Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: I never knew Digital Projection would come to this

This is topic I never knew Digital Projection would come to this 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=002742

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-08-2016, 03:26 PM:

I have been only seeing almost all my movies at the Regal Peasrl Highland theatre here in Hawaii near where I live and have noticed the picture quality in all of the auditoriums in that complex 'sucks' real bad! The sound is ok but the quality of the image look like I was watching a faded color film print. A good example is MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING 2 I saw there last Mach with the awful projection. Because I love the movie, I got the Blu Ray when it came out recently and the color I saw on my HDTV when I watched the disc at home was AWESOME! I just watched THE LEGEND OF TARZAN and ID4 -2 in two different auditoriumsthere and both had color that look the same. The projection equipment at this theater complex is SONY. When the complex switched to digital with the Sony projectors, the color in all of the movies I saw there were great. I only began to notice the problem with their projection during the past year. Does anyone know why this has happened?

-Claude

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-08-2016, 03:57 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
SONY

One word answer.

Prob why the presentation was flat looking that the bulb was close to age and with the SONY units, it really shows up bad.

Another thing is the projector could have been a twin lens unit, which doesn't merit well when projecting 2D content.

Other could be that the LCoS chipset, which isn't the greatest system for projecting digital image, is getting tired out or similar.

Yet, all will be fixed.

Heard through the tech buzz (which, don't take me for gospel) that SONY has bailed out of the cinema industry completely with the discontinue of making the SRX-R220 and 320 units and will concentrate on consumer products of sound and home video.

REG will be replacing all of their SONY units with Christie when the time is appropriate.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-08-2016, 05:30 PM:

Locally the 2 biggies here are Regal and Cinematk. Regal of course is Sony 4K, Cinemark is Barco. I don't know if the Barcos are 2K or 4K but they always look better than the Sonys. Could be setup, could be something else. The Barcos win though.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-08-2016, 05:37 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Heard through the tech buzz (which, don't take me for gospel) that SONY has bailed out of the cinema industry

If this is true then this is the second time they've stuck it to the cinema industry. The first time it was with SDDS.

Dave Stambaugh, The ONLY real advantage of the Sony Lcos is that it can do pure black. DLP can not. DLP is a far superior projection format and newer Cinemark NextGen Theaters have 4K DLP on all screens.

Mark

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-08-2016, 05:51 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
If this is true then this is the second time they've stuck it to the cinema industry. The first time it was with SDDS.

And (again, if true) it's for very similar reasons. SDDS and LCOS were both science experiments that were trying to deliver a level of performance that leapfrogged the competition: in the case of SDDS, higher audio bandwidth than SR-D or DTS, and in the case of LCOS, greater color depth and contrast ratio than DLP.

To a certain extent they succeeded, but they fell so far behind the competition on price, longevity and reliability that they failed to establish a viable market foothold.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 07-09-2016, 12:41 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Prob why the presentation was flat looking that the bulb was close to age and with the SONY units, it really shows up bad.

If I followed your logic, then any Dolby 3D installation is going to be dark and dull by definition.

Sony machines cannot be as bright as a DLP one. It's a fact. But if you properly spec a Sony on a screen as you'd do with a DLP machine, the brightness you'd get over time won't be any lower than the one achieved on a DLP.

Providing both machines are serviced as per Sony/DLP schedule as usual.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-09-2016, 12:46 PM:

I actually don't know of any Dolbly 3-D installation on Sony machines in the USA. Only Real-D.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 07-09-2016, 12:56 PM:

Sorry Marco I respectfully disagree with you.

The Sony Lcos engine ages BADLY compared to the DLP engine. Lcos loses both color and contrast as the heat of the lamp ages it...

DLP on the other hand usually only ends up with stuck mirrors or in badly designed projectors, dirt buildup.

BOTH systems will suffer from badly aged lamps, in 2D or 3D, but again Sony's are far more sensitive to lamp age. DLPs tend to act "film-like" with aged bulbs, with loss of contrast and uneven light.

I am not the least bit surprised that Sony bailed out again...I bid a job some years ago that I spec'd Christie DLP for the quality, lower operating cost and ease of service....the location went with Sony (and I dropped out because they didn't want to even consider options) and from day one had non stop problems with the Sony projector. (This was a university and the room was a lecture hall and cinema dual use, like the UC Irvine one I posted in the Warehouse).

