And I know George did great things for the exhibition industry starting in the early 80's. I was just giving him a hard time for Episode 1. I guess I just got too hyped up, but wasn't that the studio's goal? The movie did have some of the best sound (by far) I have heard in a looooong time, though. Second behind Toy Story 2.

------------------
The Olympics are coming...RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

 |  IP: Logged

>I think Chris has a great site. I think the
>grading of screens are fair (although as
>Gordon pointed out, not with measuring
>tools.)

I think having a scheme that any educated customer can use is important. In other words, with my system, I can train a person to go to movies and "grade the way I do". I've never done it, though. Instruments are not needed to diagnose many problems. THe main question concerning a problem is "Is it bad enough to notice while in the audience watching a movie?" If so, why try to measure it to verify its existence? As an example, if there are streaks emanating to 1 or 2 feet above bright objects on a dark background, I don't need to measure anything to know that there is a shutter ghosting problem.

>But I do think there's not enough THX
>screens to use as a statistical sample,
>especially since they are all operated by
>the same people!

To compare two sets of entities that differ in an attribute (such as being certified by a certain entity), it is best for the sets to have all other attributes the same. That is part of the scientific process to ensure that something else (like being run by different people) isn't causing the difference in measurement. That's why I didn't compare scores of the 4 auditoriums with the other 52. If I compared the 4 certified auditoriums with the 8 auditoriums at Regal River Oaks Cinema 8, which are not certified by the certian entity, the Regal would win, but for the wrong reason (manager with 25+ years management and booth experience). That comparison would not be valid, since I would actually be comparing management/booth experience and maintenance practices rather than certification vs. non-certification. Another faulty comparison would be if I wanted to compare presentation quality between theatres serving Pepsi and those serving Coke and I chose the two theatres in Decatur (both 8 screens, one serves Coke, one serves Pepsi). The Pepsi serving theatre would be 7.4 points higher than the Coke one. It's easy to mistakenly compare two sets on an entiry that is independent of the attributes being measured! The Pepsi vs. Coke example is an example of a faulty, invalid comparison, because projection has nothing to do with soft drink being served, but you can get a nice strong numerical result from it that if interpreted incorrectly, can lead to ridiculous conclusions.

That's why I limited the comparison to the one theatre (to keep as many attributes the same as possible). Anyway, I've said this before -- that comparison was pulled, and I've explained why in a previous post.

Probabilities are not always intuitive. When taking samples, you can never be totally sure that your samples reflect the actual population unless the entire population is sampled. However, it is possible to take a set of samples, and based on the number of samples, the mean, and the standard deviation, calculate the confidence that the actual mean of the population is within a certain tolerance of the mean of the samples. You get statements like, "There is a 95 percent probability that the actual mean of the scores (if every showing could be scored) for the Pinewoods 17 Theatre is within 0.5 of the calculated sample mean of 97.1." I post margins of error for my means, and they're not symmetric about the mean because I've more than likely overrated a theatre than underrated one, since there is a fixed upper limit on scores (100), making it easier to go "down" than "up", especially if a rating is already very close to 100 (such as 98 or above).

Evans (or Chris)

 |  IP: Logged

hopefully to clarify some issues that have arisen. I am very serious about the correctness/fairness of information issue. I'd much rather a company complain to me and give me a chance to correct or clarify something rather than taking legal action. A similar disclaimer about unfairness/correctness was on the site, but it was at the bottom of the news items, where few people probably look.

I have not received a "cease and desist" letter, or any formal complaint concerning my site, but I did get hit by uscourts.gov twice on Friday. I'm expecting some trouble, either from THX or one of the two theatre chains, and at this point, I have no idea which entity is going to attack, or what specific information on my site they're going to attack.

