|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: UA+REGAL+EDWARDS??????ALL DIGITAL????
|
John Eickhof
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 588
From: Wendell, ID USA
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 02-06-2001 09:27 PM
It apperas that billionaire Philip Anschutz of Denver has purchased the UA circuit for pennies on the dollar, and is now negotiating with Regal & Edwards! He owns a large stock in QWest communications and with their fiber optic network, he may be setting up to serve his new theatre empire with digital data and projection!!! Check out several articles in the LA Times at www.latimes.com dates were
Sunday, Feb 4, 2001, and Wed. Jan. 31, 2001
It may be the result of a billionaire that will get the digital thing going! and not the stingy film companies!!! Money talks......
------------------
John Eickhof President, Chief Slave
Northwest Theatre Equipment Co., Inc.
P.O.Box 258
Wendell, ID. 83355-0258
208-536-5489
email: jeickhof@nteequip.com
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-06-2001 10:39 PM
quote:
I saw mention of that on usenet a while back. It will be an interesting test of the Feds and anti-trust law
Not really, that's over. Most of those have gone by the wayside. The best example (& near to what it looks like theatrical exhibition will become) is broadcasting. The feds have chucked all the restraints on "vertical integration" which precluded one company from owning the stations, the distribution network, & production company; that's for TV & radio. There was a court decision which pretty much set aside the restrictions of not being able to own the programming & the distribution components. As a result, two companies (which due to "relaxation" of ownership restrictions) can control 80% of a market (which usually works out much closer to 100% due to being able to have enough money to buy the stations with the best signal) and offer only programming from their own companies. Why should they pay someone else? And 2 companies, each with a stable lock on 50% of the market, will cut operating expenses to a minimum. It's not like the audience has anywhere else to go for local broadcast; they watch or listen to what they're given. Radio listenership & local broadcast TV viewing have plummeted in recent years (corporations say "due to complex reasons"' but it's due to poor quality programming, people are voting with their feet). However, profits & (until now) stock market values have been rising, due to cutting programming costs (which include equipment/technical costs). This is what we're about to see in theatrical exhibition, I'm afraid. I always thoght that Sony would move first, since they had more pieces (hardware, software, & venues). This guy could certainly get it to go, & I'll bet the plan is to get into bed with a "programming provider" - whoah, hooking up with Warner/AOL would be a Nice Neat & robust package of content, distribution & exhibition componentry. Of course, the studios are more interested in controlling distribution anyway, which is why nobody needs to be shocked if Disney is hyping for electronic distribution & exhibition even if the visual quality is lower & the company may not actually control venues (yet). Remember, Disney created Buena Vista for the exact reason of having distribution control instead of releasing through UA & whoever Disney had before that. I also was thinking for a while that the "global format" of film would slow down an encroachment of lower-quality bottom-line driven formats, but when an entertainment "module" is offered in only one format, you'll get on the bandwagon or be left behind. Amazing to think that the highest-resolution format may become the formats of countries of a secondary financial tier.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Paul Konen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 981
From: Frisco, TX. (North of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-07-2001 08:06 AM
I don't see them going all digital because there are not that many digital movies made available by the film companies.Secondly, Even thought the guy has (pinky finger to mouth) several billion dollars, is he going to:
1) Front the infrastructure cost of laying fiber or whatever to feed ALL of the theatres.
2) Pay to have a network administrator at each theatre just to insure that it continues to work correctly. With my experience already with the DLP projector, I think the best medium so far is DVD. It is much cheaper to ship (8-10 DVDs) a small box vs 60-90 pounds of film + cans.
Although it does take about 3-4 hours of feeding to the player, having extra players to load during the day and then swap out at night would be ideal. Paul.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-07-2001 08:17 AM
I still say that sending a box of DVDs or DLT tapes via FedEx overnight is going to be far cheaper than fiber for the forseeable future. The high "latency" of physical shipping isn't a problem for movies and the installation cost is zero.
