Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Worst Digital Projection EVER!

This is topic Worst Digital Projection EVER! in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=006552

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-15-2011, 12:13 AM:

Just when I was getting to think that it was a given that if I went into a theatre that had digital projection, I would be pretty much guaranteed a top draw presentation.
I have seen dozens of digital presentations over the past few years and thought, if this is our future sans film, the majority of people in smaller markets all over the country who have had to suffer terrible film presentation as we all have documented on these pages, digital will be a significant improvement.

Then today I saw J. EDGAR HOOVER at The Grand Theatre at Brannon Crossing in Nicholasville KY. If anyone knows what chain, if any, owns this cinema, please inform because nowhere on the ticket or anywhere in the physical plant is there any indication that it is a chain operation.

If the snipe that was run before the feature didn't say it was "A Digital Presentation," I would have sworn I was watching really bad film. First off the image was soft from start to finish -- was it a bad 2K transfer, NO. The MPAA green tag on the trailer, which always is so razor sharp it hurts, was soft and that near-out-of-focus condition continued throughout the film.

But it gets worse; the brightness was so dark, it looked like a xenon bulb about to give up the ghost -- something you expect in badly run film operations.

And on top of that, this super dark picture was projected onto a high gain silver screen which had an unusually center bright spot with fall-off so severe that any objects that were placed on either end of the scope screen were literally in the dark. Even the set lights looked like they weren't on; faces practically disappeared in dull darkness.

I'll give it this -- the sound was impressive -- Dolby Surround EX -- barely used to any significent extent, but it was clear and robust with good separation. That said, it certainly didn't make up for the awful picture.

Yes I complained -- but the Customer Service youngster seemed not concerned about the technical failing but focused on me being unhappy -- he gave me two comps. I didn't voice my complaint because I decided to see the whole film regardless of the bad picture, and was not there to get comps but to alert them to the problem. He seemed only I eager to "make me happy." I have little hope this screen will be properly lit any time soon.

Thing is, remember how we have been saying that putting digital into booths that ran underlit and generally crappy substandard film presentation would find a way to do the very same thing even with spanking new digital systems? Well... It Has Begun.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-15-2011, 12:44 AM:

Shitty theaters will always be shitty theaters.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-15-2011, 01:40 AM:

I've been to that cinema, but I saw a 35mm presentation that wasn't too bad.

It's too bad that your experience was ruined, and I fear this sort of thing will continue. Joe hit the nail on the head.

AJG

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-15-2011, 07:57 AM:

It is always the case with anything new that people make a big fuss over it in the beginning but, after it becomes a mundane, everyday occurrence, people will stop caring.

Think about cell phones. When they were first available, they were expensive and people treated them with a certain reverence. Only the richest and (presumably) the smartest people could have them. Then, when they became cheap and plentiful, people stopped caring. We carry them in our pockets. We toss them across the car seat. People drop them, break them and do all sorts of nasty things to them.

Also, if you notice, the quality also goes down. They get cheaper to make. They are cheaper to buy. They are just another run-of-the-mill tchotchke. Nobody cares anymore.

The same thing will happen to digital movies.

Right now, digital projectors are the "new, hot toy" in movie theaters. They are expensive. They are treated like venerated objects. Only certain people, technicians and managers are allowed to touch them but, when they become mundane, nobody will give a rat's ass.

They'll sit in the booth. Nobody will touch them. They'll get dusty and dirty. They will break down. It will take a week to get a technician to come and repair them... if the technician is called at all. The theater probably won't call until the projector goes down.

It's not going to happen overnight. It will be a gradual decline. It will probably take five or ten years. Maybe more. But, in the end, I guarantee that digital movies will end up being just as shitty as people think movies on film are.

We all know that, regardless of the technology, a good movie presentation depends on people who care about their work.

In the commercial movie theater of today, nobody really gives a shit. It's only a matter of time before digital movies turn to shit, too.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-15-2011, 08:09 AM:

The industry has purged itself of (almost) everyone who gives a shit. Louis

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 11-15-2011, 09:04 AM:

AMC Garland Firewheel 18 sucks too. Dim picture, still running preshow off a smaller projector (which didnt work), sound was very unimpressive (low stages, almost non-existent surrounds) and the masking shrunk both horizontally and vertically, picture didnt utilize full height or width of the screen. And I had to pay for my ticket, not used to doing that

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 11-15-2011, 11:26 AM:

The Firewheel is the dominating theater in that area which took business away from the UA/Regal Galaxy.
AMC is the dominating presence in DFW, with the Northpark 15 being one of the highest grossers.
Maybe the philosophy of "why should we do better as the customers will show up anyway" has crept in.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-15-2011, 01:04 PM:

The sad thing is customer service and a good "out of home" movie viewing experience is the only thing that differentiates what people can see in the home versus the theater.

