This is topic The Psychology of Showing DVD/BluRay in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=002436

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-26-2010, 04:10 PM:
 
Last week we showed Psycho. Great turnout for us and most of the audience enjoyed it.

We did, however, have two complaints about it being shown from DVD. Neither complaint was about the lower quality of DVD vs Film. One even said we should have shown it on 16mm if 35mm wasn't available.

Both complained they did not want to see a film they already "owned."

So their objection was they could have seen the same thing at home. Granted, a good 35mm print would have looked better (and we tried to get a 35mm), but that wasn't their complaint. It seems to be they think there is something different about the actual film.

They can't watch the film they "own" on a big screen, in a theatre, with 100 other people at their house, so what is it about "owning" the DVD that makes them feel ripped off seeing one in the theatre?

I bring this up to see if anyone else has run into this. Not objecting to DVD presentation, but because they already own it. What were they expecting to see at the theatre that would be different than owning the DVD?

Or do they just have inarticulated magical expectations about film?
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-26-2010, 04:34 PM:
 
What happened when you tried to get a 35mm print?

I know for a fact that Universal has stunning 35mm prints of PSYCHO and all of the Hitchcock features (that he made there).

Were they just not available or do you not have a relationship with Universal that lets you run their repertory titles? Are you running platters or something?
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-26-2010, 04:36 PM:
 
I hear the BluRay is awesome of Psycho.

Psycho on BluRay review
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-26-2010, 05:07 PM:
 
Regal played "Psycho" here in 35mm as part of the Spring 2010 Flashback series.

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what the complainers expected. They came to see "Psycho" in a theater and are disappointed that it wasn't some other "Psycho"? Next time give them the 1998 shot-for-shot remake by Gus Van Sant.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-26-2010, 05:27 PM:
 
We tried getting the 35mm print, but they were all booked up, which is understandable in October.

We thought about showing the BluRay, but it came out 2 days before our showing and we didn't want to risk not getting it or some other problem.

Maybe we can show the 35mm print for Mother's Day next year;>
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 10-26-2010, 05:38 PM:
 
The DVD undoubtedly looked better than 16mm and it was in the correct aspect ratio
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-26-2010, 05:46 PM:
 

quote: David Stambaugh

---

Next time give them the 1998 shot-for-shot remake by Gus Van Sant.

---

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin

---

We are not talking about 2K-4K D-Cinema, but DVD at ½K or BluRay at 1K.

---

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin

---

To answer the original question...

Film, to many of us, has a different look and feel, for lack of better words, from video. Both can look good, but it is not the same.

Additionally, for many of us so-called "film buffs", the reason we go out to see a classic film in a theatre is to see it the way it was originally shown. It's all part of the total experience.

As to picture quality, it may look acceptable, it is not. We are not talking about 2K-4K D-Cinema, but DVD at ½K or BluRay at 1K. Upconversion always leaves artifacts. Maybe you can't see the difference, but I sure can on a big screen.

For myself, I can think of no circumstance where I would pay money to see a DVD/BluRay in a public venue. These are consumer home formats, and I am quite capable of watching them at home. I would feel cheated.

---

I agree with every point Mitchell makes here. We have a local movie theatre here that closed but then has now "re-opened" as a movie theatre and live performance theatre. They just show the movies using DVD's, and have the nerve to charge $10-15 bucks for it. Umm, I can do that at home, for way cheaper. I felt totally ripped off.

And I guess what even makes it worse for this place, is they don't even bother to hide the projector and DVD player. Both are visable in the auditorium. You see the dude push play on the DVD player! It's not like they're projecting from a booth or anything. There's no professionalism to it.
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 10-27-2010, 04:18 PM:
 
The point the complainants were making is that there is no benefit to paying big $$ to watch a "video".

We are selling what is supposed to be an "experience", and when we use nothing more that what the patron uses at home to sell that experience, then they have every right to feel ripped off.

Its like paying to be driven around an F1 race track in a "racing car" only to find out it's Vectra.

