[Carlman]

I thought this was fairly interesting:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581&e=1&u=/nm/20031227/tc_nm/column_pluggedin_dc

Is this old news?

-C

[bubba966]

Old news? Sort of...

Digital does a couple of things better than film. But it's still got a looooong way to go before it actually eclipses the picture quality of 35MM. And who knows if it'll ever get up to the level of 70MM.

I find it sad that the general public just blindly accepts that "digital is the way to see it". But the current state of theater running is making 35MM viewing to be much worse than it should be.

There are no more projectionists. There is no $ being put into upkeep & calibration of projection & sound systems anymore. The only time anything ever gets fixed is when there's a catastrofic (sp?) failure. And then it's usually only half-assed just so that there's some kind of picture on the screen & something resembling sound coming out of the speakers.

So the bad state of 35MM film projection is making it easier for Ti/Lucas/etc. to say "see, we told you digital was better". When the truth is that 35MM is much better if run with the minimal amount of care that it's not getting anymore.

[Carlman]

Interesting... sounds like what Steinbrenner is doing with the Yankee's stadium...  letting it go to pot so he can justify building a new one.... even though the current one is what eveyone wants to keep.... because it's better and they like it.

I didn't know there weren't projectionists... however, it makes sense.  I have grown to dislike going to the theater because of the poor quality sound and the wiggly projections.  The entire image moves around a lot more than it used to.  Also, it seems almost sharp but, not quite like the focus needs to be checked one last time.  It's not bad enough to complain, just enough to annoy.  The wiggly fuzz drives me crazy.  Then, the sound is sooooo LOUD and bad.  It sounds like an abundance of cheap minisystems were implemented.  I often hear clipping during explosions.  Also, the bass is louder and deeper in the bathrooms than it is in the theater sometimes....

Anyway, that's my theater rant.  I still liked seeing Lord of the Rings Return of the King the day it opened... it was a fairly pleasant experience.  In focus and the sound wasn't too bad.  But, that's not the norm.  However, I haven't been to a theater where I thought both the sound and image was excellent.... except for Epcot center's 3-d presentation.  That was incredible.... but, was many years ago.  

I think I'll just buy a big TV and some half-decent speakers and a receiver and be happy.  For 3,k and the cost of microwave popcorn, I'll end up saving money after a few years.

[boxhead]

This seems to be a problem throughout the country. Here in Houston we have a really good cinema called Edwards and it has some of the best sound and scope around. Maybe because of the IMAX format is the reason why but even their other screens are on par. If movie theaters would go to fewer screens then maybe the problem would go away. I will not go to one of those 30 screen monsters and be relegated to one of the mini-screens. Give me a widescreen with THX and I will go. If it has been recently calibrated that is. Cheers.

[BrunoB]

I didn't know there weren't projectionists... however, it makes sense.  I have grown to dislike going to the theater because of the poor quality sound and the wiggly projections.  The entire image moves around a lot more than it used to.  Also, it seems almost sh ...

I don't go to the movie theater anymore. Both sound and picture suck.
I watch movies on a 27 '' Samsung HDTV  very close to the screen (about 5 feet). The picture is small but it is bright , it has deep blacks and the color are vibrant, qualities that I miss in the theater (=big greyish screen). Even without a sub, the sound is way better than in the theater - there is simply no comparison.

Carl, I did not think about it, but I should have let you watch 20 min of LOTR when you came to listen to my system. I am sure you would have liked it.


Bruno

[nathanm]

Oh this will be great, films beamed over the internet.  Maybe they can play live, up-to-the-minute advertisements on the top and bottom of the frame while the movie is playing?  That will be so cool.  Movies with banner ads, I can't wait.  You know damn well the day is not far off for that kind of insanity...

I say if you're going digital crank up that frame rate to 48fps!

There are no more projectionists. There is no $ being put into upkeep & calibration of projection & sound systems anymore. The only time anything ever gets fixed is when there's a catastrofic (sp?) failure. And then it's usually only half-assed just so that there's some kind of picture on the screen & something resembling sound coming out of the speakers.

 Really!?  There's nobody back there making sure the thing is working right?  It's all automated?  I always wanted to see what the heck a commerical theater projector room looked like.  I would not be surprised if the image would be improved with a person up there who actually gave a shit.  Although it's always more fun to see something in a theater than it is at home I can't say I'm impressed with the image quality.  Although when you consider the degree of enlargement that image is enduring it's amazing it looks as good as it does.  My abiding memories of theater movies consist mostly of the film grain and the texture of skin.  Since nobody cares to shoot much besides extreme closeups in modern movies you tend to get a real dermatological view of the actors.

The graininess can be cool though.  If done right it should be possible for digital technology to emulate the contrast, color range and grain of film but I agree with Bubba, it's a ways off.  This is just like the CD vs. Vinyl\SS vs. tubes issue, no difference at all.  The same factors are at play.