Welcome to BigScreenBiz.com

I received a flyer from HADDEN THEATER SUPPLY ABOUT IT ALSO.

Well, I can't say for the people who didn't like their demo, but the one that was set up in Oregon was excellent.

People will always have varying opinions on everything. However, using strong detractors against film is just irresponsible. Digital is different, but in many ways still not the equal of film. Film has its problems, but many of them revolve around handling and the equipment that presents it. Set up properly, film can do a fine job of 3D, and the audience will be very pleased...

... just so long as the story doesn't suck.

The biggest problem with 35mm film is that it will be obsolete within a few years, regardless of whether some of the more stubborn independents want to accept that as fact, or not.

When DCIP completes their transition, which is not a matter of IF, but WHEN, it will tip the scales toward the collapse of an economical distribution model for 35mm. We are already experiencing the consolidation of film distribution depots, and more of them will be forced to close once all the big circuits go 100% digital. As more and more complexes go all-digital, the overhead cost of 35mm distribution will escalate to the point where it is economically unfeasible, especially when you consider that the majority of those non-digital locations will primarily consist of lower grossing screens, in comparison to big complexes in larger markets.

How will a few thousand lower grossing independents, spread out all across the country, be able to support the overhead required for economical 35mm film distribution? The answer is, eventually, that there won't be any 35mm film in distribution. The real question is, how many years from now will 35mm remain a viable option?

Rick

really good discussion. I am interested. I think the question: "how long will there be 35mm?" is a valid one. I agree the day will come between pure digital and dvds on high end projectors and the various forms of live/alt content: but when? Not this year and not for at least a few more years but I would not bet on 35mm for 15 more years. 5 years: no problem. 10 years? who knows. Ten years ago digital was a techies wet dream and 3-D didn't exist. Who can imagine what another ten years will do? I hope bring the price down. Here's another good question: if you could retool to digital with 3-d for 9600.00 per screen: would you?

In a goddamned heartbeat!

The only concern I'd have is whether or not the technicolor (or any celluloid based 3D format for that matter) is simply an intermediate step towards digital.

I think Mike and Transit are right in that digital is going to rapidly become the industry standard over the next few years. From a returns perspective, I just have a problem investing in a half-measure that may realistically only have a life span of 3-5 years, then have to think about making the investment again and re-fitting/tooling for a digital setup.

I know that costs are going to come down for digital (i mean the per screen cost has deflated ~30% in slightly more than 2 years), but there is still a time-value of money problem in that i'm putting money to work in something that will ultimately have to be replaced in short order. With celluloid having such a long life span, that investment made sense, but if 3D on celluloid isn't around for a tremendously long time, I just can't really convince myself to invest in it as opposed to levering up a bit to make digital happen.

The alternative content, simulcast and sporting events through the digital content networks (NCMI, etc) as well as the ability to easily shift pictures to different auditoriums (or to multiple auditoriums) is also something that tips the scale towards digital. Asset utilization is a huge thing for the exhibitor, so anything that can help me increase that, even in a seemingly small way, helps push profit down to the bottom line. I'd think that folks' success with using digital projection to sellout 6 screens of 'Twilight: New Moon' on a Thursday night at midnight during a period in which the theater would basically be dark would be illustrative of the leverage and utilization benefits for digital. 3D celluloid, to me, just seems to offer a short-term boost to price without the corresponding benefits of screen flexiblity and alternative content.

For $9600 sign me up now!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, don't anyone get me wrong. For $9,600 a screen I'd be digital right now. For me, this is not a "film til I die" proposition.

Technicolor has been very clear that they view 3D film as something to fill the space until there's no longer a need for it. There's not a person here who knows how long that might be, though many will say it's just around the corner. I can't say that our "obsolete" film will totally disappear. People have said that about drive-ins for years... still do. Yet we're still around. Technicolor is gambling that it will be long enough that the 3D film concept will make some money for all of us and allow theatres to benefit from the public's interest until something else (digital) comes along... or becomes the only option. At that point, Technicolor will be satisfied to receive your lenses back and wish you good luck with your new digital booth.

Why should this be a problem for anyone? Tech's offering will not lengthen the rollout. Digital sits by itself. Adding 3D is an extra-cost option that comes AFTER the digital projector is in and running. Technicolor is just allowing more theatres to participate in the interim, and adding some more screens to a 3D release, which shouldn't be a major problem for the studios. When film becomes scarce, 3D film will whither right along with it.

Rick,

I sent you a private message a few days ago. I hope you respond.

rufusjack wrote:
Will do.

My belief is that if you are willing to make a commitment of $12,000 per year for 3 years, or $48,000, you might as well buy the digital projector, whether the 35mm 3D is inferior or not. The digital projector, with 3D, should cost somewhere around $100,000, if not less, and will have a lifespan well beyond 3 years.

I'd rather put the $48,000 toward the cost of the digital projection, than spend it on a lens that I won't own.

Rick

Okay,

as many of you know we went to ShoWest to mainly see the Tech Film3d demo. We were one the first ones in so we got good seats. I thought the demo looked good. My wife and I thought it looked very similar to what we had saw a couple mos. back (Dolby 3d). We also watched a digital 3d demo on the show floor with a couple of the same trailers and again it seemed to be similar.

But that is the real problem. Unless you are carefully studying these side by side it is awful hard to decide which is better. We are not at Best Buy. Technicolor ran Digital 3d and Film 3d at the same complex last year with Final Destination and claim consumers were pleased with both.

Mike, you mentioned it looked dim and fuzzy? Where were you sitting? I have been told by the tech guys that the image will not be as good from the sides. Our seats go no wider than our screen so we have been told that should be a very good thing.

Rick-transit- we do not have $36,000 to invest today and probably not next year either. But we can pay $2000 as we go.

I again, call on the detractors of film 3d to elebaroate on what they do not like about this system. We are ready to make the committment.

Regarding the "dim-from-the-sides" comment:

This problem would be common to any theatre that has BOTH a silver screen AND wide viewing angles. It is not a phenomenon exclusive to film-based 3D. The only 3D process that would not be affected would be Dolby 3D, and then only because that process doesn't require a silver screen.

Unless you have a lot of seats at angles approaching 45 degrees, you shouldn't have much of a problem, if any. Those theatres that do will tend to notice it most at the far ends of the front rows.

I hope you find this works well for you. I'm sure we'd all like to hear how it goes.

Jack

I have seen the Technicolor and was initially very interested. Saw it at Showest with a packed house clearly interested and hopeful attendees. I found it darker and fuzzier than digital. It may have been the room/ theatre. etc. They said: this is not to replace digital and seem to accept it is a bridge tech fix. Or for theatres with one 3d digi and wants another without the cost. Either way: it's 2000.00 per showing to a max of 12000.00 per year. That's less than a finance payment for a digital system. I would go digital if I had to choose. CBG is getting there. For me it's so expensive relative to our grosses I have to hold back. For now I wait. But 3-d is huge and getting bigger all the time. At some point we can be left behind or unsupported: what if it only comes out on 3-D period ie? It could happen. If Cameron had had enough 3d screens I'll bet he would have said No 3-D: no way. That time will come. If you have the grossing potential digital is a no brainer at this point.