This is only really coming to a head now as Cinedign and the integrator service costs covered all this. But now with "one of" systems with no integrator responsible and no service costs..
No one is going to show up to fix the issues anymore. Not if they are not getting paid.
You will have to pay your local installer to do it ad hoc, and he is going to get charged for the time they dialog with the supplier (Just like if you called Microsoft for support. P.S. Windows7 in only a service pack level change in Vista. Thats a cost upgrade, and get use to Microsoft doing this as standard now on. Like Adobe, like Quickbooks.), These costs will be passed onto the cinema owner.
Money flows up hill you now.

I completely agree that this DCI standard should have been less complex and more complete. But it is not, and really, could it be when this technology is so young. Look at all the different film standards there was before we standardized on what we have now. DCI needs to go though a maturing time as well. 4K has not been possible for a long time, but seems to be getting there now.. And actually much faster then we ever expected, a problem in itself. (2K kit not having enough time to return a profit for those who developed it)

We all knew getting into digital early on would be a bleeding edge exercise. If anything this thread should help those looking at making a decision like digital to understand his long term position, and give him question to ask that are very important to the long term viability of his digital kit.

James

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-15-2009, 05:01 AM:

Charging for bugfixes for non-obsolete equipment is a load of crap. If the product is defective as delivered, then the manufacturer hsa an ethical responsibility to its customers to fix the defects in a timely manner and without charge. If this isn't profitable, that is the manufacturers' problem and not their customers'.

If the manufacturers want to charge to provide new features, that is fine, but they will have to fork their code and provide separate bugfix releases and feature releases. Look at how Cisco IOS releases work. Some provided only bugfixes and others add new features. It can be difficult at times to figure out exactly what release one really wants/needs to install, but it is possible to choose a release which only provides bugfixes and does not add new features.

(My full-time job is at a software company that makes quite a bit of money by charging for support services, so I do understand the importance of support revenue. But I disagree with the idea that defective product can be shipped and that customers who choose not to buy support should be told "sorry, you're screwed" when they encounter defects in the product.)

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 07-15-2009, 07:20 AM:

Really Scott,
Cisco from my experience has released a lot of defective kit.. Its part of purchasing complex kit like that. And you NEED to be in support to get ANYTHING from them. Bug-fixes especially.
That is how it plays here.

You show my point.

James

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-15-2009, 07:54 AM:

OK, bad example. Cisco's support policy blows. And I agree that many of their releases have been problematic (almost every Cisco product that I have encountered that was new in the box has shipped with a seriously broken IOS release).

Consider operating systems as (maybe) a better example. All of the major commercial OS vendors that I am familiar with (Microsoft, Sun, HP, SGI, and IBM) provide bugfix and security patches for free download. As they should.

A defective piece of software should be treated no differently from a defective piece of hardware.

What is especially dumb in this case is that the product in question is an expensive replacement for an existing technology, and it is being sold to an industry with limited IT experience and which is accustomed to equipment that lasts 25-50 years with little maintenance. It is not an easy sell, anyway, and expensive support contracts that do little more than fix defects in the product will not help matters.

All of this reinforces my belief that, at present, the economics for D-cinema do not work for exhibitors or manufacturers, and probably do not work for film distributors, either, if they subsidize the hardware.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-15-2009, 09:21 AM:

Amen! Louis

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-15-2009, 02:00 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
All of this reinforces my belief that, at present, the economics for D-cinema do not work for exhibitors or manufacturers, and probably do not work for film distributors, either, if they subsidize the hardware.

Add the intermediaries (integrators) that hope to pay their execs' (and technicians') salaries for many-many years out of the whole conversion process and you'll be scratching your head as to who is gonna be paying for it all.

I dissagree with the distributors, though. I think the numbers for them do add up even if they subsidize the hardware. For them, it's merely a matter of keeping the same expenditure by paying VPF but inmediately saving the same amount out of their replication bills. On the long run, they are the ONLY ONES with substantial (even if minor) gain.

