This is topic Another Christopher Nolan anti-digital rant 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=011890
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-13-2015, 01:09 PM:
quote: The Guardian
Cinema chains need to drastically improve the experience they offer to customers or the next generation of moviegoers will stop going, the film director Christopher Nolan has said.
British-born Nolan, one of the most the powerful film-makers in the world, was speaking at the London Film Festival (LFF) on Friday about the importance of using real film, as opposed to digital technology. That includes cinemas still having projectors to show, for example, 70mm film.
But there was a bigger problem that the cinema chains needed to address, he said. “For some reason, it has become acceptable to say [to audiences] we are providing this empty room with a TV in it and just watch a film.
“That has to change and if it doesn’t change, forget film, forget digital, if that experience for the audience is not valued … people stop going.”
He said surveys saying younger people did not value going to the cinema were “complete bollocks … the experience has to be something great or of course people don’t want to come”.
Nolan, the director of epics such as Interstellar and Inception, was speaking at a debate on the importance of using real film.
“I have conversations with studio heads and at some point when I’m passionately advocating using film they’ll say ‘at the end of the day doesn’t storytelling trump everything?’
“I say ‘no it doesn’t, otherwise we’d be making radio plays, it would be a lot cheaper.’ ”
Despite the pressure to go digital there were still plenty of directors using film or perhaps returning to it, he said.
Cinemas need to have the projectors to show it and he praised Quentin Tarantino for arranging for 70mm projectors to be installed in 100 cinemas so people could watch his next film The Hateful Eight as it was meant to be seen.
Nolan said the film industry went through periods of technological advancement that sometimes confused what should be a core value – for example, the 1980s fashion of “colourising” black-and-white films.
“I don’t think people are being made aware enough that any digital transfer from film is only ever going to be a translation of the original material … there is always a difference.”
He rejected the economic arguments that are sometimes made to defend the increasing use of digital
“What has crept in is that it has become acceptable for [cinema] theatre owners or distributors to say film is more expensive,” and then for audiences to just accept it without seeing any reduction in ticket prices.
He was joined at the debate by the visual artist Tacita Dean, who is known for working in 16mm and 35mm film.
Dean said it had felt like her artistic medium, film, was being taken away from her in 2011 and she became a founding member of savefilm.org.
“Film was in existential danger,” she said. “It felt like I wouldn’t be able to make my work or even see it.
“In the art world, medium cannot be obsolete and that was the big issue, there has not been a time historically that a medium which has made so much has come under such a threat … I think people have realised and we have turned a corner. It did feel like there was this huge cultural misunderstanding.”
The BFI’s creative director, Heather Stewart, said the institute was the world’s largest lender of film prints but, after it was pointed out that it regularly showed films digitally, she acknowledged it could do better.
The debate was the first of a new LFF Connects series at the festival, now in its 59th year, in which industry figures will explore the future of film and how it engages with other creative industries.
So basically he's claiming that no matter how bad the content (script, acting, direction etc.) of a movie is, it will do well at the box office if it is shot and projected on film. I think we've all shown enough film prints of bad movies to tiny audiences to beg to differ...
And of course the low budget and start-up movie makers to whom the DCP has given the chance to gain access to a theatrical release that didn't exist a decade ago, not to mention re-releases of archival titles that can now be seen in a far better state than was previously possible are not factored in to Nolan's thinking at all. But of course, given the sector of the market he works in, he very much has a vested interest in maintaining high cost barriers to entry, doesn't he?
And as for Stewart's claim that the BFI is the world's largest lender of film prints, I have a very hard time believing that, given how difficult and expensive they make it for anyone to get a print from them (no more difficult and expensive than most of the other FIAF archives, but difficult and expensive enough that even the remaining Hollywood studios that are putting out small quantities of new release prints are probably sending out more on a weekly basis).
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-13-2015, 02:50 PM:
I would be more excited about movie productions using film, particularly 5-perf 65mm and movie theaters showing 70mm, if the movies using the formats actually did some really great work with it.
Last fall I did my part to support Interstellar and its dual 70mm format release, watching it in 5-perf 70mm at LOOK Cinemas in Dallas and then 15-perf 70mm real IMAX in Austin. The movie wasn't really all that great and neither was the cinematography. Some of the 35mm 'scope stuff looked awful. It wasn't something that showed off the true potential of 70mm and the limitations of digital.
The prospect of Quentin Tarantino shooting a western in 70mm seemed exciting at first. But then he chose to use the rarely used Ultra Panavision 70mm process, which is not as sharp as spherical 65mm photography. The problem is compounded by the fact hardly any theaters in the world have screens tailored to the ultra-wide 2.76:1 aspect ratio. Cinemas have been going in reverse, shaping movie screens like TV screens so even a normal 2.39:1 'scope movie gets letter-boxed.
Just about any theater showing The Hateful Eight, either in UP 70mm or freaking digital, will be stuck showing this movie on part of the screen, not all of it. It's going to be a letter-boxed affair everywhere. Some theaters may have it properly masked, but the image isn't going to be as big as it should be. My biggest worry is The Hateful Eight will be a very dialog heavy movie and have much of that dialog stuck in a dark cabin. That's not the sort of material that comes to my mind when I think of something that could be shot in anamorphic ultra-wide 70mm.
quote: The Guardian
Cinema chains need to drastically improve the experience they offer to customers or the next generation of moviegoers will stop going, the film director Christopher Nolan has said.
I think Christopher Nolan is right about this. But the movie industry is positioning itself for implosion on multiple fronts. The quality of the movie-going experience is just one very important angle of it.
Historically commercial movie theaters have always been able to out-do the experience one could get in the home. The difference used to be huge. That's not the case today. Yet theaters are still taking customers for granted on this, as if nothing has changed. 4K is on the verge of becoming mainstream in home theater while most d-cinema theaters are still showing 2K and showing it softly.
Economics are another angle. Prices haven't risen all that much for "standard" d-cinema theaters. But some theater operators are showing dim movies and turning down the sound to TV volume to subconsciously push customers into the much higher priced fake large format houses where the image seems appropriately bright and the surround sound has at least some kick to it. But with a common width screen the letter-boxed presentation and produced-at-the-last-minute sound mix make it feel a little like watching TV at home and have the viewer wondering if this was really worth $16 for the ticket.
There is both good and bad with watching a movie in a theater with an audience. You get the crowd reaction to amplify the drama or comedy in the movie. But you also get all the damned distractions (mobile phone displays lighting up here and there, crying babies, etc.). When you're at home you can hit a pause button if you need to go to the bathroom or get a drink. You're going to miss a few minutes of the movie if you do that in a movie theater.
quote: The Guardian
“I have conversations with studio heads and at some point when I’m passionately advocating using film they’ll say ‘at the end of the day doesn’t storytelling trump everything?’
“I say ‘no it doesn’t, otherwise we’d be making radio plays, it would be a lot cheaper.’ ”
Actually the story (and actors' portrayal of it) really does matter. Hollywood has a huge problem on its hands with all the Save The Cat! formulaic story lines that feel like verbal clip art cobbled together.
Series TV is arguably kicking the feature movie format's ass, particularly TV series made for premium cable or streaming platforms like Netflix. Those TV series have more creative freedom in what they can do with their characters. Viewers can choose to binge watch a season of a TV show in a couple or so sittings as if they're watching a really long movie. Streaming services allow viewers to do this without having to hit any buttons. No commercial breaks, nothing, just the show playing as long as you want to watch it.
One thing I find strange is the advances in technology have allowed a lot of TV series to do a lot more within their limited budgets but Hollywood movie productions have continued to escalate in cost. It's now considered normal for a major Hollywood movie to have a $200 million production budget.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-13-2015, 08:37 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
4K is on the verge of becoming mainstream in home theater while most d-cinema theaters are still showing 2K
Well that's because it's a lot more cost effective to introduce an improvement to an existing format in the home market than it is to do it in the theatrical market. Even if every theater had 50 grand per screen laying around to spend on a shiny new 4K projector, there are still only relatively few screens around the world, compared with the millions of potential TV set sales.
You also have the fact that many people MUST have the latest greatest technology whether they can afford it or not, so if some really great whizbang TV thing comes along then hordes of people will be quick to adopt. The big screen TV is the sports car of this age, I think. Guys have gone from being jealous of their buddy's car's cubic-inches to being jealous of his TV's diagonal-inches.
When 4K theatrical projectors become the "standard," then as machines are replaced, 4K (or whatever K) will become the norm, just like surround sound gradually became the norm.
The theatrical industry has always been a slow-evolving industry not necessarily because we are resistant to change, but because change is so freaking expensive.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-13-2015, 08:48 PM:
And also because the latest technology is NOT why most people go to the theater. Nolan is right in that they want something they can't get at home, but for most theatergoers that something is an impressive-looking building, a meal in a nice restaurant before or after the movie, the communal experience of seeing it along with 200 others or whatever. They aren't going to care whether it's 35mm, 70mm, 2K, 4K, VHS or Super 8. Or rather, some might care, but very few will care about that first and foremost.
Nolan has spent the last year claiming that the fact that Interstellar made a healthy profit demonstrates that audiences want film. What it really demonstrates is that a lavishly budgeted and promoted sci-fi epic with big name stars in it is almost guaranteed to make a healthy profit (unless you're Will Smith making a propaganda pic for Scientology, of course!). It wouldn't have been given that budget in the first place if there were any significant danger of it failing.
The Master and Inherent Vice were also released on 70mm at the insistence of a director who is a high-profile champion of the medium. Both films made a significant loss, because they have sprawling, incoherent scripts, so-so acting, they are poorly paced and difficult for the audience to engage with. The fact that they look visually beautiful was not enough to save them. So for Nolan to claim that his movie was primarily a success because it was released on large-format film is problematic, to say the least.
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 10-13-2015, 09:25 PM:
Nolan is a fool. There is no bigger waste of time and breath than trying to predict, or stating firmly, what moviegoers will and will not go for. This has been going on for almost seventy years, ever since the first rudimentary television broadcasts. Free TV would kill the movies, movies on TV will kill the movies, HBO would kill the movies, home video would kill the movies, digital would kill the movies, people watching movies on hand held devices will kill the movies. All bullshit predictions. The industry may be a little battered at this point, but it is still alive and it just had a very good summer, showing a mixture of movies shot both on film and on digital but almost exclusively shown digitally. People came and threw their money down because they wanted to see the picture, regardless of the medium.
When Star Wars opens, ask 100 random audience members whether the picture being shot on film affected their decision to see it, or their enjoyment of it, and if they reply “Yes” ask for a cogent explanation of why. I bet you won’t get even a handful.
quote:
still showing 2K and showing it softly . . . But some theater operators are showing dim movies and turning down the sound to TV volume to subconsciously push customers into the much higher priced fake large format houses where the image seems appropriately bright and the surround sound has at least some kick to it.
Here is a question for anyone working actively as a movie projectionist or digital projection technician: does anyone of you ACTUALLY do this, or have you been instructed to do this by theater management? Intentionally defocus a digital image, or run it darkly or at lower volume with the intention of steering audiences to LPF screens? If this is really a thing, then OK, but I do almost all of my major motion picture film going in either the Tri-State New York area, or Los Angeles, or the Toronto area, and I have neither seen it in practice or heard of it from aquaintences still in the industry.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-13-2015, 09:52 PM:
quote: Mark Ogden
Nolan is a fool.
It's more complicated than that - he seems to be in denial. He didn't become a Hollywood A-list director by making films that were technologically and/or visually special but with nothing else to them - he got there by directing films with strong scripts, performances, sets, SFX, music, the whole deal. But after Interstellar, he seems to have become fixated on film in general and 70mm in particular. Even if he knows it deep down, he seems reluctant to admit that shooting and/or releasing on film can absolutely enhance a good movie, but it can't rescue a bad one.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-14-2015, 03:37 PM:
70mm film definitely has the image quality potential to crush anything digital. But the film-maker has to shoot imagery that can show off the difference. Unfortunately recent movies using 70mm, particularly as a campaign to save film production and exhibition, just have not been filming things that way.
Interstellar was far from being Nolan's best film. Much of this movie was dark, dreary and desaturated. The 35mm 'scope material didn't look nearly as sharp as it should have been, desaturated or not. Too much of the IMAX-sourced stuff had very low DOF, thanks to all the dramatic, dreary, low lighting.
The cinematography in The Master was pretty decent, but only if you could get past Paul Thomas Anderson's absolutely baffling choice of pillar-boxing the imagery to 1.85:1. The movie itself was mediocre and over-long.
