Also, regarding placement of the PHONE THX end credit, it has to go at the end of the credits. Politics. And believe it or not, people who care really do stay 'till the end of the scroll. Our first TAP title with the PHONE THX end credit, Die Hard 3, had 63 legitimate calls, all of which TAP followed up on, after the first weekend. It's hard even for me to believe that 63 folks stayed 'till the end of the film, remembered the number, and went home, called, AND GAVE US THE NECESSARY INFORMATION for adequate follow up. I was shocked.

On EP1, TAP got over 3000 calls, most of which were people either telling us how great the movie was or how badly they wanted to kill Jar Jar... Yet, 400 callers gave us THE DETAILS needed for us to follow up. One theatre got 21 calls for the way they butchered the opening, midnight show (a Canadian site).

So the audience IS listening, and watching, too.

And I must say, you guys (here at Film-Tech) don't miss a thing!!!

THXfully Yours, Ted
Manager, THX Theatre Alignment Program
 

But only one idiot, making up and projecting only one show, can (in one swoop); degrade the reputation of the theater; the reputation of projectionists everywhere; ruin a patron's opinion of a film; and damage the print beyond any hope of repair (which is the least important, but still real bad.)

It must be acknowledged that the bulk of problems are at the *theaters,* and are preventable.

Anyone here, reading Brad's site obviously cares about projection, otherwise they wouldn't be here. It's no wonder some people here might feel a little resentment against someone commenting on their work. But, anyone who reads and learns stuff here is not the target.

However, there are waaay too many people who don't know what they are doing- most of them probably well-meaning, but forced into the job by cheap owners.

So, when it come to policing theaters, I think the idea of TAP is good, and should be supported. Bad theaters need to go- we need to put the "pro" back in "projection." (Corny, I know, but....!)
 

What constitutes a legitimate complaint which TAP would be interested in? For example, if I say that all the Cinemark "Tinseltown" theatres around here have their LFE turned way down (presumably to prevent bleed-through to other auditoriums) does TAP care about that? Would TAP be more concerned about bleed-through or about completely inadequate LFE on a consistent basis?

I saw X-MEN at a Cineplex/Lowes (or whatever it's called now) theatre on Friday and the sound was shrill. It wasn't unbearable, but the E.Q. was still not right. On Monday, I saw the film at a THX-certified Century theatre and the sound was great! Just how much does TAP want to know about the screening I saw on Friday?

When I watched the film on Monday (at the good theatre) I noticed vertical lines in a couple of shots (at the train station when Sabertooth is choking Storm). These light-colored and/or white lines appeared for a moment and then, just as suddenly, they were gone. It looked like a bad print to me and not damage that the projectionist could have caused. Does TAP care about that? Or was that a problem on a number of prints?

Did you forward the hundreds of death threats toward Jar Jar to George so he can give him a lengthy, bloody and painful death in Episode 2? If Jar Jar's screen time had've been devoted to Darth Maul fighting, the movie would've doubled it's profits.

(A fellow Jar Jar must die fan.)

At what point in the production (or post-production) process is a film selected for the 1-800-PHONE-THX thing? It seems it would have to be before the closing credits are shot. So why wasn't there enough time to put the notice on X-MEN?

Who decides whether a film is part of the program? Does the studio approach THX? Does someone like Gary Rydstrom lobby for it after he's worked (or consulted) on a film? Does the studio have to pay a big fee for the service? Is it a one-time fee or a per-inquiry fee or is it based on how many prints are struck? Or does THX share the cost because, after all, you're trying to build a database of which theatres are the best for your own purposes, right?

It always puzzles me when a big, important release from a given studio isn't part of 1-800-PHONE-THX and then, sometimes, some really insignificant, box office bombs are part of it instead.

Just curious.

Joe and Scott are right: Good theaters need to be rewarded, just like bad theaters need to die with Jar-Jar!

Ted, would it be a good (or bad) idea to put guidelines on what to look for on the THX/TAP web site, so inexperienced people "know" a good theater from a bad?

Also, you know that blue "frame" on the THX snipe? Next time you make some, place it 5% in, so people can tell if the theater is cropping or not. And a "sweep" frequency, so we can hear the buzz and rattles of loose fixtures, (like they have now, only a wider range.)
 

Scott and Joe,

I've received compliments via TAP many times before. My guess is the managers are not forwarding. It always makes my day when I find out someone had a good experience at my theater only to go home and actually take the time and effort to notify TAP of it.
 

Talk to your managers and ask to get a copy of the TAP reports when they come in. Seems silly not to let you know when you do a good job, and only tell you when you make a mistake (not that we EVER do that, right? ). Positive reinforcement is always a good thing.
 

Are you recruiting new TAP Evaluators? I'm sure you have a pool of willing (and able) recruits here on Film-Tech.

Another idea would be to allow Film-Tech folks to enter data into the on-line TAP evaluation form whenever they see a TAP-participating movie in another theatre. No compensation needed (although I DO like the checks with Yoda on them). You'd get lots of unbiased, technical evaluations. (Not that anyone here would ever deliberately down-rate the competition).

BTW, I've been doing TAP evaluations for almost 15 years. And I'm TOUGH!

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

So ya wanna know about TAP, huh?

I'll try to cover what I can without being too preachy...

Regarding PHONE THX... A legitimate complaint by definition is a complaint that has the information we need to do an adequate follow up on the complaint. If it has the following, it is legitimate: The date / the time of the show / the auditorium number / the Theatre's name / the city and state / and we only take complaints that deal with picture or sound, we do not follow up on operations unless it is a saftey issue.

And do we pass on compliments?... on PHONE THX we have gotten two. And to be honest, we were a little perplexed. They both came on EP1 presentations, and amidst the other 3000 plus calls, they went the way of the Jar Jar haters. Delete. Unfortuanately, this situation is a lot like those "how's my driving, call 1-800-yada yada", how many times do they get called about a guy who made a nice right turn...? It does say on the PHONE THX end credit, "If you experienced anything that detracted from the theatrical presentation of this film..."

However, we do Theatre Evaluations for some Exhibitors and Distributors, and our reports are sent to the client and the theatre circuit... hopefully, the circuit managers will pass on the good reports and not just the bad ones. Ask your manager to forward the TAP report, if your theatre ever uses us, to you. You may find it interesting how in depth we go in reporting a theatre's presentation of a film. I must say, we are out there to help improve the presentation as best we can, because it doesn't matter how much $$$ are spent on special effects if nobody can see them. The way the film is shown is the last and most important link in the chain, and as Rick McCallum, Producer of EP1, says, "Once theatre owners lose sight of the value of a good presentation, they will lose their audience."

In the future, we may add a section to the PHONE THX end credit that says, "If you think the presentation really kicked ass, tip your projectionist."

John Walsh: Regarding a *minimum* standard for every theatre, well, we're close... If you can get your hands on the NATO Enclyclodedia of Exhibition, the one coming out this September, 2000, we (TAP) have a section called "TAP Recommended Guidelines for Quality Presentations" which is, according to TAP, a minimum standard for exhibition. It's a 15 page document, updated to today's SMPTE, ASHRAE, and AES standards, and includes two important, bold new statements by TAP...

1) All motion picture theatres should be equipped to properly reproduce at least one type of digital audio. Yep, digital sound in all theatres.

2) Digital Cinema Presentations: Although the SMPTE Engineering Groups are coming up with standards for digital cinema presentations currently, we at THX, have put together two pages (of the 15) of Guidelines based on the Digital Cinema presentations we have been a direct part of: EP1, Titan A.E., and we have evaluated all the Disney Digital Cinema presentations to date.

We are going to add the TAP Guidelines to our TAP section of the THX web site, along with the corresponding SMPTE reference material by ShoEast 2000... as well as much more. Check it out, soon.

