Is anyone aware that the folks at THX are now licensing PC's as THX certified? And no, I'm not talking for EQ use etc....

Thats's right, you can now play Quake III in all its THX glory. First ones to jump on this bandwagon? Dell. Is THX doing so poorly that they have to resort to "certifying" PC's? Do theatres, and home products not generate enough licensing fee's? Or is it simply greed?

When THX first started Theatre Certification, there was a huge quality gap between a THX Theatre and a non-THX theatre. That gap has been getting smaller and smaller over the years, and I hate to say it, but we at THX raised the bar for everyone... Brad's comments above show me that it is time we raise the bar again. I know THX Certified computers aren't going to do anything for theatres, but if you ever try and watch a DVD on your computer, those three letters do make a difference.

Best to all,

One more thing. Yes, THX is 50% picture and 50% sound, just like George said. In order for a theatre to be THX, it must meet or exceed our requirements in both those areas. If we only cared about sound, we could certify a lot more theatres... maybe twice the number we currently have certified. Really. Picture related problems count for close to half of our de-certifications / non-certifications.

And print condition, although the highest priority for TAP, is not something that we at THX can monitor or control... prints go in, prints go out, prints get moved, etc. I will give you an example. TAP looked at a very large percentage of the Family Man Dye Transfer prints, and although we rejected some, we saw many reels that looked fabulous. There were some reel replacement requests on some of the Dye Transfer prints, some of which were, dare I say it, damaged in projection at the theatre. We at TAP cannot guarentee that a print will not be scratched, or that it will repel dirt. We do hope that projectionists and film handlers throughout the world will take the time and care to make the theatrical presentation as good as it can be, but this can change with a lose roller or a hair in the gate. When we get into the world of Digital Cinema, oops, there I go, I said the "D" word, well, then we can talk about print condition as a requirement.

In the meantime, keep spreading the good word. Give me a quality presentation, or give me death.

I still say up the rate of certification and hire a couple of people to go around and spot check all the THX certified auditoriums. If the print is scratched when the THX guy does his inspection, there is a fine and/or loss of certification.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Unfortunately, we've raised our requirements for Theatre Evaluators. To qualify as an Evaluator, you must have won TWO Technical Achievement Academy Awards... (ha, ha)

Brad,

THX Re-certification... Do you remember Tim Schafbuch? Well, he's the man in charge now. I will get back to you when I get the official word from him. This has been one of those subjects that, let's say, we need to rectify. One way or another. Meanwhile, THX Certified PCs never need re-certification. Isn't that the thread we're weaving here?

If THX spot-checks are going to assess print condition, they need to be able to judge print handling in the cinema itself, not just the condition of the print the examiner sees on the screen. Screen 1 here at York is a THX screen, and some of the time it is used for rep stuff.

I've just finished packing off 'Crouching Tiger - Hidden Dragon' after five weeks: we got the print new (by which I mean imported from the US, ultrasonically cleaned, rewashed and polished), and on the last show tonight it was pretty much as clean as when we ran the first show just after the new year. If a THX inspector had visited at any time during those five weeks, I don't think he or she would have been disappointed.

However, the week before that, we were showing a worn-out, scratched, dirty and shrunken acetate print of 'Some Like it Hot' on re-release. Some of our customers even complained about the state of that print, so you can imagine what a THX inspector would have thought. But we didn't cause any of that damage - the print arrived that way. In fact, it probably left this place in a better state than when we got it.

If a THX inspector just happened to visit when this print was playing, he or she would quite rightly have pronounced it to be unacceptable. But we don't have any choice - for a small-scale art or rep title there are only one or two prints, so you can't just ring up the distributor and demand another one.

So would THX fine us or decertify us just for wanting to offer older, foreign and more diverse films to our customers in a technically superb cinema? Would they take the line that we can only show titles of which perfect prints are obtainable? But the other side of the coin is that to ignore print quality is to also ignore the moron projectionists who are capable of wrecking a beautiful new print in a single pass.

One possible solution would be to THX-certify the projectionist as well as the equipment. Have the THX inspector interview every projectionist who works at a venue during his or her annual visit, asking questions like, for example, 'tell me three ways in which a print can be scratched during normal handling, and what you do to prevent them'. I'm not suggesting a third-degree, just asking common-sense questions that anyone fit to work in a projection box - even an enthusiastic trainee - should be able to answer without any trouble. Therefore both the machines and the humans become part of the 'system' which is certified as offering high-quality film presentation.

A few months ago, I really ruffled some feathers by making the statement that THX doesn't really matter anymore in theatres (or in the home theatre market either). In another thread, just a few days ago, I made the point that the management and staff running a theatre, if the facility has reasonably good equipment, can often provide noticeably better presentations than fancier facilities with less-competent management and staff. If a theatre is built to THX specifications, but is never reinspected to find problems and correct them, then a THX theatre can end up in far worse condition than a non-THX theatre that is well run and maintained. To keep this from happening, THX must frequently reinspect theatres and the problems noted must be fixed. Otherwise, THX means nothing except for the initial condition of the theatre when built and the fact that money is being paid to THX to use the logo and trailers.

In the home theatre market, most studios have been producing fewer non-anamorphic widescreen DVDs, so the non-anamorphic DVD issue will hopefully fade away with time. I have shown many DVD movies in my home, and while I admit that THX certified DVDs are typically top-notch in sound quality and picture quality, I cannot say that there are not many non-THX DVDs out there that are just as good or sometimes better.

My advice to THX is to actually reinspect the theatres with frequent unannounced inspections. Give the theatre a certain amount of time to get the problems fixed and if they aren't, decertify. Also, it would be a good idea to be in agreement with theatre management and staff concerning which auditoriums are certified. It is amazing when theatre staff insist that 4 auditoriums are THX certified (and advertise 4) and the manager of the THX theatre alignment program says that 1 auditorium is THX certified. The lack of actual reinspections and these types of disagreements give the impression that THX TAP is sloppily run.

In other areas (home market), do not certify anything as THX unless it is something that truly provides state-of-the art audio and/or video, according to current standards of what is "top-notch" quality. VHS is a joke these days and VHS tapes should never have been THX certified after 1997. If computer speakers can be THX certified now, then what is next -- AM-radios? -- cassette decks? -- boom boxes? -- Zip disks? What would such a certification mean for some of these devices?

I hate to see the term "THX" become like the word "Digital" has become.

(putting on asbestos suit)

Evans A Criswell
http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/

As far as games are concerned, is THX supplying the sound cards? And graphics cards? I know lots of kids that are perfectly happy with their VooDoo graphics cards, and are likewise very happy with their Soundblaster Live Platinum 5.1 Dolby Digital® sound cards.

Different categories of certifiable products should each have a set of parameters by which certification is considered, and the specific required values should be specified so that you know what level of quality is required for THX certification.

Here is a totally generic, imaginary example. Let's say that THX is going to certify fleebers. Fleebers are relatively simple devices and have three attributes relevant to the quality of its fleebing. First, obviously, it must fleeb, or otherwise, it couldn't be certified. Let's say that the three important parameters are maximum power output, highest frequency output, and total distortion when operated at maximum rated power. So, let's say THX says, to be a THX certified fleeber, it must have a maximum power output of 150 watts, have a highest frequency output of 25000Hz, and a total distortion of 0.05% when operated at 150 watts. (This is an imaginary device, to keep the idea simple). Then, ideally, if you bought a THX certifed fleeber, it would meet those conditions.

Now, for the above idea to work,

1. Someone must actually verify that all the THX certified devices being manufactured are meeting the standards specified by THX. (quality control)

2. The standards themselves must be good enough so that the THX certification actually means something. If the THX certification standards are too low, then most manufactured devices may be able meet the specifcation, in which case, the certification would mean very little.

3. Devices being considered for THX certification would have to be evaluated according to the THX standards objectively, without and subjectivity creeping in due to money or politics. (Yeah, right). "Our devices come very close to meeting your standards, but we'll pay you an extra million to certify them."

4. As general quality of available technology changes, the standards need to be revised to not include the lower to mid-grade equipment that becomes better than the best equipment available a few years earlier.

5. THX-certified equipment being manufactured should be checked periodically to be sure that manufacturers have not cut corners to save costs in ways that decrease the performance of the device.

Now, the problem I see with all this is "THX done right" is not very feasible for either a manufacturer, service provider, or THX itself.

Let's consider THX TAP and movie theatres:

Let's say I build a theatre and construct all of my auditoriums to THX standards. I pay THX, use the logos, and run the THX trailers, and immediately after construction, my theatre is the one of the best anywhere. No problem. Let's say that two years later, three auditoriums have digital sound systems that do not work, half the projectors are slightly misaimed, and two of the masking mechanisms are broken. Now, it's time for me to get my theatre recertified and I have the following options available to me:

1. I can pay THX the money and that's it.

2. I can have my auditoriums reinspected and only if they are satisfactory may I continue to advertise them as THX after paying the money.

Let's see - Who wouldn't pick option 1.

If I lose certification in some auditoriums, that's one less thing I can advertise, which will hurt business somewhat. Also, in the future, THX will not receive any recertification fees from those auditoriums, right? It's a lose-lose situation for both the theatre and THX. THX loses visibility due to a decreased number of THX auditoriums, plus the loss of income from those decertified auditoriums. It seems to be to the advantage of THX to have as many certified screens out there as possible to maximize income. It is also benefits the theatres to have as many THX certified screens as possible.

There are too many conflicting interests (income vs. integrity) for THX certification to work properly. It is a wonderful idea for quality, but I don't see how THX could make a profit "doing it right". Paying enough staff to reinspect all the certified theatres on a regular enough basis would cost THX a lot of money. That cost has to be passed on to someone. The recertification fees would become so high that theatre companies would not be able to afford them. Since most theatre companies are already in terrible financial condition, I don't see a solution. In the ideal scenario, THX would basically be an outsourcing of quality control. The question is whether the outsourcing would cost less than the theatre companies hiring their own quality-control staff.

Ideas?

Evans A Criswell
http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/

By the way Ted, I think it's fairly obvious here that everyone definitely loves THX and supports it. We just all want to see it even better. Please don't take the comments here as angry complaints, but potential suggestions that could make THX "the" name of quality. Nowadays it just seems that the word "digital" is what people look for.

Both programs trace their origins to programs such as the SMPTE Theatre Quality Evaluation Program, which was introduced in 1983, and the long-gone projection engineers from the studios and companies like National Carbon who traveled around the country with light meter, test films, and tool case in hand to help theatres maintain quality.

Frequent reinspections were part of the Kodak program right from the start, and participating theatres must correct any serious deficiencies noted. ScreenCheck also has developed a training facility in Los Angeles, and a traveling training program for projectionists in any location.

Regardless of whether theatres avail themselves of these programs (and they DO help improve presentation quality), I believe theatres must also have an ongoing "self-inspection" program themselves. Too often, deterioration in presentation quality goes unnoticed by busy theatre personnel, and unreported by audiences (even though the dissatisfaction in presentation quality may cause people to avoid a particular theatre and tell their friends about the bad experience).

The SMPTE Theatre Evaluation Program attempted to have ongoing subjective evaluations by SMPTE members in the normal course of attending movies around the country, in exchange for free admission. Unfortunately, SMPTE members were not uniformly distributed around the country, so theatres in Hollywood or Manhattan often got a dozen evaluations at some shows, and theatres outside of the movie and TV production centers never got any evaluations at all.

IMHO, theatres could develop their own on-going evaluation programs similar to the SMPTE program, but using technically-saavy local "movie-buffs" who would gladly do a written evaluation of presentation quality after watching the entire movie, in return for free admission. One or two evaluations of each print during its run on each screen would be sufficient to catch most problems.

The SMPTE Theatre Quality Evaluation form is posted in the Film-Tech "Manuals" section. Feel free to update and customize it for your theatre (e.g., digital sound) and to enlist a group of evaluators who are able to provide useful subjective monitoring of presentation quality to YOU, much as the Lucasfilm TAP evaluators do for distributors. IMHO, the passes you give out in return for these evaluations may be the best investment in presentation quality you can make.