It's hard to figure out, since Ted told me in email that he was planning no legal action, just simply defending THX on a public forum. I don't believe it would be Carmike, since Carmike has been aware of the site for months and actions have been taken as a result of it (to improve things at the local Carmike theatres). I've never received a hit from regalcinemas.com, and I've mentioned the URL in comment cards a couple of times long ago, and still got no hits from them. I've heard that the managers here are well aware of the site, although I've never talked to either manager at a Huntsville Regal, just the Decatur one. I have no idea how the legal process works, and whether the hits from uscourts.gov mean that someone is considering legal action against me. I guess I'll find out eventually.

I don't think you're about to get sued. I know of no respecting company that would just arbitrarily sue before they "at a bare minimum effort" sent an email to the contact listed on your web site requesting you remove whatever is supposedly causing a problem. I can see the kind of comparisons you are trying to do from a customer standpoint (no test equipment nor access to the booth to use it even if you did) and I see no real harm in it.

I noticed that you wisely put disclaimers on the site shortly after the Christie projector review and that manual parody was posted. I was hoping y'all weren't going to have any legal problems over that.

I am a mathematical person and that is why I try to be precise about things, and attempt to state things nonambiguously. I like well-defined entities, and that is one thing that really disturbed me about the whole THX issue. I cannot get a precise enough definition of important processes and specifications (since they're proprietary) to have a discussion without the fear of creating misinformation. To Ted, that's my main complaint about THX. It is really the only legitimate complaint I can make since any other complaint I can think of may be based on assumptions that aren't true, and they'd be assumptions I could not verify.
Using logic on incorrect assumptions only leads to the proving of more incorrect statements, so it is dangerous to analyze or reason about such an entity. George Lucas is a true genious. Who else could create such an entity as THX, the ultimate mysterious unanalyzable entity that nobody can put a finger on, but that nearly everyone respects, loves, and looks up to! Pure genious!

Chris (or Evans)

If a company doesn't like what's being said about them, perhaps they should rethink their support practices. Lawsuit threats may bring about a temporary fix with some people, but the better solution is not to give people a reason to say anything bad in the first place.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

>Opps! Sorry I called you Chris, Evans!

It's OK. "Chris" has been a nickname of mine since as early as 1974. It's sort of fun having such a strange name. "Evans" is a last name, and is my first name. "A", with no period, is my middle name, not initial. Several of my English teachers counted off a point for not putting a period after it on my compositions until I explained, with great difficulty, that one does not need to be there. Oh, and you should see what people do with "Criswell".

Concerning copyrighted material, I try to minimize the use of copyrighted material on my site. In fact, I prefer everything to be my own work. I'm planning on getting rid of the two spinning film reel animations on my pages because I didn't make them and don't even remember where I downloaded them. They may be copyrighted for all I know.

I know that reviewers are allowed to make negative statements about what is being reviewed, but the reviewer must be careful to not make incorrect statements. There is a fine line sometimes between a negative opinion and a misrepresentation. I prefer to not get too close to that line. My page basically is saying, "I went to see these movies and this is what I have observed at each institution."

I have a document here (in my hands as I type) entitled "Criteria and Standards For Presentation Quality and Theatre Preformance For Indoor Theatres". It has the Lucasfilm THX and TAP logos at the top, and it says "Copyright 1993 Lucasfilm Ltd." I do not know if it is an actual standards document or a summary of a standards document. I've had it for about 2 years now and it came from the WWW. I doubt that I have a binary copy anymore. It is 7 1/2 printed pages (in a fairly small font). I do not know if the document is proprietary. The last time I tried to find this document on the WWW, I couldn't. So, the question is, is the release or use of the information in the document in any of my work considered a crime, even if I specify the source from which it came?

Chris

Many of the enumerated items in the "Viewing Conditions and Image Quality" section very closely reflect (no pun intended) the defects I look for when watching a movie.