Greg Anderson: The decision to include the PHONE THX end credit must be made before the end credits are locked... in the case of the X-MEN, the trigger was pulled a bit too late. And the end credit is an additional TAP service, and thusly costs money, that's why it is not on every title out there. If a Studio cares enough about quality, they hire us... Lab QA, Theatre Evaluations, Director's letter mailing and hotline, and / or PHONE THX end credit service. You can pick and choose, and most of the time we only work on the big titles... for instance, three of the five Best Picture Oscar nominees were full TAP service pictures.

Joe Redifer: Aren't you the guy who made that projection video with all the funky effects? Wearing a THX hat, I might add? We were contemplating doing a TAP Top Ten Theatre distinction, because I agree, good presentations should be rewarded... Give me a little time, and I'll think of something.

And if you are a projectionist in Rochester, New York, watch out! Mr. Pytlak brings his white gloves to do his evaluations, and he doesn't mess around.

Best to all,

Ted Costas
Manager, THX Theatre Alignment Program

The presentations in Rochester New York cannot compare to the presentations in Aurora, Colorado! I dare Mr. Pytlak to do a TAP evaluation on my theatre!
 

I just feel that there's no leverage to force cheap owners to keep their theaters in shape. If it is THX theater, then you have some, but otherwise...?
 

So you think John Pytlak is tough, eh? Have you not checked the reports I did for TAP? I didn't think anyone else would be quite so brutal as I am. You should send both of us to a screening without either of us knowing the other will be there and see who finds the most defects!

My only beef with the TAP system (and I'm talking about actually sending in TAP evaluators) is it is always done on the first show...before the theater has much of a chance to screw up their print! Right about now is the ideal time to be evaluating "Gladiator" prints. Send John out to evaluate ours! I dare him to find something wrong. (John, feel free to stay for 2 performances of it...just to make sure.)

I understand that distributors like immediate feedback from TAP on opening day. But I agree with Brad that evaluating presentation quality later in the run is very useful. Having a print look like new after months of running should be the norm, not the exception.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
 

And yes, THX theatres have to uphold the THX Standards or risk being de-certified, yet other theatres risk losing their audience by putting on sub-standard presentations. We at TAP submit our reports to the Distributors and Exhibitors that hire us, but how they use this information is up to them. In the old days, the TAP Evaluator was told to "flog" the theatre manager if there were glaring presentation problems, but the Lucas Legal Team quickly changed that policy.

In a nutshell, if we do an Evaluation of a sub-standard theatre, we can follow up with the management about correcting problems, and send out a "bad report" on their theatre, but unfortunately, we cannot shut them down... only the audience can do that.

Best to all,

Ted Costas
Manager, THX Theatre Alignment Program
 

There are other problems with those two THX auditoriums, but I'm not going to bore you with the details. That task is hereby left to the THX division instead, in case they ever actually do visit...

Then there is the case of a THX single-screen here in town. The auditorium's got a balcony (which effectively destroys any chance for good sound) and less than adequate seating unless you're six feet, and it's a miracle that it ever got THX certified. That theatre pretty much destroyed whatever faith i had for the THX division.

As for TAP, I've never heard ANY comments from TAP re theatres here, good or bad. Now, that could very well be a management problem but the fact remains. I haven't heard of one single evaluation of a theatre here, even though the TAP program is supposed to be world-wide (or perhaps I'm wrong about this, Ted?).

Sorry for the harsh words but I needed to vent this.
 

It goes something like...

"Dooo Dooo Dooo..." (sound effects of the Six Milion Dollar Man, zooming in with his bionic eye.)

Then this computer screen appears in their vision... (Like when Robocop homes in on the criminal.)

Then a monotone voice says, "UNACCEPTABLE".

Yeah, TAP took away my whip and told me not to punch out anyone in the theatre during an evaluation. I understand why the lawyers don't want to have direct contact between TAP evaluators and theatre personnel (if handled wrong, constructive criticism can escalate to destructive argument), but IMHO, fixing minor problems "on the spot" would be very helpful and usually appreciated by the theatre.

I'm sure Ted would welcome evaluations of films in the 1-800-PHONE-THX program by Film-Tech participants. See their website at http://www.thx.com/theatres/tap_800.html and enter your words of damnation or praise for other theatre's presentation quality. Remember to give the details.

I still encourage anyone who sees a problem at another theatre to immediately bring it to the attention of someone capable of fixing it. Sometimes getting to talk to THAT person is difficult, but the effort will be appreciated and worth it.

I also encourage theatres to "cultivate" a cadre of technically competent "movie buffs" to do subjective evaluations in exchange for free admission, using a form like the SMPTE Theatre Quality Evaluation Program or TAP.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Obviously, that's not TAP's fault.

Since the distributors pay for the TAP service, the data collected belongs to them. I do wish though, that the results were posted on the internet. Generally, people don't go to the movies often enough to notice which theaters are kept up, and which are not.
 

Bye!
 

Ari N.: Please e-mail me directly details of anything, AND EVERYTHING, that is wrong with the two THX screens you are referring to in your previous post. Please give me details and I will get it to the right person. I have to admit, reading what you said, "that the THX sub-woofers leaked into the two adjacent auditoriums," well, we don't have specs for neighboring auditoriums... and besides, why would anyone be seeing a movie in a non-THX room anyhow? Yes, I'm trying to be funny, kind of...

And TAP in Europe, rare. We do work out there occationally, and hopefully more in the future, but most of our focus is on the American, domestic market. When talking Quality Assurance internationally, you have to consider rejuvinated prints, many different labs, small print orders per region, and other variables that we don't face domestically... but hopefully, in the next few years, TAP will be just as popular (or unpopular) internationally as we are here in the States.

Brad M.: The Studios know from previous years' TAP Reports that after a few weekends, many prints are badly damaged... Hence, they don't send us out there to tell them the obvious. We attend the first show, or a show in the first day, to have the time to help fix any problems as soon as possible, so that the first weekend audiences get their money's worth.

And seriously, if you do have specific THX complaints, e-mail them to me directly and I'll try and take care of it.

And when I said we received two positive PHONE THX calls... we may have gotten more, but we focus on the problem calls, the ones we can do something about. If we have time to write down or pass along a compliment, great. Yet most of the time, people call up with complaints, of titles we're working on, as it reads in the "end credit."

Best to all,

Ted Costas
Manager, THX Theatre Alignment Program

Surely you agree that screening the first show of a brand new print is telling the studios the obvious fact that the prints are 99% of the time going to be fine. A month into the run would be FAR more helpful in my opinion. At least that way, the studios would know what theaters to send their junked screener prints to, since they will destroy whatever is sent to them anyway.

THX is a wonderful thing and I definitely support what TAP is trying to do. However, (opinion coming) sending out identical packets of information for TAP releases and checking only the very first performance of a print really doesn't do too much the way I see it. I can absolutely guarantee you those packets are not even opened in over half of the theaters nowadays because the projectionists know it will be an exact carbon copy of the last TAP alignment report they got. Half of the time those don't even show up until the Monday after the opening date anyway. Also, only the super biggie important theaters are ever checked. When is the last time the Village Twin in Whatever, USA was checked? If the studios really cared, they would let TAP be "the force" with power...meaning the power to pull a print from exhibition at that theater if something is found to be wrong. Alternatively, if theater level print damage is found, perhaps TAP could force the theater (with studio backing) to purchase a brand new print for the low, low price of $3000. Actions like those would make a difference. Sending out the same packets of instructions won't do anything. Has anyone else noticed that flyer that speaks of the "7 deadly projection sins" (or whatever it is called) completely fails to ever mention cleaning the projector?

Anyone else agree, or am I just too picky? Either way, I'm dreaming as the studios will never go along with it. Presentation will always suffer without good equipment, a good tech and good operators.
 