The reason for going Sony? Most of the smaller halls used Sony's non-DLP projectors, and the A/V person bought into Sony's offer of a "free" projector for the new install. That "free" projector had, at the last word I heard, cost them over $150,000 in extra equipment and labor costs and a LOT of downtime.

Now they are going to find out that support for their decision is no longer gonna be available soon.

Hey Sony, I got a message for you: [fu]

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 07-09-2016, 01:17 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I actually don't know of any Dolbly 3-D installation on Sony machines in the USA. Only Real-D.

Mark,
you've completely missed my point! [Smile]

Tony
Disagreement is good!
The contrast thing is something I heard before I actually saw a Sony machine. Everybody said that Sony's were losing contrast badly and that black would become milky and awful.
Then I saw my first Sony installation and I knew that I was told rubbish. I've never seen a Sony with milky blacks.

I've seen rubbish picture on Sony machines where brightness went down to 5-6fL in 2D. The moment you change the lamp, service the projector and align everything, all goes back to what it's supposed to be.

Sony is very active selling R515 now. Following the same logic, Christie bailed out the Cinema market when they stopped selling CP2210 then. Come on!

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-09-2016, 01:37 PM:

quote: Marco Giustini
I've seen rubbish picture on Sony machines where brightness went down to 5-6fL in 2D. The moment you change the lamp, service the projector and align everything, all goes back to what it's supposed to be.

That's sorta the point: these machines have a reputation for rapidly diminishing picture quality unless they receive more intensive maintenance by trained professionals than their competitors need to maintain an equivalent level of performance.

Last year I changed my 1999 Honda Civic (needs oil changes every 3,000 miles per the maintenance manual) for a 2015 Fit (every 10,000). If the '99 car is maintained per the book, it'll be every bit as reliable as the new one, but it does cost, I would guess, an extra 20-30 hours of maintenance time, plus the replacement parts and fluids, a year.

When a theater is considering a major capital investment such as a a d-cinema projector, the running cost and reliability over its design life is a major factor in the decision. There's no point in making a $20k saving in the purchase price if you're then going to spend more than that maintaining it. Although, admittedly, I've never used or maintained Sony d-cinema projectors, everything I've heard from people who have suggests to me that this is where they fall significantly behind Barco, Christie and NEC.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 07-09-2016, 01:49 PM:

quote:
Sony is very active selling R515 now. Following the same logic, Christie bailed out the Cinema market when they stopped selling CP2210 then. Come on!

What drugs are you smoking and why aren't you sharing with the rest of us? [Big Grin]

Christie did NOT bail on anything...the CP2210 got replaced with the CP2208 (same lumens but .68 DLP) and added the CP2215 (which I feel is close enough to the 2210 but has a bit more light)..so how is that "bailing" when they delete one model and ADD TWO?

Plus, Christie's tech support has always been excellent. In every screening room I did, in the rare cases where issues arose I had a tech on the phone in minutes who walked me through the issues, and when I needed a part it was always waiting for me on will call (I was less than an hour from their plant) every time without fail. Even exchanging a wrong lens was hassle free. Try that with Sony and see what happens.

The one room I did where they put in a Sony they went through 5 (!) media blocks in ONE YEAR...the repairs costs were huge (because only Sony techs were allowed to work on it), they are on their third Lcos engine ..the ONLY reason that POS stayed in that room is because the client did like the black levels (which I agree with BTW, they are awesome) and he has the money and doesn't mind spending it to keep it going. He has often lamented getting rid of the Christie that was there before though, he loved how it was essentially maintenance free (annual bulb and filter changes).

He also doesn't run it 10+ hours a day like a cinema, which makes the costs and maintenance issues worse.

I will agree that a fresh Lcos has a great picture quality (just like SDDS with a good track on the film had great sound quality, much cleaner that the others), but the initial expense, ongoing maintenance costs, durability issues AND the repeated history of Sony dropping support (Pro video, Betamax, SDDS, etc.) makes Sony a four-letter "S" word..one I would never sell to any client at any cost.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-09-2016, 01:50 PM:

Marco, That is definitely the point. Sony projectors require noticeably more maintenance than a DLP-based machine of any brand to keep looking good on screen. Here in the US I see chains with Sony receive very little maintenance and they just look absolutely awful. Next time you're in the area let me know and I'll gladly drive you around to various local examples and you will see what the general complaining is all about. With as pro-Sony as you are, it's clear you are very persistent with the maintenance on your Sony machines, but that's just not the reality here in the US. Too many screens and too few technicians, plus a lack of proper PM time.

