Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Sony Marketing of 4K. Have a look.

This is topic Sony Marketing of 4K. Have a look. 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=000420

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 08-08-2009, 09:40 PM:

I was surfing youtube today and came across this.

Sony Prof Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/mysonyprofessional

This stuff is shot very well, and most likely with top end Sony Kit. So it does look great..

We all know here that the Sony 4K solutions has its issues. Issues that make any knowledgeable cinema owner, in general, step back from Sony projections solutions considering them not ready for massive deplyment. However, we all agree that Sony has amazing potential.

In many ways this is propaganda, but still. Marketing is Marketing and this has been done well.

James

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-08-2009, 09:50 PM:

It doesn't come up....

quote: James B Gardiner
Issues that make any knowledgeable cinema owner, in general, step back from Sony projections solutions considering them not ready for massive deplyment.

Perhaps not down under but here in the states at least two major chains have bought a combined 12,000 Sonys. So I wouldn't exactly call it a solution that isn't ready for deployment. Another chain here in the states is paying 73K for their 4K sonys ... Now thats basically the same price as buying a big 2K projector and associated equipment. Which would I buy if I had to choose today? The Sony for sure because it has more marketing potential than 2K has(for the moment). In reality though I'm telling everyone to wait it out at least another year because something big HAS TO GIVE in the pricing structure of 2K D-Cinema to fit in 4K DLP. NO one under the sun is going to pay even bigger bucks for 4K DLP...

Mark

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 08-08-2009, 10:22 PM:

I fixed the link in the first post.

Just because Sony are selling the farm does not make the equipment "WORK" better. A clear evaluation of the Sony solutions leaves a LOT to be desired. As some one who is a technology developer and knows a lot about DCI, cinema operation and Sony solution.
Sorry, I do not consider Sony solutions ready. There are just to many issues.
I'm not saying it does not work. It does, especially if you don;t car about the DCI technical level of acceptance.
It is also very propitiatory using a lot of proprietary standards that 2K systems use open standards etc.
(For example, you can only use the Sony (SMS) DCI player with a Sony projector. No competition here.)

There is no WAY the kit, which likely comes in as 2x the weight compared to 2k solution, is being sold at a commercial cost. The way they got FIPS etc. Just so many things that could explode in your face down the road.

And if you did not know, the two big contracts Sony just made has an out clause. If another player comes out with a competing 4K system, the cinema chains in question have the option to re-evaluate the contract.

When I found this out, it kind of now makes sense that TI have announced 4K so early. It makes the Sony 4K announcements hollow.

The Sony 4K kit is great and a good start, but I am not compelled to support its adoption for anything other then niche areas where 4k makes a difference. Not until they polish the solution and open it up.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-09-2009, 12:03 AM:

Ahh, the whole 4K thing doesn't mean squat. It's numerical masturbation largely.

Hollywood studios still, by and large, render nearly all of their digital intermediates and CGI in mere, barely better than HDTV quality 2K resolution. They do it because it is cheaper and still "DIGITAL." So therefore it is perfect. Why bother with 4K perfect when you already have perfect at 2K?

In the end, a lot of 4K projectors are going to be installed without much of any native 4K rendered content to show. But the 4K hype will be out there anyway, just like the huge "70mm" logos for all the 35mm to 70mm blowups in the 80's. Nevermind anyone actually bother shooting a movie in a real 65mm/70mm format.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 08-09-2009, 01:03 AM:

James, what exactly are the issues with Sony's 4k system? The few issues that I have heard about do seem manageable, ie tricky to set up and even a bit complicated to load the shows. The few people I know who work with it even like it! So I am interested to hear more detailed criticism about its pros and cons. I would be interested your knowledgeable point of view or anyones hands on experiences.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-09-2009, 08:14 AM:

quote:
The few people I know who work with it even like it!

Ditto here...

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 08-09-2009, 01:37 PM:

Sony always had this "our system is fully incompatible with anything else" tradition and in D-Cine this is still the case. 4K would only benefit cinemas with a screen more than 15m width!
Demetris

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-09-2009, 08:00 PM:

Demetris,

Again, It isn't about resolution at all. Dude... this is the exhibition industry!!! The cheapest assholes on earth run the majority of this buisness [Frown]

. It's about price and nothing else. AMC got them so cheap! Like 56K per system [Eek!]

