This is topic Digital Cinema = The death of theaters? 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=000654
Posted by Kyle Butler (Member # 5601) on 09-12-2010, 10:45 PM:
Interesting topic brought up at a recent conference for second run theaters looking to go digital.
Many theaters have had the same 35mm equipment for years on end with a substantially small expenditure to keep them running.
If there's a problem with film, it can be fixed by way of splice tape, duct tape,rubber bands, etc. Even the most expensive components of a film system can be replaced within a reasonable amount of time without pushing the budget too much.
With the right projectionists and practices in place, its hard to lose a show with film.
Digital is a horse of a different color.
Within the 5 years of operating Digital cinema, our theater has lost 18 shows, and a total of 8 days of operation. We've installed and pulled every major brand of projector/server. Installed and tore down 2 silver screens per 3D auditorium. We've increased our monthly budget to incorporate increased xenon bulb costs, meanwhile, replacing those bulbs 425% more often than before.
Fast forward a few years later, and we've cut the budget. Bumped the hours we run our lamps. Stopped worrying about the "small" issues with picture presentation (Dirty silver screens, bad masking, Image positioning, 3fl light levels etc)
Everyone knows it isn't cheap to go to the movies, but we do it anyways. Why? The circuits claim its the same as going to a concert, or a football game. Its a premium experience. The question is, as the equipment ages and technology progresses, are the exhibitors going to maintain and replace anything? Or have we already set a bad example of what digital cinema can be?
(Poor upkeep, sub par standards (ive never felt like 2k was appropriate for "the big screen")
If you ask me my opinion, id say that home theater technology will surpass what can be had at a theater in less than 15 years time.
I know similar ideas have been posted in the forums, But everyone usually agrees that 35mm will make a comeback in this case. This is about the suggested "end" of movie theaters.
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 09-12-2010, 10:53 PM:
I have been running 35mm film since 1968 and while I love it, I am looking forward to D-cinema.
After a few teething problems and equipment upgrades, our e-cinema system has been operating successfully for some time. It gives me a window into the future.
The only thing that frightens me is the high cost of D-cinema repairs and maintenance compared with film systems. Even replacing major film system components is not daunting.
My observations with film and digital are:
1 You don’t know if there is an issue with image or sound till you run the whole film print.
2 It has become increasingly more difficult to train projectionists and to rely on them. Experienced ones are either dying out or they just don’t want to do it any more. Younger ones have a social life. Rostering is a nightmare. Good pay doesn’t seem as alluring as it once was. It is easier to find people who can play computers than it is to train them how to lace film.
3 Hard drives are much easier to lug up the projection box steps than a box of 7 spools.
4 Film distributors will give us a copy on hard drive any time we want it. There is no nail-biting over whether we can date a print or if it will arrive in time from another location.
5 There is no drama involved in extending or repeating a season of a digital show. Nobody is waiting for the copy on your server.
6 Re-starting a film show back before a problem occurred can be difficult.
7 If nobody is in the booth when a digital show starts, there is little risk of the copy being damaged. Show start time is when the audience wants to be ushered in.
8 Digital copies mean that we won’t have to listen to distributors sobbing about the cost of prints and why you can’t have one.
9 If you have a no-show because it’s a policy session and no one turns up, you have to run the whole film through in real time.
As I have said before, we should all be running 70mm film because that is the best that cinemas could offer. But that is not going to happen. So we must look at what is possible if we want to continue.
Posted by Kyle Butler (Member # 5601) on 09-12-2010, 11:16 PM:
Excellent points ron.
Ill take the offensive on them though to stir things up ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
1)The same can be said for digital. Just look at the Iron Man 2 fiasco. Our prints were unlocked at 8pm, giving us just enough time to build em and screen them before the midnight showing. The digital copy didn't arrive until Thursday, and the keys weren't active until 11:45pm, Just 15 minutes prior to the showing. hardly enough time to check for problems. and its not the first time ive had problems with the distributors screwing with our screenings.
2)I can't argue with that. I work with 4 other projectionists, and not a single of them does a thing. I honestly feel like the picture would be projected on the ceiling, with no sound and in the wrong format if i wasn't there. Digital certainly takes the monkeys out of the booth and puts them in concessions where they belong ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
3)Can't argue with that one.
4)We still have an incredibly hard time getting drives to us. In some cases, its taken less time and less work to receive replacement reels, or prints altogether than to get a hard drive to us on time.
5) Holdovers are definitely much easier on everyone with digital. As long as they actually get those keys out to us! (could just be our bad luck)
6)Good point
7)Good point
8)For the most part that's true. However, it seems that the distributors are using VPF'S, shipping costs, hard drive costs,production and intermediate costs as a new "Well, this is why we can't send you a copy"
9)With our few film showings left, we just call down and ask if we've sold. We don't start it until someone shows up. Not as convenient as a good ol "stop" button on a server,but not bad.
Amen to 70mm
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-12-2010, 11:21 PM:
I know Sony projectors that use 4K lamps, the lamps must be changed every 6 weeks. Save big $$$ with digital cinema today!
Posted by Kyle Butler (Member # 5601) on 09-12-2010, 11:26 PM:
I know ALL ABOUT em.
When were lucky, we get 7 WHOLE WEEKS of use on a $1250 lamp.
What a deal.
And that $1000+ lamp gives us a whopping 4.5FL of light at its best.
I can't get over how great it is ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 09-13-2010, 04:02 AM:
I forgot …
10. Assembling film trailers can be a bitch, paticularly here in Oz where the law requires us to attach the ratings tag to every one. We have to find a frame line, cut off the advertising approval stuff, check the OFALC database (lots of fun) for the right classification, find a tag, splice it the right way (yes, I have been guilty of classifying an M film as rated W) and assemble it with a couple of others. More joy still if you're changing them on the bottom platter. When a show is running, its easy to risk a frontal labotomy from the middle platter while you're in prayer mode on the bottom one. With digital it's a breeze.
Conversely, I can do all this while a film is running. I cant load a digital file while a digital feature is showing.
Kyle, glad you agree on the 70mm thing. Sad though. I know many people who won't go to a 3D movie but I never heard anyone say they wouldn't go to a 70mm show. Our industry certainly knows how to shoot itself in the foot; just as well it is too dumb to load a gun.
When we get a D for showmanship, I will be keeping the film gear in place, just as we are with e-cinema.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 09-13-2010, 08:20 AM:
The 8000 pound gorilla in this is the "theatrical window." According to the Wall Street journal, (see post elsewhere on site), there is a proposal that cinema will only get 3-4 weeks of exclusitivity.
If this is true, film vs digital won't matter much except to those who spent all their money. Louis
Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 09-13-2010, 12:15 PM:
I thought a 4K lamp was warranted for 1200 hours...maybe 900...
Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 09-13-2010, 03:17 PM:
On the contrary I consider D-cinema to be not the death of theaters, but the rebirth.
Now sites can play pristine copies of legacy titles along with any other content encoded in DCI compliant format.
Additionally the option of showing live content (often in 3d) has proved to be a huge profit generating avenue for sites so equipped.
The options for content of your choosing has just been opened up greatly, with a bit of vision and imagination so can your profits.
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 09-13-2010, 03:37 PM:
The death of cinema has been predicted since the birth of cinema. Radio was supposed to kill cinema. Television was supposed to kill cinema. VHS was supposed to kill cinema. Cable was supposed to kill cinema. Laserdisc was supposed to kill cinema. The internet was supposed to kill cinema. PPV was supposed to kill cinema. DVD was supposed to kill cinema. Widescreen televisions were supposed to kill cinema. Gaming devices like the XBox and PlayStation which can also be used as an entertainment portal were supposed to kill cinema.
Cinema's not going anywhere anytime soon. It's just evolving, like it always has.
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 09-13-2010, 04:50 PM:
Does anyone remember the TV show "Futurerama"? If was on fox at 7PM Sunday nights, a few years ago. It was an anamated show, that takes place in the year 3000. In one scene, we are in a projection booth, and what is showing the movie? A 35MM projector!
Posted by Kyle Butler (Member # 5601) on 09-13-2010, 07:33 PM:
quote: James Westbrook
I thought a 4K lamp was warranted for 1200 hours...maybe 900...
Nope. 600 at most (at least for LTIX) They have 3 different models in the field ranging from 500 to 600 warranted hours.
quote: Louis Bornwasser
The 8000 pound gorilla in this is the "theatrical window." According to the Wall Street journal, (see post elsewhere on site), there is a proposal that cinema will only get 3-4 weeks of exclusitivity.
If this is true, film vs digital won't matter much except to those who spent all their money. Louis
Absolutely. That was something that was brought up. The combination of decreased showmanship, lagging technology, and the smaller release window could do it. It's going to make more sense to shorten the window now too. with 35mm prints costing several thousand $$, the studios and distributors wanted to keep the prints in circulation for as long as possible to increase the profit margin for each print. With digital, there isn't a huge difference financially if movies are pulled in 5 vs 5 months.
quote: Edward Havens
The death of cinema has been predicted since the birth of cinema. Radio was supposed to kill cinema. Television was supposed to kill cinema. VHS was supposed to kill cinema. Cable was supposed to kill cinema. Laserdisc was supposed to kill cinema. The internet was supposed to kill cinema. PPV was supposed to kill cinema. DVD was supposed to kill cinema. Widescreen televisions were supposed to kill cinema. Gaming devices like the XBox and PlayStation which can also be used as an entertainment portal were supposed to kill cinema.
Cinema's not going anywhere anytime soon. It's just evolving, like it always has.
Valid point, but i feel like things are a lot different this time around. VHS, radio, and DVD'S never killed cinema, because it's always been a better experience to see a flick on the big screen. Bigger,better picture, bigger, better sound. Nothing could compete with it. However, were moving to a time when a lot of people have decent home theaters with 1080p and sound that's sometimes better than what can be had at a lot of theaters (sadly). This time around, cinemas are going to have to compete with whats available to the average Joe by upgrading and replacing equipment. This was rarely done before. The only 35mm "upgrades" our theater has invested in, in the last 2 years are technalight kits, which don't cost a lot. Upgrading or replacing DC equipment can be extremely overwhelming with the high cost, and issues with DCI(DCI equipment on loan has to be installed and in use per contracts). Combine that with the shrinking release window, and increasing prices, and i think people will start waiting a month or two to see it at home.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-13-2010, 08:02 PM:
I'm pulling LTI 4.2kw's out at 650 and they're warranted at 700 ... glad that I don't see the bill for the bulbs ..
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-13-2010, 08:41 PM:
4K lamp warranties (Rated life) vary with the model as much as with the wattage. For instance, Ushio has three 4KW lamps for the NC2000C. The one with 17,000 lumen output is a 500-hour lamp. the one with a 14,000 lumen output is a 1000-hour lamp. The one with just a 11,500 lumen output is a 1,500-hour lamp. That is all from one lamp manufacturer and in one specific projector.
The Sony 4K lamp (4200-watts, technically) is a a 500-hour lamp and gets about 18000 lumens. There is just the one model of 4K. However, there are 3K and 2K lamps for the Sonys and they get more traditional hours
However, the substantially higher cost of an explosion in DCinema projectors (Damage to the reflector, often glass, UV filter, 3D color wheel, folding mirror, integrator...etc...tend to make one not want to push a lamp like in a film system where often, even after a catastrophic explosion, can be brought back on line, with a dinged up reflector. It is a real rare bird of a film projector to be damaged by a lamp explosion.
Another issue with DCinema projector lamps is that there is no shutter to mask a flickering lamp...any flicker in the lamp immediately shows up on the image so what is acceptable in a film system is often considered much worse in a digital one.
The net results, keeping a DCinema system lamped up is going to cost more than an equivalently illuminated film system.