Also I have tried applying to become an indepentant TAP evaluator several times. I never get ANY response. What gives? There are over 2 dozen THX houses in the Kansas City area and I can't believe they don't want a projectionist to work with TAP. Even an email stating they don't need anyone would be apreciated so I atleast know they got the app.
 

Of course, all the THX-certified theatres here were built to be THX-certified in the first place. Those which were built to THX standards by Cinemark and then were allowed to become non-THX theatres definitely dropped in quality after they dropped their certification.

Of course, I've been in some THX theatres here which are better than some others here, which violates the promise that "you're getting exactly what the filmmaker intended." But I'll take any of them over the non-THX theatres just the same.
 

I think Ted is right; the only way rid ourselves of bad theaters is to let the patron "vote" with their dollars.

But as I said, that information needs to be made public, so the public can decide for themselves. As long as it remains within the "closed" confines of distribution and exhibition, (I feel) TAP effectiveness is drastically reduced and perhaps circumvented. For example, it is easy to imagine an owner (with a poor TAP rating) bribing a distributor to "look the other way" and still get product- or a distributor blackmailing the owner.

From the public's point of view, TAP is a black hole of information going in, but very little comming out. If we all *really* want to clean up the industry, bad theaters need to be exposed publicly.

TAP is a great idea, and even now I fully support it, but presently it is operated as a sort of "star chamber."
 

My two cents.
 

And finally, if the director of a film is going to write a "personal" letter to the theatre manager/projectionist, try to fake the "personal" part a little better :-)
 

Sending instructions for aligning A-Chains to who ever happens to open the mail at the theatre can't be good. It would be easy for a non-qualified person to "get lost" in the instructions and really FUBAR a sound system.

Been there, seen that!

What about a network of people who could visit theatres in a given area and inform owners if they needed to consult a technician? This way, there is no tinkering going on on the part of (although well meaning) non qualified "adjusters".

The evaluator could even be from a competing theatre. A bad theatre experience is just that. In the end, it doesn't really matter who caused it.
 

Brad:
Leave me alone! Kidding. Distributors want to have their product presented in the best manner possible, that's why we are sent to do evaluations on opening day. If there are problems, they can be fixed before too many people are affected by them. A month into the run, the audience has dropped by a large percentage, and so has the quality of the print being presented. If there is a complaint, and it is after that first week, the replacement reels and/or print is often charged to the threatre and written up as theatre damage (not lab defects). We have gotten complaints late in the run, and much of the time, the replacements are not sent because the film is in its last few days before a new title comes in... Unfortunately, these days many films are not afforded the oportunity to complete a run. They are pulled (or moved to a smaller screen) to let the films putting up the numbers play.

Since money talks more than anything else in this industry, the following is the list of the top ten screens, by dollars, from last weekend:

Top 10 theatre engagements for the weekend of July 21 - 23
ACNielsen EDI sample: 31,082
Rank Circuit Theater/City Wknd Gross Film
1 AMC Empire 25, New York City $110,218 X-Men
2 LCE Lincoln Square, New York City THX $84,938 What Lies Beneath
3 CENT Century 25, Union City, CA THX $68,037 X-Men
4 LCE Metreon, San Francisco THX $67,867 X-Men
5 AMC Ontario Mills 30, Ontario, CA $66,286 What Lies Beneath
6 FAMS Paramount, Toronto THX $66,152 X-Men
7 LCE Universal 18, Universal City, CA THX $65,597 What Lies Beneath
8 CENT Century 25, Union City, CA THX $63,583 What Lies Beneath
9 PACF Winnetka Stadium 21, Chatsworth, CA THX $62,923 What Lies Beneath
10 AMC Century 14, Century City, CA THX $62,473 What Lies Beneath

You'll notice, 8 out of the 10 are THX screens...

Dave C.:
KC seems to be a popular city for TAP Evaluators... we've got more than we need. Sorry nobody said, "Thank you, we're covered," but our limited staff is relentlessly driven by me to fill the spots we need people in, so extra applications are often dumped without a response. Also, as Brad said, we are often sent to the highest profile sites, in the top markets nationwide, and if you moved to NY, we could probably find a spot for you. And as a disclaimer, I say often, but not always, because we do evaluate some smaller market theatres, just not as regularly as the NY and LA markets.

Charles L.:
Those Directors letters are actually that, a letter from the Director of the film. We don't change them to make them more witty or personal... We do, however, send the Director samples of previous letters, so some of the letters may be formatted the same... And believe it or not, many Directors really appreciate the efforts by us at TAP, and by those who care enough to put on a perfect presentation of their film. It is not a form letter. They care.

Russ K.:
Yes, only qualified Techs should be performing the duties listed in our TAP mailings. The mailings are for your reference. And if you throw them away without at least looking at them, you are possibly missing out on all the free TAP give aways we randomly insert in the mailings. Kidding. But you'll get some new stuff soon, I promise.

"There's a fine line between stupid, and clever." Spinal Tap, 1984

THXfully Yours,
Ted Costas
Manager, THX Theatre Alignment Program
 

Actually I do believe it to be a very good idea to check opening day's presentation, although I would much prefer it be the first prime time showing. Not all theaters allow pre-screenings and some just treat them as parties for the staff. Thus, sometimes it may take a show to fix some little problem. Perhaps a cue is in the wrong place, perhaps the fader isn't set just right, perhaps those damned new copies of trailers wound emulsion in just won't run steadily and with good focus (ok, that's a given), you get the point. By the 7:00 show, any problems that are going to be fixed by the theater will have been and that would be a much more "fair" way to evaluate. However, I'd still like a TAP evaluator to swing by my theater as prints start hitting 4-6 months old to give me a flawless report.

Good to hear the TAP packets will start having new information in them. I'll start opening them again.
 

The only people in this area that care/know what THX is are Star Wars geeks. Sad but true.
 

I thought the auditoriums were acoustically designed to keep outside sound from leaking into the auditorium. So many layers of drywall, air space between the layers, sound insulation, stuff like that. If these auditoriums have these specs to keep sounds from adjacent rooms from entering, wouldn't they keep the subs from leaking out also. What would happen if the theatre decided to upgrade the non-THX room and install a sub? Would that leak into the THX room?

Rick

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

First off... We got a compliment on PHONE THX recently regarding the Superstition Springs 25 in Mesa, Arizona, Auditorium 7, on a show of What Lies Beneath... well, we called the theatre manager and passed on the good report. We did say, however, that this report was phoned in, and did not come from a TAP Evaluation, and may have been from someone who works in the Harkins Theatres organization, but it was a good report none-the-less. Unfortunately, we have to pass on the compliment with a disclaimer... but we did talk to the manager and whether or not he does anything with the information is his call.

Scott N:
Apply through our web site at THX. We have a guy in Boston, but we could use another. Paul Walker recruits our TAP Evaluators, and we're always looking for good eyes and ears.

Dustin M:
People may have lousy taste in films, people may not know the difference between Dolby and THX... but one thing people do know, is the difference between shit and shinola. And for seven or eight bucks, either way, they are going to go to the better presentation. An examlple, EP1 in Digital Cinema, four weeks after the film opened, had a 400% higher box office than the non-Digital screens in the same complex (also showing EP1). And four weeks after opening day, the Digital shows really did look significantly better.

Gordon M:
What about TAP in Toronto? At Deluxe, Toronto, the lab? Theatre Evaluations? Technical Alignments? It's a nice city. I've been there. CN Tower, Skydome, I'm a Boston Red Sox fan and the Blue Jay's fans were relatively cordial... but what is your question?

Rick H:
If the sound leaked into a THX Room it would be de-certified, or never certified in the first place.

And Re: PHONE THX... The next Title is Almost Famous, a DreamWorks title. I'm seeing it tomorrow, and word from the DreamWorks camp is that it's a pretty darn good flick.