. So far Sony is the cheapest and right now Sony's 4K 2-D system is darn close to the same price as a large 2K 2-D system even in single quantity. For say 1200 to 2000 USD more I would certainly buy the Sony and exploit the marketing ability it affords(for the moment!). I also personally feel that even a 25 to 30' wide screen would benefit from 4K be it DLP or Sony. Smaller than that it again would depend on how much extra it costs. I've seen 70mm on screens that small and 70mm still makes a huge difference!!!

Mark

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 08-11-2009, 07:44 AM:

My main issues about the Sony Kit are
1. Sony do not appear to be selling the kit at commercials rates. Its more about industry dominance. I cannot see this being a good thing for the industry when things change.
2. there are a lot of non-standard and proprietary implementations in the Sony system. This goes completely against the ideas behind DCI.
3. The system has a much higher running cost.
4. The colour consistency across the screen is not within DCI spec. I have heard comments from quite a few people who have notices this during general content playback even before using test images that should bring this to your attention. I have been told this has been addressed in the latest systems, but I don;t know what to believe.
5. In general Sony kit is always the most expensive but arguably the best. If Sony does archive dominance, expect the same marketing model. Is it compatible with cinema exibition?

My issues revolve around the stability for our industry, not that the kit is not fit for use.

An example of my issues is that, during showest I heard that the Sony Stand kept the Projector/LAMP on during the show day and night. This was to ensure the colour consistency issue did not surface.. Which is connected to heating up and down during day to day use.

I do remember being on the floor late at night and the Projector still spinning its fans. So I am inclined to believe this.

Smoke end mirrors..

James

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-11-2009, 08:19 AM:

According to Sony's list there are currently 89 Regal and 43 AMC locations with the Sony 4k projection system installed. I don't know if that means all screens or not but I know at least some locations are.

Although anything is possible, I can't imagine that hundreds of units would be installed that don't meet DCI spec or require running bulbs 24/7.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 08-11-2009, 12:24 PM:

Remember people, this is Sony, the same fine folks who screwed everybody who got into SDDS....and a great price won't mean squat when (not if) Sony drops all support for the machines and leaves them all with a very expensive boat anchor.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-11-2009, 01:49 PM:

I think this is a little different than SDDS. The SDDS system was purpose built JUST for 35mm digital sound. Sony uses the SXRD imagers for other things. As for the server, it can be replaced by somebody else. The Doremi can be upgraded to 4k now and integrated into the Sony projector if one really wanted to do that. The only reason the server is integrated is that there was no "cinelink" encryption for a 4k stream so they had to lock the cables inside for DCI security BS.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-11-2009, 10:04 PM:

quote: James B Gardiner
Sony do not appear to be selling the kit at commercials rates.

You don't call 73K USD or even 83K USD a commercial rate. Here the 73K is the same price as a fairly large 2K system.

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 08-12-2009, 01:48 AM:

I consider that Sony at the moment have a large marketing advantage, to the average cinema consumer 4k is better than 2k.

My 4k multiplex will have the advantage over the 2k multiplex across the road.

A large 4k exhibition footprint will now put pressure on the pipe blockage that now rests with digital intermediates and the entire post chain as Bobby says. Studios have shown they will do large format shoots for Batman, Trans. 2 etc The 4k sites will be better able to capitalise on this.....and there is more coming.

To me, the perspective buyer of a 2k/4k set-up, I want bang for my buck and reliability. If Sony can deliver these then they have my attention. It does not bother me that their pricing may be subsidised.

The old JVC Hughes units we (the company I was with back then) bought back in 1999 were hugely subsidised.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-12-2009, 09:59 AM:

With the number of 4k installs going in, I'd be surprised if we didn't start seeing at least the tent pole product being produced in 4k by mid next year.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 08-12-2009, 11:18 AM:

Near 100% 4K (or above) production for cinema movies will arrive yes or yes.

It's a question of when, not a question of if. We can all rest assure.

Therefore, we shouldn't really bother considering whether most movies today are 2K or what not.

