Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bad Projection Is Ruining the Movie Theater Experience

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bad Projection Is Ruining the Movie Theater Experience

    Bad Projection Is Ruining the Movie Theater Experience
    Multiplexes are failing at their most basic function: delivering a bright, sharp image.



    Michelle Pfeiffer and Jonathan Majors look like crap. Usually, they’re two of the most radiant, dermatologically exceptional people in the world. But right now, they’re decrepit husks of themselves, their faces so drained of color that they could pass for cadavers.

    I’m watching Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania— in which she plays Ant-Man’s girlfriend’s mom, Janet van Dyne, and he plays time-traveling villain Kang the Conqueror — at the AMC Empire 25 near Times Square. Although a ticket to this matinee costs more than a month’s worth of Netflix’s priciest subscription plan, the image onscreen is so dim that it’s hard to make out much of the movie’s action and all of its glamorous stars have been turned dark gray. Next to me is Jack Theakston, a projection specialist at Dolby Laboratories, who immediately diagnoses the problem: This is a 2-D showing of Ant-Man, but some neglectful employee has forgotten to remove the 3-D filter from the projector.

    “It’s a polarized lens that cuts a picture’s brightness by a third,” he says. “They just have to push it to the side when they switch to 2-D, but theaters forget to do it all the time. You can tell when it’s happening because if you look at the port-window glass, instead of a single image, you’ll see two, with one stacked on top of the other.” He points up to the booth behind us, and sure enough, there are two stacked beams.

    Theakston, who’s also a member of the IATSE Local 306 cinema-technicians union, has agreed to spend the afternoon assessing the projection quality at the AMC Empire and nearby Regal E-Walk multiplex, the flagship locations of the two largest cinema chains in the U.S. I buy us tickets to various movies, and we sneak around from theater to theater.

    At AMC, Ant-Man is the worst offender, but in another auditorium, trailers are playing on screen that’s creased and sagging. Almost as bad: The picture is trapezoidal instead of rectangular, a phenomenon known as keystoning, which happens when a projector is not set up perpendicular to the screen. It’s fixable with software, if one bothers to do it.

    Across the street at the Regal E-Walk, there’s a torn masking curtain at Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, an out-of-calibration projector creating oddly colored highlights in Titanic 3D, and a presentation of Magic Mike’s Last Dance that bleeds a few inches off the top of the screen. And don’t get Theakston started on the bleak spectacle of the multiplex’s lobbies, the result of ongoing renovations. “It’s unacceptable to just have bare drywall like this,” he says on our way out. “They had the entire pandemic to redo this place and it still looks awful.”

    Anybody who still feels compelled, as I do, to see new movies in a theater needs a high tolerance for irritation. Exhibitors are constantly finding new ways to make the experience worse — from noisy, sub-Applebee’s dine-in service to AMC’s recently announced plan to charge more depending on where you sit. But the only thing that reliably makes me wish I’d waited for a title to come out on streaming is bad projection. If a movie theater can’t perform its most basic function and deliver a sharp, well-lit image with the right colors and contrast, then we might as well knock it down and put up a bank.

    For some theaters, this is seemingly too much to ask. Despite their inconsistency, the Empire and E-Walk are among the better multiplexes I’ve been to lately, and they certainly beat most of the ones outside the city. Last year, at a Regal in Hampton Bays, I saw a screening of The Batman that was so dark I had to read the movie’s plot summary on Wikipedia just to find out how it ended. At Don’t Worry Darling in Farmingdale, the picture hung off the right side of the screen by a foot.

    To be fair, theaters are broke. The pandemic closed them for a year, and then it disrupted Hollywood’s supply chain such that when multiplexes reopened there weren’t enough new movies to fill their schedules. Meanwhile, most first-run films now wind up on streaming after just a few weeks, and plenty bypass theaters altogether. Attendance, which had been in decline for two decades, has entered free fall: In 2022, ticket sales were down by more than 30 percent from 2019. Regal’s parent company filed for bankruptcy in September, and AMC has avoided the same fate (for now) thanks mainly to the meme investors who bought the company’s stock ironically.

