quote: Demetris Thoupis

---

What is the logical choice in Digital investment.

---

Don't do it.
 

---

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-30-2009, 07:09 AM:
 
I'd wait for an *affordable* 4K.

Regardless of the silly technological arms race that is going to ensue, 4K should give plenty of good use, assuming the projector is well-manufactured, into the future.

Content isn't going to follow the same degree of exponential growth that projectors and digital cameras will. Most movies are being finished at 2K.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-30-2009, 09:06 AM:
 
The goal isn't long term use. I see "upgrades" as the only path to profitability for the suppliers. . . .especially "mandatory" upgrades. If you can't run first run product on a machine it becomes useless; not even able to be sold USED! Louis
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-30-2009, 09:09 AM:
 
I would wait until either a) the economics work; b) the quality is demonstrably better than the best that 35mm film can offer; or c) the material that you want to show is only available for D-cinema.

I can't see how items A or B apply at this time, but C might if you want to show the newer 3D material (Technicolor's 35mm 3D system notwithstanding).

Wait five or ten years and see what happens. No doubt there will be significant changes and improvements in that time.

In any case, is about as good an "investment" as buying a new car (i.e. the value only goes down from the moment you buy it). Buy it because you need it or want it, but not because it's a good investment.

(Related questions: is there any true DCI equipment that is available for purchase now? Has an SMPTE standard based upon the DCI guidelines been created yet?)
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-30-2009, 09:38 AM:
 
Ask yourself this question:

1) Your theater with the best state of the art 4K DLP system that money can buy.

2) The AMC Marple theater in Springfield, PA with their ten 35mm projectors that were installed when most people were running Windows 3.1 on their 386 computers. Their state of the art network operating system there at the time was Netware 3.12.

3) The Everett Theater in Middletown, DE with two Simplex E7s that were installed USED in the 1940s.

Which theater will have projectors that are obsolete first?
 

---

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 11-30-2009, 10:07 AM:
 
Mark is that a trick question


 

---

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-30-2009, 11:25 AM:
 
This is a stereotype, but why are most Europeans and computer geeks so eager to except the latest and greatest as better, tests notwithstanding?

What matters to me is dynamic range, line pairs per millimeter/inch, and long-term lifespan.

Digital doesn't currently do well with any of these three factors, especially for scope movies.

There are a lot of faults I find with 35mm, but it is very very very intuitive, and I don't have to pay for its manufacture.

Digital print credits aren't enough to solve my three dilemmas with the technology.

When something better comes out, I'll cry a little, have a stiff drink, and disappear for a week, but when I return I'll acknowledge it. I don't get peope that say digial is better now. Side-by-side, same movie, it really isn't.

I saw "Twilight: New Moon" in 35mm side-by-side digital. Digital had better noise (less grain), but worse color, worse resolution. Granted as a film-shot movie it is somewhat biased in film's favor, but with the digital intermediate step not so much, but still it shows a lot to be left desired on digital's end.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-30-2009, 12:52 PM:
 

quote: Karl Borowski

---

but worse color, worse resolution

---

quote: Karl Borowski

---

For a 2D movie on a 3D screen, does resolution take a big hit though

---

quote: Search Function

---

Search By Member Name: Karl Borowski « Public Name

The user you entered either does not exist or does not have any current posts.

» Please use your browser's back button to return.

---

 

---

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 12-01-2009, 06:50 AM:
 
Going digital for cinema is not really up to cinemas.

Yes in some ways it's not perfect, however, all production goes through some type of DI and as such, a DIGITAL process being graded on a DCI projector. Its what the director makes his decisions on.

Going digital for production is a matter of economics more then anything else. Its evolution of the process of making a film.
It allows films to be made that never could have been or more time to be spent on more important areas such as story line.

Film, is becoming a rounding error in the visual reproduction of what the director sees in his grading suite using some type of digital display.

Digital is the evolution of the medium. It will be, in the future, the only format offered that is commercially viable. This does not mean you need to jump all the way in now, but you should be dabbling in it by now if our serious in my opinion.

Film is VERY old and is refined to an amazing degree. Its a great technology. Its just a shame that forces be it economics or environmental (Redution in consumables etc). Landfill full of film is something we need to fix just as much as the global warming issue.

Give digital 20 years of evolution and I expert you would be happy with it. It is still quite young really.

But I do agree that the technology is a bit over the top in complexity and its nuclear bomb grade security. This is the core of the costs. A paranoid Hollywood could be blamed for this but it is something we do need. Probably just not as full on.

In real terms, as some one who has worked in development in other areas, we are actually doing OK in terms of costs. If I compare tech of similar complexity in other fields, DCI tech is super cheap comparatively. Tho the life span is a "?".

James
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-01-2009, 07:16 AM:
 
John:

quote: James B Gardiner

---

Going digital for cinema is not really up to cinemas.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

Landfill full of film is something we need to fix just as much as the global warming issue.

---

quote: James B Gardiner

---

Rarely is. Just because something can happen does not mean it does. There is no economical advantage to do it. So its not going to happen (Often).

---

quote: Peter Castle

---

Film prints in Australia are not delivered on reels.

---

Yeah, but James isn't from Australia. He's from some place called "Ausrtalia"


 

---

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 12-25-2009, 06:44 PM:
 
Peter is right , we never receive film on reels anymore ,as he quoted they are shipped in cardboard on cores and stay on cores until junked.

