my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » What is the logical choice in Digital investment? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: What is the logical choice in Digital investment? Demetris Thoupis Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1240 From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus Registered: Apr 2001 posted 11-12-2009 01:52 PM                     What is the logical choice in Digital investment. First of all the equipment is priced very high. A computer can be puchased in less than 1K. What makes Digital Cinema servers so special than require insane amounts of money? Digital Projectors will be always evolving. Now we are moving to 4K and I doubt 6K or 8K are not around the corner. In what do you invest? In a 2K, in a 4K or should you wait? As an equipment dealer and installer of course I embrace new technology and urge clients to invest but the whole situation does not leave any logical choice for small individuals. Big chains might be benefiting in the end for various reasons which perhaps are not so significant, but I doubt that equipment quadruple the amount of 35mm in the total would justify and make a logical choice. Of course Digital cinema offers a lot of benefits and does make running a booth monkey easy which is what most exhibitors want. Has the quality reached 35mm quality? Is it as good? What is the logical choice in the end? Demetris  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 11-12-2009 06:06 PM                    quote: Demetris Thoupis What is the logical choice in Digital investment. Don't do it.  |  IP: Logged Karl Borowski Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum Registered: Sep 2009 posted 11-30-2009 07:09 AM                     I'd wait for an *affordable* 4K. Regardless of the silly technological arms race that is going to ensue, 4K should give plenty of good use, assuming the projector is well-manufactured, into the future. Content isn't going to follow the same degree of exponential growth that projectors and digital cameras will. Most movies are being finished at 2K.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 11-30-2009 09:06 AM                        The goal isn't long term use. I see "upgrades" as the only path to profitability for the suppliers. . . .especially "mandatory" upgrades. If you can't run first run product on a machine it becomes useless; not even able to be sold USED! Louis  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-30-2009 09:09 AM                        I would wait until either a) the economics work; b) the quality is demonstrably better than the best that 35mm film can offer; or c) the material that you want to show is only available for D-cinema. I can't see how items A or B apply at this time, but C might if you want to show the newer 3D material (Technicolor's 35mm 3D system notwithstanding). Wait five or ten years and see what happens. No doubt there will be significant changes and improvements in that time. In any case, is about as good an "investment" as buying a new car (i.e. the value only goes down from the moment you buy it). Buy it because you need it or want it, but not because it's a good investment. (Related questions: is there any true DCI equipment that is available for purchase now? Has an SMPTE standard based upon the DCI guidelines been created yet?)  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 11-30-2009 09:38 AM                    Ask yourself this question: 1) Your theater with the best state of the art 4K DLP system that money can buy. 2) The AMC Marple theater in Springfield, PA with their ten 35mm projectors that were installed when most people were running Windows 3.1 on their 386 computers. Their state of the art network operating system there at the time was Netware 3.12. 3) The Everett Theater in Middletown, DE with two Simplex E7s that were installed USED in the 1940s. Which theater will have projectors that are obsolete first?  |  IP: Logged Demetris Thoupis Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1240 From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus Registered: Apr 2001 posted 11-30-2009 10:07 AM                     Mark is that a trick question  |  IP: Logged Karl Borowski Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum Registered: Sep 2009 posted 11-30-2009 11:25 AM                     This is a stereotype, but why are most Europeans and computer geeks so eager to except the latest and greatest as better, tests notwithstanding? What matters to me is dynamic range, line pairs per millimeter/inch, and long-term lifespan. Digital doesn't currently do well with any of these three factors, especially for scope movies. There are a lot of faults I find with 35mm, but it is very very very intuitive, and I don't have to pay for its manufacture. Digital print credits aren't enough to solve my three dilemmas with the technology. When something better comes out, I'll cry a little, have a stiff drink, and disappear for a week, but when I return I'll acknowledge it. I don't get peope that say digial is better now. Side-by-side, same movie, it really isn't. I saw "Twilight: New Moon" in 35mm side-by-side digital. Digital had better noise (less grain), but worse color, worse resolution. Granted as a film-shot movie it is somewhat biased in film's favor, but with the digital intermediate step not so much, but still it shows a lot to be left desired on digital's end.