Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: RANT! Why not E-Cinema? Makes so much sense to me!

This is topic RANT! Why not E-Cinema? Makes so much sense to me! in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=002350

Posted by Ronda Fitzsimmons (Member # 1418) on 03-29-2010, 01:31 PM:

OK, so this has been bugging me since the beginnings of the D-Cinema rage - but now it's even more true than before.

Why are the film companies so adament about ignoring the economies of E-Cinema releasing in the US? I can EASILY equip my discount theatres with professional grade digital projectors and business class servers, with NO financial help from the film companies. I can even afford to have a spare or two on hand for those times something needs service.

My theatres are all pretty small screen move-over, so I'm not going to be competing with the first run over the top presentations, and I'll still be improving my presentations because of scratched prints, old beat up equipment, and better sound from a clean digital source. I'll be able to upgrade as new tech comes out, and if need be I'll enclose the whole setup in a cage to keep the thieves away... Although how that's going to stop them from recording in the theatre is beyond me... The customer wins, the film company wins, and the theatre owner wins. Besides, nothing in the commercial market would stop them from marking prints, just like they do now. It's not like if they told me to stop playing a 35mm print, I'd ignore them - which is one really crazy argument I heard from someone...

It really just seems that there are some bigwigs somewhere who must be getting their palms greased to completely refuse to use the available technology to economically bring digital to the theatres.

I'm almost at the point of buying a telecine to digital so I can prove it them myself!

Can anyone help me understand this whole thing differently?

Thanks for listening to my rant...

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-29-2010, 01:36 PM:

You're dealing with idiots from Hollywood, what more is there to understand? [evil]

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-29-2010, 01:58 PM:

My guess is that it boils down to security.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-29-2010, 06:37 PM:

The whole deal is about POWER and CONTROL! Louis

Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 03-30-2010, 11:03 AM:

quote: Darryl Spicer
My guess is that it boils down to security.

Yup, that would be it.

Nothing is stopping anyone from going e-cinema and showing blu-ray disks but your not going to see first run content like that.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 03-30-2010, 04:22 PM:

From someone who uses ecinema equipment in a country that suports it. The quality simply does not compare to 35mm nor Dcinema. The only major cost saver is the single chip technology, complete with its rainbow effect.
Spend a fraction of the money on maintaining your 35mm gear and installing filmguard will produce vastly better results.
There is NO security with e cinema nor a proper scope!

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 03-30-2010, 05:39 PM:

Why not E-Cinema? Simple: Would you be willing to drive to a location, pay for parking, pay for an admission ticket, pay for concessions, put up with a room full or rude assholes either talking on their phones (or each other) and eating loudly, only to watch a giant screen T.V.?

I think not.

And D-Crapema is no better in that regard.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 03-30-2010, 06:21 PM:

quote: Ronda Fitzsimmons
and I'll still be improving my presentations because of scratched prints, old beat up equipment, and better sound from a clean digital source.

Not too jump on you here but I started in this business at a second run "dollar" theatre. In my opinion if you can afford to equip all your screens with video you can upgrade your old and beat up 35mm equipment and hire professionals to run and maintain it. As far as digital if you have (or install) a film based system like Dolby Digital you will have "clean" digital quality sound. A digital track does not degrade the same way as an analog track. It either works or it doesn't so even with a used print you will still have a perfect sounding digital track. as far as scratched and dirty prints the only thing you can do is train your employees to refuse them and ask for new prints even if your sub run the studio does not want you making them look bad by showing dirty and scratched prints.

Again, I am not trying to to berate you I am just saying that you can put on a perfect presentation with film if you invest in it. A substandard video projector is not going to have anywhere near the quality of a good 35mm presentation.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-30-2010, 09:35 PM:

quote: Sean McKinnon
A digital track does not degrade the same way as an analog track.

But, not to throw a wingnut in the gearwork here, but if that SRD track gets scratched, or even worn due to the many miles it travels through the gate and trap assembly, it's definitely an analog playback print only.

Actually, DTS is the way to go on digital sound since this area nevers wear down-if you can find used players and readers to be found.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-30-2010, 09:43 PM:

Frankly, in a normally maintained projector, I have never seen a dolby print deformed. I have personally run a long loop over 17,000 times (dragged on the floor, in oil), cleaned it (with a rag) and it still performed perfectly.

Sprocket run, maybe. But then again that is a PEOPLE problem, not a film or machine problem. Louis

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-31-2010, 11:26 AM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Would you be willing to drive to a location, pay for parking, pay for an admission ticket, pay for concessions, put up with a room full or rude assholes either talking on their phones (or each other) and eating loudly, only to watch a giant screen T.V.?

