Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Film quality VS Blu-Ray

This is topic Film quality VS Blu-Ray in forum The Afterlife 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=12;t=000840

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-28-2010, 09:50 PM:

I have started to see movies at a theatre again after the recent sad event my family went through and saw three movies during the last three weeks. Of the three I saw, only the picture quality of AVATAR had pleased me because the original source was digital instead of film and presented in digital projection. The other two, ST. VALENTINE'S DAY and SHUTTER ISAND were film based and that is the way I saw them. I hope I do not offend anyone when I say this but I have come accustomed to the wonderful picture quality of theatrical films on Blu-Ray and found the picture quality of theatre film presentations severely lacking. It stands to reason when a four perforated frame 35mm image is enlarged to fill a large theatre screen, there will be loss in picture quality. This is the reason films shot on 65mm film and presented in 70mm as well as VistaVision & Technirama looks great on a large theatre screen because of the large film format used during production and projection. I will continue to see more movies in a theatre from now on but I still prefer watching them on a 1080p HD screen from a Blu-Ray disc.

-Claude

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-28-2010, 10:31 PM:

I've been griping about how film projection in commercial theaters has been harmed by digital work flows for years. Specifically, the de facto 2K standard for digital intermediate based post production has put film-based movie theaters at a disadvantage to theaters equipped with 2K digital projection.

A 2K DI sourced movie is laser recorded onto digital inter-negatives and inter-positives for high speed 35mm release print production. A standard 35mm movie print will have at the very least one generation of loss from the laser recorded source (if not another generation or two of loss). By comparison, a DCI standard JPEG2000 virtual print is sourced from that same 2K digital intermediate with minimal loss in image quality.

The 2K standard has long been the real evil in all of this. Hollywood studios need to get past that near HDTV quality standard and step up to the 6K scan/4K DI standard for all 35mm based productions. Their movies are going to look better in every venue as a result. They will look much better on 35mm. They'll even look better in 2K digital projection and still look better on Blu-ray as well.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-28-2010, 10:58 PM:

It looks like digital projection is the way to go because all the digital 3-D films and 2-D films with DP I had seen such as 300 and NATIONAL TREASURE 2 looked awesome on a theatre screen and had that Bly-Ray picture quality.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-28-2010, 11:05 PM:

Claude - I would bet your local theatres need to have their optics aligned, bulb replaced or ports cleaned...maybe all three, and maybe other work to keep the image as steady as it can be.

Another thing to consider is, when you are looking at a theatre screen be it film or digital, you're seeing an image that's EXTREMELY more magnified than it is on even the biggest TV set. Therefore any flaws are going to be more noticeable.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-28-2010, 11:27 PM:

Mike,

I have noticed the loss of image quality from 35mm projection in four different theatre complexes - Ward Centre 16, Regal Dole Cannery 18, Kapolei 16 and Regal Pearl Highland The picture quality from 35mm in all of these theatres all sucked compared to Blu Ray. I am aware of quality loss from a 35mm film frame in projection because I had mentioned this in my original thread when I had compared it to 70mm presentations

-Claude.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 03-01-2010, 08:45 PM:

I have found myself becoming increasingly sensitive to bob and weave in film presentations, which I attribute to being accustomed to the rock-steady images coming from my projector at home.

The jumping around that film can do creates a blurriness that makes me yearn for a digital presentation, just so that the image will sit still and let me focus on the movie instead of being distracted by the blur.

Another aspect that has become a greater issue of late is black level. Some theaters keep their lights up so high, that the screen is unable to show really deep blacks. I figure this is because of fear of injury-related lawsuits, but in my mind, the lights should be low enough that no ambient light should be hitting the screen. There's gotta be a way to illuminate the walkways and stairs so that people can see but not occlude the screen image.

Do you think one or both of these might be what you are noticing?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-01-2010, 10:29 PM:

This sounds like an issue of film done wrong.

A well maintained and operated 35mm projector should be able to show movies in a very steady fashion. Additionally, film based projection can deliver black levels that are superior to the output of any video projector.

Unfortunately, many commercial theaters haven't installed the best quality equipment for quite some time and have made the even worse error of making "good enough to get by" the gold standard of presentation quality. Also, a 35mm projector is at the mercy of the quality of film print being shown.