Theatres gain in flexibility and some labor costs produces extra revenues that are then offset by higher maintenance/updating/depreciation costs.

And hardware manufacturers benefit by selling more hardware and providing the maintenance. But they need to do so at a "lean" level, usually as part of a much larger operation like Sony/NEC that already have some leverage. Not enough $$$ to blow in trips to Vegas and huge marketing campains or ultra-expensive products (TI and Christie, you listening?)

At least TI has already realized they were riding a losing horse with DLP and are starting to shut the whole expenditures off, after years and years of stubbornly throwing lots of money out the window. Their plan of making it back out of theatre owners' is not gonna work out so well, as there is a much cheaper market alternative with even better results.

It's called 35mm film (and 4K Lcos as well, if you must).

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-16-2009, 02:16 PM:

Julio, that's the most realistic evaluation of D-Cinema I've read yet.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 07-17-2009, 03:01 AM:

Welcome to the digital era. Buy it today, tomorrow obsolete. No way you can avoid that.
Demetris

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-17-2009, 09:23 AM:

quote: Julio Roberto
Not enough $$$ to blow in trips to Vegas and huge marketing campains or ultra-expensive products (TI and Christie, you listening?)

I can't remember ever seeing T.I. at Showest or East ever... They were at NAB one time if memory serves me crrectly.

quote: Julio Roberto
At least TI has already realized they were riding a losing horse with DLP and are starting to shut the whole expenditures off, after years and years of stubbornly throwing lots of money out the window. Their plan of making it back out of theatre owners' is not gonna work out so well, as there is a much cheaper market alternative with even better results.

There is no proof of that on paper that I've seen yet. ONly heresay by a certain F-T member.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 07-17-2009, 10:11 AM:

TI does send people to the show, but they don't take a booth and drop money around the place.

Christie and Barco both have a substantial presence at shows as they are breaking the market as it were. I would not call it lavish under the circumstances.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 07-17-2009, 11:46 PM:

And unlike Sony, who we all know has a historically piss-poor record of product support, NEC, Barco and Christie are willing to support their products for the long haul.

Sony can't and probably won't do that.

So let Sony throw all the money around they want to, when they inevitably bail out of the D-Cinema biz, guess who's gonna be stuck holding the bag? Anyone dumb enough to buy their gear.

Oh yeah, and at least film doesn't require ongoing software updates to be playable. [Razz]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-18-2009, 06:33 AM:

Yeah, just oil, grease, belts, pucks, bearings...etc

Posted by Kevin Fairchild (Member # 4985) on 07-18-2009, 01:17 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Yeah, just oil, grease, belts, pucks, bearings...etc

and a competent projectionsist who's yearly wages could be much higher than the cost of software upgrades [Smile]

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 07-18-2009, 01:31 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Yeah, just oil, grease, belts, pucks, bearings...etc

I'm willing to bet that the sum total of all that stuff is STILL far less than the costs of software upgrades to the servers in say the average multiplex of 20 screens or so... [Roll Eyes]

quote: Kevin Fairchild
and a competent projectionsist who's yearly wages could be much higher than the cost of software upgrades [Smile]

I'm also willing to bet that the total wages and benefits for a competent projectionist is STILL far less than the costs of software upgrades to the servers in say the average multiplex of 20 screens or so... not to mention you're overlooking the ADDED cost of a COMPETENT TECHNICIAN to upload that software and keep those servers running as reliably as a film projector. Face it, the average projector (except Horizons) can run for YEARS with little or no maintenance.

Some people just won't wake up and see the reality of how screwed up the whole idea of digital exhibition really is. We have a well-established network of machines and media that has served the industry well for over 100 years..and other than INCOMPETENT people running the shows, it can and does work well at a LOT lower cost than digital. Just look at Brad's operations..he gets incredible mileage from film, with perfect presentations all the time. How? HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S DOING, AND CARES ABOUT WHAT HE DOES!!

