This is topic Digital: Scope inside Flat? in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=000669

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 10-14-2010, 01:56 PM:
 
A local theatre near me just went "all digital". I just went there for the first time since them installing the digital projectors.

This theatre has (or had) side masking curtains. What they seem to be set up to do is leave the screen masking as FLAT, and then if the movie is in scope, they just project the "letterboxed" scope image inside the flat-masked screen creating a "letterbox" image with the black bars (blank screen) at the tops and bottoms. This of course makes for a very small movie image compared to how they used to open the side curtains and using the whole scope screen with FILM. (You know, how the theatre was built for.) Plus I found the black bars (blank screen) annoying.

Is this the norm now with all digital installations? IMO, this is a huge step backwards.... I can get the same experience on my TV at home...so what's the point anymore?
 

---

Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 10-14-2010, 02:18 PM:
 
I for one have never seen this at a site, and no it is not to spec.
 

---

Posted by Matt Johnston (Member # 5457) on 10-14-2010, 03:06 PM:
 
Could be that someone just ran something wrong and didn't make the necessary changes for the show.
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 10-14-2010, 04:13 PM:
 
Eric, from what you have described, that installation is TOTALLY WRONG. Someone needs to be hung out to dry, either the owner/s or the people who installed it.
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 10-14-2010, 04:49 PM:
 
I'm glad to hear this is not the norm.

I wandered into another auditorium at the theatre, and found the same thing going on on that screen. It seems it's set up so if the movie is flat, it will fill the whole flat screen, but if the movie is in scope, no adjustments are made, and the scope image is just shown inside the flat screen area. Unfortunately there were no Flat movies showing where I could confirm that this is their plan... This is at a twin. Down the street there is a 6-plex run by the same company, and I wonder if they're set up like this also? The digital installations happened at both places at the same time.

I wonder if a letter to corporate would do anything? Otherwise, me thinks I'll skip going to this location anymore, if I know the movie showing is in scope.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-14-2010, 05:02 PM:
 
Sounds like they weren't shown how to build the playlist correctly, or the cues weren't set up right with the automation where the scope feature being played through a flat program, does the letter-box presentation instead of being a full screen presentation.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-14-2010, 05:50 PM:
 
sounds like their digital projector has a zoom lens, and they just zoomed down instead of moving their masking -- but it's digital -- so be happy
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 10-14-2010, 07:16 PM:
 
Go there and ask a projectionist about the zoom lens automation for these screens.

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 10-14-2010, 11:47 PM:
 
What Monte said is probably what happened-if you run scope content through the flat program on a zoom lens projector it gets letter-boxed.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-15-2010, 12:32 AM:
 
Like I have said before -- put a digital projector in a booth there they didn't know what they were doing with film, and they will muck up digital just as badly or WORSE. Why worse? Because one of the things that gave the owner a woody at the thought of installing that spanking new digital projector was that he thought he could get away with even FEWER qualified booth personnel than he was paying to run film. Before he thought he could get an minimum wage usher to go up and start the film; now he thinks digital won't even require THAT much attention.

And besides, letterbox is what everyone is used to seeing on their home TVs, right? I wouldn't be surprised if no one even realizes this presentation is digital done WRONG!
 

---

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 10-15-2010, 12:46 AM:
 
Without knowing site specifics and equipment used we can only speculate. The standard practice usually is not that one. BUT there can be reasons why one is forced to use this method.
One reason could be that the projectors have manual lenses. Manual lenses are more convenient for common width screens and one has to manualy fully zoom in and out for adjusting scope and flat content. Scope content uses less resolution on the chip which is really pathetic since most cinemas have grandeur scope screens.
Another reason could be that the lenses are at their very extreme when zooming all the way to accomodate the scope format and not completely filling it and thus due to these constrains they did not make it.
Of course the solution would have been in both cases, if is one of the above, to use an anamorphic but then you need to pay insane amount of money for a simple anamorphic but if you have to do it to get it right, and it is the right way since this is the only way which uses the full chip for the scope content and thus scope uses the maximum resolution, you have to do it.
Demetris
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-15-2010, 02:02 AM:
 
Remember, if the lens was left in "flat mode" and a scope movie was run, the movie wasn't simply letterboxed. It was letterboxed AND cropped!

This is the result of either one of three things.

*Cheap-ass-shitty-theater owners not willing to pay for an automation of some sort (or even a half-assed tech) to setup a system to handle the format change.

*Morons running the booth. It is VERY possible the theater was setup properly and what you saw was nothing more than one day a new person was running the booth that had no idea how to properly put on a scope digital show. For all you know this was all fixed by the next day.

*The auditorium had an issue with the masking system. A few weeks back we had a masking system jam due to someone (moron) sitting something up against the motor and rigging. As a result, we were unable to open the curtains. Since this was already on a huge screen, the managers comped everyone's tickets and told them we would be presenting the show letterboxed (and cropped) and we ran it that way for a show or two until we could get the masking guys in to fix it that night. The customers understood the issue, were thrilled they still got to see their movie and the theater cared enough to make it free for the sub-standard presentation. Sometimes shit just happens and you do what you can, but since you saw more than one auditorium running like this, I don't think this is what was happening. At least with digital, that IS an option to save a show (provided you were smart enough to install common height masking systems in the first place).
 

---

Posted by Kris Verhanneman (Member # 5562) on 10-15-2010, 03:00 AM:
 
Why do they still use those curtains for masking?
Is there any technical reason for?
 

---

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 10-15-2010, 11:10 AM:
 
Occasionally, my Sony projector will not switch from flat to scope the first time we run something new. I have to go into projector control and manually switch from flat to scope. From then on, it runs fine, for digital, that is...

I need to drink more. I'm starting to get used to this digital fiasco.


 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 10-15-2010, 12:46 PM:
 
For Eric, no, what you describe is not the norm for digital installations. Provided one has enough lamp power available, the current digital machines can handle both common-height (sides move in/out) or common-width (top (and sometimes bottom too) moves).

Many of the installs I'm doing are common-width where only the top mask moves. Yes, this results in the scope image being smaller than the flat image. Not the best, but many theaters do this nonetheless.

And yes, so far I've seen at least one install where a theater previously ran film with common-heights, but decided to go common-width for digital. I imagine cost concerns drive these decisions.

For me, common-height is the way to go whenever possible. I'm not a fan of the "wall-to-wall image for all formats" screen size philosophy. But then again, what do I know?
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-15-2010, 01:06 PM:
 

quote: Bruce McGee

---

my Sony projector will not switch from flat to scope the first time we run something new.

---

Welcome to the "World of SONY Digital" - the fun's just beginning.
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 10-15-2010, 05:39 PM:
 
The person who "built" the show might have set it up as a flat show on the server, either because they weren't paying attention, or perhaps because no one showed them how. This would cause the automation not to swing the anamorphic lens into place, open up the mask, or select the correct processing option in the projector.

It would be strange for any professional installer to set up an auditorium like this intentionally.
 

---

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 10-15-2010, 06:51 PM:
 
I built the show. I build all the shows. It's built correctly. That was the first thing I checked.

It's a weird thing. It never does it again after the first trial run.
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 10-15-2010, 07:05 PM:
 
Oh sorry, i thought your previous post was anecdotal about your experience, did not know you were replying directly about this specific incident.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-15-2010, 08:15 PM:
 
It's unlikely that Bruce's post was referring specifically to what Eric saw considering that their locations given are in opposite ends of the country (and Eric referred to a theater near him)...
 

---

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 10-16-2010, 01:01 PM:
 
No offence taken at all.