Throw in the image quality bottleneck of 2K based digital intermediates and you end up with several variables that are going to deliver film done wrong.

Basically it's as if both the Hollywood movie distributors and commercial exhibition companies are pissing on film and deliberately screwing it up so most people will be glad when it is gone. It's a damned shame.

BTW, plenty of Blu-ray discs can be done wrong too. Hollywood studios are finding out the hard way they can't dust off some 10 year old, fuzzy, jumpy HD telecine master with a bunch of dirt and specks on the opening logos and well into the movie. That standard was "good enough" for SD 16X9 DVD, but it doesn't cut it for Blu-ray.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-01-2010, 11:43 PM:

Bobby,

I agree with you about crappy Blu-Ray discs but the pictures from them most of the time look better than the DVD version and look a hell of a lot better than 35mm theatrical film projection.

-Claude

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 03-02-2010, 09:06 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
This sounds like an issue of film done wrong.

A well maintained and operated 35mm projector should be able to show movies in a very steady fashion. Additionally, film based projection can deliver black levels that are superior to the output of any video projector.

That's the unfortunate reality that I think a lot of people live with when going to a movie theater. It's also why I can't wait for digital projection to become more widespread. It doesn't matter to me if film can be done better, but rather, which provides the best end result.

Unfortunately, digital projection can only solve the jump and weave problems, and not the bright ambient light or improper masking, etc. etc.

Most times when I go to a theater, I am disappointed in the experience. I figure it's just me being too picky and expecting too much from an industry that is working with too many challenges to produce the end result that I want. If I ran my own theater, I'd probably go out of business quickly trying to run it like I think it should be run!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-02-2010, 09:37 AM:

Minimum light levels are usually dictated by fire codes. This also explains super-bright red "EXIT" signs that cast light on the screen. In most areas, there is little that can be done. [Frown]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-02-2010, 09:42 AM:

I agree with you Claude! Blue Ray is way better then most 35mm presentations these days. Some Blue Rays actually look far superior then very good 35mm film.

Mark

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 03-02-2010, 11:10 AM:

A double-bladed shutter (2 passes per frame), proper focus, a good projectionist, and a properly-maintained projector go a long way towards making sure 35mm looks better than digital.

I saw it with the latest "Twilight" incarnation. Besides one bad 35mm print (out of 3) the 35mm film copies of this Super 35mm film blowup from flat to anamorphic blew away the digital showing we did of it too during midnights during its premiere.

The DLP 2K projector had far less grain, but the colors and resolution were flat.

35mm had grain, but sharpness, character.

Only movies I want to see projected digitally are movies that are originated digitallly (movies shot on digital cameras, like Star Wars II and III that look like shit projected on film).

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-30-2011, 08:43 AM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
I have come accustomed to the wonderful picture quality of theatrical films on Blu-Ray and found the picture quality of theatre film presentations severely lacking.

I will say this. After watching the Green Hornet in IMAX 3D, the 35mm print running next door in the same sized AMC theatre was nowhere near as good. The RealD image was really bad.

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 07-10-2011, 10:01 AM:

I've asked this question a couple of times in others treads on F-T, -maybe this is the place to get an answer:
Are BluRays being used for regular cinema presentation (minor titles) at Your place, or only for single night special events ??
I've had several films since I went digital. Small, independent distributors using this possibility to afford a wider presentation, while the films are new. For my small screen, it's definitely no problem - on the contrary, I have to say, the BR is to prefer over a four month old 35mm prints, that ran in a new town every week. -And I guess, it will deliver a pretty good picture even on a 25-30 foot screen.
Is it practiced "over there" ??

Per

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-10-2011, 10:33 AM:

The only times I've heard of BluRays being used for "Hollywood" movies are for classics that may not be available on film or available to typical film theatres. Once you go into "art" and other non-standard sources, then you will likely find all sorts of media...including BluRay. It is certainly not the dominate form, at this point, as an alternate to 35mm film.

-Steve

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-10-2011, 06:02 PM:

As good as Blu-ray can be it is still inferior to 2K JPEG2000-based DCPs shipped on hard discs -at least it is for the most part.

Most DCP file sizes are several times the size of the feature film file size on a Blu-ray disc. DCP file sizes are bigger because of the rules regarding how they are created. The MPEG-4 AVC, VC1 and MPEG-2 formats used on Blu-ray can use far more severe levels of compression on the video.