I know about all the subtle differences between a Motion JPEG2000 based DCP and a dual layer Blu-ray disc with MPEG-4 AVC video. Nevertheless, both look very similar. There's not much visual difference between a 2K d-cinema image versus that of a 1080p Blu-ray image. The point is commercial movie theaters have very little clear technical advantage over home theater anymore.

quote: Randy Stankey
It's not going to happen overnight. It will be a gradual decline. It will probably take five or ten years. Maybe more. But, in the end, I guarantee that digital movies will end up being just as shitty as people think movies on film are.

That decline could eventually happen, provided if there is a commercial movie theater industry or movie industry at all in existence in another decade.

In the vain of trying to "find new revenue streams" and other short term vision nonsense the global media companies who own the movie industry are trying very hard to ruin both the commercial theater industry and home video industry at once. These bean counters think they'll do better if they have everyone streaming movies to their portable devices YouTube style. The idea is getting that movie revenue as fast as possible by delivering it to the viewer as fast as possible. They don't realize not everyone wants to watch movies that way. Not everyone wants to watch some badly compressed "HD" version of a movie stream into their game console or Apple® iPhone™. They're attacking the slower, yet vastly superior, delivery methods by over-reaching at "new media" via the Internet.

Here's a funny thing: that whole convenience thing cuts both ways. Yeah, I can download and watch the movie any time. That also means I can choose to put off watching the movie until any time later. And then I forget about watching the damned movie at all!

I've lost track of how many shows I've recorded onto my satellite receiver's DVR only to delete them later, un-watched.

When I have to make a conscious effort to watch the clock and then drive to a movie theater to see a certain show on that theater's schedule, that movie is actually going to get 100% of my undivided attention.

If I rent something on Blu-ray, I might have my notebook computer open on the coffee table while the movie is playing. If my girlfriend is watching the movie with me the notebook will be shut, but then we might start getting frisky with each other and get distracted from the movie that way. If the movie is playing on HBO, I'll likely be multi-tasking watching the movie while farting around on the computer. Basically, the more and more convenient the movie watching becomes the less of a shit I end up caring about it.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-15-2011, 02:42 PM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
The industry has purged itself of (almost) everyone who gives a shit. Louis

Bravo.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-15-2011, 03:03 PM:

Louis,

I swear like a sailor but you, never.

I thought retirement was supposed to mellow one out.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-15-2011, 03:46 PM:

Nah! Now the crusty factor is coming out! Louis

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-15-2011, 05:19 PM:

Well...with Andy Rooney dead, the world needs a new curmudgeon! [Big Grin]

Posted by David M. Leugers (Member # 2968) on 11-15-2011, 11:51 PM:

Well said, Bobby. Once the magic of the cinema is broken, if one single generation drops out of the theater-going habit, then all is lost. This is what the studios/distributors have feared since TV first showed on the horizon. Unwittingly, they now have done it. Last week I wanted to go see a film. My wife and movie-going partner for over 30 years didn't want to go saying she preferred watching films on Blu-Ray... it was a hard realization that I felt the same way if I had to watch it on video projection...

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-15-2011, 11:58 PM:

You're on to something Bobby. I fear the day going to the cinema dies...I hope it never does.

I kinda want to make it my life's work to keep that magic alive...I just don't know how.

AJG

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-16-2011, 12:07 AM:

Frank must have went into a house that had that hated unit throughout the industry, putting the picture on the screen ...

Cinemas are turning into a 'kid operated emporium' - operated by kids, ran by kids, since the product on the screen is kid orientated.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-16-2011, 11:01 PM:

Yeah, no a single employee over the age of 25 could be seen anywhere, and even then not more than four of them. The girl behind the concessions counter couldn't have been older than 16. Thing is, the place looked like a relatively new build. It was big and expansive, huge lobby and concession area.

