quote: Scott Norwood

---

though not Beta SP, which is a dying format, anyway

---

quote:

---

Some of our clients continue to run U-Matic (3/4) for heaven's sake!

---

U-Matic also has an SP system along the lines of Betacam SP. Quality is not quite as good although REZ is about the same video SN is not as good nor is the color recorded seperately as a component signal.

Mark
 

---

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 08-08-2009, 03:50 AM:
 
Mark, Steve,
Your based on the US aren't you...

Here in Australia, eCinema is in 90% of all independent or Art house cinemas. This has become well known and accepted.. SO..
If you are an independent film maker or documentary maker. YOU KNOW to make a eCinema file you can drop on a USB hard drive. If you ever want to go see it in a cinema, you have NO tape or duplication costs.

Anyone with half a brain is doing this now to save costs.
Sure, there is a lot of OLD content that may re-surface on the occasion, but then again, if its content likely to re-surface its probably been converted to an eCinema format too..

What I am getting back here is that Tape based content is less and less likely to show up. Here in Australia, tape based playback is now very uncommon.

The US is Hollywood centric and one eyed DCI and eCinema is a dirty word.. Yes you probably would need Tape units. The marketing and propaganda from the Hollywood engine has made eCinema type technologies less common.

But on a world bases, adoption of eCinema based technologies for what makes sense is very strong.

James
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-08-2009, 09:35 PM:
 
Who is still using 3/4" for exhibition and why? There are a couple of venues around here that still have the decks, but they would only be used to play back older material, which shows up very rarely.

(One nice aspect about 3/4" SP is that the tapes play fine (at lower resolution) in non-SP decks.)

James--none of this stuff is regularly used for day-to-day exhibition of the same title in the US. Nearly all of that would be either 35mm or DCI. The tape stuff is for festivals, work-in-progress screenings, and special venues (art museums, etc.). In those situations, tape is more convenient than file-based storage because the tapes can be played directly and easily moved from one venue to another with no "ingest" time or compatibility issues. For once- or twice-only screenings, tape is really the most convenient and reliable format.
 

---

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 08-08-2009, 10:02 PM:
 
Well around here, those well known art house cinemas do still have tape. But you know what they do now..
Most of the time, they suck the content in to a editing system and render it down to a eCinema format. WHY. well, for one, its much more reliable., you can then play it on ANY screen. You can store it for next time. etc.

In terms of production screenings, again, the producers find it much cheaper and faster to render the time line for the screening. Hireing a Deck etc for going to tape then the cinema having to charge them for use of such kit.. For independent films and doco's, if you know this is going to work, why waist the money on tape?

This is all about knowing what your doing and the adoption of new technologies. eCinema technology looks good and is cheaper.
The only reason not to be doing it is because your behind the times. You have been encouraged not to.

eCinema is apsolutley HUGE in any part of the world not connected strongly to Hollywood content and the Hollywood influences. Australia is strongly influenced by Hollywood, and eCinema technologies is still huge and has made a massive effect on the industry.

You talk to ANY production people. Tape work flows are over for those who don't want to do film. You would be foolish to purchase any technology that is tape based these days. Listen to the Digital Production Buzz podcast. Just surf to any popular production website.

Tape is being pushed into top end Mastering only. HDcamSR, which no cinema would ever purchase as it is just too expensive, is the only tape format that people expect to use. Ie for archival storage of Masters.
HDcam is used commonly as a TV distribution format and cheaper Mastering format. But many see that going away and file based storage taking over.. Once a tape hits a TV station or any destination, its turned into a file anyway. We are just talking about how it gets between one place and another. In the near future it is not going to be tape.

For example, we do a lot of eCinema encodes in our company. We have DigitBeta, HDcam DV etc decks. But of late, about the last year. We don't really use them. Masters are coming in on 1TB drives as uncompressed files and audio stems. (Thank god no more DA88). Any editor can output master files like that.. 1TB drives are like 1gig USB stick littered about your house to a Post house.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 08-13-2009, 11:59 AM:
 
Oh for the days of the 35mm and 16mm print! One knew where one stood...

Cinemas that screen Festivals etc. are now experiencing the phenomenon of format proliferation which places unsustainable demands on their resources.

This then forces the use of inappropriate formats like Blu-Ray, which was never engineered for large-screen projection.

Some filmmakers also wrongly believe that the screening venue should be able to show whatever format they show up with, without thinking of the huge capital and maintenance burden this imposes (not to mention training for the Projection staff).

One approach that could be used is to insist that the filmmaker supply either a DigiBeta tape or a 35mm print, period. A not unreasonable stance - it's most unfair to expect regular theatres to be kitted out like Screening Rooms
 

---

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 08-13-2009, 06:56 PM:
 
You said it Brian. The last few festivals I was involved with were nightmares. Next time it is 35mm and evreything else compiled in advance on one format; disc, Digi beta, 16mm, USB I don't care, but don't mix them up every 5 minutes.

To be honest,if a film-maker can't afford a DCI or 35mm print for their feature release, they are not worthy of a theatrical release anyway unless they are subsidised.

The beauty of 35mm meant that only the quality productions reached our commercial screens. When money was tight, but the film was woth a release there was always the money to kick the Super 16 up to 35mm or even a 16mm release in some circumstances.

The digital era, especially the e-cinema 1.3 format, has made everyone think they can make a feature on their creidt card. These films simply don't see a release and never will.
 

---

Posted by Brendan Penny (Member # 5041) on 08-14-2009, 12:47 AM:
 

quote: David Kilderry

---

To be honest,if a film-maker can't afford a DCI or 35mm print for their feature release, they are not worthy of a theatrical release anyway unless they are subsidised.

---

quote: David Kilderry

---

To be honest,if a film-maker can't afford a DCI or 35mm print for their feature release, they are not worthy of a theatrical release anyway unless they are subsidised.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

Can we all, as in a community of exhibition operators, agree upon a eCinema standard for file creation. If so, what would this standard be in the opinion of those here?

---

Agreed. Though, shouldn't that be SMPTE's job
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 08-14-2009, 01:01 PM:
 
Yes it should be SMPTEs job but they seem to have gone the way of IATSE in regards to projection...nice little logo to throw around but a paper tiger (more like kitten) since they don't have any pull anymore.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-14-2009, 01:14 PM:
 
I don't believe that the solution to format proliferation is to develop another format that duplicates the function of existing formats.

At least the television formats (HDCAM, etc.) are already established at postproduction facilities, equipment is readily available for rent in major cities, and older material will only exist in these formats for the forseeable future. These formats also allow the "film"-makers to produce one final master for both theatrical and television use, rather than having to deal with multiple formats.

I agree that this is not an ideal situation for the exhibitor, but it is what it is. Like it or not, the art-house booth of the future will have 4-5 projectors (2x 35mm, 16mm, video, maybe D-cinema), and will have to accommodate several video formats and many different sound formats.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-14-2009, 07:44 PM:
 
I don't think tape-based is going to be the desirable format for much longer, and most small filmmakers find HDCAM (and HDCAM SR) kind of a pain to deal with.

Everybody wants to move to a file-based workflow (except maybe the big post houses), and even tape-based people are using formats like XDCAM for origination. Though of course their post workflow will determine what exhibitors will see.

I expect that starting next year, we'll start to see a lot of advance screenings on Aja Ki Pros, which is a portable harddrive that takes HD-SDI in (among others) and writes ProRes 4:2:2. But also does playback. But since the box is only $4k, it's dramatically cheaper than any HDCAM VTR.

Announced recently (NAB this year, I think?), I don't think it's shipping yet.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-14-2009, 10:11 PM:
 
Sorry Scott...I don't agree with you on that many projectors in a typical "art/revival" house.

First off...separate 16mm have already gone away for the most part...those that still fool with it as a projection format for a paying audience are typically in the Kinoton FP38E market. However, 16mm has been a very inconsistent format its whole life. Its quality can rival that of many 35mm prints to levels of mediocrity that make DVDs look good by comparison. In fact, you'll find most exhibitors if given the choice of DVD or 16mm will go for DVD. Both formats can be a crap shoot but the DVD will likely have better sound and isn't as likely to be dirty/scratched or hard to focus.

Mind you, 16mm can indeed look fantastic. Sound can be quite decent and with DTS 16mm is all that any other DTS digital film sound can be. Most installations...even those that still support it don't present it at its finest. At the AFI/Silver, they have shown 16mm and those that should be in the know thought it was 35mm it looked so good...16mm scope too. That is more of the exception than the rule though.

I do see a continuation of a dual projector 35mm system for archival presentations and also a video projector. I know we are designing all systems with 3 sets of ports. The question is...where the video is best suited to avoid as much keystone as possible for all formats. That is, one can put the film projectors on risers and have the video be below or have the video be above the film projectors or just set the booth up as a 3-projector system. The physicalities of the booth and the theatre sort of dictate what makes the most sense (including putting projectors on tracks). However, integrated film/video shows makes that solution less attractive.

As for type based video...I dunno...that certainly is not for me to decide...what I currently still see is a LOT of BetaSP, a Mountain of DigiBeta...Stacks of HDCAM and if it is a studio (Movie or even Cable)...HDCAM-SR. There is a distinct trend towards HDCAM-SR. I also see a fair amount of DVCAM.

XDCam, on the other hand...doesn't seem like it has taken off. The sites that have it, don't use it. The M2000 decks seem to get used non-stop though. If we go back 15 years or so...then open-reel decks ("C") were very popular still and 3/4 was definitely still in heavy use...There could certainly be a change out there that we are not seeing in 2009.

Then again, from an archival sense...tape is proving to be a good medium in many ways...just like film is.

I don't think a facility should have to support every format unless that is their mission. Always buying the latest/greatest format will drive one broke too. I think if you are in this market though...you should be DBeta/BetaSP capable by now (a J deck at the least...either the 2100 series or M2000 series would be nice but not essential...having multiple decks should be up there so one may cue up the next segment...especially if one needs to switch between different frequencies.

If you are trying to attract studio work, then having HDCAM-SR can be a plus...it is one less thing they have to rent, slam in and hope all works after set up. Just bringing the tape is much easier. I was within ear shot when a studio was doing a screening at the AFI/Silver...they were telling their studio..."And these guys have a D5, IN THE RACK!" They were notably impressed and HAVE returned for years since. Is isn't common for one to take their medium of choice and just plop it in the theatre's equipment and press play and whola...just like back at the studio.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-15-2009, 09:12 AM:
 
Alas, we can't all be the AFI, or even the Michigan Theatre.

As the art house business seems more and more to be non-profit based (like we are) the ability to keep up with the various digital formats gets more prohibitive. If there eventually is a massive conversion away from 35mm with no single standard for an alternative, that will be the death blow to the art house outside of cities with major funding sources. Admittedly, we're a pretty small population as it is and will not be missed by the industry. Nonetheless, it will be a major loss for those who want to see more than hollywood crap and want to see it in a theatre (again a small and aging population).