Some studios, Warner Bros. in particular, ship out DCPs with significantly smaller file sizes (and more severe levels of data compression) than rival studios. One studio's 200GB movie file might be only half or even one fourth the size if it were coming from Warner Bros.

Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 07-10-2011, 06:30 PM:

Warner also has some of the worse Blu-Rays ruining some nice blockbusters by adding edge enhancement and noise reduction.
Ive noticed a lot of their films are flat looking low contrast compared to some of the other studios.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-10-2011, 06:54 PM:

Warner has seemed to be "cheap" in their deployment of video all the way back to DVD. The only time they ever got a little liberal were those few full bitrate DTS DVDs of Twister and couple others.

I find it interesting that this has translated to their DCPs as well...

AJG

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-10-2011, 10:33 PM:

There is a strange philosophy in place at WB. They try to compress things as severe as possible regardless of the ample space available on a given storage format, be it DVD, Blu-ray or a Digital Cinema Print.

The studio is pretty consistent about this. I can visit a site like DVD Beaver and look at the technical specs between WB's movies and those of other studios. Very often the video file of a 2 hour movie on a WB Blu-ray release will be small enough to fit on a 25GB single layer BD and with extras the entire contents may weigh under 30GB. It's as if WB is still mastering everything for HD-DVD. Other studios, like Paramount in particular, will use a BD-50 for all it is worth. They'll even have the movie alone fill up all of a BD-50 and stick most or all of the extras on a second disc. I like that approach.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-11-2011, 12:54 AM:

Maybe WB thinks that they need to e-mail all of their data or fit it on a floppy. I bet the decision to compress as much as possible regardless of format and available space came from someone who is old.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 07-11-2011, 10:20 AM:

quote: Aaron Garman
Warner has seemed to be "cheap" in their deployment of video all the way back to DVD. The only time they ever got a little liberal were those few full bitrate DTS DVDs of Twister and couple others.

Can you expand on this a bit?
I thought Warner Bro wasn't bad on their DVD. I like the cases and most movies had both FS/WS on either side of the disc.

Laserdisc were not bad. They adopted AC-3 for most movies. Although THX certified LDs were only Twister from what I remember.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 07-11-2011, 01:09 PM:

The bluray of Enter The Dragon is well restored but has way too many extras on the same disc and the result is evident when projected on a large screen.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-11-2011, 02:23 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
Can you expand on this a bit?

Many titles released by them on DVD I remember having low average bit rates, for both video and audio. As Bobby mentioned, this has continued with Blu-rays that seem to be created based on HD-DVD standards. Hell, a 192kbps mono track on Casablanca on Blu-ray? That's just silly given the medium.

As for Twister on DVD: it had a couple releases, with the later one having a full bit rate 1500kbps DTS track on it. This was seen as pretty odd because Warner never used DTS on home video and it was an extremely high bit rate, vs. their standard 384kbps Dolby 5.1 that was found on many titles.

AJG

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-11-2011, 02:33 PM:

WB released Twister, Interview with the Vampire and the three Lethal Weapon movies as what must have been some sort of marketing experiment. The DVDs not only featured lossy DTS 5.1 tracks at the "full" 1509kbps data rate they also had Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks too. I can't remember if the DD 5.1 tracks were encoded at 384kbps or 448kbps. I guess I'll have to load up one of them later this evening and see.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 07-12-2011, 05:51 PM:

quote: Per Hauberg
I've asked this question a couple of times in others treads on F-T, -maybe this is the place to get an answer:
Are BluRays being used for regular cinema presentation (minor titles) at Your place, or only for single night special events ??

Picture quality aside, one aspect of this that seems to get overlooked is that sound mixes for DVD formats are different to their theatrical counterparts in important respects; they are mixed for the "near-field" listening characteristic typical of the Home environment and take account of the much smaller size of the room. The mix levels are different as well; I'm not an expert in this area but have seen references to 81dB rather than the 85dB used for theatrical mixes.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 07-12-2011, 08:44 PM:

quote:
WB released Twister, Interview with the Vampire and the three Lethal Weapon movies as what must have been some sort of marketing experiment.

I doubt there was some experiment. There were a number of titles released at the lower 754 DTS kbps rate by Warner. Likely they just took advantage of the new format when DTS came out.

Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 07-12-2011, 09:44 PM:

I ran a Blu Ray of TWISTER and it sounded like crap!! It was no where close to the Dolby Digital track on 35mm. Yuck. I gave the disc to my son.

Don

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-12-2011, 11:24 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
I doubt there was some experiment. There were a number of titles released at the lower 754 DTS kbps rate by Warner. Likely they just took advantage of the new format when DTS came out.

Actually those titles I mentioned were their first DVD releases using DTS audio. WB didn't release many other DVDs with DTS.

Of course the situation is now very different with Blu-ray. Every major studio (including WB) is releasing Blu-ray discs with DTS-HD Master Audio being the primary audio format of choice.

BTW, those WB DVD titles I mentioned not only had DTS 5.1 at 1509kb/s. The DD 5.1 tracks were 448kb/s instead of the usual 384kb/s rate. In the case of Twister and Interview With the Vampire English and French DD 5.1 tracks were included as well as the full bit rate DTS track.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 07-13-2011, 11:16 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Actually those titles I mentioned were their first DVD releases using DTS audio. WB didn't release many other DVDs with DTS.

Actually, it has nothing to do with Warner, almost all early DTS releases were full bit rate on DVD. It's DTS that cut the bit rate.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-13-2011, 11:52 AM:

quote: Don Furr
I ran a Blu Ray of TWISTER and it sounded like crap!! It was no where close to the Dolby Digital track on 35mm.

I don't remember Twister sounding particularly great in the theater. It might be another one of those Jan De Bont movies that have zero subwoofer. I know the Dolby Digital version of the trailer doesn't have any sub.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-13-2011, 02:05 PM:

Perhaps the issue of audio with Twister has more to do with a given theater's sound system than it does the audio track. Although something would have to be pretty wrong for the audio on the Blu-ray to sound inferior to a theatrical Dolby Digital track. The audio on the Blu-ray is Dolby TrueHD 5.1 encoded from a 16-bit 48kHz source at 1994kb/s with a bundled Dolby Digital 5.1 track encoded at 640kb/s. The theatrical track is severely data compressed by comparison, only 320kb/s.

For the lossy DD 5.1 track to sound better the theater's sound system must have been in really great and the home theater system used for Blu-ray playback mediocre or bad by comparison. Different audio masters could be a culprit as well.

quote: Tom Petrov
Actually, it has nothing to do with Warner, almost all early DTS releases were full bit rate on DVD. It's DTS that cut the bit rate.

Tom, you're either back-tracking from your claim about Warner Bros. or you simply forgot what you wrote:

quote: What Tom said earlier
I doubt there was some experiment. There were a number of titles released at the lower 754 DTS kbps rate by Warner. Likely they just took advantage of the new format when DTS came out.

Specifically what titles on DVD did Warner Bros. release with DTS audio tracks besides the 5 full bit rate titles I mentioned? Those five titles were not early DVD releases either. They were released well after the lower 754kb/s bit rate for DTS has been introduced. IIRC the 754kb/s DTS rate was introduced with the Saving Private Ryan DTS DVD.

The earliest bare bones DTS DVD releases were almost all titles released by Universal. No movies from Warner Bros. were within that group. The five I mentioned were the first from WB to support DTS on DVD.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 07-13-2011, 03:48 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Perhaps the issue of audio with Twister has more to do with a given theater's sound system than it does the audio track. Although something would have to be pretty wrong for the audio on the Blu-ray to sound inferior to a theatrical Dolby Digital track. The audio on the Blu-ray is Dolby TrueHD 5.1 encoded from a 16-bit 48kHz source at 1994kb/s with a bundled Dolby Digital 5.1 track encoded at 640kb/s. The theatrical track is severely data compressed by comparison, only 320kb/s.

I disagree. I firmly believe that the studios are modifying the soundtracks and picture for home use. This changes the way it was supposed to sound.

I love Blu ray, but sometimes can be real shit.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Specifically what titles on DVD did Warner Bros. release with DTS audio tracks besides the 5 full bit rate titles I mentioned? Those five titles were not early DVD releases either. They were released well after the lower 754kb/s bit rate for DTS has been introduced. IIRC the 754kb/s DTS rate was introduced with the Saving Private Ryan DTS DVD.

The earliest bare bones DTS DVD releases were almost all titles released by Universal. No movies from Warner Bros. were within that group. The five I mentioned were the first from WB to support DTS on DVD.