Five years from now (or 10 or 20 or just 2, time will tell), most-all movies will be 4K and beyond.

The only consideration is: why didn't we have 4K systems in the cinema sooner?

Nobody argues today about the validity of 1.3K systems touted for MANY years as the replacement for 35mm in the industry. It may take 2 years, 5 years, 10 years or even 20 years, but, valid or not, we'll be all LAUGHING at 2K DCI solutions one day. We can all bet on it.

So I think it's better to concentrate on getting over of this 2K phase the industry is going through as soon as possible. After we reach 4K as a replacement for 35mm film, we can stop arguing about "quality" and stuff and concentrate on what has always set products appart in this industry: reliability, cost, etc.

Small differences in picture quality between projectors has always been overshadowed by huge differences between prints etc, and it has never stopped the industry.

2K has "proved" it was good enough to most people instead of 35mm. 4K will prove it will be "four times" as good as 2K. After that, minute differences in color, contrast, etc, won't put a single more customer on the seats, so it's only a moot argument to see who has the larger pipi. Hell, even the "huge" 2K-over-4K difference will doubtfully put any more customers in seats, but at least it will stop somehow those that argue that 35mm is waaaayyyyssssssssssssssssssssssssss better and nobody will get out of their houses to watch 2K at all.

If Sony is the only guy in town with quirky, propietary equipment that MEETS a quality level SIMILAR to 35mm film, well, then I guess we all will have to go Sony. If TI can stop acting like jerks and come out with inexpensive 4K systems, then they may get something to win and so will the industry. If it doesn't pay for them, then we are all screwed.

Attempting to pass a 2K product as a replacement for 35mm for 5-10 times the price is, in my humble opinion, a scam. Exactly as 1.3K was 6 years ago. No more, no less. I don't see any advantage on doing that unless the price goes down to 35mm level or the quality goes up to 35mm level. As it stands, I see would see no reason to pay for a change of the 35mm equipment.

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 08-13-2009, 06:06 AM:

I have to disagree that 4K really means that much.
Yes it defiantly has the marketing edge. Like my car has 6 cup holders and yours has only 4.

And really that is all it means. At the end of the day 2k/4k 95% of the patrons will not notice the difference in a typical cinema.

Now, if we look at the trends that many people are happy with DVD, not bothering with Blue Ray, plus how popular the downloading crappy pirate content is.

Lets get serious. Does this really matter.

2k does look great. It has the quality people expect.

Clueless patrons that I have asked already think that a 2K presentation is as good or better then 35mm. (In general)

So really does this matter for exhibition. Is it a smart idea to spend more on something already expensive plus.. and that most people will not even know the difference. (Pay more in initial cost of lifetime costs.)

As a business person looking at this. You would have to show me some really compelling data to make me want to do 4K other then for special screen that make use of it.

James

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-13-2009, 07:56 AM:

Julio--how are the TI people acting like jerks? They can't magically reduce the price on an expensive low-volume product unless they can somehow justify it as a loss-leader or promotional item (Sony can; TI can't). These units are not like television sets or computers; the total worldwide market for cinema projectors is comparatively tiny, with little economy of scale.

James--why do you keep defending so-called E-cinema (HDTV or lower resolution video) and 2K DCI? This is supposed to be a forum for people who care about quality, yet you seem to keep trying to justify lower-quality systems when better options exist. Weird.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-13-2009, 09:09 AM:

quote: James B Gardiner
I have to disagree that 4K really means that much.

LOL, now I realize who this guy is... James is the guy that told the studios they no longer needed to use 70mm!!!

I garee that 2K can and does look good... to a point. When I saw 2K done right for the forst time at the Dolby screening room it reminded me immediately of when I used to run dailies. The next day it struck me... their screen isn't much larger then the screens I used for dailies. And DP's... they hate seeing digital dailies.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-16-2009, 08:44 AM:

James,

You keep forgetting two things in your discussion that are the two most relevant pieces of info. One: Its all about marketing... not about the patrons! And 2: The Sony when bought in quantity cost far less then 2K does. How can you be so blind?

