This is topic Small theater operators weigh digital conversion 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=000791
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-19-2011, 07:51 PM:
From today's Los Angeles Times - looks like a rehash of the numbers we saw earlier this month at CinemaCon:
quote:
Small theater operators weigh digital conversion
Film prints may become unavailable in 2013 and financing for digital projection technology is winding down, but installation costs are still prohibitive for many of the smallest movie houses.
By Richard Verrier, Los Angeles Times
April 19, 2011
For more than three decades, the Kim family has operated a popular 800-seat neighborhood theater on Crenshaw Boulevard in Gardena.
The single-screen movie house — a rarity anywhere — has weathered multiple storms. It thrived in the 1970s and early 1980s by specializing in Spanish-language movies, until its Mexican film distributor went out of business. The Kims switched to screening conventional Hollywood movies, but soon confronted growing competition from new multiplexes. They adapted by selling lower-priced tickets, catering to budget-conscious families looking for an affordable night out.
Now they face what could be their biggest hurdle: how to foot the bill for a new digital projection system.
"We've been investigating converting to digital, but it's cost prohibitive for us," said Judy Kim, an attorney who manages Gardena Cinema for her parents, who are in their 70s. "You're talking about tens of thousands of dollars for a machine, and you're not sure it's worth putting in that kind of money or whether you're going to get a return on your investment."
After years of delays, the century-old movie exhibition business is finally embracing digital technology. Equipment suppliers can barely keep up with the demand. About 800 to 900 digital screens are being added each month to theaters large and small nationwide, allowing them to screen 3-D movies, beam live sporting and music events and deliver sharper, scratch free images to audiences.
But hundreds of small theater operators such as the Kims have yet to get with the digital program — and may be left out if they don't act soon.
"The pressure is on," said Greg Laemmle, president of Laemmle Theatres, the L.A.-based art house movie chain that is weighing how many digital projectors to install at its eight locations. "We're going to have to jump."
To assist theaters in making the leap, studios are helping to pay for the equipment through so-called virtual print fees. In lieu of making and delivering 35-millimeter film prints — which cost about $1,000 each versus $100 to $200 for a digital print — studios are putting aside the money they save to help theaters buy the equipment they need to convert to digital projection systems.
But that financing is winding down. Under agreements with studios, exhibitors can qualify for the funding only if they install their digital equipment by the end of next year. Film prints — the reels that are threaded through projectors — could become unavailable as early as 2013, according to the National Assn. of Theatre Owners.
With digital distribution, a hard-drive copy of a movie is shipped to the theater, where it is inserted into a server that operates the projection system. In some cases, movies are also transmitted digitally via satellite.
John Fithian, the theater owner group's president, recently issued a dire warning at the industry's annual convention in Las Vegas.
"Simply put, if you don't make the decision to get on the digital train soon, you will be making the decision to get out of the business," Fithian told attendees. "That would be tragic because digital cinema and 3-D have so much to offer."
Overseas, theater operators also are rapidly converting to digital, although studios are expected to continue shipping film prints to some smaller countries for the foreseeable future.
Nearly half of all 39,000 screens in the U.S. are digital, up from just a few thousand in 2007. By year's end, about 23,000 digital screens will have been installed, mostly from expansion by the three largest theater chains: AMC Entertainment Inc., Regal Entertainment Group and Cinemark Holdings Inc. A consortium representing the circuits raised nearly $900 million to finance the rollout.
Despite the rapid expansion, Fithian is nonetheless concerned that several hundred smaller exhibitors — those with 10 or fewer screens — have held off installing digital equipment.
"We've been telling exhibitors for four years that this is coming," Fithian said in an interview. "We don't want people to be left behind."
There are 650 theater companies in the U.S. and Canada with fewer than 100 screens, including 270 with just one screen. Some of these smaller operators believe film won't disappear any time soon. Others can't afford the investment. Digital projectors and accompanying computer hardware and software cost about $65,000 per screen. That doesn't include an additional $4,000 to $8,000 for a special silver screen, which is required on some systems, and approximately $10,000 to $20,000 more for 3-D equipment.
Making such a hefty investment is intimidating to small operators, especially at a time when business has fallen off sharply. Box-office revenue and admissions have dropped more than 20% this year from 2010. Adding to the anxiety are fears that studios will further induce moviegoers to stay away from theaters by offering movies in the home just 60 days after their box-office debuts.
"It's disconcerting that they are really pushing us to spend a lot of money on digital at a time when they are tinkering with the traditional business model, which could jeopardize our business," said David Corwin, president of Metropolitan Theatres Corp., which is investing $5 million to finish converting its 101 screens in the Western U.S. and British Columbia to digital.
Small exhibitors can obtain loans to buy equipment through their local banks, the Small Business Administration, equipment vendors or so-called third party integrators such as Cinedigm Digital Cinema Corp., a New Jersey-based company that buys and installs digital equipment in theaters and collects virtual print fees from distributors to help exhibitors pay back the loans to buy equipment.
"The bottom line is that financing is available to everyone in one way or the other," said Chuck Goldwater, president of Cinedigm's media services group. "What we tell exhibitors is that the clock is ticking."
Some theater owners, however, said they can't shoulder more debt.
Jeff Mexico, who owns a drive-in theater and two cinemas in Salem, Ore., said he was paying down a $200,000 loan he took out to refurbish one of his theaters in 2006 and can't afford to borrow more money.
"I'm just at a point where I can't take on any more debt," he said.
Yet Mexico said he knows he may not have a choice because film may not be around much longer. A stark reminder of that came recently when a distributor told him he couldn't book "Source Code," the action thriller starring Jake Gyllenhaal.
"They said, 'We don't have enough film prints.' "
richard.verrier@latimes.com
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-20-2011, 02:10 PM:
Has ANYONE got a definite quote (from anyone other than John Fithian) quoting a date that a particular studio will no longer offer 35mm? Louis
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-20-2011, 03:24 PM:
Louis I don't know that they wont offer them but it my understanding that you will have to pay for the print outside the income flow. I may be all wet but I believe you will have to buy your $1500 - $2300 which still isn't yours and nothing you pay counts toward your percent. Is that basically what happened to 70MM?
Then again I have heard here on the forums that 2013 is when it all ends. I believe that it was a post by Brad but I could be all wet on that.
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 04-20-2011, 05:03 PM:
Just like when we were told that the "new" Star Wars would only play on digital screens, that din't happen. If the studios need to provide film prints, in order for their movies to show, THEY WILL. Don't forget, it is all about GREED.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-20-2011, 09:37 PM:
quote: Ron Funderburg
you will have to buy your $1500 - $2300
You kiddin! Print cost will sky rocket since the labs will be going from making 3,000 prints to perhaps a few hundred of a title to making none in very fast order. Technicolor did not renew their film lab lease for very logical reasons. Prints could cost more like 3 to 5 grand each in small quantities and any decent operating lab would consider a few hundred print order to be trivial. Few if any theaters can even afford to pay $1500.00 to have a print made let along 3 to 5K to run for just for a couple or three weeks. Financing at today's uber low interest rates for 5 to 7 years is the best bet for the small operator. One customer of mine is getting one system and financing it with his local bank. Say a single system is 70K theoretically. He's putting 10K down and his payments should be about $1000.00 a month for 5 years. NOw any decent operating theater can afford that! What you will see as a result of the conversion is shoe string operations disappear. The theater operator can either amortize the equipment off or he could also try to recoup that money spent via VPF's if he wants to try to...