I saw no point at all for Inherent Vice to have any 70mm blow up prints made. The movie was filmed on 35mm. It's not like this movie was going to be projected on any giant sized screens, where the brighter and more steady image of 70mm would have provided some real benefit. At least it gave the folks at FotoKem some extra practice with 70mm. I didn't like Inherent Vice very much either.
Then we have QT going the Ultra Panavision route even though virtually no theater screens in existence are built to handle the 2.76:1 aspect ratio. The movie threatens to spend most of its length in the dark interiors of a cabin.
I don't know if these guys are truly trying to save film or just killing it from the inside.
quote: Mark Ogden
There is no bigger waste of time and breath than trying to predict, or stating firmly, what moviegoers will and will not go for. This has been going on for almost seventy years, ever since the first rudimentary television broadcasts.
Home TV viewing quality is far different now than it was 70 years ago or even 20 years ago.
In the past 10 years cinemas have converted to digital (with a TV-style letterbox approach to 'scope) and HD viewing became standard in the home. There are barely any quality differences left between watching a movie on a TV screen as opposed to watching it on a commercial theater screen. Then consider all the improvements in store for HDTV technology rolling out the next few years. Only the most high end, laser-equipped theaters are going to keep up with it. Then consider the growing price difference between watching movies at home versus the theater. That has to be cause for at least some concern.
quote: Mike Blakesley
You also have the fact that many people MUST have the latest greatest technology whether they can afford it or not, so if some really great whizbang TV thing comes along then hordes of people will be quick to adopt.
I don't think that's happening quite so much with TV sets. HDTV monitors have become a very commoditized item. Electronics companies have figured how to mass produce them increasingly bigger, better and thinner yet at more affordable price points. Some of these sets aren't built to last, so you have a replacement cycle that's not much different from personal computers. There are some people who simply must have the latest, greatest thing. But it's going to take a while for 4K UHDTV sets to replace all the 1080p TV sets out there. Most people will replace an aging HDTV set because something is wrong with it or it doesn't support some needed feature.
quote: Mike Blakesley
The theatrical industry has always been a slow-evolving industry not necessarily because we are resistant to change, but because change is so freaking expensive.
The movie distributors aren't doing commercial theaters any favors with all this digital technology. Between the movie distributors and electronics companies they've just about eliminated the image quality quality barrier between commercial theaters and home theater. Going forward it's going to be easier and far cheaper for home viewers to buy 4K TV sets that support REC 2020, HDR, Dolby Vision, etc. than the average commercial movie theater. Immersive audio (Atmos, DTS-X) is already much more accessible to home theater nuts than commercial theater operators.
The least thing the movie studios could have done is retain some kind of picture quality level for commercial theaters that was still clearly better than what one could see on the average HDTV screen. They didn't do that. They couldn't even manage to do 'scope right in digital. They had to letterbox it just like on a damned TV screen.
quote: Mark Ogden
Here is a question for anyone working actively as a movie projectionist or digital projection technician: does anyone of you ACTUALLY do this, or have you been instructed to do this by theater management? Intentionally defocus a digital image, or run it darkly or at lower volume with the intention of steering audiences to LPF screens? If this is really a thing, then OK, but I do almost all of my major motion picture film going in either the Tri-State New York area, or Los Angeles, or the Toronto area, and I have neither seen it in practice or heard of it from aquaintences still in the industry.
Whenever you sit close enough or walk up close enough to the screen (maybe at the end credits or during a bathroom break) can you see a pixel grid at all? Or is it kind of blurry? A bunch of these movie screens are significantly bigger than a 14' X 48' billboard. But 2048 or 4096 pixels stretched across that doesn't equal a high dpi rating at all, certainly not high enough to hide a pixel grid if the projection system is set up and focused as well as possible.
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 10-14-2015, 05:28 PM:
Do I see a grid? No I don't. But from 3/4 of the way to the back of the house, siting in a center seat, I see a sharply focused movie.
Why do you think that is?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-14-2015, 06:01 PM:
You're ignoring the point.
If I watch a Blu-ray movie on my 65" HDTV at home it's going to look tack sharp regardless of my viewing distance from the screen, but if I sit too close I'm going to see the pixel grid. If I'm stuck having to sit too close to a d-cinema screen I just see a big, out of focus blur. Some people enjoy paying extra for that kind of thing though: hence LieMAX.
At least with a film presentation if the projection setup was properly configured and maintained you could at least tell the system was in focus with all the film grain visible on screen. You don't get any of that with digital.
Most people don't notice those short comings in standard priced theaters since they're trying to sit as high as possible, gravitating to the back rows of the theater. With LieMAX they're bowled over with the marketing hooey, thinking they saw something extra when the fact is some smart phones can show a more detailed picture.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 10-14-2015, 07:59 PM:
No Bobby, no one is missing the point. For a long time now, you've been insinuating that theatre operators have been intentionally de-focusing digital projectors to hide a "pixel grid" (just above, you hurled another accusation about them intentionally dimming the picture and lowering the sound of standard presentations to drive people to PLF screens. Neither I, or apparently anyone else on the forum, has ever heard of this, I've never seen it mentioned once). The point is: your claim is INTENT. You add:
quote: Bobby Henderson
certainly not high enough to hide a pixel grid if the projection system is set up and focused as well as possible.
Even if you focus your projector to within an inch of its life, is there a projection lens in the world that can resolve a 17um DMD point source, magnify it thousands of times and still render the edges sharply enough to detect a fixed grid pattern? Not likely, but if you sit back from the screen a bit and take the image as a whole there is enough resolution and acutance to accept the image as sharply focused. Because there is no such thing anywhere as a projection lens that does not to some extant blur the image, all of motion picture projection from day one has relied on this phenomena. BUT this does not . . .
hold on a minute . . you like boldface type . . .
BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS BEING DONE INTENTIONALLY TO HIDE THINGS THAT CANNOT BE RESOLVED ANYWAY.
Now before you bring up the whole "blocky credit letters" thing: let us stipulate that at some point things become large enough to be more sharply resolved: your film grain, for instance, which on the kind of crappy 35mm release print you're likely to get out there in East Jesus starts out at about 30-35um (although if you walk right up to the screen as you suggest I do, that's not going to look that sharp either, for the same reasons above). In this fashion, if you take a letter from a credit roll, spread it out over four or five micro-mirrors, or pixels, or whatever you want to call them, then yes, you may detect the very beginnings of a jagged pattern, especially on a less than 2K series one projector, but it will require just that kind of spread-out tangental image, a worst-case scenario if you will, to see. I don't see it that much anymore, haven't in years.
But I still have never seen "grids" of pixels on a screen no matter how close i've stood and I have never heard of anyone INTENTIONALLY defocusing a projected digital image to hide fixed pattern issues, no more than I have heard of anyone running the other game that you claim is going on, about the PLF screens.
I would be happy for anyone who is an experienced digital projection technician (not you Bobby) to advise me if I am in error on this, and I would be interested in hearing how prevalent a practice this is.
Posted by Rex Oliver (Member # 7593) on 10-15-2015, 12:15 AM:
I watched the movie "Intersteller" at home--one of the most BORING shows I watched.If movie makers want to go back to film or whatever format-put something on it worth watching.
Right now I have a Hatachi CRT RPTV that is 1080 capable.Blu Rays look real good on this set.Will use it until it dies.Think I bought it in 2000.Still holding up strong.
Too many folks a movie theater is just another thing to watch it on.Remember the majority of veiwers are not movie or videophiles.They just want to see a movie-Its getting to the point they do't care what the watch it on.
If movie theater operators are misfocusing shows on purpose-this doesn't make sense to me.Thought he goal here was to present the movie as well as your skills and your equipment are capable of doing.
Billboard screens-don't laugh-go to "Billboard Tarps.com"And in uses for old billboard vinyls-esp white back ones-they suggest using it as a makeshift projection screen.Suppose you would have to wash the back off well,and will the message on the other side show thru when you project one it?Haven't tried this.Have a few billboard vinyls I got real cheap from a local sign co.Often they throw them out!Would suggest using that in your cinema!!And no perforations for the sound.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-15-2015, 09:35 AM:
quote: Mark Ogden
Even if you focus your projector to within an inch of its life, is there a projection lens in the world that can resolve a 17um DMD point source, magnify it thousands of times and still render the edges sharply enough to detect a fixed grid pattern?
So, basically the blurry imagery I'm seeing on that 70' wide screen is as good as it gets? It's that way by design? At 840" across this is hardly even resolving 1 dot per inch, much less the 2-3 dots per inch it should be showing. A theater might as well not bother with a 4K upgrade or any of the high dollar laser based stuff coming down the pipe line if d-cinema optics are really that limited.
Your claim "crappy 35mm release print" grain is double that 17um size (30-35um) suggests the print would only yield half the resolution of d-cinema, making the film image barely compare to a 16x9 widescreen 480p DVD.
All I know is when this particular theater was showing 'scope movies on 35mm film (via a very good Kinoton projector) they looked a damned sight better than they do in d-cinema. I could see the grain structure on screen if I walked close enough, and the image quality was better than any damned 480p or 720p ballpark zone.
Meanwhile in the electronics stores, it's pretty damned easy to tell the image quality difference between a 1080p HD and 2160p UHD TV screen.
quote: Mark Ogden
hold on a minute . . you like boldface type . . .
Cram your bold faced type, Mark. I wasn't yelling at you, or personally insulting/attacking you. I hope you didn't have a stroke while indulging in your all caps fury.
On the sound side of things, maybe it's different for you at the theaters you visit in NY and LA, Mark. That doesn't change what I'm experiencing at theaters in this part of the country -a bunch of theaters in Oklahoma, Texas and Colorado.
Even before Cinemark began its conversion to digital they were playing games with the audio in their theaters. You would get some loud surround sound if you paid extra to see a movie in the IMAX house. But it's TV set volume in all their standard priced rooms. A few months ago my girlfriend and I had tickets to watch Kingsmen: The Secret Service in Harkins' Atmos-equipped Cine Capri house in Oklahoma City, but the movie got bumped to a lesser house at the last minute to make way for 50 Shades of Gray. Same damned problem. Wimpy surround sound with hardly any dynamics and barely loud enough to make out the dialog. We watched Jurassic World in one of the smaller houses at the Warren Moore theater. This room was THX certified and wired for 7.1, yet it had the same very toned down audio.
For all the advantages in audio that d-cinema has over 35mm release prints, I'm not seeing these theaters take full advantage of it. 24-bit uncompressed LPCM audio is a hell of a lot better than any lossy format on 35mm. Yet I haven't heard any d-cinema theater around here come even close to matching the kind of audio quality I heard at the GCC Northpark 1-2 theater back when it was running. And that theater was stuck playing movies in lossy Dolby Digital and DTS for most of my visits there.
My theory is it costs more money in terms of sound system maintenance to run a movie theater sound system the way a lot of multiplex theaters did when they first got digital sound in the 1990s. You wear out speakers and amps faster playing the sound mix with the reference level of bombast. It's more profitable to play the movie at TV speaker volume. If the customer wants some chest thumping surround sound, make him pay extra for it in the Lie-MAX house.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-15-2015, 09:43 AM:
I think the sound problems you are experiencing are more due to volume level being adjusted downward to compensate for loud trailers, or audiences in the theater next door complaining about the sound leaking through. As for sound system maintenance it costs almost nothing when compared to projector maintenance (bulbs, filters) so there's no excuse for not maintaining a sound system.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-15-2015, 10:50 AM:
It would seem like it shouldn't make much difference from a cost end how loud a theater's sound system is operated as long as it's not cranked high enough to blow speakers. At most it should just be a little difference in the electric bill.
I just find it strange that basically every multiplex I visit with any premium priced rooms has the sound in their standard priced houses running at pretty unimpressive levels. It's that way on a pretty consistent basis. Do the higher ups think they're saving money on sound system maintenance doing this? Are they catering to a certain demographic that doesn't want movies loud or dynamic at all?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-15-2015, 11:01 AM:
Like I said, it's probably something like:
Management plays the volume at 7.0 across all the screens
Patrons of theater 11 and 13 gripe about the sound coming thru the walls from theater 12
Management tells the booth manager to lower the volume in theater 12 to 5.5
The next day it happens again, maybe with a different set of auditoriums
After a few days of this, management puts a note in the booth telling them to always run theater 12 at "5.5," in fact just run everything at "5.5" to avoid future complaints, because complaints are bad
Presto, unimpressive sound.
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 10-15-2015, 12:06 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
It's that way by design?
No, it's not that way by design. It's that way by circumstance.
