|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: First Major Cinema in Denmark goes Digital
|
Per Hauberg
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 883
From: Malling, Denmark
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 08-11-2004 04:04 AM
On next friday, - aug., the 20th., local flagship, Copenhagen Imperial Bio will open I, Robot on ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif)
Noone, I have talked to, seems to know anything at all, and the only official notice, goin out from the theatres owner, Nordisk Film, just tells, that we are talking about "a genuine 2K projector", which now is at last giving better results on the screen than "the ordinary analog way",and that should be the reason for converting here and now.
Until now, the only film to be presented on here, was a docu about the late danish silent star Asta Nielsen, being presented in five theatres with portable gear, from which the team, travelling around to put up the projector, learned that cables for signal and currant should not cross each other (cost them 45 mins delay in Aarhus, when they had "a frameline standing in the middle of the picture" ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I was not able to get to this much talked about demonstration, but saw a swedish film at "the Scandinavian Film-week" in Lübeck, Germany two years ago - showing nice sharp picture (about 35-40 feet scope) only a bit lacking in contrast, which was excused by film delivered on tape instead of discs.
When talking about this 2K and better than 35mm - what would this be - and how is the film delivered ? What is the norm in USA today ? -And how many theatres are running yet ?
Any rumors about how fast the total conversion will go ?
Any idea of the price per screen ? Local rumours say about 100.000 $ for the one, they tried for portable, and 140.-150.000 $ for the stationary thing for big houses. With a total boxoffice in my little flea-circus' 2 screen 'round 220.000 $ a year, this may be goodbye... ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
p
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-11-2004 04:58 AM
The last I heard, the total number of digital cinema projectors in use worldwide was somewhere in the low hundreds. Many of then are in China, and somewhere in South America, Brazil I think it was. I can understand why China would be buying into this in a big way, but why Brazil, rather than any other country, should be the other leaders in the field I don't know.
The costs you quote are probably not too far off, but I believe that many of the installations so far have not been on a normal commercial basis, but have been sponsored or supported in some way by equipment manufactures or other organisations, basically as a try-out, or to promote their systems, and therefore the cost to the theatres has been much lower.
The costs are likely to come down, but digital cinema projectors are never going to be cheap, the development costs are huge, and the potential market is quite small, it's not like DVD players or PCs, where you can spread the development costs over very large production volumes.
Given the high cost of digital projectors, and the much shorter expected life of them compared to film projectors, I think the costs are going to have to come down a long way before they become an attractive proposition on purely commercial terms.
Is this place going to be purely digital, or will it be equipped for film as well? From the few people I have spoken to that have these things, they don't get a great deal of use, most programmes are still run on film.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-12-2004 08:06 AM
TI were listing something over a hunderd installations for machines using their cinema system some time ago. Obviuosly there will have been more since then.
The venues chosen are sometimes surprising. The National Film Theatre and the Odeon Leicester Square might be expected, but the Ritzy Brixton, for those who don't know it, was a small, early cinema, dating from 1910 I believe. Over the decades it went through various changes of name, finally closing in the eatly '70s as one of the classic chain, by which time it was a real flea pit.
It re-opened as the independent 'Little Bit Ritzy', later becoming just the Ritzy. It was run on a shoestring budget, but managed to survive, and a few years ago underwent a major refurbishment, and the addition of several (4?) extra screens an an ajoining site. It is now one of London's major ArtHouse venues, and I understand that it has digital installed in two screens, though how much they are used is anoher matter.
Somebody was promoting a scheme recently, it was discussed in this forum, to equip a large number of British cinemas, over 100, with digital projectors to show Art House material. Who is going to pay the cost of transferring this material to digital, I don't know. Maybe nobody will, and the equipment will just sit there unused. Of course, this is the sort of material of which only a small number of prints are made. How many films could you make ten, or twenty, good 35mm prints of (which could be shown just about anywhere) for the cost of buying all of those digital projectors, and making transfers to run on them?
Mainstream films, where a large number of prints are required, might be a more attractive proposition for making transfers, but then you would need to equip many more cinemas to show them.