And, though Scott may work in places that you can rent HD decks, Montgomery is not one of those places, and only $350 is cost prohibitive for us.

Maybe Emerging pictures has the right idea with their e-cinema and we will just have to accept the lower standard. I don't know.

I do know we are showing Woodstock on DVD this weekend and it sucks. But I was advised by WB there are no good prints and DVD would look better, and I wouldn't have to pay the shipping(probably more than we'll make all weekend). So instead of a broken,scratched, dirty faded print, I get to run a skippy, freezy DVD. Yay for progress. And whose idiot idea was it to put the intermission ten minutes into side 2 of the disk?
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-15-2009, 09:22 AM:
 
Actuallly, Martin, everyone (at least domestically) has access to HD decks; there are plenty of national rental houses who will happily FedEx you an HDCAM or D5 deck for just their one-day rental charge plus shipping. Video Equipmental Rentals is one, but there are others. It's often cheaper than shipping two films cans around...

That doesn't help you with the cost. For advance screenings, typically the studio pays for all associated rentals, so you're golden. That just leaves filmmakers who use this stuff as an exhibition format; relatively rare, but it does happen.

(Our campus Arts office had us do a screening of something in HDCAM recently; they footed the bill for the deck rental, the tape rental, and fedexing the tape from France. I don't really know who negotiated the financials, but the tape rental cost more than the deck rental, and it turned out the tape had a glitch that killed ~5 seconds of audio and pixelated/blocked up the video for a bit. Sigh...)

If you're seriously stuck running DVDs, perhaps it's worth ripping them to a hard drive, potentially editing them to kill crap like an intermission (or whatever), and running them off the hard drive. Hopefully more reliable [though, well, maybe not.]

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-15-2009, 10:34 AM:
 
That's what I need, a Campus Arts Center;> At least a campus or school. Oh well, heavy sigh.

I see a hard drive device of some sort in the not too distant future. Someone came through with one last year and it worked pretty well.

The funny part is, most of the indie filmmakers who come through tell us our presentation is they best they've seen. Most of their shows are at museums, or libraries or classrooms.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-15-2009, 03:29 PM:
 
Martin... Jeff Kreines is just down the road from you... doesn't he have this stuff for rent?

Mark
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-15-2009, 04:19 PM:
 
Just saw Jeff yesterday. Who knows what is in his lab or where it is
 

---

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 08-15-2009, 06:31 PM:
 
My brother and I are the two developers behind the technology used by Emerging Pictures. This may explain my strong belief in the need in the future for ECinema technologies, however, I believe this as we are trying to build solutions to make a better and profitable future for the exhibitor. When DCI does not make sense. (Ie cost/profit wise.)

Emerging Pictures model should be successful for many reasons.
It may not be DCI, but it is designed to give as best a quality of presentation while reducing the cost of special retropy and alternative content to screen.
Yes it used MPG/WMV/MP4(h264) types files. But these files can be distributed over the internet while 250gig DCI movies will not. (Well maybe in the future of the US and their unlimited usage models, But the rest of the world. Not going to happen. And satellite will not work for this model.)

The idea behind Emerging, is to simply request a Movie.. It is automatically downloaded and ready to go. It is protected, encrypted, like DCI, but does not have the key costs as involved with DCI.

It has many of the features of DCI but without the politics and cost.

DCI was created to answer the secutiry needs of the distributors. This is its number one mandate, then comes the idea of reproducing film to screen digitally as best is possible. However, it is the security requirement that makes it as expensive as it is. (The new video format is also "currently" expensive and difficult to make) An expense that would make it impossible to bring some content to screen.
The right tool for the right job.
eCinema is a good tool suited to a niche but very important aspect of exhibition. I hope you will consider it as such.

Film-Tech, as predominantly a group of exhibitors looking at going DCI at some stage (As opposed to poorer countries just trying to build a film industry, a building client base for our technology), yes eCinema technologies is something in the background. Something we don't as a community, put a lot of thought into as yet. We developed the eCinema technology based on requests from the cinema community. Our product has all the features it has due to requests and ideas put forth my exhibitors mixed in without 15 years of owning a Post House. We, as a development company, believe that the products should stand by themselves. If technology proves them obsolete, so be it, or we improve it to keep it relevant/of benefit.

Right now we are working on many operational aspects of how digital is going to change the operational nature and costs of being an exhibitor. We have spent years on it. Analyzing what is done now and why. What might be done in the future. Australia is in a unique position as eCinema is so prominent in the non-chain cinema. We find those who have been running eCinema for the last few years are much happier about going DCI. They already understand many of the aspects of going to digital files. Tho eCinema is much simpler then DCI..

But still, when needing to "edit" a DVD down to a more reliable eCinema file. For easy distribution of Alternative content. For easy display of independent films. eCinema cam make profitable sense. That is why these products sell and are prolific in some areas of the world.

Adoption of a well documented and widely published eCinema file format that cinemas accept as a reasonable level of quality is of benefit to us all.

I have my ideas on this, but I would like to get this community to offer their opinion first.

James
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-15-2009, 10:27 PM:
 
I've installed several Emerging Pictures systems...I have mixed feelings about them.

As James states...they do have a the ability to get the content you need rather quickly to their server and have it ready for when you need it.