    But the picture problems predated COVID-19. Many can be traced to 2009, when theaters swapped their film projectors for digital ones, made primarily by Sony, to show the original Avatar. Studios were excited about the switch because it meant they could save money by distributing movies over the internet instead of mailing around heavy film prints. Theater owners were excited because digital projectors could be programmed to run on their own without human projectionists to start them up and switch reels.

    Those projectionists, though, were highly skilled engineers and troubleshooters. Now that multiplexes use automated projection, problems fall to house managers, who, in this age of austerity, may be the same overworked employees ripping tickets and selling popcorn. If an error is serious or demands more than a wiped lens or system reboot, it might have to wait a couple weeks for a visit from a technician — or even longer if nobody complains.

    Today, the most common issue moviegoers are likely to encounter is a dim picture. One reason is that many of those Avatar-era projectors are still in service and showing their age. In 2020, Sony announced it was exiting the cinema-projection business and recently ended support on the models used by major chains. This was especially problematic because those machines have a known liability issue, an analyst tells Digital Cinema Report: “The ultraviolet light from the projector’s lamp slowly destroys the imaging device, and the projected image loses color. The solution is to replace the imaging devices once or twice a year.” But that’s an expensive fix, so not enough theaters do it.

    Digital Cinema Initiatives, a joint venture between major film studios, recommends that commercial theaters project their films at a minimum of 14 footlamberts, a standard of brightness roughly equivalent to the amount of light that would be produced by 48 wax candles per square meter of screen space. One maintenance technician, who asked for anonymity while criticizing the theaters that employ him, told me that some places with old Sonys are getting as few as six footlamberts.

    Another contributor to muddy pictures is worn-out light bulbs. Projector bulbs are supposed to be used for only a certain number of hours, typically between 1,000 and 5,000 based on their wattage. But since a single one can cost around $1,500, plenty of theaters push them past their expected lifespans. “A xenon bulb will darken over time because it builds up soot on the inside of the glass,” says Theakston. “The projector will actually tell you how long a bulb has been in there. I’ll walk into a booth and see flashing red lights on the back of a projector — Oh, yep, this one is a few hundred hours past expiration — but they’ll just run it until it burns out.” Replacing a bulb is “a 15-minute procedure,” Theakston says. “But it takes skill because those bulbs are highly pressurized, and if they break, they’ll explode.”

    Even when used as intended, 3-D filters like the one at Ant-Man can darken a movie to four footlamberts. Theaters will often compensate by installing high-gain screens with silver coatings, which reflect more light than standard matte white. Depending on where you’re sitting, though, results will vary. These screens appear most luminous to viewers in middle sections, but if you’re watching from the side, the picture may be only half as bright. (By the way, none of these dimness problems are helped by the fact that films themselves have been getting darker lately.)

    I call up a few other projectionists who are not only willing but elated to share their own extremely specific gripes about the ways movies are shown these days. But most of them seemed to agree that everything really went to hell when multiplexes quit masking — the term for hiding the borders of a screen so that the projected image fills the whole area. “I just get so furious when the masking is off,” says Gregory Wolfe, who’s been projecting at Lincoln Center the past 30 years.

    Technically, a lack of masking is a presentation issue — a sign that a theater no longer cares — but it can lead to projection problems, too. Cinemas generally show movies in one of two aspect ratios, the taller Flat (1.85:1) or its wider cousin Scope (2.39:1). Until a few years ago, motorized curtains were deployed to cover the unused screen space on the sides (for Flat) or top and bottom (for Scope). But some curtainless cinemas will let their pictures spill over the edges or adjust their projectors to crop the movies themselves, which costs viewers both light and resolution. “You’d probably only notice this if they put a test pattern on the screen,” says the maintenance tech, though it can be worse for movies with nontraditional aspect ratios. “Sometimes the end titles get cut off on the sides.”