What does a cinema gain by installing digital projection equipment today? They can put a big 'digital' sign up on the wall. They can show films which are available only on digital, and not as film prints, I wonder how many of those there have been? They could show live events on screen, if any were made available.
To set against this, there is the cost of the equipment. the higher wattage lamps required, with their higher cost and shorter life, higher power consumption to run them, and the fact that whatever projector you buy this year, there will almost certainly be a better one available, for a lower price, next year. Then you have the cost of much more frequent replacements. 35mm film prints cost a few pounds per show, a few pence per ticket sold, and the equipment lasts about fifty years. I simply cannot see how it makes economic sense at the moment.
If I was building a cinema today, I wouldn't install digital; I wouldn't ignore it, I'd provide space for a possible future installation, and keep an eye on developments, but that's all at the moment.
Where's Darren, I haven't seen anything from him recently? How's the digital system in York? What's it being used for? I've seen a couple of Powerpoint slides on it, but that's all.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 08-12-2004 10:29 AM
quote: Stephen Furley
Somebody was promoting a scheme recently, it was discussed in this forum, to equip a large number of British cinemas, over 100, with digital projectors to show Art House material.
That someone is the UK Film Council, and they're insanely wasting taxpayers' money for all the reasons you mention (link to information about this funding scheme). The people there who are in charge of the spending decisions have probably never been near a projection box in their lives. I know of most of them and have met one of them - this lot are all very good at arts funding politics and know bugger all about the technicalities. Furthermore their inclination is to see people who do know anything about the technicalities as being a threat, hence all the money they're throwing away.
quote: Stephen Furley
If I was building a cinema today, I wouldn't install digital; I wouldn't ignore it, I'd provide space for a possible future installation, and keep an eye on developments, but that's all at the moment.
Agreed totally. Once you can get a projector with 8k resolution and a decent colour depth for around £10k, for which film data is readily available in a range of arthouse and mainstream titles at a significantly lower cost per screening than hiring a 35mm print, then I'll start getting interested in the idea of this technology representing a genuine alternative to 35mm. Until then, moronic schemes like the Film Council's are simply a case of taxpayers subsidising the industry's research and development costs.
quote: Stephen Furley
Where's Darren, I haven't seen anything from him recently? How's the digital system in York? What's it being used for? I've seen a couple of Powerpoint slides on it, but that's all.
He's still in the land of the living - just massively busy. The York 1.3k projector was used for a one-off special screening of The Village on Monday, but as far as I'm aware hasn't shown any other features to the public since Touching the Void a few months ago.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-12-2004 11:32 AM
Leo wrote:
quote: Leo Enticknap
That someone is the UK Film Council, and they're insanely wasting taxpayers' money for all the reasons you mention (link to information about this funding scheme). The people there who are in charge of the spending decisions have probably never been near a projection box in their lives. I know of most of them and have met one of them - this lot are all very good at arts funding politics and know bugger all about the technicalities. Furthermore their inclination is to see people who do know anything about the technicalities as being a threat, hence all the money they're throwing away.
I had a look at their site; who are these people?
quote:
Currently, access to specialised film is restricted across the UK. Although London’s West End and some other metropolitan areas offer a genuine variety of films, the choice for many outside these areas remains limited.
If London's London’s West End and some other metropolitan areas are running a 'genuine variety of films', then prints of them must exist. There are thousands of projectors throughout the country (and the world) which can run those prints. If there's more demand than can be met, then make a few more prints. Do they seriously think that it's too difficult to get these prints to rural areas? I can just imagine it: "Hello, this is the Ferret Cinema, Heckmondwike. We'd like to book that new Italian Art House film please." "Heckmondwike, that's Yorkshire isn't it? We're not sending our prints all the way up there."
Then there's this one:
quote:
As with all films, distribution of specialised product is currently via 35mm celluloid prints.
Celluloid! Not recently, I think.
And this:
quote:
Furthermore, exhibitors are often inhibited in their ability to build an audience for specialised film because of this restriction on prints. 35mm cinema, therefore, does not encourage the wider distribution and exhibition of specialised product.