I was on a video installation on an existing site and it was going to be a 2-day affair. After we quit work for the day on one theatre so that the Emerging show could run, we were called to the Emerging screen from the other screen were working on because the movie STOPPED. This was one that had been verified previously to have been good as they do run-throughs on the digitals just like with film. The movie simply would not continue...you could load up another movie but not that one...at least not where it stopped (about 20 min before the end!).

I was asked..."what should we do?"...I pointed to the "Emergency Number" and said...this pretty much looks like an Emergency to me! This was at about 9:00pm. Not only did someone answer...they connected up to the server remotely...troubleshot the problem (corrupted data file)...Emerging sent just the last 20 minutes of the movie while we were on the phone cued it up and were ready to resume...all of this was about 20 minutes from "what do we do" to the show resumed. While it sucked that the show stopped and it does not happen often (my clients have never reported a problem like this before)...I think it was phenomenal that Emerging Pictures got a remote theatre back up and going so fast that few or no people left the theatre!

Now on the technical side...the image quality, in my opinion is not as good as it should be...definitely worse than BluRay (it is only 720p) and the mastering quality is all over the place. The operas look okay...the movies can be good or mediocre. The sound too is all over the place. On the Hitchcock series...there is a distinct whine in the background (I've now heard it on multiple titles in multiple theatres).

It really needs to improve to be truly worthy of a paying audience, in my opinion, but I have no problem with the concept. To drive the point home...if I had a choice of a DBeta (480i) or Emerging Pictures...I'll take the DBeta every time...especially if I have SDI capable equipment. I'd probably take the BetaSP over it too. It is more often than not, better than DVD though.

One last critique of the Emerging Pictures player...it has a nifty/sleek design but there really should be a rackmount for it. I end up using a shelf...which is fine but adds to the cost and also now has a shelf in the rack rather than just suspending it like all other equipment. Fortunately, I've found a nice shelf to hold the server (deep enough and strong enough) so it looks petty good anyway and only takes up 4U

As for DCI...security is definitely a large part of its design...but so is the picture/sound quality. After all...it is going up against film...the king for the last 100+ years. It uses 4:4:4 color (for 2D) when 99.99% of the audience couldn't tell the difference between that and 4:2:2. JPEG2000 versus MPEG and again most of the audience wouldn't know the difference. Sound is discrete high resolution PCM audio rather than some proprietary matrixed or encoded format...so there is definite room to have an improvement over the film digital sound systems.

Personally, I think NATO and it members should have rebuffed much of DCI as it adds significantly to their costs without really benefitting them. This is clearly the studios calling the shots.

Steve
 

---

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 08-16-2009, 03:57 AM:
 
I'll be the first to say Emerging has issues. They use WMV due to historic reasons. They Go with 720 as most cinemas didn;t have anoything over 1.3 projectors when they started. They also use only 720 to keep the bit-rate down. (Smaller file sizes)

All these issues I have attempted to encourage them to move to other better quality formats. File size seems to be a reasonable issue still, even in the lang of the unlimited bandwidth of the US. But I imagine this will change, at the Quality could be steped up consierably.
Tho one issue, the quality of a lot of operas is very poor, and as we all know, shit in, shit out.

If you do have Emerging systems, I do encourage you to seek the latest CineX software versions. Due to the support of WMV, in early releases, we had a lot of issues with having to conform to some of the software requirments. (WMV, when used low level, Microsoft only lets you use a WMV direct show filters with a LOT of bugs. Thier own player appears to have most fixed, but as a third party developer, you cannot get access to the FIXED libaries. #%%$@ Microsoft)
I am personally a fan of 40mbit MPEG2 4:2:0 or 80mbit 4:2:2. (Being the initial format for DCI) The quality of that you would agree is acceptable, tho the file sizes start to get large and less effective to the advantages of the use of eCinema formats.
MP4/H264 is also quite interesting but usually to easy to get wrong. H.264 is a very problematic codec, but when it works, it works well.

We did a lot of work to be able to archive the remote administration capabilities as you wrote about. We think it key to cinema and the "what can happen, will happen", problems you get.

Sound wise, we think the use of the standard AC3 at peek bitrates are best. It is historically the most common used and as such tends to be more stable and reliable. The Quality of such a codec is much greater then a typical Film Dolby digital sound. And if you use the optical audio path, it sounds amazing.

I'll be the first to admint, eCinema, being the poor mans distribution format, is subject to content also made on the Cheap. And as such, usually looks the part. Get a well made move from a HDCAM/DHDCAM-SR master, convert to a eCinema codec at a bitrate as listed above, and it WILL look good, I assure you. Just no one uses it like that. (Well in the non-DCI countries, they do, India use 60mbit MPEG2 VBR (to 80) for example for the RealImage eCinema system, one of many eCinema networks and its 600 screens. (From memory)

In terms of the CineX player that Emerging uses, yes, its a nice looking unit but the non-rack mount aspect is a not so suitable to many Cinema installs. We actually have a new hardware set based on a 2RU rack server with an optional external Touch Screen. It can be completely controlled via WEB page too, but we feel, as a cinema operator, you need the touch screen so you have the tactile control when you need it.

There has also been numourous big fixes and small improvements.
We have actually been focusing on full Automation and TMS type features for integration with DCI systems.. The object here is that you have full control of all aspects of the auditorium via very fast end effective Web page allowing in auditorium control to the highest degree, plus for service agents doing remote diagnostics etc, we can see exactly what is going on. Helps a lot when your trying to help Candy Boy Projectionist call us and ask why X is not working...