    “And those curtains weren’t just for masking,” says Theakston. “They were also to protect your screen. At the end of the night, when the cleanup crews come into these multiplexes, they bring in leaf blowers and just blow everything down. That’s why you’ll see little flecks of popcorn covering the screen. And you can’t spot-clean a screen. If you try, you’ll have one pristine spot making the rest look even dingier.”

    But since most audience members don’t know how bright a picture is supposed to be, what masking is, or how to speak up if something is amiss, even simple issues can fester. “I’ve seen dead bugs on the port glass that create shadows big enough to make an entire image darker,” says Genevieve Havemeyer-King, a projectionist and a senior digital-collection specialist at the Library of Congress. “You just clean the glass and everything looks fine again.”

    In recent years, a backlash to digital and automated projection has created a flourishing niche market for old-fashioned film. Specialty theaters such as the Nitehawk, Quad, Metrograph, and Roxy in New York, the New Beverly in Los Angeles, and Alamo Drafthouses nationwide tout their 35-mm. projectors in their marketing. But most projectionists I spoke to were media agnostic and told me that, with proper care, digital can look just as good as celluloid — or sometimes better, since even film isn’t what it used to be. “I did a 70-mm. run of Licorice Pizza at Lincoln Square,” Theakston says, “and none of those recent 70-mm. prints look like the old 70-mm. prints did. They’re all very sloppy. It’s a cheap ploy to upcharge for tickets.”

    To its credit, AMC is at least doing something. The chain recently announced plans to install laser projectors, made by the Belgian audiovisual company Barco, in 3,500 of its U.S. theaters by 2026. These machines offer better brightness, colors, and contrast than standard digital projectors. They’re also bulb free and can run for 20,000 hours before their light systems need replacing. (Both AMC and Regal already use them for Imax and other premium screenings.) But laser projectors are still vulnerable to errors of neglect — i.e., dead bugs and misapplied 3-D lenses — and can introduce problems of their own, including a tendency toward green and magenta highlights. Also “when you use a laser projector with a high-gain screen, there’s this thing called speckling, where the picture looks like it’s shimmering,” says the maintenance tech. “It’s like when you drive on the highway and look at the road ahead and see something that looks like water but it’s not water.”

    But by 2026, many of today’s moviegoers may have permanently converted to watching at home. Why should they bother going to a multiplex anymore, even one with laser projectors, when a new 55-inch 4K television can suddenly be had for under $400? Watching a film in your living room may never match the experience of seeing it in a great theater with well-maintained equipment, but modern televisions can consistently deliver better images than the average run-down movie house. LED displays have gotten so good and so cheap that there’s even been talk of theaters replacing their screens with them.

    One reason for the lack of urgency in resolving the projection crisis could be that the people who make movies see them differently than we do. Before industry screenings for members of the directors and writers guilds, an army of technicians attends to every projector, bulb, and screen to ensure that films look perfect. Meanwhile, the loudest proponents of the theater experience — Nolan, Scorsese, Spielberg, Tarantino — have custom-built cinemas in their homes that surpass any of the fleapits where you or I can see Tenet or The Fabelmans. (The Wall Street Journal describes one such sanctuary: “In his 1940s Art Deco-styled screening room, with frosted-glass sconces, cherry-wood ribbing and fluted bronze panels, Mr. Spielberg sits in the back, on the highest tier of the stadium seats, directing the entire experience with his remote.”)

    To demonstrate how the other half watches, Theakston takes me to the private state-of-the-art cinema where he works, the Dolby 88 Screening Room on 55th Street, home to a pair of hulking Christie Eclipse E3LH high-dynamic-range laser projectors. I grab a seat near the center of the room, and Top Gun: Maverick fills the screen. As Tom Cruise saves the Air Force’s hypersonic-scramjet program by destroying an aircraft at Mach 10, Theakston hollers over the Dolby Atmos surround sound, “We get 32 footlamberts in here!” My corneas can feel the difference.