Mark

Posted by Kevin Fairchild (Member # 4985) on 08-16-2009, 02:28 PM:

Mark. Yes, 4K bought in quantity will equal a market 2K price.

The same thing would have happened for 2K. If Regal and AMC bought all 2K projectors, don't you think that their price per unit would be dramatically less than what small chains are paying?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-16-2009, 04:59 PM:

quote: Kevin Fairchild
The same thing would have happened for 2K. If Regal and AMC bought all 2K projectors, don't you think that their price per unit would be dramatically less than what small chains are paying?

Kevin,
I believe that 2K in quantity would still be higher than 4K Sony turned out to be. I think the overheads of the 2K plants are alot higher than that of mighty Sony whom is about 1000 times larger than any of the other 2K players and produces oodles more products to cushion them. Christie especially has a very high overhead now that Can. Dollar is almost on a par with the USD. Christie being smaller than either NEC or BARCO probably has the least leeway in price although I do know they do give quantity discounts. Believe me if 2K had been just a little cheaper they would have gone with it just because they are cheaper. With the big chains the cheapest always wins.
Sad the folks running these chains don't take equipment operting cost into account... they never seem to have a clue about that.
Mark

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 08-16-2009, 07:07 PM:

Scott, Mark,
I make such comments as to try and bring an objective perspective to this site.
I support some eCinema technologies etc as it is by the use of these technologies that a lot of content gets to the screen.
I am sorry if you disagree with this, but I count getting to screen as a higher priority then it being sharp enough.

So this site is about quality... So is it about the sharpness of the picture on screen or the quality of being an exhibitor offering a service to patrons who enjoy it and is of such quality that they will be coming back.

There is also the issue of a Cinema being commercial. Making a profit so next year it can still be a running cinema and not a empty/deserted shed full of 8K projection systems. Which one are you?

I find many people here like to focus on the trees, while I prefer to focus on the forest. The health or quality of one tree does not make for a healthy forest.

I am sorry if my perspective disagrees with you(s).

James

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-16-2009, 09:43 PM:

James, I think the problem is that figuring out what is "Good enough" tends to cheapen the industry and ultimately makes it less special and consequently will and has eroded it and hurts the business model too. You know, you can fire everyone from a business and show an immediate increase in profits...however, with everyone gone, the business fails due to complete lack of infrastructure. To pony up a show that is, in most ways, inferior to the home experience, is ultimately, detrimental to the health of the industry.

You may be looking at the forest...I'm stepping back further and seeing the entire planet.

Steve

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-16-2009, 10:37 PM:

The sad thing is the folks at the top can't seem to think much farther than a handful of quarterly reports into the future. From my point of view it doesn't look like they care about the long term consequences of their decisions, particularly with how the movie theater industry will be affected by those decisions.

I think those guys take the movie theater side of the business for granted as if it will survive whatever stunts they pull -like the outright insanity of simultaneous theatrical and home video movie releases. Movie theaters are seeing their profit margins squeezed further and further, which marginalizes the movie-going experience further. At some point the theaters are just going to go broke and it doesn't look like Hollywood studios will care enough to lend any help at all.

My opinion is the movie industry as we know it cannot exist without the commercial movie theaters. In a home video only model the movie studios will be reduced to marketing their best projects to TV broadcast and cable networks. You can't make a $200 million budget movie work within those confines. We all know the vast majority of straight to video movies are low budget crap. No studio is going to risk spending $100 million or $200 million on a project that will go straight to DVD and Blu-ray.

I still remain convinced digital cinema is more of a cost cutting effort than something that raises the quality of the movie going experience. No more film prints (or the costs of shipping them). Booths can be automated (reducing staff at the theater). And the technology makes it possible to literally put TV shows into movie theaters, which is what the movies will become if the whole "let's release it on video and in theaters at the same time" crap takes hold in a big way.

