Bad Projection Is Ruining the Movie Theater Experience

[William Kucharski]

Those of you who've read my posts know I've been complaining about this for years.

The only good thing is many managers used to be responsive to complaints about image, but they are completely clueless about sound.

I've related the story before that one house at a local AMC has had an "off by one" channel issue, such that the right channel comes out the center, the center channel comes out the left, the left out the left side surrounds, and so on.

This was an issue before COVID.

It was not fixed during COVID.

When the theater reopened after COVID it was still that way.

It was still that way a year ago.

Yes, I've complained each time only to have the manager say "no one else has complained."

The last time he even expressed surprise as the techs had been in and "installed all new amplifiers."

It was at least entertaining last time as the manager sent a couple employees with me back into the theater and they confirmed I was right after about fifteen seconds.

He gave me (another) refund and said they'd have to "call their tech."

No idea if it's fixed today; it's theater 5 at the AMC Westminster Promenade 24 if you're ever bored. (They also installed the Barco projector mentioned in the story on their non-IMAX Dolby screen.)

With AMC's new "sightline" pricing policy I won't be back to check.

One more - the Regal IMAX Colorado Center, which used to be my reference theater because the sound is actually played at something approaching 7.0 on the fader - sounded horrible at the premiere of Top Gun - Maverick.

It took me about two minutes of trailers to realize all their subs - anything below about 60 Hz - were nonfunctional.

I was literally the only person in a 300+ auditorium to notice and ask for a refund.

Now I always go to the Regal Continental RPX; when I went to go see Titanic 3D there I had to run to the concession stand and tell them to slide the 3D filter in front of the projector.

[Harold Hallikainen]

I suspect the people in larger groups do give a "rats ass," but are constrained by the need for high profits. This is especially the case where a private equity company bought the chain by borrowing money and now has to make huge payments. They can increase profits by increasing revenue (maybe improving the experience for customers thereby selling more tickets) or by cutting expenses. Many have chosen the latter.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

The unfortunate thing is that those who don't give a rat tend to be the larger outfits with most of the market power. Those who do give a rat (maybe even two) are insignificant to the movie companies.

The movie companies don't care either... They would rather stream content and not even have to deal with having a distribution arm or have to deal with theaters at all.

[Frank Cox]

The unfortunate thing is that those who don't give a rat tend to be the larger outfits with most of the market power. Those who do give a rat (maybe even two) are insignificant to the movie companies.

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

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.

[Marcel Birgelen]

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.

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.

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.

[Leo Enticknap]

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.

[Mike Blakesley]

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?

[Steve Guttag]

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.

[Geoff Jones]

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.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

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...

[Steve Guttag]

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.

[Marcel Birgelen]

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.

[Brad Miller]

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.

[Frank Angel]

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!