This is topic AMC ETX Digital Review 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=000676
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-19-2010, 12:20 AM:
I just got the opportunity to watch an exclusive engagement showing of "Hereafter" in AMC ETX Experience....
AMC advertises their new concept as follows
"AMC Yonge & Dundas exclusively offers the Enhanced Theatre Experience for all performances in Auditorium #7. ETX features a 20% larger floor-to-ceiling screen, 11-channel surround sound with 57,000 watts of power, and 8.8 million pixels providing 4X the resolution of HD"
Digital is cleary where movies and the exhibition is going. IMHO, after my viewing today, Digital is superior to the film experience. Now, don't get me wrong, I used to be projectionist for a long, long time. I built films, broke them down, changed bulbs, did this, did that. Film is done.
The most intersting thing about my experience was how perfect the showing was. No scratches, no dirt, perfect focus...no splice changes (although I kind of missed them).
As for the sound, WOW it was loud in there.
Also, I must point, the stadium seating at this AMC was curved rows. There were two obstructed seats in the theater and they you can't see part of the screen when watching flat.
Few things to point out:
-the screen was 55 feet wide
-I had no issues whatsoever without real masking. It was like letterboxed on a 16x9 tv....was kind of different at first, but I got used to it.
-Very, very loud.
-Surround speakers were staggered.
-Outstanding, perfect image (and not film-like, more like HDTV.
While watching the credits, I did pay some respect to the fact the movie was shot in PANAVISION with PANAVISION Lenses.....one day we won't be seeing that.
It is nice to know that there is both film and digital options.
For the most part, I knew I wasn't watching film, but I didn't really care as my experience was absolutely perfect.
Ticket price was $15.50
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 10-19-2010, 04:03 AM:
quote: Tom Petrov
8.8 million pixels providing 4X the resolution of HD
whatever. that's only twice the resolution of hd.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-19-2010, 04:16 AM:
quote: Tom Petrov
ETX features a 20% larger floor-to-ceiling screen
20% larger than what? The smallest screen in the complex?
quote: Tom Petrov
the screen was 55 feet wide
LOL, that's really not very big.
quote: Tom Petrov
11-channel surround sound
ROTFL. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Do studios mix special versions of all of their movies with 4 to 6 extra channels just for this auditorium?
quote: Tom Petrov
Digital is cleary where movies and the exhibition is going. IMHO, after my viewing today, Digital is superior to the film experience. Now, don't get me wrong, I used to be projectionist for a long, long time. I built films, broke them down, changed bulbs, did this, did that. Film is done.
The most intersting thing about my experience was how perfect the showing was. No scratches, no dirt, perfect focus
It sounds like you were a shitty projectionist. No scratches or dirt? In focus? Is that supposed to be amazing?
quote: Tom Petrov
As for the sound, WOW it was loud in there.
Volume ≠ quality. Even a shitty car stereo can be WOW loud, but it will still sound like shit.
quote: Tom Petrov
Ticket price was $15.50
Ouch. I hope that came with a nice vat of anal lube, because from the sounds of it, it would definitely come in handy!
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-19-2010, 10:23 AM:
I have to agree with this guys review. The sound is like being at a rock concert.
ETX review
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-19-2010, 11:26 AM:
oops nevermind, got my answer from the link up above.... sorry
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-19-2010, 12:07 PM:
Is this "ETX" thing just a better-than-average implementation of off-the-shelf equipment, or is something proprietary being done with the image and/or sound to justify the surcharge?
As I posted in the thread about the Regal something-X concept, I really take issue with the idea that customers should have to pay a surcharge for top quality projection and sound. Isn't this something that all theatres should be providing to all customers at the normal ticket price?
As far as I know, in the history of exhibition, there was never a surcharge for talking pictures. There was never a surcharge for 70mm (outside of roadshow engagements). There was never a surcharge for 3D (until this decade). There was never a surcharge for magnetic stereo, Dolby Stereo, or digital sound. Exhibitors put in these things because customers demanded them and because customers would choose to patronize theatres based upon presentation quality.
Why is it that now this industry (which regularly congratulates itself on being the lowest-cost form of out-of-home entertainment) feels the need to nickel-and-dime consumers for everything, including picture and sound quality? ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
At least digital Imax can sort of justify its existence based upon some proprietary image processing and its sound system (and, presumably, some level of standards and oversight for its installation and maintenance). Unless AMC is doing this, I fail to see how a surcharge can be justified.
Also, I don't get the "loud" thing. There are standards for cinema sound systems. Playing the soundtrack at a higher-than-normal level without some good reason to do so (e.g. sold-out house) violates those standards. I wonder what sound mixers think of this idea.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-19-2010, 01:46 PM:
quote: Tom Petrov
8.8 million pixels providing 4X the resolution of HD
Considering the vast majority of Hollywood features these days produce a 2000 digital intermediate as the finished product in post production (and very few spend the extra $$$ for a 4K rendering) this whole 8.8 million pixels thing sounds like a giant load of horse shit.
Digital projection will never be better in native resolution than the source material being shown.
Same thing goes for the audio as well. 11 discrete channels? Bullshit. It's just 5.1 audio piped through twice as many amplifiers. Blah.
quote: Tom Petrov
The sound is like being at a rock concert.
Far more often that not, concerts typically have terrible audio quality. You're there to see the band perform live. Great quality sound is not a selling point.
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 10-19-2010, 02:01 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Far more often that not, concerts typically have terrible audio quality. You're there to see the band perform live. Great quality sound is not a selling point.
It depends on the venue and crowed. All sound-checks are done in an empty venue. The band is looking for that particular sound that they feel is right to them. It is up to the sound engineer to try his or her best to maintain it during the performance.
As for movie theaters sounding like a rock concert is not always the best situation unless you are playing a concert movie or something. They are just asking for people to come out and bitch about how loud the movie is.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-19-2010, 02:12 PM:
I've been to a lot of rock concerts. They've had varying levels of loudness. The best sounding rock concerts I've heard have had nothing near the audio quality of a film done right movie theater.
If "rock concert audio quality" is a AMC ETX selling point those guys better get rid of it fast.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 10-19-2010, 06:36 PM:
AMC ETX = ![[sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 10-19-2010, 07:12 PM:
When a theater offers a premium experience, be it Cinemarks XD, Regal's RPX, or AMC's ETX, Isn't it just a way of saying that the other auditoriums are not that good?
It seems to me that a smart multiplex owner would ensure all screens have correct EQ and correctly lit screens.
We should strive to make EVERY SCREEN a premium experience.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-19-2010, 10:08 PM:
Several years ago AMC ended up with all four of the THX auditoriums in the Philly market through acquisitions... THX auditoriums that when tuned and played properly to THX's specs kicked all kinds of ass. Then they let the THX cert expire and re-tuned the auditoriums to their standards. Now they sound... ok.
So they do that, and then they try to come up with a new and exciting presentation standard. Sometimes I just don't get it. And this in no way is a reflection of the engineers in Philly. I know some of them personally and they're good guys. It's the decisions made on high that I don't get.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-19-2010, 10:22 PM:
quote: Scott Norwood
Is this "ETX" thing just a better-than-average implementation of off-the-shelf equipment, or is something proprietary being done with the image and/or sound to justify the surcharge?
For the ETX. I walked into a few of the other theatres, they are constructed like theatre #7 and #8. This was the best stadium seating movie theate I have even been in. I even have a threat showing my disgust for stadium seating in another forum.
Every single row was curved.
Each seat was pointed directly at the middle of the screen
The screen was 55 feet
The picture was crystal clear and razor sharp
The surrounds were staggered
The rise was in between a sloped theatre and a stadium seating theatre.
The sound was outstanding, it was like I was at an event. It was very loud.
I was actually seated in the lower bowl about 8 rows from the screen, was just perfect.
The ETX is not for everyone, but for the first time in a long while, I was entertained.
quote: Scott Norwood
As far as I know, in the history of exhibition, there was never a surcharge for talking pictures. There was never a surcharge for 70mm (outside of roadshow engagements). There was never a surcharge for 3D (until this decade). There was never a surcharge for magnetic stereo, Dolby Stereo, or digital sound. Exhibitors put in these things because customers demanded them and because customers would choose to patronize theatres based upon presentation quality.
The times have changed, IMO this was a whole new way of watching a movie based on the screen and the sound. I mean 57,000 watts of power?
quote:
) feels the need to nickel-and-dime consumers for everything, including picture and sound quality? [Mad]
For the record, and here it is. I paid for one person.
-$7.25 for the train ride there
-$15.50 for the ticket
-$17.80 for lg pop, lg popcorn, MandM peanuts
-$7.25 for the train ride home.
Money well spent as everything was perfect. Would I do it again? Hell yes.