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 08-17-2009, 08:12 AM:

Steve I have to disagree with you.
Striving to keep the cinema "Better Quality" then a home experience is a game you will inevitably loose. And the sooner the exhibition owners realize this, the better.
There is MUCH more money behind consumer technology then the world cinema industry can ever have. Even if 4K does become more used and prolific, before you know it, there will be 4K LCD's and 4K domestic projector systems hitting the streets. (Look at 3D, we have domestic screen/projectors, we are just waiting on some modifications to the BlueRay spec for distribution)

What we need to realize here is that, once a level of quality is reached, and I think 2K is good enough, it is not so much about being 2k or 4k, but the fact cinema offers an experience that you cannot get at home.
A screen/room/sound bigger then anyone at home will have. A nice and relaxing, appreciable environment. More seats of better view angle then could get at home. Top class resturants outide the cinema door. "NOT home", a group experiance etc. etc.
Ultimately the Cinema offers a night out that cannot be matched at home. This is what you as an exhibitor should be focusing on and promoting.

Until the industry realises this, it is fooling itself.

Of course there will be acceptations. I know some art house cinemas who have very devoted (And usually older) patrons who will complain, usually just on principle, even at a sniff of digital projection.
But looking at the outer MEGA-plex chain-cinemas with 24 screens who do the bulk of the movie going public...
If you think patrons care about 2k/4k, even if marketed to them. Your fooling yourself. They may drift towards 4k due to the marketing initially, but once they realise they cannot see the difference, they will not care. Convenience is the better option. round the corner for 2k or next suburb for 4k.. I assure you, it's the EASY option.

James

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-17-2009, 08:55 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The sad thing is the folks at the top can't seem to think much farther than a handful of quarterly reports into the future.

Bobby... Exactly!!

quote: Bobby Henderson
I still remain convinced digital cinema is more of a cost cutting effort than something that raises the quality of the movie going experience.

I disagree. It can considerably raise the bar over film showings in may instances for a majority of locations. It also has the ability to raise the consistancy as well if implemented and maintained properly. Few film locations have competant projectionists, few locations have properly maintained film equipment!! just a small percentage of owners of film locations even give a crap.

quote: James B Gardiner
I support some eCinema technologies etc as it is by the use of these technologies that a lot of content gets to the screen.

There isn't one e-cinema over here. And while there may be a number over by you and or in Asia that certainly doesn't count as a lot of screens. So I will disagree that a lot of content is getting to screens via e-cinema. I bet there are more D-Cinema screens in California then there are e-cinema screens in Austrailia.

quote: James B Gardiner
Even if 4K does become more used and prolific, before you know it, there will be 4K LCD's and 4K domestic projector systems hitting the streets.

Oh pleeze... now James you've gotten ludicrous on us. Few folks will be spending the big bucks to buy that stuff... movie execs, airline pilots that like to tinker with the latest, doctrors, lawers that want the best. Those folks account for a very small percentage of the consumer. You are not going to see 4K at home any time soon in masses... probably not in either of our lifetimes. DTV has yet even to reach the progressive scan method at the broadcast end of things... That will happen way before 4K ever comes along. Oh, and 3-D doesn't matter at home one bit.

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-17-2009, 10:19 AM:

quote: James B Gardiner
What we need to realize here is that, once a level of quality is reached, and I think 2K is good enough, it is not so much about being 2k or 4k, but the fact cinema offers an experience that you cannot get at home.

Yeah, commercial movie theaters do offer an experience one cannot get at home. Unfortunately, more often than not it is a negative, distracting experience. Many commercial movie theaters have more of a fast food feel about them than that of a classy establishment. The factor of whether the theater has film-based or digital-based projection is irrelevant with this matter.

With profit margins shrinking ever more narrow theater companies have no choice but to cut staff down to minimal levels. The quality of customer service suffers over that. There's longer lines at the box office and snack counters. Not enough staff members are on hand to deal with presentation issues or disruptive people in the audience.

quote: James B Gardiner
There is MUCH more money behind consumer technology then the world cinema industry can ever have. Even if 4K does become more used and prolific, before you know it, there will be 4K LCD's and 4K domestic projector systems hitting the streets. (Look at 3D, we have domestic screen/projectors, we are just waiting on some modifications to the BlueRay spec for distribution)

I am very skeptical "home theater" will be able to show movies in native resolutions higher than 1080p anytime soon. 4K in the home probably won't happen for another 10 years, if ever. Broadcast and cable is certainly stuck at 720p/1080i due to bandwidth limits.