The patron WILL pay to see what they can NOT see at home. When we start using DVD as our medium of exhibition then we should not expect people to come out and visit our theatres when there is no value-added reason to.

To paraphrase - Why would I pay more than what a dvd s worth to sit in a big room watching a dvd?

If I was one of the patrons attending the show and a dvd was, plainly or otherwise used, then I would be spitting chips.

This is, and soon will be a very major issue we all have to deal with. Either we pull our fingers out of our arses and realise that we have to offer 'above and beyond' what the punter can get at home or we shut up shop and open a video store.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-27-2010, 05:04 PM:
 
With a DCinema projector...the ability to "get away" with a BluRay will be easier than with a DVD...which, unless you are really blind or stupid does not look anything like a film presentation...there simply is no detail there and the dynamic range is really crushed.

I like the phrase "Psychology" because that is correct. As others have pointed out...one does not like to feel that what they are paying a premium for is what they could get at home. The presumption is that when one pays a premium price, they are getting something more "professional."

I may stand alone here but I will take a 16mm showing over a DVD any day. Depending on the system, I might take it over a BluRay or I might take the BluRay. As anyone that has run a lot of 16mm will tell you...the print quality varies wildly (not just in damage but in actual dupe quality). I like 16mm...it remains my preferred documentary format (for watching). There is something just so comfortable about it...perhaps it is what I grew up with but I just like the look of it.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-27-2010, 05:12 PM:
 
I would not knowingly buy a ticket to see a home-video on the big screen. In fact, there aren't that many movies (contemporary or repertory) that would get me out of my house, even on film.

I've run repertory prints of many movies and, while I love *showing* movies, rep prints are usually too flawed/compromised for me to enjoy as a spectator.

Even with new movies, when I consider the TOTAL COST of going to the movies (including the out-of-control ticket prices, the hassle of adhering to a showtime schedule, dealing with traffic, parking and an increasingly annoying, ill-mannered audience)most experiences don't justify the cost.

So, if "film done right" isn't enough to get me out of the house, Home Video certainly ain't gonna do it.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 10-27-2010, 05:12 PM:
 
I wonder if they would have been just as upset if it had been a DCinema copy they were watching?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-27-2010, 06:25 PM:
 
Probably not...DCinema has a notably better look than DVD and even BluRay...particularly on larger screens.

Though there remains something sanitary about video versus film.

Now 10-20 years from now when there will be people in their 20-30s that have not really had film at all in their daily lives, you might just see the opposite...folks that don't want to see a film version as it is "flawed."

For now, it is often the reverse, particularly in "rep" houses.

Like Manny, it takes a lot to get me to a theatre anymore...I just don't like the experience. 70mm will do it though. I generally have the stipulation...for me to see a movie, they must have a grand drape, and it must have a projectionist and ideally changeover operation (no platters). That severely limits my choices, nowadays. Fortunately, the AFI/Silver is close enough though they don't run mainstream movies 1st run.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 10-27-2010, 07:39 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Though there remains something sanitary about video versus film.

---

This very true. For me its the ultra sharp image, no indication imperfection in the image, and absolutely no jump or weave.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-27-2010, 07:40 PM:
 
Scaling and all of its derivatives have only one l.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-27-2010, 08:53 PM:
 

quote: Ian Parfrey

---

we use nothing more that what the patron uses at home to sell that experience, then they have every right to feel ripped off.

---

I don't really agree with that. I guess I don't know about everyone else but here, if we do show a DVD, it goes through the same projector and sound system that we use to show movies on, and the picture is the same size as it is with a regular movie. So it's not exactly like they're watching a TV on a wall.

In our one DVD show, we did announce the fact that it was a DVD and everyone seemed to be happy....in fact the only comment I got was that the movie was "pretty darn rough" for a PG film!
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-27-2010, 09:14 PM:
 
I never said that DCinema didn't have imperfections...actually, quite the opposite. I find the DCinema image VERY flawed...the lack of the ability to have non-stair-stepped lines or perception of depth I find quite disturbing. The sharpness you see is a lack of detail that I see.

