Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Small theater operators weigh digital conversion (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Author Topic: Small theater operators weigh digital conversion
Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000


 - posted 04-19-2011 07:51 PM      Profile for Paul Mayer   Author's Homepage   Email Paul Mayer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
From today's Los Angeles Times - looks like a rehash of the numbers we saw earlier this month at CinemaCon:

quote:

Small theater operators weigh digital conversion
Film prints may become unavailable in 2013 and financing for digital projection technology is winding down, but installation costs are still prohibitive for many of the smallest movie houses.

By Richard Verrier, Los Angeles Times

April 19, 2011

For more than three decades, the Kim family has operated a popular 800-seat neighborhood theater on Crenshaw Boulevard in Gardena.

The single-screen movie house — a rarity anywhere — has weathered multiple storms. It thrived in the 1970s and early 1980s by specializing in Spanish-language movies, until its Mexican film distributor went out of business. The Kims switched to screening conventional Hollywood movies, but soon confronted growing competition from new multiplexes. They adapted by selling lower-priced tickets, catering to budget-conscious families looking for an affordable night out.

Now they face what could be their biggest hurdle: how to foot the bill for a new digital projection system.

"We've been investigating converting to digital, but it's cost prohibitive for us," said Judy Kim, an attorney who manages Gardena Cinema for her parents, who are in their 70s. "You're talking about tens of thousands of dollars for a machine, and you're not sure it's worth putting in that kind of money or whether you're going to get a return on your investment."

After years of delays, the century-old movie exhibition business is finally embracing digital technology. Equipment suppliers can barely keep up with the demand. About 800 to 900 digital screens are being added each month to theaters large and small nationwide, allowing them to screen 3-D movies, beam live sporting and music events and deliver sharper, scratch free images to audiences.

But hundreds of small theater operators such as the Kims have yet to get with the digital program — and may be left out if they don't act soon.

"The pressure is on," said Greg Laemmle, president of Laemmle Theatres, the L.A.-based art house movie chain that is weighing how many digital projectors to install at its eight locations. "We're going to have to jump."

To assist theaters in making the leap, studios are helping to pay for the equipment through so-called virtual print fees. In lieu of making and delivering 35-millimeter film prints — which cost about $1,000 each versus $100 to $200 for a digital print — studios are putting aside the money they save to help theaters buy the equipment they need to convert to digital projection systems.

But that financing is winding down. Under agreements with studios, exhibitors can qualify for the funding only if they install their digital equipment by the end of next year. Film prints — the reels that are threaded through projectors — could become unavailable as early as 2013, according to the National Assn. of Theatre Owners.

With digital distribution, a hard-drive copy of a movie is shipped to the theater, where it is inserted into a server that operates the projection system. In some cases, movies are also transmitted digitally via satellite.

John Fithian, the theater owner group's president, recently issued a dire warning at the industry's annual convention in Las Vegas.

"Simply put, if you don't make the decision to get on the digital train soon, you will be making the decision to get out of the business," Fithian told attendees. "That would be tragic because digital cinema and 3-D have so much to offer."

Overseas, theater operators also are rapidly converting to digital, although studios are expected to continue shipping film prints to some smaller countries for the foreseeable future.

Nearly half of all 39,000 screens in the U.S. are digital, up from just a few thousand in 2007. By year's end, about 23,000 digital screens will have been installed, mostly from expansion by the three largest theater chains: AMC Entertainment Inc., Regal Entertainment Group and Cinemark Holdings Inc. A consortium representing the circuits raised nearly $900 million to finance the rollout.

Despite the rapid expansion, Fithian is nonetheless concerned that several hundred smaller exhibitors — those with 10 or fewer screens — have held off installing digital equipment.

"We've been telling exhibitors for four years that this is coming," Fithian said in an interview. "We don't want people to be left behind."

There are 650 theater companies in the U.S. and Canada with fewer than 100 screens, including 270 with just one screen. Some of these smaller operators believe film won't disappear any time soon. Others can't afford the investment. Digital projectors and accompanying computer hardware and software cost about $65,000 per screen. That doesn't include an additional $4,000 to $8,000 for a special silver screen, which is required on some systems, and approximately $10,000 to $20,000 more for 3-D equipment.

Making such a hefty investment is intimidating to small operators, especially at a time when business has fallen off sharply. Box-office revenue and admissions have dropped more than 20% this year from 2010. Adding to the anxiety are fears that studios will further induce moviegoers to stay away from theaters by offering movies in the home just 60 days after their box-office debuts.

"It's disconcerting that they are really pushing us to spend a lot of money on digital at a time when they are tinkering with the traditional business model, which could jeopardize our business," said David Corwin, president of Metropolitan Theatres Corp., which is investing $5 million to finish converting its 101 screens in the Western U.S. and British Columbia to digital.

Small exhibitors can obtain loans to buy equipment through their local banks, the Small Business Administration, equipment vendors or so-called third party integrators such as Cinedigm Digital Cinema Corp., a New Jersey-based company that buys and installs digital equipment in theaters and collects virtual print fees from distributors to help exhibitors pay back the loans to buy equipment.