  • #2
    Regal was well along installing all laser projectors just before covid hit. I know that almost all, or all of Nashville has been converted, plus many other cities. But there exists one problem with laser. That is, it alone does not fix the multitude of other problems mentioned above. Did Geoff and Jack check the restrooms? Did they check concessions? Did they grade the sound quality in each room? Was each room clean? And on and on. Everything else in the building that is seen by the public is way more important than what's upstairs. In the end, laser only keeps Booth Monkees from having to handle a high pressure lamp, and reduces power consumption. But all that money saved on electric will be gobbled up the first time the laser end of the projectors needs to be changed. Then there is the on-going arguement, especially from colorists, that laser just does not look right. Many colorists refuse to use them unless it is part of the contract with the client.
    In the end, laser to me is nothing but another buzz word, and there have been lots of those since the early 1950's...
    Last edited by Mark Gulbrandsen; 03-02-2023, 09:55 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Yah, when long play reels came along, that was supposed to be an improvement; when automation and thus multiplex operations came along, that was supposed to be an improvement (by eliminating projectionists); when digital came along, that was supposed to fix all the ills that the previous improvements generated which were monumental with the proof being in the humungous, long-running thread we had right here on FT subject: film done wrong. Well, obviously it wasn't film done wrong -- that's too narrow -- it was EXHIBITION done wrong...and it still is. Yup. all you need to do, as you rightfully said, Mark, is look at the rest rooms of an theatre. Long ago my first boss, Mr. Schulman, who owned a small number of theatres in Brian/College Station, said to me: any time you want to get an accurate picture of the quality of operation of a theatre or any establishment run for the public, is just go look at the condition of the bathrooms.

      And surely Jack Theakston knows that Regal is in such a dire straits... you know, like bankruptcy, that fixing a torn masking (masking, we don't need no stinking masking!) or getting in a tech to calibrate color is not the a pressing issue for them at the moment. Local 306, now pretty much a shell of its former, more powerful self, also has to bare some responsibility for this state of affairs -- it never fought vigorously against the chains' installing untrained personnel to run the booths. No doubt these are complex issues, but in my opinion, this union could have been much stronger fighting the encroachment exhibitors made in their keeping trained personnel in cinemas.

      Comment


      • #4
        As with most articles, it's about half right.

        They never explain how lasers are supposed to fix the brightness issue. Sure, you don't have to change them as often but most manufactures rate their lasers until they reach ½ their initial light output. SMPTE specs are only allowing a decrease to about 79%. So....as the lasers fade and the light levels dip down...they'll stay down for longer (years)...unless people are sizing their lasers with a LOT of headroom...how many are doing that? What is everyone setting the laser power to (as a percentage) when new?

        Another key issue with dark pictures are gain screens. They are as bad or worse than 3D lenses when it comes to killing the light. Yet, digital projector manufacturers keep using the 1.8-gain as their reference for how their projectors perform (can't go above 1.3 and meet SMPTE specs on a flat screen).

        I said it before and I'll say it again...if you did a crappy job showing movies with film, you'll do a crappy job of showing movies digitally. The only bump was when the equipment was new...nobody was working with 50-year old broken down projectors. However the industry also brought out the S2K projectors with their miserable contrast ratios (I'm looking at you NC900C and like projectors, including lasers). They have no blacks.

        LED screens are the future...once they get them affordable and once the sounce can play through them.

        Comment


        • #5
          And even then, Steve, LED screens will be the spiffy, shiny new technology...until it isn't new any more and exhibitors will still be looking for ways to cut corners -- don't believe that will happen? Keep an eye on the condition of those restrooms!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Steve Guttag View Post
            As with most articles, it's about half right.

            They never explain how lasers are supposed to fix the brightness issue. Sure, you don't have to change them as often but most manufactures rate their lasers until they reach ½ their initial light output. SMPTE specs are only allowing a decrease to about 79%. So....as the lasers fade and the light levels dip down...they'll stay down for longer (years)...unless people are sizing their lasers with a LOT of headroom...how many are doing that? What is everyone setting the laser power to (as a percentage) when new?
            From what I've seen, the projector salespeople are selling models that do have some headroom, but NOT ENOUGH because they want to make the sale and often getting the PROPER amount of laser headroom would be too expensive and they would lose the sale. Not surprisingly, far too many theater owners think laser = perfect and will be brighter than xenon and never dim. Nothing could be further from reality.