It also helped that the movies was good.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-19-2010, 10:38 PM:
quote: Mike Olpin
When a theater offers a premium experience, be it Cinemarks XD, Regal's RPX, or AMC's ETX, Isn't it just a way of saying that the other auditoriums are not that good?
Exactly.
Instead of delivering proper quality projection and sound for the standard ticket price the suckers, oh I mean customers, are expected to pay a premium.
Damn. In this down economy I guess it must be nice to be able to charge a luxury tax for a job done satisfactorily. I wish I could earn my standard pay for just getting out of bed and then make twice as much for showing up to work. I guess I picked the wrong freaking profession!
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-19-2010, 10:45 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Instead of delivering proper quality projection and sound for the standard ticket price the suckers, oh I mean customers, are expected to pay a premium.
Not sure I agree with this, I walked into another theatre that was playing "Hereafter" that was not ETX, it looked very much like standard 35mm. These theatres were fine and looked good, they also sounded good. But once inside the ETX theatre, it was something different, this is where the big events films will be played.
As for IMAX 3D someone mentioned earlier. Theatre 7 and 8 are identical with the same size screens, one was playing ETX while the older was IMAX of Avatar
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-19-2010, 10:48 PM:
quote: Tom Petrov
Not sure I agree with this, I walked into another theatre that was playing "Hereafter" that was not ETX, it looked very much like standard 35mm. These theatres were fine and looked good, they also sounded good. But once inside the ETX theatre, it was something different, this is where the big events films will be played.
I paid standard price to see Titanic in 70mm DTS at the GCC Northpark #1 in Dallas. There is literally no chance at all the experience you saw at the high priced premium measured up even to half the quality I experienced at that theater. None.
Oh, and that's a "blow up" from 35mm to 70mm presentation. Native 65mm photographed stuff along the lines of Baraka, Lawrence of Arabia, etc. raises the stakes more.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-19-2010, 10:52 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I paid standard price to see Titanic in 70mm DTS at the GCC Northpark #1 in Dallas. There is literally no chance at all the experience you saw at the high priced premium measured up even to half the quality I experienced at that theater. None
Please don't turn this into a 70mm vs ETX debate. I never mention 70mm once in my review.
quote:
Native 65mm photographed stuff along the lines of Baraka, Lawrence of Arabia, etc. raises the stakes more.
I read somewhere that Baraka is single greatest example of Blu-Ray 1080p. I never say it on 70mm but I would like to.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-20-2010, 01:01 AM:
quote: Tom Petrov
Please don't turn this into a 70mm vs ETX debate. I never mention 70mm once in my review.
Do you actually think he was making the post as a comparison of ETX and 70mm? Because from my end, I see you stating that ETX is worth the surcharge for being better than normal 35mm and him saying that he didn't have to pay extra for something that's better than 35mm.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 10-20-2010, 01:04 PM:
quote:
quote: Tom Petrov
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.8 million pixels providing 4X the resolution of HD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: Carl Martin
whatever. that's only twice the resolution of hd.
No, it's 4x. HD is 1920x1080 = 2.0736 million pixels
8.8/2.0736 = 4.24
Whether the film was actually produced in 4k in post production I can't answer but the projector can display over 4 times the resolution of HDTV.
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-20-2010, 02:14 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Instead of delivering proper quality projection and sound for the standard ticket price the suckers, oh I mean customers, are expected to pay a premium.
Damn. In this down economy I guess it must be nice to be able to charge a luxury tax for a job done satisfactorily. I wish I could earn my standard pay for just getting out of bed and then make twice as much for showing up to work. I guess I picked the wrong freaking profession!
Thank you Bobby, I couldn't have said it better and you saved me a flaming of Tom's position on this topic. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
For the record, when I go to a movie I expect to see (and hear) a movie-like experience.
If I go to a rock concert, I expect to see (and hear) a rock concert experience.
I have worked concerts and live shows and I can tell you that the standards (actually there are NO standards..just "accepted practice") are as far away from cinema sound as you can get..it is all about quantity (volume) and coverage over quality. Believe it or not, most rock artists don't care about clarity of the vocals (dialog in movie-speak) as long as the instruments are loud.
If Tom gets his rocks off on a rock-concert sound while watching movies, that's his thing, but not one that most of the folks here would agree with. And if he runs a theatre to those standards, I feel sorry for his customers.
AMC has been know to try some of the most incredibly stupid things, (Torus screens, SDDS, ceiling surround speaker placement, speakers above and below the screen, etc.) and this smacks of their latest height of stupidity.
The money wasted on ONE of those ETX auditoria could be better spent upgrading the entire complex.
I seriously wonder what drugs AMC's engineering and management are using..or maybe they slipped off their meds again.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-20-2010, 04:36 PM:
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Thank you Bobby, I couldn't have said it better and you saved me a flaming of Tom's position on this topic.
For the record, when I go to a movie I expect to see (and hear) a movie-like experience.
If I go to a rock concert, I expect to see (and hear) a rock concert experience.
I have worked concerts and live shows and I can tell you that the standards (actually there are NO standards..just "accepted practice") are as far away from cinema sound as you can get..it is all about quantity (volume) and coverage over quality. Believe it or not, most rock artists don't care about clarity of the vocals (dialog in movie-speak) as long as the instruments are loud.
If Tom gets his rocks off on a rock-concert sound while watching movies, that's his thing, but not one that most of the folks here would agree with. And if he runs a theatre to those standards, I feel sorry for his customers.
AMC has been know to try some of the most incredibly stupid things, (Torus screens, SDDS, ceiling surround speaker placement, speakers above and below the screen, etc.) and this smacks of their latest height of stupidity.
The money wasted on ONE of those ETX auditoria could be better spent upgrading the entire complex.
I seriously wonder what drugs AMC's engineering and management are using..or maybe they slipped off their meds again.
LMAO. If you feel the need to flame, then flame away. Don't be shy.
All I have to say is that I had an amazing time, I was skeptical on my way as I was trying to hold to see it on film, but I wanted to see the movie so bad, I said what the hell, I will see it on digital.
Originally I was going to see it on non-ETX but I got there early and I didn't feel like waiting another 1hr for the $12.75 show.
Money is no issue with me so I paid the extra bit of cash...but yeah like I said before, flame away if you need...I had an amazing time ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-20-2010, 06:29 PM:
"If it sounds good, then it is good."
-- Joe Meek
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 10-23-2010, 04:06 AM:
quote: Lyle Romer
No, it's 4x. HD is 1920x1080 = 2.0736 million pixels
8.8/2.0736 = 4.24
Whether the film was actually produced in 4k in post production I can't answer but the projector can display over 4 times the resolution of HDTV.
no, no, no, no, no! it's ~4x the pixels, but not 4x the resolution, which is a linear measure.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-23-2010, 09:16 AM:
quote:
-$17.80 for lg pop, lg popcorn, MandM peanuts
Holy crap! We sell the same stuff for $7.25. Man, I could be a millionaire if I would just get my head out of my ass and charge AMC prices. ('Course we don't have curved stadium seating and 11 channels of sound. Maybe I could get $15.)
Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 10-23-2010, 03:16 PM:
RPX, ETX, XD, etc are not to say that the companies are not providing a "perfect" experience to every customer, these are "premium" experiences, they have a better sound system, dual digital projectors, better seating and a larger screen.
Every other auditorium has a good sound system, a single projector doing film done right (hopefully) or digital. You are paying extra for the premium seating, larger screen, more impressive sound system, etc. I don't get any of the arguments in this thread, they are all basically "Why doesn't every screen have that, why are they charging more for that XD, RPX, ETX, etc." Because its a premium experience, just like some theaters have "premium" seating that you pay extra for.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-23-2010, 04:58 PM:
You know back when Titanic came off first run we ran it for 6 months in 70mm at the Cinesphere and out grossed the highest gross of any toronto first run location and at a discount prices
Audiences still want quality not quantity and will usually go the extra to get it whether it is distance to travel or price
that said the teenbopper night out doesn't care
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-23-2010, 08:11 PM:
Manny, in an ideal world what you said would be true, but at least here in La-La Land, such is not the case. The theatres are allowed to run down, presentation quality goes out the window, staff is either incompetent or uncaring, and going to a movie is in far too many cases a bad/unsatisfying experience.
That's why I said what I did about how the money wasted on one of those "premium" auditoriums would be better spent in improving the others.
In our piss-poor economy, to me it would make far more business sense to give as good as possible experience at REGULAR or better yet discount pricing.
But management/owners rarely if ever see it in common-sense terms.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-23-2010, 09:58 PM:
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
going to a movie is in far too many cases a bad/unsatisfying experience.
I 100% agree with you. Usually it is the fault of the poorly caring operator who could care less.
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
That's why I said what I did about how the money wasted on one of those "premium" auditoriums would be better spent in improving the others
Usually in a film equipped theatre that would result in finding and paying a projectionist well. Rainbow Cinemas in the GTA has the best presentation out of any "film" theatre as they use older, wiser and former Union projectionist. I think the going rate at those theatres are $17/hr for the head projectionist.
Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 10-25-2010, 11:16 AM:
Just throwing in another wrinkle: shouldn't the various standards mitigate the need for a "premium" screen? An ETX theater shouldn't be louder than any other properly calibrated theater: 7.0 on the fader = 85db of reference pink noise, full stop. A THX certified auditorium should theoretically sound identical to the dub stage where the film was mixed. SMPTE calls for 14fl of light on the screen. Etc.
I can see paying extra for premium seating, food service, or other luxuries, but shouldn't the actual film presentation be governed by best industry standards and practices?
Of course that's not how it is, because it's getting harder and harder to find Film Done Right.
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-25-2010, 12:40 PM:
quote: Daniel Schulz
Just throwing in another wrinkle: shouldn't the various standards mitigate the need for a "premium" screen? An ETX theater shouldn't be louder than any other properly calibrated theater: 7.0 on the fader = 85db of reference pink noise, full stop. A THX certified auditorium should theoretically sound identical to the dub stage where the film was mixed. SMPTE calls for 14fl of light on the screen. Etc.
Absolutely.
quote: Daniel Schulz
........ but shouldn't the actual film presentation be governed by best industry standards and practices?
Yes it should be but AMC has NEVER followed the standards from the start. They have always had this attitude of "Knowing better" which brought us such stunning innovations as ceiling mounted surrounds, Torus screens, non-standard speaker placement above and below the screen, and now "ETX" with ear-bleed sound levels and NO MASKING. (And YES, even with D-Cinema you should mask off unused screen area!)
quote: Daniel Schulz
Of course that's not how it is, because it's getting harder and harder to find Film Done Right.
And from the looks of it, even D-Cinema can't be done right by a lot of theatres.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-25-2010, 12:55 PM:
quote:
NO MASKING. (And YES, even with D-Cinema you should mask off unused screen area!)
There really is no need for masking at least in the D-Cinema that I was in. The image edges were so clean and crisp.
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-25-2010, 05:15 PM:
Tom, it's not about how clean the edges are...ANY exposed screen area will not remain black with the varying brightness of images hitting the rest of the screen...and a study on image quality and perception done way back in the 1940's PROVED that the use of black masking improves the perceived contrast ratio and brightness of the images. Since a lot of DLP is short on brightness the masking would be a HUGE benefit compared to the cost of upsized lamps/frequent lamp changes.
You can prove that principle at home with any tv set...if it has black borders put white tape on them (to see how the image loses "snap") or if it has anything but black, mask it off with black and see how much better the image appears to be.
Two great reference books any projection professional should check out are:
Robert A Mitchell's Manual of Practical Projection (1956)
and
James R. Cameron's (No, not the "Titanic" guy) "Motion Picture Projection" (I have the tenth edition, dated 1928)
Both books go deep into theory of optics and other tidbits that today's "projectionists" don't have a clue about. And the principles of optics, shutter timing and blade count, etc. haven't changed with modern film projectors. And optical physics are just as valid for DLP.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-25-2010, 09:30 PM:
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Tom, it's not about how clean the edges are...ANY exposed screen area will not remain black with the varying brightness of images hitting the rest of the screen...and a study on image quality and perception done way back in the 1940's PROVED that the use of black masking improves the perceived contrast ratio and brightness of the images. Since a lot of DLP is short on brightness the masking would be a HUGE benefit compared to the cost of upsized lamps/frequent lamp changes.
You can prove that principle at home with any tv set...if it has black borders put white tape on them (to see how the image loses "snap") or if it has anything but black, mask it off with black and see how much better the image appears to be.
Two great reference books any projection professional should check out are:
Robert A Mitchell's Manual of Practical Projection (1956)
and
James R. Cameron's (No, not the "Titanic" guy) "Motion Picture Projection" (I have the tenth edition, dated 1928)
Both books go deep into theory of optics and other tidbits that today's "projectionists" don't have a clue about. And the principles of optics, shutter timing and blade count, etc. haven't changed with modern film projectors. And optical physics are just as valid for DLP.
Tony, did you see the years that these books were published? One of them is 80 years back...DLP let alone video was not even thought of at that time.
Anyways, the ETX looked like it was projection black bars like dvd. The picture was perfect..contrast, sharpness etc.
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-25-2010, 10:04 PM:
Tom, you need to slow down and actually read what I wrote instead of jumping the gun with poorly thought-out responses.
Let me highlight the point: quote: Me
Tom, it's not about how clean the edges are...ANY exposed screen area will not remain black with the varying brightness of images hitting the rest of the screen...and a study on image quality and perception done way back in the 1940's PROVED that the use of black masking improves the perceived contrast ratio and brightness of the images. Since a lot of DLP is short on brightness the masking would be a HUGE benefit compared to the cost of upsized lamps/frequent lamp changes.....And the principles of optics, shutter timing and blade count, etc. haven't changed with modern film projectors. And optical physics are just as valid for DLP.
The age of the source and study is irrelevant because OPTICAL PRINCIPLES haven't changed just because of DLP. A good technician looks into the past for information that still has value today.
You are obviously willing to settle for substandard presentation and that's fine. Like I said in another post, if concert-sound and lack of masking gets you there, that's fine, but don't come onto a forum of PROFESSIONALS with decades of experience in the industry and not expect to have your comments challenged.
Lack of masking in ANY cinema, film or DLP, is inexcusable in any venue, especially one where you are paying an extra charge. If you can't see the logic and reality of that then that's just sad.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-25-2010, 11:25 PM:
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
You are obviously willing to settle for substandard presentation and that's fine. Like I said in another post, if concert-sound and lack of masking gets you there, that's fine, but don't come onto a forum of PROFESSIONALS with decades of experience in the industry and not expect to have your comments challenged.
I am not will to settle for substandard presentation. I like to see good presentation and ETX is simply outstanding. I will trust my own eyes and not some so called "professional" who is still referencing manuals published in 1928.
As for the masking, like I said, no need for it. The contrast and sharpness were outstanding. Bryce Dallas Howards face was so clear.
Trust me, I love film. I used to work with it and I am very fond of it, its just that I have realized that I like the ETX presentation better.
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Lack of masking in ANY cinema, film or DLP, is inexcusable in any venue, especially one where you are paying an extra charge. If you can't see the logic and reality of that then that's just sad.
Last night I watched "Never Let Me Go" on film. The screen was good size, the contrast good, I knew it was film as it was not as clear as digital, there was a bit of dirt and some color problems midway through one of the reels. As for the masking, well there was some bleed into the black masking on either side, nothing major but I noticed it...One thing is for certain, film needs masking, I guess that is because of the techinical limitations of the format.
As for masking on digital. I have seen digital presentations with masking and without...either way it made no difference.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-25-2010, 11:34 PM:
Tom, Tony is EXACTLY right and AMC is doing it wrong. This is the primary reason why theaters I have anything to do with the design on get nothing but solid black for the first 15 feet. After that, then the colored drapes and such can start.
No masking is pathetic. Masking isn't only about a sharp edge. It is about creating a sharp edge for film (not necessary in digital) AND to improve the perceived contrast. Our eyes play tricks on us.
I repeat, no masking is doing it wrong.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-25-2010, 11:41 PM:
quote: Brad Miller
Masking isn't only about a sharp edge. It is about creating a sharp edge for film (not necessary in digital) AND to improve the perceived contrast. Our eyes play tricks on us.
No problems with contrast whatsoever in the ETX theatre. NONE! I am very certain that the ETX theatre projects a black solid border similar to letterbox at home.
IMO, it was better than film.
Perception or no-perception..it was fine
quote: Brad Miller
I repeat, no masking is doing it wrong.
Wrong why?
Because you are stuck on film.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-26-2010, 03:11 AM:
Ummm, yeah... I wouldn't say Brad is stuck on film. He has been doing digital installs up the yin-yang lately and currently has digital theaters that do things that AMC and the like probably haven't even imagined yet.