We also have a lot of back end software to help support servicing. This is a service for those smaller Cinema support companies who are starting to understand the new requirements.. Realizing its not trivial and so purchases this type of capabilities as a service. Far more cost effective and keeps you in the game. That is the idea. We are still working on the processes and business models.

If you have noticed my Posts, I am often asking opinions and feed back. This all goes back to the design and development of technologies we are creating for Cinema.

James
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-16-2009, 07:54 AM:
 
After this week...ALL of my Emerging Pictures will be on the S/PDIF audio.

One thing that you all should look into is going to an HDMI output with a better quality digital audio. In fact, one thing I've been doing lately is combining the DVI output with the S/PDIF audio to generate an HDMI output.

This allows me to send that signal or distribute it to any capable screen within a complex, picture and sound. Using a simple A/V receiver, the audio may be stripped off in its AC3 form and then the picture sent to the projector. Thus, the Emerging Pictures player is treated like any other video source on the A/V receiver like the DVD or BluRay or...etc. HDMI/DVI can be sent reasonably long distances with shielded "Cat 5" (STP) solutions or very long distances with fiber solutions.

As for the projectors...we are sticking with 1.3K resolutions for now...until the 2K units get into the price range or the content is there. There are now low-cost 2K single chip DLPs but I HATE single-chip DLPs...they really are annoying to watch...especially B&W action movies...they should be banned! I suspect, we are going to mostly jump to DCinema 2K machines when we move away from the 1.3Ks...this will open up potential content to DCI stuff and also allow all of the A/V content stuff using a box like the Barco ACS-2048.

Steve
 

---

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 08-16-2009, 07:17 PM:
 
Steve,
You can drop in 8000/9000 based Nvidia cards that support HDMI no problem. You then tie the Digital Audio out on the mainboard to the Video Card and it gets injected into the HDMI v1.3 cable.

We use that in many locations. Especially for non mainstream cinema. HDMI with its non-screw in type connectors are not considered industrial and in some cases avoided. HDMI is also uncommon for any cinema kit I have seen up until recently.

If you would like to do this, we have no problem with it, and I can have a tech connect and check the upgrade when you do it.

eMail me and I can suggest a HDMI card if you like.

James
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-16-2009, 09:50 PM:
 
For now, I'll stick with my Kramer FC-49. It effectively does what your card is doing but on the outside and is more universal. From HDMI, what I'm hoping for is a discrete 6-channel PCM audio mix rather than just AC3. I agree that the friction based connector is not desired. If you could have the audio on the DVI output as well, I'd settle for that in a heartbeat!

Steve
 

---

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 08-17-2009, 03:43 AM:
 
A problem in this discussion is that everybody is right.
In this 21st Century, all commercial cinema should be at least 65/70mm film with 8 channel sound.. even in smaller venues.
Creative people should have free access to media.
Film is an oil-based product so it must be replaced with a more environmentally friendly technology.
All of the above are valid.
I believe that we are in a transition stage.
Here, in independent single-screen country, we have new challenges every day.
I have spoken to NEC about their screening-room type d-cinema projector and they assure me that it would be ideal for our screen and would accept e-cinema files as well. So I will be discussing price feasibility with our suppliers after we know what our tax obligations are for 2008-9. I believe that Christie has a saimilar unit.
We don't need 20million lumens or 3D (we've seen those fads fade before). If the price is prohibitive, we will be waiting for a few years.
We should keep 35mm and e-cinema capability for several years because, as I said, we are in transition stage. Outside the US it will probably be at least 5 years before we have to jump.
If we hadn't had e-cinema we would not have been able to give joy to audiences with such movies a "4" and "The Choir". There was no other way to screen them here. Yes, they would have been better in 65/70mm film with 8 channel sound or 4K dci but they would never have been produced if that was all that was available.
Also, we would have had to wait forever for a scratched print with Dolby Digital F of "Death At A Funeral" which was one of our highest grossing features last year.
I would rather stick to 35mm but if, like us, you are serving a community with a taste for good mainstream and independent productions e-cinema is filling the gap nicely.
Of course, we have to reject many producers who are simply on an ego trip.
When we first took up this cinema in the 60s my ambition was to get 4-track mag in as soon as possible. And we did.
If only today's technology investments would give us such pleasure.
 

---

Posted by Brendan Penny (Member # 5041) on 08-17-2009, 04:22 AM:
 

quote: Ron Curran

---

be at least 5 years before we have to jump

---

I love that line! I have been hearing it for around 10 years now!!

Ron, sounds like you already have a pretty successful E-cinema setup so what is the hurry for an indie to go D-cinema when the majors haven't even gone that way yet?

I hope before you spend that money you have a nice set of 3 way stage speakers, QSC rack of amps, Dolby CP650 processor, nice clean seats, new carpet, presentable foyer.....you know, things that your patrons are actually going to give a crap about rather than a few extra pixels.

I have heard of some real box cinemas that have put in D-cinema where the money could have been invested in areas that count.
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 08-17-2009, 05:33 AM:
 
Brendan, you should try one of Ron's many different flavoured choc top ice creams . He knows his audience!
 

---

Posted by Brendan Penny (Member # 5041) on 08-17-2009, 06:01 AM:
 

quote:

---

Brendan, you should try one of Ron's many different flavoured choc top ice creams [thumbsup] . He knows his audience!

---

That's what I'm talking about!!!!
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-17-2009, 08:39 AM:
 

quote: Ron Curran

---

Also, we would have had to wait forever for a scratched print with Dolby Digital F of "Death At A Funeral" which was one of our highest grossing features last year.