What I am now wondering is, what would a 3D picture possibly look when they've got such a horribly underlit 2D image! If the 2D is this dark, when they play a 3D title they'd better supply headphones so the patrons could hear a description of what is supposed to be happening on the screen.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-16-2011, 11:24 PM:

We keep hearing about all the theatres being run by kids.

I'm amazed that the big chains trust their multimillion dollar buildings in the hands of people who (if anyone ever bothered to look) don't know what they're doing.

On the other hand, we've been to quite a few movies at chain theatres run by "kids" over the years and had a fine time.

I guess the lesson is, stay away from the "chains" unless you can find one where the help really gives a crap -- or find a mom-n-pop operation where mom or pop is probably selling tickets and/or running the booth and has a financial stake in the operation, and thus has a compelling reason to keep things running right.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-16-2011, 11:53 PM:

High school aged employees are not the biggest problem of commercial movie theaters. IMHO, the biggest problem is those "suits" sitting in the executive wings at global media companies.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-16-2011, 11:54 PM:

Yet, have seen small operations that have excellent control methods where the kids are trained properly and are taught to care, which is the real key to all of this.

This is how I began in this operation: a "mom and pop" drive-in whom the owner taught all of us how to care for things since everything in the building was valuable to the owner.

Thus,when it came down to projection, I was shown a lot how to take care of the equipment and splicing, but expanded on the steps that I was shown where I did excel in "perfect presentations".

You might say, that I showed great interest in his operation and I've carried these attributes to other venues that I've worked for - even to this present day.

Definitely a smart bunch of young people that emerges out of these operations...

-Monte

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 11-17-2011, 01:37 AM:

When I worked at a Regal 11 years ago I was one of the oldest people there at the time. Of course much older people were pulling the strings of most of the younger people there.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-17-2011, 03:53 AM:

It's really not a question of the person's age, but the training they receive. While age does imply experience, age can also lead to a lifetime of bad habits.

The problem I have is finding young people who display the attention to detail and technical skills to trust teaching them how to run projectors. And with digital, I find that a larger burden for maintenance and operation is falling on my shoulders. In part because I find it's often easier to do it myself than spend time trying to teach (yes, I know that's a very bad habit to fall into).

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-17-2011, 10:21 AM:

Regarding young employees, some of the problems can point back to a failure in management. If the old guy thinks the young ones working under him are nothing but dummies that negative vibe can get across to those kids and create a really bad moral problem. A manager must be willing to delegate tasks, even challenging ones, to his employees and put some trust in them to get the work done. Obviously they'll need supervision, but eventually the manager's job will be easier since he won't have to fart with certain tasks any longer. He'll have more time to weed through the mountain of paper work the home office keeps sending.
[Razz]

In a perfect world, a theater manager would only hire employees who really love movies and love the idea of working in a movie theater. In reality they get both good and bad employees. For high school age kids a theater can be a pretty good place to work, especially when considering many of the alternatives. Most would rather tear tickets than flip hamburgers. The manager kind of has to sell the employees on the place and convince them to care.

Posted by Matthew McBride (Member # 6598) on 11-17-2011, 12:02 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
The problem I have is finding young people who display the attention to detail and technical skills to trust teaching them how to run projectors.

One of the theaters that I used work for seemed to have a pretty good handle on this. They first had an age requirement of 18 or older to work in the booth. Also they wouldn't put a new hire right into the booth unless that person has had previous booth experience. They made the employees work they're way up from usher to concessionist to box office. Then if they showed enough responsibility they would be trained in the booth, however in order for them to even work upstairs, after the training they were required to take a test. This helped a lot to keep the presentation really good. Of course though there were still flaws in such a setup. It got so bad one time that the management refused to let anyone make-up/break-down prints except for me and one other projectionist. But as you said Justin, with more and more digital projectors, it's more of a question of maintenance than operation which requires a slightly different type of technical ability than film projectors I suppose.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 11-17-2011, 03:09 PM:

Frank, it sounds like the presentation of J. Edgar was pretty bad, but not as bad as 'Immortals' first show of the day at AMC Tyson's Corner last Friday. The trailers started, froze up on the second one, then we the audience were subjected to watching the projectionist calibrate and position the dual projector's for what seemed like ten minutes - the movie started but the image was soft and displayed ghosting for the film first ten to fifteen minutes - the audience were getting antsy and quite a few of them got up to complain, the projectionist went back fiddled again while the movie was playing, the darkening of the image corrected this which I felt was unacceptable since it also diminished the 3D *pop* of the film. The ETX screen has been nothing but widely inconsistent, whereas I've never seen or had any fault with Cinemark XD screen over at the Egyptian 24.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-17-2011, 03:56 PM:

Motion pictures on 35mm film in a theatre has come a long way since I first fell in love with it ever since I can remember and have seen it morph into Cinerama, dual projection Natural Vision 3-D, CinemaScope, Vistavision and the various 65mm formats.