What I find all the more incredible is there are still many very experienced technicians and long time theater owners that are all blind to this conversion that is now happenning or that assume they can stick theor nose up at converting. They will be sorry sooner than later. The Big three are at about 50% conversion now!
@ Bruce... Yep! It IS all about greed but the studios could care less about the small operators and if they have anyting to play at all. It is that greed that has brought about the decline in print quality and digital because the studio can drastically lower distribution costs and posket more $$$$....
Mark
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-20-2011, 09:45 PM:
quote: Bruce Hansen
If the studios need to provide film prints, in order for their movies to show, THEY WILL.
Not if the only outlets for film prints are small theatres. Once the chains are all converted, the studios will just stop making prints. Why shouldn't they? We already know they don't care about the prospect of losing anywhere from 5% to 20% of the boxoffice from the VOD scheme. 20% would be far more than they get from all the small operators in the country.
This is going to be similar to the silent-to-sound conversion. There were probably a few silent hold-outs, but eventually the studios said "Sorry guys, we're not making silent movies any more."
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-20-2011, 09:54 PM:
All of this is true., but. . . when.
For the moment, it is cheaper to continue making prints and using existing equipment.
Absolutely NOTHING precludes you buying the Digital (or whatever replaces it) later when the prints become unavailable or are prohibitive. It is delusional to think that anyone will refuse to sell you a digital system later "the train is leaving the station. . .".
Equally delusional is to actually expect someone to buy your projector for you. (vpf) Remember, our tax code pays over 50% of ANY capitol expense as it has for many years. Louis
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-20-2011, 10:14 PM:
Reality check:
Last I heard, the ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif)
installation rate was about 1000 screens/month in the US. At the current rate, and assuming that everyone has decided to install and has arranged financing and is ready to do the installation, it will take a minimum of 16-20 months to add DCI capability for every US screen.
But, wait--the first batch of installations was mostly done in recently built multiplexes. The second batch of installations will be done in many older theatres in more rural areas with fewer screens per location. Many of these locations will need upgrades (sound, electrical, new portholes, etc.) before can be installed. And many of these locations are run by people who do not want or cannot afford (or who, at least, will drag their feet before committing).
Given this, I just can't see 35mm going away for mainstream distribution of new releases by 2013. (Feel free to correct my numbers above, but they aren't far off.)
Has any film distributor actually stated an intention to stop providing 35mm prints by some specific date, or is all of this hand-waving just based on conjecture and veiled threats?
And what about filmmakers who actually want their work to be exhibited on film?
Posted by Steven J Hart (Member # 2340) on 04-20-2011, 10:58 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
He's putting 10K down and his payments should be about $1000.00 a month for 5 years. NOw any decent operating theater can afford that! What you will see as a result of the conversion is shoe string operations disappear.
I would like to think the "historic small town single screen" theater I operate is decent, BUT... by the time we pay the expenses, we only have a couple thousand bucks profit every year. All of this gets put back into upkeep of the building and minor upgrades to the booth and concession areas. We can't afford $1000/month payments. (Or any payments for that matter - thank God we're debt free)
I guess our options are:
1. Community Fundraising.
or
2. Eventually closing (when we can no longer get prints)
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-21-2011, 01:44 AM:
There is another flaw in the digital conversion plan...as Louis pointed out, the vast majority are being done with a VPF deal. The studios have said that they won't be putting any new theatres on the VPF plan if they are not 100% converted by the end of 2012...that will be the "line in the sand."
If they don't extend that deal, the "rollout" is going to roll into a ditch at closer to the 60% mark (USA)...with 40% remaining film and no practical means to switch (nor any real financial one). At the end of the day, digital projection isn't selling any more tickets (if anything, one could show that fewer tickets are being sold since digital has begun rolling out...I don't attribute that to digital, just crappy movies and a poor economy).
And remember...these VPF deals get these first steps into digital going. What about new-builds in a couple of years? Exhibitors are going to have to foot the expense of a MUCH more expensive booth. How about in 10-years, when the parts for these machines start to become obsolete/unavailable...now you will have to buy the replacement on your own.
Has anyone noticed that the price of digital projectors didn't come down in 2011 as it has in every previous year? Large scale projection is such a small market, there is not real economy of scale to force substantial price reductions. Now the server side of things I've seen price reductions since they get to ride on the coat-tails of the computing industry.
The other train-wreck in the making is what the projector industry does once the conversion thing is over and they need to survive on the traditional 3000 or so units WORLD WIDE that will be sold per year to deal with new theatres and replacing obsolete equipment. Equipment will almost have to rise in price as these companies are only making money on projectors now that they are making them by the hundreds/month. Once those are down to the 10s/month life will not be so sweet.
This industry is jumping into a swimming pool and hasn't really measured just how deep the water is first to know how it is going to land.
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 04-21-2011, 07:53 AM:
quote: Ron Funderburg
you will have to buy your $1500 - $2300
Print costs are an interesting topic on there own, several years ago I was talking to an independant film maker about why he chose to do his lab work in Taiwan and not Australia. It was because it came in so cheap, the neg and 2 prints came in at ONLY $40 000! They still could not afford a 3rd print. From what I remember it was shot on super 16 with a digital intermediate. The production values and on screen results were very good.
It's definitly one scale for big hollywood productions and huge print runs but it is a completly different world for small print runs.
I believe that a typical roll of 1000 ft 35mm neg processing now costs $1000 including stock. They have dropped the price to compete with digital production. I doubt that there would be work prints.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-21-2011, 08:09 AM:
$40k wasn't the cost for the print, it was the cost for the blowup plus two prints. The blowup was probably $35k and the prints were probably $2500 each. Or thereabouts. It would have been interesting to find out what it would have cost to have the negative scanned and a DCI master made; it would probably have been at least that much.
One more data point: Technicolor 3D requires a 2-year contract for theatres that sign up for that service. So, a theatre signing up now would be guaranteed prints at least through April of 2013.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-21-2011, 09:49 AM:
Incorrect Scott, there are already independent theaters that bought into T3D and are being told that they cannot play various movies if they do not play them in digital 3D. We are currently speaking with one such person.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 04-21-2011, 09:54 AM:
quote: Scott Norwood
One more data point: Technicolor 3D requires a 2-year contract for theatres that sign up for that service. So, a theatre signing up now would be guaranteed prints at least through April of 2013.
Does signing up for the service actually guarantee that you continue receiving prints? And if so, how often does it guarantee them since not all 3D movies are released via Technicolor?
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-21-2011, 10:29 AM:
There is a "deal" with DeLuxe. If it is available on 35mm/3D, you are guaranteed a print IF you are qualified to book such a print anyway in 2D. Louis
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-21-2011, 11:16 AM:
quote: Scott Norwood
And what about filmmakers who actually want their work to be exhibited on film?
I predict they will carry about the same amount of weight as they do with the VOD thing.
quote: Steven J Hart
We can't afford $1000/month payments. (Or any payments for that matter - thank God we're debt free)
Steve - how are your prices? There is a theatre here in Montana that's charging $3.00 (!) for recent-run movies, plus they're only open weekends. They'll never be able to convert doing that.
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 04-21-2011, 12:03 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
There is a theatre here in Montana that's charging $3.00 (!) for recent-run movies, plus they're only open weekends. They'll never be able to convert doing that.
Here in Bakersfield a sixplex discount house recently went all-digital (4 with Real D XL systems, rewired for full 5.1 channel sound in all auditoriums, fixed masking and reseated, yet their admission is pretty low ($1.00 before 6pm, $1.50 after 6pm, 75 cents all day Tuesday, $2 upcharge for 3-D). Because their 35mm presentation was CRAP, there has been a major upgrade in presentation quality.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-21-2011, 12:26 PM:
Bakersfield is a fairly big city. The discount six-plex there might have high enough attendance and concessions business to justify the conversion to digital and addition of RealD on 4 screens. Does this multiplex have daytime and evening shows everyday?
A lot of theaters in really small towns don't have nearly as many showtimes as theaters in larger towns or cities. Gotta have enough customer traffic to generate the cash flow needed for a digital conversion.
The Vaska bargain theater here in Lawton typically plays two different movies per evening with one showing for each. Matinée shows typically only take place on the weekends. I don't know what the theater clears in profit but I imagine it probably isn't remotely enough for a digital conversion. There's been occasional rumor over the years about a 5.1 digital sound upgrade but that hasn't happened. I think the theater could be seriously hurt by Hollywood studios' VOD plan. Eliminating 35mm prints in 2013 would likely equal the Vaska closing that same year.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 04-21-2011, 12:30 PM:
Yes, but Bakersfield is also significantly larger than every city in Montana. The theater Mike's referring to is simply going to have a much smaller base of potential customers to begin with.
The Bakersfield theater can do it simply because they have enough foot-traffic to make up for all those costs even at the low admission. A theater in Montana wouldn't be so lucky.
edit: Beaten to the punch.
And yes, lots of smaller town theaters usually don't run as many shows. I recall relatives being surprised I had been working weekdays at the theater since they only had matinees on the weekends ever (except maybe summer).
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-21-2011, 04:56 PM:
quote: Brad Miller
Incorrect Scott, there are already independent theaters that bought into T3D and are being told that they cannot play various movies if they do not play them in digital 3D. We are currently speaking with one such person.
Ditto here on that one. And it first happened to me at a really slow tiny 6 screen operation I service in Nevada. The IS another theater in this town that has one digital system and as a result Disney told my customer no more content at all untill you can play it in digital and or 3-D digital. Hence, I am adding 3-D digital screens and equipment as fast as I can get it and install it. I just sent in another P.O. today for three systems at two locations and there will be another 18 systems going in after that at three locations. So if you have competition in your town you may very well be cut off from a couple of studios unless you have digital. Another interesting factoid is that these three digital systems are going in on Technicolor 3-Dee equipped screens... Right now it's lookin like Paramount is no longer interested in supporting the T3-D system or they'd be offing up 3-Dee prints of Thor to these sites. Disney never would support it even though the installed base of theaters is just shy of 500... My point of view on this is that I could care less if I install/service film systems or digital systems. I have to accomodate my customers needs and those needs are digital at the moment.
quote: Louis Bornwasser
There is a "deal" with DeLuxe. If it is available on 35mm/3D, you are guaranteed a print IF you are qualified to book such a print anyway in 2D.
@ Louis:
It isn't up to the lab what the theater gets to show... it's totally up to distribution. If there is a digital projector in your town or if you already have one then they are going to have it playing on that digital projector no matter what, where or who. It's becomming very obvious that even the studios do not want to deal with film prints any longer...
Mark
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-21-2011, 06:43 PM:
quote: Chris Slycord
Bakersfield is also significantly larger than every city in Montana.
Yeah, Bakersfield is about triple the size of Billings, the biggest city in Montana....yet it's still considered a small town!
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-21-2011, 08:05 PM:
Mark said "Disney told my customer no more content at all untill you can play it in digital "
i dont think they would try that here that is restraint of trade
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-21-2011, 08:16 PM:
Mark: Once the booking is made, IF 35mm3d is available, it is guaranteed that the theatre will get one if you are a Tech 3D subscriber. Louis
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-21-2011, 08:36 PM:
Well there you go...."once the booking is made."
Our booker just last month was telling me that one prominent VOD-supporting film company had promised him 14 film prints of some title on a Friday, and on the following Monday only 6 of those prints were available. (Digital prints were available though.) So...those bookings never got made. No print = no booking.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-21-2011, 10:22 PM:
Louis.... The problem here is they already know you have a digital system in X, Y, X and A complex's for the last several yers and they are refusing to book anything BUT DIGITAL. Do you really think any company would spend 200 grand just to run content on a few screens if they were assured they could get T3-D prints for systems they already have? Of course not! Perhaps this is just a problem with high grossing locations which these are but on the other hand It's beginning to look like at least Paramount does not want to support T3D any longer or film for that matter. If a complex has one digital system Paramount is demanding that Thor play on that system, if you can't do that they will tell you to go F.O. and play nothing. Disney of course never did jump on board T3-D for what ever reason... Those single Digital 3-D systems will still be tied up running Thor and they wouldn't be able to run Pirates which we all know is going to be huge. Disney WILL NOT give a site that has just one digital system a 35mm film print period. They insist that their major product be run in digital. They also want that 3-D digital system for Pirates that is tied up with Thor...
I do not dislike T3-D at all, it's superior in many ways to digital... these studios apparently just don't want to be bothered with film or there is a fued going on between Paramount and Disney... although pretty unlikely I think. It is also obvious that the studios are undergoing an attack of digitalmania at the moment and what they want is what they get or you get nothing at all.
BTW: All of my customers have raised their prices just slightly... .50 to .75 to help offset the cost of digital projection. Smaller theater owners may have to do the same thing in order to equip. That small increase will pay for a majority of the equipment over a ten year period.
Mark
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-21-2011, 11:35 PM:
I just noticed in the Feature Info & Trailers forum that the 3D DCP of Thor is only 95GB in size. Why is it so small? It has double the frames of a normal 2D DCP. A 2D extraction would be down to the size of some Blu-ray encodes. For instance Saving Private Ryan on Blu-ray consumes the entire first 50GB disc and all the bonus features are on the 2nd disc. The same goes for Minority Report.
WB already has a history of distributing DCPs much smaller in size than those from other studios. This makes me wonder if the movie studios are quietly pushing to get rid of JPEG2000 and just deliver Blu-ray discs to theaters. Or they're looking to do away with shipping hard drives, beam all the movies by satellite and compress the hell out of the movies to save money on satellite transmission bandwidth.
Posted by Steven J Hart (Member # 2340) on 04-22-2011, 12:34 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Steve - how are your prices? There is a theatre here in Montana that's charging $3.00 (!) for recent-run movies, plus they're only open weekends. They'll never be able to convert doing that.
We charge $6 for adults and $4 for under age 13.
According to the 2010 census we LOST 728 people in our County in the last 10 years. That does not sound like so much until you hear about the percentage. It's about a 17% DECREASE in population over ten years. Mind you, the town we are located in only lost about 5% population. Our nearest competition is an hour's drive away (AND a nasty Carmike 3-plex). The people here still want to go to the movies, it's just that there are fewer of them. Our Grosses have not gone down significantly in the last ten years. (certainly not 17%!). I know we are just a tiny little theater, but we still want to show movies! (and the folks still living here want to see them!)
Steve
Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 04-22-2011, 01:07 AM:
Tech 3d: I have spoken to my Paramount rep about Thor and Panda 2 in film 3d. What he is hoping from me is 3 weeks 3d then switch to 2d film when Panda 2 opens up. With the huge 3d line-up this summer, most studios will take whatever they can get. I will be shocked if any Tech 3d studio turns down a location.