Take care all,
Ted Costas,
Manager, THX Theatre Alignment Program

By the wording of your post, I am led to believe the TAP guys did find the film presentation to look better than the film on opening day, but that the video show beat out the film show 4 weeks later. There's a reason for that Ted, your guys went to shitty theatres! When EP2 comes out wherever you are and wherever I am, come to my theater 4 months after the release and tell me the video show still looks better. It's all in the handling and cleaning of the print and maintenance to the projector. It's ashamed your guys were comparing digital presentations to theaters with shitty film presentations. No doubt the reasoning the consensus leaned toward the digital show was dirt and scratches on the film. That CAN be completely eliminated and the prints WILL look BETTER months down the road if done properly.

We have lots and lots of All-THX theaters here, and every single one of them has sound leakage problems. You can easilly hear the subs from the movie next door if they are strong enough. They have been like this since day one. But I think that's probably because:
A) All THX techs are not created equal. If you get one who knows what they are doing and cares about the job, then consider yourself lucky. Normally they just rush through to get the job done so they can leave. I've seen this personally.
B) THX doesn't mean what it once used to - ie it is now just a means of making $$$ and not much more. Quality doesn't play a large a part in the role, anymore.

Don't get me wrong, I like THX, but the benefit isn't that great anymore. ANYONE can design and build their theatre to meet and exceed THX specs, without giving LucasFilm a single dime. What has Lucas done for us lately, anyway? EP1 was more like a punishment. I wish Lucas would make good movies again.
 

It is good to see someone from THX involved in this forum.

On June 28, 2000, using the data I had collected in my theatre ratings project, I did an analysis of THX vs. non-THX presentation quality at the only theatre in my area that has THX-certified auditoriums. To my surprise, the average of the scores for presentations in non-THX auditoriums was half a point higher than for presentations in THX auditoriums.

Let me explain how I rate theatre presentations:

I look for problems such as edges that are not sharp/crisp due to projector aim or aperture plate alignment problems, focus problems, framing problems, print damage, excessive lamp brightness fluctuations, unshielded exit sign light hitting screen, dirty optics hurting contrast, shutter ghosting, sound problems, and anything else that detracts from a presentation.

I began my site on Febraury 9, 1998 using data from 1995 and on. I read movie reviews all over the place but never see theatre reviews. So, being the strange guy that I am, I decided to create a theatre ratings web site, and the goal was to educate people about film and what to look for in theatres and give people an idea of what quality of presentation to expect, on the average, at any given theatre.

Many of you have probably looked at my site by now, but for those that haven't:

All movies attended have notes describing any problems with the image or sound. These notes appear in the description file for each theatre, accessible by clicking the theatre's name in the ratings chart. Eventually, all ticket stubs are scanned in, as proof that I attended each show, and the scans are accessible by clicking the number of visits for a theatre in the ratings chart.
The scans of the stubs are updated roughly twice a year.

I deduct for various problems based on how much they detract from the presentation, or by how much of a distraction they cause. I decided to not deduct for distractions caused by audience members. For example, if an edge isn't very sharp, it's a 1-point deduction. If the edge looks bad enough, it may be a 2-point deduction. If the masking is set for scope when a flat movie is projected, it's usually 2 bad edges, for a 4-point deduction. A slight misframing of a flat film may be a 1 or 2 point deduction, with deductions increasing as the severity increases. Misframing of scope films draw much more severe deductions since the adjacent frame is very distracting. I could go on and on. Just look at my ratings for plenty of examples.

I make every attempt to be fair and not show favoritism to any theatres. It may appear that I deduct more for the same problem on different occasions, but even though I may log the same description for a problem in two different cases, one may have been more severe, earning a bigger deduction. In some cases, I have reviewed my deductions and have lessened some of them if I felt that I was too harsh in the past.

All theatres in my area that are operating have been reviewed at least 40 times now. More visits yeild more accurate ratings. I even post a margin of error for each rating.

Ratings age off after 4 years using a gentle sliding weight that starts at 1.00 for new showings and slides to 0.0 after 4 years. For example, a showing three month older than the most recent showing rated has a weight of 0.9375 . I changed to this system about a year ago to make the ratings more sensitive to recent performance.

Back to THX: I made some comments about THX when I did my analysis. I love seeing movies in theatres, and am also into home theatre and DVD. In both arenas, I feel that THX standards should be stricter, to guarantee a higher level of quality. THX auditoriums should guarantee a higher level of presentation than in non-THX auditoriums at the same theatre, and that has not been the case, and I make that statement based on the data I have collected (63 showings since March 5, 1998!). In the home theatre arena, I feel that THX should not certify any DVD unless it provides an anamorphic transfer (for 1.78:1 and wider movies) in the movie's correct aspect ratio. THX has certified several discs that did not meet these simple criteria. Doing so has hurt their credibility. When I go to the Carmike 10 and sit in auditorium 1 and see the image off-center by a foot time and time again, and see the left edge jagged and curved time and time again for flat films, for over two years, what does that say about THX? It certainly says something about Carmike's quality control and maintenance policies, and it says something about THX as well. It would take a technician a few minutes to aim the projector properly, align the aperture plate with the masking, and file it if it needs it. In February, I was told by a member of the staff of this theatre that the projectors hadn't been cleaned since October 1999, at a THX-certified theatre! What does that say about THX standards and inspections?
THX inspections are not often enough and are not thorough enough! I do not know where the blame lies, but I get the feeling it does not lie with much of the local staff. It lies higher up in the organizations, and with the technicians that are called when things need to be fixed.

If you haven't visited my site, the URL is
http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/

Please be sure to click the "Huntsville-Decatur Theatre Ratings" link and click on each theatre name to see the description file and individual showing ratings for each.
It was the original, oldest part of the site (the ratings table and the individual ratings pages).

If anyone in the forum has suggestions concerning my rating system, or feels that my ratings are unfair in any way, I'd like to hear what you have to say. Maintaining this web site has been a great learning experience for me.

Evans A Criswell

 

That is all that THX is about. No more. The rest of the responsibility is up to the theater company. If it sounds like crap the very next day it is not THX's fault because at one time maximum potential of that auditorium was verified by a THX tech. That is all THX means.

Quality presentation? ditry projectors after years of operation? Pay real people to help maintain and operate the equipment properly. I feel your comparisons of THX to non THX rooms is trully unfair and inaccurate. A true comparrison would be RP-40 verification. RT-60 testing and HVAC testing. Then you are comparing better data and really seeing if THX is all its crack up to be. I agree and understand the frustration with THX however with 3000 screens worldwide and few technicians how can they police every single theater? It cant be done. I feel that when a theater commits itself to become THX that they are undertaking the responsibility of maintaing themselves THX. It is part of the understanding. since it never happens this way though the result is "ooooooh bad picture and bad sound yuk! ITs all THX's fault! burn them!" That is wrong people. I think that you expect that THX somehow should be on top of it all when it comes down to the theater responsibility in this case.

Rory Burke
 

Ted:
You've got to be the bravest man I've known about in a long while. You came to THIS forum and declared that digital cinema looked better than film? Wow!

Anyway, to replys...

Brad:
Regarding Digital Cinema: We polled 250 audience members attending the EP1 Digital Presentations, and 85% of them said they liked the Digital Cinema (not video) Presentations better than 35mm film presentations. This 85% better was the audience's opinion, not TAP's. I still like a good, clean film presentation better than a Digital one, any day of the week. But the Digital Cinema Presentations did look much better than I expected them to, and compared to a dirty, scratched print, definitely better. So don't get me confused. I'm a fan of celluloid, and I always will be.

Like I said previously, we at TAP and THX strive to improve the way a film is presented, on all fronts. And, I personally feel, that many theatres have improved their presentations partially because of us. And to quote Rob Hummel, of Technicolor (VP of Digital Technologies Developement), "Many theatres have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps since THX came along, and have improved their presentations so that the gap in quality between THX and non-THX screens has diminished over the yaers." That's not quite a plug for THX... But, it shows how THX has "indirectly" helped the exhibition industry, more than most people think.