Steve
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-13-2010, 10:08 PM:
quote: Ron Curran
Conversely, I can do all this while a film is running. I cant load a digital file while a digital feature is showing.
You can with D-Cinema.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-13-2010, 11:02 PM:
One thing I have found not to be true (yet) is the supposed unlimited availability of digital prints, that has been touted as one of the big features of digital.
Actually in some cases the opposite has been true.
Toy Story 3 - they wouldn't give us a 3D digital print unless we agreed to 4 weeks. Every other Disney/Pixar movie on 35mm has been 2 weeks on the break.
Inception - Even opening it 3 weeks after the break, we had to commit to 2 weeks to get a digital print. Most 35mm movies can be played for one week when played off the break. (To be fair, Inception is so far the only digital movie we've had that trouble with.)
And just as with film, there is still a question every week of whether a digital print will be available, which often can't be answered until Monday morning when the distributor checks holdovers.
I was picturing a world where the film depot would have a bank of servers, and a guy would say "Oh, Mike in Forsyth needs Inception? OK, run one off and ship it out!" It's not that way at all. At least not yet.
I'm still wondering what will happen with Christmas matinees. I was envisioning being able to book a pristine digital copy of "Shrek 1" for example, but now I'm wondering whether that will be possible. Will they want a full week just because it's a digital print?
All this sounds like I'm unhappy for switching. Nothing could be further from the truth; at this point I would never go back to 35mm. Like others I'm worried about the cost of upgrades and repairs, but we have a service agreement for the near term, and prices WILL come down on a lot of this stuff as it becomes more prevalent in the marketplace.
On the other side of the coin, there are a few other advantages that haven't been mentioned here yet:
1. Trailers. You never have to worry about missing a trailer again. This is great for the small exhibitor -- previously there would be at least 25% of movies we'd play that we never had trailers for. This alone will help increase our grosses. And it's so nice to be able to change your trailer reel on a moment's notice. A lot of little kids showed up for that PG-13 movie unexpectedly? Lose that Resident Evil trailer and put it back in for the next show.
2. Shipping is cheaper. With film, it cost us about $35 to $45 to ship in a Deluxe print via ground, and about $25 to $35 to ship it out for a total of about $60 to $70 per film. Technicolor was $25 each way regardless of weight, for a $50 total. With digital, Deluxe has a flat $39.95 charge covering all shipping. Technicolor has about the same fee. (A few cents higher.) So a savings of $10 to $30 per print. We run about 65 prints a year, so the savings on that alone will almost pay for a new bulb every year. So I figure that will cut our bulb costs in half.
3. Free stuff. In another thread, Cinetize.com was mentioned. It is a source for coming-attractions, turn-off-your-cell-phone, visit-the-concession-stand and welcome-to-the-movies clips which are free for the downloading. We are using a bunch of these and we get lots of compliments on them. This kind of thing costs at least $30 to $50 per print from the usual 35mm sources.
The whole argument of "home equipment keeps getting better" is irrelevant, as usual. If you're running a good film OR digital system and have a good sound system, and practice good housekeeping and crowd control, you have something the home theatre can never deliver.
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-13-2010, 11:43 PM:
Mike, did you pull out your 35mm altogether then?
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-13-2010, 11:52 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
And just as with film, there is still a question every week of whether a digital print will be available, which often can't be answered until Monday morning when the distributor checks holdovers.
With satellite delivery, it isn't a problem.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-14-2010, 12:42 AM:
quote: Ron Curran
I cant load a digital file while a digital feature is showing
I do it all the time-may take longer for the injest time, but it won't hurt anything.
You don't close the injest screen for that will cease the injest process, but just minimize it, or just return to the main screen and let it run in the background.
quote: Mike Blakesley
And it's so nice to be able to change your trailer reel on a moment's notice. A lot of little kids showed up for that PG-13 movie unexpectedly? Lose that Resident Evil trailer and put it back in for the next show.
That's what is nice about the GDC servers - so easy to edit your playlist, or just create a copy of it and rename it so you can flip-flop between what shows you have.
Doremi servers have their little quirks that one had to figure out how to do it and sometimes you have to go around a task to get what you want to do with it ...
-Monte
Posted by Kyle Butler (Member # 5601) on 09-14-2010, 02:22 AM:
quote: Monte L Fullmer
I'm pulling LTI 4.2kw's out at 650 and they're warranted at 700 ... glad that I don't see the bill for the bulbs ..
The 4200w Digital lamp we use for our NEC's is the same. We Pull it at 680.
Sony only gives you one option for the 4.2k's though, and the maximum warranty is 600, if they choose to send you their newest lamps. We still keep getting a ton of 500 and 550 hour models.
If it was up to me, we would be changing these things even more. Like i said, it isn't uncommon for us to have light readings of 3fl or less the last 150 hours of operation.
Throw the 3D glasses in the mix,and you have quite a few people complaining. Unfortunately there's absolutely nothing i can do since its not my decision.
That's one of the examples of exhibitors settling for less to help shrink the costs of digital. Poor picture :/
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 09-14-2010, 03:36 AM:
I can get a show on screen within about five minutes of a print arriving if I have to, and if I take up directly onto a core in a split spool I can have a print out of the building within about one minute of it going off screen. Useful if there's a driver waiting to take it to another theatre. It takes a lot longer than that to load a digital film onto the system.
Posted by Chase Taylor (Member # 778) on 09-14-2010, 06:08 AM:
This whole digital print thing is BS the studios just can't change the way they do business because if they start letting all of us have whatever and whenever we want it the studios lose some control over theatres. I just can't buy that line. I know there is some cost for them to send out a hard drive but it just can't be enough for them worry about.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-14-2010, 09:51 AM:
Sorry Stephen...you don't have that one either.
Take the CRU drive that the DCPs ship on...slide it into the server...select and hit "play" and you are on the screen without an ingest. How do you think screening rooms work?
As for trailers/rewinding after issues....being a 2-projector guy...those were non-issues to begin with that DCinema didn't help.
Steve
Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 09-14-2010, 09:59 AM:
Strange, I have never encountered a situation where we were distributing a digital print and "ran out". The booking terms are done by the studio and we cannot affect that but it certainly isn't because of a lack of prints.
I suspect the booking terms reflect that screenings are often tied to vpf's. However 3D is a different beast altogether. It seems with long booking terms on 3d films it effectively ties up 3d screens with their feature with the effect that other studio's film's do not play wide on opening weekend. Intentional? I don't know.
Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 09-14-2010, 10:16 AM:
quote: Kyle Butler
The 4200w Digital lamp we use for our NEC's is the same. We Pull it at 680.
Ouch, with my Christie CP2000Hs and Christie CDXL-45 lamps I am easily getting 1200 hours (warranty of 1,000 +25% - I recently found conflicting warranty data of 900, 1000 and 1200 for the CDXL-45 - I am waiting for official confirmation)
FWIW - my overall lamp costs (for 2D) are only about 15%-20% higher with digital vs. 35mm. Note that I actually attribute much of the increase to having proper lamp sizes in each projector for digital, meaning that a few of our 35mm screens were originally spec'd out with too small of a lamp on a few screens (i.e. where the math showed it was borderline for 35mm between a 3K or 4K they opted for 3K rather than4K).
Note that in our case the Christie (Ushio) lamps have proven reliable enough to push 25%-30% beyond warranty. In almost 5 years of 46 screens running digital we have had no violent lamp expirations.
quote: Steve Guttag
Take the CRU drive that the DCPs ship on
Pretty much all of the phase 1 sites with Cinedigm do not have CRU cages in the screen server.
Posted by Chase Taylor (Member # 778) on 09-14-2010, 10:44 AM:
Todd
Everyone knows that they don't "run out" of digital prints. I don't know but I don't think Mike is getting VPF's for his Digital Cinema system, but I can tell you that I have had a few instances that I wanted to run a movie in Digital and I was told no that they did not have enough digital prints available for my theatre and I don't have a VPF deal in place.
The studios old habits will or won't at all, die hard. It's all about control.
Chase
Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 09-14-2010, 11:18 AM:
Booking movies with digital is the same as it is with film. Digital has not made it easier to get a movie.
Mike-Disney insisted on 3 weeks with 2d film on Toy Story 3. Interesting problem coming up for single-screen 3d locations: will Paramount allow on a 2 week run on Megamind in order to run Harry Potter in 3d?
Brad-When will satellite delivery be common place?
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 09-14-2010, 11:38 AM:
quote: Steve Guttag
Sorry Stephen...you don't have that one either.
Take the CRU drive that the DCPs ship on...slide it into the server...select and hit "play" and you are on the screen without an ingest. How do you think screening rooms work?
Do all digital systems offer that option? It always seemed obvious that you should be able to, but the documentation I read didn't mention it. I've been totally out of projection for some time now, probably about 18 months to two years, so I can't try it. I never did much digital, probably ran about thirty shows or so, and I think I only ever 'ingested' (I really hate that stupid word) about three or four films.
quote: Steve Guttag
As for trailers/rewinding after issues....being a 2-projector guy...those were non-issues to begin with that DCinema didn't help.
Steve
Agree totally, but it's a problem for people who only have single projector installations. I'd say about 95% of the film projection I've done has been on two machines, and the other 5% single machine with tower; I've never run a platter, they're not very common in single-screen independant type places over here, at least not the ones I've seen. I lot of them wouldn't have room in the box to install a platter, even if they wanted to. 1x16 mm + 1x35 mm + tower was quite common at one time, quite often the 16mm is now replaced by a digital.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-14-2010, 12:18 PM:
I've had this discussion with a number of people.
My random comments:
- People go to the movies for (primarily) three reasons: to see something that cannot be seen elsewhere, to have a social experience outside the home, and to benefit from the picture and sound quality that a good theatre can offer. Unless cinemas can provide at least one of these three reasons to patronize them, people will choose other entertainment options.
- If the above happens, the exhibition format will not matter. If the industry fails, it will be because of some other factor, not film or ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif)
- If and when distributors stop providing new release titles in 35mm, some theatres will close, either because the cost of conversion is too high, or because there are physical limitations of the building that make conversion either impossible or cost prohibitive.
- I am not a big believer in the value of "alternative content," but I do think that it has potential for certain markets and demographics. This needs to be explored further by adventurous exhibitors.
- Over the long term, I expect that we will end up with fewer screens, and that those that remain will be of the better and classier variety. Eventually, cinemas will become what live theater is today--the sort of thing that would require advance tickets and which people might attend once or twice a year due to rarity and cost, rather than something that they would attend more regularly. I am not yet sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but it will be a much different industry in fifty years than it is now.
- For the film distributors: we need fewer films released, and they need to be better than the films that are currently being produced. They need to be given a longer shelf life, and treated less like disposable commodities and more like something with lasting value. This means (among other things) that prices for consumer formats (Blu-Ray, DVD, Pay-Per-View, etc.) need to go up, in order to provide an indication of increased value for the product. When a movie ticket and a DVD of the same film have the same price, consumers perceive the ticket as a rip-off. If the DVD cost $100, the movie ticket would be seen as a bargain.
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 09-14-2010, 12:38 PM:
@ Mike- You can book older digital titles for one show if you wish. They will cost a little more than the 35 equivalent (about 50 dollars or so extra).
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-14-2010, 01:00 PM:
quote: David Zylstra
Note that in our case the Christie (Ushio) lamps have proven reliable enough to push 25%-30% beyond warranty. In almost 5 years of 46 screens running digital we have had no violent lamp expirations.
(funny, two topics going on here at the same time ...)
Why we pull prior to warranty is what the circuit owners want us to do in case of a bulb explosion so the bulb company will do the major cost repair on our projectors if a bulb does go.
Sure, I bet I can keep that Helios in for twice as long before a changeout- go way past warranty and still have great light coming out, but I'd get in serious trouble with Tech Services of the company for keeping a bulb in well over warranty hours.