Theatre owners and management have NEVER woken up to the reality that people DO NOT come to a theater to admire the neon in the lobby, or to buy the wide range of overpriced snack..they come to SEE A MOVIE!! If they had any brains at all, rather than waste the huge amounts of money on fancy lobbies, they would pay for a COMPETENT man (or woman) to run the FILMS.

They would be rewarded with increased attendance and more butts in the seats, buying those overpriced snacks.

D-Cinema WILL NOT MAGICALLY SOLVE THE LONG-STANDING ISSUE OF STUPIDITY IN MANAGEMENT.

Sheesh....

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-19-2009, 05:17 PM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
And unlike Sony, who we all know has a historically piss-poor record of product support, NEC, Barco and Christie are willing to support their products for the long haul.

Sony can't and probably won't do that.

Actually if you step back and take a broad look at all things D-Cinema Sony still has a very good chance to win the D-Cinema battle. It all has to do with price and Sony offers the highest rez system (not just projector) at the lowest price. This means that T.I. has to get their new 4K to compete price for price with Sony's mid to low 80K area per single machine. That also means that 2K stuff has to drop dramatically in price to about half of it's present sales price before anyone would continue to buy it and install it. If T.I. Chgristie, NEC and BARCO can't pull off comparable and lower pricing then Sony wins hands down. 2K then becomes obsolete. There has never been a better time in the D-Cinema period to sit on the fence post and just watch!!!

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-19-2009, 06:26 PM:

Sony also has the biggest market benefit in that they can tout their DCinema superiority as a reason to buy Sony TVs...TI, Christie, and Barco don't have that.

Steve

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 07-20-2009, 12:07 AM:

Mark, if your scenario eventuates, there would be a lot of screens (say less than 30 foot wide) that would instal low-cost 2k units. Some near-new units would probably also appear on the market fron cinemas that really need 4K.

That would hasten the changeover from film to digital.

A good 1.3K set-up can look fine on a 20 foot sheet so 2K could be more than adequate for 20-30ft screens.

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 07-20-2009, 02:25 AM:

2k looks fine on 45+ ft screens (I could tell the difference early on, but the post-production guys finally got it figured out).

Anyway, the problem with DCI's standards is that they are trying to push (for a number of reasons) to 4K; problem was that nobody had the tech to do it and wouldn't spend the cash to get there without some sort of incentive to keep development costs down while they fleshed out the technical aspects of 4K. We're still not at the point of an economically-feasible 4K system, but it'll get there on the backs of 1.3K and 2K system sales, most of whom will be future customers who really need minimal hardware upgrades (essentially the only differences are the reflective DLP chips and the server hardware) to get to fully DCI compliant 4K digital. Everyone else will finally figure it out and probably end up paying the same amount up front to get there.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 07-20-2009, 01:49 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
....It all has to do with price and Sony offers the highest rez system (not just projector) at the lowest price.

Are you kidding me? Cost doesn't mean [bs]

if they won't be around to support the product during it's useful lifetime. SDDS didn't cost AMC anything..in the beginning. But when Sony dropped the support it cost plenty to replace/upgrade all those sound systems. You of all people KNOW how bad Sony's track record is.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
This means that T.I. has to get their new 4K to compete price for price with Sony's mid to low 80K area per single machine. That also means that 2K stuff has to drop dramatically in price to about half of it's present sales price before anyone would continue to buy it and install it. If T.I. Chgristie, NEC and BARCO can't pull off comparable and lower pricing then Sony wins hands down.

I agree that the others have to get things down to compete..question is, can they afford to? And let's say they do, but end up going under from the losses. They we're right back to the Sony monopoly, and guess what happens next? Either they drop the support as usual, or now they pull the same stunt as a well-known cinema equipment manufacturer and charge outrageous prices because they're now the only game in town.

Sony, despite being such a huge corporation, is being incredibly reckless and stupid, (again), especially in today's economy. A company with ANY brains, no matter how big, is NOT going to KNOWINGLY take on a huge loss leader product line which could potentially destabilize the entire company.

Yes, TI is already in that boat with DLP...more's the pity.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
There has never been a better time in the D-Cinema period to sit on the fence post and just watch!!!

