|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: New L.A. Theatre Features 4K Digital Projection
|
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 06-20-2007 02:11 PM
quote: Scott Jentsch
While I do believe that it is possible for high quality LP's to sound better than the standard run-of-the-mill CD production, I think that this guy was much more affected by his sentimental attachment to the character of the LP than to the pure audio quality of the product. I think a parallel can be drawn to film and digital cinema.
I have thought about this myself. However, I think there is an important difference. Audio hardware has always tried to reproduce the closest possible sound to the real sound, whereas with image this is not always the case, otherwise why would directors insist in shooting in black and white. There is a pictorial attribute to cinema, artists do not always want to reproduce the closest image to reality and here is where many of us find justification for our love of film, as I said many times before, oil on canvas is different from watercolor as film is different from digital, it is a matter of taste. The advantage cinemas have got is that they are nowadays the only places where film can be experienced. They should strive for superb film presentation.
quote: Scott Jentsch
Anyone getting angst-ridden about the fact that technology marches on and refusing to make the jump to digital cinema is ignoring the possible benefits that doing so can provide to their business.
I do not see as a technological issue, I personally like technology, I see it as an artistic issue.
quote: Scott Jentsch
I think I might have lost my point along the line here, but I see digital cinema being a boon for theaters to streamline their operations and opening up new possibilities for content and revenue. There seems to be financial assistance available to do so, depending on the situation, so the cost impact might be able to be addressed as well.
I doubt about alternative contents, whoever likes live filmed concerts will know it is better to see them at home, you can see them as many times as you like for a fraction of the price that would cost to see them at the pictures, as for sports, people go to see them in the pub, with a pint of beer, not at the pictures. With music and sports gone, there is not much left as an alternative content.
quote: Scott Jentsch
Digital Cinema is the inevitable future.
Digital cinema is the obvious present in many households, is there anything else out there that can take us out of our houses and comfortable sofas?
quote: Scott Norwood
Installing big-screen TV sets doesn't help here, but 70mm does. The theatres that would benefit most from are the ones that can't handle film properly and which should just go away.
I agree with 65/70 and I would add, wide ratio and wide lenses, they look awful at home and superb at the pictures with a slightly curved screen, a Todd-AO film cannot be experienced at home properly, a super 35mm film can be seen at home without problem.
quote: Scott Norwood
Having said that, I'd also love to see a big-name film and/or director release a feature only to the theatrical market, never to be avaialble on VHS/DVD/TV/HD/etc. Don't any big-name directors truly believe that films should be experienced in good theatres? If so, then why won't they put their money where their mouths are?
I think they would fear their films going into oblivion and also pirate DVDs would appear. I think the idea mentioned of a cinema version is good. Imagine a film shot in a modern version of D-150 with all the wide angle shots filmed twice, one for the big film experience and another for the small home theatre experience, that could bring people to the pictures, because a particular version of a film (more immersive and spectacular) could only be enjoyed at the pictures.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 06-21-2007 01:59 PM
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
cinemas come without any extras
Uh, yeah.
In the "good old days" a cinema only had to have seats, a screen, a booth and a building. Many didn't even have concession stands. Some theatres were very ornate, it's true, but picture quality was dicey at best because films played far longer and were more fragile than now. These days a decent theatre is expected to provide digital sound and/or projection (and the image had better be perfect or else!), fresh popcorn daily, a pristine-clean environment, security in the parking lot, baby-changing stations, handicap-accessible everything, a wide selection of candy and drinks, assistive listening devices, extra ushers to keep the crowd quiet, the latest movies on the break at 70% film rent, and deluxe seats rivaling the recliner at home. How many more "extras" do you want for the price of a ticket?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 06-21-2007 02:53 PM
quote:
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cinemas come without any extras
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, yeah.
Please, do not get me wrong, I used to love cinemas and used to drag all my friends to the best possible cinema amongst all the cinemas that were showing the same film. I enjoyed cinemas in Barcelona at its best (nearly all gone) and I can tell you that it was impressive, big halls, amazing decoration (every cinema had its own distinct decoration), big halls, there were concessions in Barcelona, curtains, big screens and many cinemas with 70mm screenings and 5 speakers behind the screen, if you compare this with what TV was in the 70s you will imagine that I and many more were amazed at what cinemas had to offer. There were dedicated double-bill repertoire cinemas, art cinemas, and the films would last for months and so there was no rush to go and see them. As I said many times before, an experience like Lawrence of Arabia was back in the 60s when TV had very poor quality, I would expect cinema exhibition to have progressed from there the same way TV has progressed, but it has been the opposite, it has gone backwards. My point, and I know I am taking this far from the subject of the thread is that cinemas must offer something much, much, better than home cinema and much, much better than the best 50s and 60s technology (and I include here VistaVision on dye transfer prints).