"The bottom line is that financing is available to everyone in one way or the other," said Chuck Goldwater, president of Cinedigm's media services group. "What we tell exhibitors is that the clock is ticking."

Some theater owners, however, said they can't shoulder more debt.

Jeff Mexico, who owns a drive-in theater and two cinemas in Salem, Ore., said he was paying down a $200,000 loan he took out to refurbish one of his theaters in 2006 and can't afford to borrow more money.

"I'm just at a point where I can't take on any more debt," he said.

Yet Mexico said he knows he may not have a choice because film may not be around much longer. A stark reminder of that came recently when a distributor told him he couldn't book "Source Code," the action thriller starring Jake Gyllenhaal.

"They said, 'We don't have enough film prints.' "

richard.verrier@latimes.com

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times


 |  IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005


 - posted 04-20-2011 02:10 PM      Profile for Louis Bornwasser   Author's Homepage   Email Louis Bornwasser   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Has ANYONE got a definite quote (from anyone other than John Fithian) quoting a date that a particular studio will no longer offer 35mm? Louis

 |  IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007


 - posted 04-20-2011 03:24 PM      Profile for Ron Funderburg   Author's Homepage   Email Ron Funderburg   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Louis I don't know that they wont offer them but it my understanding that you will have to pay for the print outside the income flow. I may be all wet but I believe you will have to buy your $1500 - $2300 which still isn't yours and nothing you pay counts toward your percent. Is that basically what happened to 70MM?

Then again I have heard here on the forums that 2013 is when it all ends. I believe that it was a post by Brad but I could be all wet on that.

 |  IP: Logged

Bruce Hansen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 847
From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 04-20-2011 05:03 PM      Profile for Bruce Hansen   Email Bruce Hansen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Just like when we were told that the "new" Star Wars would only play on digital screens, that din't happen. If the studios need to provide film prints, in order for their movies to show, THEY WILL. Don't forget, it is all about GREED.

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 04-20-2011 09:37 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Ron Funderburg
you will have to buy your $1500 - $2300
You kiddin! Print cost will sky rocket since the labs will be going from making 3,000 prints to perhaps a few hundred of a title to making none in very fast order. Technicolor did not renew their film lab lease for very logical reasons. Prints could cost more like 3 to 5 grand each in small quantities and any decent operating lab would consider a few hundred print order to be trivial. Few if any theaters can even afford to pay $1500.00 to have a print made let along 3 to 5K to run for just for a couple or three weeks. Financing at today's uber low interest rates for 5 to 7 years is the best bet for the small operator. One customer of mine is getting one system and financing it with his local bank. Say a single system is 70K theoretically. He's putting 10K down and his payments should be about $1000.00 a month for 5 years. NOw any decent operating theater can afford that! What you will see as a result of the conversion is shoe string operations disappear. The theater operator can either amortize the equipment off or he could also try to recoup that money spent via VPF's if he wants to try to...

What I find all the more incredible is there are still many very experienced technicians and long time theater owners that are all blind to this conversion that is now happenning or that assume they can stick theor nose up at converting. They will be sorry sooner than later. The Big three are at about 50% conversion now!

@ Bruce... Yep! It IS all about greed but the studios could care less about the small operators and if they have anyting to play at all. It is that greed that has brought about the decline in print quality and digital because the studio can drastically lower distribution costs and posket more $$$$....

Mark

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 04-20-2011 09:45 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Bruce Hansen
If the studios need to provide film prints, in order for their movies to show, THEY WILL.
Not if the only outlets for film prints are small theatres. Once the chains are all converted, the studios will just stop making prints. Why shouldn't they? We already know they don't care about the prospect of losing anywhere from 5% to 20% of the boxoffice from the VOD scheme. 20% would be far more than they get from all the small operators in the country.

This is going to be similar to the silent-to-sound conversion. There were probably a few silent hold-outs, but eventually the studios said "Sorry guys, we're not making silent movies any more."

 |  IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005


 - posted 04-20-2011 09:54 PM      Profile for Louis Bornwasser   Author's Homepage   Email Louis Bornwasser   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
All of this is true., but. . . when.

For the moment, it is cheaper to continue making prints and using existing equipment.

Absolutely NOTHING precludes you buying the Digital (or whatever replaces it) later when the prints become unavailable or are prohibitive. It is delusional to think that anyone will refuse to sell you a digital system later "the train is leaving the station. . .".

Equally delusional is to actually expect someone to buy your projector for you. (vpf) Remember, our tax code pays over 50% of ANY capitol expense as it has for many years. Louis

 |  IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 04-20-2011 10:14 PM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Reality check:

Last I heard, the [dlp] installation rate was about 1000 screens/month in the US. At the current rate, and assuming that everyone has decided to install [dlp] and has arranged financing and is ready to do the installation, it will take a minimum of 16-20 months to add DCI capability for every US screen.

But, wait--the first batch of installations was mostly done in recently built multiplexes. The second batch of installations will be done in many older theatres in more rural areas with fewer screens per location. Many of these locations will need upgrades (sound, electrical, new portholes, etc.) before [dlp] can be installed. And many of these locations are run by people who do not want or cannot afford [dlp] (or who, at least, will drag their feet before committing).

Given this, I just can't see 35mm going away for mainstream distribution of new releases by 2013. (Feel free to correct my numbers above, but they aren't far off.)

Has any film distributor actually stated an intention to stop providing 35mm prints by some specific date, or is all of this hand-waving just based on conjecture and veiled threats?

And what about filmmakers who actually want their work to be exhibited on film?

 |  IP: Logged

Steven J Hart
Master Film Handler

Posts: 282
From: WALES, ND, USA
Registered: Mar 2004


 - posted 04-20-2011 10:58 PM      Profile for Steven J Hart   Author's Homepage   Email Steven J Hart   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
He's putting 10K down and his payments should be about $1000.00 a month for 5 years. NOw any decent operating theater can afford that! What you will see as a result of the conversion is shoe string operations disappear.
I would like to think the "historic small town single screen" theater I operate is decent, BUT... by the time we pay the expenses, we only have a couple thousand bucks profit every year. All of this gets put back into upkeep of the building and minor upgrades to the booth and concession areas. We can't afford $1000/month payments. (Or any payments for that matter - thank God we're debt free)

I guess our options are:
1. Community Fundraising.
or
2. Eventually closing (when we can no longer get prints)

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 04-21-2011 01:44 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There is another flaw in the digital conversion plan...as Louis pointed out, the vast majority are being done with a VPF deal. The studios have said that they won't be putting any new theatres on the VPF plan if they are not 100% converted by the end of 2012...that will be the "line in the sand."

If they don't extend that deal, the "rollout" is going to roll into a ditch at closer to the 60% mark (USA)...with 40% remaining film and no practical means to switch (nor any real financial one). At the end of the day, digital projection isn't selling any more tickets (if anything, one could show that fewer tickets are being sold since digital has begun rolling out...I don't attribute that to digital, just crappy movies and a poor economy).

And remember...these VPF deals get these first steps into digital going. What about new-builds in a couple of years? Exhibitors are going to have to foot the expense of a MUCH more expensive booth. How about in 10-years, when the parts for these machines start to become obsolete/unavailable...now you will have to buy the replacement on your own.

Has anyone noticed that the price of digital projectors didn't come down in 2011 as it has in every previous year? Large scale projection is such a small market, there is not real economy of scale to force substantial price reductions. Now the server side of things I've seen price reductions since they get to ride on the coat-tails of the computing industry.

The other train-wreck in the making is what the projector industry does once the conversion thing is over and they need to survive on the traditional 3000 or so units WORLD WIDE that will be sold per year to deal with new theatres and replacing obsolete equipment. Equipment will almost have to rise in price as these companies are only making money on projectors now that they are making them by the hundreds/month. Once those are down to the 10s/month life will not be so sweet.

This industry is jumping into a swimming pool and hasn't really measured just how deep the water is first to know how it is going to land.

 |  IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005


 - posted 04-21-2011 07:53 AM      Profile for Cameron Glendinning   Email Cameron Glendinning   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Ron Funderburg
you will have to buy your $1500 - $2300
Print costs are an interesting topic on there own, several years ago I was talking to an independant film maker about why he chose to do his lab work in Taiwan and not Australia. It was because it came in so cheap, the neg and 2 prints came in at ONLY $40 000! They still could not afford a 3rd print. From what I remember it was shot on super 16 with a digital intermediate. The production values and on screen results were very good.
It's definitly one scale for big hollywood productions and huge print runs but it is a completly different world for small print runs.
I believe that a typical roll of 1000 ft 35mm neg processing now costs $1000 including stock. They have dropped the price to compete with digital production. I doubt that there would be work prints.

 |  IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 04-21-2011 08:09 AM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
$40k wasn't the cost for the print, it was the cost for the blowup plus two prints. The blowup was probably $35k and the prints were probably $2500 each. Or thereabouts. It would have been interesting to find out what it would have cost to have the negative scanned and a DCI master made; it would probably have been at least that much.

One more data point: Technicolor 3D requires a 2-year contract for theatres that sign up for that service. So, a theatre signing up now would be guaranteed prints at least through April of 2013.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 04-21-2011 09:49 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Incorrect Scott, there are already independent theaters that bought into T3D and are being told that they cannot play various movies if they do not play them in digital 3D. We are currently speaking with one such person.

 |  IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007


 - posted 04-21-2011 09:54 AM      Profile for Chris Slycord   Email Chris Slycord   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Scott Norwood
One more data point: Technicolor 3D requires a 2-year contract for theatres that sign up for that service. So, a theatre signing up now would be guaranteed prints at least through April of 2013.
Does signing up for the service actually guarantee that you continue receiving prints? And if so, how often does it guarantee them since not all 3D movies are released via Technicolor?

 |  IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005


 - posted 04-21-2011 10:29 AM      Profile for Louis Bornwasser   Author's Homepage   Email Louis Bornwasser   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There is a "deal" with DeLuxe. If it is available on 35mm/3D, you are guaranteed a print IF you are qualified to book such a print anyway in 2D. Louis

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.