Also I just love how their T-cores can't make more than 3 years without turning yellow. That's frustrating.

Tony, re-read Marco's quote in your post above. He was making a point and was not serious about Christie dropping out of the cinema market.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 07-09-2016, 02:27 PM:

Brad,

Next time I'm in Texas I'll definitely join the tour! [Smile]

quote: Brad Miller
Here in the US I see chains with Sony receive very little maintenance and they just look absolutely awful

Every machine require maintenance. I agree that DLP machines won't suffer so much if they are not being maintained but I don't really want to discuss which projector is better based of their ability to survive lack of maintenance!

I don't feel I'm particularly pro-Sony or pro-DLP. I think I am analysing the facts I have, which may be incorrect indeed, that's why we are talking.
Failed media blocks? Possibly. What about failed Christie IMB's - just to stay in Christie realm? Or failed ICP's. Or failed Barco prism switches! (NEC and GDC don't really fail, do they?)
Every brand has its own ups and downs. Don't think I feel that Sony are perfect and DLP are rubbish, just that I think the comments on Sony machines are most of the time unfair.

Thanks Brad for clarifying my ironic comment on Christie going out of business!

And Tony: no, I won't share you my good stuff! [Big Grin]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-09-2016, 03:55 PM:

The main point of deterioration in DLP is going to be the heat mirrors, reflector, and the fold mirrors after that. There isn't really any deterioration per say in the light engine itself or the integrator. But any reflective surfaces need to be kept clean (a constant headache with older Barcos) and transmissivity of mirrors needs to be watched. There are meters that can measure transmissivity of those parts. But this is all happens so slowly compared to how fast LCOS heads south that it is very negligible.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-09-2016, 09:14 PM:

quote:
I agree that DLP machines won't suffer so much if they are not being maintained but I don't really want to discuss which projector is better based of their ability to survive lack of maintenance!

But therein lies the problem. Your cinema or chain may be an exception, but from what I've seen most theaters do not receive truly great maintenance. As such, therein lies a very important point which must be factored in...which projector can survive best without truly nitpicky maintenance? It's just the way the industry is right now.

If you don't agree, perhaps you should read up on CDS sound. Technically it was supposed to be superior in quality to the later formats...but the level of maintenance was extremely high to keep it running.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-09-2016, 11:51 PM:

It boils down to considering the total cost of ownership and operation of a projector, not just one element of it. If your goal is to have a system that delivers an image with a given brightness, resolution and contrast range over a specified lifetime before the next capital investment is made, you've got to add up a number of factors:

1. Purchase and installation price of the hardware (initial investment)
2. Cost of operation (employee hours, electricity, HVAC needs, etc.)
3. Cost of planned maintenance, per the manufacturer's recommendations
4. Likely cost of emergency repairs/unplanned maintenance (educated guess based on the reputation in the field of the projectors you're considering)
5. Cost of disposal at the end of the planned lifetime

From what I've been told, the problem with the Sony LCOS projectors is that 1 looked very attractive at first glance and the image quality achieved by a new or well-maintained projector also looked very attractive; but 3 and 4 were way higher than those of competing technologies, with the result that in many installations, 3 didn't happen.

Posted by Steve Moore (Member # 4753) on 07-10-2016, 08:21 AM:

I have yet to see a Sony 4K here in the UK that looks good; the colours and contrast are always awful. The "vintage" Christie CP2000SB and NEC NC800s that we run around our circuit, and other places that I know still running them far out perform in terms of colour and contrast and sharpness.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-10-2016, 02:10 PM:

Digital solved a lot of problems presentation wise, but introduced a whole new set. Sadly, theater owners were duped into thinking that "everything will just work" with digital cinema.

In many regards, I have found that the average presentation has gone down with the advent of digital cinema simply because managers now think they don't need any TLC and the lack of the human touch anywhere near the booth.

Presentation and showmanship takes effort no matter if it is film or digital. The problem is, the average multiplex has no concept of this and neither do their corporate managers.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-10-2016, 02:16 PM:

Sorry Claude...I've said it before and I'll say it again...if you sucked at showing film based movies, you'll suck at showing digital based movies. The same forces that caused one to be poor apply to both. Sure, when the box is shiny new it is going to do better but day-by-day, year-by-year, it is going to age and degrade, if not kept up and you will get a situation where things just suck. Also, you have people that don't understand light at all recommending people to put in gain screens under the lie that one needs less light to light them. If you increase the gain by 2 and drop your light in half, you've done just that, cut the entire light in the system by half. Sure, the DEAD-CENTER of the screen will be at the same brightness as before but EVERYWHERE ELSE will be notably darker.