-Monte
Posted by Laurie Higgins (Member # 4843) on 09-14-2010, 01:48 PM:
Gosh, why doesn't the studio start the movie via computer from Hollywood and the interwebs? Then all we would have to worry about on this end was popcorn and twizzlers.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-14-2010, 01:55 PM:
You don't think they are working on that? ![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-14-2010, 02:00 PM:
quote: Scott Norwood
- I am not a big believer in the value of "alternative content," but I do think that it has potential for certain markets and demographics. This needs to be explored further by adventurous exhibitors.
I've always been a big supporter of alternative content since the early-to-mid 90's. I was at UA and we had the much-ballyhooed "Proteus Network" (later renamed Satellite Theater Network or some crap like that). Although everything at the time was in standard definition, it looked really, really good for what it was since we had a crazy-expensive projector and line doubler. We also had a satellite TV feed. We mainly used it for boring business meetings and sometimes we rented LaserDisc copies of classic movies and ran LDs (with changeovers) for a paying audience, but I always pushed the idea of sporting events as a way to make money. I always said that people would love to watch that shit on the big screen with a bunch of other losers who also like sports. It would be a really big moneymaker. "Oh no no no" I was told. The licensing just wasn't there and they didn't want to obtain a license or even inquire about it. I told them to let people in for free as a test and see what they buy at the stand. They didn't go for that one, either. And just now it seems that some theaters are starting to dabble in this idea.
Nobody ever listens to me! ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 09-14-2010, 02:01 PM:
"Gosh, why doesn't the studio start the movie via computer from Hollywood and the interwebs?"
Brad's Noc already does that. We have the ability but no one up to this point seems to want it.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-14-2010, 03:08 PM:
For John W. - no, our 35mm is still in place. So if everyone decides to rush back to film, I'll be ready! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Regarding Brad's comment about satellite delivery -- I'm sure that's true, but it just seems like the film companies decide on a fictitious number of prints they're going to have available before each week, and that number does not or cannot change for whatever silly reason. The format of the prints does not matter to their booking people apparently.
It's probably a bookkeeping thing.
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 09-14-2010, 04:41 PM:
quote:
...no, our 35mm is still in place. So if everyone decides to rush back to film, I'll be ready!
There is hope for you Mike!!
Now Mike shows common sense and forward thinking. He is able to run current D-Crapema and still has the ability for classics or back-up for when the D-Crapema crashes. (Presuming he has/can get a print.)
All the theatres who completely strip their 35mm equipment for this "upgrade" are the ones I feel are making a huge mistake that WILL come back to haunt them. Even if they need the space, I feel that each complex should keep a minimum number of 35mm setups in "ready storage" so they can keep operations running.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-14-2010, 05:59 PM:
actually it is a marketing thing digital will not make a title available any wider than they did in the past certain markets they choose who plays it and on how many screens
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-15-2010, 12:34 AM:
Right...the whole idea that a movie could play "everywhere at once" is just too much for the studios to swallow at this point.
A problem I didn't anticipate is the nonsense caused by the fact that we are in a pretty small town. All the "rules" in place (especially for 3D) are designed for megaplexes in big cities. And the studios WILL NOT figure out any other ways of doing things. It's one way or no way. Which makes no sense considering they do different types of deals dependent on market size for 35mm all the time.
I guess it's just a matter of waiting for things to evolve. There was a time we had to wait years for a film print, so change IS possible.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-15-2010, 12:55 AM:
quote: Steve Guttag
Take the CRU drive that the DCPs ship on...slide it into the server...select and hit "play" and you are on the screen without an ingest. How do you think screening rooms work?
Steve, that doesn't help when you get one of those archaic USB only drives that are still in circulation with Deluxe. Fortunately they aren't too common.
Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 09-15-2010, 04:13 AM:
Thanks for the info on ingesting while running a D-cinema feature. There seems to be a balance here.
The savings on freight, splicing tape and film cleaning might not be much but having the “projectionist” available on the ground at show start is significant.
As I stated before, our 35mm stuff will stay when the change happens. Just as Mike has wisely done.
Film prints are likely to become more expensive as quantities decrease. That could mean a long wait for a print. If you open first run you’re your location may be considered marginal when the print cost becomes almost as high as the hire.
However, the cinema experience is more than film or hard drive but exhibitors who are not aware of this will have something to blame.
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 09-15-2010, 04:13 AM:
quote: Brad Miller
Steve, that doesn't help when you get one of those archaic USB only drives that are still in circulation with Deluxe. Fortunately they aren't too common.
Brad, in my day all of these drives were USB only; have things changed in the last year or so? what is this 'CRU' drive which Steve refers to? It's not a term i've come across before, and assumed that it just meant an external, portable drive. Is this something specific to the Dolby server and storage unit? I've only ever seen those twice, once at pictureville, Bradford and once at the Odeon, Leicester Square, but I seem to remember that they had a large slot, that looked like it was to take an drive of some sort.
I've only been out of this for a year or two, but things seem to have changed already.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-15-2010, 07:01 AM:
The CRU drive is the standard drive and has been for years now. It is shipped with a USB adapter held on by the label of what is on the drive.
Most, if not all of the current DCinema servers at least have the option of a CRU bay and many come with it standard (e.g. Dolby).
Stephen, if you look at any of the Dolby brochures you will see what looks like an open bay on the face of the DSS100 or DSS200 server...that is the bay for the CRU...the drive slides in and locks in place. Prior to that, they had the "Promise" drives but the CRU became the standard, instead...Dolby changed all of their drives out, at no charge, to the CRU style.
Steve
Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 09-15-2010, 10:32 AM:
Is this available for GDC servers?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-15-2010, 11:57 AM:
Jeremy - Yes, we have it on ours.
Interesting that the USB-only Deluxe drives are becoming rare -- out of the 11 digital features we've played, 2 of them have arrived on that kind of drive.
By the way -- What does "CRU" stand for? I googled it to no avail.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-15-2010, 12:04 PM:
It would be ashamed if each playdate of those old shitty drives took a fall down a flight of stairs until Deluxe stops sending them.
Oh wait, Deluxe is doing that themselves by shipping drives in a freakin' un-padded UPS shipper box!!! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
(I had a screening last week where the drive showed up at the last second due to bad weather and plane cancellations on one of those damned drives and the manager had never seen one before. It took me 20 minutes to get her to get it plugged up right. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
)
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 09-15-2010, 12:40 PM:
One of our locatins here just received a drive from deluxe wrapped in a UPS bag and it was one of the USB only drives too. Maybe they are trying to destroy them.
Posted by Phil Ranucci (Member # 3820) on 09-15-2010, 01:22 PM:
CRU is the company that makes the shells for the drives.
http://www.cru-dataport.com/
Does anyone know how they are formatted or where they can be purchased to move content when the drive has been sent back? The resellers CRU lists don't sell the D-cinema drives.
Posted by Chase Taylor (Member # 778) on 09-15-2010, 03:42 PM:
Phil
The CRU model Data Express DX115 is the unit they us. You can buy them at Provantage at a decent price. I think most are formatted for linux using EXT2, but I think some servers like the Qube server requires NTFS formated drive. Somebody back me up on that.
Chase
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-15-2010, 07:50 PM:
Dolby sells them under the name of CAT 892. That will get you a 500GB drive already mounted in the CRU frame, formatted and ready to go. They are not horribly expensive either.
Steve
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-16-2010, 12:17 AM:
Lots of interesting stuff in this thread. Just wanted to throw in my 2¢ on the topic.
I think "digital cinema" will gain more respect and popularity once 4K resolution projectors AND 4K native resolution movie files are more common.
For years the window between theatrical release and home video release has been shrinking. Now there is a slim chance Hollywood movie studios could be forced into increasing the release window due to the deflationary spiral I think is going on with the home video side of the movie business.
We have dozens of Red Box kiosks all over Lawton now. Throw a rock and you'll hit one. Our local Hastings store gutted the prices of its rentals. Anything that's been out for a while costs 49¢ per night on DVD and 99¢ on Blu-ray. New releases are 99¢ and $1.99 for DVD and Blu-ray respectively. I don't know how Hastings can afford this. Netflix is becoming more popular. Basically it has become a lot cheaper to rent movies, cheaper than ever before in real inflation-adjusted dollars. Why even buy a movie when you can rent so many for the same amount of money?
Red Box and Netflix both have to wait 30 days after retail release to offer movies from certain studios to rent. With traditional stores like Hastings being forced to match the low prices the 30 day rental wait could be issued across the entire home video rental industry. It could actually end up hurting movie disc sales more than helping. With rental prices being so low it's much cheaper to "test drive" a Blu-ray disc before buying. 30 days isn't so long to wait. Lots of people already wait additional amounts of time before buying movies because they know the movies will be marked down in price after a few weeks or months. With all the back and forth choices between buying or saving money by waiting Hollywood studios could end up pushing off home video release dates and maybe doing away with the 30 day rental delays.
quote: Kyle Butler
If you ask me my opinion, id say that home theater technology will surpass what can be had at a theater in less than 15 years time.
When you're dealing with digital media files the content creator (the movie studios) can dictate the quality levels of movie software delivered to theaters, physical home video formats (Blu-ray, DVD, etc.), online streaming and network/cable broadcast.
Home theater hardware will continue to improve. Computers, gaming consoles and other technology devices will force that to happen. I think the movie software end of things, Blu-ray in particular, will be stuck in one place for a long time for a couple of reasons. Blu-ray could be the last physical home video movie retail format. Internet movie downloads are becoming ever more popular due to their convenience. But the image and sound quality levels are very inferior to what Blu-ray can deliver. Movie downloads could improve to match Blu-ray quality levels, but only with widespread, aggressive improvements to general purpose Internet infrastructure. A great deal of that progress has been stalled by telecom companies throwing billions upon billions of dollars into celluar phone network infrastructure instead.
A couple or so years ago I thought the Internet would be delivering average download speeds of 20 million to 30 million bits per second across much of the United States by around 2015. Now I think it could be 2020 or years beyond that before that happens.
Meanwhile commercial movie theaters will see digital cinema technology, both in terms of hardware and software, continue to improve. It's easier to make big changes to a niche product like D-cinema than major consumer electonics and retail video formats like HDTV and Blu-ray.
quote: Edward Havens
The death of cinema has been predicted since the birth of cinema. Radio was supposed to kill cinema. Television was supposed to kill cinema. VHS was supposed to kill cinema. Cable was supposed to kill cinema. Laserdisc was supposed to kill cinema. The internet was supposed to kill cinema. PPV was supposed to kill cinema. DVD was supposed to kill cinema. Widescreen televisions were supposed to kill cinema. Gaming devices like the XBox and PlayStation which can also be used as an entertainment portal were supposed to kill cinema.
One thing that will kill most commercial cinemas is widespread adoption of day and date release in theaters and home video simultaneously.
I understand one of the big reasons why people go to theaters is to get out of the house and do something. Here's the problem with that: if someone lives in a city of any decent size there's lots of things to do outside of the house. If a new movie appears on home video and in theaters at the same time the overwhelming majority of people will save money buying or merely renting the video.
quote: Scott Norwood
I am not a big believer in the value of "alternative content," but I do think that it has potential for certain markets and demographics. This needs to be explored further by adventurous exhibitors.
I think alternative content can work in a commercial theater if the content really works in a movie theater environment. It would also help greatly if the content was found only in those theaters.
For instance I don't think sporting events, like the Super Bowl or a UFC PPV event, will work well in a theater for two reasons: 1. the theaters are not showing the event exclusively and 2. sporting events are more fun to watch in sports bars, restaurants and homes where crowds of people can get rowdy and put away lots of food and beer. A theater having the Super Bowl broadcast live in 3D might attract some people but most will watch in more traditional environments.
Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 09-16-2010, 08:36 AM:
I thought I'd introduce another problem only Australia could come up with. Tried to book a movie within eight weeks of release, only to be told that there were no longer any DCI drives available as they had been reused for later releases.
So good luck in looking at showing a DCI copy of a 'classic'. I can only assume that no master copy of each digital release is kept in Australia.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-16-2010, 09:24 AM:
I can see it now. The studios keep a master server somewhere with everything they have on it, but the theatres have to supply the HD's. They send them in to get wiped and reloaded.
HD's will be like ink cartridges and theatres will be glorified printers.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-16-2010, 10:03 AM:
I'm surprised satellite download capability isn't installed in more theaters. Our local Carmike theater receives at least some of the movies it shows via satellite download. What sort of extra costs are involved with having the satellite download capability?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-16-2010, 01:43 PM:
Why does it have to be satellite? Why not any internet connection that is fast enough, like ISDN?
Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 09-16-2010, 02:54 PM:
quote: Edward Havens
The death of cinema has been predicted since the birth of cinema. Radio was supposed to kill cinema. Television was supposed to kill cinema. VHS was supposed to kill cinema. Cable was supposed to kill cinema. Laserdisc was supposed to kill cinema. The internet was supposed to kill cinema. PPV was supposed to kill cinema. DVD was supposed to kill cinema. Widescreen televisions were supposed to kill cinema. Gaming devices like the XBox and PlayStation which can also be used as an entertainment portal were supposed to kill cinema.
Cinema's not going anywhere anytime soon. It's just evolving, like it always has.
It is a slow death indeed with more and more things against cinema over the years, as you well point out (this is why so many cinemas close down every year). Cinema has certainly adapted to new times but it does not mean that the cinema experience is any better. Many people on this forum fondly remember the times of big curved screens, 70mm projection and 5 speakers behind the screens. I miss this and also cinemas themselves, those gorgeous buildings, grand, majestic, imposing. The building itself was the most expensive piece of hardware and no way it is going to come back. We are mainly left with rubbish multiplexes in shopping malls.
But cinema certainly may thank digital for its demise. Thanks to digital films can be copied, and copied, and copied, and copied without any loss in quality. Piracy is killing the industry and in places like Spain big studios are considering to stop distributing any films at all on DVD/Blu-ray since hardly anyone buys anything. Everybody is downloading illegally, which is something regarded as cool and those who buy legal stuff are regarded as losers. In those times you mention, when VHS appeared, the difference in quality was abysmal and a third generation copy was already rubbish.
Now film is everywhere, people pay monthly subscriptions to their favourite movie channels in HD, Blu-ray rental by post is extremely cheap, actually the offer is so huge at home that one has to become selective as to what to see. This did not happen in the 80s or the 90s. Thank digital for this. Also, new TV programs like Lost or Mad Men have better production values than many films and are indeed very cinematographic.
Avatar was still having packed houses at the London BFI Imax after the Blu-ray was released. Avatar projected on real IMAX 15/70 is amazing and completely dwarfs any home cinema presentation, or even any multiplex presentation. I thought the film was rubbish and Roger Dean, the graphic designer, should claim royalties. But it is awesome to look at. I would never have watched this film on a multiplex or home cinema but at the IMAX, it was amazing, film projection removes the video-like look inherent to the film and its digital presentations and makes it more credible. Also the story may be rubbish but Cameron knows how to shoot 3-D with slow editing that allows viewers to marvel at the scenes. Moreover, the film is not in widescreen and so it suits IMAX screens.
Audiences will pay when something is completely different and this is why the real IMAX in London is so successful, which I do not think happens with the Liemax versions that coexist. Audiences in forums are still looking for more scenes like the ones that appear on The Dark Knight (they obviously refer to the sequences shot with IMAX cameras).
Studios will do simultaneous release to try to recover some of the money they lose because of piracy.
I personally think that theatrical exhibition will be limited to shopping malls and big event things like real IMAX. They should get more people like Cameron or Nolan to produce visual escapisms that suits the big screen. Proper 3-D (not cheap conversions) on big screens and the return of big wide screens with systems like SuperDimension 70 with products suited to them could attract audiences to cinemas.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-16-2010, 04:58 PM:
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
more and more things against cinema over the years, as you well point out (this is why so many cinemas close down every year).
I don't know about the U.K. but in this country, the screen count is increasing, not decreasing.
Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 09-16-2010, 05:25 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
I don't know about the U.K. but in this country, the screen count is increasing, not decreasing.
I love cinemas and cinema and so I am very happy if cinemas do well. However, as you well know, it is possible to have more screens and less seats and also how many of these seats are used? I have read that this summer in the USA the box office revenue was very high but that the number of people going to movies was the lowest since the summer of 1997(from an article on The New York Times) and this is because of the extra revenue for 3-D films.
I personally continue to go to the cinema but avoid multiplexes as much as possible.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-16-2010, 07:22 PM:
It's true that this was a summer of low attendance, especially in the second half. That's probably partly due to the condition of the economy here, but it's also because a lot of the movies sucked. There were too many 3-D films that were crappy, and the sequels weren't that good either. (Excepting Toy Story 3.)
It's so tiring. Every time attendance goes down, you can count on the media to say we're a dying industry. Last year at this time we were victorious over the recession.
Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 09-17-2010, 01:39 PM:
The last movie worth watching was Inception. The other movie that was a time killer and should have been watched was Expendables. No other!
Demetris
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 09-18-2010, 06:44 AM:
Joe,
Realistically, how much bandwidth do you think a typical theatre would need to shift the data in an acceptable time? I'm guessing not a huge amount by modern standards. The download could run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week if necessary, but you'd probably need a link fast enough to be able to quickly download one film to replace a faulty copy, of if the programme has to be changed at short notice for some reason.
Since most of the data is moving in one direction you might be able to do it with the fastest ADSL services, which would be cheap, and you could install multiple ones if necessary.
If you need more than that, it starts to get expensive; you can have just about as much bandwidth as you want, if you're prepared to pay for it. Our Internet connection at work is 100 Mb/s at the moment, but due to be upgraded soon. I can't tell you what it costs, because we don't pay for it directly. We have a similar 1 Gb/s link from our main building to an old school building about half an hour's walk away which we are renting while the main building is being totally gutted and refurbished. The installation, and three years rental for this was 103,000 pounds I think; it was a figure not too far from that anyway. The installation was charged at a certain amount for each end, plus so much per metre in between, then there's the rental for the service for as long as we need it. It was a few thousand pounds per end, plus a couple of pounds per metre for the installation; the rest is the rental charge for the service. It's a far more reliable service than ADSL, it basically just doesn't fail, and you get whatever bandwidth you pay for, but obviously it's not cheap.
The lead time for this service was a few weeks, and installation wasn't difficult, BT had fibre at a location not far from our main building, they were able to run tubing for blown fibre through an underground car park. At the other end the local council, which owns the building, have the main distribution centre for all of their schools, so there is a room there where BT have hundreds of cores of fibre, and the room where we needed it is almost directly above; the engineer didn't even need to blow the fibre, he just pushed it through by hand. Installation time was probably about 3-4 hours at each end.
This service is Ethernet, presented on the customer side of the NTE as copper for 10 or 100 Mb/s, multimode or single mode fibre for 1Gb/s, and single mode fibre only for 10 Gb/s; I don't even want to think about what that would cost.
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 09-18-2010, 10:12 AM:
It may be cheap on the receiving side, but you should get all the numbers together.
These popular ADSL networks have no broadcast function. Every receiver needs his personal stream. They ship harddiscs now pretty close to release date. What if a few thousand cinemas connect to that new blockbuster the same night it's released for reception? Of course, there are services like AKAMAI or Torrent-like structures, but still the needed bandwith at some point in these queues needs to be HUGE.
Even on the receiving side, a multiscreen theatre will probably need half a dozend fast ADSL lines receiving 24/7.
That's why satellite is still so popular - the same broadcast can be received by all connected cinemas. But it's not 'on demand' - you have to schedule reception for a specific movie in advance and you need local storage to buffer that.
Then what's so bad about a hard disc coming overnight for under 10$?
Maybe in the future networks will become much faster. But within 1-2 years I can see DCPs on SSDs being transported in soft envelopes. That's still the fastest way to get 150GBytes from A to B.
- Carsten
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 09-18-2010, 11:09 AM:
I think you're right. With the sort of Ethernet connections I was talking about you could connect all of the theatres to a distribution centre, and then send the files out as multicast packets, but the infrastructure to do it would be expensive, and what if a theatre misses the multicast fr some reason? Presumably it would then need its own transmission of the files later.
I don't think ADSL is good enough, it's not that reliable, it's not that fast, there's too high a contention ratio in it. It's fine for a cheap way to get a reasonablly fast Internet connection at home, or for a small business, and it is very cheap, but not really suitable in this application.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-18-2010, 02:51 PM:
I still fail to comprehend why each projector needs to have the file live on its own li'l system. Ideally, all movie files for the entire complex should exist in one central location (well, it doesn't have to be at the EXACT center of the booth... or centre in Europe). From there, any and all projectors can access any movie it wants. Hell, I have multiple PS3s in my house and they can each stream different HD video from my computer in a different room without having a copy stored locally on each system. Maybe if movie theaters used Monster® ethernet cable they'd have enough bandwidth to do this. Actually, maybe use something a little better, like terabit ethernet.
Seriously, though... any other setup besides what I describe will be looked back upon by people from the future and laughed at because it is so primitive. Shuffling data files around? Please.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-18-2010, 05:47 PM:
If fiber were used...the central location would work in any complex. One thing the industry would have to deal with is having the possibility of multiple projectors (datablocks) attached to the same player. Note too, you would still have to have enough copies to deal with as many theatres that are playing the movie at the same time or redesign systems so multiple theatres can play the same file without speed/access issues.
I would think that paranoia with security would be as much a hindrance as anything. But with fiber transmission, distance/bandwidth is not an issue.
Now there is the "putting all of your eggs in one basket" issue. Imagine an entire complex going down because "the" server failed.
Steve
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-18-2010, 07:30 PM:
There is a huge complex here in SLC that has mostly fibre transmission. They had runs over 330 feet so fibre was the best route. Me... I'm still waitin for the death of DLP in general as was predicted on these pages... especially now that 4K DLP exists operationally so to speak.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 09-18-2010, 08:10 PM:
Isn't it AMAZING what you can do if you have enough cash or credit? Louis
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 09-19-2010, 04:22 AM:
quote: Steve Guttag
Now there is the "putting all of your eggs in one basket" issue. Imagine an entire complex going down because "the" server failed.
You can build as much redundancy into the system as you want to, or want to pay for. It's always a question of how much risk you're prepared to accept against how much you're prepared to pay to reduce it.
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 09-19-2010, 12:47 PM:
quote: Stephen Furley
You can build as much redundancy into the system as you want to, or want to pay for. It's always a question of how much risk you're prepared to accept against how much you're prepared to pay to reduce it.
Oh c'mon..... do you really think that theatre owners are really gonna spend the extra for the redundancy when they grumble about the cost of maintenance on 35mm machines?
If you've got owners who rip out their 35mm equipment (in the cases where it could stay in place, even if it's not easy/convienient) leaving them exposed to dark houses when the goes down, what makes you think they are gonna think ahead to a backup server for the entire complex?
I've said it before, I'm all for technology when it advances the cause, but D-Crapema is added expense, planned obsolescence, inferior picture resolution and NO cost benefit to the people who need the help, in other words the exhibitors.
Indeed Digital Cinema will be the death of the theatres!!
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-19-2010, 02:57 PM:
quote:
I've said it before, I'm all for technology when it advances the cause, but D-Crapema is added expense, planned obsolescence, inferior picture resolution and NO cost benefit to the people who need the help, in other words the exhibitors.
