quote:

---

"If the automation fails and you have poor modulation because the sound is supposed to be in Dolby Digital and it's in Sony digital, you have problems"

---

Now that was supposedly taken from a quote he was given, but I'll bet damn near anything he listened to the business agent and bobbed his head pretending that he understood and then botched the quote in his article. That sentence makes no sense! Need I say more?

Come on Bill, register and join us. No need to lurk. Let's get your projection issues out into the open so the next time you go to a theater you can know what is really going on upstairs. We won't bite (too hard).


 

---

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 02-13-2003, 02:10 PM:
 
I myself am more concerned that the business agent of an IATSE local doesn't appear to know what he's talking about. This misinformation has only fueled Lammers' increasingly nonsensical arguments.

I don't doubt he encountered some problems in the showing he attended. However, it's clear that Lammers' objective, scholarly inquiry into the metallurgy of his pots and pans and the electromagnetic spectra of his Fiestaware doesn't extend into the motion-picture theatre realm. We're fighting a losing battle here.
 

---

Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 02-13-2003, 02:17 PM:
 
I think Bill was trying to impress his wife and readers with his technical knowledge of how he could program his DirecTV and DVD player. He was basically promoting home video based on one bad experience he had at one theater. I guess Bill never lost signal on his DirecTV system or bought a bad DVD before. Writing about your bad experience at the theater is one thing, but back slapping the whole industry is childish behavior.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-13-2003, 02:26 PM:
 
Hey, Bill--if you're reading this, why don't you sign up and post to Film-Tech? If you're going to complain about lousy theatre presentation, then you should at least spend some time here and learn about how good presentation can be achieved. Rather than complaining that the Film-Tech people are unhappy with the technical accuracy of your articles, wouldn't it be better to not give us any reasons to get upset?

Agreed to Brad's comment--that comment on sound just _has_ to be a misquote.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-13-2003, 02:49 PM:
 
The research for that article was pretty woeful. He should have contacted his local cinema and asked to spend some time in their projection box seeing for himself what happens rather than write it up second hand – and, as many of the comments have pointed out, inaccurately – from an interview. I don’t mind leader articles which argue a position that I disagree with, but when the journalism behind them is sloppy to the point of factual inaccuracies they really are undermined.

And as for criticising bad presentation, I definitely feel it should be done, but in a constructive way which concentrates on issues as distinct from personalities. The post I made about the Odeon Wimbledon (‘cinemas on the verge of closure’) was done in the spirit of ‘I paid money for a cinema ticket and didn’t feel that I got my money’s worth. Surely the industry should address these problems, or else it risks losing customers.’ I wasn’t attacking any projectionists or suggesting that my less-than-perfect filmgoing experience was a valid reason for rejecting the idea of cinemas altogether, both of which Bill Lammers seems to be doing.

This bloke seems to be starting from the position that cinemas are bad news and that home entertainment technology is inherently ‘better’ (and pursuing a vendetta against projectionists along the way). That is a position I fundamentally disagree with. If it had character and going there was a social occasion, I’d prefer a run-down old fleapit with a tiny screen, a dim, flickery picture, mono valve-amp sound and no leg room to a DVD at home, because it’s a social occasion that gets you out of the flat, in which the technology is only one part. Even with less than perfect technology, seeing a film in the company of several hundred strangers is a different experience from doing so in a home. IMHO, Bill Lammers fails to understand this far more than any technical issue.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-13-2003, 02:51 PM:
 
Maybe one of you guys should invite Bill Lammers to sit in with you for a few hours while you go about your booth duties. Let him see what's going on, answer his questions, basically treat him to some Projection 101, on the condition that he writes a full article about his experience.
 

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 02-13-2003, 03:03 PM:
 
I am a bit curious about the E-mail attacks that he claims that he has received. Anybody here guilty of E-mailing this guy? And if so, what was the substance of said E-mails?
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-13-2003, 03:07 PM:
 
I emailed him just now. I didn`t take part in the discussion of his first article. But I found this new article really annoying. It is curious when someone claims to be very interested in details as he does. But then his article is very badly researched.
 

---

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 02-13-2003, 03:58 PM:
 
I've read some bad newspaper articles lately - unlike the good old days. Newspapers are bad - I'm going to get all my news from t.v. from now on. No wait, I've seen some bad television reporting lately too, guess I'll have to get all my news from the internet. OMG! All the newspapers and newsstations are on the internet!

Guess I'll just have to make up my own news at home.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-13-2003, 04:18 PM:
 
After the initial postings on Film-Tech, I called Mr. Lammers at his office to better understand the problem he heard, and learn the name of the theatre having the problems. He agreed that it may not have been a speed change, but perhaps some sort of distortion that he heard. By the time I talked to Mr. Lammers, he had already received several harsh e-mails critical of his original column from other Film-Tech participants.

I contacted the engineering department of the theatre circuit off-line, who said they would investigate any possible problem at that particular theatre.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-13-2003, 04:32 PM:
 
The fact that you actually called him to help find the source of the problem makes the second article even worse. If there had been no constructive contact at all between film-techers and him, you could have booked the whole thing as a misunderstanding.
I like polemic writing, when it is well done and has a point. Like the first post in this topic, it is really funny. But Mr Lammer`s second article is really a bad piece of "journalism" as it does not illuminate the topic but only serves to defend his personal vanity.
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 02-14-2003, 08:25 AM:
 
I can't remember the last time I saw "Film Done Right" in a theatre. All the movies I've seen in the last couple years have had some kind of sound problem during at least some part of the presentation. I think Mr. Lammers experience is more typical than anybody in our business wants to admit. Digital sound sounds great but the reliability factor still seems to be fair at best in the average theatre.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-14-2003, 08:37 AM:
 
Hold on Bill. Is digital reliability THAT bad in the "average" theater? What do you call an average theater? I don't think the problems you are reporting has anything at all to do with the various digital formats themselves, but is human error on the part of the tech or projectionist.

Other than a lab defect in printing, digital dropouts just don't happen at any of the theaters I service. (I don't normally go elsewhere.) It doesn't matter if the film has been running a day or 6 months. In fact, I have a couple of theaters with a damaged analog pickup that have been running for a couple of years with digital alone (Dolby Digital) and no analog backup without a dropout. These are the smallest auditoriums in the complex too, so they have the most "worn" prints. (I say "worn" as a joke because prints do not degrade if the equipment is set up and calibrated properly and the films are handled properly.)


 

---

Posted by Ray Derrick (Member # 1001) on 02-14-2003, 09:38 AM:
 
Bill Enos, you may need to choose a better quality cinema at which to see your movies. If the digital sound has problems EVERY time, then there is something radically wrong with the sound equipment.

None the less, there are bound to be problems with the cinema experience from time to time. We are dealing here with techology, even leading-edge space technolgy fails with disturbing regularity. I recently bought a copy of the Abyss - Special Edition on DVD and it took three replacements before I could play the second half of the film (the deeper layer was faulty). Did I get annoyed and write a newspaper article complaining about the inadequacies of home theatre and extolling the virtues of the real cinema experience? Of course not! As annoying as it was, I accepted it as part of the price we pay for the benefits of advancing technology.

But this is not what Bill Lammers is all about. As I said, he is a "home theatre wacko" trying to justify all that money he spent. (Thanks for quoting me Bill, it simply serves to reinforce the validity of the notion). If you are prepared to burst into print then you must be prepared to take the heat. You weren't expecting it? Really? Did you really think you could write such a biased article and nobody would criticise you? By the way, I am not a projectionist, (another journalistic faux pas on your part) so it was not a projectionist who called you a "home theatre wacko". Please get your facts straight for once in your (hopefully limited) journalistic career.

Nobody is denying that problems occur in cinemas. That is why this forum exists - a gathering of dedicated professionals trying to eliminate as many problems as possible. Where is the forum for home theatre equipment manufacturers and suppliers? Why aren't THEY up here discussing ways to fix my Panasonic wide screen TV that was advertised as being "high definition ready" yet after I purchased it I find out it down-samples the HD image and displays it in standard definition? You can keep your home theatre trash! I am no projectionist, but I would rather go to a real cinema any day, warts an' all. Home theatre does not even come close.
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 02-14-2003, 10:32 AM:
 
Concerning digital sound in theatres:

I have noticed digital sound dropouts in many movies I've seen. Often, it's only for a few seconds, and at other times, an entire reel will play in analog. I've found the digital sound reliability to be much better during the past year in all of the theatres I've visited that have digital sound. At all theatres, if the volume level of the analog sound is kept the same as the volume level of the digital sound, and the analog sound system is maintained properly, then the transition from digital to analog would not be as drastic in many theatres. In dialogue-driven movies, the change may not be noticeable at all. However, many theatres with digital sound neglect the analog part, so when a dropout occurs, there are noticeable distortions, and often a noticeable volume change.

About "average" theatres:

There is a very wide difference in presentation quality from theatre to theatre. In my area, there are 5 first-run theatres, and each had a different set of characteristics in terms of problems that frequently occur. One theatre is a prime example of "Film Done Right" (Regal River Oaks Cinema 8 in Decatur) and the worst theatre is a textbook example of "Film Done Wrong" (Carmike Century Cinema 8 in Decatur). An "average" presentation, according to my data, would be likely to have about 3 points worth of deductions per showing using my system.

Regal River Oaks Cinema 8 (42 points over 67 visits (0.63 points per showing)

Carmike 10 (144 points over 83 visits (1.73 points per visit)

Regal Hollywood 18 (138 points over 73 visits (1.89 points per visit)

Regal Madison Square 12 (318 points over 67 visits (4.75 points per visit)

Carmike Century Cinema 8 (423 points over 60 visits (7.05 points per visit )

So, to get an average, we have a total of 1065 points over 350 visits to the above 5 first-run theatres in my area. That's 3.04 points per showing, on the average, counting all of them.

An example of a showing with a 3-point deduction would be a showing with 2 ugly edges, or one ugly edge and a slight misframing, or a severe misframing with nothing else wrong, or noticeable shutter ghosting, or a mild sound problem. This is an "average" presentation. Look through my presentation quality notes on hsvmovies.com for showings with 3 points deducted and read the descriptions of the problems to get a good idea of "average".

Most showings are better than average, with a few with severe problems pulling the average down. In other words, the median presentation quality is higher than the average presentation quality.

Conerning home theatre:

I think film-tech people are occasionally too critical of home theatre. A well-setup home theatre system using DVD and a 16:9 set that can display or convert to 480p properly can look very good and with a proper sound system can be a good source of entertainment. I frequently entertain 4 to 6 people on Saturday nights at my house with such a system. I've had a lot of fun social get-togethers with friends where movies have been shown on this system.

It's true that this system has nowhere near the resolution of 35mm film projected properly, but it has its place in the grand scheme of things. I have now seen over 350 movies at the 5 first-run theatres in my area during the past few years. It's probably safe to say that I haven't seen or shown that many on my home theatre system. I typically buy DVDs of movies that I liked in the theatre, and so do many other people. If the option of going to a movie theatre were suddenly gone from my life, I'd buy a lot fewer DVDs.

I see movie theatres and home theatre systems as complementary. Comparing the two is in many ways like comparing apples and oranges. They have different purposes.

Concerning the article:

Any time someone writes an article about presentation quality problems, it is very unfair to base it on ONE experience. It is much better to keep data in a scientific manner over a period of time, over many showings. Every theatre will have severe problems during a presentation occasionally, and if you go enough, you'll end up in one with a bad problem. That's a given. It is extremely unfair to base an article on one bad experience. Suppose I went to Brad Miller's theatre and it just happened to be a time when something terrible went wrong and I wrote an article about it. That wouldn't be fair.

It is obvious that the article was not well-researched due to the comments about the sound systems. Bitstreams for different digital systems are not compatible. It is laughable to think that playing a Dolby Digital bitstream through a DTS decoder, or vice versa, could create a listenable, but distorted sound. If you're a reporter, do not make up details that you don't know.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-14-2003, 12:46 PM:
 
I guess either I'm really "lucky" or I must live in the "theater pro" capital of the world. I can't remember the last time I saw a film professionally presented in a poor manor. Around these parts film done right is the norm. Sure I can nitpick stuff like a wiggly arc or something small like that but on the whole I never have a problem
I frequent Jack Ondracek's Redwood 4 plex and the local Regal Poulsbo 10 plex.
And I do have a progressive scan dvd player and plasma screen tv and all that stuff. Is a home dvd theater better? HA!
 

---

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 02-14-2003, 01:11 PM:
 
Greg may be right - 'on average' the presentations in the greater-Seattle area are better than what I've seen down here in L.A. (Apart from theatres like the Village, Egyptian, Bruin, Arclite, etc.)
 

---

Posted by Ray Derrick (Member # 1001) on 02-14-2003, 06:48 PM:
 
I feel the fundamental issue here is this: To compare two forms of entertainment and base your conclusions on one bad experience AND your personal preference for being able to tweak the equipment and eat your home-made popcorn is a comparison that cannot be taken seriously. Lammers' lamentable literary lampooning of cinema in favour of home theatre, based on the above mentioned criteria is, IMHO, not a valid comparison.

I might add that Bill Lammers is probably a very nice, decent human being who just happened to write what I consider to be a bad article. So my labelling him a "home theatre wacko" is intended as tongue-in-cheek sarcasm and is not intended as any kind of personal attack on the man.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 02-14-2003, 07:32 PM:
 
Quote from the article:

quote:

---

A person might start the show manually, but dimming the lights, switching from previews to the movie and bringing up the lights as the credits begin to roll are done by machine.

---

Well, Mr. Lammers is correct here. Our state-of-the-art Platter systems do a fine job of automatically switching from previews to the movie!

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 02-14-2003, 08:17 PM:
 
I'd have to echo Greg's thoughts about general presentation in this area (thanks for the comments, by the way!).

There are some notable exceptions, though this probably isn't the place for that. In Seattle however, we've had good luck with all of the shows we've seen. Washington is a state where the studios have to screen for exhibitors, so we get plenty of opportunities to go to the "big city".

I wish I had kept connected enough with the Seattle local to know if the union is still active enough to be part of the reason our shows are pretty good... maybe someone else can confirm that.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 02-14-2003, 11:24 PM:
 
In Atlanta, presentation has gone to crap. Now it's a pleasant surprise when the presentation turns out decent. Almost every time, there is a problem with either improper masking, not wide enough screen (the dreaded 2:1 screens), dim projector bulbs or mediocre sound. Sometimes, it is all of these problems.

I still watch movies at theaters only because I am a big supporter of movie theaters. But the truth is there are far too many bad theaters. Sometimes I wonder what people do at Showest? Is it just a rah rah session with no serious discussions on how to improve the industry? From many accounts, there are still a number of theaters that seem to be ignorant of the basic problems like projector bulbs. So obviously, some people who attend Showest do not seem to learn anything. How tough would it be for a Showest to have a meeting about common problems in theaters that are easily fixable and get some kind of pledge from theater owners. I was really pissed this week when one stupid AMC lady told me on the phone that all the screen were of the same size at Phipps Plaza which I have visited 100s of times and know personally that some screens are significantly smaller than others. She had the audacity to use a condescending tone on the phone when I asked if Confessions of a Dangerous Mind was playing on a big screen.

However Bill Lammers second article was out of line. He should have at least acknowledged the healthy dose of criticsm of the industry that takes place on this forum instead of implying this forum is mostly fanatics and loyalists who are way too defensive. If he bothered to look at this forum past the thread that dealt with him, he would see that he is not the first to critize the quality of theaters.