Not to mention, to watch a movie that is already out on BluRay, and cable and which they all can get for a buck at RedBox, or NetFlex. So what are you offering them? Will they come to your theatre to pay you 10 times what they can pay to see it in the comfort of their livingroom with their friends? Like Tony, I think not.

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 03-31-2010, 11:39 AM:

With film there is quality differences between cinemas 70mm vs 35mm, digital vs analogue sound, screen size, projector/lamphouse quality. Rarely have the studios insisted on a minimum standard.

Many times it has been seen that the studios are not really that bothered about quality.

I could see there being some requirement for a dcinema-lite to finally convert every cinema to digital. The main problems would be setting on a standard that offers (some) security and extra work for the distributors.

Customers will vote with their feet, just as they do at the moment (even if they do not know exactly why they know that somewhere is better). In rural environments, without competition then reduced dcinema may prevent the closure of a cinema.

quote:
The only major cost saver is the single chip technology,

Single chip DLP projectors should not be used, however it should now be possible to get three chip projectors for not that much.

I would suspect that the main cost saving is the wider choice of supplier (as opposed to those who have gone through the DCI compliance process, and only certify their larger products).

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 03-31-2010, 12:14 PM:

Hey, it all boils down to money of course, there is no reason to care about quality, right?

I don't care if 35mm cost $100,000 a print. If it can look better than 4K, and SHOULD look better than 2K (if it weren't for shit DI jobs) I am going to keep using it.

Simple as that.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 03-31-2010, 12:17 PM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
only to watch a giant screen T.V.?

I think not.

And D-Crapema is no better in that regard.

I disagree. Although D-Cinema doesn't look as good as a no DI, shot and printed in scope and projected properly by qualified people 35mm print, D-Cinema definitely looks better than a giant TV. Blu-ray on a good 1080P set looks very good but for whatever reason (probably having a lot to do with calibration as well as the 4:4:4 color) D-Cinema in 2k still looks better. I can only assume that based on 2k, 4k DLP presentation of something shot in scope and scanned at 4k will look as good as or better than 35mm. It may have slightly lower resolution but that is made up for by no generational loss and jump and weave.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 03-31-2010, 01:17 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Actually, DTS is the way to go on digital sound since this area nevers wear down-if you can find used players and readers to be found.

A couple of years ago, we had a small auditorium we wanted
to upgrade to digital sound after we'd done major upgrades
in all the others. I got a re-furbished DTS-6D complete with
reader, projector bracket and all cables for about $1500 from
International Cinema Equipemnt Company in Miami, Fla. It also
came with a full waranty, since ICECO is a licensed DTS dealer.

The only other expense was about $60 for a little break-
out board to interface the DTS decks with the UltraStereo
processor. (Yes, I could have made my own cables but when
you factor in the cost of my labor and of having to go out
& buy a couple of connectors, the price was about the same.)
I already had an RTA and experience in setting these things
up so there were no additonal expenses in getting an outside
tech in to do the final alignment.

Interational Cinema almost always has used/refurbrished
units on hand and often lists them on e-bay. I've never
had any problems with their device. In fact, I've had far
more trouble with another 6-D that was bought new from
a different dealer dealer.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 03-31-2010, 01:58 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer

I disagree. Although D-Cinema doesn't look as good as a no DI, shot and printed in scope and projected properly by qualified people 35mm print, D-Cinema definitely looks better than a giant TV. Blu-ray on a good 1080P set looks very good but for whatever reason (probably having a lot to do with calibration as well as the 4:4:4 color) D-Cinema in 2k still looks better. I can only assume that based on 2k, 4k DLP presentation of something shot in scope and scanned at 4k will look as good as or better than 35mm. It may have slightly lower resolution but that is made up for by no generational loss and jump and weave.

I'm not talking about resolution or jump and weave issues I'm talking about the fact that with D-Crapma you're STILL WATCHING T.V.!!

And it sucks ass as Joe would say.

And as we've seen from other posts here in different threads, a show breakdown in D-Crapma is a big and costly deal.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 04-01-2010, 12:26 AM:

3 chip dlp projectors cost about the same as dci-spec series 2 units. They don't make any sense if you want to run mainstream films.
At this stage in Australia an e-cinema rig is required if you want to run specialist features. Top end single chip dlp machines present this stuff well, though I have seen some appaling examples. It is essential to maintain quality 35mm equipment for everything else.
It may be possible in the US to get another print if the one you have is rs but good luck with that in Australia. The e-cinema file will look and sound better than the 35mm copy you had to wait 18 weeks for.
The major distributors here are insisting on dci gear or 35mm. So when they distribute a specialist film you can't date it till the print has been shabbied up.
Digital cinema (regardless of its letters) has not addressed Scope properly.
Using that amazing crystal ball, I can see us in 5 years having 35mm, d and e cinema to cope with various release patterns.
Unfortunately, the ball fogged over when asked if we would have 3D then.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 04-01-2010, 12:02 PM:

Monte,

What I meant was that an SR-D track does not degrade the same as an analog track. It either works or it doesn't. With an analog track you can still play a dirty scratched track and the audio will suffer. With SR-D even if it is dirty and scratched if there is enough digital info to play it will sound the same as a pristine track, or if there is not enough good digital info it will not play at all. There is no in between.

Posted by Richard C. Wolfe (Member # 431) on 04-01-2010, 03:43 PM:

Somehow I think most of you are missing the point here.

The question from Ronda was why not allow smaller theatres, ie: small town, 2nd runs, discounts, rural, whatever, that will find it extremely difficult, or downright impossible to afford $80,000 digital projection equipment (D-Cinema), to purchase $10,000 digital equipment (E-Cinema) instead. This is currently being done in other countries, India being an excellent example.

I love 35mm and still use it currently, but realize that at some point I will have to upgrade to digital. I’m very lucky that I have been successful enough with my small town 2nd run single screen theatre, that I have been able to save enough to make whatever upgrades that I feel necessary each year. If I wanted to put in 2k digital right now, all I need to do is write a check. No loans… completely paid. However, I’m not ready for it. I’m happy with what I have. When I feel completely comfortable that digital will provide me with the same dependability as 35mm film, I will change. I have never, over the past 40 years lost a show because of projection failure, and I don’t want to start now.

Most small theatre operators are not as fortunate as I am. I book several small town theatres and know owners of many more, and most of them will never be able to afford D-Cinema and will be forced out of business due to that fact. However, most of them could afford E-Cinema and continue to serve their communities with a nice theatre going experience with E-Cinema.

I have rented my theatre to many groups that have brought in high quality E-Cinema projectors that put a well lit, beautifully bright totally in focus picture on my screen, filling the complete height of my screen as well. Now I suppose that if you put the two side by side, you would see a difference, and D-Cinema would indeed be better. But not being in a position to see them both at the same time, most people would not notice the difference, and in fact could care less.

As someone else has already stated, “people will vote with their feet” and their wallets as well. So let’s give them the chance to do that. I would not be afraid of the results. Allowing E-Cinema will save many theatres, especially in markets which have little or no competition.

Someone else, Frank I believe, said: “Not to mention, to watch a movie that is already out on BluRay, and cable and which they all can get for a buck at RedBox, or NetFlex. So what are you offering them? Will they come to your theatre to pay you 10 times what they can pay to see it in the comfort of their livingroom with their friends?” This has nothing to do with BluRay or Cable or RedBox, we’re talking about any theatrical run, 1st run, 2nd run, discount, whatever, before the window ends, and the DVD release begins. We’re also not talking about giant TV screens, but rather full size movie screens, 25 to 35 feet wide. Theatres regardless of their run, should have the opportunity to exhibit movies in a form that they can afford, and let the movie going public make the decision to support them or not. I think it might surprise many of you that the public would continue to support those theatres just as before and even possibly more.

I’ve been a theatre owner, manager, and projectionist for 45 years, but I will admit I’m not a tech guy. I can’t tell you anything about pixels, chips or the difference between 2K and 4K, but I can put an excellent show on my screen. I can judge the results using two pieces of equipment, my eyes and my ears. If it looks good and sounds good, it IS good. I’ve seen and heard excellent results first hand with E-Cinema presentations. I am therefore convinced that there is a place for it in the commercial movie theatre market.

Let’s give the small theatre operator the chance to stay in business, and many smaller communities the opportunity to still have a local theatre.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-02-2010, 08:56 AM:

I don't get this argument. We know that 2K D-cinema has lower resolution and less color depth than a quality 35mm print. And yet people in this thread want an even lower-quality format just because it is cheaper? Please.

Until some distributor threatens to cut off the supply of 35mm prints (which has not happened yet), this is a nonissue, anyway, for cash-strapped independents.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 04-02-2010, 07:31 PM:

We are not talking Avatar or Batman here. E-cinema makes sense for specialist features that would otherwise not be seen outside major cities. Some of these were not film based and the cost of making 35mm prints or dci files would never be recovered.
Distributors of limited market features, such as foreign language and documentary movies, can not justify the cost of prints or multiple copies. There is a small audience for these which can now be served with e-cinema, or ignored.
There are some distributors who use e-cinema to widen their market and pocket the savings.
It could be argued that the sort of fare that e-cinema enables should go straight to specialist tv. In our experience, the audience wants to see it on our screen and many express their gratitude. They are obviously voting with their feet.
As for 35mm prints no longer being available, it is a pity that this didn't start to happen in the 60s, with cinemas being forced to go 70mm. Unrealistic, I know.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 04-02-2010, 07:56 PM:

quote: Richard C. Wolfe
Somehow I think most of you are missing the point here.

The question from Ronda was why not allow smaller theatres, ie: small town, 2nd runs, discounts, rural, whatever, that will find it extremely difficult, or downright impossible to afford $80,000 digital projection equipment (D-Cinema), to purchase $10,000 digital equipment (E-Cinema) instead. This is currently being done in other countries, India being an excellent example.

No sir, I think you are missing the point. Why should any customer have to PAY for a shittier, inferior quality presentation? If the smaller operators cannot clean up their act and put forth a decent 35mm presentation then they DESERVE to go out of business!!

Sorry Rhonda, but your better off cleaning up your issues with 35mm presentation than wasting money on more electronic crap that will NOT help you get better business.

The whole problem with this industry right now is that the studios and H'wood in general are always giving the exhibs the big mean weenie. Forcing an immature and costly presentation medium, continuing to crank out bland, story-less dreck and now foisting "3-D" as the greatest thing since storytelling are all killing this industry.

And India is about the WORST example of greatness in exhibition...you ever work on a Monee or Cinecita projector? [Roll Eyes]

Like I have said here before, I am so glad I will be retired or dead before this whole obsession with [bs]

fully takes over this industry.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-02-2010, 08:23 PM:

quote:
Why should any customer have to PAY for a shittier, inferior quality presentation? If the smaller operators cannot clean up their act and put forth a decent 35mm presentation then they DESERVE to go out of business!!

I think in her question, she is assuming a scenario in which 35mm will not be available. If that happens, and the customers have to choose between no theatre at all, or an E-theatre, most customers in a small town would continue to support an E-theatre.

The method by which the picture gets to the screen isn't all that important to 90% or more of the audience. They just like the fact that the picture is there.

Nay-sayers are always bringing up the "why would they go out when they can get it cheaper at home" argument, but they miss the point. The one thing you cannot get at home is a NIGHT OUT, away from your house. No matter how wonderful your TV is, you're still looking at your same four walls.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-02-2010, 09:18 PM:

Another consideration is that with the crappier quality we see in 35mm prints on a daily basis how IS an indy supposed to put on a decent show?

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 04-02-2010, 09:33 PM:

The only issue I see is the single chip DLP projectors, for me the image is not as good as my plasma tv in a way that is distracting ie the rainbow effect. Aproxmately 20% of the population will be aware and others may complain of headaches.

I have no complaints regarding the eventual phasing out of film in exibition but I would suggest that introducing technology that may make the experience worse for 1 in 5 people, may be in the long term an expensive decision.

I personally use at home a HD 3LCD style of video projector and love it.

Ecinema really does not offer any antipiracy protection, studios in America I imagine would really would have an issue sending out prestine, easy to copy HD files of their films.

As for India, its a market very different to the west. Indians love there movies but many millions live with very little money Low cost competition from small halls or rooms with a tube tv and dvd at the front are genuine compitition for existing usually regional cinemas. Therefore competition from home is a bit different than in first world countries.

Over time the price of Dcinema equipment will continue to drop so patience might be all it takes.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 04-02-2010, 09:39 PM:

Right on Mark. We run 35mm 99% of the time and just sometimes I wish we received an e-cinema file instead.
Curiously, the print we are running of Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang is excellent (Scope, with dts discs as well) while the first Nanny looked like a blow up from 16mm.

The other consideration for some exhibitors in smaller towns is the difficulty of getting or training a projectionist. The younger generation can usually work out how to run a computer-based show but can't seem to grasp the mechanical/electronic film process.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-03-2010, 07:33 AM:

If we're talking about low-budget stuff that was never available on film to begin with, then I have no problem with the idea of showing it on video (as that is the only option). We've been doing this for years at film festivals and art museums (musea?) with Beta SP, Digi-Beta, and HDCAM, which are standard formats and available now. The HD stuff actually looks pretty decent (assuming a quality video projector), and video is no longer embarrassing to show.

For commercial features and high-budget documentaries which are available in 35mm and/or D-cinema, however, I strongly oppose low-quality video presentation.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-03-2010, 07:44 AM:

Okay...another perspective...

I am NOT in favor of E-Cinema as it is the wild-west. The quality of show will vary wildly, depending on the equipment chosen. You could easily get very under-lit and piss-poor images. The quality of images coming from typical A/V projectors are anywhere from phenomenal to crap. And how they age varies too with LCDs being notably worse 5-years later.

EVERY THEATRE IS AN AMBASSADOR TO THE INDUSTRY. That is, every great theatre improves the customer perspective of our industry but so does every CRAP theatre take away from it. With E-Cinemas, there will be more crap than good. The reason for going E-Cinema is due to financial reasons, people with less money tend to buy inferior things and then offer up "well it is good enough" or "I think it looks great."

I've done my share of E-Cinema systems. They are okay, given the equipment and the cost/quality ratio is pretty good. However, I would not consider the image (or sound) quality to be cinema grade at all. Their only saving grace is that they can show what is not available to either 35mm or DCinema at the time. The audience DID get the communal experience. Then again, I know the systems I install and the limiting factor remained the source (picture and sound). However, one is free to install one's cheapo "Dell" projector and play just 2-channel stereo with these systems too.

The fact of the matter is, while with film systems the quality can too vary a bit, the spread is much closer...generally if one has a crap system...it also will be breaking too. And certainly in film we have more mono systems than E-Cinema will likely have. That said...the ability to get really good quality film presentations for almost no extra cost is also there. So much so, I never understood the exhibitor that chooses such a lowering of quality for such small savings per screen. Particularly when one looks at it over the life of the theatre. Truly, the cost/year for great versus crap is almost zero.

The DCinema systems and DCI (despite 90% of it being about security) does set a quality standard too, for both picture and sound. It really isn't even a close call between DCinema and ECinema. If you think it is close, you are merely fooling yourself because you don't want to pay the difference.

I, personally, feel that the industry would be better off with fewer lower-end theatres than to lower its overall quality by providing a means for them to survive.

For the documentarians, DCinema can show their products just fine too. If your cinema is planning on showing non-DCinema like HDCAM or other video standard...there are, now, relatively low-cost DCinema scalers from Barco (excellent, ACS2048) and Christie/Gefen. Your DCinema system will make these look their best too, if they don't have a film offering.

Seriously...what does a DCinema system cost (not including 3D since we are talking about subrun and art)? Even with a conservative life span of 7-years (and it is supposed to be 15-years). It is the cheapest employee in the theatre/year, by a long stretch.

Steve

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 04-03-2010, 01:52 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Seriously...what does a DCinema system cost (not including 3D since we are talking about subrun and art)? Even with a conservative life span of 7-years (and it is supposed to be 15-years). It is the cheapest employee in the theatre/year, by a long stretch.

Not compared to the cost of film equipment which is more than capable of lasting more than 7-15 years. [Big Grin]

Especially since a discussion in another thread showed a tally of around $60-76k for a D-Cinema setup. Plus extra lamp and electricity operational costs.

You could get a brand-new 35mm setup for around $20k. That's 3-to-1.

And 35/70 for still less than the cost of ONE D-Cinema, for at least a 2-to-1 ratio.

quote: Steve Guttag
If your cinema is planning on showing non-DCinema like HDCAM or other video standard...there are, now, relatively low-cost DCinema scalers from Barco (excellent, ACS2048) and Christie/Gefen. Your DCinema system will make these look their best too, if they don't have a film offering.

That will all depend on the original source resolution. 480i, 720i, etc. will still look like ass when blown up to cinema size, scaler or no scaler...and many scalers add artifacts to the image. You can't polish a turd. Only HD original sources of at least 1080i will look decent on large screens.

Also, a high-resolution projector is VERY revealing of flaws and will make bad source material look worse.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-03-2010, 03:49 PM:

Oh my god...Tony...

Why are you even talking about film? Nobody is talking about replacing film with ECinema. People are talking about wanting to use ECinema if film is no longer available or if a movie isn't offered in film (some documentaries).

Using the top number of your statement of $76,000. And my lowest life span...7-years. The cost of DCinema is $10,857/year. That is a CHEAP employee. The longer it lasts, the cheaper it gets.

There is no question that film still slams digital for cost/year. Film equipment typically lasts the life of the complex. So even if you bought the best (say Kinoton)...your cost/year is about...free. Seriously...it is on the order of about $100/month...if the equipment can't generate that with much more profit for other things...just close. But we are not talking about film...we are talking about some form of digital.

The better projectors/scalers do make a big difference when blowing things up to the big screen. I was also discussion professional video sources (I mentioned HDCam). It generally looks pretty good, even on the big screen. Even DBeta can look very good on the big screen.