The other problem is the content providers (the movie studios) aren't doing anywhere near enough to generate native 4K resolution content. Very few movies have CGI and digital intermediates rendered in 4K. Most of it is still merely 2K and will stay that way for at least a few more years to come. 2K is conveniently close to HDTV and Blu-ray resolution. And it costs quite a bit less than 4K. The "suits" would usually rather pocket the difference than put that extra money up on the big screen.

I'm also very skeptical about full color 3D in the home taking off in a big way. That's going to require customers to buy a different kind of Blu-ray player, a different kind of TV set, possibly a different kind of audio video receiver and, of course, the electronic 3D glasses for the setup to work. That's going to cost a lot of money. At best, the general public will only transition very slowly to 3D capable HDTV sets, Blu-ray players, etc. as the need comes up to replace existing gear whenever it finally breaks.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I disagree. It can considerably raise the bar over film showings in may instances for a majority of locations. It also has the ability to raise the consistancy as well if implemented and maintained properly. Few film locations have competant projectionists, few locations have properly maintained film equipment!! just a small percentage of owners of film locations even give a crap.

The problem is, just like film projection, it takes people and money to keep digital projection equipment properly maintained. D-cinema service provider companies like Cinedigm are suffering from the same very narrow profit margins that are affecting theater operators. The movie studios are carving away the bulk of box office earnings for themselves and everyone else involved in the food chain just gets to starve. In the end, the service providers are going to be stuck in the same position as the theater chains: doing a "good enough" job to fit within a meager budget.

With most theaters I have visited where presentation quality is suffering, sound is usually the bigger problem than the on screen image. Digital projection is doing very little to deal with that situation. Uncompressed Linear PCM audio is fine and all. But when the sound system is maintained in the same manner as it was with the previous film-based setup (which usually means little if any maintenance at all) the benefits of using high bit rate audio are lost.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-17-2009, 11:17 AM:

I find that D-Cinema projectors are quite a bit more stable over say a years time since they employ auto adjustment as the lamp ages, auto lamp alignment for when you install a new lamp, and other neat little functions relating to presentation. You can also lock out undesriables from tinkering! Film could have had at least some of this but never did for what ever reason. All of my customers have twice yearly service which means that their digital pictures would change so little as to be undectable.

Its kinda funny because in my service area I see things happenning the other way around... where projectors are the more neglected item. Sound systems are also generally the least expensive maintainance item to have to deal with unless of course you have all Smart Mod-2's and Peavey speakers or similar crap in your theater chain... then you have expensive upgrade problems to contend with. I think you must mean the latter where D-Cinema has been installed in chains like Carmike but no sound upgrades were done. Just about all of my customers have very good sound equipment and so adding D-Cinema would be iceing on the cake!!

Mark

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-17-2009, 12:52 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
just a small percentage of owners of film locations even give a crap.

That's my job title ... to give a crap.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-17-2009, 01:15 PM:

So when a patron complains they are told to go see the Crap Giver? [evil]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-17-2009, 01:53 PM:

quote:
Sound systems are also generally the least expensive maintainance item to have to deal with unless of course you have all Smart Mod-2's and Peavey speakers or similar crap in your theater chain... then you have expensive upgrade problems to contend with. I think you must mean the latter where D-Cinema has been installed in chains like Carmike but no sound upgrades were done. Just about all of my customers have very good sound equipment and so adding D-Cinema would be iceing on the cake!!

Quality equipment is only part of what is required overall for a theater to provide good sound. The room design and maintenance of the equipment is also critical. I've visited brand new theaters that had good booth hardware but still had crappy sound because the equipment was out of adjustment or things like a blown speaker driver weren't fixed. In some cases certain staff members fart around with the knobs tweaking things that don't need tweaking in the first place. At any rate, the sound systems in commercial theaters need a lot more professional attention than they're getting.

In the case of Carmike, if the existing booth already had 5.1 surround sound then nothing else was done to it for adding digital projection. Many, but not all, of the theaters lacking 5.1 got upgraded to 5.1 surround when digital systems were added. If the rooms were originally built for THX certification then the booth rack had better quality gear than the usual variety of Smart branded stuff (the THX houses typically have Dolby processors and QSC amps). Carmike had to close some locations because there was just no point wasting money trying to upgrade them.