Indeed Digital Cinema will be the death of the theatres!!
I must disagree with you Tony. I'm guessing you haven't actually SEEN some of the awful prints being made today? Oh wait, you're in California. You probably hardly ever play a print made at Deluxe in Canada. Your prints would've mostly been made at Deluxe in California (which churns out good prints). Come visit sometime and I'll treat you to what the central and east side of the country has to deal with. When compared to those shitty prints, yeah, digital IS better.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-19-2010, 05:19 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I'm still waitin for the death of DLP in general as was predicted on these pages... especially now that 4K DLP exists operationally so to speak.
Yeah, me too! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 09-22-2010, 12:09 AM:
For Satellite delivery the cost is on the integrator/distributor. The benefit to us is that we can deliver a film and get info on its delivery in real time. Not to mention we don't have to pay people to copy/verify/ship/receive.
As far as internet delivery, we shall see. But the major issue with that is that most sites have painfully slow internet connections. Sending 4 of 5 movies at 150gb to 220gb ea is not really realistic at this point, though that may change soon.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-22-2010, 01:10 AM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I'm still waitin for the death of DLP in general as was predicted on these pages.
DLP will die, but that doesn't mean the return to film. It just means friggin' lasers, biotch!
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-22-2010, 01:10 AM:
Yet, I can start seeing 3D as the death of DCinema unless prices can be more respectable and stuff that comes out of "Hollyrock" can be more entertaining and worthwhile.
It's really going to have an effect on the industry as a whole for both produciton and exhibitor.
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 09-22-2010, 03:10 PM:
quote: Todd McCracken
As far as internet delivery, we shall see. But the major issue with that is that most sites have painfully slow internet connections. Sending 4 of 5 movies at 150gb to 220gb ea is not really realistic at this point, though that may change soon.
The problem is the internet providers. Even though cable providers claim up to 30mbs for their internet service you never get anywhere near that because the cable company puts a cap on the actual download limits to prevent jams on the broadband system.
As far as death of cinema goes, I don't think changing what we use to project movies is going to kill anything. Day and date releases is a different story and the thing that I worry about most when it comes to a theatre being able to stay alive.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-22-2010, 03:18 PM:
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Yet, I can start seeing 3D as the death of DCinema unless prices can be more respectable
A great idea would be for the 3D charge to get less and finally disappear as the weeks went on. Might help attendance in week 3, 4, 5, 6 and the uberfans would still come in week 1 anyway.
Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 09-27-2010, 09:26 PM:
Y'all must have nice servers. If we tried to play a film on our theatre's (former, as I no longer work there) Qube units directly off a CRU drive, we would crash and burn.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-08-2010, 04:58 PM:
quote: Kyle Butler
But everyone usually agrees that 35mm will make a comeback in this case. This is about the suggested "end" of movie theaters.
I've been reading some of the comments in this thread, and it took a while to go through everything but the future "IS" digital cinema, there no question about it.
More specifically, movie theatres that are immersive and get you more involved will be the winners. Technologies such as Digital 3D/D-BOX/GIANT extra screens will get people into the theatre.
Just today I heard the latest ad on the radio promoting Empire Theatres new "Extra" concept. Just like BigD, Ultra AVX etc this where it is going. Some may not like it, but the chains are doing it. For example, I can't stand Cineplex's new Ultra AVX...the screen is just to big for the theatre. Also, there is no angles seating which is one of the most important aspects of movie watching
Also, Dolby for example has done a brilliant marketing move by called "Dolby Surround 7.1". "Dolby Surround 7.1" has much better marketing power than Dolby Digital. "Surround = immersive" to many consumers. Also, so many younger gen consumers know what 5.1/6.1 is always talk to me about how DTS sounds better in the "Surrounds"....Whether or not it is, Is besides the point. The consumer thinks this.
Concepts and marketing such as:
Crystal clear digital picture
35 million colors
12,000 watts of power or whatever it is
3D Digital
7.1 Surround or more (to my knowledge, this is D-Cinema exlusive in some cases(1*)
Immersive surround sound
Wall-to-wall screens
Reserved seating
DBOX
You can still get these technologies without digital but I can't see many theaters building new cinemas without the use of digital projection.This is going to be popular going forward. It has a lot to do with marketing. These are not digital exclusive, but they tend to go hand-in-hand with digital when marketed.
This is just my opinion it has nothing to with which is better (film vs digital) as it has more to do with what the consumer wants, and digital will marketed very well to the consumer. Like I mentioned earlier, most of these can be done with film but I have never seen so much adverstising of digital cinema until recently.
(1*) "At this point, it should be clear that the added sound and pressure levels are only possible because of d-cinema and that 35mm prints will not carry the 7.1 imprint." filmjournal
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-08-2010, 05:25 PM:
quote: Tom Petrov
Also, Dolby for example has done a brilliant marketing move by called "Dolby Surround 7.1". "Dolby Surround 7.1" has much better marketing power than Dolby Digital.
Whaaa?? Dude, you really must be a troll because if you've read this forum you'd know that the opinion runs nearly completely opposite. That's not to say that 7.1 sound is bad, but that it's not being marketed well at all and nobody seems to care about it, just like Dolby EX (which was marketed). It wasn't even implemented very well on Toy Story 3.
quote: Tom Petrov
Concepts and marketing such as:
Crystal clear digital picture
35 million colors
12,000 watts of power or whatever it is
3D Digital
7.1 Surround or more
Immersive surround sound
Wall-to-wall screens
Reserved seating
DBOX
You can still get these technologies without digital
How can you get 3D Digital without digital?
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-08-2010, 05:28 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
Whaaa?? Dude, you really must be a troll because if you've read this forum you'd know that the opinion runs nearly completely opposite. That's not to say that 7.1 sound is bad, but that it's not being marketed well at all and nobody seems to care about it, just like Dolby EX (which was marketed). It wasn't even implemented very well on Toy Story 3.
Plese stop it with the troll calling. Immediately. I AM NOT TROLLING> This is just my opinion. STOP it will the trolling comments.
quote: Joe Redifer
How can you get 3D Digital without digital?
As oppossed to Technicolour 3d which has very little marketing power.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-08-2010, 05:39 PM:
I calls 'em as I sees 'em. You seem to be living in a fantasy world if you think the marketing behind 7.1 is "brilliant".
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-08-2010, 05:43 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
I calls 'em as I sees 'em. You seem to be living in a fantasy world if you think the marketing behind 7.1 is "brilliant".
Well all I keep hearing on the radio is Cineplex and now Empire call their sound "immersive surround sound"....no mention of digital..IMO, Dolby made the right move by linking surround and 7.1 together for the movie theaters.
Only at home on DVD did I ever see Dolby Digtial 5.1. I have never seen a movie theatre adverstise the 5.1 part.
This is why "marketing" is going to be very important with digital cinema.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-08-2010, 05:52 PM:
Homes already had digital sound by the time LaserDiscs and DVDs came out with 5.1. Digital sound was new to theaters so they didn't really need to call it anything more. People already knew it meant "immersive" surrounds/bass, etc etc. But now with home audio being what it is, they NEED to differentiate if they can, but they still really don't. They never mention uncompressed audio or whatnot. There is only so much the movie-going public seems to care about. They are initially brought in by catch phrases such as "immersive" but anyone can use that phrase or any others for virtually any theater.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-08-2010, 05:57 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
Homes already had digital sound by the time LaserDiscs
Actually, laserdisc never called it 5.1 for homes at first.
It was originally marketed at Dolby Surround AC-3 Pro-logic and AC-3 Surround Digital.....later 1997-1998 laserdiscs simply called it "Dolby Digital" ....some did call it 5.1 later on like Criterion Seven which calls it "Discrete 5.1 Channel AC-3 Soundtrack"
Early home theatre never mareketing it as Dolby Digital 5.1 it came a little later.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-08-2010, 07:41 PM:
First of all the "5.1" thing has never really been a part of the Dolby Digital logo. That's just an add-on since Dolby Digital can feature a variety of channel layouts from 1.0 to 5.1 and 5.1 EX.
Dolby made a few mistakes in marketing when they introduced Dolby Digital to the public in the early 1990s.
When the theatrical SR•D version was launched in 1992 it was called "Dolby Stereo Digital." The original "train" trailer featured that logo and also featured a substantially better mix.
In the fall of 1993 Dolby rolled out the very misleading "tri" logo which combined the Spectral Recording moniker for optical tracks and "digital" together into one all purpose Dolby Stereo logo. The first version had a tagline "in selected theatres worldwide." In 1994 the off putting "verify theatre format" tagline appeared. Thankfully Dolby never incorporated that logo into any of their sound format trailers.
In the Spring of 1995 Dolby introduced the simplified Dolby Digital logo.
The Dolby Surround brand has traditionally been tied to consumer and broadcast applications. That's why Dolby initially tried to use an unreasonably complicated Dolby Surround AC-3 Digital logo on the first AC-3 encoded Laserdiscs. It took Dolby a while before figuring it was better to use the Dolby Digital brand on anything that contained a Dolby Digital audio track. I think the rivalry with DTS and developments happening with DVD convinced Dolby to make the change.
Dolby went back to differentiating between theatrical audio on home theater with Dolby•EX, but did so inconsistently. In theaters the audio track was branded Dolby Digital with a "Surround EX" tagline underneath. The same audio track on DVD was called "Dolby Surround EX" or "Dolby Surround EX 5.1." They couldn't use "6.1" because that would not be factually accurate, but many people called it "6.1" anyway. Movie studios were forbidden to use the Dolby Digital Surround EX logo seen in the movie's end credits. On top of that, the home theater hardware suppliers had to use a Dolby logo with a "Digital•EX" tag line underneath. I think all this inconsistency created confusion among consumers and apathy in theater operators and electronics sales people.
I think some of those mistakes helped DTS. And DTS offered a truly discrete 6.1 format in the home version of DTS-ES. I think DTS was more consistent with its use of logos.
Now we're seeing similar brand inconsistencies between audio formats on Blu-ray and in movie theaters. Dolby launched its Dolby TrueHD format years ago. I think the public is fairly familiar with this brand name since it has appeared on many Blu-ray cases and pieces of home theater hardware. My PS3 "Slim" has the logo on it (along with Dolby Digital Plus) although it is very faint and pretty hard to read. One would figure Dolby would try to find some way to get that "TrueHD" brand into movie theaters. But no! Let's dig up the old Dolby Surround brand and apply it to an audio format that doesn't have any Dolby encoding to it at all.
D-cinema audio is uncompressed Linear PCM. There's no Dolby, DTS or any other brand name encoding happening. At least on Blu-ray the Dolby and DTS formats do feature specific lossy and lossless compression schemes distributed by Dolby and DTS. I think DTS has been gaining in popularity both by home theater fans and home video distributors in recent years partly because DTS doesn't have a bunch of different, confusing arrangements of their brand (and there's also the issue that DTS may not be charging studios as much for licensing as Dolby).
By having a more simplified logo scheme it will also be more idiot proof in how it is used in advertising. I've seen the various logos from Dolby, DTS and others used incorrectly -particularly in newspaper advertising and other areas where an increasing amount of amateur hour graphic design and layout is taking place. Basically you can't trust that everyone is going to read and observe the rules in a brand guidelines publication. Some of these goons are just going to grab a counterfeit logo off Brands of the World and then screw it up whatever way they see fit.
If movie studios and theaters want to make a serious effort of selling 7.1 they need to come up with a better marketing scheme. Dolby Surround 7.1 isn't going to cut it. Theaters might just do better by using a generic "7.1 Surround" badge. Since Linear PCM is seen as a generic form of audio then generic "7.1 Surround" would be a more accurate marketing term.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-08-2010, 08:41 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
D-cinema audio is uncompressed Linear PCM. There's no Dolby, DTS or any other brand name encoding happening.