Exactly. And those who are into carnage are gonna get a treat. [Big Grin]

quote: Steve Guttag
Sony also has the biggest market benefit in that they can tout their DCinema superiority as a reason to buy Sony TVs...TI, Christie, and Barco don't have that.

Steve

Very true. And I would love to give Sony my full support, but history has shown they cannot be trusted in a niche market like D-Cinema.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-20-2009, 02:01 PM:

This is getting political! [Big Grin]

Sony COULD loss leader the entire induustry for free as a weapon for promoting their video display systems for others uses (home, office, school, etc.)

The only problem is that IF quality and reliability are not certain, then the black eye that ensues could devastate them.

(Promise everyone, everything, then many will not be happy if they don't get it all.) Louis

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 07-20-2009, 04:32 PM:

LOL Louis, don't mention the "P" word!! [Big Grin]

You hit the nail on the head though..I think that's exactly what's going to happen.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-20-2009, 10:03 PM:

quote: Ron Curran
Mark, if your scenario eventuates, there would be a lot of screens (say less than 30 foot wide) that would instal low-cost 2k units.

Do you really think theater owners are stupid enough to pay 70 grand for a 2K system when for 13K more or perhaps a bit less in quantity per screen they can have ALL 4K and market it as such. The marketing hype behind all 4K if done right could present a good return. And that 13K per screen is chicken feed in the budget of a 20 or more screen multiplex. They won't be able to market their 2K systems as anything other then not much to look at!

Tony...
I'm still not a fan of Sony but you have to stop and realize they have been really quite as to any details on anything. Obviously they are not promising anything here far as I know! I think that silently among Sony bra ss the SDDS debacle has caused them to be this waythis time round. Bring up SDDS in any Sony D-Cinema booth at a trade show and they say they never heard of it or SDDS [Big Grin]

. Must have been before they worked for SOny... [Roll Eyes]

.

Sony's biggest problem is still one of inconsistent pricing and they've made alot of prospects really mad at them already... somehow they'll have to iron that over if they want to sell systems to other chains and large independents... there is an end to installing D-Cinema even in the big chains afterall and they may eventually need those twins and four plexs!! I know of one not very large but national chain that gets the 4K systems for about 72K each, then they quote a 100 screen chain I know of 83.5K per unit... go figure... where are their brains(and marketing dept.) at??? I can answer that actually. The people they have working the trade show floor are not allowed to have brains and the marketing department is sipping cocktails out on the hotel patio or swimming pool area.

Christie, Barco, and NEC had better get off their duffs and really sharpen their pencils anyway because somehow they are going to have to build really really cheap 2K projectors if they want to sell 2K at all or shold I say if they want 2K to even survive... at any rate the 4K DLP will have to find a way to compete price for price with Sony's 4K pricing... what ever that is at any given moment.

The server manufacturers have it a bit easier and they can go the route of the media block system instead. This could completely eliminate the server as we know it all together. The media block itself plugs right into the projector card cage and is fed from a bunch of off the shelf stock servers you can practically buy at Wal-Mart.

As much as I am very pro D-Cinema and have installed a bunch of them I am for now advising all my customers to sit on the fnece post for at least a year minimum. Or should we say to wait to see how the 4K DLP shapes up in all aspects and see how pricing and such irons itself out... if it does. If pricing doesn't iron itself out then to be honest D-Cinema has a very dim future.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-21-2009, 07:12 AM:

Are you saying $13K a screen more for 4K? I haven't known an exhibitor yet that didn't want to save $5/screen. I've had exhibitors tell me that nobody's platter is worth $100 more than another and they went with the junk instead of the good stuff.

I don't see advertising "All 4K" having much pull on the audience for very long though it might do something at first. Kind of like "all digital sound." There is a brief period where that can make a difference and then enough of the screens are digital in the industry as to not make it worth one's while to advertise it and furthermore, enough of the large theatres (the ones that play the movie first) have it that those that waited several weeks typically don't notice or care that their sound system, along with the theatre, is a bit smaller. I know one very shrewd exhibitor that always builds his complexes with 3 tiers of theatres...Big, medium and small. To this day, none of the small theatres have digital sound. He can show you...it won't make any difference on ticket sales at that stage and he is right...his theatres do very well.