Bobby, the Lethal Weapons were released with full bit rate in 2000. DTS dvds were coming on the market 98-99.

There are some full bit rate dvds such as Thin Red Line, Twister, Small Soilders, Peacemaker, Mousehount and some others that were full bit rate. Dances with Wolves as well.

As for Warner, the Batman 1-4, Exorcist were released at 754

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-13-2011, 04:12 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
I disagree. I firmly believe that the studios are modifying the soundtracks and picture for home use. This changes the way it was supposed to sound.

None of us know all the variables involved that could make Twister sound different. You have to eliminate a number of other possibilities before you can blame the difference on different audio masters being used. In the end, your stance of disagreement is only opinion, nothing definitive.

quote: Tom Petrov
Bobby, the Lethal Weapons were released with full bit rate in 2000. DTS dvds were coming on the market 98-99.

That doesn't make Warner Bros. an early supporter of DTS on DVD. They only jumped in afterward, in very small measure, once the format had already gained some popularity, all thanks to the releases coming from other studios. After that release of 5 titles Warner Bros. went a long time before releasing any other DVDs featuring DTS audio tracks. Warner Bros. has traditionally been a very strong supporter of Dolby.

quote: Tom Petrov
There are some full bit rate dvds such as Thin Red Line, Twister, Small Soilders, Peacemaker, Mousehount and some others that were full bit rate. Dances with Wolves as well.

Twister is the only one in that list that is a Warner Bros. title. The other DTS DVDs are from Dreamworks, 20th Century Fox and Image Entertainment.

quote: Tom Petrov
As for Warner, the Batman 1-4, Exorcist were released at 754

You must be talking about the recent Batman anthology DVD release (also released on Blu-ray but with Dolby TrueHD audio). The original Tim Burton era Batman DVDs were Dolby Digital only. As for The Exorcist, I can't find a DVD release that featured a DTS track. The Blu-ray has DTS-HD Master Audio though.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 07-13-2011, 04:34 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
None of us know all the variables involved that could make Twister sound different. You have to eliminate a number of other possibilities before you can blame the difference on different audio masters being used. In the end, your stance of disagreement is only opinion, nothing definitive.

Well I say this because I have an extensive list of DD laserdiscs. I have also speculated that DD on LD appears to be the same as the theatrical mixes, expecially Criterion approved discs. Studios at the time were less likely to mess around with things.

DVDs/BD discs often sound like they are enhanced. The Running Man was horrible. So was Star Trek II.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Twister is the only one in that list that is a Warner Bros. title. The other DTS DVDs are from Dreamworks, 20th Century Fox and Image Entertainment.

I mention these because not all early DTS discs were Universal. There were a bunch of other from other studios.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-14-2011, 12:38 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
Studios at the time were less likely to mess around with things.

While probably true, that's pure speculation and not a definitive fact.

I haven't done an A/B on the AC3 Twister LD and the Blu-ray, but wow, both sound very very good. The DTS DVD was also no slouch, but I felt the AC3 LD was a bit "brighter" from what I remember. The original DD DVD release from 97 sucked.

I did see it theatrically in DTS, and I can't speak with any certainty how it compares, but I do remember the sound mix, in that house, at that time, blowing me the fuck away.

AJG

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-14-2011, 02:59 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Specifically what titles on DVD did Warner Bros. release with DTS audio tracks besides the 5 full bit rate titles I mentioned?

True Romance (released in 2002; catalog #22796) and Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves (released in 2003; catalog #23780).

Both of those are two-disc special editions, and they replaced DVDs issued in 1997 that featured only a 2.0 audio track and minimal special features. I believe it was Morgan Creek, the films' production company, that pushed for them to get re-issued with DTS.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-14-2011, 03:56 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
I firmly believe that the studios are modifying the soundtracks and picture for home use.

Well hallelujah, there's finally something I can agree with Tom on.

We were at Dolby's "Surrounded" seminar earlier this week where they had sound designers from various movies and a few other people including Ioan Allen answering questions and making presentations. One of the speakers said that it IS quite common for soundtracks to be modified for home release. He said it's an effort to make a movie sound "good" on a wide variety of sound systems. He said quite often it's the low end, in particular, that gets tinkered with.

I remember "Twister" came with a note in the can saying "This movie is meant to be played LOUD." It was one of the earliest DTS movies we played and I loved the sound mix on it. I thought it was great, especially the opening sequence.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-14-2011, 06:21 PM:

That's good information Mike, and not surprising at all. I've always heard that idea thrown around, but no one has ever quoted a person who actually has something to do with mixing films for home use.

I will say with no degree of certainty, but just a hunch, that Disney did not tinker with the track for the Blu-ray of Tron Legacy, unless they made it better. I saw it in 2K DLP and IMAX 15/70 and honestly my Blu-ray sounds just as good if not better than what I saw theatrically. That mix is astonishingly powerful.

AJG

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-14-2011, 09:06 PM:

quote: Aaron Garman
That's good information Mike, and not surprising at all. I've always heard that idea thrown around, but no one has ever quoted a person who actually has something to do with mixing films for home use.

Gee, I guess you've never read Widescreen Review, where sound designers and re-recording mixers have been quoted in countless articles.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-15-2011, 01:28 AM:

Not everybody reads everything, y'know.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-15-2011, 11:01 AM:

Widescreen Review is still around?

I just came across an old issue with Phantom Menace on the cover that was talking about the revolutionary Dolby Digital EX sound. It went on for about 40-50 pages. What I really liked was how they made an effort to show how many different directions the sound could be panned with EX vs other sound formats. Front left to left surround, front left to back surround, etc etc etc. This new EX format gives sound designers so much more creative freedom to pan shit around! A new revolution in sound has arrived!

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-15-2011, 12:46 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I just came across an old issue with Phantom Menace on the cover that was talking about the revolutionary Dolby Digital EX sound. It went on for about 40-50 pages.

That sounds more like the length of Bobby Henderson's letters to the editor! [Big Grin]

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-15-2011, 01:18 PM:

quote:
Gee, I guess you've never read Widescreen Review, where sound designers and re-recording mixers have been quoted in countless articles.

I don't know how to read... [Razz]

AJG

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-15-2011, 03:05 PM:

quote:
That sounds more like the length of Bobby Henderson's letters to the editor!

Lengthy, yes. But at least the one about "ads that confuse" helped convince Dolby to straighten out its logo situation.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-15-2011, 03:33 PM:

When did you write Widescreen Review, Bobby? Did that issue need to be delivered via forklift? [Smile]

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 07-15-2011, 03:44 PM:

I have all but the first issue,I used to LOVE the magazine but for a while it has been very one note and repetitive.
I still read it but I miss the old days when they had great interviews with speaker designers and a big letters section.

Lately it could be called 3D Review. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-15-2011, 06:17 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
When did you write Widescreen Review, Bobby? Did that issue need to be delivered via forklift?

"Low boy" semi truck trailer was required. My "ads that confuse" thing ran in a fall 1994 issue. I gave both Dolby and DTS a good bit of hell for some of the mistakes they were making with advertising their sound formats and even supplied some graphics to go with it. Dolby had the much hated triple format logo complete with "verify theatre format" tag. I bitched and ranted about that pretty good.

Now I don't know for certain how much effect the article had on Dolby, but they definitely saw it. Dolby conducted some market research and unveiled an updated logo system in May 1995.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-17-2011, 01:19 AM:

What's on the cover of that issue? I may have it. And then again I may not. I wouldn't have noticed because I had no clue what a Bobby Henderson was back then.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-17-2011, 01:29 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
What's on the cover of that issue?

Aladdin (Issue 10) and True Lies (Issue 12).

Posted by William F Green (Member # 3192) on 07-18-2011, 11:51 AM:

We have been experimenting for several months in our UK theatre with BluRay and DVD projection instead of 35mm (all of the last month has been specialised titles on BD & DVD). We've been doing this just in case we don't find a viable way to go to full digital projection, so we wanted to 'test the water' to see if the audience would accept it.

Well they did, and to be honest many DVD's and all BluRay's really do look good enough on our screen - and I'm saying that as a confirmed 35mm man myself. But I can't deny that the image looks just as good or dare I say even better than a typical 35mm release print.

In fact the experiment has been proved so successful that if we were to go down the route of DVD/BluRay projection I'm not sure our audiences would really suffer at all.