Regardless of theater chain affiliation it's going to come down to the individual theater manager to be driven enough to respond to problems and get them fixed rather than just leaving things broken.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 08-21-2009, 11:03 AM:

quote: James B Gardiner
If you think patrons care about 2k/4k, even if marketed to them. Your fooling yourself. They may drift towards 4k due to the marketing initially, but once they realise they cannot see the difference, they will not care. Convenience is the better option. round the corner for 2k or next suburb for 4k.. I assure you, it's the EASY option.

To the contrary, consumers will easily forgo convenience or price in exchange for value, even if it is only perceived value. Witness the proliferation of 1080p TV's in the past two years. In Spring 2007, 720p HD sets were the most common, and then Sony started pushing "1080p PureHD" and suddenly everyone wanted their TV's doing 1080p. It didn't matter that at their viewing distance, they wouldn't be able to discern the difference between 1080p and 720p on the size set they were getting, 1080p was better, and that's what they wanted. Try and find a 720p television greater than 37" in size now!

I think customers will drive past a theater for another one further away if there is 1) perceived value or 2) a problem with theater #1's presentation. People get ticked off about focus issues (focus, as well as jump and weave which many believe to be focus problems), sound issues, facility conditions, and patron behavior.

quote: Bobby Henderson
My opinion is the movie industry as we know it cannot exist without the commercial movie theaters. In a home video only model the movie studios will be reduced to marketing their best projects to TV broadcast and cable networks. You can't make a $200 million budget movie work within those confines. We all know the vast majority of straight to video movies are low budget crap. No studio is going to risk spending $100 million or $200 million on a project that will go straight to DVD and Blu-ray.

We've talked about this before, so I won't belabor my point, but it takes just one runaway success to change this forever. Studios are nibbling at this right now, and sooner or later, someone will hit upon the right combination that makes a simultaneous or direct-to-video release a success. Theaters should not use exclusivity as a crutch that prevents them from competing by delivering more than just a movie.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Yeah, commercial movie theaters do offer an experience one cannot get at home. Unfortunately, more often than not it is a negative, distracting experience. Many commercial movie theaters have more of a fast food feel about them than that of a classy establishment.

I experienced this just this week. Walked into the theater, and the seats I usually choose have some guy's feet draped over them from the row behind. Reluctantly choosing the row behind him and his friends (think Jerry Springer fans), the middle-aged woman in the party decided that the middle of the movie was a good time to do some texting by holding her phone up in front of her face. Not much the theater could do in that instance, but no one pulls that kind of crap in my home theater, but then I don't hang around with that kind of people.

3D is a gimmick that I don't think will take off in the home. People are more than happy to let theaters take the financial hit of installing the required equipment, but they aren't going to pay even a few dollars more for equipment that had that capability. Just because people pay a few dollars to walk through a fun house at the state fair doesn't mean they're going to go out and buy distorted mirrors for their home. Same with 3D.

Theaters need to have the stones to install the equipment that works best to deliver a great presentation that also makes it easy to maintain great presentations. If that is film, or 2K, or 4K digital, so be it. In most cases, film isn't going to satisfy the maintainability aspect because of the need for dedicated skilled projectionists to do it right. (My impression is that Digital Cinema makes it easier to deliver and maintain a good quality presentation.)

They need to have the dedication to their customers to hire and train qualified staff that provides an excellent experience, no matter how good/bad the movie being shown is. That good experience will keep audiences coming back.

Marketing is all about getting people in the door. If you don't have 4K, don't compete on resolution. If you do, someone will come along an install 4K and now you have just trained your audience that resolution is important, and they'll go for the higher number. No one cares that 2K digital is nearly the same resolution as 1080p HDTV, so don't even go there with your marketing.

Market all the benefits of coming to your theater and don't get hung up on things that someone else can throw a little bit of money at and do one better (like 2K vs. 4K). Deliver a message about things that matter to people, and deliver on that promise when they do come.

But that's just coming from a guy who gets to hear about poor theater experiences on a daily basis, so what do I know? [Smile]