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-22-2007 12:24 AM
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I can't think of any other "roadshow" theaters that didn't have concessions...
Concessions, yes. Popcorn, no.
BTW, there have been several negative reviews by the paying public as to this new Landmark theatre.
http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-wk-landmarka14jun14,0,1463811,print.story
Landmark, meet backlash
June 14, 2007
In the May 24 edition of Calendar Weekend, we offered a preview of the new Landmark theater in West L.A. ("In This Corner … "). It was several days before the grand opening, and construction was still going on. Though we had concerns, particularly about the layout, it looked promising and we took a couple of good-natured swipes at its chief rival for discriminating movie butts, the ArcLight. The theater has been open two weeks, and we thought it only fair to print some of the criticism offered by customers. (Landmark was contacted for a response but declined to comment.) Consider us enlightened.
--
I read your article on how the new Landmark stacked up against the ArcLight. The author said the Landmark won by a nose. And since the ArcLight is the Holy Grail of movie complexes, I figured it must be something special. What with its leather seats, "living room" theaters and imported snacks, I was counting down the days until it opened.
So, on the second day of the theater's working existence, my best friend and I headed off to the 7:40 p.m. showing of "Mr. Brooks," armed with our reserved tickets and high expectations. My grin couldn't have been wider.
That didn't last long.
The biggest problem with the Landmark is the layout. The ticket desk, elevators, escalators, ticket kiosks, concierge desk, bathrooms and concession stand are in the same small area of the lobby. In fact, the lobby isn't really a lobby; it's more like the walkway of an airport terminal. And when it's busy, you're really just trying to get out of people's way. After getting our condiments, we had to circumvent the people heading to the bathrooms, then sidestep the lines of people at the tiny concierge desk in order to head to our theater. "Round your partner, do-si-do."
Inside the doorway to our theater there were two tiles of frosted glass in the floor with about a 3,000-megawatt bulb underneath. When we crossed over them, we were instantly blinded and consequently stumbled up the ridiculously narrow walkway to the main floor of the theater, which was boxy and tall like an AMC, not spacious and airy like the ArcLight.
After the trailers began, we noticed that the fancy digital projection made the images seem oversaturated and oddly pastel in color. The movie looked OK, but about 10 minutes into it, we heard an odd noise that we discovered was a result of the theater's acoustics. It was the sound of everyone chomping on their popcorn and rustling through their bags of imported candy. But by far the most annoying things were the little blue safety lights along the stairs. Combined with the high-gloss paint used on the stairs, it caused such a reflection that I had to hold up my hand to block out the glow.
The next day we went back to try out the "living room" theaters that come equipped with couches and end tables. The couches are a bit silly, because they're styled so that you have to sit up straight instead of lounging, which is what most people want to do in a couch.
The concession stand was decent: cool foods, friendly people. The wine bar looked nice. The leather chairs in the theater were comfy. It isn't the worst theater I've ever been in, and if I was given a choice of the Beverly Center or the Landmark, I'd choose Landmark. But saying that it's giving the ArcLight a run for its money? Not a chance.
KEVIN P. TAFT
West Hollywood
http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-wk-landmarkb14jun14,0,6624883.story
ALL your coverage of the opening of the new Landmark Theatres multiplex at the Westside Pavilion failed to mention one interesting fact: The theater has decided not to hire union projectionists, even though Landmark hires union projectionists at its theaters in Northern California and in other western states. With all the money it has invested in the new theater complex, this seems to me like buying an expensive sports car and letting a 15-year-old, unlicensed driver take it for a spin.
The union pickets outside the theater on opening day suggested boycotting the theater. Nice, but conventional. Because the theater probably will (like most theaters) make most of its profits from the concession stand, I will attend but boycott the concession stand. I encourage others to do likewise.
TOM STEMPEL
Los Angeles
http://www.calendarlive.com/printedition/calendar/calwknd/cl-wk-letters21jun21,0,6735648.story
June 21, 2007
Yet another unhappy viewer
Re "Landmark, Meet Backlash" (June 14):
I recently visited the new Landmark theater in West Los Angeles with high expectations. I went to see "Paris, Je T'aime," which was playing in theater No. 4. The very nice usher took me to my seat, which was the last row of the front section, where I usually sit at the ArcLight or Century City AMC. From this seat you had to look almost straight up to see the screen.
Before I said a word, the usher said, "I know, we get this all the time. I'd be happy to get you another seat." Well, after two more seats, I found one that was tolerable. That is the worst designed small theater in L.A. because the screen is way too high and oddly placed. There are only about 20 good seats in the entire room.
The usher said, "Next time, try the other theaters; they're a lot better."
The ArcLight and Century AMC have nothing to fear.