We can't afford to make a few 35mm prints, which could be shown in thousands of cinemas using equipment they already have, but we can afford to spend vastly more, to equip just 250 screens, in 150 cinemas to run material which doesn't exist at the moment, and will cost a great deal to produce for the small number of copies required.
Leo also wrote:
quote: Leo Enticknap
The York 1.3k projector was used for a one-off special screening of The Village on Monday, but as far as I'm aware hasn't shown any other features to the public since Touching the Void a few months ago.
One show every few months, doesn't exactly sound like very effective use of expensive equipment to me. At this rate, how many shows will this machine make during it's life? How much cost does that work out at, per show?
While, other things being equal, having a digital projection system would be better than not having one, this seems like very poor value for money.
Nobody has spoken out more strongly than I have for getting a wider variety of material shown in cinemas, but this scheme is just nonsense.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-12-2004 04:23 PM
I've read some more of their site; it really is total madness. Hre's another gem:
quote:
Elgibility and Assessment
ALL types of full time licensed cinemas are eligible. Assessment will be based on a number of criteria relating to specialised film, including for example:
a) the lack of existing provision in an area (eg a rural single screen cinema)
So, for the many communities in this country which have no cinema within a reasonable distance this scheme offers ... precisely nothing. Of course, these are probably the places where people have little or no access to the arts in other forms either, and where te need is greatest. On the other hand, if you have a cinema, one that operates full time, and is therefore presumably not doing too badly, maybe could do with a bit of help and advice to broaden their programming somewhat, you stand to gain a highly expensive digital projection system, with little benefit, and which will probably sit gathering dust in a few years time because spares are no longer available, repairs are too expensive, films are no longer available in the right format, or whatever other reason you care to think of.
Having only one screen in a rural cinema is seen as a problem, but having no cinema at all is not.
I've no objection to the spending of taxpayers' money, I'm a taxpayer, and I expect to see my money being spent on something, not just disappearig into a black hole.
Ok, what would I do with the money? Encourage the opening, or reopening of cinemas in communities which presently have none. This needn't be full time, there are many venues which ran film at one time, and could do so again. In some cases equipment is no longer installed, or it is totally inadequate, and total re-equipment would be needed. In other cases projection equipment is still installed, and only through servicing, and suitable upgrading, would be needed. For example, upgrade to stereo sound system, and new screen might be required. Where projection equipment has to be installed, good quality secondhand machines are available at reasonable cost.
The aim should be to be able to show all common aspect ratios, and with Dolby SR sound. At least one programme of film should be presented per week, and a significant proportion of this, say 25% should be 'non-mainstream'. Video, digital sound, 70mm etc. might be nice, but the aim should be to get a functionig 35mm cinema as a starting point.
Next, turning to existing cinemas, they should be encouraged to broaden their programming policy.
Make a number of good-quality prints of 'specialised' films available to enable this. Not all cinemas need to show films at the same time, the films could circulate around the country for several months. Provide suitable training for film handlers to keep the prints in good codition.
Circulate some of the specialist programming from venues such as the NFT (National Film Theatre) and ICA (Institute of Contemporary Arts) more widely around the Country. Whatever became of the Regional Film Theatres, they never seem to be heard of now.
Encourage cinemas to put on 'special events', and provide help with publicising those events. These things shouldn't happen just in London.
Programming film events can be damned hard work, I did a bit of it very briefly, many years ago, I can't say I was very good at it, but there are those that are. To mention just two, from the other side of the water, Jeff Joseph for the 3-D festival last year, and Bob Furmanek for two very successful seasons which he programmed for the Loew's Jersey. I believe he was also involved with the 3-D festival. It's a pity that the material presented at these events couldn't be seen more widely.
All of this should be possible for about 10% of the cost of this digital exercise Their aims are admirable, but they really haven't got a clue, have they?
| 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.
|
Home
![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
). -But no politics here !
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[uhoh]](graemlins/uhoh.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic