Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Theatrical print quality

This is topic Theatrical print quality in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=010551

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-28-2010, 04:51 PM:

When I purchased a Blu-Ray disc of CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON yesterday, there was a trailer for the current KARATE KID on it in 1080p HD and the picture and color quality was just gorgeous. unfortunately, this is not the way the movie looked in a theatre when I saw THE KARATE KID this past Sunday at the Pearlridge 16 in Aiea, Hawaii. The theatre did an excellent job with the presentation. The fault lies with the print and how sloppy the lab was with their lab work. when the struck the prints of this movie. Although it would be nice to see movies with Blu=Ray quality in theatres projected from 35mm prints, I would be satisfied with a picture quality that has nice contrast and color. The print I saw at the Pearlridge was in a very small auditorium with about 100 seats and the screen was only about twenty five feet wide but the picture projected on that screen had flat contrast, grainy, and the color was very flat. Watching the movie at this theatre made me feel I was watching it from a VHS tape.

When I pay almost full price to see a movie in a theatre, I expect something better or at least equal to what I can see at home in Blu-Ray.

-Claude

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-28-2010, 04:53 PM:

It could've been dirty optics or port window, the screen type (plus curved is worse) and even the design of the auditorium in terms of drapery colors that caused those issues. Not necessarily the print (but it was probably mostly due to that).

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-28-2010, 05:33 PM:

No disrespect intended, Brad but all of the possible reasons you have mentioned does not make any sense at all except when you acknowledged it could be due to poor print quality which it was in my opinion.. If the projection lens was dirty, the image on the screen would not be razor sharp as it was when I saw the movie. The color of the draperies also should not affect the quality of the projected image because the darkened auditorium would prevent it from happening.

If what you say is true, why have I not noticed the projected image problem I had experienced last weekend with many other movies I had seen in this same auditorium over the years?

-Claude

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-28-2010, 06:14 PM:

Claude,

Nowhere in your post did you say the print was razor sharp. You actually used the word grainy, to which many people would not associate the term "razor sharp" with (although yes large grain can be sharply focused).

With everything else you threw into your post to work from, dirty optics are definitely a strong possibility. Remember, people make mistakes. I've seen people brush up against a lens and not even realize it. It happens. Likewise often port window glass is not kept clean, or inexpensive cleaners are used on it or the procedure is improperly done. Again, it happens. That's why one week the picture might look great and the next week, not so much.

Curved screens DO kill contrast and along with that, color. This is a fact of life because the left side is reflecting light onto the right side and vice versa. This is why I detest curved screens. They are contrast killers and on top of that they add geometric distortion to the image.

Similarly having anything but solid black at the front end of the auditorium will also affect your contrast, and with that the perceived color strength.

Yes there are a lot of bad prints out there, but my point still stands even with your late addition of data that there are other factors involved other than the print.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-28-2010, 11:09 PM:

Inadequate brightness would also cause colors to be lacking in intensity and contrast to be low. I've always suspected that the mpx. operators often don't pay much attention to the smallest houses in the complex simply because the pictures that are there have already earned all the bucks they're going to.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 07-29-2010, 12:16 AM:

Lately print labs do pretty bad job with lab printing. First of all they print shaky prints. I have seen this effect in Robin Hood and Prince of Persia from what I remember. The effect is clear that is NOT the projector as the international subtitling which was imposed after was rock steady. Either they are trying to kill film and boost digital sales or they simply don't give a damn anymore.
Demetris

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 07-29-2010, 12:45 AM:

A burned element in the scope lens may also cause the flat contrast problem.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-29-2010, 03:16 AM:

James,

The KARATE KID was flat. Not scope

Demitris,

I am inclined to agree with you

-Claude

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-29-2010, 03:21 AM:

The new Karate Kid movie is SCOPE.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-29-2010, 03:45 AM:

Isn't it that they make the DVD/BR's from 1st gen master negatives, or positives?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-29-2010, 03:51 AM:

Doesn't matter the format, any lens can have a burned element from an overfocused bulb.

Monte, they probably make Blu-rays from the digital intermediate.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-29-2010, 04:20 AM:

I wonder if by chance Claude saw a "drive-in" print, possibly timed for an IMAX auditorium, but ran in a normal one? I don't recall the new KK movie looking the way he described. It wasn't anything phenomenal, but it certainly didn't stand out in terms of poor quality the way he saw it.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-29-2010, 07:06 AM:

I don't konw about the process with DI films. With conventional postproduction methods, a video transfer would typically be done from an intepositive, which is one generation away from the camera negative.

Release prints are typically three generations away from the camera negative: camera negative->interpositive->internegative->release print. In the case of a DI, the camera negative is scanned, and the output is typically done to an interpositive. From that point, the rest of the process is as usual. My understanding is that it is possible to do digital output to multiple internegatives, but the time and cost involved is prohibitive.

Posted by Kirk Futrell (Member # 5006) on 07-29-2010, 09:47 AM:

I'm not saying it wasn't a bad print, but couldn't at the least the large grain be from a short throw to a large screen in a small auditorium? Essentially magnifying the image a great deal. Or am I thinking about that wrong...

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 07-29-2010, 12:29 PM:

The fact that they make scope look flat is a bad sign!

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 07-29-2010, 12:57 PM:

Scott, I think that information is outdated. My understanding is that multiple INs directly from an ARRIlaser or whatever is the norm now.

I do not have a citation.

Claude: what did they say when you asked them? If you don't ask when you see a problem, there's no chance of finding out what went wrong and possibly having it corrected, or at least explained.

--jhawk

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-29-2010, 12:58 PM:

That sounds like an issue with auditorium/screen design. I've seen a few places (older, smaller theaters) that used a flat ratio screen and clipped the ends off of 'scope. Horrible, yet kind of funny during title sequences when the letters are running off the left or right end of the screen.
[Razz]

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-29-2010, 08:22 PM:

The Varsity Theatre in Honolulu at one time was a 800 seat single screen auditorium and a couple of years before it was twinned, Consolidated made it into a Road Show venue with 70mm and six track stereo sound capabilities and presented THE BIBLE, THE SAND PEBBLES, STAR, DR. DOOLITTLE and a revival showing of 2001 A SPACE ODDESSY all in the large film format. During the years after it was twinned, it was a very dreadful place to see 'scope' pictures projected on their narrow screens but if it was the only place to see a movie I want to see right away, I just had had to live with it. It was very painful to see important part of the image and credits on the right and left cropped off and that is the reason I tried to avoid the Varsity as much as possible. The theatre no longer exist anymore after it was demolished a couple of years ago.

I had no idea the new THE KARATE KID was released in 'scope' because the 'flat' version I saw last Sunday at the Pearlridge 16 looked normal and nothing like the severely cropped movies I used to see at the Varsity. Even the opening and closing credits looked fine with nice composition and no cropping. The screen in the auditorium seem to be too small to project 'scope' pictures because the width of the screen extended to both sides of the wall of the room. The screen ratio was not even the standard 1.85:1 but more like 1.66:1. If movies were projected in scope on this screen, it would be rather small with no up & down masking.

I saw THE KARATE KID very late during it's run when many 1st run theatres were no longer playing it. It has now been out more than a month and with about four showings a day, the print I saw must have gone through a projector over a hundred times already but I do not think it would have caused the print I saw to look as bad as the one I saw the other day. There are two kinds of light that are harmful to photographic color dyes- infrared and florescent and I believe the light from film projectors is incadestant and not harmful to color dyes on 35mm films.

-Claude

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-29-2010, 08:33 PM:

Don't ever patronize that auditorium again, because you DID see a scope print severely cropped.

Not every movie is framed to take full use of the scope aspect ratio. We used to laugh at the compositions on Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade because of this. Go get your letterboxed video copy, draw an imaginary 4x3 square in the middle of the letterboxed image, and with only a couple of exceptions such as the shot when young Indy is hanging on the edge of the boxcar, the entire opening sequence still works cropping it all the way down to 4x3. Its pathetic. Clearly they did this to make for an easy pan-and-scan video transfer, but still it sucks.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-29-2010, 08:58 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Not every movie is framed to take full use of the scope aspect ratio.

Can you say Brett Ratner [evil]

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 08-08-2010, 10:34 AM:

There is a single screen that I visit on occasion that seems to crop the sides of a scope image. Their scope image is slightly wider than the flat, but still is nowhere near what it should be. Last film I saw was The Ghost Writer about a month ago. It didn't really suffer from the edge cropping but still I don't really like the idea that i'm missing information on the sides that is supposed to be there.