---

quote: Ron Curran

---

In this 21st Century, all commercial cinema should be at least 65/70mm film with 8 channel sound.. even in smaller venues.

---

quote: Ron Curran

---

Creative people should have free access to media.

All people should have access to the media, and film collectors should be given extra special permission!

quote: Ron Curran

---

Film is an oil-based product so it must be replaced with a more environmentally friendly technology.

---

Is Estar film an oil based product?

---

quote: Ron Curran

---

I believe that we are in a transition stage.

---

quote: Ron Curran

---

I have spoken to NEC about their screening-room type d-cinema projector and they assure me that it would be ideal for our screen and would accept e-cinema files as well. So I will be discussing price feasibility with our suppliers after we know what our tax obligations are for 2008-9.

---

quote:

---

I believe we are at the stage before the transition even begins where nothing is at all definite and little happens because no one knows if they should buy film gear or digital gear. Most people... well... seem to be sitting out this step of the transition completely!

---

This is but a result of market choices not meeting market needs.

I was just fully greenlighted yesterday to convert 10 screens, 2 in 3D, to digital as soon as possible.

But I refuse to do it until projection equipment is fully DCI compliant, which none are at the time (with perhaps Sony passing certification later this year) and cheaper than it is now or distributors open VPF deals to independents.

If I had an option for a 2K, fully DCI full system (2D) for $50K, I would buy at least the 2 3D installations right now, probably using dual-projection on each. Or if distributors promised to pay for them with VPF. Even if I had to throw them out later (say 10 years) for being obsolete.

As it stands, I won't move until the new projectors show up by years' end/early next year and then decide.

I haven't ruled out Sony at all, even though I prefer "open market" choices so I can mix-and-match parts if maintenance/reliabiliy/suppliers/whatnot becomes a problem in the future. Easier to throw away a NEC/Christie/Barco projector out the window than a whole Sony system. If Sony can lock-in spares/replacement parts by contract, I would seriously consider.

So what do most people need? TI to come out with their new systems ASAP, price them ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO, which is replace inexpensive and reliable 35mm systems with less image quality and 1/4 the pixel count of Sony ~$80k systems.

So it's an unwanted wait for some, who are all ready and commited to switch to digital NOW, a welcomed wait for those that don't want to convert and rather use 35mm for as long as possible, and a stupid wait for everybody else as nobody is really benefiting from the current situation other than trying to place their remaining inventory before these TRANSITIONAL models become obsolete.

I think some digital players came with the idea of the IT world of "forcing a equipment upgrade every 5 years" to the wrong industry. If somebody wants to make it in this market, they need to come out with a be-all-end-all projector (4K, high brightness, low lamp cost, low price), a be-all-end-all server (full, true 4K support, full-out-of-the-box dual-stream support, full sound equalization and volume control, mini-automation included) today and watch the market flock to them.

This industry needs a player like RED in the SMALL world of digital cinema cameras, where they've come up with stuff that is BETTER than the long-established competition at a MERE FRACTION of the price and swept Sony/Panavision/Panasonic/etc under the rug.

Think about it. A 1920x1080 1700lumens home projector RETAILS for $999. You could buy some SIXTY of those projectors for the price of a single DCI and each project a similar quality image. And PLS, no argument about 1-chip against 3-chips etc ... remenber we are using not 3, or 6, or 9, or 12, or 18, or 24, or 30, or 36 or 48 but SIXTY of those projectors, each with their lamps, lenses, dlp chips, color wheels, circuits, remote controls, boxes, manuals, power cords, warranties, etc against a SINGLE dci projector.

And remember for the same price, or perhaps even cheaper, Sony offers an 3-Lcos one with FOUR TIMES the amount of pixels, their own server, etc. And please, no "manufacturing cost vs mass market" arguments either. We are all aware of the differences. But still, we are talking about DCI projectors being severely overpriced if they intend to compete against established 35mm equipment and even home theatres.

Christie boasts how they have sold well over 10,000 units of their DCI projectors worldwide. Sony will hit the 10.000 units mark too soon. Barco has done pretty well as well. Even NEC has managed decent sales of those models. In the world of projection equipment, those figures are quite "mass market" for just two-or-three models really being offered by the players.

Even in past posts in this forum, Mark posted how much better he liked the quality of JVC Lcos chips compared to DLP ... but let's also not get into the argument of which is better, if Lcos (sony) or DLP (TI), as they are both capable of producing extremely good results and each has strengths and weaknesses.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-18-2009, 02:56 PM:
 
Julio,
A word to the wise... wait till the fall and get projectors with generation 2 electronics instead of the present gobbildegook nonsense they are selling. It will be far more flexible in how you feed it the data! IMHO well worth waiting for! The main thing I main aspect I prefer about LCOS is that the visible grid is gone.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 08-18-2009, 09:28 PM:
 
Julio's argument is sound.
Major electronics companies produce projectors that give impressive results at a fraction of the cost of dci units.
The big car companies have specialist divisions that dip into the parts bin and outsource bits to come up with awsome vehicles at about 3 times the price of their family sedans. They may not have the emotional character of exotic Italians but they have comparable performance at a far lower price. Reliability and servicability are reputed to be superior.
Apply the same business model to a company like Panasonic, Mitsubishi, Sanyo (or even Sony) and we could have a commercial cinema projector for less than $50K.
In many cases it would be a matter of substituting functions. 3 chips instead of a colour wheel, output to a monitor instead of on-screen display, etc.
The marketing benefits to those companies would be similar to those for the car companies. Many a Ford and Holden buyer believe they are stepping into a race winner straight out of the showroom.
 