Another thing I'll say again...if your screen gain is above 1.3, and the screen is flat, you will NOT meet SMPTE/DCI specs. If you set your center brightness to 14fL (48cd/m), then your overall brightness will be too low. Lower gain screens are better with matte-white being the goal.

Even in 3D, one reason the silver-screen 3D systems look dark is that they are starting with that 2.2+ gain screen and, typically, a low center illumination level.

As for contrast...there are many factors that go into it and the lower the maximum illumination, the lower the potential contrast. If you don't take care of your system and let your lenses and other optics get dirty/dusty, there goes your contrast...don't take care of that port glass and let it be smudged or dusty...there goes your contrast. Think it is a cool idea to do a boothless cinema and NEVER pay attention to that projector or make it so prohibitively difficult to fool with...what do you think is going to happen to the projection quality?

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 07-10-2016, 05:23 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Sorry Claude...I've said it before and I'll say it again...if you sucked at showing film based movies, you'll suck at showing digital based movies.

What Steve says.

A poorly maintained system will show rubbish picture regardless of the brand after a while. I agree that a DLP will produce a decent picture for a longer time unless severely misused.
I am also perfectly aware of how cinemas work in the real world but I am not yet prepared to accept that the best system is the one which can survive longer with less maintenance.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 07-10-2016, 06:42 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Sorry Claude...I've said it before and I'll say it again...if you sucked at showing film based movies, you'll suck at showing digital based movies.

Beyond that, you could have a complex that was good with film solely because of the projectionist, but now that he's gone, it sucks when it didn't used to.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-10-2016, 06:58 PM:

quote: Marco Giustini
...but I am not yet prepared to accept that the best system is the one which can survive longer with less maintenance.

One of the ways in which digital projection was marketed aggressively to theater owners was by claiming that it would eliminate a major cost base of their operation, namely projectionists. What we have seen is that in many situations, this has ended up being a false economy, because most projectionists in most theaters did a lot more than stick bits of film together, thread them up and press the button. At the very least, they performed routine, minor to intermediate maintenance tasks (e.g. changing belts and intermittent oil, cleaning reflectors, checking bulb alignment, etc.), and in some places (especially smaller chains and independents), they did higher level maintenance and emergency repairs as well. The projectionist's job even extended outside the booth in some theaters, encompassing basic maintenance on HVAC systems, box office IT, you name it.

With no qualified technician of any description routinely working in the building anymore, all of this needs to be done by service techs making a special trip to the site. While the task of putting a DCP show on the screen can be done by someone without the level of technical aptitude needed for the same task with 35mm, digital systems still need maintenance and that still has to be done by a qualified technician.

The result? A significant number of theaters are scrimping and saving on this maintenance, and the presentation quality is suffering as a result. So while I wouldn't go as far as to claim that a system that can maintain a given performance level for longer without maintenance is "better" than one that needs more frequent maintenance, in the business environment that digital cinema systems are used in, it will definitely deliver a superior service to a theater's customers in the majority of venues.

I'd be interested to see an economic analysis comparing the cost per show of 35mm and DCP, taking into account all the relevant factors, not just the cost of projectionists in isolation: the capital cost of the equipment, operating and maintenance costs of the equipment, cost of creating and shipping the distribution media, the cost of unforeseen systems failures (platter brain wraps, KDMs failing to be supplied in time, etc. etc.), etc. etc.

My guess - and it's just a guess - is that the actual cost of maintaining digital systems so that they deliver a consistent level of quality and reliability comparable to 35mm done to an equivalent standard is actually a lot higher than promoters of the conversion to digital claimed, and that overall, a lot of the technical costs of theatrical movie exhibition have been shifted from producers and distributors to exhibitors: they haven't gone away.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 07-10-2016, 07:12 PM:

I'm sure it is if you consider the service life of the equipment. Film projector built in 1946? Crank 'er up! Digital projector built in 2005? Scrap.

Posted by Phil Ranucci (Member # 3820) on 07-10-2016, 07:22 PM:

I once heard a manager tell the staff that they'd only need to go into the booth to dust the cobwebs. The real problem is that there isn't anyone in the booth on a regular basis. I was just in a booth that had 2 dead exhaust fans (out of 6). Nobody noticed that the area around 1&4 seemed awfully warm. Luckily we had a spare motor on the shelf (from film days!) and spare belts. Digital was always about saving on labor on the local end. The studios get what they want from the box and the staff gets cut back more and more.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-10-2016, 07:26 PM:

I called and spoke to an assistant manager at the Regal Pearl Highland after I had started this thread and he told me how sorry he was that I was not happy with the picture quality at their theatre and when I asked, he told me I was the the person to complain about the poor picture quality. If this is their attitude, I think I will just wait for movies I want to see to come out on blu ray and either rent them from Netflix or buy it. Because I have a good sound system and a fantastic HDTV that is 3D capable, I think this might be my best option.

-Claude

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 07-10-2016, 08:57 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
I called and spoke to an assistant manager at the Regal Pearl Highland after I had started this thread and he told me how sorry he was that I was not happy with the picture quality at their theatre and when I asked, he told me I was the the person to complain about the poor picture quality.

My experience has been that theater managers almost always say either "it's supposed to be that way" or "you're the first person to complain". But those are both ridiculous answers. The fact is that it's very hard for the average Joe to know whether what they're seeing is any good or not. Also, just because people don't complain doesn't mean they think it's good. They just may simply, as you do, have less desire to see a movie in a theater because on a subconscious level, the total experience wasn't that thrilling.

The only time I ever got a theater manager to admit something was wrong was way back for E.T. It was four-walled into "Movieland" on Broadway in NYC, which was not the usual place to see a film in 70mm, but the only Manhattan venue showing the film in 70mm. There was a 60 cycle hum throughout the entire film. I complained and there were some apparent techs sitting around and the guy who brought me to them said, "he heard the hum". They gave me a free return ticket, but what good would that have been if they didn't fix the problem? Much more recently, I've been in two theaters where the center channel was playing in the left channel. And watching 2D movies on Sony projectors with the 3D filter on has always been a freaking disaster. I always complain about that and usually ask for my money back.

There's a local theater near be that held out showing 35mm until about a year ago. They held out so long that I figured they had no interest in going digital and were going to close. But they did switch to digital and at first, the sound and projection were surprisingly good. But I went back and the focus was off. I complained and the manager told me that they just installed a 3D screen so the focus might have been slightly off. I asked why someone couldn't go into the booth and adjust the focus on the projectors and he looked at me like I was nuts. I told him, "it's pretty hard to get people into theaters today - you're just giving people a reason not to come here." Right now, they're renovating again to put in lounge seating. They obviously weren't filling the seats.

But I did see Tarzan the other day at a Dolby Vision theatre (AMC Empire 25 in NYC) and it looked really fantastic. There wasn't that much Dolby Atmos activity though, which was disappointing considering that a jungle is the perfect environment to use immersive sound.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 07-11-2016, 12:44 AM:

I know a manager with that mentality. "Well no one has complained" You might not complain about getting shortchanged either, doesn't mean it shouldn't have happened.

The absolute bare minimum is the name of the game anymore, and a lot of times not even that.

I'm a rare manager that will absolutely admit wrongdoing.

"Sir, the movie was nice but these seats are disgusting and it smelled awful and was hot and humid in there. I'm not looking for a refund or anything I just thought you should know." "Oh ma'am, trust me, I know. I am very sorry, and frankly, embarrassed. We've been begging corporate to replace the seats for 5 years, and they require us to turn the HVAC off at night so the auditoriums don't properly cool or dehumidify. I am trying my best, and again, am very sorry."

"Sir, It's extremely hot out in the vestibule, and there's only one girl in the ticket box helping a really long line of people that have to wait in the heat and when they finally get up to the window she asks a hundred questions like if I want to donate a dollar to charity or if I have a rewards card or if I want to sign up for one. And why are all the ticket prices odd amounts? You need another person in there and make the prices an even amount and stop the questions so the line moves faster and put air conditioning out there" "I know, sir, I wish I could do something about this situation but corporate makes us meet certain quota for the charity, rewards cards, and payroll. I'm not sure why they chose to make our lives a living hell with the odd change... probably so they can increase prices more often without people noticing so much. Trust me, if I could do something about it, I would. I encourage you to complain to corporate, and again, I'm very sorry. I know it's bad."

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 07-11-2016, 03:20 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
With no qualified technician of any description routinely working in the building anymore, all of this needs to be done by service techs making a special trip to the site. While the task of putting a DCP show on the screen can be done by someone without the level of technical aptitude needed for the same task with 35mm, digital systems still need maintenance and that still has to be done by a qualified technician.

Leo
35mm projectors needed daily attention.
Digital projectors need a specialised visit every 12 months. That will keep the picture in good shape.

Yes, that visit is going to be expensive but you won't need a team of projectionists on site every day.

Digital Cinema IS saving money. It's just that the more you save, the more they want to save. It's just nonsense (what they do, not what you say!)

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 07-11-2016, 07:25 AM:

Claude compares the color rendering of his local cinema with his home tv set.

No one has a problem with that?

Not that I say it is not possible for DCI projection systems to deteriorate like this, enough previous comments explain reasons. But who calibrated Claudes tv set and makes sure he uses only the calibrated settings?

- Carsten

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-11-2016, 08:13 AM:

I dunno Carsten...they are good questions. Note too, Claude is an EXPERT when it comes to color rendition. He has decades of professional photography behind it. The other clue was it was once very good and now it isn't anymore.

I dispute the cost savings on the equipment though. We are starting to see our first light engines drop and now are facing $20,000 replacement bills. What was the most expensive thing to go in a film projector? Even a Kinoton "E" projector didn't have a $20,000 part in it and it had some very expensive parts (intermittent motor and driver).

Since this projectors pump so much air they also pump so much dirt...which is the enemy of the projector. The dirt affects not only the image but also the ability of the projector to cool itself. As also also been established, if the environment the projector is in is less than optimal, then it is also pumping in more than dirt (sand and fine dust) that are more detrimental than just dust. I've found that you can easily spend 4 or more hours getting a projector back to rights after operating just for 1 year. I'm finding it to be about 2-4 hours per. And that is technician time, which isn't cheap.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 07-11-2016, 12:47 PM:

quote:
"Sir, It's extremely hot out in the vestibule,

Your customers call you sir? Where do you live I need to move there. Just kidding! A well maintained theater is the duty of the manager but if they don't give you the funds to do the job your not going to be able to so effectively.

One way to reduce a lot of issues is a friendly well trained staff. It is certain that a trained DC Tech needs to check out the picture and sound often. I take care of the theaters Digital Projection for the company I work for, it is easy to see which have staff help things run smooth and which have staff that hinder things.

As to Sony, they make wonderful home entertainment systems and should stick to that.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-11-2016, 01:46 PM:

Thanks Steve for your support. Carsten, I do not need to have my HDTV color calibrated. to know I have a set that is outputting images with perfect color. My set is a forty six inch Samsung that came that way from the factory and I am extremely pleased with it. As Steve said, I have years of color rendition experience as a professional photographer with a PPA Master of Photography and Photographic Craftsmen degrees (51 years and & 1 month to be exact) and a Brooks Institute oF Photography education. On top of that, I have been a devoted movie theatre attendee almost all my life and have seen almost all of the original classic three strip Technicolor movies when they were first released and that is the way I became appreciative of good color at the cinema.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-11-2016, 03:16 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
I called and spoke to an assistant manager at the Regal Pearl Highland after I had started this thread and he told me how sorry he was that I was not happy with the picture quality at their theatre and when I asked, he told me I was the the person to complain about the poor picture quality

One possibility that hasn't been brought up: Given the turnover of employees at many theaters, it's entirely possible that Claude was the first person THAT MANAGER had heard a complaint from. If I were Claude I would write a letter to the company directly and maybe include a printout of this Film-Tech thread.

It just blows me away that exhibition companies are short-changing the very thing people go to the movies for.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-11-2016, 03:25 PM:

Mike,

The chains sloppiness is why so many independents do so well. Look at your theater. No one has anything like yours in the entire State. Not till you get to Lovell, WY is there a comparable sound system. Indies do it better and they have the customer base that keeps coming back too because of it.

Mark

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-11-2016, 03:29 PM:

Well to be fair, I've been to several major theaters in the past few years (AMC, Regal, Cinemark are the ones that come to mind) and they've all had what I thought were very good images -- seemed bright and clear to me. So maybe, just like in the film days, the decline in quality is a regional thing...? My wife goes to the Carmike in Billings every now and then and she says the pictures there still look good, bright and crisp.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-11-2016, 03:57 PM:

quote: Marco Giustini
35mm projectors needed daily attention.
Digital projectors need a specialised visit every 12 months. That will keep the picture in good shape.

What?! The projectors in our two large houses are probably only running and lit for around 15 hours a week, and even they need a xenon bulb replacement more than annually (typically every six months or so in one, and nine months in the other). Having been trained as an old school projectionist I can replace bulbs, clean reflectors, replace air filters etc. etc., myself, but am guessing that many of the megachain 'plexes no longer have anyone on the regular payroll who can. And projectors that are operating with the bulb on for 50-60 hours a week are going to go through them a lot more quickly.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Given the turnover of employees at many theaters, it's entirely possible that Claude was the first person THAT MANAGER had heard a complaint from.

Even in HI? I'd have thought that the turnover of management level staff, even working for the local branches of national and multinational companies, would be much lower there (and possibly in AK as well) than in the Lower 48, simply because of the cost of relocating people in and out.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 07-11-2016, 05:22 PM:

I'd have a real hard time believing Regal pays for relocation for any theater position. MAYBE corporate office but even then I kinda doubt it.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-11-2016, 06:43 PM:

Yeah certainly not "assistant managers." That sounds like a college kid-type job, or at least it is at the Carmikes around here.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-11-2016, 11:17 PM:

It's what you get with these cinemas now days: Major changeover in new hires that simply don't know what a bad presentation really looks like, or even care since it's beyond that person's pay grade to even do anything about it...and along with instructions that the company tech adjusts this equipment, not the suits.

It's just us with the experience that knows the difference, and that's the simple key statement in the situation.

I bet if a cinema chain, or owner trains a suit to be a technician and teach him what good is, then that cinema might be better operated...as with the case with Claude: if REG trained that suit what good should look like and how to take care of the situation, he would have prob corrected it long before Claude went into that house to see that feature.

-Monte

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 07-13-2016, 01:23 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
What?! The projectors in our two large houses are probably only running and lit for around 15 hours a week, and even they need a xenon bulb replacement more than annually

Clearly lamp change and filter change/cleaning should be performed by the cinema staff.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 07-13-2016, 12:12 PM:

quote: Marco Giustini
Clearly lamp change and filter change/cleaning should be performed by the cinema staff.

Absolutely.

But, just as in the film days, management neither cares enough to hire people who can be taught how to do so, or often has the policy in place that it its strictly hands-off, only the chains' tech can do it. Often both.

And having worked film at a certain chain where my title was "booth usher" I can say that most if not all of the others in the location with the same title could barely handle threading the machines, much less doing ANY maintenance. While I was there our location was the ONLY exception to the "no staff touches the machines" rule, and that was because the chain president was the one who got me the job to go "clean house" and fix the horrid presentation and breakdown record.. (under 10 screens and averaging over 20-25 lost shows per WEEK.) The only thing I didn't do there was full "B" chain...(didn't have the test gear.)

Seems that in the digital era (and no this is not an anti-digital slam) there is a greater probability that the "booth staff" (if one exists) would be even less capable of understanding how to change bulbs or filters without screwing something up....

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 07-13-2016, 02:56 PM:

Hi Tony

I understand and I know how things work in the real world. But my point is:

35mm: a team of projectionists constantly on site plus an engineer every now and then for major breakdowns or for A-Chain etc.

Digital: One person trained to clean filters and change lamps (very little time every month per machine, shall we say 2 hours PER MONTH?) plus ONE specialised visit every 12 MONTHS to clean optics, do colours, upgrade software etc.

You then need to consider film scheduling which could be done remotely by anybody. Content these days arrive mostly via internet/satellite.

It seems very reasonable to me. If companies want to save even more money, it's their problem and if things go wrong we can't really blame the equipment. My 2p opinion of course.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 07-13-2016, 03:56 PM:

Nope, Marco. They now buy phosphor lasers in the hope that no one is needed to visit the booth for years.

- Carsten

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 07-13-2016, 05:44 PM:

they will still require filters, cleaning and updates. The main advantage of lasers/phosphors would be that brightness will stay constant, no ups and downs due to Xenon aging, no training, no misaligned lamps, no explosions etc.

That said if you are smart enough and you have micro-filtered air in the booth (or use AC units to cool down the air) filters will stay in very good condition for a long time.