It's a shame in a way as 35mm at it's best looks amazing. I saw a preview of 'Soul Surfer' here in the UK last week and unusually for a preview theatre it was on 35mm - and it looked really great, stunning in fact.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-18-2011, 05:10 PM:

What model projector are you using for video William?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-18-2011, 09:33 PM:

The other difficulty with using Blu-ray or DVD as a theatrical exhibition medium is availability in terms of the legitimate theatrical release. Blu-ray discs and DVDs are typically not made available until the theatrical release has exhausted itself.

BDs and DVDs might be good for art house and revival shows. Even there you have all sorts of legal issues to watch.

Posted by William F Green (Member # 3192) on 07-18-2011, 10:06 PM:

Hi Bobby, your point about availability of titles on media such as DVD or BD is absolutely correct. That IS the major disadvantage rather than any loss of picture/projection quality.

However, and this is what surprised us, we have been showing some mainstream movies 6 months after release on BD and getting good audiences. Admittedly most of our DVD or BD screenings have been on non-mainstream or more specialised titles and we are lucky to have an audience that supports that. Of course this would not work with the Fri-Sat night popcorn audience but playing titles later on BD or DVD is viable for arthouse/late run screens such as ours.

Yes, the legalities are absolutely paramount. I'ts not always easy and takes a bit of planning, but it can be done.

Posted by David M. Leugers (Member # 2968) on 07-21-2011, 11:42 PM:

The past two nights I have watched one film that was shot on digital and the other on film. I viewed them both off a Blu-Ray player onto a 48" HD screen. I did not know how either of them were filmed before I watched the films themselves. To me it was obvious that the one was shot on digital. There is no mistaking the harsh look of the actors, they often look terrible IMHO, not the beautiful close-ups that cinematographers prided themselves on. The film shot on real film was just beautiful in every way. If movies shot on film didn't go through the 2K digital intermediate process, there would be no comparison on the big screen...

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 07-22-2011, 03:23 PM:

OK, so I'll ask the obvious question:

Which two movies are you referring to?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-24-2011, 03:38 PM:

Two nights ago we ran WEST SIDE STORY on DVD, not even BluRay and we got a crowd of about 4,500. A Christie 3 DLP chip 15kw projector was used and our Barcos were used to project lyrics for the sing-along thing. Screen was 55ft. It was bright and decent color. Was it film? -- not even close. Did it "work" -- well, when an audience applauds wildly after every song and gives a standing ovation at the end of the movie, you have to say it was a great success. Did they complain about the soft look or the less than ideal color rendition? Not a one. So you always have to add the human factor in any discussion of format comparisons.

Would this be acceptable for a critical audience in a screen room, of course not. Was it acceptable in an outdoor screening in a park under the stars where people were there to enjoy an old classic that they were already familiar with and had great affection for to begin with? No question, it was a success all around.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-24-2011, 08:44 PM:

Frank, the Blu-Ray version of WEST SIDE STORY was just announced and there will be two editions. I forgot exactly what the content will be in the two different versions but the more pricier set will come in a box with a book and some other stuff. Unlike the special edition of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS that came with a 2nd BD with additional program material the standard version did not include, I believe both disc set of WSS will be exactly the same with the same content so I am planning to buy buy the regular set. I first saw WEST SIDE STORY during a matinee showing on new years eve on December 31, 1961 in 70mm at the Grauman's Chinese Theatre during it's premiere road show engagement and loved the movie ever since.

-Claude

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 07-24-2011, 10:26 PM:

We have West Side Story playing in 70MM here in Toronto

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-24-2011, 11:43 PM:

I do not understand why people clap at movies. I think this has been discussed before. But the "performers" can not hear nor appreciate your admiration by your applause after the movie. This is a fairly recent trend, too. Recent as in the last 10 years. Now people clap at every movie they like. Before a decade or so ago, it was very rare. I wonder, do the same people clap at their televisions? What is the purpose of the clap? I can understand at a live event, but a pre-recorded one?

People are very strange.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-24-2011, 11:50 PM:

Yeah, I agree it seems like a recent phenomenon. Here locally I remember crowds applauding Transformers when the credits began.

I have only seen this sort of thing previously at some key screenings of movies in New York City. Usually someone attached to the movie production was present. The applause was directed at them. Somehow certain movie goers took this practice over to regular screenings.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 07-25-2011, 08:14 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I do not understand why people clap at movies. I think this has been discussed before. But the "performers" can not hear nor appreciate your admiration by your applause after the movie.