Gordon M:
We evaluate Toronto as much as the Exhibitor and Distributor clients want us to... which is not very often. George had us do over 200 Technical Alignments on EP1, all at his expense, so that guys like you, Gordon, would go out and "fix" a theatres' presentation. I just wish the theatres would take it upon themselves to do more of the minimum maintenence requirements to keep these theatres up to snuff. I gotta admit, I hate to see one of our THX Trailers played back with a scratch, a splice, or coated with dirt. And it upsets me to see this because it makes us look bad... when the theatre should take it upon themselves to police their own presentations more responsibly... 'cause we hear the feedback and frankly, it's depressing.

Joe R:
Money, money, money. Is that all we're about? You should look at our books. THX is about improving standards and giving the audience the best possible presentation. If we were about making money, we would lower our standards, and slap a certifications on anyone who wanted it. This is again not the case. If we de-certify a theatre, we don't get paid. If a theatre has us do a feasibility study, and our recommendations are not met, there is no charge, and we do not back down to allow them to be certified. It's simple, we could make a lot more money for George if we would lower our standards. We will not. And that is o'kay with George.

And your comment, "What has Lucas done for you lately?" The answer is simple... more than any other single, creative person anywhere in the industry. And regarding taste in films, which is as subjective as subjectivity gets, when I saw EP1 for the first time, I saw it with George, his son, and one of his daughters... Sure my expectations were through the roof, but to see George watching his kids, watching the movie, it was hard not see the audience he was aiming this film at. He was, in my personal opinion, and not the opinion of Lucasfilm, aiming at a new generation of Star Wars fans... and us old guys were left with our through the roof expectations. Bring your expectations down to earth, and it's a pretty good film (subjectivly speaking, of course).

Mr. Criswell:
First of all, to compare THX to non-THX screens, basing your comparison on ONE, SINGLE, SOLITARY, THX screen, is the most ridiculous comparison I have ever heard of, ever. You have got to be kidding. Please! One THX Screen in Alabama is your representation of all of THX... and then you claim that it did not receive the highest score, and thusly, you bash THX. And EVERYTHING you are mentioning in your post is not the fault of THX, but of the theatre management. I don't want to criticize your grading system... oh, why not... You are grading the technician and film handlers at the sites you are grading, not THX. Sorry, but your conclusions are based on bogus and totally unfair comparisons. That is my humble opinion.

And regarding your bashing the THX Digital Mastering Program... again, please!!! Look at the DVD for The Abyss, it is a non-anamorphic title, and it's a great DVD. THX supports the proper aspect ratio for the presentation based on what the studio and the director, the owners of the content, wants it to be. We, at DMP, make the product look as good as it possibly can. And if you, or any consumer, could see the problems we catch and correct, which you never will on a THX DMP title, you would be our biggest fan... I guarentee it. Like a theatrical presentation, we make our DVD and VHS titles look the best they can possibly look, based on what the content owners wish.

That was fun. Kidding.

And I know there will always be THX detractors, but I don't think there is a more positive, presentation improving, benevolent, group out there (other than Film Tech, of course) that cares more about quality and the benefit to the audience than they do about money, than THX. And sure I'm biased, but like my participation on this web site, I do care.

THXfully Yours,
Ted Costas
Manager, THX Theatre Alignment Program

1. I feel that my comparisons of THX auditoriums with non-THX auditoriums is fair because the data for all the auditoriums were collected in the same manner and an arithmetic average and the standard deviation was calculated for each set. While it is true that the sets are of differing cardinality, both sets are large enough for the averages and standard deviations to be reasonably accurate.

A single screen? Auditoriums 1, 5, 6, and 10 are THX certified at the Carmike 10 and the others are not. I calculated stats for the set containing auds 1, 5, 6, and 10, and stats for the other set. You should say, a single THEATRE, not a single screen. It may a bit unfair to judge THX by one theatre, but it is the only THX certified theatre within nearly 100 miles of this area. The nearest ones are in Birmingham and Nashville, and rating theatres outside by region is not possible unless I got reviewers in each city. Remember that this county has a quarter of a million people, so there are a lot of people that judge THX by the presentations they see at Carmike 10. Please note that my evaluation only applies to my geographic area, so I'm not saying that presentations in non-THX auditoriums are slightly less problematic than THX auditoriums everywhere, just here at this specific theatre in Huntsville. Everyone doesn't live in a huge city with a bunch of theatres to choose from. We used to have 7, and now we have 5. Of our area's 56 screens, we have 4 THX certified screens (at a theatre with 10 screens). Those 10 screens were used in the comparison: 4 THX and 6 non-THX. People expect the 4 THX auditoriums to be the best in town. Sometimes they are; sometimes they're not.

2. Since I made my post about the problems at the Carmike theatre, I've thought and the problem seems to lie mostly with the whole manner in which the company goes about maintaining their equipment. Now, let me say that this theatre that I made these rather harsh statements about is the best facility around (even though it does not have the best projection quality around -- it is second best). With proper maintenance and upkeep, it would be the best theatre around. But suppose something goes awry with the equipment. Let's say that masking is not being positioned properly or a projector becomes misaimed or an aperture plate becomes misaligned. The problem goes unfixed for a very long time. The DTS was out in every showing I attended in one auditorium for nearly a year. The optical sound is terribly muffled in most auditoriums. Why maintain them if all their sound systems are digital, right? Hmmm.... What about trailers that aren't digital, or when the digital soundtrack can't be read?

Shouldn't THX inspections CATCH these problems and shouldn't recertification require that they be fixed to be able to continue to use the THX logo and trailers?

Based on my conversations with staff at that theatre, local theatre staff are not allowed to do much with the projectors, such as correcting aim or aperture plate problems. A technician must be called in for that. The technician that serves them has been nicknamed "the devil" by some of the staff, and the staff say that it is difficult to get the guy to come and fix anything. One staff member told me that this technician told him to never call him again.

The bottom line is that some problems have gone unfixed for more than a year in some auditoriums there. Things got better last spring when the manager found out about my web site. I don't think THX ends with the original inspection. If it did, why have the 1-800-PHONE-THX? I believe that THX was intended to provide some indication that the quality of presentation would be kept high as long as the auditoriums are certified, and not to indicate that the auditoriums met some standards at one point in time in the past.

Anyway, the problem in this specific case lies with the way that Carmike gets their equipment problems resolved. If the most-heard phrase from the staff when talking about the booth is "It's got tape on it", then something is wrong.

I truly believe that the manager of this theatre wants everything to stay fixed, but I get the impression that the next step in the management doesn't always see things that way. A manager of another Carmike theatre said, "I'll get the new aperture plates if my district manager doesn't see the paperwork".

Another problem is that Carmike moves their managers around too much. One Carmike theatre has had 9 managers in the last 3 years. The THX certified one is about to be on its 4th since March 1998. Regal seems to keep their managers in place for much longer periods of time.

I may be drawing for blood by saying some of the things I say, but I'm simply presenting the facts as I see them, and according to what some of the managers and staff members have told me. Look at my description file for the Regal River Oaks Cinema 8 in Decatur and at the many compliments I listed related to the presentation quality there. That is the level of presentation quality expected from theatres. I praise the manager there every chance I get.

I can visit a theatre 5 times and get a very good idea of what to expect in the future. It is no surprise to me that the ratings become very stable and unchanging after 10 attendances.

3. About the DVDs: I expect THX transfers to be of the best quality possible on the DVD format. A non-anamorphic transfer of a movie 1.78:1 or wider has 25 percent fewer scan lines making up the picture information than an anamorphic transfer. When viewed on a 1.78:1 TV, the picture is inferior to an anamorphic transfer. "The Abyss" did not utilize one of the main features of DVD to improve picture quality and resolution, and this was a scope film, which was screaming for the extra scan lines to be used, because so few were used here.