Since Technicolor makes $1200-$2000 per movie booked using their system, they have some reasons to insure that those prints get made IMHO. Another reason to expect 2 more years of film 3d prints.
Who cares about the number of screens that get converted nationally. The important number, is how many chains are being converted? Name me any chain that averages at least $80,000 per screen in ticket sales (that should be the top 2800 or so locations that play mostly mainstream movies) that has NOT announced 100% digital conversion plans.
That conversion might take longer than September 2012, but as long as significant progress is made; the studios I expect will be patient.
Also keep in mind that for most mainstream movies, the top 2800 locations (where probably 90% have plans in place to convert) account for 95%+ of ticket sales.
Why would anyone expect any decrease in pricing on digital equipment with such a high built-in demand for conversion (and to a large degree the studio vpf's)? Now prices should drop in a couple of years after all of the chains have converted since there will be a large supply mechanism in place. How much might prices drop???
Also, $1000 per screen per month is a big deal for probably 800-1000 locations otherwise we all would be converting right now! It is to me.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-22-2011, 05:48 AM:
As to having to play such-and-such a title on the single 3D digital projector...that is not new news. One of my small-time customers has a digital 3D screen in each of his complexes...as Mark said...once that was known to the studios...in order to book a title, some studios on certain titles demanded that screen and NO film would be made available. Had he not put in the single digital projector, he could have had the film print! And this was over a year ago!
It will be moot very soon...he will be converting 100% digital in just a couple of weeks.
On the Tech-3D front...their prices are even lower...I believe $900/month is the current low-price.
-Steve
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-22-2011, 08:36 AM:
So not only are the studios flippant about the burden convertion places on the exhibitor, but now they PUNISH the guy who does a conversion for not converting ALL his screens? WTF? Seems to me not giving him film for his other screens because he converted one or two is certainly a restraint of trade issue. He should persue it. Not only are these SOBs basically telling him that they demand he convert ALL his screens, not just one or two, but the are actively hurting him finantially for converting what he has. Do they dare do this with chains that have plexes which are not fully converted? And where is the deaf dumb and blind NATO on issues like this, other that banging their "you'd better or you will be sorry" drum?
And not for nuthin, but there was a very precise and important question that Louis asked here that has been opined to death but not answered -- quote: Louis Bornwasser
Has ANYONE got a definite quote (from anyone other than John Fithian) quoting a date that a particular studio will no longer offer 35mm?
And yes, other than Mr. John The-Sky-Is-Falling,-Oh-My Fithian who was clucking like a scared chicken that we were going to wake up and read about the end of print availability in next morning's paper for about 10 years now, -- what other RELIABLE STUDIO source has suggested they will end film distribution in 2013 or 15 or any other date? The studios certainly are vocal enough about their other idotic plans like VOD and shrinking vid-windows. If they and a date-certain on the end of 35mm print availability, where are they up front about it?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-22-2011, 09:41 AM:
Steve... Even 900.00 a month isn't a good deal unless they will give you prints. One customer of mine read the contract and says the lens can sit in his booth in it's case because he's on the 2K per feature pay to play plan and if he can't play he won't pay.
Mark
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-22-2011, 09:51 AM:
quote:
Mr. John The-Sky-Is-Falling,-Oh-My Fithian who was clucking like a scared chicken that we were going to wake up and read about the end of print availability in next morning's paper for about 10 years now,
To be fair, this year is the first time I can remember Fithian actually giving a possible year for end-of-film (2013). And even then he says it's "our best guess." What he's been saying for years is that "the day is coming when film won't be available any more."
NATO has always said they can't get into specific negotiations between film companies and exhibition. That's up to the companies involved. But it tends to ham-string NATO as to what they can actually get done.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 04-22-2011, 10:34 AM:
I can sympathize with smaller operations that are having a hard time dealing with the cost of the conversion to digital. I would imagine that facing such a cost must seem insurmountable if they are running on a shoestring budget to begin with.
However, the situation reminds me of the advice that I got when I was looking into going out on my own full-time. The advice was to never plan on running a real business on a shoestring. It's one thing to scrape by, especially in the beginning, but cutting things too close on the budget forces you to make decisions that you wouldn't otherwise make (that are not good business decisions, just survival tactics) and one unexpected major event could derail your entire business.
The digital conversion is a major event, but it could just as easily be a roof cave-in, an electrical malfunction requiring major repairs, etc. Every few months, there are stories in the news about some small historic theater that finally had to close because they weren't making a go of it, and everyone in town bemoans its closure, and some even try to organize an effort to "Save the Theater"
Except for the introduction of sound, or maybe when movie theaters had to convert from Academy Ratio to Flat and Scope-sized screens, I can't think of any other time when such a major investment was required.
But isn't that how the cookie crumbles?
A movie theater's only source of product is changing how they are going to deliver that product. The old way of doing things won't be gone tomorrow or the next day, but it shouldn't surprise anyone that the pressure is being applied now and soon that pressure will turn into scarcity.
If the end cost can be in the range of the $1,000 per screen per month figure, I don't think that's unreasonable. If a theater can make just $2.50 profit per customer, I'm sure that there has to be ways for an ingenious and motivated theater owner to figure out how to draw in an additional 400 people per month (per-screen) to offset the capital investment necessary in order to stay in business.
In tight-knit communities, it may be worth being transparent about these issues with customers. Explain that the industry is moving towards digital and without doing a conversion, you may not be showing movies for very much longer. Maybe you could find out if people are willing to donate to the cause, or introduce a special concession item that would allow people to show their support that way, or find out if they are willing to accept advertising of some sort to offset those costs.
Basically, proactively stage a "Save the Theater" campaign before the doors have to be locked and the lights turned off.
There's gotta be a way to develop a plan to help small operations overcome the impact of a significant capital expenditure. Maybe a thread here that is dedicated to people talking about what approaches are working and what fell flat? I think it would be good to see some testimonials/case studies from places that have done it. We can host them on our Extranet for easy reference if that helps any (but maybe the "Tips" section in the Warehouse here might be a better place?).
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-22-2011, 10:53 AM:
Technicolor will renegotiate an older $2K/title plan into the $900/month plan, if desired.
As to the $1000/month for digital...for what ends? It doesn't sell any more tickets? that is $1000/month/screen flushed down the toilet.
As to getting more revenue/people in the door...if theatres could, they would be doing it already. As Mike has professed in other threads...it isn't like running a theatre is a trip to the high-life of society.
-Steve
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-22-2011, 12:27 PM:
quote: Frank Angel
So not only are the studios flippant about the burden convertion places on the exhibitor, but now they PUNISH the guy who does a conversion for not converting ALL his screens?
Frank, this isn't much different than Lucas requiring the big screen for his recent Star Wars movies. The studios want what they believe to be the best screen possible. The added "DCI security" also makes them drool.
quote: Steve Guttag
As to the $1000/month for digital...for what ends? It doesn't sell any more tickets? that is $1000/month/screen flushed down the toilet.
Better to flush $1000 down the toilet and run movies digitally than the flush lease to the building down the toilet because a theater owner was too busy talking about how he doesn't see a reason to convert.
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-22-2011, 01:21 PM:
I guess everyone is in agreement that full conversion to Digital is not an if situation but a when. So Brad is dead on you either convert with whatever the charges are or you are not in business at some point. What advantage is there to being the last theater to convert?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-22-2011, 02:19 PM:
Ron, how many independent theaters in rural areas of Southwest Oklahoma have converted to digital projection? I'm not aware of any that have done so.