It doesent start in the wrong format every time, either.

But, IF it does, we know how to resolve the problem fast. The folks in the auditorium only see a moment of black, and then they see the incredible image that only Sony can provide!

I'm surprised that we dont have Trinitron printed somewhere on the screen now!
 

---

Posted by Kyle Butler (Member # 5601) on 10-17-2010, 04:01 AM:
 
Well, if it was a sony, it could have just fucked up by itself like ours does

It generaly starts in the wrong format, and shows scope films in the flat viewing area.
If the projectionist isn't paying attention, they obviously wouldn't be there to switch the format.

Or as people have said, the play-list could have just been built incorrectly.

I sure hope it was one of the two.
Id hate to see theaters "upgrading" their presentation with digital like this.
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 10-19-2010, 11:52 PM:
 
Well I returned to the offending theatre tonight and saw a "flat" movie. The image filled the entire "flat" screen. Wandered into the other auditorium and yep, a scope image inside the flat screen still, with black bars (blank screen) at the top and bottom.

Looked inside the booth through the port window and the projector said "Real D XL" on it. What was even more strange is the projector booth has (had) an auditorium exit (to the outside) next to it, and they walled off the exit with a cheap plywood door and lock, making the projection booth area larger, but blocking the exit. And they didn't even bother to paint the plywood or anything. I shoulda took a picture. I wonder what's behind the plywood door...? (The projectionists used to enter the original booth though a door next to the exit, which is in the area that's now walled off by the plywood.)

I've probably given enough info away that folks can probably figure out which theatre it is I'm talking about.
 

---

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 10-20-2010, 06:35 AM:
 
Maybe I misunderstood, but they blocked a fire exit?
That is an unwise move in a theater. Around here the fire department would shut the place down instantly and whoever did it would be spending time in court if not jail.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-20-2010, 11:25 AM:
 
This place sounds like they have a lot more to worry about than a letterboxed scope picture. Sounds likt they are the kind of operation that gives theatres a bad name.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-20-2010, 12:56 PM:
 

quote: Eric Hooper

---

a scope image inside the flat screen still, with black bars (blank screen) at the top and bottom.

---

I bet the image was zoomed down then to put that scope feature in a 1.85:1 screen.

I've seen screens like that before were the cinema had common width and height screens where they "band-aid" the scope presentation so they can have true scope ratio presentations.
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 10-20-2010, 01:20 PM:
 
Yes, the fire exit is blocked and "walled over" with the plywood door. You can see the exit sign illuminated above the plywood door. There is another fire exit on the other side of the booth...but still.

It seems to me the projectors are set up for a theatre with top and bottom masking. When flat, the image is tall and fits the flat screen with the masking open, and when scope, the masking at the top and bottom is supposed to move in and crop the scope image in the center. However, this theatre has SIDE masking.

Monte though might have the answer for why they are doing what they're doing. Even though they have side masking curtains, when they did show scope films and opened them up sideways, it still wasn't as wide as some other screens may be. But still...what they are presenting now looks absolutely terrible. It's an insult to the industry. Other folks on this forum have commented that the public thinks theatres are just showing DVD's anyway. This type of set up only feeds that, when they see a letterboxed scope movie, just like at home.

I created a picture of the theatre to show what the presentation looks like using a photo from Cinematour, and inserting what the scope images now looks like on their now permanetly flat-masked "upgraded digital screens"...but the film-tech server won't upload it. I guess it's protecting the guilty.
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-20-2010, 02:00 PM:
 
Welcome to the wonderful world of D-Crapema, where the incompetent can more easily display their stupidity to the movie-going public.

Most format errors on film can be corrected easily by even the most dense booth monkey....how hard is it to change a lens and aperture? I can do it on single lens machines in under 15 seconds, less with a turret.

How long does it take to correct a format error in DLP? and does it force you to restart the show from the beginning or can it be done "on the fly"? (I think we know the answer for Sony based on the posts above.)

Eric, if your pictures are the right size you simply need to keep trying with your uploads, I have noticed that the FT server has been touchy lately with uploads.
 

---

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 10-20-2010, 03:40 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

Since this was already on a huge screen, the managers comped everyone's tickets and told them we would be presenting the show letterboxed (and cropped)

---

quote: Eric Hooper

---

Yes, the fire exit is blocked and "walled over" with the plywood door. You can see the exit sign illuminated above the plywood door. There is another fire exit on the other side of the booth...but still.

---

quote: Eric Hooper

---

Even though they have side masking curtains, when they did show scope films and opened them up sideways, it still wasn't as wide as some other screens may be

---

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr

---

Most format errors on film can be corrected easily by even the most dense booth monkey....how hard is it to change a lens and aperture? I can do it on single lens machines in under 15 seconds, less with a turret.

How long does it take to correct a format error in DLP? and does it force you to restart the show from the beginning or can it be done "on the fly"?

---

quote: Elise Brandt

---

I have sat through a film where the projectionist forgot to do the switch to a scope movie after flat trailers, the picture was off (plus not in focus) the whole way through

---

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr

---

does it force you to restart the show from the beginning or can it be done "on the fly"?

---

quote: Eric Hooper

---

Wandered into the other auditorium and yep, a scope image inside the flat screen still, with black bars (blank screen) at the top and bottom.

---

quote: Elise Brandt

---

Come on. I have sat through a film where the projectionist forgot to do the switch to a scope movie after flat trailers, the picture was off (plus not in focus) the whole way through. It's perfectly possible to screw it up on film, if not easier since it can't be automatic.

That error in D-cinema can be corrected by pushing a single button, on the fly, no need to restart anything. And it takes the whole five seconds to work.

I get what you're saying but it irritates me to no end that you would deliberately, again and again, do the basically same post.

---

First off, I agree with Monte..why did you sit through a film with such obvious problems? Did you bother to go out to talk to someone to try to get it fixed?

My point is, if you actually read the post rather than just skimming over it, is that MOST film problems CAN be corrected easily. Perhaps SOME D-Cinema errors are the same, but so far MOST of the ones I have heard about require a complete projector restart or server boot, both of which take considerable time. (More time that it takes to swap a lens and aperture anyways.)

I would love to see you go back and paste in quotes of examples of how I am "deliberately, again and again, do(ing) the basically same post."

The thing is if you would open your eyes and mind you would realize that the situation is the same regardless of film or DLP...BOTH have their sets of problems and BOTH will have them happening over and over again.

The main point is that D-Crapema IS NOT the cure-all, low-cost, foolproof solution to film that it was passed off as.

Finally, if my posts irritate you so much, quit reading them..especially if they are in these types of threads.

 

---

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 10-22-2010, 01:58 PM:
 
Eric, is the theater I'm thinking you're talking about the same twin that had the parking lot marquee blow down in a storm one or two winters ago and never bothered to replace it? If so, I have never seen a single presentation there that was without some kind of technical problem. I'd be hard pressed to believe it will continue to operate in the distant future.

Oh as for your photo, you have to ensure the width of the photo is 550 pixels or less, and the image smaller than 200kb in file size.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-22-2010, 02:17 PM:
 

quote: Eric Hooper

---

A local theatre near me just went "all digital". I just went there for the first time since them installing the digital projectors.

This theatre has (or had) side masking curtains. What they seem to be set up to do is leave the screen masking as FLAT, and then if the movie is in scope, they just project the "letterboxed" scope image inside the flat-masked screen creating a "letterbox" image with the black bars (blank screen) at the tops and bottoms. This of course makes for a very small movie image compared to how they used to open the side curtains and using the whole scope screen with FILM. (You know, how the theatre was built for.) Plus I found the black bars (blank screen) annoying.

Is this the norm now with all digital installations? IMO, this is a huge step backwards.... I can get the same experience on my TV at home...so what's the point anymore?

---

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr

---

How long does it take to correct a format error in DLP? and does it force you to restart the show from the beginning or can it be done "on the fly"? (I think we know the answer for Sony based on the posts above.)

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

...
I noticed this when I watched "Hereafter" the other day in state-of-the-art ETX.

---

quote: Tom Mundell

---

Whoa, wait, the AMC ETX rooms don't have masking??? I would consider that a huge negative! Seriously, they charge a higher price for these rooms but can't even be bothered to install masking?

---

quote: Sean Weitzel

---

Eric, is the theater I'm thinking you're talking about the same twin that had the parking lot marquee blow down in a storm one or two winters ago and never bothered to replace it?

---

quote: Tom Mundell

---

What's meant by floating screen?

---

quote:

---

(..and you didn't bounce out of your seat, head to the lobby and raise hell with the management or similar that the movie wasn't right ?? ... REALLY ...!)

---

Yes, I did. This was mainly because I was about 16 years old at the time and went to the competitor. Yes, shame on me. I sat through it debating to myself whether I should raise hell or sit tight and wonder at the thing, whether to trust myself to know what's off or take the embarrasment of a kid my age telling me "it's just fine, just go back and shut up, that's what it's supposed to look like". Only now do I know it's not supposed to look like that...

Plus it really was the closest competition my theater has, so... selfish of me, I assume that the people who sat through the movie with me and didn't raise hell and knew that something was off, would end up coming to us the next time.

I know, shame on me.

And, Tony. Shame on me for not knowing in advance what you mean, yes. All I get irritated at is that in seemingly each thread where some D-cinema issue is discussed, there at some point will be a post from you saying "see, you should've stuck to film, D-crapema sucks". You might mean that both systems have their upsides and downsides, but I couldn't see it in the post, or in any of them. I haven't been here long enough to know you, or what your position on this transition is, I only have seen the "D-crapema" posts, which obviously has given me the wrong impression of what you think about the D-cinema and us who have taken it home and married it, so to say.

Thank you for clearing that up. Now I won't be annoyed anymore
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-29-2010, 08:20 PM:
 
No problem Elise.

I am very much of the "old school" so I can admit a fair bit of my position on DLP is based on some bias, but in reality I have several issues with DPL as an exhibition medium:

• Excessive cost as compared to a comparable screen sized-film setup;
• Added complexity in electronics and reliance on computer technology which is prone to freeze-ups and crashes;
• Increased lamping costs vs. film (lamp life and cost);
• Planned obselesence (first 2k, now 4k, soon 8 or 16k);
• Visible image artifacts which to me are more distracting than film issues;
• Little or no cost benefits to the exhibitor;
• And what I said in my last post about how this was forced upon exhibs as a foolproof, cure-all to film's "issues".

Digital has its rightful place in cinema, in both production and post-production, as it can, in the right hands, (like that'll ever happen in H'wood) produce a better, more creative end product.
Film has world-wide compatibility, a huge existing and pretty refined infrastructure, and most importantly PROVEN archival ability. DLP has none of that and especially for the last bit, never will.

Do you think that, unlike now, someone 100+ years from now will be able to successfully read or playback DLP media? Yet even a film over 200 years old will be able to be reproduced/projected without any major hassles.

Even in the television world there are obsolete media formats that we are currently hard pressed to reproduce as the equipment for those media are no longer made. And TV is a lot younger than film.

I'll end this with a direct quote from a patron exiting an early DLP system screening:

"I can't believe I paid good money to watch a f'ing giant screen TV."
 

---

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 10-30-2010, 08:56 AM:
 
Glad we're on good terms, Tony. Thank you.

I might show my age here in this issue. I am -after all- only thirty, so just a kid when compared to the guys who have been in the industry for longer than I have drawn breath, and some even twice that! So... I say yes, I do think film is inevitably gone in a few years and DLP is the thing that will kick in for the next few decades, and after the next big thing comes after that I'll be the one (hopefully) swearing that the new method will never be as good or as reliable.

Just today I was showing our remaining (and partly retired) film projectors to a group of 11-year old kids (birthday party at the movies they had a blast) and they wondered at the seniority of the equipment "wow man, this shit is really really old, how long has it been since it was used?" "um, well, there's the exact same machine twirling away just beyond that door, remember we just saw it... this here was put off to pasture like a year ago... and yes it still works!" unreal moment there. These are kids only twenty years younger than me and they already see film as gone, gone, long gone. Right, these are kids who have no clue of the industry as a whole but still, it's the attitude change that I'm after. It's all digital now, even for them. And if you ask them, it always has been

I'll embrace anything that won't cripple the business financially (so far the Finnish chamber of film has been great enough with helping with the costs) and will offer the customers a better experience (as digital so far has done -more than we ever hoped) and will allow us to bring in more money. We are in it both for the love and the money, after all.

I was not just a bit touched by the enthusiasm those kids had. Amazing... I got a better look throught their eyes at the things that are so commonplace for me, I am so glad and grateful I get to be in this profession. Seriously. And man, great opening for SAW VII last night too.

I won't close to a quote (but will keep yours in mind) but a bit of a sentimental (hormonal? Damn...) note. I. Love. My. Job. I love the digital projectors we have, mainly because I understand them. I have a relationship of mutual respect with them that I could never achieve with the film equipment. There was awe and respect, but never the co-operation that I have with this stuff. It's embarrassingly like when someone insults them, they insult my brother. Not rational, but I think it might be allowed.

... and it's time to go back to the reports before I get smirked at -too late thanks. And have a good night!
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-30-2010, 09:02 AM:
 
Brad,

How is it letter-boxed AND cropped? What part of the image is cropped? Not doubting you, I just don't understand exactly what you mean by that.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-30-2010, 11:23 AM:
 
If you have a full container DCP and you show scope, you are cropping off the top and bottom of the "full container" image to create a 2.39 scope image. (In a scope DCP, this top and bottom area is black.)

If you have a full container DCP and you show flat, you are cropping off the sides of the "full container" image to create a 1.85 flat image. (In a flat DCP, the sides are black.)

If you run a scope movie in flat, you then see the black bars AND you still crop off the sides. In other words, flat doesn't use the entire width of the chip and scope doesn't use the entire height.

Sadly there are (crappy) people (that don't deserve their jobs) out there in the industry who take the attitude that "it doesn't matter" and instead sell systems that have essentially no capability to present a movie properly. They don't have alternate lenses or zooming capability for format changes, some of them leave it in "flat" all the time and don't even bother making any sort of automation connection, etc. I've even been into a show theater where they clearly didn't even bother to calibrate colors! To these kinds of lazy farts that only want a quick buck, cropping off part of the picture is fine. The industry is suffering enough with people's home theaters competing against your presentation. Don't support these people. Do it right or get out of the business.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-01-2010, 10:27 AM:
 
Wow. That's incredible that some people don't see the problem with that. But then I guess some chains have been cutting the sides off of the scope image for decades so why change now? Now they've added the letter-box feature.



Thanks for the explanation on that.
 

---

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 11-04-2010, 03:39 PM:
 
That's interesting, I was just assuming that flat was the full image area, and scope the full width but less height. (like on anamorphic dvd's)

So what is the aspect ratio of the full container image? (what would the image be if they used the full height and width of the chip?)
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-05-2010, 10:02 AM:
 
Why 1.896:1, of course.
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-11-2010, 11:36 AM:
 
Scope is 858 x 2048 pixels, flat is ?? I'm drawing a blank here.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-11-2010, 04:37 PM:
 
1998 x 1080

But since the imager is 2048 x 1080...you get 1.896 (rounded to three decimal places).
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-11-2010, 07:36 PM:
 

quote: Elise Brandt

---

wow man, this shit is really really old, how long has it been since it was used?" "um, well, there's the exact same machine twirling away just beyond that door, remember we just saw it... this here was put off to pasture like a year ago... and yes it still works!" unreal moment there. These are kids only twenty years younger than me and they already see film as gone, gone, long gone. Right, these are kids who have no clue of the industry as a whole but still, it's the attitude change that I'm after. It's all digital now, even for them. And if you ask them, it always has been

---

Elise, it's "gone" for them only because no one has taken the time to educate them that our motion picture history is film not digital; our cinema heritage was born of motion picture film as in 35mm and 70mm and shown in that medium.

They only know digital because that's what they know at home and all the media talks about. Until someone showed me, I had no idea at all how that light that came out of that small hole in the back wall of the theatre stretched itself out and wound up as a huge image in front of me. Someone had to teach me how that happened. And I am glad someone did.

What a shame that you missed the opportunity to explain to these kids that motion picture film is at the very core of our film heritage and that all the greatest films of all time were captured on motion picture film and shown on motion picture film projectors and that had nothing at all to do with digital. Digital has a long way to go before it becomes the sole medium upon which new, great cinematic works are capture and reproduced. Until then, the coming generations should learn and understand their past and how those 100 AFI's Greatest Films of all Time came into being -- all on film....all projected and ENJOYED by hundreds of thousands of millions on film, and without a single digital camera or projector anywhere to be found.

To let those kids think that film, the greatest medium of all time is "gone gone gone" or is somehow insignificent, and even worse, treat it as if it never was -- well that was a missed opportunity. When they pointed to that "old" projector, you could have pointed out that some of the greatest films ever made and ever seen were projected through that very piece of old looking equipment. That new digital projector? More than likely, it hasn't projected a single great film yet. And maybe not for quite awhile given the likes of SAWn running through it currently.

While you say you embrace anything that won't cripple the business financially, well, let me point out that film isn't crippling the business; isn't, wasn't and won't.

And although I understand how you may love your digital projectors, I would be willing to bet that if you spent some time working with your film projectors, running film, after you get a few weeks under your belt running shows, I'll bet you would build a relationship with that equipment every bit as strong as what you seem to have to your digital hardware. In fact, where you say you have become married to your digital, I think if you don't actually become and outright polygamist and take a Century or Simplex on as a second spouse, then certainly you'll find it as a lover on the side, irresistable! And like all such situations, you probably will find the illicit lover on the side the more exciting of the two!

You may even come to see that digital box for it's true cold and unaffectionate nature; your film projector, however, is passionate, hands-on, lots of physical contact -- lots of give and take, generating a true bonding of the physical and spiritual.

You handle it with care and it rewards you with a presentation that is deeply satisfying to your spirit. Mistreat it, and you will know about it. The digital unit couldn't care less about you -- in fact, it doesn't need or want you to even touch it. You build the show remotely, you tell it when to start...remotely, it performs as told. It starts, but you don't feel its vibrations, you don't hear its response and not to disillusion you about it, that digital box is oblivous to you -- it couldn't give a crap about you if you stood on your head next to it. Quite frankly, it doesn't care if you are even in the room when it starts the show.

Unlike a film projector, you don't need to know its idiosyncracies, you don't have to know what kind of oil it likes to be fed. You don't have to carefully clean its parts. You can't listen and learn the sounds it makes, or know when it is purring or when it is struggling just by this sounds. With a film projector you know right away if it needs you to look after some immenent trouble that only you will recognize and can prevent because you understand its the sound of its voice; it can talk to you.

Nope, there is a bonding between man and machine that happens only with a 35mm or 70mm (even a 16mm) projector that can't possibly happen with that inert, unmoving, completely unaffectionate black digital box which could care less if it is you operating the show or any random stranger off the street.

Definately have respect for the digital technology, Elise, but believe me, the satisfaction that you will have if you get to know and work with a film projector will be much more rewarding and personal. And yes, it may be that years from now film will be a technology that is no longer used commercially (still a big question mark, that), but that is still no reason to dismiss the history and the greatness of cinema ON FILM. After all, what has the mantra of the digevangelists been all this time -- that digital CAN LOOK AS GOOD AS FILM. And they are still trying. You never hear them say, digital can look as good as video, which, after all, it is.

Teach your children well.
 

---

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 11-12-2010, 12:38 AM:
 
Worry not, Frank. I do teach my kids well, as my father taught me. He taught me to love the 35-machines since I was six years old. I may have not known what kind of oil they liked, or even who made them but I developed the kind connection with them that you're so worried I don't have.

But I do prefer the new ones, even though I've loved the old ones for twenty-five years and worked with them for twelve. I loved the and still do. As my kids will the older one loves to pretend he's running film on the machine that sits in the lobby, the one those kids looked at.

What I was marvelling at is that kids today don't know, exactly as you said, because they haven't been taught. On the other hand, neither does anyone else! As you also said, what the audience knows is that the light comes out of the hole and makes a picture. Very few have any idea what happens back there... we do like to show them, even more since there are two very different technologies to show!

I love the digital more because it speaks to me in the way film doesn't. Film is like fire to me, it does what I need it to do when I treat it right, but I am forever nervous with it. With digital, I am mych more comfortable for some reason. I'm of a different generation and I grew up learning computers and whatnot, while the generation of my father (and you, I would dare say) had to learn that from scratch. It's like my English, I knew it before it was taught to me at school because I listened to it (in the movies) every single day, for hours a day, for years. Just like that with digital, the concepts are familiar to me like they are familiar to the kids today. Film? For me that was like English to my father who started learning as an adult and never quite could do it. I developed the love for the film projectors, sure, but only started learning as an adult, and never quite got there. Once the digital got here, the basis of operation was already familiar to me, and the software part very easy to get. Instant familiarity. Plus by pushing a wrong button you can't make anything break

I will probably talk about hard drives and flash drives the way you talk about oils and parts, lovingly. It's so odd, isn't it?

The history of cinema should absolutely be one thing for the kids to learn, and I will definitely be the one to tell anyone what little I know. But in this professional discussion I do take the side of the new technology and prefer it (yea, five years ago I did say we would never go digital, that would kill the magic and so, kill us... ok, I was wrong. I have been and will be wrong in many, many other things too )

quote: Frank Angel

---

While you say you embrace anything that won't cripple the business financially, well, let me point out that film isn't crippling the business; isn't, wasn't and won't.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

Unlike a film projector, you don't need to know its idiosyncracies, you don't have to know what kind of oil it likes to be fed. You don't have to carefully clean its parts. You can't listen and learn the sounds it makes, or know when it is purring or when it is struggling just by this sounds.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

After all, what has the mantra of the digevangelists been all this time -- that digital CAN LOOK AS GOOD AS FILM. And they are still trying.

---

Hmmh, I never heard that. As good as? The way I hear it, it looks Better than film can look, it does. Film looks great, sure, but when you compare it to the digital picture... well, you can't! Film picture might live more, and so be more personal every time, but digital picture is -well- perfect! Sharp, steady image that you can control to a pixel!