---

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 08-23-2009, 03:02 AM:
 
Thanks Mark for questioning my statement "Film is an oil-based product". It was meant to be in quotes along with the other phrases.
However, it reminds me that we needn't be in such a rush to replace 35mm with unaffordable substitutes.
What are people paying for digital projectors right now - the big monsters and the compact units? There are quite a few servers so that competition is healthy but there is a limited number of projector makers.
Unlike the HD projector market where there are 3 technologies, dozens of makers and hundreds of different lamps.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-23-2009, 08:54 AM:
 
Ron,
I am aware that acetate film is. But I am not sure that Estar isn't something that isn't moleculuarly created in the laboratory... along the lines of synthetic motor oil. Theer is a possibility that one of the moleculuar ingredients or oxidents may be from oil however.

How Esters are made
 

---

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 08-23-2009, 10:28 AM:
 
High School Chemistry all over again!
 

---

Posted by Knut Erik Evensen (Member # 4379) on 08-26-2009, 07:24 AM:
 
I think 3D screens will earn more money on A Christmas Carol and Avatar than 2D screens. If you wait for 4K-ready DLP projectors you will lose money on those films. You can move 2K projectors to smaller screens when 4K projectors become available.

I think DCPs is the best way to distribute content to cinemas. If the cinema is not digital, Doremi has a hardware player for DCPs made for non digital cinema venues. The DCP has to be non encrypted and have subtitles rendered into the movie. Fraunhofer IIS will also release a software player for DCPs at IBC 2009 (10-14 September).

In the UK, Art Alliance Media have converted lots of HDCAM-SR cassettes to DCPs for the DSN network. On their web page it says they have mastered 581 movies for digital cinema, most of these DCPs are "video cassette" DCPs, but they serve their purpose. The DSN cinemas show some foreign/classic/documentary/british films and the UK Film Council is happy to have paid for their digital cinema equipment.

The problem with HDCAM-SR cassettes as masters for DCPs is the resolution. It's better to make a DCP from the master image sequence or quicktime/avi files because they can have the correct digital cinema resolution.

I have used Fraunhofer IIS Easydcp software to convert some short film master image sequences to DCPs for festival screenings. These are 24 fps XYZ DCPs that can be played on all digital cinema servers. An alternative is the ecinema "DCP" sofware from Doremi called Cineasset that can make 25,30 fps "DCP"s that can be played on Doremi cinema servers.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 08-26-2009, 01:35 PM:
 
Well, losing money is a relative term.

Paying $100k for a piece of "obsolete" equipment (remember current projectors don't even meet DCI certification requirements) can be seen as a big writeoff to make up from only two films this Christmas.

Who knows how many good films in 3D hollywood is going to put out say next year or two years from now?

And if we all convert to 3D, then the audience once agains distributes equally among theatres and nobody makes any more money again. We've stablished here how 3D doesn't bring in (hardly) any more patrons: it just takes some of them away from the nearby theatres that are not 3D already.

The increased ticket price deters some people from going 3D, as does the number of them that find the process uncorfotable due to their particular vision problems. Also, more money spent in the ticket can transform into less money spent on concessions.

The higher ticket price must as well also bring additional revenue to pay for added 3D costs (higher watt lamp, glasses, etc). So it's not all profit.

In this particular venue I'm dealing with, there is no competition or possibility of it. Although I'm sure many patrons would like to see stuff in 3D, as it would be a novelty for many of them, they have no choice but to watch the films however they are presented. Which right now, is in awesome, well projected, 35mm and will remain so until new, better-and-cheaper digital projectors come out.

If ever.

If studios/distributors want all that extra money they get from 3D ... all the have to do is strike a couple of over/under 35mm 3D prints. Nowadays, it's super easy.

But they don't do it, in spite of claiming the movie will earn so much more in 3D.

Why, if systems like Sony's 3D does EXACTLY the same thing? Well, it's because the hidden agenda is to push/force theatres into digital convertion, not because of the 3D itself.

Why aren't movies like Iron Man 2, Transformers, Harry Potter etc being done in 3D and it's mostly kid's/CGI movies, if 3D is such an amazing profit booster for Hollywood? (having a few minutes converted to fake 3D for a few Imax doesn't really count, that's Imax themselves trying to capitalize on their already-paid-for DRM and convertion technology)
 

---

Posted by Pietro Clarici (Member # 4937) on 08-26-2009, 03:34 PM:
 

quote: Julio Roberto

---

(...) current projectors don't even meet DCI certification requirements (...)

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

(...) If studios/distributors want all that extra money they get from 3D ... all the have to do is strike a couple of over/under 35mm 3D prints. (...)

---

I thought they were trying to push digital as well.
But have you seen this?
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 08-26-2009, 05:54 PM:
 
No, I had not seen Technicolor trying to be a player in 35mm 3D market ... but there is no need for any other system as over/under or side/side 3D for 35mm have existed for ... ever and they cost a couple hundred dollars to adapt to a theater (they could use infitec filters and not even need a silver screen, i.e.)

If there is no 35mm 3D prints today is not because they were waiting for Technicolor to do anything about it ... it's because studios and distributors didn't want 3D in 35mm. Period. Otherwise, 3-D in 35mm has existed since the 50's with the same or MORE (much, much more) quality than digital 3D.

I mean. Imax digital dual 3D vs dual 35mm 3D? Sony 2K over/under against 35mm full-frame over/under "scope ratio"?