Maybe that's why Dolby doesn't really distribute their sound logos digitally. (They have a 7.1 logo, which is VERY cool especially in 3-D but that's all I've seen.)
I still wish they would promote their 3-D better. That stupid logo never shows up anywhere, while RealD is all over the place.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-09-2010, 12:44 AM:
Ask Dolby to send you a thumbdrive with their logo files so you can load them on your server...
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-09-2010, 09:32 AM:
Joe... I hear that Dolby is going to begin marketing a new sound format... 9.5.1! There will be just a single stage speaker and the rest of the channels will split up amongst the existing 7.1 surrounds and the new ones. The sub woofer has also been eliminated so there will be no further complaints from all the elderly crowds that are now flocking to cinemas because of the conversion to digital...
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-09-2010, 11:27 AM:
Monte - I have emailed Dolby and also filled out the "contact us" form on their website, and have filled-out and sent-in the "order form" for promotional stuff and have never gotten a response on any of it.
Once they have your money you are dead to them apparently. (Unless you have 2500 screens, maybe?)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-09-2010, 11:41 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
I still wish they would promote their 3-D better. That stupid logo never shows up anywhere, while RealD is all over the place.
It's a repeat of what has taken place in home theater. The DTS logo has been all over the place while the Dolby logo has seemingly been reduced to a generic status. Hardly any of my DVDs have Dolby Digital trailers on them while many of the ones with DTS 5.1 tracks do. Lately a new DTS-HD Master Audio trailer has started appearing on Blu-ray discs (the BD of Kick Ass has one).
It can't be good for Dolby that so many Blu-ray discs are using DTS-HD Master Audio for the primary audio track. Toy Story 3 helped launch Dolby Surround 7.1. But the new Blu-ray released last week has DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1.
Digital 3D marketing in theaters is pretty confusing, particularly with phony formats like "Disney Digital 3D" constantly being publicized. Real-D is indeed "everywhere," probably as much if not more than the IMAX-3D brand. The logo is commonly used on movie posters, movie trailers and TV commercials (I haven't seen it in any end credits though). We all know others 3D formats exist, such as Dolby 3D -but they don't get any publicity.
I expected to see the Dolby 3D trailer when I watched Toy Story 3 at the Warren Theaters Moore 14 in Moore, OK. They played the Dolby Surround 7.1 trailer, but no Dolby 3D trailer. Perhaps Dolby figures it's enough for people to see the Dolby logo on the 3D glasses.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-09-2010, 11:47 AM:
Mike,
Did you get the Dolby 3D glasses return bins? They did get a big mailing out recently. If you did not get it your address is not in their promotional database for some reason.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-09-2010, 11:34 PM:
Mike... There is a Dolby 3-D header on MegaMind. So if you play that you can grab it.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-10-2010, 01:10 AM:
Do you mean the standard Dolby 3D "countdown" logo?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-10-2010, 01:24 AM:
Mark - we're playing Megamind. There is a 3D logo on the feature but it's not Dolby...it's "Tru 3D." (Cool logo though - it makes the kids happy)
I'll take a look at the drive list again.
Brad - that countdown logo is on the Dolby software disk that came with our 3D unit but it apparently only works if you have a Dolby server.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 11-11-2010, 11:13 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
One would figure Dolby would try to find some way to get that "TrueHD" brand into movie theaters. But no! Let's dig up the old Dolby Surround brand and apply it to an audio format that doesn't have any Dolby encoding to it at all.
It may be because Dolby TrueHD is a codec that is not based on Dolby technology. It has its origins in the MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing) Lossless technology, which was first used on DVD-Audio. My understanding is that MLP was licensed by Dolby and used as the basis for TrueHD.
Dolby TrueHD Frequently Asked Questions (PDF) -- Dolby.com
As a result, Dolby may be prevented from marketing the TrueHD brand in segments other than home theater, or they may be reluctant to use a brand that represents technology that wasn't born in-house. It may also have been a conscious choice not to use a brand that has been established in the consumer market in a product intended for the professional cinema market.
From an insider's perspective, marketing 7.1 sound in Digital Cinema with the Dolby brand is nonsensical and unnecessary, and bordering on inaccurate. However, from the consumer's perspective, adding the recognizable Dolby brand to something like this makes sense and is actually a marketing win by Dolby for getting their brand publicized on something that doesn't really have anything to do with them (a la "Disney Digital 3D").
What's worrisome is that Dolby has not produced anything in-house on the sound side of things since Dolby Digital EX. They've got their name on Dolby 3D, but it certainly seems that RealD has a bigger share of that market as well. DTS is eating Dolby's lunch in the Blu-ray market, too. It's interesting how tides can turn in a short time!
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-11-2010, 01:02 PM:
Dolby TrueHD is Dolby's trademark. While the encoding format is indeed based on Meridian Lossless Packing, Meridian has no rights to dictate how a Dolby brand name is used. Dolby could apply the "TrueHD" thing on more than one medium even if the compression formats are different. Just look at DTS. Theatrical DTS uses the APT-X100 algorithm. Home DTS uses the very different DTS-CAC codec. But both are just called "DTS."
And that's really one of the larger points in why I think DTS has become so much more popular. It's mainly just DTS, or sometimes DTS-HD. Pretty simple. Easy for average home viewers to remember and at least somewhat idiot proof to folks creating the ads.
Dolby doesn't have that luxury. You can't just say a track is "Dolby." That invites the question, "Dolby what?" That answer might invite even more questions. "Dolby Surround? Is that the 2-channel track I never select on my DVDs? TV broadcast? Laserdisc 5.1? EX on DVD? D-cinema 7.1 that's not really Dolby at all?"
To add another point on why I think movie studios and movie theaters need to just adopt a generic "7.1 Surround" logo, look at what they did with 70mm back in the 1980s. 70mm is not a brand. 70mm is a film gauge. Yet several movie studios created their own 70mm logos to use in newspaper ads. Some, like the one Paramount used, were pretty cool looking.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 11-17-2010, 10:35 AM:
Bobby,
It sounds like you may have come upon an opportunity to show off your skills. You could create such a logo and make the materials available for use on print, online, and video purposes.
I doubt that you'd get any money for such an effort, however, so it would depend on how much personal pride you would get from seeing your work be used in the industry.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-17-2010, 11:22 AM:
The Cinetize people should add such a logo to their lineup. They already are making one for Facebook and Twitter. What's needed is a generic logo -- Dolby would likely not want to farm out their name for "just anyone" to buy a logo and use it.
But a generic "This theatre features DIGITAL SURROUND SOUND!" logo with some awesome sound effects would be great.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-29-2010, 07:09 PM:
(A week later to make a comment...)
Friend of mine went to a new 12plex cinema in our area to see "Unstoppable".
I told him that he witnessed a digital presentation and I asked him on what he thought of the presentation.
..he wasn't impressed in that aspect outside the presentation had no problems - bright, sound was good and the seats were comfortable (shooting through a Sony projector).
I asked my wife who saw the 35mm of the film in our cinema on how the presentation was. "Exciting film that kept her on the edge of the seat!" I told her it was a film presentation in which she wasn't impressed even though the presentation also has no problems since the picture was in focus, clean with no scratches, sound was good and image was bright on the screen (Christie SLC. P35GPS and DTS).
So, the big, yet simple question: "who wins?"
-Monte
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 11-29-2010, 07:19 PM:
Both.
- Customer sees no difference between digital and analog, so why bother about digital?
- Digital is as good as analog (so why bother about analog ;-)
- Carsten
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-29-2010, 08:57 PM:
It's all about spending a whole bunch of money to make not much (if any) more in return.
Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 11-29-2010, 09:21 PM:
In all fairness, digital is more analog than film is.
Film grains are either latent-imaged or not latent-imaged. (The only exception to this is base fog, the closest thing about film to analog, kind of like tape hiss.) Digital images are converted from ANALOG sensors that are digitally converted into digital values. So a raw analog output is quantized digitally.
Well, I think digital is great! I mean, look at how it helped still photographers make a whole lot more money. And look at how it helped labs be ultra efficient (no more pesky test-prints and exposures, right?)
Oh, wait, um, err. . . .
I guarantee the same built-in planned obsolescence is going to plague this industry and turn it into the equivalent of what fast food has become: You have to LOSE MONEY on your dollar menu just to get them in the drive thru!
___
How can I reply to myself 10 minutes later?
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Also, new TV programs like Lost or Mad Men have better production values than many films and are indeed very cinematographic.
To paraphrase "Planet of the Apes," Thank you, thank you for calling out 35mm content :-)
Unfortunately, "Lost" is off the air, and television is shedding 35mm shows like flies, and 16mm is all but dead ("Friday Night Lights," "Crash" (cancelled) and maybe three others are all that are left in the States).
What is incredible to me is how all these 35mm shows (CSI knock offs, Law and Orders) shed 35mm mid-run. I *think* CSI held out, but may be digital now too.
I've heard some talk about 4K content on here. 35mm is more than adequate if you use 200T stock or slower and shoot scope! "4K" digital right now is both a lie, and a sad joke.
Why is it that "Star Trek" was shot on 50T 4-perf. (same amount of film as true anamorphic 4-perf.) film for the first two seasons and 100T after that without any troubles and on a television budget?
I really believe that 2K DIs have caught on not for the reasons that are listed (4K takes up too much time, is too expensive), it is a deliberate move by the studios to kill off the labs, and put-into-line cinematographers that stubbornly refuse to compromise, and maybe kill off the pesky theatre component too.
There is nothing about digital that is NOT about reduced cost, ease of use, and lack of skilled training, sorry.
And, thanks to 35mm DIs, home movies are ALREADY better than 35mm prints. Movies reach the screen with probably 1.2-1.4K across of resolution Compare to 1.98 K lines at home.
The only place this doesn't hold true is with 35mm anamorphic films. Digital projectors crop the chip. 35mm projectors use MORE film.
2K movies are only 10% bettter than 1.98K home theatre.
The only bright spot on the horizon is that 4K cannot be seen as appreciably better on a television monitor compared to a cinema screen.
(Aside: Most people don't care about any of this shit PERIOD They care about getting out of the house seeing a new movie with a crowd and having fun. Sitting with a couple friends in your basement isn't the same level. It's psychological, not quantitatively better for most. It's only those of us that don't accept what people tell us to be true (ads, marketing, politicians, religion) that take issue with this.)
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-29-2010, 09:48 PM:
quote: Jonathan Smith
You have to LOSE MONEY on your dollar menu just to get them in the drive thru
uh-oh, the "Lemming Suicide" - a metaphor in reference to people who go along unquestioningly with popular opinion, with potentially dangerous or fatal consequences.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-29-2010, 10:39 PM:
You think McDonalds is losing money on the dollar menu? Verrrry unlikely. Have you looked at how much actual meat is in that burger?
quote: Sam D. Chavez
Did you get the Dolby 3D glasses return bins? They did get a big mailing out recently. If you did not get it your address is not in their promotional database for some reason.
I guess we're not, because we have not received one single piece of anything in the mail or otherwise with the name "Dolby" on it, even though we are runnning their sound processor and their 3-D system. Most companies, you buy their product, they immediately try to sell you more stuff. Dolby, I try to promote their brand, and get ignored by them. (You would think my friendly dealer could make a phone call and get this changed! )
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-30-2010, 12:04 AM:
quote: Jonathan Smith
In all fairness, digital is more analog than film....
So, it's really a given then - Film DOES RULE! Just that we have some unfair dealings going on.
Now, we have to find and keep some compentent people around to run film.
Yet, it's amazing how complicated it is to run film compared to digital which to operate is the simple task of pushing "Play" on the server's monitor screens.
Pretty soon and you watch: the pre-show ads will push the "Play" button for you when it's time to begin the show.
Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 11-30-2010, 12:23 AM:
Isn't that what the "scheduler" function is for? So you don't even have to click play.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-30-2010, 01:44 AM:
I wondered on that one as well since I've used the schedulers before ...
Guess it keeps jobs for floor personnel alive to give them something to do so the show will definitely be on the screen instead of depending on a program to start the show.
But,to learn the schedule process on some servers can be a trick in itself for it to function correctly. Thus, it's just easier to send someone upstairs to hit "Play".
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-30-2010, 01:52 AM:
Most preshow systems DO have that functionality Monte. Its up to the theater as to whether it is tied in or not.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-30-2010, 07:04 AM:
So...wait...there are automated D-cinema installs where someone still has to manually start the show? Umm...why? If there is nothing that might need adjustment (focus, framing, sound) at show start, then why would this not be automated? If the automation system is any good, it should sound an alarm if something goes wrong (bulb explodes, server doesn't play, etc.) at show start, anyway.
We've had timer-started film presentations for how many years now? And yet people are still starting D-cinema shows manually?
(I'm talking about multiplexes where everything else--house lights, sound, etc. is automated...not manually run booths.)
I still haven't worked with "modern" D-cinema equipment, but this stuff seems pretty half baked from an operational perspective. At least the installations do.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-30-2010, 09:33 AM:
Scott,
Sure... In booths where there are still film projection systems and projectionnists this is pretty common. It is also common at busy locations that may frequently hold the start of a show for various reasons.
Mark
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-30-2010, 01:34 PM:
They already do in out cinemas. Louis
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-30-2010, 07:10 PM:
LOL @ any digital theater that has to start shows manually. That's just sad.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-30-2010, 08:08 PM:
Yea, it is quite humerous to see with the modernization of DCinema that the need of button pushers, mouse clickers, and touchpad tappers are still needed to make sure that the show hits the screen correctly and on time ...
..and the use of the schedulers are not allowed...
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-30-2010, 09:57 PM:
There is no reason at all for any of that. Bad install or wasteful company policy is not the fault of DCinema; I would also wager that most DCinema installs are running properly with automatic starts, either via scheduler or pre-show.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-30-2010, 11:03 PM:
Oh do fully agree.
I used to work in a small circuit that had three locations with digital with GDC servers.
One location where the scheduler was used all the time. Another location, the scheduler wasn't working too well, thus they ran the programs manually, and the last location had to go manual since their business didn't justify using the scheduler so they could save the hours on the bulb.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-01-2010, 07:27 AM:
That makes no sense...what system can't strike the lamp automatically? All of our traditional DCinemas run automatically. Even the Master Image can be started/stopped, raised/lowered automatically. I think the only thing that is not automated is the change between 2D and 3D on the player end because Dolby hasn't allowed for that to be automated. I suspect some just leave it in 3D mode run in 4:2:2 color space to keep everything automated!
-Steve
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-01-2010, 07:59 AM:
I'm told that the AMC house that does most of the press screenings in the Boston area tends to leave the 3D attachment (not sure on the details) in place for 2D press screenings, thus causing the picture to be extra-dark. This is the biggest cinema in town, and one which is, sadly, not known for presentation quality (film or ).
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-01-2010, 11:25 AM:
quote: Scott Norwood
I'm told that the AMC house that does most of the press screenings in the Boston area tends to leave the 3D attachment (not sure on the details) in place for 2D press screenings, thus causing the picture to be extra-dark.
Wow, that's just nuts...for several reasons!
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-01-2010, 12:49 PM:
quote:
some just leave it in 3D mode run in 4:2:2 color space to keep everything automated!
Wouldn't that cause the projected colors to be all out of whack where you have a image mainly in green and red?
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-01-2010, 02:39 PM:
Not if you have the projector also be expecting 4:2:2 color on the HDSDI-A spigot.
-Steve
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-01-2010, 02:44 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
I think the only thing that is not automated is the change between 2D and 3D on the player end because Dolby hasn't allowed for that to be automated.
And seriously...WTF? Why keep this out of the Auto configuration option? It can be a real pain in the ass.
We're screening Megamind 3D and Harry Potter 2D right now sharing a screen...and we have to make this adjustment every session why???
Come on Dolby...please think about this and include it in the next software upgrade.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-01-2010, 03:35 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
I think the only thing that is not automated is the change between 2D and 3D on the player end because Dolby hasn't allowed for that to be automated.
It sounds like Dolby needs to get their shit in gear!
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-01-2010, 05:53 PM:
Actually you can very easily automate the Dolby filter wheel mechanism to drop in or out of the light path. Perhaps not their server but very definately the filter wheel...
FWIW: Master Image is bringing their 3-D units up to DCI specs... Not sure what that means but I will know next week and let you all know... with pictures!
Mark
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-01-2010, 05:55 PM:
Oh, I think the whole DCI is way behind the times...
There should be metadata on the clips themselves so that the clip sets the format (picture and sound). Or, at the very least, the FEATURE should set the picture format for everything in the show. There should not need to be ANY human involvement on selecting the proper format once a system is set up (which macros/channels/titles correspond to what...heck I would be all for DCI defining standardized response strings where the projector could TELL the player which are the formats to use for DCP content).
It is fine to have a manual back up for every function but seriously...there is no need to have any aspect of showing a DCP require human intervention (and potential screw ups).
-Steve
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-01-2010, 06:17 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
Or, at the very least, the FEATURE should set the picture format for everything in the show.
That would not work here. We play 1.85 ads and some trailers then go out to scope for the (trailer and/or) feature.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-01-2010, 07:54 PM:
Most would not do that due to the time it takes to switch between flat and scope in DCinema...unless the lens does not need to move at all. Otherwise it could be upwards of a 15 second ordeal during a performance.
However, I'm good with the clips setting the format too. I think the systems should be configurable so that you can have what you want automated or run manual. I just don't get why there isn't metadata being used to ensure the correct picture and sound formats are selected.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-01-2010, 08:36 PM:
So why DON'T the clips set the format? Why would you ever want to play a clip in the wrong format?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-02-2010, 12:07 AM:
Brad said that would be bad. It might have even been in this thread but I am too lazy and useless to look for it.
Personally, I think it would be good. Each clip can have a tag with the aspect ratio (or simply FLAT or SCOPE). I think Brad mentioned something about how the things can be set up so any "channel" (whatever that is) can be set for anything. This issue can be solved with "channel" (whatever that is) labels. One "channel" (whatever that is) is labeled FLAT and another SCOPE (or whatever). The server/projector/automation simply matches the "channel" (whatever that is) and the clip. Problem solved! That was easy. You'd be able to program a whole bunch o' shit before your feature and not even worry or care if it is the right format because it will swing back and forth to wherever it needs to be. Too bad nobody seems to have this feature yet. Seriously, weren't actual computer programmers even involved in the creation of all this? You would think that they would have thought of this.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-02-2010, 12:34 AM:
Probably too many "suits" involved and not enough "geeks" would be my guess.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-02-2010, 01:08 AM:
You're probably right. I imagine the programmers were hired with a "Make it do this and only this, do not suggest anything because we are too cheap to pay you for it" type of attitude.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-02-2010, 02:51 AM:
quote: John Wilson
That would not work here. We play 1.85 ads and some trailers then go out to scope for the (trailer and/or) feature.
Same here. With side masking auditoriums, IMHO this produces a better presentation and also brings about other nice benefits such as only needing to keep HALF of the trailers tying up space on the servers. It also eliminates the concern of matching trailer formats to the feature.
quote: Steve Guttag
Most would not do that due to the time it takes to switch between flat and scope in DCinema...unless the lens does not need to move at all. Otherwise it could be upwards of a 15 second ordeal during a performance.
Uh oh, I think Steve started smoking some of that I-30 stuff. 15 seconds??? Where are you getting this number from? As an example, the current projectors from Christie can switch lens positions in right at one second.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-02-2010, 04:09 AM:
Brad...we don't have I-30 here...
But I said UPWARDS of 15-seconds...some are definitely faster than that. However, some of the machines, including most all of the series 1s, regardless of manufacture, take at least 10-seconds to move the lens (zoom, focus, shift). The series 2s from Barco and Christie are notably faster than the series 1s from a year ago. NEC still isn't too fast...focus being the last thing to come in on them. The way some zoom/shift is also not as pleasing on screen...they go to 0,0 first and then move the lens to the new position...leaving the audience to see the whole process unless you run some blank and then leave them in the dark for that period. It isn't graceful.
-Steve
Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 12-02-2010, 12:25 PM:
Next step is installing a HAL 9000 computer to more easily facilitate worker productivity in the concession stand.
You guys all bitch about a lack of "projection done right," then want to relegate it all to technology.
There is a REASON movies are still focused by hand, cranes mostly still operated by hand, focus marks still set with tape, takes still written down by hand.
Automation is easier, sure, but the headaches caused by one automation malfunction far outweigh the benefits of walking your lazy ass down from one end of the booth and making sure the movie is set to the proper display type and hitting PLAY.
When booths are all digital, there is more incentive to automate, but you'll still be pulling refunds out the ass if something goes wrong and someone has to run up there instead of having a dedicated operator.
My first film processor was a "high tech" model (for 1983) with an automated arm that was controlled by a light-sensitive e-prom chip. Guess how much more headaches I had with that thing than if I had just hand-processed (latter would have been more efficient too!) The thing would always act up, forget what part of the cycle it was on, and redunk the film in the developer after bleaching, with a roll of film with a wedding garter toss shot on it, too. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-02-2010, 12:52 PM:
quote: Jonathan Smith
You guys all bitch about a lack of "projection done right," then want to relegate it all to technology.
Dude, there is a huge difference between things that just make sense to automate, as opposed to things that need to be done by hand for best results.
You're preaching to the choir here. None of us here are "set and forget" projectionists.
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 12-02-2010, 02:23 PM:
quote: Jonathan Smith
takes still written down by hand.
Guess you haven't seen the digital slate boards.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-02-2010, 02:46 PM:
The real breakthrough will be when the computers can handle any aspect ratio at anytime. Why should film makers be stuck with a single aspect ratio per film? They toyed with it in the early days of cinerama, but now it should be easily attainable in digital.
Hell, Robert Downey, Sr once made a film shot with a triangle aspect ratio, and that was in the sixties. Time for the digitals to show their stuff!
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-02-2010, 05:17 PM:
quote: Jonathan Smith
You guys all bitch about a lack of "projection done right," then want to relegate it all to technology.
Projection done right is not only a manual thing.
If I can automate something, I will. I have my automation set up so it mimicks exactly the presentation I can do manually. That way, so long as the lads on shift when I'm not there can thread (and believe me, they can do way more than that) then it's like I'm projecting there seven days a week for every session.
Why would you not automate if you have the capabilities to do it?
Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 12-02-2010, 10:08 PM:
quote: Darryl Spicer
Guess you haven't seen the digital slate boards.
That's a time-code marker that is still manually clapped together and labeled for which take.
You DO realize that some movies still DON'T use these, even today, and the time-code is used for frame register, not sync throughout the take. ST:VOY never used one. Dark Knight neither.
Also, you're aware, that, almost 20 years ago, they came up with a film camera that could burn sync pulses directly onto negative film. Guess why it was almost never used. . .
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 12-02-2010, 10:26 PM:
So- has there ever been a time yet when the wrong digital feature is played on the wrong screen and/or at the wrong time? (Specifically when you have a G-rated movie during the day and an R at night.)
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-02-2010, 11:39 PM:
quote: John Wilson
it's like I'm projecting there seven days a week for every session.
All I can say is... thank goodness for Pennywise!
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-03-2010, 04:44 AM:
quote: Jesse Skeen
(Specifically when you have a G-rated movie during the day and an R at night.)
Yep, at a local discount house in the area that has a digital and they punched up the wrong show....what ya get when you got min wage button pushers running around that don't care about their job..
Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 12-03-2010, 09:24 AM:
quote: Jesse Skeen
So- has there ever been a time yet when the wrong digital feature is played on the wrong screen and/or at the wrong time? (Specifically when you have a G-rated movie during the day and an R at night.)
As long as the digital scheduler is programmed separately (rather than by the box-office system) this can happen.
Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 12-03-2010, 11:04 AM:
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Yep, at a local discount house in the area that has a digital and they punched up the wrong show....what ya get when you got min wage button pushers running around that don't care about their job..
Come on now, it happens to the best of us, with film prints too! (Boy what a lot of fun it is to perform surgery on a movie, removing both trailer packs to spare the audience the pain of watching the same trailers more or less twice, then having to add both back on at the end!)
I am guilty of doing this with the Toy Story I - II digital feature they had last year. I haven't used Barcos in quite a while now, but it boggles my mind why you have to click something and then confirm it. In a hurry, it was easy to hit the wrong key instead of enter, even though you highlighted the right show title.
I credit being an automation monkey with getting me interested in all of the nifty little sub-menus and projector options. This is the one area where control has actually shifted back in favor of the operator compared with film programming: The ability to calibrate colors, formats, illumination.
As far as playing "Private Parts" instead of "Bambi," I have a harder time understanding how that one could happen. . .
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-03-2010, 11:18 AM:
Well if you have two features on a server and they are listed right next to each other, it's quite easy to click on the wrong thing. Add in the "in a hurry" factor and it's believable. I put the same trailer in the pack twice once....just got in a rush and missed it, is all. Mistakes can happen to anybody when you are rushing.
Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 12-03-2010, 11:54 AM:
Yeah. A lot of people like to belittle the "hurry up mode," but it certainly does come in handy when there's 1,000 angry Twitards in the auditorium ![[uhoh]](graemlins/uhoh.gif)
Mike: There was one time I was on such an "autopilot" (euphemism) mode that after I put a trailer (and ad, so far more potential for mistakes with all those films) pack together, I honestly couldn't remember any of it. I was going go to back and check it, for fear of building the whole thing upside down, then the manager goes and starts the movie!
Amazingly, in that case, there wasn't a thing wrong with it, but I still remember the fear I experienced when I said to myself "Wait, I just put that whole pack together and don't remember it?" Of course, I never had a chance to fix it, had to tear down a bunch of movies for pick up, and for all I know I built both the ads and trailers in reverse order.
It never ceases to amaze me the non-conformity of programming sheets among the "Big Three." Of course, they probably never anticipated having situations where union guys cycle through all three on a regular basis that a "floater" such as I does.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-03-2010, 12:07 PM:
My worst example of being on autopilot was one Thursday night...after the show, I changed the marquee, broke down the film, went home and turned on the TV and that's when I found out it was only Wednesday. So I had to go back downtown, put the film back together and change the marquee back. I invented some new cuss words that night.
Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 12-03-2010, 12:13 PM:
WOW. I bet!
Last year I had to put a 35mm print of "Avatar" back together. This was after the management figured out that they only had one digital projector and the next big movie release was in 3D too.
I think I was there until 4 or 5, but it was the only opportunity I got to see "Avatar" through and through. I ended up watching it with Jamal, one of the theatre cleaners, and his young daughter.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-03-2010, 12:32 PM:
...bet you got that show memorized by then ....
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-03-2010, 04:29 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
My worst example of being on autopilot was one Thursday night...after the show, I changed the marquee, broke down the film, went home and turned on the TV and that's when I found out it was only Wednesday. So I had to go back downtown, put the film back together and change the marquee back. I invented some new cuss words that night.
Now THAT'S funny!
Posted by Marc Jensen (Member # 3561) on 12-06-2010, 01:34 AM:
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Yep, at a local discount house in the area that has a digital and they punched up the wrong show....what ya get when you got min wage button pushers running around that don't care about their job..
Or alternatively, a decent projectionist trying to run shows from a shitty photocopied schedule complete with photocopied ballpoint pen adjustments... and the photocopied pen scribbles over the photocopied ballpoint pen adjustments.
Guess what happened to me this morning.
Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 12-06-2010, 11:32 AM:
I love the 35mm ad packs that are clearly designed by someone who thinks it is all done with a mouse-click, including weekly re-orderings and changes with dozens of trailer and ad changes.
Then the lack of consistency from theatre chain to theatre chain, company to company as to how to make the lists of trailers and ads in an ad pack.
Then the chains that blatantly disregard distributors' programming instructions and expect us to know all of these silly overrides from top to bottom.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-06-2010, 12:21 PM:
quote: Jonathan Smith
I love the 35mm ad packs that are clearly designed by someone who thinks it is all done with a mouse-click, including weekly re-orderings and changes with dozens of trailer and ad changes.
This, in short, is why Landmark will lose a good employee this week.
Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 12-06-2010, 12:24 PM:
Scott, can you go into more detail than that?
Did someone quit, get fired? I had the issue of getting paid for less hours than I worked because I went over my six hours a week.
There was only one guy in the whole film local that could keep up with the break-neck pace of trailer and ad programming. They even had him going to two theatres in one night because they constantly complained I wasn't fast enough to make up new ad packs and do programming changes.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-10-2010, 07:56 AM:
I quit because the volume of ad programming (over six minutes now) was becoming insane, and the person responsible for the ad/trailer schedules is clearly incompetent. The schedule regularly called for trailers and ads that the theatre did not have, and the multiple insertions/deletions/re-orders (in several positions) each week were completely excessive. The logic behind the trailer schedule completely escaped me as well--it is common to have the same trailers listed in a different order on different prints.
Multiple attempts (by me and others) to rectify this situation over the past two years (before which, there were no commercials, and trailers were programmed by the individual theatre managers, which worked well) have failed. Job satisfaction was at an all-time low, and I just don't need that level of hassle for a part-time hobby job that paid poorly, but which should have at least been enjoyable and satisfying (and was, before the centralization of trailer/ad programming).
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-10-2010, 09:25 AM:
Bravo, Scott! They probably think they are being pretty clever with all of the ad and trailer programming. They really don't realize how frustrating it all can be, both for the theater employee and the customer. It was a definite loss for them to lose you.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-10-2010, 01:29 PM:
Oh do fully agree, but the legacy that one person ususally creates and is left behind is forgotten rather promptly..and things will return to what they were prior before the legacy was created.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-10-2010, 03:08 PM:
Sadly Scott I know very well what that is like. You get some iIdiot corporate tongue fucker in the position of programming and all logic in their task of programming is out the window.
My favorite is when they do things like cluttering every screen with trailers for the new Star Wars movie, or putting the trailer to the latest Tyler Perry movie on every screen at a theater in an all-black community. No offense intended here, but its not as if these crowds were unaware of these movies coming out and wouldn't come to see them if they hadn't seen a trailer in the theater weeks before. Program trailers that cater to same audience as the feature, but ones that the crowd may not know of!
Equally stupid is when they are running 4 trailers and have you flip the trailer between the #2 and #3 spot. Then when you ask you learn their philosophy is "people only remember the first and last trailer they see". Well then if that is true why are we bothering flipping #2 and 3...or even running those at all???
Disclaimers:
*Every single person I've ran across over the years that was completely incompetent in programming trailers/ads was a hard-core Mac person for some reason. I've no idea why, but it is something I've noticed. Every other computer in the entire chain is a PC, but they force corporate to buy them an all-Mac office along and have that snooty attitude that they are so important they must have Mac equipment to do their job properly. I suppose that makes sense since a PC is incapable of creating a Microsoft Excel trailer spreadsheet.
*Tongue fucker - someone who can bullshit through their incompetence so well the owners/higher-ups think he/she is single-handedly saving the company and bringing in more business, when in fact all they are doing is raping the company of a ridiculous salary and doing more harm than good. Some of these idiots pull in over $100k a year, and in essence the only work they actually do (other than tongue fucking meetings with the owners) is to create a weekly trailer report).
Whatever buddy. You want the Tron trailer playing in the first and 3rd spot because you don't even bother to check over your own work? You got it!
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-11-2010, 10:43 AM:
quote: Brad Miller
*Every single person I've ran across over the years that was completely incompetent in programming trailers/ads was a hard-core Mac person for some reason.
1) They have to look like they are doing something
2) Moving stuff around makes it look like they are doing things
3) Mac makes it easier to move stuff around
4) Therefore they do it because they can and Mac makes it easy
Bonus point: Macs dominate the indie film world and I'm willing to bet these guys are all film school grads or at least wannabes..
ps: I'm a hardcore Mac person who started with computers using paper tape, then punch cards.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-11-2010, 03:04 PM:
Macs dominate the indie industry and film schools because there was a long period of time where Final Cut Pro was the ONLY good non-linear editing program (aside from a full blown Avid at prohibitive costs). If you wanted to do video editing, you basically had to buy a Mac or fail. Because of that all of these "artists" flocked to the Mac platform, and now it is a part of their lifestyle. (Seriously, I've had Mac people tell me "it is a way of life".) Nevermind there is excellent software available now for the PC platform, the Mac lifestyle stuck.
The Mac thing was just an observation though. Getting back on the subject, you definitely pegged the situation with the first two!
Posted by Chase Pickett (Member # 5975) on 12-11-2010, 04:59 PM:
This all sounds terrifying. We have our home office create the trailer programming. When movies come out that have trailers on prints in the building we remove and replace with another trailer. That simple. All the market specific trailers are programmed to play on our pre-show ads. Someone was thinking here.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-12-2010, 08:06 AM:
Any chain who would not fight to find a way to keep someone as dedicated to the highest quality presentatiion values as we know Scott is, deserves whatever crap happens to them. Clearly they haven't a clue what it is that keeps people coming to their theatres and not to their competition or to the homw theatre couch.
Sorry to hear your efforts have not enlightened those higher idiots, Scott. I know how hard it is when you can see the forest for the trees while the bosses have their heads up some wild boar's ass. You don't need that kind of aggravation.
Best of luck with whatever else you do and wherever else you bring you talent.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-12-2010, 12:52 PM:
It's higher ups being typical higher ups instead of actually doing real managerial work, which means being involved, knowing what the hell is going on and knowing which employees are "earners" versus people who just punch in and punch out. To the higher ups all employees are alike, just plain vanilla widgets to count and manipulate on a spreadsheet.
In short, a typical higher up does whatever regardless of what effect his new idea has on productivity. And then when the new idea actually turns out to be crap the employees in the trenches get the blame for it not working. A real senior manager or executive is going to value his good employees.
Posted by Brian D. Whitish (Member # 825) on 12-13-2010, 01:35 PM:
Mark as a current Landmark employee I am so sorry to see you go! Im not really crazy about the way things are done now. Pete is sorry too. Hope things work out good for you.
Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 12-14-2010, 09:10 PM:
Sorry doesn't walk the dog. Sorry doesn't butter the biscuit. Love means never having to say you're sorry.
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-14-2010, 09:27 PM:
quote: John T. Hendrickson, Jr
Love means never having to say you're sorry.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-14-2010, 10:45 PM:
She: You don't want to marry someone who's going to get all wrinkled, lined and flabby!
He: Everyone gets wrinkled, lined and flabby!
She: By next week?!
Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 12-16-2010, 06:02 AM:
Sounds like V.R.U.S.P!
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-16-2010, 12:30 PM:
I think I read a monograph on that...
BTW I recently picked up the Region A Blu-ray and it looks pretty good for a 38-year-old title.
* * * * *
And digital cinema is keeping this newbie install tech pretty damn busy. Theaters as we know them may indeed go the way of Blockbuster and the like, but it won't be due to digital projection technology. More than likely the cause of death will be from staying too long with old business models that no longer work in the new world (I'm lookin' at you, distributors).
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2