You write beautifully, by the way Frank. I just feel about the new machines as you do about the old, that's the only difference. And let's face it; it's personal anyway. Anyone could operate either of those systems and the machines wouldn't care one bit. They're machines. It's what we are used to and know that makes us respond to them, and we have been living in different times and environments.

Again, it's like my father and me. You ask him anything about the old projectors, he'll tell you. Ask me? I'll call him and tell you. Ask about the digital, he just might call me and ask

But the kids? I'm afraid they won't have the opportunity to work with film as I have done. I do think it'll be long gone before they get to that age. But rest assured, they Will Know about it, and they will respect the history of it. Will they love it? I have no idea. But just like me, they will have grown up around the stuff and grown to see it as a family member.
 

---

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 11-12-2010, 06:19 AM:
 

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

It was the extreme and cheapest way for a cinema builder to buy and hang a screen since no complicated screen frame had to be built and not having to worry on masking motors (fear that if they begin to have problems, that's money out of their Hawai'i vacation monies that has to be spent).

---

Unfortunately I know of one theatre operator who remodeled a 10 plex down on cape cod and did not even install any screen of any kind in the smallest houses. They painted the concrete wall white and bolted one pa speaker to the wall under the screen for center/surround.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-12-2010, 03:16 PM:
 

quote: Sean McKinnon

---

They painted the concrete wall white and bolted one pa speaker to the wall under the screen for center/surround.

---

...home theatre on the grand scale then ... sad.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-12-2010, 07:08 PM:
 
Even for a home theater that would suck.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-12-2010, 10:03 PM:
 
Its like taking a trip back through time to the Princess II!
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-13-2010, 03:44 AM:
 
The floating screen concept was flawed by its very design. Whereas the whole purpose of masking is, yes, to give a definitive, clean edge to the image, but it also serves to focus the eye on ONLY the image and to obscure the surroundings. It enhances the viewers' focus on the image.

The floating screen does just the opposite - it tries to INCLUDE the environment by letting the surroundings blend into the image. The absurdity of this was demonstrated by the design of either one or both (can't recall) of NYC's once famous "duet" East Side theatres -- the Coronet and Baronet. Whereas if the image were only one size, say scope, the floating screen would create its own hard edge because the perimeter of the image -- the blur edge -- would fall behind the screen on the back wall, much like Drive-In theatre screens. Ah, but what to do about those pesky flat ratios?

For that, evidently the designer simply couldn't live with the idea that the picture in flat would have two ugly blur edges at the left and right sides. His solution was one of the most ingenious I've ever seen and one I have never seen before or since.

There were two fairly inconspicuous rectangle cutouts, about 6in width x 3in depth in the ceiling just above the screen. They were located at the 1.66 and 1.85 positions. Of course this design eschewed the use of masking let alone any screen curtain, so before the film, the front white wall/screen was flooded with moving colored lights. As the lights faded on the scope width screen, to my amazement the first time I saw this, out of the two slots at the top of the screen dropped two lengths of black velour down the sides of the screen to its bottom, effectively forming side masking to hide the image blur edge. So they got the floating screen design but come a flat picture (either 1.85 or 1.66 -- this venue ran lots of foreign and independent films), there was a solution to give it a traditional hard, sharp edge. So you had this scope expanse of screen, a 1.85 or 1.66 image and two black 6 inch strips of masking on either side of the picture. Truly bizarre.

I recall having a strange combination feeling of very distinct dislike for the floating screen design but I admit I was duly impressed with the ingenuity of how to they masked the flat images.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-13-2010, 12:20 PM:
 
Elise...you are my subject for this discussion. Fear not, however. This is to be more of a discussion of understanding than preference.

quote: Elise Brandt

---

I love the digital more because it speaks to me in the way film doesn't. Film is like fire to me, it does what I need it to do when I treat it right, but I am forever nervous with it. With digital, I am mych more comfortable for some reason. I'm of a different generation and I grew up learning computers and whatnot, while the generation of my father (and you, I would dare say) had to learn that from scratch.

---

quote:

---

Hmmh, I never heard that. As good as? The way I hear it, it looks Better than film can look, it does. Film looks great, sure, but when you compare it to the digital picture... well, you can't! Film picture might live more, and so be more personal every time, but digital picture is -well- perfect! Sharp, steady image that you can control to a pixel!

---

quote: Elise Brandt

---

Ask about the digital, he just might call me and ask

---

Okay...so just what do you really know about them? And I mean aside how to start/stop shows and maybe change a lamp. What do you know when something doesn't go right? As you say, anyone can operate properly operating equipment. One thing I've noted is that as things are getting more automated (and monitored), there is even less training at the theatre level to deal with problems.

And when problems develop, depending on the type of failure, a partial re-installation may be required. For instance, I had a projector where the the PCM board went down...projector would no longer boot up...this board holds all of the settings that are specific to this theatre (what each channel/title/macro does, what they call from the TI boards...etc). I did not install this system so I didn't have any "save" file (do you have save files for your various apparatus?)...I had to recreate all of that from scratch...and before the first show (and I was able to do with with nothing more than my laptop...no meters came out and I had it all color calibrated too). Also, the theatre had to go down and wait for the module to arrive since, at this time, very few spares, if any are stored in theatres. I can't remember the last time I had a film theatre go down for 24-hours. Very few things will take a film theatre down like that...blown diode? I and most techs and many theatres keep them. Seized intermittent? Most any reputable service company has either loaner, RX or the parts to get them going...and some theatres keep a spare on site...because even that, the most expensive part, costs less than most ANY part in a Digital system...aside from a fan.

So again, I'm trying to get an understanding of your comfortableness with digital over film...particularly in the business sense. I can dig that working with computers is a common thing and DCinema resemble that model more than film but most of what makes computers work is mysterious to MOST people. Sure there are basic concepts that are understood...but not to the extent that one really understands why it isn't working...it just takes one corrupt thing to bring it down with little to no clue as to what caused its demise. With DCinema...you also have security issues in there to add yet more things to cause it to not work. More often than not, I see people calling "the person(s) that know" to figure out what is going wrong. With film projectors and projection systems...those were often diagnosed in-house or at the service company. I can't remember the last time I called a manufacturer to diagnose a film-equipment problem.

So to sum up...why are your more comfortable with the DCinema equipment over the film equipment? What is your real understanding of the DCinema equipment beyond running the show?

I'm just curious.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 11-14-2010, 07:49 AM:
 
Oh, I am no wiz. And if there were no picture on the screen but just sound, I would definitely (after the obvious culprits had been ruled out) go for the Microsoft cure-it-all of reboot. Simply because it often does solve the problem.

I look at problem-fixing on the run like I look at geography. It's not that you can recite every capital city in the world (although when someone can you envy them a bit) but you know where your maps are. And where my knowledge and experience ends, I do find my phone fast enough. And after that, I come here asking for advice.

A bit of something that might make you understand why the great resolution of film doesn't seem that obvious to me: our screens are, in your scale, very very small. Our biggest auditorium is only 136 seats, the screen maybe 30 feet wide, (scope) so 2K versus 4K would mean nothing. So what we see with film versus digital is hugely in the favour of digital, because of the crispness. The audience (ro me) doesn't see any lack of detail (never even thought there was such a thing!) but simply, the perfectly sharp picture. There is one thing; subtitles. With film, getting both the picture and subtitles equally sharp is damn near impossible. And we have subtitles in the vast majority of movies we show, so it is a big thing. That whole problem goes away with digital. Again, a thing that might not mean much in your end but makes a huge difference with us.

I am obviously clashing with opinions here because there are many industry people for whom the scales go the other way not just for unexplained preference but because film works better in their setting. Sure I can believe that. But don't tell me that film has life and digital is cold and lacks personality machines are machines as I said, and we each respond to them by what we already like, what feels the most natural for us.