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-21-2009, 08:20 AM:

Note that I said 13K or less in quantity. It would be 13K in single quantity. Do the math for instance on the AMC deal where there was a figure mentioned which I don't remember off the top of my head for the purchase of all the 4K projectors and I think it works out to something like 54K per system, may have been even less than that. So if they are going to equip an entire say 150 to 200 screen chain it should be substantially less then 83.5K and could be down in the price regeion of a 2K system and possibly lower. That small national chain I mentioned was paying about 72K per 4K system! This is why the pricing on the new 4K DLP has to be near sony's single projector pricing of 83.5 and even that need be pretty dam flexible in quantity and they'll have to drop 2K quite substantially in price to be able to sell any at all or Sony will win this round.

What ever happens this time round its still the best time since D-Cinema was introduced to just wait and see what happens both equipment wise and price wise. 40K per 2K system makes it far more practical for mom and pop.

Mark

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-21-2009, 11:30 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
I don't see advertising "All 4K" having much pull on the audience for very long though it might do something at first.

I don't agree with that...I would think 99.9% of people have no clue what "4K" means with regard to cinema. It even confuses me, and I've read a lot about DC.

I remember my first computer had 640k of memory, which I know has nothing to do with DC, but just having that number swimming around in the back of my memories makes the term "4K" sound underwhelming.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-21-2009, 01:06 PM:

Having been a long-term advocate of "fence-sitting", I find it a sad validation of my attitude that the big boys should work this out before I consider what digital might bring to my future. While many in this industry, exhibitors manufacturers and pundits alike have prognosticated overnight acceptance of video and impending doom for anyone not jumping on the train NOW, my approach has been much better for my blood pressure.

Comments about whether 3D makes the exhibitor any money are amusing to me. Maybe the concept provides an additional PR exposure to the theatre, but I'm doubtful that most theatres are adding real money to their bottom lines. Once you pay off all the companies that have inserted themselves into your revenue stream, I'm not convinced the technology is covering it.

Film and film/sound projection equipment evolved over many decades, while remaining largely backward-compatible. Seems a bit disturbing that digital R&D is being cut back already.

The wife says she could seriously consider digital, once 4K becomes more "affordable" (a concept not yet clearly defined here). I would add that 4K is going to have to be widely available from more than just Sony before I'd go anywhere near it.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-21-2009, 01:11 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
I don't see advertising "All 4K" having much pull on the audience

Yeah, sorta like the "Cinemascope" and "In Color" marquee signs I now have in my house [Wink]

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-21-2009, 01:44 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Sony's biggest problem is still one of inconsistent pricing and they've made alot of prospects really mad at them already... somehow they'll have to iron that over if they want to sell systems to other chains and large independents... there is an end to installing D-Cinema even in the big chains afterall and they may eventually need those twins and four plexs!! I know of one not very large but national chain that gets the 4K systems for about 72K each, then they quote a 100 screen chain I know of 83.5K per unit... go figure... where are their brains(and marketing dept.) at???

While I understand where you're coming from (wanting all the customers treated equally), this is a bit like being mad at my local Whole Foods grocery for giving someone a 10% off for buying a case of rice milk and giving me no discount if I only buy one container.

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 07-21-2009, 03:29 PM:

I'm sort of at a loss over all of this. We just completed a 2K install (for 3D). Our other 12 screens are 35MM. I look at the regular 2K picture, then peek out the port of the 35MM next to it, and guess what? My old eyes must deceive me, because to me, the 35MM looks better.

The 3D looks ok, but it doesn't blow me away.

Admittedly, I have not seen 4K. However, I don't know of any other theater in the area that has it (as yet). When that does happen, I'll surely take a look for myself.