And yes, I do believe you when you say that it looked great to you. But if you put masking on that same screen it would look even better. To me, no masking just seems lazy. AMC does this because they want the screen to appear super-huge when people first walk in. Granted, 55 feet is far from super-huge, it is about the same size of the biggest screens at any random multiplex. I'm not sure how AMC does it, but no masking probably means the image is common width. That's bad. I can't remember which thread it was, but Brad gave an excellent discussion on why is disappoints customers.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-26-2010, 04:23 AM:
I'm sorry, Tom, but I have to agree. No masking is indeed wrong. To me the problem is that you can't project "black". So you can't make the white screen around the image disappear completely. It has nothing to do with how the image is getting to the screen. When you shine something on the screen, the light bounces around the room and stray light shines on the dark part of the screen which is why you can see it even though you're not shining on it directly. It's kind of like when you look up at the moon and can see the dark side. Light from the sun hits the moon, reflects back to Earth, then reflects back to the dark side of the moon lighting it up slightly. So you can see it even though the sun isn't shining directly on it.
When you're showing a movie, you want your screen to disappear. You don't want unused parts of your screen hanging out there around the image so your customers can glance over and see it. You want your customers to forget that they're looking at a screen so they can get more invested, involved and engaged in the story you're telling. To do that you HAVE to mask the screen. Now you personally may think it's cool to be able to see the unused parts of the screen around the image, or you may think that just because it's digital it's ok to see the screen, or that seeing the screen didn't bother you or impede on the quality of the image at all. But the fact is that seeing the screen takes away from the magic. It takes away from the experience. The bottom line is that it's bad showmanship, and that is something that AMC has NEVER understood in the 20+ years that I've worked closely with them.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-26-2010, 04:25 AM:
quote: Joe Redifer
And yes, I do believe you when you say that it looked great to you. But if you put masking on that same screen it would look even better. To me, no masking just seems lazy. AMC does this because they want the screen to appear super-huge when people first walk in. Granted, 55 feet is far from super-huge, it is about the same size of the biggest screens at any random multiplex. I'm not sure how AMC does it, but no masking probably means the image is common width. That's bad. I can't remember which thread it was, but Brad gave an excellent discussion on why is disappoints customers.
I will be attending a theatre close by from now on. The theatre is a converted film-to-digital theatre. It has kept its masking. Although I don't really care all that much as the edges are sharp. Its the Jackson Square six for those who care
quote: Mark J. Marshall
I'm sorry, Tom, but I have to agree. No masking is indeed wrong. To me the problem is that you can't project "black". So you can't make the white screen around the image disappear completely. It has nothing to do with how the image is getting to the screen. When you shine something on the screen, the light bounces around the room and stray light shines on the dark part of the screen which is why you can see it even though you're not shining on it directly. It's kind of like when you look up at the moon and can see the dark side. Light from the sun hits the moon, reflects back to Earth, then reflects back to the dark side of the moon lighting it up slightly. So you can see it even though the sun isn't shining directly on it.
When you're showing a movie, you want your screen to disappear. You don't want unused parts of your screen hanging out there around the image so your customers can glance over and see it. You want your customers to forget that they're looking at a screen so they can get more invested, involved and engaged in the story you're telling. To do that you HAVE to mask the screen. Now you personally may think it's cool to be able to see the unused parts of the screen around the image, or you may think that just because it's digital it's ok to see the screen, or that seeing the screen didn't bother you or impede on the quality of the image at all. But the fact is that seeing the screen takes away from the magic. It takes away from the experience. The bottom line is that it's bad showmanship, and that is something that AMC has NEVER understood in the 20+ years that I've worked closely with them.
I hear what you are saying and understand very well what stray light does to a screen. This is one of the reasons why I flip out when the projectionist leaves the overhead lights on in the projection booth.
But like I said in my review, stray light etc didn't bother me one bit in the AMC ETX, neither did the unused portion of the screen, I noticed it at first then once the movie started, that was it.....I was just very happy that the edges were very sharp.
I will trade a perfectly sharp edge over a little bit of bleed into the masking (like my small gripe with Never Let Me Go last night)
Now for film, it must have masking!
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 10-26-2010, 10:08 AM:
There is some light spill around from the digital projector lens when the douser is open. It varies from brand to brand but it is there.
I made an aperture from the lens cap so the light flare and leakage would be minimized. There was no possibility of masking as I was shooting onto part of a planetarium screen for a special show.
Mind you, it was visible even on a screen with a gain of .6.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-26-2010, 11:10 AM:
quote: Tom Petrov
No problems with contrast whatsoever in the ETX theatre. NONE! I am very certain that the ETX theatre projects a black solid border similar to letterbox at home.
A guy I worked with went to see a movie elsewhere once and was shocked at how scratched the print was, describing it as looking like a bear had clawed the image. When he left, he mentioned it to his wife who said she didn't notice any problem at all.
