my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Is THX still relevant? (Page 11)

This topic comprises 12 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12

Author Topic: Is THX still relevant? Edward Havens Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 614 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Mar 2008 posted 03-06-2011 02:05 PM                     It appears less than 150. I went to THX.com and did a 500m search from various major metropolitan areas, and this is what I came up with... 500m from: Los Angeles - 53 results, ranging from Los Angeles to Tucson to San Francisco Seattle - Denver - 8 results, ranging from Denver to Salt Lake City to Wichita KS to Cordell OK Dallas - 9 results, ranging from Midland TX to Corpus Christi TX to Springfield MO... but four of those results are in the same 500m range as Denver, including the aforementioned Cordell OK Minneapolis - 13 results, ranging from Minneapolis to Des Moines to Milwaukee to Chicago to St. Louis to Grand Rapids MI to South Bend IN Cincinnati - 27 results, from Cleveland to Greenville SC to MIssissauga ONT to Washington DC, but several results that are in the same 500m range as Minneapolis and one result that is shared with Dallas Boston - 23 results, from Boston to the New York tri-state area, but again matching several results from the same 500m radius as Cincinnati. Bonus factoid: there is only one THX certified theatre left in the five boroughs of New York City, the Bay Plaza in the Bronx. Orlando - 5 results, from Orlando to Miami to Montgomery AL, but including two results from the Cincy search Anchorage - One result, in Anchorage Honolulu, Hilo and Lihue HI - All zero results It also appears that the theatre in MIssissauga is the only THX certified theatre left in Canada. Searches from Edmonton, Winnipeg, Thunder Bay and Montreal all show either American installations or the one in MIssissauga.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 03-06-2011 02:44 PM                     One downside to using that search method is it doesn't list the number of THX certified theaters per site. For example, Oklahoma has only 2 sites with THX. The theater in Cordell is a single screen theater. The Warren site in Moore is a 14 screen multiplex where all 14 screens are THX certified.  |  IP: Logged Tom Petrov Five Guys Lover Posts: 1121 From: El Paso, TX Registered: Jan 2003 posted 03-06-2011 03:03 PM                    quote: Edward Havens It also appears that the theatre in MIssissauga is the only THX certified theatre left in Canada. That is an error. The theatre in question is the Empire Theatre Square One cinemas. The theatre is a former certified theatre when it built by Cineplex Odeon about 8-10 years ago. It is no longer advertised as THX or promoted. Right across the street is the Famous Players Coliseum which had 4 THX theatres back when it was first built. Across the street the other was the Sussex Centre 4 which was on the second floor of a professional building, that had one THX theatre but it was closed in 2002.  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 03-06-2011 10:32 PM                     Back when THX was relevant... Los Angeles Times; November 29, 1987  |  IP: Logged Brad Johnson Film Handler Posts: 2 From: Laguna Niguel, California Registered: Apr 2011 posted 04-06-2011 06:56 PM                     well, there are some cinemas near my house (I live in south orange county in the city of Laguna niguel) that were originally built by MANN that (@ the time) was THX certified (not anymore for years since though) I'd seen INDIANA JONES & THE LAST CRUSADE in 70mm THX (the first film though was in fact BATMAN shown there) I think that those cinemas @ that time had darn good sound & projection, but now since REGENCY has taken over I cant say since I hardly ever go there anymore.  |  IP: Logged Tom Petrov Five Guys Lover Posts: 1121 From: El Paso, TX Registered: Jan 2003 posted 05-11-2011 04:33 AM                    Anyone else horrified near the end! All from the The Toronto Star 1983 All five of these screens were 70MM....just an FYI. The Cumberland and University were a stones throw away. 1997 1999 I guess you can call this the greatest day for THX in the Toronto market. A total of 10 cinemas advertising THX 2005 The way it was meant to be seen  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-11-2011 11:55 AM                     That's hilarious. Somebody should point out to Lucasfilm that the DMDs on DLP projectors are not of a wide aspect ratio, unlike 70mm film.  |  IP: Logged Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 05-11-2011 03:35 PM                     Brings up a good point: why don't they utilize anamorphic lenses on digital projectors? AJG  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 05-12-2011 08:50 AM                        Cost, but it would be better if they did. Louis  |  IP: Logged Edward Havens Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 614 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Mar 2008 posted 05-12-2011 01:02 PM                     Because a digital file doesn't need to have the image "squeezed" to fit "the frame."  |  IP: Logged Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 05-12-2011 03:52 PM                     But couldn't you apply some squeeze to scope presentations, and thus utilize more resolution? AJG  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-12-2011 06:47 PM                        Aaron, you're just being logical. Stop that! How dare you even say that it was not perfectly right to begin with.  |  IP: Logged Ron Funderburg Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 814 From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA Registered: Nov 2007 posted 05-12-2011 07:04 PM                        quote: Aaron Garman But couldn't you apply some squeeze to scope presentations, and thus utilize more resolution? How does squeezing the picture increase pixel density? The only way to increase the resolution on a digital picture is to increase the pixel count. Squeezing the picture on film didn't increase the resolution either it just gave you a wider view. It also gives you some amount of distortion.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-12-2011 07:31 PM                     quote: Aaron Garman Brings up a good point: why don't they utilize anamorphic lenses on digital projectors? They could have and might of... still can be done and somewhat improves scope light levels but may actually lower resolution and certainly would reduce contrast range.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-12-2011 10:35 PM                     On film...CinemaScope definitely did increase resolution. One used more film area. In digital, the source image for scope is actually smaller than for flat. So scope in theatres with a wider scope image (as the format was intended but not necessarily how it is installed in "modern" theatres" has a smaller image, less resolution, than flat. The Scope image in digital is a mere 2048x858 pixels in size. DCI prohibits a file having non-square pixels. Now I don't know if that would preclude using an anamorphic lens on the camera since the pixels would actually be square, it is the image that is non-square. A common misconception is that DCI somehow precludes using anamorphics in projection...that is not the case. It is required that if you use an anamorphic lens (or any multi-lens system) that the change be "automatic" (I wonder how Real-D got out of that one...though Strong does make a motor system that works with Real-D...either Z or XL). The other section that deals with anamorphics (more specifically, though not called out by name) is that any scaling to deal with constant-height screens must not introduce visible artifacts (it doesn't specify where the "visible" part is to be judged). I would contend that any keystone, barrel distortion from curved screens and even lens shifting causes greater visible artifacts (note, on a lens shift, you inherently create non-square pixels as the linearity of the image changes with the shift). I have not seen an anamorphic on a 4K but on a 2K, the resolution is not diminished as all pixels are clearly reproduced...however one can tell, under close inspection, that they are no longer square and that some amount of softening has occurred, depending on the lens and how well it is set up. What anamorphics bring to DCinema on the projection side is light efficiency. On the order of 23%. Which is huge and can often change what size lamp one needs, particularly on 3D. Again, this would apply to those with constant HEIGHT screens. No advantage can be had on constant width screens. -Steve  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 12 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.