I too saw THE IMMORTALS last week in house #12 at Regal's Pearl Highland in Real D on their very large screen and the presentation was flawless. Like many of you who still prefer film instead of digital projection, I too will miss it when everything reverts to digital within two years but from the 2-D films I have see in the format, I love it very much. I saw FOOTLOOSE in digital a few weeks ago and I felt like I was watching the movie with a picture quality very similar to a good Blue Ray on a very large screen and fantastic sound. If Digital projection like the FOOTLOOSE presentation I have seen is the future of motion picture theatrical exhibition, bring it on.

-Claude

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 11-18-2011, 07:47 PM:

"Digital" projection can look a whole lot worse than film ever looked. Just wait a couple more years.

The upper managment-moron types running things don't care about ANYTHING but immediate corporate greed.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-18-2011, 08:22 PM:

quote: Bruce Hansen
can look a whole lot worse than film ever looked. Just wait a couple more years.

?? ... wonder how? Can't scratch the print, or do anything to the file content. Sound, can't get fubared up.. Bulbs have to be changed right on at warranty hours, thus very little chance of flickering, if any.... et.al.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 11-18-2011, 08:46 PM:

Randy, I think there is a subtle difference between a $10 cell phone and a $50,000 projection system.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-18-2011, 08:52 PM:

quote: Bruce Hansen
The upper managment-moron types running things don't care about ANYTHING but immediate corporate greed.

I don't think it's that simple.

I believe that when a business grows beyond a certain size, the economies of scale that come with size are overshadowed by the sheer overhead of keeping a company running. It's easy for central office management to lose touch with the satellite locations. The entire business, everything and everybody in it are reduced to little more than numbers on paper.

The only common threads in a business like that are "the bottom line" and "how much people get paid."

It is a very rare breed of manager who can operate a giant corporation without losing touch of the business's mission. I'd say that there are only a handful of people like that in the whole world. Businesses like AMC, Regal and Cinemark probably will never be able to attract that kind of talent.

Yes, corporate greed has a lot to do with the problem but I think that people who are "simply greedy" are in the minority.

I say it's more because your average theater manager is too stupid to think about his job in any other way.

I think the solution is to have smaller theaters and more of them. Increase competition. Take scale out of the equation and force theater managers to compete in terms of quality and real customer satisfaction.

If this doesn't happen, I bet digital movie theaters will end up being just as bad as people say traditional theaters were.

Dumb ass managers will dream up new and creative ways to fuck up theaters. It's just a matter of time.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 11-18-2011, 08:56 PM:

Randy a bad manager can screw up a theater in a matter of few weeks! It might take a good manager months to undo those damages.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-18-2011, 09:58 PM:

quote: Edward Havens
Randy, I think there is a subtle difference between a $10 cell phone and a $50,000 projection system.

Yes. The price.

I'm not talking about how expensive something is or how it works. I'm talking about the way people treat technology. All forms of technology.

When technology is new, it is novel. It is expensive. It is treated with a certain amount of reverence and even veneration. Once people become accustomed to it, they look upon it as mundane.

Where, once, we treated cell phones as important tools for rich executives, we now treat them like toys and give them to our children to play with. They are disposable. They are chattel.

Now, because digital theater technology is a new technology we treat it with reverence and guard it. In the future, we will regard it as unimportant and treat it like chattel.

The same thing has happened with cars, televisions, cameras, computers and all manner of things.

It is only a matter of time before theaters are regarded in the same way.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 11-18-2011, 10:06 PM:

I still treat Muscle Cars with great deal of reverence they are worthy. Especially Pro-Stock drag race cars (that don't have an F'dup frame with a slightly twisted body). :-)

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-18-2011, 10:53 PM:

How did those cars get twisted frames and fucked up bodies?
Because people wrecked them.

Why do people wreck them?
Because they don't care.

Why don't people care?
Because they aren't shiny new cars with GPS, cell phones and built-in DVD players.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 11-19-2011, 08:15 AM:

Randy no not wreck because you drove them from 0 to 145 miles per hour in a quarter mile. The rapid revolution of the drive train creates tork which is passed though to the frame. The frame becomes twisted slightly ever time you race eventually body parts don't match up.

It is called racing happens to all racing cars!

Believe me I loved the cars I drove at drags but your job was to win if you could and can't do that driving like a little old lady on the way to church.

The reason you go in through window on most NASCAR's is the doors are wielded shut so you don't have to worry about the twist getting them in season. No need to worry it is built for one season and one season only.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-19-2011, 08:32 AM:

quote: Randy Stankey
It is a very rare breed of manager who can operate a giant corporation without losing touch of the business's mission. I'd say that there are only a handful of people like that in the whole world. Businesses like AMC, Regal and Cinemark probably will never be able to attract that kind of talent.

Some people show movies to make money. Others make money to show movies. [Wink]

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-19-2011, 08:59 AM:

The number one reason for things to happen in a large operation is to make the stock holders happy. If that happens, bonuses flow to top management.

All else is not relevant.

I hope this explains the system sufficiently. Louis

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-19-2011, 01:35 PM:

Randy, are you suggesting that a digital projection system is different than a film projection system in the way people will treat it when it's not a shinny new toy? Do you really think someone who is inclined to neglect a digital system when it becomes mundane would do any better with a film system?

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-19-2011, 02:00 PM:

I don't think he's suggesting that at all. I think he's suggesting that the current wave of "digital is so much better because of no scratches, brainwraps, etc" will be short-lived because the shitty people will still be shitty.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-19-2011, 03:11 PM:

I think it would be better if digital proponents would say that digital eliminates the POTENTIAL for scratches, dirt, brainwraps, etc. It's not like all that was a "given" with film.

And, film fans should keep in mind that it's also not a "given" that digital presentations will get worse over time.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 11-19-2011, 03:15 PM:

Like the classic muscle cars the condition of whatever you use is subject to how you use it. If you are bull in china closet with film it gets scratched if you are that with your digital equipment you will have trouble.

The muscle cars that are perfect condition have been restored to that or taken care of by someone that really loves the vehicle. Well anyway I am in agreement with Mike on this!

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-20-2011, 07:43 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
?? ... wonder how? Can't scratch the print, or do anything to the file content. Sound, can't get fubared up.. Bulbs have to be changed right on at warranty hours, thus very little chance of flickering, if any.... et.al.

Monty -- how, you ask? Just count the ways; the same way they mucked up this digital presentation -- management allowed the bulb to burn LONG past its rated life (just as they often did that with film) or the system was severly out of alignment yet management did nothing about it -- those digital tech service calls are expensive.

Whether it's digital or film, either way management remains the common denominator for film winding up with such mediocre to down-right terrible shows and so it will be for digital as equipment ages and corners are cut. Remember, film never came with dirt and scratches on it -- it was management that didn't care enough to address what was happening in the booth to cause mediocre presentation. Sure, the equipement in the booth changes from film to digital, but MANAGEMENT REMAINS THE SAME. The same guys who let speakers play with blown voice coils when film projectors were in the booth, no reason to think they won't do the same just because there is a digital box in the booth. So yes, sound can certainly be fubared up with digital.

IMHO, the outlook for really first-class theatrical presentation will slowly descend to about the same lack-luster level as it was when management was taking shortcuts that made film look bad; just give them time and they will be satisfied with the same "it's good enough" approach with digital.

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 11-20-2011, 08:51 PM:

Franks is right on the money here. Iv seen Digital installs where only techs could touch them, now the managers are allowed to do bulb changes, but they still have to wait untill it becomes a "presentation problem". So its up to the manager on site to get it done whenever they think it should be. What happens when its just got a bad install? Maybe the tech didnt care. Maybe the tech was some kid from best buy who had never SEEN a projector or booth before the install. Iv seen blatant probles like screen files being way off, and the "techs" excuse was that they were just too bust to get it right.

And yes, in an idea world the sound would be properly calibrated, designed is such a way that speakers would never be pushed to the point of failure, and amps wouldnt go bad, but it still happens. People that didnt care about film will care even less about digital. Managers wont be bothered to go in the booth and the ushers wont even know there is a problem. Yes scratches and dirt on screen may be gone but they will be replaced with a whole new set of flaws.