So I Went to See a Movie in a Commercial Theater Today..

[Mark (Basspig) Weiss]

So you may be asking "why" when you own a fantastic HT. Well here's why.. because Atlas Shrugged was playing and I wanted to gauge audience reaction.

So here's my technical reaction:
Wow.. 35mm film looks just as blurry as I remembered from the last time I watched a film, ten years ago.
It is easy to get spoiled with our XDCams, Blu-ray and 1080P projection.

I went to see Atlas Shrugged on Wednesday at a theater complex in a larger city.
The first things that hit me, compared to my home viewing experience:

1. Picture was dim.. 14 FL is not very bright, especially if you're used to 60+ FL in your home theater.
2. Picture was very soft. When we arrived, they were running some ads that appeared to be from digital sources. They looked better, about like 720P video. But when the movie previews began, the film was running. The picture got grainy and details got soft. Oh, and little scratches and dirt spots appeared here and there..
3. The picture flickers. I forgot just how annoying that flicker is!
4. The sound was honky, irritating and beaming.

While I was there, I got to enjoy inhaling the stench of a dead rat that must have found its way into the ventilation system.. much of the lobbies on the upper level and this theater were filled with the sickening stench.

When we got home, my wife wanted to watch Coraline, on DVD. So we popped it in our upscaling Oppo 83 player and the first thing that hit me was that the text of the opening credits was crisper and sharper than the text on the 35mm distro print we saw in the commercial theater hours earlier. The whole movie was quite satisfyingly sharp, even though we were sitting much closer to our screen and it was taking up a wider field of vision than where we were in the Fairfield Theaters earlier.

And forget about Blu-ray, particularly anything I shot on XDCam and authored myself--those look like 20/20 vision, not even like a proxy for the real thing.

What I'm amazed at is that movie theaters are still stuck on this ancient film technology. We're still subjected to flickering images, fuzzy images lacking in fine detail, and bandwidth-limited audio. Even a modest home theater can best what commercial theaters offer.

The theater we were in had a 20' screen (I counted ceiling tiles and their were ten across on their 24" dimension, above the screen). Even though Atlas Shrugged with made with a RED camera, the print just couldn't do it justice. Not even close. 35mm distro prints are matched by DVD through a good upscaler.

I did not expect film to look so poor after becoming used to digital cinema. But there it is.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I like film. Some people like vinyl. Personal taste is a funny thing, huh?

Tim

 

[garylkoh]

That's funny, Tim. You like digital music and analog movies. I was first among my friends to move to digital cameras and the last to move to digital music. There's still something about a film (still) camera that I like, and some of my friends have moved back to film, and I will buy vinyl over CD if I can find the vinyl - and now, I digitize the vinyl to play back off a music server.

Preference is a funny thing

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

That's funny, Tim. You like digital music and analog movies. I was first among my friends to move to digital cameras and the last to move to digital music. There's still something about a film (still) camera that I like, and some of my friends have moved back to film, and I will buy vinyl over CD if I can find the vinyl - and now, I digitize the vinyl to play back off a music server.

Preference is a funny thing

Mostly a joke, Gary. I do like film, but I like digital video too. I like stories, mostly. Whether or not it is a movie theater, Blu Ray, DVD, or a stream from Netflix is tertiary at best. Honestly, the same goes for music. I do think good digital - even digital medium of old analog material, even redbook - is superior, and the convenience is unbeatable, but if I couldn't get the music I want any other way, I'd have a vinyl rig.

Tim

 

[garylkoh]

That's so true. The content trumps the medium for me every time. I've been hunting down Enrico Caruso recordings since last Thur when Jules Blumenthal (the originator of digital recording) brought a restored 1907 recording. What a glorious, nuanced performance!! What a terrible recording it was - but the essence of the music was all there.... and this was originally recorded into a horn-loaded cutting head. That's the closest "Direct to Disc" you can get.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Until 3 years ago it was my opinion that the best film surpassed digital video. I am not sure it is true any longer. I find myself yearning at movies theater for the clarity of blu ray. There are a few good theaters where I currently live and the difference between digital and film in those are obvious. It remains however that what I was getting from my HT surpasses routitnely what I get in the movies. Maybe a pristine first generation print 35 mm in a light controlled HT would surpass it.
The same goes for digital photography. I was a hold out and for a long time. My girlfriend (photographer) who simply would not care about our debate over analog prefer film too although in her line of work she uses only digital ... there again I think digital has surpassed analog ... The medium is at times almost too good.. Certain things we could do for artistic purposes like using a Tri-X and "pushing" it at 800 for increased grain size now is difficult .. a good camera at iso 800 has almost no noise and the exposure latitude is uncanny ... Sorry for the OT .. I know you can always do the effects in software but ...You get my point ...

As for content well , the medium can be the limiting factor ... and with digital .. The limits are rather far ... Better stories to be told ...

 

[rsbeck]

I like Blu-rays sourced from film and I like it when they retain the look of film.

Having said that, I once had quite a collection of movies on VHS -- it's the story that matters first, then the medium.