Carmike converted its theaters in Lawton and Duncan to digital projection a couple years ago. The Central Mall 12 in Lawton converted one of its 12 screens to digital in order to run Avatar in 3D. That was when Dickinson was running the theater. Now this small upstart company, Showplex Cinemas, is running the place and 9 other former Dickinson sites. I don't know enough about Showplex to tell when/if they will convert these theaters to digital projection.
I'm pessimistic on the outlook for the Vaska theater here in Lawton.
The Washita Theater in Cordell is one of only two sites on Oklahoma with THX. The Moore Warren 14 is the other. According to Flixster, they're showing Hop at 4:30pm and 7:00pm. Just two shows, even on the weekend. For a town of 2000 people that's probably not going to generate a lot of cash flow. So I'm wondering if the theater will be able to afford doing a digital conversion. The Palace Theater in Canadian, TX (a town even smaller than Cordell) already did a digital conversion to a Sony 4K system and the theater is THX certified. But I suspect whoever owns that theater may be making a lot of money in something else like the oil business and running the movie theater as an expensive hobby.
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-22-2011, 02:30 PM:
Bobby, Mitchell Theaters is based in in Guymon, OK and all six locations that they own are going digital. Guymon isn't exactly a metro center. Their Garden City location is 100% digital already as is the Newton Kansas location. All 45 screens will digital by June 1st. Most are in Kansas but Liberal, Ark City, and El Dorado are not population Centers.
The people I work for are going digital this year as well and Chickahsa isn't a booming town. I also have been told by the owner of Drive In here they are converting to Digital.
The Drive In in Big Springs, TX is converting to Digital along with about 20 drive ins around the country right now.
I don't know about Showplex Cinemas, it is a bit of challenge for them to be open all the sites they got from Dickenson were under performing locations.
I thought that the theater at Cordell was actually owned by the City of Cordell and leased to an operator? If I'm right then it will be up to the city council on that one going digital.
The theater at Canadian, TX is owned by an estate of some dead oil dude zillionair and leased out to an operator. Not sure the specific's on that deal but yes it is a wealth thing on the owner of the property and sort of an Angel deal for the Operator.
The theater at King Fisher has one of the three screens digital and 3D. There are plans to do the other two auditoriums.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-22-2011, 02:56 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
As to the $1000/month for digital...for what ends? It doesn't sell any more tickets?
Not many projects sell any more tickets. Sure we redecorated the lobby, but nobody says "I go to more movies because they have a nice lobby." But any improvement we make helps people not go to less movies!
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-22-2011, 03:00 PM:
What Mike said! We change carpet's, wall covers or whatever to help keep customers. Yes Digital is expensive will it add to the bottom line, don't know. But one thing is for sure film companies are going to stop footing the bill on film prints at some point.
So Again What Mike said!
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-22-2011, 03:04 PM:
Precisely, Mike...improvements to lobby, concession or even to presentation are mostly to maintain a given level of quality perception rather than be labeled a "dump." Improvements to sound and things like 70mm were indeed, originally, to gain market share, if not from new customer but to take a bigger piece of an existing pie.
Digital cinema does not offer that...just a greater expense.
As to Brad's gloom-n-doom comment...there really is no telling when film will be cut off...sure there is that 2013 date but does anyone one to bet on if film will no longer be available in 2014? Which do you think will be in greater demand in 2014, film or 3D?
-Steve
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-22-2011, 03:14 PM:
Steve I wonder if you are not using Fuzzy logic when you say Digital doesn't add to grosses. The Warren Theater in Moore Oklahoma is all digital. It is the busiest theater in the state and has decimated the surrounding theaters Grosses (actually halved them to decimate it is reduce an enemy by 1/10th and they have certainly done more than that). They tout the all digital so are you sure it is just they are newer, or maybe nicer, or maybe it is all of it including the Digital.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-22-2011, 04:01 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
Digital cinema does not offer that...just a greater expense.
And after it wore off neither did converting to sound... that little foray by the studios cost the average 450 seat theater the equivelent of 100 grand in 1928 for Vitaphone! Thats probably close to a million dollars today. A single digital cinema system doesn't cost 100 grand to install(or at least shouldn't be anywhere near that)! Wide screen and Cinerama SAVED our industry at a time when television had all but killed it off but the newness of that also wore off and eventually 70mm even had little meaning in the distribution world. None of those conversions were cheap in their time either. Even a decent conversion to Cinemascope cost 50 grand back in those days... screen, sound system and lenses... and many cases larger more modern arc lamps and generators. Cinerama... cost back then to convert any major theater had to approach a million dollars. Overall most theaters converted for wide screen and most cinemas today will go digital some how or other. Time for small operators to put on their thinking caps and get to work on how they are going to do it. Explore all the buisness options gents... including putting in some other type of buisness if necessary.
Mark
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 04-22-2011, 04:06 PM:
At least sound,widescreen,Cinema scope and Cinerama were upgrades!
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-22-2011, 04:23 PM:
quote: Steven J Hart
We charge $6 for adults and $4 for under age 13.
Steve - I don't know your population or attendance figures, but I would guess that if you add $1 to your ticket price you would be able to make digital payments and then some -- and you would still be 25¢ less expensive than we are here. We charge $7.25 for adults and $5.25 for kids, and I can tell you that we NEVER get any complaints about our ticket prices. And we have a lower population and a "distressed" economy here, too. (What small town doesn't!)
You might see a little bit of resistance when you first raise prices, but (assuming you have a clean, well-run cinema and you're playing product in a timely way) I'll bet you'll be surprised at how accepting people will be.
There's also the possibility of used equipment -- but I would tread very carefully on that one.
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-22-2011, 04:25 PM:
Doesn't the general public perceive the conversion to Digital as an upgrade? Given the sorry state of much of the projection in the country today isn't prints that won't be scratched a positive thing? Many of the general public don't seem to be able to tell the difference in quality between their DVD at home and the picture on the big screen.
I know the pictures are not as good on digital I can see it but can John Q Public?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-22-2011, 04:32 PM:
quote: Ron Funderburg
The people I work for are going digital this year as well and Chickahsa isn't a booming town.
Is that the company that runs theaters in Altus and Weatherford as well?
Duncan, OK has a small theater downtown that I doubt will go digital.
quote: Ron Funderburg
The Warren Theater in Moore Oklahoma is all digital. It is the busiest theater in the state and has decimated the surrounding theaters Grosses (actually halved them to decimate it is reduce an enemy by 1/10th and they have certainly done more than that).
The Warren location in Moore is getting its attendance from other things besides being "all digital." First off all the theater's nearest competition is arguably a joke. The Hollywood Theaters Spotlight 14 in Norman never impressed me, even when it first opened back in 1997. The former Regal Crossroads Mall site AMC now runs isn't all that great. Crossroads Mall is on the brink of ruin and the surrounding neighborhood is in a state of decline. OTOH, things are booming a few miles to the South in Moore.
The Warren Moore 14 is in a class of its own among theaters in Oklahoma, but it could be better. I am not a fan of 2K projection thrown onto 80' screens. They have to upgrade to 4K as soon as possible. The audio quality there is good (every screen is THX certified, unlike any of Warren's competition in OKC). But it doesn't have the rich, thump the air in your chest dynamic I fondly remember with the GCC Northpark 1-2 in Dallas.
I really have to agree with the others saying digital doesn't add much in the way of increased attendance. Here locally, the Central Mall 12 has better attendance than the Carmike 8. Yet the Carmike 8 is a far better designed, equipped and operated theater. Only 1 of the 12 screens at the Central Mall theater is equipped with digital projection and only 2 are equipped with 5.1 digital sound. The rest are stereo/mono. Plus the mall theater's customer traffic has more in the way of noisy teens, compulsive cell phone users and other distractions. If "digital" had as much marquee value as one would expect many would just avoid the mall theater. But they keep going there because it's in the mall.
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-22-2011, 04:42 PM:
Bobby Yes it is the group that has Weatherford and Altus. I don't make comments about either other location I don't run them and while my feet aren't that big they don't fit in my mouth well.
It isn't just Crossroads and Star 14 that have been hurt by Moore. Every one of the theaters in the area took big hits the first year. Most didn't get their grosses back to where there were. The first year Warren was open my grosses went down but I have rebounded. I have actually had record attendance years the last two years.
I run a small poorly designed theater that is a bit of the budget 70's type. We have done what we can to minimize that we also work on having good relationships in the community.
I to find the sound wimpy at the Warren, that is when I can afford a ticket, which isn't often there. I think it is the total package at Moore a date destination.
I haven't been in one of the larger theaters over at the Warren 2K shouldn't be on larger screens but I know that they are all 2K. The drive in here is looking at 2K and think that will be a mistake. But it is there mistake to make!
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 04-22-2011, 05:33 PM:
quote: Ron Funderburg
Doesn't the general public perceive the conversion to Digital as an upgrade? Given the sorry state of much of the projection in the country today isn't prints that won't be scratched a positive thing? Many of the general public don't seem to be able to tell the difference in quality between their DVD at home and the picture on the big screen.
I know the pictures are not as good on digital I can see it but can John Q Public?
In most situations around here, changing to Digital Cinema is a net boost in image quality. The film presentations aren't awful to the point of being unacceptable, but they are nowhere near what they should be in order to be held up as some sort of high-water mark that Digital Cinema could only hope to achieve!
I consider myself better than average when it comes to pickiness about picture and sound quality, and if given the choice, I'll see a Digital Cinema presentation over film around here any day.
The most noticeable improvement in my book is the steadiness of the image, followed by the absence of scratches and dust and dirt. A majority of my movie watching is using a JVC LCoS projector, so when the image is jumping around in a theater, it's very annoying. If these film projectors are so amazing, why can't theaters seem to keep the image coming out of them steady?
Maybe if I looked at film presentations done right on a daily basis, I could see the supposed problems that Digital Cinema has, but no one outside the theater business does that. The moviegoing public does a majority of their viewing at home, so if the picture and sound quality is better than that, who's going to complain?
That's the reference people have, and there's no reason a theater shouldn't be able to do much better than that, but when there's jump, weave, dust, and dirt, the theatrical picture quality is less than the home experience.
Digital Cinema is then an improvement for people, so if they notice that improvement (even if only on a subliminal level), that's great customer satisfaction, which should result in increased business.
A smart business person would take the marketing opportunity to advertise their digital conversion, tout its benefits so that people realize that a change has been made to improve their experience. Just hearing that you are making improvements will also garner some additional customer satisfaction and perhaps create some additional word of mouth. All things which should improve business, even if only slightly.
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-22-2011, 05:40 PM:
Scott very good points and I agree 100%
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-23-2011, 07:49 AM:
Scott, on the technical side...the majority of the bad aspects of what you described can be traced to the lab work and what most of us here have been called the "dumbing down of film."
Scratches and most of the dust/dirt are indeed theatre related problems.
I, personally, don't believe that the audience (in any significant numbers) seek out digital presentations from film ones (or vice-versa). As such, it isn't an improvement that generates money for anyone...it does save the studios money.
In comparison to what Mark G brought up...there is a difference...when sound came out, it was all the rage and then it became expected and hence "normal." With CinemaScope and other widescreen processes...similar results. 70mm NEVER lost its mystique. That was a failing of the studios to think of it as just an improvement to the sound. They squandered those potential benefits as 70mm theatres have always outdrawn 35mm ones showing the same film in the same market. 70mm also often gave a credibility to a film even if wrongly so.
As for digital sound...when it came out it did give the audience an experience, sound wise, they only could experience with 70mm...which is to say a small percentage of the movie going public (70mm was mostly in larger areas)...digital gave better sound (potentially) to the masses (as Manny has touted in other threads). However, like with SVA before it, digital sound is now expected and is normal...nothing to boast about and to not have it is something to be ashamed about.
Digital projection? There is nothing really to boast about...if you were a competent exhibitor, you didn't have scratch/dirt problems so if digital is an improvement, it is an admission of failure. It does not nor should not create an improvement. Technically, the audience, by and large, already thought this industry was playing the movies off of a digital disc for about a decade (if you have be listening to what the general populace has been saying...ever have a no-theatrical person in your booth...their eyes get big when they see film equipment and a disbelief that it was being done that way).
The generation growing up now and are becoming the prime movie going public has never held a piece of film in their hands or loaded a film camera...there is no concept of it. They already think we are digital so the switch is not really news. I don't know how they have written off the scratches in the past...then again, I don't know how people sit through out-of-focus images and otherwise nasty presentations...but they do...en-mass.
-Steve
Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 04-23-2011, 09:45 AM:
For me, it is all about how to pay for the equipment. In no way am I keeping my head buried in the sand. At a $1000 a month per screen,. I would need a 27% increase in total sales to be in the same position that I am in now.
You say raise prices. Well B&B Theaters in my area has recently REDUCED child ticket prices to $5. My main competitor is not much higher than me for most tickets. A raise of ticket prices by $1 across the board would put me higher on some ticket classes.
There are numerous single screen theaters in my area with total revenues of $50,000 per year. That $1000 per month is 24% of their revenues. Many of these are nice theaters that are not on any shoe-string budget. They are just in small markets.
So you may say that the future exhibitor needs to have some decent wealth. I see no way, that we will not see 500+ theaters close up nationally unless some sort of community spirit steps in.
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-23-2011, 12:35 PM:
Mike I agree that many of the small town operations are in danger of going away due to the digital conversion. Digital conversion is going to happen for one reason it was pointed out by Steve, the film company will save money, big money. They own the product they determine how the product is delivered both via shipping and what format.
If small community theaters can get some kind of community help in doing the conversion then more power to them. I have no wish to see small time operators disappear but digital is coming at some point the film option will no longer be available.
I have never said Digital is better than film, it is inferior. Customers see a bad lap print or a film cycled in from another theater with scratches and dirt I’m guy they come to. The quality of film presentation has reduced dramatically over the last10 to 15 years, and it doesn’t matter if it is the lab or the film hander the result is the same. The customer doesn’t care if it is the lab, the guy before us, or us, we are the ones they blame. If digital reduces that issue then all the better from my point of view.
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 04-23-2011, 12:54 PM:
quote: Ron Funderburg
Doesn't the general public perceive the conversion to Digital as an upgrade? Given the sorry state of much of the projection in the country today isn't prints that won't be scratched a positive thing?
Depends entirely on what your background is and what you're sensitive to.
How many of us know, or can tell whether acoustics in an opera house are "perfect" (whatever that is)? If you're listening to a pipe organ in a performance venue, as opposed to a church here or a theatre there, Who's to say which organ, or what brand, sounds most like what an organ should? Do the radios in any two vehicles sound the same? What's the standard?