My point is that just because something wasn't a big enough of a problem for you to notice it as one doesn't mean it isn't. Further, just because you didn't notice any problems doesn't mean that if we added masking to it you wouldn't perceive the contrast as having improved.
quote: Tom Petrov
Wrong why?
Because you are stuck on film.
Really? So he wasn't out-of-state for months at a time doing digital installs? And he didn't showcase on the site his hand at designing what appears to be the first truly automated digital booth? He's had his hand in digital booths and demonstrably has done a great job on designing them.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-26-2010, 01:06 PM:
quote: Chris Slycord was the last to post
Really?
Emotionally stuck on film. From reading between the lines it seems like a lot folks are stuck on the romance, nostalga, etc of film and working with film.
Becuase film has been doing it the film way for more than 100 years, it doesn't mean you can't try and do it another way.
Until I saw "Hereafter" two weeks ago in digital (I was going to hold of seeing it because it only playing in digital), I would of never supported digital..it has changed my opinion. From the curved rows, outstanding sound, large screen, crystal clear picture and sharp focus...AMC ETX has nailed the movie going experience for me.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-26-2010, 01:53 PM:
As a recap:
Tom - Masking isn't needed with a sharp image. It's only used to make the sharp edge.
Brad - That's not true. It also helps improve perceived contrast.
Tom - I didn't notice any contrast problems.
Me - Just because you didn't notice a big problem doesn't mean it wouldn't be improved upon with a masking and just because you didn't perceive a problem doesn't mean everyone else would agree.
Tom - You guys just have too much of a hard-on for film.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 10-26-2010, 02:01 PM:
Tom's last post was wrong on at least one level.
I saw "Hereafter" this weekend and it just happened to be a 35mm film print and in a cinema I installed a dual Christie 3D system alongside a pair of AA11's.
The emotion comes mostly from Tom.
There are many people on this site with vastly more experience than Tom has.
How we all got by before before he came into the business will remain a mystery.
As they say in politics, "you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts".
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-26-2010, 02:07 PM:
Guys, don't waste any more time on this...Tom has made up his (narrow) mind and will not be willing to admit that maybe, just maybe there are and were better ways of doing things.
Even I admit that D-Cinema can in some cases do a better job than film, BUT the reality is that you STILL (with the exception of Brad's excellent installs) have theatres and owners who do things half-assed and don't bother to take care of the REAL issues.
AMC is the bottom feeder of exhibition (there I said it and don't care) and rarely if ever does film, much less DLP, right.
quote: Tom Petrov
Emotionally stuck on film. From reading between the lines it seems like a lot folks are stuck on the romance, nostalga, etc of film and working with film.
When was the last time you looked at the NAME of this site?! HELLO!! It is called FILM-TECH for a reason!! How hard-headed can you be..oh wait, you've already shown us.
quote: Tom Petrov
I will trust my own eyes and not some so called "professional" who is still referencing manuals published in 1928.
Just proves how much of an ass you are. In my 29 years in this business I have met and learned from guys who were running film in the days of hand-cranked projectors, carbon arcs and nitrate film. Each one of them taught me principles and tips that are as valid today as they were back then. One of those principles, OPTICAL THEORY, still applies to DLP as much as film, which is something you can't get through to your narrow mind.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but like I said before don't come on to a site of professionals and spout off without expecting some disagreement.
I have taken a fair bit of flak for my anti-digital stance, but in the process I have learned a lot about what I don't know. And it has to a fair degree changed my mind.
Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 10-26-2010, 02:50 PM:
quote: Tom Petrov
Perception or no-perception..it was fine
quote: Tom Petrov
Wrong why?
Because you are stuck on film.
Despite you can live without masking, it is a FACT that adding a black frame around the screen increases the perceived contrast.
I think you're insulting everybody here assuming that the presentation was ok (I don't doubt it) because... it was ok and ignoring everybody's comments. Users here gave you some facts that you are not even taking into consideration because... because they are from books 20 years old, when DLP didn't exist. Light existed though.
And you are fueling your argumentations saying that you're right and others are wrong because "stuck on film".
I respect your opinion, but if you want to discuss about it you have to analyze everybody else's ones and not just "get stuck on yours".
I second Tony, do not waste time here.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-26-2010, 06:38 PM:
This thread is going nowhere.
quote: Joe Redifer
And yes, I do believe you when you say that it looked great to you. But if you put masking on that same screen it would look even better.
Indeed.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2