The point I'm driving at here is at the movie theatre AND in my home theatre, what is the THX certification guaranteeing me at this time as a CUSTOMER? As I see it, nothing, except a guarantee that money has been paid to THX to use a logo and a trailer, and in movie theatres, that auditoriums were built to certain standards and at one time in the past, were in certifiable condition. Is that enough to make me want to choose THX over non-THX? No. If I want the best presentation of a movie, I'll go to auditorium 6 at the Regal River Oaks Cinema 8 in Decatur, AL, which is non-THX. If I want a movie on DVD, as far as I'm concerned, the THX logo has no bearing on the quality. I don't think that the people at THX want this to be the case.

To raise their standards, they need to evaluate on-screen presentations at certified theatres more often.

>And if you, or any consumer, could see the
>problems we catch and correct, which you >never will on a THX DMP title

Never? How about the soundtrack on the first Tarzan DVD that was corrected in the special edition? Are the new releases of the regular edition Tarzan DVD corrected?

Generalizations are bad.

Rory Burke
 

1) Sorry, that complex only has one THX Certified SCREEN, at that theatre, complex, whatever you want to call it. That is the fact of the matter, and I cannot discuss any of the politics or details of this on a public forum.

2) Like I said about the THX Digital Mastering Program (DMP) previously... they are Gods. That Tarzan "problem" was a creative decision by the content owners, and not something that we have any control over. And besides that, it was not even a "problem", except that the person who did the DVD review had a mis-aligned system, which made the surrounds sound brighter than they were intended to be, again, by the content owners. And regarding generalizations... The THX logo on the DVD means that the content owners wished to go the extra yard for quality by putting their product through our DMP system. And if you want to see a comparison, a true comparison, look at the Army Of Darkness DVD that has the Directors cut (one DVD) and the THX Certified cut (an additional DVD) included in the package. Here, you can see the difference... on other THX titles, you get the corrected, clean, dirt-picked version only.

Also, DMP recently came up with a home system set-up for picture and for sound, a feature called Optimode, which had its debut on the Fight Club DVD. It makes it so a home theatre can be tested, and corrected for color, sound levels, etc., so people won't blame us for problems that are actually with their own system, and not the fault of THX... It also gives the consumer a way to make their viewing environment the way the Director of the film intended it to be.

Rory B:
You must have done a few THX Certifications, because you DO know what you are talking about.

Love to all,
Ted Costas,
Manager, THX Theatre Alignment Program
 

If you want to measure contrast that is done as a ratio with a meter and a test target

You want to rate sharpness then one must use a resolution target film focus of finished prints isn't fair since different titles have many different looks
Picture stability can often be a print issue as well as a machine issue

Sound quality is even harder to rate subjectivly since there is a vast difference between tracks, so a reference test reel is used of quick checks in conjunction with the proper test equipment.

The final product is subjective but to make comparrisions it must have a common reference which would be the same film run in each theatre.
THX's design standards are second to none and the recert process is very though and yes Evan, theatres do get failed.
The test equipment used is some of the most accurate in the business and I can say from experience not cheap to purchase or to maintain in calibration.
No theatre is perfect but the odds are there is a better standard in a THX theatre than in many others.

I will no longer comment on the DVDs because I have my opinions on that matter (based on simple math) and this is a film forum and not a DVD forum. Removal of the THX vs. non-THX page will also remove the DVD comments, and there are no statements analyzing THX from a quality standpoint anywhere else in the site.

For Ted: I really do not understand why information about THX has to be of such a proprietary nature. It is no wonder that there is so much misinformation floating around out there, because so few people have access to accurate information concerning THX. While making all of the information proprietary guarantees that no other certification institution can copy your standards and procedures, it makes it very difficult for anyone to accurately answer the question "What is THX and what do they actually do?"

From now on, I will use the phrase "advertised as THX" in the sound column when I review a presentation in an auditorium, since I have no way of knowing that the auditorium may have been decertified.

On my movie theatre review site, I try to make it clear how and why I grade in various ways. I don't want any details hidden, so that if others see flaws in my methods, they may comment on them, so that we all may learn from it. I'll happily answer any technical questions concerning how I deduct for various problems and how I calculate things. I don't want my ratings system to be a big mysterious box that few people understand, as has happened with THX with the general public.

As always, questions about my site are welcome, as are suggestions for improvement. I know it needs a cosmetic facelift, but if anyone on this forum finds ONE PIECE of information that is incorrect or unfair, I want to know about it.

When I registered for this forum back in March, it was the first occasion that the site had been turned over for review by some of the best people in the industry. I expected some negative feedback on various things, and welcome such feedback again.

Evans A Criswell http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/

You are correct in that the notes made are based on observations that can be made by customers.

I only deduct for a problem if I notice the problem during a presentation. I cannot measure the actual focus, but I can tell if a presentation is too much out-of-focus, and only deduct if I am certain that the focus needed adjustment.

For contrast, if I notice bright areas bleeding into dark area, I deduct. Credits (white letters on a black background) are a good part of the presentation in which to check contrast.

I run my eyes around the edges of the screen and see if the image are sharp, or if any fade out before touching the black masking. Often, the image goes black several inches before reaching the masking. I don't need an instrument for that.

On misframing, if I notice it, I deduct, and only deduct if I'm sure.

In short, I deduct for things that are bad enough to be detected without the aid of instruments. For example, if all the dialog coming from the surround channels and nothing from the screen, I don't need an instrument. If the sound is muffled and distorted or changes frequently from DTS to optical, no instrument is needed.

My system works, and I challenge anyone to monitor the quality of the 5 theatres in my area and grade them, and I'll bet, instruments or not, your results will be similar to mine.

I am confident that anyone in this forum could use a system similar to mine and do meaningful reviews of theatres.

 

THX does not own the theatres so they cannot really make you do anything other than by removing the certification
The process is fairly simple to follow and should and does provide consistent results and if in a area it isn't being followed by whoever does the recerts then I am sure that it will be followed up.

 

Rory Burke
 

Oh yes, and Ted...I still say you guys were comparing Phantom prints to DLP at shitty theaters! Have you ever considered making a section on the THX website of "de-certified theaters"? Talk about a black list people wouldn't want to get on! Perhaps that just might make people care a bit more about what they are doing. There is nothing more annoying than to go to a theater that is advertising THX and getting a MONO presentation. It happens a lot and I hope those offending theaters are horribly fined. After all THX is still THE audio system available today for the cinema industry. Nothing else even comes remotely close.

>After all THX is still THE audio system >available today for the cinema industry. >Nothing else even comes remotely close.

THX is not an audio system. From the THX web site:
"THX does not manufacture or sell equipment. Rather, we conduct formal testing of manufacturers' equipment using THX performance specifications to determine the acceptability of installation in a THX certified theatre."

I don't think you'll get a list of decertified theatres from THX. Some theatres whose quality has not lapsed may choose to not pay the cost of recertification, and it would not really be fair to put those theatres on such a list.

Gordon:

>The level of error you are talking about >does not need instrumentation but Should
>not be the norm.

Well, in the theatres in my area, it often is. In fact, the averages tell you what the norm is. For example, if a theatre's rating is 96 and none of that 96 is due to a facility deduction, then the "norm" is to have 4 points worth of problems in the average presentation.

>Also since to err is human and theatres are
>run by humans it would be wise to average
>the flaws over a period of time to null out
>accidents.

That's exactly what happens. One presentation's score does not have a large effect on a facility's rating, but several bad (or good) presentations would have a noticeable effect. All theatres in operation have at least 41 scores now. Scores "age-off" after 4 years, and the weight is 1 - (number of years old / 4). For example, after 6 months, a score carries a weight of 1 - (0.5 / 4), or 0.875 . After 4 years, the weight is zero. In the future, I may implement the dropping of the lowest score (like some school teachers do).