Still, those guys forget how expensive 35mm was (from printing to exibition) but no matter what they keep trying saving money.

They won't be happy until they manufacture machines which are capable of self-clean the filters automatically.
And don't forget gold coins coming out of the ICP every month.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 10-06-2016, 06:18 PM:

I finally stopped going to Regal's Pearl Highland Theatres a few weeks ago and I now frequent the Pearlridge 16 operated by Consolidated Theatres and the difference in picture quality is amazing with perfect color and brightness. The Tuesday only admission price is also cheaper. At the Pearl Highland, the price is $7.50 and the Pearlridge is $6.00. Hotdogs and a small popcorn are $2.00 each at the snack bar so for $1.50 more at the Pearlridge, I get a movie and nice snacks.

The Pearlridge projectors are Barco and the Pearl Highland is Sony. It is amazing the people at Regal cannot see the difference between good and bad color picture quality and when they said the customers are not complaining about it, I think they are lying
.

-Claude

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 10-07-2016, 12:35 PM:

I hated the Sony projectors. I spent all my maintenance time replacing filters, and lamps.

We had Christies before, and they just ran and ran. Replaced a belt or two, and a lamp about once a year, but that was it.

Calls complaining about our screen image were almost always saved for me. I actually had someone complain that the brightness on the screen needed to be turned down one time!

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-07-2016, 01:28 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
It is amazing the people at Regal cannot see the difference between good and bad color picture quality and when they said the customers are not complaining about it, I think they are lying

Or else, lazy and stupid.
(In the proverbial sense, if you get my meaning.)

This is the greatest curse of digital projection, in my opinion. Digital projectors figuratively "beg" people to become lazy and complacent.

I like the idea of being able to spend less time maintaining the machines so that we can focus on customers but I hate the way that people so readily ignore such simple things.

But that is the way of the modern megaplex cinema!

"Thank you for choosing Cinema Googolplex! We're so big that we don't have to care!" [Wink]

Sometimes it makes me feel like crying! [Frown]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-07-2016, 01:59 PM:

I don't think Regal or AMC are installing Sony any more at new builds. There is a Regal going up about a mile from me and I'll try to go check it out.
The only reason I'd even go there is because Megaplex sux and Regal are going to have full service food.

Mark

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-07-2016, 02:13 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
The only reason I'd even go there is because Megaplex sux and Regal are going to have full service food.

Hooray! A new popcorn stadium! [Big Grin]

Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 10-12-2016, 03:04 PM:

quote: Marco Giustini
The main advantage of lasers/phosphors would be that brightness will stay constant, no ups and downs due to Xenon aging, no training, no misaligned lamps, no explosions etc.

Are you saying there is no light falloff with laser? because that is absolutely not the case

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 10-12-2016, 04:02 PM:

Regarding full food service at cinemas; I've always wondered why that's so exciting since we know the behind the scenes chaos and cutting corners goes on in our business. Why would that be different in the food part? Are they afraid of the health department?

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 10-12-2016, 04:28 PM:

There was a "Cinema and Suds" two screen operation here in Saginaw. The screens were adequate and there were counters and small tables on the floor and a few risers near the rear. The prices of beverages and appetizers, their only offerings, were quite high. There were wait staff walking about during the movies and the audience were more like a sports bar than a movie theater.

Needless to say, the property is now a major pain clinic and the building is totally renovated and added to.

What was really odd about the cinema was the fact that there was no room behind the screen for the speakers so there were boxes sticking out of the wall to accommodation them. The sound was not bad inside as the block wall served pretty well behind the screen and between the speakers.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-12-2016, 06:01 PM:

quote: Sam D. Chavez
Why would that be different in the food part? Are they afraid of the health department?

That could be the case. A "B" letter rating card in the window basically means that the place is gross and disgusting, and is highly visible to all prospective customers. But they're not going to know if the movie presentation is lousy until after they've bought their ticket.

Slightly OT, but can't resist: there was a well-known and popular restaurant in these parts that changed hands, and was inspected by the county shortly after. They discovered rodent droppings in the kitchen, among other stomach-churning violations, and downgraded the place from A to B, with a warning that they'd be closed down altogether if the violations weren't taken care of, ASAP. When the inspector came back a couple of weeks later, he asked what the owners had done to get rid of the mouse infestation. "We got a cat," was their reply, pointing to a litter box overflowing with feline #2s ... right next to a food preparation surface!