            In 5 years as all of these lasers in Regal, Cinemark and AMC start to fail, suddenly the chains will be hit with an ABSURD amount of money they will have to spend all at once to keep the presentation to acceptable levels. As we can all predict they won't spend the money, and that will likely be the final nail in theater's coffins.

            Also I've gone into a number of theaters with new or new'ish laser projectors where the power was sitting at 100%, which is how they were left at install. They certainly won't be enjoying a super bright image for long.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Frank Angel View Post
              And even then, Steve, LED screens will be the spiffy, shiny new technology...until it isn't new any more and exhibitors will still be looking for ways to cut corners -- don't believe that will happen? Keep an eye on the condition of those restrooms!
              LED screens have failure modes too and a lot of them you won't like... Common outages are stuck or active pixels, but also entire modules can go bust. Just like your projector and screen, a LED screen also needs regular maintenance and calibration, especially if used as a movie screen. Individual modules will clearly start to show individual wear patterns, especially if some of them have been replaced and this may be borderline acceptable for some LED advertising or scoreboard, but not for movie presentations.

              No technology is proof against chronic slackers and corporate greed. Everything needs maintenance and maintenance requires people who care and sufficient resources to perform said maintenance. Maybe a LED screen requires less maintenance than current projection technology, but given the lack of installs and data available, that still remains to be seen. Digital projection was touted to be the solution for crappy 35mm presentations with cheaply mass-produced prints run to a shred by careless operators, but the harsh reality is that it only allowed new corners to be cut.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm kinda curious about LED screens after they've run a lot of "Scope" movies if those LEDs are faded enough that when they run a "FLAT" movie if there will be a bit of a reverse letterbox where the areas above/below the Scope image will be brighter due to less LED use. While I could see a degree of compensation for this, I'd think there is a limit to how well one can compensate (how linear would the compensation have to be and across the colors).

                I still say that LED (or like) technology will replace projectors. They need to get the cost and the sound issues addressed.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Steve Guttag View Post
                  I'm kinda curious about LED screens after they've run a lot of "Scope" movies if those LEDs are faded enough that when they run a "FLAT" movie if there will be a bit of a reverse letterbox where the areas above/below the Scope image will be brighter due to less LED use. While I could see a degree of compensation for this, I'd think there is a limit to how well one can compensate (how linear would the compensation have to be and across the colors).

                  I still say that LED (or like) technology will replace projectors. They need to get the cost and the sound issues addressed.
                  Movie theaters will likely be a thing of the past before LED screens take over...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    As with most articles, it's about half right.​
                    Correct - they didn't discuss all the problems on the audio side!




                    I'm kinda curious about LED screens after they've run a lot of "Scope" movies if those LEDs are faded enough that when they run a "FLAT" movie if there will be a bit of a reverse letterbox where the areas above/below the Scope image will be brighter due to less LED use.
                    So LED screens will be constant width screens? That will make the decision to stay home even easier.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You can certainly change it to the 2.39:1 screen and see if the pillar boxed images will have vertical lines during scope movies...it's the other half of the same coin.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Jeez until reading this thread I used to think laser projection was the way of the future, now I'm not so sure.

                        I will say that the one time I saw a laser presentation (GDC suite at Cinemacon 2021, I think) I wasn't all that impressed with the contrast. Will the presentations at CC 2023 be from laser projectors?
                        Last edited by Mike Blakesley; 03-03-2023, 02:37 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          From the article:

                          The picture is trapezoidal instead of rectangular, a phenomenon known as keystoning, which happens when a projector is not set up perpendicular to the screen. It’s fixable with software, if one bothers to do it.​
                          Not with a DCI-compliant projector, it isn't. I've heard conflicting accounts as to whether DCI actually outlaws it or not, but electronic keystone correction is not available on any DCI projector I've installed or serviced. A keystone is only truly fixable by the center of the lens being perfectly aligned with the center of the screen. It can be concealed from uncritical viewers by the use of screen files that black out pixels around the edges, but that isn't fixing it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Leo Enticknap View Post
                            Not with a DCI-compliant projector, it isn't. I've heard conflicting accounts as to whether DCI actually outlaws it or not, but electronic keystone correction is not available on any DCI projector I've installed or serviced. A keystone is only truly fixable by the center of the lens being perfectly aligned with the center of the screen. It can be concealed from uncritical viewers by the use of screen files that black out pixels around the edges, but that isn't fixing it.
                            Your information may be slightly incomplete.
                            The Christie TrueLife+ projectors should actually be able to support stuff like image warping and edge blending while still in DCI-compliant mode. While I've used Christie Mystique and Christie projectors for projection mapping, I've never tried it with Christie DCI projectors, but according to what's out there, it should be possible.

                            Not everything that's possible should be done though. Many keystone correction algorithms in projectors are awful and IMHO, image warping for DCI is something that should be done with great care and only if it's really necessary.

                            Originally posted by Steve Guttag View Post
                            I'm kinda curious about LED screens after they've run a lot of "Scope" movies if those LEDs are faded enough that when they run a "FLAT" movie if there will be a bit of a reverse letterbox where the areas above/below the Scope image will be brighter due to less LED use. While I could see a degree of compensation for this, I'd think there is a limit to how well one can compensate (how linear would the compensation have to be and across the colors).
                            I guess the advent of LED screens would be the final nail in the coffin for any kind of adjustable masking. Since a LED screen should not be a reflective surface like a traditional cinema projection screen, I guess that's something I could live with.

                            If you run scope movies on a "FLAT" LED screen for prolonged times, it will certainly have some kind of impact. Most imaging technology does have some form of image retention. DLP is one of the few that's largely immune to it. Luckily, many forms of retention are nowadays fixable in such way, it becomes practically unnoticeable.

                            There are already solutions in the market for dot-based calibration, especially for older LED screens that do show uneven wear. Some of the more expensive modern LED screen modules come with non-linear sub-pixel calibration options already built-in into the module, so you do not need to manipulate the input signal, the module takes care of the transformation itself.

                            But it all requires regular maintenance. You need to point a calibration camera at different the sections of the screen, run a calibration program, which is pretty time consuming. The question remains to be seen how often such calibration has to take place, and if it can be automated. The problem with LED screens is that a non-aligned module will create clearly visible, hard lines in the picture, which is even much more annoying than your average Sony projector that hasn't seen a T-core uniformity and gamma calibration in 5 years.


                            Originally posted by Steve Guttag View Post
                            You can certainly change it to the 2.39:1 screen and see if the pillar boxed images will have vertical lines during scope movies...it's the other half of the same coin.
                            If we let go of the concept of "pixel perfect" mapping of the content to the imager, then LED screens can be built in all native aspect ratios imaginable. I'd say as long as the source has more resolution than the destination, this should no longer be a real issue. While scaling will always introduce some level of artifacts, with modern scaling filters like e.g. Lanczos resampling, those artifacts should be so minimal, they shouldn't be visible at all to the naked eye.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Old news... bad projection has ALWAYS ruined the moviegoing experience. The switch from film to digital has done a little to help that, but as often said on this forum, any cinema who couldn't do film right won't do digital right either. And current history proved that.

                              Changing to LED screens won't solve it for sure. Lack of maintenance and calibration will ensure that the legacy of shitty presentations by many (most) locations will soldier on.

                              I like to hold on to the pipe dream that a cinema doing it right will survive as the others fall, but the general issues of studio mismanagement and public apathy will end public exhibition of movies well within my remaining lifetime. Nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong, but so far the trends and evidence show no promise.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X