There is the issua of "what if a new part is needed?" Well, again, I do have the advantage of a small country, and knowing that spare parts are, if really needed, only a few hours away. And during the time we've been running digital, no such urgent issues have come up. The only cancelled shows were because of human error that could easily have been avoided if there weren't humans working here not due to someone not knowing their job, but just a momentary lapse that happens to everyone at some point.

As to my own knowhow, it's difficult to answer. I can deal with most of anything as long as the hardware is intact. I think that my affection for this technology can be summed up in the thought that were something to go wrong, I can explore. I can't break anything or do irrepairable damage by searching, trying out solutions, pushing a few buttons and tapping the touch-screen. I can build a macro if one is needed, from scratch or with a base to start and tell if there's anything wrong with the existing one. There's the whole web out there to suggest solutions (I found this forum by googling for something or other that I needed to fix, what the heck it was I can't remember), manufacturers' sites, troubleshooting sheets... somehow it seems that running film is an arcane art that you can only learn by doing (no official training here, you literally cannot get training other than get yourself hired in a theater) but when it's digital, there's a whole world of knowledge out there that you can turn to. I love the openness. Obviously there are film experts here but so far it's the only place I have found this, and I haven't been here nearly long enough.

I think you can tell my level of expertise here by knowing that I easily try the reboot, and I ask for advice very readily. I don't believe in cramming the capital cities in my head week after week, but rather getting my phone to update the maps automatically. In my own opinion, I don't know much but I'm still regularly amazed at what I do know.

I am no mechanic, and no engineer and I do have the luxury of calling for one. I love that I know how to fix problems but I do know there is a wealth of problems that I don't know anything about, mainly because I've never had to encounter them.

Hopefully you and everyone who reads of my love affair with the new projectors will know that I am in no way saying this should be the case for everyone. It's a subjective truth that I share born of the everyday work that I do in this theater, what works for us and what works for me. But I do feel a bit of a sting when someone tells me that if I just get a little experience "under my belt" I will change my mind... kinda reminds me of a guy I used to date fifteen years ago that liked different kind of music than I did and told me I'd "grow out of it", meaning growing out of my personal preference. Needless to say, I didn't. Personal preferences do evolve, mine have gone from film to digital for my own reasons in the past two-three years and who knows what they will be in the next 15.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-14-2010, 01:47 PM:
 

quote: Elise Brandt

---

A bit of something that might make you understand why the great resolution of film doesn't seem that obvious to me: our screens are, in your scale, very very small. Our biggest auditorium is only 136 seats, the screen maybe 30 feet wide, (scope) so 2K versus 4K would mean nothing. So what we see with film versus digital is hugely in the favour of digital, because of the crispness. The audience (ro me) doesn't see any lack of detail (never even thought there was such a thing!) but simply, the perfectly sharp picture. There is one thing; subtitles. With film, getting both the picture and subtitles equally sharp is damn near impossible. And we have subtitles in the vast majority of movies we show, so it is a big thing. That whole problem goes away with digital. Again, a thing that might not mean much in your end but makes a huge difference with us.

---

quote: Elise Brandt

---

2K versus 4K would mean nothing

---

quote: Elise Brandt

---

A bit of something that might make you understand why the great resolution of film doesn't seem that obvious to me: our screens are, in your scale, very very small. Our biggest auditorium is only 136 seats, the screen maybe 30 feet wide, (scope) so 2K versus 4K would mean nothing.

---

quote:

---

The audience (ro [sic] me) doesn't see any lack of detail (never even thought there was such a thing!) but simply, the perfectly sharp picture

---

quote: Elise Brandt

---

With film, getting both the picture and subtitles equally sharp is damn near impossible.

---

quote: Elise Brandt

---

But don't tell me that film has life and digital is cold and lacks personality

---

quote: Elise Brandt

---

I do have the advantage of a small country, and knowing that spare parts are, if really needed, only a few hours away.

---

quote:

---

I ask for advice very readily. I don't believe in cramming the capital cities in my head week after wee

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

I do encourage you to keep your mind open and try to see a 4K presentation somewhere when they come out (I mean with 4K source material) or even 70mm...it might open your eyes to what you have been missing and never knew about. It won't make your 2K presentations any worse but it might set your "desirable" bar higher. If you want to see something truly amazing, try to see a ShowScan movie...70mm at 60fps...it is 3D without the glasses. And then ask yourself if the current 2K DCinema equipment can deliver that image...if it can't it isn't "perfect," yet (and neither is ShowScan but it is a LOT closer...even if you saw it on a small 20-foot wide screen).

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Because of her stance that the image (2K) was "perfect" as it is. 70mm, at this point in time, is the closest we have to perfection, of any format, digital or film (for theatrical presentation). When one sets goals, it is best to see what the desirable point is, even if one can't attain it (easily or otherwise). It would end the absurd statement that a 2K digital picture is in any way "perfect." 2K is a very lossy representation of most any live source. 70mm is also lossy but it is far less so. 70mm also removes MOST negative comments about film presentations (image movement and uniform focus). Yes, dirt and abrasions can and do plague 70mm film but they are magnified much less. And it is a simple fact that film CAN be run blemish free for an almost limitless number of runs. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with film.

---

From what I am reading, she is claiming that digital is the perfect way to go and see a movie right now and I agree with her. No worries of dirt, scratches, focus issues, etc. Also, I have yet to see 35mm be crisp and clear as digital.

Her comments having nothiing to do with 70mm. Her comments are based on 35mm vs 2k/4k

35mm and 2k are comparable are they not? I mean both formats are usually using 2k DI right?
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 11-14-2010, 05:45 PM:
 
Tom ,Steve is speaking of the bigger picture,film vs digital!
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-14-2010, 05:49 PM:
 

quote:

---

om ,Steve is speaking of the bigger picture,film vs digital! [Roll Eyes]

---

Thats fine, but Elise is simply talking about 35mm vs Digital.


 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 11-14-2010, 06:43 PM:
 

quote: Tom Petrov

---

35mm and 2k are comparable are they not? I mean both formats are usually using 2k DI right?

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

From what I am reading, she is claiming that digital is the perfect way to go and see a movie right now and I agree with her.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Also, I have yet to see 35mm be crisp and clear as digital.

---

quote:

---

Her comments having nothiing [SIC] to do with 70mm. Her comments are based on 35mm vs 2k/4k

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

35mm and 2k are comparable are they not?

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Thats fine, but Elise is simply talking about 35mm vs Digital.

---

She was actually talking about her comfort level of film versus digital as well as her perception of digital's image quality. The gauge was not part of it. I brought up 70mm, not to sway the discussion there...though it seems to bother you when 70mm is held in high regard...as a means of showing how the current 2K image is FAR, FAR from perfection...note too...I also used 4K digital...something like 35mm film that is roughly 4-times greater in resolving power. Her only statement on 4K was that it would bring nothing to a theatre with a 30ish foot wide screen...I countered with that statement was false and why.
 

---

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 11-15-2010, 07:01 AM:
 
Krhm. Now this has evolved on its own... right. The fact is, there was a 4K presentation I missed (darn train scedules) that I would have wanted to see, a very rare opportunity around here. I have yet to compare 2K to 4K with my own eyes. That it makes no difference on a small screen was an opinion offered by our equipment provider who I trust in this matter above anyone else. The guy has decades of experience on film and he was to my knowledge the first one to sell digital in the coutry. I do think he lurks around here sometimes, too.

One thing that Steve said, about the rebooting habit. I'm on my second smart phone at the moment, and I never rebooted my old ones, ever. But these ones, sometimes I have to. As they say, they're more tiny computers than phones...

My point here was indeed digital versus film in general, and I do leave out of the equation the 70mm because I have no experience with it, having never even seen it. Would have to go out of the country for that... I will have to, soon. So that's entirely my shortcoming and affects my view a lot.

And no I don't definitely know if Any part would be available in a few hours but I have been given to understand that this is the case. I'm crossing my fingers on not having to be proven wrong on this.

To close, I like to point out to Steve that the fact I Can call for help and get it (there is a certain solidarity in the industry here, everyone knows each other are willing to help out if they can. Scrathing each others' backs as the proverb goes) does not mean that I do, every time. I can and will when I run into a wall, that's for sure, but not before I've tried to find the door first and tried every key there is.

Uih. Back to work. And hoping that our luck holds and everything always runs as smooth as now. Oh I know it won't... but one can always hope.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-15-2010, 12:19 PM:
 
Steve, before you get too involved in your arguments for 35mm, remember many theaters have 35mm equipment in poor condition. Image stability alone will kill resolution. Then again burned lenses or even dirty optics, fake port windows, too much heat on the film and discolored reflectors will murder the end quality too...among other things.

I've found there are VERY FEW theaters that actually do everything right to show off 35mm's full potential. With the edge enhancement and other digital trickery going on, to the layman digital APPEARS to be sharper to them.

Its a legitimate argument on both sides. In the end though, its the public that we have to impress to keep them coming back and not sticking to blu-rays at home.

Steve is absolutely correct that 35mm as a format can outperform any flavor of digital right now, but lets do a reality check. Right now, as in today, when we take into account the foolish 2K DIs, the SHITTY labwork being done at Deluxe (they have gotten worse somehow), the candy counter/manager projectionist and everything else that goes into the pot...digital is better in the end. Nobody (with rare exception) will ever see how good 35mm CAN look any more.

Then again there are a number of installers out there that don't do proper convergence, boresight and color calibration with digital, so maybe I shouldn't be giving digital quite so much credit. Those sort of things will kill a digital presentation's potential quality too, its just not as noticeable to the layman.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-15-2010, 12:59 PM:
 
Brad...I wasn't going for a Digital/Film technicalities...at all...just the understanding of the "comfort level." The potential of 35mm, 70mm and digital 4K was to prove the IMPERFECT 2K...that is it.

I think Elise explained herself quite well.

Note too, I believe that the 2K DI is a temporary thing and that 4K DIs will be the norm before too long...especially once more theatres are 4K capable and the cost/time associated with 4K comes down to acceptable levels. As such, even 35mm film will benefit quite a bit.
 

---

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 11-18-2010, 03:55 PM:
 
Just to step back to this subject:

quote: Brad Miller

---

If you have a full container DCP and you show scope, you are cropping off the top and bottom of the "full container" image to create a 2.39 scope image. (In a scope DCP, this top and bottom area is black.)

If you have a full container DCP and you show flat, you are cropping off the sides of the "full container" image to create a 1.85 flat image. (In a flat DCP, the sides are black.)

If you run a scope movie in flat, you then see the black bars AND you still crop off the sides. In other words, flat doesn't use the entire width of the chip and scope doesn't use the entire height.

---

At work our servers have 2 setting for flat (4 if you count in 2D and 3D)

There is both a 1920 and 2045 setting for flat on the server and projector. What are the differences using the different setting?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-18-2010, 04:25 PM:
 
The only reason you should have 1920 settings still is if you have older series 1 projectors without full-frame triple flash capability. Those that have EFIB boards will only be able to have 1920 x 804 scope and 1920 x 1035 flat images at triple flash rates. Series 1 projectors with FFIB boards can do full frame triple flash.

In short, you should only have the type your projector NEEDs, the other shouldn't be used. The exception being...if have a mix within a complex and you get a 1920x movie and need to play that in your 2048 theatre...then you should use the 1920 settings (presuming they are properly calibrated) so the projector will properly size it on screen.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 11-18-2010, 04:26 PM:
 
1920 and 2048 (does yours really say 5?) are horizontal lines of resolution.

You want to use the latter as it is ~10% higher res. 1920 is the same resolution as HDTV.
 

---

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 11-18-2010, 05:51 PM:
 
Using my wonderful Sony, I screened Harry Potter this afternoon after stopping the showing of something flat that we are dropping, finally. Used the end template to get everything reset.

Started it up, and got the scope inside the flat image again.

I built the show, as usual, and everything else works... masking changes, etc. After manually selecting 2D scope for 3D, it looks fine, for digital.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-19-2010, 04:54 AM:
 
Did you have probs injesting HP7.1 in that Sony-Baloney unit where you had to do a cold boot with the HDD all cabled up and on to continue the injest?

Sounded like you played "Feature-HP7.1" off the show listing which doesn't have any cues to set your maskings at first until you did the playlist.

Do you do the build the list with the "feature title"first, then add the FEATURE cue with an :02 cue offset then Credits with the offset times?
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 11-19-2010, 02:14 PM:
 
I went back to the scene of the crime this week to see if I could handle the new "projection" going forward. It once again looked awful. I could not get passed it. What they have done to the theatre has ruined it. And it's an insult to the rest of you who *do* do it right. It's really too bad.

The most rediculous part (aside from the whole thing) is it's bad enough the scope image creates blank screen black bars at the tops and bottoms of the flat-masked screen, but when a flat trailer plays within this "scope programming", you also get blank screen bars on the sides too! Basically, it's a small flat box inside of a flat-masked screen. It's an insult to paying customers and a tragedy to the industry.

I sent an email to Cinemark to complain, and to suggest a technician come out to look at and fix this installation, but I'll bet you my email was just deleted without being read.

As much as I love the theatre, unfortunately I will not be back. They've really ruined it.

And what the hell, I'll name names. This is the CENTURY 24 twin theatre in San Jose, CA. Once run with pride by the Syufy's, turned into a complete joke by Cinemark.
 

---

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 11-19-2010, 02:17 PM:
 
I build the feature first. Add the title, then feature cue which is 0 00 00. Then, add the credit cue, name it, and save it.

Then, build the entire show. First thing is 2D to 3D scope/flat.

Only my 220's have this strange mask problem. The 320, other than not liking trail mixes, has not acted up one time, and is programmed just like the 220's are.

No, I didnt have to do the hard-start. I give the projector a little time to see the trail mix, or the multiple copies of the feature, and open the drop down menu 2-3 times, and the thing works.

My tech told me that he was fielding lots of calls about theatres loading the wrong version of HP on their projectors.

I simply read the sheet and decided what to run.

For Eric, the theatres cant help with flat features being advertised on a Scope screen. It's the way they are distributed by the studios. There's always been black sides on flat feature trailers presented in scope. I see them every day. I doubt the studios are going to change because somebody doesent like seeing a small picture on the big screen.

The same thing can be said about scope features advertised with a flat film. My people constantly try to adjust the framing on scope on flat trailers. They've tried to say that I built the things out of frame, too. Thats never happened.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 11-19-2010, 04:43 PM:
 

quote:

---

As much as I love the theatre, unfortunately I will not be back. They've really ruined it. [Frown]

And what the hell, I'll name names. This is the CENTURY 24 twin theatre in San Jose, CA. Once run with pride by the Syufy's, turned into a complete joke by Cinemark. [thumbsdown]

---

Eric,

If they don't listen to direct communication, put your comments out there for all to see, and maybe public embarrassment will help. At the least, others will know to watch for the problem, and maybe they'll complain as well, and the problem may eventually get fixed.

