Sony 4K Projector Rollout

[Greg Lowry]

From today's "Studio Briefing" http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/

Sony said Tuesday that it's ready to begin installing its SXRD high-definition digital projectors in theaters across the country. The system boasts 8.8 million pixels, or four times the resolution of systems already in place in U.S. theaters. The 4K systems have recently been tested in 12 Landmark Theater screens. Now, Sony says, it is ready to begin turning out 100 projectors a month beginning in December. Sony said it had received commitments from four major studios to release films on digital files in the 4K format.

[Sam Druckerman]

I love it!

And they said "Who needs a 4k camera?"

Just think, in 1 year there will be 1,200 of these units out there.

[Tom Schaefer]

Is there a list of the theaters that will get them when? I haven't been to a theater in over 2 years because my HD DLP and sound system are so superior. I long to experience an extreme quality big screen.

Know this theater operators: I will gladly pay $3 to $5 more per ticket for the ability to enjoy a jitter-free and properly and uniformly focused viewing experience. Further I expect to go to such a theater once a month, rather than never.

I can't wait, so tell me where and when!

-Tom

[Joe Carney]

Originally Posted by Tom Schaefer

Is there a list of the theaters that will get them when? I haven't been to a theater in over 2 years because my HD DLP and sound system are so superior. I long to experience an extreme quality big screen.

Know this theater operators: I will gladly pay $3 to $5 more per ticket for the ability to enjoy a jitter-free and properly and uniformly focused viewing experience. Further I expect to go to such a theater once a month, rather than never.

I can't wait, so tell me where and when!

-Tom

I fully expect to pay 'less' since they don't have to deal with film and transport cost and poorly trained projectionists. Thats they way to get me back to the theater.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

I wouldn't pay more either.
The cost for the theatre is now already very expensive.
You already have home cinemas and dvd's and home projectors...
And yes, seeing a movie in the theatre is still a complete different experience, an experience I really love, but if it gets more expensive, I could justify it anymore for a 2 hour movie, when I can buy the movie at a medium that I can watch over and over again.

Although I think studios should get into financing for those projectors too, and not only the theatres themselves, because the studio is making some profit on it (not having to pay all those 35 mm copys)

[Dave C. Preston]

Went to see "The Prestige", first movie I've seen in maybe a year thanks to the boors who go to movies these days and the horrific run up in ticket prices (...BTW, the movie was excellent).

[Robert Sanders]

Considering spectacle movies like Batman Begins, King Kong and Superman cost over $200M to produce I think spending $8.50 is a bargain. Especially when compared to going to the theater or sporting events.

[Greg Lowry]

Originally Posted by Mathieu Ghekiere

I wouldn't pay more either.
The cost for the theatre is now already very expensive.
You already have home cinemas and dvd's and home projectors...
And yes, seeing a movie in the theatre is still a complete different experience, an experience I really love, but if it gets more expensive, I could justify it anymore for a 2 hour movie, when I can buy the movie at a medium that I can watch over and over again.

Although I think studios should get into financing for those projectors too, and not only the theatres themselves, because the studio is making some profit on it (not having to pay all those 35 mm copys)

The financial model that is being used is that the theaters will pay a "virtual print fee" to various groups that are financing the projectors so that the capital cost (plus profit) can be recovered. This is, so far, the only model that has gained the acceptance of the studios and the exhibitors. This allows for the conversation to digital projection without theaters having to pay billions of dollars upfront (and at $100,000+ per screen, the total capital cost does quickly reach $ billions). The studios will derive cost savings by not having to make film prints. Everybody wins.

[Jaron Berman]

certainly wouldn't pay more for a ticket. It's nice to see movies when they come out, but still... The sound I have at home is FAR better than anything in a theater, and even at DVD resolution, the picture is usually better too. Sure 4k will look fantastic, but when I go to see a movie in a theater, it's because I want to see that movie right then, not because I'd rather watch it in 4K. 4K will definitely even-out the quality of the cinema experience, but it definitely should NOT raise prices, especially when theaters are fighting to sell tickets as it is.

I won't complain if the picture improves, but it's been a long time since I've been to a theater where the picture was bad enough to distract from the film. Now, I HAVE been to a lot of films where the content was bad enough to forget the story and just watch the beautiful craftsmanship of the crew.

[Greg Lowry]

Originally Posted by Mathieu Ghekiere

I wouldn't pay more either.
The cost for the theatre is now already very expensive.
You already have home cinemas and dvd's and home projectors...
And yes, seeing a movie in the theatre is still a complete different experience, an experience I really love, but if it gets more expensive, I could justify it anymore for a 2 hour movie, when I can buy the movie at a medium that I can watch over and over again.

Although I think studios should get into financing for those projectors too, and not only the theatres themselves, because the studio is making some profit on it (not having to pay all those 35 mm copys)

The financial model that is being used for the roll-out of digital cinema is that the studios will pay a "virtual print fee" to various groups that are financing the projectors (say, $2,000 per movie release per theater). Exhibitors will also pay part of the capital cost of the projection systems too (I think it's something like 20% upfront). This is, so far, the only model that has gained the acceptance of the studios and exhibitors. This allows for the conversion to digital projection without the studios or theater owners having to pay hundreds of millions of dollars upfront. The studios will derive cost savings by not having to make film prints, and eventually the virtual print fee will be substantially reduced or eliminated as the projector financing is paid off. Of course, by then it'll be time to buy new projection systems!

It should be noted that Christie is currently building 300 2K projectors a month, so the momentum is starting to build.

[Dave C. Preston]

Originally Posted by Robert Sanders

Considering spectacle movies like Batman Begins, King Kong and Superman cost over $200M to produce I think spending $8.50 is a bargain. Especially when compared to going to the theater or sporting events.

I won't even pretend to understand the financial complexities of film marketing, but I do know this... there hasn't been a "successful" movie made in Hollywood yet. They all "lose" money, right? Nudge, nudge.

[Charles Papert]

Originally Posted by Jaron Berman

The sound I have at home is FAR better than anything in a theater, and even at DVD resolution, the picture is usually better too.

Interesting...the system I have is pretty damn smokin', but I can't say that it beats the look and sound I'm used to when I go to the movies. Indeed, I do live in Hollywood so I'm seeing theatrical projection as good as it gets (ah, the Arclight) but still. Without question I'm becoming "part of the problem" in that I don't tend to see as many movies in the theatre when it's so damn good at home, but I still consider it inferior to the real thing.

[Ash Greyson]

Sorry I missed you in LA Charles, I agree that high end theaters like the Arclight have no real rival in the regular consumer market. Maybe a couple Malibu screening rooms can come close but even then...

Expect the price to rise, not go down, at least at first. Many of the current projectors are already paid for or well on their way.

Also note that even most of the die-hard film lovers agree that the best way to VIEW a movie shot in 35mm is with digital projection.




ash =o)

[Jaron Berman]

tis true, I haven't yet found projection of that quality. Perhaps it's a "once you pop, you can't stop" sort of situation.

[Marco Leavitt]

I don't think it will make a difference. When I go to the movies the picture is never in focus — ever. I don't expect fancy new hardware is going to change that.