Rory:

>Evan C wrote: ("For example, if all the
>dialog coming from the surround channels
>and nothing from the screen...") How do
>you know that the dialogue wasn't intended
>to come from just the surrounds ( ie.
>someone thinking)

I have sense enough to know when the "dialog through the surrounds" is being intentionally done. If the problem occurs during the entire movie and all the previews, that's a big clue right there. I've seen some of these movies twice, and the sound would be correct in the other showing. No movie I've ever seen had ALL of the dialog and sound coming from the surrounds only! If a movie were made this way, the oddity would be thoroughly discussed in public forums or USENET groups.

>How can you tell if proper contrast/brightness is
>the way it should be.

The old fashioned way: Look. (see bad one-liners thread (X-Men)) It's true that I won't catch every problem, but I will catch cases where contast is so low that practically anyone would notice. Like I said earlier, seeing if the black on the credits stays black when the white letters are floating by gives a good indication. Also, this is a good time to check for shutter ghosting. If the problem is bad enough to see, why would instruments be needed?

>Did you know that focusing the lens isn't
>the only thing that can be done to adjust
>the picture.

No, I didn't. I never even gave anything else a thought. I thought adjusting the focus would magically fix misframings, reflector alignment, dirty optics, shutter ghosting, film loaded backwards, misaimed and misaligned projectors, broken dousers falling partially shut during movies, flickering lamps that need replacing, and all sorts of other things. Pardon me for having that misconception.

>How about gate tension, shutter timing, and >even focusing the bulb.

Is the problem bad enough to see and be distracting on the screen? If so, I deduct for it. I've deducted for excessive jitter and excessive nonuniform screen illumination on several occasions. Do you want references to them? Oh, and I thought those problems could be focused out.

>("If the sound is muffled and distorted or
>changes frequently from DTS to optical, no
>instrument is needed.") Is the a-chain ok?
>Is the masking closed when it should be
>opened? Reverting from DTS to analog?

Does it matter? The fact is that a deduction is applied for too many distracting changes from DTS to optical during a movie, regardless of what is causing it. The more noticeable the switches to optical, the more severe he deduction, regardless of the cause.

>Usually that happens with SDDS and not with
>DTS but assuming

We don't have SDDS anywhere in Huntsville. We have DTS, Dolby Digital, and standard optical Dolby Stereo, except for one mono house in one theatre.

>is the print clean?

Usually, yes, but if I see excessive scratches or dirt build up, I'll deduct. I've deducted for this before.

>Your grading for comparing THX to non THX is very subjective.

No, it wasn't. The grading of individual presentations can get a little subjective at times, but the THX analysis was purely mechanically generated, based on pure unweighted averages and standard deviations of the individual presentation scores. It's a non-issue now, since I got rid of it this morning, since Carmike's advertisements and Ted Costas do not agree on which auditoriums are THX certified (quite disturbing, by the way). That is a legitimate reason to pull the analysis. I could simply change it to "large auditoriums (40+ feet) vs. small auditoriums (30 feet)" at that theatre and not change a single number, and leave it intact, and never mention THX, but I probably won't do that. I'd probably get attacked by the Association for Large Auditoriums.

>How does the typical visitor to your web
>site even know that you are providing
>accurate data? (It seems that only one
>screen is actually certified so the rest
>of the data is wrong)

How do you know that anyone gives out accurate information? You have some degree of trust. It seems that Carmike is advertising 4 THX auditoriums at Carmike 10 here in town. According to Ted, that's not correct. Do you want me to email you a scan of today's newspaper ad for the location? It has in nice big letters: "FOUR THX AUDITORIUMS". Four, four, four! As long as I felt my information was correct about the THX auditoriums, I stood by it, until I found out that a normally reliable source of information was incorrect, then I did not hesitate to drop it.

By the way, THX has never had ANY effect on a grade given to a presentation. As far as my ratings are concerned, it's a non-issue.

>After all, (correct me if i am wrong; thought i read that up there
>somewhere) you do work for the competition.

Huh? What competition? It would be a severe conflict of interest if I worked for the very theatres that I was evaluating! Come on!

I've taken a fairly thorough beating here, which I kind of expected. I'm doing something that is fairly unique. Restaurant reviews and movie reviews pop up all over the place and people don't seem to get their feathers all ruffled over them. It shows that reviewing theatres is a very touchy subject, even more touchy than I imagined. It is interesting that nobody ever discussed my site until I brought up the THX issue. Before that, I think I received exactly one email from one person on this forum (or maybe it was from a rec.arts.movies.tech participant -- I can't remember). I guess from the standpoint of a theatre manger, it isn't a likable thing, which I understand. I'm surprised that everyone waited until the THX issue was brought up to jump me instead of doing it back in March when I first mentioned the site.

It's after midnight here. Good night.

 

I think when I say THX sound system that people know what I mean. In fact, I believe it even says that exact same wording on the trailers.

As to the decertified list, I was not implying that theaters who dropped THX because they couldn't afford it should be included. Only those who didn't pass the test and nothing was done about it from the theater's end.
 

I understand that each screen is suppose to be recertified every year. The chain I do service for has only had a few of its screens recertified. The last time THX guys were in our Oakland theatre was to install a beta version of the new monitor/Xover. The theatre is nearing 5 years old. The Santa Cruz theatres haven't been recertified either.

I started a thread here when I first registered with Film-Tech, but my question was never answered. I am just curious as to what the policy is.
 

And if you were not around in 1983 when George did the TAP program for "Return" let me tell you: he gave away *a lot* of tech work (to the theaters) for free. Sure, he did it so his film would look good, but every film after that also benefited (and a lot of operators, too!)

I know that was 18 years ago, but even today no one else goes through this effort. While TAP doesn't go to theaters anymore (rarely anyway) they still give away good, free advise. And even if you are working in a non-THX theater and were running a non-TAP film, they still will pick-up the phone and answer any tech question they can to help you out. I know because I've done it (I talked to a guy named Tim S.) Studios don't even do that for their own product.

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

And Gordon is also right; THX/TAP is not perfect, but it's the best thing going by far.

To me, the real beauty of THX is the architectural modifications. While an owner may cheapen out later and replace good speakers with junk, he can't remove the noise-canceling insulated ducting, the isolation mounts on the AC compressors, wall sound proofing, etc, etc. The expensive stuff an owner would never do after the place is finished can't be undone.

While I do have one complaint about THX (it takes too long to get their techs in to do re-certs) even a merely competent tech should be able to do a good job re-tuning a 'once approved' THX auditorium.
 

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!!!

>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)

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.

You would be amazed at the crazy domains that visit Film-Tech!

 

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)

This sentence is false.

 

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.

>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."

Best to all,
Ted Costas
Manager, THX Theatre Alignment Program

 

It's good to see you back here again. After a week of being gone, I was afraid you'd never post here again.

I know you think I'm a THX detractor, but I assure you that's not the case. Since you are the manager of the THX Theatre Alignment Program, I just wanted to see how you would react to some observations I'd made. I'm sorry you thought they were unfair, and to all film-techers, I never intended to start a small flame war up above last Friday (August 4).

I know that THX has improved projection and sound quality, and that certified theatres are guaranteed to be built to certain architectural standards. I applaud the positive effect that THX has had on the industry.

There are some issues that still concern me, though, that left a really bad taste in my mouth last Friday. I'm not bashing THX by stating these issues.

Here are the issues I would like you to comment on. They're all based on things said in YOUR previous posts above.

1. Recertification: I have from several reliable sources that THX recertification does not always necessrily involve reinspection, just a payment of a recertification fee. If this is the case, then recertification in those specific cases does nothing to help keep certified auditoriums up to the proper standards over time. In these cases, THX certification guarantees that the auditoriums were originally in certifiable condition, and nothing more. Please correct me if I am wrong. Maybe you could tell us how many theatres have been recertified from January 1, 2000 through July 31, 2000 without a reinspection, and how many in that same time period were recertified with a reinspection.
By the way, I just talked to a booth person at Carmike 10 here in Huntsville and was told that their last recertification did not involve a reinspection, just a payment of the fee.