Steve

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 04-04-2010, 07:21 AM:

At my theatre, we recently had our first encounter with E-Cinema, running a product that was only available on 1080p Blu-Ray. The Blu-Ray was hooked in to a Gefen scaler using an HDMI cable, and then over to our Barco DP2000 with a DVI cable. Was the image quality equal to my normal D-Cinema presentations? No. But the producers and the director were all equally impressed, saying our presentation looked better than any other theatre their product had played up to that point. Did it help that I actually run my bulb at 14 foot lamberts, or that it was through a 2K projector instead of a 1K or 1.2K? I don't know. I don't the equipment used at the other theatres, nor am I that much of an expert yet on D-Cinema, and even less of one on E-Cinema.

But I am also wondering how much different that image would have looked showing through a 1.2K if it was in a theatre with a 19x10ft screen and only a 50ft throw, as opposed to on a 2K on a 28x16ft screen with an 85ft throw. I'll find out in six weeks, because I have another E-Cinema presentation coming up then, and I am not going to be tying my Digital 3D house, and I'll probably end up having to rent a 1.2K projector to show it on a 19x10ft screen with a 50ft throw.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 04-04-2010, 08:35 PM:

Edward what exactly do you think is ecinema about your set up?

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 04-05-2010, 03:06 AM:

Cameron... uhm... the Blu-Ray player. No encryption, no key management, doesn't use the JPEG2000 picture encoding standard specified by DCI, not an MXF-compliant file.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 04-05-2010, 05:10 AM:

I wish my ecinema set up went through your projector [Smile]

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 04-05-2010, 11:27 AM:

quote: Edward Havens
Cameron... uhm... the Blu-Ray player. No encryption, no key management, doesn't use the JPEG2000 picture encoding standard specified by DCI, not an MXF-compliant file.

Since you seemed to not get it, e-cinema would be internet-based. Like e-commerce is selling stuff over the internet or other computer networks.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-05-2010, 06:37 PM:

I think it's just a matter of terminologies. Here in Australia, 'E-Cinema' refers to video projection via a hard drive to play MPEG2 files supplied by some independent distributors. So basically, playing movies on screen but not off 35mm or a DCI compliant video projector.

Posted by Steven J Hart (Member # 2340) on 04-05-2010, 08:54 PM:

quote: Richard C. Wolfe
Somehow I think most of you are missing the point here.

The question from Ronda was why not allow smaller theatres, ie: small town, 2nd runs, discounts, rural, whatever, that will find it extremely difficult, or downright impossible to afford $80,000 digital projection equipment (D-Cinema), to purchase $10,000 digital equipment (E-Cinema) instead. This is currently being done in other countries, India being an excellent example.

Richard, I think its really hard for the big city guys on this forum to understand the problems faced by those of us trying to run a movie theater in rural-town USA. I love 35mm. I've invested the money in Digital Sound, Good lenses, speakers and amps, and am always working to present the best image I can from the (sometimes) trashed prints I'm forced to show (filmguard). I want to continue to run 35mm, but print availability has really gotten tough here in North Dakota - mostly because of Carmike, but it will only get worse as the major chains continue to add digital screens. I've been used to playing features 2 to 3 weeks off the national break by circuiting second or third prints over from the multiplexes, but those prints are getting tougher to come by, so my window seems to be edging farther out from the break. I think that our theater may be able to move to D-Cinema when the time is right, but many of my neighboring theaters who gross less than me probably won't be able to make the transition. I know I'll get yelled down here, but most of the patrons at my theater think I'm just putting a disk into some kind of player. When I tell them that we still run film they seem shocked! They Don't Care -as long as the picture looks good to them and the sound is good... Some folks tell me that they only come to the theater because the sound is so much better than at home.
Steve

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-06-2010, 10:46 AM:

quote: Steven J Hart
Richard, I think its really hard for the big city guys on this forum to understand the problems faced by those of us trying to run a movie theater in rural-town USA.

Having been around this forum almost since it began, I can tell you that the attitude here towards smaller operations has changed. When I joined, most of the members just didn't realize there were quite a few of "us" still out here. And, I myself have had my eyes opened to the problems faced by the big-city operators -- problems which we, as independents, don't have to deal with. So the exchange of info here has hopefully been valuable for all.

Posted by Ronda Fitzsimmons (Member # 1418) on 04-07-2010, 02:25 AM:

Steve, Really? "EVERY THEATRE IS AN AMBASSADOR TO THE INDUSTRY." Funny, and all this time I thought I was just one of many small businesses in the country serving my customers and creating jobs. Wonder what my customers and employees would think about your position - show a perfect presentation or close. It's an elitist position, and honestly my customers are blue collar, hard working and not at all interested in what system I'm using, as long as they can see and hear the movie.