Steve
 

---

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 10-27-2010, 09:15 PM:
 
I have to admit, I've asked for my money back when attending a repertory screening and it turns out to be a DVD. It's not an issue if they were to let me know in advance, but I don't like showing up, paying my gold, and then have a DVD projected.

My wife and I basically stopped going to the Ohio Theatre Summer Movie Series because they have gone to DVD more and more. Worse still, they sometimes refuse to tell people -- even when called in advance -- what format is playing.

If we do something from DVD/Blu-Ray/MPEG-4, we always note that it is a "Digital Presentation". That's all I ask as a patron, so I owe it to our customers to do the same.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-27-2010, 09:22 PM:
 
Agreed with David--advertising is the key here. If the program says "35mm," then I fully expect that the theatre will show a 35mm print, and would be disappointed if it showed something else (except maybe 70mm). If the program does not state the format, and the theatre normally shows 35mm film, then I think that it is reasonable for the patrons to assume that the feature will be 35mm, and to be angry if the theatre shows a different format.

If the program says DVD, 16mm, Digi-Beta, HDCAM, etc., then patrons can make an informed decision about whether to take time out of their schedule and cash out of their pockets to see the show. Some only want to see film, some prefer video, and most won't care.

As I posted elsewhere, I do believe that films made before the mid-2000s (or made later, but not released in ) should be shown on film in repertory engagements. In the case of Psycho, Mr. Hitchcock made a _film_. Not a DVD, not a videotape, not a series of bits on a magnetic platter, but an actual film, which was intended to be presented as film. To show it in another format (without making that fact clear in advance, preferably along with some reasoning (e.g. "35mm print not available" or "no good 35mm prints available") would be like holding an art exhibition with photographic reproductions instead of actual paintings. Is it better to see the reproduction than not see the work at all? Sure. But that isn't the right way to showcase artwork.

One case that I find interesting is 16mm vs. video when a proper 35mm print is unavailable. Each has its virtues. The problem is that 16mm prints are pretty much all over the map in terms of quality, but some are truly beautiful. I would not wish a pan-and-scan or badly faded 16mm print on anyone, but for something shot in Academy and with mono sound, it can sometimes look much better (or, at least, closer to the original) than the video copy.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-27-2010, 09:31 PM:
 
if i liked the movie enough i'd see it via d-cinema if it was a restoration or at least a fresh dci scan off the negative

film "purists" really bug me when they cite film's "imperfections" as if it's something so wonderful. which imperfections? oh, you mean the ones we've spent our whole (collective) careers trying to minimize and/or eliminate? like grain, jump and weave? strobing? dust and dirt? scratches?

i love handling film and i love projecting film -- i like the toys and it reminds me of my childhood -- but given a choice to see a movie on film or via d-cinema presented at somebody else's cinema? i usually choose d-cinema.

that's right. i said that out loud.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-28-2010, 08:40 AM:
 
Getting back to perceptions and reality, how many outside of the purists who are not on this list, really care if it is a DVD?

Judging from my conversations with the public, they think everything we show and everything shown at the commercial cinemas here is a DVD. They also think we have a library of film upstairs

Of the 110 people who saw Psycho from DVD, 2 complained. The rest of the audience applauded at the end. This is not a plea for appealing to the lowest common denominator, but an observation that going to the movies is something different to the format in which it is presented.

That and the movie industry has trained audiences for a couple of decades to accept the worst possible presentations without complaining.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-28-2010, 07:42 PM:
 

quote: Martin McCaffery

---

This is not a plea for appealing to the lowest common denominator

---

That's where we disagree.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-28-2010, 08:02 PM:
 
So you ARE pleading that we appeal to the lowest common denominator?
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-28-2010, 08:05 PM:
 
I meant it seemed you had lost your way and were defending showing consumer DVD's on the grounds that "film done wrong" was the norm, so what's wrong with taking one more step down the slippery slope?
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-29-2010, 08:45 AM:
 
I don't think anyone in this thread is defending consumer DVD's over film done right. We have all said, implicitly or explicitly, we prefer a pristine 35mm print. What's been discussed is the variety of trade-offs which are forced upon us by the motion picture industry, which is not the least bit interested (after the gala premiere) in film done right.