Also consider the fact that a good network administrator will cost the theatre substantially more per hour than the best union projectionist. Even ignoring the equipment issues, this "digital cinema" thing is not going to be the "cheap, easy, efficient, high-quality" thing that TI and Sony and all the other proponents are saying it will be.
Of course, we all know that film will go away eventually, and I will welcome its demise as soon as the quality and convenience of film is surpassed by some other format. Unfortunately, if Anschutz et al. have their way, this point will never be reached, and moviegoers will have to settle for "good enough" rather than "significantly better." This would be a real shame.
I'm also very concerned about what this will do to independent theatres in small towns; many of these places can barely afford splicing tape, let alone red-LED "upgrades" to their soundheads. How are they going to be able to afford $75-400k apiece for a DLP or D-ILA machine? What about repertory houses--will anyone really pay $150k per title to make older films available in this format? It's hard enough to get good prints (at $1-2k apiece) of older titles now...
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-07-2001 08:32 AM
Well 19% isn't even the crust on the top of things as far as I am concerned. It is however a good number to start with if this is going to happen. Thats a small enough percentage to be able to learn from and deal with the problems of Digital Cinema, which will certainly have more than its share at first. It is also a good way for these theaters to loose allot of patrons because of the poor quality picture.
John, you forget that T.I. really has the foothold right now with contracts with all the major projection manufacturers. So this is what will most likely end up on screen. These projectors have a long way to go to make the pixels disappear, or to even get it as good as HDTV for that matter. Yes, I also like the JVC system better, but there is an even better more obscure system that is now comming to market that uses a line array that is scanned by lasers and then projected onto a screen. Stop and think.......it is far easier to make an extremely high resolution line array than it is to make an extremely high definition mirror chip. It is also far cheaper. This design has already been licensed to Sony. Not that I like Sony, but the design makes far more sense and it will project better quality for less money. At Jordon Commons here in Salt Lake City Larry Miller, who also has a net worth of many billions, installed DLP projectors in most of the auditoriums. The quality is only fair but it is interesting to see video on the large screens there. The smallest is 42 feet by 16 feet and the pixels are clearly visible from the middle of any of the auditoriums. In this situation I think he made the right decision. He put in both film and video in the theaters. Digital Video Projection like HDTV is still in its infancy and has another decade or so to go to make it right. Standard TV went through the same gestation. RCA had it ready to go to market in 1939, however they still had some problems to solve, but it worked pretty good. With the start of WW-2 RCA had extra time and government money to really perfect Television as it was utilized in the war, to an extent that most do not realize. With this usage and extra time alloted all bugs were taken care of by the time it hit the market in 1946 with the 630TS television set. I have one of these sets and they are quite remarkable, with picture quality far surpassing the quality of todays black and white sets. It actually approaches the quality of a good B&W studio monitor.
Mark @ GTS
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 02-07-2001 08:36 AM
At least if you own the data "pipeline" and you own the theatre, you won't have to pay thousands of dollars per month to someone else for the leased bandwidth -- the money goes in your own pocket.Because they can easily get "borrowed", DVDs do have serious security issues that require "bulletproof" encryption right up to the projector itself, with no data "in the clear" to be tapped and illegally copied. Kodak has unique technology for "Digital Watermarking" and encryption of images:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/technologyFeatu res/aboutDW.shtml#basics ------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-07-2001 09:13 AM
Excellent comments from everybody! I'm aware of the BV distribution by Disney, the Sony theatres and production, but I have a gut feeling that this is leading to a full vertical integration from production, all the way down the pipe to exhibition. I can't think of another good reason to waste fiber bandwidth repeatedly sending "movies" when that property can command a much higher profit signal.Anschutz has to see his venture into theatres as seed money for a bigger strategy. There is no question but Qwest is a much stronger business, and much earlier on the development timeline. Unless Anschutz plans to use theatres only as a throw away method of increasing traffic over Qwest's lines, and drain profits from one company into another, he'd be foolish _not_ to try for complete vertical integration. The only reason I think that an anti-trust foul may be called is that there are other multi-nationals, like Sony, that would stand to be hurt by a full VI. Big companies have the lobbying power and money to make big stinks. Where it will be interesting is waiting to see which guy blinks.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Eickhof
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 588
From: Wendell, ID USA
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 02-07-2001 11:01 AM
John, you're quote is quite on the money!