We created the Reader Comments feature for just such a purpose. Here's the comments page for the Century 24 on Winchester Blvd. in San Jose:

http://www.bigscreen.com/Marquee.php?theater=1322&view=comments
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 11-21-2010, 05:18 PM:
 
Well there you go- it's a twinned dome theater, which means it hasn't been "run with pride" since it was twinned. I would like to personally punch in the face the people responsible for the twinning of these dome theaters.
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-21-2010, 11:09 PM:
 
Pride indeed!

I was around for this era.

It was as bad as it sounds and then some; a straight wall disecting two sides of a round stadium building. The left projector on one side of the wall, the right the same, seats still pointed at the middle of the room.

Funny, they had no problem getting first run films and a lot of the audience seemed too stupid to go elsewhere
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 11-23-2010, 12:52 PM:
 
If you guys think it was silly after it was twinned, you should see it now with the shitty "digital projection"! What a f'ing joke!
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-23-2010, 02:29 PM:
 
Is this an independent house, this Twin?

If so, money doesn't want to be spent too badly (why of the crappy split design and digital installs).

Owners like this just can never see long term but only want to see at the end of their nose.

Just a few of them around that can give the industry a bad name ..
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-23-2010, 03:15 PM:
 
Monte, given the number of this type of exhibitor, the industry may already have a bad name....hence the oft repeated refrain, "I really HATE going to the movies."

We never heard anyone say THAT when we were kids, did we? But then again, there were nothing but single screen theatres, built and DESIGNED as single screen theatres and there was no such thing as a single screen theatre tortured into the abomination called a "twin," (or Quad or Triplex). The rise of the multiplex out of the womb of the single screen should have been a stillbirth.

OK, that's gross, but you get the idea.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 11-23-2010, 05:56 PM:
 
Sad thing is a number of these theaters have been operating that way for over 30 years, yet they manage to stay in business somehow. A complex near me has a total of 14 screens with 4 of them being half-dome theaters- I don't go there at all, just on the chance that the movie I want to see might be playing in one of the half-domes. I've even turned down free passes to that theater!

A lot of my early movie-going (including the original Star Wars) was at the Century domes in San Jose (miraculously I never got stuck with that twinned one, and didn't know about the twinning til we moved to the Sacramento area), so I have a soft spot for these types of theaters. (Never been to Utah, but I felt ill a few days after hearing of the two domes there, owned by a different company, being torn down.)

Added: Just a thought- if I DID go to one of these theaters, I'd expect to pay half of the regular ticket price, since I'm only getting to use half the theater. Right??
 

---

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 11-23-2010, 07:04 PM:
 
FWIW - of the original "Century" domes in San Jose:

Century 21: A single screen flagship theater. It was never twinned, though in the 90's a flatter, slightly smaller screen was installed. Was originally equipped with a Cinerama strip screen, replaced with a solid material screen long before I ever was around, but was never outfitted with three projectors. The Able and Charlie booths still exist but are covered with drapery. 21 was a premier venue for 70mm in the heyday. Unsure if equipment exists to still run 70mm.

Century 22: A three screen, three dome complex. The main dome is just about the same size as Century 21, and the two domes flanking the primary one are perhaps 2/3 the size?? Both 21 and 22 share the same parking lot. In 1997 the primary dome and the right hand dome were both fully 70mm capable and had two 70mm titanic prints booked at the same time. Both prints were ultimately damaged.

Century 23: A single dome "twinned". Primarily second run. Only about 100 yards away from Century 21 but is technically across the street and sits behind the Winchester Mystery House

Century 24: The aforementioned theater in this thread. Down the road about a mile from the 21/22/23 theaters.

Century 25: Was a twinned theater. Now no longer an operating cinema. It's a live venue with special event classic screenings (digitally). Independently operated. It's called "The Retro Dome" About 4 miles from the previous century domes mentioned here.

Notes: Century 21, 22, and 23 all sit on land owned by the owners of the Winchester Mystery House. When Syufy sold the chain to Cinemark a few years back, Cinemark didn't want to deal with the grandfathered in, slightly convoluted land lease the three theaters were tethered to. The Syufy family retained ownership of 21, 22, and 23 and operate them as "Winchester 21, Winchester 22, and Winchester 23. Century 24 is owned and operated by Cinemark. I believe the Syufy family also retained ownership of the Capital Drive-In which now operates as "Westwind Drive in and flea market"

edited for an old movie listings for the domes:

 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-24-2010, 01:20 PM:
 
Wow, loved those showtimes - one per each part of the day. Couldn't get away with those showtimes now in these day and ages ... And all of those 4 movies did have 70mm playback options ..

quote: Jesse Skeen

---

(Never been to Utah, but I felt ill a few days after hearing of the two domes there, owned by a different company, being torn down.)

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Staff and manager at the cinema made it clear that UltraAVX is "like" IMAX.

---

 

---

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 12-30-2010, 06:50 PM:
 
Century 24 = San Jose/Los Gatos = Digital Projection!

I can't believe this theatre is STILL OPEN!
Why invest such money in a futureless theatre?

They probably would have been better off using the plywood (that Eric spoke about) to board up the front of the theatre and selling/unloading the property.

Mike
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 03-12-2011, 10:19 AM:
 
Update: The plywood door blocking the rear exit has been mysteriously removed and the exit walkway to the exit door has been restored. Movie I saw was in flat so it filled the flat screen, but I doubt anything's changed with scope presentations....
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 03-12-2011, 01:15 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

Just because IMAX does it wrong doesn't mean everyone should do it wrong.

No masking = loss of contrast and perceptible sharpness.

---

Does anyone know if the Warrren's IMAX Theatre in Wichita uses black masking? I'm wondering because they do have waterfall curtains in the photo, and I've never seen thjat at an IMAX.
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 05-14-2011, 02:01 AM:
 
Ugh,

Returned to the scene of the crime today. Still showing the scope image letterboxed inside the flat screen with the side masking curtains closed....

Even worse their lighting system in auditorium #1 (left side) is wired incorrectly. During the previews the overhead lights (which shine on the screen by the way) are supposed to go to low dim with the side wall sconces remaining at medium dim. And then when the feature starts, the overhead lights are to go off and the wall sconces to go to low dim. (This is how it operates in auditorium #2 (right side) and this is what makes sense.) However, someone screwed up and now during the trailers the overhead lights remain on medium bright (which is shining on the screen and you can't see the trailers being shown) and the wall sconces go to low dim. Then when the movie presentation comes on, the overhead lights go to low dim and the wall sconces go completely off. It's wired reversed.

WHY, WHY, WHY?

This place is truly a disgrace to everyone else who does it right!

I guess it was my fault for going there. I had hoped they had fixed the scope movie presentations, but now they've even gone and fucked up the lighting...
 

---

Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 05-14-2011, 04:05 PM:
 

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Saw True Grit tonight DLP Ultra AVX. The Cineplex in my area masks all DLP screens except the Ultra AVX.

This is intentional. I believe IMAX does this as well? (can anyone confirm?)

Staff and manager at the cinema made it clear that UltraAVX is "like" IMAX.

---

quote:

---

the wider 2.39:1 scope format is usually chosen to give pictures greater impact, than the more intimate 1.85:1 aspect ratio. Letterboxing it to a smaller image often violates the intent of the cinematographer and director in telling a big story.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

you get a 1920x movie and need to play that in your 2048 theatre

---