Ultimately, we are in the business of pleasing an audience. If done 100% right is not an option, then we can choose not to do it at all, or make the best compromise we can. If the compromise is too great, we lose the audience anyway. If the audience is entertained, maybe they will be back to see what we can do when we are allowed to do it right.

I've never advocated for full time DVD, but the motion picture industry is certainly pushing that way for any theatre doing classics or rep. We all lose then.
 

---

Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 10-29-2010, 06:03 PM:
 
Shucks, if you have a DCI spec projector just book the DCI print. Its available. I have one sitting next to me right now. (Psycho)

Most of the Universal titles are/will be available rather soon.
Unfortunately the other studios seem a bit slow on mastering their catalog to DCI.

But on the question on DVD/Bluray. Bluray does not look bad, but I'm not a fan of DVD on the big screen. It just seems too soft for my taste.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-29-2010, 06:27 PM:
 
I've done several tests with DVD's on the NEC. Some look better than others (Raiders looks VERY good - can't wait to see what the BR looks like) but not sure I'd play a DVD to a paying audience.

On the other hand, I would project a scaled BR in a heartbeat over a beat up crappy old 35mm print.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-29-2010, 07:43 PM:
 

quote: Todd McCracken

---

Shucks, if you have a DCI spec projector just book the DCI print.

---

We're a 35mm house.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-30-2010, 09:51 PM:
 
Right. So the alternatives are:

1. new 35mm print; not going to happen.

2. new dci digital transfer; costs even more than 35mm (for small releases) not going to happen.

3. don't play it at all.

4. crappy old 35mm print.

5. blue ray/dvd.

Sounds like a recipe to close the theatre unless studios change their tune. Louis
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-31-2010, 01:18 AM:
 
I know a great 35mm print of PSYCHO exists coz I've played it within the last 3 years.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-31-2010, 02:29 AM:
 
Correction, you knew one existed 3 years ago. That doesn't mean it is still great, coz people just don't seem to be competent enough to handle film well any more.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-31-2010, 11:52 AM:
 
Yes, 35mm prints of Psycho exists, and I think they struck some new ones for the 50th anniversary. Availability is the problem we had, as stated earlier.

As long as most of the distribs encourage the smaller, less profitable, venues like ours to show DVD/BluRay then it has to be considered a semi-professional level format, like it or not.

On the other hand, you have to love the irony/hypocrisy of an industry that has invested millions forcing DCI on the exhibitors, and are perfectly fine with their product being shown from DVD once it is past the first run.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-31-2010, 12:20 PM:
 
DCI is all about anti-piracy.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-31-2010, 04:47 PM:
 
Well, there's reality, and then there is what they say publicly

From the DCI Homepage:

quote:

---

DCI's primary purpose is to establish and document voluntary specifications for an open architecture for digital cinema that ensures a uniform and high level of technical performance, reliability and quality control.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

DCI is all about anti-piracy.

---

quote: Martin McCaffery

---

I've got a board committee to deal with

---

quote: David E. Nedrow

---

These prints are supposed to be changeover only, but it's clear there's some "cheating" going on.

---

quote: Martin McCaffery

---

They can't watch the film they "own" on a big screen, in a theatre, with 100 other people at their house, so what is it about "owning" the DVD that makes them feel ripped off seeing one in the theatre?

---

quote: Martin McCaffery

---

They can't watch the film they "own" on a big screen, in a theatre, with 100 other people at their house, so what is it about "owning" the DVD that makes them feel ripped off seeing one in the theatre?

---

If "big" is important, they certainly can watch on a "big" screen at home. Front HD 1080p projectors are available these days for under 2 grand. A 12' wide screen at home, when you are sitting 18' feet back from the screen, gives you the same emotional impact as a 30' screen sitting 50 feet back.