Anschutz already has the fiber optic lines laid! (Check out QWest communications) I too think the 'integration' factor will not be an issue as most of the 'film' companies are now 'television' producers and braodcasters!
As for quality, yes it will need more, but if you look at the logarithm of how technology has progeressed during the last 10 years as opposed to the century before that, it won't be long! Also, SMPTE and others still have not established final standards! There are formats aond resolution / pixel numbers out there that are staggering! Again, as the ethyloid fills my veins, I don't want to see this, but I know I can't stop it either! ------------------
John Eickhof President, Chief Slave
Northwest Theatre Equipment Co., Inc.
P.O.Box 258
Wendell, ID. 83355-0258
208-536-5489
email: jeickhof@nteequip.com
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 02-07-2001 11:16 AM
The one thing we CAN all do is to "Do Film Right", and not give anyone an excuse for mediocre digital cinema systems to claim to be better. And as lovers of the movie experience, we need to demand that Digital Cinema must utimately be better than "Film Done Right", and at an affordable price. Rick, Ilsa and Victor ultimately DID make a difference in this crazy world, and so can we!  ------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-07-2001 01:06 PM
This is the most depressing thread on the forum right now.Let's see... ~ We can all "do film right" till we're blue in the face, but it doesn't matter, the digital systems are going to take over eventually anyway ~ Little people don't amount to a hill of beans. This means that small theatres will never be able to afford digital equipment, and most of the people in the rural areas of the world will have to get on a plane, or at least take a multi-hour car trip, to see a movie (oops, "enhanced TV" presentation) in a theatre. ~ Quality really isn't number one. If it was, NOBODY would be buying these digital machines yet. (Of course we all know quality isn't number one, "profit" is.) ~ The first "wave" of digital machines will be obsoleted almost immediately (same thing that happened with the "stylus" video disks, which were a stupid idea from the word go). How many companies will go bankrupt because of this, both on the equipment and the exhibition sides of the fence? What I can't understand is WHY the digital-cinema people don't take a cue from the creators of the music CD? They took a lesson from the Betamax/VHS wars...they developed one world-wide standard and THEN sold it to the public. (OK, they should have made it a more "secure" format, but that's beside the point.) You'd think the computer, digital sound, video, cinema and just about every other industry would learn from that, instead of putting out incompatible stuff that is sub-par quality and lasts a couple of months before being outmoded. It's just amazing that there's obviously a steady supply of suckers ready and waiting to dump money into an unproven technology in the name of having the "latest thing," even though that latest thing is a step down, quality wise. Oh well, as a small towner, what happens to me doesn't amount to a hill of beans anyway. Visit me in the poor house, everyone!Probably be more of us in there than you think!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Mayfield
Film Handler
Posts: 12
From: Whitinsville, MA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 02-07-2001 02:40 PM
Random thoughts:
Don't forget that Sony is a Japanese based company, the US Anti-trust laws don't apply. I would imagine the Bush Admin. has an affection for Texas Instruments and any business developments that benefit them.I have said all along that Digital cinema will create a whole new cast of players in our industry, the likes on Sony, Microsoft, Qualcomm, Qwest, Cisco. It is happening. THEY have the $$$ to make the technology investment and to intergate the theatre experience into a multipurpose "presentation venue", whether that be movies, live sports and music events, corporate presentations, etc. I think we are looking at a major industry shift.
| 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
Printer-friendly view of this topic