People clap because of the social experience of watching the movie. They are in there with a group of people and when they find something they enjoy, they want to express that with a group.

quote: Joe Redifer
This is a fairly recent trend, too. Recent as in the last 10 years.

Not at all a recent trend. People clapped for Episode I, Eraser, Escape from L.A. and a number of others I saw back in the day. Granted, these examples were at the best "hardcore" fan theatre in Toronto on opening nights.

People also clapped during the climax of "Sleeping With the Enemy"

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 07-25-2011, 01:00 PM:

Audiences always break out or into applause to celebrate my projections skills! [Big Grin]

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 07-25-2011, 04:18 PM:

quote: William F Green
Well they did, and to be honest many DVD's and all BluRay's really do look good enough on our screen - and I'm saying that as a confirmed 35mm man myself. But I can't deny that the image looks just as good or dare I say even better than a typical 35mm release print.

A DVD as good as a 35mm print????? I saw A Town Called Panic from a DVD using a 2K digital projector and it was one of the most abominable cinema experiences in my life. Probably the distributors just couldn’t be bothered for this screening because the film was released in the UK in 2K DCP and also 35mm prints (I think). They probably just thought, oh send the DVD, is cheaper. The projectionist was kind enough to show us the DVD menu with the different options (set up, chapters, extras) before getting into the main feature, this is what I call showmanship. [puke]

The image quality was atrocious, as it should be from a DVD. I will probably never again return to that cinema. I would agree that most people in the audience did not notice anything, at least consciously. However, when they get home probably they will think that their Blu-ray and plasma TV look way much better than the cinema presentation. One just needs to check many film forums (the audience forums) to see how many members of the audience say/think that their home setup is much better than the cinema. As Frank says, a DVD projected on a big screen is not even close to the film look. I mean, let’s not cheat ourselves, the fact that film prints are very expensive and if not handled properly they get damaged, does not mean that they are the real thing and they are amazing. As a customer I see no point whatsoever in seeing a domestic format on the big screen. There is a new 70mm print of West Side Story, which I have been lucky enough to see, but many probably think, why bother, it is heavy, it is expensive to move around, it can get damaged, it needs a projectionist in the booth, let’s just show the DVD, no one will notice...

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-31-2011, 02:34 AM:

Bobby and Joe have it wrong on the clapping thing, at least here in NYC, people clap all the time at the end of a really good movie. They have been doing that since I was a kid. I remember people clapping at both the intermission and end of MY FAIR LADY. Yes, at premieres or when the director or someone from the film is present, as you say, sure they will clap, but I am talking about people just breaking out in appause during a regular showing. During STAR WARS NEW HOPE, the first time they went to "hyperspace" after that clever, long anticipation, the theatre went wild...every show.

The reason is just what Tom hit on -- seeing a movie in a theatre is a social experience and when an audience as a group are really impressed with the experience, they share that appreciation. It has nothing to do with expressing anything to the filmmakers, but all to do with the people around you -- you all acknowledge together that you like what you just saw. Nobody claps when they are home alone.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 07-31-2011, 07:34 AM:

Back in the 1980s, whenever they showed Singin' In the Rain on campus at Penn State, there would be applause. Gene Kelly was a PSU alum, and it seemed watching that movie was almost a holy sacrement there. I remember the thunderous applause after he finishes the title dance number, turning to my friend and both of us wondering if these people understand Kelly can't hear them.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-31-2011, 08:14 AM:

The Campus Theatre in Bryan College Station next to Texas A&M, a military-ish school, ran THE ALAMO every semester -- twice a year. My boss told me they ran it that way since it came out in the early 60s -- it became a tradition. The only time they missed was when it was pulled from circulation (those were the days when films could be rerelease many times over decades).

I can tell you, the three times I ran it, there was applause multiple times throughout the film....not at the end, of course.

The audience didn't care that John Wayne couldn't hear them.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-31-2011, 03:46 PM:

Pretty soon people will start being like Indian audiences who literally scream, blow air horns, throw confetti and rape each other the first time anyone walks on screen or a studio logo appears.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-31-2011, 04:49 PM:

Wow, you go to one of those theatres and you get an Indian movie AND a live porno show....in 3D without the glasses.