Most people who have a problem with paying to see a DVD/BLURAY don't care if they can see it with a 100 other people. In fact, my guess is most would rather not.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-01-2010, 04:32 PM:
 
You got THAT right!
 

---

Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 11-01-2010, 06:17 PM:
 
I just finished running the first 10 minutes of the new Blu Ray "Sound of Music" in my screning room. 11' screen sitting 18 feet back looks pretty damn good to me....and that's on a 1080P LCD. The track is kick-ass.

Don
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-01-2010, 07:50 PM:
 

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin

---

Most people who have a problem with paying to see a DVD/BLURAY don't care if they can see it with a 100 other people. In fact, my guess is most would rather not.

---

quote: Martin McCaffery

---

Just like Stripes in a couple of weeks.

---

Is that to be film or video?
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-01-2010, 09:06 PM:
 
DVD. No prints exist, according to the distributor.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 11-08-2010, 11:44 AM:
 
I think the title of this thread is quite apt. With catalog releases, it really is all about the psychology of the experience. If people never wanted to see a movie in a theater that is available on DVD, then we'd never see theaters run film series, such as holiday classics, Hitchcock film festivals, and the like.

If done right, I think that a theatrical showing of any movie of interest can be successful.

Going to a movie is a psychological experience to begin with. It's the idea of making time to go out and do something, it's going into a group environment, where those in attendance can be an integral part of the enjoyment, it's having someone else do the work and letting the viewer just enjoy the show.

The trouble is that I think it's quite challenging to have the experience hit the right notes with the majority of attendees. Picking the right movie, setting the right tone, and the uncontrollable variable of the crowd, can impact how enjoyable the experience is.

Yes, there's always going to be a few people that are going to get hung up on the technical details, but I don't think that's able to be avoided. Within reason, I don't think I'd care if it was DVD, Blu-ray, 35mm, or Digital Cinema, as that's a small aspect of the overall experience.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 11-09-2010, 11:13 AM:
 
I can tell you that as a consumer who does enjoy watching older movies in a cinema, there is no freaking way I am paying money to watch a DVD projected on a screen. Hell, with BluRays and HD beiing common, I have a tough time watching DVDs projected in a home theater these days. Imagine how much worse it looks on a real big screen.

I think the whole theater experience means a lot different to the current era. In the old days, we had VHS and no HD in the home exhibition business. Right now, home choices are a lot better. So a theater is not the only option one has to watch a good big presenation of a classic movie. The social aspect counts for some, but with youtube and other outlets, people are making their own shared aspect of moviewatchine - live or through collective comments.

To each his own. If enough people liked that sort of thing- DVD on a big screen, I guess more power to them. But I undersstand why people would voice their dissatisfaction with watching something they own or can have acccess to at thome on a big screen in the same format.

I know many people have poor video perception(cant even tell the difference between a square and a rectangle). But I would assume the average person could tell something is off if they had to watch a DVD projected on a big screen.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 11-17-2010, 06:44 PM:
 
> it really is all about the psychology of the experience

And watching a motion picture on film is a big part of that psychological experience...
 

---

Posted by Jon Morgan (Member # 3059) on 11-18-2010, 10:38 AM:
 
We do DVD or Blu-Ray occasionally for classic films and all the time for locally made stuff. We showed House on Blu-Ray and Death Bed: The Bed That Eats on DVD (House was all booked on 35mm and Death Bed might have one 16mm print, but it was questionable and but we're not equipped for 16mm anymore). We had about 100 people show up--one guy demanded his money back (he's a regular who does this for anything digital including our d-cinema stuff), which we gladly obliged, and the other 99 people had a blast.

I fully believe that the customers have a right to make an informed decision when deciding to come to a screening. If somebody doesn't want to pay to see a DVD, I totally understand, and if they bought tickets without realizing what format it was in and want a refund, that's cool too. The vast majority of my customers don't care and can't tell the difference. I'm not saying I can't--properly presented film is vastly superior to anything digital--but most people who come to these events aren't nearly concerned as we are by what format we're projecting.
 

---

Posted by Jarret Chessell (Member # 5077) on 11-18-2010, 08:54 PM:
 
The argument of "I can watch the dvd at home" also is flawed in that:
-Most people don't have nice gear at home (I know we have exceptions here).
-A lot of people don't even have things set up properly at home.*

*My father who hasn't busted 60 yet bought a new 52" LCD TV. He had a $40 dvd player plugged in using the composite cables. It was forcing a 4:3 signal to his 16x9 tv. He was actually watching it letterboxed on the sides and the top and bottom, at 480i! He also was only using the L&R audio.
If this is a typical home setup (and I believe it is), you should be giving the average joe pretty good bang for their buck.

I also bought my father a blu-ray player and hooked it up with HDMI and some 5.1 niftyness
 

---

Posted by Tony L. Hernandez (Member # 3524) on 11-18-2010, 09:59 PM:
 
I have found that there are two kinds of people interested in classic movies. There are those who will drive up to 100 miles to see any kind of celluloid print on the big screen and there are those who would not go see "The Sound Of Music" on 70mm in a theater even if it was right across the street from them because "they own it on Blu-Ray and it looks just as good in their home theater". Needless to say, the former expects film. The only gray area I have fond is the crowd of grandparents and late-in-life parents who saw a certain movie on the big screen 40 years ago when it came out and want to share the experience with their young children and grandchildren. These folks usually don't care what format it is shown in so long as the image is projected on a big screen in a theater full of people, just how they remember. This crowd, however,is usually only 10% of your audience.

I had one instance where I had a modern French film come into one of my arthouses that had 3 big, green emulsion scratches right down the middle. It was so bad that the distributor sent a back up DVD. On the night of the show, I set both the 35mm up as well as the DVD & digital projector. Before the show, I went before the audience and announced the abysmal condition of the 35mm print and took a "show of hands" vote on which they would rather see. Out of the 70 or so people, only one person wanted to see the DVD instead. We ran the 35mm and still, the people were happy with their choice despite the condition.

Another case was last December when I wanted to book a classic Christmas film for the 3-plex mall cinema on the western slope of Colorado that I had just reopened. I tried for a 35mm print but they were all taken by larger venues. My options were a DVD of any film I chose or a very old 16mm print of "Miracle on 34th Street" in excellent condition. I went with the 16mm print of "Miracle" and installed a temporary 16mm projection system in the largest house along side the 35mm. The first day I ran the film (we ran it every day for the week leading up to Christmas, free of charge) there were only about 45 people in the audience and ironically, the film broke above the gate about 3/4 thru the show. Needless to say, this interrupted the show and brought to the audiences attention that it was an actual film print. Being a small town, word spreads quickly and the next day, my audience was tripled. I had about 25-30 people come up to me and say how they were not planning to come since "Miracle" plays all the time on TV that time of year but when they found out it was being shown "from an old projector-film reel" (as many of them called it), they could not miss the chance to see it and/or have their children experience it.

We can all debate the quality issues all day long here but when it comes to the classics, people want to see what they can't see anywhere else : "an old projector -film reel" on the big screen. They can buy a DVD at Wal-Mart and watch it whenever they want. Like many others have said, this thread's title is very pertinent...it's all about the "psychology".
I do not condemn anyone who has to run DVD/Blu-Ray in their theater. I have to do it from time to time myself as some classics simply are not available or some of the low-budget film makers cannot afford prints (in the case you run an arthouse). I simply think we need to be mindful of our customers by advertising the format, if possible and sympathizing with their concerns.

Steve Guttag, you do not stand alone. I would take a 16mm over a DVD or Blu-Ray any day of the week. While DVD has been a godsend for homes,churches and small classrooms, I believe it has no theatrical value. Blu-Ray may have some argument but still, it is not film or even DCinema. I too have asked for refunds when I have gone to see a classic on the big screen and been "surprised" with a DVD blow-up.
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-18-2010, 11:10 PM:
 
Tony, my experiences at UC Irvine over the last 13 years mirrors yours. Our audience has always preferred film over video, and in a lot of cases when DVD or other video is our only option for media, our attendance would go down.

But in general, if the audience knows in advance that a screening was on video, there were no complaints about being shortchanged.

And in the cases of damaged print vs. video backup, the audience choice has always been film.

Welcome back, noticed you'd been gone for a while..check your PM's as I just sent you one.
 

---

Posted by Tony L. Hernandez (Member # 3524) on 11-19-2010, 12:47 AM:
 
Thanks for the welcome back. This year has been crazy and I am finally getting back on here!
Often, we even have to discount our digital shows (unless it is something very exclusive) just to get a decent turnout. Such is life on the campus of a large, film-oriented film school. I cannot say I disagree with them though. Paying a large fee to watch a blown-up DVD is like going to a high-end Asian restaurant and being served a plate of Top Ramen for $15 simply because it is in a fancy restaurant and served on a pretty plate. Much as I love Ramen, I'll eat it at home for $.50 and save my money for a more unique and higher quality meal out.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 11-19-2010, 11:16 AM:
 
DVD doesnt even look great on a 60 incnh rear projection. I cant imagine how bad it looks on a big screen in a theater. I hope it doesnt look as bad as those premovie advertisements. At the very least, use BluRay.
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-19-2010, 01:47 PM:
 
Tony:

Pravin, DVD looks passable on my hi-def projector at UCI, we have an 80' throw and I get about a 20' wide image in letterbox mode. If you sit from mid-house back, the image is acceptable. Any closer and pixels are an issue.

Blu-ray does a bit better.

VHS, as Joe would say, looks like ass at any viewing distance.

See the pics UC Irvine HIB 100 in the warehouse.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-19-2010, 07:13 PM:
 
I've viewed a few DVDs on our screen using our Blu-Ray player which has the "upconvert" feature. It makes them look very, very good...not film or DCinema quality of course, but far better than I ever expected them to look. Looney Tunes in particular look amazingly good. Makes me want to show them to audiences again.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-19-2010, 07:46 PM:
 
The difficulty here is that YOUR THEATRE brings with it an expectation of quality. If you fail to deliver, you tear down that expectation.

Hence, 16mm, dvd, blue ray, or whatever MUST BE equal to your normal presentation if you are to survive. Louis
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-19-2010, 07:53 PM:
 

quote: Tony L. Hernandez

---

I had about 25-30 people come up to me and say how they were not planning to come since "Miracle" plays all the time on TV that time of year but when they found out it was being shown "from an old projector-film reel" (as many of them called it), they could not miss the chance to see it and/or have their children experience it.

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

But if they see film reels as "old" wouldn't this tell you that a good portion of your audience hasn't a clue that you're normally running 35mm? Just playing "Devil's Advocate" here...

---

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

The difficulty here is that YOUR THEATRE brings with it an expectation of quality. If you fail to deliver, you tear down that expectation.

---

Indeed it does. And different audiences have different definitions of quality. If the vast majority of them enjoy the show on DVD (and my audiences will tell me if they don't) we've fulfilled at least some expectation, if not all, of quality. I think it is important they know we try to get them the best product we can.

And then there is the whole matter of films originated on video of some sort, that are only available on DVD. We are part of a touring filmmakers project. These can be newbie, or (indie) industry veterans. They are happy to show their films in any venue that will have them. No audience member (admittedly small audiences) has ever complained about the films being shown on DVD. Of course, none of them owned the film before seeing it, either. This week we had one filmmakers and he said our picture was the best he had ever seen it projected. I think that says more about where he's had to show it, but at least we still maintain a level of quality, even when we have to show DVD's.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 11-19-2010, 08:35 PM:
 
We did our first public presentation of a DVD on Veterans Days of "Warrior Champions: From Baghdad to Beijing". It was a "by invitation only" showing presented by the University of Central Oklahoma.

We had about an 80' throw and at about 30' from the screen it looked as grainy as 35mm at does at the screen. Any closer then you began to see the pixels. It would have looked a little better if the content had not been shot with a handheld camera. Everyone I talked to thought the picture looked really good.

I'm using a Dell Dimension 8400 3.8Ghz desktop equipped with a LG BluRay drive; Nvidia 9400GT graphics with HDMI HDCP compliant output; using Cyberlink PowerDVD BluRay software; Soundblaster Audidy. The graphics card picks up the native resolution of the Christie CP2000ZX at 2048x1080. No scaler required.
 

---

Posted by Tony L. Hernandez (Member # 3524) on 11-19-2010, 09:06 PM:
 
That is precisely correct. That particular instance happened in a first-run, mainstream mall three-plex (I have my hands in both the arthouse/reparatory and the first-run worlds) where the general public believes all movies are shown on DVD. They are the average joe who worries more about the quality of picture and sound more than they do what format it is showing on. The arthouse/repertory world on the other hand is completely different...they have a general idea of the different projection methods and want to know in advance what it is showing on. That said, in the blockbuster world, it would be a moot point (if not downright silly) to advertise having "A Brand New, 35mm print of "How To Train Your Dragon" in Cinemascope 2.35!". It sounds like the original poster runs an arthouse which also explains his audiences concern with the film's format
Also, when a film actually breaks (which it rarely to never does these days with almost everything being printed on polyester), it reminds everyone, both young and old, stupid and genius, that it is a film print.
Especially in my theaters (and other film done right houses) where prints never get scratches or dirt and malfunctions are an extremely rare occurrence, it helps the general misconception that everything has gone digital. This is due to audiences now expecting a scratched dirty print and a show plagued with film breaks and malfunctions while on the other hand, it is being pumped into everyone's heads how bright, beautiful and trouble free digital supposedly is.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 01-07-2011, 10:47 AM:
 
Isn't it ironic that Arthouse cinemas most frequently now are the very establishments that directly undermine the work of talented filmmakers, artists and craftspeople by screening the fruits of their labours off DVD?

Isn't it more respectful not to screen their work if a suitable screening format (a good 35mm print, or if unavoidable, a DCP) isn't available?

Just look at the painstaking work that goes into production, costume and sound design; art direction; make-up; editing; cinematography; camera operation; lighting; rigging; writing; acting; directing; producing. What about those people? Why are their contributions overlooked?

Even more ironic that "making of" featurettes that showcase these arts and crafts are standard features on...DVDs!
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-07-2011, 12:48 PM:
 
Well, lots of the REALLY independent films, as opposed to Hollywood independent films, ARE only available on DVD.

And, of course, we arthouses are not in a position to say the the studios" "You'll never play in this theatre again." We would only get them to giggle between stifled yawns.

Most of us WANT to show 35mm prints, and good ones. It's not profitable for the studios to strike new prints even if they gave a damn about the arthouses. They are not in it for the ART afterall.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 01-10-2011, 08:08 AM:
 
Sure, but if some independent "films" are only available on DVD, then they shouldn't be shown in cinemas in the first place!

Yes, Blu-Ray is vastly better but still cannot capture the detail of a good 35mm print, especially on 'Scope.

The exhibitor can exercise a lot of control when they're booking classic or rep titles. If a print isn't available, then something else can be shown for which there is a good print available.

Admittedly it's difficult to go this route as it frankly involves putting a lot of people's noses out of joint, such is the pressure to compromise on standards today. But someone needs to call a halt to a situation where Art is now at the service of Technology, when the reverse should apply.
 

---

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 01-10-2011, 03:18 PM:
 

quote: Martin McCaffery

---

Most of us WANT to show 35mm prints, and good ones. It's not profitable for the studios to strike new prints even if they gave a damn about the arthouses. They are not in it for the ART afterall.

---