 

[rsbeck]

When I go to a commercial theater, I am usually struck by the poor contrast of the picture, which is usually due to the fact that they leave so much light on while the film is running. Aisle lights, exit lights. The acoustics are often poor and the color scheme can be pretty jarring -- and since it is illuminated by those exit and aisle lights, it can be distracting.

 

[rsbeck]

Add to that the fact that people who like to talk, repeat jokes, explain plots and laugh in the wrong places, have some type of radar because they always manage to locate seats right in front or right behind me.

How can I judge the "right" places to laugh?

Easy.

I am the customer.

And the customer is always right.

 

[repman]

We have a fairly new theater in our neighborhood and it uses the new Christie projectors and I find the experience stunning compared the other two theaters we frequent

 

[FrantzM]

We have a fairly new theater in our neighborhood and it uses the new Christie projectors and I find the experience stunning compared the other two theaters we frequent

Digital I presume?

 

[repman]

Yes it is digital and very bright compared to the AMC and Regal theaters near us . I am spoiled now!!!

a blurb from the NCG website below

NCG presents you with a quiet, enjoyable theater setting, featuring first-run movies with your favorite stars. Our stadium seating furnishes you with an unobstructed view of our DLP digital projection presentation on all of our state of the art screens.

 

[caesar]

Unlike in the audiophile world where the customers choose whether they prefer digital or analog, the situation is not the same for the theaters. In this case, it is a matter of economics and control rather than of preferences.

I looked at this as of a few years ago (and things may have changed a bit since then), but the studios that produce the films would love to have their movies in a digital format. However, it is a huge expense for the movie theaters to go digital, with little promise of a return on a large investment. And the movie theaters have significant leverage to hold back on movie studio demands.

One of these days there will be a some kind of a joint venture...

 

[caesar]

How good is that movie? I imagine it is hard to beat the book.

 

[Mark (Basspig) Weiss]

I myself think that 2008 was the year that digital cinematography surpassed film. We have the RED camera, and now the fabulous Sony F65 with an 18 megapixel imager, and there's several other players in the digital cinema cameras arena.

I still enjoy watching a good film master, transferred to BD. 2001: A Space Oddysey was one of my favorites. The Shining was noticeably soft and film grain was apparent, but still very enjoyable.
But when you watch modern films that were shot digitally, it's like being there. The gossimer vail is lifted and the reality of the story is that much closer; there is no celluloid sheet between you and the action on screen.

One thing about film that I do NOT miss is the flicker. Especially annoying on brighter daylight scenes where there's lots of white space.

Ironically, the local ad spots before the film started were obviously digital. They were close to 720P-clarity and seemed to have smoother tone gradations overall. When the film started, the grain became apparent, and the contrast wasn't so good.. it was like the black parts of the film were not completely opaque. The contrast reminded me of my old LCD TV in fact. The auditorium was certainly dark, but the overall picture was fairly dim, compared to what I'm used to, but then I'm using a projector intended for a 300" screen on a 154" screen. It was about the same brightness as the projection at a friend's and also at a showroom that was equipped with a $20K Sony model. It takes some time for the eyes to get used to the low lumen levels. But THX standards require only 14FL.. According to my calculations, my setup is producing over 60FL on my 'small' screen, so when a bright scene appears, it's somewhat painful, like emerging from a dark room into the noon day sun at the beach, but I like it that way.

What continues to disappoint me about commercial theaters is so little attention to the audio. Not even that it's lacking bandwidth, but that it isn't even close to flat over the bandwidth it's got! These systems must fluctuate at least ±6dB over the midrange band. Dialogue sounds really honky and harsh. I've never heard completely natural dialogue in a commercial theater, anywhere, yet.

When my wife got her Nikon D7000, I was amazed at how clean the images are and how much lattitude I could extract from camera RAW 14-bit files. My Pentax 35mm with Kodak Ektar 25 never came close to what we get from digital now. It's clear, and with the celluloid layer removed. Same with digital cinema cameras.

As for the movie itself, it was like a needle compared to haystack. Imagine a 1000 page Word document displayed in Outline Mode.. only about 3% of the information is left, just the major points. They didn't have time to build up any of the characters, especially the ones who went on strike after a visit from John Galt, so the audience is left wondering 'who cares?'. Francisco D'Anconia's characters first appearance is as a playboy with girls on his lap at Readen's anniversary party; they completely left out how he had planned to make the San Sebastian mines worthless by the time the Mexican government nationalized them, or his history with Dagney when they were young.
The good: Grant Bowler did a near perfect Hank Rearden. Ellis Wyatt's role was played with power and genuine seriousness. I think Eddie Willers was adequate. Dagney looked and acted better than she did in the trailer versions. Less of those big, 'deer in the headlights' eye-stares and more assertive. These scenes must have been reshot.
It ended rather abruptly with "END Part 1" and I was frankly hoping it was going to go on another 30 minutes or so. It was a lot jammed into 1:42 and overall, I think it was better than a complete trainwreck. It surpassed my low expectations.