Like Dick Wolfe, I've been in the business a long time, (not as long as you, Dick!), and I'm much more concerned about getting the picture onscreen and paying the bills than an 8% difference in some LAB. We can't get a print that doesn't have scratches after 8-10 weeks of play. And $10k PER SCREEN, not per complex, puts me out of business, my staff on unemployment, and my apparently inferior customers staying at home - they can't afford first run prices.

I'm willing to go into debt for something that makes financial sense. I'm not willing to work for the next seven years to pay for equipment that will be out of the date the second I sign the papers - even IF there were a way for me to get that kind of loan. Are you Scott? Somehow I doubt it. Money's not a bad thing you know. Why do you work?

I realize there are a lot of people here who are upset about the change to digital. I'm not one of them. I think there are many obvious advantages, and it's inevitable. I just dont think the change should shut out my business model, my customers, my employees. Not when there's a perfectly reasonable alternative available.

I'm not asking for a handout. The theatres that are able to convert to d-cinema are getting per print fees. If the film companies are so concerned about security, then they could invest in marking each print to track back to the thieves, just like they do now.

And for the record, I am investing in improving the presentation, and I do so every year. Last year we replaced the seats with newer used seats, and several customers got VERY upset, because they thought we'd then have to increase our prices and they wouldn't be able to afford to come any more. I just want a chance to continue to serve my customers. To continue to provide jobs for my people. And to continue to make a living in a business I love. Really, is it so unreasonable?

And I believe it's a better long term industry model to start with affordable equipment, even if it is lower res, to allow for upgrades as the technology advances, as it's doing every day. 3D on your TV anyone?

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-07-2010, 05:13 AM:

quote: Ronda Fitzsimmons
And $10k PER SCREEN, not per complex, puts me out of business

Are you referring to the RealD 3D license? Just don't go 3D if that's what that is. If it's not, I've missed something.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 04-07-2010, 05:36 AM:

John I think she is talking about single chip DLP projector costs probably 720p resolution.

If she could see how crap the "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" looked on the ecinema gear I work with here in Australia, she would realise that that 10k was probably money down the drain! Anyone like watching scope movies with a squeeze to fit 16.9? Sure it has no scratches BUT Combine the weight lose effect with the rainbow effect! I have given up trying to get the correct file.

That is the problem with non standardised systems!

In this era of big screen home entertainment it is only 3 months until the audience will see it properly at home. We might be making money now but its hard not to think that many will hold it against us in the future.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-07-2010, 06:04 AM:

But I was under the impression the O.P. wanted to make the change. If what you say is true, she now says it will put her out of business. [Confused]

BTW, are you saying the e-cinema file of Sheila With The Gecko Deco is letterboxed or not?

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 04-07-2010, 06:08 AM:

Not letterboxed

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-07-2010, 08:25 AM:

[puke]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-07-2010, 11:17 AM:

quote: Ronda Fitzsimmons
Last year we replaced the seats with newer used seats, and several customers got VERY upset, because they thought we'd then have to increase our prices and they wouldn't be able to afford to come any more.

Ronda - Obviously you know your customers, but is this a common view among ALL of them or just a certain vocal few? Would everybody really stop coming if you went up a quarter?

Here, we are priced higher than all of the other small theatres around us, but it's justified because we offer a better experience. We have zero complaints from the vast majority of people, but we do get the occasional "comment" from those folks who always want to complain about something. If our tickets were a dollar, they would gripe that it ought to be 75¢.

You shouldn't allow a small vocal minority to keep you from raising your prices when you need to, and you shouldn't be afraid to price your product what it's worth. Just my 2¢.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-07-2010, 01:35 PM:

A couple of points at least up here there are no VPF being paid to independents so one must bear the entire cost
I agree with stev in most of the comments he made this industry has allowed itself to continously spiral to the lowest common denominator that is why theatres regularly receive damaged and scratched prints
single chip dlp has no place in an enviroment with paid admissions

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 04-07-2010, 04:59 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Using the top number of your statement of $76,000. And my lowest life span...7-years. The cost of DCinema is $10,857/year. That is a CHEAP employee. The longer it lasts, the cheaper it gets.

This is probably what Rhonda was meaning with the $10,000 per screen comment.

Tried to correct my post within the hour but was too late to edit. Then it told me I could not double post. [Confused]

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 04-07-2010, 10:55 PM:

This is an ideal example of what e-cinema is for. We will be running Mid August Lunch from a hard drive but will wait for 35mm on The Sheila With The Gecko Decco (and thanks to John Wilson for the liveware spellcheck).

Our e-cinema gear is mostly for pre-show (coming attractions and theatre and community information). It is a quantum leap from slides.

I am one of those people who see the rainbow effect – our Optoma dlp projector in our home cinema displays it. Fortunately neither my wife nor any of our guests notice it. I say this because I don’t see it from our e-cinema projector and it is single chip dlp. The brightness, steadiness and clarity are a bonus. Also, the media player reliably puts out 5.1. Lucky, I suppose.

Image and sound quality are actually better than I had hoped from a digital source. So I am not terrified of the day we have to switch from film to d-cinema, except for the necessity of selling a kidney to pay for it. Oh, and I still have an appendix if anybody’s interested; barely used.

If all film was done right we there would be no discussion.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-08-2010, 12:42 AM:

Ron - yes there would, because the film co's are saving all that money, and the big exhibs would like to trim jobs, whether film was being done right or not.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 04-08-2010, 04:11 AM:

The Sheila With The Gecko Decco update, new letterboxed version is on its way [Smile]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-08-2010, 05:08 AM:

[thumbsup]

Well, sort of...

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 04-09-2010, 04:14 AM:

Mike, my sympathies lie with independent distributors. Major distibutors here have access to used prints and worthwhile discounts on large runs for new prints so the cost of 35mm is irrelevant. Although 5,000 prints of a bad movie that doesn't open becomes very expensive.

The small indies are paying top dollar for subtitled or small run prints and they can't afford d-cinema copies.

The e-cinema route gives them the opportunity to get some return from specialist fare. Despite what others are saying, their latest 2K files look pretty good. But, just like d-cinema, they can't get Scope right and that is the most important format in contemporary cinema presentation.

Having seen crap digital presentations from majors at conventions, I have to keep my cool when they tell me they will not support e-cinema in any form on grounds of quality. I can't understand how they could get e-cinema presentation so bad at those affairs, unless it was to reinforce their argument on quality.

Any Film-Techers who have a decent home cinema set-up will admit that they enjoy better results there than they get from many shows on a cinema screen. I certainly have. E-cinema can be done right and it should be if you are asking for an admission price. The mid-size distributors charge the same hire to give a cinema a film print or a 2k e-cinema hard drive.

Posted by Ronda Fitzsimmons (Member # 1418) on 04-11-2010, 11:54 AM:

Sorry about the confusion on the $10K per screen. I was quoting Steve's estimate of the cost (without interest, I might add) of installing D-cinema per screen per year. Where as a pretty decent e-cinema setup would be $10K total per screen - or less - much more affordable over a few years time, and much more upgradable affordably as newer, better, cheaper systems come out. Not to mention there's at least SOME possibility of me actually being able to get finacing for $10k per screen total, even self-financing over a couple of years if nothing else. Whereas there really is no way for me to get financing for $10k+ per screen per year. And this doesn't include the additional cost of the "required" maintenance contracts, where with the lower cost system, I can just have a backup on hand, and send anything that breaks out to be fixed...

And unfortunately Mike, it would take a whole lot more than a quarter raise in my prices to pay for D-cinema. My personal experience shows that every increase in price results in a decrease in customers. And the only thing that keeps us going is butts in the seats. With the ever shortened window between show openings and video release, we are already seeing shorter runs on some of the bigger movies. Not enough as yet to seriously impact the bottom line, but it's coming...

I don't lose staff with digital, which I've seen mentioned a couple of times here. We run bare-bones now. So there is no offsetting savings from cutting labor.

From what I've heard, not confirmed, there isn't a savings or much of one in electricity use either.

And I understand there isn't any savings in shipping costs either. Although I expect we'll start seeing higher shipping costs either way since we won't be able to pick up prints from local first runs as we do regularly now. Anyone have real data on this? Will film companies allow pick up of hard drives?

And while I haven't done a full check on the technology out there, I do know there is affordable equipment out there that would work beautifully on my smaller screens.

I really didn't expect anywhere near the responses I got from my rant... Nice to see some thoughtful discourse on the subject, and to see some of the surprisingly vehement replies as well...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-11-2010, 01:34 PM:

quote: Ronda Fitzsimmons
And I understand there isn't any savings in shipping costs either.

Someone correct me if this is wrong, but I understand Technicolor charges the same rates for film or digital. Deluxe charges the actual UPS rates (or close to them) and you are free to ship prints back any way you want, so you can save a bit on shipping Deluxe prints.