|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: Rant on D-Cinema
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Schulz
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 122
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: May 2007
|
posted 06-07-2009 02:52 AM
quote: Demetris Thoupis My main question to all of the exhibitors out there who do have 3D or D-Cinema, has that brought the extra client on the chair or not? Demetris
This all depends on how you interpret things. If you are the only cinema in town, then it should not matter whether you are playing 2D or 3D or digital or 35mm. However, if the cinema on the other side of town offers 3D digital cinema while you do not, well then the answer is obvious. In the end, marketing wins. People are sheep which is why IMAX makes money
You can make comparisons to almost anything in the past that has been upgraded with technology. Does a classic Beatles album sound better on vinyl or on CD? We all know the correct answer here but the average consumer will insist the digital CD has to be better.
The cinema I currently work at has a 35mm on every screen and 8 of those screens has a 2K digital projector. The general audience doesn't even know the difference when we play one format or the other (3D excluded, obviously). The only customers who are actually vocal seem to prefer 35mm as the only questions we seem to get are "which screens are 35mm?" and they proceed to buy a ticket to that show if it is available.
I apologize for going off topic here but assuming all of your digital hardware is properly calibrated (which is almost always the case where I work), you have to rely on the DCP to not be a piece of crap. There have been quite a few times as an operator where I have chosen to run the 35mm print as opposed to digital because the DCP looked like complete crap on screen.
I will admit I do not know what all goes into the release of a digital feature but my current understanding is that the director of photography signs off on both the digital intermediate and also the first show print off of the line. At that point, the DI is sent off to Deluxe or Technicolor (or wherever) to be converted into the DCP that is sent to the theatres. This is where the problem is, I think. It may be true that the DI on a feature may look outstanding, but the DCP that is sent out to cinemas may look like a completely different movie. This is a huge problem.
I do not know where I am going with all of this, it it simply observations.
As for the Sony "4K" deal, I don't think any studio since the release of "The Da Vince Code" has even released anything in 4K. I suppose with the amount of screens that both AMC and Regal have it may change things but we shall see.
-Mike
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 06-07-2009 05:03 AM
People are not, and by large, interested in 3D past the novelty (which wears off quickly) and gimmik value. I have run a couple of 3D festivals and some were a success (audience-wise) and others a complete failure (shows run to almost empty houses).
It is obvious that, if 3D was so good that increased the attendance by any significant amount, Hollywood would've long figured out to make most (or at least 10%) of all the movies in 3D, as GOOD technical solutions for 3D in cinemas have existed for ... oh, well, forever.
Some 3D films have made tremendous business because 3D fits some horror explotaition (and yes, "adult" explotation too) patterns very nicely. This will continue and a couple of 3D films are bound to do good this time around. You know, like Jaws 3D and stuff like that.
But as a general tool to attract audience, 3D is but a MODEST addition to the arsenal on fighting TV and the internet, just like Dolby-EX and stuff like that maybe. Subtle improvements, not groundbreaking stuff.
If 3D were the same price as 2D, then you may get some additional customers. The higher price ticks off a few people and drives them to 2D show, so it doens't pay off 100%. Hollywood is forcing all this down the throat as a method to convince theaters to change to digital, which is where the benefit (for them) lies. For the theatre owner, it is just a huge expense with little possibility of total pay off in many cases.
Can you do more business with 3D and digital? Sure, you could make slightly more, specially if the competition lacks it. But don't forget to set aside a good chunk of those extra profits for Real-D, Barco/NEC/Christie, AccessIT, etc, etc. You'll need some upgrades and stuff 10 years from now that may still be kind of expen$ive.
Only thing that makes sense, is for studio to finance via VPF the changeover. Once in the digital realm, 10 years from now, cinemas would have no real option but to remain digital and studios can start to benefit as can cinema owners. But as it stands, I have little doubt staying 35mm, with perhaps a single screen digital to add 3D and booking flexibility, is a better deal right now for most theatre owners.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|