For the price of the single installation, I am at a loss to figure out how our owners are ever going to recoup the investment. There are several other 2K 3D installations in the area, so the new 3D install was simply done to keep the customer base from migrating to the competition. Therefore, what have our owners gained other than to remain in the theater business?

So where is the pot gold at the end of the rainbow? I've seen a lot of rainbows in my lifetime, and I have not heard of anyone finding that gold yet.

Economically speaking, it would simply not pay our owners to go all digital. Perhaps they may be forced to at some future date. To me, that "force" seems to be coming from the distributors.

Just my humble opinion. Hope the studios don't put out a contract on me. [Eek!]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-21-2009, 03:52 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
While I understand where you're coming from (wanting all the customers treated equally), this is a bit like being mad at my local Whole Foods grocery for giving someone a 10% off for buying a case of rice milk and giving me no discount if I only buy one container.

I don't think you quite got the drift of my post. The 2K companies seem to have the single lot pricing nailed down pretty well as well as quantity pricing. Now some dealers do get bigger discounts then others based on units sold over a one or two year period. However, Sony is all over the place. When I mentioned the 100+ screen chain even if they did all 100+ screens at one time the price was still 83.5K per unit... Why is the other smaller national chain paying 73K per unit for less units bought, they have less than a dozen of them??? See what I mean... go figure.

quote: John T. Hendrickson, Jr
I look at the regular 2K picture, then peek out the port of the 35MM next to it, and guess what? My old eyes must deceive me, because to me, the 35MM looks better.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-21-2009, 04:08 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
When I mentioned the 100+ screen chain even if they did all 100+ screens at one time the price was still 83.5K per unit... Why is the other smaller national chain paying 73K per unit for less units bought, they have less than a dozen of them??? See what I mean... go figure.

While I know as much info as you've given me, I imagine that the one 100 screen chain negotiated the price with respect to the amount of screens they were going to roll out.

And how would I have known that the "small national chain" was only rolling out a dozen of them? I assumed this was a price they got in lieu of doing an entire-chain roll out and as such I assumed that this price was given to them based on the number of screens they were going to do the switch on.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-21-2009, 06:56 PM:

You should go and and read the posts again. I said they'd be doing the entire 100+ screen chain. That didn't change the price...

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 07-22-2009, 03:07 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen was the last to post

Don't ever judge by a 3D anything. Wait till you run a 2-D movie on the thing. You're comparing a Chevy Vega and a Chrysler Town And Country... Neither is very good but in many cases the 2-K digital will look far better then todays crappy release print which was generated fomr a 2K intermediate and has gone on to loose even more resolution in high speed printing, suffered a major color shift, and perhaps gained some bounce to it.

Mark

I didn't judge "by a 3D anything."

I wrote: "I look at the regular 2K picture, then peek out the port of the 35MM next to it, and guess what? My old eyes must deceive me, because to me, the 35MM looks better."

That is judging a 2K digital picture against a 35MM presentation in the house next to it. Screen sizes are approximately the same, too.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-22-2009, 04:03 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
You should go and and read the posts again. I said they'd be doing the entire 100+ screen chain. That didn't change the price...

I read that part just fine. It seems you don't understand at all what I'm saying.

It seems as if you're assuming that because Company A got a lower price and has currently only rolled out a handful of screens that this means that the lower price was only based on them rolling out those handful of screens when it wouldn't be all that shocking if they got a low price for the whole chain and then only have started replacing stuff slowly.

And I have no idea how many screens are in this company since the only one you've specified is the one with "100+ screens." I imagine the company in question has significantly more than 100 screens and so the negotiation of price seems reasonable. Now if the "small national chain" is smaller than I think, then I'm wrong on this, but otherwise I don't see what the big deal is.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-22-2009, 11:14 PM:

Chris,

Of course the national chain I'm mentioning is smaller than the 100+ screen chain...

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-23-2009, 12:04 AM:

When you use obtuse language like "small national chain" you end up with this confusion by how small you meant. Because to me, a chain that had a mere 150 screens could be the "small national chain." Sorry for the confusion.