There isn't an optic of any type, projector lens or camera lens, (or at least not one of any manageable size, weight or cost) that has a perfectly high and flat MTF curve. All lenses have compromises in resolution. It's just their physical nature. But a very good lens can provide what I described above: a very nice sharp visual image to anyone watching from the audience. If you are going to stick you nose to the screen, you will not see a perfectly sharp image, either on film or on digital. That's why no one, with the possible exception of you, watch movies that way. What do you expect to see up that close, and why do you expect to see it?
If you are truly seeing the "blurry imagery" that you claim you are seeing, and you seat position in the auditorium is in a reasonable location, and the port glass and projector optics are clean, and you're not drunk, than all I can say is that the projection out there is pretty goddamned sloppy. I haven't seen a truly blurry presentation of anything in years. Do I see everything with absolute razor sharpness down to the pixel level? No I don't, but then I don't have any ludicrous expectations of what can be resolved by a projection lens.
So, let's get back to your original claims, the ones that you seem to be backing away from from: that theater operators are intentionally defocusing to hide a grid of pixels on the screen, and that they are intentionally dimming the image and lowering the sound on standard presentations to drive PLF business. Still waiting for any professional, experienced projection technician to confirm this as a thing, and not just your fantasy.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-15-2015, 12:49 PM:
quote: Mark Ogden
There isn't an optic of any type, projector lens or camera lens, (or at least not one of any manageable size, weight or cost) that has a perfectly high and flat MTF curve. All lenses have compromises in resolution.
Yes, I know this as well as know there is a wide range in quality from one make of lens to the next. But it's not too much to expect a d-cinema projector lens to throw an image on screen that at least matches the amount of detail I see at home from a Blu-ray disc played on my TV set. That's just 2 million pixels, not 20, 30 or even 50 million pixels like some camera/lens combinations are expected to resolve.
The theater has a superior playback source, a 2K or 4K DCP with less compression and deeper color bit depth. It ought to look noticeably better and more detailed, but it doesn't.
And these d-cinema projector lenses aren't cheap at all. Our local Carmike theater has some now-aging Christie projectors with Konica-Minolta lenses on them. Those things are freaking huge compared to the Schneider Super Cinelux lenses they had on their Simplex 35 machines. We've talked about anamorphic projector lenses for d-cinema in other threads. Are they really $10,000? For that kind of money the optical performance ought to be awesome.
quote: Mark Ogden
So, let's get back to your original claims, the ones that you seem to be backing away from from: that theater operators are intentionally defocusing to hide a grid of pixels on the screen, and that they are intentionally dimming the image and lowering the sound on standard presentations to drive PLF business. Still waiting for any professional, experienced projection technician to confirm this as a thing, and not just your fantasy.
I'm only trying to confirm if d-cinema optic quality just plain sucks. If people aren't dialing things back just a bit to hide the pixel grid then the situation is actually WORSE than I guessed. That means over the next 5 years consumer electronics companies will have a fun time marketing new HDR UHDTV sets with boasts "image quality better than in the movie theater." That's something home theater has never been able to hold over commercial cinema before. You can bring up 70 years of history and what not, but things are extremely different today.
As to the sound thing, you have no business accusing me of this all being a fantasy. You're not here visiting these theaters to hear for yourself.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-15-2015, 05:06 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
it's not too much to expect a d-cinema projector lens to throw an image on screen that at least matches the amount of detail I see at home from a Blu-ray disc played on my TV set.
Thing is you're not comparing apples to apples. Take a bed-sheet to a movie theater, hang it 10 feet in front of the projector and focus the image down. You'll see a picture that's amazingly bright, and will look super sharp -- it'll look far better than a TV. A cinema picture has to deal with the optics of the lens, combined with the sheer size of the picture compared to the size of the source image.
quote: Bobby Henderson
And these d-cinema projector lenses aren't cheap at all.
You've been around these parts long enough to know that NOTHING about d-cinema is cheap. However, it's got very little to do with the cost or quality of the raw materials and everything to do with economies of scale. Cripes, a set of 6 filters for our projector costs over $100 but it probably costs about 5 bucks to make the whole set.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-15-2015, 05:16 PM:
Good quality lens filters aren't cheap regardless of the purpose. I recently paid $180 for a 10-stop neutral density filter from Breakthrough Photography.
But yeah, commercial cinemas are at a crazy price disadvantage for buying a certain thing when a similar thing for home theater costs a tiny fraction of the price. In the 1990s when 5.1 digital sound was rolling out a theater had to spend $6000 to $10000 or more just for the sound processor & reader package. Joe Schmo at home spends just a few hundred bucks for an AV receiver that does the same thing. The price differences reached new extremes with d-cinema and look to get worse as stuff like HDR rolls out.
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 10-15-2015, 05:20 PM:
Why are we even talking lenses when the Chip is only 2k and not even fully used in either format? If the resolution isn't available on the chip, of course it's going to be garbage coming out of the lens.
The bedsheet comparison- That's exactly the problem. Of course it's going to look good on a 4 foot wide screen with a 10' throw. That's tv size. 2k resolution will look good at that size. Especially with a 3k watt xenon burning behind it if not very washed out. BUT MOVIE SCREENS ARE FAR BIGGER THAN THAT, thus current projection technology is FAR behind and just not capable of a reasonable presentation.
Mike is 100% right about the sound though. Things get run at 5.5 because of customer complaints. And it's not like it just gets turned down to 5.5 for only the showing the complainant is in then goes back up, it gets turned down to 5.5 and LEFT there, because why bother turning it back up for someone else to complain next week?
Premium houses start at 7 and probably keep a higher average for the simple fact that the average audience is less likely to complain... They paid $15 for the ticket after all... they expect loud noises.
There's no conspiracy "Lets turn down the sound in all the others to sell more tickets to the PLF house" A classic case of correlation not equaling causation. That would require actual thought about the business model and that just isn't happening. Clearly.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-15-2015, 05:27 PM:
quote: Buck Wilson
Why are we even talking lenses when the Chip is only 2k and not even fully used in either format? If the resolution isn't available on the chip, of course it's going to be garbage coming out of the lens.
If I understood Mark correctly he suggested the optical path in d-cinema projection systems can't clearly resolve all the pixels on those DLP chips. By the time the imagery hits the screen it has been softened. You have to sit in the upper/rear 2/3 of the theater for some of the softness to disappear.
It makes me think standards like 4K are a waste of time in the movie theater if the projectors aren't good enough to reveal a 2K pixel grid on the screen. All those extra pixels would be useless overkill.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 10-15-2015, 06:06 PM:
Didn't we already have this debate - endlessly - 4-5 years ago? Regardless of what Nolan and Tarantino think, they are trying to shut the door after the horse has left the barn. There is just no way the industry is going back to film on a wide scale basis.
Despite what people like Nolan think, the average movie goer does not care about the media the movie is projected from - in fact, the average movie goer would not be able to tell the difference between a clean 35mm print and a digital presentation. Of course there will be a noticeable difference by the end of the first weekend in most movie theatres. Honestly, I would think these directors would embrace the consistency of presentation which comes from digital. Well maybe not Tarantino given what he gave us with Grindhouse.
On the technical side, I can speak for 13 digital screens when I say the sharpest focus possible is our goal, as well as a well lit screen. We do not run our bulbs beyond the warranty hours, and will change them sooner if they become dim or have a flicker.
As I've said before, I have never noticed the pixel grid while watching a movie. Again, I aim for the sharpest focus possible. And I only ever see the pixel grid when I'm standing within 10 feet of the screen with test patterns on the screen.
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 10-15-2015, 06:36 PM:
Loud trailers ruin everything. I don't see why it would be hard for cinemas to automate a volume change for trailers and feature.
As a former multiplex employee, I can say that management is funny about volume and want to set it to the same across all houses. I was told never to adjust it louder than 5.0 just because that's the loudest it should be. There was never any logic behind that decision. Being a good operator, I would use my ears to decide what sounded best in each house. In some houses, 5 was great, and in others it wasn't enough. We had great sounding houses back then.
With the advent of digital and automatic everything, the personal touch is lost and all the manager wants is for the shows to run and on time. They don't want to be bothered with messing with volume controls on a per movie, per showtime basis. I get that. Thing is there are ways to get around that, and lowering trailer volume automatically and boosting for feature can help fix that.
I'd also rather have bleed from another house, knowing that someone else was getting an awesome audio experience than having to suffer through crappy sound.
AJG
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 10-15-2015, 07:04 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
All those extra pixels would be useless overkill.
No they won't. It's additional resolution.
Thing is, you are leaving acutance out of the picture. While you may not be able to focus an image so sharply that the actual grid pattern of pixels is visible (why would you want to see such a thing in the first place?) the image as projected contains pixels that are reasonably resolved AND (and this is huge) contains enough contrasting transition areas BETWEEN the reasonably resolved pixels to give an impression of sharpness to the audience. It is in this way, sort of, that Unsharp Mask works in Photoshop. Since the edges of the individual pixel cannot be seen sharply unless you put your nose right up to the screen, the areas of contrast between them are increased, which makes them appear sharper. It's actually a little more complex than that, but you get the idea. This is also why your TV appears sharp, it is not solely that the LEDs are sharp, but that there are areas of contrast between them to make them stand out.
And the more pixels, and the more transitions, the sharper the image will appear, even though the lens+throw distance+magnification cannot resolve all of them into discernible rows and columns of pixels, which I don't pay my $13.50 to see in the first place.
Peace, Bobby.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 10-15-2015, 07:18 PM:
quote: Aaron Garman
Loud trailers ruin everything. I don't see why it would be hard for cinemas to automate a volume change for trailers and feature.
I actually DO have that automated here. On show start, the volume is set to a certain level and I insert a cue at the beginning of the feature that turns the volume up higher. That way nobody gets blasted by loud trailers and the movie plays at the volume that it's supposed to.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-15-2015, 08:33 PM:
That's more or less what I do, too. Whenever we get a new trailer, snipe, feature, or any item of DCP content whatsoever, I go into the house with a laptop running Dolby Show Manager and a VNC client connected to the AP20 in the booth, and play each one, tweaking the volume until the level registers on my decibel meter as 74-75 for sustained loud passages on an ad or trailer, or 80-81 for a feature (at the back of the house). I then note what the fader settings are and put them into the relevant playlist as serial cues that tell the AP20 to change volume (and if necessary, sound format, e.g. changing from 5.1 to 2.0 ProLogic), at the start of each DCP.
The only problem is if someone shows up with a trailer after the walk-in has started which simply has to be played with that show, in which case all bets are off.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 10-15-2015, 09:35 PM:
Trailer volume isn't really the issue that it used to be. It may sometimes seem that way because they trailers usually cut together the loudest scenes of the movies, but they generally don't blast you out of your seat like they did in the past.
I don't recall the specifics, but I do believe this was something NATO was able to work with the studios to change.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-15-2015, 10:03 PM:
If you only show trailers from the studios, then one fader setting will probably keep all of them under reasonable control, because at the very least they should conform to the DCI "peak at -20dBFS" rule.
The problem I face, as an indie house that plays a lot of arthouse, foreign and festival shows, is with trailers made by kids with Macs, the audio on which is of course all over the shop.
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 10-16-2015, 05:32 PM:
quote: Aaron Garman
I'd also rather have bleed from another house, knowing that someone else was getting an awesome audio experience than having to suffer through crappy sound.
Point is that theaters should already be DESIGNED and BUILT to prevent or at least minimize sound bleed-through! The Century Greenback 16 theater here was supposedly built with all auditoriums up to THX standards (though they don't seem to use the THX trademark anymore) yet many of them have sound of adjacent theaters audible.
People might not care whether their movie is being shown via digital, film or whatever, but they likely DO care about getting a different experience than what they can get at home and that's a BIG thing the industry has lost sight of. That's also why so many people who still go to theaters treat them like their living rooms and talk during the movie and such.
Sound bleed-thru? Unacceptable. Letterboxed picture? Unacceptable. If your theater is designed like that, fix it. If you're planning on building a new theater like that, don't.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 10-16-2015, 10:08 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
It makes me think standards like 4K are a waste of time in the movie theater if the projectors aren't good enough to reveal a 2K pixel grid on the screen. All those extra pixels would be useless overkill.
I've been able to see the pixel grid when close enough to a screen with an image coming out of a 4k Sony projector (running the full imager, not split for 3D). Unless Sony is using much better lenses (which I can't imagine), you should certainly be able to see the pixel grid from 2k if you are close enough and it is focused and the projector isn't vibrating.
Posted by Frank B. McLaughlin (Member # 6683) on 10-17-2015, 12:03 PM:
Film may look stunning however the fact remains those carefully composed images will still be in the hands of a minimum wage 18 year old. Digital has a very sharp, clean, mirror like image (or it does when everything is properly adjusted). If you want to say it looks like a television soap opera remember it is a matter of how it was lit when recorded.
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 10-17-2015, 12:11 PM:
quote: Frank B. McLaughlin
Film may look stunning however the fact remains those carefully composed images will still be in the hands of a minimum wage 18 year old.
Thanks for the compliment, Frank. By the time I was 18, I'd been running a carbon arc changeover booth for 6 years and was actually pretty good at it.
Posted by Frank B. McLaughlin (Member # 6683) on 10-18-2015, 04:54 AM:
Yes, and you were a dedicated projectionist. At 20 I was working booths while serving in the Army. There were dedicated people there to teach me on all formats. That was my job. Today these kids are thrown into he booth, told how to thread and little else. I took a job in a "big box" a number of years ago and my main assignment was to catch all of the out of frame splices on Friday. When I went out and got (for a very low cost) a used frame counter management went crazy about not having permission.
Face it: put back 35 & 70 and take your chances.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-18-2015, 11:22 AM:
What Frank said. At 18 I was learning projection and treating it as a craft skill, too, and that probably applies to pretty much everyone who reads and writes on this site: we're a self-selecting group that cares about high quality movie presentation and invests the time and effort in doing it as right as possible.
However, the people who don't still exist: a theater manager I met recently described film as a "f***ing pain in the ass", and expressed the honestly held belief that the industry would be a lot better off if it had started projecting from VHS in the 1990s.
The fact is that the DCP is an inherently more resistant technology to bad presentation when in the hands of operators who simply don't care. The issue with the film revival, though, is less likely to be operators who don't care, but rather ones who do care but don't have the craft skills and/or support to handle prints and maintain the equipment they run on properly.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-18-2015, 01:30 PM:
DCP can and does still get goofed up from time to time. The person assembling the play list must have at least a decent level of computer literacy and an understanding of various screen and sound formats. Mistakes won't cause any damage to the DCP file, unlike what happens with film prints in the hands of someone who doesn't care. But goof-ups still can ruin a show.
I'll also add a booth person's goof up with a DCP sometimes isn't taken as seriously as it is with film. Someone like me who notices something is wrong might be seen as just being a pain in the ass. "Hey, it's digital. It's perfect already. What do you want?" There's more hell to pay if someone messes up a 35mm print. There's no undo button for that.
In the bigger picture scheme of things, something is greatly wrong in American culture. Big businesses view labor as a throw-away commodity and this is compounded by many people in the work force not having good work ethics, like taking pride in doing a good job. Declining values in various plateaus from the executive level down to the high school kid making minimum wage compounds a lot of negativity. In this scenario, someone who takes pride in carefully and correctly showing film is a pretty rare thing anymore.
It's almost comical how ill-prepared some theaters were at showing Interstellar. An AMC location in Dallas ruined their 35mm print the very first show. Durp! It makes me think management didn't even try to find someone actually qualified to run a film projector. They dumped the job onto someone who wasn't prepared.
quote: Justin Hamaker
Despite what people like Nolan think, the average movie goer does not care about the media the movie is projected from - in fact, the average movie goer would not be able to tell the difference between a clean 35mm print and a digital presentation.
The average viewer may indeed not care what medium is being used to show a movie. But I think it is dangerous for any movie theaters to base their standards of practice on this. It's very easy for that "viewers don't care" thing to be turned against the theaters. Why should a viewer care about the difference between watching a movie at a movie theater versus watching at home? Can they tell any difference? Do they care about any difference?
Ever shorter windows between the theatrical release date and home video release date are going to test that "viewers don't care" angle. The ever improving quality of consumer electronics (HDTV sets, video playback, etc.) is also going to test that.
Commercial movie theaters have to do something to keep customers loyal to that platform rather than let them abandon it all of a sudden like they have a few other kinds of businesses over this past decade.
quote: Lyle Romer
I've been able to see the pixel grid when close enough to a screen with an image coming out of a 4k Sony projector (running the full imager, not split for 3D). Unless Sony is using much better lenses (which I can't imagine), you should certainly be able to see the pixel grid from 2k if you are close enough and it is focused and the projector isn't vibrating.
Seeing comments like this and reading plenty in the past about the "screen door effect" is why I wonder if projectors are being dialed just enough out of focus to hide that grid. I don't expect to see a pixel grid as sharply defined as it is when I get right up close to my TV set. But I would expect to see at least a little bit of it on material that can easily reveal the pixel grid, such as technical looking subject matter and hard edged graphics. This especially goes for 2K. If the optics aren't good enough to do with 2K then that's pretty damned miserable performance.
I can take a picture of my TV set with my new smart phone and see the pixel grid on the image pretty clearly. That's coming from a phone camera with a tiny, diffraction prone lens and tiny image sensor. How big are the 3-chip DLP image sensors in the average d-cinema projector? I'd be willing to bet they're larger than any smart phone camera sensor. Most d-cinema projector lenses I've seen up close are pretty big and look really expensive. For all that money I would expect better resolving power.
In addition there is the issue of the perforation patterns on movie screens. Some companies are now selling screens with much tighter micro-perf patterns. I understand these kinds of screens can fight moiré in d-cinema setups. But this assumes a setup where the pixel grid is defined well enough to clash with a screen's perf pattern. How often do theaters actually run into this problem?
quote: Leo Enticknap
However, the people who don't still exist: a theater manager I met recently described film as a "f***ing pain in the ass", and expressed the honestly held belief that the industry would be a lot better off if it had started projecting from VHS in the 1990s.
That's pretty crazy. I don't think there would be any movie industry today if it had switched to projecting images off low resolution video tape 20 years ago.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 10-19-2015, 12:00 AM:
Bobby, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the public not caring about the medium being displayed means the theatre should be apathetic about putting on a quality presentation. Theatres should still strive for excellence and zero defects.
The public may not care whether you are showing digital or film, but they will are if you are underlit or out of focus. They will care if the show doesn't run on time. They will care if speakers are blown or the screen is not maintained. They will care if playlists contain inappropriate content, or if content is not displayed correctly.
Under normal circumstances, digital greatly reduces the number of things that can go wrong with a show. But theatre personnel still need to be vigilant about getting it right, and fixing problems when they happen. Smart companies would ensure there is at least one person in each theatre - or at least within a reasonable driving distance (no more than 60 minutes) - who is capable of handling troubleshooting, basic repairs, and basic presentation tweaks.
Posted by Ted Uzzle (Member # 9135) on 10-29-2015, 02:04 AM:
You got that exactly right, sir.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-29-2015, 12:23 PM:
Hence the expansion of the service companies in the last few years. A lot of the smaller chains don't want to hire their own projectionists or techs, but do want a maintenance contract with an external vendor who will show up within an agreed period of time at a given theater to fix breakdowns, address presentation quality complaints, perform preventative maintenance (e.g. replace xenon bulbs) - that sort of thing. The on-site work can be augmented by online troubleshooting (e.g. pulling logs), too.
It was noted on another thread recently that the service companies have been hiring on a large scale, and speculated that this is essentially the reason why.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-02-2015, 06:19 PM:
If these directors are really so concerned about saving movie theatres, I think they should put their efforts more into preserving theatrical release windows. This is a far greater threat to movie theatres than any opinions over the quality of film vs digital.
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 11-13-2015, 04:29 AM:
On the other hand, shorter release windows should give theaters more incentive to step up their game. Want me to go to your theater instead of waiting just a bit longer to see it at home? Give me something I can't get at home.
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 11-13-2015, 08:13 PM:
There are plenty of things the average theater can do to step up their game, but the big ticket item- the on screen content- is woefully limited. There's only so much you can do when even 4k is not the norm and all of the feature formats can't even use the full existing 2k chip properly.
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-20-2016, 10:23 AM:
At least from the perspective of a speaker of American English, I don't think "rant" is an appropriate use of the word, here.
Nolan is absolutely right. What the hell is the point of going to see a movie that is 1/4 the resolution of what I can watch in my living room?
"Theatre experience" to me often means sticky floors and seats.
I could not care less about how many speakers Dolby has added. I could not care less about how many people are in the theatre with me staring at their iPhones during the movie.
The one exception I have had with audience was seeing "H8teful Eight" in 70mm.
I paid to see "Star Wars" at matinee prices, as I will be Goddamned if I pay Cinemark $25. Did not pay a cent for concessions from those WalMart-outdoing BASTARDS. And I would have sneaked in the back door had I had more time.
I was with a group of filmmakers, in the two shows I stole, and cinephiles, who went out of their way to go to a premium experience. This in the same theatre that is still showing 2K "projection" of Star Wars (shot on film, by the way)! ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif)
Blowing up a shit file on a gigantic screen impresses me zero. And even the typical, ignorant theatre goer is going to catch on to this gimmick.
Charging premium prices for a gigantic screen that plays what is, in effect, the same thing as an uncompressed Bluray, and slapping brand names and logos on the same is going to bite these guys in the asses eventually, pardon my French.
People like Nolan, Tarantino, Pfister, Spielburg are doing their best to SAVE film, SAVE the cinema experience, and they are fighting what may be a losing battle against short-sighted accountants who want to maximize profit and don't care if, in so doing, they kill off the theatre industry.
Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 02-20-2016, 10:30 AM:
quote: Ari Leedsw
And even the typical, ignorant theatre goer is going to catch on to this gimmick.
They're really not you know.
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-20-2016, 10:51 AM:
Oh, come on. You think paying $25 to see a BluRay on a big screen is something they're going to keep getting away with?
Only someone who is dropped on their head as a child will keep going back and getting raped for that amount over and over again.
See also George Lucas and Steven Spielburg with Indiana Jones in South Park.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-20-2016, 09:56 PM:
The people who read and write on this site are a self-selecting group. Most theatergoers don't care how the image is put on the screen. Market research has shown time and time again that they do care about things like, how easy it is to park at the venue, what the ticket price is, does the movie have a big name star in it, etc. etc. Occasionally, Hollywood has used technology as way to promote and sell its films, but hardly ever in isolation.
Do you think the Weinsteins would have bankrolled The Hateful Eight if it didn't have three A-listers heading the cast? Do you think they would have agreed to a film-only release with no DCP version at all? They tolerated Tarantino's obsession with UP70 because they believed that the movie would still make them a big profit, despite the extra overheads.
So yes, theaters will get away with charging customers $25 to see a 2K DCP, if they are providing what most of those customers want most of all - easy parking, comfortable seats, welcoming staff, and a well-written and directed movie with big names in it. And personally, I'd prefer a well made 2K DCP to around 90% of the typical 35mm prints (made on high speed panel printers with an unstable picture, color balance all over the place, etc. etc.) seen in multiplexes during the medium's final decade as a mainstream release format.
The minority of theatergoers who care about the image and audio quality will seek out the minority of theaters that pride themselves on providing it. But they'll always be a minority, in both cases.
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-21-2016, 12:43 PM:
>>> The people who read and write on this site are a self-selecting group. Most theatergoers don't care how the image is put on the screen. Market research has shown time and time again that they do care about things like, how easy it is to park at the venue, what the ticket price is, does the movie have a big name star in it, etc. etc. Occasionally, Hollywood has used technology as way to promote and sell its films, but hardly ever in isolation.
<<< Well, no this is a prokectionist forum. I'm not suggesting
moviegoers and like filmhandlers. But they know when they're paying
more to see the movie once than to own it three mos. later, know when
the theatre is doing the work with half the staff they did five years
ago, all the windows, registers, shut down, automated, know when their
"film" is out of focus, know when there's no one to correct it,
because everyone but one manager is sent home already.
As to the non-movie related things customers care about, I agree. . .
to a point. I have heard about cup holders and stadium seating, sure,
kinda like how women supposedly pick out cars based on the number of
cupholders (which may or may not be sexist propaganda, but I digress).
Unless it is a parking lot where cars are stolen or put up on blocks,
or with ten spaces to seat 500 people, no I don't buy people pick a
theatre based on parking spaces.
Sure stars have brand power, which is why they're paid like NFL quarterbacks.
But you're minimizing "see it in 70mm" and "IMAX," as selling points.
People who go and see a Bluray and have to shell out $25 don't
TAKE the surveys, and they also don't come back. They take their
hundred dollars for the family of five, and buy 5 BluRays or go to the
RedBox.
Why ELSE do you think theatre numbers are nosediving. Also, in terms
of entertainment, there are plenty of competing options: Golf,
bowling, sports, amusement parks, etc. This stuff hardly exists in a
vacuum, with cost as no object, and ticket prices have steadily
outpaced inflation for many years, because theatres can't fill seats.
>>> Do you think the Weinsteins would have bankrolled The Hateful Eight if it didn't have three A-listers heading the cast? Do you think they would have agreed to a film-only release with no DCP version at all? They tolerated Tarantino's obsession with UP70 because they believed that the movie would still make them a big profit, despite the extra overheads.
<<<A loss leader, I agree, but the film portion WAS profitable, that's
paying us $500/day, and putting us up in hotels and flying us around
the country to run it, and individually install 70/5s just for this
one show.
No names could have been successful, as Tarantino himself is a brand,
just like Spielburg. Don't forget Titanic in '97.
Tarantino doesn't have a 70/5 obsession, he wants to show his movies
on film. It's the damned studios and cocksuckers at
AMC/Cinemark/Regal who made 35 impossible, behaving as a cabal instead
of as "competition.". Someone should hit them with a massive
anti-trust lawsuit.
>>> So yes, theaters will get away with charging customers $25 to see a 2K DCP, if they are providing what most of those customers want most of all - easy parking, comfortable seats, welcoming staff, and a well-written and directed movie with big names in it. And personally, I'd prefer a well made 2K DCP to around 90% of the typical 35mm prints (made on high speed panel printers with an unstable picture, color balance all over the place, etc. etc.) seen in multiplexes during the medium's final decade as a mainstream release format.
<<< Not sure what specific timeframe you're referring to. Could you
please clarify? 2K *DIs* became predominent in 2006 or 2007, so, of
course, a 3rd or 4th generation film copy of the SAME FILE SHOWN IN EK
will look like shit on film.
Prior to the George-Lucasization of movies, however, tests indicated
that contact prints that came from the camera negative (barring
special effects, that went through the 2K DI chain) got 2500 lines,
2.4-2.5 K. Also, far bigger dynamic range (black to white contrast),
more colors, not 10 bit. A 4K DI (done since 1994) showprint (2nd
generation) beats 2K DLP in almost every way except steadiness or a
print run by non-Union, teenaged candy striper.
Obviously a print run by one of these film "handlers" will look worse
than even a 720P file, but I just saw a 26-yo print on acetate that
has managed to not get scratched up for a quarter century. Does that
beat ? Absolutely, and this has doubtless been allowed to fade
at room temp. All these years.
>>> The minority of theatergoers who care about the image and audio quality will seek out the minority of theaters that pride themselves on providing it. But they'll always be a minority, in both cases.
<<< Again, it's subtle, but consistently seeing out of focus $25
shows, with shrinking windows people won't keep coming back. The
employees have been cut, that's a con, I saw Star Wars, as is my
habit, from an ideal seat, 4 rows back, looks like a giant Goddamn
screen, that's a con. Out of focus is a con. No one to even go
upstairs to fix the focus is a con, no one left in. The theatre
besides a hiding, money-counting, candy striping manager and a cop
($35-45/hr cash, paid nightly) is a con.
I ran into a lot of people who went out of their way to see "H8ful
Eight" driving to its one location from far away, packed house for the
final two showings. Not the average viewer, no, but boy did people go
out of their way to see Interstellar and the two Dark Knights in IMAX.
They don't know what tor do they particularly car why/how, but unless
it's Stevie Wonder, you'd better believe they can tell the difference
between 15/70 and 2K! Thinking "big screen!" and "bright bulb!" will
serve as a substitute for any actual quality improvement over what
they can own, for less 90 days (?!) later is, respectfully, in my
learned opinion, kind of insulting even to the average filmgoer, just
as all women being painted into the "cupholder" car purchase crowd.
They have no idea why the hell it looks better or its worth it, but
they do know that there's a difference.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-21-2016, 01:12 PM:
What theater was charging $25 to see Star Wars?
I know ticket price inflation has been pretty noticeable the past few years, but most theaters were charging about half that $25 claim or even less if they were showing the movie in 2D.
Our new Carmike theater here has a $10.50 adult evening admission price. Add $4 to that for the IMAX-branded house. Add $3 for 3D. They were charging $17.50 for Star Wars, which is pretty high but also fairly average for IMAX style pricing. IIRC it's $1.50 more than Warren's IMAX-branded house up in Moore, OK.
Some luxury screening rooms do charge over $20 per ticket, but typically offer huge, plush seats, better decor, no one under age 21, food & drink service, etc.
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-21-2016, 01:36 PM:
No that was H8ful Eight 70mm, I think (I bought a matinee ticket to another film).
Were it not at a Cinemark, I would have paid it.
That aside, all that "Reald" "XD" "3D" ![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
is worth maybe an extra 10% (assuming it's not just a big screen, as in LieMax.
2K on a *really big screen* isn't worth a dull penny extra.
As to Star Wars in 2K, I sneaked in, on the same ticket as two showings of H8ful Eight by the way, and it was a 2K screening. Why see a film-shot 2 D movie in 3D???
Maybe the faster film doesn't quite make it to 4K, even in scope, but it's closer to 4K than 2K. 2K release, what a joke.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-21-2016, 01:49 PM:
Ari, you're sounding like a freaking shoplifter.
I have my own issues with how d-cinema was implemented, but if I have a problem with a movie theater's pricing I just won't go in the first place. I'm not going to do any dishonest bullshit, like buying a cheaper ticket and then sneaking into a premium house.
If you paid low to sneak into a 70mm screening of The Hateful Eight, shame on you. I had no problem paying nearly $18 for my ticket to see it.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-21-2016, 02:06 PM:
Looks like Ari is either person who unfortunately has no access to any really good theaters, or the latest troll to come out of the woodwork with all of his ranting.
I don't have time right now to respond to all of his points, but the tired old crap about movie ticket prices outpacing inflation makes no sense when you consider all the extra things you get with a ticket now that you didn't get 20 years ago. (Much cushier seats, cupholders, better sound, clearer/steadier/more dependable picture, more screens to pick from, etc.) The fact is that the typical best multiplex presentation in about 1980 would pale miserably next to the typical best presentation today. Even in my own modest little theater we are presenting miles better sound and way nicer seats than we were then.
If you look at the average prices over the years, theater ticket prices have about kept pace with inflation and have been much lower than inflation in some years.
Also attendance is not exactly "nosediving." It's gone down in some years, up in others, and will always do that based on how good the movies are. Considering all the other options people have today that they didn't have even 10 years ago, this is no surprise. If a town has 1 really good restaurant and then 10 more restaurants are built, naturally the original one is going to suffer a decline in business. Why is this a big surprise/news event to people?
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-21-2016, 02:15 PM:
Thanks for the ad hominem attack Mike. You've made a great first impression on me.
There isn't a single Goddamned film screen here besides IMAX and arthouse. So yeah, it really is that bad.
I have a BluRay player, so that essentially eliminates any possible reason for me to venture out of my house to see a movie, save for H8ful Eight, Interstellar, or a Dark Knight film.
Think I am trolling, do you? How is the current situation any different than if, twenty years ago, theatres had all adopted the porno model and chosen to project VHS tapes that were available at home?
I can't think of any substantial differences in that analogy.
Not sure how many 4K screens there are, couldn't care less about 3D. But after Star Wars, I won't be going back. And that movie was shot on 35mm with an IMAX scene. What a joke!
EDIT: As to sound? I go to SEE a movie, not to hear one. I'm not a blind man, and I liked "The Artist" just fine. As most movies record audio with a single boom mike, mono would be fine for me. Couldn't care less how many more speakers Dolby has added.
The losers were bragging about how digital could use seven (wow!!!) speakers in stead of five with film. So I guess you go to a theatre that projects digital because they take mono sound and artificially mix it onto two more speakers, instead of five.
Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 02-21-2016, 02:42 PM:
quote:
I paid to see "Star Wars" at matinee prices, as I will be Goddamned if I pay Cinemark $25. Did not pay a cent for concessions from those WalMart-outdoing BASTARDS. And I would have sneaked in the back door had I had more time.
I was with a group of filmmakers, in the two shows I stole, and cinephiles, who went out of their way to go to a premium experience. This in the same theatre that is still showing 2K "projection" of Star Wars (shot on film, by the way)! [dlp]
Charging premium prices for a gigantic screen that plays what is, in effect, the same thing as an uncompressed Bluray, and slapping brand names and logos on the same is going to bite these guys in the asses eventually, pardon my French.
People like Nolan, Tarantino, Pfister, Spielburg are doing their best to SAVE film, SAVE the cinema experience, and they are fighting what may be a losing battle against short-sighted accountants who want to maximize profit and don't care if, in so doing, they kill off the theatre industry.
First off, take a breath and relax. The amount of profanity in your posts is just childish and either reads as a film purist who is off their rocker or someone that lost their job due to digital.
1st: the average moviegoer doesn't notice these things, in fact I'd say that the majority of the moviegoing public has benefited from digital as they aren't watching scratched presentations or having constant brain wraps, damaged/dirty prints, etc.... While I loved film and a film presentation done right is great, we have to be realistic and realize that 95% of presentations and theatres in the country did not have a great film presentation. Now with digital we have a lot better presentations with no dirt, scratches or gate weave.
2nd: If you don't like it, don't go, acting like a child and thinking that you're amazing for sneaking into a movie is just silly and really does nothing to further your point. Cheering about how you didn't buy concessions and snuck in isn't really a great thing considering you're admitting to theft of services as well as not supporting a theatre, if you don't want to support it that's fine, wait for the DVD and don't go, but don't justify stealing with that (you're no better than people who justify pirating movies with the same logic).
3rd: your understanding of sound as well as the benefits of object based sound are severely lacking, just your comment about how mono sound to you is just as good as having "7 speakers" really shows just how uneducated you are about the subject.
4th: Hateful8 had a great marketing program for 70mm, but ask most of the audience members the difference between a 4k DCP and the 70mm and I guarantee you many wouldn't even be able to tell. It's all marketing, it was hyped that you HAD to see it in 70mm, people ate that up and went out to see it, just like people can get hyped up about RPX, XD, BigD, Digital IMAX, etc.....
All of your posts read like you're a rabid dog that is going to hate on anything digital. If you actually read through the forum you will find some great members here like Mike and Bobby who admit that there are issues with the digital rollout (like most of us feel) however there are also benefits and expecting a "revival" of film is just silly considering how the rollout is completed. Film will be used for one offs and archival uses, that is it, it will never again be used as a mainstream projection technology for the general public.
Constructive criticism is much more helpful than mindless ranting about the past.
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-21-2016, 03:53 PM:
that lost their job due to digital
^^^Now here is some trolling.
No, sorry, to disappoint, but I still get paid to work with 35mm film.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-21-2016, 06:45 PM:
How often? Actually let's be more specific. How many hours a week on average over the course of the last 6 months?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-21-2016, 09:21 PM:
quote: Ari Leedsw
EDIT: As to sound? I go to SEE a movie, not to hear one.
Well that's kind of ridiculous, but Manny pointed that out better than I could.
This makes me think you're somebody who has a problem with current MOVIES more than current theaters.
quote: Ari Leedsw
Thanks for the ad hominem attack Mike. You've made a great first impression on me.
Yours on me wasn't the best either since you have lumped the entire exhibition industry (of which I am a member) into the same "crap" box.
You will find that this is a very tell-it-like-it-is forum. You won't generally find sugarcoated opinions or answers here. So if you go off on a rant that that is overblown, don't be surprised to be called on it.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 02-21-2016, 10:56 PM:
Ari...it's Spielberg not Spielburg.
I'm embarrassed to read some of the slop speech you spew.
I really want film to co-exist with digital cinema into the future but I don't think someone who writes like you should be on my side. You make some good points I agree with but mostly sound like a troll. Example: "You go to watch movies ,not listen to them"
Wtf?
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-22-2016, 12:00 AM:
A simple question for Ari: what does the experience of going to see a movie actually mean for you? Why do you want to do it? What do you come away with after having done it?
For almost everyone who goes to a theater to see a movie, the technical characteristics of the image and sound are simply not something they ever think about. Even stripping out the logistical stuff, it's the lights going down, you're no longer in any sort of control of what's going on around you, what happens on the screen is what matters. My first memory of being taken to a cinema by my mother was aged probably 7 or 8, to see the 1970s cartoon Lord of the Rings. I was probably around 5 at the time. I don't remember much about the film, but I certainly do about the experience of going into screen 1 at the (now demolished) Odeon, Wimbledon, and the curtains opening to reveal the screen and the first projected image (and wanting to rename our cat Gollum, too, of which more below).
They could have been projecting VHS through an Eidophor, and I'd still remember it just as vividly.
Fast forward 35 years or so, and movie technology is something I care very much about, and make my living with. I wouldn't normally bring this up, but to prove my geek credentials, I've written two books on the subject: put my name into Amazon and you'll find 'em.
Even so, I can think of circumstances in which poor technical presentation would not prevent me from paying a decent admission price to see a movie. A big teens or '20s silent feature with Marty Marks or Stephen Horne playing a live accompaniment? I wouldn't care how it was projected - I'd want to be there to hear them.
If someone pointed a gun at my head and told me to name my favorite movie ever, it would probably be The Private Life of a Cat; shot on a 16mm Bolex in natural light in an apartment, on 1940s stock. So, judged by most cinematographic and technical standards, it looks horrid. No-one is ever going to try to remaster it in Imax; that's for sure. If they did, it would probably blow up the scanner. But if the technically "poor" image quality will drive you away from understanding what the movie is trying to tell you, there's something you're fundamentally not getting and likely never will.
Our line of work is as technicians supporting artists and their audiences. There is often a difference between what we feel is best, based on what the numbers, our eyes and ears tell us, and what they want, based on what inspires them, aesthetically. What differentiates the really good technicians from the so-so ones is being able to juggle that mismatch, and in doing so, teach both artists and audiences a thing or two in the process.
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-22-2016, 09:40 AM:
"How often? Actually let's be more specific. How many hours a week on average over the course of the last 6 months?"
It's fluctuated some, but I'd say it's currently 15 hours per week in the booth.
Used to be 25, because chain theatres didn't want to pay benefits.
I'd be happy to work 50 or 60; you'll have to take that up with the theatre owners :-P
This also does not count time I spend working on film and television show sets.
60+ hour weeks loading film mags.
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-22-2016, 11:48 AM:
@Victor Liorentas re the typo (from a smartphone, not that your arrogant comment deserves an explanation), I'm sure you've never had one.
Arrogant prick. I bet you're tossing your stone up and down in the air as you read this, hypocrite.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 02-22-2016, 09:08 PM:
Thanks for the funny insult Ari. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Actually if you're posting from a smart phone then hats off.
I was in a horrible and tired mood when I picked on you.
Truthfully I've not yet read the entire thread yet.
My apologies. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-22-2016, 11:55 PM:
Ari, you need to stop and read the entire forum rules page here before you continue to post.
Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 02-23-2016, 10:08 AM:
Do I dare make bring the topic back to the first post?
Nolan, Anderson and Tarantino only want ONE THING.
They want the ability to do limited theatrical releases on motion picture film.
Why?
Because unlike digital which is a bunch of one's and zero's, heavily manipulated by the imager, processor, codec, color correction and projection... The light that exposes film, is the very same light that presents it. The format is for all intensive purposes an "artistic" one and loosing it because a bunch of studio moguls want to save money, doesn't make sense.
Does film projection on a wide scale make sense today? No... and these guys don't want every theater to have film projection. What they do want is the ABILITY to run film and do it right.
You can complain about Interstellar, The Master, Inherent Vice or Hateful Eight, but they broke new ground! From the point of the studio, filmmaker and projectionist, 70mm was a dead format. However, some very smart people saw it being the answer to saving motion picture film projection. These four films have told the studio's; "Hey, this idea is worth contemplating" and the studio's are listening. The only down side to 70mm is the cost, everything else is gravy as seen in the outstanding quality and projection of Hateful Eight.
I'm a filmmaker living in Hollywood and the cineplex theaters here absolutely suck. AMC and Pacific Theaters haven't got a clue how to put on a show. They run older Digital projectors that are ALWAYS out of focus (can't see the grid). They're rarely in calibration as well, I've seen blue and red channel bleeding on numerous occasions, even walking out of a screening once. None of the theaters have done significant sound system updates and as stated on other pages of this thread, they generally play the audio a lot quieter then premium theaters. Arclight is by far the best, but ONLY their Hollywood complex is worth going to. All of the other theaters are so-so, better by a fair margin then AMC or Pacific theaters, but a lot of times not worth the excess ticket prices. Plus, non-laser digital projectors look flat, they lack the contrast of film and don't have deep blacks at all. In fact, even some of the recent laser projection screenings I've been to, weren't that impressive. When I travel to the east coast and see movies, I'm always shocked how much WORSE they look then here! I can't visit a standard multiplex and watch a movie anymore, it's agonizingly painful for someone like myself who knows how easy it is to fix whatever problems arise.
Mind you, I've been going to the movies for over 30 years, 14 of those here in Los Angeles and until we made the precipitous move to digital, I never had these problems. Towards the tail end of 35mm, things were looking pretty good, like a well lubricated machine. You can complain all you want, but here in LA it was on the up and up. I was at the movies 3 - 5 times a week, I saw pretty much everything that came out. Early digital wasn't too bad either, but noticeably worse then a 35mm film print of that era. Today you couldn't get me to the theater if it was free! The crazy ticket prices and the low quality of presentation is mind boggling. "Lets charge more for less" syndrome and they're getting away with it because nobody stands up for the consumer. Nobody really wants them to visit a regular theater and get a decent experience, they funnel you to the premium screens which are even MORE money!
So here we are today, a bunch of filmmakers who would like very much to bring limited releases of movies back into theaters ON FILM. Yet... all I see is a bunch of projectionists clearly not wanting to be involved. I mean what's the point of even trying to make a difference, when people aren't even excited about the possibility. Why not think positive about this potential comeback of the formats that true cinephiles love? The "art" of cinema is film, it's not one's and zero's.
Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 02-23-2016, 01:05 PM:
Ari,
I don't think anyone here is arguing that we wouldn't love to see some limited releases on film, hateful8, interstellar, etc were great on film. But I'd also say that many of us are very realistic, we aren't "projectionists who don't want to be involved" as many were involved especially with the hateful8 70mm presentations. However like I said, we are just being realistic, there will always be a tarantino or nolan who want their movies projected on 35mm, but the reality is that no studio would ever greenlight a 35mm only release of a major film, but also that a lot of these "nolan, etc, rants" are because there is a benefit to them stirring up controversy, they go against "digital" and create a ruckus and then get news stories and free media about their movies. Hollywood is a business and if anyone thinks that any of these directors aren't very calculated businessmen as well, then they are sorely mistaken.
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 02-23-2016, 02:34 PM:
Manny, you're replying to Tyler, not Ari.
And I agree with everything you've said, Tyler, but also agree with Manny. None of us here "don't want to be involved"... heck, we're on FILM-TECH after all.... We all want film at least in some capacity, but we all know that it just won't come back mainstream because the bean counters won't allow it. I am ELATED that it's keeping the boutique status it is.... we got real close to loosing it altogether.
Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 02-23-2016, 08:20 PM:
I hate to break it to you guys, but the attitude that it "won't" happen is VERY MUCH part of the problem. It's MY job, the job of the FILMMAKER to make that determination. So when Christopher Nolan's new film which is being entirely shot on 65mm is finished, he will need the support of PROJECTIONISTS in order to make it a reality. They and the machines they run are the biggest part of the puzzle. The cameras exist, the film stock exists, the printing equipment exists, the projectors exist as well.
I guess my frustration (and it's not just here), is that people give up too easily. It's way easier to say "it won't happen" then it is to join the bandwagon and say "I'm pushing for it to happen, I'm so excited". If we all worked together and spread the word, things would change eventually, but it takes an effort of a collective number of people to make it a reality, not just a few die-hard film guys like myself.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 02-23-2016, 08:37 PM:
I hear you Tyler! ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-23-2016, 09:22 PM:
You guys are leaving out the most important part of the equation: The theater owners. They're the ones who have to pay for all that equipment, after all. They should not be expected to install and maintain a bunch of outmoded equipment just for a handful of vanity releases. It's just not financially feasible.
A return to film as a mainstream format is even less likely than a full-on return to vinyl LPs -- with LPs there is a demonstrable difference to the consumer, in the form of a fun, funky, touchy feely user experience (and, it can be argued, better sound). With movies, most people don't know the difference, don't know what to look for to find the difference, and therefore it makes no sense to spend gobs of money to keep film going on anything but a niche level.
(Disclaimer: I know that vinyl LPs are experiencing sales growth year over year, but they are still just a tiny fraction of the music industry's overall sales.)
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 02-24-2016, 01:40 AM:
quote: Tyler Purcell
I hate to break it to you guys, but the attitude that it "won't" happen is VERY MUCH part of the problem. It's MY job, the job of the FILMMAKER to make that determination. So when Christopher Nolan's new film which is being entirely shot on 65mm is finished, he will need the support of PROJECTIONISTS in order to make it a reality. They and the machines they run are the biggest part of the puzzle. The cameras exist, the film stock exists, the printing equipment exists, the projectors exist as well.
I guess my frustration (and it's not just here), is that people give up too easily. It's way easier to say "it won't happen" then it is to join the bandwagon and say "I'm pushing for it to happen, I'm so excited". If we all worked together and spread the word, things would change eventually, but it takes an effort of a collective number of people to make it a reality, not just a few die-hard film guys like myself.
What I'm saying is that the projectionists(the ones who care- all of us here) ARE all ready and on board. You have to remember that a lot of us lost our chosen jobs with the digital roll out. I'm sure I'm not just speaking for myself when I say that I would LOVE NOTHING MORE than to return to it full-time(not to mention half this board that DID drop everything they were doing to work 12 hour days 7 days a week for H8ful 8).... but it just isn't up to us as Mike pointed out. If I had enough money to own my own theater you better believe it'd be film capable and even film preferential but just how feasible and realistic is that? Unless you're willing to make a donation which I will graciously accept and put your name in lights on the restored marquee....
Again, unfortunately, it's the big wig studio bean counters and the bean counters at Regal, Amc, Cinemark that make the decisions and they're both saving money with digital so.....
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-24-2016, 11:06 AM:
Well said Tyler.
I read all of the rules, Brad, and I saw three examples of them being broken by your regulars towards me before I responded in kind. I have eleven years of handling film, and, point of fact, misspelled my own name in registering here, so I don't need the "code red" treatment. I've earned the right to be treated with respect when it comes to speaking with authority on the projected image, just as you have.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-24-2016, 11:30 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
You guys are leaving out the most important part of the equation: The theater owners. They're the ones who have to pay for all that equipment, after all. They should not be expected to install and maintain a bunch of outmoded equipment just for a handful of vanity releases. It's just not financially feasible.
Hence the reason the Weinsteins had to pay for the H8 equipment installations up front (though they tried to claw that money back through premium admission prices). That was the only business plan that could have made the 100-venue 5/70 release possible. Without it, they would have been restricted to the handful of pre-existing 5/70 venues, as The Master and Interstellar were.
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-24-2016, 11:33 AM:
Is it REALLY, too much to ask for a 35mm screen? I understand not everyone can maintain 70mm changeovers.
But what are you really going to do with the space you save.
It's like the morons that don't have any way to play VHS or cassette. What have you done with the space you've saved, or the $20 extra it would have cost not to get a combo? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 02-24-2016, 11:52 AM:
It may take a volunteer effort to restore the projection systems around the globe, but more importantly, it will take the effort of people who care to make it actually happen. I thought the Hateful Eight roll-out was poorly done. Not only bad timing, but there were MANY unforeseen issues that made it more difficult then simply "projecting" another film. Boston Light and Sound did everything they could, but in the end came up short. Now (months later) that MOST of the issues have been resolved and the projectors are still in place for the most part, I have a feeling the Weinstein's are probably searching for another film to present using their systems. To me, keeping them busy with whatever they choose, is great. As long as they're paying projectionists, as long as they're still running the equipment so it doesn't get stale. As long as audiences are told it's a "special" experience, these are all the things that need to happen.
What doesn't need to happen is what I saw at the Vista... a two week old 35mm print of The Force Awakens that was completely destroyed. When I say destroyed, I mean it was to the point of being unwatchable. Sold-out showing on tuesday at 2:00, everyone wanted to see it on film. Yet, the experience was god awful. Again, it comes back to actually caring MORE THAN EVER! The print was poorly made and the projectionist put is sticky fingers all over it, there were several seconds of black dots leading up to the splices. There were entire reels scratched throughout. There was constant dirt up the sides of the print. This is the kind of thing that drives people away from projecting film. That same print at the Arclight would be spotless for it's entire run. So it's NOT rocket science, it's simply 'caring" that is lacking in my opinion.
Yes, there are a bunch of "caring" projectionists on here, which is great to see. However, as a community, I just don't see the same mind set throughout the industry. This is just an observation, but it's such an important element to the whole thing. You don't see dirty negative going to the lab. You don't see dirty prints coming out of the lab. Heck, the film is generally spotless going to the theater, especially something as important as star wars. Yet, it's that last step... a projectionist making the changes necessary to their booth and workflow, to insure the print survives... that's what's "still" missing" in a lot of places.
Anyway, I'm glad some of you are positive because that's what we have to be in order to keep celluloid moving. If not, we'll be playing old prints until they're too damaged and that will be the end of it.
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-24-2016, 12:19 PM:
"It may take a volunteer effort to restore the projection systems around the globe, but more importantly, it will take the effort of people who care to make it actually happen. I thought the Hateful Eight roll-out was poorly done. Not only bad timing, but there were MANY unforeseen issues that made it more difficult then simply "projecting" another film. Boston Light and Sound did everything they could, but in the end came up short. Now (months later) that MOST of the issues have been resolved and the projectors are still in place for the most part, I have a feeling the Weinstein's are probably searching for another film to present using their systems. To me, keeping them busy with whatever they choose, is great. As long as they're paying projectionists, as long as they're still running the equipment so it doesn't get stale. As long as audiences are told it's a "special" experience, these are all the things that need to happen."
-As to volunteer effort, you can count on my help. Whatever it takes, Chicago-style.
"So it's NOT rocket science, it's simply 'caring" that is lacking in my opinion."
-Caring goes hand-in-hand with being paid at least double minimum wage, in my observation. That and accountability and penalty for destroying $2,500 lengths of film, as opposed to doing multiple, minimum wage inventories counting popcorn cups, not giving a customer a replacement for a torn bag, and declaring an "emergency" when the ticket machine goes down on an automated kiosk, the current "priorities."
"Anyway, I'm glad some of you are positive because that's what we have to be in order to keep celluloid moving."
Hate to be a pedant, but it's been polyester for over two decades now, I think, and cellulose, not celluloid for about 65.
As a direct result of the minimum wage existence of most theatre employees (besides taken-advantage-of managers, $45/hr. cash-paid hired cops, and the cleaning subcontractors who often make more than any of the others) the turnover is often 100% in a 5-year timespan at chain theatres.
Anyone who cares, if fired far far sooner, for not making things like 19-year-old girls' last names, and popcorn bag inventories the priority. Teenaged drama is a natural byproduct of teenaged "bosses." It's surprising how many people DO give a ![[fu]](graemlins/fu.gif)
in these toxic, low-education, low-skill environments of part time workers that make Wal Mart's compensation and training look generous by comparison!
I think as a natural development of low print volumes, another element of accountability, that I am going to try my hardest to bring to pass with the help of other skilled film handlers, is writing SCATHING REVIEWS (South Park style Yelping, shaming these corporate shilling programmed asshats and stooges) and holding accountable through negative reports and reviews theatres that scratch up the few prints left, the first-runs, let alone the archival copies!
In my books, God help you if you scratch up 1/5 of the circulating film left of a classic title.
We need to use the internet and social media the same way it was used on Anthony Palmer when he went on his Lion Safari.
That's the only way these WalMart-style big box operations will learn their lessons: the hard way.
It's up to us!
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 02-24-2016, 01:52 PM:
quote:
Anyone who cares, if fired far far sooner, for not making things like 19-year-old girls' last names, and popcorn bag inventories the priority. Teenaged drama is a natural byproduct of teenaged "bosses." It's surprising how many people DO give a [fu] in these toxic, low-education, low-skill environments of part time workers that make Wal Mart's compensation and training look generous by comparison!
IT'S LIKE YOU KNOW MY STRUGGLE I LOVE YOU
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-24-2016, 02:25 PM:
quote: Leo Enticknap
Hence the reason the Weinsteins had to pay for the H8 equipment installations up front (though they tried to claw that money back through premium admission prices). That was the only business plan that could have made the 100-venue 5/70 release possible. Without it, they would have been restricted to the handful of pre-existing 5/70 venues, as The Master and Interstellar were.
The fact that this was an anamorphic release which even many of the pre-existing 5/70 venues couldn't play without upgrades, didn't help either. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote: Ari Leedsw
I read all of the rules, Brad, and I saw three examples of them being broken by your regulars towards me before I responded in kind. I have eleven years of handling film, and, point of fact, misspelled my own name in registering here, so I don't need the "code red" treatment. I've earned the right to be treated with respect when it comes to speaking with authority on the projected image, just as you have.
Respect isn't just earned by what you (claim) to know, it's also earned by treating others fairly and you know... with respect. While reading through this topic, I didn't find any definitive proof of either aspects unfortunately.
quote: Ari Leedsw
It's like the morons that don't have any way to play VHS or cassette. What have you done with the space you've saved, or the $20 extra it would have cost not to get a combo?
I might be one of those morons. (Although I actually still DO have a VHS machine in storage.) VHS is and always has been an inferior standard and I'm glad it died years ago and I'm someone who still keeps around a few high end CRT screens and projectors. But I keep them around with very good reasons, not because of some false nostalgia. And that's what running deeply trough your comments: False nostalgia.
quote:
We need to use the internet and social media the same way it was used on Anthony Palmer when he went on his Lion Safari.
That's the only way these WalMart-style big box operations will learn their lessons: the hard way.
It's up to us!
I'm not really sure what you want to accomplish here. Like Mike already hinted at: Film, as in 35mm, is never ever becoming main stream again. And NEVER ... EVER ...
If the recently opened multiplex down the street here would decide to play 35mm releases exclusively, which would be extremely hard to come by around here, I assure you, they will not sell any more tickets than they already do, even if they would plaster all billboards in the region with advertising. The reason why they sell more tickets than the competition at far higher prices? Is it because they have two theaters with Atmos and their competition doesn't? Or is it because half of their theaters do have 4K projectors while the competition has none? Actually, I don't even think so, because they do not even actively advertise it... Their theaters are clean, their staff is generally friendly, their seats are comfortable and for now, they seem to be able to maintain a rather high presentation standard and not a single physical reel of 35mm film has ever entered this building.
I've watched both the 70mm and the look-like-shit 4K downscaled to 2K release of The Hateful Eight and although I totally digged the looks of the 70mm picture, most people don't see the difference or simply just don't care for the difference. That's a total bummer for people like me who would love to have a viable 70mm house just around the corner, but it will not happen.
Also, if you look at what latest laser projection systems like the Dolby Vision setup used in Dolby Cinema theaters can accomplish, then I would finally say that the capabilities of digital projection has now surpassed those of 35mm projection in practically every aspect.
Currently, there are no off-the-shelf digital projection systems that would surpass 70mm projection in pure resolution, but it's not like it would be entirely impossible to do just that, it's just that it isn't yet economical to do so.
So, just like digital recording and playback of records has surpassed analog a long time ago, film is also gradually being surpassed in superiority. What stays is the nostalgic factor. And there is nothing bad with some nostalgia, even if it's just technical geekery in the end. Many people love classic cars too. So the market for 35mm will probably never go away entirely, but just like the LP, the cassette and now even the CD, it will become a boutique thing. And maybe that's not even all that bad, people tend to cherish things that are somewhat rare....
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-24-2016, 04:35 PM:
quote: Ari Leedsw
it's been polyester for over two decades now, I think, and cellulose, not celluloid for about 65.
Old words die hard. I haven't touched film in almost 6 years but I still pay "film rent" and talk to my "film booker" every week.
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-24-2016, 05:30 PM:
Six years! WOW, long time.
I can say "cellulose" with neg. film, but I don't even know what you'd say for these new-fangled plastic prints!
LOL, Estar, but that's the Kodak tradename. I guess with Fuji out of the race, that could be acceptable.
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 02-24-2016, 05:31 PM:
As much as everyone here hates the poor quality level of LieMax or digital projection done poorly, at the end of the day what really counts isn't the aesthetic quality, but what sells tickets. I really, really hate that. The average consumer just wants to have a good time, whatever that means, and hasn't a clue whether the image is all that great, nor cares. Averages win, doncha know?
Meanwhile, if you can market a souped-up sound mix, or a 70mm presentation, or anything else that gets people to think of having a good time AND better presentation quality simultaneously, then you have a fighting chance.
However, to hear that the Vista killed their Star Wars print is horribly disappointing. Lance Alspaugh's reputation is better than that. (Or was?) Sorta explains the short run, however, which I was sad to have missed.
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-24-2016, 05:37 PM:
It's good that we document and SHAME the remaining 35mm exhibitors who don't give a (not talking about the rare mishap, but almost destroying or rendering unwatchable a rare and priceless print is absurd and unacceptable at this point).
I've never, in over a decade of running movies, with mishaps both within and without my control, destroyed a print in the manner described. Not ONCE. EVER. Unacceptable.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-24-2016, 11:06 PM:
This is not an ad hominem attack, but all sorts of alarm bells ring in my head when someone feels the need to assert that in X years of doing something, they've never made an error or been involved in an accident. The fact that they feel the need to make that assertion is usually a sign of defensiveness, and if that assertion is actually true it usually means little more than that they've had very good luck over the course of their career.
I have accidentally damaged prints over the 27 years (on and off) I've worked in projection booths. The first time I did it, the chief I was working for asked me a very simple question: what are you going to do to avoid a repeat? He was looking for me to think about it and come up with a sensible answer; in other words, to show that I'd learned from my mistake. That's the same question I've asked every projectionist I've supervised since who has had an "honest mistake" accident.
The most recent was last fall, when I failed to notice damage to one tooth on an intermittent sprocket, that caused some very small leading edge perforation nicks on a single reel. It was an acetate reel (thicker, so wants less gate pressure) running immediately after a polyester one (this was a shorts show as part of a festival), and I'd also forgotten to back off the gate pressure. These two things in combination caused the perf nicks, which the archive that owned the print found when it returned. These nicks were so tiny that my naked eye couldn't see them during spot checks on the rewind after projection (I always stop the reel at one or two random points while rewinding it after projection, and check for any signs of damage that weren't there when the reel was received), but the archive did. My response to this was immediate replacement of the sprocket, and adding "check gate pressure" to the mental checklist I go through after every changeover, even if there has been no change of film base type from the previous reel run on that machine.
My point is that "I don't make mistakes ... I cannot have made this mistake" is not a helpful one when you're in a job that involves taking responsibility for prints costing four of five figures. Human beings will make mistakes occasionally, always have, and always will do. The trick is to figure out why they happened and put sensible measures in place to avoid the risk of a repeat.
None of which will do anything about the "projectionist" who simply doesn't care, and therefore is beyond help.
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 02-25-2016, 09:46 AM:
quote: Bill Brandenstein
However, to hear that the Vista killed their Star Wars print is horribly disappointing. Lance Alspaugh's reputation is better than that.
Yes, yes it is, and the Vista is a fine theater with an excellent reputation for presentation. Which, given the tendency of the good folks here to report relatively minor projection issues in cataclysm-level terms when they have an axe to grind, makes me to wonder how bad this show really was. I mean:
quote: Tyler Purcell
a two week old 35mm print of The Force Awakens that was completely destroyed. When I say destroyed, I mean it was to the point of being unwatchable
COMPLETELY DESTROYED. THE POINT OF BEING UNWATCHABLE. Wow! But it wasn't bad enough for him to get up and get his money back:
quote: Tyler Purcell
The print was poorly made and the projectionist put is sticky fingers all over it, there were several seconds of black dots leading up to the splices. There were entire reels scratched throughout
. . . the key word there being throughout, meaning that my man sat through and watched this unwatchable, completely destroyed print long enough to comment on the entirety of the show. Why? Why sit through it if it was that bad? Me, I would have picked my ass up and taken it over to the ArcLight. What was the point of showing this picture on film in the first place, especially in as well a digitally equipped theater as the Vista, and what is the point of seeing same? Yes, it was shot on 35mm, but given the level of digital finish the whole thing had to have been scanned out end to end, at which point statements like "seeing the movie the way it was meant to be seen" do a lot of walking.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-25-2016, 10:47 AM:
quote: Mark Ogden
Why? Why sit through it if it was that bad?
I can't speak for others, but sometimes you are with other people who don't care as much about the presentation (and will have to listen to you bitching for days afterwards).
And sometimes there is just the whole train wreck aspect of just needing to see if it can get any worse every time it does.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-25-2016, 11:51 AM:
quote: Mark Ogden
COMPLETELY DESTROYED. THE POINT OF BEING UNWATCHABLE.
Most of the public takes film damage or other problems in stride. I remember when we played "Driving Miss Daisy." It was a huge hit and we had to wait many weeks to get it. When we finally played it, the print we received looked like it had been dragged through a gravel parking lot, there were so many scratches. I had wanted to watch the movie, but due to that issue I never could stand to sit there for more than a couple of minutes, so I never saw it. I stood at the exit every night with a handful of passes apologizing to people, but almost to a person they said they "never noticed it" or "it was fine once we got used to it."
Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 02-25-2016, 02:34 PM:
Hey Mark;
I couldn't walk out, I was with my parents and a bunch of my friends. I had already seen the film digitally and I wanted to see what it looked like in 35mm. So I convinced everyone to go to the Vista and see it in 35mm! Everyone was excited because we all know how "special" a film screening is today.
The print was poorly made, they didn't bother color matching it. They probably scanned out the digital files and said that was that. So highlights were over exposed and nothing was "white" the film had a yellow/warm tint over it the entire print. Some of the night scenes were also very yellow, which was just ridiculous. Had the lab even bothered trying to make it right, it would have looked a lot better. Then you add the beat-up nature of the print... I mean, it was just bad all the way around.
Now I've never assembled a theatrical 35mm print before, but I have edited 35mm and 16mm on a flatbed. So I know what dirty fingers do to a print and that's exactly what it looked like. Plus, the sides of the print were trashed, scratches, dirty, just nothing really left. The center of the print was scratched at times as well, nice light cinch marks throughout many scenes. There were even deep gouges AND sideways scratches towards the tails of each roll. What's funny is that the projector itself (registration/focus/lamp brightness) was all spot on. So the projector was clearly working fine, it was how the print was handled and who took care of the projector.
Another side note, we were there for the early showing, which was around 2:00 I believe on a week day. The line was around the block at 12:30 before the ticket counter was even open! It wasn't a bunch of kids and parents, it was a bunch of adults. Listening to the people in the theater talk, it was clear people went there to see it in 35mm. So to say people don't know the difference, that's bullshit. Yes the general popcorn stuffing, soda drinking, mouth breathing idiots, couldn't care less. However, there are A LOT of people who know what film is and how "special" this screening was.
Yet, it was a completely failed attempt to show the movie. I would have been outraged if that was MY film, especially after only two weeks of showing, good grief! This goes back to what I was saying about people caring. You can't be THE ONLY THEATER IN THE US showing a print of a film and NOT take pride. The projectionist showed up 10 minutes late, he threaded the thing in 5 minutes and the show started 15 min late! What a poorly run joint! The vista use to be great, but after this experience, I bet they don't even bother running 35 anymore.
Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 02-25-2016, 03:10 PM:
Re: the 35mm print at the Vista - although I didn't see it, several of my friends did (some more than once, from when it opened up through when it closed). *not one* of them complained. Some of them are not in the film industry at all, they're just movie buffs, so I'm willing to chalk that up to folks simply not knowing better. One of them, though, is a pretty picky cineaste - I can only assume that he saw it early in the run before the print got too beat up.
Everyone enjoyed seeing it on film, though, whether out of nostalgia or because there is still something a little hypnotic about light-through-film I couldn't say.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-25-2016, 03:37 PM:
quote: Tyler Purcell
So to say people don't know the difference, that's bullshit. Yes the general popcorn stuffing, soda drinking, mouth breathing idiots, couldn't care less
Your implied opinion of "regular, non tech-head" moviegoers is kind of insulting. You shouldn't be so condescending. They are all customers, after all. People who support theatrical movies. MOST people aren't idiots just because they don't care how something works -- they only care THAT it works.
Moviegoers who like 35mm are no more or less important than people who don't care how the picture gets there. They're all vital.
Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 02-25-2016, 04:11 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Your implied opinion of "regular, non tech-head" moviegoers is kind of insulting. You shouldn't be so condescending. They are all customers, after all. People who support theatrical movies. MOST people aren't idiots just because they don't care how something works -- they only care THAT it works.
Exactly! Tyler and Ari you both have this "holier than thou" mentality that anyone who doesn't believe film is a godsend and digital is garbage is somehow beneath you as a moviegoer. As long as they have green, all customers are equal in my mind as they continue to give us the capital needed to operate.
Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 02-25-2016, 08:49 PM:
Right, but I'm an enthusiast and filmmaker who goes to the cinema on a rare occasion because of the things I mentioned. You are the people who make the magic happen, but aren't necessarily sitting in the audience during a sold-out screening.
So here I am, opening night of Interstellar at the Cinerama Dome, in 70mm. I wanted to make sure the print was perfect, which it was. Yet, I was stuck sitting next to some big guy with two 2L jugs of coke, a popcorn box big enough for a family and TWO hot dogs. He had zero interest in the film, all he wanted was a place to sit and eat. He must have gotten up three times during the film, forcing all of us in the row to literally stand up and get out of the way. I complained and got a free ticket, saw the film again two days later during an off-time when people weren't around.
Few months later, 2800 miles away in Boston. I went to a screening of Mission Impossible; Rogue Nation. It was the first movie I had seen since Interstellar and it was a weekday screening. Besides the projection being atrocious, ( was contemplating walking out, but wanted to see the conclusion) the people in front of me were again, more interested in throwing food around, talking and being on their phones. I was so pissed off, I went right up to them in the middle of the screening and told them to stop it. They wound up leaving, having paid $20 for the IMAX theater ticket, but ruined half the film through aggravation.
So here we are, opening night of Star Wars The Force Awakens at Arclight Cinemas Hollywood. Beautifully presented with perfect sound and picture. I purposely get tickets in the small screen to insure it wasn't going to be a problem. Yet, a family of 3 kids and parents come into the screening 20 minutes after the trailers start, so a good solid 5 minutes after the film itself has been running. They sit down in front of me, mom hands the kids iPads and starts texting on her phone. I couldn't believe it! I leaned over to the mom and said, this is a movie theater, not a living room. She didn't get it... eventually the kids threw one of the iPads in the air during a quiet scene and the rest of the audience screamed at the family, but it wasn't enough. An usher walked in and asked them to leave, but the father argued with him. Eventually the mother grabbed the kids and walked out of the theater, leaving the father by himself in the row. The film was half way over before he gave up and followed them.
So you can pick on me all you want for being "holier then thou", but all I want to do is watch a movie. These are just THREE recent experiences and I could list another 3 if you want. See, I don't want to deal with an out of focus projector, damaged screen, aliasing, hexagonal lines on bright sections and flatness. I don't want to deal with a blown up speakers and distortion. I don't want patrons smelling like a dumpster or playing with their electronic devices during the movie either. Why should I pay the cinema for anything when all it does is offer me IDENTICAL quality to the BluRay which I can rent for a dollar in a few months and watch it at home? Don't you get it? You can take all the money you want from people, but it's not going to stop the downfall of cinemas. What's offered AT the cinema needs to be a better experience then it is today. This is coming from not only a patron, but a filmmaker who cares about cinema more then you could ever imagine. $20- Premium theaters aren't really solving anything, but putting more money into the pockets of the studios. Until the cinemas wake up and realize there is a very systemic problem, we will continue to see the downfall of theaters. It may only take one or two years of bad receipts to start closing theaters. I bet the next economic downturn which is suppose to happen this year, COULD start that trend. Honestly, NONE of my filmmaker friends go to the theaters anymore, we all have the same problems and we solve them by simply waiting. Once the studio's figure out how to make money on demand, good bye cinemas.
So you can sit there counting money, but the last laugh will be on the cinemas.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-25-2016, 11:23 PM:
quote: Tyler Purcell
What's offered AT the cinema needs to be a better experience then it is today.
I agree with all your points regarding presentation quality, but your "holier than thou" attitude just comes from the fact that you imply that 100% of the people (besides you) who go to movies are boors who don't know how to behave in a theater.
That said, it's amazing how many people just don't seem to get the simple concepts of sitting down and being quiet. What the industry really needs to do, I guess, is EDUCATE people how to behave in a movie theater.
I suppose the main problem is the bean counters see the giant grosses on the tentpole movies and figure everything's OK.
Maybe instead of writing to theater chain owners, people should write complaint letters to NATO. If NATO got enough of these communications, they might eventually send the message along to the people who could make positive changes.
Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 02-25-2016, 11:41 PM:
Maybe... but what can they really do? Not much.
If people don't know who the vice president is, they are most likely not going to care about how they effect others.
So the solution is to make "premium" films, which are presented at the highest caliber and NOT available on video. Charge up the ass for the screenings, make the experience super special. Road show them around the world and make it an experience. Make the cinema something ultra special. It's just an idea... but it's really the only thing to make the experience worth while. Right now, it's not a doable premise, but once the big cinemas start closing, maybe there will be room for the little guys again. I personally think that's the FUTURE of cinema... but that's me!
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-26-2016, 01:47 AM:
The best solution to people misbehaving in a theater probably is a zero-tolerance policy which is clearly advertised and enforced. It will keep some people away from this theater, but I'm certain it will not hurt the bottom line for most cinemas.
I guess most people are like you and me and want the room to be quiet while watching a movie, especially if it is the first time ever you're watching this particular movie. It's just that a few can easily destroy the experience for many others.
The question is, how you're going to effectively monitor theaters with a minimum amount of staff? In the past you at least had a projectionist who could keep an eye on it at certain intervals. In many cases, people will just not complain and either leave or sit trough it. In many cases, those customers will probably be lost customers, as they attribute the theater with a bad experience. A possibility would be something like an SMS hot-line, which you could text in case of problems. I've seen this in some theaters, but if it really works is doubtful.
Regarding the "extra special experience", I think the market is generally evolving in a positive way. As much as I dislike many of the current LPF concepts, it certainly has proven that there is a market for "better experiences". Now just let's hope that the market takes the right decisions of how to delver those "better experiences".
Even brain amputated stuff like Barco Escape or the renewed interest in 70mm shows that the market is clearly evolving and is still trying to differentiate itself from a Blu-Ray presentation at home, which in itself is a good thing.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-26-2016, 11:41 AM:
Short of hiring several ushers to be in each screen throughout every show, the only way you're going to deal with a substantial amount of customer misbehavior is to block all cellphone and wifi signals. Signal jamming is illegal in most jurisdictions, but if any newbuild opened with the auditoria encased in Faraday cages and made a point of advertising this, I for one would be wanting to see movies there.
quote: Tyler Purcell
What's funny is that the projector itself (registration/focus/lamp brightness) was all spot on. So the projector was clearly working fine, it was how the print was handled and who took care of the projector.
The projector had likely been taken care of, as well, because the registration, focus and lamp brightness would not have been spot on if at least basic checking and maintenance had not been done.
This leads me to wonder if the print they had wasn't new when they got it, and that the damage was done somewhere else.
Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 02-26-2016, 11:59 AM:
Maybe? I mean it could have hastily been disassembled and thrown back into the shipping containers to be re-assembled by the Vista. That wouldn't account for the sides of the frame being dirty though. Considering they started playing it at the Vista a few days after it's initial US release and I saw it a week later, one would think it was destroyed by them. However, cinch marks MAYBE the clue! You normally won't get those on a platter system right? So we're talking again, about someone hastily rewinding the film and cinching it tight? OUCH!
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 02-26-2016, 03:02 PM:
The cinch marks could have happened anywhere in the make up process onto the platter. If the film were loose on the reel feeding onto the platter it most likely happened there. Also if the film came in tails up and needed to be rewound, or even in the cans coming to the theatre. Anyone's guess.
In a reel to reel house it could have happened on the rewind or the feed or take up reel. No way to tell at this point.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-26-2016, 03:41 PM:
quote: Leo Enticknap
Short of hiring several ushers to be in each screen throughout every show, the only way you're going to deal with a substantial amount of customer misbehavior is to block all cellphone and wifi signals. Signal jamming is illegal in most jurisdictions, but if any newbuild opened with the auditoria encased in Faraday cages and made a point of advertising this, I for one would be wanting to see movies there.
Keep in mind that such a Faraday cage, if it actually would work, will also potentially block reception of frequencies of emergency services or cellular calls to those emergency services. In the Netherlands, operators of large public venues actually required to check the coverage of the emergency services network inside their buildings. Wrapping your buildings in tinfoil isn't going to help on that one.
Also, it's really not that easy to build a working Faraday cage of those sizes to block cellular signals. Keep in mind that we're talking about wavelengths in inches or centimeters here. I've been in a datacenter once that claimed to have been setup as a Faraday cage, and it did have great cellular reception inside...
So, you will be spending a lot of money on something that has a big potential of failure and might even be totally illegal or might become illegal at any point in the future.
I'll opt for a taser integrated into every seat and an automatic disturbance detector. Not only will it solve your problems with unruly crowds, a company like D-BOX could create a new product out of it, something like D-BOX Extreme or D-BOX Live. "Feel the movie" just got a whole new dimension...
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2