1. Screen illumination is very difficult to quantitatively analyze without a measuring device, so unless the picture is obviously too dim when "bright" images are projected, the types of brightness flaws I deduct for are excessive rolloff of brightness toward corners or other uneven brightness problems, such as the top or bottom 20 percent of the screen being much dimmer than the center.
(2 points and up, depending on severity)

2. Screen condition: Deductions for this problem are rare in my area. There have been 2 instances, I think, when I have deducted due to screen damage or lack of covering of the side springs.
(2 points per damaged edge, or more for more severe flaws)

3. Reflected or stray light: Unshielded exit signs cause frequent deductions in auditoriums 3, 4, 5, and 6 at Carmike 8 in Decatur, and Regal Madison Square 12 has earned deductions for this as well on occasions. Both second-run theatres, which are now closed, got frequent deductions of this type. (2 to 5 points have been typical deductions).

4. Light sources within field of view: Bright exit signs too close to the screen have causes deductions. (2 to 5 points)

5. Image focus: Fortunately, these deductions have been infrequent. (Points based on severity of focus problem)

6. Shutter ghost (Deduction depends on severity)

7. Jump and Weave: Madison Square 12 used to get frequent deductions for excessive vertical jitter. Other deductions for this have been rare.

8. Masking: All theatres except Regal Hollywood 18 and Regal Madison Square 12 have adjustable masking for flat and scope. Those two facilities get a 7.5 point deduction subtracted from their final average instead of getting duductions for improper masking on individual presentations.

9. Screen image size and viewing angle distortion: Other than aspect ratio, this has not been a part of my grading criteria.

10. Sight line and floor pitch: Does not affect projection quality rating. Stadium seating may increases facility rating indication instead.

11. Screen image: (aperture size, sharp edges, no cropping of more than 5 percent): Unsharp edges are the MOST COMMON DEDUCTION! Either 1 point or 2 points are deducted for each unsharp edge, depending on whether the lack of sharpness is slight or more severe. Since top and bottom edges are much longer than the side edges, I'm more likely to deduct 2 points for a top or bottom edge. If the image goes way beyond the black masking onto the colored drapes by a foot or more, I tend to deduct 3 or 4 points for that edge.
Improper aspect ratio gets a facility deduction, as described previously under "masking".

12. Image geometry: Distortion caused by keystoning or other curvature of straight lines has not been a part of my grading system.

13. Framing: Flat films: 6" to 1' = 1 point deduction; 1' to 1 1/2 ' = 2 points
in most cases. Deductions increase drastically for greater misframings, or if titles are cropped, microphones are visible,
or the misframing is obvious in most scenes.
Scope films: 4 points if any of the adjacent frame is showing (up to 6 inches). Much more drastic deductions for greater misframings. Duration of misframing increases or decreases the deduction.

14. Splices: out of frame splices: deduction depends on duration of misframed image shown.

15. Interruptions: Believe it or not, this problem has not occurred since I've been grading. I have not decided how I will handle this problem.

Feel free to look at my gradings on my site to get a good feel for how I grade. Most of the problems listed require no measuring instrument to notice.

This is getting long. I'll talk about sound at some other time.

Chris

Chris Evert:
No wait, she was the tennis player. Evans Chriswell: The piece you mentioned, "Criteria and Standards For Presentation Quality and Theatre Performance For Indoor Theatres" was recently updated and will be available in the September 2000 NATO Encyclopedia of Exhibition. Forgive me if I mentioned this previously. This is not a proprietary piece. It is also not the criteria for THX Screens (THX screens have design and structural issues that are not addressed in this piece). It is what TAP recommends as the minimal standard for all operating domestic and international theatres. It is TAP's recommendation only, and is based on current SMPTE Standards and is referenced as such. It includes specs for Digital Cinema and a recommends that each theatre have some form of digital soundtrack playback capabilities. We will have it on our THX web site as soon as the NATO Encyclopedia comes out. We hope it will help as a tool for improving theatrical presentation. We made no money off of this, and other than positive feedback, it is there for all theatre management and technicians to use as they deem fit.

"THX TAP, we're not just for breakfast anymore."