It would have been a good opportunity to actually do an expose of theater chains and the cost cutting involved.
 

---

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 02-15-2003, 04:29 PM:
 
I absoloutely know that 35mm projection can beat the pants off any home theatre/video setup.

What truly saddens me is how, so very often, the exhibition industry tolerates poor presentation. I have no reason to believe that over, I don't know...half(?) of the shows presented in the US are even close to perfect.

Larry
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 02-15-2003, 04:50 PM:
 
For the record, problems experienced--last time, DTS house sound collapsed to center only any time there were no major effects, when effects started they gradually faded in. Before that, dolby house, switched back and forth to analog often not just during reel splices which were not visible on screen. Before that, dolby house that switched to the absolute worst analog I've ever heard (sounded worse than am radio) on every reel splice and did not return to digital until somebody went out to complain. Before that film started in digital (format unknown) and defaulted to analog and stayed that way for more than an hour, it was the last show of the day I guess everybody had left because when another patron complained he was told nothing could be done. If digital is so damned reliable why is the equipment designed to default to the not as great sounding 75 year old optical analog track, even the engineers who design it lack the confidence do drop the default system. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not opposed to digital in any way, in the AVERAGE theatre in this area it leaves a lot to be desired in reliability.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-15-2003, 04:51 PM:
 
That reminds me that the FP-30 can be run at 30fps (why? to make it studio compatible with NTSC?), which other projectors can? Maybe the projectionist did indeed speed up the credits...
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-15-2003, 04:57 PM:
 
The principle of optical sound is 8 decades old, the current format Dolby Stereo SR dates from 1987. It can sound very fine too on a good sound system.
A well-aligned digital system reverts to analogue very rarely. The analogue backup has to be there, because digital sound is either there, as long as the internal error correction is holding up, and gives you theoretically 100% quality. Or it fails completely. That is the digital principle.
The effects with the dts channels slowly fading in and out somehow mystify me. Please explain in further detail.
 

---

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 02-15-2003, 06:39 PM:
 
There are still operating theaters with only either mono sound or A-type noise reduction. And then there are the front-surround systems or the center-channel-behind-the-screen with the left-channel-on-left-wall and right-channel-on-right-wall systems.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-15-2003, 06:44 PM:
 

quote:

---

A well-aligned digital system reverts to analogue very rarely.

---

Personally I don't think you stressed "VERY" enough. Try "hardly ever, if at all". The key here is for Mr. Lammers (and everyone else) to stop patronizing theaters that have problems. Any theater that has sloppy presentation, whether it is the fault of incompetent/uncaring projectionists, a manager that keeps cutting corners with booth staffing, a lousy/lazy tech, or a corporate office that is too cheap to fix what needs to be fixed, does not deserve to stay in business. In this day and age, there is no reason to not have at least proper SR analog reproduction. When people patronize theaters like this, they are only backing up the corporate belief that presentation does not matter and quality declines further and further.

Mr. Lammers, you are right to not want to go to that theater again, but do remember that every company on this planet is going to make a mistake or have some kind of breakdown from time to time and you may very well have attended on that one bad performance. If after you give that place 2 or 3 shots to get it right, then feel free to say to hell with them. Just remember that there ARE plenty of fantastic theaters out there you can attend that will blow any video system away. It's what we call "film done right". You just have to find a theater near you that practices it. Until that point, make it a point to try out every theater in town...and don't leave after a bad presentation without a full refund if something was wrong with your show. These people have to learn and money is the one thing they will listen to.

To put this in a perspective that perhaps you might better understand, let's say I purchase a copy of your newspaper, but some pages have color mis-registrations. Since I got a bad paper, should I never buy it again? I mean, one bad paper means that ALL future papers will be misprinted, right? By the way, give me a refund on this paper!!!
 

---

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 02-15-2003, 10:48 PM:
 
I would like to state that Mr. Lammers used my name and exerps from private email in his article without permission. Which I believe backs up the statement that I made that he is an embarrasment to journalism.
 

---