Sadly, it would seem that something has gone very wrong at certain theatres. Comments included the following:

'Fantastic film, epic atmosphere...loved it. Just one thing...after seeing the clarity of DVD, I've started to notice how images at my local cinema seem grainy and exhibit washed-out colours...even blur at times...now it might be that my local cinema is sucky, anybody else notice how DVD brings up images so much nicer? These comments refer directly to Mummy Returns and Final Fantasy...both of which looked much better on DVD. Of course can't compare LOTR on DVD...yet.'

This garnered the response of:

'I've noticed this too. Projectors are no match to a digital format...which has to (project) the image across a large room onto a dirty screen'.

and this:

'There were battle scenes and in-close fighting scenes in the movie which I found hard to watch in the cinema, but which looked fantastic on the trailer I downloaded. I think the DVD will be a lot better than watching it at the cinema'.

to which this was said:

'I agree - I was up the front of the cinema unfortunately...I think the combo of (major cinema chain) and (their branding of 'stadium seating/digital sound/large screens) didn't do it justice...roll on the DVD!'

or:

'Yeah, those long shots were blurry at times. The specs of dirt or little glitches are a bit annoying when you're used to DVD, not to mention the cigarette burns in the corner, but the clarity is still way ahead of DVD, especially when you consider the size of the screen'.

'35MM projectors are the hardest things to get focussed, they really annoy me. Films look focussed, and then the credits come up all blurry. Bring on digital projection I say!'

'...that's where I saw LOTR. It's certainly a much better cinema than (alternate location), but after watching movies on DVD I could notice the cigarette burns and scratches on the big screen more than ever.'

-----------------
Those are the comments thus far, and that's after the film has been open for two days, and not even two whole days at that.

When I see posts like this, I try to reply and explain that it is not the fault of the film medium itself, and that 'Film Done Right' cannot be beat (as I did with this thread). Regrettably, they may have to take my word for it, as they are not experiencing this for themselves. Also, I've been responding to these sorts of posts for ages now, but I simply cannot keep up! In spite of the fact that some of the comments contain misinformation and technical errors, the fact remains that this is what they perceive, and it will affect their decision to visit a cinema. If they were shown an excellent presentation each time they visited a theatre, all this would fail to be an issue. In fact, they would actually look forward to seeing future releases on the big screen rather than actually preferring a DVD of the film.

The theatre John Wilson and I work at have featured excellent presentations of LOTR, and will quite happily continue to do so for the next six months if required! No-one who sees it there would be less than impressed, and they certainly would not be capable of such remarks. However, these sorts of comments - even though they stem from other theatres - are the result of poor presentations that will hurt the industry as a whole. What can be done?

 |  IP: Logged

1--Pay employees well to keep the good ones. People who think staff and projectionists are expendable are morons. That's right, if you think that, then I am calling YOU a moron! It is good business sense to keep the good employees and pay them to stay. Reward the ones who care about their job. Give them a reason to care!

2--Companies like THX should follow up on their certified theaters. It seems anyone can easily get a THX certification so the in house tech can retune the auditoriums. I have heard many awful and many excellent THX rooms, even in the same complex with equally sized auditoriums. It is inconsistent at best. THX doesn't mean anything if it is going to be inconsistent. But sadly they only seem to care if they get their annual pay, or at least that's the way it seems.

3--Send me money for no reason. Lots of it. That'll make every theater a success and also make me very happy, which is the most important thing in anybody's book. DVD will fail and people will only want to see movies in the cinema if you do this.

 |  IP: Logged

quote:

---

Next time one of these idiots start in with the whole DVD is better/film is too dark argument, remind them that the video they are watching is altered and tweeked in many ways (such as contrast compression). Also, if you were to shrink a 35mm image down to a 35 inch image, suddenly I don't think they would be too pleased with their little DVDs. Offer for them to bring up a DVD and a video projector into your largest auditorium after hours. People are stupid. (And that includes the people Joe speaks of above.)

---

Think about it this way: a scope movie on DVD can only have a maximum resolution of 720 by 357, due to the letterboxing required even on anamorphically encoded DVDs. On a standard "large" screen of size 40 feet by 17 feet, even if projected with perfect digital clarity, the pixels would be rectangles two thirds of an inch by four sevenths of an inch. Those pixels would probably be discernable even from the auditorium rear.

 |  IP: Logged

Pass the lead thread into the main office and let them know they are refering to your theatre. People who care will take corrective measures and shortly you will be running "film done right."

I would be interested to hear their reactions.

Sure, a poorly adjusted projector (out of focus, dim bulb, etc.) will do a terrible disservice to the quality of the show. Good 35mm projection on an appropriately sized screen (not something nearing IMAX size) will be better than DVD every time. The image is a lot bigger and sharper.

When one of those "morons" says he sees a cleaner, "better" image in his home theatre on his wide ratio plasma screen, and then you find out that managment in so-called first-run 70mm cinemas have eliminated a trained, licensed projectionist from the booth and limited his workhours to 20 hrs, one day a week, you have to say, well, yah, the moron is right, because the theatre is being run by morons.

I don't want to be redundant about this 70mm presentation of 2001:ASO which I saw last week at the Loews' Astor Plaza in NYC as I have posted it before, but it was a TERRIBLE, disappointing show -- dirty print (Warners told me this theatre was the FRIST one to play this particular print), awful flutter in the sound (almost unlistenable), scratches and NO INTERMISSION. And this, mind you, in a TOP market (NYC), in a high-profile "flagship" theatre. It was here that I found out that the only person in the booth was this kid whose job it was to switch to the "small" film in case the "big" film "jumps out;" they were running a 35mm print along with the 70mm -- both on platters -- and evidently had so much trouble with the 70mm that they kept this high school kid up there to switch to the 35mm backup if the 70 "jumped out." I never got an explanation from him as to what exactly happened when the 70mm print "jumped out," but I shudder to think, but have to assume it was a brainwrap or something just as drastic. And this, in what only a few years ago was one of THE premiere cinemas to go to in NYC if you wanted to see a state-of-the-art, first-class presentation.

To the average Joe, suffering through that kind of $10-a-pop disappointment a bunch of times, why wouldn't he prefer his own home setup? And let's face it -- he's the one who is driving the industry. If the Hollywood bean-counters and market analyzers see theatre revenue continuing on the decline because Joe Moron prefers the environment of his own home cinema to see their product, then Hollywood is simply going to bypass the cinema and sell their product directly to him via DVD, HD pay-per-view, whatever, to get it into his home theatre where he is quite vocal about it being his prefered place for viewing it.

Warner Brothers spends $27,000 on a 70mm print of 2001 only to have it damaged by a theatre where the general public is saying the presentation stinks. How long do we think that can go on before the ball game is over? We are already in the 9th inning and the theatre owners don't seem to appreciate how close to loosing the game they (and we) are.

Film, it ain't; considering the circumstances, it could have been worse...for a film festival last September, the organizers got enough in terms of sponsorship for Christie Roadster DLP projectors and Sony Betacam decks for all three screens the festival used. This would have been an excellent setup for video. However, the rental firm providing the equipment was unable to come up with the appropriate lenses to handle the throws and had to use the digital scaling "feature" to fit the image on the screen, creating an image that looked as if it was out of focus and was consequently painful to watch (we did receve a few complaints from the customers). Needless to say, this was a major disappointment, considering I could get better results from a conference-room-type LCD projector and a lowly VHS VCR.

I agree with Frank...16mm on a good xenon (or carbon-arc, for that matter) projector, such as the Elmo we used or an Eiki EX-4000P I recently acquired and tested at that theatre, looks a heck of a lot better (since film festivals are my specialty, whevever there are mixed formats I insist video be shown first, then 16mm next, then 35mm last, not only for logistical reasons but also for the progression of quality). But whoever said that video looks better than our beloved 35mm, properly projected, didn't have a good set of eyes.