Our film exchange is short on storage space they junk nearly all new release prints as they return to them so most only see one run at cinema then off to landfill.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Jones (Member # 16) on 12-26-2009, 07:19 PM:
 
Thats right Phill, a few weeks ago I returned 5 prints which were all new prints by the way, when the courier unloaded them at despatch the guy took them staight to the dumpster ready to be carted away to be destroyed.Some of our prints do go to N.Z but not sure how many or how they decide which ones go.
 

---

Posted by Ronda Fitzsimmons (Member # 1418) on 03-02-2010, 10:40 AM:
 
To get back on topic here - there are some reasons to go digital, at least partially. After years in the move-over business, I've started once again to hear the old refrain - no prints... Sorry... As more of our local theatres go to digital projection, I expect to hear that more and more.

My struggle as a small indy is to figure out how to make the very expensive conversion, since the film companies aren't going to offer me and VPFs to offset my conversion costs.

The occational used system does come up for sale, but talk about a short life span! Yikes!

Ideally, I'd like to see a lower level digital presentation available for the intermittant market. One of the local art houses here already has installed an off the shelf digital projector with a blueray/dvd player. E-cinema would work for us, if the major companies would accept it. Our screens are mostly small, and the economics of d-cinema are still pretty crazy, when you consider a damn good computer and a damn good projector are available commercially for well under $10K/screen.

For us the economics of e-cinema do make sense - no more scratched prints, cleaner sound, easy setup/projection, lower operating costs. I can easily offset the cost of the conversion, even allowing for equipment replacement in a shorter life-cycle. So why doesn't this make sense for d-cinema as well? Too many hands in the pot, imho...
 

---

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 03-02-2010, 11:17 AM:
 
Whatever you do a single chip DLP cannot beat a 3 Chip DLP. Buying a residential or commerical 3 Chip DLP projector will yield to high ammounts of money and since you are talking Cinema, you need a substantial amount of light.
Demetris
 

---

Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 03-04-2010, 02:17 PM:
 
Ronda,
Don't know if your part of NATO but if you are Im fairly sure there are VPF plans available. We have had a few NATO sites get added to our Phase 2 Rollout, and more coming from what I hear.

http://www.cbgpurchasing.com/
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-07-2010, 06:19 PM:
 
Actually the CBG deal is bad, bad, bad all the way around even for the bigger indies. Too costly, too many extras you have to pay.. like using the D-Cinema for your pre-show and extra showings plus un-needed and overly priced service. Sadly, the NATO guy in charge of D-Cinema doesn't have a single D-cinema install in his own theaters!

Mark
 

---

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 03-08-2010, 09:39 AM:
 
I would not say the CBG (or Cinedigm) deal is completely bad.

The cost of using the projectors for ad shows is minimal when compared to purchasing a secondary video projector that gives a quality on screen picture - the larger cost is the additional lamp usage on the digital projector - and don't forget the resulting picture quality if you do use the digitals for the ad show could help increase sales. (although if you already have preshow ad projectors you have no requirement to switch to the digital ones so the cost issue could be moot)

Yes, the service is on the expensive side for the smaller exhbitors - but the labor component is not too far away from what a 35mm service contract will cost you and the total per screen price includes any and all non-consumable parts (i.e. the exhibitor does not have to pay for any parts for the term of the contract).

If you look at the economics . . . . pay $60,000-$90,000 per screen up front for your equipment or pay much less under a VPF deal with higher yearly costs - conceivably you could pay less overall even with paying for the yearly service contract.

Don't forget that with some integrators you also get access to their alternate content lineup - granted there are fees involved, but you probably won't be able to run their content outside of their network.

As to the CBG head who does not have digital himself - well, I know the previous head advocated NOT installing any digital until there was a VPF deal in place because the more units that get installed the less incentive the studios have to move forward with VPFs, sounds logical to me. I assume the current CBG-NATO head has the same thoughts.

I have both phase 1 and phase 2 Cinedigm buildings - I know the economics of the various deals and while there are fees involved I don't like, overall getting the projectors paid for by a third party makes sense if you can accept the contracted responsibilities.

I suggest that exhbitors explore all available options for themselves and make their own judgement on each one.

The big question in my mind is how will 4K factor into phase 2 and the CBG deal - as far as I know all the economics are based on 2K pricing.

Personally I think waiting to evaluate the 4K options is the way to go, or at least buy one that can be easily converted once the parts are available.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-08-2010, 09:52 PM:
 
I donno Dave, I service one chain about your size and have done much work for another largish chain and everyone I come in contact with feels the CBG deal is dismal at best. The lease deal from Sony actually involves far less initial cash outlay... for those that want to tolerate Sony. My smaller customers will just be buying outright or leasing... the latter has many merits. These indies who decide to lease may actually have the best set of options in place for them. NEC Leasing offers many options and can tailor your payments to your cash flow. At the end of the lease you can buy the gear for an agreed to price at the signing of the lease or you can get rid of all the gear and get all new gear and continue with another new lease. The interest rate for this is quite reasonable and you have your own dealer provide service as needed. In the end those theaters that decide to lease for 3, 5 or 7 years will be the best off since they can keep technologically ahead of the competition who is stuck with gear for 10 years. The main thing people need to do is give the new generation of 2K/4K projectors time in the field to get the bugs worked out.

Mark
 

---