Under $1000 3D optical adapters vs $100k digital 3D system deployment?

You get the point.

Glad to see that Technicolor is trying to push this through. Hope they succeed, but unfortunately I think the true colors are going to show ...

About studios not enforcing DCI projection equipment TODAY, sure. Tomorrow, maybe. Five years from now, who knows. Do you want to bet $100K against it?

I also think that for the next 10 years or so studios are not going to bother current crop of projectors. But it's stupid to have to pay top dollars for something even they don't consider worth it of projecting their movies on ...

For that money, I want GUARANTEES. No surprise $20.000 upgrades required 5 years from now to comply to DCI.

Same thing with 3.5-5.5 fl 3D illumination requirements and 4:2:2 10bits subsampled images.

If I could do a 2K 3D screen today for $50k, I'll do it for sure, even if 4.5fl and 4:2:2 10 bits only and non-dci. As you said, later on, I'll move it to a smaller screen/budget house and replace it with 4K or whatever.

But for $100K I want the real deal. And that's not it.

And if they come out with 35mm 3D ... then I may even stay 35mm for a LONG time
 

---

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 09-21-2009, 01:53 PM:
 
Uhm... seems that their dreams are becoming reality

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/PR.aspx?newsID=1541

quote:

---

Hollywood, Calif.,—Sep 17, 2009 Technicolor Launches Industry’s First “Production to Projection” Solution to Deliver High-quality 3D to More Moviegoers Moviegoers Rank 35mm 3D Identical in Quality to Digital 3D in Warner Bros.’ Final Destination 3D Exit Polls
To address the unprecedented demand for 3D, Thomson (Euronext Paris: 18453; NYSE: TMS), through its Technicolor Business Group, today announced a high-quality, affordable 3D solution that works with existing 35mm projectors. The Technicolor 3D Solution can be deployed immediately to bridge the gap until digital cinema can be more widely rolled out. According to exit polling interviews conducted by independent research firm OTX, moviegoers ranked Technicolor 3D as being comparable to digital 3D cinema technologies, making it the first viable celluloid complement to existing 3D efforts.

A wider platform is needed to accommodate the growing consumer demand for 3D content. With more than a dozen 3D movies and even more special 3D events (concerts, sporting events, etc.) slated for 2010, 3D engagements are a proven complement to 2D at the box office. In fact, 3D engagements outperform 2D by more than 2-to-1 in attendance and even greater in box office. Existing 3D technologies work exclusively with digital projectors, but currently only approximately 6,500 theatre screens in the U.S. have been converted to digital and roughly only 2,500 of those screens will be 3D-capable by year’s end. This means more than 90 percent of theatre screens in the U.S. are not able to provide a 3D experience to moviegoers…until now. Because there is no need for a digital cinema system, which can be costly, Technicolor’s innovation puts 3D within economic reach of all theatre circuits, allowing them to complement 2D engagements and benefit from incremental revenue generated from increased ticket sales and ticket sale surcharges.

“In today’s economic environment, it’s a harsh reality that not every exhibitor has access to the funding required to install digital 3D projection systems. It was the desire to make 3D accessible to the masses that resulted in Technicolor creating a 3D solution to fill the gap between celluloid and digital cinema,” said Frederic Rose, Chairman and CEO of Thomson/Technicolor. “Technicolor 3D equals the quality of digital 3D, and since it’s a fraction of the cost of digital 3D, it allows every exhibitor to benefit from the incremental revenue generated from 3D presentations while giving content creators the widest possible platform on which to share their movies.”

Warner Bros. and AMC, which have teamed with Technicolor for initial consumer testing, are encouraged by moviegoers’ response to the Technicolor 3D Solution. Sixty-five percent of moviegoers polled after viewing Warner Bros.’ box-office success Final Destination 4 in Technicolor 3D said the “overall image quality of the 3D” was “excellent” or “very good”—this compares identically to the results from digital 3D exit polls.

Movie Exit Poll Highlights from Technicolor’s 3D Presentation of Warner Bros.’ Final Destination 4

· Satisfaction of Overall Viewing Experience. Overall satisfaction was similar in Technicolor 3D and digital 3D and both test groups felt “satisfied” to “extremely satisfied” with this experience. The 35mm 3D group registered somewhat higher “extremely satisfied” responses that the digital 3D group.

· 3D Quality Compared to Last 3D Movie Experience. Comparing this experience to the last movie they saw in 3D, moviegoers who watched in 35mm 3D were near-identically inclined to perceive the 3D quality as “excellent” or “very good” as those who watched in digital 3D—comparisions to their last 3D experience were at parity.

· Movie Ratings & Recommendation. Moviegoers who watched in Technicolor 3D were more inclined to rate the film itself “excellent” and to “definitely” recommend it to friends versus those who watched in digital 3D.

How the Technicolor 3D Solution Works
The Technicolor 3D Solution employs a propriety “production to projection” system that leverages 35mm (film) projectors already in use by 90 percent of U.S. theatres today to deliver high-quality 3D content to moviegoers. A patented lens system assembles the left and right eye images as the film runs through the projector and delivers a 3D ready image onto a silver theatre screen. The solution works with circular polarized glasses—identical to the ones used for existing digital 3D cinema—to “translate” the film’s content into an image that is perceived by the viewer as being three dimensional. The silver screen can be used for the projection of both Technicolor 3D as well as digital 3D content. The Technicolor 3D Solution can be installed nearly immediately. No build-out or significant modifications of the projection booth are required.

---