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 11-30-2009 12:52 PM                     quote: Karl Borowski but worse color, worse resolution was that on a silver or matt white....kinda of a big differene on the results.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-30-2009 01:02 PM                     Karl, where did you see that? I am noticing MANY installers (particularly the "drop it in and be gone the next morning" guys) are skipping all of the proper alignment and calibaration steps. The difference may not be noticeable to the run-of-the-mill patron or corporate bean counter who just wants to advertise digital projection, but it IS noticeable.  |  IP: Logged Karl Borowski Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum Registered: Sep 2009 posted 11-30-2009 03:19 PM                     Brad, you are right that a lot of DLP installers don't bother to eliminate keystoning, proper focal plane alignment with the viewing screen, etc., etc., but so did a lot of the guys that installed film projectors from the 1990s to the present day. Improper alignment is not a solely digitla problem. Monte, you are right I saw the movie projected, digitally onto a silver screen compatible with 3D viewing, not a standard matte white screen. For a 2D movie on a 3D screen, does resolution take a big hit though? I noticed a sheen, but not much else in terms of a resolution loss.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 11-30-2009 06:14 PM                     quote: Karl Borowski For a 2D movie on a 3D screen, does resolution take a big hit though It's like turning the contrast up all the way on a TV since it gives the image a "metallic" look instead of a natural look if reflected from a matt white screen.  |  IP: Logged Karl Borowski Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum Registered: Sep 2009 posted 11-30-2009 06:38 PM                     Monte, you are right that that was (is) bothersome. I guess I have just gotten used to the silverised 3-D screen in the DLP auditorium (we only have one). However, despite the sheen, I was still able to judge the movie objectively. I personally find the matte white screen distracting too, though. I am able to see the imperfections clearly when I am focusing movies. They show up as rectangular patterns, like rectangular blocks, when looking through the focus binoculars. Optimally, I would want a perfectly-glossy, evenly-white screen if I were to have my own personal theatre. . .  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-01-2009 02:44 AM                     quote: Search Function Search By Member Name: Karl Borowski « Public Name The user you entered either does not exist or does not have any current posts. » Please use your browser's back button to return.  |  IP: Logged James B Gardiner Film Handler Posts: 91 From: North Altona, Victoria, Ausrtalia Registered: Feb 2009 posted 12-01-2009 06:50 AM                     Going digital for cinema is not really up to cinemas. Yes in some ways it's not perfect, however, all production goes through some type of DI and as such, a DIGITAL process being graded on a DCI projector. Its what the director makes his decisions on. Going digital for production is a matter of economics more then anything else. Its evolution of the process of making a film. It allows films to be made that never could have been or more time to be spent on more important areas such as story line. Film, is becoming a rounding error in the visual reproduction of what the director sees in his grading suite using some type of digital display. Digital is the evolution of the medium. It will be, in the future, the only format offered that is commercially viable. This does not mean you need to jump all the way in now, but you should be dabbling in it by now if our serious in my opinion. Film is VERY old and is refined to an amazing degree. Its a great technology. Its just a shame that forces be it economics or environmental (Redution in consumables etc). Landfill full of film is something we need to fix just as much as the global warming issue. Give digital 20 years of evolution and I expert you would be happy with it. It is still quite young really. But I do agree that the technology is a bit over the top in complexity and its nuclear bomb grade security. This is the core of the costs. A paranoid Hollywood could be blamed for this but it is something we do need. Probably just not as full on. In real terms, as some one who has worked in development in other areas, we are actually doing OK in terms of costs. If I compare tech of similar complexity in other fields, DCI tech is super cheap comparatively. Tho the life span is a "?". James  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.