2. I just saw "The Replacements" at the Carmike 10 theatre here in Huntsville, AL on 2000/08/11 at the 19:00 CDT showing in auditorium 6. The "Let's See It In THX" trailer was shown. Auditoriums 1, 5, 6, and 10 are advertised as THX-certified. After the show, I spoke to Laura Fursdon, 2nd Assistant Manager. She has been the booth manager in the past and she still runs the booth. She has worked there a long time. She said that there were four THX-certified auditoriums there: 1, 5, 6, and 10. I mentioned that you posted here (publicly) about there only being one, and she insisted that there were FOUR. On Thursday night, I ran into another staff member from the theatre at Smokey's BarBQ and asked her the same question and got the same answer. Would you please recheck and be sure that the information you provided to me previously was correct. Even if you have not made an error, then there is cause for concern as well, since the theatre should have been notified. Another thing that concerns me is the following sentence from you in a previous post: "Sorry, that complex only has one THX Certified SCREEN, at that theatre, complex, whatever you want to call it. That is the fact of the matter, and I cannot discuss any of the politics or details of this on a public forum." Politics? Why should POLITICS have anything to do with it? Either they paid the fee and/or got reinspected or they didn't. I really think you should get these types of issues resolved and take politics out of it. The integrity of the THX TAP is at stake here.

Note on item 2: I will not put the THX vs. non-THX comparison back on my site, even if auditoriums 1, 5, 6, and 10 are indeed certified at Carmike 10.

3. You accused me of spreading misinformation. I'm not convinced that I spread any misinformation, except maybe assuming that THX was involved in certain parts of quality-control concerning film presentation and DVD that they aren't. That is a misconception, and not a deliberate spread of misinformation. Another thing: I know how to calibrate a DTS/Dolby Digital home theater sound system. I've had one since summer 1998 and it's not rocket science. I use a sound meter and adjust the levels until the test tones are all the same volume in the listening position. You brushed off of the mixing together of the left front and left rear channels on the original Tarzan DVD problem as a "creative decision by the content owners". (Sorry to film-techers for bringing this DVD issue up). Maybe some pressings were done properly and some weren't. I have that DVD and my friends noticed the "left-heaviness" due to this. Bob Banka of thebigpicturedvd.com reported this sound defect on their site, which is run by Jeff McNeal. (If you want to really get mad, read their statement about THX in their latest review of "The Sound of Music", but don't take it out on me.) Even if they calibrated their surrounds too loudly, as you said they did, then that still would not explain the mixing together of the left front and left rear channels. This problem was well discussed on USENET. I also have the special edition of Tarzan, which does NOT have the problem. In response, your stating that THX DMP people are gods (even with a capital G) and that no mistake will ever be found on a THX DMP title is a very bold statement.

I know that the above issues I'm presenting make it sound like I've got something against THX, but I assure you that's not the case. I just hate to keep seeing evidence that the integrity of THX is becoming less than I think it should be, and as a manager of THX TAP, you're the person that should have some power to correct some things that go wrong. By participating here, you're learning a lot about people's ideas and misconceptions concerning THX.

As I mentioned earlier, the general public as a whole have little technical knowledge concerning film projection and sound. Because of the huge success of Star Wars movies, people make the "THX, Lucasfilm, Star Wars" connection in their heads and have a huge respect for THX without knowing hardly anything about it. George Lucas was a genious for creating the THX division, since it is associated in the general public's minds with extremely high quality sound and picture, although it is probably the most poorly understood entity ever created. It is so well respected that even if recertification only involved payment of a fee for being able to use the logo, the average person will still choose THX over non-THX. The lack of knowledge on the part of the average person goes strongly in THX's favor.

Like I said at the beginning of the post, I'm glad you are still around, because I think this forum can benefit greatly by having a THX representative here. I know you and I got started off on the wrong foot, but I really hope that will change. My overall opinion of THX is positive, even if I feel there a few problems here and there.

On the "Chris Evert" note, I had a thought, wouldn't it make things confusing sometimes if a theatre had a projectionist named Christie, especially if they had Christie projectors?

My posts here represent myself and not my employer.

I might as well reply to Evans C. here... I can only avoid him for so long (ha, ha).

Evans:
Item #1, Re-certs: Yes, it has been difficult for THX to keep up on it's re-certifications... Frankly, there are so many screens out there, we've had some trouble keeping up. We are addressing this issue currently to come up with an adequate solution. Yet, presently, we are woking on it.

Item #2, Huntsville: Like I said, we de-certified 3 of the 4 screens the last time I posted, and whether or not they have corrected the issues leading to the de-certification or not, I do not know. If not, and they are still advertising THX, good for them. It is up to us to pull the marketing material, and if we haven't, so be it. I personally try to stay out of the Professional Theatres folks' hair unless it is absolutely necessary... here, I'm gonna leave it alone and let them handle this theatre and the use of the THX letters themselves. With the Chapter 11s happening as regularly as they have been, I'm not going to push anyone to pull our letters. When you can't pay the rent, paying extra for a quality presentation is not usually that high on a theatre chains list.

Issue #3, the THX Digital Mastering Program (DMP):
Did you see T2? It's such a great DVD that some older players are having minor navigational problems. I'm sure you're gonna give me that line, so I thought I'd beat you to it. It is a great DVD, and we have a customized THX logo on it (my favorite part). If I said that DMP "never makes mistakes", I apologize. Unfortunately, they are human beings, we still hire those here at THX, and as you know, human beings do occationally make mistakes. What I should have said was, "Having THX DMP certify a DVD is the consumers guarentee that they are getting the best quality product available, anywhere." Less mistakes. We give the studios an extra set of eyes and ears, and engineering testing equipment, that insures a quality product. Most studios that use DMP have their own DVD department that does the work, then we go through our steps to make sure nothing is missed, recommend fixes, and then, if it meets our standards, we slap our certification on it. We catch mistakes that otherwise would not be caught. Simple as that. And they are Gods.

Other than that, love you guys, take care, and keep up the quality presentations.

THXfully Yours,
Ted Costas
Manager, THX Theatre Alignment Program
 

Re THX and video/DVD: it's been my experience that many of the films with the THX logo actually are of a better overall quality than the rest of the pack. I'm thinking especially of the Titanic VHS tapes that had great picture and sound, at least here in Sweden, but also of a number of other high-quality videos and DVDs bearing the THX mark. Therefore, I've sort of started expecting more from these tapes and DVDs.

One thing has been bothering me, though: why is there an audible flutter in so many of the THX logos on video and DVD? Or is it just me? I've heard this on both video and DVD.
 

I'm curious as to why three of the auditoriums got decertified here. Was it due to improper maintenance or was it due to the chain not wanting to spend the money?

As for T2, I'm thinking about buying that set, but haven't because I've never seen the movie and don't know if I'd like it (I tend to like comedies and chick flicks). When a bad example of something is mentioned, you can always come back and say, well, look at this other one -- it was awesome. There are good and bad THX-certified transfers, and good and bad non-THX-certified transfers. One person mentioned THX-certified VHS tapes. It should be a sin to use "THX" and "VHS" in the same sentence. Ugh. The low resolution, the noise, the color smearing; it gives me nightmares.

Evans A Criswell http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/

What did the theatre owner say when the manager of the THX Theatre Alignment Program walked in?

"I'll bet that Ted's gonna Costas a lot of money!"

(Sorry, I couldn't resist. )

If it did, I'd vote for banning movies shot in Super 35, for starters. Or better yet, every 35mm format there is. Every THX auditorium should be forced to run 70mm, all the time.