People are used to the fact that the sound (or visual) quality of playback equipment varies from place to place to place. We have references, so we can get things as close to the ballpark as the rooms and technology will allow, but I suspect very few of us are good enough to exactly duplicate results from room to room to room. If you are, raise your prices... you're probably not charging enough.
People come to my drive-in and comment about my picture and sound quality all the time. Still, I'm under no illusion about whether jamming all of my sound channels through a mixer, processing it & sending it out on FM results in a product that matches "what the producer intended"... nor do I argue that blowing up a 35mm frame onto an 86-foot-wide screen results in the kind of image quality that you'd get on a 30 foot indoor... but it's pretty darn good, comparatively speaking.
So... my feeling about the lack of public recognition for digital is that it's much like the disappointment many owners felt when they installed digital sound, and few noticed. If your original system was crap to begin with, it probably was a huge improvement. For those of us with Dolby, correct processing and well-equalized auditoriums... maybe not so much so.
Frankly, I doubt digital will put one extra car in my fields that I wouldn't have had with film. It's a survival move, which is what makes it frustrating for me. Gotta do it... or close.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-23-2011, 01:11 PM:
quote:
At least sound,widescreen,Cinema scope and Cinerama were upgrades!
They were until they either became the expected norm or they fizzled out all together. Although the studios thinking of 70mm as an outlet for sound is partly true I still insist that even 70mm itself fizzled out all on it's own. Perhaps helped along by the still relatively small number of cameras available to do a majhor production and the uber increased cost in shooting. Even Hitchcock was chastized for shooting in VistaVision because it added about two hundred grand to the cost of North By North West's budget. Two Hundred grand was a ton of money in 1957! Except for a small niche of people most just don't care and the typical 35 to 70mm blow up never even came close to showing off the true virtues of what 70mm can really do. I'm willing to wager that today about 85%+ of the typical moving going public has never seen a photographed in 65mm projected in 70mm film. Even used 65mm cameras are now going for a pittance on Ebay compared to what they were worth just 3 or 4 years ago.... ditto for VistaVision cameras. A 50 grand used large format camera is a 10 to 15 grand camera today...
@ Mike... You are right about used gear. The studios no longer support new installations of Series 1 gear anywhere on the globe that I am aware of. A movie chain that has Series 1 can move that equipment around within that chain but thats about it. So unless you can find a used series 2 system don't bother buying it.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-23-2011, 01:25 PM:
A series 1 projector is indeed supported...I'm putting one back on line very soon...it will be in a VPF deal...its only requirement on the installation was a GORE board update...not horribly expensive and it makes it HDCP compliant to boot (will be a type-5 board).
That said, the bloom is really off of the series 1s...I would not pay a lot for one as they will get a pro-rated status on a VPF deal and you may also have some updates (plus the lens may be wrong for your theatre).
It is a sad state though...that something that cost so much that works just as well as when it was new...that is indistinguishable from a current projector from the auditorium, is considered so out of date, so fast. People should remember this when it comes to just how expensive DCinema really is. The secondary market for the stuff is almost nill and the cost of keeping up is so high.
As to the studios delivering on the format they want...it is all about the percentages...there will be a tipping point when they can force the issue...the big chains alone can not do it, however. The studios are not going to throw away 50% or 40% or even 30% of their revenue over it.
-Steve
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-23-2011, 04:16 PM:
Steve,
Thats not what one of my customers was told by a number of the studios!! They were told that the studios would only support a previously purchased and installed series one projector that remains within the same theater's chain. Uninstalling it and moving it is not an issue but not too long ago most of the manufacturers still had some new series one stock left on hand and they couldn't give it away because of the studios rule. I believe that was effective this past January 1... I am also installing Gore boards in 4 Series one Christies over the next few weeks for a VPF deal. Man, what a load of crap! You have to log on to the projector just figure out what board you need to order!!! Certain Series one Christies and some other Series one brands will not even be supported by the Gore update...
Mark
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-23-2011, 05:04 PM:
Stupid question: are lenses for DLP projectors standardized? In other words, can a lens from a Christie be used in a Barco (and vice-versa)? What about Sony?
When it comes time to upgrade a projector, will theatre owners need a new lens as well?
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-23-2011, 05:12 PM:
Technically, Christie went with the "Glue cable" route but it has the same effect...the critical board is wrapped in a tamper-proof package.
Christie is also doing another thing differently...they are taking an "RX" approach, by and large. If you have a type-2, then that is what they are going to try and send you with the glue-cable mod...likewise all of the way out to type 4s. That is why you have to find out what type of board you have, first. Note, they have an option to just upgrade to a type-5 outright...a good idea since it will give you HDCP support too.
Barco, on the other hand, has taken the approach that ALL series 1 projectors will upgrade to type-5 boards so even a DP100 will become HDCP compliant (though one may need an additional modification if it is old enough).
The STUPIDEST thing about these updates is the battery cable. Since the board will commit suicide if left un-powered for 6-months or more, they have to sit on a charging rack until sold...as such they attach (permanently) a set of battery cables...the Battery cable should have been plug in, at the very least so the cables need not ship with the board. The problem with the cables is that one has to carefully route them and ensure that they don't put pressure on the covering of the board least that pressure kills the board.
-Steve
Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 04-24-2011, 12:52 PM:
There is a guy posting on another theater forum saying that he is able to get banks to accept 20% increases when a theater converts to digital. I happen to believe that the increase most likely comes from having 3d and the corresponding 3d up charges. Since I have been 3d on some titles with Technicolor, I might see a 7-8% increase if I was able to play all studios movies in 3d
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-24-2011, 02:14 PM:
I believe that 20% is certainly legitimate in this area. In many cases in this area the increase is more like 30 to 50%. But that does not hold true in all areas... seems like "captive areas" see the highest increases. Areas with many 3-D installations are going to have a much longer paybvack time on the equipment. One customer paid off his equipment in 8 months just from the increased revenues!!! Another reported that the payback on 4 systems at 4 locations was ~15 months...
Mark
Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 04-24-2011, 05:50 PM:
Mark,
So why do not hear more about these stories? So you know of a operator who paid off all of his digital costs (100% for all screens) in 8 mos.?
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-25-2011, 04:04 PM:
quote: Scott Jentsch
If these film projectors are so amazing, why can't theaters seem to keep the image coming out of them steady?
It's not always the theatre. I can have the image bouncing around like mad on screen yet pull out the plate and the sprockets are steady as a rock.
Lab work today just sucks.
Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 04-25-2011, 05:27 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
One customer paid off his equipment in 8 months just from the increased revenues!!! Another reported that the payback on 4 systems at 4 locations was ~15 months...
Mark,
Are you talking about just a single room with 3d or entire complexes?
For a $70,000 upgrade to pay itself off in 1 year the theater would have to sell 112,000 tickets or revenue of (average ticket of $9) of $1,080,000. At that the theater (if using Real 3d and charging a $2.50 3d upgrade) would be keeping $.625 of that charge. ($2.50 - 55% to studio - $.50 to Real).
I can agree that the theater might of lost 20% of tickets sold if there is another 3d screen nearby.
Needless to say that this is not a small revenue location at $1m ticket sales in one room. This is a fairly significant location easily top 1000 probably top 500 if not better.
Unless I am missing something here.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-25-2011, 07:26 PM:
Indeed the sites I speak of are extremely busy sites here in Utah. believe that the total ticket sales for this chain is right around 4 million tickets a year. And no, this was just for 4 systems...
Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 04-29-2011, 05:11 PM:
Is $65-70K a reasonable guess for a single screen conversion that would need no construction work?
100' throw
33' wide scope screen.
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-29-2011, 06:21 PM:
it is reasonable weather it is accurate or not is something only someone bidding on it can tell you.
Posted by Bajsic Bojan (Member # 4928) on 04-29-2011, 06:31 PM:
if that was a case here,i'd be ordering 2 for our single screener ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
that sized screen and cheapest acceptable pj would be 70k Eur (cca 100k USD) around here.
no 3d of course.
Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 04-29-2011, 06:37 PM:
I should have worded that differently, is the $65 to 75k quoted in a few posts in this thread reasonably accurate?
We have had a hard time getting the ear of our current tech that does digital installs, with unanswered emails etc., and the other tech I spoke with does not do digital anything for some reason.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-29-2011, 08:08 PM:
Adam - that's in the neighborhood of what ours cost a year ago, and we are fairly close in specs to you. (93' throw, 30' screen) The only construction we needed was a port window and a base to raise up the projector about 10" off the floor. The biggest "extra" cost here was the electrical.
Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 04-29-2011, 09:16 PM:
Thanks Mike, just what I was looking for.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 04-30-2011, 12:01 PM:
but do all studios, specifically the smaller indie ones, that release independent and foreign films release their product 'digitally'??
Case in point, Landmark once stated they'd be doing a nationwide installation of Sony 4K units, yet as far as I know there's only one at E Street (DC) and none at their Bethesda location - all the films at Bethesda have (and always) been 35mm.
What happens during film festivals? I perceive and note that the films at various Washington DC film festivals are pretty much 35mm. (AFI's Silverdocs seems to be the exception, where it swings more to digital projection)
if the industry wants to think everyone's on the same page on digital conversion .... uh? I really beg to differ.
Even though the major chains, specifically AMC has begun a more aggressive conversion, it's still a guessing game on when and which theaters get new DP units - Tysons is half way done. My neighbourhood Mazza theater, four of the seven auditoriums are digital but the two largest screens (and one smaller auditorium)are not ... ?!? I asked the general manager why that was the case, one was the fact FilmFest had booked Mazza as a festival venue, screens 1 and 4 (and 3) can only playback 35mm - he also noted the screen size of 1 is another factor - my retort 'well, if the huge Uptown screen has a Christie DLP unit, then screen 1 can', he agreed and said that will probably be the outcome.
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 04-30-2011, 03:02 PM:
The major studios will determine the length of time that film is available not the independents. Independent films makers contribution to film prints is insignificant and the prints will get horrible expensive when those are the only prints made. They will go digital at that point.
Posted by Bajsic Bojan (Member # 4928) on 04-30-2011, 03:04 PM:
most indie films in festivals here already come on 'digital' as in there is more dcp, digibeta and hdcam then 35mm.
the cost for indies to get a DCP off of an HDCAM is also increasingly smaller than getting a blowup to 35mm and having an extra (one!) festival print. ever wondered how many festivals in the past year for instance rent 5+ HDCAM decks for periods of two weeks, not to mention extra fullHd projectors, extra staff... getting 35mm for film festivals as the "extra" is and will be cheaper, and theres going to be less and less...
lots of film festivals are already just eliminating tapes altogether for instance and doing standardised dcp/mxf mpegs for projecting, to avoid hassle with dozens of video standards, aiming to get all on one or two formats, period.
its really funny reading about people just NOW realizing that a full digital transition is mandatory in order to stay in the business, its even more funny that these are the people from countries which have the highest incentive to go digital, have far the lowest cost of digital equipment, have no real distribution bottlenecks, have more than adequate infrastructure/IT backbone to get it all installed and running,...
Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 05-01-2011, 09:55 AM:
quote: Bajsic Bojan
lots of film festivals are already just eliminating tapes altogether for instance and doing standardised dcp/mxf mpegs for projecting, to avoid hassle with dozens of video standards, aiming to get all on one or two formats, period.
I can see this happening fairly quickly for film festivals and independent films.
From the film-makers perspective making a DCP version of their film will allow it to be shown in far more venues than a tape version. Once encoded copies can be made easily and cheaply (USB flash drives or portable hard drives are far cheaper than HDCAM tapes)
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
but do all studios, specifically the smaller indie ones, that release independent and foreign films release their product 'digitally'??
In the UK the (late) UK Film Counsel funded install of digital projectors, and the DCP encoding of specialist content has resulted in the majority of art films being available digitally.
Given the limited number of prints made, and the extra requirement of subtitling foreign language films, specialist distributors will be able to make significant savings with digitisation.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-01-2011, 10:30 AM:
I have been involved with a number of film festivals and am presently knee-deep in a stack of HDCAM tapes.
Any decent festival will have a list of acceptable formats. In the last year, I have seen HDCAM, Digi-Beta (dying), Beta SP (soon to be dead), 35mm, and 16mm (mostly for student films and "experimental" films...not common at more "mainstream" festivals). The mix of tape to film varies by festival. Those that show titles that are early in their release cycle tend to have more tapes. Same for those that concentrate on documentary or low-budget titles. Festivals that show more mainstream narrative features (especially late in the release cycle) and/or classic titles tend to get prints.
I have never heard of anyone asking about screening a DCP at a film festival. Not that any of the ones that I have worked for could. Presumably it would make video-based shorts programs much easier than a batch of tapes in various formats and frame rates. (My recent discovery is that having two HDCAM decks makes shorts programs much, much easier and smoother than trying to do a mixed-format program with only one deck.)
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 05-01-2011, 11:05 AM:
it's too bad that Landmark hasn't made much of an extra effort to add DP systems at it's Bethesda Maryland location, unfortunately May 6's opening of the 3D Werner Herzog documentary 'Cave of Forgotten Dreams' isn't presented as such, thankfully AMC Hoffman in Alexandria Virginia IS in 3D - maybe if and when "Cane Toads: The Conquest" (3D) gets released, Bethesda or E Street will have a 3D system.
Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 05-05-2011, 02:36 PM:
Bobby
quote: Jonathan Goeldner was the last to post
I really have to agree with the others saying digital doesn't add much in the way of increased attendance. Here locally, the Central Mall 12 has better attendance than the Carmike 8. Yet the Carmike 8 is a far better designed, equipped and operated theater. Only 1 of the 12 screens at the Central Mall theater is equipped with digital projection and only 2 are equipped with 5.1 digital sound. The rest are stereo/mono. Plus the mall theater's customer traffic has more in the way of noisy teens, compulsive cell phone users and other distractions. If "digital" had as much marquee value as one would expect many would just avoid the mall theater. But they keep going there because it's in the mall. quote: Jonathan Goeldner was the last to post
I don't know if what I am saying here is at all related to digital or not. But the grosses are higher on individual films at the Carmike 8 than the Central Mall 12 on a consistent basis. At least according to Rentrak reporting.
The Mall theater has 4 more screens and that is where extra income comes in their year to date is higher than Carmike weather it is extended play or just more movies than can play. It could be a combination of the two or maybe more selection.
A theater is a total package of what is offered and I know the Carmike is going to be better run, but the convince of the mall (if you want to call it that) more screens, and longer play all play a part of what is there.
At times you look a theater and wonder how it is so busy. Some poorly run theaters have great business and other times you look at a real quality operations and wonder how they keep the doors open. Usually quality wins out but not always.
Carmike has certainly cleaned up their act ove the last 10 years and that should keep them growing. It isn't so much hit and miss with them anymore.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2