MARK GROSSAN
Los Angeles
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 06-23-2007 12:56 AM
Ron, Its impossible to tell what the future holds, It ends up being economics, I suspect that there actually is money from quality, after all it has been proven to work in the past! Now that as Ramon points out, Cinema and Television are now equal again for the first time in 50 years.
At the moment the studios have hopes for Digital 3D to be the cinerama of the future. Personally I don't have much faith in the idea of wearing glasses in a cinema will ever take off, but hopefully I will be proven wrong yet again!
What I find funny about cinema is that it keeps moving side wards and sometimes backwards, not forwards! Lets face the fact that todays cinema experience is not better than a trip to the big city cinemas of the 50's. Mag sound, valve amps, 70mm. Big grand venues, professionally staffed.
Personally over the past 20 years, I have seen some late 1990's 35mm prints look as good as vista vision! and mag sound compares favourably to digital sound. Altec horn loaded speakers can sound more natural than todays THX. 2k digital is no better but similar to 35mm. So far over the last 50 years the only perceived improvement would be cup holders and sessions on the hour! mmmmm small empty auditoriums do destroy the shared experience though, so why not see it at home!
4k really does seem to me to be the possible break through, finally a higher quality than 35mm,the potential to fill a rock steady quality image on the biggest of screens. D cinema features uncompressed digital sound, combine that with high end 4 way active horn loaded speaker systems (that are more like a vintage altec system than the JBL's that replaced them) are being made by Kliphs and Lenard Audio, both companies seem to be avoiding the CD and Bi Radial Horn designs, which in hindsight appear to be a marketing sucess, but yet audio wise a step back.
The real question for me is whether the current generation of movie goers will find that 4k Digital cinema creates similar life long memories that 70mm did for us! With our then child like innocent memories?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 06-23-2007 11:52 AM
quote: Ron Curran
Looking at the future through rose-coloured glasses, perhaps studios will soon need only hundreds instead of thousands of 35mm prints. Processing labs competing for the business might be offering higher quality as an incentive.
I don't know. I'm concerned that as demand falls for 35mm film prints, the cost of those prints for those who still need them could increase radically.
Lack of demand is one of the primary reasons why 70mm film prints are so ridiculously expensive. The labs have to tool up for that unique film gauge and then only run off only a limited number of prints, or even just a mere handful.
If 70mm prints had been very commonly used, like up to 1/3 or 1/2 the print inventory of a major release then something like an optical 70mm DTS print could have ended up costing only double or even less than double the cost of a 35mm film print. Instead, 70mm prints cost a bunch whether they're mag striped or not.
Right now 35mm film prints are relatively cheap. They have to be produced in the thousands since so many theaters around the world need them. The cost of tooling up for a specific movie's print run is amortized across the entire print order. If the current trends of digital cinema adoption continue (and I see no reason why they wouldn't) we'll see the average major release print order in the United States drop from around 3000 to just a few hundred or even less than that.
Improved print quality may indeed be a real possibility for film printing labs if they're not having to rush out so many prints. But the film prints are still going to be more costly.
The one very slim hope I have is Hollywood studios will wake the hell up and finally start shooting in larger film formats again. They can reap huge visual dividends by filming in formats like VistaVision and 5/65mm.
If Hollywood and the exhibition industry played it right, we could actually see two tiers of quality movie presentation. It's obvious digital cinema is going to end up taking over most mainstream movie theaters eventually. But I think luxury minded movie theaters and theaters with giant sized screens and auditoriums could actually get by with only showing movies in 70mm. 4K projection may be one thing. But it still isn't going to compare favorably against 70mm projection of 65mm or 8/35mm originated material.
I'll repeat, there's a very slim chance that's going to happen.
quote:
4k really does seem to me to be the possible break through, finally a higher quality than 35mm, the potential to fill a rock steady quality image on the biggest of screens.
4K isn't superior to 35mm. It's simply a digital format that gets a lot more of the image detail from the 35mm negative onto the screen than what 2K can manage.
Right now Hollywood isn't really supporting 4K as any kind of de facto standard. Sony seems almost completely alone is pushing the 4K standard. There has only been a mere sprinkling of support for the 4K format from other studios. Just about all of them are happy doing the "good enough" thing by pushing movie post production through a 2K process. The studios are only thinking about their product in terms of what they can do with it on DVD. So they don't have much enthusiasm for higher resolution formats whose benefits will only be seen in commercial theaters. And they're using the leaps and bounds of advancement in computer technology to render 2K faster and cheaper. Hollywood is not doing very much to push technology to its limits and deliver better looking movies.
On the audio aspect, uncompressed digital surround sound is not exclusive to digital cinema. It is possible to get the very same thing from a DTS-XD10 player. The newest DTS players can play up to 8 or 10 channels of uncompressed audio, even in 24-bit 96kHz format. The problem is the studios aren't taking advantage of that capability like they might have had something like that been available back in the early to mid 1990s.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
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
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic