Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Digital Projection for Independent theaters

This is topic Digital Projection for Independent theaters in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=005001

Posted by Steven J Hart (Member # 2340) on 03-18-2007, 08:46 AM:

Was there any news at Showwest concerning outfitting independent theaters with Digital Projection? Are any of the players providing equipment interested in talking to the little guys, or are they just concerned about the big corporate deals? I've been wondering for quite a while about how long we will be able to continue to get film prints.
Steve Hart

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-18-2007, 11:42 AM:

Most likely film prints will continue to be made until every theatre is converted. It's going to be a number of years before that happens. It's not a snap your fingers and everything is done process. The three big majors have more than 14,000 screens to convert in the future. That's about half the screens left to be converted. It's going to take some time to get it all done. Overseas will probably be completed before half of the U.S. is completed. That's because film companies want to eliminate the huge import costs for shipping film to other countries.

Posted by Steven J Hart (Member # 2340) on 03-18-2007, 12:57 PM:

quote: Darryl Spicer
Most likely film prints will continue to be made until every theatre is converted.

I may just be a pessimist, but I doubt the studios will continue producing film prints when the time comes that all major theater chains have converted to digital and there are a few thousand small-town mom'n'pop screens still running film.

Steve

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-18-2007, 01:39 PM:

Then those small town mom and pop's can sue them for failure to provide content in that medium until they can convert. But like I said that may be quite a few years down the road. I can't see why they wouldn't produce them since it would only be a drop in the bucket in cost for them since they will be saving all that money not mass producing them. Plus as the mass production slows down I would think the print quality would get better.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-18-2007, 02:03 PM:

And as mass production slows down the individual lab costs will go up

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 03-18-2007, 04:27 PM:

In 15 years we will speak again! I doubt they will be able to bring in Digital Cinema even until then. Although they made a lot of progress, Digital Cinema is doomed to the technology flick. It will never be finalised. Every time something new will come up and it will NEVER reach Film Standard.
FILM RULES

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 03-18-2007, 07:22 PM:

Demetris, you are undoubted correct, D-Cinema will likely not develop to the image quality possible on film because some individual or committee will declare that enough time and money has been thrown at it and orders will be issued to go with the technology of that moment. Once a significant quantity of equipment is in place it will be very difficult to obsolete it and changes will be limited to updates and upgrades to the original technology. Pretty much the same as has happened with film over the last 100 years.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-18-2007, 07:41 PM:

Bill: the difference is that FILM has slowly evolved with changes only made at the speed required by the end user. Film stock improvements occurred at no cost to the end user. Even Dolby films will still play on Western Electric Universal bases with a red led.

D-Cinema (or as I call it: theatre-TV) requires a system-wide improvement every time something is adjusted.

It is the difference between evolution and revolution. Louis

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-19-2007, 08:17 AM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
D-Cinema (or as I call it: theatre-TV) requires a system-wide improvement every time something is adjusted.

Not really quite true.... the best example being the jet black coating on the DLP Imaging Chips. This sort of thing does not require any change to anything else to implement and it improves apparent contrast noticably. Other improvements you WILL see in the very near future are in new series of prime D.C. lenses by both ISCO and Schneider designed specifically for D.C.. Power supplies, hard drives, semiconductors.... I could go on and on... these cam improve but are not visually apparent like the difference between the same gearused in an X-L.. one made by LaVezzi or one by Wolk.

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-19-2007, 11:09 AM:

quote: Demetris Thoupis
Every time something new will come up and it will NEVER reach Film Standard.

Unfortunately a lot of movies shot on film and shown via 35mm film prints have no better image quality potential than any 2K D-Cinema movie.

Most CGI work is done in 2K resolution. More and more movies are using digital intermediate techniques rather than the traditional color timing lab methods. The vast majority of digital intermediates are rendered at only 2K. Both CGI and DI work as a serious bottleneck on image detail. When something like a 2048 X 858 image is laser recorded back out onto film, the detail of the original 35mm elements is not going to magically return. The film print is nothing more than an analog version of what used to be a digital image with limited resolution.

Add to that the growing trend of movies getting shot on video rather than film. The image detail bottleneck that was there with 35mm is removed. That's only because the originating format is from a lower quality source. But hey! It's "digital!"

It's going to take 4K to 8K production work-flows to restore the capability we're now largely doing without when it comes to 35mm film production on a lot of major releases. The bean counters like 2K, possibly because it's pretty similar to HDTV and seems good enough for most, modest sized movie theaters. 2K can be rendered faster and faster (and cut costs). With the film business resembling nothing more than a video business as time passes I'm wondering if widespread adoption of 4K standards will ever occur at all.

Posted by Joel N. Weber II (Member # 3530) on 03-19-2007, 11:33 AM:

If you look at how the resolution of computer monitors has evolved, it's hard to imagine that we won't eventually see 4K and probably even 8K theatrical projection. The ``Hi-Res'' graphics mode on the original Apple II in 1977 did 280x192 (if you even had enough RAM in your computer to use Hi-Res mode); 30 years later, roughly the same dollar amount (or quite possibly less) will buy you a computer with a 1920x1200 monitor. The color depth and resolution is also vastly improved on newer computers; if I'm remembering correctly, Hi-Res mode was a hack based on NTSC where one lighted pixel by itself would be color, and exactly where it was would determine which color, and two horizontally adjacent pixels would turn white. A modern computer will give you 24 bits for each pixel.

However, there's certainly a good chance that home theater will have resolution equal to theatrical [dlp]

4K rendering costs ought to keep coming down with time, and maybe producers will eventually decide that the extra cost is worth it. Especially once 4K becomes widely available in the home.

The more interesting question, I think, is whether [dlp]

's contrast ratio will ever match film.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-19-2007, 11:59 AM:

quote: Joel N. Weber II
If you look at how the resolution of computer monitors has evolved, it's hard to imagine that we won't eventually see 4K and probably even 8K theatrical projection

Pardon my simplistic view of all this, but if there are less than half-a-million potential locations worldwide (sorry... don't remember where that number is), isn't this a colossal money-loser for the investors?

Seems that the introduction of 4k just dilutes the pool. Why would you want one very expensive piece of equipment when major upgrades always seem to be "just around the corner"?

If a manufacturer hasn't made enough money from versin "A" to pay off the phone bill, what motivates them to do 4k, or more?

I guess I still don't see the economics in this technology... at least as it applies to the theatrical market.

At what point will the studios tire of supporting "the rollout"... and who's really going to pay the big bux for one of those projection systems then?

[Confused]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-19-2007, 12:22 PM:

Yeah, what happens when the current crop of digital projectors wears out in 5 to 7 years or less? THe studios aren't going to pay for another "conversion" because they won't be saving any money then. Will the Carmikes of the world be willing to shell out the kind of money they're not having to pay this time?

Edit to answer my own question: No, what will happen is the bigger theatres will "trade in" their old equipment, which will be "reconditioned" and sold to smaller theatres at too-high prices while the big boys get shiny new equipment.

Personally I hate this scenario because I've hardly ever bought any reconditioned equipment. I prefer the peace of mind and reliability I get with new stuff. But, that's probably the way it's going to play out in the smaller places.

[ 03-19-2007, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Mike Blakesley ]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-19-2007, 01:43 PM:

That's just it. I have strong doubts any wide-spread conversion to 4K will ever happen. Several factors are cutting against it.

There's little use currently for any 4K-based devices in consumer electronics and computing. High end computer graphics displays is about it. Disc based movies are maxed out at 1080p, just under 2K resolution. The only hope 4K has of hitting homes anytime within the next several years is by way of video on demand downloads via a much more sophisticated Internet. That situation will have most electronics companies not pushing for anything past 1080p and 2K for quite a long time.

Then there's the previously stated situation in film-making where 2K is "good enough," even with computing technology that can manage 4K with little trouble.

The first generation of DLP digital projectors, with their 1280 X 1024 maximum resolution (not to mention questionable video encoding standards) were very inferior to the new systems being installed. I don't think there's any danger to Hollywood studios pulling the plug on content for 2K systems as long as Hollywood stays very stuck on doing nearly all its CGI and DI work in that same resolution. Even if Hollywood did finally switch much of its processing to 4K they would still have a tough time trying to get rid of 2K projection systems, after all they're one of the parties having to pay for all that hardware. That's another reason why I have doubts about 4K becoming the de facto standard.

Actually, out of devices that can be replaced, I think it would be far more likely to see server/playback units switched out from time to time. Bigger hard discs and ever changing data security formats may force the issue.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-19-2007, 09:56 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Yeah, what happens when the current crop of digital projectors wears out in 5 to 7 years or less?

Mike,

Ya need to go back in that other thread... where ever it is... and read my proposal regarding using on screen ads to pay the lease on D-Cinema Systems. D-Cinema equipment fits the 5 or 7 year lease program like a glove... Get rid of it after those time periods and get the all new latest stuff and just continue on with the lease. You'll never be stuck with obsolete equipment!

Not only that the major leasing company we work with who also manufactures D-Cinema equipment will taylor a lease to your budget, high/low cash flow periods, and time frame, there are other lease options and I could go on and on like service contracts and major replacement parts coverage.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-20-2007, 10:38 AM:

Or better yet, keep film equipment that over the life of the theatre is essentially free, and buy increasingly CHEAP digital projectors for the ads!

The ISCO/Schneider lenses for DCinema are fixed focal length on the premise that they can build a higher quality fixed lens than a zoom...I don't doubt that is true. However, with Flat/Scope often requiring a focal length change since neither the height nor width is constant in a DCinema machine, it adds to the problem. Furthermore...the change in chip sets as they come out require NEW lenses to work with them...it isn't like film where the thing you are projecting is a fixed target...new chip sets have different optical paths and the lenses need to be redesigned to accommodate.

The Cinema Black chips are also nothing particularly new...that is how DCinema projectors have been getting 2000:1 contrast ratios without active iris trickery (trickery since if you put up a checkerboard pattern of black and white...the variable iris machines show their true lack of contrast ratios).

Thus far, when new technology has come out for DCinema, there has been no secondary market...the DCinema folks (studios) simply stop all support for the old technology regardless if it works or not. This has been true for 1.3K projectors and is becoming true for MPEG servers.

As for 4K and beyond...the computer model presented is not a good one...with computers you have a potential multi billion user base to buy your superior product...that is what drives the technology. You will never have that in the cinema market...there just is not enough potential sales to justify the R&D to update it beyond a certain point. 2K was easy in a sense since that is where the home video market is going to settle for some time since they have bandwidth issues and the fact that a 2K picture, even on a large home theatre projector looks quite impressive to one that is used to NTSC (or even PAL or SECAM).

There really is no economical reason for theatres to switch to DCinema. It offers nothing but big expense to save someone else money.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-20-2007, 11:32 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
There really is no economical reason for theatres to switch to DCinema. It offers nothing but big expense to save someone else money.

If you could just convince the rest of world of that..... Personally, I look forword to seeing the obsolete and archaic system of film projection go bye-bye.

Mark

Posted by David Graves (Member # 4069) on 03-20-2007, 11:45 AM:

More importantly- what's the point? When we show films that are only available on one-two screens, often times the distributor doesn't even have enough money to place a print ad, much less do a 2k digital transfer. Also, we play a ton of foreign films, the prints of which are mainly festival prints with English subtitles. So before we're getting all digital content, the ENTIRE PLANET essentially has to go digital.

Theaters that play mainstream studio stuff exclusively are one thing- but there are a great many theaters that play mostly studio stuff mixed in with some indie films. Those guys will have to keep their 35mm projectors to play them, if digital transfers not available. Add this to the lack of any sort of standard format, and what do you have?

Another 5-10 years before this clicks into place for everyone.

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 03-20-2007, 04:09 PM:

quote: David Graves
When we show films that are only available on one-two screens, often times the distributor doesn't even have enough money to place a print ad, much less do a 2k digital transfer.

How many of these films are shot on digital?

A 2k transfer will be a lot better than a copy on Digi-Beta tape or worse.

quote: David Graves
Also, we play a ton of foreign films, the prints of which are mainly festival prints with English subtitles.

It should be a lot easier (and cheaper) to make the digital subtitles, rather than having to laser subtitle films.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-20-2007, 06:38 PM:

The thing I don't understand with a great deal of "indie" movies, is how so many are very obviously shot on videotape, yet drafted over through a film-step and put on 35mm prints. I can understand the practice for just getting the movie into a traditional film projection based movie theater. The "not understanding" part is how they try in vain to keep the "film look" via that photo-chemical step after the movie has been released on DVD and cable.

My message to the indie grungie guys: you're not fooling anyone! We know you videotaped the movie! Stop trying to hide the fact you shot a video and not a film. It's just downright pretentious.

If digital is so great, bask in the glory of it instead of trying to make it look like film. The method isn't working and only makes the video imagery look even more shitty. That especially goes for all those productions shot on ordinary DV tape or Digital Betacam.

[ 03-20-2007, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 03-20-2007, 06:49 PM:

David, the film is the only internationally-compatable exhibition system at the moment.

The current situation in Australia is that mainstream releases are 100% 35mm. The few 2K machines installed are mostly idle because there is no content for them.

There is a highly competitive industry here providing 2K files of independent features and selling 2K servers and new generation 1.3K DLP 16x9 chip projectors to run them. Most of those features are still also coming on 35mm. If you wait, you can get a print but if you want the feature early you can get a hard drive copy.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-21-2007, 05:45 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Or better yet, keep film equipment that over the life of the theatre is essentially free

Absolutely! A film showing in 15 years will be a curiosity to a whole new generation and or the quaint old gear will make for a nice display in the lobby if there's room. [thumbsup]

quote: Steve Guttag
This has been true for 1.3K projectors and is becoming true for MPEG servers.

Seems to also have have happened to some cinema sound gear like SDDS and Stereo DTS and even many 35mm lenses made since 1980 can't be repaired. Now parts are hard(one source only)to get for the first two DTS players... Nothing is obsolete proof these days, not even film equipment.

quote: David Graves
So before we're getting all digital content, the ENTIRE PLANET essentially has to go digital.

Reminds me of the day when we all said "when will these dang foreign and indie films be in SRD" [Cool]

. Now just about all of them are and it did not take the entire world switching to SRD for it to happen. At any rate it won't take the entire world to be "Digital Projection" for the smaller films do be shown digitally. In fact going from the edited neg directly to digital 2K is FAR LESS EXPENSIVE than first going to film release. In fact it will allow far more films to look better in theaters than some of the lousy foreign prints that are being made today. A good example of this is the fact that there were no 16mm films shown at Slumdance this past year. All of those type of films were shown "digitally" instead.

Mark

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-21-2007, 08:50 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
A good example of this is the fact that there were no 16mm films shown at Slumdance this past year. All of those type of films were shown "digitally" instead.

But many of the winners are still shot on 16mm film, rather than video. For many filmmakers, film is still the preferred origination medium.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-21-2007, 09:03 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Seems to also have have happened to some cinema sound gear like SDDS and Stereo DTS and even many 35mm lenses made since 1980 can't be repaired. Now parts are hard(one source only)to get for the first two DTS players... Nothing is obsolete proof these days, not even film equipment.

Gee Mark...it would be neat if you would at least pay attention to the statement before repsonding foolishly to it.

SDDS is not obsolete as much as most people wish it would. SDDS films are still printed to this day. And that for the lesser of three formats (in terms of installed base). Yes, DTS stereo was abandoned...WITH an upgrade path for all that had the stereo version by merely adding the 6-track board and a disc drive to their existing unit.

As to lenses...just what are you trying to get at? The point of my statement was that existing working equipment is being refused source material simply because they don't want to provide a 1.3K or MPEG version. It isn't like the theatre police go around to film theatres and check the date codes on their stuff to see if it is 5-years or newer (despite that having a good sound to it...or at least a theatre police to ensure theatres have to meet technical standards...but I digress).

Again, I was not referring to equipment becoming unrepairable after a full life but to equipment being forced into dissuse, just "because." If a 1.3K MPEG system was good enough in 2003 it is no different in quality in 2007...it just isn't as good a a 2007 JPEG 2K system. Same is true for film in terms of lenses and in some cases older projectors versus new...then again sometimes with film projectors are superior if they are older.

Certainly anything can become obsolete...it is just harder for mechanical devices since the technology to recreate most needed items is available.

If the day comes when a working SRD processor (DA20 or CP500) can not play current SRD films just because they are not going to contine to provide SRD films for things before the CP650. That isn't going to happen. Likewise for DTS or SDDS...even though the DTS code has changed, the older players will play the current films.

The 1.3K stuff an MPEG technology should have had a secondary market such that smaller screens or smaller chains/independents should have had the opportunity to purchase 2nd hand older equipment much the same as they do with film equipment, cars and you name it.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-21-2007, 11:25 PM:

Steve... relax... I'm just yankin yer chain!

What we have to do is say still supported but obsolete format as per SDDS. Obsolete is hard to actually define but manufacturers that I have worked for(Panasonic and Canon) consider a product obsolete when it ceases to manufacture it for what ever reason, generally though they will still support it for a set time frame or until parts are exhausted. Another good example aside from SDDS is Type C 1" video tape. This was the norm for years and many stations still have machines around that are used fequently but it is still an obsolete format even though parts are available and 1" tape is all over the place. So we can certainly say that both SDDS and 1" type C are obsolete but still supported formats.

Yes, I have had ISCO lenses made since the mid 80's that were not repairable... this has certainly always been the plus side to Schneider(even before Century Optics was aquired)as they will repair just about anything they made during the same time frame.

quote: Steve Guttag
The point of my statement was that existing working equipment is being refused source material simply because they don't want to provide a 1.3K or MPEG version.

How many 1.3 K projectors are out there that could be put into action? Not many on the whole... probably less than 1000. In reality its just not worth the time to burn a few 1.3 K copies of every film released to please a few folks. Dolby had similar problems with SR analog and dual inventory with theaters that had purchased shiny new 280T cards but ended up with Type A source material. They eliminated type A and their problem. Even though the projectors may be acceptable in some applications DCI did the same by eliminating the 1.3K system. Aside from the fact that its not compliant... which in itself is somewhat vague the folks that bought and the dealers that sold the 1.3K machines were taking a chance since there was no standard nailed in place then as there is today.

Mark

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-22-2007, 08:46 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
the dealers that sold the 1.3K machines were taking a chance since there was no standard nailed in place then as there is today.

Is there a standard yet? Not the DCI spec, but an actual SMPTE standard? If so, that's pretty significant.